My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (CWNews.com)

The Curt Jester

JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« A Reader Writes About Rudy | Main | New Concerns: A Closer Look At Fred Thompson's Abortion Stance »

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515d1e69e200d83501453653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fred Thompson & Abortion:

Comments

Dan Hunter

Yes there is difficulty in supporting Senator Thompson,because as Catholics and any Christian for that matter we must support Senator Brownback whose Christian faith is more outwardly displayed.
He is 100% pro-life which is more than can be said for Senator Thompson,plus Brownback is one of us ,he is a practicing Catholic.
If every Christian in the US of A votes for an 100% Prolife candidate,as they must,we would all vote for Senator Brownback and he would win the Executive Office.
I have already convinced at least 300 people to vote for Brownback,and if each one of us did this and each one of those men did the same,with the power of the Holy Ghost Senator Samuel Brownback will be our next Commander-in-Chief.
God bless you and God bless the United States of America.

James

Unlike Giuliani and Romney, Thompson appears to viscerally side with those who are morally opposed to abortion and sodomy - and has never regarded such people as 'crackpots' or 'bigots' or 'religious fanatics.' He also has always sided viscerally with those who insist on parental rights in regard to such - and who do NOT want their children indoctrinated with the idea that acts like homoanal sodomy are right and good, and who do not want their 13-yr. old daughters to be taken for abortions or given contraceptives by publik skool officials without their knowledge. Finally, he endorses (rightly) the moral notion that no one should be forced to fork over his hard-earned money to the government to support abortion or the promotion of sodomy. In short - he sides with loving parents over immoral and depraved special interests.

Whatever Guiliani and Romney say (now that they need the votes of serious Christians), they spent huge portions of their lives blithely ignoring moral concerns about these issues.

Thompson's a LOT more authentic on these issues, in my opinion.

James

Thomistic

Dan,

I am happy people will be voting for Brownback. That way I can have hope he might be on the ticket (as Vice President).

I am very pleased with Senator Brownback's position on pro-life issues, however Brownback's stance on immigration is disappointing.

Yet that isn't the reason I am not running around telling everyone to vote for Brownback. The reason I'm not doing that is that he hasn't got a chance in terms of the presidency. He isn't registering at all in the polls, and nobody (except a handful of hard core supporters) views him as a serious contender for the presidency.

However, if he were Thompson's running mate, that would help elevate him to a level where he would in the future. It may also cement Thompson's lock on pro-life voters (including pro-life Democrats).

In terms of saying Fred Thompson isn't 100% pro-life, it seems to me that you are denying that people can change and grow.

Should people judge you by your past sins which you have now repented and repudiated?

Pax,

Thomistic

Dan Hunter

No Thomistic,
No one should be judged on their past sins if they have confessed them to God and repented and have gone to,"Sin no ,more".
The problem here is that in a position of immense power like the presidency there is always the temptation to fall back on an attachment to sin.There is precedence for Thompson conciously allowing himself to not see the sacredness of life even in its most innocent preciousness.
There is no such background on Senator Brownback as such.
For the leadership of the greatest country on the face of the earth we must have a leader who has,in any of his political office's,an impeccable record on defending all babies at any point of their lives.
Again it is being very realistic to declare that the Holy Ghost in His capacity as the mover of mens wills to the Good,can and will allow Senator Brownback to become President Brownback.This can and will happen and we must offer holy mass,fast pray and give alms for the will of God to be done.
God bless you and thank you for the good work you do.

Billy D

Thomistic is right, of course. My only concern was the MSM was going to use that gainst him, to divide his base, which is unfortunate. Saul changed pretty dramatically, yes?

Michael

What about Sam Bronwback? I don't hear much talk about him, he is more solidly Catholic than any other candidate including Thompson.

James

I would consider the possibility of voting for Sam Brownback (a devout Catholic). Brownback actually spoke out on the sacredness of all human life at the recent Republican debate. (Little Chrissy Matthews looked so pinched when he did...)

The question is - could I actually vote for Thompson for president, if he should be the nominee.

James

Dan Hunter

Michael,
Yes Senator Brownback is by far the best candidate out there,for president.
He is 100% Prolife,which means he condemns the killing of any baby in the moms womb.
No killing of babies in the instance of rape or life of the mother,obviously these situations are not the childs fault,and these childrn must be protected as children who are loved by God.
We must all vote for Senator Brownback.
God wills this so.
God bless you Michael

c.a. Marks

How can he be pro-life, and have a solid pro-life voting record when you just quoted that he voted to make abortion legal in all circumstances?

The quote -

Under abortion: He checked the box for: "Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy." He did, however, support a number of restrictions on abortion: requiring parental notification, allowing states to impose waiting periods, and eliminating all federal funding of abortion. Lastly, he said Congress should leave legislation on abortion to the states.

I am confused.

Thomistic

You don't understand because you seem to think that checking a box on a political questionnaire is the equivalent of a voting record in Congress.

His voting record while in the Senate is 100% pro-life (and the exact opposite of what he apparently checked on that one questionnaire while running for office 13 years ago in 1994).

Pax,

Thomistic

dennis

Ron Paul is as pro-life as any of them (a retired obstetrician), and being a traditional old-right libertarian, he understands and fully embraces the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. To one degree or another, the rest of the GOP field are a bunch of welfare-warfare state "conservatives."

Carlos

Thomistic, I don't see any moral problem in supporting Fred Thompson at this stage, but you may not ever get a chance to vote for him because he's not a declared candidate yet. Moreover, while you opine that he "most certainly" will run, his speech at the Lincoln Club of Orange County last Friday wasn't exactly heavy on a platform from which to launch a campaign but instead touched on general themes. If Thompson gets into the race, I'm sure you'll see a lot of conservatives back him. Until that time, though, his candidacy is really just a question mark.

Carlos

Dan, I was for Brownback during most of '06, but was thoroughly unimpressed by his lack of an organization in Iowa. He was thinking about running for POTUS back in '04 and his state of Kansas is fairly close to Iowa. Despite these advantages (time and location), his ground organization in Iowa is rather feeble. If a candidate either doesn't have the initiative or ability to construct an Iowa team at least a year before their caucuses, then I'm not so sure I want that person as commander-in-chief of the armed forces or as the political foil to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Again, I am not impugning his piety or convictions, but I am criticizing his prudential judgment when it comes to organizing and running a campaign for the White House.

John

Actually, according to the National Right to Life Committee, he is not 100%, of course the parts where he voted against NRLC was on campaign finance reform.

However, he's never had to vote on an abortion bill (that I know of) that would have directly contradicted his view that within the first trimester abortion should be legal. Sure, he has voted for parental restrictions, against federal funding, and in favor of federalism, but he has never had to vote on the actual legality. This is why someone's voting record can only tell so much. Certainly, less than 100% on pro-life issues (excluding campaign finance reform) is unacceptable, but because Congress has little to no ability to actually restrict abortion in the first trimester, we need to look to Thompson's beliefs, which are problematic in this area.

Thomas Shawn

You wrote: "Fred Thompson has a solid pro-life voting record, but he has gotten more pro-life over time."

If the record is solid why does it need to be qualified with a "but"?

You come off sounding like a PR shill for Thompson.

Thomistic

Mr. Shawn,

My "but" was simply a conjunction.

First of all, the two statements conjoined by "but" are not mutually exclusive.

Fred Thompson can and does have a solid pro-life voting record.

He has also become more pro-life over time.

I don't see any problem with making both statements, since they are both facts.

I'm sorry for any confusion.

Pax,

Thomistic

Thomistic

John,

Until Roe vs. Wade is overturned, nobody can vote on the legality of abortion, and nobody means nobody, so I don't see how Thompson never voting on the legality of abortion hurts Fred Thompson or helps anyone else on the Republican playing field.

In terms of being 100%, I was speaking about his votes that directly bear on the issue of abortion.

I'm not thrilled with his support for McCain-Feingold, either. I just didn't view that as a vote vote against the right to life.

Pax,

Thomistic

John

Thomistic-

That was my point. Votes on abortion issues never touch directly on the legality. For that, we have to rely on what candidates say. Unfortuantely, Thompson, it seems, has said that he believes abortion should be legal in the first trimester. This is troubling, and I'd like to see his campaign address it directly.

John

Thomistic

John,

Fred Thompson has said, repeatedly, that he is pro-life. He knows what pro-life means. Pro-life people do not support abortion during the first trimester.

He (or even possibly someone who worked for his campaign 13 years ago) checked a box on a questionnaire that reflected a position with which he was comfortable being seen as holding 13 years ago while running for office.

That doesn’t sem to be what he is saying now.

He has also said that he thinks Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision and supports it being overturned, and that seems to be his consistent position over the years.

