The editors of National review have weighed in on Fred Thompson. In general, they praise him for laying out detailed proposals on many issues that both show that he understands the problem and that cling to conservative principles. I do have one quibble though. Towards the end, they say:
The big news concerning Thompson this week, of course, has been the National Right to Life Committee’s endorsement of his candidacy. Ironically, this is one area of policy where Thompson has not expressed his views clearly. He has stated that he thinks Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but he hasn’t taken a position on what he thinks the states should do about abortion if and when Roe is overturned.
Without taking the time to search the web, my understanding is that Fred Thompson has spoken very clearly on many issues indicating that he believes that things that are state issues are NO BUSINESS of the federal government. My recollection is that he has previously stated that he believes abortion law falls in that category. (A stance I would tend to agree with. However, I do believe it should be a Federal crime to take a minor across state lines to help them circumvent their own state's parental consent statutes.)
Given that Thompson believes (and has stated) that if we were able to get rid of Roe, this would become a state issue, why would he then weigh in on what he believes states should do? In his view, if he were President, this would be outside his purview; why should he opine on it while running for President?
Methinks I detect some fair-weather Federalism from our dear editors.
Powered by ScribeFire.