Report/rumor: The National Right to Life Committee will announce a presidential endorsement tomorrow; Update: It’s Fred, says Fox
posted at 1:23 pm on November 12, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
And the endorsement will go to…Fred Thompson.
This will be a major pick-up for Thompson, but an interesting choice for the NRLC. The NRLC spent much of the past few years fighting against McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform; Thompson played a key role in CFR’s passage. And the NRLC favors the Human Life Amendment, while Thompson opposes it.
On the other hand, Thompson does have a 100% pro-life voting record as a senator. While his language about not wanting to criminalize young girls and mothers could be mistaken for NARAL rhetoric, Thompson’s voting record is solid. Picking up the NRLC endorsement probably turns the Robertson endorsement of Giuliani into a wash, which in turn means that we’re looking at a very divided social con base in the GOP.
Update (AP): Here’s the semi-confirmation at Fox News.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Johnny One Note politics. Thompson has been singularly unimpressive as a candidate. He has a perpetual look of sleepiness on his face.
Hilts on November 12, 2007 at 1:27 PM
I heard on Rush’s show the clip of Nancy Pelosi publicly endorsing The Messiah (Barack), but I wonder which endorsement (hers or NRLC’s) will get all the nightly news air time.
Mindcrime on November 12, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Thompson will not be president, but with Hillary’s missteps becoming more frequent, someone else from Tennessee might.
astuddis on November 12, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Csdeven head explodes in 5…4…3…2…1…
doriangrey on November 12, 2007 at 1:32 PM
As president, I promise to do all I can to hunt to end this scourge on our planet…I will everything I can with the power of this office to eradicate ManBearPig once and for all…Excelsior! *whoooosh*
Bad Candy on November 12, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Being Pro-Life is certainly one of the key factors in who I vote for. However, I’m not as hardcore as somewhen it comed to my Pro-Life stance as I’m ok with abortion in cases of rape or absolute risk to mothers life. Also, I don’t think protesting outside an abortion clinic has done much if anything to convince a scared young girl to not have an abortion. They need help, guidance and assistance, not someone shouting at them and shoving a sign in their face.
Yakko77 on November 12, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Why in the world would the NRLC endores Thompson?!? This will be seen as a HUGH mistake on their part. There are two candidates vying to be the Republican nominee, Rudy and Mitt. Giuliani is pro-choice and Mitt is not. I hope this really is just a rumor and not an actual decision on the part of the NRLC. If it turns out to be true, I will be VERY disappointed in the NRLC.
davenp35 on November 12, 2007 at 1:35 PM
I think there enough doubt about Mitt and McCain and Guiliani that left Fred as the only other option.
Those 3 others are just weak social conservatives.
William Amos on November 12, 2007 at 1:38 PM
This is getting interesting. The NRLC is very conservative religiously, this tells you the way the evangelicals are really leaning.
right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 1:39 PM
We’ll see. If Fred picks up an NRA endorsement too, he helps himself in a big way. And Fred’s the only major guy who has reached out to them. Rudy and Mitt are not on great terms with 2nd Amendment activists and organizations, and made no real effort to try. I consider the Right to Life Committee more important an endorsement than an individual endorsement from a Televangelist.
Bad Candy on November 12, 2007 at 1:40 PM
I disagree, the NRLC carries much much more weight, and the tentacles reach much further (Catholics for instance) then Robertson.
right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 1:42 PM
What I’m saying is Fred’s gonna pick up voting blocs that Rudy and Mitt neglected, and end up in a strong position.
Bad Candy on November 12, 2007 at 1:42 PM
It is very possible that the folks at NRLC are just kinda stoopid. Fred is pro-choice and has always been pro-choice. He even lobbied for an abortion group. But Fred keeps citing that irrelevant voting record as if it means something and lies through his teeth claiming to be one of them. Since he lies with a southern drawl, the dim bulbs at the NRLC took the bait.
Frankly, I’m glad, because I’m for Rudy and this endorsement could have helped Mitt, and Mitt is the only serious contender to Rudy. Fred will be doling out his campaign cash to his sons before 2/6.
tommylotto on November 12, 2007 at 1:43 PM
What a pick-up!
Defector01 on November 12, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Absolutely, don’t forget, Robertson’s not really a big deal in Catholic circles, and a huge part of the Pro-Life voting bloc is Catholic.
Bad Candy on November 12, 2007 at 1:44 PM
FAIL
Bad Candy on November 12, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Theoretically, anyway. I think the strength of endorsements is fading. This helps Thompson if NRLC mobilizes volunteers and money, and may give him a much-needed bump in the polls, but my gut is that Thompson is fading into second-tier status.
I know we have a couple months before the voting starts, but if Thompson spends those months like he’s spent the months since becoming a candidate, I don’t see him winning the nomination.
Slublog on November 12, 2007 at 1:47 PM
As a Catholic, I can tell you I don’t care about either endorsement. I certainly hope people judge on their own who to vote for – not because of an endorsement. I wouldn’t want people voting for Giuliani because of Robertson, voting Fred because of NRLC, or anybody else because a certain person endorses it.
amerpundit on November 12, 2007 at 1:48 PM
And, yes, I spent a lot of time thinking about the importance of endorsements after Robertson endorsed Giuliani.
amerpundit on November 12, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Your crap is so old, it doesn’t even smell anymore.
Head. In. sand.
ChrisM on November 12, 2007 at 1:51 PM
I fully endorse robot videos.
- The Cat
MirCat on November 12, 2007 at 1:53 PM
If he does, you’re absolutely right. I’m not sure yet, but we’ll see.
Bad Candy on November 12, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Hear, hear! Rossum’s Universal Robots seconds this endorsement!
Mindcrime on November 12, 2007 at 1:56 PM
I wouldn’t expect it to. Its not gonna sway political junkies like us. It’ll help some with those who don’t pay much attention to politics…which is a lot.
Bad Candy on November 12, 2007 at 1:56 PM
How arrogant and elitist. I thought I was reading Daily Kos there for a minute. I guess you’re just so much smarter than those Christians eh? There’s enough bigotry and prejudice on the left, we don’t need it here.
Capitalist Infidel on November 12, 2007 at 1:56 PM
As much as I like Fred, Rudy would have been a better choice because of the electability factor.
AlexB on November 12, 2007 at 1:57 PM
If Fred doesn’t get the nomination, couldn’t they just shift their endorsement to Rudy?
Mindcrime on November 12, 2007 at 1:58 PM
There is an error in both making too much of this and too little. For those who think that this endorsement isn’t important, I would like to point out that if Mitt had gotten it or even Rudy, then all of the Fred supporters who desire to point out Fred’s ProLife voting record, would then respond by saying something to the effect of, “Well, if he’s so prolife, why did the NRLC endorse_____”. This doesn’t win it for Fred, and nor would his lack of having the endorsement doom his candidacy. This endorsement does however, move his campaign forward, and in the right direction. And it is that movement that will contribute to his nomination victory…should that in fact happen.
Weight of Glory on November 12, 2007 at 2:02 PM
And here I was just about to declare the Thompson campaign dead. Fight’s on.
steveegg on November 12, 2007 at 2:03 PM
tommylotto….
LOL….’No to Fred…Fred is pro abortion!’….’my guy Guiliani is not. Guiliani is not pro abortion!’…..
Are you nuts or what?…..You BAG Fred for having a position to the right of your man Rudy?…..
The room is spinning so fast I’m puking.
Limerick on November 12, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Weight of Glory on November 12, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Truth & objectivity …how refreshing.
ChrisM on November 12, 2007 at 2:07 PM
I question the timing.
No, seriously – NRLC didn’t endorse W until Feb 2000 — after Iowa and NH.
Wondering about the commenters thoughts on this.
BillLalor on November 12, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Also, one thing that this endorsement will bring is more media attention. With this new attention thrown Fred’s way, how he handles it will also go a long way in either moving his campaign forward, or, should he not handle the new media attention well, grind this new momentum to a halt. Regardless, this endorsement, if nothing else, provides an opportunity that would not be there otherwise. It will be interesting to see how he and his team deal with it.
Weight of Glory on November 12, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Its their endorcement to give doesnt matter if you agree with it or not they made the choice
William Amos on November 12, 2007 at 2:10 PM
A religious pro-life Left also exists in the US. And they might like Rudy better than Fred.
AlexB on November 12, 2007 at 2:11 PM
An anti-abortion group should endorse an openly pro-choice candidate in favor of government funding for abortion, and who refuses to give a clear opinion on whether he believes Roe v Wade should be overturned? You must be joking- that would be like La Raza endorsing Tancredo.
I’m a little surprised that they were willing to overlook Fred’s opposition to the Human Life Amendment, but let’s face it- such an amendment has precisely zero chance of being adopted in the next 8 years. I guess they must put more stock in actual voting records rather than a campaign season “epiphany”.
Hollowpoint on November 12, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Yeah, those facts and voting records keep getting in the way. Now if he would just say it, without backing it up with votes, that is what matters to you.
I hate it when you can actually identify how someone votes…those darn paper trails. Even the NRLC is taken in by those “irrelevant” votes.
Now Bishop Mitt on the other hand says it without voting for it…now that’s what we want. We want sincerity, not action.
right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 2:14 PM
McCain and Bush were both pro-life, so with regards to abortion there wasn’t much difference between them. By Feb 2000 Bush pretty much had it in the bag.
Hollowpoint on November 12, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Another thought, this endorsement puts the Mitt team and Rudy team in a position where they have to explain their approaches to Life issues within a context where the NRLC didn’t endorse them. In other words, there now exists another mental hurdle that they have to jump over in the mind of the voter. It’s not insurmountable, but it will probably require a revisiting of some issues and a reworking of their message, in order to take into account a new campaign reality. This, then forces them to cover ground they have already covered, which takes time away from other areas they would like to explore in their respective campaigns.
Weight of Glory on November 12, 2007 at 2:16 PM
What’s this? Are my eyes deceiving me? Hollowpoint, you’re actually being pragmatic? Say it ain’t so! What happened to your much-trumpeted “conscience”?
(If it wasn’t obvious, that’s rhetorical.)
Splashman on November 12, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Bill Clinton is to the right of Rudolfo.
But you must forgive tommylotto as he has a madre’s love for his beloved nino Rudy and as they say, a madre’s love is ciegos.
MB4 on November 12, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Good points. Thompson needs something to change the narrative of his campaign, which so far has been written by others. He needs to step up and define his own candidacy, and it will be interesting to see if this endorsement helps that process.
Slublog on November 12, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Sadly, that is quite true. It is also so completely frustrating because it is unnecessary.
Weight of Glory on November 12, 2007 at 2:39 PM
I’m a little concerned that so many of you are expecting pizzazz and flash over substance. Fred is saying all the right things. In his own style. And he backs it up with a record that is the most solidly conservative of the bunch.
I think once the actual votes begin coming in, you’ll find that the slow talking “folksiness” goes over pretty well with voters. As long as he’s saying the right things.
edgehead on November 12, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Seriously, go hang out with the MSM execs who refuse to report that the Iraq War is going well. Your denial is identical. You’re basing Fred’s “pro-choice” on his “lobbying for an abortion group”.
Let’s clear the air about what that was: Fred lobbied to ease federal restrictions on counseling that suggested abortion as a possible alternative. In other words, he lobbied to allow hospital workers to say “Maybe you could think about an abortion”. That is his “pro-choice” record. Now shut up about it, because unless you can show how that would affect his choices on abortion, it’s irrelevant. He’s made plain his opinions and his plans, and they jive with the position that would allow him to accept that lobbying job, minor as it is.
By the way, I’d like to point out that doriangrey was the first to mention how csdeven is going to pop his clogs at the sight of this, so it’s on the record when he starts talking about people “personally attacking” him just because they disagree with him.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Latest Rasmussen (11-8/11-11)
Giuliani 27%
Thompson 14%
Romney 14%
McCain 13%
Huckabee 10%
Paul 6%
MB4 on November 12, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Hm. Giuliani is down, Thompson is down, Romney, McCain and Huckabee are up. I wonder if some Thompson supporters are going to Huckabee? Should be interesting to see what the NRLC’s endorsement does.
And Paul is up? Awww, crud.
Slublog on November 12, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Here’s my short list.
Fred
Hunter
Romney
Hill
RudianiWhy vote for Rudiani when I can vote for Hill? If I wanted an abortion-lover from N’York N’York, I can get the real thing with Hill.
saved on November 12, 2007 at 2:50 PM
It is kind of sad when people bash Fred on abortion, especially when his voting record supports his stand as a right to life candidate.
These same Giuliani and Romney supporters outright ignore their candidate’s records on abortion, Giuliani and Romney both go beyond NARAL in their support of abortion. All you have to do is look at what they did while they were in office.
Fred’s track legislative record is pro-life, Giulian’s and Romney’s are pro-NARAL. But don’t let the facts get in the way of sound judgement, for you words speak louder than action.
Rode Werk on November 12, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Rasmussen:
Election 2008: Clinton vs. Giuliani & Thompson
Clinton Gains on Giuliani, Thompson; Now Leads Both by Six
Friday, November 09, 2007
After a recent tightening of her match-ups with two leading GOP contenders, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton now enjoys a modest advantage over each. Clinton leads former Mayor Rudy Giuliani 48% to 42% in the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Election 2008.
The former First Lady leads former Senator Fred Thompson 48% to 42% as well.
MB4 on November 12, 2007 at 3:09 PM
You can use endorsements from groups like the NLRC and the NRA in a campaign. But it would be foolish to try and say “Pat Robertson likes me” in a commercial.
If people like he and Dobson want to become political bedfellows, they have a perfect right to do so. But, aside from a small core of each congregation, the number of people any given televangelist will personally attract is probably smaller than the number of people he will personally repel.
logis on November 12, 2007 at 3:09 PM
What happens when everyone and everything that values the ABORTION issue above all else has already made their endorsements and all of the candidates can say they “got” at least one.
What then???
Always Right on November 12, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Fred filled out a campaign questionaire wherein he stated that he was for legalizing abortion in the first trimester. Then, like you said, Fred lobbied to ease restrictions on abortion counseling, so counselors can convince kids they need to get an abortion or their lives will be ruined. Then Fred voted (100% pro-life) in the Senate where he was instrumental in outlawing all abortions — NOT. He voted against partial birth abortions — a procedure so awful that even Rudy is against it unless the mother’s life is at stake. Like I said, this 100% pro-life voting record is irrelevant in determining his philosophy on this issue. What is far more relevant is his prior statements professing to be pro-choice. Far more relevant were his statements last Sunday when he said that he opposes a constitutional amendment banning abortion and opposes criminalizing those who choose to have abortions. HE IS PRO-CHOICE. He claims he wants the decision returned to the states, but you know what, if Tennessee had a vote and Fred was voting — he would not vote to make abortions illegal, BECAUSE HE IS PRO-CHOICE. So, if the big bad pro-life / anti-abortion group decides to select a candidate that is clearly pro-choice, then they are stoopid. Robertson is just a man, an influential religious leader, but still just a man. As a man he has the right to weigh his various interests, emphasis some and compromise others. So, his endorsement of Rudy, though odd, makes some sense. The NRLC on the other hand is a group committed to ending abortion. That’s the sole reason it exists!!! To endorse someone who is so clearly pro-choice and contrary to the reason for the group to exist JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. There were plenty of candidates that actual believe in a right to life for fetuses. But noooo, the NRLC selects one of the two that disagrees with them on their number one issue. Stoopid is as stoopid does.
You are right though that CDS (csdeven derangement syndrome) is alive and well when he gets attacked in threads before he even makes an appearance. It is difficult speaking truth to power.
tommylotto on November 12, 2007 at 3:22 PM
“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights, Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded.” — CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999
MB4 on November 12, 2007 at 3:30 PM
I feel better…much, much better!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on November 12, 2007 at 3:32 PM
This will be my only post on this thread because it is sure to get ugly. But this last line made me laugh OUT LOUD. I didn’t even know Mckinney read Hot Air.
Sammy316 on November 12, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Here is another quote:
I think 13% is larger than the margin of error… plus Rudy is by far and away the most popular second choice among conservatives that did not select him as their first choice. Then take a look at Rudy’s long range strategy. I wonder why they don’t just call this thing now…
tommylotto on November 12, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Is that because he the first one slinging insults at pro-Fred people, using profanity, and saying things like “Waaaahhhh”? That’s truth in power?
Spin to win. Before Fred lobbied, abortion was not to be talked about whatsoever, except as not an option at all.
…but his lobbying for abortion discussion in counseling IS? I was wrong, you should go hang out with Bill “Body count doesn’t matter in terms of progress…except if it’s negative progress!” Richardson.
Like I said, seriously, it’s the same approach, and it really is beginning to make me suspicious that some people really are plants from certain other sites.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2007 at 3:40 PM
I’m going to type this very slowly so you can understand:
Just last Sunday Fred admitted that he was pro-choice. He is against a constitutional amendment banning abortions. He is against criminalizing those who CHOOSE to have an abortion.
I think what he said just last freakin’ Sunday trumps what you and the NRLC are trying to read into the tea leaves of his voting record. You want to know how stoopid the NRLC is on this — the only comparison I can think of is as if the NRA decided to support Rudy. Its that stoopid. No. It is even stoopider, because Rudy has at least stated that he agrees that the right to own a gun is an individual Constitutional right that cannot be taken away without a compelling state interest which will vary from location to location. So, what was necessary in NYC will not necessarily be needed in Utah. At least there is some common ground between Rudy and the NRA. There can be no common ground between the NRLC and a pro-choice candidate like Fred.
tommylotto on November 12, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Absolutely right. He stated that plainly. Explain what Giuliani said that is different. Hello?
Oh, yeah, Rudy is fundamentally in favor of abortion. He’s also in favor of sanctuary cities and gay marriage.
Fred wants to keep abortion out of the constitution, something that true classical liberals (Talking Adam Smith, not Noam Chomsky) see as important. Don’t put these kinds of issues at the constitutional level when outlawing them, because it’s a political landmine. It’s absolutely right.
Funny that you overlooked your own point – that he supports the right to keep and bear arms unequivocally. And he wants to carry that across at the state level for abortions as well. He’s consistent, and his federalism is key to this. He’s putting the choice for abortion in the hands of the voters, and keeping it out of the national domestic policy, which is a vital thing when we’ve got a couple of wars going on here, along with metered invasion from the south that people like Rudy aren’t using any balls when addressing.
Again, first look at his voting record. Then look at the fact that he stated merely that he doesn’t want the issue decided at the constitutional level, but at the state and local levels. If he were truly pro-choice, he’d defend Roe v. Wade and keep the states true to it without any potential for reform.
Oh, and by the way…
That’s a really stupid thing to say. Really. Think about it for a second, and realize that any irony meant is lost in the sheer mindlessness of saying that.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2007 at 4:10 PM
We understand just fine… you’re insane. You equate opposition to amending the constitution with being pro-choice, yet you have repeatedly pledged your unwavering support for the most pro-choice candidate the Republicans have to offer.
How many of your personalities are registered to vote?
Watcher on November 12, 2007 at 4:13 PM
From now on I will refer to Rudy as Rudillary, as for Fred, don’t make me laugh, when did he start campaigning.
m1a1usmc on November 12, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Why do I get the impression that Tommylotto is really Rudy. Probably the way he keeps calling the NRLC “stoopid”. I’m starting to wonder if csd isn’t really Ron Paul too. Probably the chanting.
But then again I just woke up and really need a pot of coffee.
Buzzy on November 12, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Of all the whiny rants Ron Paul puts out there, I can’t imagine himself being so base as to repeat “scumbag lobbyist” that many times without it slipping at least once during a debate.
If I ever do hear it from him though, I’m blogging the theory.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Fred is inevitable.
VolMagic on November 12, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Its a joke… Laugh for a change…
Maybe I support Rudy because I agree with him on abortion, but that doesn’t really matter in considering what we are discussing.
We are talking about whether the NRLC was wise in choosing to endorse Fred. The NRLC equates abortion with murder. It wants Roe overturned and the question returned to the states so the states can outlaw it. But that is the NRLC’s long road map — given the fact that they only represent a tiny minority of the population. Ideally, they would want to short circuit everything with a constitutional amendment banning abortions. Constitutionally, there is nothing wrong with that approach. The constitution is there to be amended and if the people want their constitution to give a right to life to fetuses, then that is the people’s prerogative. But Fred is against that. He doesn’t want a constitutional amendment banning abortions, because he disagrees with it on a basic level. And even if he appointed judges that overturned Roe, Fred would not support banning abortions at the state level, because he is pro-choice.
tommylotto on November 12, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Fred wants the question kept to the states so the states can choose whether to outlaw it. They’re both after the same long-term solution. What is so hard to understand about that?
Rudy would just say “No” collectively to the NRLC. So why would they support him?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2007 at 4:48 PM
@tommylotto
Thank you! I’m not a fan of Giuliani, but I honestly don’t know how ANY conservative could be for Fred Thompson. He’s liberal on just as many issues as Rudy is. Comments he’s made in the past (that he hasn’t disavowed like Romney has) are not pro-life at all. I feel like I live in bizzaroworld with people on here supporting the decision of the NRLC and then claiming those opposed to it are misinformed. I’m telling you the NRLC is making a HUGH mistake that they will regret as soon as either Rudy or Mitt gets the Republican nomination. People can like the other candidates all they want, but they will never be the POTUS.
davenp35 on November 12, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Well, this is just great.
Come on NRLC, don’t be blinded by Fraud! Thompson. You don’t want to go anywhere near that corrupt lawyer-turned-lobbyist-turned actor-turned shyster.
Rudy gave to PP so he’s out, but come on, Fraud! doesn’t even share NRLC’s goal of eliminating abortion. Nevermind the fact he’s as two-faced as they come and had done zero and plans to do zero for the pro-life movement, in his stardard “let someone else do the work” way.
Big mistake NRLC.
BKennedy on November 12, 2007 at 4:54 PM
This is certainly surprising – and annoying at the same time. As a former NRLC chapter leader and a pro-life activist for well over a decade, it annoys me that the NRLC is about to endorse someone with such low ratings from the NRLC. Someone who filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court against the NRLC’s case against the unconstitutional CFR laws. Someone who can’t even bring himself to support the Human Life Amendment, a cornerstone of the NRLC agenda. Not to mention his lobbyist work for a pro-abortion group for which he billed $10,000.
Dr. Jack Willke, the founder of the NRLC and the father of the pro-life movement endorsed the right candidate when he endorsed Mitt Romney. I can’t believe that the NRLC would betray their founder and their own agenda to endorse someone who has been an opponent for so long. James Bopp, the NRLC’s lead attorney endorsed Romney too. As did the Massachusetts Citizens for Life. I can’t imagine what the NRLC has been drinking if they’re seriously going to endorse Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson’s pro-life ratings per the National Right to Life Committee:
105th Congress 87%
106th Congress 78%
107th Congress 33%
Lifetime Average 66%
***Those are some pretty crappy ratings.***
spiff on November 12, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Riiiight. And Romney wasn’t an opponent before his election campaign inspired “epiphany” (read: opportunistic flip-flop)? He was pro-choice and pro-Roe v Wade for almost his entire political career.
I suspect that the low rating for the 107th Congress you cited had more to do with McCain-Feingold than abortion itself.
Hollowpoint on November 12, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Exactly, Mitt has only been pro-life for the last ten minutes, but at least he is pro-life…
tommylotto on November 12, 2007 at 5:36 PM
We’re gonna need some Kleenex here for all of these crybabies.
omnipotent on November 12, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Campaign conversions are just about as believable as jailhouse conversions. So if Fred is liberal, exactly where does that put Rudy and Mitt. Like a lot of folks I’m one step short of voting Hunter / Tancredo and sitting the rest of the mess out so answer very carefully.
Buzzy on November 12, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Because he says so? That is what you are going by? His campaign word?
right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 5:51 PM
A true conservative can not be for Rudolfo. It does not compute. We do not call this now as there is still time for conservatives to “wake up and smell the coffee”
MB4 on November 12, 2007 at 5:56 PM
And your hijo Rudolfo is for partial birth abortion, aka infanticide.
“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights, Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded.” — CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999
The above quote repeated out of consideration for the profoundly visually impaired.
MB4 on November 12, 2007 at 6:00 PM
At least be honest in your analysis. Like the two goose eggs in the 105th was for his vote on McCain Feingold. Where was the abortion item in that bill? He would have 100% on abortion bills, if not for McCain-Feingold…not exactly Roe vs. Wade.
I don’t have time to analyze the rest, but I am sure it will be similar.
Nice try though…I am sure a few will fall for your shell game. And others will laugh at your attempt…
Bwahhhhahhhhhhhaaa
right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 6:04 PM
I have thought for some time now that tommylotto is Rudolfo’s madre, but you may be right, cut out the middle
man womanmadre He may also be Vincente Fox.MB4 on November 12, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Where did he say he was pro-choice? He actually said he was pro-choice, or did he say he believes that that is a states right to determine that.
States rights, something you don’t hear often enough.
Give us the quote where he said “I am pro-choice”…as you so solidly state.
Put up tommylotto…
right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Don’t forget the red truck…can’t forget the red truck.
right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 6:09 PM
tommylotto, yoohooo, where is that quote? When you make an accusation, we expect you to back that up.
right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 6:21 PM
I believe he rents the truck out. See, even being the bloatedly rich Senator feeding from the public trough, he won’t even buy his own transportation.
He rented that gold cart too, and those Gucci loafers probably aren’t his either.
:-D
BKennedy on November 12, 2007 at 6:42 PM
*that would be golf cart. Fred would never rent a gold cart. That he intended to ride around in public with, anyway.
BKennedy on November 12, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Still fixating on me I see.
Just WHAT is your major malfunction? Do you love me? Do I remind you of some unrequited love you had? Are you jealous? Do you want to BE me?
Your penchant for stalking me seriously weird. Get help ASAP. Really.
csdeven on November 12, 2007 at 7:49 PM
I don’t think that is true. It is scared conservatives who are supporting Rudy. Scared that a socialist dem will get in the White House. We all know that Rudy is not a stalwart conservative. But right now the impression is that he is our best shot at beating Hillary.
My opinion is that conservatives should be pragmatic about this. Rudy is way better than any dem EVEN if we do lose ground on some social issues. It will we may less ground than any dem will take away from us. It sure would be nice if Hunter was getting traction, but he isn’t.
csdeven on November 12, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Fred did not say he was pro-choice. He lied. But if you listen real carefully to what he said last Sunday on MTP you will hear the following:
1) He will not support a constitutional amendment banning abortions, and
2) he is against criminalizing those who choose to have an abortion.
That is pro-choice. He says he has always “voted” pro-life, but he personally disagrees with their ultimate goal. He believes in states rights and it should be up to the states to set standards, restrictions, etc. But he would not vote to make it a crime to murder a fetus. That which is not prohibited is permitted. He is pro-choice. (AND A LIAR)
tommylotto on November 12, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Actually, it’s the short-term solution that’s important now: overturning Roe v. Wade. Fred Thompson is by far the candidate with the strongest stance on conservative judicial appointments, while Rudy Guiliani has by far the weakest record of all the Republican candidates on that particular issue.
Once Roe is overturned, and then IF a state (for the first time in US history) actually ended up up passing a statute allowing recreational abortion, THEN we can split ranks over what to do next. But for the time being, it’s more than a little bit idiotic to argue about getting a Constitutional Amendment passed by TWO-THIRDS of BOTH houses of Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states.
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that this is the exact kind of twisted “logic” liberaltarians always use. You’d think the freaks could manage to team up with us on the Herculean task of backing up the American welfare state and THEN worry about how to dismantle the remainder of the federal government a little later. But their minds never seem to get a handle on that.
And by the same token, you have to wonder about the people who would gleefully canibalize the Republican Party over something like this. I mean if – as they claim – supporting Giuliani were really their goal, then they ought to just stick with the 9/11 cleanup shtick; that’s fair game. But what kind of retard would pick, of all candidates, Rudolph Giuliani based on THIS issue?
logis on November 12, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Good job totally ignoring what I said, and who started it:
You’re completely insane, and that’s why your ignoring that. Had I said the EXACT SAME THING, you would have been all over it. You. Are. Nuts.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2007 at 11:10 PM
So if someone is against a constitutional amendment protecting endangered species, they’re in favor of animal genocide?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_negative_premise
Learn it. Realize you are basing your opinions on it, and take a logic class. Again, the kind of crap that the MSM pulls in its reporting. And again, I’m really thinking you’re a seminar poster.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2007 at 11:21 PM
I am your favorite topic of conversation. You can’t even let someone else talk about me without you making your fixation on me a main part of your comments. You are obviously the type who feels that if you can’t have me, no one else can.
You should seek psychological help. You are a frapping FREAK.
csdeven on November 12, 2007 at 11:37 PM
NRLC. Reason to Phear the Phred even more. C’mon you doubters, just believe.
Go Fred!
Mojave Mark on November 13, 2007 at 12:03 AM
I decided that this article is going to be my reference for dealing with your obsessive pre-occupation with me. You’re a crackpot.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Here, I’ll put it in logical language even you can understand. No flying fish here!
All candidates who are pro-life want to criminalize all abortions.
All candidates who do not want to criminalize all abortions are pro-choice.
Fred does not want to criminalize abortions.
Fred is pro-choice.
See Jane and Dick play. See Dick get Jane pregnant. See Jane get an abortion. See Fred say that’s not a crime.
tommylotto on November 13, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »