The truth of the situation with Thompson is that we (i.e., the public) don't know all that much about the man and so to assume media conspiracies (as was the reaction of many when this story broke) was quite premature.

The religious right sees it differently, I think.

True, true. My point is that Thompson is not a black and white guy on this issue and never has been. So lobbying for these folks on this issue would not necessarily amount to hypocrisy.

Those wishing to buy candidate advertising should send inquiries to otb@blogads.com

the matter that he was allegedly lobbying for — a relaxation of the so-called “gag rule” which prevented government sponsored clinics from even discussing abortion as an option — is hardly a cornerstone issue.

The religious right sees it differently, I think. My pops, for example, is a staunch religious righty. He doesn't object to abortion as a legal matter, but strenuously objects to any government participation or sanction. And, from what I gather from the religious righty sites I trawl, that's not an uncommon sentiment.

Why couldn't he just have explained it very rationally, as he's doing by explaining the position he seems to be backing into now?

Because if he had actually separated his personal views from those of his clients, then he & the other GOP folks couldn't do things like berate John Edwards for being a Trial Lawyer.

It’s a bit disingenuous, though, in the case of a lawyer acting, not as a defense counsel for a criminal attorney, but as a lobbyist for a political group. I’ve got some friends in the lobbying business and it’s true that they are occasionally forced to advocate views they find offensive. It goes with the territory if you’re a young kid trying to make a living. At the level of a celebrity lawyer hired by the firm to drum up business, though, one surely has some discretion.

This is absolutely true, and the distinction is a salient one.

Further, I agree that the substance of the "scandal" here is really a nothing case. It evidences more about the right-wing base that Thompson's opponents would apparently consider this newsworthy than it does about Thompson himself.

His first instinct here was to lie.

This, however, is a lot more damaging to ol' Fred. Why couldn't he just have explained it very rationally, as he's doing by explaining the position he seems to be backing into now? Was a disingenous and (it is now appearing) patently false denial on the record really necessary?

I however, might be a bit more blunt.
His first instinct here was to lie.
Shouldn't that be the end of him?