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
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 .
“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.
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.
No, Jill doesn’t know what the hell she is talking about, and apparently has never read a single bloody thing about Abraham Lincoln or Steven Douglas.
Lincoln absolutely took a State’s-Rights view on slavery; it’s only a bunch of confederate hicks trying to justify their ancestors’ treachery and abominations that say otherwise. But Lincoln and the Confederate slave-holders both knew that the plantation system would be doomed if decent, Christian Americans ever took a very deep look at the institution of slavery.
Thompson’s answers are nearly Lincoln’s verbatim. And I suspect that’s by design.
Gee, Jill, thanks for wasting my time and eating our own. This is why we lose...
Time to break out the “Aw Jeez” pic. I’m sure EV is circling this thread and will add his refuted comments.
Good for Jill. She’s a great American.
Before the 1970s (more than a century after Douglass died), abortion was ALWAYS a matter for the states.
Jill perhaps should have pointed out that Ron Paul has been pushing this Stephen A. Douglas, Jerry Ford, anti-Republican platform, anti-Declaration of Independence, unconstitutional, ‘states’ rights trump unalienable rights’ position for a very long time.
And that now Thompson and Paul aren’t the only one pushing it, thinking it makes them sound conservative. Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee have done the same.
If this view is allowed to prevail, it will cut the heart out of the Republican Party.