Here are some video clips of him saying those things:

FOX News Sunday: Fred On The Issues

Key Fred Thompson Quote:

I think Roe vs. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges. I don’t think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It’s contrary to what it’s been the past 200 years.

Fred Thompson Interview - Hannity (This is the third segment with Hannity aired on FOX, and it's the one where he talks about abortion.)

Key Fred Thompson Quote:

"I am pro-life. I have a 100% voting record on the pro-life issues that come, uh, there. I must say, I've told people this before, I, intellectually and politically and from a policy standpoint I've always, uh, voted that way ever since I've been in the Senate and felt that way. I must say it's meant a little bit more to me since I saw the first sonogram of my little three year old daughter. Uh, I'll never feel the same way about that again. So, not only is it in my head, it's in my heart, now. And uh, again, I think we ought to try be tolerant of various views on this thing, but in terms of government policy, I think we ought to discourage that [abortion]; it's a bad thing. I think the Supreme Court was absolutely right in this abortion decision, the, uh, partial-birth abortion decision. The very idea that we could even have a debate over whether or not that atrocious activity, uh, should be, uh, allowable, uh, is, uh, is very unfortunate, to say the least. Uh, I think the president has a limited responsibility in that, but people deserve to know how you feel, and that's how I feel about it."

Now, I had to listen very closely to what he said in the Hannity clip in order to transcribe it.

I do have some concerns about what he said.

Here they are:

1) It's clear from all that he says (and from his record) that Fred Thomspon is a federalist. Federalists advocate the principle of allowing greater regional autonomy within the United States — usually by allowing individual states to set their own agendas and determine the handling of issues, rather than trying to impose a nationally uniform solution.

He seems to be willing to support an amendment to the Constitution preventing states from being forced to accept homosexual marriage or homosexual civil unions because of the "full faith and credit" clause, which is a position with federalist leanings (since an easier route would be just to have an amendment that marriage is between a man and a woman) but he still seems to think the states should be allowed to decide one way or the other.

My concern is that he may feel the same way about abortion, because that was his position here in this clip from either 1992 or 1994: Fred Thompson talks about abortion

In the older clip he seems to think abortion shouldn't be a national issue, it should be a state issue, and although he clearly seems to think abortion isn't good, and is, in fact, harmful to women, he thinks that educating people about what abortion is will "win that battle".

I noticed in the Hannity interview, he spoke about abortion last. My fear is that abortion is a weak point for him and he wanted to establish his more solidly conservative positions first. There were a lot of word whiskers ("ums" and "uhs", etc.) when he got to talking about abortion, which seems to indicate some discomfort on his part about discussing the issue.

2) In the Hannity clip, Thompson says: "I think we ought to try be tolerant of various views on this thing..."

That bothers me, because I'm not sure what he means when he says tolerant.

If he means civil (in a "you catch more flies with honey" kind of way) and not running around bombing clinics and shooting doctors, I agree, but if he means we should be tolerant in allowing other people to do what they feel is best with regard to abortion, even if that means having an abortion or supporting legal abortion, then I have a serious problem with what Thompson said.

The fact that he says in the next sentence (of partial-birth abortion), "The very idea that we could even have a debate over whether or not that atrocious activity, uh, should be, uh, allowable, uh, is, uh, is very unfortunate, to say the least," only heightens my apprehension, because he seems to understand very clearly how "atrocious" partial-birth abortion is, and he doesn't seem "tolerant" of other viewpoints on that matter when he says that the fact that there is even a debate is "unfortunate".

I may be over-analyzing him, though.

Still, the issue of abortion is one I take so seriously that a candidate had better be careful and clear when he speaks about it.

3) He seems to distance himself from responsibility on the issue of abortion when he says, "Uh, I think the president has a limited responsibility in that, but people deserve to know how you feel, and that's how I feel about it."

That may just be a further indication of his discomfort about discussing such a sensitive subject, but I'd really like more assurances about what kind of Supreme Court justices he would nominate.

More on Fred Thompson & Abortion:

National Right to Life Committee on Thompson - Thursday, March 22, 2007

Quote:

This morning, I cited reports being promoted by the pro-Romney blog Evangelicals for Mitt suggesting that Fred Thompson ran his two campaigns for Senate in Tennessee as a pro-choicer. Not so, National Right to Life executive co-director Darla St. Martin just told me.

St. Martin said that she went down to Tennessee in 1994 to speak with Thompson personally when he first ran for Senate, and that she determined he was against abortion.

"I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion," St. Martin said. She told me that the group went on to support him in that election, and his record reinforced for her that their determination was correct.

"He has a consistent voting record that is pro-life," she said.

On the NRLC website, they archive their congressional ratings back to 1997, so they include six of his eight years in the Senate. Thompson took the pro-life position on every vote he cast on the abortion issue. The only reason he didn't have a 100% rating is that, as Jim pointed out, the ratings also include votes on campaign finance reform, which he supported.

I specifically pressed her on the 1994 National Review story that read: "On abortion, both Thompson and Cooper are pro-choice. But Thompson favors parental notification, Cooper voted against it." I also asked her about the 1996 AP story mentioning Thompson's opposition to a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

St. Martin said she was skeptical of such media reports, because they can be wrong as was her experience with stories in 2000 that George W. Bush had been pro-choice. She reiterated the fact that she knows Thompson opposed abortion because of her conversation with him, and that was reinforced by his subsequent voting record.

No doubt, there will be new articles and video clips to come out should Thompson decide to run, publicizing any past pro-choice statements, and clearly Romney supporters have a vested interest in pointing to Thompson as another recent convert to the pro-life cause. However, it seems that Thompson's voting record is consistent enough, and dates back far enough, to satisfy the pro-life community.

According to "NARAL Pro-Choice America" on their "vote smart" page:

Abortion Issues 2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2001.

2001 Thompson supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2001.

2000 Thompson supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2000.

1999-2000 Thompson supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 77 percent in 1999-2000.

1999 Thompson supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 1999.

Social Issues 2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Zero Population Growth 0 percent in 2001.

2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Californians for Population Stabilization 0 percent in 2001.

2000 Thompson supported the interests of the Zero Population Growth 0 percent in 2000.

2000 Thompson supported the interests of the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 27 percent in 2000.

1999-2000 Thompson supported the interests of the National Association of Social Workers 10 percent in 1999-2000.

1999 Thompson supported the interests of the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 18 percent in 1999.

According to "NARAL Pro-Choice America" on their Congressional 1994 National Political Awareness Test, Fred Thompson's positions in 1994 (based on answers to a questionnaire) are as follows:

What is the NPAT?

Congressional 1994 National Political Awareness Test

Please Note

The National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asks candidates which items they will support if elected. It does not ask them to indicate which items they will oppose. Through extensive research of public polling data, we discovered that voters are more concerned with what candidates would support when elected to office, not what they oppose. If a candidate does not select a response to any part or all of any question, it does not necessarily indicate that the candidate is opposed to that particular item.

Abortion 9. If elected to Congress, which of the following general principles or specific proposals will you support concerning abortion?

Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.
A woman under the age of 18 should be required to notify a parent or guardian before having an abortion.
A woman should be required to notify her spouse before having an abortion.
States should be allowed to impose mandatory waiting periods before abortions are performed.
Congress should eliminate federal funding for clinics and medical facilities that provide abortion services.
Congress should eliminate abortion services from any federally funded health care plan.
Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.

Note: The site does not come out and say that the data provided by this 1994 questionnaire is outdated, but does ask supporters to "Urge Fred Thompson to fill out the NPAT".

Now let’s look more at Fred Thompson’s actual record:

Fred Thomson's Voting Record:

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)

According to the National Right to Life Scorecard for the 105th Congress, U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson voted the pro-life position on the following issues:

1 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 2 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban--Veto Override 3 - Abortions in military medical facilities 4 - Abortions in military medical facilities 5 - Child Custody Protection Act -- Cloture Vote 6 - Abortion coverage in S-CHIP ("kid care") 7 - Federal employees' abortion coverage 8 - Abortion-dependent fetal tissue research 9 - Clinton unrestricted funding for "population assistance" 10 - State Department authorization bill 11 - Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act 12 - Medicare: right to purchase unrationed insurance 13 - Medicare: right to purchase unrationed insurance

According to the National Right to Life Scorecard for the 106th Congress, U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson voted the pro-life position on the following issues:

1 - Ban on abortions in military medical facilities 2 - Ban on abortions in military medical facilities 3 - Ban on federal employees' abortion coverage 6 - killing Roe v. Wade endorsement 7 - Roe v. Wade endorsement 8 - Baby body parts ("fetal tissue") 9 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

According to "NARAL Pro-Choice America" on their "vote smart" page:

Abortion Issues 2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2001.

2001 Thompson supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2001.

2000 Thompson supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2000.

1999-2000 Thompson supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 77 percent in 1999-2000.

1999 Thompson supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 1999.

Social Issues 2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Zero Population Growth 0 percent in 2001.

2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Californians for Population Stabilization 0 percent in 2001.

2000 Thompson supported the interests of the Zero Population Growth 0 percent in 2000.

2000 Thompson supported the interests of the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 27 percent in 2000.

1999-2000 Thompson supported the interests of the National Association of Social Workers 10 percent in 1999-2000.

1999 Thompson supported the interests of the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 18 percent in 1999.

According to "NARAL Pro-Choice America" on their Congressional 1994 National Political Awareness Test, Fred Thompson's positions in 1994 (based on answers to a questionnaire) are as follows:

What is the NPAT?

Congressional 1994 National Political Awareness Test

Please Note

The National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asks candidates which items they will support if elected. It does not ask them to indicate which items they will oppose. Through extensive research of public polling data, we discovered that voters are more concerned with what candidates would support when elected to office, not what they oppose. If a candidate does not select a response to any part or all of any question, it does not necessarily indicate that the candidate is opposed to that particular item.

Abortion 9. If elected to Congress, which of the following general principles or specific proposals will you support concerning abortion?

Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.
A woman under the age of 18 should be required to notify a parent or guardian before having an abortion.
A woman should be required to notify her spouse before having an abortion.
States should be allowed to impose mandatory waiting periods before abortions are performed.
Congress should eliminate federal funding for clinics and medical facilities that provide abortion services.
Congress should eliminate abortion services from any federally funded health care plan.
Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.

Note: The site does not come out and say that the data provided by this 1994 questionnaire is outdated, but does ask supporters to "Urge Fred Thompson to fill out the NPAT".

Fred Thomson's Voting Record:

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)

According to the National Right to Life Scorecard for the 105th Congress, U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson voted the pro-life position on the following issues:

1 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 2 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban--Veto Override 3 - Abortions in military medical facilities 4 - Abortions in military medical facilities 5 - Child Custody Protection Act -- Cloture Vote 6 - Abortion coverage in S-CHIP ("kid care") 7 - Federal employees' abortion coverage 8 - Abortion-dependent fetal tissue research 9 - Clinton unrestricted funding for "population assistance" 10 - State Department authorization bill 11 - Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act 12 - Medicare: right to purchase unrationed insurance 13 - Medicare: right to purchase unrationed insurance

According to the National Right to Life Scorecard for the 106th Congress, U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson voted the pro-life position on the following issues:

1 - Ban on abortions in military medical facilities 2 - Ban on abortions in military medical facilities 3 - Ban on federal employees' abortion coverage 6 - killing Roe v. Wade endorsement 7 - Roe v. Wade endorsement 8 - Baby body parts ("fetal tissue") 9 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

I think this research bears posting on the front page of the blog, as well. Maybe we can get people asking questions that will help Fred make some important clarifications.

Pax,

Thomistic

c.a. Marks

Ah, thank you Thomistic.

And what does Pax mean? :-)

Thomistic

pax, pācis (f) peace

Pax,

Thomistic

joanne

Anyone involved in P.R. wouldn't include all the 'uh,s' and 'um's' in the transcription. :)

sarah sawyer

On abortion: I could not state that I
am pro-Fred Dalton Thompson if he could not state that he is pro-life and has a pro-life voting record. He is the only Republican
candidate who can carry the South and win
the votes of Independents, conservative
Democrats, liberal Republicans, and undecideds. All Democratic contenders are
Pro-choice which means, of course, Pro-Infanticide, and God help us if any Christian should vote for their candidate in 2008! Fred Dalton Thompson may not be a "man for all seasons"as Thomas More,
thus acceptable to all catholics,but he is definitely the man for "this" season.
He has stated publically that he is opposed
to Roe vs Wade and that the law should be
overturned. There are more issues to be
considered than pro-choice or pro-life, but
I can assure you that I am and have been for over forty years pro-life, and thus more catholic on this issue than most of my catholic friends, male and female, and I,
a protestant, have told them so. But why
argue this issue. Pray for God's man to be
elected to the presidency in 2008; then vote
as your conscience leads. Ask for the Divine Guidance of the Holy Spirit in making your decision. As the Scriptures instruct: "Come, let us reason together."
We are threatened with continued terrorism
as Islamic Fascist "cells" are being established and strategically located thoughout our country. Europe is already
on the verge of "selling out," and the Religion of Peace, so called, is determined to establish their dictatorial, sharia, koran rule in our own country. The man we
elect to the presidency is not the one to
save individual souls, but he very well may be the one who saves the soul of this nation! If you have in mind someone
other that Fred Dalton Thompson, a solid pro-life candidate, who has a chance of winning this election for the GOP, tell me who and tell me why he can outpoll FDT. The European Union is already statewide an anti-Christian, anti-catholic political conglomerate. If we don't take the time to read the handwriting on the wall (ala
Islamic scrawl in Europe--or Eurabia as
they are now set to call it) by failing to see that Fred Dalton Thompson was "born for such a time as this" we will go the way of Europe--peace at any price--and the anti-Christ spirit will spread unchecked throughout this land. Come, catholics, protestants, patriots, agnostics, all Americans, let us come and reason together, deciding who is best to lead this country
though these terrifying, turbulent times.
Again I say, God's Will be done. Our God is Jesus Christ; He is our Lord and our God, Our Savior and our Creator, and it is His Will and His Will only that we should desire and thus pray for.
May God help us choose the man for America's president that He would choose, if He Himself were here walking this land himself. He will be with us who believe in
and follow Him if we seek His Will and not
our own. If we pray in His Will, He will hear our prayers and will give us what we ask.Thus, His Will and the fulfilment of it, is the only hope we have of restoring the soul of our nation and that restoration will begin when we elect our next president in 2008. In my heart, mind, and soul, I am
persuaded at this time that Fred Dalton Thompson is the man who will be elected as the 44th President of the United States of America!

In interest of full disclosure, I am adamantly pro-life - - even against the state taking of life via death sentences (though it has nothing to do with the lack of consistency of application for the unprosecuted felons wearing the robes in the courtrooms!!).

I also lived in TN both times Mr. Thompson ran for office. I check with Right to Life before I vote. I guess I am guilty of having a litmus test. He has a good voting record, sure. But he was also pitching himself as somewhat on the fence in order to get the votes. It was a tough race, given how he was going against, Jim Cooper (?) for Algore's vacated seat. I felt at the time, he was pro-choice, with bones tossed to the pro-lifers, based on the way he ran th campaign. Perhaps I was mistaken. Maybe he was pro-life, with bones thrown to some pro-abortion. Again, it was a helluva race.


I'd like to see him pressed on the reversal of his "safe and legal", "first trimester" quotes. They've stuck with me for years. For me, abortion is the litmus test. While he may be more so now that he's got a wee one - - -he's also has other, grown, children. I believe he lost a daughter, too.

One of those, a son I believe,was responsible, of sorts, for arranging to have him speak at a Catholic Church in Nashville only a few years ago. It was a very small crowd. Might have been a weeknight. I was impressed by him because he mentioned Korea as a threat. This was when others were focusing only on the Middle East/Iraq/Afghanistan. North Korea still has our USS Pueblo from 1968.

I need to look at Sen B from KS. However, I'd like to vote for Mr. Thompson, because he does not strike me as a complete phony as do many of the other offerings. We could do much worse based on polls of current offerings..

But let's hold him to his word on abortion --and actions on it. Let's get full disclousre on his views.

He kept his word on not running for Congress any more than he promised upfront.

But let's also not go like sheep thinking the President has little influence. It was the chance to replace Supreme Court Justices that made the litus test that GWB was better than burning up a right-in vote for his second time around. For that, he did better than his father, for me anyway.

Mr. Thompson might have the X-factor we think we want. I hope and pray he has the Pro-life factor, we need.

Doug Parris

I'm very concerned with comments, here, supporting Sam Brownback who has supported an anti-Christian position on illegal immigration, endorsing the wholesale amnesty of habitual criminals in the United States, all of whom live by identity theft or forgery, tax evasion and/or the fruits of other's labors.
Our concern for the Salvation of migrants who live by crime must compel us to bring them to repentance, not justify their sin. Brownback's position is just the opposite. He would, in addition, instigate a massive influx of the culture of lawlessness that has plagued Mexico with government corruption as a way of life for hundreds of years and then let them vote, in their own language, hoping for a political reward for his help in facilitating this subversion of American Freedom. 95% of the murder arrests in heavily infiltrated LA county are illegal immigrants.
In my home State of Washington, as many as 85% of ALL arrests in many rural communities are from the illegal immigrant community, who take Americans' jobs by day by working "cheaper" under the table (not paying withholding taxes) getting foodstamps from friendly left-wing government and partying like Hell's Angels on the weekends.
Why should these criminals decide America's Future?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic