by Eric Dondero
On Abortion: "Government should stay out of it... The ultimate decision must be made by the women... Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own." -- Fred Thompson, July 1994
It's amazing that all of a sudden we're seeing all these Social Conservatives rallying to Fred Thompson as the "Savior" of the GOP. The Social Cons have never fully trusted Rudy Giuliani. All it took was one small misstep by Giuliani the other day on abortion, for them to bail. Now the Blogosphere is loaded with "Run Fred, Run!" articles and posts.
Are the Social Cons ignorant of Thompson's background?
Fred Thompson has always been a solid Pro-Choice Republican.
Back in the early to mid-1990s, there was a raging battle in the Republican Party between the Moderates/Libertarians versus the Religious Right. On one side there was Ann Stone's Republicans For Choice, the Ripon Society, Log Cabin Clubs and the organization that I had founded in 1990 - the Republican Liberty Caucus. On the other side was the Religious Right. The fight was particularly bitter in Southern States like Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas. I can remember setting up Pro-Choice Republican booths at YR Conventions in NC, LA, and GA, and being verbally assaulted by the RR. In some states they even tried to ban me from the conventions.
Tennessee was right smack dab in the middle of it all. The battle was particularly vicious in that State.
The leader of the TN Anti-Religious Right forces at the time was Michael McCloskey. He was a very well-respected Republican activist from the Eastern side of the State. McCloskey was particularly adept at politics. He was articulate, smooth, and quite handsome. Plus, he was well-funded. The RR feared him, immensly.
Needless to say, we in the RLC, linked up with McCloskey pretty quickly when we started organizing our Chapter in the State. Even though he was more of a straight out Moderate Republican we elected him to our National Committee.
McCloskey hosted our National Convention that year in Gatlinburg (near Knoxville). He used the event to gain attention for his anti-Religious Right efforts in the State. And he very cleverly invited a great many prominent Tennessee Republicans (mostly YRs) to attend. National Speakers who attended included Ann Stone, Rich Taefel of the Log Cabin Republicans (Gay & Lesbian GOPers), and Republicans for Marijuana Legalization.
During the same time, Fred Thompson was making noises of running for the US Senate. McCloskey was one of the ones who was influential in recruiting him to run. McCloskey saw him as a Celebrity counter-force to the Religious Right/Pro-Lifers that could win the GOP Nomination.
And the Religious Right, predictably came after Thompson. It was a bitterly fought primary. Thompson's opponent was Religious Rightist John Bakkes. In the end, Thompson's celebrity status carried him through, and he won with 62% to Bakkes's 37%. Many credited McCloskey and his "Young Republican brigades" with helping Thompson's win.
Young Republican Andrew Murphey of E. Memphis was our State RLC Chairman at the time. Murphey worked on Thompson's Senate Campaign. McCloskey got him the job.
In July of 1994, Murphey did an interview with Thompson for Republican Liberty (the official newsletter of the RLC).
In the interview Thompson identified himself as a "Goldwater Republican." At the time being associated with Goldwater, who had just badmouthed Jerry Falwell and was on the outs with the Religious Right, was a codeword for "Moderate/Pro-Choice" or "Libertarian" Republican.
Thompson said in the interview that like Goldwater he was a strong supporter of Middle Class Tax Cuts, Term Limits, School Choice and a Strong Military.
But it was his answer on Abortion that came through loud and clear:
Murphey:
Some conservatives got flustered by your comments on abortion and Roe vs. Wade. Would you like to explain your position on abortion?
Thompson:
Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the women. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.
The perfect libertarian position.
For us libertarian Republicans it was right-on. But it's only a tiny bit better than Rudy Giuliani's current position. With Giuliani's very recent clarification, only yesterday distancing himself from government funding, the difference is even less if not entirely non-existent.
I'm a big Rudy guy. But if Fred's the Nominee, I'll be perfectly happy. Cause I know that in reality, he's a Pro-Choice Republican.
So either way we libertarian Republicans win. Rudy or Fred: It's the Social Cons, who will have to accept our Pro-Choice Republican candidate for once.
Ironic that their once bitter enemy Fred Thompson is now their Number One Choice of a Standard-bearer. I dare say that alone is a Major Victory for us libertarian Republicans.
*Note - Eric Dondero is the Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus, and served as the RLC's first National Chairman from 1990-93. He also served as Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul from 1997-2003. He is currently CEO of MainstreamLibertarian.com which covers news of the libertarian Republican movement on a daily basis.
18 comments:
Gympie, Australia.
The increasing muscle flexing of the religious right concerns me both here and over there.
If a president has to conform to their dictates, the principle of separation of church and state would seem to be called into question, maybe not to the point of constitutional breach, but at least in principle. I guess you can’t just say, “Well vote for a bloody Democrat then, you bastards.”
When I looked up Romney, a lot of what he seemed to be on about seemed to indicate libertarian leanings, and while he didn’t claim to be pro- defence he expressed concern at the rise of radical Islam, (nothing on how he proposes to meet this threat), yet one of the main things he seems to be on the outer for, is being a Mormon.
In my opinion it is probably a good thing that the religious right appear to be marginalised in this election, although they will get their own proportion of candidates elected, which is fair and will allow their views to be represented, but only in the proportion that they represent within the nation as a whole.
Probably the best advice I could give to any of your presidential candidates is the expression we have here, “When your neighbour talks religion, brand your calves early.”
"Government should stay out of it. No public financing."
Okay so Rudy clarified his position but what put me off was his insistence on government funding for abortion. It made him sound like a Democrat. I prefer Fred's take on it and I hope he runs.
I read a column that was posted several weeks ago. This was one of the first I read about a thompson run. it sparked my interst you may want tot check it out
http://joeleonardi.wordpress.com/2007/03/18/a-republican-to-vote-for/">http://joeleonardi.wordpress.com/2007/03/18/a-republican-to-vote-for/
Dude, before you compose a blog, you should take basic English classes first. Your writing is atrocious. Perhaps you need an editor, but then, whom could wade precariously through your BS? Your brand of Libertarianism is really Corporatism, which is really Fascism, right Benito? How can you claim to be a Libertarian, yet support the Patriot Act? Allowing censorship on what we don't like means we have already agreed to sell our liberty. Of you, President Jefferson would not be proud.
Dude, how about following proper Etiquete and including your name with your post, instead of writing under Anonymous.
What do you have to hide?
Yes, my spelling suffers. That comes from being Multilingual, particularly with the Latin-based languages. My mind works in English, Spanish, Italian, French and Portuguese at the same time.
So, there are words that I naturally use say an Italian spelling on, for example.
Sorry if it drives you crazy. Believe me, it drives me crazy too.
Call it "Multilingual Dislexia".
The anonymouse said: "Perhaps you need an editor, but then, whom could wade precariously through your BS?"
"Whom" is used when it is the object after a noun. You used it incorrectly. You should have used "who" since it is the subject before the noun not the object after the noun.
The anonymouse is not only a coward but also an idiot.
Eric, please help me to refute an authoritarian on my post Another take on immigration.
Eric, thanks for coming to my support. That's the guy who told me that secular libertarians like me don't belong in the GOP.
I'm on the "Run Fred Run" wagon and will remain on it. Fred and Tom Tancredo are the only two candidates who have consistently supported our second amendment rights. I'll admit it up front, I refuse to vote for a candidate who will infringe on those rights in the primaries. Until the actual race is set.. Rudy, Mitt, and the rest will not get my vote. Even R.P. has strayed away from honoring the Bill of Rights. A candidate not supporting the second amendment is a candidate who does not support freedom and liberty, and doesn't trust a law-abiding citizen to obey the law.
Socially tolerant, as we claim to be, means that we tolerate many things we might not agree with. Abortion is one of those issues. As long as Fred keeps the government out of funding it, then that's exactly what we, the TOLERANT libertarian republicans stand for.
I know that you might be 'All Rudy, all of the time', Eric...
but there is no way I will vote for gun control, unless there is no choice available. Then I will support the smaller government candidate...
which is exactly what Fred Thompson is.
Run Fred, Run!!!!!!!
-Johnny
I should add that I'm not trying to bash you, Eric. I'm simply making a case for "my guy", because it's been all about Rudy for some time here. I don't dislike Rudy, I just don't trust him with my guns.
-JR
I'm a small-l libertarian too. I can't see how libertarians win with Rudy and his support of eminent domain, property seizure even for those who have been acquitted of a crime, proposals to collect the DNA of newborns, etc. He's an authoritarian -- the antithesis of a libertarian.
Whoa. Hold on there. Just the opposite is true. Rudy is a champion of Property Rights. That's one of his biggest issues.
In fact, the NY Times called him once a "Property Rights extremist."
I think you need to go back and look at his record, and past quotes.
Property Rights is my Number One issue. That's precisely why I'm so enthusiastic about Rudy.
I saw those comments before, however his voting record is consistently pro-life. Actions speak louder than words lads.
I'd say "nice try Mark", but I'd be lying.
His record:
Vote 1-
He voted to keep the ban for military base abortions overseas. While these would have been privately funded, should they really be allowed on government property? If you allow it into governmental areas once, then eventually you end up allowing it on every base.
Vote 2-
He voted to ban partial birth abortions, which are abortions after the halfway point of a pregnancy. It "ban(s) the abortion procedure in which the physician partially delivers the fetus before completing the abortion." How is this legislation bad exactly? If someone chooses to have an abortion, they should not be waiting until after the 20th week. In fact, Fred supports abortions only in the first trimester. That's far from not supporting abortion rights, that's supporting choice with a clear conscience.
He's been extremely consistent on this issue. Being a lawyer, he sees that abortion rights are not a federal issue and should be controlled at the state level. Roe v. Wade doesn't allow for state control, and this is why he sees it as "bad legislation". It handcuffs the states.
I highly doubt that if the states had control over the abortion issue that first trimester abortions would be illegal. There's a good share of the right that also supports first trimester abortion, which is exactly why I believe non-partial birth abortions will never go away, even if RvW is overturned.
PBA's should only be an emergency option, not a choice.
-Johnny
The position that "separation of church and state" means "no religious concepts may enter any debate" is essentially Democrat/secular fascist, not conservative. The original meaning of the phrase is controlled by the First Amendment, "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion"... the word "respecting" did not mean "to give respect to", it meant "regarding" or "having to do with". In other words, government should keep hands off dictating to religions and should not establish an official denomination, such as the Church of England, as America's official denomination.
In this regard, Fred Thompson's "hands off" position is the constitutionally conservative choice.
Today's efforts to make moral equivalence between a basic belief that God exists and is the source of our human rights (our human dignity is innate and independent of the whims of the governing class of mere humans) and the belief that there is no God is an essentially irreconcilable conundrum. Either there is a God or there isn't a God. Both can't be true for humankind at large.
Why does this matter? Because without the concept that a greater intelligence than human individuals actually exists -- an objective reality of truth vastly larger than the huge variation among human minds -- there can be no rule of law.
What is the use of testimony in court, if there can be no standard of truth? How can we have evidence or facts if there is no overarching standard of what is truth? For that matter, how can we have scientific proof, if there is no objective standard of truth?
Taking the effort to banish religious concepts from our culture to its logical extreme, laws forbidding theft, perjury or murder must all be unconstitutional, since they all appear in the Ten Commandments.
There is a huge difference between allowing individuals to believe and worship as they see fit, and insisting that all their beliefs are logically valid. It's ironic that Jesus Christ, at his own trial before Pilate, said (paraphrasing) that he came into this world to establish the truth, and that those capable of hearing the truth can hear the truth of his words.
Disqualifying religious Christians in the marketplace of ideas is bigotry of the worst sort, since our cultural understanding of the rule of law depends on an objective standard of truth, and since the Christianity that informed Western culture for thousands of years demands personal integrity and truthfulness from its adherents.
To prefer people who want to sidestep truth becasue they are agnostic or atheist is cultural, legal and political suicide indistinguishable in its effects from leftie/liberal multikulturalism.
Queensland, Australia.
Albion Wilde, nobody here has suggested, “Disqualifying religious Christians in the market place of ideas”. To suggest otherwise is to misrepresent our position. If in fact anyone here were to adopt such a position, I for one would oppose them, so I am not sure where you are coming from in your comment.
Nobody here has suggested, that the state should prefer agnostics or atheists.
Nobody here has demanded that Christians prove that their beliefs are logically valid.
Nobody here is not insulted at being compared to “Democrat/secular fascists.”
My own concern, expressed above originated from evangelical Christian ministers years ago who maintained that when the church got the membership they would move the government. The government is there to represent all of the people equally. It also causes me serious concern, that in a democracy groups are able to exercise a disproportionate influence, on the state by being the swing in elections. This is however, a right, which is exercised by many groups and is fundamental to democracy.
My own position with any group, not just the church, is that they have the right to try to convince people of the validity of their beliefs and to try to persuade them to follow those beliefs, however they have no right, to force those beliefs down the necks of those who don’t accept them, by legislation.
If your position is that they can, then your beliefs and Islamofascism only differ by the deletion of the words, “and Muhammad is his messenger”.
Your statement; “Taking the effort to banish religious concepts from our culture to its logical extreme, laws forbidding theft, perjury or murder must all be unconstitutional, since they all appear in the Ten Commandments” is not only ridiculous but facile, in that these values existed long before Christianity, and in cultures other than the one Christianity sprang from.
The only cultures I am aware of that condone murder are Islamofascism, communism and other forms of totalitarianism, and rules relating to property rights and honesty, would have had to be in place for civilization and trade to happen in the first place. It is my contention that the Jews accepted the Ten Commandments, because they represented the mores of their society, the Ten Commandments were the codification of them.
The problem with your type of Christianity, is that if it was proved beyond any doubt that the Bible was only a novel and that if was indisputable that none of the incidents alluded to in it ever happened, you could only remain one by denying that “truth”, while I on the other hand could easily remain one, as my Christianity is based on treasureing the values contained within it.
Fred Thompson's own words.
"* In the days since Thompson allowed that he was thinking about running for president, his views on abortion have come under scrutiny. Thompson finds the news reports from his first run for Senate perplexing.
"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."
Darla St. Martin, associate executive director of National Right to Life, supports Thompson on those claims. She traveled to Tennessee in 1994 to meet with him. "I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion," she told the American Spectator's Philip Klein.
Thompson says he thinks Roe v. Wade is bad law and should be overturned, but he says he does not support a Human Life Amendment."
From this article.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/528aylls.asp
I received a call from Fred Thompson's campaign headquarters and I am a Reublican getting ready to vote for Mr. Thompson but the people he has working at the capagin headquarters was rude and even hung up on me before I said I was even voting for Mr Thompson.... I wonder if he has Hillary people working for him... But I will still vote for him ...
How To Make money with affiliate programs Today. Affiliate marketing is the easier and probably the most effective method to make money from the internet. It is basically, a kind of selling technique where potential buyers from your website are directed to the websites of sellers. For every click, the website owner gets a small commission.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com"
Post a Comment