CNN again failed to report on Thompson's inconsistent abortion record
On the September 11 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, senior political analyst Bill Schneider aired Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's statement that "[m]y record is -- eight years in the Senate -- was 100-percent record against abortion or anything related to it." Schneider did not note, however, that Thompson has reportedly taken inconsistent positions on abortion during his political career. As Media Matters for America has noted (here and here), CNN has repeatedly failed to mention Thompson's earlier reported statements in support of abortion rights.
A 1993 Memphis Commercial Appeal article and documents at Thompson's Senate archives at the University of Tennessee show that Thompson previously spoke in favor of abortion rights, articulating a view apparently at odds with his current opposition to Roe v. Wade. The Appeal reported on July 29, 1993, that Thompson said during an interview that he "supports the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion." Further, The New York Sun's "Latest Politics Blog" reported that Thompson indicated in a 1994 Project Vote Smart questionnaire that he believed "[a]bortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy" (while also indicating his support for numerous restrictions).
From the September 11 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in the Situation Room.
You might say the former actor Fred Thompson is playing the part of a villain when it comes to Rudy Giuliani's presidential support. Right now, he's stealing some of the spotlight from the former New York City mayor.
Joining us now is our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider.
Now that Fred Thompson, Bill, is in the race, that race is being shaken up quite a bit, at least according to our new poll numbers.
SCHNEIDER: That's right, Wolf. The Republican race is beginning to take on a recognizable shape, and it looks like it's going to be a humdinger.
[...]
[begin video clip]
SCHNEIDER: The poll shows Thompson leading among men, Giuliani among women. Thompson is ahead among Republicans over 50, Giuliani among those under 50. Thompson's on top with conservatives, Giuliani with moderates.
Thompson also has the edge among evangelical Republicans and especially among his fellow Southerners. That's where Thompson's made the biggest gains and where he's getting the most enthusiastic reception -- men, older voters, conservatives, evangelicals, Southerners -- sounds like the Republican base is tilting toward Thompson.
THOMPSON: My record is -- eight years in the Senate -- was 100-percent record against abortion or anything related to it.
SCHNEIDER: What does Giuliani have to compete with that? 9-11.
SAM PULIA (cousin of 9-11 victim): I particularly like Rudy Giuliani. I think he did a hell of a job that day under enormous stress.
SCHNEIDER: But Thompson's not going to concede the terror issue.
THOMPSON: The whole world watches and waits as the determination of the American people is tested.
[end video clip]
[...]
BLITZER: All right, Bill Schneider, thanks for the good work.
Oh baby, I love this one...mmfa is barking up the wrong tree when they try to pin this one on Thompson.
Following their logic...then one might make the same claim about David Brock. His record during 3 years at the helm of mmfa has been 100% liberal...but Brock has taken inconsistent positions on liberalism during his career.
If you want to use this brush on Thompson...then the same brush must be used on Brock...which means that Brock's position on liberalism must be suspect...after all that's what mmfa is trying to say about Thompson.
Excellent point Wes.
Brock's running for President? All right!
Need some balance here. Is there anyone on the GOP side who's major concern on this issue isn't the rights of rapists, insestuous parents and abusive caregiver's?
Wesley, if Brock were a Presidential candidate you would have a point, however this is about a man who has changed positions and is running for President. But nice attempt to change the subject.
Doris,
When Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly are criticized here vs. what some politician says, do you and other posters say they shouldn't be so criticized because they aren't running for office?
Tommy,
The thread however is about someone running for President, not David Brock. I would have no issue however brining up David Brock in a discussion on his thoughts in the past vs. what Ann Coulter or O'Reilly say no vs. what they may have said in the past.
Oh baby, I love this one...mmfa is barking up the wrong tree when they try to pin this one on Thompson.
Following their logic...then one might make the same claim about David Brock. His record during 3 years at the helm of mmfa has been 100% liberal...but Brock has taken inconsistent positions on liberalism during his career.
