More on NRLC’s endorsement of Fred!

More on NRLC’s endorsement of Fred! November 13, 2007

Erick Erickson has the details over at RedState.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • “In looking at endorsing, NRLC looked at the actual pro-life votes made by the candidates. Thompson, every year in office, scored 100% on pro-life legislation. . . .

    Thompson himself, I’m told, persuaded the NRLC in writing, giving himself very little room to later go squishy. . .

    Thompson said the President needed to make sure key executive appointments who could affect abortion policy did, in fact, embrace and believe in the culture of life (I’m told he listed several departments by name). Having said that for a good while, I’m glad to see a candidate make the case. Contrast that with Rudy who says he’d pick the most qualified people. Fred apparently indicated that key Executive Branch appointments need to be pro-life.

    I’m also told that Thompson brought up Planned Parenthood’s funding under Title X and said, in effect, he would cut it off.

    What about Fred’s controversial statement on the Human Life Amendment on Meet the Press? I’m told by multiple sources that Fred explicitly said he supported the party platform and would not get rid of that plank, but pointed out that even when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House there were not enough votes to pass the HLA and he’d rather spend his four years working to end abortion through means that would be successful, e.g. originalist judicial appointments and pro-life executive appointments and policies.”

    Well, that’s heartening.

  • M.Z. Forrest

    Erick is a Thompson supporter and a man eager to excommunicate Huckabee from the GOP for those who don’t follow Red State. He is particularly concerned about the Wall Street voters abandoning the GOP.

    It was a victory for Fred.

  • SMB

    OK, but if Thompson can put it in writing for NRLC, why not do the same for the rest of us? I don’t see how an invisible letter prevents him from ‘going squishy’.

  • Irenaeus

    Reading this makes me feel better, but here I think that in terms of raw pragmatic strategy (among other reasons as well, of course) that Huckabee would be a better choice in that he’s actually got a chance to win the nomination. Thompson’s campaign has been, imho, a flop from the beginning.

  • Blackadder

    Huckabee doesn’t have a chance to win the nomination. He has a chance, albeit a very small one, of winning Iowa, but all that would do is make it more likely for Giuliani to get the nomination.

  • jh

    Well as a Huckabee supporter I am not too pleased by this to say the least. There was no need to do this so soon. Huckabee has a very good pro-life record and stood up for LIFE when it was not popular in Arkansas when it collidied with the hot button issue of immigration and illegal immigration.

    Traditionally the NRA does not give endorsements to people when both have similar records it likes. Perhaps the National Right to Life could at least learn from that. Especially before a lot of people are even engaged yet.

    The politcs are baffling to me in this. If Fred Thompson is the great White Knight to save us from Hillary how come despite months of free publicity has not shown up in the polls.

  • jh

    I am on their site now and I can’t find a list of the board members that made this vote. In fact I am having trouble finding members of the board period. IF any one has that list or a link to it I would appreciate it

  • Irenaeus

    Here’s CNN.com, saying the NRLC endorsed Thompson because he can beat Giuliani: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/thompson.endorsement/index.html I think Huckabee could surge and beat Giuliani, if Christian conservatives would be more Christian and less neo-conservative, that is, less pro-torture and abortion.

  • JPF

    Irenaeus:

    Who says Huckabee isn’t of the neocon mold? I remember in a recent debate he clearly held to the “pottery shop” analogy.

    “[w]hether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion that historians can have, but we’re there. We bought it because we broke it. We’ve got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve. . . . we are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America. ”

    In other words who cares how many American lives it takes? We have to preserve the “honor” of the US of A. Sounds like typical Neocon bull to me, i.e., unless you stand with us and are for the continuation of the war you are against the troops and a disloyal American.

  • Would it be too much to ask somebody define the word “neocon”?

  • Truth Seeker

    The question is whether Fred can stay awake for the remainder of the campaign. At this point it looks like he’s going nowhere.

  • Is Fred the Life of the Party? – Thompson’s big endorsement – “On Monday evening, officials at the National Right to Life Committee agreed to take some written questions from National Review Online regarding their pending endorsement of Fred Thompson for president. I just received the answers from Darla St. Martin, NRLC’s co-executive director. They are posted below in their entirety. . . .”

  • M.Z. Forrest

    That was a pretty bad interview. Give credit to NR for asking tough questions. The NRLC needs to come up with better reasons if they are going to be taken seriously.

  • confused

    Pavone endorsed Brownback
    Brownback endorsed McCain
    NRLC endorsed Thompson

    wtf