The Conservative Blogs Respond To Thompson's Abortion Rights Lobbying

A question of ontology: is the Fred Thompson abortion story a legitimate big deal regardless of whether the MSM wants it to be a big deal? Or is it a big deal because the MSM is so invested in the idea of bringing Thompson down a few rungs?

Many conservative bloggers are still giving him a pass.

Riehl World View:

As Fred might say, Friends ... the way I see it, we just got done almost sendin' a good man to prison, ... still made quite a mess of his life, I reckon, for nothing more than, well, perhaps nothin' more than mis-remembering a simple conversation, or two. And, now, oh, well, hell, this was about twenty or so years ago, wuddn't it?

Captain Ed: "This story is essentially a yawn."

Powerline blames the media. (No joke!)

What's interesting, I think, is that the news outlets that are pushing this story are not conservative. They seem to think that the story will somehow discredit Thompson among conservatives, presumably because conservatives are too dumb to understand how law firms and the legal process work. The appropriate response from the right would be, I think, a yawn. So far, that's what we've seen.

James Joyner is an exception.

The story itself is rather innocuous; that his first instinct was to lie about it, though, says something about the man’s character. My guess is that this won’t seriously damage his candidacy. After all, most people think “lying politician” is redundant. Still, to the extent that Thompson’s appeal is that he’s not a professional politician, this hurts.

Yuval Levin is also clear-headed.

On the abortion question, Fred Thompson has so far managed to gain the trust of pro-lifers without actually saying anything about either principle or policy—what specifically he believes, or what kind of laws or rules he might support or oppose

Comments

Regardless of whether one is a conservative or not, I am fascinated with what Bush has done to the conservative movement whose first instinct now is always to deny reality. The war in Iraq is going well, global warming is a hoax and this Fred Thompson as a lobbyist is a conspiracy by the media.
Conservative principles are very worthy but the movement is never going to be taken seriously by anyone as long as they keep pretending things that bother them doe not exist. Remember when they used to say a conservative is a liberal that has been mugged by reality ? Somehow the past six years have taken Rep far far away from any kind of reality. Too bad.

Posted by nhuixnhuix | July 19, 2007 11:07 AM

My guess is that it won't hurt him at all with conservative pundits, who are likely to crow about how little they care - but it's certainly not going to curry any favor with the really far-right evangelicals and pro-life activists, who refuse to vote against their conscience no matter who the candidates on either side are.

Posted by Ryan | July 19, 2007 11:47 AM

Fred has a memory problem and truth problem.
How can he not remember lobbying FOR something HE IS AGAINST?
How can he not remember working for someone he talked to 22 times?
How can he not remember all the forms he filled out while running for Senator?
Should a man with such a mushy memory even be considered for the Presdency?

The truth is Fred's people simply cannot say he has become more pro-life over the past 15 years (like MANY Americans) because to do so will reveal their hypocrisy with other candidates who have done exactly the same thing.

Stop the spinning, embrace the conversion. The true pro-life folks are ALL ABOUT THE CONVERTED!!

Posted by MrShortTermMemory | July 19, 2007 11:49 AM

Thompson could get out of this if he wished: he could just say that he used to be pro-choice (which was true until 1995), so there was no conflict of prinicple there, but that he became pro-life after hearing his son's heartbeat in a sonogram, as he said before. Yet, he's trying to pass a version of events where he was always a true-believing sociocon, which is provably untrue. Of course, that doesn't matter if one doesn't regard the truth too highly...

I, as a Democrat, am glad in a partisan sense that the right wing is putting all their faith in a man who has shown nothing that merits it, and that they push any doubt or contrary opinion right out of their heads. It's not good for the country, but does anyone think that if Thompson manages to skate through the primaries, he's going to have an easier time against Hillary? She'll tear him to pieces--all she'll have to do is bring this sort of stuff up during the general election, and since this whole story is an example of how poorly Fred's team can handle a crisis, the fact that this guy is supposedly the savior of the GOP makes me much more optimistic.

The GOP is entrusting its future to someone who is almost entirely an unknown commodity, and the right is afraid to try to get to know this amorphous mass of Thompson hope for fear they will find something they won't like. This is not the sign of a confident, commanding party looking to hang onto its mandate--it's the sign of a desperate party, knowing the odds are arrayed against it, holding desperately onto a flimsy branch as the current pulls it away.

Posted by Lev | July 19, 2007 2:07 PM

Ever notice how the Republican Party today is dominated by Watergate retreads?

The President is the son of George H.W. Bush, who was Director of the Republican National Committee during the Watergate cover-up. Dick Cheney was appointed White House chief of staff by Gerald Ford, who pardoned Nixon.

And Fred Thompson was a Watergate mole.

As far as Republican leadership is concerned, it's as if the Reagan Administration never happened. Instead of going to prison, the Watergate Alumni has ascended to the summit of power, and should Thompson win, they may remain there for another decade.

Posted by implicaverse | July 19, 2007 3:05 PM

It's not a big story regarding the abortion issue but if Hollywood Fred should happen to win the nomination, I'm sure it will reappear as an attack on his credibility.

It's the lying about it that's the issue.

Posted by not the senator | July 19, 2007 3:26 PM

Beggars can't be choosers.

Posted by david | July 19, 2007 4:25 PM

The issue of lying about doing something that they know they did, something we know they did, and they know we know they did. But they will sit with a straight face and tell us they did not do it. I wonder why that sounds familiar?

Posted by Michael | July 20, 2007 7:43 AM