What you should know about Fred's NRLC endorsement (with highlights!!)
By Erick Posted in 2008 | Abortion | Fred Thompson — Comments (49) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I've talked to several campaigns and I've talked to NRLC sources.
First, let me cut short a few developing myths and spins.
1. This is not a rejection of pro-life converts. A few people are pitching that and it's just not true. Given Fred's record and Romney's record -- actual records, not speeches -- Fred measures better over the course of his career. Just yesterday we were treated to news of Romney's healthcare plan offering $50.00 abortions, for example. While Romney clearly pushed for the endorsement, it was never really that likely that he could get it because of his record while Governor. Also, a source tells me that Romney was not helped by Jim Bopp attacking Sam Brownback a few weeks ago, an act a few people took to be authorized by the Romney campaign.
2. NRLC did not endorse a guy with a 33% pro-life voting record. In the year in question when Thompson got the 33%, there were three issues scored by NRLC. Two of them were McCain-Feingold issues and one was abortion related. Thompson voted the right way on the abortion matter. In looking at endorsing, NRLC looked at the actual pro-life votes made by the candidates. Thompson, every year in office, scored 100% on pro-life legislation.
3. Let me add one more here after posting because I see how this is going. The NRLC endorsement is, in fact, one of the very few endorsements a candidate will get that cannot be characterized as "inside the beltway," despite what some of the other campaigns would have you believe. NRLC has been successful because it is a very grassroots organization and its endorsements are made based on the grassroots leadership in each of the 50 states, not from a small group sitting inside the beltway.
So, now, here's the deal and it should give comfort to folks going squishy on Thompson.
Over the last few days, we had the Dobson matter. Some Huckabee folks blame the Thompson camp for getting the word out about Dobson, thereby putting pressure on Dobson to shut down the endorsement. Whether that's true or not, the Huckabee folks were spitting mad about it and have been working their butts off to deny Fred the NRLC endorsement. Same with the Romney camp. Jim Bopp pushed very hard, but as stated earlier, in addition to Romney's problematic (and recent) record, some of the NRLC guys got a bad vibe over Bopp's attack on Brownback. They seemed to think it was authorized by the Romney camp and didn't like that. Given the interactions with both the Thompson campaign and NRLC have handled the last twenty-four hours, you can be sure that a lot of the last minute leaking came from other camps, designed to drum up last minute pressure against NRLC. Unfortunately for them, NRLC would not budge. They've found the guy who think think is the best pro-life candidate, whether you agree with them or not (and they have a good track record).
Thompson himself, I'm told, persuaded the NRLC in writing, giving himself very little room to later go squishy.
Read on . . .
I'm told he made several points that really stood out to them. One of the NRLC guys said they really liked seeing in writing, from Thompson, one point that I have been harping on as well. Thompson apparently made the case that candidates saying they'd appoint originalist judges was not enough. Thompson said the President needed to make sure key executive appointments who could affect abortion policy did, in fact, embrace and believe in the culture of life (I'm told he listed several departments by name). Having said that for a good while, I'm glad to see a candidate make the case. Contrast that with Rudy who says he'd pick the most qualified people. Fred apparently indicated that key Executive Branch appointments need to be pro-life.
I'm also told that Thompson brought up Planned Parenthood's funding under Title X and said, in effect, he would cut it off.
What about Fred's controversial statement on the Human Life Amendment on Meet the Press? I'm told by multiple sources that Fred explicitly said he supported the party platform and would not get rid of that plank, but pointed out that even when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House there were not enough votes to pass the HLA and he'd rather spend his four years working to end abortion through means that would be successful, e.g. originalist judicial appointments and pro-life executive appointments and policies.
Just after the endorsement today, Fred's campaign released a statement that said, in part, "While Fred supports the long term objective of the Human LIfe Amendment, the votes are simply not there in Congress, nor were they there when we controlled both houses of Congress. For instance, in the Senate, we are presently at least 25 votes short, with passage in the House even more difficult. The quickest way to reverse Roe v. Wade is to appoint judges who will interpret the Constitution according to its actual text. Fred would appoint those kinds of judges."
Fred received the NRLC endorsement when he ran for the Senate the first time and he did, contrary to some, have a 100% pro-life voting record on abortion related issues while in the Senate. Oh, and he was John Roberts' sherpa through confirmation. We shouldn't be surprised that someone with his record got the nod, especially considering what he apparently was willing to put in writing to them.
NOTE: I say "apparently" throughout because while sources were willing to share details, neither NRLC sources nor Thompson sources were willing to release Thompson's written statement. Not releasing the letters is how all the campaigns and the NRLC operate with these endorsements.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Re-Emergence of Taxation As a Political Issue — Comments (9) »
What you should know about Fred's NRLC endorsement (with highlights!!) 49 Comments (0 topical, 49 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
If NRLC doesn't even really "count" them when making endorsements, it makes you wonder why it was considered part of their rating in the first place. Hmm...
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
...to McCain-Feingold which limited the speech of grassroots organizations like the NRLC and the NRA 60 days prior to an election. While it did not limit an individual citizen from buying advertising space in a paper or time on a radio/TV stations it did stop the organizations from reporting or commenting about candidates.
Fred Thompson has separated himself from that attached amendment saying his sole reason in his limited participation of that bill was to stop the soft money which Bill Clinton and Dick Morris pumped into the previous Presidential election. I do not have the actual amounts but, it has been said they were astronomical in comparison to the historicaly accepted limits...and Fred's exactly right, both of them did and should be serving time right now for it.
Therefore, in answer to your question, this is why NRLC listed McCain-Feingold and they obviously accepted Fred's explanation of what happened back then.
( While McCain's view today on his bill is that it does not limit our rights and that, "I'm (McCain) just fine with it because it works". There is a videotape of him at a fund-raiser saying this. )
“I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them. This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in,” - Fred Thompson
I will never have to stand before you and say, well, I believe this way but I promise you that I will appoint judges that disagree with me.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
You know, I've gotten to the point that I'm ready to get behind Romney if he's emerges as the definitive not-Rudy option in the race, so this should not be taken as a criticism of him or his campaign. I'm just saying that Jim Bopp is going to regret several of his actions during the course of this campaign, and his involvement with it thus far has really tarnished his reputation. Which is sad.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Help me understand how this improves Fred's chances. Doesn't he already have the NRLC demo covered? Other than some pickup's from Huckabee, I fail to see how this provides impetus to swing things in his favor. Romney has been trying to grab this demo. However, if I am using the NRTL endorsement as my primary vote placement tool, my vote is already with Fred. Is there any indication I am wrong and a large NRTL vote is sitting somewhere else?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
He really has the best record among the most viable candidates. I believe Romney will hold true to pro-life principles, but I understand the NRTL is probably uneasy given his past (the support of Wilke, Bopp, and others notwithstanding). NRTL probably just considered Fred to be a better candidate than Huckabee - now the real test is to see if this endorsement will give Fred a much needed boost. If it doesn't and Fred falters, there's no doubt in my mind that NRTL will support Romney if it looks like he is going to win the nomination.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I think that is all around a fair assessment. It will be interesting to see if Fred is able to capitalize on this.
"Fred apparently indicated that key Executive Branch appointments need to be pro-life."
Here is the problem. When it came to judges, we argued that Democrats shouldn't have a pro-choice litness test, now Fred is say he has a pro-life litness test. Isn't that hypocritical?
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
"While Fred supports the long term objective of the Human LIfe Amendment, the votes are simply not there in Congress, nor were they there when we controlled both houses of Congress. For instance, in the Senate, we are presently at least 25 votes short, with passage in the House even more difficult. The quickest way to reverse Roe v. Wade is to appoint judges who will interpret the Constitution according to its actual text. Fred would appoint those kinds of judges."
I guess Fred is not standing for Federalism anymore on this issue -- he opposes HLA solely on pragmatics. Let's see how well the pro-lifers take this change of heart.
Anyways, Fred deserves congratulations for receiving this endorsement.
But by grass-roots, I mean local leaders who went, for instance, to the Family Research Council's Washington Briefing, or the Values Voter Debate in Florida.
I think you've singlehandedly changed the definition of "grass roots."
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
But apparently it was instrumental in getting Thompson the endorsement. This NRLC fiasco is petty politics.
...you need to pick a better quote. Read the last sentence. He is using his Federalist principles and methods to reach the same goal. A far more achievable method than an ammendment to the constitution.
On MTP, he rejected the HLA as harmful if passed, because it would be unfair to deny states the choice to allow abortions.
The next day, after the backlash, he waffled, implying that he would support it in principle, but saying he wouldn't because it was impractical.
Write a diary that shows all the elements of your claim, like I did when I showed Huckabee lied about tax hikes. Show a direct contradiction from one quote to another.
You do know that as late as early this year, Romney opposed the HLA? I mean, you know that, right? I just wanted to be sure that you were this determined to make yourself look foolish.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Really live in the right kind of house to be throwing this particular stone.
Link.
Link.
If anyone should be feeling shafted over this, it's the Huckabots.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Heh! Well, perhaps - FWIW, I think the right thing for the Romneybots to do would be to keep their keyboards quiet while the Huckabots continue to scream about how screwy are the Fredheads - being that Fred really isn't as much of a challenge to Romney in the only place it matters for now (I-O-W-A) as is Huck.
But that's just me, of course.
Your last in this comment is spot-on - Fred's record aside, Huck has to be feeling a little bit shanked over this.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Thompson's waffling isn't contingent on what Romney has done, so pointing out the simple truth isn't "foolish."
But if you want to make the comparison, that's fair. I have two points.
First, everyone already knows Romney has changed positions. It's his single "weakness." If other candidates share it, it makes their attacks on him silly and hypocritical.
Second, Romney is a fairly recent convert to the pro-life position. That it takes a few months to digest that and resolve to support the HLA is understandable. Romney has now made clear that he supports overturning Roe v. Wade, and the HLA in addition.
Thompson, on the other hand, said on MTP that it was his life-long dearly held position that the HLA would be a terrible thing. The very next day he was waffling and misdirecting on the question.
...that it is either the peanut butter or the bread that makes the sandwich and then you offer that Romney can run to the Left of Teddy Kennedy then tear our Bill of Rights to shreds while Governor yet, be taken seriously as a Republican candidate as having only a "single weakness".
Excuse me while I experience a belly-laugh.
“I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them. This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in,” - Fred Thompson
you're going to get 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the State legislatures to approve the HLA.
A list of names in the Senate who will vote (or might vote) for the HLA would be a good place to start.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
That is not a rejection, nor even against the grain of federalist principles.
He believes in states rights on the abortion issue, unless specifically overriden by HLA, and he doesn't think the HLA will pass. The conflict is only in your head.
Giraffe doesn't stretch
I don't think federalism works here for Fred. The idea of federalism is that all rights not set forth in the constitution are for the states, such as, for example education, (Yikes, we have the Feds pretty involved in education, even though there is no mention of education in the constitution), and other questionable "federal" issues which the founders intended be left to the states.
But the right to life is set forth in the constitution - not once but twice. The 5th amendment sets forth that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The 14th amendment sets forth that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (This, by the way, makes the right to life a civil rights issue).
Now, Roe v. Wade and pro-choice folks say that it doesn't apply because the unborn is not a "person". This doesn't work for Fred, because he is supposedly pro-life.
If you are going to use "federalism" as a basis for action, it seems reasonable to ask the the right to life in a Thompson administration to be at least as significant as, say, education.
the HLA?
This thing is a dead horse. There is no way it will pass and there is no way it won't won't hurt the pro-life cause if it is actually attempted.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
This won't save Fred.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
I especially like how you showed in this wide-open five way race, that Thompson was even doing poorly at all.
What data do you have that indicates Fred needs saving, moreso than, say Huck, McCain, or Romney?
-- digitalhap
whether Fred is a Christian. That being his point, he's absolutely right, because as any good Southern Baptist knows (heck, even American Baptists know it), the NRLC didn't die for his sins.
/snark/
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
to support Fred Thompson. That's the kind of commitment to fighting abortion I want all candidates to endorse.
R.J.
that the endorsement-giving organisations have to endorse one of the front-runners, even if he's not the most inline with their cause. I can't imagine anyone endorsing Tom Tancredo, for example, even if they thought he was the best on immigration. They want their endorsements to have an 'impact' of course, but how much do they really affect the race? The NRLC, AFLCIO, and NRA may be the only ones that matter. Would it be better for them to focus on keeping their moral authority rather than trying to pick the winner?
With all due respect, Fred is not the best canidate for the pro life movement. He was to take us back to the 1960's. Unfortunately it is now national issue. Promising to nominate pro-life judges is no better than any of our canidates. Sorry, the one that best represents this cause is Mike Huckabee and the shame is, they know it. I could understand if they were a group with many interests endorsing Fred, but they have one. They did not stick to their guns, and they just lost my respect. I think you can build a case that Fred is the best canidate, but he is not the best canidate on this issue. It isn't even close.
Just what kind of solution are you talking about here? And how is Fred taking us back to the 1960's?
Frankly it sounds to me like you are implying some kind of big government conservative solution. If that be the case we are going to be in conflict.
I am not against Fred, he just not the person that group should have endorsed, in my opinion. Fred wants to take us back to the Federlist position of making it a state's rights issue. It is now a national issue because of Rove vs. Wade. A country with 50 different positions on abortion will not work anymore. It is "old" thinking. I am a Federlist myself to a point, but this will not work. Neither will 50 different positions on gay marriage. Sorry Fred misses this one for me. He is very good on a lot of other things though. Bad, unprincipled endorsement.
because it allows for compromise through democracy that builds national consensus over time. I am sorry but if you think we can get the nation to accept the pro life cause tomorrow you are fooling yourself.
Look, every cause that has secured the rights of many who were previously unprotected began at the state level. It was the states that first began to recoqnize the rights of African Americans to vote and be full citizens, like wise with the right of women to vote. Eventually the federal government caught on and amended the constitution.
If you are serious about moving the pro life agenda it HAS to begin at the state level, and then we can move the federal government to take action. To even consider trying another method would be foolish, and in my mind it seems you are more interested in using this for a political advantage rather then seriously moving the issue.
The FMA and HLA are unworkable right now because the votes aren't there at the national level. Period. To get those votes you have to change the thinking of the public and that starts at the state level. Thats how Federalism works to our advantage. Trying to overreach and act like liberals will only blow up in our faces.
If Hucks position is to attempt something like this then he is not taking this issue seriously and has no place running on it.
I see two ways to nationalize a solution to abortion.
1. Pass HLA. Automatically overturns Roe (not Rove) and makes abortion a federal crime of some variety or another. Since punishment isn't written into the amendment, what sorts of punishment would you recommend?
2. Overturn Roe and pass a federal law banning abortion. Roughly the same net effect as HLA without going thru the state legislatures.
Did I miss anything?
Now then, just how would you plan to get the HLA thru the Congress? We'll ignore the states for now. Remember, the HLA has been around since 1971 and actually got to a floor vote in 1983 and got 49 votes. It takes 2/3 of the House and Senate to pass. Just count the votes in the Senate, it'll be easier.
Assuming Roe is overturned, you only need a simple majority of both Houses to pass a law but you need 60 votes in the Senate to break the filibuster. Where are they?
You've spent a bunch of bandwidth on this subject I'm sure you have a solution and I look forward hearing it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
John McCain is better on this issue than the lazy one, but I don't really think it's going to help much. I have a hard time seeing FDT make up enough ground in Iowa with the time he has left and he's going to get totally clobbered in NH - I see him coming in 6th there and that will NOT look good. He'd then go into SC badly hurt and without a win there, his excuse for running just goes away.
My heart wants McCain, but if I had to bet, I'd put my money on Mitt right now. But, frankly I see more chances for Huck than Thompson. He's just totally blown it.
...to put together specific proposals on policy issues and put them out there for all to see.
It's so lazy to come up with the trade-offs needed to actually accomplish something besides, "I'll beat Hillary!"
It's so much tougher and such hard work to speak in vague generalities.
Get a new act. The lazy smear is getting a bit old, not to mention ridiculous.
----
Brian Epps
RandomNumbers.us
Might well be NRLC finally admitting that those McCain-Feingold votes were not "pro-life" votes after all.
Great post, Erick.