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.
“but opposes a general ban on the practice. He’s been clear on that.”
No, that is precisely where you are muddying the waters. He has NOT been “clear” on that.
It is not clear if his opposition to the general ban is a result of his position on states rights/Federalism.
Larry Flynt said he has info on Republican Presidential Candidates? I just heard he had 2 more current Senators and 30 current Congressmen. I didn’t know they were Presidential Candidates, if they are, that will be BIG news. So lets see the only 3 congressmen running on the Republican side are Tancredo, Hunter, and Paul, the 2 Senators are McCain and Brownback, and former Senator Thompson.
Isara, post #118 was intended for you too.
We don’t know what Romney will do at the federal level. He has a history of being a maverick at Bain Capital. Thats why I am reluctantly leaning to him. Unlike other republicans, I could care less that he wears magic undergarments or believes that each representation of the trinity walks on this planet in physical form. LOL I want leadership detached from the Washington & I am willing to gamble given the dire state of affairs.
Wow, I say wonderful things about you.
On Foxsnooze’ Hannity and (I’m not ugly)Colmes Show, Fred said that he wants Roe overturned.
Great, but he's said he doesn't want it outlawed. Even if he's sincere and he wants Roe v. Wade overturned, abortion would still be legal in most of the country.
Hey, and I like Fredheads, even the ones who hate me now. LOL
You mean kinda how it is under Bush??
i am not interested in his magic undergutchies either, i just don’t trust in his conservatism. see, i knew you were capable of real debate and could rise above the weenieman’s gluehorse BS that is oh so juvenile : )
He did not have billing records that showed he did work that kept open a savings and loan that ultimately cost the taxpayers 48 million. These people must really be afraid of Fred.
Madison Guaranty should have been shut down. A Clinton appointed commissioner kept it open because of the plan created by the Clintons. It stayed open long enough to cost us a huge amound of additonal taxpayer money in the bailout.
**************
Your quotes range in date from 1993 to 1997. Thompson's conversion to being pro-life, while possibly evolving during that time, may be finally subsequent to that.
The way you comment after the article does.
It's a calling, isn't it?
Ok, I can accept that -- but Thompson really needs to talk about this more candidly and clarify the evolution of his positions, because it's definitely not been explained adequately to date.
Overturning Roe v. Wade should not be downplayed, even though abortion would be legal in most states. That would be a huge hit to the morale of the pro-aborts, who saw Roe v. Wade as galvanizing the permanant "right" to abortion in the US.
Bush is at least fighting the status quo on abortion. I'm not sure Fred would.
He would and you know it. Stop projecting.
*************
I think he will. This is an important issue to many of us.
So is a lawyer.
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.