Romney attended Planned Parenthood event

OOPS!

Mitt Romney was fully aware of a $150 donation to Planned Parenthood made by check in his wife's name and indeed himself attended the Massachusetts Planned Parenthood fundraising event in 1994 in connection with the donation, according to former Massahcusetts Planned Parenthood President Nicki Nicholas Gamble. This contradicts previous statements by the Romney campaign.

In April of this year ABC news reported that Romney's wife Ann had made a $150 donation to Planned Parenthood in 1994. The story reported that Romney spokesman Kevin Madden contended that " an internal review of Romney's personal records has not turned up any instances in which Romney, a Massachusetts Republican, himself sent money to groups that supported expanded abortion rights." Madden also said that "he did not know whether the former governor was aware of the donation, but he noted that Romney had been publicly committed to upholding a woman's right to an abortion until late 2004." In August ABC reported that Mrs. Romney said "I don't even remember writing the check."

[...]

Romney Spokesman Kevin Madden responds that Romney when asked earlier in the year had no recollection of the check or the event and still does not. He indicated that since Romney was pro-choice in 1994 it would have been logical for him to attend such an event but even with the photo does not recall his attendance at this particular gathering.

Huckabee on abortion: "It should be left to the states"

Yes, that's an actual quote from Mike Huckabee in the not to distant past. Can you believe that at one time (not so long ago) Huckabee actually espoused the position of both Romney and Thompson on abortion?

John Hawkins: Switching gears again, do you think we should overturn Roe v. Wade?

Mike Huckabee: It would please me because I think Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application -- that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern -- than there is a human life issue -- and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision.

So, I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous.

(via)

So, I guess that Huckabee isn't the purest of the pro-life candidates and he's also joined the flip-floppers club.

Man, you've got love this race! It's filled with so many gotcha moments!

Huckabee on the NRLC endorement of Fred Thompson

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to vote for someone based on whether they support the HLA or not because THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT!!! Absolutely nothing! This is not an issue in the presidential race and Huckabee is trying to make it an issue because it's all he's got. He's certainly not a fiscal conservative and he's certainly not a federalist (as is very evident from this clip).

(via)

BTW, why would Huckabee lie and say that Thompson didn't have a 100% voting record in the Senate? What did he not vote for?

Romney Flip-Flops on the Human Life Amendment

Hugh Hewitt absolutely eviscerated National Right To Life Executive Director, David O'Steen on his show over the committee's endorsement of Fred Thompson:

HH: All right, let’s go back…again, that’s bad data on your guys’ part, but I can’t substitute data. I’m just concerned about the Human Life Amendment. You guys could endorse who you want. I just think it was shocking that the group that has led the pro-life movement for the last thirty years has endorsed a candidate who won’t endorse the Human Life Amendment. I mean, I’m just shocked by that.

DO’S: Well, remember, he came back in South Carolina, and said he would not seek to change the platform. But let’s talk about it for a moment. You’d have to change 25-30 votes in the U.S. Senate, defeat 25-30 pro-abortion candidates, or pro-abortion Senators, to get a Human Life Amendment.

HH: So you’re giving up.

DO’S: So…no, we didn’t say we’re giving up, but there’s not going to be a Human Life Amendment in the next presidency.

HH: Well, there’s certainly not going to be a president talking as though it matters. I mean, doesn’t that matter to have a president like Reagan and a president like George W. Bush to at least…

DO’S: Fred Thompson has stated that he believes Roe should be reversed, that he will appoint the kind of judges that will interpret the Constitution according to its text, and we know abortion is not in the text of the Constitution.

HH: Yeah, I know all that stuff.

DO’S: He’s got a strong…

HH: We talk about that stuff every day. That’s why I’m surprised. We talk about that on the show day in and day out, David, and for the National Right To Life, I mean, I like Romney, I like Giuliani, I like Huckabee, I like Fred Thompson. But for the National Right To Life Committee to come out for someone who does not endorse the Human Life Amendment, that just leaves me dumbfounded. What’s the reaction been among your membership?

Well, Hewitt's candidate was gunning for that endorsement and yet he seems to share Thompson's position:

ME: On the issue of abortion I was wondering do you support just the repeal of Roe v. Wade or do you support a human life amendment? What steps are you prepared to take?

ROMNEY: Here’s my view, and that is that the Supreme Court should over time to allow states to have more influence over their decisions on abortion. I am not calling for a nationwide ban of abortion. What I am calling for is for states to have their choice...Not a one size fits all decision by the federal government.

Doesn't that sound like Thompson? That's not from Romney's distant past, that's from March! And here he is from August:

In an interview with a Nevada television station on Tuesday, Romney said Roe. v. Wade should be abolished and vowed to "let states make their own decision in this regard." On Aug. 6, he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he supports a human life amendment to the Constitution that would protect the unborn.

"I do support the Republican platform, and I do support that being part of the Republican platform, and I'm pro-life," Romney said in the ABC interview, broadcast days before his victory among conservative Iowa.

So, does he support it or not? Shades of Hillary Clinton!

I think at the next debate the moderator should ask for a show of hands, how many support the human rights amendment and how many think the states should decide. How many hands do you think will go up for both?

Why didn't Romney get the National Right to Life endorsement?

Brody has the answer:

The Romney campaign may be disappointed because they didn’t get the endorsement from National Right to Life but maybe the organization had a look at the following videotape. If you go about three and a half minutes in, Romney is seen distancing himself from being endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life during a debate while he was running for Governor in 2002. He didn’t want any part of that endorsement at the time.

Here's the video:

Paul Weyrich speculates that the NRLC endorsement is the result of payola

God-o-Meter notes that Paul Weyrich speculates that Thompson's endorsement makes no sense and is the product of payola:

Paul M. Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, said the endorsement "makes no sense," and speculated that it had been motivated by money.

"I think in all probability the Thompson people were engaged with the National Right to Life people in financial dealing," said Mr. Weyrich, who has endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination.

"In the past, the Republican Party has funded National Right to Life, and while the committee can raise money on its own, it needs funding" from outside sources.

Does he have proof of this allegation because this just sounds like bearing false witness if he doesn't.

Thompson's endorsement makes perfect sense when you look at his voting record and see that he has always voted in favor of life and he also supports the ban on funding embryonic stem cells.

And as far as the federal amendment goes, let me ask you this: what candidate has laid out a strategy to get such an amendment? Who is going out on a limb to say that they'll make it happen? What candidate would actually tell NRLC that he is the candidate for them because he knows he can convince enough pro-choice Senators to support it?

BTW, poor Thompson lost a point on the God-o-Meter for this slander, it really doesn't seem fair since it hasn't been proven that he gave NRLC money.

National Right to Life Committee to Endorse...

Fred Thompson! Yeah! Finally, an endorsement outside of Tenn. :-) Surprising that it wasn't Huckabee since it was looking like Huckabee was picking up Fred's former support.

This is much better than Pat Robertson.

Corzine to NJ voters: We're building it anyway

The voters speak but the politicians think they are ignorant and just need to be educated by commercials featuring Brad Pitt and other actors. That's the gist of this article:

As the battle over embryonic stem cell research raged for two years in California, Nancy Reagan made emotional appeals in countless television commercials and Brad Pitt passed the word in personal appearances, part of a well-organized $30 million campaign to persuade voters to approve the financing.

In 2004, California voters overwhelmingly approved $3 billion for the largest state-run scientific research effort in the country.

Three years later, organizers of a similar effort in New Jersey mounted a tepid two-month campaign with about $600,000, seeking voter approval for a $450 million bond issue for the scientific research. A television commercial featured a rap group that last had a significant hit 25 years ago.

After the last of the election results trickled in Tuesday night showing that the New Jersey initiative had failed, 53 percent to 47 percent, politicians and pollsters alike were confounded. Yet the result was little surprise to the measure’s most ardent supporters, some of whom had not formed a political action committee until September.

Supporters now say they were undone by assuming too much in a state that has become solidly Democratic over the last decade and by spending too little time and money trying to defeat a coalition of well-organized opponents.

“We were behind the eight ball right away, and we knew we had our work cut out for us,” said Russ Oster, a political consultant with New Jersey for Hope, a political action committee formed in support of the bond issue. “The right-wing groups really got a jump on this and had an instant campaign. They ran 365 days a year. We didn’t have a natural campaign in place.”

The initiative’s defeat was a blow to Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who made stem cell research a key part of his campaign in 2005.

The state also has recently broken ground on a $270 million research center in New Brunswick. Mr. Corzine said he expected lawmakers now to seek smaller appropriations for the research. The governor also said that despite Tuesday’s result, he believed that most New Jerseyans supported the effort.

“There’s still a favorable view about stem cell research,” Mr. Corzine told reporters Wednesday.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that while you try to squeeze the money for it out of the budget or try to hit up Big Pharm.

And he plans to put it on the ballot again. Great! I hope that the message gets out there how expensive this boondoggle has been because NJ has already sunk millions into this swampland project:

The state is already heavily invested in stem cell research. Since 2003, the state Legislature has committed $270 million to building three stem cell research facilities, and $10 million in grants for researcher salaries. The state broke ground last month in New Brunswick for the $150 million Stem Cell Research Institute of New Jersey.

Corzine said he expects another $20 million will be allocated from the state's general operating budget to keep stem cell work going.

Video: Fred Thompson on Meet the Press

Here's a clip of his abortion answer. I thought he did a very good job with it and raised a good point: no one has proposed an amendment to the constitution banning abortions. Why is Thompson being beaten up about this issue when it's not even relevant to the presidency? Why are the candidates asked about amendments they have no control over? If the Christian right really wants a federal amendment, why aren't they working really hard to get pro-life senators elected.

(via)

Here's the first of 5 clips of the entire interview.

The twin who refused to die

Though the doctor tried his best to make it happen. A woman who was pregnant with twin boys was advised to terminate one of the babies because he was underweight and his heart was enlarged. The doctors believed he would die in the womb and that would threaten the life of the other baby. The doctors tried to cut the umbilical cord but it was too thick, so they separated the babies and were shocked to discover a heart beat the next day. The baby probably thrived because of the separation. I hope the doctors remember this the next time they advise a mom to terminate her pregnancy.

Go check out the picture of the babies, they are so cute!

(via)

This is what pro-life looks like on the Democrat side

Remember it when you vote next time.

Family Research Council Value Voters Summit in DC

Is taking place this weekend. Marc Ambinder is blogging from there. He reports that Thompson has the most supporters there and they are handing out anti-Romney and Giuliani literature. Here are some excerpts from Thompson's speech:

"My political record and my head were always there, always has been there, but I must say that it took life's experiences for me to absorb the real importance of it all. I had been blessed early in my life when I was young...and I have been blessed when I was not so young. I've had the
the ultimate tragedy that a father can have and the ultimate blessing that a father can gave.
With regard to Ms. Hayden, I can only say that after the first time in my life, seeing the sonogram of my own child. I will never think exactly the same again. I will never feel exactly the same again. Because my heart now is fully engaged with my head."

Later, to a standing ovation, Thompson said that in the first hour of his administration, "I would go into the Oval Office and close the door and pray for the wisdom to do what is right."

Here are his applause lines:

"We've been together for a long time, We've not always agreed on perhaps the right approach to everything, but the goal has been the same."

"Our basic rights come from God, and not from any government."

"Our people have shed more blood than any nation in the history of the world."

"I'm proud to have been a consistent conservative, cutting taxes, balancing the budget, reducing regulation, promoting welfare reform, fighting for good conservative judges with a100 percent pro-life voting record, and I'm proud of that record."

Joe Carter: The Pragmatic Party of Death

Joe Carter makes a very compelling case for why pro-life voters shouldn't support the Giuliani candidacy. I'm so glad that he made this case so strongly and so emphatically. I really hope that the pundits (radio hosts, bloggers, etc.) will get it because it's getting frustration listening to them blather on about how we have to support Giuliani in the general election or Clintion will be elected and predicating that the pro-life voters will come around and vote for Clinton out of fear. That's probably not going to happen and the pundits need to realize it before they lull the primary voters into a false sense of security.

The pundits have been saying that a Clinton presidency will be the fault of the pro-life movement but I disagree whole heartedly. It will be the fault of those voting for Giuliani because they are ignoring a huge part of the coalition. If the party ignores the pro-life voters, then why should they expect their support. It comes down to this: if you want to insure that Clinton is not elected next year then you cannot vote for Giuliani because the pro-life voters will not support his candidacy. The ball is in the court of the Giuliani supporters. Do you really want a Clinton presidency?

(via)

Update: Here's the type of rhetoric from the pundits that I was talking about.

Tags: Giuliani, Joe Carter

Does Harry Reid even understand what it means to be a Christian?

Harry Reid accused the Christian right of being anti-Christian but does he even understand what it means to be a Christian? When you look at what the men who are leading the Christian right have done you can't help but see that they are men who love God and want to serve him.

Falwell lead a huge congregation and a founded a university. And no one could fault D. James Kennedy for his love of the Lord and his call to evangelism. He lead a pretty big congregation for many years and was a wonderful servant of God. And Dobson has been very helpful to parents by getting information out about what's going on in public schools.

When you read their writings and see what they have accomplished you can't help but be struck by the fact that they have given their lives in service to God. To call men like these anti-Christian is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of what it looks like to follow Christ.

Reid also told reporters the Republican Party has been driven by evangelical Christians for 20 years. "They are the most anti-Christian people I can imagine, the people from the Christian far right."

Many LDS Church members turned to the Republican Party because the pro-life, traditional marriage platforms backed by evangelicals are similar to LDS Church positions. But, Reid said, his 25 years in Congress are proof that Mormons can be pro-life Democrats. He noted that American abortion law, in large part, has been settled by courts, not political parties, Congress or state legislatures.

Yes, voting for a pro-life Democrat makes a lot of sense. If it's settled law, then why even bother voting for a pro-life Democrat? What does it get you? And why vote for one who says things like this:

"I think people in the church have to understand there are issues more important than abortion and gay marriage."

Yea, that's a great pro-life position. Let's just take abortion off the table and move on to the more important things like global warming and health care. Let's just forget about those 40 million babies that have been killed. Let's just forget about those babies who were created by God and who bear his image.

Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.

Bryan of Hot Air makes an excellent point about Reid's comments:

“…anti-Christian…” As in “against Christianity itself.” It doesn’t get much plainer than that. In Harry Reid’s world, “the people from the Christian far right” are more anti-Christian than the Communist government in China that persecutes Christians, the atheists who regularly smear Christians and the Muslim governments and jihadists who routinely murder Christians from Sudan to Pakistan.

I can's see why more Christians aren't drawn to the party of Harry Reid :-)

Lake Of Fire

A new documentary on the abortion issue is in limited release in the US. The director says that he doesn't have a position on the abortion issue so he contends that it's not propaganda. It will be interesting to see if the it's truly neutral.

"Lake of Fire," currently on limited release in the United States, unwinds over more than two and a half hours of interviews with some of the leading figures from the pro-life and pro-choice camps.

But it is the graphic and disturbing depiction of termination procedures, filmed like the rest of the movie in black and white, that marks the film out.

[...]

One scene depicts a doctor sifting through a surgical tray after performing a late-term abortion, where the grisly residue of an arm, a foot and part of a face can be clearly made out.

"It's about as shocking as any motion picture can ever get. It's illegal to film someone being killed," said Kaye.

[...]

The concept was to make a film about the debate over the issue of abortion but to make it a non-propagandist way and to create a kind of war of words."

He said he wanted "to create this kind of a weave where we really explore the issue without taking any sides."

"It's very easy for me to do that because... I don't really have a point of view. I'm not a politician or a commentator," he said.

The film features leading thinkers including linguist and leftist intellectual Noam Chomsky, who dismisses the notion of certainty in the debate.

"You're not going to get the answers from holy texts. You're not going to the answers from biologists," he says. "These are matters of human concern."

"There are conflicting values and taken in isolation each of these values is quite legitimate," he adds. "Choice is legitimate, preserving life is legitimate."

(via)

Wow! I can't believe that Chomsky admitted that it was a life. I wonder if he would agree that the taking of life is wrong. Isn't murder a human concern?

I'm tempted to see the movie but I'm not sure I would be able to make it through the part where they kill a baby. I not drawn to watching snuff films. They thought of it repulses me.

Giuliani doesn't understand the pro-life voter

Giuliani doesn't really get it how important the life issue is to some voters. He doesn't get that we don't care that he's a fiscal conservative (which is a point that's open to debate), the only issue that many pro-life voters care about is the abortion issue and wouldn't vote for a pro-choice candidate at any cost. It will be a matter of principle for them:

A day after Christian conservative leaders suggested they might support a third-party candidate if Giuliani got the Republican Party's nomination Giuliani said he was not focusing the issue.

"I'm working on one party right now, the Republican Party," he said after visiting patrons at Dino's Seaville Diner. "This is a long primary, and once there are nominees on either side, we'll figure that out."

[...]

Although Giuliani was asked the question about social conservatives twice, he used each opportunity to address two other pertinent Republican issues -- his fiscal conservatism and his electability against Hillary Clinton.
And after being asked if the potential of losing the Christian right vote harms his viability as a general election candidate, Giuliani returned to his competitiveness against Clinton.

“Every poll shows that I would be, by far, the strongest candidate against Hillary Clinton,” he said, adding, “There hasn’t been one taken in the last six or seven months that shows anything other than I’m the Republican that has the best chance to beat her.”

A pro-choice Republican won't beat a pro-choice Democrat because there's no reason for the pro-life Democrats to vote for the Republican. He loses not only our pro-life voters but there's as well. I've blogged about that here.

And btw, it's not just the pro-life voters that won't be supporting Giuliani, the NRA members won't be supporting him -- there won't be crossover from NRA Democrats as well.

Giuliani doesn't bring too much to the nomination and I hope that will become clear as we approach the primaries.

Fox cut of Sally Field's acceptance speech

Because she choose to swear:

"If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn't be any [expletive deleted] wars in the first place."

You'd think that she would know better since she's been in TV most of her life. I could add something snotty about how arrogant and empty headed it is given the fact that we've lost more lives through abortion than through all the wars combined.

Update: I've decided that was too harsh. It would have been enough to refute her claim with Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands War.

Abortionists are making sure the baby is dead

To avoid legal problems. Executing them with a lethal drug before they start the procedure:

In response to the Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, many abortion providers in Boston and around the country have adopted a defensive tactic. To avoid any chance of partially delivering a live fetus, they are injecting fetuses with lethal drugs before procedures.

That clinical shift in late-term abortions goes deeply against the grain, some doctors say: It poses a slight risk to the woman and offers her no medical benefit.

"We do not believe that our patients should take a risk for which the only clear benefit is a legal one to the physician," Dr. Philip D. Darney, chief of obstetrics at San Francisco General Hospital, wrote in e-mail. He has chosen not to use the injections.

[...]

Instead, doctors typically cause the fetus's death surgically while it is still inside the womb and then remove it.

But now, if the fetus is not dead as it begins to emerge, a provider may be accused of violating the law. So the lethal injections beforehand, carefully documented, are aimed at precluding an accusation and prosecution.

(via)

Brownback and Tancredo fighting over abortion

Brownback's campaign is accusing Tom Tancredo of accepting campaign contributions from the founder of a Planned Parenthood chapter in Michigan. Why is he even bothering with Tancredo? Why not knock someone who has an actual chance at winning? And why does he think that he will benefit? What about Huckabee or Hunter?

Brownback has criticized Tancredo for accepting campaign contributions from Dr John Tanton, founder of a Planned Parenthood chapter in Michigan. His campaign has been making automated calls to Iowa voters demanding that Tancredo donate the money to an Iowa Crisis Pregnancy Center. “Say no to Tom Tancredo and his Planned Parenthood friend and help end abortion in America,” the caller says. Tanton is also a prominent anti-immigration activist.

“The facts are clear: Tom Tancredo says he is committed to being pro- life but has accepted thousands of dollars from the founder of a major Planned Parenthood network,” Brownback spokesman John Rankin said. “The only inaccuracy in this matter is Tom Tancredo’s hysterical and disingenuous distortion of Senator Brownback’s record.”

A tale of two papers: Thompson's support among the conservatives

The Washington Post headline:

Abortion Questions Fail to Dim Thompson's Conservative Luster

The gist of the article is that there are some questions about Thompson's candidacy but conservatives still stand by him:

The 2 1/2 -minute video of Fred D. Thompson that played at the National Right to Life Committee's annual meeting last month dazzled the group, as the former senator talked about "the most important thing of all in this world -- and that is life."

Richard Land, an official with the nation's Southern Baptists, called the video "stunning in its strong, pro-life message."

In the three weeks that followed, Thompson and his not-yet-official presidential campaign did their best to undo that goodwill. First it was reported that 16 years ago Thompson worked as a lobbyist on behalf of an abortion rights group. Then he and his staff mishandled their response.

Um, I would say that it's the press that has done everything they can to undo that goodwill.

Thompson said he had no recollection of his work for the group, which turned out to involve 22 separate discussions. His chief spokesman, Mark Corallo, said there was no documentation that he had done anything, and then, when billing records emerged, Corallo said it was "not unusual" for a lawyer at a firm to offer his counsel on a viewpoint he disagrees with.

But instead of viewing him with suspicion, leading social conservatives are rallying around Thompson, citing his eight-year Senate record as proof of his commitment to fight abortion. They dismiss the lobbying report as an effort to drive a wedge between leaders of their cause and a politician who could be their best hope for putting a kindred soul in the White House.

Why do we need to be suspicious when his record speaks for itself? Why wouldn't I think that he would do as he says when he's supported life in the past? That I even am saying this makes me nuts because it's stating the obvious.

Jessica Echard, executive director of the Eagle Forum, said social conservatives should not rush to endorse Thompson before his campaign explains his earlier statements.

"The conservative movement is looking for a new conservative rock star, to put it bluntly," she said. "Maybe some are too quick to jump on the bandwagon . . . this is the stage when we need to be asking all these questions."

Maybe we should ask the question how has he supported life in the past? Or can we trust that he will keep his promises. How is his position on life different from Giuliani's or Romney? How about the fact that he has a PRO-LIFE VOTING RECORD!!!!!!!!! And they do not! If it's a choice between the three, who do you think is the most conservative on this issue and the one who has consistently supported life while in office?

The LA Times tells a different tale:

A fight for GOP 'family values' banner
New evidence of Thompson's abortion rights work complicates his bid and improves Romney's chances with religious conservatives.

I think this is more wishful thinking than reporting.

The emergence of Fred Thompson as a top contender in the Republican presidential race has sparked a clash with rival Mitt Romney over the social conservatives who are crucial to winning the GOP nomination.

In his opening salvo, Romney has seized upon Thompson's work as a lobbyist who tried to lift federal restraints on abortion counseling in the early 1990s.

Thompson, a former Tennessee senator, describes himself as "pro-life." But billing records released Thursday confirmed that — contrary to his initial denial — he charged $4,790 for lobbying and legal work he did for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. Planning and Reproductive Health Assn.

Describes himself as "pro-life?" Don't words mean anything anymore? Doesn't his record count for anything? I went through all of this yesterday in a post on how he makes a weird pro-choice candidate.

The charges against Thompson have given Romney an opening to go after him on this issue:

The New York Times published an article detailing the billing records Thursday.

Hours later, the Romney campaign e-mailed a Christian Broadcast Network story on the matter to hundreds of conservative activists around the country.

In an interview published Wednesday on the San Francisco Examiner's website, Romney suggested that Thompson's years of work as a Washington lobbyist and senator would hinder the Tennessean's presidential campaign. "You're going to have to show the ability to be distinct from Washington," Romney said. "I don't think America is going to elect a Washington insider the next president."

Listen, what we need is someone who understands that the system isn't working and it needs to be reformed. Thompson has demonstrated that he gets it and I believe that he will effectively communicate that to the voters. We need to get a fiscal conservative in the White House so that we can undue the damage that has been done by all these years of runaway spending.

So, while the MSM continues to try to use abortion as a wedge between the "religious right" and Thompson, I think it's clear that there are only two viable candidates in this race who have demonstrated their support of life: Thompson and Huckabee (I do think that Huckabee may be viable). Brownback, McCain and the other Thompson don't have a snowball's chance in Gehenna of being elected. I for one am moving on and won't let the MSM's agenda stop me from supporting the candidate of my choice. Others will have to decide if Thompson's work as a lobbyist negates his votes in the Senate.

I hope eventually we can move on from abortion and get to other important issues since I know that there are differences in the candidates' views on the role of government, to me that issue is as important as abortion and I won't support a candidate who doesn't get that the government needs to be reformed.