Thompson 'turmoil' is largely in the eye of the observer

Reader Carl Vehse has commented negatively on Fred Thompson's appointment of one of his former collegues in the Senate Republican caucus- Spencer Abraham of Michigan- as his acting campaign manager. And the Democratic Campaign Pamphlet of Record, the New York Times, yesterday combined this story with several others in an attempt to portray Thompson's nascent campaign for the White House as one in 'turmoil.

Abraham- an Arab-American whose positions on Middle East issues are as far out of step with Thompson's own as with those of conservatives generally- was given the job of dealing, not with policy matters, but with political ones. Nevertheless, several Thompson staffers resigned, and Thompson's choice of Abraham has drawn heavy fire from conservative columnists and bloggers (including some fair criticism from Michelle Malkin and a bizarre, over-the-top overreaction by Debbie Schlussel).

The Abraham flap is merely the most substantive in a series of relatively petty criticisms of Thompson which have received enough media attention as to create the (carefully cultivated) illusion of a campaign in trouble. Insofar as Abraham's appointment has at least temporarily alienated some who ought to be his friends and supporters, it probably has more substance than most; Abraham's appointment to a political position has turned out to be precisely a political blunder. But precisely because Abraham's appointment was a political rather than a policy one, only the disingenuous would even be inclined to disregard Thompson's own stated positions on the Middle East and terrorism to read anything sinister into his selection of Abraham. Yet- oddly- this is precisely the angle of attack the critics of Abraham's appointment have taken.

Still, of all the criticisms Thompson has undergone in recent weeks, the relatively minor questions raised by the Abraham appointment have been the most substantial. Don't misunderstand me; it was a mistake for Thompson to have made an appointment with the potential to expose him even to criticism of such dubious legitimacy. It was a mistake, for that matter, to make any appointment likely to backfire in the way Abraham's appointment clearly has. But the matter is all the more disheartening because conservatives have now joined in the resort to innuendo rather than logic in their public posture regarding the man likely to most consistently represent their positions and concerns in the White House during the next two terms.

Liberals have a habit of repeating "dirt" on conservatives they fear long after it's been shown to be irrelevant or even untrue; just ask the members of the Alabama Air National Guard whose public recollections of serving with George W. Bush during the period when he was allegedly AWOL were ignored by Democrats- including John Kerry-who were still repeating the proven slander four years later. Similarly, we can expect to continue to hear the insubstantial criticisms of Thompson which have surfaced in the MSM in recent weeks just as long as Fred Thompson continues to be a national figure. The facts are not the issue; the longitivity of the stories will be due to their partisan usefulness as innuendo.

In Thompson's case, it starts with allegations that he has a "trophy wife-" a much younger and extremely attractive woman who, on one hand, is alleged to be a brainless plaything, but on the other to be the super-sophisticated political operative who is actually the brains of his campaign, and exercising a wholly inappropriate degree of influence for a candidate's wife.

Can it really be that the Left misses the inherent sexism here? The illogic is another matter; after all, self-contradiction is pretty standard in Democratic circles when it comes to the demonization of Republicans, as witness George W. Bush's iconic status on the Left as a diabolically clever moron. But the sad thing is that the issue didn't emerge on the Left. Conservative MSNBC commentator Joe Scarborough was the first person I recall entering this bogus area.

Then there's the charge that Thompson lobbied for an anti-abortion group seeking repeal of the administration's "gag rule" preventing Federally-funded agencies from presenting abortion as an option to pregnant women. The innuendo continues, even though the facts invalidate the premise: a colleague at Thompson's firm was the one who did the lobbying, and Thompson merely asked some procedural questions on his behalf- a customary courtesy among lobbyists of the same firm. At no time, however, did Thompson actually seek the repeal of the "gag rule" himself. But the 'turmoil' grows.

It's true that it was the MSM that broke the "story." But it's largely Republican opponents of Thompson who are making use of it- although indirectly, it's being used by the MSM itself, as well. Anything that makes Fred Thompson- potentially the strongest possibility- less likely to be the 2008 GOP nominee obviously is good news to those of the ideological niche into which most American journalists fall.

Perhaps the funniest of the recent slams on Thompson in the MSM has been the "revelation" that, as Minority Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, he actually functioned as a partisan.

Horrors.

It seems not to have occurred to many people in the MSM that representing the interests of the Nixon White House was the Minority Counsel's job; that the Democratic Majority Council would be actively engaged in doing precisely the opposite- and that, in any case, a certain amount of partisan support of an embattled president of one's own party would be required as a matter of course of a person occupying Thompson's position. Attempts have been made to suggest that it was somehow improper for Thompson to have shared non-confidential information on the investigation with the White House, as any Republican counsel to any congressional committee would have been expected to do as a matter of course.

The Watergate attack is especially clever, since it's aimed at a legitimate Thompson strength. Senate Minority Counsel and ex officio Nixon partisan or not, Thompson played a major role in the investigation that forced Nixon's resignation. It was he who actually formed the question which Sen. Howard Baker publicly asked, and which defined the direction in which the Ervin Committee's investigation proceeded: "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" That staffers on both sides already knew the answer when Thompson asked Alexander Butterfield whether there was a recording system in the Oval Office may deny Thompson the right to claim personal credit for the revelation, but the fact remains that it was he who asked the question. Thompson's role in the activities of the Watergate Committee were anything but those of a Nixon stooge, and the innuendo- no criticism of Thompson's behavior while on the Watergate Committee that will stand up to unbiased examination has surfaced- is nothing other than an attempt by Thompson's Democratic and journalistic opponents to take the luster off an episode which defines Thompson as something rare and extraordinarily attractive in contemporary American politics: a man capable precisely of transcending partisanship for the greater good of the country.

Judging from the MSM, one would indeed get the impression of a candidacy in "turmoil." But once the attacks have been parsed and the facts taken into consideration, a different picture begins to emerge. The liberals in the MSM are still pushing Rudy Giuliani as the Republican front runner, and seem to be ignoring the fact that Thompson has not only passed Giuliani in the Rasmussen poll, but has maintained his lead. And Thompson- unlike Giuliani- is someone whose positions on issues conservatives can be comfortable with pretty much across the board. A Clinton-Giuliani race is race those who share the ideological position of most of the media cannot lose; a Clinton-Thompson race would be one in which their cause would be in great peril.

Unless the Abraham blunder is given exaggerated importance, and viewed- however implausibly- as somehow an indicator of where Thompson stands on matters of policy. Unless Thompson can be portrayed as a dirty old man whose wife is simultaneously a brainless bimbo and the real brains of the marriage. Unless Thompson's pro-life pedigree can be impugned at a later date than his early career in the Senate, when his essentially libertarian position on the issue evolved into a definitively pro-life one.

Look for further "revelations" about Thompson. Most of all, look for the ones mentioned above- however bogus- to continue to be repeated. There are many people in both parties who want to see Fred Thompson fail. But here's hoping that my fellow conservatives continue to make the distinction liberals have such trouble with: the distinction between fact and innuendo. The fact is that the nascent Thompson campaign isn't in "turmoil" at all.

In fact, it's the target of so much bogus and overblown criticism precisely because there are so many people who realize just what an obstacle to a Leftist takeover of the White House Fred Thompson really is. I hope conservatives can avoid there perennial temptation to shoot themselves in the foot, this time by reaching unfair and absurd conclusions concerning the candidate most likely to bring their agenda to success.