Posted on 07/19/2007 7:33:24 AM PDT by pissant
This may be the political version of Evolution. The New York Times is out this morning with a story about billing records that show Fred Thompson did indeed charge for his time while helping a pro-choice group. Details from the article below:
Billing records show that former Senator Fred Thompson spent nearly 20 hours working as a lobbyist on behalf of a group seeking to ease restrictive federal rules on abortion counseling in the 1990s, even though he recently said he did not recall doing any work for the organization.
According to records from Arent Fox, the law firm based in Washington where Mr. Thompson worked part-time from 1991 to 1994, he charged the organization, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992. The records show that Mr. Thompson, a probable Republican candidate for president in 2008, spent much of that time in telephone conferences with the president of the group, and on three occasions he reported lobbying administration officials on its behalf.
Mr. Thompson's work for the family planning agency has become an issue because he is positioning himself as a faithful conservative who is opposed to abortion.
Read the whole article here. The Brody File has a call in to Thompson's people. Check back later for an update. Already, email is coming into The Brody File about the story. Here's one:
"The significance of this is not what Fred did 16 years ago. Had he been candid and honest, and explained himself, all would be well. The issue is that Fred lied for political expediency, and allowed others on his staff to do so on his behalf."
Lied may too strong a word. It seems like Thompson did what most politicians do. They beat around the bush and try to avoid an outright apology. Let's review shall we?
When this story first broke, Thompson's spokesman Mark Corallo said the following:
"Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period."
Then it became Thompson had "no recollection of doing any work on behalf of this group. He may have been consulted by one of the firm's partners who represented this group in 1991".
Days after the story broke, Thompson told radio talk show Sean Hannity:
"You need to separate a lawyer advocating a position from the position itself. They will probably come at me, in 35 years of law practice, with some people, I represented criminal defendants. I was a prosecutor. I had a general law practice. So that in and of itself doesn't mean anything anyway. … I'm not going to get down in the weeds with everything they dredge up over the next six months."
Thompson also sent in a column to the Powerline blog where he seemed to suggest he did some work:
"A lawyer who is a candidate or a prospective candidate for office finds himself in an interesting position because of the nature of the legal profession and the practice of law. … I've experienced another gambit of those schooled in the creative uses of law and politics: dredging up clients - or another lawyer's clients -that I may have represented or consulted with and then using the media to get me into a public debate as to what I may have done for them or said to them 15 or 20 years ago. Even if my memory serves me correctly, Even it would not be appropriate for a lawyer to make such comments."
Any way you slice it, what we have here is an "evolving story". This isn't really about the abortion issue. Because of Thompson's consistent pro-life record in the Senate, pro-family groups will probably give him a pass on that aspect. But Thompson needs to be careful. He wants people to see him as a plain spoken, tell it like it is southerner. But evolving stories like this are normally left to "inside the beltway" Washington insiders. For his campaign to be successful, he needs to be seen as a Washington outsider not just another politician who is spinning his way out of a mess.
what can i say, i’m PMSing...; )
Not including his voting record is a misrepresentation.
I agree with you that Thompson opposes partial birth abortion, opposes human cloning and opposes government funding for abortion
And why would you not? That's how he voted.
Here is the prime effect of this story:
It establishes that Fred remains the most pro-choice of all the contenders. (He is being attacked by and with evidence provided by the pro-abortion crowd, and we are reminded of his pro-life voting record.)
It provides powerful help for the general election, because while he is solidly pro-life, he is not ardent about it, and seems to take moderating views when the abortion issue conflicts with free speech, and with Federalism.
That is a winning combination, as long as he is clear, and doesn’t dissemble about it.
David Brody’s article is critical of Thompson but it is based on solid fact. For days many Fred supporters were yelling that this story was simply something made up by the LA times. Fred allowed his spokesman to make statements indicating that he had never done any lobbying for this group. So, now that the billing records have been found at the law firm people are going to have to face the fact that Fred’s campaign was not honest about this situation.
Read Post 97.
I’m extremely wary of Fred’s infatuation with big government ideals as senator of Tennessee. Yes, he talks a good game but he voted for NAFTA and also was given an unimpressive grade of ‘C’ from the Americans for Better Immigration Reform. I think his his history as a Washington lobbyist places him in an untenable situation, if he ascends to the presidency. I don’t trust Fred to do whats right because he has been aligned with the system so long.
Of course that is how the argument has evolved. When the Times story first ran, and his campaign denied he ever did any work, the Fredheads called the LA Times liars (understandable, given the denials and LA Times history).
Then I pointed out that Fred’s subsequent statements on H&C and Powerline indicated to me that there was some truth to the Time’s story. Fredheads said no.
Now it appears that he has indeed done some work for the group, and the Fredheads argument now is “so what”.
Fine by me.
If he plays his cards right, you could be on to something.
Over here.
Do Billing Records = Lobbying?
Was Thompson ADVOCATING for his clients or performing legal work for them?
A lobbyist is an advocate.
*************
Yes, well, although it is unintentional, that's what I think too. Which is why I gave him some grief about it.
You post everything negative you can find on Fred and want people to think you’re not anti-Fred?
With friends like you, Duncan Hunter needs no enemies.
You’re not tweaking anything. You’re making me angry with Duncan Hunter. But I won’t have to do anything about that because he isn’t going to be on the ballot in my state.
“but as far as I know he still stands by statements he’s made that he wants abortion-on-demand to be legal in every state.”
You are either wrong, or a POS disgusting liar. Since I don’t know you, I’m going to give you what you won’t give Fred. The benefit of the doubt.
On Foxsnooze’ Hannity and (I’m not ugly)Colmes Show, Fred said that he wants Roe overturned. Once that happens, abortion goes back to the states. At that point, for those of us that feel passionately about it, we will carry the fight to our state legislatures. Where it belongs.
And why would you not agree that he's opposed banning abortion, when he's said as much repeatedly? It's a fact that Thompson has supported some restrictions on abortion (like banning partial birth abortion) but opposes a general ban on the practice. He's been clear on that.
:)
who hasn’t been? you think Romney is going to be some outsider come to town? i am a pragmatist and i live and work in DC. i think you are naive if you think romney would be any better on the things you mention.
we like pissant and are sorry to see him go so WRONG ; )
Good grief guys. This is an argument amongst conservatives for who we should nominate for CIC, not a debutante ball.
All this is already all over the MSM and the conservative MSM. Having freepers hash out its significance is not giving Hillary a thing.
Amanda75 wrote “WHAT in the hell does it matter what his position on abortion is????????? FOR pete sakes we need a good candidate and do any of you see one running right now, would you rather see the Clinton slime back in the WH???”
Amanda75, your argument is almost identical to the arguments which were made on behalf of Giuliani - arguments that we all rejected several months ago. We have to be willing to fight for what we believe in and risk losing power or we will never see any change in Washington.
If he and Hillary win their respective nominations, it would interesting to see if Hillary goes after him because of those “billing records”.
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.