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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
You know, I really hate to see conservatives eating their own. The rabid Fred haters would rather have Hillary as President than Fred. The backbiting in our own party will be an end to us. I’m not a Fred supporter, in fact, I recently gave a lot of money to Duncan Hunter, who is my favorite. But to listen to people rabidly (there’s that word again) tear down a conservative rather than logically debate their differences boggles this gal’s mind. If any of the frontrunners (hopefully Duncan will move up!) gets the nomination, I will support them. I may not like them or they may not be my first choice, but I will support them, including candidates that the rabid Fred haters support.
Neocon Peg on November 4, 2007 at 8:14 PM
I’m pretty sure the issue for “What’s a dollar?” in relation to his federalist position, is that moonshining is prosecuted under federal law. Some states have specific laws against it, but I couldn’t find out if Tennessee does or not. But wasn’t “Dust Bunny” a federal prosecutor? It appears that he spent most of his time going after those moonshiners and not bank robbers and the like.
I don’t know that much about it and it may be that his move towards federalism began after this point in his history.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 8:14 PM
That is truly absolute moral authority.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 8:16 PM
No, that’s liberatarianism, not really the same, IMO. He hasn’t much chance with true conservatives because of his foreign policy/isolationism stance. That has been outdated since Jefferson sent the Marines to the shores of Tripoli.
Neocon Peg on November 4, 2007 at 8:20 PM
He is against a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion and against the criminalization of women, parents and doctors who choose to have an abortion. How is that not pro-choice???
And for his voting record, other than the partial birth ban, there is nothing very important in Fred’s voting record — other than his complete abandonment of his federalist principal. If it is an issue for the states, why did he vote for a FEDERAL ban on partial birth abortions. It is a state issue or not? What’s it gonna be Fred?
tommylotto on November 4, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Ron Paul is closer to the constitution than “What’s a dollar?” is. Fred is picking and choosing how much federalism he wants to go back to.
“Dust Bunny” is Ron Paul lite.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 8:22 PM
tommylotto, I would appreciate some links. I’m open minded, but I won’t accept anything just on some bloggers statement.
Same with you csdeven.
If ya’ll (that’s southern for you all) are going to assert something as fact, then I want facts to back up your assumptions.
Neocon Peg on November 4, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Rudy must be stopped
Indeed, Rudy has been consistent – consistently pro-abortion.
While saying he is personally opposed to abortion and thinks we should discourage it, he advocates every imaginable incentive for women to have them – discouraging laws requiring women to see ultra-sound images of their in utero babies before crushing their skulls, discouraging any cut in taxpayer funding of abortions and describing this hideous, abominable procedure as a “constitutional right.”
I don’t believe Rudy Giuliani is really personally opposed to abortion. I don’t think he cares a whit about unborn babies. And, even if I am misjudging his heart, it really doesn’t matter what he thinks. What matters is what he does, how he acts.
What would you think of someone who said he personally opposed slavery, would never own a slave himself, but fought fervently for the right of others to own slaves.
Would you believe that person is really opposed to slavery? Would you care that he was “personally opposed”? Would you grasp that this person was trying to have it both ways on one of the most crucial moral issues men can possibly ever face?
Here’s what Giuliani said in 2000 on the subject of banning partial-birth abortions: “I would vote to preserve the option for women.”
I believe that was the real Giuliani. That was a reflection of his heart and mind on this issue. He would preserve the option for women to kill their babies even at the very moment of delivery – when the child is “viable” in every sense of the word. This is a position even more extreme than the one taken by the muddled thinkers who gave us Roe v. Wade.
This is why I can never, under any circumstances, cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani as president, no matter whom he is running against.
He’s unfit. He’s immoral. He’s got no standard of right and wrong guiding him. His positions are indecent, disgusting and abominable.
If he can’t be trusted on a relatively simple issue of life and death, he can’t be trusted on anything in my book.
MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 8:32 PM
I used to think it would interesting to see if he avoided controversial abortion bills in order to appear squeaky clean on his voting record. It really isn’t a big deal now that he has admitted he’s been lying to us all.
He believes life starts at conception. A principled person would insist that the current acceptance of murdering unborn children be immediately considered out of the question. Just like murder of any other person is. Fred has painted himself into a corner. Well, he had already done it, but now he has done it on national TV. A lot of us haven’t been fooled by this clown for one single second, so our perception of him has been confirmed. That’s nice to know.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Fred’s right.
He doesn’t have to meet anyone’s demand about being 100% consistent in his approach about how much of a federalist he will be. He’s saying where he stands on one issue.
doufree on November 4, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Just a vary small sampling of Rudy on abortion, including partial birth abortion, aka infanticide:
February 6, 2000 -
George Will: “Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?”
Giuliani: “All of my positions are firm. I do not think it makes sense to be changing your position to be figuring out, well you have the liberal party here, you have the conservative party here”
And from the 1997 NARAL/NY PAC, Candidate Questionnaire:
Support for Medicaid funding of abortions without any restrictions? Yes.
Oppose legislation requiring parental notification or consent for minors to obtain an abortion? Yes.
Support OB/Gyn graduate training hospitals to require abortion training? Yes.
MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 8:42 PM
How do you come to that conclusion? That statement seems as if you think Fred is the only candidate that can beat Hillary. That just is not true.
I don’t believe Fred is an honest conservative. He lies. He gave legal advice that aided terrorists. He funneled campaign funds to his son. He lobbied against asbestos victims in favor of a unscrupulous company who exposed their employees to it.
As far as I know this was all done legally. But that isn’t the issue for me. The issue is the type of people and causes he chooses to get involved with. I know for a fact by the name calling that tommylotto gets for being a lawyer HERE ON THIS BLOG, the American people have a very poor opinion of lawyers. Even more so for lobbyists. And even more so for liars. And even more so for lobbyists and lawyers who get involved with dictators, people who blow airliners out of the sky, and funnel campaign funds to his family.
Those are not the actions of a principled person and the American people would pick Hillary over Fred all.day.long. because people are tired of the same old Washington insider values.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 8:47 PM
If Fred has painted himself into a corner, Rudolfo has hung himself on his own
umbilical cordpetard.MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Amen! Well said.
Neocon Peg on November 4, 2007 at 8:48 PM
csdevlin
You took my comment out of context. I SAID IF Fred were the chosen candidate, you would rather vote for Hillary than Fred. Your hatred for Fred makes that obvious. I did not say, and don’t put words in my mouth, that Fred is the only candidate that can beat Hillary. I would gladly vote for Romney or any other candidate that won the primary. Please try to keep up. This is beginning to get tedious.
Neocon Peg on November 4, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Okay, I tried, but I’m not feeding any more trolls. Common sense out the window. Vitrol, anger and just plain anti-conservatism is on a roll here via csdevlin.
Neocon Peg on November 4, 2007 at 8:57 PM
We’re not counting people who belong in straight jackets.
The unfortunate part is that like all popular off the wallites Ron Paul mixes in a dash of lovable originist with his rubber room, lamp shade antics.
Speakup on November 4, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Peg, we have been leaving the links for MONTHS and the result is always the same. I’m at the point that if someone REALLY wants the truth about a candidate they are going to support, they ought to go research him on their own. It never fails that the people we leave the links for start by attacking the source and not the factuality of the message.
They DO NOT want to see it Peg, and they cannot be forced to be reasonable about it. They give Fred a pass and skewer Hillary for the same thing. The LAT can skewer Fred and they are not a credible source. The LAT skewers Hillary and all of a sudden they have some integrity.
Then when Fred makes an obvious blunder, he automatically is doing on purpose to lure the other candidates into complacency. But when any other candidate does it, they are incompetent and inept. I have had MANY Fred supporters tell me that Fred doesn’t act in his TV show. He just shows up and is himself! THAT is insane!
You cannot reason with people that are that intellectually dishonest. When we do get them to engage us and the begin to be faced with the truth, they automatically begin with the name calling. OK, discussion over. The rabidness and fixation on us has gotten to the point that now we have people following us around from thread to thread attacking us and never making one single comment on the topic. You cannot deal with people like that. They have serious personality disorders.
So, I am not inclined to start down that path, but I will find a few and post them, but the rest are up to you. Give me a few hours.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 9:03 PM
I don’t belived that Rudolfo is as conservative as the Clintons.
*
This is rather strange. Csdevin and I both support Romney, so you might think that we would have at least somewhat similar positions on Fred and Rudolfo, but CS can not stomach Fred and I can not stomach Rudlfo. Go figure.
MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 9:06 PM
True, however the bulk of the comments from the “loons” revolves around the “constitutional cred” of the septuagenarian loon magnet. To the point of being a cult.
jdkchem on November 4, 2007 at 9:08 PM
OK, whose standards does he have to meet? I gather from your response the potential voter doesn’t have a right to demand to know if he is consistent or not. If not the voter then who? And I don’t really think we want to ignore ANY candidates past in favor of what they say today. If that were the case, they could say anything they want and DEMAND that we believe them.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 9:09 PM
The only defense I have for Rudy over this issue is that he is consistently pro-choice. Well, I’m not a single issue guy. The most important thing for me is to deny the dems the presidency for the good of this country. I do have a squeal point on Rudy as I am concerned about his stance on the 2nd and most importantly what kind of justices he will appoint and if he’ll go to the mattresses for them.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Bryan, AP, Michelle…
Can you please give us an ignore button?
Much obliged.
wccawa on November 4, 2007 at 9:20 PM
This is what you said…..
We are not in the general election season. We are debating the primary. If you meant the general you should have said so. A if you are gonna accuse me of actually pulling the lever for Hillary, you ought to just say so. BUT, if you’d bother to ask me who I will vote for in the general, I would have told you and you wouldn’t be making assumptions that are false.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Once Roe is overturned, then states can ban it! What is wrong with people? Does anyone honestly believe we can get an Amendment to ban it outright everywhere? No way! They had a vote last Nov up in one of the Dakota’s, banning Abortion except in cases of the mother’s life. It didn’t pass and the Dakota’s are as pro-life as Alabama where I live. OK! Get it! We have to get it back to the states where we can finally have a real debate.
sophiesmom on November 4, 2007 at 9:23 PM
I think he could be relied upon to deliver. He will likely want to get reelected and to renege on that promise means certain defeat. For those who “will stay home rather than vote for Rudy” if a majority of Republicans nominate him in the primaries I would ask what they think Hillary will do in a second term? Be more moderate? 4-5 SC choices may be made by the next president (assuming they go two terms).
Those who elect to stay home to protest a Rudy candidacy will have effectively ceded the Roe V Wade opinion as the law of the land for good. And that is only the Roe issue – a wide variety of societal issues will be influenced longer than most of us will outlive.
Bradky on November 4, 2007 at 9:24 PM
EXACTLY!
Gatordoug on November 4, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Not with this one. Allowing States the right to vote on the issue would prevent many abortions. No one would need to abandon the Human Life Amendment push if we overturned RoevWade, either.
Dork B. on November 4, 2007 at 9:26 PM
I am actually pro choice myself, to a point, like maybe three months, TOPS and for those under 18 only with parental approval, not just notification. I consider late term partial birth abortion to be flat out murder.
MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Why do you spell my handle “cs devlin”? What is the purpose? I don’t see how it gives your argument any validity. Is it part of your argument or are you honestly spelling it wrong?
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Even if a Republican wins the Presidency in 2008, the democrats will have a majority in the Senate, due to various factors very likely a pretty fair one, so no Republican will be able to get anything like an Alito or Roberts confirmed.
MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 9:31 PM
I spelled it csdevin in MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 9:06 PM. Just inadvertent.
MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 9:35 PM
I always thought it was the abortion issue but it seems I am more pro-life than you are.
I place a very high value on honesty. I know Fred is the worst out there and I believe Rudy is what he says he is. He knows the abortion issue might do him in, but so far he has stuck to his guns.
It is strange that since we both like what we see in Mitt, that we don’t have the same general likes in the other candidates we feel good about. But, you and I, as far as I can remember, have never resorted to insulting each other. You have never started it with me and I have never started it with you. But I have noticed that we are similar in other areas. Once some one starts the attacks on you, you generally finish them.
Well, heres to us and discussing the topic instead of personalities.
Peace and cheers!
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 9:39 PM
I am so sorry! It was an honest spelling mistake! mia culpa! I’ll go type it a hundred times till I get it right – csdeven, csdeven…
Neocon Peg on November 4, 2007 at 9:42 PM
I can understand having an “I” in there. She has added an “L” and an “I” in there and I am not sure why.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Fair enough.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 9:44 PM
I think he will deliver also. I understand the stay home mentality, but I don’t think they fully appreciate the consequences of a dem candidacy. Especially if their issue is abortion. The ONLY way it is going to be over turned is through the courts. They balled it up and they are the ones to untangle it. But we can’t do that, like you point out, if the dems get two or more liberals on the bench. The pro-life cause will be set back by 20 years at least because those justices will have to retire and we would have to have a rep in the white house to nominate constitutional justices.
This election is the most important election for unborn children in recent memory. We finally are getting rid of the liberals and thanks to Bush, we have two new conservative justices.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 9:58 PM
But then how can you be for Rudy? The partial birth, aka infanticide, is the killer for me, no pun intended. OK, well maybe a little bit intended.
Hitler and Amanutjob were/are very honest too though. Not to equate Rudy to them, but honesty is not always all that it is cracked up to be.
I have no personality. I am the Borg!
MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Well that and his sanctuary city mayor “gig” and the way he has said that he doesn’t think that illegal is any kind of crime and the way he picked and unpicked people for government positions when he was mayor and his choices like Kerik and Chertoff and Placa and Carbonetti and well just a$$ kissing yes men in general and driving the good ones like Bratton and Miller out and the way he treated his now ex wifes and his kids. To me he has a very disturbing and even dangerous personality type. Probably even worse the the HildaBeasts™. I actually started out liking him OK a few months ago, but as I have “pealed the onion” more and more the more he smells.
MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 10:17 PM
You are consistent in that you always misrepresent Rudy’s position. Cite where he is pro partial birth abortion. He is not.
tommylotto on November 4, 2007 at 10:18 PM
It’s a matter of practicality. If it’s between Rudy and any other rep candidate, I support the one that polls best against the dems. My bottom line is keeping the dems out and I believe Rudy is more conservative than and of the dems. As much as I detest abortions, doing anything that helps the dems win means more abortions than if Rudy is in.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Agreed. While he may be good on terrorism, he scares me on domestic issues. You also make a good point of those he picks and unpicks, like Kerik and Jerkoff. Jerkoff is one man I don’t want to ever see again once Bush is gone. He is a total idiot and in need of a psyc exam.
Neocon Peg on November 4, 2007 at 10:26 PM
csdeven
What happened to your support of Romney? I like him way more than I like Rudy.
Neocon Peg on November 4, 2007 at 10:28 PM
I agree with Fred. It should be over turned, and it should revert to the states. By doing so, quite a few states WILL over turn it. I believe this would then put considerable pressure on those states that would still have it to get rid of it.
91Veteran on November 4, 2007 at 10:34 PM
From Rudy’s website:
tommylotto on November 4, 2007 at 10:36 PM
I am looking at both Rudy and Mitt. While Rudy is in the lead in head to heads with Hillary, I have to wait a while to see if Mitt can gain some ground on her. If he can, then he will be the main guy that I will support.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Seeing as social conservatives these days are more hardcore conservative than…..well, Christ himself……..I’d say, more than likely, yes.
Vyce on November 4, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Curious
I’m for Rudy and anyone but Fred
MB4 is for Mitt and anyone but Mitt
csdeven if for Mitt and anyone but Fred
In all honesty, Fred’s position as he stated on MTP is very similar to my own. However, I have a problem with his honesty about his position. He is pro-choice and real not much different from Rudy, but he claims to be a consistent conservative and pro-life. He is not. It is symptomatic of every thing I hate about the guy. He relies on the ignorance of his followers. He can spew the same position as Rudy but mumble something about federalism and, wha la, he is pro-choice. He has never been true about his prior positions, why would we expect him to be true about his current positions?
tommylotto on November 4, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Deja Vu all over again.
- You know who I hope
One of so many examples:
February 6, 2000 -
George Will: “Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?”
Giuliani: “All of my positions are firm. I do not think it makes sense to be changing your position to be figuring out, well you have the liberal party here, you have the conservative party here”
I still think that you may be Rudolfo’s madre.
MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 10:57 PM
And Rudy is better because he is out in the open about his pro-choice stance? How is that different from Fred, Tommy? Oh, I get it, honesty! According to you, Fred and Rudy both believe the same thing about abortion, but you would vote for Rudy because he was HONEST about it. Pretty pathetic, IMHO. Where did you leave your conservative values?
Neocon Peg on November 4, 2007 at 11:02 PM
That is the way he spins it now and the life (social life, “mental health life”, whatever) can always be said to be a stake. You may believe him, but I believe my “lying eyes” that can read all the things he has said before. I may have been born at night, but it was not last night.
Yet another tibbit rerun:
from the 1997 NARAL/NY PAC, Candidate Questionnaire:
Support for Medicaid funding of abortions without any restrictions? Yes.
What does the man have to do, perform a partial birth abortion himself right in front of you? Ten of them? A hundred of them?
MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 11:05 PM
In an advance response to the obvious ‘But this was years ago’ here is what Giuliani said in april 2007 on CNN: In 1989, Rudy stated “there must be public funding of abortions” and criticized President George H.W. Bush for vetoing federal funding for abortions. Asked by CNN if this remains his position, he said: “Probably … Generally, that’s my view.” When asked, “Would you support public funding for abortion?” Rudy answered, “If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes.” Ultimately, he said that if it’s a constitutional right, you have to provide public funding to make sure poor women can do it.
~~~~
So, the man who now says he supports the Hyde amendment, only last April said he thought public funding of abortion was a constitutional right.
~~~~
Rudy’s views and Fred’s views are not really similar.
MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 11:10 PM
It’s even more easy, with less consequences, for those who want the ability to kill a child because it is inconvenient.
91Veteran on November 4, 2007 at 11:14 PM
If Iraq and terrorism fade as a political issue. Corruption could rise as an issue. If that is the case, is Fred the best candidate to champion the Republican cause?
bnelson44 on November 4, 2007 at 11:18 PM
I agree 100% with Fred. This should NOT be a Constitutional amendment. We should not be trying to amend the Constitution every time we turn around.
Warner Todd Huston on November 4, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Probably not the best, but then Rudy would be far worse. His whole NYC admin was a textbook case in cronyism corruption. Hillary’s jackals have probably already got volumes ready to have third parties “reveal”. As far as I know Mitt would be good.
MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Actually, when asked if he would think it was good to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, Rudy said “It’d be okay.”
Rudy believes that it is a bad decision but also says he believes in not overturning Supreme Court decisions very often and only with great gravity, so he’s on the fence about Roe being overturned.
Fred said that Roe is a bad decision and should be overturned.
That’s a big difference.
Still, it’s pretty useless anyway as no President has much power on the abortion issue EXCEPT in the realm of nominating Supreme Court Justices… and I believe both Fred AND Rudy would nominate the kind of Justices Conservatives want and the Court should have.
That is why any of the big Republicans are better than Hillary by a millions years – none of them can do much about abortion except where it comes to Justices, and the next President will probably nominate 2 – 4 Justices.
So Republicans MUST win this one. Even if it’s Rudy, if you pro-Lifers sit out the vote(I’m pro-Life as well), then you are being idiots because the Supreme Court could be remade for two generations by this next President – then no politician or individual pro-Life President can help you.
daviddunn on November 4, 2007 at 11:27 PM
How many o’de times do ah’ done got’ss t’be tollin’ ya’ sucka’ss, de dimobrats are audi-fivein’ t’controlin de Senate. What it is, Mama!
MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 11:34 PM
I said/claimed no such thing. Please don’t distort.
Entelechy on November 4, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Heh, who’re you kidding?
Entelechy on November 4, 2007 at 11:45 PM
I agree there. Rudy is strong on terrorism but if that is not a big issue (or maybe not the biggest issue) in the General, he may not be the best choice.
bnelson44 on November 4, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Would we kid you?
MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 12:02 AM
I wasn’t trying to, but you cannot compare her situation with the aborting of unborn babies that are being aborted out of convenience.
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 12:11 AM
I never did that either. I think we’re not on the same wavelength today. Sorry,
Entelechy on November 5, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Good point.
…
I seem to have fallen behind on my Hot Air vernacular, what does this “What’s a dollar?” phrase mean?
Weebork on November 5, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Today, I learned not only that there was a word spelled “septuagenarian” but also there was a meaning to it.
Weebork on November 5, 2007 at 12:25 AM
FREDeralism has arrived. Finally a guy who can engage Tim Russert and navigate a whole host of tough questions with coherent responses. We’ve found our candidate for ‘08.
Mojave Mark on November 5, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Fred should know:
Life begins when the phone rings.
profitsbeard on November 5, 2007 at 1:25 AM
Federalism won’t mean a thing either way unless we unite strategically against the socialists, I mean the Democrats. All this in-fighting among ourselves worries me…
Halley on November 5, 2007 at 3:06 AM
That says it all. If congress did pass the HLA, it would never get ratified within seven years. If the SCOTUS had all the liberals on it resign or die tomorrow, and Dubya got all his appointees approved next week, at best only a few states would pass their own version of the HLA. A few babies would be saved, but those mothers able to travel to “progressive states” would still be able to kill their children.
No reason in this interview to stop supporting the front running conservative in the Republican race.
Texas Nick 77 on November 5, 2007 at 3:51 AM
Another csdeven/tommylotto/BKenededy, etc. name they made up to annoy anyone who doesn’t support Fred. It, too, has gotten old hat around here. I won’t mention the other one they ran into the ground.
Texas Nick 77 on November 5, 2007 at 3:54 AM
Oops, that should read “they made up to annoy anyone that supports Fred…”
Texas Nick 77 on November 5, 2007 at 3:56 AM
Not the ones I’ve talked to. Most of them would be happy with State-level granularity.
Mark Jaquith on November 5, 2007 at 5:49 AM
Agreed, Mark. It won’t be a problem with me, but it will with the radical abortionists.
Jaibones on November 5, 2007 at 6:44 AM
“What’s a dollar?” is a reference to a blank stare on Fred’s face when he was asked about the strength of the US dollar. It happened in the last debate. He reminded me of Ralphie (Christmas Story) when he finally sat on Santa’s lap and couldn’t remember what a football was.
“Football? Football? What’s a football?”
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 7:03 AM
Try to keep in mind that this is the primary season. We are vetting our candidates and regardless of the vitriol now, most of us, except for a few single issue voters who will stay home or vote 3rd party, will be supporting whoever the nominee is. That includes me if Fred is the candidate on the rep side. I am disgusted by Fred, but he’s better than any dem.
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 7:07 AM
Please don’t. I couldn’t remember it and that is why I came up with “Dust Bunny” yesterday.
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 7:09 AM
No worries there, friend.
I, too, will vote Republican next year, regardless of the nominee. I know we will vote for different candidates in the primaries, but we will cast identical POTUS votes in the general. I just hope that all of us can do that. The damage that a third klinton admin would do to the country would take a generation to undo.
“The scariest two words in the USA should be, ‘Madam President.’”
Texas Nick 77 on November 5, 2007 at 7:24 AM
If we passed an Amendment every time a liberal judge tried to re-write the Constitution, it would be ten thousand pages long by now.
As Albert Einstein once said: the only truly inexhaustible resource in the Universe is human stupidity. Collectivists will NEVER run out of re-interpretations of what Stalin rightly called “mere words.” We can pass a million Amendments, and those among us who want compassionate dicatorship will simply think of ten million more rationalizations to get around them.
As the Framers understood, the best we can possibly hope to do is limit the scope of the federal government – to substitute the lesser evil of states’ errors for the greater evil of federal errors.
That might not be a solution the Care Bears would like, but it’s the only one that can possibly WORK in the REAL WORLD to allow local self-governance and a strong central government to co-exist. And, for the first time in twenty years, we finally have a serious Presidential candidate who understands what every grade schooler use to be taught.
logis on November 5, 2007 at 7:34 AM
I think your very strange reference to “What’s a dollar?” is, sadly, your lack of understanding of the advantage in trade of a weaker dollar. The question was phrased as a gotcha, the kind of gotcha that comes out of left field. When I was in forensics, we called that a squirrel. If you understand economics, you’d know that the question should have been phrased, “How do you maintain the balance between wanting a strong dollar for buying power and a weaker dollar for stronger exports?”
When you ask a half a question, it’s hard to come up with a half an answer that doesn’t make one look all that smart — unless as a viewer, you know that the question is a gotcha.
Instead of trying to be inventive in invective, maybe you could try to extrapolate out what you call the vetting process and actually weigh in on a candidates strengths and weaknesses. But I know that’s asking too much, my friend, at this stage of the game.
Tennman on November 5, 2007 at 7:38 AM
MB4,
The Democrats control the Senate, yes, but I don’t see how this changes my argument.
1. If Democrats control the Senate and we get Hillary, we are very likely to get Justices like Ginsburg again. Even if Republicans break precedent here and filibuster, which is a big if for these weak-kneed Republican Senators, we are still going to get a much more liberal Justice out of Hillary than we would out of a Republican President. If the Democrats nominate somebody they can even remotely frame as palatable, which really means very liberal, then we will not block it.
2. If Democrats control the Senate we still may get good Conservative Justices on the court. Dems did not filibuster either Alito or Roberts, even though they easily could have. I don’t think they have the stomach to do that, as filibustering a Supreme Court Justice is a very big deal that I’m not sure they want to get bogged down in, and barring a “Bork” we may just be able to rest on tradition and get Justices like Robert and Alito in an up-or down vote as some Democrats still see such appointments as a President’s prerogative.
At the very least, we’ll get wishy-washy Justices in the O’Connor mold, which isn’t great, but is still much better than liberal.
Republicans are far less likely to filibuster a liberal Justice than we want, as they are way more given to upholding Senate traditions and most still see judicial appointments as a President’s prerogative, barring something really weird. That’s why we voted in Ginsburg with the Democrats 96-3 or whatever it was.
If we let Hillary win, we’re screwed on the court, plain and simple. If we elect ANY Republican from this field, we’re almost certainly gonna be much better off and we may yet squeeze in a real winner.
The Supreme Court remains the issue Conservatives should focus on to unite. None of this abortion stuff matters one whit, and won’t for thirty years, if the Court turns liberal.
daviddunn on November 5, 2007 at 8:41 AM
One more thing about the Court, MB4… Yes, Republicans will probably not be able to take back the Senate in ‘08, but why do we only look there? With the power of incumbency a President is more likely than not to serve a full eight years, and who’s to know what the political winds will bring in that time?
Perhaps not this time, but what if Republcans take back the Senate in 2010 or 2012?
This just adds to my arguments above – even with a Democrat Senate, the President’s Supreme Court picks matter. A lot. And we may not have a Democrat Senate the whole time anyway.
The Supreme Court is THE issue we should be focused on to unite the Republican party.
daviddunn on November 5, 2007 at 8:45 AM
I wasn’t fooled by the question and my first response wasn’t to repeat the question in order to buy more time.
When we look at how “What’s a dollar?” performs in other venues where he has to speak without benefit of preparation, he does the same exact thing. He obfuscates and meanders around until he has spewed some much BS the original question is lost.
The guy was completely confused and it showed.
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 8:52 AM
I’ve given up on FDSdevin. The creature is so rabidly anti-Fred that I’ve had to replace two monitors dur to froth damage.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on November 5, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Huh? Federalism is, in part, what our Republic is built upon.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
eanax on November 5, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Umm, you’ll need to find that yourself.
Enlightenment comes from within. I’m sure, though, others would be glad to elucidate the issue more thoroughly.
That would be legal principle. The remainder of your comment is nonsensical.
eanax on November 5, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Show me one quote- past or recent- in which Rudy has supported Roe v Wade being overturned. In the debates, he gave an evasive answer in which he said he was “OK” with it being upheld or overturned.
Hollowpoint on November 5, 2007 at 11:04 AM
And how does that answer his questions? Could you expand on your answer?
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:04 AM
The first response was answered rather accurately and with breadth. Enlightment comes from within. If he wants someone to explain clearly and thoroughly what he doesn’t understand (elucidate), then I’m sure there are plenty on HA who are happy to do so.
My second response was pointing out how he did not use the term principle, as he wrote it, correctly. I thought it was funny considering the context of his “smarty pants” comment and his overall tone.
eanax on November 5, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Oh. So nothing you said was in relation to the thread topic?
My bad.
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:33 AM
All typos and snarkiness aside, you did avoid answering the question. This is a debate club, not a grammar club. If you are afraid to address the issues, your posts are pointless. You are a waste of bandwidth and storage space at Hot Air.
tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 11:36 AM
I don’t know about eanax just yet, but seems to be a badge of honor with a lot of these folks to engage in the childish school yard name calling.
I know for a fact that I’ve heard Rudy say that RvW was bad law, but because of precedent, he was comfortable with it’s ultimate resolution regardless. Please correct me if that’s in error.
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Here is his answer at the debate:
It was not evasive, maybe not his most artful response (actually maybe one of his worst), but it laid out his entire philosophy in a nutshell. If you view it in context you can see everything. He has on many occasions stated that he would appoint strict constructionist judges that do not legislate from the bench. There is no bigger example of legislating on the bench than Roe. Thus, he said it would be okay if Roe was overturned — that was him saying it was wrongly decided. However, then he says that even a conservative strict constructionist judge may view it as precedent. So, he would understand that after 30 years and already being upheld in Casey Roe may have already been enshrined as a cornerstone of Constitutional jurisprudence. But at the end, he summed up what his personal preference would be, “states can make their own decisions.”
Not Rudy at his best explaining his position, but wasn’t he getting struck by lighting bolts as he was talking? In any event, it’s the same federalist position staked out by Fred yesterday, just months earlier, and with a better understanding of Constitutional jurisprudence.
tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Pot meet kettle……..
doriangrey on November 5, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Saying it’s OK with him if it’s overturned or upheld is his way of saying it was wrongly decided??? Your torture of logic has gone waaay beyond waterboarding.
See, it’s real simple- he was given the opportunity to state “I believe Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned”, and he dodged. Yet we’re supposed to believe that someone who won’t give a straight answer regarding his opinion on Roe v Wade- someone who is in favor of keeping abortion legal- is going to appoint judges who would overturn it.
As you said, there is no bigger example of legislating on the bench than Roe. Yet Rudy has failed to clearly state his opinion that it was or was not correctly decided. Fred has consistantly and repeatedly stated that it was wrongly decided and should be overturned, so no- their posistions are not the same, because no one knows what Rudy’s position is since he refuses to say.
Since it would be in his interest to say that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned, and he hasn’t done so, I get the impression that he thinks it should be upheld; constitutionality be damned.
Hollowpoint on November 5, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Hey. Are you back home yet? Is everything ok?
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »