Fred Thompson: "Fiscally Conservative/Socially Tolerant"
By ericdondero Posted in Archived — Comments (72) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
by Eric Dondero
I welcome Fred Thompson into the race for the GOP Presidential Nomination. I've been a fan of his ever since the early 1990s.
We in the Republican Liberty Caucus viewed Thompson back then as one of us: Perhaps not a straight out libertarian, but certainly a libertarian-leaner.
In the early 1990s, the Tennessee Republican Party was in a State of War between Pro-Choice/Moderate/Libertarian Republicans versus the Religious Right. It was a rather bitter long drawn out battle too. Thompson was clearly on the side of the libertarians and Moderates. His Religious Right opponent in the GOP Primary in 1994 was a guy named John Bakkes. Thompson beat him 62 to 37 percent. But it was a hard-fought race with lots of criticism from Bakkes towards Thompson for his Pro-Choice/Socially Moderate views.
The Tennessee RLC at the time was headed by Moderate Republican Michael McCloskey of Knoxville and libertarian Republican Andrew Murphey of Memphis. Both McCloskey and Murphey, as well as other "Socially Tolerant" Republicans worked very hard for Thompson.
McCloskey was the head of the anti-Religious Right Republican Coalition in the State at the time. He also served as Chairman for Ann Stone's Republicans for Choice and as State Contact for the Ripon Society. McCloskey was a big donor to Thompson, and one of his earliest and most ardent supporters.
Murphey ended up working for Thompson in the local campaign. In August of that year Murphey interviewed Thompson for our National Newsletter, Republican Liberty.
In the interview Thompson called himself a "Goldwater Republican," a supporter of Budget Cuts, Term Limits, School Choice and opposed to Gun Control.
But further in the interview Thompson reaffirmed his Pro-Choice views to our readers.
Murphey:
Some Conservatives got flustered by your comments on abortion and Roe vs. Wade. Would you like to explain your position on abortion?
Thompson:
Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the women. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.
This is the perfect libertarian position. If Thompson runs he will no doubt attract a great deal of support from the libertarian wing of the GOP.
Rudy Giuliani holds a virtually identical position. Which makes this a very tough GOP Primary choice for us libertarian Republicans. Both gentleman would make fantastic standardbearers for the Republican Party in 2008.
Anyone got a half dollar coin?
*Note - Eric Dondero is the Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus, and served as the organization's first National Chairman, from 1991-94. He also served as Publisher of Republican Liberty for 4 years. Dondero was Senior Aide for US Congressman Ron Paul from 1997-2003. He is currently a GOP Consultant in Houston, TX and Manages the libertarian Republican website www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
J
Once Senator Thompson announces, if he does, then he will state a position on the issue I'm fairly sure.
In the race now we have Rudy who would support public funding of abortions, something that I don't think many self described Republicans are happy with at all. I'm probably in the squishy middle camp on the issue, but not happy at all with his outright support of tax payer funded abortions.
We have "Yourman Mitt", who looks pretty good to me overall, but appears to suffer a bit from a lacking of conviction one way or the other on the issue. Romney on this issue comes off as too cute by half and lacking in conviction one way or the other, something that I don't like.
I don't know McCain's position, but again, I'd rather have plain spoken positions on the issue, something Brownback has done on one end of the spectrum, and something Rudy has at the other end of the spectrum of Republican candidates.
My guess is that Fred thinks abortions in general and Roe is bad law and if anything can be done the decision should be turned back to the individual states. He won't excite those that seek an immediate and complete end to abortions. My guess, he'll be somewhere to the Right of Rudy, and to the Left of Brownback.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
Just yesterday, I believe Rudy clarified his position down in South Carolina, saying that his statements were misinterpreted, and that he was not in favor of government funding.
Besides, it was clearly a set-up. CNN!! You don't think that the Lefties at CNN planned that? They fear Rudy more than anyone. And anything they can do to bring him down, they'll do in a heartbeat.
What's dissapointing is how my fellow Republicans have not seen through this trick by CNN. Apparently, it's worked.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
There is a lot of hope floating around Rudy -hope that somehow he is the super secret squirrel candidate that turns into a Reagan-like leader and enough doubt to suggest that he is exactly what CNN portrayed.
Your fellow Republican's haven't 'seen through this' because Rudy has a record that is hardly conservative in many important areas and because we have suffered through eight years of confusion thinking GWB was a conservative when he was not.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice...
But seriously folks, CNN deserves credit for playing into the Hillary Horde's hands on bashing Rudy.
But Rudy spoke his mind on abortion funding several times. That wasn't Ted Turner doing a voice-over when Rudy's lips were moving. That was the real Rudy.
He has always believed in using your money to pay for abortions for poor women and he has appointed judges who have ruled that your money can be used to pay for some she-male's sex change.
I'm sure that the day isn't far away when Rudy will decide that your money should be used to fund a high school for gay-leaning teenagers.
If Rudy's trying to backtrack on the abortion funding issue, it's far to late for that. He's made his bed, he can lay in it now.
In 1994, Thompson called himself a "pro-choice" candidate and said he was in favor of parent notification laws, in favor of allowing states to pass restrictions on abortion, in favor of ending any and all taxpayer funding of abortion -- including annual appropriations to Planned Parenthood that just freed up other funds for abortion, etc.
In effect, he was more pro-life than Romney was in 2002, despite calling himself "pro choice."
When he got elected, he embraced the pro-life cause and has a stellar record with groups like Fidelis, National Right to Life, etc.
While I and others will be fighting against Thompson if he's pro-choice, I'll wait for more information before raising my hackles. With respect, a quote from an admittedly partisan source, without the context, isn't all that convincing.
Thompson spent a term in the Senate. Surely he has a record that can be reasonably evaluated.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm to see how he's voted on abortion and other issues.
For anyone wishing me to fax them a copy of the interview in Republican Liberty, please send me your fax # off-list. Send it to my email at ericdondero@yahoo.com.
On Monday, I'll go up to Houston to Office Max and fax each and everyone of you who request it, a copy of the Newsletter.
Again, THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT A SLAM AGAINST FRED THOMPSON. I like the guy a lot! I'd be more than happy with him as our GOP Nominee.
I just want some truth in labeling here. He's not a "Social Conservative" but rather a very LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN!!
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
I luv ya man. But those votes have nothing to do with whether or not he's Pro-Choice or Pro-Life.
I'm hardcore Pro-Choice, and I would have voted exactly the same on all three of those votes. I absolutely oppose partial birth abortions, and cloning. Actually, I'm a bit undecided on the Military Base deal. If there's an exception for saving the Life of the Mother, I could go along with that ban.
So, I, AND FRED THOMPSON, have essentially a "Kay Baily Hutchison" view on abortion. We're very Pro-Choice. But, on 80 to 90% of the issues that come before Congress, we'd absolutely side with our Pro-Life friends.
The crucial question to ask Fred Thompson would be, "Mr. Thompson if you were a Tennessee State Legislator would you vote to ban all abortions in the State as they have done in South Dakota?"
Something tells me he'd answer NO to that question. Thus, he's Pro-Choice.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
# Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
# Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Libertarianism is a losing ideology. No one really supports it, and it has basically feed off conservative victories for years. Even when the libertarians tried to cozy up with liberals after the 06 election, the liberals told them to take a hike. That says just about everything right there.
That was only a small segment of Libertarians who tried to cozy up to Daily Kos and the Liberals after the '06 Election. Myself and other libertarian Republicans fought like hell to thwart this from happening. I've been working full-time virtually since then AT MY OWN EXPENSE, to ensure that there's NO LINKAGE WITH THOSE JERKOFF LEFTISTS to my beloved libertarian movement.
CERTAINLY!!! The Republican Liberty Caucus had absolutely NOTHING to do with that move to link up with the Left.
It was limited to a few folks at Cato, some Editors of Reason and some Geeky Leftwing Libertarian Party folks.
PLEASE DO NOT IN ANY WAY associate us libertarian Republicans with that. We fought that like you would not believe. And I believe in the end, we have won out.
Notice you don't hear much about that "Liberal-tarian" meme any more either from Daily Kos or even the Leftwing Libertarians.
They failed. We libertarian Republicans won out.
And quite frankly, YOU my Republican brothers and sisters, have yours truly to largely thank for that.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
I'm finding myself classified more and more as a so-called "left-libertarian", but even I don't consider cozying up to Democrats a good idea. The virtues of classical liberalism are not advanced by trying to become palatable to the DNC's statist core. I think even those at Cato would be pretty wary of that.
That being said, I think the biggest obstacle to a classical liberal (I love using the term "liberal" to describe myself just to exasperate Marxists who have perverted the word) is not the DNC's Big Brother aspirations but rather the strain of economic populism that has pretty well infested most of the Democratic Party as well as more than a handful of Republicans. When the government establishes limits to prevent anything bad from happening to people, it also quashes the ability for the truly extraordinary to occur as well. A left-libertarian believes that "choice" should not be shoehorned solely in the terms of a barbaric medical procedure. Sure, Democrats call themselves "pro-choice", but what about if you want a choice in public (or private) schools? Choice in how you invest your money for retirement? Choice in how you obtain your health care? Choice in how you express your political or religious beliefs? Choice in the car that you drive? Choice in where and how you obtain your consumer goods? All of these are things that the statist left opposes, leaving their "pro-choice" rhetoric very hollow indeed. In fact, most "pro-life" individuals are far more "pro-choice" than those who dominate the ownership of the term if you look at it from this perspective, and freedom-minded individuals know this.
However, Eric, on the abortion debate, we are well to the left of quite a few GOP primary voters, and even members of this site. I had somebody once accuse me of "serving evil with a smile" for not being a staunch "pro-life" person in terms of how it has been defined (as well as taking a somewhat Clintonian triangulation on the issue), but I agree; those of us who have libertarian leanings can be in agreement with pro-lifers on many of the issues that come before Congress in terms of the debate. To that end, Republicans should embrace libertarians enough to at least get Roe overturned, then quibble over the details when we get there.
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
My politics are probably more pure libertarian than either of yours in that I've traded my Republican party registration for Libertarian and I almost always vote Libertarian candidates over GOP candidates where that's an option. Still, as frustrated as I've become over the last decade with the GOP, I can't say that I ever really considered throwing in with the democrats. I never really bought all of the Liberaltarian stuff that was being flung around in 2006.
-exits
Could it be the GOP chased some of those libertarians away by pushing their own big government agenda? Big government conservatism is only slightly less scary than big government liberalism IMO.
Lets start with eric's first statement in which he incorrectly suggests Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson have nearly identical positions on abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice and wants the government to get involved to protect a woman's right to have an abortion. Rudy also supports Roe vs. Wade. Rudy also supports tax funded abortions for poor women. And finally, if one reads the transcript of the Giuliani interview with Larry King last month, after Rudy claimed that he liked justices Alito and Roberts, King then asked if that meant Rudy would pick justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. Rudy said, no it doesn't. Giuliani supporters have been promoting Rudy's statement about liking Roberts/Alito, yet those same supporters don't tell you that Rudy opposes overturning Roe.
Whereas, Fred Thompson has consistently held the belief that the federal government should not get involved with writing abortion laws. Thompson held that belief in 1994 when he stated "government should stay out of it", and he holds the same belief now. During his recent interview on Fox News, Thompson reiterated his view that Roe v Wade was bad law and should be overturned.
For pro lifers, the first step to ending the millions of abortions that occur each year is to overturn Roe, and Fred Thompson supports that first big step. Rudy Giuliani doesn't.
ed said
"Rudy Giuliani holds a virtually identical position."
Hard to say right now as no one has asked that very question of the Senator, but I seriously doubt that Senator Thompson supports tax payer funded abortions for poor women. But "virtually" might have that meaning in an alternative universe or some other place...go figure.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
Firstly, it is my understanding -- and admittedly I could be wrong on this cause I didn't read the entire article -- but I saw a brief report yesterday out of South Carolina where Rudy Giuliani clarified his earlier remarks on abortion, where he said that he misspoke, and even so the characterizations of his remarks were misinterpreted. It sounded like to me he was NOT in favor of government funding of abortion, with the sole exception of saving the life of the Mother. Hell, I'm vehemently against government funding of abortions, but even I have a hard time saying that if a women is dying at a publicly funded hospital, and needs an abortion, we should give it to her. And I dare say even the most ardent Pro-Lifers here would agree.
Secondly, you need to go back and re-read the Fred Thompson quote I posed. He's quite clearly Pro-Choice. There's no equivocation.
Again, the key line, which you so cleverly ignored, is:
"The ultimate decision must be made by the women." He didn't say "should." He said, "must". That's pretty imperative.
I'm looking, but I'm not seeing any difference whatsoever between Rudy's position and Fred's position.
And as a Pro-Choice Republican, I'm quite pleased by that.
You Social Conservatives, just refuse to admit that your "Boy Wonder" is Pro-Choice too.
Like I said, I'm not at all trying to be argumentative here. You guys are my Brothers in Arms against the hideous Leftwing. I luv you guys!
But I fail to see why it is you all are not facing up to reality???
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
See Rudy Flip or was it a flop? His original statement was pretty unequivicable on the matter, but I see you choose to spin it differently, your choice.
If Rudy really believes that there is an overwhelming demand for "emergency" abortions for poor women, then let him propose a means for those Americans who think as he does to check off a box on their income tax to fund that, or send a check to the governement to support that point of view. For people who strongly object to abortion, asking them to support with their tax dollars any abortion is wrong.
As to your assertion that Fred is pro-choice, well your quoted article was a bit old, and I await fresh pronouncements on the Senators views today. Peoples views change, my change all the time, mostly through listening to some of the opinions of people I respect.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
when asked, "What's your position on Roe v Wade?", that
"Roe v. Wade is bad law". While I don't have a particular interview to cite here, my impression has been that he was addressing a constructionist view of how the courts should operate, rather than the actual issue of abortion when he said it. He says it so blatantly, that few interviewers follow up to see if he is talking about abortion or the quality of the law itself.
In answering that way, he's being pretty straight forward, answering just what was asked. If you mean, "Are you pro-choice?"... phrase the question that way, or ask follow up questions to guide the interview.
The "Roe v Wade is bad law" statement says volumes. It bespeaks a candidate who is aware-of, and directly opposes, legislation from the bench. It's important because a whole host of "interpreted" rulings have come down (some citing foreign law as informing the decision) since Roe v Wade, and as a result of Roe v Wade being acceptable as a ruling.
Fred Thompson seems like a straight shooter, and someone with a comfortablity with himself as he is. He's definitely not trying to be something he's not (although the funny thing is that he's also a great actor!).
I think he feels secure enough with his sexuality to be able to deal with (but not give away special rights to) homosexuals. It's a subtle kind of thing that's going to be important in the coming years as more states try to weaken marriage. We're going to need someone to hold the line on and defend marriage, and that someone (whoever he ends up being) is going to have to be the kind of guy about whom no one harbors doubts.
I had been thinking the ideal man on this might be Rudy G., a man secure enough to, well, parade around in a dress and be a housemate with a couple of gay guys. (I know the xdressing thing embarrasses some of us, but come on, a little sense of humor is called for - it was all in jest!)
Because of this stuff, nobody could ever accuse Rudy of being a gay-basher (or perhaps, as the liberals like to do, hating the gay lifestyle because he is actually in the closet himself). Rudy is obviously straight, and actually a little something of a womanizer at that (but not in such a destructive way as, say, Clinton). But in detail, his views are looking increasingly at odds with those of most Americans, Republican Americans at least.
I don't know how this is going to shake out, but given all this I think Fred Thompson might just be what the doctor ordered. He doesn't come with all Rudy's baggage, but he's clearly one of us too.
If so, why don't we ever hear anything about his wife?
If he isn't, don't you think that the Leftwing media, as soon as he announces, will start burying into his background. Surely a good looking, powerful guy like Fred Thompson has had numerous girlfriends over the years.
As a male, and ex-Sailor, of course I respect that. But, others, mainly Social Cons, do not.
Point is, some of you all here are looking to Fred as some sort of "Social Con Savior."
But if you add it up -- the fact that he has a virtually identical position on abortion as Rudy Giuliani, AND that he might have a "less than conservative/ladies' man lifestyle" doesn't lend too much credibility to y'all's description of him as a Social Con.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
so much about Fred Thompson, I find it odd that you don't know he is married.
This is his second marriage. His current wife is a successful attorney and did some work for the RNC.
They have two young children together.
________________________________________________________
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan
But that was precisely the answer I was looking for. I honestly did not know.
Still, "second marriage"?
Again, that's not far removed from Rudy's three marriages.
If the Social Cons want a candidate they ought to support Mitt Romney. He seems pefectly Socially Conservative all around. 1 single marriage and all.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
When voting for a chameleon, it's always good to pay attention to the range of colors that the chameleon has assumed. In the case of Mitt Romney, while he's as red as a firetruck these days, there are many photos of him in which he seems (or at least seems to be STRIVING to be) bluer than the veins in Ted Kennedy's forehead.
And his answer was that he wants Roe v Wade overturned. Giuliani wants Roe to remain law.
Its sad that soem of the Giuliani supporters are starting to play dirty even before Thompson has announced his candidacy. (That tells me that his opponents are scared of him)
Give me a half dollar coin. PLEASE!!
I'll flip it. Heads Rudy, tails Fred. I could support either Fred or Rudy.
My only point here is that you all keep painting Fred Thompson as a Social Conservative. He clearly IS NOT!!
He's much more of a libertarian Republican. Why is it that you all are sooooo reluctant to use the phrase "libertarian Republican"? For years you've been applying the term Conservative to our good libertarian Republicans like Jeff Flake, Butch Otter, Dana Rohrabacher, et.al. And now Fred Thompson.
If Fred Thompson is not a "libertarian Republican" than I don't know who is???
Some truth in advertising PLEASE!!
FRED THOMPSON IS A LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN NOT A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
that in the eyes of many of us, "libertarian Republican" is an automatic disqualifier from the Presidential primary. You may not like that, but it's true. Much of the national party is less interested in economic issues and state's rights than cultural values.
That said, I think you may be (unintentionally) exaggerating his libertarianism, as you encourage support for libertarian Republicans in general, and Fred Thompson in particualar.
No one, I hope, is confusing Thompson with Brownback. If that's what you mean by social conservative / religious right, I think we all agree. Nor is that a problem. But if he's even as far left as Romney, I can't see why I should bother supporting him.
Whitfox,
Might I suggest a different standard for your consideration.
Conservative enough, but able to beat Democrats (Hillary).
I would point out that the perfect Conservatives in the race stand no chance of winning in the general election even if they caught on in the primaries.
I don't know enough about Senator Fred to figure out yet if he will appeal to the social conservative wing of the party and the Libertarian wing at the same time, but I do like his plain spoken no BS approach.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
Sorry, I'm one of those who will defect from the party rather than vote for Giuliani in the general. Accepting him as the party leader is the equivalent of removing the anti-abortion plank from the platform. I'd rather suffer four years of Hillary than endorse that.
Fred Thompson isn't -nearly- that bad, of course, as many have discussed in detail. But my support in the primary will be going to a full-package conservative. Whether that includes Thompson or not is yet to be seen.
That's OK, but please consider the consequences of hold out for the "Perfect" when pretty good is much better than the alternative. Having said that, Rudy is pretty much off my list after his comments on funding of abortions and I'm pretty Libertarian on that issue.
Consequences like President "HillDog"
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
The Constitution Party? Good luck. I've been paying close attention to them, and they are even more disorganized and have more problems with in-fighting then the Libertarian Party, if you can believe that.
I'd guess the CP will be on the ballot in 15 states if they're lucky. And they don't seem to have a consensus Presidential candidate.
And just fyi, there are just as many libertarian-minded voters out there who ARE PRO-CHOICE, who refuse to vote for a Republican for President unless the GOP nominates someone who is more reasonable on the issue.
So, even though, I'd much rather you stay in the GOP coalition, if you leave, you'll be replaced twice, maybe three times over by libertarian-minded voters who will be attracted to the New less Religious Right-beholden GOP.
Lose one Religious Rightist, gain two to three Libertarian-minded voters.
Even more ideal, keep the Religious Right voters, reach out to Libertarian voters, AND CRUSH THE DEMOCRATS IN 2008!!!
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
There is only one thing to say, RUN, FRED, RUN!!!!!
Thompson less emphatically than Giuliani. So far I haven't found anything to the contrary. But we're always learning about the candidates. Which is a good thing.
One can be pro-choice and still consider Roe bad law. Because of the brazen, sweeping overreach of SCOTUS on Roe, the US has one of the most liberal abortion regimes on the planet, making most of Europe look theocratic in comparison.
If Rudy (or Fred!) appoints people with true judicial temperament (i.e. they interpret not make law), that is enough for me.
check the Chris Wallace interview a couple of weeks ago. It's on YouTube
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Thank you for clarifying precisely what I've been saying here.
Both Fred AND Rudy have the exact identical position on the very one issue that matters to all of us, both libertarian Republicans and conservative Republicans alike:
Both would appoint judges who would overturn the stupidly decided Roe v. Wade Law.
Rudy has been abundantly clear on this. Fred has been completely and unequivocally clear on this.
Either one of these guys would represent our Party and our Views wonderfully. As loyal Republicans we all should be proud to have two MOST EXCELLENT candidates to choose from.
I don't know about the rest of you all, but I'm EXTREMELY EXCITED about both Rudy and Fred. Hell, if they won't accept a coin toss, perhaps they'd at least accept one of them in top slot and the other as VP. And in the second term they could switch.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
both are in favor of judges who would be more likely than not to follow originalist doctrine, you are right.
If you are saying they both have the same view on abortion, you are wrong.
The difference is that for we on the pro-life side we have to take Giuliani at his word on his judicial appointments which would be in stark contrast to his recently expressed views on both Roe and abortion.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Nice try again ericdonero, but you continue to misrepresent both Thompson's and Giuliani's abortion positions.
1) Giuliani has NOT stated he would pick judges who would overturn Roe v Wade. All Giuliani said was that he likes Alito and Roberts. When Larry King questioned Rudy further, Rudy did not commit to supporting the overturning of Roe. (Focus on the Family leaders have pointed this out numerous times since that interview.) And lets not forget that Rudy Giuliani gave a speech only two years ago in which he praised Ruth Ginsberg. There is absolutely nothing in print or on video that shows Rudy stating his support for the overturning of Roe v Wade. I challenge you or anyone else to find something.
2) Fred Thompson has been consistent in his opposition to federal government involvement in abortion. As a senator, Thompson had a overwhelmingly PRO LIFE voting record. And his recent statements in support of the overturning of Roe caudify his pro life voting record.
Bottom line is that the Rudy McRomney supporters are very concerned about a Fred Thompson candidacy. And they should be...
Cause in the mid-1990s he was clearly aligned with the Pro-Choice Republicans and Anti-Religious Right forces in the Tennessee Republican Party. There was no doubt that Fred Thompson was on the Pro-Choice side in the 1990s.
You know I should contact Ann Stone of Republicans For Choice. I bet you anything she would know.
But look, don't take my word for it. Ask any Tennessee Republican who has been active in the TN GOP for a few years. They'll tell you that Thompson was more of a "Moderate to libertarian" Republican in the 1990s, aligned with the Howard Baker wing of the GOP, against the Social Cons.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
...and wants to see it overturned. That alone puts him miles ahead of Giuliani, who is far-left on the issue.
I can understand libertarians being pro-choice, but I can't understand you being pro-Roe. Its a decision w/o any Constitutional merit.
A true libertarian position would be to get the federal government out of the abortion debate and send it back to each states and let the people of the state decide what they think.
South Dakota would be free to craft their laws on abortion as would New York and California. I would point out that there are 50 different death penalties which the people in each state have decided is justice. I am quite sure the citizens of each state can make up their minds on the abortion issue just as well.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
and would be a great candidate, is that people are building so high a pedestal for him that it is getting dangerous.
No human being (outside Hollywood) can be:
From Fox News Sunday a few weeks ago, here is Sen Thompson on the issues:
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
See more here. I wrote this blog a few weeks ago about Senator Thompson's positions.
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
It was only a matter of time before this smear campaign against Fred Thompson was exposed. Originally I thought it had its roots inside the Giuliani or Romney campaigns. And sure enough, after further review, the smear against Fred seems to have started from a website associated with Mitt Romney supporters.
