The question at hand is: Does Fred Thompson hold the “Jim Gilmore Position” on abortion? Namely, that he opposes Roe but does not support the criminalization of abortion at the state level in the first trimester?
I am going to withhold my judgement here, because as with the Thompson video we discussed earlier this week, I believe there is room for good people to disagree over the meaning of what he said.
But there are several points I would like each commenter to address point-by-point if possible:
1. After seeing this video (in conjunction with the video from earlier in the week), do you believe that Fred Thompson supports a woman’s right to choose an abortion in the first trimester if allowed to do so by state law?
2. If you answered “no” to question #1. What do you feel that Fred Thompson was implying here?
3. Does the presence of multiple candidates in the 2008 GOP field who currently support abortion rights (Giuliani, FDT-if you answered “yes” to #1, and Jim Gilmore), or have supported abortion rights in the past (Mitt Romney), change your opinion on the impact that the abortion issue will play in the nomination process?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
i don’t know what fred thompson’s position is on abortion. I’m starting to wonder if even he knows what it is…
June 7th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Browser not displaying the video. So, two questions:
(1) What does it say?
and
(2) when is it from?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
What he is implying is that the government never had the authority to rule on Roe V Wade at a national level. The position he takes is that Doctors, not the patients should be held accountable, with regards to criminalization. I tend to agree with that perspective. He said he would vote for the legislation to outlaw abortion on a state level if he was voting on it in Tennessee. This is what he feels the framers implied with the Constitution, by limiting the authority of the national government. Of course, everyone else will disagree, since I’m the only one that likes the guy. It would be great if you would also post the focus group response by Frank Luntz to his interview on Hannity and Colmes.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Don’t you pro-lifers consider it a problem to call abortion murder, but to not want to charge the mother? Undercuts the whole “murder” argument.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
The basic question is this. If you hold the patient liable, are you going to arrest every fourteen year old who had an illegal abortion. Those will not stop. For reference, see the 1960’s. By giving the states authority to rule on the matter, would basically limit abortion rates in most states, and the travel fees would discourage or give the option of adoption. Does anyone actually believe taht a national ban on abortion will ever pass again? I doubt it. What is feasable is to overturn RvW, therefore making it a state decision. He would veto any national funding for abortion.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Tommy, I think that you are far from the only guy that likes FDT. I like FDT myself. But when I heard this, it seems to me that he said he would not support a law that would criminalize a young woman’s…and then Hannity cut him off.
So to make sure I understand you, your saying that FDT was about to say that he wouldn’t support a law that criminalizes a woman in this case, but would criminalize a Doctor’s actions. Is that correct?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
All of that concedes that abortion is not murder and would never be treated the same way infanticide is.
Pro-lifers would get a lot farther but calling it inhumane, cruel, abhorrent, etc. I think they do more harm than good with “murder” and especially with “baby killers.”
June 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
DavidB,
Charging the doctor (and not the mother) would likely deter huge percentages of abortions. Not only would charging the mother as an accessory (accurate as that may be) provide diminished returns in reducing abortion, it would turn the entire tide of public opinion against us. And pro-lifers are generally smart enough to take things one step at a time.
That’s why abortion rights advocates like Rudy continue to use the “throw the mother in jail” argument as a straw man.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Is anyone else having problems playing the video? It works fine for me. Please post a comment if it won’t play for you.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
What I find most interesting about this clip is not FDT’s answer as much as the fact that Sean jumped in to save him when it seemed like he was about to announce that he would not vote for anti-abortion legislation on the state level. Interesting…
What Fred Thompson’s problem has been, and will continue to be, is that he bows down at the altar of federalism to the detriment of common sense political solutions. He opposes tort reform and medical malpractice reform on the basis of federalism, but doesn’t realize that tort reform is necessarily a federal issue now, as Mitt Romney has explained on several occasions.
He talks in circles about abortion because he doesn’t think it’s a federal issue, but fails to recognize that Roe v Wade made it a federal issue and we must necessarily deal with it on a federal level now.
The thing that’s interesting about this video is he was possibly about to explain how he would vote on a pro-choice basis on a state level as well, therefor punching a hole through his facade of federalism. Of course, we will never know what he was about to say because Sean jumped in and saved him just in time before he potentially really screwed up.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
No, I didn’t catch what he said at the end. I didn’t watch the clip, so am going by memory from watching it the other night. If he supports criminalizing it, then that’s pro-life. If he didn’t and was going to imply criminalization, then why are we discussing this? I was responding to what you posted. My above post was going more in defense of his earlier position, anyways.
On the other point, I meant that supports him and take his side of the arguement. After the last post the other day, there are not many that are willing to take his side of the argument.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Tommy, I too like FDT. He’s probably in my top five choices for GOP nominee, although I haven’t really fleshed out what that might look like past Romney and Hunter. I just think he’s off on a couple issues, that’s all.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Tommy… The clip is like 45 seconds long. You should watch it. I am really interested in your reaction after you’ve seen it.
I’m not trying to play “gotcha” here. Honestly. To me this is interesting because I think that 100 people can see this video and have 100 different reactions. So I’m interested in hearing what our individual reader’s reactions are.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
murphy, Revealing. Smart enough to go one step at a time, i.e., later you’ll switch to throwing the mother in jail. All Rudy is doing is taking you at face value when you say abortion is “murder” and calling you out on your ultimate goal.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
That’s fine. I’m not saying that you don’t like him, I’m saying that I’m the only regular poster who has him as their first choice, that feels compelled to stick up for him. Most people may very well like him, but there’s a large seperation from their first choice, and if he is close or ahead, then they feel free to attack him.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I like FDT too. He’s my number 2. By a big, big, margin. He’s not terribly far behind Romney, and there have been moments when, had Romney made a different decision (for instance, supported the immigration legislation), I would have switched without hesitation. I’m EXCITED about the idea of having two articulate, electable (IMO), conservatives in the race and I trust Thompson entirely on my number 1 issue (judges). But, I don’t see what sort of spin allows this to be a pro-life position. And I can’t imagine how his words after the “and” had Hannity not cut him off, could have indicated a pro-life position. Finish the sentence for us plausibly. Given that this was precisely how he began his clearly pro-choice position statement in the 1994 debate, and given that I’ve never heard anyone that WASN’T pro-choice bring up the “I’m not going to criminalize women” line (why would they?), it seems pretty clear he doesn’t stand in the pro-life camp. Which is perfectly fine with me. Because, I happen to think the moderately pro-choice position he expressed in 1994 will play considerably better with the overall electorate, and turn Thompson into a sincerely electable, rather then just potentially electable, candidate, without effecting any of his decisions in office. I’d PREFER he had that position.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
David,
Having been Pro-Life since the moment I was able to form my own opinions, neither myself, nor any other Pro-Lifer I have ever met in my entire lifetime, wants to criminalize a woman in this case.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
First off, that was not a clearly pro choice position from the first debate. He said the same thing there that he did then. What you are basing the clearly prochoice opinion from is the sheet that came up.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Kavon, murphy clearly implies in #8 that will be a later step. Kavon, meet murphy.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
For those who can’t watch it –
Sean: “You checked a box in 1994 when you were running for Senate, where – the box said abortion should be legal in all circumstances for the first three months. That wasn’t your voting record, interestingly. Did you make a mistake checking that box?”
FDT: “I don’t remember that box. You know, it was a long time ago, and I don’t know if I filled it out or my staff based on what they thought my position was filled it out. But here’s what the deal is on that. I’ve always thought that Roe v Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, and it’s a matter that should go back to the states.
When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway. I might vote against one approach, but I think the state ought to have it. I would not be, and never have been, for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in TN voting on this for example, if they chose to criminalize a young woman -”
Sean: “States’ rights for you.”
FDT: “Essentially. Federalism. It’s in the Constitution.”
————————————-
You can see Fred’s face light up when he says the word “federalism”, as if he’s thinking, “Ah, there we go – now I’m back on track and can gloss over this issue.”
The issue is his last sentence there where he begins talking in circles and begins to talk about how pro-life laws “criminalize young women”…. iffy….
June 7th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I believe FDT is a federalist on the issue, but I believe he is pro-choice.
Point #1: Abortion and federalism. I’m not sure this argument is enough to satisfy pro-lifers. Unfortunately with my own experience in evangelicals quarters is that most don’t understand federalism. I’d be really curious to know how many of them believe if Roe v. Wade is overturned that abortion when then be outlaw nationally? My bet is its a good portion and so I stick by my belief that this answer by FDT will not stand over time.
Point #2: Yes, I do believe he is pro-choice in the first trimester and is pandering for the pro-life segment that is unhappy. However, this isn’t to say doing that is limited to him. More and more evangelicals, especially the younger crowd, have come to the consensus that many of these “pro-life” people are just pandering to us to win elections…more than likely Mitt Romney and John McCain are in this boat as well. The only sincere pro-lifers in this race are Huckabee and Brownback. All the more reason why, even though I ideologically don’t fit with Giuliani I wish him luck because I feel like he has a position and is sticking by it despite the fact it doesn’t bode well in his favor. Something to be said for honesty.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Compared to his interview last month on Hannity and Colmes, where he says he is “pro-life” you can’t really put words into his mouth.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
DavidB, not quite.
If throwing the doctors in jail were enough to deter abortion, I have no intention to promote criminilizing the mothers. If, however, criminilizing the doctors did NOT deter abortion, AND it would not be a PR disaster for the pro-life cause, THEN I would support laws that apply to the mother as well.
