The National Right to Life Committee endorsed Fred Thompson for president. Judging from Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, they could have done a lot worse. Wanda Franz, the president of NRLC, reasoned, "Our endorsement is a testament to Senator Thompson’s long-standing pro-life record, his commitment to unborn children, and our belief in his ability to win."

Look past the first two rationalizations and focus on the last one. The NRLC wants to be on the winning team, not the home team. There are plenty of solid pro-life candidates in the race. I am supporting one, Ron Paul, an ob-gyn who has delivered several thousand babies and aborted none. Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, and John McCain, from what I understand, also have solid pro-life voting records.

Fred Thompson? He opposes the Human Life Amendment. When he ran for Senate in Tennessee, he told a local abortion group that he would favor governmental funding for the abortions of rape victims and that he had voted to fund "family planning" programs. There are also allegations that he lobbied for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association in 1991. This last point, if proved true, would be a disqualifier, though I understand the federalist reasoning of Thompson's stand against Roe and against a Human Life Amendment. It's just that the National Right to Life Committee doesn't hold Thompson's position against a constitutional amendment, and neither do several worthy candidates who the NRLC could have endorsed.

Candidates used to seek endorsements. Now endorsements seek candidates. In the process used by the NRLC endorsers, electability trumped principles. The NRLC wanted to attach itself to a "respectable" candidate, even at a time when two dark horses--Paul and Huckabee--who come closer to the NRLC's platform are besting Thompson in the polls in key states. Thompson is no Giuliani on abortion, and it is certainly a defensible endorsement. It's just a curious one considering both the direction of Thompson's campaign and the questions surrounding his pro-life commitment.

When the single-minded people dedicating their lives to stopping abortion are so seduced by compromise, they shouldn't be surprised when the politicians they seek to attach themselves compromise too. One expects softness from politicians. When activists go soft, it just gives politicians license to go even softer.

"Candidates used to seek endorsements. Now endorsements seek candidates."

Great line Dan, you nail it right there. What is up w/ the right-wing lobbies and lobbyists? They seem to have lost their minds this cycle.

I would think NRLC *pays* attention to the campaigns closely and would have noticed the obvious downward trending of Thompson's campaign. So why come out now w/ an endorsement? Do they hope to put a spark into his failing campaign and thus endear themselves more closely to him?

It is worth noting that The NRLC held a convention in Kansas City, Mo in June and invited the GOP contenders (this was pre-Thompson obviously). Only three showed up, Romney, Paul, and Brownback. Huckabee didn't make it.

I know Huckabee is genuinely pro-life but the guy is a huckster who will only insure the status quo. This is b/c he clearly doesn't understand how to actually make real practical progress in saving babies lives. He is all for continuing to pursue "perfect" solutions but as the enemy of good piecemeal ones. Specifically, I watched him this Sunday on Face the Nation reject the idea that the matter of abortion should be returned to the states (by overturning Roe V. Wade, or disallowing federal judges to rule on the constitutionality of state abortion cases). He said that this would be like the Civil war days in the way that slavery was allowed in some states but not all. Therefore, he dismisses these efforts and instead supports a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.

This is a seriously flawed approach and practically speaking guarantees the status quo. First, as Ralph has often argued for well at this site, the SCOTUS could already find constitutional means to defend life against abortion nation-wide, even w/o an amendment. But more importantly, simply returning to the pre-Roe federalist approach would pretty quickly outlaw abortion in probably 30-35 states. That means real babies would be saved and quickly. Then we can still pursue the national solution, or at least be able to better focus education and protest efforts in the states that remain pro-abort.

I don't think it's defensible. I think it's shameful.

"He said that this would be like the Civil war days in the way that slavery was allowed in some states but not all."

What a stupid thing for Huckabee to say. Abortion is not an issue that divides regions, and the idea of a State attempting to leave the Union in the here and now is absurd.

One easy way to return it to the State's that I had never considered until I heard Paul talk about it is for Congress to srtip the federal courts of the jurisdiction to hear abortion cases. Congress could remove abortion from the federal courts' jurisdiction with a simple majority.

Ralph,

That is true. Paul and others have tried to add this on various pieces of legislation, including the ban on partial birth abortion.

My problem w/ Huckabee on this isn't that I see any reason to oppose a national ban, I just can't fathon why he thinks it is a point of criticism on other pro-lifers that they are trying to seek it being returned to the states to decide. It is eminently practical progress in my view. And given how many liberals even accept the notion that Roe V. Wade was a mess, many can be convinced to not stop the return of the issue to the states.

Here is a link for the video of his Face The Nation interview: Huck w/ Schieffer

I think overall he did fine and I can see some of his appeal. I do find his willingness to attack the other candidates typical but annoying, I have gotten too used to the non-personal criticisms that Paul makes I suppose. For example, what does it mean to both mock Pat Robertson and say that he wishes he had gotten his endorsement in the very same sentence? (at 3:28).

His comment on abortion comes at 4:40 where he completely fails to answer Schieffer's question (did he not hear it?) and immediately goes into explaining why it is "troubling" for candidates to want the states to decide it. His exact quote is that this position is the "logic of the Civil War, to say that morality has geographic boundaries."

I like that he also leaves open the possibility that he could consider being a running mate for Giuliani. If it was me I would have flat out stated, no I can't be the VP for a pro-abort.

Bruce W.,

I'm no Guiliani fan, and I hear what you're saying, but it prompts a question: if, in your view, the practical, gradualist position of retuning abortion to the states is worthy, then why wouldn't it be worthwhile at least to have an avowed pro-lifer serve as VP under a President Guiliani--i.e., another practical, better-than-nothing, gradualist-type maneuver?

Buzz,

B/c of the window dressing role of a VP ever since it was resolved that it wouldn't just be the second place electoral vote getter (so since 1804). Except to the left who is convinced that Cheney is currently president, no one makes the mistake of thinking that a VP holds much sway over an administration. And given Giuliani's supreme ego, as well as his cronyism, I see no reason to think that some untested Ark. Gov. would be much of a pro-life leaven in a Giuliani administration.

If there was even a chance that the next VP could be a deciding tie-breaker vote in the Senate then I might think differently on this.

For any VP to play a role on a matter of principle like abortion they would have to be willing to stake their very credibility on shaping the policies of a Guiliani in that direction, however, if he was able to be so shaped then why wouldn't Giuliani just disavow his pro-abortion views and embrace more seriously a more standard Republican line? He could at least say that he will hew to w/e the GOP Platform consists of as it emerges from the Convention. Further, in order to be credible the VP would have to be willing to speak up critically against any attempts by the Pres to support pro-abort positions, even threatening to resign in protest. Do you really see any chance of any VP being picked who would be willing to do that? It would effectively end their political career in the GOP.

So basically I see the only practical consequence of pairing a more believably pro-life guy as VP w/ a Giuliani as being an attempt to put lipstick on a sow. That is, it would be another example of the GOP's shameful attempts to keep its base support while effectively doing nothing to advance its base's views.

Buzz,

I should ask though, what is the argument for the practicality of pairing say a Huckabee w/ Giuliani? I see it as cynical, but if a case can be made for it as better than nothing then I may retract my condemnation of the idea.

Bruce W.,

I will grant you your cynicism, but you may well be correct in your assessments. But my gut still says, if it has to be Guiliani, then why not have as reliably pro-life a person as possible second on the ticket?

These do not constitue an argument, they are just small, incremental longshots:

*The Senate tie-breaker, as you mention
*VP succession if the president dies
*Possible VP influence over the many political appointments of the administration

Also, a larger point:

A third party candidate is not going to win this election.

The GOP might need to be taught a lesson for shamefully trying to keep its base w/o addressing their concerns. Disassociate, don't succumb to their tactics. Fine. I don't necessarily disagree. But if a pro-lifer tries to teach them a lesson by refusing to run to serve in the administration--what does that do for the pro-life cause, or more specifically for babies who might be aborted during the next four years, with either a Dem or Guiliani + not solidly pro-life VP in the WH?

Buzz,

A 3rd party candidate will never win a national election.

I see tour point about a pro-life VP, except, my problem is that there is little to no chance that whomever that is wouldn't be putting Party and ambition first, and would be a traditional in the shadows VP who doggedly pushes his team and his candidate. I think you are giving the pro-life VP as reason to then vote for the ticket right? I will have to reserve judgment on that until there are nominees. I cannot in good conscience vote for a pro-abort unless there are more serious prudential reasons to do so. Let's see how it shapes up and I can revisit this concern.

"I think you are giving the pro-life VP as reason to then vote for the ticket right?"

Not quite. The original point I wanted to address was your saying, "I like that he also leaves open the possibility that he could consider being a running mate for Giuliani. If it was me I would have flat out stated, no I can't be the VP for a pro-abort."

The point I really wanted to make is that I think there are some good reasons for a pro-lifer to do what you would refuse to do, and that a pro-lifer shouldn't necessarily be criticized for not refusing.