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

Skip to comments.

Fred Thompson and the NRLC (Washington Times Editorial(11/15/07))
The Washinton Times ^ | November 15, 2007 | Editorial Board

Posted on 11/16/2007 9:07:47 AM PST by dschapin

Fred Thompson and the NRLC

It is interesting that the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has chosen to endorse Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson, a man who once offered legal advice to a pro-choice group, voted against key pro-life issues in the Senate and now espouses convoluted reasons for rejecting constitutional protection of the unborn.

...

Recently, Mr. Thompson refused to support a constitutional amendment that would protect innocent life by restricting the availability of abortions. The sanctity-of-life amendment was a core plank in the Republican Party's 2004 election platform, and yet Mr. Thompson said he could not support it, saying his objection stems from his federalist views.

However, in 1995 he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. If he were concerned about states rights he would have let them issue their own laws on the matter. Also, if Mr. Thompson were concerned about cluttering the constitution with superfluous amendments, he would not have supported a 1997 constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

....

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; 2008endorsements; abortion; elections; fred; fredthompson; nrlc; prolife; prolifevote; righttolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-159 next last
To: CharlesWayneCT
Do you think NARAL thought of M/F as a pro-choice bill?

Oh... good point. I got my head turned around there... never mind.

81 posted on 11/16/2007 12:36:17 PM PST by kevkrom ("Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?" - FDT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: dschapin

It makes me happy that Thompson worries the NYT.


82 posted on 11/16/2007 12:36:36 PM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trisham
Excellent question trisham. Lets make it a statement:

I DO NOT LISTEN TO A NEWSPAPER EDITOR, WHEN I SHOULD LISTEN TO A GROUP OF FOLKS WHO HAVE DEDICATED THEIR LIVES AND CAREERS TO SAVING THE UNBORN!

It's no contest.

FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:

83 posted on 11/16/2007 12:37:01 PM PST by W04Man (I'm Now With Fred http://Vets4Fred.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

Which raises a different question, do people have the RIGHT to have their rights vindicated by government?

The HLA would not make law. Some suggest it would REQUIRE states to then make laws, but can any action really REQUIRE a body to pass a law?

What if we eliminate all laws that say abortion is legal, but don’t pass any laws that define criminal penalties for it? I know that won’t really stop a lot of abortions, but at least it won’t be a protected act anymore.

Obviously, if having recognized the right of the pre-born, and eliminating all laws that permitted the killing of the pre-born, we find that people are killing the pre-born, the government would naturally be expected to take action to stop the violation of rights. But they wouldn’t be REQUIRED to do so — or is the consensus that the constitution requires government to pass laws and enact punishments sufficient to stop individuals from violating the rights of other individuals?

I know the constitution ALLOWS government to pass such laws, but does it REQUIRE it?

For example, would the federal government, based on the “right” to burn a flag, be required to pass a law that punished people who stopped someone from burning a flag?


84 posted on 11/16/2007 12:40:46 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

If you cloned me, I probably wouldn’t vote for my clone. :-)


85 posted on 11/16/2007 12:41:56 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Yeah... I doubt I’d be pure enough for myself either. :)


86 posted on 11/16/2007 12:43:30 PM PST by kevkrom ("Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?" - FDT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

I agree with you on Fred’s position, and I speculate that the clarification issued on the subjet by his campaign was in part related to the NRLC endorsement, maybe a phone call saying “we can’t endorse you if you are saying you will oppose the platform plank on HLA (which is what he actually SAID on MTP, that he OPPOSED the plank), so his campaign came back and said he would NOT oppose it.


87 posted on 11/16/2007 12:43:36 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
We’re not. But we can define our POLICY by such things.

Sometimes principles and policy aren’t the same. Sometimes you have to be in support of a policy that might seem, on the surface, against your principles, when you determine what can be done with it, it will have a net result that is much more in line with those principles than being steadfast on a policy that won’t be implemented.

Pragmatism is a necessary part of politics.

88 posted on 11/16/2007 12:43:36 PM PST by RockinRight (Just because you're pro-life and talk about God a lot doesn't mean you're a conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Route66

Absolutely not.


89 posted on 11/16/2007 12:44:39 PM PST by Kimberly GG (Support Duncan Hunter in YOUR State....http://duncanhunter.meetup.com/1/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

I agree with you on that point.


90 posted on 11/16/2007 12:44:42 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

He isn’t “opposed” to it. He clarified that. He just knows it won’t pass.


91 posted on 11/16/2007 12:45:15 PM PST by RockinRight (Just because you're pro-life and talk about God a lot doesn't mean you're a conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: W04Man

You bet. Fred bump!


92 posted on 11/16/2007 12:47:05 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy

Excellent analysis. May I have your permission to use it elsewhere?


93 posted on 11/16/2007 12:53:57 PM PST by BubbaBasher (WWW.TWFRED08.COM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Damn Skippy...

And thanks...


94 posted on 11/16/2007 1:36:11 PM PST by ejonesie22 (Real voters in real voting booths will elect FDT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I know the constitution ALLOWS government to pass such laws, but does it REQUIRE it?

It does.

The U.S. Constitution, Article Four, Section Four

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

In other words, a form of state government that conforms to the model of our national government.

And, one that is based on the same bedrock principles.

This is not optional.

The Fourteenth Amendment clarified this even further.

95 posted on 11/16/2007 1:38:51 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy

Which other unalienable rights are you going to turn over to state decision-making?


96 posted on 11/16/2007 1:43:17 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Please explain to me what legal rationale Fred is going to use to overturn Roe and return the issue to the states. Do you think that the court is going to reject the right to privacy - I think it is too ingrained by know for them to throw it out. So, the only way that I see unborn children being protected by law is through either a Constitutional Amendment or recognition that they are persons and thus have a right to life which outweighs the mothers right to privacy. As to offering advice to the pro-choice group if he was strongly pro-life he could have refused to do so and taken whatever consequences came. It was a large firm so he probably could have passed the case off to someone else.


97 posted on 11/16/2007 1:51:39 PM PST by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan

I don’t think they should have endorsed Mitt. If they were going to hold true to their principles and endorse the most pro-life candidate then they should have endorsed either Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee (and possibly Tom Tancredo - I am not sure of his position on abortion) they are both committed defenders of the unborn who strongly support our parties pro-life platform. And in Hunter’s case, he has even sponsored a bill which would define personhood as starting at conception. In contrast, Thompson may have voted pro-life but I have seen virtually nothing that makes me think he actually cares about the issue. I could be misreading him but I don’t see any determination on his part to overturn Roe and end this injustice. He might be ok with it if it falls in his lap but I don’t think he is going to expend any political capital fighting for the Pro-Life cause.


98 posted on 11/16/2007 2:01:22 PM PST by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I think they are referring to his votes in favor of McCain-Feingold when National Right to Life had defined voting against McCain-Feingold as being key pro-life vote. If you read the entire article as opposed to the short excerpt that I was able to include it becomes more clear.


99 posted on 11/16/2007 2:04:00 PM PST by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: BibChr

This is the Washington Times NOT the New York Times.


100 posted on 11/16/2007 2:05:06 PM PST by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-159 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