There are currently 7 users and 200 guests online.
Pro-Choice Fred
Submitted by Elrod on Fri, 2007/07/06 - 10:37pm.
First there was tape footage of the 1994 Senatorial debate where Fred Thompson clearly marked out a moderately pro-choice position on abortion. Then there was the Christian Coalition survey where he checked off the box that said "pro-choice." Now comes more evidence that Fred Thompson was pro-choice on abortion.
In 1991, Fred Thompson was hired by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) to lobby President George H. W. Bush to lift the so-called abortion "gag rule," under which clinics receiving Federal money could not counsel patients on abortion. At the time the gag rule was one of the most controversial issues in the abortion debate, coming off the heels of the Supreme Court's Rust v. Sullivan case that permitted the White House position.
Fred Thompson's spokesman is trying to deny this even happened. But the former Maryland Congressman and fellow co-worker with Thompson who actually recommended him for the NFPRHA gig calls Thompson's denial "absolutely bizarre." Others who worked with NFPRHA said they were looking for a Republican to lobby John Sununu, then Bush Sr.'s Chief of Staff. And Fred Thompson seemed to be just the right guy.
This seems to strengthen the case that Fred Thompson was solidly pro-choice in the 1990s. He likes to say that seeing his child's sonogram 3 years ago has made him more pro-life. It's certainly plausible that somebody would become more pro-life after seeing a sonogram, but this child is far from his first. Sonogram technology goes back a few decades - admittedly not as sophisticated. One could at least listen to a fetus's heartbeat many years ago. Either way, this will certainly complicate Fred Thompson's bid to win over social conservatives. He appears to be as pro-life as Mitt Romney, which is to say he's pandering.
Note to social conservatives: if you want a Southern, proudly evangelical Christian, pro-life conservative Republican, your man is not Fred Thompson. Your man is Mike Huckabee. Hell, Huckabee even has gubornatorial experience. And if Huck isn't your cup of tea, you've got Senator Sam Brownback, no marginal figure in American politics.
Submitted by Carole Borges on Sat, 2007/07/07 - 7:46am.
Your post was a great example of conservative Republican thinking. It seems the Number One commandment for Republican candidates should be:
1. Never ever change your mind through education or through new scientific evidence if it does not support a popular current belief you now hold. If you do you will burned at the stake.
That was what created a whole flock of frightened sheep from waking up to the quagmire that is Iraq.
Flip-flopping was part of a Republican smear campaign during the last election. Shame on them for making that slogan seem like a character flaw. Growth is normal. Changing one's mind is only a character weakness among those who can't think for themselves or those who believe supporting dogma (even when confronted by facts) is more noble than altering one's political stance when needed.
Personally, Thompson looks like a big bag of wind to me, holding an Emmy in one hand while the other is waiting to be placed on the Bible at his swearing-in ceremony. Yet your argument against him seems unfair.
Just as it was unfair to hold Kerry to his vote to support the invasion prior to the time when new evidence was brought to light about all the lies being told about Iraq.
Decades ago the heartbeat of that infant suspicion could be heard loud and strong by some. Yet the Republican government aborted any attempt to bring the real facts before the American people.
This kind of philosophy is dangerous and they should be held accountable. The last thing we need is another president who couldn't find the guts to accept facts that threatened to alter his rock solid belief system. You know--the one that is crumbling now?
Give me mind-growth over dumb loyalty to dogma any day.
As Somerset Maugham said in Human Bondage: "Like all weak men he laid an exaggerated stress on not changing one's mind.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Sat, 2007/07/07 - 8:01am.
Since Fred's answer to these stories of his pro-choice past is to say it never happened, I'm not sure how you can charge these inconsistencies off to personal "growth."
Submitted by Carole Borges on Sat, 2007/07/07 - 11:50am.
Maybe I missed something, but I thought you stated that he had said he changed his mind after seeing a sonogram.
You wrote "He likes to say that seeing his child's sonogram 3 years ago has made him more pro-life."
That implied he was aware his feelings had changed, though your insistance on using the phrase "he likes to say..." immediately tipped your hand toward a bias. There is always the possibility that he really meant it inspite of your trying to delve farther back in time to suggest somehow that hearing a fetal heartbeat might be the same as an actual sonogram or one of those 3-D ones they have now. I think a lot of people who were for late term abortions changed their minds when the new sonograms came out. I would imagine pro-life people would be grateful for their willingness to do this, rather than resorting to attacking anyone who has held a pro-life position before.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Sat, 2007/07/07 - 1:07pm.
Carole, how do you ignore the fact that Fred and his campaign simply deny that he was involved with this pro-choice organization? That certainly doesn't jibe with your "personal growth" theory.
Anyone who takes a serious look at Fred's career has to work hard to avoid the conclusion that the man has no core beliefs -- beyond self-promotion.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Sat, 2007/07/07 - 1:23pm.
To me, the larger concern here doesn't relate to his position on abortion or to his entitlement to change his mind on an issue, either one. It's that he's content to lie about his previous (documented) thoughts and actions.
That's disturbing WRT any candidate's previous thoughts and actions, on this or any other issue. If a candidate is willing to breach our trust this early, before even declaring his candidacy, what dishonesty is he capable of if nominated and elected?
If Democrats confine our comments to just this point, we'll take the high road and still shine a light on Thompson's character flaw so unacceptable in a presidential candidate.
Carole,
Chances are that Fred Thompson takes the position he does because of political convenience and not personal conviction. I can't read the man's heart, but I'm taking a wild guess here. BTW, the same works in the other direction too. Dick Durbin used to be the leader of Springfield, Illinois Right to Life. Now he's a staunch pro-choicer. Personal growth and change of heart? Or is it that he's become pro-choice in order to assume national leadership in the Democratic Party. Of course, you don't need to become "pro-choice" per se in order to lead the Democratic Party; Harry Reid is still pro-life. But most who switch on the abortion position do so to become more in line with party orthodoxy. How many Republicans have "become pro-choice" in recent years? How many Democrats have "become pro-life?"
I have lots of respect for people who actually change their position on abortion or any sensitive issue. I used to be militantly pro-choice, and I now am right in the middle between pro-life and pro-choice. For me it was my opposition to the death penalty that made me think more about the sanctity of human life; if a fetus can survive outside the womb that it deserves the protection of the law. But I've never felt comfortable with the law banning the procedure before viability.
But when politicians change positions on these issues, it's fair it's fair to question the sincerity of that switch. Surely the Christian Right hasn't accepted Mitt Romney's conversion to the pro-life cause. They see right through it as naked opportunism; I'm sure Mitt can give a personal reason for the switch nonetheless. The same goes for Fred Thompson. To completely deny that even held other positions in the past is "absolutely bizarre." I think he has always been mildly pro-choice, a lot like my position actually. And I think he still holds that position. I just wish he were honest about it.
Submitted by Carole Borges on Sat, 2007/07/07 - 6:01pm.
but it sounds like many people here are convinced he is lying and I agree that is an awful trait to discover in any candidate in any party. Though it does seem politicians do this constantly to get elected. That was one reason why I suggested checking their previous actions rather than their words.
If you follow a candidate long enough you begin to get a feel for their alliances, but sometimes these take surprising shifts. I was very grateful for Hillary Clinton's attempt to get universal health care, but after seeing Sicko today, I learned she is currently getting huge amounts of money from PHARMA and doctors. It might not mean she is totally bought by them, but it does make me feel less certain she would address issues which I have been hoping would be resolved.
I was more struck with Elrod's comments about people who change their positions. I loathe the idea that people would be blamed for changing their minds on issues they had become more enlightened about. The horrible savage attack on Kerry when he changed his mind about the war still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and Bush's refusal to budge on what is obviously a very ugly, costly, and dangerous path in Iraq makes me admire people more now if they keep-an open mind.
I was very grateful for Hillary Clinton's attempt to get universal health care, but after seeing Sicko today, I learned she is currently getting huge amounts of money from PHARMA and doctors.
A theory floated to me by someone who is intimately familiar with the US health care mess says that it's because the insurance and pharma companies are afraid of her.
Submitted by StaceyDiamond on Sat, 2007/07/07 - 7:18pm.
Fred joins Reagan, Bush I, Romney and Bob Corker all who have had a mystical experience around election time and changed their mind. People do change their minds, but this is a bit obvious. Some how we need to get rid of this wedge issue, but I don't know how, we can't stand to erode abortion rights any more. It might depend on the Christian Right to realize that they are voting the country into hell to change things.
Your post was a great example of conservative Republican thinking. It seems the Number One commandment for Republican candidates should be:
1. Never ever change your mind through education or through new scientific evidence if it does not support a popular current belief you now hold. If you do you will burned at the stake.
That was what created a whole flock of frightened sheep from waking up to the quagmire that is Iraq.
Flip-flopping was part of a Republican smear campaign during the last election. Shame on them for making that slogan seem like a character flaw. Growth is normal. Changing one's mind is only a character weakness among those who can't think for themselves or those who believe supporting dogma (even when confronted by facts) is more noble than altering one's political stance when needed.
Personally, Thompson looks like a big bag of wind to me, holding an Emmy in one hand while the other is waiting to be placed on the Bible at his swearing-in ceremony. Yet your argument against him seems unfair.
Just as it was unfair to hold Kerry to his vote to support the invasion prior to the time when new evidence was brought to light about all the lies being told about Iraq.
Decades ago the heartbeat of that infant suspicion could be heard loud and strong by some. Yet the Republican government aborted any attempt to bring the real facts before the American people.
This kind of philosophy is dangerous and they should be held accountable. The last thing we need is another president who couldn't find the guts to accept facts that threatened to alter his rock solid belief system. You know--the one that is crumbling now?
Give me mind-growth over dumb loyalty to dogma any day.
As Somerset Maugham said in Human Bondage: "Like all weak men he laid an exaggerated stress on not changing one's mind.
Since Fred's answer to these stories of his pro-choice past is to say it never happened, I'm not sure how you can charge these inconsistencies off to personal "growth."
Maybe I missed something, but I thought you stated that he had said he changed his mind after seeing a sonogram.
You wrote "He likes to say that seeing his child's sonogram 3 years ago has made him more pro-life."
That implied he was aware his feelings had changed, though your insistance on using the phrase "he likes to say..." immediately tipped your hand toward a bias. There is always the possibility that he really meant it inspite of your trying to delve farther back in time to suggest somehow that hearing a fetal heartbeat might be the same as an actual sonogram or one of those 3-D ones they have now. I think a lot of people who were for late term abortions changed their minds when the new sonograms came out. I would imagine pro-life people would be grateful for their willingness to do this, rather than resorting to attacking anyone who has held a pro-life position before.
Carole, how do you ignore the fact that Fred and his campaign simply deny that he was involved with this pro-choice organization? That certainly doesn't jibe with your "personal growth" theory.
Anyone who takes a serious look at Fred's career has to work hard to avoid the conclusion that the man has no core beliefs -- beyond self-promotion.
Link...
To me, the larger concern here doesn't relate to his position on abortion or to his entitlement to change his mind on an issue, either one. It's that he's content to lie about his previous (documented) thoughts and actions.
That's disturbing WRT any candidate's previous thoughts and actions, on this or any other issue. If a candidate is willing to breach our trust this early, before even declaring his candidacy, what dishonesty is he capable of if nominated and elected?
If Democrats confine our comments to just this point, we'll take the high road and still shine a light on Thompson's character flaw so unacceptable in a presidential candidate.
...An actor playing a part. I don't think anybody knows what he believes, including Fred.
Sam Brownback, no marginal figure in American politics.
That's quite disturbing. And sad.
Carole,
Chances are that Fred Thompson takes the position he does because of political convenience and not personal conviction. I can't read the man's heart, but I'm taking a wild guess here. BTW, the same works in the other direction too. Dick Durbin used to be the leader of Springfield, Illinois Right to Life. Now he's a staunch pro-choicer. Personal growth and change of heart? Or is it that he's become pro-choice in order to assume national leadership in the Democratic Party. Of course, you don't need to become "pro-choice" per se in order to lead the Democratic Party; Harry Reid is still pro-life. But most who switch on the abortion position do so to become more in line with party orthodoxy. How many Republicans have "become pro-choice" in recent years? How many Democrats have "become pro-life?"
I have lots of respect for people who actually change their position on abortion or any sensitive issue. I used to be militantly pro-choice, and I now am right in the middle between pro-life and pro-choice. For me it was my opposition to the death penalty that made me think more about the sanctity of human life; if a fetus can survive outside the womb that it deserves the protection of the law. But I've never felt comfortable with the law banning the procedure before viability.
But when politicians change positions on these issues, it's fair it's fair to question the sincerity of that switch. Surely the Christian Right hasn't accepted Mitt Romney's conversion to the pro-life cause. They see right through it as naked opportunism; I'm sure Mitt can give a personal reason for the switch nonetheless. The same goes for Fred Thompson. To completely deny that even held other positions in the past is "absolutely bizarre." I think he has always been mildly pro-choice, a lot like my position actually. And I think he still holds that position. I just wish he were honest about it.
but it sounds like many people here are convinced he is lying and I agree that is an awful trait to discover in any candidate in any party. Though it does seem politicians do this constantly to get elected. That was one reason why I suggested checking their previous actions rather than their words.
If you follow a candidate long enough you begin to get a feel for their alliances, but sometimes these take surprising shifts. I was very grateful for Hillary Clinton's attempt to get universal health care, but after seeing Sicko today, I learned she is currently getting huge amounts of money from PHARMA and doctors. It might not mean she is totally bought by them, but it does make me feel less certain she would address issues which I have been hoping would be resolved.
I was more struck with Elrod's comments about people who change their positions. I loathe the idea that people would be blamed for changing their minds on issues they had become more enlightened about. The horrible savage attack on Kerry when he changed his mind about the war still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and Bush's refusal to budge on what is obviously a very ugly, costly, and dangerous path in Iraq makes me admire people more now if they keep-an open mind.
I was very grateful for Hillary Clinton's attempt to get universal health care, but after seeing Sicko today, I learned she is currently getting huge amounts of money from PHARMA and doctors.
A theory floated to me by someone who is intimately familiar with the US health care mess says that it's because the insurance and pharma companies are afraid of her.
Fred joins Reagan, Bush I, Romney and Bob Corker all who have had a mystical experience around election time and changed their mind. People do change their minds, but this is a bit obvious. Some how we need to get rid of this wedge issue, but I don't know how, we can't stand to erode abortion rights any more. It might depend on the Christian Right to realize that they are voting the country into hell to change things.
Post new comment