If you want to use this brush on Thompson...then the same brush must be used on Brock...which means that Brock's position on liberalism must be suspect...after all that's what mmfa is trying to say about Thompson.
As usual, Wesley, you've completely missed the point. Fred Thompson has held incinsistent views in the past yet calls himself a "true conservative. Your "point" about David Brock would only be valid if after holding liberal positions over the past few years he were to call HIMSELF a conservative. Since David Brock's positions are consistent with his current description of himself, there's no comparison.
Fred Thompson, on the other hand, appears willing to say anything in order to get himself elected. Which we don't need.
Wesley, I think the issue is the information regarding his change/inconsitency/ whatever you want to call it should be told as it was told and told and told about other candadates in the past. There may be nothing wrong with his change or an explanation for his change or whatever but shouldn't that be part of the debate? Here they let his staement stand and did not critically analyze it--as they should be doing and point out discrepencies with the statement.
MM: "In 1993 ..." 1993? 1994? That was 13/14 years ago.
Al Gore was once pro-life, but when he switched over to supporting the abortion industry, there was barely a peep anywhere.
Pretty weak, MM, IMHO.
Wesley & Shoes, Excellent points about Brock & Gore.
People who live in glass houses...well ya know ;-)
J2, I guess since Thompson is so inconsistent with his abortion views, nobody would mind if he chose a supreme court justice? He might choose a judge that the abortion rights crowd could accept. You think?
Well Bruce if he did that he'd suddenly be a hero to the Left & the Pro-Choice crowd.
Guess that would be a Flip-Flop on their part? Hehehe ;-)
bruce
Dead solid perfect...as usual.
Solid as a cowpie.
Mary, I love that manure talk.
Can't help it, t'was raised in Nebraska, and we know our buffalo chips when we see 'em!
So because someone else unrelated to the person being discussed has changed their mind on an issue or issues not being discussed, then it's okay to overlook the fact that the person being discussed has changed their position on a view that is very important to a lot of people.
You all seem to think it was relevant for those you mention. Why isn't it relevant here?
Guess it's time for a time-period addition to the definition of "flip-flop." The headline for this article says "inconsistent" though, not flip-flop.
Yeah...it looks like Brock has at least 5 more years to live down his past.
Sorry fellas. David Brock freely admits his past and disavows it.
He is not misrepresenting himself. Anyone can change positions or points of view. Maybe Gulianni should just say he has always been Pro life. That is what Thompson is doing.
THank You RC.
I was going to say you guys should get a room.
But it looks like you've taken this one.
Worrier - Yeah, they were salivating over the chance - Not like they get many opportunities though..
All the usual suspects too - LOL
I love that. Whenever a couple conservatives agree or give kudos to each other for good points, it's always "get a room", yet when liberals do it all day long, endlessly, ne'er a word spoken. Priceless.
Tommy, If I might quote the words of a friend from another thread.
"Normally you aren't this defensive, it was a joke! Lighten up."
Touche'. But saying "I love that" certainly indicated a lightened up response, but I forgot the necessary ;)
No problem. Don't worry about the lack of an emoticom or whatever you call it. I'm too lazy to use them myself. I just figure (and kind of halfway hope) that no one ever takes me too seriously.
Tommy, hands off Jeter, he's mine.
I love it when you fight for your man :-)
JJ & Jeter (that's cute) get a room. ;-)
Really, sounds like a morning radio show. :)
Well, if we are on the air, I promise to be a lot more spunky than Alan Colmes. But J2 better not be prettier than I am.
Actually what is “priceless” is the fact that instead of discussing Thompson's “change of mind” (Republicans term for their own flip flopping) and how others like Mitt and Rudy have also “changed their mind” in order to meet the standards Republicans have set for ANY candidate we have a discussion of Brock and Al Gore. No explanation on why their “changing their mind” smacks of doing and saying whatever is needed to win the party’s favor (whore's do the same thing I believe) just off tracking to Brock or Gore.
Could it be that they can't or won't discuss Thompson, Mitt and Rudy's ever changing positions on abortion? Could it be that they can't or won't discuss Republican candidates willingness to do or say ANYTHING to get the party's nomination?
Nah.... that can't be the reason. After all aren't both Brock or Gore candidates for the HIGHEST office in the country?.
You're way off base on this one when you cite "Thompson's ever changing positions on abortion".
His voting record in the senate was 100% pro-life...which mmfa cannot refute.
Too funny and right on the money Pearl.
Thanks for a bit of sanity and logic thrown into the thread there Pearl. Nothing like a group of wingers stroking the same fallacy. Shudder.
I was going to say you guys should get a room. But it looks like you've taken this one.
Hey King I'm sure you can get a room over at the Hitchens Motel ;-)
I'm sure there's a price Tommy. You rhetoricalsexual you.
Rhetoricalsexual, now that's good! Is that like someone who spouts a bunch of useless rhetoric right after a good self grooming session?
You said you loved a reoccurring progressive vebal gambit. I take this to mean your outing yourself and your sexual identity. Be upfront about it, unless like Craig guilt has a place in your sexual life and pleasures.
Are you calling me a rhetoricalsexual? Well, not really, how about intellectualsexual?
If your going to reject that one then I'm lost. Still I'm thinking something from root words delerious, interruptus, or maybe frustratus would be on the right track. But it would take money to make me go there.
Can I have a What?
Gotta say you lost me...??...let's just say I'm sexy, or so I'm told ;)
Tommy, the questions is are you THIS sexy?this one ? (Stole that from HBL)
(euwwwww)
Thanks Pearl, let's just say if I could be immortalized in a velvet painting, I would garner huge bucks sold alongside a country road. ;)
Really, Tommy? Do you look more like a clown or a dog playing poker?
Actually, more like Elvis from four different times in his life, all airbrushed neatly side by side.
Yep - I guess everything that MMFA reports on now is invalid and meaningless..
OH wait - You're repubs/conservatives - of course the truth is invalid and meaningless.. (with apologies to Mapletootie)
Damn, after all this time y'all are still mad at Brock eh?
wow..
Now now...mmfa is just being held accountable.
Here's another inconsistency for you...mmfa constantly harps that media sources don't reveal their political affiliations.
Well I failed to note where the author of this thread...Shehnaz Niki Jagpal...revealed that she is a contributor to the MoveOn Pac.
www.city-data.com/elec/elec-CHAPEL-HILL-NC.html
Now that is just stupid. MMFA isn't even a media source Wes and last time I check they weren't pretending to be an impartial information outlet.
- MMFA isn't even a media source - mhk
Well what do you know...I bet that sits well in mmfa headquarters.
Funny!
Yeah, according to MHK, MMFA is a partial, non-media information outlet. How'd you like that on your business cards?
Keerist...this thread has really gone off in their hand...when the defense of this silly article is that they're not a "media outlet".
Way too funny.
Yes very Funny how you can't read.
What part of MMFA isn't pretending to be an impartial information outlet don't you understand Tommy?
MMFA doesn't "report the news", it makes commentary on the media. Is that really too difficult for you two to comprehend?
So, one's credentials are irrelevant when they are reporting on something, they are only important if they are the ones being reported on?
No apology for your blatant mis-rep on what I stated Thomas? I wouldn't expect an apology from someone that can never admit that they're wrong, but it would have been a nice gesture on your part.
I cedidn't state credentials don't matter... The fact that you and Wes are trying to make up a "gottcha" comparison in this situation is absurd.
MMFA isn't attempting to present this information in a non-bias way. When a reporter or a guest on a show is trying to present a point of view to the general public on a national television show it's a different then someone coming to a bias website that doesn't hide it political affiliation. Why does it seem like everything in your world is so black and white sometimes? Or a tad over simplified?
The whole thread was stupid because it was simply a fallacy from the start. MM pointed out that the coverage of Thompson was incomplete and seemed to want to give him political cover. If Wes here wanted to refute this he didn't. If he wanted to diminish it by comparing it to the way some Democrat was given similar cover by the media, he didn't. What he did was compare it to Brock which is essentially changing the subject. Or, more accurately, adopting the standard rightwing approach of not arguing a point someone makes but simply sneering at the person making it. Thanks for bringing up the level of discourse the only way you know how guys!
Or more accurately...noting that mmfa has their pants down on this thread.
The only point of mmfa is to try to distort Thompson's record...which is 100% pro-life in his Senate career...irrefutable...that is the real point.
I couldn't care less about the switcheroo that Brock pulled...but he and his staff can't have it both ways.
Does missing the point make you FEEL right?
Ok Wes, I'll try to help. First read the post you just responded to because you haven't actually refuted that point. But maybe adding to it will help you? MM never even said or implied there was anything wrong with Thompson switching positions. What they addressed was the fact that he's able to make claims about his record to please the GOP base that aren't accurate. And the media doesn't challenge him. That was the point of the article. Not the fact that he did change positions. So criticizing Brock for changing positions in his life is irrelevant in a number of ways. Getting it at all? Or does it not matter? Maybe you were just hoping for something that sounded sort of true? Colbert with his 'truthiness' bit was really spot-on wasn't he.
No Sundog, you're not getting it. The headline here reads "Thompson's inconsistent abortion record"......as Wes rightly points out, there has been no inconsistency in his Senatorial career.
Inconsistent abortion record. He has made conflicting statements on the record about what he believes about abortion rights. An inconsistent record on abortion. They never said voting record. You're just changing the subject as usual.
Do you not see the significance of the story maybe? You see, the GOP candidates have a serious problem in that they need the support of some pretty extreme religious groups. (6,000 yr old earth etc.) In order to draw in that base that W has made such a cornerstone of their chances of winning, they need to be very PURE about the issues that those folks care about. But they also have to be sane enough to get the more moderate GOP voter. It's a problem for them and the media tends to help them jump through these hoops by giving them cover as in the story MM pointed out here.
Politicians should be judged primarily on their voting records, not their rhetoric. I don't care what they say to please this group or that group, it's how they vote that's their real accountability for me.
Not all politicians have a voting record. But I get your point.
It doesn't refute the fact that Wes needed to change 'public record' to 'voting record' in order to try to make the point you were defending. Just concede this one time that your argument was bs and then I'd be glad to chat all day about the virtues of voting records vs. rhetoric.
"Not all politicians have voting records"
They don't? If one gets elected to office and they vote on nothing, then why are they there?
Tommy, politicians have to run for their first office at some point. At that point, they have no voting record. And then we're still just talking about legislators. Most successful presidential runs in the recent era have come from other executive offices, namely governorships. Strictly speaking, they don't have a 'voting record.' I guess you could call it a policy record and it's pretty comparible.
There is one problem I can see with putting too much emphasis on voting records. It's the same problem that has made it difficult for presidents to come from the legislature. Every legislator has to cast some votes sometimes that can later be interpreted in a negative light. EVERY legislator does this as a matter of process. One thing that happens is simply the need to trade votes sometimes. In order to get anything done, like passing a bill that really means something to your state, you may have to offer your vote on something else. It's the nature of the beast and it's always been done that way. So in a presidential run, there are always specific votes that can be dragged into the light that will make that guy/gal look bad.
Politicians should be judged primarily on their voting records, not their rhetoric. I don't care what they say to please this group or that group, it's how they vote that's their real accountability for me Tommy
First you must campaign on something. What you stand for, believe or don't believe. All that must take place FIRST before you can get elected and acquire a "voting record". How would you dismiss what a person has campaigned for or against as unimportant when that seems like your starting point in viewing a candidate. If you can't stand what they campaign for or against why would you continue to look at the candidate?
Pearlene,
You make good points, one has to either believe or not believe a first time candidate, that is very true. I guess I was referring to once elected, I look at their voting record, even though I know all votes need to be taken in their full context. Their rhetoric always seems to be more easily explained away by their handlers and what not, whereas their votes are on record.