The leader for the National Right to Life organization states that Fred Thompson was always opposed to abortion, and has had a solidly pro life voting record. For the whole story on the smear, follow the link....
http://iowansforfredthompson.blogspot.com/2007/03/romney-evangelicals-sm...
Eric seems to refer to being "pro-choice" as a good thing. Although I would refer to my relatively pro-life stance as "pro-choice" in theory, in practice I still call myself "pro-life" because I side with that position more often than not in terms of how the debate is being framed. All things considered, though, there's a difference between the theoretical considerations of the abortion debate and the practical ones. Simply put, the current "pro-life vs. pro-choice" debate is disingenuous, and, until Roe is off the books as American legal precedent, the real debate is "pro-abortion vs. everyone else". And, unless the situation changes, the true "pro-choice" people should be on the side of the pro-lifers. End of story.
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
I see it as a "good thing" politically. I am not going to pass judgement on y'all's Pro-Life position from a personal perspective. I luv you guys. Some of my best friends are Pro-Lifers. Truth be told I agree with Pro-Lifers on like 95% of the issues out there. I agree with Pro-Choicers on about 5%.
I see this as a "good thing" strictly politically. Fred is sufficiently Pro-Choice to thwart any Liberal Leftwing attacks on us for 2008 as a Party of narrow-minded Religious Right catering, Right-to-Life extremists.
You know they could do that if we nominated Sam Brownback, Huckabee or some other straight out Pro-Lifer.
What we need to do is nominate an 80 to 90% Pro-Lifer. Rudy is an 80% Pro-Lifer. Fred is a 90% Pro-Lifer.
Let's NOT nominate a 100% Pro-Lifer. Not only will you be giving the Liberal Media precisely what they want, but you all risk losing most of us libertarian Republicans, and certainly the Moderates too out of the coalition, as well.
80 to 90% Pro-Lifer as our Nominee, EVERYONE ON OUR SIDE WINS!!
100% Pro-Lifer, we all Lose.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
I'm going to Copy Max in Houston on Monday. What is your fax #? I will gladly fax you the front page and continuation on Page 4 of the July/August issue of REPUBLICAN LIBERTY, the official Newsletter of the Republican Liberty Caucus, which contains the Fred Thompson interview.
Andrew Murphey, then a Young Republican from Memphis conducted the interview. I haven't seen or heard from Andrew in quite a few years, but I'm sure if need be he wouldn't be too hard to track down. He lives in the Memphis area, last I knew. And I'm sure pretty much any Republican activist knows Andrew (or Michael McCloskey).
I'm "busted" you say. Well, I have the Newsletter right here next to my laptop. Send me your fax # and I'll gladly send it along.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
From my perspective, the ideologically pure, conservative “political” issue about abortion reduces to this: Whether or not there is any Constitutional basis for federal involvement in legislating, regulating, or adjudicating individual liberties that directly relate to abortion. (The answer to this question is, of course, “no”.)
Those whom conservatives are considering as viable, mainline candidates must first pass this “federal test” before further inquiry is even useful. The issue is so central to American politics and grassroots support that a candidate who fails this test immediately loses the full support of the important political bases. Only after a score on the federal test is determined should the effect of a candidate’s personal views about abortion even be considered.
In the case of Fred Thompson, he has passed the federal test -- flying all the correct colors. Whether or not one concludes that his personal opinions about a woman’s right to abortion constitute a character-related, relevant consideration, is an individual matter best evaluated by each voter and not by political caucus.
I’m not yet convinced that Senator Thompson has a personal opinion that favors unmitigated rights for abortion-seekers. If so, I am disappointed, but still not disinclined to support him.
His Pro-Choice views are a positive, NOT a negative. It means that he will be able to reach out to a broader coalition, beyond just Social Conservatives. We libertarian Republicans are encouraged by his more open views on abortion.
Look, Fred is sufficiently Pro-Life to satisfy you Social Conservatives. You just admitted as such above.
Now, let's look to the general election. We cannot have a doctrinaire down-the-line Pro-Life candidate.
You Social Conservatives are NOT big enough to win on your own. You need us libertarian Republicans. And dare I say it, both of us need our friends the Moderate Republicans, as well.
And even with the three of us WE'RE STILL NOT BIG ENOUGH TO WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION. We need to steal a few Dem and Indy votes too.
That's why Fred's halfway Pro-Life/Pro-Choice position on abortion is absolutely perfect. The Liberal Media, and the Dems will not be able to attack him as some "far-out Religious right" guy.
That's precisely what they want us to do: Nominate a Social Conservative with a narrow constituency. Let's NOT give them what they want. Let's sock it too them. Let's nominate Fred or Rudy!! (Or, preferably both, one of them as VP).
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
The final line of my rambling noted that I am NOT disinclined to support him. (Perhaps litotes was not the ideal device with which to convey this thought.)
You are onto something about the wide constituency that could be engendered by a Fred Thompson who distinguishes the personal from the political.
Fred Thompson is an ideal candidate in so many ways. My left arm (or any other body part) could be his, if he will engage.
And that alas is the problem. He's taking too damn long to make up his mind. He'll start off way, way, way behind on the fundraising. It's almost too late. If he's going to jump in, I'd say he needs to do it this week, next week at the latest.
Within the next couple weeks we activists will be cemented with our current candidates. And there's precious few undecided GOP activists left at this point that he could tap into.
If he's going to run, he has to do it now.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
The answer to your question about a Constitutional basis for federal involvement in abortion is not a clear "no." The federal government could, under the Constitution, write legislation defining personhood or citizenship as occurring sometime between conception and full birth. Then the "equal protection" and "due process" clauses could be applied to those individuals who would be aborted. They have not done so, and I'm not sure they should. The usurpation by SCOTUS in Roe was obviously bad law.
Libertarians, who are notoriously weak in the application of government for the protection of those unable to make informed decisions, should think twice before adopting a reflexive pro-choice position. Any libertarian who has been an expectant parent should remember if, at the time of quickening, the prospective mother said "The uterine detritus just made me uncomfortable." or "The baby just kicked me." That said, libertarians and so-cons have much more in common than not in opposition to the social leftist agenda of property rights regulation, restriction of speech and religious expression, gun-grabbing, and the general run of for-your-own-good legislation and regulations that pervert science for the benefit of government power.
One of Mr. Thompson's best points is that you can understand what he says. He is not the artful dodger that every other politition is. He gives his answers in plain english and doesn't leave you wondering "What did he say?" I like Fred!
Has a nice ring to it.
And they would be good together because, believe it or not, they both had many, many other things on their plate than abortion. In Thompson's case, the corruption of Tennessee politics, reclaiming the Senate seat from the Goreaclites and dealing with the Clintons. In Giulani's case, reversing NYC's slide into a cesspool of crime, welfare dependency, taxes and economic near-death. And then there was 9/11.
Thompson-Giuliani, Giuliani-Thompson
Excellent.
I'm all for either combination.
And, they're WINNING ones, even in the face of the formidable opposition (shudder).
Remember the opposition. And that WINNING is job one.
I'm also pro-Life but also pro-common-sense and this abortion issue dominates way too much time for our party. Sadly if this argument continues to dominate our party politics as the top issue(15% of Republicans say abortion is their number one issue coming in a close second was the 12% of Republicans that say that terrorism is their number one issue) and we somehow choose a candidate that can't win the general election then as Eric Dondero correctly and wisely mentioned we will surely be portrayed by the Liberal Leftwing media in 2008 as the Party of narrow-minded Religious Right catering, Right-to-Life extremists. We simply can't afford this to happen this time around since we already have a big minus going against us(The War In Iraq) with the independent voters, the Reagan Democrats, and even 30% of our own party are now against the war in Iraq.Don't you realize that the terrorists are going to start fanatically attacking us in Iraq once the election date starts to get closer since they obviously want a democrat president that will make it easier for them. We are also going to lose many Hispanic voters and other immigrant voters due to the illegal immigration issue being brought out during the debates the democrats will surely use against us in a attempt to portray us as Racists. Hard statistics reveal that there is no chance ever for a complete ban on abortion sadly it's a noble but lost cause.It is simply irrational to continue having as a top platform issue something that is just not going to happen (complete ban on abortion).
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml
The latest findings show the number of Americans who believe that abortion should be generally available is up
ABORTION SHOULD BE:
Generally available
Now:
39%
3/01:
33%
5/00:
37%
3/93:
42%
Available, but with stricter limits than now
Now:
38%
3/01:
43%
5/00:
39%
3/93:
36%
Not permitted
Now:
22%
3/01:
23%
5/00:
22%
3/93:
40%
Even in the South and midwest only out of four or 25% want a complete ban on abortion.
ABORTION VIEWS BY REGION
Abortion should be...
Generally available
Northeast:
48
Midwest:
34%
South:
33%
Women:
43%
Available, but with stricter limits than now
Northeast:
31%
Midwest:
40%
South:
41%
West:
40%
Not permitted
Northeast:
19%
Midwest:
25%
South:
25%
West:
16%
If you don't like this poll there are numerous others online that show similar public sentiments on the issue of abortion.
40% wanted a complete ban on abortion in 1993 and now only 22% wante a complete ban on abortion.This seems to reveal that a complete ban on abortion is simply a generational issue that is clearly a lost cause.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN...
Last hurrah for conservative culture warriors
Values voters have little to show for years of GOP rule. Time for a new strategy.
"If so-called values voters couldn't get meaningful action on the two issues that have most animated our side this decade – abortion and gay marriage – with an evangelical president and both congressional chambers in Republicans' hands, it's not going to happen."
"While cultural conservatives need to diversify our political portfolio, we should also recognize the limits of politics. We are losing the culture war. It can't be won by electing more Republicans; it can only be won by changing hearts."
The fact is we will need millions of pro-choice voters to win the general election and even though 15% of Republicans do pick abortion as the number one issue 85% of us do not. Eric also mentions quite sensibly that we are a coalition party of various factions among them being the Religious Right, Neoconservatives,Social conservatives,Fiscal conservatives,Security Oriented ,States' Rights Oriented,Paleoconservatives,Moderates,Log Cabin Republicans (Gay Republicans), Liberals(most who come from long-time Republican families, and last but definitely not least the great Libertarians in our party.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/gop100...
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2006/10/01/weekinreview/20061001_H...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_%28United_...
It is simply insane to allow a lost cause(a complete ban on abortion)to divide and eventually destroy our party.
Again, both you and the article you cite completely downplays the part played by the Courts in the Culture War. Virtually all of the major leftwing victories have come from court decisions, not legislative or popular acts.
Of course the Republicans talk more than they deliver on Culture War issues, but the one sure good thing Bush has done (as far as we know) is pick judges. For all we know, some of Bush's district and appellate court judges may have prevented some new judicial outrage over the past 6 years. Roberts and Alito may prevent some future outrage from the Sup Court, and they may be a part of a future jettisoning of Roe. So as long as the beast of judicial supremacy persists, then the election of Republicans over the past several decades -- though not w/o huge disappointments and betrayals like O'Connor, Kennedy, Stevens, and Souter -- has had some effect in that it has at least kept things from being worse.
You are right that ultimate victory in the Culture War requires winning hearts and minds, but we might as well go ahead and surrender now if we can't agree on judicial activism. Its almost impossible to fight both popular culture's promotion of leftwing values and the imposition of them by a few arrogant, power-usurping judges. Rudy Giuliani says one thing about the type of judge he'd like to appoint, then in the next breath reaffirms his far-left position on abortion and makes the incorrect claim that a 'strict constructionist' might preserve Roe because of its decades as a horrible precedent. I mean, do you really think this guy would nominate an Alito or Scalia? I now believe that we'd be lucky to get an O'Connor from him, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to get a Souter...on purpose!
As to the immigration issue; well, you seem to be suggesting that we just go ahead and surrender to 'comprehensive' reform so as to lessen the chances of being called a bunch of racists. On this, you need to just pick a poison: On the one hand, the GOP can actually fight for conservative immigration reform, and face the inevitable name-calling, or it can accept 'comprehensive' reform and face certain demographic doom. The former no doubt will cost the GOP some votes from latinos, but it could win over votes from other groups. Its tricky no doubt, because immigration is rarely a top-tier, vote-deciding issue for most voters, so its difficult to find political expression for popular discontent on the issue even when puplic opinion favors conservative lines on immigration. The latter -- through amnesty of current illegals + those legalized illegals bringing in more family + future 'guest workers' who are actually disguised permanent immigrants + the family of these 'guests' -- will only bring in even more future democrats than current immigration policy already does. The idea that the GOP can even break even with immigrant communities while we are admitting millions of them each year is a pipe dream. Its not gonna happen no matter how much we try to out-pander the Democrats.
Going back to the abortion/Culture War issue; I agree that convincing the Evangelical base to accept a softer line on abortion would difficult, but I think it could be done if we could at least agree on the judiciary and the need to end judicial activism. Support for Scalia-Alito-Thomas type judges should unite Republicans.
I wonder how many that of them are just saying what people wan to hear. I strongly suspect that Romney is a closet pro choice guy since it is quite clear that he wants to be everything to everybody which reminds me too much of Bill Clinton.I also believe that McCain and Fred Thompson are secretly or maybe even somewhat openly pro choice kind of guys.
I couldn't agree more. We are a coalition of various-related constituencies. We Republicans cannot beat Hillary and worse HUSSEIN Obama, with just the Conservative segment of the Party. Admittedly, the Cons are the largest and most influential group of our coalition. Some deference should be given to them. As a member of the libertarian wing I humbly tip my hat to my Conservative cousins.
But in this particular election a slightly more libertarian approach is required. Nominating a libertarian-leaning Conservative cuts right into the heart of the Centrist base, which we need, unlike a straight out conservative Conservative.
Both Fred and Rudy are libertarian-leaning Conservatives. Either one of them would make a fine choice.
And like the writer above stated, a Fred/Rudy or Rudy/Fred ticket would be most ideal.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Nice try. Are you, by any chance, a Romney supporter in disguise? The misreprenting of Giuliani's position on Federal funding- he's for it- was a particularly nice touch.
Thompson's remarks are over a decade old, and represent a position he has long since renounced. Unlike Gov. Romney, he has a long track record of being pro-life (i.e., in favor of Roe's repeal)- and there can't be any question of his having changed his mind in order to run for president, since that's a decision he hasn't made.
If he does, it will be over a decade after changing his positon.
Bob Waters
http://watersblogged.blogspot.com
http://iowansforfredthompson.blogspot.com
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Neither Romney nor especially Thompson are pro-choice, and you know it.
Bob Waters
http://watersblogged.blogspot.com
http://iowansforfredthompson.blogspot.com
everyone is imagining he is after all.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams