Posted on 04/11/2007 11:11:59 PM PDT by FairOpinion
On Abortion: "Government should stay out of it... The ultimate decision must be made by the women... Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own." -- Fred Thompson, July 1994
Are the Social Cons ignorant of Thompson's background?
Back in the early to mid-1990s, there was a raging battle in the Republican Party between the Moderates/Libertarians versus the Religious Right. On one side there was Ann Stone's Republicans For Choice, the Ripon Society, Log Cabin Clubs and the organization that I had founded in 1990 - the Republican Liberty Caucus. On the other side was the Religious Right.
Tennessee was right smack dab in the middle of it all.
The leader of the TN Anti-Religious Right forces at the time was Michael McCloskey.
During the same time, Fred Thompson was making noises of running for the US Senate. McCloskey was one of the ones who was influential in recruiting him to run. McCloskey saw him as a Celebrity counter-force to the Religious Right/Pro-Lifers that could win the GOP Nomination.
And the Religious Right, predictably came after Thompson. It was a bitterly fought primary. Thompson's opponent was Religious Rightist John Bakkes. In the end, Thompson's celebrity status carried him through, and he won with 62% to Bakkes's 37%. Many credited McCloskey and his "Young Republican brigades" with helping Thompson's win.
(Excerpt) Read more at libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com ...
A tough guy with no heart. Not who you want running the country.
Did you start this thread on behalf of prenatal life?
Many clearly are. It's great to see some more facts come out about Thompson, though it may give his most dedicated fans a stroke. Just as well - they have been shrill and narrow when it comes to every other candidate, now lets see how they cope with information like this.
sorry! i put NO stock in what NRTL says! they have NOT been solidly behind the abortion ban bills in many of the states. so what they have to say means nothing to me. ask them what they have done in SD for the abortion ban bills!! they have done SQUAT here to back or help the pro-life candidates in the last election, as well!
NRTL has someone who has endorsed or is backing Romney. Romney did a flip in his opinion too!! my "trust" thermometer is registering in the "below 0" for NRTL and anyone they claim is pro-life.
you are right about the 3 LIB’s in the race. i am wary of thompson. reasons given in the thread.
AGREED! I still want to know how they can claim to be REPUBLICAN. Did the pro-life plank get pulled out of the party platform?? They are nothing more then Democrats wearing a Republican cloak for effect.
You're talking about supporting a conservative above party. Supporting a conservative who can't win is as bad as supporting a Liberal who can. Neither do a thing to further conservatism.
However, Thompson is someone I believe can defeat the Democrats. The other someone I believe who can do it, is Mitt Romney who I will be supporting.
Wasn’t there a memo to the pro-life social conservatives to shut up and forget that more than a million humans are snuffed each year through abortion in America ... because it isn’t convenient to oppose that evil in order to beat the Rodham-rodent? You mean there wasn’t a memo? It’s just a special policy for rinos? Oh well then, forget those candidates, the pro-life plank is still in the platform.
Yep, this is a smear job against Thompson. I think the majority of FReepers will see right through it.
I'm a big Rudy guy. But if Fred's the Nominee, I'll be perfectly happy. Cause I know that in reality, he's a Pro-Choice Republican.
So either way we libertarian Republicans win. Rudy or Fred: It's the Social Cons, who will have to accept our Pro-Choice Republican candidate for once.
LOL, the difference is that one isn't pandering to the base.
Some more info on this matter:
U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson says he seldom hears about abortion in campaign travels throughout Tennessee and hopes the issue is downplayed at the Republican National Convention. The Tennessee Republican, a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt, is preparing for next week's convention in San Diego. He said the party must avoid distracting issues and focus on electing Bob Dole as president. "We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us," Thompson said in an interview with The Tennessean published Tuesday. Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. "But I don't think you should bolt on one issue. I'm still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don't think we need to write it all down in a document," Thompson said. (AP, 8/6/96)Being pro-choice didn't stop Thompson from doing the right thing in the Senate. The same can be said about Rudy, as he has announced as president he would appoint constitutional originalist judges to the courts.On abortion, both Thompson and Cooper are pro-choice. But Thompson favors parental notification, Cooper voted against it. (National Review, 6/27/94)
Though Thompson says he's pro-choice, his voting record on abortion issues (which includes opposing fellow Tennessean Henry Foster's nomination for surgeon general) has earned him high marks from both the Christian Coalition and the National Right to Life Committee. He has also won the backing of the tobacco industry and the NRA. (Washington Monthly, 12/1/96)
And Thompsons voting record speaks for itself....Pro-Life
The following is a partial transcript of the March 11, 2007, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":
WALLACE: Abortion.
THOMPSON: Pro-life.
WALLACE: Would you like to overturn Roe. ...
THOMPSON: You said lightning round, now. If you want ...
WALLACE: Well, let's go.
THOMPSON: ... more, give me another question. I'll work through it.
WALLACE: Do you want to overturn Roe vs. Wade?
THOMPSON: I think Roe vs. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges. I don't think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It's contrary to what it's been the past 200 years.
We have a process in this country to do that. Judges shouldn't be doing that. That's what happened in that case. I think it was wrong.
Of course, Thompson actually participated in the confirmation process for Roberts and Alito. Unlike Rudy, who seems unable to grasp what a strict constructionist is, most likely because he has no intention of appointing one.
That’s gonna leave a mark ...
Good. I glad you see it that way also.
Posting relevant facts doesn't scare me, but makes me more knowledgeable.
And I did include a link as a source in my post, didn't I? Where did you get the recent interview, then? See, I don't need to hide parts of the article to suit my purposes like the anti-Rudys do.
By the same token, what matters is what Rudy says now and what he is going to do once he becomes the president.
However, just like old stuff is posted about Rudy, I have no qualms about posting old stuff about any candidate.
Common usage of "strict constructionist" among conservatives is just flatly wrong. So I make it a habit to correct the usage in my posts. Rudy says "strict constructionist" in the same way as most conservatives do, as a euphemism for a constitutional originalist. I saw a discussion and Q&A on CSPAN with Justice Scalia where he describes this distinction in detail. I think it is still on the CSPAN.org website and well worth watching.
He has been clear and unambiguous in saying that he wants to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito. He wrongly identifies them as "strict constructionists," but that's not so bad as most conservatives wrongly identify them also. They appear (so far) to be originalists, like Scalia and Thomas.
There's no reason to doubt what Rudy means, unless you want an actual strict constructionist, then you are just out of luck.
This has been posted at LEAST 8-10 times. We already KNEW the “facts about our man”.
We have debunked it repeatedly. We’re sick of it. There is no possible way that anyone who has been on this board for any significant amount of time this week could have missed these endless re-treads.
Really? I haven’t been online for the last couple of days and I don’t freep during the day. So I guess I missed all the excitement. Nevertheless, the media will make sure to push all this negative stuff in due time as they always do.
Indeed, for them it appears that they have a strange self serving floating standard for ideological purity and insist on others being loyal to them, but they aren’t terribly loyal themselves.
Just look at their poor prior date to the dance, Duncan. Still stuck in the never-never land between 1% and an asterisk in the polls, they jilted him quickly when Thompson teased them a bit.
It isn’t surprising that they aren’t terribly into reality. Their predictions that Duncan would surge went the way of the bravado surrounding Katherine Harris’s winning the US Senate seat. If you want good political analysis, FR isn’t the place for it much anymore.
The term "strict constructionist" is a talking point that Rudy's handlers whispered in his ear in a an attempt to mollify conservatives. Prior to this campaign I doubt the words constructionist or originalist ever passed his lips. His supposed promises on judges is a pig in a poke and I ain't buying.
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.