Sundog
I think what it sounds like is that Wes is implying that Thompson's voting record is the only thing that matters seeing that it's of record and "official" meanwhile there is evidence in the media that Thompson didn't always have that view.
By the way - I'm agreeing with your assessment. I'm just trying to get some kind of idea of where those guys (cons) are coming from.
Mind you at various times most of them have attempted to exploit minutiae to grind their axes with regards to MMFA.
If MMFA gets one minor point wrong (which when it does, the folks correct rather quickly) then to them (the usual suspects) MMFA is distorting etc.. just like FOX and the rest of the MSM.
No one's perfect but all things considered I for one appreciate MMFA's attempts to record and bring to light the misinformation and distortion being pimped as truth and fact.
When you hold one group, in this case the media, accountable for it's inaccuracies and inconsistencies, then it is incumbent upon you to be as accurate as possible.
Do people make mistakes? Of course, as you say nobody is perfect. But I believe one of the reasons that MMFA admirably has a comments section is because their skin is thick enough to take the criticism and accountability tossed their way. If they didn't want the scrutiny and the detractors to post, they wouldn't allow it - yet they do. Even if some posters would rather they not.
I don't mind detractors at all. It wouldn't be that interesting around here otherwise. But thanks for implying that in yet another straw man argument!
I'm not arguing with you because you pointed out a mistake but because you didn't. Do I need to just say everything again? I shot down all of Wes's fake arguments which were really just misdirections from the point of the article. But you'll just keep firing the baloney.
Tommy - "If they didn't want the scrutiny and the detractors to post, they wouldn't allow it - yet they do. Even if some posters would rather they not."
Tell us - what posters around here have implicitly advocated that MMFA not allow criticism and being held accountable for mistakes they make?
I can play that game too - Some posters would prefer MMFA not exist, or the items that they report on are meaningless and inconsequential. i.e. - "Why is this here?"
Oh please, you have to ask that question? Stick around, you see plenty of posters who virulently cannot stand an opposing opinion that challenges either MMFA or their liberal ideology directly. If you haven't seen it, then you're missing it.
You make those comments though in the context that conservative posters are these "holier than thou" types that would never wish MMFA to just go away??
I've seen that on here as well.
Seeing as you like to echo the point that "both sides do it", why didn't you in this case??
Not trying to argue - I actually laughed at the initial posts in this thread because they were all from the usual conservative posters on here that always nit-pick items on MMFA
Maybe i shouldn't say nit-pick - I maybe I should say "offer constructive criticism"
Spin, what was the 'constructive' criticism in this case? What I saw was Wes changing the subject and trying to make the article look false by smearing the guy responsible for it, not arguing the points it made. The righties do this for a reason. It really is pure FOX, Rovian method and the fact that it shows up here, perfectly mimicking the method in the media really reinforces for me the need for change in public dialogue.
I know you're just trying to be fair and friendly here which is admirable. But the method of arguing just seen here is better described as dishonest and reprehensible rather than constructive.
Was that constructive I hope?
Please show me where one conservative poster here has said he or she wishes MMFA would just go away? Because I have never read or seen that.....if you can link to it, I'd appreciate it.
As for the "holier than thou" conservatives here, well, we have to be labeled something, don't we?
;)
Tommy, does it ever occur to you that you're arguing for the wrong side? I'm not bsing when I say I try to be very honest in everything I say here. I never try to trick someone into thinking they'd implied something they clearly never meant to imply. I never intentionally misrepresent someone's argument in order to appear like I've defeated their point. All of this just makes me feel more confident that I'm correct in many of my views.
And if someone can actually shoot a hole in something I've said, honestly and with logic and good information I actually appreciate it. I'd prefer learning something over just appearing right in an argument. I've often wondered what it is you think you're defending. Because it seems like you use nothing but strawmen and misdirection, basically 'truthiness' to make arguments. Doesn't that make you kind of doubt the points you're making and the people you're defending? I'm honestly not being snide here. I'm wondering how you can continuously do that over so much time. Is it just fun to argue?
