Thursday, November 15, 2007
|
|
More Campaign News
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
7:42 PM
|
From The New Republic's The Plank:
Wanted: NRLC Political Director
The National Right to Life Committee has now explained its curious decision yesterday to endorse the cratering campaign of Fred Thompson, and the explanation is that they have no one on staff who can read a poll. That's not how they put it, of course, but how else to interpret this quote from Executive Director David O'Steen:
We look at the fact that while there are various polls, and some are up and down, the overwhelming consensus has been that [Thompson] is best positioned to top pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination.
I hope this is a (highly lame) rationale for a decision that was made on other grounds, because the alternative is that the folks at NRLC have all lost their minds. It's not merely that Mitt Romney is vastly better positioned to beat Giuliani for the nomination than Thompson; at this point, you could probably make the case that even John McCain and Mike Huckabee have a better shot (and I don't mean that in a good way). Ross Douthat and Daniel Larison have more to say on the subject.
UPDATE:
DSW - Editor’s Note: As the former Executive Director of Arizona Right to Life and the primary driving force of many AZRTL PAC endorsements, I am absolutely bewildered by NRL-PAC’s endorsement of Fred Thompson who has refused to support a Human Life Amendment - a longstanding requirement for endorsement. This will certainly go down as a huge error in judgement and loss of credibility of NRLC’s commitment to protecting innocent human life especially when there were other solid pro-life candidates who support the Human Life Amendment.
|
|
|
As I understand it, the goal of the pro-life movement is first to overturn Roe, taking back to the states and then to work toward a constitutional amendment. Romney is on the same page, and Fred is not. He thinks it's okay for states to have legalized abortion, and that that should be the end of it. Fred has never been a true-blue pro-lifer. |
|
Here's my question to any Mitt fans who think Fred's position on a national abortion ban should disqualify him from receiving the NRLC endorsement:
If NRLC shouldn't give Fred the endorsement on the grounds that he opposes a national ban on abortion, how could the NRLC give their endorsement to Mitt, who ALSO opposes a national ban on abortion--as Mitt would say, a "one size fits all" solution?
Full disclosure : I'm a FredHead.
- Ken
http://FredHeadsUSA.org |
|
If the NRLC proved anything, it's that they CAN read the poll results. There are Paul, Hunter, and Tancredo supporters distressed that the NRLC made a "realistic" endorsement of Fred instead of picking one of their guys.
Fred (and possibly Huck) are the only one of the top candidates who get a pass on the NRLC's non-negotiable life points: standing up against abortion, and standing up against embryo-destroying research.
The NRLC knows full well that Fred trails Rudy in the polls. Rudy is unfortunately not an option for the National Right to Life Committe - he's pro-abort & pro-embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).
The NRLC knows that Romney and McCain are close to Fred in many polls and lead him in some others. McCain is pro-ESCR. Romney is pro-ESCR and has been pro-abort until recently. Those three are simply out of bounds for this particular constituency.
Fred's not great; the other choices just aren't possibilities - from a RTL point of view.
Not everyone agrees with the NRLC's goals. But it's absurd to be exasperated with them for actually believing what they say they believe. I'm not in favor of the flat tax, for instance. But it would be highly unreasonable of me to be annoyed with the National Committe for the Fair Tax supporting a flat tax candidate instead of the more electable Rudy. This is what advocacy organization do - they endorse candidates who advocate what they believe in. |
|
|
|
|
Following Hugh for a few years it seems funny to me that he seems to have so much vitriol for Fred. In fact, Fred seems to be the kind of guy that Hugh would have loved to support. If only he hadn't written that darned book about a mormon in the white house! |
|
Have you lost your mind? Or are you just becoming so tedious that you haven't any will left.
This is the outfit that will not take responsibility for the Beauchamp affair. What are they doing on your blog?
|
|
The one issue abortion voters make a mis-step. Shocking.
The country is not dealing with one issue, we're dealing with many and I can safely say that if a democrat is elected, that one issue, so important to many of you, will be a non-issue, when the democratic president appoints the polar opposite of "constitutional judges".
I'm looking at you Dobson. If Repubs lose this election due to infighting over abortion, refusal to show up at the polls and I have to put up with Hillary's brand of socialism for 4-8 years, I can safely assure you you'll turn many Republican voters who tacitedly supported your cause against you. |
|
|
Hugh's posts about the other candidates anymore. I look at the title, and then skim for the pro-Romney, anti-every-other-candidate-and-especially-Fred-Thompson angle, then read the comments, which usually provide a fuller picture. |
|
You are quoting The New Republic as a trusted source of conservative political analysis? You are linking to them and putting money in their pocket? All to make your point about the NRLC?
Before I thought you were just tired. Now I think you're off your meds. I'll check back when the primaries are over and the Romneyfever has broken.
|
|
He's such a contrast with the ever-gracious Romney. So much for him being a southern gentleman.
Thompson could not be troubled to even show up for the announcment with the NRLC. Just more of the same devil-may-care attitude of Fred. |
|
Hugh is sinking so low he is linking to TNR.
Scott Thomas Beauchamp |
|
ABC News' Christine Byun Reports: Republican candidate Fred Thompson said his rivals should "quit whining" about his recent endorsement from the anti-abortion group, National Right to Life Committee.
"They probably ought to quit whining about it and tearing down the people whose endorsement they said a few days ago they desperately wanted," he said.
Thompson hit back at a comment made by an influential supporter of his GOP rival, former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.
Paul M. Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation and a Romney supporter, slammed the endorsement this week, arguing it "makes no sense," and speculated it was motivated by money.
"I think in all probability the Thompson people were engaged with the National Right to Life people in financial dealing," Weyrich told the Washington Times newspaper.
Thompson hit back at the comments Thursday.
"It's so ridiculous I wouldn't label the [Mitt Romney] campaign with that," he said.
Thompson said Romney's campaign "worked very, very hard for that endorsement, and you know, did all that they could and lost."
|
|
|
|