Was Fred! pro-choice in 1994?
posted at 8:39 pm on April 9, 2007 by Allahpundit
Thus dies the last hope of pro-lifers in the GOP field. Heart-ache.
GreenRoom
- Contraception mandate: MSM stuck in “narrative capture”?
- ObamaCare architect: Health insurance premiums will rise, not fall, under law
- Rick Santorum and the two playbooks
- Hot Air Survey: CPAC Edition
- Poll on role of religion in Americans’ lives bad news for Obama
- WH spokeswoman cites ‘98 percenters’ in defense of contraception rule
- CPAC: A discussion with Conservative bloggers
- Woman driver claims her 38KKK breasts saved her life in crash
- Let’s Get One Thing Perfectly Clear…
- Obama: ‘I deserve a second term’
Hot Links
|
|
Feeds
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
What weird about this is it sounds like he campaigned pro-choice, but when he got in he went pro-life hmmmm.
djohn669 on April 9, 2007 at 8:44 PM
That seems to be a slightly different position from the one Guiliani has today, let alone 13 years ago. Didn’t Guillani just state in an interview that abortions are a right that the government needs to pay for if the woman can’t? Fred (of 1994) is a beacon of conservatism compared to that.
Orange Man on April 9, 2007 at 8:52 PM
“Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.”
As a Republican, I have no problem with this statement.
Controversy? None. This is a non-story.
ScottMcC on April 9, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Are the republicans running on abortion in 2008? I thought there were more important matters out there?
lorien1973 on April 9, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Fred must be doing well if the hit squad is digging up this crap.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 9, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Run Fred! Run!
Iblis on April 9, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Exactly. Why are we allowing ourselves to be drawn into the quagmire of a debate that will simply not go away, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion is banned by some states and Republicans get elected from now until 3007?
Slublog on April 9, 2007 at 8:59 PM
He clarified that as being in support of the Hyde Amendment, so that Medicaid supported abortion in cases of incest or if the mother’s life is at stake.
I agree, what’s not Republican about that?
SouthernDem on April 9, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Dems and Hagel are trying to make “Climate Change” a national security issue in the Senate as we speak.
Repubs/conservatives fixated on this issue of abortion, need to find the repub. they think will nominate the best judges and can beat the Dems in 2008 more importantly or we are doomed
jp on April 9, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Good! Now maybe we can move on and get to the important issues like all the people trying to destroy our country!
Nothing is going to change on abortion. Roe is not gonna be overturned, and even if it is, then the states can make their own decisions the way it should be. Enough!
Jim-Rose on April 9, 2007 at 9:20 PM
It must also be pointed out that during his 8-year career in the Senate, his voting record was solidly pro-life
TheBigOldDog on April 9, 2007 at 9:21 PM
The hit squad will have to dig deeper than this to knock Fred down. Fred has a tendency to elucidate clearly . . .and this item is no exception. I have no problem with his stand here.
I still like Tancredo, but would definitely lean towards Fred should he throw in his hat.
heroyalwhyness on April 9, 2007 at 9:22 PM
being anti-Roe and pro-choice are not mutually exclusive. Although come to think of it, maybe they are in functional terms.
BillLalor on April 9, 2007 at 9:34 PM
On June 15, 1968 Ronald Reagan signed the most liberal abortion bill into law when he was governor of California. He later regretted it and went on to install the pro-life plank into the Republican party. People change; some for better, some for worse. Ted Kennedy was staunchly pro-life until the other side funded him better.
Fred can have a “Reagan moment,” admit a mistake or misjudgment, and demonstrate how he moved to the right. As with Romney, I look at how they executed the duties of their offices to determine their positions.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 9:35 PM
This is why I’ve been careful not to throw Giuliani under the bus and the exact reason everybody’s been so shocked that Giuliani’s been polling so well despite being pro-choice. The most heartfelt prolifers among us, except maybe Sparkle, have conceded that the executive matters not except to appoint judges and that we’ll have to take what we can get. “No public funding” is better than “public funding,” but “treat our citizens as adults to make moral decisions on their own” abdicates any responsibility for making the moral judgment himself. It’s also not what he says now. Giuliani is clear about the moral judgment himself even if I don’t like his legalistic position.
Too many men have been whipped into conceding all the judgment to pro-abortion women–convinced that since they can’t get pregnant they don’t have a say. Many men my age, especially (early 30s). It blows. Men need to say so if they think abortion is wrong and/or shouldn’t be allowed.
Anwyn on April 9, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Allah,
He did vote pro-life his 8 years….. Everyone has some second thoughts on abortion, everyone – the difference is Gulliani stated over and over again and passed legislation
EricPWJohnson on April 9, 2007 at 9:41 PM
I think this is supposed to be a contrast. See, one of the huge knocks on Romney was his alleged “flip-flopping” on abortion. Thus, Fred!’s campaign was born, since “we can’t trust Romney–he said this and claims he changed! He’s pro-choice, despite governing pro-life!”
If that was enough to kill Romney for people (as it apparently is, according to lots), then logically this means that Fred! is sunk with these people too. Now, however, if suddenly Thompson gets a pass, then one wonders exactly why Romney is punished. Do I smell the sweet, sweet smell of hypocrisy in the offing from many people?
What this article does, I think, is point out that NO candidate will be the “conservative messiah,” as it should be. Anyone who agrees with you 100% is up to no good.
Vanceone on April 9, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Any ‘conservative’ option is going to be raked over the coals and every possible discrepancy trumpted….sadly, it seems, even here on HA. Heartache? I think the heartache here is the willingness of even ‘open’ writers to happily join in the fray. There is always mud to sling and possible bucks to be made from it. More dissapointing than heartbreaking Allah.
dustoffmom on April 9, 2007 at 9:50 PM
S0o what? I hate abortion too. If there is a Conservative who is going for the office then he should state unequivably yes or no. And then more importantly follow it up with the action. I don’t think a woman should aribtarily she off her baby because it is a “inconvience.” It’s called responsibility. It will have a negetive effect on her phcye for years. You just don’t kill babies. Period.
p.s. given the accetance of the incest, or health argument.
auspatriotman on April 9, 2007 at 9:50 PM
dustoffmom, reporting facts such as what people said is not mud. Good grief.
Anwyn on April 9, 2007 at 9:52 PM
If he faked being pro choice to get into office then suddenly unvealed himself as pro life then he has earned his place as my favorite candidate. Manipulative juggernauts of destruction working on my side are what I want in a politician.
Darth Executor on April 9, 2007 at 9:56 PM
“Maniuplative juggernauts of destruction”–that’s a hell of a phrase. Confusing your characters with your ships, though, aintcha Darth? :)
Anwyn on April 9, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Jim-Rose,
You’re going right back to the blueprint for defeat that has led the Republican party to collapse lately. Specifically, there is nothing in the Constitution that tells me what is important. Each voter gets to decide that for themselves.
Furthermore, the Republican party is made up of a lot of groups the Democrats have forced out: Neocons, the Religious Right, supply side economists, hawks, etc. They have by default gone to the Republican party. But as Bush 41 showed, if you tick off one group, you’ll lose the next election. He raised taxes and lost the supply siders. In 2006, the Republicans lost more than the Democrats won. Out-of-control spending, earmarks, immigration policy and the seeming lack of a plan in Iraq all hurt the Republican party. To win, the Republican nominee must unite a party that has a diverse opinion of what is important. He (I assume Condi isn’t running) can’t afford to lose any of the base.
But the really big question I pose to everyone: Why can’t we have a pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, conservationist (as opposed to environmental extremist), pro-10th amendment, supply side, judicial restraint, small government nominee? Reagan won two landslides by appealing to the broad base of his party and America. You can’t tell me there are no Reagans out there.
I’m not trying to preach, but neither should you. I respect that you think national security is the issue. It is a rational position and many people hold it. But life issues are the issue for a lot of people. judicial restraint is the issue for a lot of people. Gun issues are the issue for a lot of people. And tax issues are the issue for a lot of people. I think they’re all important and I think we can find a candidate who does too. And I think that candidate would beat anything the Dems put up, like Reagan did in 1980 and 1984.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Vanceone on April 9, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Maybe you missed this so I’ll repeat it. It’s from AP’s link:
It must also be pointed out that during his 8-year career in the Senate, his voting record was solidly pro-life
What a man does is far more important, telling and indicative of future actions than what he may have said in an interview 13 years ago. This won’t hurt him at all. It’s just an opportunity to point to his record.
TheBigOldDog on April 9, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Who do you suggest? Does such a viable candidate even exist at the moment?
Slublog on April 9, 2007 at 10:01 PM
TheBigOldDog: I didn’t miss that. I’m not saying Fred’s pro-choice. But Romney didn’t govern pro-choice either, and held the line in Massachuessets. Yet, he’s slammed by conservatives based on statements he made in 94 or 96. I think that’s what Allah meant by “Romney Redux.” Neither of those men are pro-choice, I’m sure.