I'm glad you're not being snide when you call my arguments strawmen, trickery, misrepresentation and misdirected, gosh, thanks.
If have you have a specific point to make, or care to refute something I have said with facts, instead of just not being snide, then I will consider your not bsing further.
Until then, you will have to live with your own conclusions where I am concerned.
Well, you're welcome. But Tommy, we just got done with this entire thread that you were jumping all over because you had enough support to 'sound' right. When I pointed out the fallacies in this argument you tried to cover them with other fallacies. You never refuted any point I made. You simply changed subjects or moved sort of laterally into a related subject. Almost every time I've tried to discuss something with you this is what you've done. I'm not dreaming here, the record of it is just right up there Tommy. Maybe you're confused because you think my goal is just to 'sound' right and 'win' something. I'm actually talking to you here.
Oh, and I didn't say misdirected, I said misdirection, as in changing the subject instead of addressing a point. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings here but I can't worry too much about it either because you come across as dishonest by arguing the way you do. And I can tell that's not really what you want. But can you really say you don't intentionally misrepresent people in order to make them sound wrong? Like saying you 'believe' I was insulting liberals. Did you really believe that or did you find a rhetorical opportunity to try to make it sound like I did? A trick to put me on the defensive as if there's nothing behind argument but a game. That's what it looks like to me. If I'M misrepresenting you here it IS unintentional. But did you really 'believe' that or were you trying to put me on the defensive by misrepresenting me?
I love this site. Back in 2003, watching the third cable 'news' network feature the same country singer, "Don't yew remember 9-11?" selling the war with flags waving behind him and the hosts smiling appreciatively, I knew we were in serious trouble. There simply was NO mainstream counterpoint to what was an obvious lie. There still isn't really but sites like this at least help raise awareness and keep the bastids on their toes.
One of a number of roles Tommy, AA, Jeter, though J does it cleaner, Rino and a few others is unpaid auditor.If there were things beyond what some of them drag out daily the sites credibility would be affected. As is,my usual thought on their complaints is relief.
This makes me hope that Giuliani gets the nomination. While I think he would make a horrible president, at least it would be a sign that the Republican Party is finally regaining its sanity and emerging from the Age of the Troglodytes.
A horrible president? Really?
I'm no Repub and I'm still leaning toward him for this election, especially if he sticks to his more socially-liberal guns.
This should be all you need to know about Rudy Giuliani, in his own words:
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
[ Interruption by someone in the audience. ]
"You have free speech so I can be heard."
There are many, many unsavory things about Rudy: his record on terrorism is complete B.S., he pushed one of his cronies-- who had Mob ties--to run homeland security, and his proposed foreign policy is so crazy that even many conservatives are questioning his sanity.
Rudy's the perfect stealth candidate. Acceptable (even attractive) to independents and even some liberals for his veneer of urban sophistication and "moderation," a refreshing contrast to the phony, "blue-collar redneck" types like Bush and Thompson.
But make no mistake: Giuliani is in every way worse than Bush: more militaristic, more authoritarian, more corrupt. And cleverer to boot. He's the worst person we could possibly elect at this time, which guarantees that the GOP will nominate him.
He CANT stick to his more 'liberally social' guns because it has become currently impossible for a Republican to get elected that way. There is a political price to be paid for their sell-out to the loony religious right. They're holding up several of the posts of that big tent, so y'all better just learn to enjoy their company.
So, let me get this straight,
If a Republican makes a well thought out, principled change of opinion/mind with regards to an issue, it's ok
If a Democrat makes a well thought out, principled change of opinion/mind with regards to an issue, its a "flip-flop"
Hmnnn......
somebody help a brother out here...
Soy-tainly!
If any politician changes his or her mind on any issue due to it's political relevancy or expediency, or because by doing so will ingratiate them to a certain constituency in order to become more electable, then by all means, it's a flip-flop.
