Here’s the latest clip of Fred Thompson on YouTube. He sent this video greeting to the National Right to Life Convention: Fellow pro-lifers, don’t dismiss any candidate solely because he was once wishy-washy on life … or was even pro-abortion. I to…

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.

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”.

Bottom line, the two leading Republicans at this point are Rudy and Fred. Both are pro-choice.

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.

On Abortion: “Government should stay out of it… The ultimate decision must be made by the women… Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.” — Fred Thompson, July 1994

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.

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.

The ultimate decision must be made by the woman.

Really freddie boy? What about the children? Remember, those children you decided to run for the presidency for.

ROFLMAO!

freddie boy IS pro choice.

csdeven on June 14, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Again, with all due respect, no, he isn’t.

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.

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.

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?

Um, the one that is actually specified in the Constitution? No.

The other two? Yes.

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

freddie boy IS pro choice.

Thompson answered: “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.”

“Made by the woman” means PRO-CHOICE.

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.

It really is going to be hilarious to watch you vote for him.

That my friend, is the definition of pro-choice.
csdeven on June 14, 2007 at 4:45 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.

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.

dominigan on June 14, 2007 at 4:34 PM

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 4:13 PM

…“pro-life” record, (when he clearly supports a federalist position which means he feels no need to protect the life of the unborn)…

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.

…we wont hear any more of that BS.

No, I predict we will continue to hear from you for many months to come. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

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.

How is what Fred said any different than what Mitt said?
Tman on June 14, 2007 at 1:19 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.

Hollowpoint on June 14, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Got it. Thanks!

1) He changed his mind
2) He changed his position for political expediancy (Ding!!!)

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.

Hollowpoint on June 14, 2007 at 1:35 PM

That’s the core of the issue.