Thinking About NRLC's Endorsement Of Thompson

Why did the National Right To Life committee and NRLC PAC decide to endorse Fred Thompson? We won't know until tomorrow's press conference, but here are some theories

(1) His record in the Senate. It's strong and solidly pro-life. Rebuttal: But other candidates -- John McCain, Duncan Hunter, have better records. ... And Thompson was just as much of a force behind McCain-Feingold as McCain... and he lobbied on behalf of pro-choice causes in the early 1990s...

(2) Political calculation -- Duncan Hunter can't win; Mike Huckabee is too independent and allegedly alienates fiscal conservatives; Mitt Romney is going to be beaten and the abortion policies of his Mass. health care plan are a problem; Thompson will win in the South. Thompson will owe the NRLC. Rebuttal: The NRLC isn't generally like that; more than almost any interest group, it's faithfully represented the interests of its 3000 chapters and hundreds of thousands of members. And so far as political calculations go, Thompson's standing in early state polls has been declining.

(3) Huckabee hatred: the one person in the race who doesn't have to pander to pro-life activists has aroused the ire of the Beltway establishment. Rebuttal: again, the NRLC prizes itself on its independence.

(4) They forgot McCain-Feingold: Remember, NRLC and its affiliates are as responsible as anyone for the fight against the issue ad provisions of BCRA. Thompson has backed away from his support of those provisions, but his support of the thrust and principles behind McCain-Feingold is undeniable. Rebuttal: ??

The right-to-life community has no favorite candidate at this point; Washington insiders favor Thompson; some of the key state activists favor Romney (who was effectively pro-choice until three years ago); many shy away from Huckabee (the most pure of the bunch) because he would alienate other parts of the conservative coalition; John McCain’s campaign finance heresy was too painful to ignore.

Some may see the above as signs of confusion, but it’s really a sign of a mature political movement, comfortable in its own diversity.

Comments

I don't have anything negative to say about Fred Thompson. But, it is absurd beyond comprehension that any candidate other than Mike Huckabee would get this endorsement. Yet again, we have a vivid example of how the powers at be in current presidential politics have little regard for the positions and beliefs of their constituency.

If you read this article and want a candidate who will stand up for you, I urge you to support Mike Huckabee and take my challenge by visiting: www.abuckforhuck.com

With your help, he will make a difference!

Posted by I Like Mike | November 12, 2007 4:16 PM

The National Right to Life Committee has apparently decided to endorse the "Wesley Clark of 2008" Fred Thompson, a candidate that has undeniably underwhelmed at every level since his entry into the race. With falling poll numbers and dim prospects, Fred Thompson's less than stellar performance is indicative of how he will perform against Hillary Clinton. This new development makes it appear as if the NRLC wants conservatives to lose.

If they actually wanted to win, the smart thing would be to go with a candidate who has risen at one point to third in National Polls, second in Iowa, double digits in New Hampshire and fourth in Florida without spending 60 million like Romney, 90% name recognition like Giuliani and McCain, or a political elite cajoling and forcing him to enter the race like Fred Thompson. Mike Huckabee is that candidate and his ability to overcome these odds proves he is the strongest candidate and best articulator of our values. He is the ONLY candidate who can unite our country and our only chance at beating Hillary Clinton. It's too bad our Christian 'leaders' let this opportunity slip through our fingers, just because we doubted "one of our own"...

Posted by Huckamania | November 12, 2007 4:44 PM

I don't have anything negative to say about Mike Huckabee. I've liked what he has to say on this issue and I've found him engaging in the debates. However, I do believe that the endorsement of Fred Thompson makes a lot more sense. I believe his approach to the life issue will take us a lot further than a Presidential Candidate who endorses a Constitutional Amendment. As much as I might want such an amendment to be passed, I don't believe that we could make that happen. And the President doesn't get a vote even if we could Congress to pass it. Sen. Thompson's approach of Federalism - i.e. overturning Roe v. Wade and sending the issue back to the states to decide - gives us a lot more power. I think the NRLC sees that. Once the states can make their own laws on the subject, we may be able to outlaw this horror in many states right away.

Additionally, think about this. Is there a federal law against murder? I don't believe that there is. However, if one of the states decided to legalize some form of murder wouldn't the federal government have to do something to deter it? If some states begin treating this issue as a crime and if it comes into people's conscienceness as the taking of an innocent life, might the federal government have to do something to encourage states to change their laws - like it did with withholding road funding for states with speed limits higher that 55mph? I don't think I can articulate my point as well as I'd like, but I do think that Sen. Thompson's approach gives us at least the chance to make some real positive steps toward change. No, not right away - not complete turn-around by tomorrow, which is what we'd all like to see. But a chance to go farther than we've been able to go in 35 years. I think that makes a lot of sense for an endorsement. Go Fred!

Posted by Lady Gator | November 12, 2007 4:58 PM

WOW....Is this amazing or what? We have running an the ultimate compassionate conservative who will stand up for what he believes because his track record proves it. Mike Huckabee is the best candidate in this race bar none. He is the best comminicator ever and oh how we need that so deserately seeing as how we have not had that in the White House for the last 8 years. Great communication can go along way in selling your ideas and getting across to the people what you stand for. Fred is lazy and the worst communicator in the field. He couldn't talk his way out of a wet paper bag. Think about who you want to have in the White House day after day, someone who can articulate his point precisley and without mumbling or someone who's every other word is umm ummm ummm.....????

NRTL.....You have lost my support and I was behind you. That goes for all the other "so called" christian leaders who want to go astray.....makes me sick to my stomach!!

Posted by Michael D | November 12, 2007 8:33 PM

This article points something out that I have been saying for quite some time. The pro-life and Christian leaders are afraid of Mike Huckabee and what will happen if he is elected. He is more interested in regular people, like you and I, than he is in pandering to the Christian leaders and organizations. If he is elected, their influence will lessen greatly and they don't like that idea.

Posted by Larry | November 12, 2007 8:59 PM

Mike Huckabee is the candidate who best represents concern for the unborn and for the elderly and mentally disabled who may be at risk of euthanasia. Mike Huckabee is truly Pro-Life and always has been. For an organization like NRL to pass over him and endorse Fred Thompson indicates a lack of serious judgement.

I trust Mike Huckabee to represent Pro-Life issues more than I trust the NRL. They seem to be willing to "sell out" for political expediency.
He tells you who he is, where he stands and why and he can do it in a few sentences without a lot of window dressing.

Posted by Nanellen | November 12, 2007 9:59 PM

Lady Gator has it right. Fred has as much credibility on the issue as Huckabee, but more importantly he is pointing us in the right direction as to how we should proceed forward, and how we will reverse the effects of Roe v. Wade- by overturning that decision with solid conservative judges, and then letting the states reinstate their homicide laws which were overruled when this terrible decision was handed down.

And FWIW Huckabee supporters- your guy is a big tax and spending, nanny state governor on virtually every other issue that matters to conservatives- he's best analogized to a pro-life Mike Bloomberg. Why settle for someone less than an across the board conservative who can rightfully claim that he is a conservative in the tradition of Reagan?

Posted by Vince | November 12, 2007 10:11 PM

This NRLC endorsement makes no sense, on principle or pragmatics.

On principle, because Fred is a former Planned Parenthood lobbyist prochoicer who told Tim Russert decidedly last week he is against the Human Life Amendment, which has been etched in the GOP Party Platform since 1980, and Fred also said last week that government had no business getting involved at all in the Terry Schiavo case because these issues should only be between a doctor and the family (anti-prolife talking points familiar to those knowing the lingo); how will NRLC be taken seriously when they continue to lobby on these points, as they do including mulitple ways the Schiavo case as an example of government injustice in not getting involved.

On pragmatics, because every political insider knows Fred's campaign is dead in the water and sinking in polls and enthusiasm, and Fred is behind both Romney and Huck (pure as the driven snow on life issues) IN IOWA, NH, AND FLORIDA, and Huck is moving up in polls as fast as Thompson's moving down!

NRLC will make themselves much more irrelevant after going through with tomorrow's endorsement that will be despised by their base.

Posted by Steve Prost | November 12, 2007 10:22 PM

Give it a rest, Vince. What is Thompson's record on spending? On statism? I could easily support Thompson and still may support him, but all the "so's your old man" jockeying is lame.

And while the Federalist approach to oppose abortion may very well be a wise strategy, my problem is believing that Thompson really wants to oppose abortion as opposed to passing the buck (from a presidential perspective) on the issue. I think any honest observer will acknowledge that Thompson has several things from his "record" that call into question whether he believes abortion is more than unfortunate.

Posted by Ned Williams | November 12, 2007 11:01 PM

Ned,
Thompson was graded with a lifetime average of "A" by the National Taxpayers Union. Authored "Government on the Brink" which directly addresses spending and cuts to government. Thompson has the approval of both the CfG AND the CATO Institute. In regards to CATO, he is the only top tier candidate who has their approval.

And for the record, Thompson has voted 100% on matters of life. There is nothing on his record that can blemish that, no matter how much people want to believe otherwise. He's been vetted, unlike Huckabee. His record and rhetoric is now out there for the world to see.

Posted by Tommy Oliver | November 12, 2007 11:47 PM

As an independent I am amazed that Right for Life would endorse Thompson, who has a bad report regarding issue of abortion. He said it's not his political vote but for private practice. Does it mean that he will allow unborn to be killed again if ACLI pays him enough when he becomes president?

On the other hand, I am truly happy that by trying to buy a political ticket, many so called Christian leader/organisation have revealed their true color.

I expect that many of which would see their support based disappear in the next 3 years.

Regarding Thompson, getting an "A" only means that he's among the ones who have no heart. No heart for the poor. Leaders in China actually do better than him!!!

HungS

Posted by HungS | November 13, 2007 12:02 AM

Ned-

It's not "jockeying", I am merely restating the record. If you are going to honestly compare the records of Huckabee and Thompson, and make a judgement as to who is more "statist", there is no doubt that Huckabee wins that competition hands down. Thompson is a fiscal conservative who time and time again voted for tax cuts, the opposite of Huckabee- don't take my word for it, look at what the Club for Growth says about Huckabee - they documented 94 tax hikes.

As to the polls at this juncture of the race- all I say is to remember Howard Dean. There isn't any clear front-runner on the Republican side of the equation, and there are 4 viable candidates who have scenarios to the nomination. Im simply siding with the most consistent conservative of the lot.

Posted by Vince | November 13, 2007 12:08 AM

Gee, You Hucksters are really sore about this.... oh well........tooooooooo bad.......Have a nice day

Posted by Jeff | November 13, 2007 12:39 AM

HungS,

Your post is IGNORANT. "Leaders in China do better"????????? Then move back!!!!!!!!

Posted by Jeff | November 13, 2007 12:43 AM

Vince-- i respect your oppinion of huckabee, but would like you to hold off on paroting what you have heard people say without investigating.
Read this.
http://rightsmart.blogspot.com/2007/11/truthing-about-taxes-and-huckabee.html

If anyone looks at things without a prjudiced mind (i am not saying that you have one), you will
never get the whole picture. please, all of you, don't just take something that you hear and then base your whold thinking around it without doing unbiased investigation.

I am not a pro huck bible basher. I do favor Huckabee, though, because i was a thompson supporter, then i did extensive research that brought up questions. i was very much against huckabee. i have never heard any of his speaches 9other than his few times on the debates), so i was not convinced by his smoothe comunication style. i had heard that he was pro amnesty, then after research i realized how his record had been twisted to make it seem a certain way.

it was his position on the issues, and his good record on everything from pro life to his tax record.
but if you have a peice of the puzzle that im missing, let me know. though i have and am still doing HUGE amounts of research.

like i said, check out this:
http://rightsmart.blogspot.com/2007/11/truthing-about-taxes-and-huckabee.html
this is not my blog but just check it out with an open ming all of you for once, please. are we americans still capable of that???
thanks,
sam

Posted by sam | November 13, 2007 5:24 AM

also look at this.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004053.html

Posted by sam | November 13, 2007 5:26 AM

Mike Huckabee is like the back up quarterback on every football team. Everyone loves him until he has to play, then they realize why he is a backup.

Fred Thompson get's it. He isn't perfect nor does he claim to be but he is honest and not afraid to tell the American People the truth. What a novel concept.

Posted by Dave P | November 13, 2007 8:00 AM

When Governor Huckabee's record on taxation is honestly considered by people without an axe to grind, it is found to be truly conservative. Besides, he favors the most progressive and healthy approach to taxation available today, the Fair Tax. This is a dream become tangible, a win-win situation for all Americans and American businesses. I must agree with Nanellen - "I trust Mike Huckabee to represent Pro-Life issues more than I trust the NRL." Governor Huckabee is the perfect pro-life candidate. His record could not be better. I appreciate the NRLC, but they have made a mistake on this one. Governor Huckabee has over 10 years executive experience as a very successful and popular governor. He is principled and articulate. Please do not rely on second-hand information. Check him out yourself. Research this man and found out for yourself; listen to what he is saying. He means what he says and really speaks from his heart. He wants to lift this country up and unite us in all the areas we agree. I am not against anybody, but I really do hope Governor Huckabee is our next president. It would be a blessing.

Posted by Steve L | November 13, 2007 8:29 AM

P.S. Thanks for your insights, Marc. I appreciate your blogs!

Posted by Steve L | November 13, 2007 8:31 AM

THERE were an awful lot of people who climbed up Fred's back about what they thought he said at the Russert interview and they didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

HOWEVER, they all should have known well before-hand as Fred had explained his position many times. Maybe, now that the NRLC has made their position known, people will calm down long enough to really start figuring out what the man has been saying all along.

Fred's message has been on Federalism. He has talked about it constantly for the past eight months to try and teach us what we should already know. Federalism is the concept in principles our founding fathers created to guide us. I confess that when he first offered to run I also had to study it in depth to fully appreciate what he was saying but, Fred even makes this a little easier for us by writing about it here; www.fred08.com

Not too long ago we had the majority of both houses AND the White House. We couldn't get the heavy but, rightful burden in the majority of votes required to pass a pro-life amendment to our Constitution. If we couldn't do it then we will never be able to pass an amendment on that subject e-v-e-r. To keep trying is nothing more than banging our heads against the wall...we'll leave that kind of emotional crap for the Libs as they do it so well.

Then, it is obvious any elected official worth their salt, and any citizen half-way paying attention, fully understands that the "easy" and "quick" way of fighting judicial activism can't be accomplished with an amendment where the only way to get the job done correctly is to appoint judges who are loyal and fully accept their position in our government by not making law from the bench.

THEREFORE, there are only two reasons why Mike Huckabee and Willard Mitt Romney would officially endorse a pro-life amendment; They're either woefully uninformed and completely unacceptable as candidates for the Presidency OR they are pandering to you to tell you what you want to hear...consider this fact in deep reflection folks. BOTH of these candidates have "reinvented" themselves and their past records prove it beyond any doubt. ( These records are readily available on the internet in text and video. I have several links on both of them which provide this proof. )

Posted by Winghunter | November 13, 2007 9:04 AM

Come on, "reinvent"? It is a fair concern about Thompson's commitment in opposing abortion. That matters to me; it may not matter to you; fine, but comments like "criminalize" abortion really sticks a finger in the eye of Social Conservatives, don't you think?

And we don't rely on Federalism on the issue of slavery. Stop assuming that the only reason I'm not on board with the Federalist method of opposing abortion is because I don't understand Federalism.

Thompson supporters are keen to care about what "Independent" voters are thinking about the candidates, but various of Huckabee's positions (actually it's his articulation of such issues more than anything else) are very appealing to Independents.

Posted by Ned Williams | November 13, 2007 11:16 AM

These NRLC folks are out to lunch. They apparently don't know that Fred T. is a pro-choice candidate. He said it last week. Couple this with Pat Robertson supporting Giuliani, and I think we have a very damaging lack of clarity in our movement. I've got news for you NRLC and Pat Robertson, Thompson and Giuliani represent your interests like Tiny Tim represents the Olympic hammer-throwers union! You both have just signaled to the world and supporters that you have lost your way ENTIRELY! The only viable candidate who represents the social conservative agenda on abortion and marriage (Federal Marriage Amendment, Fred? Why are you pro-choice now!) is Mitt Romney. If you can't support him because of his religion and prefer to see the entire social conservative movement go dead for many years because of it, then I am baffled. Something about a beam in the eye compared to a mote comes to mind.

Posted by Christian | November 13, 2007 12:39 PM

Sam-

I clicked on the link you sent me, curious as to finding out something about Huckabee's record on Taxes as Governor that I didn't know about. First paragraph- "Club for Growth" aka "Clique for Greed" - instant disqualifier. That kind of ad hominum attack tells me that what will follow is not dispassionate analysis of the record, but an attempt to impugn the motives of the group itself in to render its opinions worthless.

The Club for Growth has been around for long enough and has enough respected economists within it, and they will not be jerked around by any candidate, nor will they mislead people about a given politico's record. CFG are far, far more credible as a group than the blog you linked too, and they are right on the money about Huckabee's record.

Posted by Vince | November 13, 2007 3:27 PM

Sam,

I almost forgot- the CATO Institute didn't care for Huckabee's fiscal record either.

See the following-

-----------------------------------------
Mike Huckabee Gets an 'F'

The Cato Institute just released their 2006 fiscal report card for all 50 governors. Not surprisingly, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee had a failing performance. Excerpt:

"Mike Huckabee of Arkansas also went from being one of the best governors in America to one of the worst. He receives an F for his current term and a D for his entire tenure. The main reason for the drop was his insistence on raising taxes at almost every turn throughout his final term."

According to the Cato data, Huckabee's most recent score was broken down into 3 parts:

'F' for revenue variables (he was dead last among all 50 governors)
'C' for spending variables (he was 16th)
'F' for tax rates (he was...you guessed it...dead last again)
To put this into perspective, Huckabee had a worst score than Ohio Governor Bob Taft (he got a "C"), who is normally considered the worst governor in the country.
-------------------------------------

Bottom Line- Club for Growth and CATO Institute vs. Rightsmart - who's telling the complete truth? Im going with the former.

Posted by Vince | November 13, 2007 3:34 PM

Christian,
I always love when someone starts bumping the beam in their eye up against the beam in my eye.

I could very well support Romney, but at this juncture, it is hard for me to get past his change of tune on a host of issues. Sorry, but that affects someone's credibility with me, and I at least credit Giuliani, as an example, for non-pandering. Not that Romney is pandering or lying about his convictions, but I certainly have a right to wonder, don't I?

But the Club for Growth, like any not-for-profit, has to be concerned about funding; thus, their motives aren't always above reproach. I think there is reason to believe that they were eager to deep six Huckabee's campaign and have treated him less forgivingly than other candidates.

Posted by Ned Williams | November 13, 2007 5:15 PM

Fred Thompson isn't really that into the abortion issue. It's glaringly obvious. He doesn't really believe that the unborn are human. How else can you account for his unwillingness to fight to see that the unborn receive the right to life guaranteed to all human beings in the 14th Amendment?

"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

Thompson attempts to make this a federalist issue when it is clearly a federal issue, as is made abundantly clear by the wording of the 14th. And if that's not enough, go read the 5th Amendment:

"[No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

This is something Mitt Romney gets. This is something Mike Huckabee gets.

This is something Fred Thompson clearly does not get. Or he just doesn't care. Thompson just isn't a warrior, anyway. Does anyone really see him fighting for much of anything as he slowly makes the rounds in his pathetically torpid campaign?

Posted by CheyennePress | November 14, 2007 2:31 AM

Good points Cheyennepress, and while I agree with your points about abortion, I kind of like Thompson's campaign demeanor . . . it is a part of his "charisma" and he doesn't seem like an apple-polishing vote seeker (which is something that strikes me about Romney and the guy I currently like, Huckabee). But that is just a subjective thing.

Indeed, I am confident that Thompson will "fight" (struggle?) for something he's convinced of--I just don't think he's serious about being pro-life.

Posted by Ned Williams | November 14, 2007 3:53 PM