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

Skip to comments.

When Fred Met Tim: Evaluating Thompson on Meet The Press
The National Review ^ | Sunday, November 04, 2007 | Jim Geraghty

Posted on 11/04/2007 6:37:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

I had said Fred Thompson could do him a lot of good if he passed “the Russert primary” with flying colors.

His campaign had been dismissing the Washington press corps, and implicitly running against the media, refusing to do the things candidates traditionally do (enter early, do five events a day, appear at the New Hampshire debate instead of the Tonight Show). But every once in a while a Washington media institution really does matter, and Meet the Press is one of them. Simply because Tim Russert, without commercial interruption, will throw hardballs and curveballs for a solid half hour, and standard delaying tactics won’t work. Also, his research staff can find every awkward quote from 1974 that every candidate dreads. Generally, a candidate who can handle Meet the Press well can handle just about any other live interview.

This morning I had caught a brief snippet – his discussion of Iraq - and thought he was striking out. I thought the reference to “generals we respect” was so odd, I wondered if he had forgotten David Petraeus’s name.

Having just watched it on the DVR, I thought it was a very, very solid performance. Ground rule double.

My initial shallow thought was that Thompson still looks a bit on the gaunt side. Then, during the interview:

“You’ve lost a lot of weight. Is it health related?”

“Coming from you, Tim, I’ll take that as a compliment.” Ouch. Thompson says no, it’s not health related, it’s just that his wife has him on a diet to watch his cholesterol. He says he had additional tests for his Lymphoma in September and was the results were all clear.

Every once in a while Thompson slipped up - I think he suggested that oil was selling at “nah-eight hundred dollars a barrel”, and I’m wary of his quoted statistic that car bombs in Iraq are down 80 percent – but overall, Thompson was measured, modest, serious, and completely at ease. After a couple of debates, it’s odd to watch a man not trying to squeeze his talking points into an answer, and instead speaking in paragraphs, conversational and informed.

Jen Rubin wrote, “He does not answer questions linearly with a direct answer to the question but rather talks about the subject matter. Some find this thoughtful and other think he is vamping and unfocused.” His talk on Iran was a perfect example, in that Thompson’s position isn’t terribly different from the rest of the field – he doesn’t want to use force, but he’ll keep that option open - but as he talks at length about the risks and benefits and factors that would go into a military strike, the audience, I think, will feel reassuring that if Thompson needs to face that decision, he will have weighed each option carefully.

That voice is fatherly, reassuring, calm. The contrast to Hillary couldn’t be sharper.

I’m going to say ‘well-briefed,’ but I know that will just spur one of the Thompson Associates to call me to tell me that’s not a sign of others briefing him, that’s a sign of Thompson’s own reading and study of the issues.

I was about to say that he was almost too conversational, that he could have used one quip or pithy summation at his views, and then, finally, at the tail end of his question on Schiavo, he summed up, “the less government, the better.”

I’m hearing that David Brody listened to the section on abortion and Thompson’s expression of federalism in this area, and has concluded, “all he needs now is to buy the gun that shoots him in the foot.” Look, if Fred Thompson isn’t pro-life enough for social conservatives, then nobody short of Mike Huckabee is. If Huckabee gets the nomination, great, I’d love to see Hillary Clinton go up against the Republican mirror-image of her husband’s rhetorical skills. But it feels like the past few months have been an escalating series of vetoes from various factions within the GOP. I’ve seen more amiable compromises on the United Nations Security Council.

Let me lay it out for every Republican primary voter. You support the guy you want, you rally for him, you write some checks, you vote in the primaries… and maybe your guy wins, maybe he loses. If the guy who beats your guy is half a loaf, you shrug your shoulders, hope your guy is his running mate, and get ready for the general. Life goes on.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama; US: Tennessee; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: abortion; election; electionpresident; elections; fred; fredthompson; gop; religiousright; republicans; thompson; valuesvoters; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-359 next last
To: John Valentine
What you and folks like you need to reconcile yourselves to is that we Americans don’t live in a dictatorship

outlawing abortion by Constitutional amendment is hardly a dictatorship....allowing another 40-50 million to be killed is more akin to that.

i support Fred more or less but leaving it to the states could very problematic.....as well with other very contentiuous issues like gun control or homo-marriage.

but it's a start.

what would Fred's position be as POTUS on Fed funding, Title 10, and SCOTUS nominations as well as being a leader to stop the practice.

sadly I think much like all the other GOP including Ronaldus Maximus he will be mixed and somewhat disappointing on the subject.

The pro infanticide side is hardly as ambivalent and if we wish to defeat them we have to do better.

51 posted on 11/04/2007 8:55:02 PM PST by wardaddy (This country is being destroyed by folks who could have never created it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: no dems
Ummmmm.....I don't think so. There's a lot of Freepers taking the same stand as Bay Buchanan, who said that she would not vote for Rudy G. even if Hillary was his opponent. How stupid.

The issue is not whether Freepers will vote for half a loaf -- I think most will. The issue is whether Giuliani is half a loaf. Many of us believe that he is not, by a long shot.

52 posted on 11/04/2007 9:05:02 PM PST by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
What would Fred's position be as POTUS on Fed funding, Title 10, and SCOTUS nominations as well as being a leader to stop the practice.

I believe Thompson takes a federalist viewpoint on abortion because it's the only way to handle issues society is currently so divided about. Given this division, there is zero chance a Constitutional amendment would pass; the only way to at least stop some abortions is to return the issue to the states. He obviously isn't a pure federalist on this issue, since he voted to ban partial birth abortion on a federal level.

Just for reference, here are all Thompson's abortion-related votes in the Senate. He voted with Jesse Helms 100% of the time. I hope that this provides some insight into your questions above.

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 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=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

53 posted on 11/04/2007 9:12:02 PM PST by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DocH

That was not a quote from Fred. It was a quote from the linked NRO column by Jim Geraghty.

I’ll vote for half a loaf — yes, even Rudy, holding my nose — before I’ll stay home or go third-party and put Hillary in the White House. I would hope that any America-loving FReeper would do the same.


54 posted on 11/04/2007 9:13:00 PM PST by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Fred did great today!

I’m pretty sure Fred didn’t say oil was $9800 a barrel. The author of the article didn’t understand $98 to $100....?

That’s the way I understood it anyway.


55 posted on 11/04/2007 9:13:45 PM PST by Shortstop7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

As it happens there are no federal laws against murdering children or adults in any of the 50 states.


56 posted on 11/04/2007 9:23:04 PM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Ron Paul Criminality: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/paul_bot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’ll never cast a vote for Fred Thompson for anything. Or Rudy Giuliani. Or Mitt Romney. Or John McCain. Or Mike Huckabee. Or Ron Paul.

These men don’t even believe in the God-given, unalienable rights to life and liberty.

As the Declaration of Independence asserts, the protection of those rights is the reason we even have government.

To hell with the lot of them. And the Republican Party, if the GOP is going to tear the heart out of the Reagan platform.


57 posted on 11/04/2007 9:34:18 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The GOP is now being chaired by the political directors at NBCBSABCNNFOX..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ellery

thank you...I miss Jesse....the good one


58 posted on 11/04/2007 9:34:24 PM PST by wardaddy (This country is being destroyed by folks who could have never created it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
outlawing abortion by Constitutional amendment is hardly a dictatorship....

Neither is building a castle in the clouds. It is simply not possible. To be specific, and Amendment to ban abortion first needs to be initiated, and that can only be done by Congress or possibly in State Legislatures. Nothing has prevented this from happening for decades, yet it has not. That isn't Fred Thompson's fault. And if he were President, which he is not, he still would have nil influence over this process.

More. Reverting back to the pre-Roe v. Wade situation is not a bad solution. As you should recall it was not our side that was unhappy back then, it was the so-called right-to-choose side that was unhappy. Presumably they would be equally unhappy should Roe-v. Wade be overturned.

If they're unhappy, should you be unhappy too?

Bottom line is that the Constitution does not give the Feds jurisdiction over such matters. A Constitutional Amendment would change that, but if we give the Feds jurisdiction over the killing of unborn life, then why on earth would we leave outright murder to the States? As far as I'm concerend, the States are best equipped to deal with these matters, and that's the way the Founders intended it.

That's good enough for me.

A President can lead by example and by persuasion. There is nothing in Fred Thompson's past, in his voting record, or in his present day statements that would lead anyone to think that he would be anything other than an eleoquent advocate for life.

59 posted on 11/04/2007 9:35:59 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“But eventually we need a president and a congress that will act on abortion like we once acted on slavery.”

You mean Civil War?

I’m as pro-life as they come, but really, you should think about that statement before repeating it.

Qwinn


60 posted on 11/04/2007 9:36:38 PM PST by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

I agree. Fred was the alpha male in the interview...and he was gracious enough to Russert to not bite his head off...but it appeared that he clearly could if he wanted to..

I really like Fred!


61 posted on 11/04/2007 9:37:25 PM PST by Aria (NO RAPIST ENABLER FOR PRESIDENT!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
A President can lead by example and by persuasion. There is nothing in Fred Thompson's past, in his voting record, or in his present day statements that would lead anyone to think that he would be anything other than an eleoquent advocate for life.

Bullhockey. Fred Thompson could care less about abortion, and it's glaringly obvious. Always has been.

62 posted on 11/04/2007 9:44:29 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The GOP is now being chaired by the political directors at NBCBSABCNNFOX..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Bottom line is that the Constitution does not give the Feds jurisdiction over such matters.

I'm constantly amazed at how few seem to be able to read these days. The Preamble makes it clear that the document was written for the purpose of assuring that POSTERITY would have an equal chance to enjoy the Blessings of Liberty. And the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments are clear in their protection of the lives of all innocent persons.

Or maybe you can read, and you're just pretending that those words aren't in the Constitution.

Do you believe that an unborn child is a PERSON? Or do you agree with the author of Roe that they are not?

63 posted on 11/04/2007 9:49:03 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The GOP is now being chaired by the political directors at NBCBSABCNNFOX..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
You mean Civil War? I’m as pro-life as they come, but really, you should think about that statement before repeating it.

Right. Furthermore, unlike slavery, abortion is mandated in every state by the federal government. Overturning Roe does act on abortion, very substantially.

On the other hand, candidates who are weak on an issue risk nothing by championing a Constitutional amendment. Since presidents have no official role in the amendment process, and since Congress and the states are a stumbling block, and since the process takes many years, voila! Instant credibility on the issue with no follow-up results required!

64 posted on 11/04/2007 9:49:32 PM PST by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: tips up
Hillary is smarter and more dangerous (evil) than Carter. Obama or Edwards are more like Carter, idiots who may mean well but are clueless. Hillary doesn’t mean well.

I think you underestimate Carter and Obama. As far as raw IQ goes, Carter as a 20th century President was probably surpassed only by Wilson. Obama was on Harvard Law Review and, from every report I have heard from classmates of his, one extremely sharp individual (even though he doesn't always show it during the campaign).

65 posted on 11/04/2007 9:51:36 PM PST by Texas Federalist (Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

Fred in ‘08.


66 posted on 11/04/2007 9:52:32 PM PST by Mr Apple ( "VIDEO CHINAGATE" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2970981220206109356)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
"No, for this ONE class of humans, Fred believes that life should be defined by the states, an argument that generally is great for a federalist, but not when it comes to basic human rights, like say abortion, or slavery."

I was discussing this about the time you wrote it, making precisely the same point. Very much agreed.

67 posted on 11/04/2007 10:03:53 PM PST by TAdams8591 ((Mitt Romney '08 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
You obviously are a one-trick pony.

Life is more complicated that that.

Please get a clue.

Or take your ball and go home. We won't miss you.

68 posted on 11/04/2007 10:08:52 PM PST by rebel_yell2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
"Bottom line is that the Constitution does not give the Feds jurisdiction over such matters. A Constitutional Amendment would change that, but if we give the Feds jurisdiction over the killing of unborn life, then why on earth would we leave outright murder to the States? As far as I'm concerend, the States are best equipped to deal with these matters, and that's the way the Founders intended it."

Then why didn't we decide slavery the same way John?

When it comes to basic human rights, the FIRST being the right to life, the Federalist arguments fall apart. Those kinds of issues should be decided by the states.

And if the forefathers didn't forsee that the Constitution would have to be amended at the Federal level, they wouldn't have set up the ability to do it.

69 posted on 11/04/2007 10:15:04 PM PST by TAdams8591 ((Mitt Romney '08 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I am also constantly amazed at how thin a reed people will clutch to themselves when they are way over their heads.

The PREAMBLE of the Constitution has exactly NO Constitutional or jurisprudential signficance.

I will not get into a debate regarding your preposterous inversion of the word “posterity” excpet to say that it is not even a reed, but the image of one.

Also I will not get into a debate about whether an unborn child is a person, as you will, with the absolute certainty of the amateur, confound and commingle the legal meaning of the word person with the moral one, resulting in mental mush.


70 posted on 11/04/2007 10:15:56 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: rebel_yell2; JCEccles
"Or take your ball and go home. We won't miss you."

I and many of us would. And JCE, I'm so glad to see you back! Several of us were discussing the other day how good it is to have you here again! : )

71 posted on 11/04/2007 10:19:44 PM PST by TAdams8591 ((Mitt Romney '08 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: All

fred was very clear today..

He sees nothing wrong with allowing anti gun college presidents to disarm law abiding citizens with carry permits when even the state in which they abide allows that.

Pretty clear to me..

You would be surprised how many people turned against him today after that statement.


72 posted on 11/04/2007 10:21:20 PM PST by Armedanddangerous (Chuin, Master of Sinanju (emeritus))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
"Those kinds of issues should be decided by the states."

The above should read "should NOT be decided by the states."

73 posted on 11/04/2007 10:22:20 PM PST by TAdams8591 ((Mitt Romney '08 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
But Fred thinks killing babies should be left to the states.

Killing adults is left to the states. What's wrong with the idea of leaving ALL killing to the states?

74 posted on 11/04/2007 10:24:15 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I think you are in the wrong forum?


75 posted on 11/04/2007 10:27:09 PM PST by rebel_yell2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

OK. Go vote for Hillary . . . .


76 posted on 11/04/2007 10:28:42 PM PST by rebel_yell2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: rebel_yell2

Why? Jim Robinson has made it clear more times than I can count that the unalienable right to life in not negotiable.


77 posted on 11/04/2007 10:29:41 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The GOP is now being chaired by the political directors at NBCBSABCNNFOX..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

Then I guess we won’t miss you either. :-)


78 posted on 11/04/2007 10:29:54 PM PST by rebel_yell2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: rebel_yell2
OK. Go vote for Hillary . . . .

No. Unlike some, I don't support any candidate who spits on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

79 posted on 11/04/2007 10:30:59 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The GOP is now being chaired by the political directors at NBCBSABCNNFOX..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
What's wrong with the idea of leaving ALL killing to the states?

What's wrong with the idea of protecting all innocent human life, since that's the exact principle America was founded upon?

80 posted on 11/04/2007 10:32:22 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The GOP is now being chaired by the political directors at NBCBSABCNNFOX..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You can take much comfort in your own purity of thought, ideals and action. Meanwhile, nobody is paying the slightest attention.


81 posted on 11/04/2007 10:32:29 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
What's wrong with the idea of protecting all innocent human life, since that's the exact principle America was founded upon?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and that's what states are for.

82 posted on 11/04/2007 10:33:48 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I'm not negotiating.

I simply want to win the next election to keep Hillary out of power.

If your pro-life beliefs lead you to prefer Hillary over Fred or "fill in the blank" then this forum has lost its reason to exist.

Go vote for Hillary, or, just as effective, don't vote for the Republican nominee, and live with the legacy of her rule.

You heart will be pure, but our country will suffer.

Nothing is "non-negotiable" in the real world.

We all need to get a clue.

83 posted on 11/04/2007 10:34:50 PM PST by rebel_yell2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

I guess the first casualty in your world would be the Constitution.


84 posted on 11/04/2007 10:35:09 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: rebel_yell2

If I am, then God help us all.


85 posted on 11/04/2007 10:35:49 PM PST by rebel_yell2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
The PREAMBLE of the Constitution has exactly NO Constitutional or jurisprudential signficance.

Except for the fact that it is the pretext for the entire document.

Nowhere in the Constitution itself can you find the idea that the preamble is not binding. In fact, nowhere in the document is it even called a preamble. We just call it that for the reasons of identification. It is the cornerstone for the Constitution, laid first, intrinsic to any decent understanding of it.

86 posted on 11/04/2007 10:36:26 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The GOP is now being chaired by the political directors at NBCBSABCNNFOX..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591
Then why didn't we decide slavery the same way John?

Are you suggesting a new Civil War?

87 posted on 11/04/2007 10:37:55 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: rebel_yell2

It’s you that’s fixated on Hillary, not me. No decent human being would ever cast a vote for that corrupt Leftist.

