Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SuziQ

He’s not looking to pander to conservatives or Christian voters by making nice noises about Constitutional Amendments that he, and those who ARE making those noises, know will never happen in our lifetimes, if ever.
***Hunter sees things the same way evangelical christians do, so he ain’t pandering, but when we see a Thompson supporter saying that it’s pandering for her own candidate to support a pro-life position, it shows he’s gone off into the weeds.

Instead of talking about the issue, he wants to actually DO something.
***I get the opposite impression. I get the impression that he wishes the issue would go away and he attempts to nuance his position to appear centrist.

Posted on 04/11/2007 11:11:59 PM PDT by FairOpinion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1815999/posts

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

Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. “But I don’t think you should bolt on one issue. I’m still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don’t think we need to write it all down in a document,” Thompson said. (AP, 8/6/96)
Furthermore, I’m adding this from the American Spectator posted just a few days ago:

In the interview, Thompson was asked: “Some conservatives got flustered by your comments on abortion and Roe vs. Wade. Would you like to explain your position on abortion?”
Thompson answered: “Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.”


53 posted on 12/09/2007 11:17:17 PM PST by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: Kevmo
I get the impression that he wishes the issue would go away and he attempts to nuance his position to appear centrist.

Perhaps it is more of an attempt to appear conservative. He is already a centrist.

The Centrist Coalition is a group of moderate Democrats and Republicans seeking common ground and compromise on issues. ... The Centrist Coalition helps to bridge the two parties...

The name of the Senate Centrist Coalition is "Third Way," subtitled, "A Senate-Focused Progressive Advocacy Group."

The group also exerted influence in helping to push for enactment of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill
Coalition Members (107th Congress) -- included FRED THOMPSON

From your link:
McCloskey saw him [Fred] as a Celebrity counter-force to the Religious Right/Pro-Lifers that could win the GOP Nomination.

Same argument we are hearing today.

88 posted on 12/10/2007 8:04:37 AM PST by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

To: Kevmo
Fred has always thought that the FEDERAL government should not be involved in the abortion decision, but he personally believes that the unborn child is a human being, and has been saying just that. He has seen what has happened because of the Supreme Court decision, which took any semblance of voter involvement out of the issue. What we have today is polarization because people believe, quite rightly, that their opinions are not being heard and that their efforts to reduce abortion are being blocked because of the Roe v Wade roadblock.

I say that politicians claiming to support the HLA are pandering because they can talk until they are blue in the face, but they won't get the Amendment passed, so they're not saving one single baby with all their talking. We've already seen that having both the White House and Congress in Republican hands didn't do anything to move that along. Why not look at other ways to solve the problem? What Fred has proposed is something that could be done within the next few years, as members of the Supreme court retire, or die, and need to be replaced. He has already said that he would appoint strict constructionists to the Court who do not believe that is in the Court's purview to legislate from the bench. This attitude would go beyond unlimited abortion to homosexual 'marriage' and other societal changes that liberals love to force on the populace through Court mandates, because they know that those things would likely never pass if the voters got the chance to weigh in on them.

If Roe v Wade is overturned, the major stumbling block to states in their efforts to severely restrict abortion will have been removed. This would result in thousands of babies being saved each year because women would no longer have that 'back up birth control', and would likely change their behavior because of it. It would also mean that every voter would have the chance to made a difference in his or her own state regarding abortion, and not feel like the issue is completely out of their hands. Yes, there will be some states that allow the practice, but even then, you will see that voters will be loathe to allow it for more than the hard cases like REPORTED rape or incest, or in the case of a direct threat to the LIFE of the mother.

96 posted on 12/10/2007 9:06:46 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson