Life of the Party

Some Real Perspective on the Election

Got this e-mail today:

For months now my email Inbox has been besieged by nearly hysterical
warnings about what will happen if Barack Obama becomes President.  I have
been encouraged to be worried, afraid, concerned, prepared for disaster, and
a whole host of other maladies if this happens.  I do not deny the
importance of this election, but it seems to me that we need a dose of
perspective.  So here, on the eve of the election, I would like to start my
own email concerning this election.  It’s a “True/False” test.  I’d like for
all of us to take it:

True/False: The day after the election, regardless of who wins, Jesus will
still be King.

True/False: The day after the election, regardless of who wins, our
responsibilities as Christians will not have changed one iota.

True/False: The day after the election, regardless of who wins, the greatest
agent for social change in America will still be winning the hearts and
minds of men and women through the gospel, not legislation.

True/False: The day after the election, regardless of who wins, my primary
citizenship will still be in this order – (1) the Kingdom of God, (2)
America, not vice-versa.

True/False: The day after the election, regardless of who wins, the tomb
will still be empty.

True/False: The day after the election, regardless of who wins, the cross,
not the government, will still be our salvation.

True/False: The day after the election, regardless of who wins, our children
will still be more concerned with whether or not we spend time with them
than with who is President.

True/False: The day after the election, regardless of who wins, my neighbor
will still be my neighbor, and loving him/her will still be the second
greatest commandment.  (Do you know the first?)

True/False: The day after the election, regardless of who wins, the only way
to see abortion ultimately overturned will still be winning men and women to
a high view of life through the gospel of Christ.

True/False: The day after the election, regardless of who wins, the only way
to see gay marriage ultimately defeated will still be winning men and women
to a biblical view of marriage through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

True/False: The day after the election, regardless of who wins, my
retirement will still not match my treasure in Heaven.

True/False: The day after the election, regardless of who wins, “Jesus Is
Lord” will still be the greatest truth in the Universe.

True/False: The day after the election, regardless of who wins, we will
still know that God is in control.

How did you score?

Ames Straw Poll Wrap-up

Don McDowell at Cyclone Conservative has an excellent analysis, from an on the ground perspective, of the Iowa Straw Poll.  It is a must read.  He also posted the actual results of the straw poll. 

I agree with Don Ward at Sound Politics who considers it a loss for Romney after spending millions on campaigning there:

Some of the news reports are falsely portraying this as evidence that Romney is gaining street cred with conservatives in the party. Quite the contrary. The poll participants broke overwhelmingly away from the Massachusetts politician.

Basically what was told to Romney is given the choice between him and a group of political nobodies by a two-to-one margin, the poll participants said "We like these guys who don't have a rat's-ass-chance of winning over you and your money, pretty boy."

The real winners of the straw poll were Huckabee, Browback and Tancredo.  It would be nice to see a serious televised debate between the three of these candidates, since all of them are pro-life.  Pro-lifers could really get a look at where they stand on other issues we care about and then make a more informed choice so we can pool our efforts together.  If the pro-life vote continues to go divided, we will surely end up with one of the "top tier" who are either pro-abortion-choice or cosmetically pro-life. 

Update: Pro-life blogger, Leticia's asking, "Will GOP get the hint?" 

Before You Jump on the Fred Thompson Band Wagon....

...you must read this from RNC for Life:

WHERE IS FRED THOMPSON ON THE RIGHT TO LIFE? 
The answer is, we don't know. What we do know is the following:

• "On abortion, both Thompson and Cooper (Thompson's Democrat opponent in the 1994 U.S. Senate race) are pro-choice.  But Thompson favors parental notification, Cooper voted against it." (National Review, 6/27/94)
• Although Thompson says he's pro-choice, his voting record on abortion issues (which includes opposing Henry Foster's nomination for surgeon general) has earned him high marks from both the Christian Coalition and the National Right to Life Committee.  He has also won the backing of the tobacco industry and the NRA.  (Washington Monthly, 12/1/96)

Click here to read more:

National Right to Life Committee's voting records for the 105th, 106th and 107th sessions of Congress show that, on the votes NRLC scored, he voted to restrict or regulate the practice of abortion every time.  He did not earn a 100% rating from NRLC because he voted for the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform measure. (http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/home/)

But, voting to restrict or regulate abortion does not necessarily mean he believes that every innocent human life is entitled to protection under the law from conception until natural death.  We do not know where Fred Thompson stands on the right to life of the human embryo.  Nor do we know whether he justifies abortion for babies conceived through rape or incest.

Before pro-lifers jump on the Fred Thompson band wagon, and it appears that some are doing so without performing their due diligence, they and we need the answers to these questions.  The fine pro-life candidates who are already in the race for the 2008 Republican nomination-Senator Sam Brownback, Congressman Duncan Hunter, Congressman Tom Tancredo, and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee-should expect no less of pro-life Republican primary voters.

More News on Fred Thompson's "Pro-Life" Position

Pro-lifers better re-think their support for Fred Thompson.  Renew America offers a good look at all the Republican presidential hopefuls and their positions on abortion. 

GOP Moderates Like Fred Thompson

While pro-life Republicans should be looking to coalition with other conservatives to support a presidential candidate, there should definitely be some clear cut objectives before doing so.  Otherwise, we could be getting sold down the river.  Remember, it's not enough for a candidate to simply say "I'm pro-life".  It really isn't enough to look at his record either.  But a pro-life record, combined with a committment to do what one can to end legalized abortion and any other threats to innocent human life. 

Life of the Party remains open to supporting any truly pro-life candidate for the GOP nomination.  Fred Thompson hasn't made his position clear enough yet, and furthermore he has not officially announced that he's running.  In the meantime, we should keep an eye out for what his real positions are and realize that "moderate"/"small 'l' libertarians" are just as hopeful when it comes to their interpretation of his positions on social issues. 

Pro-Abortion Republican Birds of a Feather....

...hire the same campaign spokesman.  Remember the name Elliot Bundy.  Mary E. is shining the light of truth again.

Tom Tancredo, Pro-Life Republican, Makes Presidential Bid Official

"The outpouring of support we have received over the past three months has been tremendous and, frankly, it has far exceeded what I anticipated," Tancredo said this morning. 

The unofficial Tancredo for President Blog is keeping track of some of the coverage.  (The Team Tancredo Team has just launched an official blog for the campaign, linked to the actual campaign website.  Check it out.)  Finally, Tancredo's pro-life credentials are getting recognition.  Here's what LifeNews.com had to say:

Congressman Tom Tancredo, a pro-life Republican from Colorado, made his bid for the GOP nomination for presidential official on Monday. He traveled to Iowa, the site of the first presidential caucus, and told a radio program that he is an alternative to the establishment candidates in the race.

"When I look at the field of candidates running for president, I don't see anyone discussing the topic to the level it needs to be discussed, so I am going to run for president," he said during the statement.

The congressman said he chose talk radio to make his announcement rather than a large press conference because it gives him "a megaphone I would have never had" and added that he's spoken with 1,800 radio programs about his beliefs.

Tancredo is mostly known primarily for his stance against illegal immigration but has voted against abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

Tancredo has been a solid pro-life vote in Congress and earned a 100 percent pro-life voting record from 2005-2006 from the National Right to Life Committee.

During the 109th Congress, Tancredo voted against funding either abortions  in various situations or embryonic stem cell research. He voted repeatedly to uphold parental consent and notification laws on abortion and supported a bill telling women of the pain their baby will feel during an abortion procedure.

Tancredo has a perfect pro-life voting record with the group dating back to 1999 with the exception of one vote on a bill that NRLC worried would ration health care for seniors by limiting their access to prescription drugs paid for with their own funds.

In addition, Tancredo believes all innocent human life should be protected.  He does not discriminate according to how the child was conceived as so many "pro-life" candidates and politicians do.   He is also one of the rare Republicans at the national level who support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, restoring the unalienable right to life to pre-born children, that has been infringed upon against the intentions of our Founding Fathers.   All that, and he wants to enforce our immigration laws and put an end to Corporate America endangering our national security by employing their "cheap labor" slaves!

"24 Carat Conservative" Reaches $1 Million Fundraising Goal

Colorado Congressman and Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, has reached and surpassed his fundraising goal of $1,000,000,000.  Of course, this amount is far from being in the same ballpark as the "front-runners" in the race, but that is to be expected.  Their money comes from large corporations.   Some of those large corporations benefit financially from illegal immigration.  But $1 million is certainly impressive for a candidate the media and Republican party leaders would rather ignore.  It clearly demonstrates a grassroots movement.

Other news about the campaign: Bay Buchanan joins the team, and the campaign website has a new look, with many more headlines (including "New Hampshire voters call Tancredo "The Conservative!~"24-carat conservative on everything from entitlement spending to abortion to illegal immigrants to the threat of a rapidly arming China").  Take a look and contribute. 

Tancredo Places Second in Straw Poll

I attended my county council district caucus yesterday, which was well attended, considering it being an "off year election".  Delegates were anxious to have a say in issues the party should address as well as who our presidential nominee should be. 

Although the ballots we were given did not include Tom Tancredo's name on it, it was pointed out, and we were given the opportunity to write in a candidate under "other".  Newt Gingrich placed first, with Tancredo only one vote short of being tied with Gingrich.  Fred Thompson placed third, Romney fourth.  What does this tell you about the media's proclaimed "front-runners" and the grassroots?  Giuliani and McCain were not even close. 

Other interesting notes:  The ballot included Fred Thompson, though he has not yet even formed an exploratory committee.  The ballot also had a poll for V.P., though nobody is actually running for V.P. at this time.  The V.P. portion of the ballot included only 3 names:  Mary Bono, J.C. Watts, and I think Fred Thompson.  The absurdity was pointed out and delegates wondered out loud, who prepared these ballots?  Where did they come up with Mary Bono?  J.C. Watts?  Why not put in our second choice for president?  Why the names of random political figures not even running for president?  The answer is still a mystery. 

Fred Thompson, Fishnet For McCain?

That's what some are saying.  He did, afterall, consistantly support McCain's infamous campaign finance reform bill.  Others are saying that he is just getting his name out there to boost his new radio show.  It's all speculation, but perhaps there's some merit to it.   This should be watched closely.

Life of the Party was at first optimistic about Thompson's candidacy, due to his conservative reputation combined with his star power and charisma, but now has concerns about the lack of clarity in his stated positions on the issues, and what he would do with those issues as president. 

For reasons more clarity is needed, read this.  Meanwhile, we'll be keeping an eye on Fred Thompson.