Posted on 07/19/2007 9:44:13 AM PDT by pissant
During his 1966 campaign for governor of California, Ronald Reagan purportedly established the so-called 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." A direct corollary--a 12th Commandment, if you will--could be stated as: "Thou shalt not speak ill of your candidate on your own blog."
But just as Reagan himself broke his rule when it was warranted, I will break mine. I'm a firm advocate for Fred Thompson; I believe he is the best choice both for the GOP nomination and for the Presidency. I am also a firm advocate for integrity; I believe that you should choose the right even when it is potentially unpopular. Because of this I believe that I need to make a correction and an apology for statements I previously made in defending Sen. Thompson.
Almost two weeks ago I wrote a post about the LA Times story which claimed that Thompson once lobbied for a pro-abortion group. It appears that a story will appear that will report that Arent Fox has found billing records about Thompson's work. Apparently, a billing record has been found that shows Thompson billed 19 hours of work for the Arent Fox client over the course of a year.
My sources tell me that there is some confusion over whether Thompson ever denied working for the group. Thompson specifically denied - and still denies - the allegation he lobbied Sununu for this group. (Sununu has confirmed that this is the case.) Thompson also says that he genuinely didn't recall whether he'd ever spoken to the abortion rights group about the "gag rule." Since that was over sixteen years ago, I find it plausible that he would not remember.
Nevertheless, I reported that Thompson's staff had "categorically denied" that he lobbied for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association [NFPRHA]. As Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Senator, said in the LAT article, "Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period."
This appears not to be accurate.
In my post I wrote that, "The second way that [NFPRHA] could confirm their claim is to provide some non-trivial documentary evidence" such as "billing statements, canceled checks, progress reports, etc." I also added this caveat:
Based on what I know of the man, I believe that Fred is telling the truth. If the “several people familiar with the matter” provide more solid evidence to back their claim I may change my opinion. But if they can’t provide better corroboration, then I’ll have to assume this is just another sloppy LA Times hit piece. If the billing statement does confirm that Thompson was billed for work he did for them, then they will have indeed provided solid evidence to back their claim. However, I do still "believe that Fred is telling the truth." But it appears the "truth" has a rather lawyerly nuance.
Admittedly, I'm less troubled by the fact that Thompson once advocated for a pro-abortion group than I am with his failure to acknowledge his own former pro-choice sympathies. Perhaps he wants to avoid the fate of Mitt Romney who was accused of "flip-flopping" on the issue. If so, he need not worry. Unlike the former governor, Thompson developed a solid record of support for the pro-life cause during his time in the Senate. And while he still needs to state more forcefully and clearly that he is a defender of the sanctity of all human life at all stages of development, he has shown that his pro-life principles didn’t suddenly appear in time for the Iowa primary.
But those of us on the front lines of the campaign are putting our integrity on the line whenever we defend our (still unannounced) candidate. When a spokesman for Thompson speaks on his behalf, we need to be able to trust that the message is honest and accurate. It also needs to be conveyed clearly, and not require the nuance of a DC lawyer to differentiate between fact and supposition.
I claimed that the LAT article was a "hit piece", when the basic premise was later confirmed to be true. I implied that that the people from NFPRHA might be lying, only to find that their central claim--that Thompson lobbied for the group--was largely true. I may not agree with their motives, but it was wrong of me to unfairly malign the LAT and the NFPRHA leaders. I owe them both an apology.
I don't like being wrong. I don't like having to apologize to abortion advocates. And I really don’t like finding I put my own integrity in question.
This is a minor slip, an inevitable stumble at the beginning of a long, painful campaign process. I'll chalk it up to miscommunication and put it behind me. My support for Fred Thompson hasn't wavered and I'll continue to do what I can to help him on the road to the White House.
But I will also be more careful about what I say in Thompson's defense. And I won't hesitate to put my integrity ahead of the 12th Commandment.
Except it obvioulsy important to GOP primary voters. It is to me.
Not sure. But the Mitt “flip flop” bashers have some ‘splaining to do.
That’s not the issue, as explained in the article.
I read the article, and I don’t really understand why anyone even cares. It doesn’t matter a flip whether he did or didn’t work for these people, he was an attorney. That’s what attorneys do. Move along.
In other words, if there's any "lawyerly parsing" going on, it's the way the LA Times is using the word "lobbying" in this matter.
Have you not yet realized that no matter how many attacks you launch on Thompson, it will not bring Hunter out of the 1% club? I wish Hunter WAS leading the pack. He’s not, and he’s not likely to. These incessant attacks remind of the Paulistinians, ie; “my guy has NO SHOT so I’m going to throw a tantrum for the next few months and make damned sure that if my guy can’t get the nomination, the flavor-of-the-week won’t either.”
It really says a lot more about YOU than I think you realize.
“Why does this keep coming up?”
Because Duncan Hunter is still losing?
I care because it shows Fred to be a tapdancer and his supporters who brazenly claimed the LA Times story was a pack of lies.
Now its well “who cares”. I knew that would be the avenue taken. Fred has a bucnh of pro-abortion statements up thru 1997 to deal with too. The same kind that would lead folks like you and I to question any other candidates fitness for office.
Call it a tantrum if you want. I call it shining the light on another tapdancing politician.
He talked to the head of the abotionists 22 times.
As opposed to...? Please point out a more electable candidate.
So is it your belief that an evangelical supporter of Thompson could not possibly be wrong?
Let’s see the records.
If they are not legit, the Thompson camp will let us know very soon.
The fact he’s a lawyer and a lobbyist, let alone a Hollywood actor or Senator, frankly gives me pause.
The political fortunes shift quickly. Ask Rudy and McCain.
Senator being the worst of the bunch. LOL
So far the only evidence tying Thompson to a pro-abortion stance is based on accusations by liberals. No objective documentation has been presented yet that can even remotely be verified. You are still using liberal propaganda to support a loser, and he is become more and more of a loser with every attack like this.
That's not "lobbying."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.