Fred Thompson, you tease

Fred Thompson said former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is a “pro-life liberal” this morning on the Steve Gill Show.


I WISH. Fred, don’t taunt me like that!

Thompson is apparently upset at Huckabee for raising taxes in Arkansas — departing from the preferred Republican approach of spending money you don’t have — and not persecuting illegal immigrants. It seems that Huckabee actually used some of that tax money to fund infrastructure improvements, education, and health care for kids!

Well, it’s a start. Now if only Thompson could accuse him of wanting to renounce military aggression, end torture, and restore Constitutional limits on presidential power, we’d be getting somewhere.

7 thoughts on “Fred Thompson, you tease

  1. So I wanted your thoughts: I recently was googling “consistent life ethics” and found a post saying that Ron Paul is consistent life. I hadn’t given the man much thought because I nowhere near libertarian. Apparently he is pro-life on abortion, opposed to the death penalty, and opposed to preemptive war. He also sponsored a human life amendment in 2005, which means unlike most “pro-life” Republicans he might actually try to do something to protect life. Of course, there has to be something bad: he wants to deport all undocumented immigrants. But considering the dismal look of the front runners on both the Republican and Democrat side, I might actually be able to vote for this one with a more or less clear conscience.

    I would be curious to hear what others think of Paul?

  2. Ron Paul may just get me to vote Republican. I like that he is pro-life and anti-war and I think he’s been consistent on both points. My understanding is that he’s very libertarian on health care and education, both areas where I tend to be all softy Socialist/Democrat, but I think I could agree to disagee with him there in light of his other stands.

    I’m with you–no one else is looking remotely appealing.

    You can find out more than you ever wanted to know here:

  3. I don’t exactly think that Ron Paul is consistent life, at least not in the way that most people who are consistent life conceive of it. His position on war, for instance, seems to stem more from his small government / noninterference stance than from a belief in protecting human life. At least, that’s the language he tends to use to explain it. And hey, at least he’s anti-war, so I’m not complaining, but I think it’s significant how he arrives at that position. His philosophy also doesn’t allow him to favor government action to protect life by, say, guaranteeing access to health care.

    I’m also disturbed by the racist quotes people have dug up from his past, even if he’s now saying that they were ghostwritten and don’t represent his views.

  4. The Houston Chronicle reported in 1996 on what was being written in Ron Paul’s newsletter back in 1992.

    Paul now says that he didn’t write that material and didn’t know about it. I don’t really find that answer wholly convincing — even if it’s true, why would the ghostwriter assume he could get away with putting those words in Paul’s mouth if they didn’t have any relation to his views? Also, he didn’t repudiate them for years. Researchers have also found a number of troubling links between Paul and far-right causes and organizations.

Comments are closed.