Politicians that change their minds on issues regardless of the political fallout due to maturity, growth, new information, or a sincere ideological evolvement, then it's a principled change.
The media doesn't frame things in the fashion that you mention. I'll even use your language on this - There are politicians on both sides of the aisle that change their positions for the purposes of political expediency.
We only hear about it when Democrats do it, not when Republicans do it.
Really? That's funny. I have been hearing alot lately about the flip-flopping by Romney and Giuliani in the media, not only here, but in many places.
Tommy, I agree but don't you think they should rerport on the change and let the public make the determination which category it falls in. The point I see here is the public wasn't told of the inconsitencies...why not?
Even MMFA boldly highlights "my eight years in the Senate".
Where is the inaccuracy or inconsistency in that?
Tommy, you didn't answer my question should it be reported on that in analyzing the statement it is reasonable to consider the totality of his actions/statement/activities with respect to the issue. It is done in other situation so why not here. They don't restrict themselves to just voting records when they discuss other cnadidates inconsitencies so why not give the whole story and let the public decide?
Lost,
I cannot speak to other issues without specificity, sorry. As for this, I have already said, for me personally, a politician's voting record is paramount to me, not their rhetoric dujour. For those who want to include that portion, I would imagine this thread is more relevant, for me, however, his voting record is where my perusal and concentration lies.
In other words, when his money is put where his mouth is.
Tommy, the way the bills are written and the crap dumped into them I'm not sure that limiting yourself to only looking at their votes is going to give you an accurate and total picture of their positions and agenda. It seems an extreme position you are taking. For example if the candidate always voted yes to bills supporting civil rights but works for the KKK isn't that something you want to know before you cast your vote in favor of that person? I realize you may avoid answering this becuase you say it is an extreme but I used it because while you may not care to much about his position on choice so what he says or who he works for may not mean all that much to you but I am addressing your overall statement that you only care about the voting record.
I would think that the totality of knowledge would be much more important than just a voting record. Votes are often strong armed - just ask Tom Delay. Ignoring other relevant information in lieu of a voting record doesn't sound kosher. But Tommy must stick to this position to have any standing (in his mind) in this debate. But that's typical Tommy. Sundog has got your number Tommy. All of us have your number actually. But you can be amusing sometimes.
To amplify on your point, Julia, in Conservatives Without Conscience, John Dean explains how completely the GOP controlled the House. Tom DeLay understood that Republican members in more moderate districts couldn't always vote for extreme measures and stay in office.
But DeLay's control over the other members was such that he could afford to rotate amongst these moderates, sometimes forcing them to vote yes, other times allowing them to vote no. But always he got his bills passed, usually by just one vote.
Under such a broken system, a Congressman's voting record means very little. A Congressman might appear moderate--but that's only because DeLay needed him to look moderate.
Hi Steve, I read the John Dean book too. It was a really good book and let us get a glimpse of the authoratarian mind set that is so pervasive. Tom DeLay was part and parcel of that mindset. Anything done while he was there is subject to suspicion in my mind. And with Fred Thompson being morally and intellectually lazy, I don't wonder he towed the line on any number of things.
My thought is that if you have to go back 15 years to call someone inconsistent on an issue, than you don't really have a strong point.
I'm not a brother but ...
I have no problem with the FACT that Thompson made a switch, in the face of a Republican base that frowns on such flipping and flopping. History shows he did make the switch.
I have even less of a problem if Brock of Media Matters adjusts his position as a Democratic partison.
Democrats are well known for not being in lock-step with each other. Republicans however are known to stick with their comrades.
I admire people from both sides of the island who can think things over and improve or correct their ideas on issues.
It's shameful that our "Decider President" refuses to consider a change in the face of the Republican Blunder of Iraq.
hehe, Sam - to me we're all brothers and sisters..
Spin ...
Thanks from me to you bro/sis ! Which ever gender applies to you.
Sam I Am