As my previous columns have proved, the real Fred Thompson (as opposed to the roles he portrays in movies and on TV) is not the type of politician most conservatives would define as one of their own. His own globalist views are underscored by the long list of globalists that mentored Thompson. Those globalist views are clearly opposed to a true conservative philosophy.
But, die-hard adherents to the so-called “two-party system” cling to Thompson as “the only one that can beat Hillary.” (Of course, the Big Money “moderate” sycophants make that claim about Rudy Giuliani.) And, those that cling to the “only A or B” philosophy claim that the only way to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House is to vote Republican. They are wrong, because the Republican Party has abandoned its own platform and principles – and so has one of their favorites, Fred Thompson.
In a recent interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Thompson specifically said that he would not support a Human Life Amendment that would ban all abortions in the United States. Defenders of candidate Thompson claim that he is a federalist, and thus he wants issues of abortion kept at the state level. But, in an interview with Sean Hannity, Thompson said that, if he were voting at the state level in Tennessee, he would not “criminalize a young woman” for seeking an abortion. So, he doesn’t want to ban abortions at the federal level, and he doesn’t want to ban abortions at the state level. Yet, the National Right to Life Committee recently endorsed Thompson!
There are other presidential candidates, such as Reps. Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, that have long-standing voting records against abortion. (Both men have more elected time in Washington than did Thompson. Yet, the NRLC relied upon Thompson’s voting record as the main focus of its endorsement.) In a recent radio interview, though, NRLC spokeswoman Karen Cross tipped her cards when she said that one reason the organization endorsed Thompson was because he was “a candidate that could win.”
Self-fulfilling (and self-defeating) ‘prophecy’
By endorsing an “electable” candidate, instead of one that is solidly against abortion, the National Right to Life Committee has put money (or party) over principle. At the state level, the Tennessee Right to Life Committee did the same thing last year, by withholding its endorsement from my campaign for Congress. They claimed that they did not endorse me because I was “not electable.” In reality, they made me non-electable by withholding their endorsement. Is that how far some groups will stoop to “go with a winner”? On one hand, endorsing a candidate that is not solidly against abortion, and on the other hand, not endorsing a candidate that is. No wonder so many voters laugh at purportedly conservative Christian “leaders.”
1 thing in common
It seems that, in the 2008 election cycle, candidate Fred Thompson and the National Right to Life Committee truly deserve each other. Both of them have one foot planted firmly on each side of the abortion fence. In the debate over the ways in which money determines “electability,” one thing is sure: More unborn babies can be expected to die. And, when a major pro-life organization considers that to be the cost of “winning,” and a major candidate sees abortion as a fence-riding issue, then the reality is that we all lose something.
Related special offers:
Tom Kovach lives near Nashville, is a former USAF Blue Beret, and has written for several online publications. He recently published his first book. Kovach is also an inventor, a horse wrangler, a certified paralegal and a former talk-radio host. To learn more, visit: www.TomKovach.us.