Posts Tagged ‘rejection’
“Yesterday, Jim Bopp, a supporter of Mitt Romney and former General Counsel (they actually spend text clarifying that he is the former) to the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) attacked Sam Brownback for saying something nice about Rudy Giuliani,” writes eye in a post titled NRLC disavows Bopp’s Brownback statements
Turns out that he was nasty enough that NRLC disavowed his statements. I have obtained a copy of a letter that NRLC’s President, Executive Director, and Legislative Director, [in which] they apologized for Bopp’s statements.
Please go to eyeon08.com and review the full text of the letter.
That the NRLC would issue so stern—if indirect—a reproof to Bopp neither surprises nor interests us—no one who sells their credibility to the Romneys escapes unpunished. What interests us is Bopp’s own expression of pain and anguish.
1. How could eyeon08 get so much wrong in just so few words? First, the Romney campaign did not ask me to speak about Brownback, I did on my own accord. Second, NRLC did not apologize for what I said, they just disagreed with it. There was no reason for NRLC to apologize for what I said, since I was speaking on my own accord. Third, I am now, and have been since 1978, NRLC’s general counsel, but I have never been an employee, have many clients and was speaking on my own accord. This is exactly what NRLC explained in their letter – so how did eyeon08 get it all so wrong? by jboppjr on 2007-10-29 at 9:12 am
Our comments and speculations:
A. It is the NRLC—not eye—who clarifies their policy with respect to endorsements with respect to Bopp’s unwise comments about Brownback. It is the NRLC that is attempting to distance themselves from Bopp’s comments. Hence: It is the NRLC who deserves Bopp’s rage, not eye.
B. The NRLC never uses the term “apology”—follow the thread of the NRLC’s narrative:
- paragraph i: A political website quotes Bopp criticizing Brownback’s meeting with Giuliani
- paragraph ii: Mr. Bopp suggested that Brownback had put personal benefit head of his commitment to pro-life cause
- paragraph iii: These remarks do not represent the NRLC—we disagree with [Bopp]—and we recognize your commitmentparagraph iv: We reject anyone’s suggestion that you sell out the interest of the unborn for personal benefit
- paragraph v: Mr. Bopp is our general counsel; he has many clients; hence: his views are his own; he represents only himself
Bopp is right: the letter is not an apology; but neither does it reflect mere “disagreement”; rather, the letter constitutes a stern if indirect reproof. Translation: Bopp speaks for himself. As for us, we flatly and unequivocally reject anyone’s suggestion [e.g. Bopp's] etc.
C. eye suggests that Bopp spoke for the Romneys—a reasonable surmise what with the context of the discussion—an avowed Romney supporter attacking the motives and intentions of another candidate. We, however, disagree. Based on Bopp’s own confusion on the issue—first attacking Brownback, then suddenly embracing Giuliani in a hypothetical general election, all in the same conversation—we conclude that Bopp was indeed acting on his own. Why would the Romneys reach out to Bopp at all?—Bopp is spent, Bopp is played, and the right-to-lifers and the social conservatives in general remain divided and dispersed among the candidates. We provide our account here:
Our highly speculative conclusion? Alone, confused, estranged, conscious of his alienation for ever having associated with the Romneys—Bopp is on his own now, rudderless, friendless, and bereft, as further evidenced by the NRLC letter.
P.S. Update: eye responds to Bopp’s rejoinder with clarity, brevity, frankness, and with all due respect.
Mr. Bopp, I admire you and what you have done. But let’s be clear. You are an attorney and a politician. And your client has publicly repudiated your statements.