Human Events Endorses Fred Thompson
January 12th, 2008 at 10:12am Mark Noonan
One of America’s oldset conservative publications endorses Fred Thompson:
We make this endorsement on the basis of much research, having interviewed Sen. Thompson and some of his opponents, as well as examining what they have all said and done. We conclude that Thompson is a solid conservative whose judgment is grounded in our principles.
In his Senate years, Mr. Thompson compiled an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 86.1, which is higher than both Sen. John McCain (82.3) and Rep. Ron Paul (82.3). The Club for Growth has praised Thompson as someone who has a strong commitment to limited government, free enterprise and federalist principles.
On the issues that matter most to conservatives, Sen. Thompson’s positions benefit from their clarity. He is solidly pro-life. He said that he was in favor overturning Roe v. Wade because it was “bad law and bad medical science.” As the National Right to Life Committee said in its endorsement of him Nov. 13, 2007, “The majority of this country is opposed to the vast majority of abortions, and Fred Thompson has shown in his consistent pro-life voting record in the U.S. Senate that he is part of the pro-life majority.”
Thompson’s record is solid on voting to preserve gun owners’ rights, cut taxes, reduce government spending and drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has voted consistently against gay marriage. Thompson is by no means perfect. He strongly supported the McCain-Feingold bill, did not support the impeachment of Bill Clinton on perjury and more than once voted with the trial lawyers against limitations on liability in defective product and medical malpractice cases.
We like the way Thompson unhesitatingly attacks the liberal ideologues and their activists such as MoveOn.org and the ACLU, and the way he reaches out to those we knew as the Reagan Democrats.
Rather glowing - and the conventional wisdom is that Thompson did quite well in the GOP debate. Thus far, Thompson has had no effect on the actual votes - but given that we’re only at the start of what may be a long process ending in a brokered GOP convention (something I’ve felt possible for a while now), there’s still plenty of time for Thompson to make his case to the GOP electorate.
One thing to keep in mind - other than the kooks at the bottom of the GOP and Democratic pile, none of he major candidates has any reason to back out of this race. Edwards said he is taking is fight all the way to the convention - and some thought that was just a bit of bravado from a man who had just lost his second contest…but it made complete sense to me. With Hillary and Obama set to clobber each other over the next month, Edwards might be well-positioned to pick up the pieces, especially if the Democratic convention winds up brokered (something I think far more likely than any time in the past 40 years, but still less likely than the GOP). Thompson, too, could benefit from such a thing - McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani pummel each other, and Thompson steps in to pick up the big prize.
Once again - keep buckled in for a long, wild political ride in 2008…
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Political Endorsements, Republicans
3 Comments
1. Gozer the Carpathian | January 12th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Very nice, but as I said before I don’t care so much about most endorsements. It’s still interesting to see, and I’ve been giving Thompson a second look as well. (Thanks Mom. One of the endorsements I have to listen to. :p)
2. sleepygene | January 12th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Too little too late I think. Someone must have poked Fred with a stick before the SC debate and now he is awake. I think he will only clear the way for McCain by taking Huckabee’s votes in SC.
3. John Lofton, Recovering Republican | January 12th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
On pro-life issue, Thompson bad news. Here’s story from our web site (TheAmericanView.com):
Dobson Right, Bauer Wrong On Fred Thompson Who Flunked Never-Vote-For-Murderer Test
By John Lofton
Call it The Murderer Litmus Test.
It would go something like this: I will always vote against any nominee for any public office who has murdered innocent human beings and sees nothing wrong with such murder. Sound reasonable to you? Well, Fred Thompson didn’t think so on at least one occasion and said so explicitly. But, I’m getting ahead of myself on this important and widely-ignored story.
In the mid-1990s, President Clinton appointed Dr. Henry Foster, Jr., a black man from Tennessee, to be Surgeon General of the United States. When it became known that Dr. Foster had personally performed abortions there was, as a story in “The Hill” newspaper (2/8/1995) put it, “a political storm” and a “controversy erupted.” This storm/controversy was, however, not about the revelation that Foster had personally murdered unborn babies. No, it was instead about whether Foster and the White House had been candid about the number of unborn babies murdered by Foster. As reported in “The Hill”:
“Sidestepping the issue of whether performing abortions should disqualify a nominee, some members instead focused criticisms on the White House’s handling of the situation. Others said the important issue would be Foster’s candor, not his abortion record.”
But, Fred Thompson, then a Senator from Tennessee, did not sidestep the issue of whether performing abortions should disqualify Foster. He said performing abortions should not be a litmus test issue. He told “The Hill”: “I would prefer that they (abortions) had not been in his background, but I don’t think it’s a litmus test in and of itself.” [He] added that the circumstances of the abortions would be important. “I can’t pass judgment on a physician….”
Well, now, this is a truly amazing statement, no? I mean if being, personally, a serial murderer of innocent unborn babies in the womb is not, in and of itself, a sufficient reason for voting against a nominee, what, pray tell, might be? Seriously – this is not a rhetorical question.
Still, despite Thompson knowing that Foster had personally performed abortions – the exact number was disputed but it was more than one – Thompson, in his remarks explaining why he was voting against Foster, called him “a decent man.” (!) Alluding to reports that Foster had performed abortions, Thompson dismissed the abortion issue saying: “I might also say, for my part I am not too caught up in these issues of credibility with regard to things that may or may not have happened a decade or more ago.” In giving his reasons for voting against Foster, Thompson said nothing at all about abortion. Instead, he attacked Clinton for politicizing the office of Surgeon General.
In a recent interview, when I asked Foster how many abortions he performed, he says: “Perhaps I probably did maybe 15 abortion procedures to save the life of the mother. They were legal.”
Me: “Well, slavery was once also legal but saying something is legal doesn’t really resolve the moral question, does it?”
Foster: “No, no, no – you can legally – but [slavery] was not illegal at the time it existed, correct?”
Me: “Abortion is murder and murder is always illegal.”
Foster: “But we’re the only Western nation that executes people.”
Me: “But there’s a difference between executing a convicted murderer and killing an innocent baby in the womb, isn’t there?”
Foster: “Yeah, but – this shouldn’t be your choice for my wife or your wife.” He denounces restrictive anti-abortion laws because they make it hard for “the poor and unsophisticated” to murder their unborn babies while “people of means” can do this easily.
Me: “I oppose rich or poor people murdering their unborn babies. Would you have been pro-choice on slavery saying no white man should tell another white man who he can own?”
Foster: “No, no, no.” He says abortion should be “safe, legal , rare.”
At one point, Foster, attempting to rebut something I’d said, says: “You’re not a physician, I don’t think” – double negative meaning, of course, that he thinks I am a physician. I say: “No, but I was probably delivered by one when I was born.” No reply.
Dr. James Dobson, discerningly, has said, re: the possibility of supporting Fred Thompson: No way! He has said re: Thompson that “he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!”
But, neo-conservative Gary Bauer, criticizes Dobson’s criticism of Thompson, invoking the same old, failed “Boogie Man Politics,” we-must-vote-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils idiocy, saying: “So I hope that we can, as a movement, be very wise about this, and not savage candidates that we may very well have to support in 2008 if they’re running against Hillary Clinton.” Bauer, quaking in his booties with fear (you can almost hear his knees knocking together), says conservative Christians must seriously consider Fred Thompson to avoid the “nightmare scenario” of having to choose in the general election from two pro-abortion, pro-homosexual candidates from New York, Clinton and Giuliani.
Well, on this one, Dr. James Dobson is right on target. He’s right about Fred Thompson. And Gary Bauer is wrong, pathetically and dangerously wrong.