Nice job trying to seed dissent, as always.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
and after watching the video again, there is no way you can decide what he was about to say. He could’ve said I won’t criminalize women. or I won’t criminalize women, but will hold the doctors accountable, which is what I believe his position is, or he could’ve said send em to jail and throw away the key. The bottom line is, he’s never been for “Roe v Wade.” His record is 100% supporting this.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
murphy: Your position is loud and clear to any woman reading this.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
David B:
Holding doctors accountable on a state level and throwing young girls in jail for the rest of their life are two very different things.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
DavidB,
What position is that? That I firmly believe abortion kills another human being?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Tommy’s right that FDT’s voting record is 100% Pro-Life.
I will take FDT’s word on it when he finally makes a definitive statement as to whether or not he opposes abortion in the first trimester at any level. I will trust him to be a honest about the issue as Rudy has been, since I can’t think of a reason not to trust FDT if he comes flat out and says so.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
That you’ll do everything you can to take away their choice, and if you aren’t pleased with the statistics, you’ll throw them in jail, as long as the PR isn’t too bad.
Loud and f’ing clear!
June 7th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
No, it’s the position of a realist. Someone who doesn’t agree with a abortion, but realizes the division of the issue and faces reality.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
BTW,
Is anyone interested in answering in the 1, 2, 3, format listed in the story? Not that you have to, but it would certainly go along way to figure out what the consensus of the people who have viewed it here is.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Tommy,
He may of said a lot of things, but it’s clear the sentence that was cut off sounded remarkebly like his sentence in 94. Ehich his voting record was perfectly in line with.
I also had a good hoot over a staffer who filled out the form. So what he is saying is that he had a staffer who was trusted enough to fill out a questionnaire but had no idea what his stance on the issue of abortion was? Pretty implausible.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
For the record, I personally do not support in any way jailing a woman for having an abortion.
That is an accommodation I am willing to make along with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, and incest.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
On a helpful note, you can’t simultaneously talk about “murder” and “baby killing” and then act wronged when Rudy talks about jailing women.
I suggest different language if you’re interested in PR.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
DavidB,
You’re getting your panties in a knot over a hypothetical situation. Do you honestly think that criminilization of abortion would NOT deter doctors from practicing it? Just look at the stats of doctors willing to perform PBA in deep red states compared to CA!
I’m trying to take you seriously, but you’re making it tough. But by all means, continue to raise hay about how the evil religious right is taking away a woman’s “choice” to kill her kids. Makes your candidate look real good.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Kavon, I know you don’t. And I don’t think you use terms like “baby killers” either. I’m addressing less reasonable pro-lifers.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Kavon, I thought I did that in my first posts.
1. No, not on a national level, regardless
2. read my above clarifications
3. haven’t thought about it, and there’s a difference. Will Rudy support overturning RvW? which is what the goal of most prolifers who understand that their never going to get a national law passed to outlaw abortion, and the effects that could have, dangers of illegal abortion, etc.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
“Kill her kid.” You just did it again.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Oh but act all outraged if we suggest putting her in jail!
June 7th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
You just have to love this hypocrisy.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I pretty much hold the exact personal opinion on the subject as Kavon
June 7th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
DavidB,
Of course she’s killing her kid (or having her kid killed, if you want to be technical). Do you have any grip on the reality of what abortion is? Any grip at all?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Here’s my shot at it:
1) Absolutely. No question about it.
2) N/A
3) I think FDT is in a different league than Rudy, because he believes Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. I trust him to nominate anti-Roe judges to the SCOTUS. So it’s not really that big of an issue for me. If Rudy ends up winning the nomination (which he very well could), then the prominence of abortion in GOP elections would be called into question for me. The fact that 57% of GOP voters still don’t know Rudy is pro-choice will make for some interesting poll-watching as that fact becomes more well known. If Rudy manages to hold his poll numbers, then abortion will be weakened as a primary issue. If, however, his poll numbers continue to drop, then abortion will remain a stalwart GOP issue.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
From watching the videos twice, I would say that it seems pretty clear that he supports a states’-rights view regardless of what that might be and regardless of what his own personal view may be. Some seem to forget that if Roe were to be totally reversed, the issue would then go back to the States; abortion per se would not necessarily be outlawed. This, btw, is the Fred Thompson that I thought I remembered from the ’90s. So, I would say “yes” to question 1. I would also say “yes” to your third point, Kevon. It seems that a large portion of prospective GOP primary voters, even self identified religious-social conservatives, are taking a more nuanced view on a number of these issues and taking into consideration the prospect that, other than the appointment of judges, that the ability of the president to change the current policy on abortion is actually quite limited.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Of course she’s killing her kid– but outrage over the suggested she be punished.
Any grip at all on your end?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I’m not expressing outrage over the suggestion that she be punished. I’m disagreeing with it as an effective tactic for reducing the 1+ million killings every year.
You don’t listen well.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Jason, hoot all you want. Everyone else hoots over Mitt’s talent for mangling what he means on pretty much anything.
I mean, if you want to call out FDT for sayign something, but deny Mitt’s manglisms as meaning anything but, then that’s funny. For the record, I happen to believe what Mitt says, but every week he says something that leaves me scratching my head, because it doesn’t make sense, or sounds like exactly the opposite of what he was implying. I take Mitt at his word, though. I would hope most conservatives would do the same.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
1. Yes.
2. N/A
3. No. It reinforces my belief that abortion will play a very insignificant role in the GOP nomination process.
4. Go Rudy.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
David,
What you do not understand is that people who are against abortion believe that it terminates a life prematurely…. Kind of like murder. We honestly and truly believe this deep within our hearts, that abortion kills a baby. So yes, sometimes we do use this kind of language, but it is not hyperbole on our part. It is a deeply held belief. I believe that every time a “fetus” is aborted that a human baby has been killed.
The problem you are having here IMHO, is one that almost all of my liberal friends and family have as well when discussing Pro-Lifers; which is that you cannot separate yourself from your belief that Pro-Lifers want to control women’s reproductive rights. That we just want women to not be able to “choose”.
When you are finally able to understand that when you look at an abortion clinic, you see a medical facility; and when a Pro-Lifer looks at an abortion clinic, they see a death camp along the lines of Treblinka, why that kind of language is used.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Regarding Kavon’s orginal 3 questions:
1. Yes.
2. N/A.
3. Yes, definitely. Like Heavy said, it’ll be more nuanced. I could still support FDT as long as he’s opposed to RvW. He may not be my first choice, but I would be fine with a moderately pro-choice President who appointed ant-RvW justices. Personally, I hope this election drives home the importance of converting voters and politicians to the pro-life movement. I hope the decision is made based on a candidate’s current beliefs (provided they are sincere).
June 7th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Of course FDT’s voting record is 100 percent pro-life.
He’s against PBA.
He’s against abortion funding.
He’s against Roe.
But he’s never cast a vote against first-trimester abortions. Because he never had to.
Consequently, Fred’s voting record tells us nothing about his views on first-trimester abortions.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Tommy,I was talking purely about Fred. It wasn’t a very good argument. It’s a lame excuse and (in my book probably not the truth) to claim the staffer who has been delegated the responsibility of filling out a policy questionair has no idea what his boss’s policy is.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
DaveG,
That’s the boil down. It would be nice to here a Thompson person actually address this head on. “Head on! I hate your commercials, but I love your politics.”
June 7th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
DaveG,
I’m going to be embarrased if I missed this…but when did FDT vote against Roe? Otherwise, that sums up the entire question with a neat little bow.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I’ll take Thompson at his word Tommy. Whenever he tells us what his word is. I want someone to ask him, point blank, whether he supports legalized abortion in the first trimester (or alternatively, whether he’d support a ban on abortion, for all 9 months, including exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of his mother). At the state level. If he answers no to the first question, and yes to the second, I’m perfectly willing to take his word on the issue. But, that doesn’t change the fact that his 1994 “word” was moderately pro-choice, or the fact that it sounded like his 2007 “word” was moderately pro-choice as of today.
There’s only two reasons people use straw men, which his “criminalizing women” line is, by any stretch. Actually only 1 reason, but with two sub-categories. They do it to make their position seem more reasonable. They’ll do it, for instance, to make a position they don’t hold seem more radical. That only leaves us with two possibilities. 1. Thompson was about to tell us he was moderately pro-choice (using the line from his 1994 debate), and wanted to make his position seem more palatable to pro-lifers (though lord knows Rudy has shown this doesn’t work). 2. He thinks he already has this thing sown up, and is already pitching himself to the general electorate. The first I’m fine with, the second infuriates. There simply aren’t any other good reasons for Thompson to even bring up a line like that.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Murph,
I was inferring his opposition to Roe from his votes to confirm Bush judges in 2001-02. Of course, one could easily be pro-Roe and still vote to confirm your own party’s president’s anti-Roe judges for lots of other reasons.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Jason,
You were talking purely about Fred, but its funny that whenever anyone questions anything Romney has ever said or done, you automatically take his side without question. I know, I do the same thing, but I tend to take your word for it. And it’s really not doing any good, what we believe anyway, because we don’t sway national opinion, and if you tried to use it nationally, it would get ugly real quick, because all we’d see are negative clips of debates, and the twisting of words to fit whatever you want them to be.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Matt,
watch his first interview with Hannity from a month ago, where he says “I am pro life”
June 7th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Tommy,
I am sorry, I just find it an implausible line. If Mitt used I would probably find it implausible also, I just wouldn’t enter into the conversation.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
This demonstrates that Fred will have a difficult time in the live debates. Right now Fred is a blank slate, and can be whatever the social conservatives want him to be.
