ping
19 hours in 2 years ?
hang him, hang him high !
Fred ping.
Fred is making Mitt Romney look consistent on abortion. In the 90s, it seems like Fred’s opinion on the issue changed every year... in 1991 he was for it, as he was in 1993. In 1994 he was both for and against it. In 1996 he was against it, but in 1997 he was for it. Now he’s against it. But I guess now he’s sincere.
Wow, the media is showing almost as much interest in this as H. Clinton’s Rose Law firm billing records. Funny how decades old incriminating records hidden in plain sight can’t be located, but twenty hours of legal work from twenty years ago for a Republican turn up in a flash.
How does that happen?
This is a hit-piece, pissant.
Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Rudy Giuliani and any other “pro-choice” candidate are supporters of DISMEMBERING and KILLING innocent unborn children.
Pro-Choice = Chosing to Kill.
If Fred Thompson actually did some work for some-pro-choice groups, more power to him. Maybe we should give some credit to him for seeing the light and being strongly pro-life now.
So what?
It doesn’t mean he agreed with them. It’s perfectly legal for him to have advised them on what their legal rights were, whether he agreed with their cause or not.
Think about it - do you think Jeffrey Dahmer’s lawyer thought it was OK he killed those people?
“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.”
Amen! If you messed up Fred, just say so, don’t do damage control it doesn’t work. And while your at it, get rid of the homosexuals on your campaign payroll - that’s going to bite you on the backside eventually.
For those that want to diss this, notice it was published by “CBN.” The Christian Broadcast Network - a major outlet for religious conservatives. It is not a “hit-piece.”
LOL.....the story began as an abortion story, but because of Fred's strong anti-abortion record the abortion angle has obviously fizzled and now the anti-fred's are admitting it.....talk about backpeddling...bwhahahahaha
Now they are desperately trying to latch on to Fred and his staff's recall about it in order to salvage some damage to Fred...LOL.
This will have no measurable effect on the Fred train......sorry anti-freds....thanks for playing....
Ha, ha, ha! You’re working so hard against your “#2 guy,” that you won’t be able to vote for him in the general elections. LOL!
I know that you’ve got your hopes soaring on this one. I hope you’re wearing a parachute.
But back to the point: Should Thompson have represented them to get an entre' to the White House? Not if he was being rock solid on the principles he's SHOWN, not spoken about (Mitt fans), since then. He vaciliated and rep'd a client he didn't agree with, as lawyers will do.
Folks, let's use our heads for a moment. Where do you suppose the NYT got these "billing records"? From Thompson? His lawfirm? don't think so. How about from the client? Hmmmm... let's see: Now why would an abortion rights groups dig up old invoices from storage to help the Left try to torpedo Thompson's candidacy? Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that Fred has a 100% approval rating from National Right to Life and a ZERO rating from groups like NARAL? Does it say something about how this client perceives Fred's position on abortion? ya' think?
The story has no legs, because people see it for what it is. But Brody is right: If Thompson's memory is now refreshed, he needs to talk plainly about this, and not spin like a Senator. We don't want another Beltway candidate.
I’m not surprised that he didn’t remember the work. This was before he ran for office, it was probably sold as “Family Planning” and free speech, so most people would have had to be educated on the double speak. 19 hours (or parts thereof) of conversations sounds about right.
Nevertheless, the law went too far in my opinion, since it specifically restricted *counseling* between a doctor and patient. See my post #28, here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868199/posts
What were we supposed to do when a woman asked us about abortion, leave her vulnerable to whomever she called after looking up numbers in the phone book? The same people who called themselves “Family Planning”?
Those of us who are prolife were restricted, also.
Part of Fred's piece, titled "A lawyer who is a prospective candidate" from Power Line.
The easiest and most generally used tactic when running against a lawyer is to trade off a general perception that most people dislike lawyers. Goodness knows that a lot of lawyers have earned disfavor but, as it turns out, folks understand our system better than a lot of politicians think they do. In my first run for the Senate, my opponent tried the old demagoguery route – “He has even represented criminals!” – to no avail.
A first cousin of this ploy is to associate the lawyer with the views of his client. Now-United States Chief Justice John Roberts addressed this notion during his confirmation hearings. “… [I]t’s a tradition of the American Bar that goes back before the founding of the country that lawyers are not identified with the positions of their clients. The most famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre.”
Roberts pointed out that Adams was actually vindicating the rule of law. Every person, unpopular or not, is entitled to representation. He further said, “That principle that you don’t identify the lawyer with the particular views of the client or the views that the lawyer advances on behalf of the client, is critical to the fair administration of justice.”
Like Adams, the views of attorney Abe Lincoln would have been a little hard to discern from looking at the positions he took as a lawyer. He represented the big railroad companies and on other occasions represented farmers and small land owners against the railroads.
Likewise during the Roberts confirmation, the New York Times reported on August 5, 2005 that as an appellate lawyer in the mid-1990s, Roberts gave advice to a gay-rights group that helped them win a 1996 anti-discrimination suit. Chief Justice Roberts had no direct hand in the suit. Rather, colleagues at his firm were handling the case and sought advice from a number of partners, him included. The group said that Chief Justice Roberts provided “invaluable strategic guidance” formulating legal theories.
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, it would not be appropriate for a lawyer to make such comments.
This situation does however bring to mind my many years in the law, and the nature of law practice in a country such as ours that prizes independence and individual rights. Of course, these values could not be protected without lawyer-client confidentiality or if lawyers were identified with the positions of their clients.
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.
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.
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"
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?
According to his groups website they did NOT support Thompson when he was in the Senate.