Back then, candidate Thompson wasn’t altogether pro-life, but he was for leaving decisions concerning abortion policy to the states. So it appears he didn’t think in terms of abortion rights. But in that same year, he did make a rather unambiguously "pro-choice" statement to a libertarian Republican newsletter. He now regards himself as solidly pro-life and anti-ROE, and he had pro-life voting record in the Senate. We can say that Fred’s own opinion on abortion policy has either evolved or is unclear, but he probably could be trusted on the appointment of judges. (Thanks to Ivan the K.)
Ho-hum. The real question is: Can ol' Fred make a stirring speech against judicial tyranny or the decline in family values? If he can, the micro-analysis of his views on abortion will rightly fade away.
David, There's no doubt he could do that...whatever he might think. He's an experienced actor. The point of the micro-analysis is supposed to be favorable; you can waffle on how the law should read on abortion and still be solid on the immediate, judicial issue.
Peter, try as you do you can't effectively revive Romney or slander Thompson. Thompson is clearly a states-powers, small federal government conservative, and as such he has always been against federally mandated abortions. Like McCain, he has always been against Roe, although not always a fervent pro-life nut.
Romney on the other hand has spent much of his political career not just being unclear on abortion, but clearly supporting Roe. That's not a government should stay out of it position is it Mitt and Peter?
Cint, My point was not to slander Fred but to say, instead, that he's probably good enough.
Good enough, but not as good as Romney, right?