RTL yawns and endorses Thompson

By Contributor Archive

Filed Under Race for White House 2008 on Nov 13 

When your party has exactly one issue, choosing a candidate should be very simple, at least in initial phase, where you separate the field between those that agree with you and those that do not. The National Right to Life Committee has apparently chosen Fred Thompson as the presidential candidate it will support, and perhaps it is the perfect choice for a group which seems to be plodding lazily along into the dustbin of history. Thompson has been virtually invisible on the campaign trail, and recent polls have shown him losing support in places where he hasn’t bothered to show up, such as New Hampshire.

But what about that central, solitary issue that means the world to Right to Lifers? Could such an organization possibly have been too lazy to discover that Fred Thompson once worked as a lobbyist for a family planning group that had been trying to relax abortion law? Romney carries similar, if not worse, flip-flopping baggage, and Giuliani supports a woman’s right to choose, but there are other candidates.

Mike Huckabee, a preacher, is staunchly pro-life, so much so that he is seeking to turn the nation into a pseudo-Catholic state which recognizes life as beginning at contraception. Ron Paul, an obstetrician, believes that abortion, like many other issues, should be handled at the state, rather than the federal, level. There’s also Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, but they’re only technically running, though the same could be said of Thompson. By making such a poor, illogical choice, the National Right to Life Committee’s aspirations appear to be, well, dead in the water.

Comments

8 Comments

  1. TL on 13.11.2007 at 12:42 (Reply)

    RTL must still think that Fred Thompson is Ronald Reagan.

    LOL

  2. Stephen on 13.11.2007 at 13:06 (Reply)

    Fred was probably woken up from a nap to get to good news.

  3. Troy La Mana on 13.11.2007 at 13:53 (Reply)

    Come on now, you know that issue has been covered by Thompson’s campaign.

    He worked for a firm that had them as a client and he briefly worked on a case. It does not mean he supports abortion.

    It’s a non-issue. Nothing to see here, move on.

  4. Gary Russell on 13.11.2007 at 22:13 (Reply)

    Troy got it right (above).

    C’mon, Ethan, were you “too lazy to discover” the facts about Thompson’s abortion record???

  5. JK on 14.11.2007 at 10:35 (Reply)

    Definitions:

    Contraception: Deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation.

    Conception: The process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both.

    Maybe you intended the irony (Catholic – Contraception).

  6. Ethan Boivie on 14.11.2007 at 17:51 (Reply)

    Thanks JK, I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that.

    Troy & Gary – You know very well a politician will tell what you what you to hear. If Thompson had such strong, personal beliefs on the issue, wouldn’t he have simply declined to work on the case? No matter how he spins it, he did choose to work and lobby for pro-abortion activists, making the choice to endorse him somewhat suspect.

  7. Troy La Mana on 15.11.2007 at 13:20 (Reply)

    Sometimes I have to work on a project that I don’t agree with at all. Does that mean it will come back and bite me on the butt later?

  8. Robin on 15.11.2007 at 17:50 (Reply)

    If one has a moral objection to an issue he then has a moral obligation not to engage in an activity that supports said issue. So Troy, if there is a project your boss wants you to work on which you are morally opposed to then the answer is yes, if you just go along with it then you are morally culpable for your actions. Take the high road, let your supperiors know that you can’t support working on such a project. If they fire you over such, that’s called religious discrimination – that’s illegal.

Leave a comment