State Government Federal Government (in Excel math "" means "does not equal).
That isn't "nuanced;" it's civics.
Apparently "does not equal signs don't show up on haloscan. In words this time:
Federal Government does not equal State Government.
Hell of a post, my friend. I enjoy the way you slice through the spin.
Quite possibly the best thing I've ever read on this issue.
Bob, I have one quibble with what you wrote. Yes, it's true that this is a simple concept of civics but the fact of the matter is that I have on many occasions seen hard-core pro-lifers get all bent out of shape when someone makes this kind of argument. It's also, I suppose, not very true anymore is it? After all, if the Supreme Court is any guide, states couldn't ban PBAs, but the federal government can. All most pro-lifers saw was the ultimate outcome; there was no quarrel with the effect on our alleged federalist system.
Roger,
I've seen that too. But the hard core pro-lifers who vote for Obama/Clinton are vastly outnumbered by the smaller federal government moderates who would cast their lot with Fred.
ACK -
"Romney was running for office in Massachusetts. He wanted to be elected."
And I am supposed to support this spineless Mass. jellfish who campaigns and governs without principles if he is the GOP nominee?
As I posted earlier today, if that is the case, then I pray the Constitution Party figures out how to organize effectively in the next year - and that their nominee is someone of Ron Paul's ilk.
Cheers,
Rob
Bob --
Very true. But my interest is not in that clump. My interest continues to be in the hardcore pro-life folks who in my experience have had a much more narrow view of what makes someone acceptably "pro-life" until this point.
Federal Government does not equal State Government.
True. Watch it again. He says "government" should not be involved. The way I hear the clip, the whole clip, goes beyond a federalist argument but instead makes a moderately pro-choice one.
AC summed it up; the pro-lifers who love Fred are trying to justify that he, at heart, does not agree with them, but they still want to worship at his feet.
One actor as President is enough for one lifetime, thank you very much.
ACK wasn't advocating for Romney, I don't think. He was making a perfectly legitimate point in this framework:
Here is a guy running in a very liberal state and is it therefore to his advantage to run as a pro-choicer. Yet when Fred Thompson, faced with the opposite landscape (though perhaps not as skewed), remained at least nominally pro-choice. So, the question becomes--who was really keeping it real, as the kids say?
By the way, for what it's worth, my opinion on Romney is the opposite of ACKs: I believe 1994 Romney is the real Romney, not this one. This doesn't take away from ACK's point regarding Fred though.
ACK, you assert that Thompson doesn't want the government involved at all - federal or state. But that is not what he says. He plainly says he DOES want government involved in regulation of abortion, just not at the federal level.
He is consistent on the issue, and pro-life. Is he less "pro-life" than some on that side of the issue? Sure - some folks are so "pro-life" that they want to kill abortionists and bomb clinics. Others just want to overturn Roe v. Wade and let the states go back to regulating it. Others want to ban it in all cases, some are willing to allow it in cases of rape/incest/woman's life (or health).
You don't have to be on the extreme edge - for bombing clinics and killed abortionists - to be "pro-life." You don't even have to be against abortion in all cases or for "criminalizing" it and jailing women who have them. You can be where Thompson is - against Roe v. Wade, but for state-level regulation and against "criminalization" and still be "pro-life."
That's where Thompson is. That's where many Republicans are.
Roger -
"By the way, for what it's worth, my opinion on Romney is the opposite of ACKs: I believe 1994 Romney is the real Romney, not this one."
I agree, Roger. Once you get past his excellent oratory skills and pedigree, you have one scary candidate in Mitt Romney. He'll charm non-Southern Republicans with his record, but he has to fear what a Southern conservative candidate could do to his chances (not to mention his financial standing). That's why Romneyites are attacking Thompson, because they fear Fred. Huckabee? Not as much, probably because they don't fear him as a fundraiser.
Cheers,
Rob
Roger,
Who else is that "hardcore pro-life" clump going to support?
