Thursday, November 08, 2007

FRED THOMPSON

How Much Did Thompson's Abortion Comments Hurt Him?

A rival campaign is circulating this column by Bob Novak, on Fred Thompson alienating pro-lifers and contending one of his answers "could have come from NARAL."

This rival campaign contends it's a major setback for Team Fred, as Bob Novak once effusively praised Senator Thompson." They point to this column, and this quote:

“Fred Thompson has improbably transformed the contest for the Republican presidential nomination. It is not merely that he has come from nowhere to double digits in national polls. He is the talk of GOP political circles, because he is filling the conservative void in the Republican field of candidates.”

But I would cast a skeptical eye at any attempt to paint Novak as Fred's cheerleader.

Recall he gave Thompson's first speech a scathing review:

"It was not Reaganesque." "No red meat." "Too low key." That was the preponderant reaction I heard to Thompson's half-hour presentation (leavened by a few favorable comments, mostly by women, that he was more "statesmanlike" and "presidential" than the announced candidates). Lincoln Club members, like many conservative Republicans, have been unimpressed by the existing field of Republican hopefuls and envisioned Thompson as the second coming of Ronald Reagan. They did not get it Friday night.

Anyway, did Thompson seriously damage himself on Meet the Press? Yesterday some close to him were spotlighting this praise from National Right to Life:

[David Osteen] does not have a problem with Thompson's stance because a human life amendment has been a "long-term" goal of the pro-life movement.

"You would have to change 20 to 25 votes in the Senate," says Osteen. "You'd have to replace 20 to 25 senators to pass an amendment even there. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress [and] three-fourths of the states to ratify [an amendment to the Constitutional], so it's not practical to think that there would be a human life amendment passing Congress during the next presidential term — and of course, the president doesn't have a vote."

Osteen says "what's more important" is that Thompson had a solid pro-life record while in the Senate, wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, and would appoint judges who would reverse Roe. "He's pro-life, he's got a strong pro-life voting record in the Senate, [he] was a consistent vote for the pro-life side during the eight years he served in the U.S. Senate — and I think his record speaks for itself," he claims.

Clearly, Thompson's federalism on abortion and gay marriage is not sitting well with some social conservatives. I suppose if they prefer other candidates, this will be one more log on the fire. Still, one wonders if they're looking for reasons to reject him. The idea that Thompson wouldn't be their ally on so many issues doesn't hold much water, nor the idea that deciding abortion at the state level wouldn't be a major victory for the pro-life cause.

By the way, is anyone else a little surprised that these folks are more upset by his federalist approach than by his lobbying for a pro-choice group 17 years ago?

11/08 09:53 AMShare