Posted on 11/15/2007 3:43:17 AM PST by Kevmo
“Face it. The NRTL endorsement is one of the biggest chips to have on your side of the table in this high stakes game.
Next for Fred will be the NRA endorsement, with it’s 6-7 MILLION members. And that will be a very big chip, indeed.”
Sorry, lots of us prolifers have been questioning the NRTL’s tactics for many years-long before this election.
Three members of my household belong to the NRA. We’re not supporting Thompson because his record does not match his platitudes.
Official endorsements do not translate into automatic votes.
$1000??? Heck, not even $10 stays in my pocket with the kid around.
-Club For Growth is a treacherous Libertarian organization who wants to sell American jobs to the lowest bidder.
-National Taxpayers Union gave Hunter A’s before the Iraq war. Would you prefer Hunter join with the Democrats and stop funding the Iraq war? Thats what ruined Hunters record and dropped it from an A to a C, because he is part of the House Armed Services Committee, and so therefore, after 2001 he started receiving C’s.
Hey Kev, any trading going on with that new character, Cap Fendig?
LOL, I hear that!
I beg to differ. National orginzations throwing their substaintial weight and finances behind a candidate, do make a difference. It means volunteers to go door to door, it means monies for ads, mailings, and a host of other support only a vast organization can accomplish and support.
This is the basic difference between individual endorsements and organizational ones.
You and your family can dismiss that endorsement, but your view may not reflect the view of the entire membership. Granted, not every one will be pleased by any endorsement of a candidate that is not for 'their' guy, but the recognition by the majority, NATIONWIDE of that support pays off in the long run.
I get the ‘sad puppy-eyed’ look and I’m finished.
I get ganged up on with them working as some organized force. It scares me how they can plot together and negotiate. It is like living with a bunch of lawyers. I don’t know where they get it from.
In other words a solid pro life candidate, according to his voting record, thinks the first step to abolishing abortion is to make it a states issue therefore making it easier to abolish on the state level is unacceptable. I guess the reason he would be unacceptable is because as someone else quoted on FR "his goal is good but his heart isn't in the right place" or some such nonsense.
Are you a Huck supporter? The reason I ask is because Huck is just as pro life as Fred yet he is a big spender who believes in his heart that government should rule too many aspects of Americans lives, Fred wants gov't out of our lives.
just because someone is pro life doesn't make them a conservative.
“National orginzations throwing their substaintial weight and finances behind a candidate, do make a difference. It means volunteers to go door to door, it means monies for ads, mailings, and a host of other support only a vast organization can accomplish and support.”
I realize that this is the hope of official endorsements, but I will repeat to you that there are many other prolife organizations who represent prolifers as well, and many of us have watched prolife efforts undermined by the NRTL.
In essence, every organization is subject to an increased amount of scrutiny because of widespread mistrust. While it might be nice to get an official endorsement from these organizations, the organizations risk losing members by endorsing candidates who do not adequately reflect their articulated mission-especially when candidates with stronger records are ignored.
Look at Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy. Do you think everyone watching the 700 Club is gonna support Rudy because of it? More likely, they are scratching their heads, trying to figure out what kind of deal was made.
Tons of essays and editorials have already flown through the info. circuits questioning that.
I believe credibility will be key in this election. If people cannot support their current positions with their past records, words, and deeds, they will not be seen as credible.
Mine, would make a good lawyer, but she has other plans, thank God.
You answered your own question:
“National Taxpayers Union has not given him an “A” rating since early 1990s. He has gotten consistent “C” ratings since 2000. He is a tax raiser.”
Error: it was 2002 when Hunter went from A’s to C’s, right when War on Common sense started.
I’m kind of an isolationist myself, so you are preaching to the choir. Even Duncan Hunter isn’t Conservative enough for me. But I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially relative to other mooshy moderate candidates.
http://www.ntu.org/main/components/ratescongress/details_all_years.php3?house_id=68
2006 Grade: B
2005 Grade: C+
2004 Grade: C+
2003 Grade: C
2002 Grade: C
2001 Grade: B+
2000 Grade: B
1999 Grade: B-
1998 Grade: B+
1997 Grade: B-
1996 Grade: B-
1995 Grade: B
1994 Grade: B
1993 Grade: A
1992 Grade: B
This is something Code Pink would punish Hunter for, spending more money in wartime. I think it is distasteful.
No, for me, having a prolife record, not just a new prolife position, is a critical, necessary, elimination factor.
Anybody who thinks killing babies is “private” is as unqualified to be president as someone who thinks the killing of the elderly, the disabled, the blue-eyed, or brown-skinned, or any other already born human beings, is “private.”
We have foundational unalienable natural rights- chief among them is the right to life.
No, saying that a foundational right can be deffered back to the states is not only a cowardly copout, but it is an unconstitutional authorization of the death warrants for millions of innocent human beings.
Once I am convinced the person is truly prolife, and I have eliminated the wild cards from the deck, I look at the records and positions of the remaining candidates.
“No, for me, having a prolife record, not just a new prolife position, is a critical, necessary, elimination factor.”
That probably should say “qualification” factor. It qualifies prolife candidates, and eiminates the others.
Wow thats a brilliant position. Instead of having perhaps 25 states outlaw abortion outright, saving the lives of millions, you are content on keeping RvW in tact. How do you think abortion will be outlawed and how do you think a President can even do that?I am beginning to think the pro life movement doesn’t really want to end abortion. Perhaps its become too big of a money making industry for them too.
I hope mine have other plans as well.
Only here for a sec but have you seen any of Fred's anti-gun senate bills?
Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban
On September 12, 1996, the Senate passed the Lautenberg gun ban as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home — “offenses” as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred 20 years ago. Thompson voted in favor of the amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.