Replies

Check this out:

Sorting through all the Romney nonsense

The Eighth Commandment.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

What does this mean?--Answer:

We should fear and love God so that we do not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him,speak well of him, and explain his actions in the kindest way.

--Martin Luther, The Small Catechism

Presumably the authors of the blog Evangelicals for Mitt are not Lutherans. Or maybe some of them are; not a few members of my own religious confession identify with that movement. But Lutheran or not, certainly few conservative Protestants would disagree with the interpretation of their Ninth Commandment (our Eighth) the Reformer gave in the words above.

That's why I was sad to see Evangelicals for Mitt repeat questionable charges that Fred Thompson was pro-choice during his campaigns for the Senate. The charges come from National Review Online blogger Ramesh Ponnuru, who observes that there is "strong" evidence supporting them and that such a Thompson position was "widely reported." To be fair to Ponnuru (and to Evangelicals for Mitt), Ponnuru does cite one- and only one- "smoking gun:" a 1997 letter on the subject of abortion in which Thompson asserts (the context of these words unavailable) that he supports what Ponnuru calles "various restrictions" on abortion, but which also includes the line, "I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area."

There is, of couse, an obvious logical conflict between supporting restrictions on abortions and not supporting government interference with "convictions and actions in this area" (I really would like to see that letter!).

But besides the letter, all Ponnaru cites are various "press clippings" describing Thompson as pro-choice. In other words, with the exception of that single, out-of context quote, all we have is the second-hand characterization of a National Review writer basing his own characterization, in turn, of the second-hand characterizations of other reporters.

I fear that the folks at Evangelicals for Mitt have failed to "explain (Thompson's) actions in the kindest way." Rather, they have publicly assumed the worst about him on a matter concerning which there is considerably mixed evidence, at best.

On the other hand, we have National Right to Life Committee Committee Executive Co-Director Darla St. Martin's unequivocal statement, based on a personal conversation at the time, that Sen. Thompson was pro-life prior to 1994, when he first ran for the Senate. We have Thompson's spotlessly pro-life voting record throughout his entire Senate career, including his 1999 vote- which even Ponnaru acknowledges- against the Harkin Amendment, which put the U.S. Senate on record as supporting Roe v. Wade. And even Evangelicals for Mitt has this to say:

At any rate, I don't particularly care that Thompson was pro-choice. He's been pro-life in office and is pro-life now. I was the first one to raise Thompson's pro-choice past (not my wife -- can't a guy get any respect around here?), and I did it merely to point out that if Mitt Romney is not a "true conservative" because he used to be pro-choice, then neither is Fred Thompson. As anyone who reads this blog for more than five seconds knows, I think this desperate longing on the right for a "Conservative Messiah" is the height of absurdity. I'm glad Fred Thompson is pro-life, and I like Fred Thompson. He's a good conservative. I just like another candidate better."

When all is said and done, it boils down to this: Mitt Romney, throughout most of his political life, has been quite frankly and vocally pro-choice. There is no debate about that; anyone with any questions need only consult YouTube! On the eve of his campaign for the Republican presidential campaign, in which the pro-choice position which was politically adventageous for a statewide candidate in Massachusetts became a dire political liability, his public position changed.

Now, I hasten to add that I do not question the sincerity of Gov. Romney's change of heart. As it happens, before Sen. Thompson let it be known that he was considering a candidacy of his own, I was briefly a supporter of Gov. Romney. In my personal blog, I argued against the notion that Gov. Romney's late conversion to the pro-life cause should be held against him, as well as against the un-American and frankly stupid idea that his Mormon religion should somehow disqualify him from the presidency. Frankly, to coin a phrase, I'm glad Mitt Romney is pro-life, and I like Mitt Romney. He's a good conservative. I just like another candidate better.

But the fact remains that Mitt Romney does not have the history of pro-life actions Fred Thompson has throughout his public career. He does not have the imprimatur of a Darla St. Martin on his resume as a long-time pro-lifer- or even, to use Ponnuru's tortured distinction, as an "ally" of the pro-life movement. There will be those who will be disposed to be cynical about Romney's conversion to the pro-life cause just in time to run as a pro-life presidential candidate after a career of being outspokenly pro-choice. I am not among them, and I do not believe their suspicion of Gov. Romney's sincerity to be justified.

But it is nevertheless a political fact of life for Gov. Romney and his supporters. In fact, it's a real disadvantage. Rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly), there are a great many conservatives who simply have a hard time accepting the notion that Mitt Romney is an honest-to-goodness conservative, both on the abortion question and on others. It may not be fair that he has to live his past down, but human nature being what it is, fair or not, he does in the eyes of many on the Right.

And it is that which has prompted Evangelicals for Mitt (and others in the Romney camp) to cast aspersions on Fred Thompson's record on abortion. Never mind that Sen. Thompson's voting record on abortion (even if one accepts Ponnaru's characterization of his past statements at face value) cannot rationally be compared to Romney's forthrightly pro-choice position throughout his own career. It's not even a question, really, of the Romney people trying to neutralize the disadvantage at which his own record on abortion places their candidate.

It's all about the fact that the emergence of Fred Thompson has put Mitt Romney in deep trouble. Thompson has already passed Romney in Iowa and is closing on him in New Hampshire, despite not even being a declared candidate, having no staff in the field, and lacking anything resembling the former Massachusetts governor's campaign coffers (the Thomposn PAC is less than a week old, and Romney TV ads have been running here in Iowa for weeks).

If you're a Romney supporter, Fred Thompson must be shot down somehow- and right now!

I am hardly the only convert, either in Iowa or elsewhere, to the Thompson camp from Romney's. The Romney campaign simply cannot survive the continuation of the Thompson boom. The former Tennessee senator is already in the process of replaceing the former Massachusetts governor as one of the "big three," along with socially liberal non-starter Rudy Giuliani and widely (if unfairly) distrusted John McCain.

If the Thompson candidacy prospers, it will not simply do so at the expense of the Romney candidacy. The two are antithetical. Mitt Romney's candidacy simply cannot survive the continued burgeoning of the Thompson boom. And so it is no surprise that it is neither openly pro-choice Giuliani nor fellow-convert to the pro-life cause John McCain whose record is under attack from the Romney camp. It's the record of the real threat- Fred Thompson.

Ultimately, the attempt to portray Fred Thompson as another Johnny-come-lately to the pro-life cause is the result of the desperation of the Romney camp- a desperation well founded in reality.

http://iowansforfredthompson.blogspot.com/