Fred/NRLC poll results
I asked yesterday what you thought of the NRLC’s endorsement of Fred Thompson. Here are the results:
The announcement will take place in about an hour at the Press Club in Washington.
Catholic Online reports:
Tuesday morning, November 13, 2007 at 10:00 A.M., at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the Nations largest Pro-life organization will formally announce its endorsement of Fred Thompson for President.
The organization is one of the Nations oldest and most respected Pro-life organizations. It has fifty State affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters. Adding to the strength of the endorsement will be the presence of the entire executive leadership at the Dias of the Press Club, Wanda Franz, Ph.D., President; David N. O’Steen, Ph.D., Executive Director; Darla St. Martin, Co-Executive Director; and Karen Cross, Political Director,
This announcement will be one more in a growing string of endorsements which have announced in the last ten days. More are expected. Given the strength and history of the National Right to Life, many observers note that this endorsement for Thompson is quite significant.
The announcement was initially disclosed by two Republican activists who spoke on condition of anonymity. It comes on the heels of a stinging Nov. 8th column by Robert Novak entitled “Fred Thompson’s stunning error” wherein the seasoned D.C. commentator eschewed what he wrote was “Thompson’s ….astounding lack of sensitivity about the abortion issue.”
Fred Thompson, the Republican candidate who entered the race late, has continually touted his claim that he is “100% pro-life.” His campaign has been attempting to attribute recent comments indicating that he did not support a Constitutional Amendment outlawing Abortion given in a Fox News Interview to his practical conviction that such an effort could not succeed and would therefore be counterproductive.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Abortion, Fred Thompson
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtDoug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsMudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
Underwhelmed.
Fred needs to get out in front if he expects more than this endorsement to carry him to the White House. If the ZZZZZZs have it, perhaps someone should check to see if Fred is part of the snoozers.
I thought he would come out swinging, instead IMHO he’s fizzled (so far). color me unimpressed.
I’m telling you that the NRLC is about to lose A LOT of credibility by endorsing Fred. People just aren’t paying attention if they think he can either win or is the most pro-life top tier candidate.
Fred is viable because he’s an actor. For some right-minded types who long for the reincarnation of President Reagan, he’s a distant 4th choice. Mitt has that plasticized aura about him which is ironic, every crease on his pleated pants and starched shirts have $100 dollar bills sticking out of them. Rudy doth protest too vehemently: “I’m a conservative!” Yikes!
Why is o’erweening ambition touted by some as an important criterion for a Presidential candidate? Not enough ‘fire in the belly’, they say. Well maybe that’s just indigestion.
Anyone who wants to be President so bad that they start campaigning for it literally years before the election, can’t and shouldn’t be trusted with the office.
I like Fred – he’s definitely a grownup with good measured deliberate judgement, and has so far resisted the temptation to use his acting skills which so many of the others rely on daily. Truthfully almost any of the contenders for the Republican nomination would be better than any Democrat – but I choose someone who is less given to stirring rhetoric (didn’t we have enough of that already with Slick Willie?) and who is more likely to speak softly but carry a big stick, and use it.
longbow:
THANK you. I’ve been saying that myself repeatedly… since when is a lack of an obvious lust for power considered a liability? If you’re looking for someone hellbent on being President no matter the cost, go with Hillary. I personally find it highly refreshing that Fred seems more concerned with issues and arguing them coherently than with impressing everyone with his “fire in the belly” (and seriously, in all of my 38 years, 20 or so which I’ve spent observing politics, I don’t think I have ever detected such a phony, obnoxious, cringe-inducing faux meme as “fire in the belly” – kill me now if I have to hear that another thousand times before this election is out).
Qwinn
SHH. I’m trying to sleep over here
I did not vote in the poll, but Fred is more consistently pro-life than any of the other candidates.
The press (WaPo) and others are really after Fred for some reason, and you know why? Because he is the most consistently conservative candidate in the race.
Where do you think the fire in the belly and the wife is running the campaign are coming from? The MSM.
“People just aren’t paying attention if they think he can either win or is the most pro-life top tier candidate.”
Well, the only “toptier” candidate who might be more pro-life is McCain, and it would make no sense for any advocacy group to ever back him, since he wants to keep them out of the political process. Romney’s just “pro-whatever I need to say to be elected”, so who knows what he really believes? So this endorsement makes a lot of sense, and the timing does as well. Back the guy who you think will advance your positions the most who has a chance to win.
Who knows if Fred has fire in his belly or not? He barely gets any coverage and the scant coverage he does get seems to be about his wife.
That being said, he needs to be heads above the others in the next debate. Otherwise, he’ll just be another Wesley Clarke.
The only true conservative I have seen so far is Duncan Hunter. I am really under whelmed by the rest of the so called Republicans running for POTUS.
Given all the Hunter support on this page, you’d think he’d be polling better….unless we’re the only one’s supporting Hunter.
To me, this meme ‘fire in the belly’ is getting old and tired, just like the democrats mantra ‘it’s for the children.’
As longbow and others have written, what matters for to me is the candidates positions on the issues, not their lust for power.
I am not a single issue voter, if I disagree with a candidate on a single issue, I do not throw that candidate out with the bath water.
As for endorsements, I don’t really care about them. The only endorsement I really care about is mine, namely, my vote.
I haven’t been polled. I’d like to provide my two cents but nobody has asked for it…
Dunca Hunter is a conservative’s conservative.
My mother in-law lives in VA and hadn’t even heard of Hunter. I am not certain what is going on but scant few even know who he is…this is not a good thing.
Just a word of caution. There are some like me (I know – a very small minority) who will not answer a poll at all at this point in time. I want the candidates to tell me what they think, how they view the world, what drives them, what they would like to accomplish, not what they think I want them to tell me.
ConservativesRus, I couldn’t agree more.
The point I was attempting make simply put was that until I am polled I can’t take poll results at more than face value. Polls are polls.
Did you catch Duncan on Glenn Back’s Show on Friday? It was very refreshing to here what he had to say. He reminds me of Newt Gingrich.
I wouldn’t go so far as to equate belly fire with a lust for power.
no – sorry, missed it. I’ve heard he articulated very well conservative through and through. To be honest though, I tend not to pay lots of attention to what the candidate says, more what they have done. I think it’s a more honest representation of their core values.
From what I can see the GOP appears to want to sell the American people their version of a RINO light instead of falling back on the conservative principals that brought them into power. Their stance on illegal immigration and other no brainer issues will continue to cost them contributions and votes if they continue on this current course. They are no better than the DNC.
Boomer said:
Boomer you got that right! Illegal immigration is a hot button issue and rightly so. And so far the Republican power structure seems to be on the side of the illegals, RINO light or more like DemocRAT lite!
I want to see a return to real conservative principles – namely limited Federal government, lower taxes, and vigorously enforce ALL our laws including immigration laws!
Especially Immigration Laws.
I’ve always liked Fred from the beginning.
OT, but I have a conservative friend who REALLY likes Ron Paul. I don’t know much about him, but I’ve read enough on her to get the impression that he’s sort of a dummy. Why is that?
Testing, anyone else having difficulty getting your posts to display? Grrr.
Might want to wander over to numbersusa.com and check out the report cards on those serving in the House or Senate running for POTUS. Hunter got an A-, due in part to a recent position he took to increase visas. Up to that point he’d always been graded A+? Need to investigate that more, but I like him.
What a bunch of Judases.
So, you can’t attack Fred on his positions so you attack him on the voracity of his campaign?
I see the liberal media has already corrupted most of you.
Failed to add, ontheissues.org has info on the House/Senate critters too. From a quick scan, Hunter’s been consistant and maintains his conservative values down the line. Doesn’t waver much.
And let me also include Ms. Schlussel’s comment from yesterday’s thread:
AHEM!
That was the last nail in the coffin for me with Fred as a viable candidate. True Blue Pro-lifers were completely wired in to the Schiavo crisis…to not know the details is just inexcusable for a presidential candidate running a pro-life platform. Sorry. It’s comments like that, “I don’t know the details about the Schiavo case” that make me wonder where Fred’s lip service on Pro-life ends and where his sincerity begins.
I think alot of people think he is a dummy because that is the way he is being portrayed on alot of media outlets, not necessarily MSM but blogs too. People go with the issue that he wants us out of Iraq and say ok, i’ve heard enough. But on every other issue he is by far the most conservative of the bunch IMHO. I like Ron and Fred at this point. But I think too many people, me included, read about the candidates and form their opinions based on that. It’s just so easy to do even when you are trying not to. I at first liked Paul, then read lots of comments on blogs, including this one where people thought he was screechy and crazy and so that became my way of thinking for awhile. Then I thought more about it and talked to a friend who is a big Paul supporter and reassessed him and he really has the issues nailed down. I agree with his non-interventionist policty too (not, NOT isolationist), but I do not agree with getting out of Iraq now. We are there, we need to continue and finish the job.
Not sure that’s an apt comparison.
Fred’s no Jesus, and most of us weren’t his followers fro the get go either.
Who the anti-abortionists back for President is of no interest to me.
I am, however, for Thompson. One of the reasons is because he recognizes RvW is bad law, which is my conern in regard to a President.
Fred’s stances overall are the closest to mine of any of the candidates. I absolutely agree with him that abortion should be a state issue not a federal one. As long as it remains a federal issue abortion is not going away. To waste time fighting it and using abortion as a litmus test for candidates is futile and simply makes a lot of moderates antsy about the republican party being hijacked by the religious right. The only way abortion should play into presidential politics is regarding SCOTUS nominees. And even then I don’t think it necessary that the SCOTUS nominee be pro-life, but rather that s/he be a constitutionalist. I can’t see a constitutionalist juror failing to over turn RvW on the grounds that it was a bad decision that created constitutional rights not evident in the document. Such a decision kicks the issue back to the states where it belongs and removes it from national politics as it should be.
Fred is Dead, or simply DOA! We have no viable CONSERVATIVE candidate.