The rumor of the day [UPDATED]
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (88) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Fred Thompson will get the endorsement of National Right to Life.
Again, it's the rumor of the day, but media types are buzzing about it.
UPDATE: Here is the news link. Interesting that some of the commenters are bashing NRTL for supporting a guy the commenters view as a squish on the issue. I'd point out again that Thompson had a 100% pro-life record in the Senate and has been reiterating for the past week that he would support the GOP pro-life plank in the party platform.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Fair's Fair — Comments (41) »
The rumor of the day [UPDATED] 88 Comments (0 topical, 88 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Most of Europe has more restrictive abortion laws than here.
The people will come down somewhere in the middle, which is better than where we're at now. Fred's overarching theme is federalism. Abortion will be more rare under such a system.
From Thompson's own website:
Fred Thompson is pro-life. He believes in the sanctity of human life and that every life is worthy of respect. He had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate and believes Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that ought to be overturned. He consistently opposed federal funding to promote or pay for abortion and supported the Partial Birth Abortion Act, the Child Custody Protection Act, and President Reagan’s “Mexico City†policy. While Fred Thompson supports adult stem cell research, he opposes embryonic stem cell research. He also opposes human cloning.
It's arguable whether Thompson has always supported the pro-life plank, but Fred does support it now.
-
NARF
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, now running for the Republican presidential nomination, said on Sunday he does not support the pro-life plank that has been included in the Republican National Platform since the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Thompson told host Tim Russert that he favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that took the issue of abortion away from the states by declaring abortion a constitutional right. Thompson said he wants to keep abortion legal at the state level.
"People ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states," said Thompson. "Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we're going to outlaw this, that, or the other. And my response was, I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician. And that's what you're talking about. It's not a sense of the Senate. You're talking about potential criminal law."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200711/PO...
what you see is that Thompson does not support the HLA and is a federalist...neither of which were state secrets. The HLA issue is what got Dobson's shorts in a knot.
As an adamant pro-lifer and SoCon, I don't have an issue with this. The HLA would never go anywhere anyway.
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” - John Calvin
...you've badly misrepresented that statement. FDT said that in response to the question of whether or not he supported a Human Life Amendment which would make all abortion Constitutionally prohibited, and therefore would make all abortion doctors (and perhaps, down that slippery slope, their patients)felons. He never once said that he wanted "to keep abortion legal at the state level," and I think you know that.
Chucking Roe v. Wade puts the power to decide back in the hands of the states, who can choose to outlaw or legalize at their discretion. We call that Federalism, which is what FDT has repeatedly said that he supports. I agree that he could have answered that question better, but completely misrepresenting not only what he meant, but what he actually said does no service to anybody whatsoever.
We did not tolerate leaving the issue of slavery to the States, and we should not do so with respect to abortion either.
Abortion is a national tragedy that must be addressed at the federal level.
And while I have great respect for Senator Thompson, his suggestion that those of us who support a HLA are, as a result, advocating the incarceration of women who seek abortions in a post-HLA world, is the kind of rhetoric I would expect from NARAL.
--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.
...then the states are just as capable as the federal government. I don't see any reason why it would render the notion of federalism limited. I would support a federal role in limiting the ability to transport a minor across state lines to get an abortion if it were illegal in their home state, but I don't see the issue as being a true "limit" to federalism.
"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke
And they solved the problem.
There was no way a court mandate was going to change a thing. Lincoln new that. After signing the emancipation proclamation (which was based on war powers), he immeadiately set to work on the 13th amendment, which made it official.
Abortion is already federalized - it occured with Roe v Wade. Has that led to the outcome you desire?
Yeah, we left it to the states and only solved it by civil war. Don't know if that is the road we want to go down with abortion (and doubt there is enough will on either side for it) but it an interesting comparison. At the very least, it looks more and more like the issue could tear the republican party apart.
The extremes on both sides will get absorbed into a reasonable center.
Note that I'm not defending a reasonable center here. Just that I believe that is what will happen. And we will be better off on the issue than we are now. Both the public discourse and the unborn.
The HLA would be a validly-ratified amendment to the Constitution.
Big difference.
--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.
But it won't pass. It's certainly no reason to not support Thompson. The best route to passing it would be through individual states, anyway. Abortion is best handled as a state's rights issue. You won't get HLA without the support of the people, and you won't get the support if you don't respect their right to a voice on the issue.
Unless you mean that he doesn't support the HLA, which I "believe" none of the other finely qualified candidates out there do either.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Umm, which part of the platform from 2004 - which is available on the GOP website, btw - does he not support?
He got a 100% rating while he was in Congress from National RTL. The one thing I've seen come up is that he is against the Human Life Amendment that is the pet project of some. But the HLA is not in the Republican Platform anymore.
Abortion should only be a federal issue to the extent that taxpayers are asked to provide public funding for the procedure. Perhaps there should also be provisions against transporting minors across state lines to evade abortion laws. Beyond that, the end of Roe should also be the end of federal legislation.
The problem with the social conservative movement is that they seem very inclined to abandon conservative principles when it suits them. Using liberal techniques to get conservative results is not something we should be proud of.
I found the point.
But I would wonder how many times George W. Bush has, in the last 8 years, even mentioned the idea of the HLA. Forget about lobbying for it - I can't rememebr ever even hearing the idea pass from his lips.
The reality is that the plank is a happy, feel-good, provision that gets stuck in there every 4 years, and then proceeds to be forgotten - by the Party, by the candidate, and by most people.
And, besides, we have a better chance of influencing the SCOTUS and getting a reversal of Roe and progeny then of getting an HLA through. If we end the legal "right" to abortion, we have the uppoer hand. The recent state-by-state campaigns to pass marriage amendments show us that we can probably rally significant support for state HLAs once we restore the issue to its proper place.
Now you're making the very same argument hat Giuliani supporters were making a long time before Fred got in the race - and Fred supposedly got in the race to save us from Rudy, not give us Rudy-lite.
Dubya hasn't talked about HLA because it's not like the Human Life Amendment can get anywhere near 2/3's support in the Senate. It is, however, kind of strange that the candidate that people had hoped would be the conservative savior is against it and said that he is "against criminalizing young girls, their parents and family physicians" at the state level - which seems to be loud and clear code that he's against criminalizing abortion, at least in the first trimester.
This seems to be the exact same position that Kay Bailey Hutchison takes - and she regularly gets shot down as being too pro-choice by the same people who are endorsing Fred Thompson today as the best pro-life presidential candidate.
If anything, I think that Fred Thompson may very well be the male version of Kay Bailey Hutchison - except that I think Kay would be a better national candidate and campaigner than Fred has shown himself to be.
If Fred should win the nomination, in fact, I think that Kay should probably be at the top of his VP list.
Kay Bailey Hutchison is a bigger flip-flopper on the issue than ANY of the current candidates and probably of any politician in the nation.
In 1999, she voted against a resolution supporting Roe v Wade and its core provision. The next year, she said she supported the core provision; and in 2003, she voted for the same resolution she voted against in 1999. However, in 2006, she said she supported prohibiting most abortions. So we don't know where she stands.
That said, Fred Thomspon is the only one of the top four who has not yet said or done anything to make me distrust him on judicial nominees.
Do some research on The Harkin Amendment (the one dealing with Roe v. Wade) and then come back to me when you can demonstrate that you have a basic grasp of pro-lifers actual beef with KBH (not the one you've made up in your head).
No, wait, I'm feeling magnanimous, so I'll do your research for you. here is Fred voting against it during his last session. KBH voted against it, too. But here is her voting for it in its most recent incarnation.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Here's the link:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SS9MJ00&show_article=1
Wow, this is huge, and great news for the Thompson campaign. This could be the springboard that propels him to frontrunner status! FRED 08!
FRED DALTON THOMPSON 2008
It will be interesting to see the text and tone of the endorsement, however.
This may help keep his campaign afloat, but it looks more and more like the only way Fred Thompson will be on the ticket is if Rudy or Mitt ask him to be the Veep.
despite the money spent by other candidates.
I think Fred has a great chance and this will definitely help in Iowa which is a stron right to life state.
Suppossedly Fred is going to start airing ads in Iowa so we'll see if that gets him any traction.
At this point, Fred is solidly my number one choice and I'll also be participating in the national giving day for Fred on November 21st (just don't tell my wife).
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics
Strongly pro-life, federalist, limited government, some of the toughest talk on the GWOT of any of the candidates...From a substance and policy point of view, how can anyone on the Republican side not like him?
Style wise, I can understand peoples questions, although I don't share those concerns.
I would say the main concerns are 1) no executive experience (thus taking away a good contrast with any of the big Ds), 2) a little bit old looking and sometimes uninspiring on the campaign trail (as you said: style), and 3) electability (i.e. is he Bush III and going to get clobbered into a Southern win and National loss).
Not huge problems, but he isn't the perfect candidate (that would be Jeb Bush without the last name problem). Of course, no one is. So who is the best imperfect candidate, Fred should get a good number of those votes.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Given what we've seen of him so far, I'd hate to see him in debates with Hillary. The aw shucks approach wouldn't go over well in 99% of the country. Even though my priorities are much more in line with Fred's than Rudy's, I think Rudy would absolutely destroy Hillary in debates.
I don't know how much people get influenced by the debates - perhaps little directly but more by whatever soundbites can be used in advertising campaigns against the opponent.
I think he will tear Hillary up in the debates (although I agree that Rudy will as well). Fred's been pretty good in the debates, its been on the campaign trail where he's struggled.
(Disclaimer: As of a couple of weeks ago, I'm with Fred).
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics
If NRLC endorses Thompson, Romney or McCain that will be a big boost. Romney would shore up a lot of support and could probably seal up IA with that. Thompson and McCain needs something to get some positive news to jump out of the cluster of 2nd place hopefuls in IA and NH.
If Fred gets this, it will be a definite boost and could take the wind out of Huckabee's SoCon-fueled rise.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Social conservative issues are the only ones in which Huckabee is in the mainstream of the conservative movement and the GOP. Huck needs as many of those types to support him.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Now if they endorsed Romney, then it would be a different story. Huck has only one enemy until January, and that is Mitt Romney.
Poor choice of words, eh?
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
what he wants to convey.
Telling, that.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I'm not trying to get us all to sing Kumbaya, but we are on the same side here. Enemy implies something a lot different and is unhealthy for the whole debate.
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
If you count his record.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
It makes no sense for NRLC to support a candidate who is, above all other candidates, sinking fast in the polls, behind Huckabee in IA and NH latest polls, and has lobbied for Planned Parenthood and in the middle of seeking to wear the conservative mantle comes out strong specifically against the GOP platform issue of the Human Life Amendment, something Romney and Huck support. I think there are good odds this leaked planned endorsement will be pulled back; I can hear big Romney donors and Huckabee numbers angrily burning up the phone lines.
"In his first question on abortion, Russert asked Thompson whether, as a candidate, he could run on the 2004 Republican platform that endorsed a ''human life'' constitutional amendment banning all abortions. ''No,'' Thompson replied, suddenly monosyllabic. ''You would not?'' ''No,'' said Thompson, adding ''that's been my position the entire time I've been in politics.'' In fact, every Republican platform starting in 1980 has endorsed such an amendment and every Republican candidate has been able to run on it.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/640625,CST-EDT-novak08.article
I'm one of the biggest supporters of letting commenters say whatever they want and just letting people point out inaccuracies and overstatements. With such a view, I guess I'm obligated to point out those deficiencies.
Thompson has a 100% voting record with NRLC. If NRLC wants people to take its voting record seriously (i.e. vote how NRLC wants them to), then that has to be a big factor in determining their endorsement.
Thompson is not in the lead, but he is in the top tier of 4 or 5 candidates. If NRLC puts him into the top 2, they can claim a lot of credit in a Thompson administration. Since Giuliani was not getting the nod, no other candidate really has a stronger "inevitable" argument than Thompson.
Also, Thompson didn't actually lobby for abortion. He spent like 4 billed hours telling another lobbyist helpful info. And you don't pick your clients in that industry (another one of its unfortunate traits).
Finally, yes Thompson doesn't think the HLA matters. And most of the major candidates agree. Bush hasn't mentioned the HLA during his Presidency and it has absolutely no chance of passing. So NRLC actually focused on things that mattered like a voting record, expectation on judicial nominees, and a committed to the protection of human life.
Really only Huckabee, McCain or Thompson qualified for the endorsement. Huckabee already has the religious right behind him so it wouldn't have done much if he got the nod. By choosing McCain or Thompson, NRLC has a chance at creating a winner and getting some major kudos for doing so.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
http://huckamania.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/national-right-to-life-commit...
And Fred still has to answer why he decided to help that pro-abortion group relax restrictions on abortion counseling clinics. He met with the leader of that group 33 times, when he could have chosen not to help.
Try to be honest at least a bit Anteater. The only negatives Fred Thompson ever got from NRLC were for his support of Campaign Finance. He has always voted pro-life.
I am going to ask the question some others have asked, and maybe you have already answered - are you paid by the Huckabee campaign? You spend all of your time going from thread to thread posting sometimes dubious attacks on everyone but Huckabee and I have to wonder why?
If you are working with the Huckabee campaign (paid or unpaid) that is perfectly fine by me. I would like to know though.
But I would like to know how anybody at Red State can defend Fred's lobbying activity. I've asked it several times, and all I got were evasive answers.
1. He was "of counsel" with the law firm actually doing the lobbying activity. He was not a partner and didn't either choose clients or bring clients to the firm. He consulted with occasional clients at the request of partners of the firm.
2. He was asked to consult on the lobbying in question by a partner.
3. He billed a minimal number of hours and had a small number of conversations directly with the cient.
4. He did not devise or manage a lobbying campaign on behalf of the client. He participated minimally and on the edges with the firm and the client.
5. There is no record of Fred having contacted anyone in the Administration about the issue in question and no Administration officials have any record or recall of discussing the issue with Fred.
6. As an "of counsel" member of the firm Fred had an ethical obligation to do as he was requested by the partner.
7. After this incident, Fred had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate with the exception of his vote for CFR. Every vote that directly effected abortion he was on the right side of.
8. Why is Huckabee lying about the fuel tax issue being on the ballot when it clearly was not?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
What's dishonest with simply stating that Fred doesn't have a 100% NRLC record and then posting a link for more information?
If you want to be technical, Fred is stretching the truth a bit for saying that he has a 100% NRLC record.
I have never heard Fred say he has a 100% NRLC record, although maybe I missed it. I have heard him say 100% pro-life record which is completely true.
I don't like what you are doing Anteater. I have a pretty high tolerance for stuff, but everywhere I go I see posts from you that really remind me of the sort of things that Alan Colmes and that kind of person are always saying. Specifically, making derogatory statements about someone that you know are more nuance than reality. We all know that Fred is pro-life. It is clear that his NRLC score shows only positive votes for pro-life positions. You are trying to tear Fred down to make your guy look better. Whether you agree with Fred or not on a lot of things, he is substantively one of the best all around conservative candidates we've seen in a long time. He is clearly one of the most pro-life prominent members of the GOP. Yet, you want to tear him down because his name is not Huckabee.
I don't want to get into an argument, but I would hope you would consider what I have said. If you think your representations of everyone-but-Huckabee are honest and move the debate forward then go ahead.
I am pro-life, I'd put my bonafides on the subject up against anyone, Huckabee included. Heck, I know my work on it has honestly prevented hundreds of abortion. That's DIRECTLY prevented.
I am interested in solutions, not rhetoric.
I have never heard Fred say he has a 100% NRLC record, although maybe I missed it.
Google it: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07062003.html
The fact is, Fred opposes HLA (which is part of the GOP plank) and mischaracterized pro-lifers on national TV. Fred opposes FMA, and said "so be it" when asked what he would do if states individually enacted gay marriage. That's why social conservatives aren't rallying behind Fred.
What...do you need him to hold your hand and tell you he is going to support 2 constitutional amendments that ARE NOT going to pass anytime soon???
The fact is that his amendment dealing with gay marriage has at least a slight chance of passing. And by overturning roe v. wade and returning the abortion debate to the states, it will make the issue more personal and hopefully spur greater discussion. It will also (hopefully) inspire more pro-lifers to become active in the debate because the goal will be much more attainable. Then, after you fire up the grassroot activists and change minds at the STATE level, then maybe HLA will have the support to pass. But as long as it is a national issue, many people with be too apathetic to get involved.
What...do you need him to hold your hand and tell you he is going to support 2 constitutional amendments that ARE NOT going to pass anytime soon???
It's about principle. That's why Fred did so poorly at the Family Research Council's Washington Briefing.
The link you provided did indeed say the following:
However during his time in the Senate from 1994-2003, Thompson boasted a 100% voting record from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).
But note that this sentence is written in the third person, as a summary of a speech Thompson had recently made.
Conveniently, this article provides a link to another article about the speech itself, which contains the following direct quote from Thompson:
"On abortion related votes I've been 100 percent..."
In fact, this speech was to the NRLC, a rather unlikely forum for him to intentionally mischaracterize his rating from the NRLC.
If you know of any direct quotes of Thompson saying "100% NRLC rating" rather than "100% pro-life record," then this might be interesting. But from the very fact of their endorsement, we can presume that the NRLC itself would have forgiven such a statement as a slip of the tongue.
I think the NRLC is within their rights to endorse whomever they think will best champion their issues. And by endorsing Thompson now, he may actually get something of a needed boost. I am sick of people placing so much emphasis on poll numbers -- let's look at what the candidates stand for. If we're just going to go by the poll numbers we might as well give Giuliani the nomination by proclamation & all go home & twiddle our thumbs until Election Day. The whole process has value & if we short-circuit it by just looking at poll numbers, we lose or destroy that potential value.
Of course they're within their rights to endorse whomever they please. I just don't think this makes any sense for no other reason that his poll numbers aren't going anywhere. He needed to come in strong and, by most accounts, he has flopped miserably. I think the fat lady has sung for Thompson. It appears that the winner of Iowa will be the anti-Rudy, and it appears all but certain that that will either be Huckabee or Romney. I think the NRLC can put a candidate over the top, but isn't sufficiently influential to make a candidate on their own. If I'm wrong, more power to them and I'll extend my endless gratitude for them being the ones who stopped Rudy. If not, though, and Thompson's numbers don't pick up come January, I hope they'll reconsider and get behind a stronger candidate.
;-)
Well, even if NRTL doesn't support him, Rudy's still got my vote.
**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
News Release: Former Governor David Beasley issues comment on National Right to Life Endorsement decision
November 12, 2007
COLUMBIA, SC– Former South Carolina Governor David Beasley issued the following statement today on behalf of Gov. Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign:
“I can’t fathom the idea of the National Right to Life organization endorsing anyone in the field besides Gov. Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee has worked in the vineyards and trenches on behalf of the pro-life movement. His pro-life record is outstanding and it is more consistent than any other candidate for president. He is also arguably the most electable candidate in the field.
“If, in fact, they endorse Fred Thompson over Mike Huckabee, I’m disappointed because Fred Thompson doesn’t support a constitutional amendment protecting human life. It just goes to show that, at first blush, even the best of organizations may have yielded to Washington politics and made a mistake. In my opinion, this would be one of them.
“I look forward to Mike Huckabee receiving the support of the grassroots pro-life movement around the country.”
...like me because they believe he's the one that will actually do the most to further the cause...
==== 13 ====
Night,
I'd disagree with you here. I think Fred would be largely ineffective as President; even Huckabee, who I actually dislike (as compared with Fred, who I like as a person but don't think he's our best option), would be more effective. Had Fred entered the campaign at the same time as everyone else, he'd be a second-tier candidate by now. His stump speeches are relatively unimpressive and he does only a fair job at inspiring and compelling his listeners. To be effective, a President must be a powerful communicator. Fred puts me to sleep, and the general populace has not warmed to him as many thought would happen when he entered the race. As Erick posted before, this is a Romney-Giuliani race until one of them blows it and allows Fred/Huckabee/McCain to vault to the top 2. The reason Fred is not top 2 has little or nothing to do with his ideas, but is because he lacks excitement and drive.
***********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
I said maybe the NRTL thinks Fred would do the most to further their agenda, and you tell me how you don't like Fred and how he probably won't get the nomination?
==== 13 ====
I responded more below, but (in addition to saying that I *do* like Fred as a person) my points were squarely on his effectiveness, which addresses your post.
**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
Ok, it's been a long day. I did discuss his electability. But my main point is on his effectiveness, more clearly mentioned in my response to Kyle's comment.
********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
Night, Kyle,
I did a poor job explaining. My apologies. Let me try again:
Night:
My point is that Fred will be less effective because he is a mediocre communicator and does not exhibit a fire in the belly that (IMO) is necessary to be effective in such a bitter political climate in which you will be constantly battling a hostile Congress. These two areas will hinder his ability to be effective on our issues.
Kyle:
My point was nothing of the sort. My point was that had Fred entered earlier and without all the "Draft Fred" excitement, he would have had far more difficulty reaching his current point in the polls based purely on his political talent and communicative skill.
I like (most) of Fred's ideas. But we need to realize that if we do successfully elect a Republican as President, the attacks from Congress will only continue, if not worsen. GWB has only had to deal with it for one and a half years. Our next GOP President will have to fight for a minimum of four years. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but think about how many times GWB has needed to use his veto! And rightfully so!! But if this continued past 2008, the Dems will most certainly paint the GOP as a party of obstruction rather than solution. Though the Dems would be wrong, ultimately, our ability to fight through those accusations rest on the ability of our President to sell the American people on our ideas.
***********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
Fred's position is solidly pro-life and has a good plan to move things in the right direction. SCOTUS is essential, and that lazy 'old guy did a fairly decent job helping Roberts through the process. I think he'll do just fine.
On the separate issue you bring up, I also think he'll do just fine with the do-nothing congress if we're still stuck with those yahoos.
==== 13 ====
You won't hear me doubting Fred's pro-life position. Of all the candidates, he has one of the strongest pro-life resumes (excepting Huckabee, IMO), and that matters a great deal to me. However, the Dems know that the with one more strict constructionist on the bench, the Court will lie solidly in the strict constructionist side of the court (pun intended). The Dems' fight over Bush's nominations will be easy compared to the next appointment when a liberal retires from the Bench. It is in this situation that we need a President who will fight for a good candidate and sell the American people on him/her. If Robert Bork was able to be Borked under Reagan, I shudder to think how bad of a pick we could have under a lesser man.
*********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
Anyone think this will help his slumping poll numbers?
There are a lot of undecided voters in early states. And NRLC has a good on-the-ground foot soldier contingent. That should help in IA, NH and SC. Will it take Thompson to the top? I dunno. But on the margin, yes, it helps.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I am getting sick and tired of HLA absolutists screaming, kicking the ground, beating their fists, hoding their breath and acting generally like petulant, spoiled children denied their favourite ice cream flavor.
"All he has is chocolate chip and I want MINT chocolate chip! I DON"T WANT ANYTHING FROM HIM! WAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!"
Grow up.
----
Brian Epps
RandomNumbers.us
Look, I'm pro-life as well. I am even pro-HLA. I just have a grip on the fact that for at least the next decade, HLA isn't even a dream, it is a fantasy.
These folks are like the people who uses to throw pig fetuses at people in front of an abortion clinic. They don't want to win, they want it all their way.
----
Brian Epps
RandomNumbers.us
I don't claim to speak for all HLA supporters, but as one myself, I think you misunderstand some of us. Whether a candidate supports the HLA tells us a lot about the candidate himself. It tells us what he really thinks of abortion and how hard he'll fight with us. Now a candidate not supporting it but otherwise having a pro-life record and showing all indications that he would nominate good judges could very easily get my support in a general election or if he were the last one standing against Rudy, but when there are other equally if not more viable options available in the primary, I'll back one of them.
It says he isn't afraid to claim to support something that will never, ever, ever come close to being implemented, and something he wouldn't have any say anyway, about if it were to somehow come to pass. Wow, that's great. Sort of like Huck supporting the FairTax. It is pretty easy to support something when you are never going to be called to deliver.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
their chance of winning the general can be measured between "slim" and "none"?
Look, the more conservative candidates there are, the more likely it will be that Rudy will end up with the nomination. Rudy is absolutely guaranteed to screw the pooch in the General by playing attack dog and garnering sympathy for Hillary. He will lose because there is no reason on earth to vote FOR him.
Huckabee is a walking target in the General. Dems can tout his liberal record on everything but abortion and scre their own base with the theocracy meme. His history doesn't provide enough reasons to vote FOR him.
The only ones providing actual reasons to vote FOR them are Romney, Thompson, McCain, and [he who must not be named]. The rest, including Huckabee, are Anti-X candidates and would lose in the General.
I'll be a bit more detailed in my next Redstate post. I have it about half written, but want to research a few things before I offer it up.
----
Brian Epps
RandomNumbers.us
I couldn't agree more that the anti-Rudy forces should have gotten behind a single candidate - ANY other candidate - months ago and have even suggested that the anti-Rudy forces on RedState try to get our acts together by uniting behind a single candidate. Unfortunately those calls have fallen mostly on deaf ears. I think the NRLC dropped the ball by trying to reinvigorate a fledgling campaign rather than getting behind someone who actually could knock Rudy off, be it Huckabee or Romney. Sure, in theory I would've loved for them to get behind my man RP, but it wouldn't have helped to stop Rudy. Neither will their endorsement of Thompson, as it will do nothing more than further divide the right and hand Rudy the nomination. If Thompson actually had the best chance of taking Rudy down, I'd have been all for the NRLC's endorsement. He doesn't, so I don't get it.
I certainly don't rely on NRLC or their voting records to evaluate candidates for any office. Though their state affiliates are far worse, their opposition to any real restrictions on abortion and their past endorsement criteria have hurt their credibility and legitimacy with me.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't support Fred. He's the only one of the top four who hasn't given reason to doubt his judicial nominees. I just don't think pro-life supporters should trust the NRLC without doing their own research, especially with their state affiliates.
Fred getting the NRLC endorsement is very good news.
The only reason he has slipped a little (and it is only a little) is that the recent infatuation with Huckabee (which won't last) has caused the split of the socons to be a bit more pronounced.
The scenario is still exactly the same as it has been. The only reason Rudy is leading is the three way division of the socons between Fred, Huck and Mitt. It won't last. As soon as one drops out (probably Huckabee because Mitt has too much $$$ invested) then Rudy's lead will decrease. Once it gets down to one he will not be leading.
Trying each day to spread the Gospel
His poll numbers decrease are directly related to the story about the former cokehead who let him use his airplane.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
who doesn't even support the pro-life plank in the GOP platform?