So I was just pointing out that the Romney “flip-floppers” people, to be consistent, have to reject Fred Thompson based on this, just as they held Romney to that standard.
Vanceone on April 9, 2007 at 10:08 PM
I don’t see this story getting legs with his pro-life voting record… and the record of those he might be running against for the nomination.
frankj on April 9, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Damn, he REALLY has the wankers at AmSpec’s panties in a bunch, doesn’t he?
So he says that it’s none of the gummint’s business. That’s true. Later he says that Roe v Wade is bad law. That’s true too. Where’s the contradiction?
Or are you just sad that your guy Guiliani is threatened?
“It’s the woman’s decision.” I disagree with THAT. It’s the PEOPLE’s decision whether abortion should be illegal or not.
Bottom line: It’s none of the gummint’s business. I’m fine with that, and I’m pro-life. I may not be fine with what the people eventually DECIDE, but that’s what democracy is all about.
AmSpec are going to have to dig deeper to save Golden Boy from a whipping, I’m afraid.
Misha I on April 9, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Yes. Fred! If this is the best they can come up with (and that’s a big assumption) he’ll win. He has the two most important skills required to be like RR: The ability to communicate and the willingness to take on the Left and the MSM. Reagan simply went directly to the people and was called the Teflon president because none of the mud slung at him would stick.
TheBigOldDog on April 9, 2007 at 10:10 PM
No. He said he’d do the same thing every President in the last 18 years has done- not touch the Hyde Amendment.
I didn’t realize the world’s new biggest issue was abortion. Strange, I was a little more concerned about the Islamists who want to behead me.
Oh my god! Fred! said people should be able to make their own choice???!!!! Wouldn’t that be…Pro-Choice!!! You know, the same position that Giuliani takes, and the same position he is constantly attacked for taking? But this is Fred!, he talks tough and tells us what we want to hear over the radio, so it’s different….Wonderful how when Fred! says he, people scramble for excuses for him, but Giuliani and he’s done.
You know what’s gonna happen if a 110% Pro-Lifer gets into office? The same thing that’s happened the last 7 years- nothing.
But Rudy can’t? Cause all Rudy’s done now, is say he’s not touching the Hyde Amendment, and that women should make their own decision. That’s what Fred! said.
amerpundit on April 9, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Actually that’s incorrect. He failed to protect the Catholic hospitals from being required to provide the day after pill. It’s all out there. I can provide links if you want them. He’s very vulnerable and believe me I like Mitt a great deal. He also failed to really go to the mattresses over gay marriage. He’s always unwilling to climb out on a limb and engage in a knock-down drag-out fight and at times that’s what we need.
TheBigOldDog on April 9, 2007 at 10:16 PM
The only problem ameripundit is Rudy has no pro-life voting record ( I know not his fault).That means we have to take his word for it, while Fred can say he does have a pro-life voting record and can prove it.
djohn669 on April 9, 2007 at 10:23 PM
I don’t like abortion, but it is none of my business what a woman decides to do with her body. I totally agree with his stance that the government should stay out of the issue and let adults make that moral decision for themselves. That goes for all of you “conservatives” here also it is none of your business what moral decisions a woman makes, mind your own damned business. As long as my tax dollars aren’t funding it I could care less what choice my neighbor or friend or sister makes. Get off your moral high horse and stick to the important issues at hand like defending ourselves from the islamo-fascists and the Mexican invasion.
NeverSubmit on April 9, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Slublog,
Brownback seems a pretty good choice. There are some Senators who have not announced who fit the bill. My gut feeling, though. is that the Republicans would be well served by bringing in someone like Norman Schwarzkopf or Tommy Franks. They both have bona fides with National Security and aren’t politically vulnerable on other fronts. They’ve never had to cast a vote in Congress or compromised as a governor. A good set of advisors could craft strong social, economic, domestic, and foreign policies for them. Plus, any attack on them would look like an attack on the military.
But, that’s just a gut feeling. In reality, I think the good ol’ boy network is firmly in place. Bush wasn’t nominated in 2000 because he was a great candidate. Neither was Dole in 1996 or Bush in 1992. I’m not anti-Romney, but I think we may be stuck with him, warts and all. Rumor has it that Bush has sent his advisors to his camp. He will be vulnerable because of his pro-abortion rhetoric even though he didn’t practice it as governor.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Did Bush send his advisors to Romney? I thought it was McCain – although your theory makes more sense, given the animosity between the president and St. John.
