The Thompson camp, after a story published by the New York Times,
and backed by the always reliable National Review, admitted that Thompson
had indeed done some brief lobbying for planned parenthood organisations,
to obtain federal funding for abortions.
Now, let it be noted that a lawyer working as a lobbyist takes on a plethora
of clients, and his job is to be an advocate for his client's views, even if
they often do not reflect his own - just like a defence lawyer takes on
clients, who have more than often done things, he, or she, may find horrifying.
The full picture, as an op-ed piece on NRO points outs, is murkier than
we would like it to be. Recently revealed letters to constituents show
that his beliefs in the mid 1990, clearly indicated that he leaned towards
the pro-choice position. Mr. Thompson's voting record, however, has
always been solidly pro-life.
A murky situation indeed, especially when Thompson proclaimed that
he couldn't possibly fathom how anyone could paint him as pro-choice.
Regrettably, as the Thompson camp has now had to concede, the evidence
shows how one could indeed come to that conclusion.
But let's give the benefit of the doubt to old Fred. 15 years ago is a long
time, and his voting record to the pro-life cause has always been solid.
Perhaps he, like many others, changed his mind over the years, as I'm
sure many voters have. This is not unheard of, and can hardly be
called a latter-day conversion, like that of Mitt Romney. (pardon the pun).
As for me, I am guilty of jumping too quickly to defend Mr Thompson,
and for that, my readers may declare shenanigans on me. (that's a South