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.
He got there for the wrong reasons, but I think his conclusion is fairly accurate. Fred isn’t perfect, but NRLC wasn’t about to make perfect the enemy of the good. Fred has a relationship with them going back quite a way. They know where his loyalties lie.
What were their other choices? An also-ran that can’t get traction? A flip-flopping phony from MA who may or may not actually believe what he’s saying to get elected? A weak former Arkansas governor with a sure-to-be-unpopular nanny state fetish? McAmnesty, who’s stabbed conservatives in the heart more times than you can count?
The same reasoning is why Fred will get the NRA endorsement as well.
Go Fred!
Support for the Human Life Amendment will stay in the GOP platform and Fred will ultimately accept it as part of the pro-life movement’s long range goals.
That amendment can be a long term goal. But in the short term, the more effective methodology would be through the promotion of strict constructionist federalism.
IE, Roe was decided wrongly, and this is a state issue.
Once this gets into the legislatures, or in the case of the more cowardly states, into a referendum, we’ll see, truly where the mood of the country lies. Once 3/4 of the states have abortion restrictions, THEN go for the amendment.
Right!
Fred gets it. Going after the amendment right now is almost pointless. It wont happen. Going after it the way Fred prescribes gives it a good chance.
Woo hoo!! Go, FRed, GO!!
Thompson has this right!
For most of the population? This writer lives in a world where they think 'most' want abortion on demand.
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.
Fred Thompson is not the least bit fuzzy on when life begins. He has stated repeatedly in his campaign that he believes life begins at conception.
Passing a Consitutional amendment of any kind is a process that is outside the Presidency. In other words, if by some fantastic change in voter sentiment it becomes of overriding importance to pass amendments defining life as beginning at conception or for banning gay marriage, then President Fred Thompson will be in support and he would not be able to stop it anyway.
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.
I believe the NRTL group are among the most committed anti-abortion activists and I doubt they think Fred Thompson's positions are apostasy to the cause.
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.
Yes, they looked at past records, the only way to separate those telling the truth from those blowing smoke. And Fred Thompson has a 100% prolife voting record. But to say the real story is about electability is to ignore Guliani's lead in the polls. So obviously it is NOT about electability at this point. It is about telling the truth as evidenced by the track record.
I have a High School Diploma from the Dallas Independent School District in Texas in the `70's.
I believe I have the better deal.
(I also went to college but I would go toe to toe with this guy "one hand behind my back" so to speak, using only the info from High School.)
I’m guessing your return on investment (ROI) is much greater, as well. LOL
This is actually pretty thorough and not too far off the mark on the facts. I would quibble with some of the conclusions but oh well. I would suspect that the author is delighted to see some compromise coming from the NRTL people, in whatever form. So there is less agenda to this than we usually see in media reports, perhaps only because the “enemy” has relented a bit.
ERA doesn’t make sense but this is about life and death and there’s no such thing as a waste of time when it comes to saving lives.
Either way you need a pro-life Senate in order to get the judges approved to overturn Roe.
if Roe is overturned and congress passes an anti-abortion law, Fred would have the opportunity to sign it into law.
Bingo! Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The reason is that the overturn of Roe vs. Wade would mean that FDT would have already been successful in appointing at least one more strict constructionist to the Court.
A subsequent federal law to ban abortion-on-demand would have two associated problems: 1) it would again federalize what should be a state issue and 2) It could be struck down by a future liberal Court or repealed by a simple majority in Congress.
The latter problem would necessitate a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion but even an amendment would be fraught with peril because a future liberal court could offset a new amendment with another amendment such as was done when they interpreted what they wanted to see in the 14th to give us Roe vs. Wade.
In other words, there is nothing stopping a reestablishment of Roe vs. Wade in the future except for two things:
1. A prevalence of strict constructionist judges in the Supreme Court,
2. An awareness emerging with the overturn of Roe vs. Wade as well as the reinstatement of other federalist principles and policies that States have rights apart from the federal government.
In this latter awareness, I believe once people adapt to local politics and recreate local values free from federal government interference, then we will see an attitude shift in the act of acquiescence to federal law and policy. This is where capturing hearts and minds begins, at the local level, not the federal level.
I agree with what you said, but I would hardly call this a compromise from the NRTL. This is a strategic move in order to more realistically advance to their ultimate goal.
Here’s the real reason the National Right to Life Committee didn’t endorse Mitt Romney...
They remember what happened to the last pro-life group that tried to endorse him, the last time he ran for public office.
Massachusetts Gubernatorial Debate
November 2, 2002
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
Watch the whole amazing thing, or for the endorsement discussion in particular, fast forward to 3:45 of the video.
That is very damning debate footage...thank you for posting the link...
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.