Posted on 11/14/2007 12:28:14 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
When the National Right to Life Committee endorsed Fred Thompson for president this week, their news conference was less announcement than cri de coeur — not just from this group but from the whole social conservative movement.
No one could miss the irony in the choice of Thompson or in the justifications offered for that choice by NRLC executive director David O'Steen. Here was the nation's largest and best known anti-abortion organization embracing a candidate who had just told NBC's Tim Russert that he did not support the Human Life Amendment — the centerpiece of the NRLC legislative agenda for more than 30 years.
Thompson said he would rather appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and return the question of abortion to the states. He called it federalism. Plenty of other people would call it throwing in the towel, signing off on legal abortion for most of the population so that the more conservative states can be free to ban it.
Thompson has been at odds with the Republican Party platform, as well as the stated aims of the NRLC. Both favor an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining life as beginning at conception. Thompson, who can be a little fuzzy on the life-at-conception point, maintains that the Human Life Amendment cannot be passed and ratified. Therefore, he adds, pursuing it is counterproductive.
That's apostasy for the most committed anti-abortion activists, some of whom had written Thompson off as a squishy moderate in the days since Thompson appeared on Russert's show.
But that principled view did not prevail in the councils of the NRLC. According to O'Steen, the group decided not to insist on fealty to the Human Life Amendment. Instead, it looked at past voting records overall, public positions on matters relevant to life and, finally — here's the real story — electability.
Thompson was not perfect on either of the first two counts, but he was the best thing going on the third. Again and again, O'Steen cited polling that showed Thompson running second to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani as if that were the bottom line and the last word.
O'Steen was admirably unbuttoned about the group's real agenda in 2008, which is almost purely defensive at this point. For those who consider themselves pro-life, the first imperative is to deny the GOP nomination to Giuliani, who O'Steen described as "pro-abortion." He scarcely needed to add that a Giuliani ticket would present anti-abortion voters with a November choice between two major-party backers of abortion rights, as all the Democratic contenders in 2008 are clearly pro-choice.
In other words, if Giuliani gets the GOP nod, the anti-abortion movement will have been defeated before the general election even begins. Starting from that salient point, the rest of the NRLC endorsement decision seems to have been not just a painful process of elimination but a wrenching exercise in winnowing.
There are four Republicans polling in double digits. One is Giuliani, who is in the high 20s or higher in most national polls. Another is Mitt Romney, who leads in the first two critical states voting in January.
But until a few years ago Romney was the pro-abortion-rights governor of Massachusetts. He has since converted to a full-throated anti-abortion position more in keeping with his Mormon background. That move by Romney was enough to win over Paul Weyrich, the co-founder of the Moral Majority who famously derailed Republican John Tower's nomination as secretary of defense back in 1989 by exposing him as a hard-drinking womanizer. But Romney has found it hard to attract other big-name social cons, in part because so many evangelicals regard Mormonism as a cult rather than as a legitimate subdivision of Christianity.
A third Republican in double digits is John McCain, the onetime frontrunner whose voting record on abortion is at least as good as Thompson's. But McCain was never a likely recipient of the NRLC endorsement because his campaign finance proposals inhibit the ability of advocacy groups to influence elections. In his remarks this week, O'Steen did not dwell on this issue, stressing instead the differences his group has had with McCain on embryonic stem-cell research.
That leaves Thompson as the only other Republican in double digits and the NRLC seems to have been powerfully aware of this fact. While Thompson was a major backer of McCain's campaign finance ideas, he has been forgiven, O'Steen said this week, because he has repented on the specific provisions of concern to the NRLC. He also seems to have found a stand on embryonic stem-cell research that's acceptable to the NRLC.
There are, of course, other Republican hopefuls who would not need to trim their sails to navigate a more NRLC-friendly course. Most obvious among them is Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, who is a Baptist minister. Huckabee's views on the social issues are those of the social conservative movement. But his views of taxation policy have earned the enmity of the GOP anti-tax wing, which is where the campaign money is. O'Steen seemed regretful in noting that Huckabee, while attractive, had not reached the level of financial viability.
It must be said that O'Steen and his board of directors were not conducting a search for the most anti-abortion candidate. They were looking for someone who could beat Giuliani and then beat Hillary Clinton or whichever alternative pro-choice candidate the Democrats prefer.
Nominating an anti-abortion purist might feel good in the short run, but it would be disastrous if it bound the movement to a candidate who was dissed and dismissed in the first few voting events in January. Such a rejection would imply the movement itself was less potent a part of the conservative coalition that it has presumed itself to be since 1980.
The beauty of endorsing Thompson is that the NRLC will be seen as kingmaker if he catches fire and burns all the way through to the nomination. And just as important, if Thompson flames out early, no one is likely to blame it on the social conservatives — much less on NRLC in particular.
If that sounds defensive, well, so be it. It makes sense for the anti-abortion forces to be playing defense in American politics right now because their most helpful president in half a century, George W. Bush, is limping toward an ignominious exit. It also makes sense because Bush's Supreme Court appointees to date have already brought the movement within a single vote of a majority that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Just one more term for the Republicans in the White House ought to be enough to tip the balance — given the age of liberal Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
So it's important not to blow it. That may mean pulling in the movement's horns for the sake of finding a Republican winner. And finally, if there is not going to be a Republican winner in 2008, then it will be just as important that the social conservative movement not be held responsible for the loss.
The right to life is not an either/or matter. Fred Thompson is not pro-life and judging from the National Right to Life Committee’s endorsement of him, neither are they.
If the NRLC were pro-life, they would have endorsed Brownback (prior to his withdrawal) or Tancredo or Hunter.
Who are these people that determine “electability”? Give me a break. For decades the National Right to Life Committee has been telling everyone that the country isn’t ready to outlaw abortion. Hmmmm, how would they know? They’ve never tried. Yet if they directed every single one of their state chapters to work for legal declaration of personhood from fertilization-natural death, that would trump Roe. So we have to do it without them in addition to demanding a real pro-life platform and candidate from the RNC. Tell the RNC your $$$ depends on it.
Those sour grapes will make some fine wine. Just put them in a container with some sugar and wait...
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against allowing coverage of abortion under the Federal employees’ health insurance policies in cases where it is medically necessary - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00371
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe (and against almost every moderate republican in the senate) against an amendment “to express the sense of Congress in support of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade” - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00337
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against killing an amendment to prohibit the expenditure of certain appropriated funds for the distribution or provision of, or the provision of a prescription for, postcoital emergency contraception - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00169
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe “to provide for certain disclosures and limitations with respect to the transference of human fetal tissue” - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00338
One of only 17 senators (including Helms, Gramm and Sessions) to vote against the Schumer amendment “to ensure that debts incurred as a result of clinic violence are nondischargeable.- http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00002
One of only 24 senators (including Helms and Inhofe) to vote for requiring that the Congressional-Executive Commission monitor the cooperation of the People’s Republic of China with respect to POW/MIA issues, improvement in the areas of forced abortions, slave labor, and organ harvesting, and for other purposes - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00249
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe (and against almost every moderate republican senator) against killing an amendment to prohibit the use of funds the pay for an abortion or to pay for the administrative expenses in connection with certain health plans that provide coverage for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00197
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against Tommy Daschle’s “moderate” amendment that banned late-term abortions but affirmed Roe v. Wade - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00070
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against cloture for Henry Foster, surgeon general (and abortionist) - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00273
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against striking the limitation on the coverage of abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00129
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against a joint resolution that stated limitations of abortion coverage was negatively affecting population planning programs - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00013
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to prohibit the restriction of certain types of medical communications between a health care provider and a patient (i.e., abortion counseling) - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00283
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against an amendment “to clarify the application of certain provisions with respect to abortions where necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman” - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00593
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to delete language concerning certification of population programs - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00035
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00277
Voted with Helms, Santorum and Inhofe to to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology for purposes of human cloning - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00010
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortions covered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00370
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against repealing the restiction on use of Department of Defense facilities for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00176
Again voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial birth abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00340
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against killing an amendment expressing “the sense of Congress concerning Roe v. Wade and partial birth abortion bans” - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00334
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe (and almost all other senators) “to protect infants who are born alive” - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00208
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to kill a measure to repeal the restriction on use of the Department of Defense facilities for privately funded abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00148
Voted with Helms, Thurmon, Santorum and Inhofe for a motion to ban partial birth abortions. (motion to table the motion to reconsider) - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00333
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to express the sense of Congress regarding forced abortions in the People’s Republic of China - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00243
Voted with Helms, Thurmond and Santorum to kill an amendment to repeal the restriction on the use of Department of Defense facilities for privately funded abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00134
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to proceed on a bill to ban partial birth abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00332
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against Specter’s amendment “to protect the reproductive rights of Federal women prisoners” - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00478
Again, voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to kill an amendment repealing the restriction on use of Department of Defense facilities for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00163
Again voted against repealing the restriction on use of Department of Defense facilities for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00167
Again, voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to prohibit the use of funds the pay for an abortion or to pay for the administrative expenses in connection with certain health plans that provide coverage for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00190
Voted with only 37 other senators (including Helms, Santorum and Inhofe) to prohibit the use of funds for research that utilizes human fetal tissue, cells, or organs that are obtained from a living or dead embryo or fetus during or after an induced abortion - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00215
Politcalmom wrote: “Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against allowing coverage of abortion under the Federal employees’ health insurance policies in cases where it is medically necessary - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00371"; along with Thompson’s entire record, I guess. But, Politcalmom, what does that have to do with his latest campaign promises—or threats?
He’s against the RNC’s pro-life platform. That says it all.
That’s a lie.
He says he will support the platform. He thinks that overturning Roe V Wade is the best way to go, rather than
trying for an unpassable amendment.
Millions of us agree.
“That’s a lie.
He says he will support the platform. He thinks that overturning Roe V Wade is the best way to go, rather than
trying for an unpassable amendment.
Millions of us agree.”
Sadly, it isn’t a lie. Hear for yourself from Fred’s own mouth: http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/04/video-fred-thompson-on-mtp-says-he-doesnt-support-the-human-life-amendment/?print=1
Of course no amendment will pass unless we try. Therefore, the good pro-lifers in Colorado are trying, despite the millions of naysayers you purportedly represent :-)
The “Equal Rights Amendment” had nothing at all to do with abortion, beyond the fact that pro-abortion advocates could have used it to strengthen their ability to continue to kill thousands of American babies every day.
The Amendment that is germane to this discussion is called the “Human Life Amendment.”
The platform doesn't just call for a Human Life Amendment. It also recognizes the personhood of the unborn, and their protection by the Fourteenth Amendment. It has since 1984.
This is 100% incompatible with the claim that states can possibly decide the abortion question.
In other words, you can't support the platform while calling for states' rights to trump unalienable rights. The two things are mutually exclusive.
Which means that Thompson, McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee and Paul do not support the Reagan pro-life platform.
And that leaves Hunter, Tancredo and Keyes who do.
Great posts. Right on the mark.
Except for the fact that you neglected Alan Keyes as the most solid pro-life choice of all.
He was the only candidate standing with our friends in CO who are working for the Personhood Amendment. Did you notice?
“Except for the fact that you neglected Alan Keyes as the most solid pro-life choice of all.
He was the only candidate standing with our friends in CO who are working for the Personhood Amendment. Did you notice?”
Indeed I did, EV. Sorry, I forgot about that.
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.