A tale of two papers: Thompson's support among the conservatives

The Washington Post headline:

Abortion Questions Fail to Dim Thompson's Conservative Luster

The gist of the article is that there are some questions about Thompson's candidacy but conservatives still stand by him:

The 2 1/2 -minute video of Fred D. Thompson that played at the National Right to Life Committee's annual meeting last month dazzled the group, as the former senator talked about "the most important thing of all in this world -- and that is life."

Richard Land, an official with the nation's Southern Baptists, called the video "stunning in its strong, pro-life message."

In the three weeks that followed, Thompson and his not-yet-official presidential campaign did their best to undo that goodwill. First it was reported that 16 years ago Thompson worked as a lobbyist on behalf of an abortion rights group. Then he and his staff mishandled their response.

Um, I would say that it's the press that has done everything they can to undo that goodwill.

Thompson said he had no recollection of his work for the group, which turned out to involve 22 separate discussions. His chief spokesman, Mark Corallo, said there was no documentation that he had done anything, and then, when billing records emerged, Corallo said it was "not unusual" for a lawyer at a firm to offer his counsel on a viewpoint he disagrees with.

But instead of viewing him with suspicion, leading social conservatives are rallying around Thompson, citing his eight-year Senate record as proof of his commitment to fight abortion. They dismiss the lobbying report as an effort to drive a wedge between leaders of their cause and a politician who could be their best hope for putting a kindred soul in the White House.

Why do we need to be suspicious when his record speaks for itself? Why wouldn't I think that he would do as he says when he's supported life in the past? That I even am saying this makes me nuts because it's stating the obvious.

Jessica Echard, executive director of the Eagle Forum, said social conservatives should not rush to endorse Thompson before his campaign explains his earlier statements.

"The conservative movement is looking for a new conservative rock star, to put it bluntly," she said. "Maybe some are too quick to jump on the bandwagon . . . this is the stage when we need to be asking all these questions."

Maybe we should ask the question how has he supported life in the past? Or can we trust that he will keep his promises. How is his position on life different from Giuliani's or Romney? How about the fact that he has a PRO-LIFE VOTING RECORD!!!!!!!!! And they do not! If it's a choice between the three, who do you think is the most conservative on this issue and the one who has consistently supported life while in office?

The LA Times tells a different tale:

A fight for GOP 'family values' banner
New evidence of Thompson's abortion rights work complicates his bid and improves Romney's chances with religious conservatives.

I think this is more wishful thinking than reporting.

The emergence of Fred Thompson as a top contender in the Republican presidential race has sparked a clash with rival Mitt Romney over the social conservatives who are crucial to winning the GOP nomination.

In his opening salvo, Romney has seized upon Thompson's work as a lobbyist who tried to lift federal restraints on abortion counseling in the early 1990s.

Thompson, a former Tennessee senator, describes himself as "pro-life." But billing records released Thursday confirmed that — contrary to his initial denial — he charged $4,790 for lobbying and legal work he did for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. Planning and Reproductive Health Assn.

Describes himself as "pro-life?" Don't words mean anything anymore? Doesn't his record count for anything? I went through all of this yesterday in a post on how he makes a weird pro-choice candidate.

The charges against Thompson have given Romney an opening to go after him on this issue:

The New York Times published an article detailing the billing records Thursday.

Hours later, the Romney campaign e-mailed a Christian Broadcast Network story on the matter to hundreds of conservative activists around the country.

In an interview published Wednesday on the San Francisco Examiner's website, Romney suggested that Thompson's years of work as a Washington lobbyist and senator would hinder the Tennessean's presidential campaign. "You're going to have to show the ability to be distinct from Washington," Romney said. "I don't think America is going to elect a Washington insider the next president."

Listen, what we need is someone who understands that the system isn't working and it needs to be reformed. Thompson has demonstrated that he gets it and I believe that he will effectively communicate that to the voters. We need to get a fiscal conservative in the White House so that we can undue the damage that has been done by all these years of runaway spending.

So, while the MSM continues to try to use abortion as a wedge between the "religious right" and Thompson, I think it's clear that there are only two viable candidates in this race who have demonstrated their support of life: Thompson and Huckabee (I do think that Huckabee may be viable). Brownback, McCain and the other Thompson don't have a snowball's chance in Gehenna of being elected. I for one am moving on and won't let the MSM's agenda stop me from supporting the candidate of my choice. Others will have to decide if Thompson's work as a lobbyist negates his votes in the Senate.

I hope eventually we can move on from abortion and get to other important issues since I know that there are differences in the candidates' views on the role of government, to me that issue is as important as abortion and I won't support a candidate who doesn't get that the government needs to be reformed.