Honestly, this year, I just want to see a fighter as our candidate – Fred or Rudy would fit that bill. Romney to a lesser extent. I’m tired of Bush’s inability to articulate his views and defend them against the Democrats.
Slublog on April 9, 2007 at 10:29 PM
He was a mayor, not a Senator. He didn’t vote on abortion legislation, and as President he wouldn’t either. Neither one would.
However, what Rudy has that Fred! doesn’t, is a record on actually running something. Romney ran a state, Rudy ran a city. They were executives in their respective situations. Fred! ran a Senate staff. Being President involves much more than taking a stance on abortion, as we’ve seen with Bush. And it also involves a lot more than just talking tough.
So basically what it comes down to is, what’s the most important issue? Having a President that’s got a record on voting pro-life? Or having a President who’s served as an executive, and has record of not voting on important issues, but actually carrying out the solutions to issues.
The other major issue is, when the electoral college makes a decision, will it decide in favor of Fred Thompson, or Hillary Clinton? Thompson serving as a Senator for a few years, several years ago. Hillary being a former first lady of Arkansas, then the US, and being a current NY Senator?
amerpundit on April 9, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Here’s what Rudy’s site says:
amerpundit on April 9, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Breaking news, no, this is old news I read ages ago.
13 years ago is a long time. A whole lot longer than some of the other prolife switches we’ve seen.
The AmSpec Blog piece reads almost like the MSM on this. It leads off with Fred being prochoice and then in the last paragraph states:
So, you lead with the oldest position, then at the very end you finally speak of the voting record.
Is the AmSpec writer on board for some other candidate or something?
INC on April 9, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Wow,
The decision to cheat on taxes is really just a moral decision, so I shouldn’t care. So is the decision to steal, murder, rape, practice insider trading, piracy, slavery, beat your children, beat your wife, speed, illegally park and commit incest. Like it or not, nearly every single law we have on the books is based on morality. Just because it’s codified now doesn’t mean it isn’t based on morality. You scream for anarchy not conservatism.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Slublog
Here’s a link. And I’m guilty of overstatement. Jeb Bush actually has sent his advisors to Romney, but I infer this is a Bush family decision.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Yes, I can. Reagan was a one of a kind, and while there may be many that think like him, no one out there has the charisma to fill his shoes. Name me one.
I’m sorry, but you’re missing the point. My gripe is with those for whom the abortion issue is the issue and the rest of the world be damned. No one is a bigger believer in judicial restraint than myself, but if we’re gonna throw out every candidate that isn’t dyed in the wool pro-life, we are headed for certain defeat. Stay home November ’08 if you wish…it worked really well in November ’06 didn’t it?
Jim-Rose on April 9, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Thanks for the link. I didn’t know that.
Eeenteresting…
Slublog on April 9, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Let me toss in a couple of anti-Rudy grenade.
Not only does he not have a voting record abortion, he also doesn’t have one on foreign policy or national defense. Would you go on a 4-year blind date?
And he dropped out of a race against the presumptive nominee from the other party when she was carpetbagging in his home town. Then he didn’t run against her in 2006.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Some years back, I was effectively “pro-choice,” inasmuch as I considered that if some women wanted to kill their own children, it seemed to be no skin off my back. Now, however, in my largely imaginary role as ruler of the Americans, I say that women who want to kill their children can kiss my @$$. If they don’t have the right to kill their children, I won’t give them the privilege to do so. If they do have the right to kill their children, I very simply won’t respect or enforce it. The protection in common of Americans’ rights of life, liberty, and estate requires that women resume having children in large numbers. In my, once again, largely imaginary role as ruler of the Americans, I’ll do what I can to ensure that women do resume having children in large numbers. I don’t have to have a right to make them do so; I just have to see the good and execute my modes of achieving it as best I can. Claims that oppose new rights to the good expressed in the natural rights are to be dismissed. I say all this to illustrate the way it seems a candidate who was formerly “pro-choice” can best make the inner transition to being pro-life. Such transitions are easy for a total fvcking b@$tard, and the times call for total fvcking ba$t@rds.
Kralizec on April 9, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Apples and Oranges. If someone speeds, they can hurt my family. If someone cheats on taxes, they hurt our ability to fund necessary programs. If someone steals from me, I no longer have that. If someone murders me, my life has been taken away from me. If someone practices insider trading, they can end up hurting fellow investors. If someone commits piracy, they hurt the company that owns it. If someone illegally parks, they can inhibit the fire departments ability to fight fires. If someone commits incest, they hurt family members.
If a woman decides to have an abortion, it affects her. She has to live with it, she is affected by it. Not other people, her.
amerpundit on April 9, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Actually I got your point. You missed mine. I’m not saying that the Democratic takeover is good. I think it sucks. But the Republicans need to face facts and quit acting like they’ll get elected by ignoring significant portions of their base.
Go in with that attitude and you’ll get slaughtered. Appeal to the goodness of the base. Don’t rely on them being scared of the boogie man.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 10:50 PM
All the more reason Roe should be overturned and sent back to the states. Let the citizens vote state by state. The reason why no side really seems to want this is that they are not really sure how the vote would go. Likely some states would ban completely, some have no restrictions and most states something that falls in between the two. Neither the pro-life hard core or pro-choice hard core groups will be happy with that outcome and that is why they want to let nine people decide one of the moral issues of our time.
Unlike cheating, stealing and murder, abortion has not had thousands of years of precedents to let a real moral code be written in.
Bradky on April 9, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Like it or not, many people believe that life begins at conception. So thanks for making my point and making it watertight.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Ok, so you’re saying that if someone hasn’t voted on the issue before, then you can’t just take their word, blindly, right? I’m sorry, Bush was a Senator before, right? A Representative? Oh. That turned out to be an 8-year blind date. How about Reagan, he was pro-choice and a Democrat. He wasn’t a Senator or a Representative. Damn, he was even a President of a union in California! Maybe we shouldn’t have trusted him- oh wait…
amerpundit on April 9, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Bradke,
Actually it does have thousands of years of history. Sorry to disappoint, but there is nothing new under the sun. I’m sure insider trading has a shorter history than abortion law and I bet you wouldn’t be “pro-choice” in that arena.
But you miss the point,
law is based on morality and a sense of truth.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Operative phrase being: some people. Apparently, whatever your opinion is, becomes fact, simply because it’s your belief.
amerpundit on April 9, 2007 at 10:56 PM
ameripundit,
Get back on your meds. I wasn’t aware that governors didn’t have records as you seem to believe.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 10:57 PM
And these some people you have such contempt for have a vote. Just like some people who need meds.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 10:58 PM
1. You have no idea what my position is on the morality of abortion
2. I take it you are unsure if the majority of the country agrees with your view and would rather impose your view through the Supreme Court.
Bradky on April 9, 2007 at 11:00 PM
I give up. Litmus test or bust in ’08!
Jim-Rose on April 9, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Let me restate my original argument. The Republican party is comprised of disparate groups who think different things are important. If a Republican wants to become President, his best (and most likely only) shot is to unite his base.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 11:01 PM
First of all, I’m not on “meds”. Oh, wait, you said it, it must be true. Allow me to grovel at your feet, oh great one.
Yeah, and you’ll also find there is an even greater of number of people out there, from all parties, with votes, that don’t share the belief.
I don’t have contempt for them. I believe life begins at conception, as well. My point is, that not everyone believes it. Can you prove it? Or is that why it’s called faith, and not fact? What I can prove, is that in some cases, the delivery of a baby can kill a mother, and abortion is necessary. Shall the mother die, for the unborn baby? Whose life is more valuable? Shall a rape victim forever have to have a child, because someone raped her?
amerpundit on April 9, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Abortion again!! I’m bored. Can’t we talk about real issues instead of contrived wedge issues. Yawn
tommylotto on April 9, 2007 at 11:04 PM
That’s politics 101 for either party but if they want to become president they had better stake out positions that are attractive to some of the other party as well or they will only be able to claim they were the nominee in the history books.
Reagan, FDR, Nixon, and Clinton come to mind.
Bradky on April 9, 2007 at 11:05 PM
1. I never argued with you on your position. I only told you that a a Republican nominee is best served by uniting his base, which includes pro-lifers.
2. I never argued about what the majority of the country believes. But I can see that Reagan won two landslides by being definitive in foreign policy, economics, and being pro-life.
Your argument is a complete non sequitur.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 11:05 PM
ameripundit,
If you believe that, you must have a low opinion of life that you wouldn’t defend it.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 11:06 PM
I don’t know of a single pro-life organization that teaches that a woman must die in a situation like this. This is known as a straw man argument and should be beneath someone not on meds.
In this case, whatever action is that is necessarily taken to save the life of the mother that cannot avoid taking the life of the baby is morally permissible and regrettable.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Given Presidential election voter turnout that’s usually around 50%, I am not so sure about that. Didn’t GW win election mainly by turning out his base?
TheBigOldDog on April 9, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Turn out your base and win a majority of independents are the keys to victory. Independents though aren’t usually ideologues and are swayed by personality more than positions.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 11:14 PM
So, I have to believe that abortion is completely and totally wrong in any and all cases, in order to believe that life begins at conception. I’m sorry, cmay, did I move to a church-run country? I was under the impression I could believe whatever I like.
I have a very strong opinion of life. I also have an equally strong opinion that the government should get the hell out of the way, when it comes to family related issues, not specifically outlawed. A wise man once said “Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” he also said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”.
He was also opposed to abortion, but I can’t seem to recall Roe vs. Wade being overturned, or abortion outlawed under his administration.
amerpundit on April 9, 2007 at 11:14 PM
There you go again with the meds. Drop it. Morally permissible? Meaning you and the pro-life groups are willing to forgive her? How nice. It goes back to my argument, if God can create the Earth, can he not stop a woman from having an abortion. You’ll must likely form a rebuttal by telling me about her free-will. I will then come back, and point out that you are then interfering in God’s giving her free will, but stopping her abortion.
amerpundit on April 9, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Once again a straw man argument. I never appealed to religious belief–only social justice. Back to the medicine cabinet you go.
Such a strong opinion that you think it’s not worth defending. Bravo. How can anyone question your virtue or reasoning?
BTW, Reagan instituted the Mexico City Policy.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 11:19 PM
but=by
amerpundit on April 9, 2007 at 11:19 PM
In GW’s case you are correct, but the polarization of the electorate reflects the absence of a politician who can bridge the gap ala Reagan who brought over a whole bunch of Democrats in both elections.
While I like Bush, I liked Reagan even more because he was a visionary who brought out a lot of good in many people of both parties which took the country in very good directions.
Bradky on April 9, 2007 at 11:21 PM
There is nothing to forgive.
I will drop the meds comments when you stop making straw man arguments, which, BTW, this is another example of.
Back to the medicine cabinet you go.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 11:22 PM
OK, now I have BREAKING NEWS!
The guy who wrote the AmSpec blog post about Fred is Philip Klein.
From what I read as I rummage around the web, Philip Klein is a Guiliani supporter.
Giuliani Time by Philip Klein, Sept. 07, 2005:
Giuliani and History by PK:
And it looks as if Klein is the one who broke the news:
Ted Olson Supporting Giuliani:
Klein needs to post a disclaimer after every piece he writes: I support Rudy Guiliani
I report, you decide.
INC on April 9, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Bradky,
I agree with you 100%. I believe that Reagan did this by the force of his personality, which was in large part recognizable only by him making bold stands at every turn. This isn’t meant to take away from his ability to communicate. But Clinton communicated garbage well. Reagan communicated ideas well.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Bradky, I don’t think you are going to ever find a candidate who can bridge these gaps today. They are too wide. Just as the were when Lincoln was elected. Sooner or later it will come to a head but until then I thinks it’s all about beating the bushes and getting out your voters rather than being a middle of the road candidate. Today, all you’ll find in the middle of the road is roadkill.
TheBigOldDog on April 9, 2007 at 11:25 PM
I’ve got an idea cmay, why don’t you tell me the meds you think I’m on. I’d like to know their pharmaceutical terms, their functions, their dosages for my weight, how often they’re taken, if they’re taken with food, and their side effects. Also, please tell me their brand names, generic names, year of introduction, and the compounds that form said “meds”. Or is it a baseless accusation, like a 2nd grader on the playground? I see.
I didn’t say it’s not worth defending. I said that Giuliani said he wouldn’t repeal the Hyde Amendment, something no President since its passage has. I’m fully aware of the Mexico City Policy. What I said, is that abortion wasn’t banned in the US under Reagan. Last I checked, it’s still legal.
amerpundit on April 9, 2007 at 11:25 PM
I forgot to put in the dates:
Giuliani and History, June 27, 2006.
Ted Olson Supporting Giuliani, February 13, 2007.
There’s more out there, this was just a bit to make my point.
INC on April 9, 2007 at 11:27 PM
My “strawman arguments” are arguments, not specifically attacking or accusing you. You are personally accusing me of being on medication for some imagined problem, simply because I disagree with you.
amerpundit on April 9, 2007 at 11:27 PM
cmay, those were very different times and the country had just suffered 4 extremely difficult years under Carter. Mondale came out and told the country he was going to raise their taxes. I could have beat him.
TheBigOldDog on April 9, 2007 at 11:27 PM
BREAKING NEWS!……Fred! had grits but said he didn’t inhale. Film at 11!
Limerick on April 9, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Hope is not dead. It is what has always made this country great. There is a lot of despair out there about the quality of government and political candidates available. It was the same way in 1979. You gotta remember that as bad as Carter was he came on the heels of Nixon and Ford’s pardon. Republican’s looked dead. Reagan gave an impassioned speech at the 1976 RNC and people saw hope. I believe there are Reagans out there and that despite the polarization there are still a lot of purples out there who want to vote for hope and want to vote for America.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 11:34 PM
I suffer from being the eternal optimist I suppose. I can remember when Nixon surprised everyone with his wins in 68 and 72 bringing out the phrase the “silent majority”.
Roe v Wade was an unfortunate ruling that should have been sent back to the states for resolution. Had that happened politicians would have had to stick to more legislative and national security matters rather than the very polarizing topics such as morality. No one is happy and both parties have formed a type of litmus test regarding abortion that elbows some good candidates who may be somewhat neutral on the issue.
One of the problems with the internet and media today is that it has become kind of a fast food drive through for political thought. At one time we had to read about the issues if we wished to stay current and informed. Even though the news cycle was slower I think people made more informed choices.
Bradky on April 9, 2007 at 11:35 PM
And then strangely enough, on the AmSpec main page, this column Thompson & Thompson by The Prowler :
I would love to know what’s going on behind the scenes.
And what networking is going on with various bloggers and the candidates.
INC on April 9, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Cmay,
I’ve gotta go to bed. Can we just agree to disagree? We probably agree on 9/10 issues. Neither one of us will ever give up, and there’s no immediate solution. Whadda ya say?
amerpundit on April 9, 2007 at 11:37 PM
ameripundit,
Not knowing your body weight I wouldn’t know the proper dosage of Lithium to prescribe a delusional person such as yourself. You may have missed a dosage and slipped back into delusion and may not even know that you need it (one of the really bad side effects). So I suggest that you go to your bathroom cabinet and see if there is anything that says “Lithium” on the label and take the prescribed dosage. Of course, you may, in a your delusional state, not be able to recognize a bathroom, cabinet, or prescription medication. So, sadly, we’ll never know if you’re back on it.
A straw man argument is fallacious by it’s very nature. You have attempted to define a faulty position for me; one which I have not taken. Then you can strike it down. My argument is:
Furthermore, regardless of what you think is the number one issue, you cannot dictate that to other voters who have their own way of determining a candidate’s acceptability. You risk fracturing the Republican base and losing the election when you alienate specific groups. If you want to win, get the candidate who unites us.
Finally, I would argue, although I believe not persuasively, that there are Republicans/Conservatives out there who can do this; who can give us a reason to vote for them and not against Hillary/Kennedy/Pelosi/Reid/Dean.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Agreed to the disagreement. I don’t expect to make you (or anybody else) my disciple, politically speaking. I do like the fight and the exchange of ideas.
Sorry about the meds thing. But it got you off your game. Next time somebody does it to you, ignore it. I won’t do it again. But I will point out straw men, albeit in a more congenial way.
cmay on April 9, 2007 at 11:52 PM
nonstory… as much as I hate pandering, that’s what the earlier comments were about (trying not to alienate voters), which becomes obvious when reading the last paragraph of that article:
RightWinged on April 10, 2007 at 12:00 AM
(Read with a Fred Thomson Souther drawl….)
Now ya’ all have to stop getting your panties in a tither……… We’re two years out yet, and we haven’t even seen the whites of their eyes.
Sure as the Sun is surely to rise in the morning, more and more of this “pig in a polk” stuff will be brought up, and it’s funny to see how not a word of Hillary’s or Obama’s position causes a scratch like a tick on your behind…….
Regardless, the media will take the left’s point of view, we all know that, but what they don’t have, is Fred, his Mrs. , and that damn good “sour mash BBQ”.
So, again I say, all this jaw-jacking only feeds the left, in the mean time, have some more sour-mash.
“God willing and the river don’t rise….” we will make it through this, it’s two years out people, relax.
Fred doesn’t take a dump without a plan, and for all of you in a tisy, I call BS. Either your a “Seminar Blogger”, or you really want to live under another “Clinton” administration. Good luck to you!
PinkyBigglesworth on April 10, 2007 at 12:02 AM
bwhaaaaaaaa lol that was good.
djohn669 on April 10, 2007 at 12:04 AM
I can see Fred! is doing that already. You wouldn’t prescribe me lithium. You’d most likely prescribe me Lithizine or Maniprex. Lithium is the base compound, not a brand name. The full name is lithium ion (li). Considering I don’t have blood tests every few months, it would be terribly dangerous to prescribe to me, any of the Lithium ion based drugs.
I also should probably have taken it with dinner, as food is required with it. And since I get migraines, the ibuprofen I have to take, would produce elevated levels of lithium, in my blood. You should at least know that my tablets would be either 450mg tabs or 300mg caps.
But none of that’s important.
I think you’ll find few people out there, who believe that family issues are the number one issue in this campaign. But, why take my word for it. How about this poll posted by Allah, which finds that family values make up 8%.
amerpundit on April 10, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Can we just stipulate that every Republican was pro choice at one time and every democrat was pro life at one time? That way we can stop these ridiculous posts for each and every candidate.
Capitalist Infidel on April 10, 2007 at 12:09 AM
cmay, agreed. Please ignore my last post. I spent a while on it, and hadn’t received a response from you, as of posting. Good night, and I hope to talk to you again. Thanks.
amerpundit on April 10, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Don’t be fooled people. This guy answered questions on Foxnews with Chris Wallace and was baseline conservatice ALL THE WAY. The left is trying to marginalized him on the conservative base because he is a REAL threat.
VOTE FOR FRED THOMPSON!
VOTE FOR FRED THOMPSON!
VOTE FOR FRED THOMPSON!
VOTE FOR FRED THOMPSON!
msipes on April 10, 2007 at 12:14 AM
His senate record was pro life so I’m still onboard for this guy. We’ll see.
Mojave Mark on April 10, 2007 at 1:13 AM
Sounds reasonable to me. Heck, I’ll raise you on that one. I used to be a pro-”choice” atheist socialist in my misguided youth, something that you won’t find many people accusing me of being today ;-)
I’m still confused about the original article, though. I still can’t see where Fred! declares that he’s in favor of abortion, no matter how hard I try. Unless, of course, one subscribes to that awfully clever bit of verbal jiu-jitsu where pro-abortion = pro-choice, which is raging, rampant nonsense at any speed. “Pro-choice” is absolutely meaningless unless, in fact, you’re in favor of ALL choices.
And while I’m on that subject, I do believe that my OWN side ought to be honest as well. We’re anti-abortion, we’re not “pro-life”. Unless, again, we’re rabidly in favor of preserving ALL life, no matter what. Which may be the case for some of my ideological brethren, but I don’t think that a lot of them would be in favor of preserving the life of, say, Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, just like I don’t see a resounding majority of “pro-choicers” being in favor my choice to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to own as many firearms of varying calibers as I can possibly afford. Or school vouchers, privatized social security, privatized health care etc. etc. Yes, there are some who would, but try to put those issues to a vote among rabid “pro-choicers” like NARAL and see where that gets you.
Really. If the issue is abortion, can’t we all just agree to call the two camps “pro” and “anti” abortion?
It would seem to be logical to ME, at least.
Misha I on April 10, 2007 at 3:35 AM
If we could just solidly ban late-term abortion and let states make their own abortion laws, I could live with that. … and of course, NO PUBLIC MONEY FOR THE MURDER OF INNOCENT BABIES.
If a woman then decides to murder her unborn child – she will face the Ultimate Judge in eternity. But late term is so horrific !
stenwin77 on April 10, 2007 at 6:56 AM
Freddie we hardly knew ye….
honora on April 10, 2007 at 8:39 AM
Allahrepugnant, your option is WHO?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on April 10, 2007 at 9:00 AM
ameripundit,
Sorry to get in the thread late, but I hope you see this. I’ve noticed you make several posts over the last few weeks about how the electoral college will decide between the Hill and Fred! or whichever GOP candidate.
Do you not realize that the electoral college is now law-bound to cast their votes for the candidate who carried the majority of their states’ votes? They would face the federal pen. for casting a vote of the own volition.
I hope I’m reading your context right, but I waited until I saw it several times so I could be sure. We’re moving further and further away from a republic and more towards a democracy – not a good thing IMO.
y2church on April 10, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »