Video: Fred Thompson on MTP, says he doesn’t support the Human Life Amendment
posted at 2:01 pm on November 4, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Sen. Fred Thompson appeared on Meet the Press today and, Clintons take note, had to answer some tough questions asked by host Tim Russert. He discussed the crisis in Pakistan, his support for concealed carry laws on university campuses, and other issues. A little over midway through the interview, Russert queried Thompson on the Human Life Amendment and whether he supports it or not. He doesn’t. He favors letting states set abortion law. Around that nugget, though, Thompson touted his 100% pro-life voting record and ends this clip with his opinion on when life begins.
As David Brody says, Fred is falling back on federalist principles to arrive at the point of being pro-life but not supporting the HLA. The question is, will this become a problem with social conservatives?
Link: sevenload.com
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 3 4 Next »
He did that very very well
Defector01 on November 4, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Fred’s right. These type of decisions (abortion) are exactly what falls under states’ rights. If we make everything a federal law, what authority does a state have to govern itself?
stonemeister on November 4, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Someone somewhere tell me what the SUBSTANTIVE difference is between Fred’s position and Rudy’s.
CK MacLeod on November 4, 2007 at 2:09 PM
See, here is where I think that the question of Federalism is irrelevant.
If abortion is murder, then why are homicide and abortion laws treated differently? Leaving abortion “to the States” is the same as leaving murder to the States.
Damian G. on November 4, 2007 at 2:09 PM
It is left to the states unless the crime crosses state boundaries.
lorien1973 on November 4, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Shouldn’t bringing up criminalization as a negative, saying it’s OK for states to adopt laws that he himself doesn’t think are morally sound, and completely punting on the federal level mean that social conservatives now have to declare supporting him a mortal sin? Isn’t that grounds for calling him “pro-abortion” and forming a 3rd party if he’s the nominee? Or is it okay to hold those positions so long as you hold them with a southern accent?
CK MacLeod on November 4, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Fred said Rue V Wade ought to be overturned, THEN it reverts to the States.
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 2:18 PM
I disagree with Fred here on this point. I think it IS wise for states, upon Roe V Wade being overturned (hopefully), to enact laws banning abortions. If it harms innocents it ought to be banned.
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Not with this social conservative. I would prefer, frankly, an abortion ban, but I find his responses acceptable. As for “falling back” on federalism, I find that when he speaks the Constitution and history “fall out“. No other candidate speaks this way, or writes this way. Except Michael Steele. I want MORE candidates to back up what they say, and stand on what they believe this way, using American history and the actual Constitution, not a “living, breathing” one. Even if I disagree with that person, I can understand where he stands.
I doubt any of the Dem candidates are even familiar with the concept of federalism, much less speak it, or even familiar with the Constitution!
I hope what I wrote makes sense. It does to me.
CrimsonFisted on November 4, 2007 at 2:25 PM
He may have a point about states’ rights on this issue, but doesn’t anyone remember the 2004 election when, what was it, 13 states, that voted to ban gay marriage, only to have judges calls the voters’ decisions unconstitutional?
We’ll see the same chanllenges by pro-abortion murderers. And if the Dumbs gain in Washington, these nuts will be more emboldened.
madmonkphotog on November 4, 2007 at 2:25 PM
This is strange. I can sweep some things under the rug with Fred because he is really big on the notion of federalism. But the question Tim asked, and the 2004 platform that he quoted, had to do with an amendment to the Constitution. Being strong on federalism doesn’t prevent a candidate to support a constitutional amendment on something that could arguably be thought of as an infringement on someone’s right to life. After all, an amendment has to have the states consent. I think he is trying to apply this argument of federalism here to allow him to use the same argument for the marriage amendment initiative. Also, it seems as though Fred’s federalist underpinnings run along a pick-and-choose basis. He still has yet to explain how his federalism allows him to support and vote for CFR. That effectively curtailed a level of free political speech, without the kind of national support that would be required for an amendment to the constitution in regards to abortion. So how can a federalist support a law enacted by a vote of a simple majority , limiting free speech, and yet not support an amendment to the Constitution, utilizing the amendment processes put in place by the original federalists, to protect a right he admittedly believes is being violated?
