Replies

Novak and the rest of the MSM view FDT’s campaign in the context of conventional thought as to how a modern campaing should be run and any deviation is viewed as a blunder. Perhaps they should quit playing “gotcha”, wanting to be the first to point out a fatal error and dismiss the candidate from the race and do what his supporters are doing...listening to the man’s entire answer. He does tend to show his years in the Senate by giving a thorough and usually thought provoking answer but the detractors want to deal in sound bites and don’t have time to really listen. He’s really trying to run a different kind of campaign and once the pretend conservatives go by the wayside he’ll be left to inherit his rightfull role as leading conservative with a state’s rights emphasis. It’s like these talk shows that want to cover a complex issue in the 15 minute segment they’ve allotted to it with four guests who usually only get maybe one shot to make a statement, let alone a convincing arguement.

Why's that a "stunning error?" Thompson is talking sense here, by accounting for the 3 P's: publicity, politics, and practicality.

Publicity The pro-aborts' strongest argument has always been to induce sympathy the pretty young girl whose bright future was truncated by the arrival of an unwanted child. People do feel sorry for these girls, and it gives a surface plausibility that helps them to mask the underlying ghastliness of abortion.

Politics Any legislator who tries to impose criminal penalties on the women who have abortions, will be quickly marginalized. Whose side are you gonna take: some poor kid who's at her wits end, or the politician who wants this poor girl to be put in jail? Politics says the girl gets all the sympathy.

Practicality To get any reasonable restrictions on abortion, legislators have to avoid introducing the sorts of issues that will shift the focus to something distracting. Thus, you don't want to attack the sympathetic figures.

There are undoubtedly that set of purists who will try to use this to paint Fred Thompson as a pro-abort. Those people are fools who would rather be right and get nothing, than practical and move the line a bit further toward the goal.

Like it or not, This is a political problem, and it demands a political solution. You don't win in politics by picking on attractive victims.

There are other, better ways to do this, such as highlighting the ghoulish characters who make millions by killing thousands of babies yearly.

Thompson Shows High Level of Integrity
Jonathan Stein over at MotherJones Blog is on point when it comes to his analysis of Bob Novak's latest article attacking Fred Thompson.
In his post entitled "Bob Novak Sees Everything Through a Political Lens", it is game, set, match for Stein,
Bob Novak is claiming that social conservatives have had just about enough of Fred Thompson and his moderate views. On a recent Meet the Press appearance, Thompson opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, opposed the congressional intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, and opposed a constitutional amendment to ban abortions (though such an amendment has been part of the Republican Party platform since 1980).
And it's this last that is really getting people. On abortion, Thompson said, "You can't have a [federal] law" that "would take young, young girls... and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail." Despite his 100 percent pro-life voting record, Thompson is clearly just not avid enough. Here's Novak:
Thompson's comments revealed an astounding lack of sensitivity about abortion. He surely anticipated that Russert would cite his record favoring states' rights on abortion. Whether the candidate just blurted out his statement or had planned it, it suggested a failure to realize how much his chances for the Republican nomination depend on social conservatives.
Here's what I want to point out. As should be obvious, Thompson's comments revealed a lack of sensitivity about politics; they showed a high level of integrity about abortion. Novak can't distinguish between the two. For him, evaluating a stand or a position on principle is a non-starter, a moot point. A position can only be evaluated based on politics, and how it will help election chances. Blergh.