Part 2: Fred Thompson on "Meet the Press" = Common Sense

Note: I had originally planned on posting the entire interview with my thoughts about it when he was on, but I found that it would take too long, and be too cumbersome of a post.
Thus, I will be writing a series of posts about Fred Thompson on "Meet the Press".
This second one will deal with the part of the interview on abortion and gay marriage.
The first part can be found here.

You can read the entire transcript from the interview here.

On abortion and gay marriage (they kinda got mixed in together in the interview, and I feel that because Thompson treats them both as state issues I too will address them together - though abortion will be more closely looked at, as there has been more of a stink made about it):

Abortion:
"MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution,” “we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?"

"MR. THOMPSON: No."

"MR. RUSSERT: You would not?"

"MR. THOMPSON: No. I have always—and that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that. Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is—serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days"

"MR. RUSSERT: Each state would make their own abortion laws."

"MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. But .. to have an amendment ... going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go."

"MR. RUSSERT: So ... you believe that life begins at conception ... ?"

"MR. THOMPSON: Yes, I do."

Homosexual marriage:

"MR. RUSSERT: And also with gay marriage, according to the Associated Press: “Thompson favors a constitutional amendment that bars judges from legalizing gay marriage, but also leaves open the door for state legislatures to approve the practice.” So if a state said, “We want to have gay marriages in our state,” you would be OK with that?"

"MR. THOMPSON: Yes ... marriage is between a man and a woman. Nobody ever thought that that was contested until recently, and we’ve had a couple judges in a couple states decide to turn all that on its head. So we’ve, we’ve had, again, a judge-created problem. I would support a constitutional amendment that addresses this judge-created problem ... and say judges can’t do that. But, at the end of the day, if a state legislature and a governor decide that that’s what they want to do, yes ... they should have the freedom to do what Fred Thompson thinks is a very bad idea."

The only thing I can see that people find objectionable is that he is against federal regulation on these subjects.
Why is this such a problem for them?
He is merely stating that the constitution places these kinds of decisions into the states hands.

In relation to abortion, he is not saying the he is pro-choice (he is actually doing the opposite), but what he is saying is that the federal government needs to stop over-stepping it's bounds.

This poll clearly shows that the country is extremely divided on the issue of abortion. And it is not the right of one group (however right they may be, and I am with the pro-life stance 100%) to impose laws on another.
Under the constitution all citizens have an equal right under the law. We don't need a situation where, when republicans take control of the senate abortion is illegal, and when democrats take control it is legal.

What we can do, however, is leave it up to each state to decide independently.
This allows more liberal states to allow abortion, and more conservative states to ban it. While this not ideal for a conservative like me (and most republicans), this does keep the laws consistent with the constitution, and moves the choice on this vote away from politicians, and back to the individual voters.
This also, like Thompson has stated, gives conservatives a chance to work against abortion.
As it is, with the current Roe v. Wade laws, abortion is just another hot-button issue which really is not going to be definitively decided in the near future.

What Thompson does address (and it seems a lot of people are ignoring) is the fact that it is because of court decisions, and not constitutional laws, that abortion and homosexuality are such big problems today.

When was the Judiciary branch given the power to create laws? Is not their intended role to "enforce" previously written laws?
Fred Thompson makes a point about this, stating that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and that the courts should return to simply enforcing laws, and leaving the law creation where it belongs - in the Senate.


Mike Huckabee lashed out at Fred Thompson over his stance on abortion, and an awful lot of people have joined him in doing so.

Why is it that these people keep saying Thompson is not pro life, as if it is some sort of attack on him, when in fact he is very pro-life.

Why isn't anyone mentioning Giuliani's pro-Abortion stance? (link for Giuliani: http://www.lifenews.com/nat3227.html)

Thompson's pro-life voting record, which is even more pro-life than McCain's? (from the same link for Giuliani: "During his [Fred Thompson] seven years in the U.S. Senate, he voted anti-choice [pro-life] 44 times out of 46 choice-related issues [that is 97% of the votes]. He has called Roe v. Wade 'bad law' and received a 100 percent voting record from the National Right to Life Committee.")

McCain's record, and how it is very similar to Thompson's (McCain has a 96% pro-life voting record, as judged by the liberal, pro-choice group "NARAL". Information from the same link as Giuliani)

How Mitt Romney "supports a womans right to choose", but also believes, as Thompson does, that it is a state matter? (http://conservativesagainstromney.com/2007/03/15/mitt-romney-flips-on-abortion/)

Or that Ron Paul has the exact same view on abortion, ie - it should be left to the states? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Pro-life_legislation)

And finally, and most importantly, Huckabee himself had the same view on the matter as Fred Thompson, up until his presidential run that is. If you read the interview at right wing news (scroll down to the "Switching gears again, do you think we should overturn Roe v. Wade?" part) and the proceeding thoughts on it at the Arkansas Times blog it is clear what he believes is within the states and federal governments rights.

Huckabee is just changing his position in an attempt to polarize people between himself and Thompson.
And he has succeeded with me.
I want a candidate I know I can trust, and that is Fred Thompson, all the way.

Thompson is clearly the most pro-life candidate who actually has a shot at this, besides possibly Huckabee or Ron Paul, but personally I prefer Thompson's consistent pro-life stance over Huckabee's "new" stance.
Not to mention that he has now been endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee (read about it here and here), an endorsement he also received when running for the Senate in Tennessee.

Fred Thompson, the right choice if you want common sense leadership in an insane world.