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.

...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.

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.