I'm getting e-mails and comments from readers about Fred Thompson's record on abortion, so it will probably be best to respond to such issues here on the blog.
Here's what has people concerned: Thompson's 1994 Issue Positions
Here's the source as described in Ryan Sager's blog article (linked above):
Project Vote Smart, which compiles voting records and other background materials on politicians, has finally put up its page on Fred Thompson (OK, maybe "finally" isn't exactly the fairest word when Mr. Thompson hasn't even announced for president — but I've been eager to see it).Anyway, it seems Mr. Thompson filled out a survey for Project Vote Smart back in 1994, when he was running for Senate. While it's mostly pretty predictable (boo foreign aid, yay low taxes), there are a few parts worth scrutinizing... (see: abortion, education, AIDS)
Here's the part about abortion:
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.
Fred Thompson has a solid pro-life voting record, but he has gotten more pro-life over time. Of all of the viable presidential candidates (and although he hasn't announced, he will almost certainly run) Fred Thompson has the most solid pro-life voting record, and he seems to be the most solidly pro-life candidate.
Other positives about Fred: he's against gay marriage and he's not a gun grabber.
He says he is solidly pro-life now and that his convictions have solidified since the birth of his daughter.
See here: Fred Thompson Interview- Hannity Part Two
See also: Thompson To-Dos
Here's the part about abortion:
Third, acknowledge that you've gotten more pro-life over time. Twice in recent weeks, you have expressed perplexity that anyone thinks you were once pro-choice. Stephen Hayes quoted you in The Weekly Standard:"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."
But, he adds: "I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100 percent voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate."
Your record in the mid-1990s was a bit less solidly pro-life than that. A 1994 issue of Republican Liberty apparently quotes you opposing public financing of abortion but adding: "The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own." That same year, in which you ran for the Senate (and won), you said something similar in a debate: There should be no federal funding, and states should be allowed to enact parental notification and other "reasonable controls," but government should not "come in and criminalize, let's say, a young girl and her parents and her doctor as aiders and abettors that would be involved."
News accounts treated you as pro-choice, and there is no record of your campaign's trying to dispute that characterization. The National Right to Life Committee did indeed endorse you in that race, and their post-election newsletter listed you among the victorious "pro-life candidates" that year. But that newsletter also grouped you with candidates who were opposed to the Freedom of Choice Act and federal funding of abortion, rather than with candidates who were pro-life across the board.
In 1997, finally, your office sent a constituent a letter about abortion that included this line: "I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area."
I think the record suggests that you were always uncomfortable with abortion and prepared to support some restrictions on it, but that your opposition deepened over the course of your time in public life. The whole country's discomfort with abortion seems to have deepened over that time, too. (In part, that was a result of the partial-birth abortion debate in which you were involved.) If that is what happened, I don't think pro-lifers will hold it against you to say so. Those pro-lifers who worry about the sincerity of Mitt Romney's conversion do so because he seemed ardently pro-choice not long ago. As you said, you have a strong record of voting with pro-lifers that goes back to 1995.
That makes sense, and Fred Thompson's 100% pro-life voting record, as well as his repeated statements professing his solid, pro-life position as he prepares to run for the presidency should help people see that he's grown over the years, is now more pro-life than he ever was (even when he was voting pro-life as a senator), and can be trusted. He has said he thinks Roe vs. Wade was a mistake, that he supports overturning it, and that he is opposed to judges legislating from the bench.
I don't see any difficulty with continuing to support Fred Thompson.
Any thoughts?
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.
Posted by: Dan Hunter | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 11:01 AM
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
Posted by: James | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 11:05 AM
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
Posted by: Thomistic | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 11:24 AM
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.
Posted by: Dan Hunter | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 12:08 PM
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?
Posted by: Billy D | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 12:11 PM
What about Sam Bronwback? I don't hear much talk about him, he is more solidly Catholic than any other candidate including Thompson.
Posted by: Michael | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 12:43 PM
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
Posted by: James | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 12:56 PM
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
Posted by: Dan Hunter | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 12:58 PM
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.
Posted by: c.a. Marks | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 01:38 PM
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
Posted by: Thomistic | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 01:46 PM
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."
Posted by: dennis | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 02:41 PM
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.
Posted by: Carlos | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 03:34 PM
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.
Posted by: Carlos | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 03:40 PM
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.
Posted by: John | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 06:04 PM
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.
Posted by: Thomas Shawn | Tuesday, May 08, 2007 at 06:49 PM
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
Posted by: Thomistic | Wednesday, May 09, 2007 at 01:30 AM
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
Posted by: Thomistic | Wednesday, May 09, 2007 at 01:37 AM
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
Posted by: John | Wednesday, May 09, 2007 at 04:09 AM
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:
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:
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:
According to "NARAL Pro-Choice America" on their "vote smart" page:
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:
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:
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:
According to "NARAL Pro-Choice America" on their "vote smart" page:
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:
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:
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:
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
Posted by: Thomistic | Wednesday, May 09, 2007 at 05:52 AM
Ah, thank you Thomistic.
And what does Pax mean? :-)
Posted by: c.a. Marks | Wednesday, May 09, 2007 at 11:26 AM
pax, pācis (f) peace
Pax,
Thomistic
Posted by: Thomistic | Wednesday, May 09, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Anyone involved in P.R. wouldn't include all the 'uh,s' and 'um's' in the transcription. :)
Posted by: joanne | Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 11:21 AM
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!
Posted by: sarah sawyer | Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 05:23 PM
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.
Posted by: | Sunday, June 03, 2007 at 12:36 AM
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?
Posted by: Doug Parris | Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 01:15 PM