The "Evolving" Fred Thompson Saga

CBN ^ | 7/19/07 | David Brody

[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.

[trisham]

I don’t know what to say, pissant. I think you’re making a mistake.

[Alter Kaker]

Thompson’s position on abortion changed over time to become more prolife, it didn’t change in order to run for president [romney] and it didn’t remain pro-abort[giuliani]

If Thompson's position on abortion has changed, that's ok. But he needs to get out and say so, and explain how and why they've changed. But it's dishonest to pretend that his position has been consistent, when his publicly-stated views have been pretty much all over the map. I'm ready to believe he's pro-life today, in 2007, but I want him to discuss the evolution of his beliefs publicly and candidly. They deserve discussion.

[Larry Lucido]

I’m voting for Duncan in the primary, but if Fred is the nominee I plan to fully support him and I don’t want him to be carrying any “friendly-fire” wounds. This story is a lot of nothing.

[xzins]

"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."

Personally, I can see how someone could forget 20 hours of work 16 years ago for a law firm not his own. It was probably an assignment handed down. I've no reason to doubt Thompson saying he couldn't recall. I know my own memory, and remembering that many years before is simply impossible for me on all but the most significant things.

Besides, I also accept that lawyers will take clients they don't personally agree with. And Thompson was a lawyer.

This has nothing to do with my support for Hunter. However, if Hunter fails, I'd prefer Thompson were still around as a choice. He's better than Rudy McRomney by far.

[trisham]

Thanks, Isara. It’s most applicable to this situation.

[Teacher317]

Let's review Fred's lifetime ratings by the pro-and anti-groups again, shall we?

Conservative Organizations:
American Conservative Union: ~88
Americans for Tax Reform: 90
National Taxpayers Union: 84 (rated 7th best)
National Right to Life: 77 (scored reduced due to vote for CFR)
Eagle Forum: 75
Conservative Index: 80
Christian Coalition: ~85
Family Research Council: 100
Citizens Against Government Waste: 90
Military Officers Association of America: 100
NRA: "Staunch supporter of the Second Amendment"

Liberal Organizations:
Planned Parenthood rating: 0
NARAL Pro-Choice America rating: 0
ACLU: 14
NAACP: ~18
LULAC: ~20
Human Rights Campaign: 14
NEA: ~10 (received a 0 in 2000)
NOW: 0
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: 13
AFL-CIO: 0
SEIU: 0
American Federation of Teachers: 0
14 posted on 07/07/2007 11:12:59 PM EDT by Reagan Man

and in that same thread (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862437/posts)...

Abortion Issues (Back to top)
2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2001.
2001 Thompson supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2001.
2000 Thompson supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2000.
1999-2000 Thompson supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 77 percent in 1999-2000.
1999 Thompson supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 1999.
(Excerpt) Read more at vote-smart.org ...

Funny how consistent those scores are for such an "inconsistent guy"

[riverdawg]

“... he wants abortion-on-demand to be legal in every state.”

I have never read such a statement by Fred Thompson. Do you have a specific source for this? He has said that Roe v. Wade is bad Constitutional law, and that the issue is one for the individual states to decide.

[Isara]

You’re welcome. Pissant is working hard for Hillary’s team.

[pissant]

I know. You think that because you see Fred and Hunter as roughly equal. And that’s fine, and understandable. Fred has many things that suggest he is a solid candidate. However, I do not see them as equal. Hunter is clear as day on everything, and I mean everything. No tapdancing, no nuanced answers.

When the story broke that Hunter had supported “the plane that would not fly”, a vertical take off and landing R&D project, the MSM wrote scathing articles about what a waste of money/earmarks, etc. Yet what did Hunter do? He stepped up before his colleagues on the armed services committee and told them to fund the damn plane more fully and let’s get it working. That they have been short sheeting the funding since its inception and its time to get the thing working. No hiding, no ducking, no backtracking. It’s one of the huge separations between Hunter and typical politicians.

[dougd]

from the ratio of hours spent talking to the client versus talking to others, seems to me this is more of an 'advisory' than an 'advocacy' role.

given the reality of the times in question, and giving FRed the benefit of the doubt for being honest, I have to conclude he was telling them they had no chance.

does anyone remember every time they've told a 'choicer' they were wrong? I would suspect he didn't recall it because it was presented as something it wasn't - as 'advocacy,' 'representation' or 'lobbying for'. He wouldn't remember doing that because he didn't. He 'advised' them, and probably 'advised' them to forget it, since the whole thing went nowhere. If he told them there was some chance for their position, it would have involved a whole lot more than 20 hours billable time.

Does even talking to them, even if to tell them they are wrong, make him an 'advocate' of their position?

[dirtboy]

Given his record on abortion

Such as his goose eggs from NARAL and Planned Parenthood?

Y'all are serving up steamin' hot meadow muffins here.

[xsmommy]

my point is that it isn’t really relevant to me or others like me that he HAS changed, if indeed it constitutes a change. i see the entire brouhaha as an attempt by supporters of other candidates to make it an issue in hopes of drawing support away from Fred. bottom line is what matters, he IS the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate. so those nattering away about this are only doing so in attempts to draw away from fred, and to pump up their own sadsack candidates.

[trisham]

Pissant is working hard for Hillary’s team.

************

No, he isn't. He's a Hunter supporter.

[pissant]

Yeah right, ace. I heard that same argument when I helped bring Rudy down a notch.

[Alter Kaker]

Thompson's real record on abortion:

1991: Lobbies for militant pro-abortion organization

1993: Thompson tells Memphis Commercial Appeal he opposes banning abortion;

1994: Thompson tells National Right to Life Committee he opposes legalized abortion, but then tells the Tennessee Conservative Spectator) "I’m not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions." He tells Republican Liberty Government should stay out of it... The ultimate decision must be made by the women."

1996: Thompson opposes Constitutional Amendment banning abortion.

1997: Thompson writes, "Government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area."

2007: Thompson is solidly pro-life.

[SharpTalons]

The Glue Horse is on his last leg. While I admire the guy’s courage, he brings no energy to the table. We need an energetic candidate to slice and dice candidate. Fred looks like he should be doing commercials for Levitra.

[trisham]

I agree with you about Hunter. He’s a good man, who is a true patriot. I would like to see a President Hunter in our future, but it may not be possible at this point because he doesn’t have much name recognition. Imho, a Thompson/Hunter ticket would change all that.

[Clara Lou]

You are a sounding gong, and nothing more.

[pissant]

And not nearly as anti-Fred as people think, but I’m having fun tweaking them. ;o)

[Alter Kaker]

Such as his goose eggs from NARAL and Planned Parenthood?

Maybe you're not understanding me. I understand Thompson supports marginal restrictions on abortion, that NARAL and Planned Parenthood oppose. But he still supports legalized abortion on demand, or at least he did when he was last asked about it, when he was in the Senate.