They like Fred Thompson:
Email from the National Right to Life Committee (email address removed for privacy):
It appears that there is an attempt to create confusion regarding former Senator Fred Thompson?s pro-life position.
You can go to National Right to Life?s website [www.nrlc.org] to see Senator Thompson?s voting record against abortion, euthanasia, and experimentation on unborn babies? bodies. As you can see, Senator Thompson had an excellent pro-life voting record while in the U.S. Senate.
I am concerned that someone may be misleading you about his record. Regardless, I assure you it was not from National Right to Life. National Right to Life PAC supported Senator Thompson for the U.S. Senate in 1994 and 1996, and considered him to be a very pro-life Senator.
Senator Thompson has since reaffirmed his pro-life position. I am attaching a link to the statement he made to the National Right to Life Convention, as well as what the pro-abortion group NARAL is sending to pro-abortion supporters about him.Thank you for your interest and concern on this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Karen Cross
Political Director
National Right to Life Committee
512 10th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004P.S. Following are quotes by Senator Thompson from interviews on Fox News
“I think Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges.” [Interview with Chris Wallace, "FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace," FOX News, March 11, 2007.]
“I think the Supreme Court was absolutely right in this abortion decision, the? partial-birth abortion decision. The very idea that we could even have a debate over whether or not that atrocious activity should be allowable is very unfortunate, to say the least.” [Interview with Sean Hannity, "Hannity and Colmes," Fox News, May, 4, 2007.]
“I am pro-life. ” [Interview with Sean Hannity, "Hannity and Colmes," Fox News, May, 4, 2007.]
July 12th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
SEE there??? I KNEW Fred was going to be a KEEPER!! Now what are they going to say??
Way to go Tommy!!!!
July 12th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Kavon mentioned something very smart a while ago. To paraphrase, the more you try and make your candidate into something he’s not, the longer the debate will last.
Nobody is contesting Fred’s voting record, and we all know that he’s now anti-Roe. Feel free to call him anti-Roe, or a federalist, or personally-pro-life, or politically pro-life on fringe issues.
But to wrap that up with a nice “he’s pro-life” ribbon, when the man is in favor of legalized 1st trimester abortions, is just beyond a reasonable definition of the term.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
murphy,
I’m not wrapping the ribbon around anybody, that came from the National Right to Life Political Director. Her words, not mine, but it’s equally as hard to paint him as something he’s not, like some Romney supporters are trying to do. Read some of Buckeyefan’s or ACT-Blogs posts, and you’ll see what I mean.
He was endorsed by Right to Life both times he ran for Senate.
You can take quotes from his past and make them sound differently. Romney supporters know how that can be.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
I’m not arguing that he’s spotless on the issue, but at the same time, he isn’t pro anything abortion at this point. Throwing it out means no first term abortion, second term abortion, late term abortion… any term abortion.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Tommy, give me the straight talk.
Are you trying to say in #4 that Fred is in favor of making 1st term abortions illegal? And if so, do you have a source? This would be the big news that I’ve been asking you for for weeks now.
If not, he’s in favor of 1st term abortions remaining legal.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Yep
July 12th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
If a Republican is elected President in 2008 we will likely be living in a post-Roe America given that each of the candidates, including Mayor Guiliani have committed to appointing strict constructionist judges to the high court. Thus the abortion issue will cease being a Federal issue and will instead become a State by State issue.
The only way this is a Presidential issue assuming the above facts is if a candidate will commit to:
A. Signing an executive order effectively outlawing abortion sending the issue to the Supreme Court.
B. Supporting a Constitutional amendment banning the practice.
So far no candidate has pledged to do either of these actions (that I know of). Hence the abortion issue is a moot point as far as I am concerned and I don’t think that Senator Thompson lobbied for abortion rights but if he did it would hardly matter as lawyers often advocate positions in their professional life that they may disagree with in their personal life. I for one find it admirable that one would be able to compartmentalize like that but still maintain strong personal convictions and loyalty to an inner voice even if one disagrees.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:04 am
JA Pruce, sorry, but I disagree.
First, I understand why lawyers would work for an opposing viewpoint in a case where someone is entitled to representation in court. But I don’t sit at home at night and think of poor NARAL who just needs more pro-abortion lobbyists.
Second, I disagree that we can take it for granted that Rudy would appoint justices to overturn Roe. His definition of “strict constructionism” is one that calls Roe “good constitutional law”, something few liberal legal experts even agree with. Rudy’s “strict constructionism” MANDATES that the government (if not federal, then state) subsidize abortion, because it is a constitutional right. That reasoning alone should bother more than just pro-lifers. When Rudy says strict constructionists like Scalia et al, he is not saying what pro-lifers interpret this to mean. He may like law and order justices, but he is an abortion advocate, and not a man known to back down from his beliefs.
