Posted on 11/29/2007 7:39:08 AM PST by Quiet Man Jr.
A week before the National Right to Life Committee endorsed Fred Thompson, I blogged he had disqualified himself from my list of presidential primary picks following his Nov. 4 interview on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert.
During those moments, Thompson revealed he's in the same death camp as Rudy Giuliani, just with more exceptions.
Between that interview and one on Nov. 18 on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, NRLC endorsed Thompson and clearly tried to tutor him.
But it failed. Thompson unsuccessfully tried to pull one of three coffin nails he'd hammered two weeks prior, while he pounded another harder. I was left more curious than before about NRLC's decision...
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
An ammendment is impossible at the moment. Barring that Thompson wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and move the Abortion rights issue back to the states where it belongs.
What’s the problem with being smart enough to know what you can accomplish vs. the ideal?
ping
Frederalism, the last refuge of a lack luster campaign.
Get over it already.
I have. At this point, I either expect our nominee to be a gun-grabbing liberal abortionist (Rudy) or Mike “illegal Aliens for Jesus” Huckabee...all because Fred’s not “good enough” for them despite a pro-life record and a more thorough understanding of Federalism and conservatism than any of the other frontrunner candidates.
Idiots, the whole lot of them.
Jill nailed it?
Whenever anyone quotes things out of context without delivering the entire question and entire answer, they can always make their argument seem correct. Jill did not nail it. I watched that entire interview and did not come away with the same perspective as Jill.
She showed that she selectively reads and responds according to her agenda. Had she listened or heard the ENTIRE answer perhaps she would learn something.
She wants Fred to shut up because she feels he is counterproductively fixated on one point of her issue.
I think Jill is the one that is counterproductively fixated .
There is the rub for some folks, they ain't that smart.
Sad too, many babies could be saved if we worked harder on wining the battles we can instead of dreaming about power we don't have. It is easy for me to demand that all of America end abortion today and pass an Amendment by next Tuesday, but other than being laughed at by many, little will come of it.
It's called tactics and a grasp of reality and until all in the fight for life learn that, we will keep losing ground.
Try a new line. Maybe you can pick up a percent or two of support for Mitt here on FR if you try something fresh.
“Jill nailed it.”
It sure makes the Fred Heads mad though. They jump in very quickly and try to attribute motives to Thompson that he doesn’t have. They say his motivation is to win the small battles. WRONG! His motivation for the things he says is to brush aside the debate. He’s embarrassed about being in the party of the nutty, single issue, pro-lifers.
Anyone who put much credence into Clinton News Network’s sham last night, neds to put on your glasses and lokk at your “motor voter card”, it obviously say DIM.
Was it just me or did anyone else notice that RootyMcRomney had the vast majority of questions, except of course the ones from hitlery’s crew!
Fred Thompson has a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate. The anti-Freds can cherry pick little bits of this and that to try to paint Fred as pro-choice all they want, but they can’t change his Senate voting record.
I wish more people were smart enough to look at what candidates DO instead of what they SAY. But alas, some people just want to be fed pretty soundbites. After all, that’s easier than looking at facts and applying their gray matter.
The only reason that no young mothers have ever been prosecuted for abortions is because there has never been a Federal law against them.
Pass a Federal law ( which would never get passed) and you will have to assign penalties to the law.
To pass a controversial amendment would require the ardent support of something around 75% of Americans, distributed evenly in a regional sense.
Since there is not even close to a simple majority of Americans who would support an amendment to ban abortions, what is the point of even discussing whether to push for an amendment?
At this point in time, overturning Roe and returning the issue to the states is the best outcome we can reasonably expect, and would besides be a major victory for federalism and a rebuke to activist judges.
This leaves aside the incredible difficulty of really enforcing a law which so many people would oppose.
You look at the enemy (pro choice movement) the battle field (the lethargic and indifferent American population inundated with 40 years of liberal thought, congress etc.) and the situation (we are a Federal Republic not a conservative dictatorship) and then take the actions that get you closest to your goals in the shortest time possible.
Yup.
Although a lot of people seem to prefer to remain “pure,” not dirtying themselves with grubby “compromises” that are necessary to accomplish anything in the real world.
Refusal to compromise won’t save the life of a single baby, but it may allow you to dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back.
Only dictators can afford to ignore the opposition and ram through what they wish, which is exactly what the Court did with Roe.
And his "thorough understanding of Federalism and conservatism" was his guide in co-authoring and voting for McCain's CFR?
Should we just take your word for it, or aren't you able to document her misrepresentation of McFred's position?
He’s better than any of the rest.
Nobody’s perfect, but Fred’s the best of the bunch.
Unless you can show me Mitt’s Social Security reform plan, or Huckabee’s Immigration Reform plan (Bwhahahaha) or Rudy’s flat tax proposal.
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.