[Dark_crow]

People believe in their own best interest; which candidate they believe will best achieve their goals they will vote for. Given that that is the case I don't believe that any 'Block' votes as a Block, and therefore Pat Robertson's and the other endorsement will be meaningless when the vote is cast.

[ordinaryguy]

I like Huckabee, but I am not voting for someone that can't beat Evita.

Elections are about more than winning. Goldwater didn't win in '64 but his candidacy planted the seeds of the Reagan revolution. If we don't vote for the candidate who best represents our views, values and priorities we are no more honest than the politicians who pander to us.

What God told Pat

Close enough

[BABRAM]

Tom-

I do think Giuliani stands a better chance of getting the Republican nomination, but my point in the post was based on Robertson's assumptions, his reasoning. Currently I don't think I'll be supporting either Giuliani or McCain. Loosely tied into the subject I'll mention that last presidential election I actually thought Edwards, a Democrat, came off looking stronger than his senior pal on the ticket, Kerry. Edwards though was scrutinized for many things, one of those things that the Republicans hit upon was the he was a trail lawyer. I agree we have a lengthy history of presidents with law school educations, some better than others. Personally my favorite of the professions that has later produced politicians would be medical field backgrounds, military personnel, lawyers, and financial, in that order. Of course, a good college education and experience in multiple fields would make for a well rounded candidate.

Bobby

[tomder55]

Update

National Right to Life is going to endorse Fred Thompson. This despite the fact that Thompson will not get behind a 'Right to Life Amendment' to the Constitution (on vague grounds of federalism ) ,and his rather muddled answers that he gave to Tim Russert a couple of weeks ago on social issues.Clearly there are candidates that represent their views better like Huckabee , and Hunter .But it appears they have backed a candidate who they think can win over one that best represents their single issue.

Update :

RedState blog has some interesting insight into the NRTL move :

Thompson apparently made the case that candidates saying they'd appoint originalist judges was not enough. Thompson said the President needed to make sure key executive appointments who could affect abortion policy did, in fact, embrace and believe in the culture of life (I'm told he listed several departments by name). Having said that for a good while, I'm glad to see a candidate make the case. Contrast that with Rudy who says he'd pick the most qualified people. Fred apparently indicated that key Executive Branch appointments need to be pro-life.

I'm also told that Thompson brought up Planned Parenthood's funding under Title X and said, in effect, he would cut it off.

What about Fred's controversial statement on the Human Life Amendment on Meet the Press? I'm told by multiple sources that Fred explicitly said he supported the party platform and would not get rid of that plank, but pointed out that even when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House there were not enough votes to pass the HLA and he'd rather spend his four years working to end abortion through means that would be successful, e.g. originalist judicial appointments and pro-life executive appointments and policies.

What you should know about Fred's NRLC endorsement (with highlights!!) | Redstate

His comments about the pro life amendment are still vague. All they are asking is that he put his name behind it. No one is asking him to use political capital to make it happen . He mumbles federalism as if that would or should preclude him from taking a position on the issue . That is a dodge.

[Dark_crow]

update

National Right to Life is going to endorse Fred Thompson. This despite the fact that Thompson will not get behind a 'Right to Life Amendment' to the Constitution (on vague grounds of federalism ) ,and his rather muddled answers that he gave to Tim Russert a couple of weeks ago on social issues.Clearly there are candidates that represent their views better like Huckabee , and Hunter .But it appears they have backed a candidate who they think can win over one that best represents their single issue.

update :

RedState blog has some interesting insight into the NRTL move :

What you should know about Fred's NRLC endorsement (with highlights!!) | Redstate

his comments about the pro life amendment are still vague. All they are asking is that he put his name behind it. No one is asking him to use political capital to make it happen . He mumbles federalism as if that would or should preclude him from taking a position on the issue . That is a dodge.

The abortion "litmus test" is over; the war and taxes is the new test in both parties. This is quite a shift to the left for the far right. Giuliani, Clinton, and Thompson recognize this…just watch their strategy.

[tomder55]

The abortion "litmus test" is over

Perhaps as a single issue it is ;or perhaps the threats to life by jihadi terrorists are of an equal concern as the threat to life by the genocidal murder of the unborn. I on the other hand think that the reason that the social conservatives are not rallying behind a single candidate is that there is not one who both represents their collective interests and is still viable in a national election against Evita .

In short ; despite the appearance of a fractured party ;the bottom line is that there is a unifying banner to rally behind... the need to beat Hillary .

[speechlesstx]

The abortion "litmus test" is over; the war and taxes is the new test in both parties. This is quite a shift to the left for the far right. Giuliani, Clinton, and Thompson recognize this…just watch their strategy.

I don't think it's quite a shift at all, I see it as a matter of circumstances. The abortion battle will still be fought in the trenches regardless of who is president. The litmus test is going to be who can beat Hillary.