Third, there is more a President can do than appoint judges and sign a constitutional amendment. Looking over a short list of what previous Presidents have done…
1. Passage or veto of abortion related bills (Child Custody Protection Act, Partial Birth Abortion Ban, Born Alive Infants Protection Act, Unborn Victims of Violence Act, etc)
2. International aid for abortions (Mexico City policy)
3. Domestic funding for family planning programs which promote abortion
4. Federal funds to the U.N. Population Fund
5. Influence on the public debate through the bully pulpit and vision casting
The importance of vision casting and of having a President who respects human life over human convenience is hard to overstate. There is a reason so many pro-choicers are cheering for Rudy…they know him to be an advocate for their side.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Looks like Fred already has the pro life groups locked up. Look for the Romney people to try and hit him hard on the issue(it’s already begun), but they won’t put a dent in him.
I had said he’ll announce in August and be the front runer by Labor Day.
If he waits until after Labor Day, as it now appears, I may have to push that back a bit.
I suspect he’ll be the national leader by Labor Day if not earlier, and ahead in at least one of IA and NH within a short time of announcing.
He has SC locked up.
Once he pulls away in FL(and he will), that will be the end of Rudy. Most if not all his support will go to Fred and Fred will clean up on 2/5.
By 2/6/08 Fred will be the nominee.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Hey Jim,
Glad you enjoyed your LSD trip!!!!
July 13th, 2007 at 1:48 am
So we’ve got murphy — a Romneybot — jim — A Fredbot — and — well, there seems to be no such thing as a Giulianibot (making irrational Giuliani claims), but I do seem to be a bit of an –bot tonight, having used that five times in this paragraph alone.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:39 am
“Fred?”‘s got the NRLC doing damage control for him now. That’s significant and cannot be ignored. Good for him . . . looks like he’ll have to convince people even more strongly that he’s always been a pro-life stalwart.
Southern Baptist Covention’s Richard Land’s comments are significant as well and he paints “Fred?” as the frontrunner.
Actually, I’m all for people continuing to mold the evasive “Fred?” into the candidate they suppose him to be (“Reaganesque”, “Folksy”, “Superb Communicator”, “D.C. Outsider Who Can Bring Change to Washington”, “Frontrunner”, “Consistent Conservative”, “Southern Fried Reagan”, “Life-long Pro-lifer”, “I’ve never seen such excitement for a candidate like this” etc . . .)
A key factor to winning elections is exceeding the expectations of voters when they are actually exposed to the candidate in a live setting. “Fred?” has consistantly dissappointed in person and so is anyone surprised that he is delaying his announcement? Publicly, he’s been seriously considering running since April and has been seriously in the game for several weeks now.
I’m just amazed that “Fred?” cannot and will not do his own damage control by answering questions from the press and doing the tough interviews with people who aren’t named Hannity or who don’t work for a conservative blogsite. “Fred?” even has a hard time not putting his foot in his mouth with the easy interviews sometimes and has to be cut off by the host before he says something unwise. What’s it going to be like when he gets grilled by Chris & or Mike Wallace, Tim Russert, George S., or in formal debates? Look, if “Fred?” stood a good chance to perform well in these formats then it would be unwise to stay out.
If I were a “Fred?” supporter I would be getting worried now. The “Wizard of Oz” sham act can only be held together for so long.
All “Fred?” really provides is:
1) Another major news story in the LOOONG 2008 election cycle (why the media propped up his candicacy in the first place . . . they NEED drama)
2) A chance for many religious conservatives (mostly Southern) to pull the lever for someone who is not a Yankee-liberal (Rudy) or a Mormon (Romney).
He has never been a great leader/manager of anything and has never been a conservative stalwart (until now . . . again, part of the sham/act).
More importantly, he offers no electoral map advantage to Bush.
“Fred?” supporters make a big deal about his national poll numbers . . . however, every breakdown I’ve seen shows that he does AMAZINGLY WELL among Southern Men. His support in the South nearly doubles what it is elsewhere in the nation. But the problem with this is that his national poll numbers are essentially artificially inflated due to SUPER-STRENGTH in the electorally insignificant South (which WILL stay Red if there is either a liberal woman or a liberal African-American is on the Democratic ticket). None of his supporters are making a convincing case that he can bring any other states to become Red beyond what Bush did . . . and I don’t see him keeping some of the close swing states either.
Rudy offers great map-shifting possibilities, and Romney will have much more moderate/independant appeal outside of the south due to his record of executive success and proven ability to work amongst a liberal/Democratic environment and still get important and conservative things done. Romney also polls pretty well in some key Western states and might be able to bring some upper mid-western states into plan (especially Michigan.)
Presently, I just don’t see how Thompson could win a general election . . . but there’s a lot of time and I’d LOVE to see him in debates and tough interviews before I make that final judgement. But “Fred?”‘s obviously in no hurry to provide me or other voters with that kind of assessement. Makes you wonder why, eh?
July 13th, 2007 at 5:44 am
This seems like a critical misplay by the National Right to Life, and may well result in an embarrassing situation for them. I’ve been following this story closely, and it’s looking increasingly like Fred Thompson was, in fact, hired to lobby for abortion rights by this group. Not to mention the fact that I very much doubt he’s anti-first trimester abortions. For the NRL to seemingly be so publicly supportive of a candidate who’s record is deeply questionable on abortion (without even the acknowledgment by the candidate that it’s questionable), strikes me as utterly bewildering. I’d ask, what’s the hurry here? Why not let these stories play out, and wait until Thompson actually tells someone what his position on the issue is?
July 13th, 2007 at 5:47 am
Oh yeah . . .
A little off topic, but true to “Fred?”‘s form I had to laugh over his letter describing how as a lawyer he’s had to represent some people who he didn’t agree with.
Sure, I’ll give him that when defending someone IN LEGAL PROCEDINGS. Fine.
But he’s trying to slide that argument into justifying his lobbying career. HA!!!! Maybe that will work on his slow-thinking supporters, but that’s just an absurd argument and one that he’ll be called out on and won’t have a good answer for.
No one has a legal right to a lobbyist . . . it’s all about influence peddling and “Fred?” could and should have said “NO” to causes he didn’t agree with. Most of us have figured out that he probably did just that . . . and that at least he didn’t disagree with lobbying for the pro-choice group.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Allow me to set aside the abortion issue itself for a moment.
The political implications of having NRL essentially pen a letter on your behalf, combined with the Land non-endorsement endorsement yesterday, is ample evidence that the conservative movement establishment, writ large, is well on its way to announting Thompson the annointed candidate.
Argue the specifics of Thompson’s abortion positions all you want. The pro-life movement is speaking and does not find Thompson wanting.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:03 am
“I think the Supreme Court was absolutely right in this abortion decision, the… partial-birth abortion decision. The very idea that we could even have a debate over whether or not that atrocious activity should be allowable is very unfortunate, to say the least.†[Interview with Sean Hannity, “Hannity and Colmes,†Fox News, May, 4, 2007.]
Ok hold up…I thought Fred was a federalist…or federalist only when its convenient. How is it that the Supreme Court has the right to up hold a federal ban on partial-birth abortion but yet he wants abortion other than partial-birth, decided at the state level? Hmmm… If you are “pro-life” and you believe the federal government is correct to ban partial-birth abortion, then how can you say the states should deal with abortions other than partial-birth.
From this Federalist’s point of view its inconsistent…or rather pandering to a certain segment necessary for his victory. But hes not the only one in the GOP who is inconsistent on that.
NRLC…Richard Land…it doesn’t really matter…both are mouthpieces for the GOP Beltway Establishment out for political power…BLECH
July 13th, 2007 at 9:31 am
UGADawg: Good thoughts. I think it is possible to be a federalist — deferring to the states to govern themselves on this and other matters — and still articulate that partial-birth abortion is abominable. For instance, I would have been perfectly happy if Rudy Giuliani would have said he prefers that women have the “right to choose” but abortion is something the states should govern themselves.
Had he done so he would probably have snuffed the Thompson candidacy in its crib. I know I was ready to accept that answer from Hizzoner.
Being a federalist doesn’t mean you are unable to articulate your own policy preferences and use the presidency as a “bully pulpit”.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:44 am
I saw him being interviewed by sean hannity last night on the radio. I have to say, he talks a LOT like Rudy – - on Iraq, national security..a lot of things, but people dont give Rudy credit for the same things. I also think that Rudy is a lot more eloquent and forceful (at the same time
) than Fred is.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
#5 Murphy: He personally is Pro-Life and legally he believes abortion laws should be up to individual states. That means NO Roe v. Wade.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Oink: He personally is Pro-Life and legally he believes abortion laws should be up to individual states. That means NO Roe v. Wade.
I believe that’s true, but not the entire truth. What remains are at least two points:
1. Fred believes that legally, almost all abortions should remain legal.
2. Fred has been anything but candid about his record, constantly forgetting inconvenient facts.
The first point bothers me, but I could live with someone who is anti-Roe and pro-choice. However, how do we know Fred would select judges who interpret the constitution? He was the major champion of the McCain bill which infringed 1st amendment rights, and he shows no regrets over the gag-rule methods employed.
And the second point bothers me, because every candidate is asking for us to “trust them” on judges. When a candidate is evasive about his record, that’s not trust inspiring.