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.
Bullcrap. I’ve posted several quotes from his own mouth, that include not restricting 1st trimester abortions, supporting R.v W, the choice is for the woman to make, etc.
Ditto.
4,000 unborn babies, 4,000 souls, aborted daily in the United States alone. More than all the soldiers killed in the WOT to date. You bet it’s a big issue to me.
Except that’s who his client was and he did in fact lobby, according to the the reports. So sweep it under the rug, but Fred will have to address it head on.
Yes, I can. But I’ll have to dig them up again.
Fred billed 19 hrs over 14 months, most of it was for consulting, but 3.3 hrs are for lobbying. He was working for Advent Fox law firm at the time, and it looks like he was just assisting one of the Partners. I doubt his personal position on abortion was ever relevant to the work he did as a lawyer for the law firm, one of whose clients was pro-abortion. It’s still clear that this attack came from the leftists who certainly believe Fred is pro-life.
Why do you think Thompson has to disprove this? The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant. Thompson’s camp has already denied that this happened, and you don’t believe them. What would one more denial suffice?
If records exist, show them. Otherwise I don’t believe these liberal lies.
hmmm...hard to put in order, but I’d say from least worst to worst:
4. Senator
3. Lawyer
2. Hollywood actor
1. Lobbyist
Half of Washington are lawyers and it doesn’t surprise me that a Senator wants to run for President (half the field is). Hollywood has gotten a lot weirder since the Gipper and lobbyist generally sell their souls. It’d be nice if he has some business background in there, has he?
Eagle, do you have proof that Fred billed the abortionists 19 hours, or is this based on the charge alone? If there is proof for this claim, would it already be available? I read charges like these with a skeptical eye not matter who they are made against, or by whom they are made. Just making the claim is enough to get some to bite, but until the claim is documented with verifiable documentation, I won't swallow it.
They aren’t gonna be denying now.
Hmmm. I haven't seen any of those. I keep hearing people talking about a box on some form that was possibly checked by one of his staffers, but that was in 1994. I consider his votes in the Senate, within the last 12 years, when his position on the subject truly MATTERED, to be of more importance than the answer on a form, or even phone calls he made as a lobbyist/attorney twenty years ago.
Even though it has virtually nothing to do with being president?
No one has ever proposed that Thompson was a priciple lobbyist for either of the two alledged interest groups.
If this is an issue at any level of weight, are there any here opposing Thompson that consider "Strength of National Electability" an issue of less weight in selecting a party candidate?
Don't get me wrong, I really like Duncan Hunter and if Thompson were not going to enter the race, he is my top candidate. If I was going by political principles alone, I would have to write in Jim Robinson, IronJack or someone else who I agreed with across the board.
Heck pissant, as I recall, your positions on issues are pretty sound maybe you should give me enough information to write you in, LOL
Somewhere you have to take into account, broad experience in government, electability, money raising ability, likely strength against the rat opponent, regional issues and the like.
Politics is always the art of the possible as Burke, Bismark and Russell Kirk have always reminded us.
You're forgetting the fact that the supreme court, of its own accord, established an inalienable right for a woman to have an abortion, so the states cannot decide on their own how to address this issue.
Because it is the President that nominates justices to the Supreme Court, abortion is a Presidential issue because a former court made it a Presidential issue.
A federalist might address the issue by appointing justices that will roll back the overreaching by previous courts, including the creation of the right to an abortion, but it is still an issue that the president needs to address.
Well, get Duncan Hunter up to an electable level and I will vote for him. Unfortunately, he just isn’t catching fire, is he?
Right now, Fred Thompson is the only one who can unite the party AND get elected.
Hey, I was quite happy to see our president overturn funding for UN abortionist groups, and re-instituting the No abortions rule for military hospitals, and pushing for and signing the PBA ban, and blocking federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and appointing two judges who will likely help overturn the travesty called Roe verus Wade.
You are full of it yourself. I've seen your quotes, and you have mis-characterized his words. None of the quotes of Thompson himself claims support for R v W, 1st trimester abortions except for certain exceptions that most pro-life folks agree with, or a blanket pro-choice point of view.
If this is what it takes to win support for Duncan Hunter, he must be pretty pathetic.
No, Hunter is a good conservative. But a handful of his supporters are just this pathetic, and worse.
I suspect if Hunter knew about what was being done in his name, he'd start busting heads.
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.