I understand exactly what you’re saying and I do think it can tend toward a slippery slope. However, I am just trying to keep in mind the original reason I supported Duncan Hunter. I want to see a pro-life president in the White House. Having spent extensive (sometimes exhaustive!) time with the National Right to Life Committee, I highly respect them and the process they went through to find a candidate to endorse.

No, Fred’s not perfect - but he is good. The slippery slope stops there. Giuliani is by no definition good. God forbid he ends up as the Republican nominee, I’m with you in that I won’t vote for him. At least Fred Thompson is pro-life and generally a strong social and fiscal conservative. I don’t like him as much as I like Hunter, but I do trust NRLC. When they say that Fred has the highest likelihood to beat Giuliani out of all the pro-life candidates, they know what they’re talking about.

Before NRLC’s endorsement, pro-life voters were divided between 4-5 candidates: Hunter, Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Thompson. Pro-abortion Republicans and other more liberal Republicans are united behind Giuliani. Giuliani therefore has a unique advantage in the race. If we want a pro-life candidate to be our nominee, we all must decide on one candidate to vote for as a group. If we don’t, our votes will be split 5 ways and Giuliani will inevitably get the nomination.

If Fred Thompson - imperfect as he is - is our best bet to put a united front against Giuliani, then I’m voting for Fred Thompson. I’m going to work equally hard to promote him and at the same time encourage Hunter to be the VP. Then, in 4-8 years we will have our perfect president.

I will say this, NRLC has one purpose and one purpose only, to save lives. Strategically, if worse comes to worst and Giuliani is nominated by the Republicans, they may have to endorse him simply because he is the lesser of the two evils (since it doesn’t take much to be better than Hillary/Obama/Edwards). I cannot vote for him, but understand why NRLC would endorse him.

I hope (and I know they hope) that the Fred endorsement will prevent Giuliani from receiving the nomination, therefore preventing the threat of being forced to endorse him.

Overall, I want to save babies’ lives. I love Duncan Hunter, but making a statement in the primary because I like him best is not worth the risk of having Giuliani in office.

I hope you can see where I’m coming from.

I hope you don’t read this as a lecture or a rebuke as I don’t intend it to be. I am concerned about a potential slippery slope regarding your last line:

“Is fighting for the unattainable perfect against the attainable good worth letting more babies die?”

It seems very similar to the argument that the elites use to push Rudy. I’m not saying that I think Thompson is as bad as Rudy, obviously he would be a ton better than Rudy. My point regards giving up on what one believes to be right. It seems like incrementally moving away from supporting what one believes to to be right to supporting what one believes to be ok (and seemingly more electable.) I am wondering if there is a next step (i.e. supporting Giuliani because he says he will appoint strict constructionist judges.)

As for me, I continue to support Duncan Hunter and will continue to work on his behalf. If the Republican nominee is pro-life, I will support him and maybe work on his behalf (depending on his other positions.) If the Republican nominee is Giuliani I will view it as an indicator of the direction of the Republican Party away from a pro-life position and I will cease to be a Republican. (Not that I will become a Demoncrat.)

I also must admit that my bouts of severe discouragement come at increasingly more frequent intervals as I begin to see that we the people maybe don’t really matter when it comes to politics.

I hope Senator Thompson does get the nomination… as soon as I’m done mourning my support of Hunter, I’m going full force for Thompson. At this point, I know if he doesn’t win, Guiliani will.

Thanks for stopping by. I was definitely in the crowd of liking a particular candidate most regardless of their so-called “electability”. In fact, I still resent the idea of letting the media dictate to us who is electable and who is not. If I had my way, all the Americans whining that, as much as they love them, candidates like Hunter and Huckabee were unelectable would be forced to endorse said candidates. I think then we’d realize they actually are electable if people would just stop talking and start acting.

That said, I think we’re a ways off from “having my way.”

When it all comes down, one thing social conservatives (and fiscal conservatives too!) can agree on is that we do not want a President Giuliani. The only way to prevent that from happening is to unite behind one candidate in the primaries. Giuliani has it easy — all the liberal Republicans alreadly like him and the conservative Republicans are split between 4-5 other candidates.

Now that NRLC, an organization highly respected by social conservatives, has endorsed a candidate they believe upholds their values and possesses the capability to win, we must unite behind that candidate and elect a president who will lead America down the path we believe in.

I guess what that means for me at this point is hoping that Hunter can be a vice president. :/

Still torn about the whole thing, but these posts have helped, I must say! Great posts.