Dondero, on the other hand, is just plain disingenous
Whatever might be true of the Evangelicals for Mitt story, this cleverly disingenous piece of nonsense by Eric Dondero has got to be a deliberate smear.
Dondero pretends that Thompson still holds the position on abortion he briefly held in the early 'Nineties- even going so far as to misrepresent the present positon of Rudy Giuliani- who favors Federal funding of abortions- as being Thompson's position (he didn't favor it even back in the time Dondero writes about!).
Dondero's agenda is interesting. A libertarian, he at least presents himself as applauding Thompson for holding the position he in fact has long since renounced. He seems to be a Giuliani man operating under the misapprehension that, even if somehow nominated, a candidate with Giuliani's position on social issues could even carry the party's base!
ADDENDUM: As the comments show, Dondero wasn't being disingenous. Just really, really misinformed.
Dondero pretends that Thompson still holds the position on abortion he briefly held in the early 'Nineties- even going so far as to misrepresent the present positon of Rudy Giuliani- who favors Federal funding of abortions- as being Thompson's position (he didn't favor it even back in the time Dondero writes about!).
Dondero's agenda is interesting. A libertarian, he at least presents himself as applauding Thompson for holding the position he in fact has long since renounced. He seems to be a Giuliani man operating under the misapprehension that, even if somehow nominated, a candidate with Giuliani's position on social issues could even carry the party's base!
ADDENDUM: As the comments show, Dondero wasn't being disingenous. Just really, really misinformed.
Comments
Thompson was absolutely on the side of the Pro-Choicers against the TN Religious Rightists in the middle 1990s.
Yes, I'm a Rudy Giuliani guy. I say that explicitly all over that article, and all over my Blog. BUT, I'd be enthusiastic about Fred Thompson, as well, if he wins the GOP nomination.
We're all Republicans here. I may be a libertarian Republican. You're obviously a Social Conservative. Some of my best friends are Social Cons.
Let's keep our eyes on the real enemy: the idiot Leftists who want to sell our country out to the Islamo-Fascists.
Either Rudy or Fred would do a teriffic job at fighting Islamo-Fascism. On this, surely we can agree.
But you have to face facts. Fred Thompson is technically Pro-Choice on the issue of abortion, whether you like to admit that to yourself or not.
I consider myself to be HARDCORE PRO-CHOICE!
If I was a US Senator I would end up voting Pro-Life 80 to 90% of the time, (like my Pro-Choice Republican Senator Kay B. Hutchison). Even though, I'm Pro-Choice, I am in favor of parental notification, against government funding, and for outlawing partial birth.
Thompson is exactly the same. He's Pro-Choice, but his voting record is 100% Pro-Life. That doesn't change the fact that he's still Pro-Choice.
rob
There's no reason for you to fax me the article. I believe you- that Fred Thompson was pro-choice over a decade ago. I've even cited that information in other recent posts.
The disingenuous thing about your post is that you must surely be aware that whatever might have been the case back the, Thompson has been vocally of the opinion that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided for a number of years. Yes, he was pro-choice- once. But that has not been the case for a very long time.
Nor do I agree with the rest of your post. We are not "all Republicans here." I see liberarians as every bit as much the enemy as liberals- and for pretty much the same reasons (though personally, I'm not sure how it's libertarian to favor open season on any member of our species; certainly the right to be left alone includes the right not to be torn limb from limb or chemically skinned alive in the womb).
In the extremely unlikely event that Mayor Giuliani is nominated, I will not vote for him. I see no reason to prefer him to Hillary or Obama on the issues that matter to me most.
Thankfully, I will not face that decision. When Mayor Giuliani's position on social issues becomes general knowledge among primary voters, his candidacy will sink like a stone.
So we're going to be on opposite ends of this thing- as, given our respective political philosophies, we are probably bound to be. But I think both of us ought to play fair- and that includes not citing old information about the other guy's positions as if it were current.
I think of all my Young Republican friends in Tennessee who worked their asses off for Fred in 2004 to get him the nomination against that Religious Right guy Bakkis.
Doesn't this now raise another question about Thompson, that he doesn't "dance with thems that brought him to the dance"?
This switch in his position, is perhaps even more troublesome than anything else.
BTW, sorry to hear that you consider us libertarians to be just as "Liberal" as Conservative.
I'm a lifelong Libertarian activist. I've been called, "America's Greatest Libertarian Political Activist."
I've got a libertarian political resume that would make your head spin.
I can tell you as a Libertarian political activist, we Libertarians HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN COMMON WITH LIBERALS.
They are the enemy of the Libertarian, and they need to be crushed and destroyed, mercilessly!!!
And I would kindly ask you, since you are obviously NOT a Libertarian, to not speak for those of us who actually are, in the future.
I don't see how your ownfailure to keep up to date with a change in Thompson's position which took place a long time ago is a slap in the face to anybody. For myself, I'm glad that FDT saw the legal, medical, and moral inadmissibility of the position you hold.
I didn't say that I considered liberatarians to be "liberal" at all- just the enemy of reasonable, American values in the same way liberals are. Abortion is a clear example of an issue in which you clearly stand, not for freedom, but for the oppression of the weak by the strong. The touchstone of libertarianism, of course, is the glorification of selfishness. Selfishness is not a virtue, Eric, no matter how you may try to dress it up as one.
Nor does a position Thompson held over a decade ago make you guys the ones who "brought him to the dance." At least as many pro-life Republicans voted for FDT in Tennessee as pro-choice ones; in fact, I can't believe that you are seriously arguing that he was elected because of, rather than in spite of, his position on abortion. I assure you that the present pro-Thompson boom would not be taking place if FDT still held the position on abortion he did in the mid-Nineties.The switch in positions happened long enough ago that I don't see how a reasonable person could be bothered by it. Doesn't speak well for the expiration date on your own sources of information, though.
I don't care about your political resume, Eric. Nor do I plan to bore you with my own. But none of this changes the fact that- due to the poor quality of your own information- you have been posting a falsehood about Fred Thompson all over the internet. He is pro-life, and has been for a long time.