This morning the National Right To Life Committee endorsed Fred Thompson as their choice for the GOP Nomination for President. Just so you know, if Fred Thompson wins the GOP Nomination - he is the only other candidate I could support other than Mike Huckabee that will keep my vote in the GOP - and that secondary support is quickly waning as the primary process continues.
However, many conservatives, values voters, single issue (pro-life) voters, have great difficulty with today's endorsement. The NRLC commented several factors (faulty as they are) that they considered in selecting a candidate to endorse.
Wanda Franz, Ph.d., President of NRLC stated:
"Our endorsement is a testament to Senator Thompson's long-standing pro-life record, his commitment to unborn children, and our our belief in his ability to win."
Certainly I hear the same sub-text of "ability to win" - A cliche that Mike Huckabee has been tagged with from all sides of the GOP since his 2nd place position in the Ames, Iowa straw poll and his continued rise in popularity among GOP voters. There are certainly many issues that bring others to doubt Mike's ability to win - money not being the least of them - but all have been discounted time and again by our dark horse candidate, Mike Huckabee.
As I read the comment from Dr. Franz "Thompson's long-standing pro-life record" some comments come to mind:
"...an amendment...going back even further than pre-Roe V. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go." - Fred Thomson - on Meet the Press November 4, 2007
"Nobody's proposed a federal law on [banning abortion in first trimester]" - Fred Thompson - on Meet The Press November 4, 2007
FACTOID: There are THREE (3) laws currently pending in congress
1. "Right to Life Act" H.R. 618 (boasting of 94 co-sponsors)
2. "Sanctity of Life Act" H.R. 1094
3. H.R. 2597
Sounds like Fred is slipping on his "life-long" pro-life position, as a former Senator and a Presidential candidate seeking Evangelical support - shouldn't he be "UP" on this sort of thing?
Thompson also stated in that same November 4th interview with Tim Russert that states should have the right to determine the definition of Marriage being between a man and a woman. In other words - this is not a National Dilemma - it's a State dilemma.
Every Republican platform since 1980 has supported a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe. V. Wade and every GOP candidate nominated has supported that platform. Now we have a GOP slate of candidates - of which Fred Thompson is a member that does not support a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe V. Wade. I have seen this coming since the GOP started touting "We re the party of INCLUSION." Now we have arrived at the result of compromise which is division within our own house. The Bible will prove itself once again to be true and accurate - "A House divided against itself will not stand."
Mike Huckabee on the other hand - is not on the same page as the other GOP candidates. He virtually stands alone in his support for a constitutional amendment for overturning Roe V. Wade. In fact, Janet Folger's [WorldNetDaily.com] stated today: Governor Huckabee is "exactly where Ronald Reagan was in 1979 in the polls and in finances." That fact alone throws the argument of "winnability" right out of the window.
Lest I be accused of being a "one-issue" voter - let me state that I am not, I'm simply dealing with this one issue now. Across the board - no matter how faithless the "Faith.org's" may be at the moment - Mike Hucakbee is a real man of Faith and Character. I believe he will win. If I'm proven wrong, I will say "he should have won." I will not enjoy an election that I have to choose between the "lesser of two evils." Mike Huckabee has stated many times: "The way to beat the Democrats is NOT to be LIKE the Democrats." That philosophy was proven true in the Virginia elections last week. those GOP's that compromised on their message lost, those that stood true to the conservative message across the board, won.
Dr. Franz also states in today's endorsement that "unlike endorsements by single individuals, this endorsement was made by representatives of statewide pro-life organizations across America which themselves are comprised of local community chapters and grass roots activists."
In this link you will be directed to an article by Jerry Cox - the Arkansas chapter of NRLC (I think you'll find -once again - faulty facts in Franz's statement).
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=697
By the way - I can't help but laugh at how the NRLC tries to sell the endorsement "NRLC Shake Up Race For Republican Presidential Nomination" Yeah - - - Right!!! I'm ALL Shook Up!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I can agree more (except that Im supporting Mike now)
As for Fred, I don't see him having traction - the NRLC endorsement was huge mistake - look at this image:
This is from Rasmussen's Daily GOP Tracking from October to present -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brettpassmore/2003339210/
or here is the direct image:
Medium:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2127/2003339210_e92771e631.jpg
Large:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2127/2003339210_27277beedd_o.jpg
Press Release: Mike Huckabee Comments On National Right to Life Endorsement
November 13, 2007
LITTLE ROCK, AR - Former Arkansas Governor and Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee issued the following comment regarding the National Right to Life Committee's endorsement today:
"I entered public service in 1992 because I am committed to defending life. I've led and signed numerous pro-life bills and have been unflinching in my commitment to the cause, even leading the March for Life each year.
"My record is one of executive leadership that has saved lives - and it is a strong one that speaks for itself. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering.
"I am disappointed by this decision but I also know that the very grassroots activists across America who have made the National Right to Life movement a success will continue to join my campaign. I am thankful for their continued dedication and support."
I actually took the shake up comment as a slap in the face, power hungry comment towards each candidate that felt they deserved an endorsement themselves. It did not shake me up, it disappointed me that they gave the endorsement to a less than stellar pro-lifer.
As to Fred Thompson, it seems to me he is really running for the VP nod or he would be.... more anything: energetic, polished, true to the RNC platform.
Nice to see the Elephant room and I'm new to this blog. After reading the comments today I'm curious to know what everyone's thoughts are on the other candidates. I have not made up my mind yet as there is still a long way to go. I don't consider myself a single issue voter but what I really want to know is if a candidate(Republican), wins the nomination that does not share your beliefs, will you still vote for them?
Bruce,
If someone who does not share all my beliefs wins the nomination, whether or not I would still vote for him depends. It depends because not all of my beliefs hold the same sway in my vote.
I like what Huckabee said when he said that there was a time in America when some things were negotiable, like which agencies to cut, and which tax reforms to make. But some things were not negotiable, like the sanctity of human life, the definition of marriage, and the protection of freedom.
I believe that we need to return to that. It's in the GOP platform itself that one thing we are trying to do is end abortion across the United States, yet Giuliani, Paul, and Thompson, would all either support abortion or "leave it to the states." As if, somehow, morality, and the protection of the inalienable rights our government was founded to protect, can vary from place to place in this country.
Romney's stance isn't really better. How convenient that as soon as it was time to run for president as a republican, his positions "miraculously changed." Well I'd say for all of the candidates, that we should look at their record.
The only two candidates with consistent records of being conservatives who follow our platform and put the protection of the people first, are Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter. I would vote for either candidate, although my preference is Mike Huckabee (for many reasons, including the fact that he is more likable, a better speaker, and can beat the clintons, as was shown in all 4 of his wins in Arkansas.)
If you want to know more about why I support Mike, or why the recent attacks on him are false, check out my blog.
God Bless,
- Andy Hudson
Robert Novak had this to say about Sen. Thompson:
“Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) may have seriously wounded himself with his handling of the abortion issue on Sunday's "Meet the Press." Thompson unequivocally stated he opposed a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, which is a plank in the Republican platform. Without prompting, he then attacked the idea of "criminalizing" abortion and locking up mothers who procure abortions -- images that are used as scare tactics by the pro-choice lobby. Throughout the long discussion of the topic, Thompson was incoherent at best and thoroughly objectionable to his party's pro-life base at worst. He backed away from his firm opposition to the platform, but he never quite set himself right on the whole issue.” (Nov. 07,2007)
Bruce,
To answer your question, yes I would consider other Republican Candidates as I did when Bush 1 ran against Clinton. Bush 1 was not my first choice and his tenacity for the office proved itself in his second run (he gave up and didn't try to win). In that first election I voted 3rd party, because I don't like being forced into a "lesser of two evils" decision. Perot was a clear conservative - but I didn't realize he was only running to stop Bush until after that election.
Conservatives need to remain conservative and not try to look like Democrats - we lose every time.
Whether or not I vote for the GOP Nominee (should it not be Mike Huckabee)would depend on the candidate. I would also be looking at the 3rd Party offering. Whichever candidate is closest to my overall "convictions" (for lack of a better term) is who I tend to vote for. I will also weigh heavily the consequences or potential of that 3rd Party candidate and the likelihood of helping Hillary get elected. I don't want a '92 repeat.
I am a registered republican, I like the GOP Platform as it is today, if it changes in the September convention, I will be sorely disappointed.
GOP's need to remain Pro-Life and our candidate needs to have that in his own platform. If he doesn't, a person that votes his conviction (Value's Voters) will look elsewhere. That does not necisarily define a person as a single issue voter. I'm looking at the war arguements (where GOP's are basically on the same page with exception to Ron Paul), Health Care, and Education. I'm looking at the ability of the next President to end the grid-lock in DC which I think Huckabee has a better chance of accomplishing that than any other candidate.
I will vote for a Pro-Choice GOP candidate before I'll vote for a Democrat Pro-Choice candidate, but I will hope a good 3rd Party candidate will be offered and will consider strongly voting that way (looking at platform and winability).
If that doesn't answer your question or if it raises others - feel free to comment again.
Hey, thanks to all who answered my first post. I ran the last two campaigns for Bush in Charles County Maryland and had a great time. I'm not sure who I will be supporting yet but it was about time that I start checking into all the candidates.
Primaries in Maryland are February 12th. If you have any questions about Huckabee - let me know. What I don't know I can find out with a phone call or email.
Post a Comment