I do think that the social conservatives are so desperate for a candidate, that they may be willing to overlook some missteps by Fred, but this type of rambling will keep Fred from rising much beyond 20% in the polls.
In the end, Fred is a tired old man, and not the actor everyone thinks he is.
Fred is no Ronald Reagan!
June 7th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Tommy #59, that’s the rub. The term “pro-life” has been taken to mean so many things. FDT has pointed out that his voting record is pro-life. But if I used that as my criteria to define what pro-life is, I’d think Gilmore was pro-life too.
I’m all in favor of hearing the candidates answer some simple and direct questions.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
TM,
As a lawyer, Fred was considered on the same level as Rudy, one of the top lawyers in the country. If you think he’s going to have a hard time in the debates, think again. I’ve seen him debate, and it is not one of his weaknesses.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
TM, I am a Thompson supporter, and there is no such thing as another Reagan. You’re blaming him for the media spin.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Hannity: “There are…three issues come up where people question your conservatism. One is when you checked the box in 1994 when you were running for Senate, where the box said ‘abortion should be legal in all circumstances for the first three months.’ That wasn’t your voting record, interestingly. Did you make a mistake checking the box?”
Thompson: “I don’t remember that box. You know, it was a long time ago. I don’t know if I filled it out or my staff, based on what they thought my position was, filled it out. But, here is what the deal is on that. I’ve always thought that Roe versus Wade was a wrong decision. That they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years. That it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway. I might vote against one approach, but I think the state ought to have it. And I would not be and never have been for a law that says on the state level if I were back in Tennessee voting on this, for example, that if they chose to criminalize a young woman and”
Hannity: “States’ rights for you.”
Thompson: “Essentially…Federalism. It’s in the Constitution.”
During his first run for the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson was asked in an interview with the Republican Liberty Caucus: “Some conservatives got flustered by your comments on abortion and Roe vs. Wade. Would you like to explain your position on abortion?”
Thompson answered: “Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.”
It is quite obvious that, by any commonly accepted definition, Fred Thompson is, legally, pro-choice.
What I’d like to know is, at what time while in the Senate did Fred Thompson cast a vote specifically in opposition to first trimester abortion rights?
Thompson had the opportunity to distance himself from that questionnaire, unequivocally asserting that he does not believe, or no longer does, what he acknowledges he may have checked off himself. He did not.
Ironically, it is his moderate position on the issue of abortion that elevates his appeal nationally, and puts him on my short list of potential candidates for whom I would vote.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Tommy,
I saw it Tommy. But Harold Ford Jr. also said he was pro-life. Saying you’re pro-life, divorced from your substantive position on the issue, is utterly meaningless. My Dad swears up and down he’s pro-life, because he’s personally opposed to abortion. Romney has said a fair number of times, that he’d oppose legalized abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. So we know that, when he says he’s pro-life, it means something that is commonly thought to fit under the definition of pro-life. But, being as how Thompson never called himself pro-life prior to that Hannity interview, checked a box supporting legalized abortion in the first trimester in 1994, and said he didn’t want to criminalize women or their doctors, it’s vitally important that we know what he means by “I’m pro-life”. Because either it’s consistent with his previous position, and therefore not what “I” mean by pro-life, or it’s inconsistent and actually pro-life.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Kavon,
Based strictly on those two videos, here’s my answer to your questions.
1) FDT states he wants to win “the battle for hearts and minds,” but NOT make young women criminals, or turn their doctors/boyfriends/friends/etc. into “aiders and abetors.” He does state that he supports additional regulations, such as parental notifications, etc. So he doesn’t want to make it a crime to have or perform an abortion, but he does want to reduce the availability of abortions with red tape.
In my mind, this is a very similar position to Rudy’s: personally pro-life, willing to promote policies that will reduce the “attractiveness” of abortion, but ultimately pro-choice in the sense that he is unwilling to ban the procedure. FDT and Rudy are not alike, however, in one important way: FDT unequivocally states that Roe should be overturned (while only on federalism grounds), while Rudy offers conflicting statements on the federal case against Roe and the stare decisis case for Roe.
The pro-life cause has, of course, focused on reversing Roe, and not on obtaining a federal abortion ban, so FDT’s “federalist” opposition would make him “functionally pro-life” in the sense that his goals are fully aligned with the current pro-life movement’s goals (Rudy, who wants to be seens as “functionally pro-life” for supporting “justices like Alito and Roberts,” ultimately can’t even be considered for that lukewarm title, b/c he won’t even say Roe should be overturned).
That’s not to gloss over the failure of FDT to come out strongly against abortion per se, b/c as the next President, FDT very well could get Roe overturned. The question then would be, what next? If he would use the bully pulpit to talk down abortion bans (even on the state level) as “criminalizing young girls and their doctors” instead of “saving unborn lives,” that would be a tremendous failure of leadership, and a missed opportunity to convert people to the cause of life at a time when the issue would be getting tremendous coverage (even more so than normal).
So to some up, I believe the answer to question #1 is “yes”, based on his choice of language (focusing on the negative of “criminalization” in both videos as opposed to focusing on the necessity of government to protect innocent human life).
Question #2: N/A
Question #3: Yes. I’ve been surprised that Rudy was able to obtain such high poll numbers despite his pro-choice positions (although, to unsophisticated ears, he clearly tries to muddy the water somewhat). That said, Rudy’s support, though still formidable, is eroding as the race is gets more media attention and the candidates are appearing on national TV. In the early primary/caucus states, where people pay the most attention (at least at this stage in the cycle), and where voters get the most face time with the candidates, Rudy is not leading, so my instincts are not completely wrong.
But, with Rudy’s strong national numbers, and his emerging strategy of feigning indifferent to small-state rural primaries to mitigate the damage of losing IA and NH, in order to try to win the still-early 2/5 national primary via his strength in blue states, I think there is a plausible scenario where a pro-choice candidate could win. And while I don’t find that scenario very likely, the fact that the possibility exists of a pro-choice candidate winning the GOP nomination has been a surprise for me.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Wow Aron! I’d never seen this portion of that quote before: “Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.”
How anybody can say, with a straight face, that’s not a pro-choice position, is frankly beyond me.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Spell much, Fredo?
First of all, “abettors”.
Secondly “So to sum up.” Duh.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Jason,
Do we want to go into clarifications and what you’ve defended in the past, and since his record showed it, we take your word for it?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Likewise, Matt. I cannot possibly imagine the pro-lifer who believes the choice to kill or not to kill your child is a relativistic moral decision best left up to the parent.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Aron, that is a stunning statement from FDT. Do you have a link to that transcript?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Tommy,
Let me say this as a friend…
Before Rudy came out with his official position on abortion, people like Dave and I spent a great deal of time speculating, postulating, pontificating, etc…, on Rudy’s abortion position. Even going so far as to write who essays on particular policy positions.
And in the end. Rudy himself came out with his own position, which is not one (and I think I can speak for Dave here) that we urged him to take.
The lesson here is that you don’t get to choose what your candidate does or believes. Only he can do that.
I am just worried that you might be deeply disappointed if FDT does come out and say that he basically holds the “Gilmore Position” eventually. But that doesn’t mean that FDT is a bad candidate, or that he’s not a conservative. It just means that he doesn’t hold exactly the position you want him to on this one issue.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I personally don’t care. I’m just debating the other side of the issue. I don’t hold my candidate to as high of standards as some seem to think I do. I’m debating this because nobody else will.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Kavon: I get it. What I don’t get is believing abortion is “baby killing” but wanting to let the mother go scot free, and taking offense to the statement that if abortion is murder, mothers would be jailed.
I think both sides need to realize abortion is probably the biggest moral gray issue of human existence.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Tommy,
Here is the problem:
I am saying something Fred says is implausible.
You respond by attacking me.
Summary: I hope you can take some time to respond to the original comment and not attack me.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Fred Thompson: “The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.”
http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/04/fred-thompson-pro-choice-republican.html
June 7th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Tommy,
But, isn’t there an obligation, among supporters of a candidate, to be honest about things when they reach a certain plateau of evidence? I remember some months ago, a few Romney supporters framed Romney’s abortion position as “he promised to have a moratorium on abortion laws”. It was true enough, but as more information came to the forefront, it became clear to us that Romney had been pro-choice in the past. And some of his supporters undoubtedly went searching elsewhere, but most simply re-examined his record and came to the conclusion that he was still a candidate worth supporting. And they acknowledged that he had previously been pro-choice. There’s really no shame in shifting the pegs a little, or conceding a point when the evidence is against you. I certainly understand why Fred’s supporters are unwilling to do this. Because, until it becomes absolutely necessary, i.e. until the media and commentators start going after this with the veracity they went after Romney, he can remain “Mr. Perfect”. Because, either he becomes just another flip-flopper after this concession, or he ceases to be the conservative savior.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
veracity=ferocity*
June 7th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
The American Spectator and National Review picked up on this in April…
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6230
June 7th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Thompson To-Dos
Candidacy considerations.
By Ramesh Ponnuru
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=N2E0NGRiZTRmNTkzMTc4MzA2ZWIwMTNhNDRlZTg2NWE=
June 7th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Eric Dondero who wrote that article was banned at redstate for posting it.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Back when this stuff originally came out in March and April, there was a whispering campaign making its way through certain quarters of the blogosphere that Fred had been pro-choice in 1994, but had evolved on the issue over time due to the birth of his child, and his Senate record reflected that evolution. The unequivocal statement on Fox News a few months ago where Fred called himself pro-life was supposed to be the end-result of a long transformation. But Fred’s statement on Hannity this week shows that he’s still ultimately pro-choice, at least w/r/t earlier-term abortions. It will be interesting to see how the sorts of folks who banned Eric Dondero over such news will digest these facts.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
That’s really funny. I didn’t realize Fred State had gotten to such a point where it bans the presentation of a candidate’s record.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
“That’s really funny. I didn’t realize Fred State had gotten to such a point where it bans the presentation of a candidate’s record.”
Good point Murphy, the social conservatives are desperate and will do anything to reshape Fred into the Ronald Reagan they think he is.
Unfortunately, the more we see of Fred, the harder it will be for them to cover up the fact he is no Ronald Reagan.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Hey now…not all social conservatives are desperate. Some of us are quite happy.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Jason, I’m not attacking you. I am trying to explain the differences in how we percieve the candidates. When Mitt says something dumb, it’s automatically taken out of context. When Fred says something dumb, it’s implausible. Fred’s statement on Hannity didn’t say anything. You guys are speculating what he was going to say, and call it a save. Speculation is ridiculous.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I am proud to say I have been banned there 3 times.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I will tell you how I feel about redstate sometime, but not right now. And for the record, I occasionally show up there, but it is not my favorite site.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I don’t know where Fred is on abortion. I don’t know if he’s pro-choice but personally pro-life
or if he’s straight-up pro-life or somewhere in between. Only he can answer that and so far he’s avoided doing it. When he does, I’ll believe him.
If he is genuinely pro-life, then he will remain my close #2 choice (as Matt said, if Romney hadn’t taken the right side on immigration, he’d be my #1). If he favors first-trimester abortions (90% of all abortions), then I will not vote for him in the primary. But I would be comfortable supporting him in the primary. His past support of pro-life positions like the PBA and parental notification, and his clear opposition to Roe v. Wade, mean I can trsut him on judges in a way I can’t trust Planned-Parenthood, “it would be OK” Giuliani.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Tommy,
He did say a staffer filled out that form, did he not? And earlier you had said the same. I look forward to a reason why that is plausible. That is all I am asking.
Some sample answers could be:
1. The staffer who did is taking responsibility
2. The organization has a weak integrity and has taken questionnaires from low level staffers before.
3. This organization has misreported the facts before
4. I don’t have a good answer but I am choosing to believe Fred. We agree to disagree.
All are acceptable.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Jason, apparently they can only ban screen names and not IP addresses? Or are the moderators simply more merciful than I thought?
This discussion reminds me how nice it is around here, where Kavon lets us bozos regularly harp on Rudy.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
I’ll tell you right now what I think. I am there all the time. Erick is good natured and so are a few of the editors. Many of the Editors have god-complex’s. It could be good, but the egos and the belittling by the Editors of those they disagree with ruin much of what they set out to do.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
They know your IP address and can keep an eye out for it.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Tommy,
Regarding the validity of the checked box… Surely this was all public knowledge during the campaign in 1994. At the time, did FDT make any attempt to retract the checking of the box?
June 7th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
I know as much about it as you do, and I’ll let him explain it when he feels like its time.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
I go to Redstate but its too much a hobby horse for its founders. Redstate would be much better off if someone like Kavon W. Nikrad is running it, since he’s pretty fair-minded.
I’ve gotten banned at Redstate once, I think for arguing with one of their poo-bahs (Erick Erickson or Leon Wolf) but I’m not sure since they would never tell me why and finally just reinstated me when I pressed the issue.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Tommy,
That’s fair.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Murphy,
its not just the checked box. Its the interviews, the constituent letter, the widespread and uncontradicted news reports . . .
June 7th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I think RS was a more vibrant community a couple of years ago. The Editors then were all very distinguishable and each sort of filled a specific conservative niche. Leon was the religious conservative, Adam was the Kavon/DaveG-style pro-life libertarian, Thomas was the ornery yet endearing paleocon, Erick was the all-around conservative with southern charm, and so on. I think there’s been a lot of staff turnover in recent years, and that’s hurt the site a bit, and possibly related, though not necessarily so, is an increasing control over what people say. The only time I’ve ever endorsed a ban around here was when a commenter decided to be a jerk. And a good portion of the time, they can email a Mea Culpa to Kavon and get reinstated. But to ban over a point of view suggests an insecurity regarding the prevailing points of view of the editors, and that’s not a sign of a healthy site.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Jim Gilmore skipping Iowa, not that it matters much.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
murphy, I don’t think it really ever came up. Like a lot of posters here, I came of age in the early nineties, and it was a much different time then than it is now.
BREAKING NEWS… DON’T WRITE OFF THOMPSON PARTICIPATING IN STRAW POLL YET.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
What’s the deal with little guys skipping Iowa? This is their big chance! Rudy and McCain certainly aren’t going to improve their performance by skipping, so there’s votes up for grabs. Is it that they’re too broke? How much money were they really going to spend anyway? Correct me if I’m wrong, but what other chance in the early Autumn do they have to springboard their campaign?
Did Romney really just make the whole field collectively wet themselves?
June 7th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Tommy,
If what you imply about FDT possibly competing at Ames is true, it could be his “big stud” moment. A strong #2 would be very nice for him. He would certainly earn points as not being scared to face the voters.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I don’t know. I’d understand if he didn’t, because he really is at a disadvantage but the grassroots organisation and volunteers are ready if they do. He’s just hasn’t had the face time there, so we’ll see. But it’s too early to make assumptions on what he’ll do.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Tommy,
Let me come to your support even though I am a little bit late and I posted about this a few hours after the Hannity interview aired.
I am as pro-life as anyone and I think Thompson will do a great job because you can tell that he really wants Roe overturned. His rhetoric on a national level is much more pro-life than Rudy’s, which also will make him a better spokesman for the cause. He is in favor of any possible restriction that could pass at a national level.
As long as Fred deals with this so it couldn’t hinder a general election campaign he is solidly my number two choice and I would even donate money to his campaign, which is saying a lot since I am a poor medical student. I would vote for Rudy, but I wouldn’t campaign for him or donate to him. The rest really don’t matter, though McCain is in the same boat as Rudy.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
To answer the questions,
1- Yes, but even though I would prefer a pro-life candidate, it doesn’t matter that much to me for the reasons stated above.
2- n/a
3- It makes the issue much more important because in the past it was always a foregone conclusion that our candidates were pro-life so it wasn’t talked about. Now it will be a subject in every single GOP debate. Also, depending on how this plays out it really helps Romney no matter what, and potentially Gingrich if Thompson handles it poorly enough that Newt thinks he has a chance.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Dskinner, I appreciate that wholeheartedly. I’m a poor bum and am even poorer since I gave him all I could.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
BREAKING NEWS DON’T WRITE OFF THOMPSON PARTICIPATING IN STRAW POLL YET.
Wow. If that’s true, it would really remove any doubts about Fred not having the fire. Also, if he plays it right, he could really deal a blow to Rudy and John while limiting the damage to himself. Playing it right means saying something like “I’m not expecting much since I’ve come into the race late but I’m not afraid of a challenge and I’m nto afraid of the voters. The more voters find out about me, the more comfortable they get.”
And, in the unlikely chance that Thompson comes really close to or even beats Romney, his campaign would be roaring.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Henry, I hope that is exactly what Thompson does and says because that would really hurt McCain and Giuliani.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Yea, I kind of don’t think he will, but I personally agree with you. I can understand the argument that it might not be worth it having to play catch up, as well. We’ll see what happens.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
But it’s not a conclusion, by any means, the grassroots team has assembled and are ready to move if given the word.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
according to Fox News
June 7th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
I’m not sure whether I want Thompson to enter Ames or not. On the one hand, it re-legitimizes Ames, and deals a blow to Rudy and McCain. On the other, the sort of boost he’d get, in both press and endorsements, might actually be enough to make him competitive there long-term. I guess if I had my druthers, I’d want Thompson in. Because, my gut tells me that Mitt’s midwestern roots give him the best cultural connection to Iowans (or at least comparable to Fred’s), and this combined with his money, organization, and jump start, should be enough to allow him to easily hold off Fred in both the straw poll, and the caucus. And also, I like Fred enough that if he, by some chance, knocks Romney off there, I’d be fine seeing him gain a fairly clear path to the nomination (a race with a weakened Mitt, and a non-existent or weakened McCain, is really Fred’s to win because Rudy is utterly helpless in the South).
June 7th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Henry, I hope that is exactly what Thompson does and says because that would really hurt McCain and Giuliani.
I’m more anti-Rudy than I am pro-Mitt and this whole immigration debacle has made me pretty anti-McCain also. So if Thompson can take them both down a little, that makes me like him all the more.
I said earlier that I didn’t intend to vote for Thompson in the primary if he was pro-choice in the first trimerster. One exception might be if the was the only real alternative to Rudy when my 2/5 primary roled around.
June 7th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Kavon
I think that Fred thinks as you say and that this could help to crystalize the issue visa vis Rudy on Roe and whether a conservative judge could possibly uphold Roe. Fred has said Roe is bad law. Rudy has not and Rudy has also said that judges he appoints could uphold Roe. This provides an opening for Fred.
Rudy will be in the semis. The question is who will be the laternative and if abortion is pivotal. Fred could possibly appeal to some Rudy voters with his Personla beliefs even though they really are irrelevant since we aren’t electing him to state office.
more later
June 7th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
This just proves that Fred can’t be trusted on anything.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Kavon…there’s a man named Jim Gilmore in the race?