Weight of Glory on November 4, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Or to keep them legal. which is the point of federalism. States decide – the citizens of that state decide.
lorien1973 on November 4, 2007 at 2:26 PM
You said it well
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 2:26 PM
He’s consistent, sorry Tim Russert.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/04/video-fred-thompson-on-mtp-says-he-doesnt-support-the-human-life-amendment/
thesheesh on November 4, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Wrong link above
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5a_Fpu_8KE
thesheesh on November 4, 2007 at 2:29 PM
I agree. I like Federalism for that point. Get the feds OUT of areas they do not belong. The farther from the people government gets the worse it gets.
Personaly I think the surest way to end 90% of abortions is to require all women see sonograms or ultrasounds. Let them SEE and most will RUN out of the clinincs!
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Very consistent. Look Thompson says that Roe v Wade SHOULD be overturned. THAT is the ONLY way to ban abortions frankly. If that is done states can then address it with legislation.
Like I said before I strongly disagree with Fred on banning abortions. I think, if the laws are written well, they OUGHT to be passed in states once Roe is overturned. But, ultimately, Thompson is trying to get to the same place as social cons are.
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 2:37 PM
I would love to see a Repub. candidate use federalism to support the elimination of the NEA, EPA, etc. It doesn’t have to be an argument only for abortion and gay marriage. I hope Fred uses it for many many many elements of Federal overreaching.
Weight of Glory on November 4, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Thanks. Means a lot.
Is that an Apache Helicopter on your blog?
CrimsonFisted on November 4, 2007 at 2:39 PM
The pro-life people are almost, although not quite, as bad as the pro-abortion lobby. They won’t be satiated unless you block an abortion clinic. He has just doomed himself. I think most Americans are somewhere in middle.
SouthernGent on November 4, 2007 at 2:41 PM
CrimsonFisted on November 4, 2007 at 2:39 PM
A friend made that for me. It is HIGHLY offensive to Leftists, so I delight in using it.
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 2:41 PM
AMEN!
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 2:43 PM
I am a social conservative and I support leaving social decisions to the States.
Jay on November 4, 2007 at 2:44 PM
I watched the interview and he didn’t shoot himself in the foot. He wants to turn it back to the States. Fine by me.
Limerick on November 4, 2007 at 2:45 PM
I just don’t get it!
Hasn’t the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is constitutionally legal? What difference does it make what Fred or any other candidate thinks? There is not a damn thing ANY of them can do. The only thing that can change the original ruling is for the court to reverse it’s decision. People on each side of this issue make it sound like their candidate, if elected, can waltz into office and change the court ruling. Unless I am missing something that cannot happen. So why would any person vote for or against any candidate based on this one issue? There are a helluva’ lot of other important issues that a president can actually do something about. Why not vote for a candidate based on issues he/she can do something about?
What am I missing here?
OBX Pete on November 4, 2007 at 2:55 PM
The President can appoint Supreme Court judges who CAN overrule this stupid decision. That is why it is so important.
CrimsonFisted on November 4, 2007 at 2:56 PM
I find it uplifting actually. Nothing in the air like an Apache!
CrimsonFisted on November 4, 2007 at 2:57 PM
I’m pro-abortion–not exactly pro-choice–and I strongly support an overthrow of Roe v. Wade and returning the question to the states. I believe that returning abortion to the states will result in several states making abortion illegal or next to illegal. The result will be heavy blowback against the “pro-life” position. It’s too easy to be “pro-life” when it has no real consequences.
thuja on November 4, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Russert queried Thompson on the Human Life Amendment and whether he supports it or not. He doesn’t. He favors letting states set abortion law
Great. Does he favor letting aggravated assault laws “up to the states”? He just lost my support.
Darth Executor on November 4, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Err, that second sentence is part of the quote too.
Darth Executor on November 4, 2007 at 3:09 PM
But isn’t murder illegal in all 50 States? That’s what I meant.
Damian G. on November 4, 2007 at 3:10 PM
I hope we all appreciate the HUGE benefits of a federalist in the White House. I watched the show and thought Fred’s answers were very good.
Folks, he’s the absolute best we’re going to get this election cycle. Let’s get behind him and win in ‘08. He’ll crush Hitlary in a way that none of the other elephants can. Even our resident Fred haters (fraters?) need to be practical and realistic for the upcoming election. Now it the time for unity. We can bitch and moan AFTER Fred gets elected and that’s fine by me.
Mojave Mark on November 4, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Fred is RIGHT. If Oregonians want to legalize live sex shows, and they have, South Carolinians should be able to outlaw abortion.
JustTruth101 on November 4, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Fred’s position is almost as strong as one could practically support. A human life amendment that bans all abortions couldn’t get get two-thirds of each house of Congress or three-quarters of the state legislatures within 7 years.
Assuming Roe were overturned, and if it went to the states you would have 50 different definitions of when life began. Most current pro life legislators would likely not support a life begins at conception position. The legal definition for what constitutes a “human being” would become more granular.
dedalus on November 4, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Murders are tried BY THE STATE not the Feds, because a STATE LAW was broken.
Unless it’s a multiple state/serial killer, the state handles all murder trials.
omnipotent on November 4, 2007 at 3:34 PM
The conservatives must make up their mind – either they are for federalism or not. Federalism can’t make an exception for the HLA. The Schiavo case was the beginning of the end for the conservatives and paying the consequences has barely begun. The families and the state of FL should have resolved it, either way. It wasn’t any of Congress’ or Mr. Bush’s business to intervene. And Hillary and hers stood silently by, the chameleon lizzards, so they can take any side of the issue, when it’s convenient.
I admire Mr. Thompson for standing for something. Isn’t the opposite what the conservatives belabor the most about the slick Clintons?
If Hillary can’t get away with “Don’t attack me because I have a vagina” (note that I didn’t call it whatever the View called it), while claiming to wish to lead the free world, then the conservatives can’t be selective on such important matters either.
Entelechy on November 4, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Considering the positions of Giuliani and McCain, no.
Considering the position of Romney, it makes him about even.
Lawrence on November 4, 2007 at 3:38 PM
To answer someone’s much earlier question, I didn’t see anyone else handling it, the substantive difference between Fred’s position and Rudy’s position … really between Fred’s position and everyone ELSE’s position is that Fred wants to return the question to the States. Rudy wants to keep it legal at the federal level, Romney et. al. want to ban it at the federal level. Fred, as far as I know, and I highly encourage someone disproving this point with video/audio of another candidate, is the only candidate that thinks the States should be the ones to decide whether or not to ban it.
apollyonbob on November 4, 2007 at 3:39 PM
unhinged Fred bashing BradinKY post in 3…2…1…
I totally agree with Fred on this and this is the main reason I would support him. My minds not made up… but I can’t help feel that the further away the government gets from the people they serve, the worse the service gets and the greater the opportunity for tyranny. That is why I hate the UN and those that want to give it more power.
The more responsibility you take away from local governments the more impotent they become. Just look at the local response to Katrina. Then they just blame it on the Federal Gov’t.
Fred had me at “A governent powerful enough to give it’s people everything is powerful enough to take it all away”. I just wish he had that “follow me” fire in his eyes like Rudy or Huckabee. Hell, I’d take Ron Paul over any democrat (other than Lieberman).
BadBrad on November 4, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Fred Thompson is lying.
He’s a coward using the cover of “federalism” to avoid taking a stand. It’s simple. If a Presidential candidate is really a federalist, he would call for abolishing the EPA, the Department of Energy, Education, Health and Human Services , etc …
corona on November 4, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Rather than a substantive difference, that’s a distinction without a difference. Neither would be in a position to effect change at the federal level until and unless he gets a majority on the Supreme Court. Neither will be able to get a judge confirmed who promises ahead of time to overturn Roe v Wade (or to prefigure any other significant decision), or has any demonstrable inclination to be an “activist” conservative rather than, at most, a passive strict constructionist.
From a purely pragmatic perspective, Rudy probably has a marginally better chance of getting his nominees treated with slightly less suspicion, but the next Supreme Court nomination is likely to be a battle royale regardless of who’s president. It may make Bork or Thomas look like a Hot Air comments slapfight.
Otherwise, neither supports HLA. Each claims to be personally against abortion. Each voices discomfort with the idea of criminalizing abortion. Each expresses comfort with the idea of pro-choicers making their possibly bad decisions as long as those decisions remain within (as-adjudicated) Constitutional limitations.
So what’s left other than empty symbolism at best, our guy vs your guy cultural and regional prejudices at worst?
CK MacLeod on November 4, 2007 at 3:59 PM
omnipotent’s response is a great one, but I have a further rejoinder.
Darth, by not supporting Fred Thompson returning the question to the states, you, and anyone else who thinks similarly, are in fact supporting two things:
1) Keeping abortion legal
2) Disallowing you to have any say in the matter
The evidence is obvious and simple, but allow me a brief moment to explain it. It is impossible that the HLA will ever get passed with a majority Democrat congress. It is also highly unlikely that 3/4s of States will support it. In fact, with a majority Democrat congress, it is unlikely that any change in the status quo will be made. Abortion will therefore continue to be legal. In addition, because the decision is made at a federal level, that heavily restricts the ability for an individual citizen to be able to have any say in what goes on. Can you just call up your Senator, or one of your Congressmen, and have a meeting with him/her? Can you just call their office and have your opinion mean anything to them? How many signatures would you have to gather for them to care? Also, even if you can talk to yours, it would mean little to the 98 other senators, or the 100s of other congressmen.
Now imagine it was at the state level. Would it be nearly as difficult for you to be personally involved? Would it be nearly as difficult to contact all the legislators involved? Nearly as difficult to conduct a letter-writing campaign or email campaign?
This is the purpose behind Federalism. The closer the power gets to your local level, the more voice you have. The more you can do in order to effect positive change.
But by all means: give more power to the Federal government. Give more power to Congress. Give more power to Washington.
I mean, it hasn’t let you down yet, right? It hasn’t turned and backstabbed you yet, right? It’s totally trustworthy with both ultimate power and all your money, right? Right?
Yeah.
apollyonbob on November 4, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Just a general point on the whole Fred Thompson appearance on MTP…
Am I the only one here who thought that Thompson came off very poorly? It seemed to me he was unwilling to take a stand on any of the issues/questions that Tim Russert raised. He would give 60-90 second answers to Russert’s questions that imparted no information whatsoever. I realize Russert is not exactly a friendly reporter, but he’s going to be “nicer” to Thompson than another GOP candidate or Hillary would be.
Sorry, but I was very underwhelmed by Thompson’s appearance overall. The guy reminds me too much of Grandpa Simpson.
Outlander on November 4, 2007 at 4:01 PM
I don’t know how else to explain it except one supports a Federalist position and one supports an anti-Federalist position. If you think those two things are “pragmatically” the same, I don’t know what I can say except, “You are incorrect.”
But I mean, vote your conscience, etc.
apollyonbob on November 4, 2007 at 4:03 PM
That’s a fairly amusing bit of perfidy there. Like RonPaul much, do ya?
Tennman on November 4, 2007 at 4:06 PM
I’m quite sympathetic towards abolishing the Department of Energy, Education, & HHS, but the idea of abolishing the EPA strikes me as a refusal to think about the issues involved. Pollution and some other environmental issues need to be addressed at fairly high levels to avoid free rider problems. It’s a pity that the United Nations belongs to Sauron, because really we should be addressing some environmental problems there. Alas, an even marginally sane UN is not for this world. We’ll just have to do it at the level of the national level of the North American Union.
thuja on November 4, 2007 at 4:20 PM
HAHA!!
Yeah he should rant and rave about the EPA and Department of Education so he can jon hands with Ron Paul.
Its calle dpolitics simpleton, one step at a time. Once the nation accepts Federalsim, sees the impact of Roe vs. Wade dying sees the impact of charter schools improving education, sees the technology reducing enviromental harm, then you can start to use the concept of Federalism even more.
Selling out for isolationism, the cutting of sacred cow departments of the government, instead of having a sound platform and an incremental plan to make that happen is assinine.
Theworldisnotenough on November 4, 2007 at 4:20 PM
It is inspiring isn’t it?
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Aggravated assault laws are NOT federal, each state has laws on that.
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 4:28 PM
I have not been on board with Fred yet. He just hasn’t convinced me of his sincerity on this issue.
The very last thing he said about seeing his daughter on the sonogram….just convinced me.
Rightwingsparkle on November 4, 2007 at 4:34 PM
“Dust Bunny” is officially a non-issue for the nomination.
1) He lied to a pro-life group when he said he was, and always has been pro-life. He is exactly what I have been saying he is for 7 months. A pro-choice federalist. The only difference is that he now admits it.
2) That really wasn’t a revelation, and neither is the meandering obfuscation in the other answers he gave to TR. He was so-so on Pakistan, but then he turned around and said prior to Patraeus, our generals didn’t know what they were doing. I call BS. He also said we were losing the war at the end of 06. More BS. We were at a stalemate.
3) Tim nailed him on several issues in the first 20 minutes. “What’s a dollar?” said the terrorists were just kids with IED’s. Bin Laden is a symbol. And the cherry on top was his meandering crapola answer about Iran. He said it was a very difficult, difficult, difficult, difficult, difficult, difficult, difficult, difficult situation. Then finally refused to say what he would do when he was the one that claimed there would be consequences if we struck Iran’s nuke sites.
Fred is a coward. He runs to this federalist mantra whenever he wants to pull a Hillary “now you see me, now you don’t” shtick. Stick a fork in him. “What’s a dollar?” the “Dust Bunny” is done. I wonder if his wife has that $8 million spent already?
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Contrary to popular belief, overturning Roe v. Wade will not mean that the States can regulate abortion as they see fit.
Since Roe, there have been numerous Supreme Court cases which permit the federal government to regulate anything remotely connected to economics, and the regulation of abortion providers would be permitted. Congress could explicitly legalize abortion under such a mandate. Think of Congress’s power over drug policy – despite several attempts to legalize pot, the federal law outlawing it continues to trump state law.
Legally, to prevent abortion in one state verses another, not only would Roe have to be overturned, but also either a federal law would have to be passed that specifically permits the states to regulate abortion as they see fit, or the Supreme Court would have to pull back from its recent case law permitting Congressional regulation in nearly every economic sphere and explicitly say that abortion policy was a matter for the states.
Or, a human life amendment could be passed which would bypass all of that. Either way, abortion policy is much more entrenched than the single case of Roe.
Sydney Carton on November 4, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Fred is hardly a coward. He went 1 on 1 with Russert and gave complete answers to Tim Russert’s selective use of previous statements and writings by Fred, which, I believe, is entirely Russert’s prerogative.
Contrast Fred’s style and content with that of Hillary the other night… 180 degrees apart. Hillary couldn’t even give a straight answer on driver’s licenses for illegals for crying out loud. That was no curve ball question — Russert placed the ball on the T for her to hit and she whiffed. Fred, while perhaps in the view of some, didn’t hit a homerun, but easily knocked the ball for extra bases.
People in the media poo-poo this republican field of candidates. I think Fred, Rudy, Mitt and McCain are a hundred times more potent in content than all of the Democrats combined.
D2Boston on November 4, 2007 at 4:47 PM
If you feed the troll you know what will happen to this thread.
It will be all about him, which is what he wants.
Sammy316 on November 4, 2007 at 4:55 PM
I expect “Dust Bunny” to come out next week to insist that murder should be left up to the states. Lets also include rape, assault, and all other crimes.
The guy is hiding behind federalism because he IS a coward and doesn’t want to go all the way. He’s Ron Paul lite.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 4:59 PM
csdeven, my buddy, don’t make me go find your own comment whereby you claimed that Schiavo should have been left to FL do decide. Can’t play a Hillary on me, friend.
Entelechy on November 4, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Off Topic…..
I have no idea who you are talking about, but not one post in this thread went off topic until you decided to make your first and only comment.
Spare us will ya? It’s people like you who start the personal attacks.
I now return you to your regularlly scheduled topic.
That being the completely poor performance that “What’s a dollar?” gave on MTP. Life begins at birth but if the states want to legalize the murder of the unborn, well, that’s just absolutely fine by him.
JEEZE! He is one disgusting individual.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Waits patiently for answer…..
Sammy316 on November 4, 2007 at 5:13 PM
You want to line a healthy Schiavo up against a wall and shoot her? That is the comparison you’re making. We just don’t want a healthy Terry and she has become an inconvenience?-
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Dang. This was an outstanding thread!
Until about ten comments ago. Later, y’all.
wccawa on November 4, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Folks, you should know better than to argue with csdeven in a Fred thread. He only knows two things:
If you agree with him, you’re absolutely right.
If you disagree with him, you’re a Fred shill who licks Fred’s boots, and your disagreement means you are attacking him personally.
Do everyone a favor and don’t indulge him. He comes in only to feed his own Fred Derangement Syndrome.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Frederalism BABY!
TheSitRep on November 4, 2007 at 5:31 PM
csdeven,
I’d like a honest answer about this post. Is this post a result of temporary slip of mind or are you just trolling like other people claim or are really this stupid?
thuja on November 4, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Did I miss something? Did Russert ask Thompson about those various federal agencies, and did he defend them?
I’d be curious to any link you might have to something Fred said that supports and encourages those sorts of things.
DaveS on November 4, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Fred Thompson: “I’m personally pro-life and always have been, but given the possibility of a human life amendment, thats a bit too Pro-Life for me. It might cut into the money I get from the abortion lobby.”
Now, there is the practical matter than as long as at least 34 Democrats exist in the senate a human life amendment will never be passed, but this reeks to me of Fred being just another Johny-come-lately conservative who uses Federalism to avoid taking a position.
BKennedy on November 4, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Are you still beating your wife?
Serious answers require serious questions. Try again.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 5:42 PM
I don’t mind attacking him personally… I think he(?) is a very stupid person.
DaveS on November 4, 2007 at 5:43 PM
csdeven is the ANTI-FRED!. Fred’s position strikes me as emminently reasonable and that’s what we need in a President for today.
JimK on November 4, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Also, a lot of people seem to be confused here…
1) Rape IS “left up to the states”.
2) Murder IS “left up to the states”.
3) Assault IS “left up to the states”.
4) Etc.
The only time the feds get involved is when there are interstate or national security issues.
DaveS on November 4, 2007 at 5:45 PM
BINGO! Thank you.
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 5:57 PM
My point wasn’t a legal one. If by some miracle a state legalised aggravated assault do you seriously think the federal government wouldn’t interfere? State power in this matter is simply a formality. If a state decided that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness thingy wasn’t working for them and turned to anarchy they’d get smacked down harder than Bill Clinton at a beauty pageant.
1) I wouldn’t mind Fred starting with reverting the matter to the states, but I sure as hell don’t expect him ot just leave it like that, especially if he gets a chance to stop it at the federal level. You seem to think that because I want him to enact change at the federal level I don’t want him to do what he can, even if it is reverting the matter to the states. Picking one of the two was never the problem, because you don’t have to pick just one. You can pick the easier one now and wait to get the second as well if the chance comes. With Fred there is no waiting. If he thinks that because he gets one done he can go to sleep and vote against the other and keep my support, he’s sorely mistaken. Another issue I have with this is that I can’t stand people who think something is murder and have the balls to go on TV and say “well, I personally believe it’s wrong but I don’t have the right to enforce my morals on everybody else”. That’s Kerryesque pure refined BS. A man who won’t stand up to murder because of popular opinion should be cleaning toilets, not running for president.
2) No worries, if you don’t like my attitude you can rest assured that I’m still Canadian. I plan on moving to Alaska eventually but the odds of me having US citizenship by ‘08 are below 0 so Fred is safe from my wrath for now.
Darth Executor on November 4, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Enforcing it is left to the states. The issues themselves aren’t. Do you seriously think the federal government wouldn’t get involved if a state legalized rape? Gimme a break. This “power” is little more than a formality.
Darth Executor on November 4, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Here is the difference between Fred and Rudy on abortion, ready, here it comes:
_______________________________nothing__________________________
They both think Roe was wrongly decided, the both are pro-choice, they would both be fine if the states were permitted to decide the issue. Okay, there is one tiny difference. Rudy recognizes that Roe may have been wrongly decided, but after 30 years and after being upheld in Casey, Rudy could understand why even a conservative jurist might up hold the decision as precedent (but then Rudy has always had the better legal mind). Okay there it is.
How many evangelicals are going to threaten to start a third party. I better hear an up roar or I’m convinced he is getting a free ride from Southerners because of his accent. Don’t you hicks realize — he’s gonna take your illegal hooch from you. Federalist my but. Explain to me why moonshine is a federal question!!!
tommylotto on November 4, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Congratulations! You have, in one rambling, incoherent post, proven that no one should ever take anything you say seriously.
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Nice strawman arguement.
Come back to the real world.
omnipotent on November 4, 2007 at 6:22 PM
No, he didn’t ask him that I recall. But eliminating those agencies are the cornerstone of the federalist position. Being a federalist is like being pregnant. You just can’t be a little bit pregnant. “Dust Bunny” pushes his federalist position on abortion. He doesn’t have the stones to go after the rest of those agencies, because that puts him in the Ron Paul class.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 6:28 PM
It wasn’t a “have you stopped beating your wife” question as I did allow that you could have had a simple slip of the mind, as happens to everyone. At least, I know I have slips of the mind all the time. If you read your post carefully, the logically flaw in it should be quite clear. If you can’t figure out the issue, DaveS provides a major hint.
thuja on November 4, 2007 at 6:30 PM
I never heard of the Human Life Amendment. Did/does Bush support it? If so, how did he try to push it?
JiangxiDad on November 4, 2007 at 6:32 PM
I’ll try to decipher what you are trying to say here. Since “What’s a dollar?” has finally decided to take a stand here, there is very little difference between him and Rudy. Even if we give “Dust Bunny” an edge over Rudy in this area, he is way behind in many other areas.
1) Fred gave legal advice that terrorists used to avoid justice. Rudy to a very tough stand against a Saudi prince or someone like that.
2) Fred has been lying about his pro-choice position for months. Rudy was straight up front from the get go.
3) Fred has never run anything at all. Not a city, not a state, and not even a corner store.
He is the absolute WORST possible person to put up against Hillary. Period.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Ah, a troll needs feeding, but I will not do it.
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Why don’t you explain it? Then I can be sure I am responding to your comment in the context YOU mean. I am not having this conversation with DaveS.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 6:46 PM
That’s it. Please, ban this jerk.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2007 at 7:00 PM
I’m not sure how to explain it to Fred so he knows how absolutely vacuous he is when it comes to federalism. Lets take Fred’s statements in order…..
1) Life begins at conception.
The result is that abortion is in fact murder.
2) Fred is A-OK with legalized murder if done by the states.
The result is that the position Fred has taken is one that ALL crime should be left to the states.
Now, if Fred wants to hold the position that abortion should be left to the states, he should have said that life does NOT begin at conception, but at birth.
“Dust Bunny” explaining his positions is what I, and others have been waiting for since Fred started playing games with his announcement date. We could see that he was NOT an honest conservative and a liar.
I’m sure within the next couple of days, his wife will realize she gave him the wrong advice and he will be one step closer to being out of the race.
But then again, maybe this was the plan all along. Is he trying to scuttle his campaign so as to keep as much of his $8 million as possible? His problem may be that he had not counted on his supporters ignoring his obvious fakeries and his support hasn’t dwindled enough for him to quit without raising suspicion.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Okay smarty pants, if I’m so incoherent, why don’t you enlighten me. Explain to me how, other than Rudy’s recognition of the legal principal of precedent, these two differ on the issue of abortion? Let me guess, Rudy’s a Yankee RINO…
Also explain to me why such a consistent conservative federalist would spend most of his time as a US Attorney chasing toothless banjo playing moonshiners. Why should the feds care if a hillbilly enjoys hooch from his own still?
tommylotto on November 4, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Tell me why you cannot utter two sentences without slurring Southerners?
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 7:21 PM
The same reason a pot-head can’t enjoy smoking buds from his/her own plants. Its against the law.
Try again.
Sammy316 on November 4, 2007 at 7:21 PM
You think a prosecuter should NOT do his part to enforce laws? Why?
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 7:26 PM
But why would a federalist make either illegal? Why not leave it to the States? You try again.
Still waiting on the differences between Rudy and Fred on abortion… Since Fred has alway been with the pro-life crowd and Rudy is the anti-Christ I would assume the difference must be extreme.
P.S. I twist a pig’s ear cause its fun to hear it squeal.
P.P.S. I am a Southerner.
tommylotto on November 4, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Fred has a great record voting pro-life. Also he wants to change hearts and minds on it. He is using a different approach, and sticking with his federalit ideals.
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 7:32 PM
The US Attorney has huge discretion on which “crimes” he chooses to prosecute. Rudy decided to take on the mafia. Fred decided to take on Boss Hogg and the illegal stills. I’m just pointing out when given power and discretion what the two candidates decided to do with that power. Fred did not choose like a committed federalist.
tommylotto on November 4, 2007 at 7:34 PM
So you are saying a federal prosecutor should not enforce the laws on the books?
Try Again
Sammy316 on November 4, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Well said Sammy!
What is it that the troll feeders don’t understand here?
If you don’t feed the trolls they will die from lack of attention.
OBX Pete on November 4, 2007 at 7:36 PM
PM
They both enforced laws. You cannot remain consistent and honor one and bash the other.
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 7:38 PM
I watched the show and I though Fred did well here, he came the closest to core Constitutional Conservatism of any candidate thus far.
I don’t see Rudy running for the cut government down to size button.
Tim Russert wasn’t such a jackass, I wonder if the ration of crap he’s been getting from Hillary supporters has him feeling a bit burned.
Speakup on November 4, 2007 at 7:44 PM
I certainly agree.
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Fred always falls back on that voting record nonsense. Exactly what votes are we talking about here? I do not recall there being a bill to outlaw abortions or anything really determinative while he was a Senator. What votes did he cast that Rudy would not have cast if he were a Senator?
Before you answer, which candidate recently said the following:
Yep, Rudy…
And do not say, I trust Fred on the issue and not Rudy. Rudy has been up front with his position all along. Fred raises 8 million as the right’s great southern knight, and now we finally learn that the rumors were true and he is pro-choice!!!!
tommylotto on November 4, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Thompson’s voting record
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=22003
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Most people do look at past voting records. The entire race is not just on the abortion issue, so voting records are important. So your argument is specious, at best. Obviously, you don’t know what we are talking about here. Fred Thompson has never been pro-choice. And just because Rudy is out in the open about being pro-choice, that is a reason to vote for him? Logic your name is not Tommylotto.
Neocon Peg on November 4, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Isn’t that the gig of a septuagenarian loon magnet from Texas?
jdkchem on November 4, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »