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.”
I know you try very hard with DH, and he’s an excellent candidate. I sure wish he’d get more exposure, I’d love to see him in the WH.
This could be an opportunity for Fred to explain “why” he supported McCain Feingold, he was a lobbyist, he knew how the game was played.
That and I’ve been reading reports all over FR over the last 5 months about how “Wvangelicals love Rudy” and there is no way Rudy is to the Right of Fred on Abortion yet Evangelicals support rudy over Fred?
non operating system disk, operating system not found...
You may be right. The way I look at it is this: If it stands like it is today, Fred’s initial blanket denial and his follow-up in Powerline will make this a non issue. If the Times comes up with real proof of REAL involvement, not periphery stuff, then he’s toast.
I'm an anti-abortion voter, but am I troubled by this? Nope. Even I worked for Planned Parenthood in 1975 as a volunteer, as a 19 year old, I rationalized that preventing pregnancies prevented abortions. That was long before PP became strongly identified with the pro-abort positions it has today.
What's the alternative? McCain is going down in flames, Giuliani is out of the question, and Mitt's recent conversion to being against abortion stacks up less favorably than Fred's zero rating from NARAL and the other baby-killer organizations.
Oh, yes, I suppose there's Duncan Hunter, but if he makes it from 1 or 2 percent in the polls, to say, 10 percent by the time the NY primary is here, sure, why not?
We are working on it..
No. Duncan Hunter will be our next president but the past is the past. What has FT done, say over to last 10 years to support or vote against abortion? That’s what counts IMO.
The number of evangelicals that would support Rudy could fit in a phonebooth.
The dems will have a field day if Fred wins the nomination. All his years of lobbying are filled with juicy attack points. For example the attempt to shield asbestos companies from litigation, or this issue.
The Dem/media plan will be to stay on the attack for the whole presidential election against Thompson with one shady lobbying story after another. Forcing the Thompson campaign onto the defensive for the campaign.
This ground swell of support is unprecedented and it is hard for both Thompson’s camp as well as his potential competitors to deal with.
As far as did he or didn’t he support abortion, it is clear where he stands now and that position is built over many years of solid proof. I concur with someone who put forth that before he was a Senator he may never have had any thoughts on the subject. I know I did not early on, mainly because such things did not go on in my crowd or if it did it was quickly and quietly done. When I became politically active, I “formalized” my position as pro life.
Reagan was about the same way. His stance grew.
For what it is worth, I have read more on Hunter and like him. I wish he would set the world on fire. Maybe he can in the end, but I feel comfortable that except for a couple of folks, we have a good field going into the primaries.
It’s only a non starter if this is where it ends. You can’t issue blanket denials then be proven wrong. But my guess is it will more than likely fade away. For today, its still a hot story in the blogosphere.
I’m sure they would attempt it. Any GOP candidate will be subject to the dems mining operations. But what we can’t have is an untruthful candidate.
Just don’t tape record anything...
(maybe we can get some pointers from Sandy Burger)
Yes, those hearings.
As it stands NOW, well it is going to get interesting over the next few months.
I think we also need to keep in mind that FDT is being extremely careful in how he responds to everything. Some responses may be able to be construed as “campaign” oriented. If that happens, a large chunk of the $$ he has raised as “testing the waters” would need to be forfeited (returned?) under orders by the FEC.
Both national parties would like to see this happen.
It’s entertaining to see how many “FReepers” don’t want the Republicans to have a candidate. It would prevent them from expressing the cynicism and apathy that comprises their entire political DNA. If you are even mildly acting like you don’t want a Republican to win the WH in 08, then you are supporting a leftist Democrat in my book.
I think EPU was being funny.
It will be interesting to see if the RNC plays favorites this time out.
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.