FR is, as Jim has said many, many times, here as a vehicle to fight liberalism. And nothing is more liberal, in the pejorative sense, than the destruction of the very reasons for the existence of government in general, and our government in particular.


88 posted on 11/04/2007 10:40:05 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The GOP is now being chaired by the political directors at NBCBSABCNNFOX..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Nowhere in the Constitution itself can you find the idea that the preamble is not binding.

Cite me ONE instance of a prescriptive statement that could even potentially be considered a binding provision in the "preamble".

Then cite me even ONE case where a decision of the Supreme Court was grounded in that statement.

I'll wait.

89 posted on 11/04/2007 10:40:56 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: rebel_yell2
Nothing is "non-negotiable" in the real world.

Rove, is that you?

90 posted on 11/04/2007 10:41:05 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The GOP is now being chaired by the political directors at NBCBSABCNNFOX..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Is the Preamble the pretext for the document or not?

Why would you excise the paragraph that the founders gave us to understand what was to follow?


91 posted on 11/04/2007 10:42:31 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The GOP is now being chaired by the political directors at NBCBSABCNNFOX..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

while I disagree that the WBTS was simply over slavery, ending abortion could be a fight one day

no doubt....amongst many other culture issues

it’s killed many times the number the North American bound slave trade did...and counting.

Fred seems ambivalent.


92 posted on 11/04/2007 10:42:57 PM PST by wardaddy (This country is being destroyed by folks who could have never created it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

it’s one thing to say you can’t get a constitutional amendment to ban abortion outright versus you don’t want one

that is what troubles me about Fred

as much as George Bush aggravates me on some issues I imagine he would support such an amendment


93 posted on 11/04/2007 10:44:35 PM PST by wardaddy (This country is being destroyed by folks who could have never created it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and that's what states are for.

According to the writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence, that's what all human government is for, explicitly. And most particularly the government they were setting up. The United States of America.

94 posted on 11/04/2007 10:44:45 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The GOP is now being chaired by the political directors at NBCBSABCNNFOX..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

In terms of personalities you are spot on.


95 posted on 11/04/2007 10:47:32 PM PST by Delacon (“The attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell ” Karl Popper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rebel_yell2
I'm not negotiating.

I'm not either. That's why I've made my viws abundantly clear. I'll fight any party that doesn't stand for equality before the law, the personhood of every individual, and the Constitution of the United States. Just as hard as I fight the Democrats.

America already has one evil party. It doesn't need a second.

96 posted on 11/04/2007 10:47:43 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The GOP is now being chaired by the political directors at NBCBSABCNNFOX..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The signers of the Declaration of Independence weren’t setting up any government at all. They were declaring that the colonies, the predecessors of our present day States, were henceforth independent of England.

Later, these same States relinquished SOME of their powers to the newly created Federal Government. But, the vehicle by which THAT was accomplished was NOT the Declaration of Independence. Not by YEARS.

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are two DIFFERENT documents with differing significance for our history and for our jurisprudence.


97 posted on 11/04/2007 10:56:32 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Mitt and Rudy are “slightly” to the left of Hillary Clinton.

Please get a grip on reality.

98 posted on 11/04/2007 10:59:16 PM PST by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

It is impossible to rightly understand the Constitution apart from the Declaration. The Declaration is the spirit of the Constitution.


99 posted on 11/04/2007 11:07:45 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The GOP is now being chaired by the political directors at NBCBSABCNNFOX..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Is the Preamble the pretext for the document or not?

I'm not sure what you mean by "pretext". The Constitution embodies every word from first to last, but not all the words are imbued with equal importance or significance.

Why would you excise the paragraph that the founders gave us to understand what was to follow?

Of course, I would not excise any part of the Constitution. Neither would I elevate any part of it to a status that does not naturally accrue to it by virtue of its place in the document and the significance and import of its content. Some parts that may be very inspirational have little or no juriprudential relevance.

Your devotion to the Declaration of Independence is apparently at least equal to mine. It is literally one of the finest expressions of the human impulse to freedom and self determination ever penned by the hand of man. I could call it inspirational, and it would be an understatement. But despite my love for the document, I would not be honest if I did not concede the fact that it does not have jurisprudential significance.

100 posted on 11/04/2007 11:13:34 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-359 next last

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.

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