I’m a semi-fan of Home Star Runner and I like Strong Bad’s E-mails. In this regular feature, he responds to bizarre fan e-mails, with an eye towards making fun of the writer. Anyway, one person sent him an e-mail that ended like this:
This is Trevor from Hampden Maine and I was wondering if you could teach me how to be as awesome as you. I am a vampire and
This left Strongbad puzzled as he questioned,”And what? That’s it? I’m a vampire and here’s a million dollars…or I’m a vampire and here’s your own spaceship…”
This brings us oddly enough to the latest Idaho Chooses Life commentary which mentions Fred Thompson on abortion:
Apparently he has a pro-Life record from his days in the U.S. Senate. That offers some hope – though he too suffers from the McCain “reluctant bride” syndrome. Where, for example, are the bills he carried to help stem the bloody tide?
But last week, Thompson confirmed that his candidacy is not a panacea for social conservatives. During an interview on Hannity & Colmes, Thompson declared that he didn’t agree with Roe v. Wade. But then he went on to say that he would not support criminalizing abortion
The quote was curious. As somoene who’s supporting another candidate I needed to know the source and the exact quoated. I need to know whether to scrub Fred Thompson from my list of people I could stomach a vote for in the Fall, so I hunted down the transcript:
But here’s what the deal is on that. I’ve always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.
I might vote against one approach, but I think the state ought to have it. And I would not be and never have been for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this, for example, that if they chose to criminalize a young woman, and…
Like Strong Bad, I’m puzzled, because immediately after this, Sean Hannity cuts Thompson off and we’re off to another subject. The answer could mean several things depending on the full text of what was to come after the “and.”
“I don’t want to criminalize a young woman.” could mean that he wouldn’t support an abortion law that punished women for seeking an abortion, only the doctor who performed it, which is the position of most leaders, as the specter of arresting women for abortion prolongs its legality.
He could not support criminalizing a young woman who gets an abortion because of rape.
What was coming after that and? What was the rest of the sentence? There lies the meaning and hopefully he won’t leave us to keep speculating.
However, I did some point from David Ripley of ICL that’s worth addressing:
Most of us have been sitting on the sidelines, praying that a Duncan Hunter or Sam Brownback might find the money to generate a competitive campaign. So far – not enough from either.
As somebody, supporting a candidate outside the main three, John Cox, all I can say is that folks who want to see change in this election, stop sitting on the sidelines, get in the game! Do people really think that being unsatisfied with our current field is going to change it? Where do candidates get the money, volunteers, etc. needed to compete. Well, it’s not brought by the tooth fairy. It’s people getting involved and fighting for what they believe in.
