Like Sheep Among the Wolves (And Not In A Good Way)

As one might have expected, the National Right to Life Committee's explanation for why it endorsed Fred Thompson doesn't make a lick of sense. As Larison writes:

The NRLC claims that “he is best positioned to top pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination,” which I would like to believe (since I stupidly predicted that Thompson would win) but which I also know at this moment to be utter nonsense. Clearly, from a purely “he can beat Giuliani” perspective you would have to go with Romney, which is horrific but nonetheless it is the reality at the present time.

It would be one thing to endorse Thompson on the grounds that he has a solid voting record (and they did cite this at the announcement), or that he is more reliable and trustworthy than the other leading candidates. But this appeal to his potential as the Bane of Giuliani seems as wrong as it gets.

Coincidentally, Marc has the latest CBS-NYTimes polls from New Hampshire and Iowa. If you run your eyes down the list of GOP candidates, you'll find Fred Thompson running fourth in the caucuses, with nine percent of the vote; in New Hampshire, he's sixth, at six percent. But I guess he's got Rudy right where he wants him.

I don't always buy into the notion, advanced by Jon Chait among others, that the economic right calls all the shots in the GOP. I do, however, think that the folks at, say, the Club for Growth are a lot better at the hard business of intra-party infighting than some of their friends and rivals on the religious right.

Comments

But don't forget Terri Schiavo! Social conservatives managed to delay the removal of food and water from a helpless person for two days with Republicand controlling Congress and the presidency in a state with the president's brother as governor. What further proof do you need of who calls the shots?

Posted by JohnMcG | November 13, 2007 10:46 PM

Hmm I'm still somewhat surprised that you are surprised. I don't see how their endorsement is at all odd, let alone as odd as you see it.

Thompson's campaign is problematic, but Romney and Huckabee I think are pretty clearly even longer shots. People have had time to look at Romney and they just aren't interested. He's tied with Thompson in some polls because of Thompson's decline, but he has yet to show much potential to win the GOP nomination or the Presidency. Elections have changed, even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire it's unlikely to be enough for Romney. Huckabee is rising, but there's pretty clear limits to how far he can rise. In the general electorate Thompson also has the advantage of being neither a Mormon nor a preacher.

Their actions make perfect sense you just don't agree with their reasoning. You feel that Romney has a better chance than Thompson. There are reasons to think that, but I agree with them that those reasons are flawed or just wrong.

Posted by Thomas R | November 14, 2007 4:34 AM

Thompson is ahead of Romney in

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=fd0a9c32-4365-47cb-b364-85bc33e52e73&q=44161 North Carolina

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=0690deb0-f3ea-4916-a53b-7d604f8fef65&q=44161 Florida

Still Thompson is slightly behind Romney in South Carolina

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=16534545-fed1-44c2-a2b2-900fe56895df&q=44161

and California http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=5b6c9b07-4247-432e-ae34-4ff8c07cd0f8&q=44161

So possibly I was unfair to your position. Still I think many of you are judging mostly on Iowa and New Hampshire which might be unwise.

Posted by Thomas R | November 14, 2007 4:56 AM

Contra Thomas R., on viability grounds Romney is clearly a superior choice. On consistency grounds McCain and Huckabee are better. In fact, along with those three Thompson's current positions are the least pro-life.

The most likely explanation is that the various people at NRLC who called this shot are letting non-right-to-life factors influence them, consciously or unconsciously, things like Mormonism, McCain and Huckabee's perceived weakness on immigration and Islam, and, biggest of all, Thompson's personality, which they probably find pretty congenial. Too bad.

The less likely explanation is that the NRLC thinks it can revive the Thompson campaign and get major mojo.

Posted by Adam Greenwood | November 14, 2007 8:14 AM

This is the Harriet Miers endorsement.

Posted by Adam Greenwood | November 14, 2007 8:38 AM

Thompson's ratings by the NRLC were overall better than McCain's now that I've looked into it. On viability grounds I might've been wrong and Romney is nearly his equal.

On being consistently in-line with the NRLC Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are the best choices. However their low viability made them unlikely.

Posted by Thomas R | November 14, 2007 10:34 AM

The Iron Law of Bureaucracy says that in a bureaucracy, those who want to get the mission done will lose control to those who want to sustain and expand the bureaucacy. This is because people who spend 90% of their time getting things done are only 1/10th as effective at internal politics as those who spend 100% of their time at the power game.

Now imagine that you're one of the leaders of an anti-abortion group that for decades has thrived on contributions from folks opposed to abortion. What might happen to your organization -- not to mention your cushy job -- if a pro-life President actually got elected under the current situation, where we're just one or two Supreme Court votes away from overturning Roe v. Wade?

Oh, and Romney's a Mormon. That has a lot to do with it too.

Posted by rocketship | November 14, 2007 1:28 PM