Fred Thompson's South Carolina TV ad!

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

[mbraynard]

I'm just perplexed by the SC group. Fred just isn't pro-life by any definition. Supports no restrictions on any abortions apart from voting for the PBA ban when he was in the Senate. Opposes human life amendment. Opposes any state level restrictions though he supports the right of states to make those restrictions.

If they were making their endorsement after IA, they would have endorsed Huck, and given they are a single issue lobby, I would have at least understood that.

Queeg isn't prolife at all - he opposes overturning RvW.

[Tut]

You might post a little more of that interview.

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.

[mbraynard]

Yes, that process required a Civil War in which about 2% of the entire male population were killed. The equivalent today would be about 3 million deaths. If this is your preference, I would prefer something else.

So you opposed the North's war of Northern agression and think the south should have been left alone? Welcome to Paulville.

[mbraynard]

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.

Do you support a 'Federalist' interpretation of the 2nd amendment, like Rudy?

The problem is also that Fred also opposes states restricting abortion.

[GOPyouth]

Fred Thompson voted AGAINST impeaching Bill Clinton. Any questions?

Fred Thompson, by law, was not allowed to vote for the impeachment of President Clinton. The members of the House of Representatives do that.

Fred Thompson did, however, vote to convict President Clinton when handed over to the United States Senate.

[Tut]

Does he now? And just where did you get that tidbit of information?

From one of your cherry picked partial quotes?

I’ll tell you what though. Lets say I support Fred and you go and support..... who ever and don’t bore me with part of quotes you seem to think makes your case.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Perhaps you would be less enthusiastic about killing 3 million Americans if you knew, for sure, that your entire family would be among them? Myself, I am generally opposed to mass murder.

[22cal]

Fred voted for impeachment on one count. Will his Kingdom abolish lying, it is a sin.

[22cal]

I guess that’s why National Right to Life endorsed Mitt./sarc

[22cal]

Fred Thompson is literally and figuratively head and shoulders above any other candidate save Hunter. If he loses that doesn't mean I made a bad choice. The voters of SC did.

Your candidate has some positives. Consider discarding the nastiness and learning from him.

[napscoordinator]

I’m just perplexed by the SC group.

I believe those people who aren’t interested in FRed because he is a Senator. What Thompson should have done is run for Governor after Sentor of Tennessee. When was the last time we had a Senator for President? JFK. Close to 50 years now.

[samtheman]

I am astounded that so-called Christians are willing to give Huckabee a pass for letting a rapist out of jail prematurely, so that he could rape again, and murder. Is that Christianity?

[mylife]

Half truths and lies

[samtheman]

When was the last time we had a Senator for President? JFK. Close to 50 years now.

How many times does this argument have to be shot down before it will stay down?

Consider these six possible general-election matchups:

Senator McCain vs. Senator Clinton.

Senator McCain vs. Senator Obama.

Senator McCain vs. Senator Edwards.

Senator Thompson vs. Senator Clinton.

Senator Thompson vs. Senator Obama.

Senator Thompson vs. Senator Edwards.

In which of these six possible general-election matchups is it possible for a non-Senator to prevail?

Think hard, now. This might be a trick question.

[reasonisfaith]

Excellent ad.

[Preachin']

“Think hard, now. This might be a trick question.”

That would be Thompson, because he is the only one who is a former Senator. All of the others on your list are current senators. It Has been since 1960 since a US President (Kennedy) was directly elected from the US Senate.

[napscoordinator]

Funny. I don’t see any of them President in the last 50 years which was the point of my post. Another thing you conveniently you left out the two governors and mayor. Plus that has NOTHING to do with my post whatsoever. You went on some crazy notion that this is going to result in this scenario. Plus who said I was speaking of this campaign? I was speaking of 2004 and earlier.

[NavVet]

“And when he does and NRLC gets behind Romney, what are you going to do then? Where is your God now?”

What a bizarre statement. I’m not sure you if you understand this, but most of us do not see our candidates as “Gods”, or even future Gods...Your statement suggest that you believe Romney is your God. You need some help.

Oh, and as for your argument about Right to Life Groups simply picking too early, more come out for Thompson every day.

If a man like Romney, who so passionately defended Roe v. Wade, attended NARL fund raisers and pledged to uphold the status Quo when it comes to abortion can in fact convince any right to life groups to endorse him, then you may be right about him being a God, since nothing else could explaining any pro-life conservative voting for man with such a reprehensible past on this issue.

[NavVet]

The reason you are confused, is that you are totally mischaracterizing Fred’s position. He doesn’t support a constitutional amendment (How many constitutional amendments has the Huckster proposed now 4-5). Fred sees the Constitution as something more than an etch a sketch to be erased whenever it is convenient.

Fred is also a Federalists and believes that those powers “not expressly given to the federal government or withheld from the states resides with the states.” Fred has a 100% pro-life voting record period.

The bottom line, is either you don’t know what you are talking about on this issue, or all the national and state pro-life organizations are clueless on this issue. I’ll give you one guess as to which would be the correct answer.

Also, the reason no one is endorsing the Dope from Hope is that, although he is pro-life, Huckabee has said that he believes the Constitution does contain a “right to privacy”. This flawed argument is the basis of the Roe v. Wade opinion. Also, most pro-life voters are conservatives in general, and the Huckster’s nanny-state policies and far left foreign policy positions probably scare the Mitt out of most of them.

[NavVet]

“I am astounded that so-called Christians are willing to give Huckabee a pass for letting a rapist out of jail prematurely, so that he could rape again, and murder. Is that Christianity?”

That’s the beauty of “identity politics” what the man has said, or even done doesn’t matter. He may be a flaming liberal, whose left wing policies have destroyed lives and a state Republican Party, but he’s a preacher, he’s “one of us” and therefore can’t be criticized.