Fred Thompson's South Carolina TV ad!

You Tube ^ | 1-14-08 | Fred Thompson

[rockrr]

"Listen to his answer when he starts to bring up the pro-choice arguments. 'I have never been for a law to criminalize for a young woman...'"

Same answer as Huck gives...

[DrewsMum]

Fred Thompson voted AGAINST impeaching Bill Clinton. Any questions?

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE....Fred was in the Senate, not the House. Only the House has the power to impeach. Get your facts straight please

[hg-higherground]

To all:Im a Baptist Minister and I think the Rev.has sold his relationship with the Lord for a mess of pottage.Go Fred GO :

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Must have heard Huck say “Hallelujah” once and he was sold.

[Sir Gawain]

Please ignore any comments that Fred might be carrying McCain’s water, or he wants to be his V.P. Its a bunch of hooey made up by Romney and Huckabee supporters.

Good call:

Fred hits McCain; Update: Fred hits McCain again
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/15/finally-fred-hits-mccain/

[SAJ]

Chortlesnort!

[mbraynard]

He doesn't have a 100% rating from tne NRLC. Maybe you should check your facts. You're wrong on this, you are also wrong on Fred being pro-life.

Anyway, we are just wasting time discussing him. After Saturday we may as well be discussing Alan Keyes, and he actually is pro-life and for free speech, unlike 1% Fred.

[mbraynard]

Sunday... bloody sunday.... (or maybe Monday. He really isn’t a work on Sunday kind of guy. Or a work on any day kinda guy.)

[Petronski]

Please ignore any comments that Fred might be carrying McCain’s water, or he wants to be his V.P. Its a bunch of hooey made up by Romney and Huckabee supporters.

As long as you quit posting that hooey, sure, they can be ignored.

Meanwhile, read this:

I understand those [the “stalking horse” accusations] are the Huckabee talking points now. I had several policy differences that I had with him when we were standing there, man to man, face to face. He didn’t answer any of them. Now, three days later he comes back with accusations like this, and that it’s all about process and doing somebody else’s work. The notion that I’ve been doing what I’ve been doing for the last several months, day and night, to be some kind of a stalking horse for somebody else is beyond ludicrous. --Freddie Thompson

[Bob]

He doesn't have a 100% rating from tne NRLC. Maybe you should check your facts. You're wrong on this, you are also wrong on Fred being pro-life.

Nice try. I have checked my facts. If you've got something that says otherwise, feel free to post it.

According to the National Right to Life, Thompson boasts a 100% pro-life record in the Senate where he served from 1994 – 2002, and many conservatives have seen Thompson as perhaps the best high profile candidate to represent the pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, and fiscal conservatives of the Republican Party. This makes Thompson a threat to Gov. Mitt Romney, who until his recent performances at the primary debates, was tied for third with the non-candidate Thompson and has had to campaign on his “conversion” to conservative issues.

Thompson did however in 1994 fill out a survey for Project Vote Smart in which he supported legal first-trimester abortion. However Thompson’s voting record does not reflect this, and Thompson says his views on abortion deepened greatly after watching a sonogram of his 3 year-old daughter.

Lifesite.net link

[mbraynard]

The cynic in me thinks that you did check your facts, found they were wrong, and then looked for a false source to try and document your own inaccuracy.

I mean - why would you link to some hack 'lifesite' webpage rather than the NRLC itself?

Here is the NRLC's website. Here is their score for Fred Thompson. He got a 33% rating in the 107th, a 77% in the 106th congress, 86% in the 105t . Bill Frist, also from TN, got 100% across the board.

So not only is Fred Thompson not '100% pro-life', he's also, well, not telling the truth.

http://capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard.xc?chamber=S&state=US&session=107&x=14&y=11

Can you prove the cynic in me wrong?

[Bob]

I think that you're really are stretching it here. That 33% rating is for a session in which there were only three votes listed. Two of the three were for McCain-Feingold (which Fred supported at the time). Since NRLC opposed McCain-Feingold, they marked Fred down for those votes.

Do you consider McCain-Feingold a pro-life issue? Do you really think that NRLC would endorse someone with that low a rating?

P.S. A dogpile search turned up LifeSite.net as one of the first few entries that I recognized. That's where I got the information initially. Apparently, they only considered actual pro-life issues when the made their 100% claim. They should have been more specific.

[puroresu]

Fred should do an ad dressed for a safari. He could then set traps and net a bunch of rhinos (RINOs) named McCain, Huckabee, Rudy, etc.

[Bob]

The cynic in me thinks that you did check your facts, found they were wrong, and then looked for a false source to try and document your own inaccuracy.

I don't appreciate being called a liar.

[mbraynard]

Do you consider McCain-Feingold a pro-life issue?

The NRLC does. I thought you've been that they are an authority of who and what is pro-life.

They endorsed Fred for one reason - not because he was the most 'pro-life' candidate, but because they thought he was going to be the nominee and he was better than Rudy.

P.S. A dogpile search turned up LifeSite.net as one of the first few entries that I recognized.

Sure - fair enough. An honest error.

I'm just going to take a break from around here until Sunday or Monday when Fred goes back to Law and Order. Hopefully some sanity will have returned.