I don't see how anyone can read the transcript of Fred Thompson's Meet the Press appearance - not just the portions where he discusses Roe v. Wade and federalism, but his inarticulate attempts to talk around the question of whether first-term abortion should be illegal - and think that in a field that includes several other pro-life candidates (Romney, McCain, Huckabee), it's Thompson who most deserves the endorsement of the country's leading pro-life advocacy group . Yes, McCain and Romney have their problems as well, from the perspective of a pro-life purist; yes, Huckabee is a long shot. But particularly given what a lousy campaign Thompson has run - it's not as if the NRLC is guaranteeing itself a place at the front-runner's table with this endorsement - one of those three has to be the better choice.
« The Secret Hatreds of Presidential Candidates | Main | Bob Herbert and the Tenure Problem » Fred Thompson and Pro-Life Folly12 Nov 2007 05:04 pm Comments (23)
His position sounds more realistic than most. Banning all early abortion is not likely to happen. There is not enough support to allow it, even though for 27 years we've mostly had Pro-Life Presidents. An amendment to ban all abortions is also no longer plausible. Sending it back to the states at least allows for more restrictions in many places and some working out the best way to restrict abortion. Thompson also has had a consistent pro-life voting record. Huckabee is probably the strongest Pro-Life candidate, but he's a bit too strongly an Evangelical. As a Catholic I'm uncomfortable with a former Baptist minister as President. His economic ideas also sound a bit dicey. I'm also thinking he would not have enough appeal in the general election. Romney comes off as a mixture of a salesman and a ski instructor. Or possibly as "the Republican's Clinton" without the randiness. I have no faith in him at all. However in many ways I'd prefer McCain to Thompson. If Thompson's campaign implodes further I might just prefer McCain in general. Unfortunately Republican insiders really hate McCain over immigration and campaign finance reform. I'm kind moderate or even sympathetic to him on those. Also McCain's pro-war without being pro-waterboarding, which seems to alienate him from some. In that case I kind of like that about him even if I'm a bit more critical of the war than him. Then lastly McCain's old. I like old people, but many voters don't. Still I'd say I'm mixed between McCain and Thompson so far. 
See, the arguments for the NRLC endorsement of Thompson do not persuade me at all. If they are considering electability, Romney is the obvious choice-he is currently leading in New Hampshire and Iowa.
Um, what about Ron Paul? He's easily as pro-life as any of the folks you listed as alternate options for the NLRC, as I am sure you know; but you fail to even mention him. I never thought I would ever be one of the seeming legions of people who pounce on every negative statement about or omission of Ron Paul, but this really seems like an oversight. In light of his recent fund-raising success, I think that writing Paul off this early is a mistake. Even if I am wrong, what's the NLRC's hurry?
Bill, I agree with a lot of your reasoning. I was very worried when Fred originally got into this race, for similar reasons to those that Ross was: a Fred nomination meant that the GOP simply cared about a checklist of issues, most of which were defined 25 years ago. However, I've mellowed on him a lot: he clearly believes what he says, something that I don't think is true of Romney (and what Rudy actually believes is scary as hell.) I'm pro-choice; Fred's not my top choice, but I wouldn't be at all angry if he was the nominee.
Rosa Brooks had a column the other day that was bashed on by conservatives, but I think that even from their perspective, it has a lot of truth to it. She said that torture is replacing abortion as the litmus test on the right. If you substitute "Bush's anti-terror policies", i.e., not just torture, but surveillance, Iraq, Iran, Guantanamo, etc., for "torture", she's got it exactly right. So what we are seeing is the pro-life movement's slow slide to irrelevancy as the Republican candidates move on to another litmus test. Even 4 years ago, the possibility of even a Republican VICE-presidential candidate with Thompson's views, much less Giuliani's, was unthinkable. But now, that is quite possibly going to be on the top of the ticket.
Dilan, I like Rosa Brooks, and I hate torture (which includes waterboarding, to be clear), but I did not get that column at all. It was not clear to me (perhaps you can help) whether she was hoping that the American people will make torture a litmus test, whether she thinks the GOP already has (the voters? the Senate? where is the evidence?) or that the Democratic party has (the voters? the Senators? where is the evidence?). I clearly read the column too quickly. As for abortion, only Rudy claims to be pro-choice; and he spends all kinds of time claiming he will put anti-Roe judges on the bench. The line that GOP candidates give on torture is the line Bill Clinton gives--we should be opposed, but the President should be able to authorize some rough stuff from time to time. I understand the "Oh we've lost our Constitution" meme has lots of support on the left (who regularly exercise their free speech rights to protest our new dictatorship; anyone being dragged off?), but I don't see that the war on terror policies (some of which I oppose, others of which I am indifferent to), are amounting to a new GOP litmus test. Sorry for all the parentheticals; it is late and I am too tired to write well.
They Said It: Thompson Social Security Plan Applauded as 'Courageous,' 'Honest,' and 'Substantive' Courage & Honesty Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson's plan to save Social Security and protect seniors, which he introduced Friday afternoon in a Washington, D.C., hotel, differs starkly from standard election year pablum on the subject in one key way: He's actually treating voters like adults. (ABC, 11/9) Thompson...is seeking to show he is willing to take on tough issues if elected in November 2008, telling a news conference in Washington he was the only candidate to offer an extensive Social Security plan. (Reuters, 11/10) "You certainly have to admire his courage for putting this out," said Alan Viard with the American Enterprise Institute. (Tennessean, 11/10) Supporters contend that Thompson's willingness to take on the so-called third rail of politics will impress voters. (Bloomberg, 11/10) Conservative economic experts applauded Thompson for offering specifics on an issue considered to be politically dangerous. (Tennessean, 11/10) "He's not afraid to be brutally honest with the American people about the challenges that lie ahead," said Representative Zach Wamp, a Tennessee Republican who is working to recruit supporters for Thompson. "People can tell the difference between a strong leader telling the truth and a weak leader talking politics." (Bloomberg, 11/10) Substance [Thompson is] the first candidate of either party to offer a detailed proposal to fix the nation's retirement system. (WP, 11/10) The Republican candidate laid out a detailed, four-page proposal (WSJ, 11/10) Mr. Thompson's plan...was more specific than what the Bush White House put on the table when it sought to overhaul the system. It also varied substantially from the traditional conservative approach of focusing primarily on personal investment accounts. (NYT, 11/10) Economist Jason Furman said Thompson deserves credit for offering a detailed plan to address the projected Social Security shortfall...(Bloomberg, 11/10) In discussing policy, Thompson was in his element. (Politico, 11/9) He'd prefer to talk about substance. (Politico, 11/9) Thompson's plan draws on ideas favored by conservatives: a reduction in benefits, rather than an increase in payroll taxes; and a shift toward private accounts, rather than government-provided payments. (WP, 11/10) Rivals [Thompson] ventured Friday into an area few rivals have tread: advocacy of a fundamental overhaul of Social Security. (WSJ, 11/10) Although all of the presidential candidates have spoken, when asked, about the need to fix the Social Security system, none has offered such a detailed plan nor talked so eagerly and often about the issue. (WSJ, 11/10) Among Republicans, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney have talked in general terms ... but none has offered a specific plan. (WP, 11/10) Mr. Thompson is the only one of the Republicans running for the White House who has made Social Security a central theme of his campaign. (NYT, 11/10) He is the only presidential candidate so far to make Social Security an anchor of his campaign. (WSJ, 11/10) But with less than two months before the 2008 voting begins, candidates have generally been reluctant to confront the Social Security issue. (WP, 11/10) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saving and Protecting Social Security http://www.fred08.com/virtual/socialsecurity.aspx
Doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire, for now, does not make Romney more electable. Romney and Thompson's overall numbers are similar with some still placing Thompson ahead. Thompson is not the great communicator some had hoped, but he's been more consistent on abortion than Romney and has the voting record. And yes there is also Romney being Mormon. I don't know if that's a big factor, I'd like to think not, but it might steer like 20% of Pro-Lifers away from him. That's enough when considering other factors. Huckabee I think works best as VP material as he doesn't have it to win a general election. I don't get why McCain is unpopular with many Pro-Lifers. He did switch on federally funding stem-cell research, but I get the sense that's not the problem. He's also not Evangelical or Catholic, but Thompson's not religious at all. Possibly they think McCain's wussy on Islam as there are some on the Christian Right who are highly hostile to Muslims and unfortunately the Christian Right kind of dominates Pro-Lifers.
I'm with you, Mr. Douthat. If the NLRC has decided to forgive Thompson's transgressions on McCain-Feingold, why not endorse McCain, who unlike Thompson really has been consistent on life issues? If its consistency they want, why not Huckabee, who isn't pro-choice in the ways Thompson was and still may be. If its present positions plus political prospects they want, Romney would be a better choice on both counts. I'm afraid the NLRC has joined the Great Unwitting Conspiracy to Nominate Rudy Giuliani. (The only way I can justify this is to think that the NLRC is gambling that their endorsement will resurrect or coincide with the resurrection of Thompson's campaign, so that not only is Thompson beholden to them but they gain a lot of real clout because of their percieved clout.)
I'm afraid Thomas R. is right, though, that this is only explicable if the NLRC is disqualifying Romney because he's Mormon, Huckabee because he's a taxer, and McCain and Huckabee because they're 'soft in Islam.' Which is not the kind of think the NLRC should be worrying about. Not at all.
It was not clear to me (perhaps you can help) whether she was hoping that the American people will make torture a litmus test, whether she thinks the GOP already has (the voters? the Senate? where is the evidence?) or that the Democratic party has (the voters? the Senators? where is the evidence?) Her point was that the same movement conservatives who once made being pro-life the non-negotiable plank in the platform that presidential and vice-presidential candidates and key appointments like the AG must support, now they have changed over and are making the Bush conception of the war on terror (including torture) the red line that must not be crossed. As for abortion, only Rudy claims to be pro-choice; and he spends all kinds of time claiming he will put anti-Roe judges on the bench. There's no way to know for sure, but I suspect that if Rudy gets the nomination, he's going to jettison all that stuff and run as a pro-choicer. If you go back to the very beginning of his campaign, you can see some statements to that effect.
Interesting, Dilan. I am of the view that Giuliani will stick to his pledge of appointing Scalia-esque judges, were he president, because he perceives his core constituency to be "people who like to imagine liberals and foreigners getting upset." But that doesn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't claim to be a middle-grounder in the general campaign. I don't think that anyone believes that Giuliani's views on abortion are clear, fixed, and important to him.
My impression of Romney and Giuliani is that they would perform partial birth abortions with their own teeth at the Super Bowl halftime show if it would guarantee their election. Paul and Huckabee seem sincere enough in this portion of their beliefs. I suspect McCain wishes this issue would just disappear.
"I'm afraid Thomas R. is right, though, that this is only explicable if the NLRC is disqualifying Romney because he's Mormon," Except that is not what I said at all. I said Romney's Mormonism is likely a factor. I most certainly did not say that this is "only explicable if the NLRC is disqualifying Romney because he's Mormon." It is perfectly explicable by other means why they'd choose him over Romney. Romney's poll numbers nationally are rather stable and show little chance of him winning. His political history is full of far more uncertainty and waffling on life issues than Thompson. Thompson's are collapsing, but as he's newer there's greater chance for a rebound. American's know Romney better than Thompson, who they only knew as a fictional character, and are not terribly interested. (Discounting Iowa and New Hampshire where Romney's went all out to get them interested) You were about right on my view of them not going for McCain. The only thing else I can think is that they see McCain as too willing to compromise with Democrats in general so possibly suspect even on this particular issue.
Sorry, Thomas R., but your explicables are only explicable if they really, really wanted to pick Fred already. Thompson and Romney have both looked bad in national polling vis-a-vis the Dems. Romney's numbers have been stable while Thompson's have been shooting downward. Romney and Thompson are both fairly equally unknown. Thompson has been inconsistent on life issues, though less than Romney, partly because he hasn't moved as far to the right as Romney. Thompson's about as tepid a pro-life standardbearer as can be imagined. I'm a Romney supporter but I'm a prolifer first and foremost and I would have far preferred a McCain or Huckabee endorsement than this travesty. NRLC is making prolifers look ridiculous. I stand by my position that the NRLC has disgracefully let non-pro-life issues like Mormonism, immigration, Islam, and Thompson's personality influence their position. This is the Harriet Meier of endorsements.
You have the right to think that. The more I look into it the more it makes sense to me. The NRLC's ratings for McCain are generally in the 60-86% range. http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=2 Thompson's never dipped below 75. http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=22003 Huckabee is rising, but has less room to expand to non-Evangelicals. Romney is seen as a person who will say what he needs in order to win the Republican nomination. In addition his favorables are still lower than Thompson's http://www.gallup.com/poll/102673/Clinton-Giuliani-Obama-Tie-Presidential-Leadership.aspx It's a perfectly plausible choice really. I can see finding it stupid, but similar arguments of stupidity could be made no matter who they chose.
That said I do think issues like immigration and anti-Islam likely pulled some of them against McCain. Likewise it's possible economic policy or something turned them off from Huckabee.
Oh the one candidate to consistently get 100 from the NRLC is Duncan Hunter. http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=26776 Tom Tancredo also got a few 100s and Ron Paul received a 100 once.
I don't think that anyone believes that Giuliani's views on abortion are clear, fixed, and important to him. Actually, I do. He's a pro-choice Catholic. That takes some intellectual investment. And he stuck with it even after seeking the GOP nomination. Another way of looking at this is as follows: imagine how many kids Rudy might have if it weren't for Roe v. Wade.
Dilan Esper writes: "He's a pro-choice Catholic. That takes some intellectual investment. And he stuck with it even after seeking the GOP nomination." Not really. He's promised the SuperChristians Supreme Court appointments of the Repeal Roe variety. He was pro-choice as a New York politician because that's what you have to be to win in states that aren't overrun by the dreaded Homo jesoids. Mitt Romney did essentially the same thing in Massachusetts. But now they have to appeal to the mouthbreathers and snakehandlers, and they've adjusted accordingly.
From what I gather Giuliani is Catholic in the way Mitterand of France was Catholic. It's a cultural thing, and maybe he prays on occasion, but it's not like a religion for him. He can't take Eucharist due to his remarriage and he states he is not much for churchgoing anyway.
Not really. He's promised the SuperChristians Supreme Court appointments of the Repeal Roe variety. No, he hasn't. He doesn't go beyond an anodyne promise to nominate "strict constructionists", despite demands from the pro-life groups that he promise a litmus test. I don't want the guy to be President, but seriously, he is being very careful not to kowtow to the pro-life folks. And I certainly think that one positive if the guy did get elected is the complete and utter destruction of the effectiveness of the anti-abortion movement in this country.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Ross,
I disagree. I'm strongly pro-life, and while I would not vote for Thompson as a state-legislator in a post-Roe world, I have the most confidence that he will be strong on stem cells, judges, and the other relevant federal aspects of being pro-life. Romney and McCain, let alone Giuliani, give me very little confidence that, safely in the White House, they won't look for a noble compromise in a judicial nominee. Everything about their histories suggests otherwise.
I'd like to believe that McCain will surprise me; the next time Romney holds firm on something (other than while pandering to the electorate) will be the first.
You've been pretty strongly anti-Thompson since before he got in the race, and I've been cautiously optimistic about him. His campaign is not everything I've hoped for, but his refusal to pander on many of these issues makes him a sort of more serious Ron Paul for me. (On immigration I think he's remade himself, but on entitlements, abortion, etc. he's been saying the same stuff for years). The Meet the Press performance was not, to my mind, incoherent, except as a function of Russert's misunderstandings and interruptions and Thompson's following his lead. His stuff on first trimester legislation in the states was what he's always been saying.
Posted by Bill | November 12, 2007 6:48 PM