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.
Amen to that. It's why Jesus came, or so he said at his trial before Pilate.
“You’re not doing Hunter any favours by mischaracterizing Thompson.”
She did NOT mischaracterize! Thompson is ONLY against BLANKET amnesty. He has said that we need to determine who is here and “You’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship”. Fred Thompson, 2006
On the other hand, Duncan Hunter has a stellar record on illegal immigration and border security. Pointing out the difference in NO way hurts Duncan Hunter.
“You’re not doing Hunter any favours by mischaracterizing Thompson.”
She did NOT mischaracterize! Thompson is ONLY against BLANKET amnesty. He has said that we need to determine who is here and “You’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship”. Fred Thompson, 2006
On the other hand, Duncan Hunter has a stellar record on illegal immigration and border security. Pointing out the difference in NO way hurts Duncan Hunter.
Do you have a secret?
More likely a frustration.
"Unfair to those waiting in line legally" == Amnesty
Legal immigration is a normal part of America See my post 157 for the part of the quote you missed.
ping
No that’s funny.
There is a full version of it on YouTube...he says “if it would even work” regarding the fence (that was already passed and funded).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tfV9TSFP4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxJn9dSdPGQ
He can ‘speak out’ against the amnesty bill, yet is in favor of amnesty, “as long as it’s not easy” or does not put them in front of those who came legally. Not exactly taking a strong position one way or the other, is it?
As far as “aspirations of citizenship”, we already have that...it’s called LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Law breakers don’t deserve citizenship, but his statement says he would allow them to stay (Hunter says there is nothing wrong with sending them home). Regarding deporting the illegals, saying “it can’t happen” tells me that he will not ENFORCE THE LAW.
Funny that quoting Fred’s own words is considered a “personal attack” or “bashing”. It’s better to vent the differences now than if he’s the nominee, that’s why you have a PRIMARY. Besides, I don’t consider many of Fred’s stand on the issues (pro-McCain Fiengold, pro-amnesty, pro-abortion, among others) all that “conservative”.
You've just GOT to be a Romney supporter, right?
You may all continue with this kind of "support" for Hunter, but he won't profit from it.
No, I don't suppose you DO consider Fred's stand on the issues, based on that crap you listed in parentheses.
You do know that lying about candidates' positions is a bannable offense, right?
Thanks.
I never said you were committing a "personal attack" or were "bashing."
Besides, I don’t consider many of Fred’s stand on the issues (pro-McCain Fiengold, pro-amnesty, pro-abortion, among others) all that “conservative”.
All three of those are aberrations and have been disproved on these forums multiple times. Fred may not be as staunchly conservative on those issues as you may like, but that doesn't make him 'pro-' any of them.
So what does that say about his leadership and influence among his peers? I only ask because all of Hunter's supporters here are always touting his leadership experience as a key reason to support him.
Like I said, I think he has a secret.
Recall that McCain and President Bush (Who I like a ton) also siad they are against “amnesty”. Yet offered up what was clearly amnesty. The problem with Fred on the issue (other than never making it a focus of his years in the senate) is he is just fuzzy enough on it for people to read into what they want. That is why I don’t support fuzz.
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.