Posted on 11/08/2007 12:00:05 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
WASHINGTON -- Fred Thompson was well into a prolonged dialogue about abortion with interviewer Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday when he said something stunning for social conservatives: "I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors." He then went further: "You can't have a (federal) law" that "would take young, young girls ... and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail."
Those comments sent e-mails flying across the country reflecting astonishment and rage by pro-life Republicans who had turned to Thompson as their best presidential bet for 2008. No anti-abortion legislation ever has proposed criminal penalties against women having abortions, much less their parents. Jailing women is a spurious issue raised by abortion rights activists. What Thompson said could be expected from NARAL.
Thompson's comments revealed astounding lack of sensitivity about the abortion issue. He surely anticipated that Russert would cite Thompson's record favoring state's rights on abortion. Whether the candidate just blurted out what he said or planned it, it reflects failure to realize how much his chances for the presidential nomination depend on social conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
A mighty big if.
...then if you had to choose between Thompson and Romney, you should be voting for Romney...
ROFLMAO
Yes, all pro-lifers should line up behind the slippery Massachusetts politician with a staunch 35-year pro-abortion history and a convenient Road to Ames conversion.
Riiiiight.
The Romneyites have a huge problem.
Mitt is more like Rudy than anyother candidate running for the GOP nomination. Neither man is a conservative. Rudy is the anti-conservative and can’t be trusted. While Romney`s never given one good reason for conservatives to trust him.
If you are a conservative and you care about the future of the GOP, accepting either Mitt or Rudy as the nominee is going to take a huge leap of faith. I’m not ready for either one and probably never will be.
Go Fred go!
That is so true. It is mind-boggling to see the mental gymnatistics people are going through in order to deny it.
gymnatistics = a specially rigorous form of gymnastics.
Can someone tell me what QUESTION he was responding to. On the face of it, this is very confusing and a bad thing.
But, what was the question EXACTLY?
He is just saying he is against criminalizing little girls. What is wrong with that?
What they want is total, unmitigated, absolutism. Kinda like the communists.
See post my post #126 but it would be more effective to watch the interview if it's available online.
Maybe for you but I cant vote for someone who thinks the 14th amendment does not cover the unborn..
Just like Rudy and Hillary... We want fewer abortions we just dont want to screw with the law to make abortion illegal..
No, the problem is fred decided that the unborn are not people because if they were they would be afforded the same liberties *including life* as newborns... with the force of law
I have NEVER seen the establishment more anxious to bury a candidate.
If our choices come down to Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson, who do pro-lifers vote for? Or, who would they consider the most pro-life of the 3? I’m talking about those who would vote on the pro-life issue alone. Not immigration, not taxes, not the war in Iraq.
My take is he is saying it should not be criminalized..
So is Rudy and Mitt, if you’re really pro life you have to look at other (R’s)
Go after the doctor, give clemency to the girl but for the love of G*d it *HAS TO BE ILLEGAL*
Sure but the R’s have to realize much of the appeal they have to Christians is the pro life plank, maybe not a majority but defiantly a power, mess with them at your own risk..
cat calls of ‘You’re enabling Hillary’ mean little when you ask us to pull the lever for someone who is ok with teh legal murder of unborn kids..
Like the freedom not to be killed in the womb?
Bravo Sierra... Life is an immutable right! and the federal government can not abrogate to the states the ability to infringe on immutable rights. A state can not be allowed to lock people up for inconvenient political speech in the name of federalism.
the part where were allowing states to step on immutable, defined, constitutional rights which are *specifically* documented to prevent the abrogation of said rights to the states.
“It’s amazing that here on a conservative website, populated by people who I agree with most of the time, I have to spend my time explaining what is certainly the most fundamental bedrock concept of American freedom.”
Can California pass a law saying conservative speech is illegal and if you say that, for example, abortion should be illegal you can be arrested? In your rather simplistic view of federalism it can..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.