Rival Campaign Goes After Fred Thompson Again, but Forgot to Do their Homework

It seems, according to the Brody File, that a rival campaign is bent on taking out Senator Thompson before he gains any traction. However, in their mudslinging, they forget to check the facts. Here is what Brody has posted:

First off, it appears Thompson wasn’t a big fan of the GOP having any sort of platform back in 1996. In April of 1996, this is what The Memphis Commercial Appeal wrote: Thompson wants to change the way the 1996 Republican National Convention is conducted. For starters, he wants to abolish the party platform – just toss the archaic thing away. ‘It’s the most useless device I’ve ever heard of,’ Thompson said during a recent visit to Memphis.”

In August of that same year, Thompson called abortion a “distracting issue.” Read below from an Associated Press article:

U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson says he seldom hears about abortion in campaign travels throughout Tennessee and hopes the issue is downplayed at the Republican National Convention. The Tennessee Republican, a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt, is preparing for next week’s convention in San Diego. He said the party must avoid distracting issues and focus on electing Bob Dole as president. ‘We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,’ Thompson said in an interview with The Tennessean published Tuesday.

Later in that same 1996 AP article came this part:
In 1996, Thompson Said Republican Ideals Don’t Need To Be Written Down Into Platform. “Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. ‘But I don’t think you should bolt on one issue. I’m still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don’t think we need to write it all down in a document,’ Thompson said.

So what are we to make of all of this?

On the GOP platform, I would think there are a great number of Republicans who believe the platform is very important because it stands for the principals the party unites behind. But as Thompson says, I’m sure there are those who think the document is a big waste of time.

On the abortion issue, it seems pretty clear that Thompson felt abortion was more of a distraction to the party. You get the sense that he saw it as divisive and something to avoid or downplay at the convention. Pro-lifers will take issue with that. I know Thompson’s defenders will point to his stellar pro-life record in the Senate.

Fine. If this is how they want to play the game, I can play too. They conveniently forget to mention the fact that in 1996 Thompson was campaigning hard for Senator Bob Dole. Dole, of course, was campaigning on this very idea. See the wikipedia reference:

Dole also found himself criticized from both the left and the right within the Republican Party over the convention platform as well as the additional challenge of Ross Perot’s entry into the race.

In an article for the National Review that year, William Buckley said:

Senator Dole knows better, possibly, than any other man on earth what is and what is not going to happen when revising the Constitution comes up. He tried to get through an amendment that would forbid deficit spending, but failed. The chances of getting through an amendment that would absolutely forbid abortions has the same chance an amendment to abolish slavery would have had in 1850. He knows this, and so do informed partisans on both sides. For that reason the phraseology of the platform is the only substantive matter to fight over, and Senator Dole’s contribution to Republican concinnity was his idea that the platform should also profess “tolerance” for positions different from the Pro-Life position.

Senator Dole needs encouragement from his friends and supporters. The polls have given him a little lift in the past few days and there may be, creeping into the voter’s mind, some sense of the gravitas of Bob Dole. He really does have it, so much so that one is occasionally tempted to reject the nickname and refer to him as Robert Dole. He is a handsome man; his countenance is both that of the American who enjoys impieties at the Mark Twain level, and that of the American one goes to war with, knowing that, at your side, is a noble man and true companion. The other stuff he’s not very good at, and it goes against his natural character as presidential candidate.

Better check the context, ‘rival campaigns.’