Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Posted on 11/12/2007 9:52:42 AM PST by jaybeegee
Fred Thompson will pick up the support of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) tomorrow, according to two Republicans familar with the decision.
For a candidate who came up empty-handed last week when three prominent Christian conservatives endorsed GOP hopefuls and is falling in both national and early state polls, the move comes at a critical time.
NRLC is the most prominent anti-abortion group in the country, with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters.
A spokesperson for the organization declined to comment on their endorsement decision, but Thompson was likely rewarded for his strong pro-life voting record in the Senate. As Thompson frequently touts on the stump, he rated out at 100% on the group's report card.
More...
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
How long until the Thompson haters start bashing NRL?
Good Get
Awesome! :*)
woo hoo!!!
HUGE!!!!!! Not hugh, HUGE!!!!
This is GREAT news!!!!!
Poor Huckabee, maybe he’ll say that NRTL doesn’t ‘drink the same Jesus juice’ as he does... /s
BTTT
Take that Pat.
PING!
Won’t be long here until some criticize Fred for not being “anti-” enough. Bottom line from my desk, is that it’s a state issue, and will vary, state to state. And that’s OK. It’s a feature, not a bug. Some so-called conservatives are willing to toss out the Constitution to get their way on particular issues. We’d be as bad as the RATs if that was our way. We have a process and a process to change the process. Work the process and don’t pre-judge the results folks.
For a candidate who came up empty-handed last week when three prominent Christian conservatives endorsed GOP hopefuls and is falling in both national and early state polls, the move comes at a critical time.Indeed!
Sounds to me that National Right to Life understands that, and realizes that a Fred T. Presidency will do MORE to eliminate abortion than anyone else in the GOP hopper.
---
"This," said Russert, "is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: 'We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution. We endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.' Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?"
"No," said Thompson.
I guess James Dobson is going to send the NRL a plague of locus.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Any group given complete power will be corrupt.
Assuming of course the group members are humans.
About 13 posts it seems.
That’s good to hear.
Think about it for a minute. If you’re a self-respecting conservative, do you REALLY want Pat Robertson’s endorsement? Personally, I think the man is a tool. He’s a Yale Law School graduate (didn’t pass the bar), former Marine officer, and very wealthy and connected (son of a former US Senator). For all that, he’s still a tool. Rich preachers who own race horses (proven fact) and do deals with foreign dictators (Mobuto for one), and can’t back up claims of faith healings, shouldn’t fool anyone with a brain. That said, some still buy his shtick.
Fred’s record:
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against allowing coverage of abortion under the Federal employees’ health insurance policies in cases where it is medically necessary - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00371
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe (and against almost every moderate republican in the senate) against an amendment “to express the sense of Congress in support of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade” - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00337
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against killing an amendment to prohibit the expenditure of certain appropriated funds for the distribution or provision of, or the provision of a prescription for, postcoital emergency contraception - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00169
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe “to provide for certain disclosures and limitations with respect to the transference of human fetal tissue” - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00338
One of only 17 senators (including Helms, Gramm and Sessions) to vote against the Schumer amendment “to ensure that debts incurred as a result of clinic violence are nondischargeable.- http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00002
One of only 24 senators (including Helms and Inhofe) to vote for requiring that the Congressional-Executive Commission monitor the cooperation of the People’s Republic of China with respect to POW/MIA issues, improvement in the areas of forced abortions, slave labor, and organ harvesting, and for other purposes - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00249
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe (and against almost every moderate republican senator) against killing an amendment to prohibit the use of funds the pay for an abortion or to pay for the administrative expenses in connection with certain health plans that provide coverage for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00197
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against Tommy Daschle’s “moderate” amendment that banned late-term abortions but affirmed Roe v. Wade - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00070
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against cloture for Henry Foster, surgeon general (and abortionist) - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00273
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against striking the limitation on the coverage of abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00129
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against a joint resolution that stated limitations of abortion coverage was negatively affecting population planning programs - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00013
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to prohibit the restriction of certain types of medical communications between a health care provider and a patient (i.e., abortion counseling) - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00283
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against an amendment “to clarify the application of certain provisions with respect to abortions where necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman” - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00593
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to delete language concerning certification of population programs - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00035
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00277
Voted with Helms, Santorum and Inhofe to to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology for purposes of human cloning - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00010
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortions covered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00370
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against repealing the restiction on use of Department of Defense facilities for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00176
Again voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial birth abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00340
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against killing an amendment expressing “the sense of Congress concerning Roe v. Wade and partial birth abortion bans” - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00334
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe (and almost all other senators) “to protect infants who are born alive” - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00208
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to kill a measure to repeal the restriction on use of the Department of Defense facilities for privately funded abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00148
Voted with Helms, Thurmon, Santorum and Inhofe for a motion to ban partial birth abortions. (motion to table the motion to reconsider) - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00333
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to express the sense of Congress regarding forced abortions in the People’s Republic of China - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00243
Voted with Helms, Thurmond and Santorum to kill an amendment to repeal the restriction on the use of Department of Defense facilities for privately funded abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00134
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to proceed on a bill to ban partial birth abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00332
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against Specter’s amendment “to protect the reproductive rights of Federal women prisoners” - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00478
Again, voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to kill an amendment repealing the restriction on use of Department of Defense facilities for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00163
Again voted against repealing the restriction on use of Department of Defense facilities for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00167
Again, voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to prohibit the use of funds the pay for an abortion or to pay for the administrative expenses in connection with certain health plans that provide coverage for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00190
Voted with only 37 other senators (including Helms, Santorum and Inhofe) to prohibit the use of funds for research that utilizes human fetal tissue, cells, or organs that are obtained from a living or dead embryo or fetus during or after an induced abortion - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00215
(Probably this is Ellery’s work. I don’t have it in my notes.)
I’ll agree with you in part, but amending the Constitution isn’t tossing it out or being as bad as the liberals. The Human Life Amendment and the Federal Marriage Amendment are legitimate proposed constitutional amendments. It’s very unfair to accuse proponents of those amendments of being in the same league as people who want to find imaginary things in an imaginary “penumbra” allegedly “surrounding” the Constitution.
No no. you have it all wrong. Conservatism has evolved over the last few years. True "conservatism" is now simply a different way to use the overbearing power of govt to bring about a different totalitarian result than the liberals are after. That seems to be the majority opinion even here any more. The govt has become the solution for everything.
Sell out? Nope. Not even close. Abortion was a state issue when the Constitution was written and should be now.
So now what Mr Bopp???
Seems your client does not agree with you.
Guess jumping in back in January was a tick too soon...
;)
I really want FRED to WANT to be President!!!
LOL
Oh please...
They want to win and save babies, and 2-3% won’t get there, no matter how good Duncan is on the issues...
I am SO sorry. I don’t know what gets into me.....
Support for the Human Life Amendment will stay in the GOP platform and Fred will endorse it if he’s the nominee.
I agree its unfair to characterize those who support an amendment against abortion as being in the same league as those who want to twist the meaning of the constitution. That said, very few here really want the 9th and 10th Amendments to mean what they really say. Simply put, we have a bajillion more rights than those enumerated in the Constitution.
Yeah, like slavery (rolls eyes)
National Right to Life isn’t pro-life enough??
I suspect you’re missing the /sarcasm tag? But seriously, you have a point. Liberty is what is worth fighting and dying for, not a big overbearing government. And yes a persons rights stop where another’s begin.
Anyone can criticize Fred for not being “anti” enough all they want. But of Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson, Thompson by far has the best pro-life credentials. While I wasn’t completely satisfied with his answers to Tim Russert, the one answer that isn’t getting any air play is the one he gave regarding when life begins. He unequivicollay stated that he now believes that life begins at conception after seeing the sonogram of his little girl. I will take his pro-life credentials over the other 2 aforementioned any day.
Perhaps NRTL has common sense and knows that before anything can change at the state level Roe V Wade has to be overturned?
They might even know that a Constitutional amendment will likely never happen but Fred is smart enough to give us some USSC judges to undo this mess.
Your ignorance is showing. Again.
You do the candidate you support a disservice when you fail to post the whole context of his answer. Since you didn't I will.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution,” “we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?
MR. THOMPSON: No.
MR. RUSSERT: You would not?
MR. THOMPSON: No. I have always—and that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that. Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is—serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days. But...
MR. RUSSERT: Each state would make their own abortion laws.
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. But, but, but to, to, to have an amendment compelling—going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go.
MR. RUSSERT: I went back—we went back to your papers at the University of Tennessee and read through them. This is what you said back in 1994 as a candidate. Here’s the first one: “I’m not willing to support laws that prohibit early-term abortions. I’m not suddenly upon election as a senator going to know when life begins and where that place ought to be exactly. It comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception. I don’t know in my own mind if that is the case so I don’t feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people.”
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: So you yourself don’t know when life begins.
MR. THOMPSON: No. I didn’t know then.
MR. RUSSERT: You know now?
MR. THOMPSON: I, I, I—my head has always been the same place. My public position has always been the same. I’ve been 100 percent pro-life in every vote that I’ve ever cast in, in my service to the United States Senate.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, you say that you’re for states having...
MR. THOMPSON: Well, no...
MR. RUSSERT: Let me finish, because this is important. You’re for allowing states to have pro-abortion rights, and you yourself, and I have 10 different statements from you, say that you would not ban abortion, it’s a woman’s right, and you would not ban it in the first trimester.
MR. THOMPSON: No, no. Well, you just said two different things here. You know, it’s a complex issue concerning whether or not you’re going to have a federal law, whether or not you’re going to have a federal constitutional amendment, those kinds of things. Nobody’s proposed a federal law on this. Nobody’s recently proposed a, a federal constitutional amendment. I, I, I had an opportunity to vote on an array of things over eight years, whether it be partial birth abortion, whether it be Mexico City policy, whether it be transporting young girls across state lines to avoid parental notification laws and all that—100 percent pro-life.
But let me finish on my point, and, and, and my legal record is there, and that’s the way I would govern if I was president. I would take those same positions. No federal funding for abortion, no nothing that would in any way encourage abortion. When I saw—and again, all consistent with what I’ve said. I—people ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states. Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we’re going to outlaw this, that or the other. And my response was I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician. And that’s what you’re talking about. It’s not a sense of the Senate. You’re talking about potential criminal law. I said those things are going to be ultimately won in the hearts and minds of people. I’m probably a pretty good example of that. Although my, my, my head and my legislative record’s always been the same, when I saw that sonogram of my little now four-year-old, it’s, it’s, it’s changed my heart. It’s changed the way I look at things. I was looking at my child when, when, when I, when I saw that. And I knew that, and I felt that. And that’s the way I feel today. And I think life begins at conception. I always—it was abstract to me before. I was a father earlier when I was very young. I was busy. I went about my way. One of the, one of the maybe few advantages you have by getting a little bit older.
MR. RUSSERT: So while you believe that life begins at conception, the taking of a human life?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, I, I, I, I do.
MR. RUSSERT: You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?
MR. THOMPSON: I do not think that you can have a, a, a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, as I say, in terms of potentially—you can’t have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that, which potentially would take young, young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we’re going to put them in jail to do that. I just don’t think that that’s the right thing to do. It cannot change the way I feel about it morally, but legally and practically, I’ve got to recognize that fact. It is a dilemma that I’m not totally comfortable with, but that’s the best I can do in resolving it in my own mind.
MR. RUSSERT: And also with gay marriage, according to the Associated Press: “Thompson favors a constitutional amendment that bars judges from legalizing gay marriage, but also leaves open the door for state legislatures to approve the practice.” So if a state said, “We want to have gay marriages in our state,” you would be OK with that?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes. This, this, this—the—marriage is between a man and a woman. Nobody ever thought that that was contested until recently, and we’ve had a couple judges in a couple states decide to turn all that on its head. So we’ve, we’ve had, again, a judge-created problem. I would support a constitutional amendment that addresses this judge-created problem. But at the end of—and, and say judges can’t do that. But, at the end of the day, if a state legislature and a governor decide that that’s what they want to do, yes, they should have, they, they should have the freedom to do what Fred Thompson thinks is a very bad idea.
Actually it appears that swing voters like the fact that Fred is not being courted by Dobson and Robertson. They view those religious nutcases as well...nutcases.
Where your belief that life begins at conception will lead you is that contraception should be made illegal. Americans will not support that. Like it or not.
That should be right up NRTL's alley enough for them to support somebody like Duncan Hunter, a true and consistent pro-lifer.
Thank you Pm. I just got done reading a hilarious poll that only 40% of Republicans view FDT as conservative.
But the funny part was the same poll said Republicans thought Romney was more conservative!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH....HeHeHe...!!!!
Don’t bother me if all you have are personal insults in lieu of intelligent and honest dialog. Piss off.
-not a bad endorsement to have.
Fred does. He’s picking up the pace. He’ll be fine.
FYI, Foxnews just confirmed that NRTL is going to endorse FRed.
A wonderful endorsemetn to have.
It is amazing how much conservatism you can buy for 50 million dollars...
What does he need to do, cross his eyes and let his tongue hang out of his mouth?
The man is thoughtful, pragmatic and not a lifelong politician. But,he has extensive political experience as well as real life experience. He understands that there is life out of the political arena.
He’s a very smart man who’s head is squarely on his shoulders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.