Posted on 05/01/2007 3:08:56 PM PDT by Politicalmom
Tuesday, May 1:
• EXCLUSIVE! Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson sits down with us tonight. Will he or won't he enter the 2008 presidential race?
Fred Thompson has said that Roe-v-Wade was bad law, and needs to be overturned. He has also said that bringing the matter to the States is the best way to handle this. That may not fit with many pro-lifers who want the whole enchilada, but it fits better with the politcal reality on the ground right now. I frankly do not see a time, in the near future, when abortion is outlawed outright. Too many people have gotten used to it being available. The best we can hope for at this point is that some states will allow it in the first trimester, or may outlaw it all together except for cases of REPORTED rape or incest, or if the mother's LIFE is in danger. NOT her health, mind you, which is too easily abused.
There will be some states, like NY, CA, and some others, that will allow abortions for any reason, but at least individual voters in those states will have had the chance to talk to their fellow citizens and petition their local representative about their beliefs on the matter. Right now, they are completely shut out of the discussion.
Fred Thompson's personal beliefs about abortion are not as important to me as the actions he's taken on the matter. In the Senate, he voted pro-life on all measures presented. He's said he wants Supreme Court justices who don't legislate from the bench, because that is NOT their purview. That gives me the idea he'll be looking for nominees in the Scalia, Thomas, Alito mold rather than one like Stevens or Ginsburg. Seeing as how the vast majority of the liberal agenda items that have made their way into government over the last 30 years were from Court decisions, the issue of what kind of person a President might nominate is a big one for me in deciding for whom I'd vote.
“I am always suspicious when someone only gets interviewed by just Sean or just Alan. In my opinion it doesnt paint them in good light.”
Before jumping to conclusions, (oops too late), know that it may not be the interviewee’s decision.
Your argument is specious. Slavery was not the reason that led to a Civil War. It was the act of secession that led to that war.
Fred Thompson is not avocating secession.
As for the preamble, there is no mention of a right to life as there is in the Declaration of Independence. In the formation of the United States, it can be safely inferred that no one would have ever thought of killing a child in the womb. The right to life was left out because of the authority given for capital crimes.
So your slavery-abortion analogy is flawed.
The states can decide for themselves what there policy should be regarding abortion. However, should any state that generally outlaws abortion make an arrest of any abortionist or participant to abortion, there is no recourse if Roe vs. Wade is overturned. Because there is still a majority or at least a plurality of Americans in most states that oppose abortion, it is expected that most every state will outlaw abortion if not restrict it to extreme cases.
The US Constitution does not cover abortion, the Confederacy never addressed abortion, your argument is specious.
FDT is a federalist. His view on abortion is a federalist view.
The numbers would go higher and assure the win, if the evangelicals don’t buy into the bill of goods that the Democrats are using as they woo them. It is amazing that the evangelicals vote Dem at all, given that they don’t share their views.
If you aren’t voting for Fred, then are you staying home, which thereby ensures victory for the Dems? You aren’t voting for any of the others, because they wouldn’t be conservative enough for you, as evidenced by your post.
As far as the Constitution being respectful of life, remember, it took many years before a large number of inhabitants of this nation were recognized as citizens, and thus protected, under that document. The founders looked at the political reality and made the decision that they would not press the slavery issue because that would be too fractious there at the beginning of trying to get a nation up and running. So there has always been compromise in the political realm.
“Okay. How’s this for a cogent analysis”
Not bad. In most election years, I’d argue that the differences between the GOP and the Democrat aren’t very significant. If this ends up being Sen. Thompson versus Sen. Clinton, then you’ll have one of the starker choices in recent political history. And I think people want a choice this time.
Actually, Mitt just turned 60, but he does look very youthful, thanks to movie-idol looks and good hair. Fred is less than five years older, but he definitely looks his age.
I respectfully disagree.
Remember, the people did not legalize abortion, and it is therefore not their hearts that must change.
It was forced upon us swiftly, and swiftly it can be abolished--under the right leadership. It exists only by virtue of judicial lunacy rather than actual law. Involving the states in this question is both unnecessary and unconstitutional, and an incremental approach will never work.
We are united states for the purposes outlined in the Preamble. What we need is an executive who understands that fact, the way Lincoln understood it.
Face it, this is not Fred's issue.
We're talking about a primary election.
It is you that do not understand federalism.
I do not think the killing of the unborn should be legal. But it has nothing to do with federalism.
You have mixed and blurred Fred Thompson’s federalist position on abortion.
“The only politician with a better one is Haley Barbour.”
Boy, that’s for sure. I do love Haley.
“I am already considering it. That’s a HUGE sacrifice, because I will have to deal with all four of them to do it. :)”
Not to be melodramatic, but if things develop the way I think they will, the 2008 election is probably going to be the most important one in our lifetime. This one is going to be all about your kids.
“Yet I can’t help but be enthusiastic when I hear Fred speak so eloquently in a roundabout fashion for now—can’t wait to hear him on all the issues once he formally announces!!”
I’m enthusiastic as well. If things salt out the way I think they’re going to, this is going to be an extremely important election.
The good news is we might have a fight on our hands.
I’m not sure where there is room for dispute.
One more time. The states are united. For what?
They are united under the agreement of the Preamble, for the purpose of establishing justice and ensuring the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity.
Federalism holds all states to this agreement, so none of them have the right to take life. Abortion is therefore a federal issue.
Fred disagrees.
Perhaps he could be persuaded otherwise, but only if we put the argument to him. He needs to feel the pressure of our demand for leadership to outlaw abortion. That’s all I’m attempting to do with this argument.
FReegards, FRiend. :-)
I don’t expect Sen. Gore to get the nod. It will be Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama.
I make it a point not to underestimate my opposition. I’ve been a Democrat too long to expect anything but a knock down drag-out.
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.