Thompson, talk radio and talking trash

Maybe they're right about talk radio.

This morning I wasted 25 cell phone minutes waiting to speak truth to power on the state-wide talk radio program "Talk of Tennessee" hosted by Steve Gill. As I waited, Gill kept ratcheting up the rhetoric . . . and then the show ended before he took my call. Here's some of what I was going to say:

Gill (who, incidentally, wrote a flattering book about Fred Thompson's likely presidential run: The Fred Factor) was defending Thompson from critics like Mike Huckabee who have been questioning Thompson's convictions on a host of so-called social issues (actually, I had yet to hear of the criticism until Gill spoke about it on the radio--apparently Huckabee is getting some traction in the campaign). Thompson is staking out a position that Federal action on a host of issues is unwise and even--depending on the particular issue, unconstitutional. Well, that's where he's wrong. Or at least Steve Gill is wrong when he asserts that Huckabee doesn't care about the Constitution because he thinks it ought to be amended to protect human life in the womb (Gill also repeatedly questioned the motives and the sincerity of "supposedly pro-life" activists; very insulting, but I don't have time to address that now).

First, the Constitution provides for an amendment process. If a person thinks a right--such as the right to live, ought to be spelled out in the Constitution, then that person can attempt to amend the Constitution to include that right. There are certain principles or rights the protection of which is legitimately not left to the discretion of the States . . . "life" is reasonably considered one of those rights. That's fine if Thompson doesn't think it is, but it is not fine to assert that it is anti-Federalist to acknowledge the existence of such rights or unconstitutional to attempt to amend the Constitution to recognize such rights.

Second, Thompson's reaction (and that of some present supporters) is doing little to assuage the concern of voters who think that abortion is "not a government issue" (as Thompson asserted in his first or something that is okay in some states and not okay in other states. Thompson has been straddling the issue of abortion since entering public life. I really resent someone tearing me a new one for wanting more than a pat answer regarding Thompson's views on an issue that is very important to me.

Which leads me to this WaPo article on the subject. In GOP Race, Blurring the Lines in the Abortion Debate | The Trail | washingtonpost.com:

"The simple way to look at the abortion divide in the Republican race is Rudy against the rest: one abortion rights supporter against a field of abortion opponents. But take a closer look and the distinctions begin to blur -- not in whether other leading candidates support a woman's right to choose or believe abortion should be outlawed in most or all circumstances, but in what each might do about it as president.

On that question, Thompson and Giuliani and the others are not so far apart. This became clearer on Sunday when Thompson appeared on NBC's 'Meet The Press' as part of the candidates' right (sic) of passage with host Tim Russert. Russert grilled Thompson at some length on abortion and in the course of the discussion, Thompson said two things of note:

First, he said that, as a senator, he had a '100 percent pro-life' voting record. Second, he said that he does not support the Republican Party's platform plank on abortion, which calls for passage of a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution."

First, though I'm glad that Thompson voted the "right" on abortion when he was in the U.S. Senate, the National Right to Life Committee's legislative scorecard on abortion (or any scorecard, for that matter) is only useful for predicting how someone would vote (assuming, of course, that the person didn't "evolve" on the issue as is common these days) on issues that came up for a vote before him/her while they were in office. The issues--or aspects of a given issue, can be rather narrow depending on the particular period during which the person served, frankly.

Second, as I detailed above, I hope Thompson (and his supporters) can appreciate that a Pro-life voter views abortion as different than laws on marijuana use or insurance regulation or speed limits. It is reasonable--as Gill argued this morning, to assert that Thompson's idea of a Federalist approach would spare more human life than holding out for a nationwide ban on abortion, but please forgive us for being reticent in acceding to a legal position that we vehemently disagree with.

I may very well end up supporting Thompson out of all those in the current GOP field, but I won't be persuaded by disingenuous and/or pugnacious treatment by him or his supporters.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.