Another one of Fred’s old abortion questionnaires surfaces
posted at 11:45 am on June 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | 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 Next »
Spinning of this by Fred heads in 5,4,3,2…
amerpundit on June 14, 2007 at 11:59 AM
It is a non issue dare I say for most Americans. I am not voting for a gynecologist who can dispense medical advice from the Oval Office. How this became the litmus test for conservative candidates is beyond me.
LakeRuins on June 14, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Personally, I support the Federalist argument, in general. The caveat however, is this
is in my mind a contract between the government and the people and it is easy to see how ‘the Blessings…and our Posterity’, can stir up the same moral purpose and authority that brought the end of slavery.
I think the actions are louder then words. Which will help Fred and Mitt, with pro-life voting records, and to a lesser degree Rudy with what he cites as decrease in abortions, increase in adoptions.
Spirit of 1776 on June 14, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Remind me again; is this election about abortion? Is that the #1 issue going on in the world? Why does this matter?
lorien1973 on June 14, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Much ado about nothing.
Hey, let’s attack Fred! for looking like a bassett hound!
Rudy and Romney won’t make it. Fred!
unamused on June 14, 2007 at 12:01 PM
amerpundit on June 14, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Nuff said…….
doriangrey on June 14, 2007 at 12:02 PM
W appointed constructionists. Rudy says he would, and is believable. Fred most likely would, too. So would Romney. Can we please now get past this. There is a war to be won.
Halley on June 14, 2007 at 12:03 PM
I support the federalist argument as well which is why I’ve never had a problem with Rudy’s stand on abortion. The only thing I care about is the type of Justice he will appoint. There are a thousand different things that come before the Court that are as important and impacting as abortion and I want to make sure he is choosing the right person for the job not just someone with strong pro-life convictions.
bj1126 on June 14, 2007 at 12:03 PM
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.
For a lot of your commenters, probably. For the public at large, I sure hope not.
brak on June 14, 2007 at 12:03 PM
My thoughts on this changed as I aged…..think many folks are in the same mindset. Please don’t hold me to opinions I voiced 30 years ago! I was a die hard Lib back then……then I got wiser through the years. I agree, when and why did the big ‘A’ issue become the bell weather sign of if one is a ‘true’ conservative?
dustoffmom on June 14, 2007 at 12:04 PM
I’m pretty far right politically and I’m an evangelical Christian. No, no problems with this for me; I care a great deal more about what he actually does than what he says. To me, the fact that he thinks states should be able to restrict it, if they choose (PBA, for example?) is a huge point in his favor.
If I’m willing to vote for Rudy whom I disagree with vehemently on social issues, and I will vote for him if he’s the candidate, then you can imagine how delighted I’d be to vote for Fred.
Laura on June 14, 2007 at 12:04 PM
I am as pro-life as they come, and what he said doesn’t bother me at all.
tikvah on June 14, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Is it “’nuff said” when Rudy says he’ll leave it up to the states, but believe the feds shouldn’t get involved on issues? Gun control? Gay Marriage? And, yes, abortion to an extent?
amerpundit on June 14, 2007 at 12:06 PM
I can’t imagine the strong pro-lifers would care, given his results are in their favor. And yeah, I personally think the Federalist approach is the best one, but others might not.
HAHAHA!
Bad Candy on June 14, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Fred has been a committed federalist, so I see no inconsistency, here. It frankly makes me more inclined to support him.
SWLiP on June 14, 2007 at 12:08 PM
First they report that Romney is a Mormon and that we as Americans should be concerned about. They never miss a chance to remind us in any story about Mitt.
With Guillani it is his affairs and a less then solid opinion one way or the other on the A question. Once again something they have told us is vitally important and we should be concerned about.
Now they once again are using the same issue to question Fred! No big deal and at least they admit they got the tip from an opponent.
Now who is the one Republican running that has never had some of these questions brought up? Who is the one guy that if he won the primary would probably get beaten by Hillary hands down? Hmmm (HINT: He is slipping faster in the polls then a squirrel on a greased bird feeder pole)
LakeRuins on June 14, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Amazing how should Rudy take the Federalist approach of the Feds not getting involved, the pro-life argument comes ripping out in the blogosphere. Fred takes the stance, and it’s blown over as no problem.
amerpundit on June 14, 2007 at 12:11 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That is so stolen.
Bad Candy on June 14, 2007 at 12:11 PM
I’m pro-choice, but RoevWade was horrible from a constitutional perspective, and I respect someone who will say what he feels about the issue and votes accordingly. It’s one thing to issue rhetoric, it’s another to put judges in place to fix this mess.
It’s interesting to me that the top three conservative candidates are either pro-choice or at least federalist in their approaches. Not a single one is coming out to say every abortion should be made illegal.
And at the same time, is this really the litmus test for candidates now? I know it’s important, but has anyone ever lost the vote over their stance on abortion?
Tman on June 14, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Uh, I said I never had an issue with Rudy’s Federalist policy, just that others might…
Bad Candy on June 14, 2007 at 12:13 PM
This is one of the only times I read any comments before posting myself. You just saved me a post.
Let the games begin. We may finally get fred? to grow a pair and have to start splanin’ his posishuns.
csdeven on June 14, 2007 at 12:13 PM
A lot of conservatives self-destruct on this issue. A complete federal ban would require intrusive monitoring of pregnant women, forbidding them to travel abroad, and grand jury investigations of still-births.
Most Americans will not tolerate going there.
Support the tenth amendment ( individual states make the decision ) and move on.
Kristopher on June 14, 2007 at 12:13 PM
I really don’t get the controversy; isn’t he basically saying that the federal government should mind its own business, and that the states should be free to restrict the practice?
As a pro-lifer I’m supposed to be upset by this?
Kensington on June 14, 2007 at 12:14 PM
The “Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is written in our Constitution. It’s supposed to be guaranteed at the federal level.
So, where and when does Life begin?
CliffHanger on June 14, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Honestly, I think what he said was enough. Going into a tirade about this issue would almost make him seem like he was grasping for straws w/the social cons, which Fred! doesn’t need to do.
A lot of people are concerned about abortion, but it’s just not THE issue that I’m currently most concerned with. Illegal immigration and the War we’re in are most important to me right now.
hollygolightly on June 14, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Oh, I know you haven’t.
amerpundit on June 14, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Interesting point.
Spirit of 1776 on June 14, 2007 at 12:17 PM
And being against illegal immigration requires us to instantaneously deport all 12+ million illegals, too.
Honestly, that’s just silly.
Laura on June 14, 2007 at 12:17 PM
And I think for Rudy it was a trust thing, whether he’d really work to overturn Roe and kick it back to the states or not, plus a lot of pro-life groups have disliked him for a long time.
Bad Candy on June 14, 2007 at 12:18 PM
amerpundit on June 14, 2007 at 12:06 PM
You seem to be under the misunderstanding that I have a problem with Rudy, I don’t. I am a conservative and a federalist; I like very much Rudy’s assertion that he would appoint strict constructionist Supreme Court Justices.
I don’t particularly care for his somewhat liberal stance on gun control or gay marriage but I do appreciate his position that they should be states rights issues in which the federal government remains silent.
In spite of Allah’s attempted devils advocacy in portraying Fred as pro-choice his statements and voting record clearly indicate otherwise. There is nothing here to spin, nor object to from a conservative federalist point of view.
doriangrey on June 14, 2007 at 12:18 PM
OUCH! Can’t wait to hear these excuses.
csdeven on June 14, 2007 at 12:18 PM
I’m not disagreeing with Fred’s position. I’m in whole hearted agreement. And I think the same approach should be kept on other issues.
This is simply not the most important issue (abortion that is). We have an ugly amnesty bill about to be shoved down our throats, a war on terror that no Democratic candidate wants to fight, and other top issues.
amerpundit on June 14, 2007 at 12:18 PM
I think this is a case of Fred’s political obscurity (to a nat’l audience) helped him slide under the radar.
Bad Candy on June 14, 2007 at 12:19 PM
I think each state should be able to decide. Also, I don’t think Federal government should use federal tax dollars to subsidize abortion. I am a Fred head. So what am I supposed to be upset about?
Rustyw on June 14, 2007 at 12:21 PM
It was enough for me when Rudy said it too on this issue. As for gun rights, I would have a problem with that being state controlled. People (including presidential candidates like the Silky Pony, for crying out loud) seem to forget that that’s a blatant constitutional right. No room for confusion on that one.
hollygolightly on June 14, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Where politicians are concerned, I’m a firm believer in the saying, “Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do.” As far as I’m concerned, I’m more than happy with Fred’s position and record on this issue: Abortion should be a matter for the individual states to decide–not the Federal government…and most definitely not the courts.
Matt Helm on June 14, 2007 at 12:22 PM
True enough. But there’s a number of single issue voters, and we can’t just ignore that reality.
As for this amnesty and the way they’re trying to drive it through against the people’s wishes… I really hate the DC elite.
Bad Candy on June 14, 2007 at 12:24 PM
The point is that the fredheads that have been hammering Rudy and Mitt! on abortion, will now have to make excuses for freddie boy or stop hammering Rudy and Mitt!. This is just another case for the “please fred?, make a stand” movement. At least until he has the courage to explain his REAL (hahaha) posishuns on the mattahs in a real live debate after he actually becomes a candidate.
csdeven on June 14, 2007 at 12:26 PM
See who can guess who said this-it was posted here in January-
Tman on June 14, 2007 at 12:27 PM
csdeven on June 14, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Delusional as always……….
doriangrey on June 14, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Oh, for goodness sake, abortion is not, and should not be a litmus test for the office of the president of the United States. I am so tired of single-issue politics. Our world is a complicated world and you can’t have simple answers.
LakeRuins above, #2, is right. We’re not voting for an ObGyn; we’re voting for president. There’s Jihadists out there, there’s border security, there’s illegal immigration, yes, there’s abortion, there’s tax issues…and there’s, well, the democrats. If y’all keep sniping at each other this way, taking your eyes off the big prize, the Dems will be there and you won’t.
Stop with this. Please.
Grantman on June 14, 2007 at 12:29 PM
OK Tman, I give. Who? Doesn’t sound like me.
Bad Candy on June 14, 2007 at 12:30 PM
RushBaby on June 14, 2007 at 12:31 PM
The answer?
Mitt Romney.
Tman on June 14, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Bad Candy on June 14, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Mitt…….
doriangrey on June 14, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Keeping the federal government as much out of it as possible and allowing states to make their own laws? Sounds like a perfect sensible approach to me.
BelchSpeak on June 14, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Heh, I just found it a few minutes ago, Tman. I’m lazy, but I’m impatient too, and impatience won.
Bad Candy on June 14, 2007 at 12:33 PM
I’ll be honest, This is one thing about Fred that I don’t like. I personally would rather see Abortion outlawed nationally as exactly what it is, Murder.
Having said that, I also think that Fred is being consistent with his generally Federalist views, and I respect that. However I do wish that he would reconsider this stance as I do think it is wrong.
wearyman on June 14, 2007 at 12:34 PM
I don’t have a problem with his position. I do personally believe abortion is murder, but I don’t need him to believe that so long as he does everything in his power to stop or at least curb it.
Esthier on June 14, 2007 at 12:35 PM
I’ll take a two-pronged approach to your exit question.
First, as to reproductive choice, the federal government should stay out of it and the states should be allowed to limit its practice. That’s pure federalism. No inconsistency there.
Second, the argument that he doesn’t talk the talk — what talk? I tend to evaluate people by what they do, not what they say. With a 100 percent pro-life stance in voting this, his conscience is demonstrated by his actions.
I’m not expecting that we will have a perfect man for the job; just a man who will direct the government by his conscientious actions.
So the short answer is no, it won’t affect me. And if that’s the best that the left is going to throw against Fred, it’s a ripple that’s easy to smoothe.
Tennman on June 14, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Fred Thompson is the only candidate any of you should be supporting.
msipes on June 14, 2007 at 12:43 PM
It makes no sense to claim a moral, completely pro-life stance and be OK with some States allowing abortion.
Big S on June 14, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Seems pretty electable. Thus far, I haven’t disagreed with anything he’s said– once he gets into the race and starts saying a bit more, that may change, but (dare we hope!) we may have a genuine conservative here looking to carry Reagan’s legacy forward…
morganfrost on June 14, 2007 at 12:44 PM
He’s not going to do everything in his power to stop it, if that’s what you’re saying. He wants the Feds to stay out of it. As President, he’d be the head of the Feds, as you know.
amerpundit on June 14, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Supreme Court Justice nominations are in his power. And he is adamant about appointing strict constructionists.
RushBaby on June 14, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Me too. On this, the Schiavo case, and many other issues, the conservatives are the biggest hypocrits when it comes to fedralism. It’s really like Angelina Jolie being for free speech, except for when she doesn’t want Fox to be on the carpet when she walks/talks.
Yes, before anyone explodes, I know that life is more important than speech – but is it? It’s all speech. When that is not free, then life can/will be lost.
Entelechy on June 14, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Anyone who has a problem with a Federalist position on abortion (left to the states without intervention from the federal government or courts) needs to do two things:
1. Read the Constitution.
2. Explain in what alternate universe a federal abortion ban would get 60 Senate votes.
On #1, a court that was sufficiently Federalist to overturn a long standing precident like Roe v Wad would likely also overturn a Federal abortion ban, since the Constitution doesn’t grant the Federal government the authority to regulate it.
With #2, even if the Supreme Court held a federal abortion ban legal, it would never- at least not in the next 9 years- get 60 votes in the Senate; probably wouldn’t even get a majority.
The best the pro-life side of the arguement could hope for is the overturning of Roe v Wade and the decision left to the states- and Fred! has demonstrated both in words and action a belief in Federalist principles that makes it almost certain that he’d appoint constructionist judges. Rudy and Mitt? We’re apparently supposed to just trust them despite past and present actions and positions that suggest otherwise.
Hollowpoint on June 14, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Big S on June 14, 2007 at 12:44 PM
I disagree.
You have to keep in mind that a Federalist stance indicates that he wants the States to have as much power to make decisions like this as possible. So it’s not inconsistent to loathe Abortion and still want the States to decide for themselves. Fred just isn’t willing to throw his Federalist stance under the bus based on this one issue, moral or not.
As I said before, I personally think something like this should take precedence over the Federalist stance, but it’s not nonsensical to believe the way Fred does either.
Also, as others have said, his votes in the Senate followed a Pro-Life line, and as Federalist and Originalist, I personally think that he would appoint Judges and push policy that would generally follow the Pro-Life side, and that’s good for the GOP and for America.
I just don’t think Rudy would do that. He’s Pro-Abortion, and while it’s not the “hot issue” right now, that still matters to me.
All the others are just too far back in the pack for me to bother with them.
wearyman on June 14, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Agreed. Just like Rudy set out in his “12 Commitments”, Fred wants strict Constructionist judges.
amerpundit on June 14, 2007 at 1:00 PM
He has been… when are you gonna grow a brain and start paying attention?
Watcher on June 14, 2007 at 1:05 PM
No, duder, it isn’t written in the Constitution. It’s written in the Declaration of Independence. Not exactly the same thing.
Hollowpoint on June 14, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Sounds like a mormon to me.
csdeven on June 14, 2007 at 1:07 PM
I know because that has been the prevailing LDS position for 30+ years.
csdeven on June 14, 2007 at 1:08 PM
I’m not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV. I see his point and don’t think I disagree with it – of course, I haven’t been told what to think by the conservative talk show hosts yet. /sarc
The passionate idealist in me thinks abortion kinda goes against the “life” of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” clause in the preamble. But I’m not a lawyer.
Still, his actions do show his intentions and until I know more about him he’ll stay off my do-not-vote-for list.
looking4statesmen on June 14, 2007 at 1:11 PM
oops, you’re right.
RushBaby on June 14, 2007 at 1:15 PM
cd-
How is what Fred said any different than what Mitt said?
Tman on June 14, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I haven’t seen any screeching yet on this thread, so it stands to reason that most are not unhappy with his position.
As for me, I’m very much pro-life, but understand that our form of government was meant to give power to the states. To try and force my spiritual values on the entire population through government would make me no better than an Islamist. No, thanks.
So… no prob here.
wccawa on June 14, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Here’s the preamble to the Constitution:
Again, Declaration of Independence != US Constitution.
It should be noted that the activist Warren court used the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” line in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence to justify the “right to privacy” that Roe v Wade was based on. I don’t see any self-respecting constructionist basing a decision on that phrase.
Hollowpoint on June 14, 2007 at 1:21 PM
It’s true the phrase “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is from the Declaration of Independence, but those same ideas are covered in the Constitution. The other amendments in the Bill of Rights go even further, but here is the 5th Amendment.
Maxx on June 14, 2007 at 1:21 PM
No problem for me on this. Abortion is not a litmus test for me. He goes Federalist, wants the states to decide and says he will appoint constructionist judges. Works for me!
The bigger Fred! oops for me is McCain/Feingold.
Darksean on June 14, 2007 at 1:25 PM
You took the words right out of my mouth.
wccawa on June 14, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Well said and profound. Add a large scale war in the Middle East, brewing fast, Chavez and ilk nuts, Putin reverting to self, plus, plus…
I wish Fred or Rudy would shut the media up by reminding them daily about their insignificance and lack of above perspective. Not to forget their soap-opera mindsets.
Entelechy on June 14, 2007 at 1:27 PM
I have no problem with the Supreme Court quoting the Declaration of Independence, but you are absolutely correct that the phrase “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” was no foundation for abortion. Clearly the court forgot about the “life” of the child.
Maxx on June 14, 2007 at 1:29 PM
You know, if Chuck Norris is elected President, it simply won’t be an issue any longer. There will be no rape, because Chuck Norris will Roundhouse Kick (RhK) all rapists to the moon thus no need to abort the baby. There will be no unwanted pregnancies, because guys will never have unprotected sex again in fear of the CNRhK. In fact, the term ‘dead-beat dad’ will be washed from our vocab because Chuck Norris will pay a personal visit to every father in the US and make sure that he’s being good to his wife & kids.
That would pretty much end the abortion debate. CN4POTUS! ;)
Biffstir on June 14, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Says who? It’s illegal for minors to consume alcohol but somehow that hasn’t translated into following minors when they go to Amsterdam to make sure they aren’t legally consuming it there.
And as far as still-births go, there’s a big difference between a child who is born dead and one who’s had it’s brains forked.
Somehow we managed to keep this from being the debacle you describe for the hundred plus years it was illegal here.
Esthier on June 14, 2007 at 1:33 PM
To stretch meaning of the 5th Amendment to justify a federal abortion ban would make one just as guilty of judicial activism as those non-constructionist judges we oppose so strongly.
Roe v Wade was a horribly decided, extra-constitutional activist decision that put the court’s desired outcome ahead of the text and intent of the Constitution. I’d rather not stoop to the same level just because the desired outcome is one our side finds favorable.
Hollowpoint on June 14, 2007 at 1:35 PM
There has never been a federal abortion ban in that hundred-plus year period. Restrictions were at the state level.
Hollowpoint on June 14, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Don’t care…
soulsirkus on June 14, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Nonsense ! You forget that there was a time in this country when all abortions were illegal and pregnant women were never restricted from travel abroad. The United States has no jurisdiction to prevent them from doing what they will in another country anyway.
And as for “grand jury investigations of still-births”…. if a doctor feels there is something suspicious about a “still-birth”… there will be a grand jury investigation even today, and should be.
Maxx on June 14, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Once again, my public school education comes back to bite me.
looking4statesmen on June 14, 2007 at 1:43 PM
I hate to threadjack but I don’t yet see a post for it yet.
Hamas is getting ready to control the Gaza strip, but I don’t hear the MSM calling it a Civil War yet, even though it looks really close to that.
Scorched_Earth on June 14, 2007 at 1:46 PM
…
Yes I remember…..all those Pregnancy Police we had back in the 50s. The camps. The wiretaps. It was horrible.
Limerick on June 14, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Was it Mitt, or was it another politician, who had a little dust up with a reporter, where the reporter claimed the right to question him about something, saying, “I represent the people,” and the politician said, “No, I represent the people. You represent the media.” ??
Laura on June 14, 2007 at 1:52 PM
That’s not really my point.
My point is that somehow, for many years before this miraculous Roe law was passed by the nine unelected men in robes, we managed to survive.
I wasn’t addressing whether it was illegal at the state or federal level. I don’t see how that is even relevant to the discussion.
Esthier on June 14, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Ha – finally found it! It was Romney who provided one of the best media smackdowns ever. I still like Fred better, but I’ll have no trouble voting for Romney if he’s the candidate – I agree with the majority of his positions, and he can think on his feet.
Laura on June 14, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Flip Flopper!
Actually, I’m thrilled by his answer. Now we can all agree that since at best fred’s answer is highly, er, “nuanced”, we can agree that there isn’t a hard core pro-lifer in the bunch and we can start evaluating the candidates on issues that actually matter to all of us instead of a very small subset.
And for those wondering why some of us have been saying we want to see Fred face the scrutiny the other candidates have endured, this is why.
JackStraw on June 14, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Huh? It’s not just relevant to the discussion, it is the discussion.
Hollowpoint on June 14, 2007 at 2:25 PM
As with all politicians, you evaluate the rhetoric by the voting record…and NOT the other way around.
If the candidate says that they want to “reduce the occurrence of abortions”, but votes to increase sex-ed in schools, and maybe include a field trip to Planned Barrenhood, then you know what they meant by that.
If the candidate says that they want to decrease illegal immigration, and then they vote for the piece of crud bill that Bush likes….you’ve got your interpretation of what they said.
Vanquisher on June 14, 2007 at 2:26 PM
It’s rather silly to quote the precatory language of the Constitution as supporting just about any political viewpoint. That language is primarily addressed at explaining the basis for forming a more cohesive federal government in the wake of the failings of the Articles of Confederation.
SWLiP on June 14, 2007 at 2:32 PM
It’s his voting record that counts. I agree with Vanquisher on that one. I also agree with other posters that this is no longer the most important issue facing conservatives – we have a war going on, border issues, that civil war going on in Gaza, and a myriad of other issues that are sooooo much more important than abortion. Unfortunately, abortion is what it is – legal. No matter how it got to that point (the 9 men in robes), it is not something that I see changing any time soon.
pullingmyhairout on June 14, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Why, because federal laws mandate wire tapping and following our citizens overseas?
Because that’s the only thing I was talking about in my specific comments.
Esthier on June 14, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Abortion again, Yawn….
How can you Fredheads vote for a man who doesn’t care about MURDER!!!! He thinks the federal government should keep its nose out of MURDER!!!!
What shall we believe:
1) He changed his mind
2) He changed his position for political expediancy (Ding!!!)
Mitt flip flopped, Fred flip flopped. Rudy is the only guy with the guts to not lie to us about how he believes. Do you ANTI-CHOICERS want a leader or someone who will tell you what you want to hear?
tommylotto on June 14, 2007 at 2:43 PM
I have a problem with Rudy’s “federalist” stance. Not regarding abortion, he’s pro-abortion but says he would allow each state to decide what’s best for them. I’ll accept his word on that, he’s a justice guy.
However, when he applies the exact same standard to a Constitutionally guaranteed right, he is in error. The 2nd Amendment isn’t up for the discretion of the states.
Entelechy was absolutely correct to say that without freedom of speech all other freedoms are in danger. To build on that, without an armed citizenry, freedom of speech is in danger.
1. Soft on abortion but claims he’ll support restrictions at the state level, and offers that he’d appoint justices who would overturn Roe – Neutral score, leaning positive
2. Outstanding history as crime-fighting prosecutor and pro-justice mayor – Strong positive
3. Refused Saudi money as “aid” post-9/11, and strong rhetoric on the GWOT – Moderatly strong positive
4. Gun rights – Believes the same federalist approach will work as with abortion – Strong negative
5. Illegal immigration – Maintained NYNY as sanctuary city, and only began badmouthing the shamnesty when it became obvious that it was despised by the public – Moderately strong negative
Not good enough.
Now, as for Fred’s stance on abortion. During the recent video interview he did, in answer to the question; “In your opinion, which Supreme Court decision has been the most damaging to our nation?”, he answered Roe v. Wade. Was his answer purely because it legalized abortion? Assuredly not. Because it was legislation masquerading as jurisprudence, without a shred of valid law involved. I’m good with that.
Freelancer on June 14, 2007 at 2:57 PM
tommylotto on June 14, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Seriously……….put the crack pipe down and back slowly away from it…..
doriangrey on June 14, 2007 at 3:10 PM
That’s the core of the issue.
Spirit of 1776 on June 14, 2007 at 3:20 PM
I’m not a Fredhead, but I haven’t been convinced that his opinion now is anything but what it was in this past interview.
And as for anti-choicers, you must be talking to someone else, because pro-life wants everyone to have a choice, even the unborn.
Esthier on June 14, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Got it. Thanks!
CliffHanger on June 14, 2007 at 3:38 PM
It really isn’t, except that Mitt! has lurched to the right in order to position himself as a social conservative. I’m still, STILL waiting for fred? to have to explain himself to a less than friendly interviewer.
csdeven on June 14, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Well, now that we have the fredheads flip-flopping on freds? “pro-life” record, (when he clearly supports a federalist position which means he feels no need to protect the life of the unborn) we wont hear any more of that BS. Now we can start working on deflating some more of freddie boys more dishonest rhetoric and getting down to brass tacks.
I see this as the future path for freds? non-candidacy. Every time he opens his mouth to clarify his positions, the more of his facade is stripped away. I wonder how fred? feels about having to actually play on a level playing field? What will be left over? No one knows, but so far, it aren’t be lookin’ gud.
csdeven on June 14, 2007 at 4:13 PM
This sounds like a sentence out of “1984″. Ok, I’ll try to clean this up… He has a strong pro-life voting record, but has publically stated that his views are Federalist. The slap you add onto the end is completely idiotic. If he is pro-life, his voting record will prove that out… and it has.
No, I predict we will continue to hear from you for many months to come. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
dominigan on June 14, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »