Reagan’s Michael Deavers Endorses Thompson

Sunday Telegraph ^ | Tim Shipman

[#1CTYankee]

If you have viewed the you tube link I have posted you can see where Thompson stands.

I'll break it down to this

The key phrase in Thompson’s answer is this one: “I do not believe that the federal government ought to be involved in that process.” That sentence is the summary of all he says next, and shows he is opposed to Roe v. Wade, which represented the federalization of what had been a state-level issue.

He then says he is opposed to federal funding for abortion and supports the states’ right to regulate abortion - both are federalist and pro-life positions - and he opposes the federal government criminalizing abortion. Again, a federalist answer.

Thompson’s entire answer is a very “federalist” - he believes abortion policy should be a matter for states rather than the federal government

This of course is the way things stood prior to the Roe vs Wade decision.

[Beagle8U]

When Fred Thompson talks, Chuck Norris and Jack Bauer listen!

[perfect_rovian_storm]

He’s speaking at the Lincoln Club on May 4th and will be on Leno that night. Soon enough? :)

[#1CTYankee]

I’m not so sure about Bauer, I think Jack listens to his hormones more than anything.

[ElkGroveDan]

Too bad they can get his name right — it’s Deaver.

[Beagle8U]

“I’m not so sure about Bauer, I think Jack listens to his hormones more than anything.”

Hormones? Get back with me when Jack Bauer is fathering children at Fred Thompson’s age.( With a hot wife no less)

[rogue yam]

Fred is doing just fine with his current strategy. The Rudy boosters are desperate for Fred to get in and draw attention away from Rudy's problems with abortion and his continued mention of his wife's possible future involvement in a Rudy administration.

I am one of the rare few FReepers who think FRed should stay out for at least another few weeks. Rudy is self-destructing. Why interfere? If FRed gets in now the 'Rat media will take the spotlight off of Rudy and start trashing FRed, allowing Rudy to avoid answering for his liberalism. Better to give Rudy plenty of time at center stage so that our core voters can see for themselves that he is unacceptable to us.

[#1CTYankee]

"( With a hot wife no less)"

Well that does make it easier doesn't it? ;-D

[Beagle8U]

There is just no way to compare a stud like Fred Thompson to a wimp like the “Mare” of nyc.

[streetpreacher]

With a name like “grannylinedancer”, I’m sure you’re supporting the only line dancer in the race.

[LS]

Fred is just doing ok, not great. Fred has stopped just short of actually TARGETING the Dems, and that's what it is going to take. No candidate can "dance around" the opposition the way Bush tried to do for six years. Romney had a chance to come out of the gate at C-PAC---he had the organization there and had the platform, and made a lukewarm speech on the WoT. (And I wasn't that impressed with Rudy at C-PAC, either but since that time he has kicked it into a different gear).

Make no mistake about the way the media will cover this. Anything short of 'naming names' is NOT going to generate any momentum. I hope Fred shifts gears very soon.

[LS]

People like you want to call "absurd" EVERY race where a conservative got his tail kicked (Burns, Talent, Allen, Santorum, De Wine, Blackwell, Hayworth, etc.). At some point, we see a pattern. For whatever reason, conservatives who "stuck to their principles" did no better at all than RINOs like Chafee last time out. So maybe what is perceived here as "ideology is what the people want" isn't all that accurate.

FWIW, and, of course I don't know anything about any of this (sarcasm) and have never worked on presidential or local campaigns (heavier), you have to start VERY early, and the window for Fred is only going to be open for about another month.

[dirtboy]

People like you want to call "absurd" EVERY race where a conservative got his tail kicked (Burns, Talent, Allen, Santorum, De Wine, Blackwell, Hayworth, etc.).

In most of those races, there were issues other than conservatism.

Meanwhile, if you look at the members of Tancredo's immigration caucus, they lost at a much lower rate than non-members.

[dirtboy]

She violated the 12th Commandment (see my tagline).

[LS]

Yeah, and he's a smart lawyer. I think the legal issues, though, can be cleared up in a week. It's pretty clear he has a base level of support between 10 and 20%. It will be very hard for him to eclipse that without a statement of intent to run. (McCain's announced four or five times and it hasn't helped him, I guess I should add).

All of his little spots, Paul Harvey, etc. have helped in the very tiny conservative wing, but they haven't begun to infiltrate the "blue hair" Republican organizational bastions that are critical to getting out the vote.

I want him in, and I want to work for him, but I'm not going to kid myself that he can hang around indefinitely and just get the nomination like Lincoln did.

[LS]

Delude yourself.

[tioga]

Professional campaigners are a joke. I am sick and tired of McRudyromney....and the traveling circus. Give me a serious contender and I will get excited and buy my ticket. Those that have jumped the trains and are waving from the windows need to slow down and THINK a little. The rest of us are evaluating our choices and WILL vote for someone who represents US! Don’t get caught in the train wreck that is bound to happen soon.

[LS]

That would be a perfect time to do it, and he would then have plenty of time to organize and get in the race. I hope he calls me on May 5.

[LS]

I've seen plenty of data on that immigration caucus. There are a lot of ways you can rearrange those numbers to make a case other than what you want to show.

But you prove my point: "in most of the races, there were issues other than conservatism."

Exactly. And so it will be nationally in 2008. Terrorism, not other issues, will be front and center.

[dirtboy]

I've heard it said (without confirmatory evidence I might add) that he ran as a pro-abortion candidate in 96?

That's a bunch of hooey. Fred has the worst possible ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

What about his stand on the illegal immigration problem?

He says nothing is is relevant in the debate until we secure the borders. And he has generally good votes on illegal-immigration issues (although it wasn't the hot button issue when he was senator that it is now).

The gay agenda?

He opposes civil unions.

I'm a babies, guns, god, gays, illegals, taxes voter, and all six of those positions are ones I'm not willing to compromise.

Fred is solid on gun rights - he has publicly questioned gun-free zones after the VT shooting. And he's a committed federalist.

Read his recent writings. You'll like them.