Giuliani? NO
McCain? Probably not
Gingrich? Two words: cancer and divorce
Brownback? Who?
If anything that "clump" is being realistic with their choices, hence the silence on Fred, because he's the best they've got.
Oh, and to add to Bill's point, I love it when something I wrote a year-and-a-half ago is still relevant. I think this view--which is essentially Fred's is a lot more prominent than pundits probably think.
ACK, you assert that Thompson doesn't want the government involved at all - federal or state. But that is not what he says. He plainly says he DOES want government involved in regulation of abortion, just not at the federal level.
On the basic issue of criminalization, Thompson is saying it is not a government issue. It is right there for all to see.
I also absolutely despise your using the extreme of clinic bombers to try and make Fred look more pro-life.
I believe 1994 Romney is the real Romney, not this one. This doesn't take away from ACK's point regarding Fred though.
Yeah, I disagree. The real Romney is either pro-life or completely agnostic.
excellent oratory skills
Romney? Are you kidding?
ACK wasn't advocating for Romney, I don't think.
Definitely not, given a choice between the two I would take Fred but not because of the abortion issue but because I believe Fred is a more intellectually serious man.
Bob --
No, no. Im not at all saying that they won't support Fred--of course they will.
Yes, they are now being "realistic," and all I can say to that is, well, it's about time, since in my experience (and that of others) if you were being "realistic," you weren't really pro-life, at least in the eyes of some. I remain curious regarding the sudden conversion.
I guess I just want the memo telling me when it's OK to be realistic and when it's not.
Re: the abortion clinic thing.
Yeah, come on Bill, that was a strawman and you know it.
ACK -
Yes, I'm being serious. Ever heard him deliver a speech in person?
He plays well because of his image and oratory skills. I'm saying that he could do well in an actual debate where he had to think, but when it comes to delivering rehearsed language, he's not bad.
That being said, Fred can deliver the rehearsed language AND put that Vanderbilt law degree to use, which makes him the better candidate.
Cheers,
Rob
While I disagree with Bill's abortion apologia on behalf of Thompson in this context, I don't think it is a straw man to say that there is a spectrum of "pro-life"ness, and I think it is not inaccurate to say that Thompson's views as expressed in '94 qualify as "pro-life" . . . I believe the label has become both more desirable and easier to qualify for (the latter due to that "being realistic" thing, Roger, IMHO).
Roger,
Good question. I don't know why TRTL was so adamantly anti-Corker last year. That ended up hurting them more than him--obviously.
And I'll second Rob's observation of Romney. He's a powerful speaker. I've seen it twice. He has the money, and he has the natural speaking ability. He is a formidable candidate, even though he is low in the polls right now.
Let me caveat that: Romney's a formidable candidate--at least until Fred gets into the race.
I agree about Romney's oratorical skills--too rehearsed/stiff to be termed "excellent."
Ned --
Certainly not a strawman to say there is a spectrum, but that's not what Bill did. He took the most extreme example available when we're clearly not talking about people like that. We're talking about hard-core pro-life-is-a-top-priority-for-me voters.
I will say that all of this demonstrates some evidence of Fred's appeal as a candidate. Everyone on this board--with the exception of ACK, but he's an outlier (I mean that in a good way)--is an unapologetic Fred fan, yet we are all rather different, inasmuch as people on the right sid--whether center-right, conservative, or hardcore right--of the political spectrum can be different.
Roger - Who are the "hard-core pro-life-is-a-top-priority-for-me voters?"
Are you just talking about card carrying members of TRTL who will only support a candidate who opposes abortion with no exception, other than protecting the life of the mother?
Well, that's an example, sure, and I'll freely admit to not having a perfect definition, but another good (and not unrelated)example of that sort of voter might be the following:
A voter whose major objection to Bob Corker last year was his alleged/apparent/real wishy-washiness on abortion.
