Posted on 07/13/2007 7:48:24 AM PDT by pissant
Fred Thompson is backing off his flat denial that he once lobbied for an abortion-rights group. He now says he doesn’t remember it, but does not dispute evidence to the contrary.
The climb-down could be a significant embarrassment for a prospective candidate with a plain-spoken appeal and who has courted the GOP’s anti-abortion base, although Thompson and his advisers had signaled for several days that it was coming.
Realizing that opponents in both parties are mining his legal career for damaging ammunition, Thompson also is engaging in a bit of preemption. He writes in a column posted Wednesday by the conservative Power Line blog: “[I]f a client has a legal and ethical right to take a position, then you may appropriately represent him as long as he does not lie or otherwise conduct himself improperly while you are representing him. In almost 30 years of practicing law I must have had hundreds of clients and thousands of conversations about legal matters. Like any good lawyer, I would always try to give my best, objective and professional opinion on any legal question presented to me.”
The abortion-rights issue arose when the Los Angeles Times reported last week that Thompson had “accepted a lobbying assignment” from the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which wanted the administration of President George H.W. Bush to relax a restriction on federal payments to clinics that offered abortion counseling.
Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo told the Times in an e-mail: “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period.” The Times said minutes from a board meeting of the group suggested otherwise.
On Thursday, Corallo offered a less sweeping comment about Thompson and the group: “He has no recollection of doing any work for this group. And since he was of counsel and not a member of the firm, it was not unusual for the firm’s partners to trot their clients in to meet him, get his views and even some advice.”
So the difference may boil down to how you define “lobbying.” It has been clear for several days that Thompson was not going to stick with a complete denial. When an Associated Press reporter asked him about the matter this weekend at the Young Republicans National Convention, he deflected with one of his folksy observations: “I’d just say the flies get bigger in the summertime. I guess the flies are buzzing.”
Then in an interview with Sean Hannity that was reported by Thomas B. Edsall of The Huffington Post, Thompson was even more evasive: “You need to separate a lawyer who is advocating a position from the position itself.”
The former “Law and Order” actor has an anti-abortion voting record as a U.S. senator from Tennessee, but some statements he made early in his political career have led some conservatives to question whether he once had favored abortion rights.
The lobbying controversy illustrates the harsh scrutiny that awaits Thompson when he formally kicks off his campaign, and shows the difficulty of trying to answer high-stakes questions without a full campaign infrastructure.
Thompson aides say they do not believe the brouhaha has hurt him with Republican voters. “Consider the source,” said one Thompson adviser. “Conservatives don’t pay much attention to liberal groups that say they want to help, and tell them why their guy isn’t as great as they think.”
The lobbying story is one of several recent pieces criticizing Thompson, and advisers are now considering pushing back his announcement even further. They had planned to schedule the announcement before an Aug. 5 debate in Des Moines, Iowa, but now are considering jumping in even later than that.
The advisers say they realize how searing the scrutiny will be and want to be ready. And they want to have more of their staff in place. Thompson has to convince skeptics he’s ready for the race and ready for the job, and hopes that a top-flight campaign operation will help make that case. The announcement date will be based on factors that include IRS regulations governing when Thompson will have to disclose the millions of dollars he has already raised.
Thompson says in the Power Line column that he had “half dozen or so lobbying clients.” His column concludes: ‘I’m certainly not surprised that such a diverse career is being mined by others. As we get further into this political season we will undoubtedly see the further intersection of law, politics and the mainstream media.”
It's interesting that his non-denial leads his supporters to jump to the conclusion that he has an "alibi," if you will, when it actually raises alarm.
Rush did was not nearly as forceful on this as talkers like Levin, Hewitt, and Savage that gave out phome numbers and were really worked up. The blogosphere, which FR is part of, was equally inflamed.
No documentation.
Denied by the firm he supposedly lobbied for.
Denied by the supposed target of the lobbying.
Based solely on the word of a Hillary Clinton operative.
Not surprising that the Fred haters call this "alarming".
I was being facetious. BTW, who’s signature is at the bottom of that document?
So if more comes to light, you will re-evaluate?
Of course. But I doubt more will "come to light" because there's no "there" there.
Reminds me of an article on the subject from yesterday that was nothing but a whole bunch of conjecture on "what if it's true" -- not even spending one moment to consider that the whole thing is bunk and that such speculation is pointless.
“You don’t help Duncan Hunter by constantly getting on the Fred Threads and bashing him without any rational reason to do so.
As I think I said to another Hunter supporter the other day, I think he’s a good man. But he will only get into the race if he gets his numbers up. And he will only get his numbers up if his supporters show that he is the best candidate and that he can win.
Bashing Rudy or Mitt or Fred only means that one of the other of these three will profit. The single digit candidates will remain single digits unless they do something POSITIVE to break out of the pack.
In other words, you are only annoying people and gaining nothing by it.”
Great post Cicero. Duncan Hunter doesn’t do this himself, he has character and class. If he thought this Fred bashing was a good idea he’d be doing it himself. One of his campaign spokesmen told me that if he doesn’t do bashing of Fred himself, that tells you what his opinion is about it. Also tells you what his opinion is of his supporters who do this.
I've been enthusiastic about a Fred candidacy but this pro abort issue has cooled me to that idea. When the story broke I said here that I didn't believe Fred and that something stunk about his denial, and looks like that was accurate. I don't countenance pro aborts just because I think "they can win," so I wasn't about to pretend I believed Fred's story.
It wouldn't be a deal breaker but the denials are offensive, I'm not a dupe, and beyond that, the whole thing was handled clumsily that I don't think that bodes well for a campaign.
Fred's candidacy was appealing I admit. Not because of anything he's done, though, as was your question. For me it was because I thought he could trounce the pro aborts right out of the field, but if he's trying to play pro lifers for idiots, no thanks.
I don’t kid about pro- life issues and my post was actually in defense of him.
I posted a article by one of the most read political websites, Politico, and you get the vapors. Hunter wouldn’t approve? Well guess what Sally, the Hunter threads I’ve been posting here for months have been riddled with Fredheads jumping in to declare that there is no way on earth Hunter can win.
Fred oughta be ashamed./s
No he does not. Unless you claim that Duncan Hunter and his campaign spokesperson lied about it.
I’ll let Sam speak for himself. Considering that Hunter is going to join us here on FR for a virtual press conference, and has mentioned his thanks to freepers in a video, I’m guessing he’s not losing to much sleep over his supporters exposing his opponent’s tapdancing.
It is my opinion that Duncan Hunter probably won’t win. He’s been in this race awhile and not enough is happening. I would really like to see him get some traction, some good things happen for him. Any conservative I would love to see do well.
The voters will decide this. I’m actually wanting BOTH Fred and Duncan to do well.
Surprise me, be fairminded. I’ve not done negative campaigning in any sort but you have. Duncan Hunter does not do this, he’s had the opportunity and has not done it. And that shows his opinion of what you are doing.
I like Duncan Hunter but not negative campaigning.
I’m thinking I will have the opportunity to vote for Fred in the primary, and my state is one of the last ones.
Fredheads have only started jumping in with your threads because you’ve been so negative about him, trying to give some balance.
My opinion about Duncan probably not winning is my opinion and should not apply to you. I really hope he surprises me.
I still like Fred better, still stand with Fred. He has character and integrity.
You do not know what you are talking about. I’ve not had contact with Sam. I’m not speaking for Sam.
Sam isn’t going to say anything negative to freepers when there are so many that support him here. But that does not mean that the campaign approves of what you are doing. If they did approve of it they’d be doing it themselves.
A lot of people who like Fred also like Duncan Hunter, but you’re having a big impact there. Negative impact.
Rob21 got banned for trying to hold Fred’s feet to the fire on abortion. The claim was that he was distorting the record, but that claim is starting to sound hollow to me.
Abortion - Don’t just hold Rudy and Mitt accountable, remember Fred
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1855472/posts
LImbaugh and Savage were actually on vacation during the last big push. But Laura Ingraham should be on that list with Levin. I know nothing of Hewitt's work on the issue.
Again, his non-denial says it all.
Whatever... just ignore the facts and his voting record and go with your gut instinct that you don't like the way he expresses his denial. Sounds like emotion over reason to me.
What denial?
A lot of people who like Fred also like Duncan Hunter, but you’re having a big impact there. Negative impact.
But as you say this turns off others who are needed for a lower tier candidate to gain traction.
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.