Posted on 05/15/2014 9:09:58 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
National Right to Life, like National Rifle Association, has gone full Washington establishment. NRL has endorsed Lindsey Graham - and they endorsed Thom Tillis in NC for their primary.
Clearly there are better candidates for the cause they pretend to care about….but they have their Washington HQ's and they have been corrupted. Thoughts?
thoughts?
Frankly, I can hardly believe it. Not that I don’t believe you, but what is the source?
NRTL stretched themselves into a pretzel endorsing Romney the last election. I had no idea that Graham and Tillis were NOT pro-life. Is that true?
Graham and Tillis are pro life, but there is no reason to endorse them in a primary where there are superior life candidates running.
Well in NC it’s a matter of record. They just endorsed in SC a few minutes ago.
So, essentially NRTL is trying to curry favor with front-runners.
It’s grossly unfair of them to the extent it gives the impression the other candidates are NOT pro-life.
I don’t really follow them anymore, though, after the Romney fiasco. (Cain, too, was suspect to be only quasi-life...didn’t they end up endorsing him as well? I don’t quite remember.)
Well, in Romney’s case, I would assume they were picking the more pro life candidate of the two. In the Tillis case and the Graham case, they did not do that. They picked the less pro life candiate, and yes, it was to curry favor with the GOP estabs.
This proves that the biggest chasm in the GOP is not over social issues…it’s over limited gov principles…..because “big life” and “big gun” will sell out in a skinny minute now. This is what happens when you have HQs in Washington. You become part of it.
When you only care about one issue then you support the candidate that supports this issue. They would support a pro-life communist if one existed.
This is why some people get frustrated with single issue folks.
I agree with that, but that doesn’t explain these endorsements…..
It’s the same reason the NRA endorsed Harry Reid - if an incumbent has a sufficiently high enough rating, they will get the endorsement, because the incumbent has an actual track record as opposed to a challenger who may talk a better game but who is an unknown as to what they will actually do in office.
1. The incumbent that wins his primary always has a better chance to beat the candidate from the opposing party.
2. An incumbent that keeps his seat will have more seniority than a newbie and can better help craft and carry legislation through congress.
Personally I believe that things have gotten so bad that we need to abandon short-term thinking. I really do think that the Republican Party needs to go away. I'm OK with ten, even twenty, years of Democrat presidents that legalize all sorts of nonsense and make it difficult or impossible for Christians to live openly as Christians in American society.
We may need something horrible to happen in order to finally wake up.
I'm really not liking any of the Republican candidates for President. Even Paul and Cruz are starting to sound like they are making moves in a RINO direction to get the backing from corporations they will need to win in 2016.
Conservatives have been turned into shills for corporations that mouth support for free enterprise and capitalism while spending millions to lobby congress to craft legislation favorable to them with no concern for the US or its long held traditions.
The US is no longer a Christian nation. We are quickly sliding toward the same fate as Western Europe. The corporations like this, the liberals like this. The only people who hate this are conservatives and leftists who want even more socialism sooner.
Large non-profits have a certain inertia. They have salaries to pay, rents and mortgages to maintain. They need to maintain the support of large donors. They can't do this by staying on the bleeding edge of perfect ideological consistency. They need to tone down their rhetoric and make "pragmatic" choices in order to keep the ball rolling.
Of course, the smaller more ideologically pure organizations that we can also give money too will have little or no effect on what society does as a whole.
The best we can possibly do is just give to those local organizations that spend most of their money and effort on saving one baby at a time without trying to change the laws or change the attitudes of the American public.
Single issue groups like these recognize that the incumbent usually wins and they don’t want to lose influence. Cynical but true.
He’s pro-life, yet pro-gay marriage. Go figure. I saw where one of the candidates running against him, Nancy Mace, the only female Citadel graduate, couldn’t vote in the Democratic race to keep a candidate out because she found out she was in the wrong district, so she didn’t vote.
Again, go figure.
The days for evaluating a person’s morality, for looking at their voting record in many areas and comparing it with the other candidates are gone. If you are ambivalent, or maybe crazy, immoral, and single-issued, that’s what counts these days.
But that’s not what this is about. There were two candidates with more pro life cred than Tillis (Brannon and Harris) - and there are two candidates in SC with more pro life cred than Graham (Bright and Cash). So this is not a single issue zealot problem, tho that’s a problem at times.
This is a capitulation to the estab problem.
That’s true, but they should stay quiet in a primary when there are other pro life candidates - because not everyone realizes like you do how the game is played.
yes guys, I know exactly why it happens….wasn’t asking why….was asking for folks to call em out on it.
The man IS pro-life, and he is the current senator. He's done nothing in the legislature for them to withdraw their support. As a one issue group, it's kind of understandable.
On the other hand, here is a senator who has been one of the biggest tools in the hands of the democrats (the pro-killing party), one who insists on holding the hand of evil, one who has consistently helped that party gain traction with many of their issues.
It's a problem the NRTL group should have addressed and added to the equation. They should know better. Their experience with the congressman (D) from northern Michigan, Stupak should have been a bell weather for them. Stupak's horrific betrayal over Obamacare should have taught the NRTL that the proclivities in other areas will lead to eventual betrayal.
I'm not certain, but he is likely NOT a true pro-life champion as Reagan was, more of a safe place holder type. I would understand this more in the general, but NOT the primary.
the Graham endorse is more understandable and defendable than the Tillis endorse…..but the fact remains, when NRTL endorses, it sends a signal to many non thinking folks that said candidate is obviously the most pro life candidate….when that’s often NOT the case.
BTW, I think if NRTL were true to form, they would have A: endorsed Brannon in NC and no one in SC or B: not endorsed until the general in both states or C: maybe endorsed 3 of the SC candidates as good candidates on life.
They simply need to be more judicious in the primaries. Heck, even in the general election as when they supported Stupak over other pro-life Republicans.
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.