The Associated Press reports that Republican Fred Thompson's "previously little-noticed personal papers at the University of Tennessee from his eight years in the Senate are suddenly in demand as he nears a decision on a 2008 presidential run."
Thompson donated the documents four years ago when he gave up his political career in favor of acting. Academics haven't paid much attention, chief archivist Bobby Holt said, but journalists have been poring through the more than 400 boxes held by UT's Howard Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy.
The AP is among those journalists, and cherry-picks the boxes for a few items selected to hurt Thompson with conservatives. AP writer Duncan Mansfield also shows that he doesn't really understand Thompson's constitutional philosophy at all when he writes this...
While the papers haven't yielded any bombshells so far, they reveal a candidate whose record on public issues is sometimes inconsistent, often nuanced and occasionally surprising. Some examples:
-- Thompson recently said he was opposed to abortion rights and noted that National Right to Life endorsed him in his 1994 Senate race. But he told the Memphis group FLARE (Family, Life, America, Responsible Education Under God) in a 1996 questionnaire that, "I will not set a litmus test for any U.S. Supreme court nominee who has shown an understanding of the principles set forth by the Constitution."
As a senator, Thompson voted for legislation to ban so-called partial-birth abortion and to prohibit federal funding of abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger.
But he also told the Eagle Forum in a 1994 questionnaire, "I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people."
In a candidate survey the same year for The Tennessean newspaper, Thompson said that states should have the right to impose "reasonable restrictions on abortions such as parental notification." But he said, "The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government."
Thompson's position is entirely consistent, and not at all "surprising" given that Thompson is both a federalist and pro-life. If the AP writer and his editors knew Thompson was a federalist and understood what the "federalist" view of the constitution means, they wouldn't have been surprised. On the abortion issue, no "litmus test" is necessary if the president nominates U.S. Supreme court justices who have, "shown an understanding" of the federalist system of government set up in the Constitution.
A court dominated by federalist justices will almost certainly repeal Roe v. Wade, and hand the pro-life movement the biggest victory it currently seeks in Washington.
The most interesting aspect of the AP story: the revelation that Thompson could close access to his papers any time he wishes, but hasn't done so even though he knows his Republican and Democratic rivals will be going through every last page of them looking for ammo to use against him.
That bespeaks a man confident in his record and his political beliefs and philosophy.
Related: Gannett News Service published over the weekend a helpful guide to how rivals from both parties will attack Thompson. It's slanted leftward, of course, as you can tell from the early mention of Thompson's lobbying for Equitas Ltd., which Gannett describes as "a British reinsurance company facing billions in claims from people harmed by asbestos."
What Gannett doesn't tell you is that what Thompson lobbied for was a change in legislation so that foreign re-insurers like Equitas were not treated more harshly than American-based re-insurers in asbestos litigation. In short, Thompson was lobbying in favor of the principle that all companies be treated equally under American law in that matter.
Comment Preview