I think any of the Republican candidates except Rudy Giuliani and John McCain would nominate judges who will generally be willing to rule against abortion as being a Constitutional right. If the judiciary changes so that abortion is no longer seen as a Constitutional right, then we can start passing laws to stop late and middle term abortions. Eventually, we'll be able to pass laws against most early term abortions, but the difference between Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson in this election is not going to change when that happens.
Fred Thompson's answers will cost him some votes in the South. Maybe he won't win quite as many delegates in the southern states as we had believed, but he may also pull some votes from people who were planning to support Rudy Giuliani. I'd be thrilled to think that our choice will come down to Mitt versus Fred instead of one of them versus Rudy.
Bill
“Fred Thompson’s answers will cost him some votes in the South. Maybe he won’t win quite as many delegates in the southern states as we had believed, but he may also pull some votes from people who were planning to support Rudy Giuliani. I’d be thrilled to think that our choice will come down to Mitt versus Fred instead of one of them versus Rudy”
It will be interesting to see if what you predict is true. I think he position on this hot button issue will cost him many votes of pro-lifers that will go to Huckabee or Hunter. Whereas, I don’t see it moving anyone who is a Guiliani supporter into Fred’s circle. Guiliani’s base, I believe, are the real old guard Rockafeller (sp?) repubs, of which Fred isn’t really a type that would appeal to them. I believe his position will cause him to continue to lose ground...which is a real shame. He could be a good president...he just sucks as a candidate.
Governor Romney appointed 36 judges but a check of their political affiliation confirms that only 9 of them are Republicans. Two are radical gay activists and 14 are registered Democrats. The remainder are unenrolled. Since Massachusetts Democrats are among the most pro-abortion Democrats in America, we have to assume that the majority of Romney’s judicial appointments are NOT pro-life.
Take for example, Steve Abany, a hard left Democrat and a prominent gay activist involved with the effort to legalized homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. Romney appointed him to the bench in May of 2005, which was, again, well after his pro-life “conversion.” Any bets that he’s pro-life?
Nor can we find any evidence that the Governor tried to recruit judges who respect life. Romney’s defenders claim he had no choice because a entity called the Governor’s Council controls the process and is composed of Democrats, but we’ve found that this council serves mostly as a rubber stamp and is set up purely to ensure judicial nominees are qualified, not to oppose them on ideological grounds. Indeed, there is no evidence that the Governor’s Council has ever blocked any judicial nominees on ideological grounds.
Many of these judicial appointments were made in the last three years, SINCE Romney’s alleged conversion.
The Romney campaign also claims that his judicial selections as governor had nothing to do with abortion and was more about the nominee’s stance on local issues such as crime. However, the Los Angeles Times has revealed that notes taken at a 2002 NARAL endorsement meeting attended by Romney, reveal that he assured its leaders his judicial picks would be more likely to protect abortion rights than those of a Democrat governor!