Fred has called himself pro-life on multiple occasions this year. I’ll take him at his word. But what I can’t abide by is fredheads skewering Mitt for his change of heart, when Fred has obviously changed his position as well over time. Nothing wrong with that, but I won’t tolerate people calling me a liar for pointing out his past statements. The Tennessee papers called him pro-choice in each of his campaigns, based on interviews with him and his answers to questionaires.
I will vote for Fred if he wins the nomination. I don’t have the same visceral reaction to him as I do to some of the others. But I don’t want to sugarcoat his past either. And FWIW, I don’t like his position now. He does not support an amendment to outlaw abortion and he does not support legislation to criminalize it in the 1st trimester, meaning he would not support Hunter’s Right to Life Act, which defines life as beginning at conception and deserving of constitutional protection.
“”when Fred has obviously changed his position as well over time””
I haven’t been able to find his obvious pro abortion past, would you mind posting those links again?
Watch Romney’s video again (just one of them) and see if you don’t understand why conservatives would still have a problem believing his long list of changes about so many issues.
On film Romney doesn’t just thread the needle on the abortion issue, as a candidate may need to do during a campaign.
Romney makes a deep, sincere, and effective plea to the public to believe that pro-choice is fundamental to his core, an actual family value inside his family.
I know that you have seen the tape but relax and watch it closely again, that is the difference between believing Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
This skewering is a big issue. It has no real positive effect. It divides conservatives, at a time we need a united front, and just makes it easy to for lefties to pick apart us and our candidates. Many of our candidates are good men with strong records, agree with them or not, unlike, say, Kerry. I'm not so naive to think that people won't feel strongly about their favorites or that arguments won't break out, but I think it's far too soon to think we have but the one electable choice without hearing from others. Fred is a strong frontrunner with a real chance, and, at least if we are to believe the polls which are at once leading and indicative of thought, some of the others, regardless of their good qualities, have a lesser chance. That's what the delegates are assigned to decide.
Nothing wrong with that, but I won’t tolerate people calling me a liar for pointing out his past statements.
Agreed. It serves no good. Barring any agenda the Tenn papers might have added (MSM, and all), it seems he is staunchly pro-life now. And I, for one, would love to hear him say the words or see a direct quote to that effect. (I have a feeling I may get an answer to that!)
I will vote for Fred if he wins the nomination. I don’t have the same visceral reaction to him as I do to some of the others. But I don’t want to sugarcoat his past either.
Visceral reaction, like my 'shudder' at the mention of Huckabee, ewww. I don't think we can afford to sugarcoat the past of any of the candidates, we don't need any October surprises next year.
I sometimes think the DUmmies must find it funny, the name-calling that sometimes erupts...