Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King announced his endorsement Fred.

Michelle Malkin ^

[ejonesie22]

Good choice, I concur...

[ejonesie22]

Keep swinging...

BTW have not heard much from Jim Bopp lately...

[GregoTX]

"You aren’t on the radio by any chance, are you?"

No, but Im listening to one. My range of influence is limited to friends, family, and whoever will tolerate my know-it-all'isms locally.

[redgirlinabluestate]

You all are too much. It’s not worth going around in circles with you on it again on yet another thread. It’s boring. If you can rationalize it and it is better for you to support someone who does not endorse those things - and you see no benefit in backing someone who says they will ——> so be it.

[Petronski]

And he would sign it.

Sign what? The Human Life Amendment?

Why would he do that?

[redgirlinabluestate]

It was my understanding that after ratification there is some acknowledgement or “signing” by the president. I could be wrong as its been a long time since I looked at the procedures. Of course, you’re right, it wouldn’t matter at that point. No choice. I was just on a roll as to what he would do.... LOL. But you win. I’m done. I am through talking to people who see no importance or difference in choosing someone who believes in certain goals and someone else who does not. Done. You win. End of story.

[ellery]

“You all?” I only speak for myself. And this discussion is based on new information: Romney’s statement yesterday that he will not fight for or promote the HLA. That’s pretty significant, considering that you have repeatedly claimed that Romney would use the bully pulpit to promote HLA and used that to contrast him with Thompson.

I also asked what you meant by your claim that Romney would “sign” the HLA, given that presidents don’t sign Constitutional amendments.

However, I agree that this discussion gets boring after a while. I will continue to point out Romney’s statement that he will not promote or fight for HLA if it continues to be claimed that he endorses the amendment. Ultimately people will have to make up their own minds about the issue.

In the meantime, I’d prefer to discuss Steve King’s fantastic endorsement of Thompson! Best freegards to you, and Merry Christmas.

[ellery]

If someone believes in certain goals and yet admittedly will not promote or fight for those goals, that’s a serious problem. Freegards.

[ejonesie22]

So I take it you have not heard from Jim Bopp ;-)

I still really enjoy Wanda Franz letter of endorsement of FDT, not to mention the rest of NRTL, who are actively coming out for Fred as well...

Meanwhile, in Mitt's camp, another failed delivery...

I will give you kudos though, when you and Spiff were sputing all this rubbish the other day, you know when I was doing the "should I choose A. Dr. Wanda Franz PhD and NTRL or B. Spiff and Redgirl" on whose opinion actually counts on this subject, for a second I almost picked B.

Ok not really...

[SoConPubbie]

You all are too much. It’s not worth going around in circles with you on it again on yet another thread. It’s boring. If you can rationalize it and it is better for you to support someone who does not endorse those things - and you see no benefit in backing someone who says they will ——> so be it.

I would take that post as a flag of surrender!

[redgirlinabluestate]

OMGosh, just because he's not promoting it or fighting for it TODAY, because it is admittedly FUTILE, does not mean he won't do so in the future once Roe v Wade is overturned. Come on. I know you're smarter than that. Good one though. :-)
Merry Christmas and Freegards to you too!

[ejonesie22]

It is boring to argue with people who are right when you are wrong...

[ejonesie22]

Ditto for Fred. Find a place where Fred Thompson has said he would try and stop it of Congress were to actually take action on it...

So what are you bellyaching about again?

[ellery]

OMGosh, just because he's not promoting it or fighting for it TODAY, because it is admittedly FUTILE, does not mean he won't do so in the future once Roe v Wade is overturned. Come on. I know you're smarter than that. Good one though.

Uh huh. So he wholeheartedly supports and believes in HLA, but he's not going to fight for it or or promote it today, but maybe he will in the unspecified future. You have stated in the past that he will use the bully pulpit to push HLA -- I assume you will now be clear and qualify your claim by conceding that he will only use the bully pulpit after Roe is overturned, and not before? Just trying to square your recent claims with Romney's statements yesterday.

[Shelayne]

*** UPDATE *** King just announced that he’s supporting Thompson. Team Romney is in the back of the room looking bewildered. They were all here, leading all the press to conclude that it was an endorsement for Romney.

[TheThirdRuffian]

Pretty damn funny, really.

Tells you what big deal this was, too.

[Charles Martel]

Apparently Romney people were there and waiting to accept the nod. OOpsy.

Mmmm... gotta take the time to savor that.

[donnab]

“In the meantime, the first important step toward that goal is reversal of Roe v. Wade, and thereby returning the matter to the states,”

Sounds remarkably like the stand Fred took and a good many did not understand. Makes me kinda go hmmmmmmmmm.

[dixiechick2000]

This is awesome news!
What a great endorsement!
Couple that with the fact that he will be campaigning for Fred on his bus tour is more than I had hoped for.

Now...I have a question for any who have watched TV today, as I’ve had only the radio for information.

Has this been reported anywhere?

I’ve listened to Rush, Hannity, and now the remarkably clever and brilliant Mark Levin. [ ;o) ]
I’ve heard about the endorsements for McCain and Hitlery, but not one word about this.

[dixiechick2000]

"Apparently Romney people were there and waiting to accept the nod. OOpsy."

LOL!

No kidding?

I wish I could have seen their reaction when he said, "Fred Thompson."