Wow...lots of comments. I won't go through what everyone has talked about, but I don't think Fred was saying that no government should be involved in the abortion issue. In this video he's in a debate running for a Federal office. The question was about making laws at a Federal level. When he said that government shouldn't be involved, he was talking about it on a Federal level. When he said that it should be tackled at a level with the communities, and people...I take that as meaning that it should be more of a local issue...(ie...states).
When he actually uses the phrase regarding that it shouldn't be a government issue, he is on the topic of it being Federal...since he's running for a Federal office...not a state office.
I hate abortion. It's abhorrent. However, it shouldn't be a Federal issue, and it seems like Thompson's view fits mine here.
Sorry, AC, but it's just not there. I just viewed the video again...and I can't see where you're coming from other than splitting sentences and phrases trying to read things that aren't there.
Well I guess you're including me in your definition then. While ACK apparently thinks it's a cop out of some sort, I think it's a perfectly acceptable explanation that all pro-life voters had to go on with Corker were his past statements, which were fairly vague. All we knew about Corker was that he thought abortion was a "personal choice" that the government shouldn't be involved in. That's it. No record, just one or two statements on the issue that appeared to be pro-choice.
Now if I'm faced with a decision between candidate A who has no record and a few statements indicating he's pro-choice and candidate B, who's got an 8 year record of pro-life votes in Congress, I'm going to choose candidate B.
In the case of Thompson, I'm definitely going to look at his voting record and what he says NOW in making my decision whether or not to support him, not a statement from 16 years ago. Now if that statement was all I had to go on, my view would likely be very different.
If you want a perfect example, and, since it's evidently David Oatney Day, well, read on:
http://oatneyworld.blogspot.com/...ch?
q=aborticide
Roger, I see your point, and I agree that though I wouldn't bomb an abortion clinic, my definition of "pro-life" is more exacting than that of Thompson (or Frist or Corker); nevertheless, I also believe that the definition has loosened up a bit over the decades, and I perceived Bill was using the "new and improved" definition . . . I was going only on what he posted here.
And I think Thompson's position in '94 would be acceptable to most people who consider themselves "pro-life" these days (though not me). I think the biggest danger for Thompson in this scenario and what typically hurts a candidate the most with the general electorate is to seem opportunistic or unprincipled on this (or any) issue.
"Now if I'm faced with a decision between candidate A who has no record and a few statements indicating he's pro-choice and candidate B, who's got an 8 year record of pro-life votes in Congress, I'm going to choose candidate B."
But that's a false choice. Corker andthompson are not running against each other. You have candidates who are stronger on the pro-life issue avaiable on the GOP side, right?
Ned --
Very fair points. And perfectly consistent for you to say his position as stated isn't what you would like. Thanks.
I think the biggest danger for Thompson in this scenario and what typically hurts a candidate the most with the general electorate is to seem opportunistic or unprincipled on this (or any) issue.
Ned - That's dead on and the reason many conservatives viewed Corker with skepticism and now view Romney the same. It's just my view that Thompson's pro-life credentials AFTER the 1992 should be given greater weight than a 16-year old statement.
Corker andthompson are not running against each other.
My candidate B was supposed to represent Ed Bryant in that scenario.
Thanks for reminding me, JB.
I hate Van Hilleary.
"It's just my view that Thompson's pro-life credentials AFTER the 1992 should be given greater weight than a 16-year old statement."
Agreed. However, he needs to be careful about saying things like "I have read these accounts and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them. Although I don't remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice."
Too much of that and it becomes an issue.
Blake,
I think that Thompson simply muddled his answer and didn't answer per his talking points. He plainly uses the bogey-argument about criminalizing abortion ("aid and abet") and the regulatory examples he gave were only of the forcing deliberation variety.
JB --
Ah! Understood. Apologies.
Ned --
How is that a "bogey" argument? How do you propose to ban abortions without some kind of penalty (I asked this elsewhere...will have to check the answers...forgot about it).
Too much of that and it becomes an issue.
Agreed. Thompson should just be straightforward about the issue, it would be refreshing. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now that he really just doesn't remember his past statements on the issue. If he becomes a candidate, I'm sure he'll get a refresher course!
Well, no one answered me, so I'll put the questions here:
Thompson makes it clear that he does not (or anyway did not) want to make either or mothers or doctors involved in abortions criminals. All right, then:
1. Is this, to your mind, a pro-life position? If so, how?
3. Do you agree with this position? If so, what do you think the penalty for "aiding and abetting" an abortion should be, if any? And, if none, what exactly is the point of pushing for laws to ban abortions?
BINGO, Roger. And I think stuff like this will undermine a Fred-to-the-rescue scenario.
Well, no one answered me, so I'll put the questions here
Well, I thought that question was just addressed to me earlier, so others might have thought the same. However, I did answer it, in fact ACK linked part of my answer in this post.
Ned: I think you're overestimating this. Look at the current crop of GOP candidates. It's abysmal. People (other than pundits and bloggers) aren't going to be parsing words and discussing these types of things like they are with Romney.
He's going to be getting the benefit of the doubt here. If he gets in, he'll be the nominee. This parsing of words is not going to make any difference.
JB --
Yes, of course you did, sorry. I was looking at an old window. I even responded to it. Geez, I'm getting old.
Roger: Agreed.
Well, bogey-argument probably wasn't the best term . . . I'm not saying it isn't a fair argument, but it is a characterization of the issue that a "pro-lifer" wouldn't pull out of his debate belt first thing, in my opinion.
Definitely I think that criminalizing abortion would involve some dicey accessory to the crime situations, but I still thing it should be illegal.
That being said, I'd take ANY restrictions on abortion as a compromise, because I think the law serves both a prescriptive and a proscriptive purpose. Abortions are decreasing and people are more eager to be called "pro-life" because of increased societal disapprobation (sorry, seemed better than disapproval) of abortion.
Crap. I think I'm breaking my rule of being involved in a comment thread past 25 comments.
Although...I must say...the discourse has been fairly good to have gone past that number.
Blake --
What? With the getting old part?
Et tu, Blake, et tu?
Blake, I hear what you're saying, but I also know that many Religious Right bigwigs are carefully considering whether Thompson is different enough from the other top-tier people in the race to jump on Fred's bandwagon this early. There are a variety of marks on Thompson's resume (e.g., McCain-Feingold) that make him look like the other top-tier candidates, his charisma notwithstanding.
McCain/Feingold will be Thompson's biggest impediment, but I'm betting that conservative dissatisfaction with the top tier of GOP presidential contenders is enough that in the end it won't matter.
It's true there are other GOP candidates stronger on the life issue than Thompson (Brownback and Huckabee come to mind). However, while I like Brownback and Huckabee alot, both have questionable records on other issues, like immigration, and I'm not sure either has the fundraising ability to ever escape the second tier of candidates. (Huckabee only raised $500K).
For me at least, choosing a candidate is all about weighing the options. Thompson's not perfect and he's not the "conservative messiah" as ACK has taken to sarcastically referring to him as, but he's probably the most reliably conservative candidate in a position to win. Even among the second tier, I've not seen a Republican candidate who sets my world on fire, all of them have disqualifiers, whether it's supporting amnesty (Huckabee, Brownback), being anti-free trade (Hunter) or just being a total whackjob (Ron Paul).
Sorry, AC, but it's just not there. I just viewed the video again...and I can't see where you're coming from other than splitting sentences and phrases trying to read things that aren't there.
Well, Blake, watch it again and forget its Fred. He talks about federal, yes, but then he says it is not the government's responsibility to get involved between a woman and a doctor and start criminalizing things. He then goes on to talk about hearts and minds.
His position in this video is that abortion should not be criminalized but limited.
With the discussion of hearts and minds and political football he clearly indicates that he does not see a governmental role in outlawing abortion on any level.
I can see what you are seeing. But, and I hate to say this about you, you're seeing it because you want to see it.
Thompson is pro-choice is that video. A very measured, moderate pro-choice but pro-choice nonetheless.
Thompson makes it clear that he does not (or anyway did not) want to make either or mothers or doctors involved in abortions criminals.
That is the frickin' point right there. If you don't want to make those involved in abortion criminals then you don't want abortion illegal. You may support all the restrictions you want but at some level you are allowing individual choice on the subject of abortion.
Thus you are not pro-life.
Sorry Roger...couldn't resist. 
What a shame that political candidates find themselves in such boxes that they feel they can't honestly be what they are.
Again I must prophesy, abortion will never be illegal in this country again.
I run into the same thing with a number of Republican politicians when we discuss gay rights. These folks, speaking in confidence, are not personally opposed to gay rights and would like to say so, or just don't give a flying fig about it either way, but feel they have to toe a line drawn for them, or else.
You cut me deep, Blake. You cut me real deep right there.
Donna, it's only a shame insomuch as they are being deceptive (at the least) with the electorate. It's too bad that they are so eager to be in a position of power that they will pretend to hold certain positions.
I was just trying to counter the Roger-worship that was going on over at Katherine Coble's place.
But, and I hate to say this about you, you're seeing it because you want to see it.
ACK - Could it not be that you're so anti-Fred "murder-con" Thompson that you see what you want to see in that video too?
Blake --
Ah, I see.
But with age comes wisdom!
And crotchediness.
ACK - Could it not be that you're so anti-Fred "murder-con" Thompson that you see what you want to see in that video too?
Certainly possible. Obviously, I don't believe so.
Listen, I got no problem with Thompson. He'd probably be my third (or fourth)choice in the primary.
All I can do is tell you how I see it. You know my slants and biases pretty good by now only fair to factor those in, I suppose.
You know...in the end, this is all going to be a non-issue for the general electorate. It may be brought up here and there, but it won't matter as a whole. His record in the Senate along with what he's says during the election will be what's looked at.
As JB said...McCain-Feingold will be a much bigger issue. However, it too will be overlooked in the long-run.
AC: I see what you're saying too.
However, Ned may have been pretty accurate in saying that he was muddled and strayed from his talking points.
I have a question though. On what date did this debate take place (month, day, year)? Just curious.
Donna, it's only a shame insomuch as they are being deceptive (at the least) with the electorate. It's too bad that they are so eager to be in a position of power that they will pretend to hold certain positions.
Ned, I rather feel that way, too, but have grown cynical and accustomed/resigned to compromise. I've had to shift my priorities also and don't always feel so hot about it.
Sixty-sixth!
What's the record for VV anyway?
On what date did this debate take place (month, day, year)? Just curious.
No idea. Cooper is there so I imagine it is either summer or fall 1994.
What's the record for VV anyway?
I don't know. I imagine we are creeping up on it though.
Great post.
Yup.
By the way, if Roe were EVER overturned, the backlash against the GOP would be so drastic, it would be like when Chretien was elected PM in Canada and the Tories were completely wiped out.
Think that's good for 100 more posts?
I can't believe it, Leftie; you and I agree!
ACK -
First, this might be the best comments thread ever. Excellent discussion, and no one resulted to name-calling.
Second, you said that Fred was your third or fourth choice in the primary. Maybe I missed it, but who ranks ahead of him?
Sorry, but I think you opened the door...
Cheers,
Rob
"Maybe I missed it, but who ranks ahead of him?"
Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter
And Calvin Coolidge.
Sure, he's dead, but talk about guaranteed government inactivity!
David Oatney Day...why Roger, you shouldn't have...
Donna, mark it down!
Privacy rights/issues will supersede arguments for this ultimate control of others' bodies. The precedents are set.
Commenting by HaloScan
