Another one of Fred’s old abortion questionnaires surfaces
posted at 11:45 am on June 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
You saw the movie. Now read the, er, questionnaire:
Question: Please summarize your personal philosophy on the issue of reproductive choice
Thompson: The Supreme Court has attempted to delineate the constitutionally appropriate roles for individual and governmental decision-making on the issue of abortion. Beyond that, I believe that the federal government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area
I would make an exception to this general rule of governmental non-interference in a very limited number of cases where government has a compelling interest in promoting the public welfare. For instance, I believe that states should be allowed to impose various restrictions if they so choose.
David Brody comments: “Fred Thompson may have a perfect Senate score with the National Right to Life but when he enters the race, he’ll need to explain questionnaires like this one and others. Where was the fervent pro-life talk? He will be challenged on this just like Romney was for his pro-choice comments in the 1990’s. I’m not saying they are the same. I’m just saying that it’ll be important for Thompson to show some passion for the pro-life cause in 2008. In the 1990’s you don’t see it.”
A federalist approach to abortion is perfectly fine by me but may not be fine for all Fredheads. So let me ask: anyone have a big problem with a guy who walks the walk but doesn’t talk the talk? In a race where the pro-choice candidate is leading and the social-con candidate is notoriously suspect on the depth of this commitment to the issue, I’m guessing that a man with a perfect voting record will be delightfully acceptable to pro-life voters. Or have we now reached the point where merely supporting pro-life policies isn’t enough if they’re not accompanied by rhetoric about Roe having perpetrated a second Holocaust? Serious question. Serious answers encouraged.
Here’s a little red meat for your trouble, courtesy of See-Dub. Fred’s blog has the same clip but, given the choice, HA always links the site with the taste and discretion to have MM.com on its blogroll. Click the image to watch.
Update: Rob Port says he’s a proud pro-life voter — and highly skeptical that this will hurt Fred in any way.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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]
fred? has said it should be left up to the woman. That my friend, is the definition of pro-choice.
csdeven on June 14, 2007 at 4:45 PM
No, he’s said that states should be able to decide what they wish, and that Roe is bad law.
Find me a pro-choicer who believes in that, and I’ll be very surprised.
Esthier on June 14, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Only by degree of semantics. The reality, though, is quite different. Members of the pro-choice movement have made it clear that abortion on demand is a guaranteed constitutional right as defined by Roe v. Wade. And that means no restrictions by the federal or state governments. It’s bad law, totally without precedent, a flexing of judicial muscle that is not in the constitution.
So what action do you anticipate from someone who says Roe v. Wade is bad law and needs to be overturned? Your choice is either nothing, or appointing strict constitutionalist judges who will put the judiciary back in its place, interpreting only and not legislating.
These ad hominem attacks on Fred are really clouding your reasoned thinking. I think I “get it” that you don’t trust Fred, but it’s gone beyond any rational approach to discussing the issues that are laid out before us.
Tennman on June 14, 2007 at 5:04 PM
That makes it Fred 3, CS 0 for the week.
It really is going to be hilarious to watch you vote for him.
Tman on June 14, 2007 at 5:09 PM
How this became the litmus test for conservative candidates is beyond me.
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe it’s that right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” thing. Or it could be that without the right to life, all other rights are moot. Or it could be the moral disgust with destroying unborn children.
Just a thought.
Rightwingsparkle on June 14, 2007 at 5:27 PM
I love it when you get sacastic, RWS!
see-dubya on June 14, 2007 at 5:38 PM
freddie boy IS pro choice.
“Made by the woman” means PRO-CHOICE.
csdeven on June 14, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Um, the one that is actually specified in the Constitution? No.
The other two? Yes.
gekkobear on June 14, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Again, with all due respect, no, he isn’t.
That’s not a pro-choice opinion, and you’ve done nothing to argue against what he’s said in its entirety.
Look, this whole blog gets that you don’t like him, but that’s no excuse to suspend reason. And for all the conservatives who hate it that politicians don’t walk the walk after talking the talking should really get their heads examined if they’re against a man who might not talk the talk, but has certainly walked the walked.
Esthier on June 14, 2007 at 5:53 PM
hahaha!!! You may be able to BS your fredhead buddies, but I can read what freddie boy said, and since I am not hypnotized by bluejeans and folksy rhetoric, it’s clear as day that fred? is a flip-flopper.
Really freddie boy? What about the children? Remember, those children you decided to run for the presidency for.
ROFLMAO!
csdeven on June 14, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Now you can try to parse that any way you want. You can claim he has had a change of heart, call him a flip flopper…I really don’t care because this is not one of my big issues. But it IS a conservative litmus test and conservatives rule in the primaries, but saying the ultimate choice must be made by the woman and government should stay out of it, gov’t not fed gov’t or state gov’t but gov’t, is the definition of pro-choice.
Enough with the unquestioning love for Fred. If this was any other candidate you all would say the exact same thing.
Bottom line, the two leading Republicans at this point are Rudy and Fred. Both are pro-choice. Cognitive Dissonance isn’t just a river in Egypt.
JackStraw on June 14, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Talk about an illogical pathway to a statement, wow. someone’s been taking lessons at the cognitive dissonance school of thought.
Okay, let me get this straight. Someone once made a statement, lasting, oh, 10 to 15 seconds, and then had eight years in the Senate voting strictly pro life. Huh. I guess that makes him pro choice.
By the same token, a man was raised a Democrat, campaigns for Democrat Helen Gahagan Douglas against Richard Nixon for the Senate, later campaigns for Richard Nixon as a Democrat, switches parties, creates a revolution for conservatism and is one of our most beloved presidents ever: Ronald Reagan.
Hmm. To follow the above logic, he was really a Democrat.
Tennman on June 14, 2007 at 9:15 PM
He referred to “paper tigers” (the lefties, and all of us, if we give up our malkins on the war). His take on not commenting on the conservative rivals was classy.
Interesting also - first conservative in his family.
see-dub, nice write-up. This guy has always been like this. No one should expect that he’ll change. Steadiness and calm conviction might not be bad at all.
Fred/Rudy or Rudy/Fred - mighty fine. No comments on “they’ve both got an ego…”. They all say that and then they gladly take the VP spot “because the country called on me”.
Entelechy on June 14, 2007 at 10:28 PM
>>Hmm. To follow the above logic, he was really a Democrat.
He was a democrat. A very liberal democrat. Until he changed.
Of course since you love Reagan you will call that growth. If it was Romney you would call it a flip flop. So be consistent. I’m sick of hearing that Romney is a flip flopper but Fred is a wise old basset hound because he has evolved. If you can’t be consistent with your views then you are in no position to lecture on logic.
JackStraw on June 15, 2007 at 8:03 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]