If Fred didn't have the nerve to convict on both accounts, he's not Presidential. Instead, Fred wanted to seek the middle of the fence(how pathetic). Newt's got more nerve and reaction ability than Fred ever dreamed of having.
Posted on 07/27/2007 11:17:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Republicans have decided that Fred Thompson is their man. I'm not sure how they arrived at this decision. Maybe they held a meeting at some secret mountaintop castle. Or perhaps there's some kind of GOP pheromone wafting through the air that most of us can't detect. (The latter theory might explain Chris Matthews's otherwise baffling on-air musing about Thompson: "Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of--a little bit of cigar smoke?") Whatever it is, I'm convinced the decision has been made.
The best evidence for this is the equanimity with which conservatives have accepted the news that Thompson once worked as an abortion-rights lobbyist. Milder revelations about Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney were met with howls of outrage. The news that Thompson actively lobbied to weaken abortion restrictions, on the other hand, has been met with a shrug.
This free pass from conservatives is all the more remarkable given that it has had to hold firm through a series of unpersuasive explanations by Thompson's quasi-campaign. Phase One was straight denial. When the Los Angeles Times broke the abortion-lobbying story, Thompson's spokesman insisted, "Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period," and added, "There's no documents to prove it, there's no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, says it didn't happen."
The next day, Thompson proceeded to Phase Two: Redneck Zen Quasi-Denial. "I'd just say the flies get bigger in the summertime," he declared. "I guess the flies are buzzing." Remarkably, this response seemed to work. Giuliani and Romney are probably kicking themselves that they didn't think to rebut straightforward factual allegations about their abortion records with some inscrutable pastoral aphorism. (Or does this only work for Southerners?)
A couple of days later, Thompson moved to Phase Three: spin. Thompson began gently explaining to his supporters that representing unsavory clients is just a normal part of being a lawyer. Thompson did not admit that he actually had represented a pro-choice group, but the inference was hard to miss. And, sure enough, twelve days later, The New York Times produced the billing records his spokesman had insisted did not exist.
This remains Thompson's current position. He's not denying he lobbied; he's just saying that, if he did, it doesn't mean he believed in what he was lobbying for. In a column he wrote for Powerline, one of the most widely read conservative blogs, Thompson waxed idealistic about the legal profession. "Every person, unpopular or not, is entitled to representation," he wrote, citing John Roberts: "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."
It's true that this is a well-known legal principle, though lawyers often stretch it too far. (Yes, every defendant needs a lawyer, but no, the proper functioning of the legal system doesn't require Alan Dershowitz to fly across the country to defend O.J. Simpson.) But, even if we accept the maximal version of this principle, it's no defense of Thompson's work. The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (nfprha) didn't hire him as a lawyer, it hired him as a lobbyist, and, while there's a constitutional right to the former, it doesn't extend (thank goodness) to the latter. Thompson's job wasn't to defend family planners charged with breaking the law that prohibits federally funded clinics from offering abortion counseling. His job was to persuade the Bush administration to change the law. His value had nothing to do with his legal skills and everything to do with his being the rare prominent Republican willing to represent a pro-choice group.
Indeed, it's a testament to just how poorly lobbyists are viewed that Thompson presenting himself as a lawyer is actually an improvement. Cast in just the right light--Thompson cites the legal careers of John Adams and Abraham Lincoln--it can almost look noble. Good ole Fred, humble country lawyer. Think Atticus Finch, not Jack Abramoff.
Thompson also has to pretend he was just a lawyer for the nfprha because, once you recognize that he worked as a lobbyist, his defense falls apart. Maybe a lawyer can ignore the actions or views of a client, but a lobbyist certainly shouldn't. Lobbying is a form of political activism. It pays well, which gives it a certain mercenary cast--"The practice of law is a business as well as a profession. It's the way you support your family," Thompson has written. But other forms of political activism pay well, too. If Thompson had accepted a lucrative job as a consultant to the Clinton campaign or chairman of the Democratic National Committee, would conservatives assume he was just representing his client?
Incredibly, Thompson's elementary conflation of lawyering and lobbying has satisfied nearly the entire conservative base. To the extent that conservatives are indignant, it's at the liberal media for reporting the story. "They seem to think that the story will somehow discredit Thompson among conservatives," fumed Powerline's John Hinderaker, "presumably because conservatives are too dumb to understand how law firms and the legal process work." Well, you said it, not me.
Maybe the best explanation for conservatives' willingness to overlook Thompson's apostasy is that they're just tired of hearing about how every leading Republican contender either supports abortion rights or did in the not-too-distant past. "This is becoming so old," complained Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. "They find somebody who has staked out a pro-life position, and the first thing they say is that he's supported a pro-abortion group."
Of course, it's becoming so old only because all the leading GOP contenders have supported pro-abortion groups. But, where conservative ire was once directed at the apostates themselves, now it's directed at the liberal media. Six months ago, conservatives scoffed at Mitt Romney's strained explanations, but now they swallow Thompson's giant whoppers without complaint. I guess the lies get bigger in the summertime.
Mr Lefty Journalist can go no further. I mean, if youre writing a hit piece, why do you need to know anything whatsoever about what youre writing about?
Glee on!
Ping!
Can someone remind us all where Chait and his pals were during THIS famous time....
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica...”
“I did have sexual relations with that woman, Monica.”
I wonder how big the lies were getting for Johnny boy now?
Obviously, Mr. Chait doesn't read the forums and blogs I read. I've seen many posts that say this and the Spencer Abraham thing, among a host of other reasons, are deal breakers for voting for Fred.
Mr. Chait probably spends a lot of time at DU, HuffingtonPost, DailyKos and that type of hate site, so he’d be too busy to look over the conservative blogs.
But Fred's too mellow, and not a man of action.
Newt's who I'm waiting for. I'd love to see Newt landslide Hillary/Obama.
I like Senator Fred Thompson,.... BUT.....
Should he apologize for ...?
In no way does my conclusion ratify the White House lawyers' view that private conduct never rises to impeachable offenses, or that only acts that will jeopardize the future of the nation warrant removal of the President. It simply recognizes how the principles the Founding Fathers established apply to these facts.
I therefore vote to acquit the President of the charges alleged against him in Article I."
At the very least, Freed Thompson should review and explain this critical decision again. I believe apologies are in order. This decision weighs heavy on my mind.
Ann Coulter is a true conservative, and so am I. If she's not satisfied, then neither am I.
I'm waiting for Newt.
Guess you didn't see his vote re: article two?
Excellent observations, spot on. If the truth weren’t so disturbing...
“The best evidence for this is the equanimity with which conservatives have accepted the news that Thompson once worked as an abortion-rights lobbyist.”
“The news that Thompson actively lobbied to weaken abortion restrictions, on the other hand, has been met with a shrug.”
“Incredibly, Thompson’s elementary conflation of lawyering and lobbying has satisfied nearly the entire conservative base. To the extent that conservatives are indignant, it’s at the liberal media for reporting the story.”
....it might actually be ridiculously funny....
“Thompson proceeded to Phase Two: Redneck Zen Quasi-Denial. “I’d just say the flies get bigger in the summertime,” he declared. “I guess the flies are buzzing.” Remarkably, this response seemed to work. Giuliani and Romney are probably kicking themselves that they didn’t think to rebut straightforward factual allegations about their abortion records with some inscrutable pastoral aphorism. (Or does this only work for Southerners?)”
LOL
I've seen no indication that he's even considering a run.
Which is good, because he couldn't win, let alone by a landslide.
Just because we like someone doesn't mean wishing it becomes true.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Amen! The only place Newt beats Hillary is in the race for the "most polarizing figure". Your quote goes double for the Duncan Hunter Fan Club.
If Fred didn't have the nerve to convict on both accounts, he's not Presidential. Instead, Fred wanted to seek the middle of the fence(how pathetic). Newt's got more nerve and reaction ability than Fred ever dreamed of having.
What a silly person. Is he so dense that he can't grasp the idea that PEOPLE--you know, us great unwashed--talking on the internet, in magazines, on TV--can't all just come to a decision without the blessing of the party? (Maybe in his case he prefers The Party as the ONLY arbiter of politics?)
I wouldn't mind the points he's making in the article if this writer weren't such a smarmy, sarcastic equivocator.
What Thompson has done, as described in this article, is not something I much care for, but the writer goes to great lengths to create a gulf of difference between what a lawyer does and what a lobbyist does. Of course a lobbyist isn't a lawyer, but to claim there is a world of difference between what a lawyer does (seeing that his client's rights are protected in the criminal justice process) and what a lobbyist does (seeing that his client's rights are USED in the legislative process) is simply dishonest. He's trying so hard to show that a lawyer HAS to provide a defense for clients he doesn't agree with (a lawyer doesn't HAVE to take on a client, though he does have to take on clients whatever their ultimate guilt or innocence in order to act as a lawyer) while a lobbyist has a choice as to who and what he lobbies for (so all those democrat lobbyists are responsible for the actions of the companies they lobby for?).
The only difference, other than the actual work involved, is the RIGHT to a defense contrasted with the NEED of an organization for lobbying. If we all only worked for companies involving people's RIGHTS, there goes manufacturing, entertainment, etc. The writer tries so hard to make it seem like it would be just fine if Thompson was working as a LAWYER for pro-abortionists but it's hypocricy to work for them as a lobbyist.
I happen to agree on that point, but I don't make my living as a lawyer or a lobbyist. Anyone who gets into those businesses thinking he or she can only represent the Good and the Pure is a fool.
Thompson wanted to make money, so he lobbied to change a law. I wouldn't have done that, and I wish he hadn't.
But the writer is so determined to hurt Thompson that he, incredibly, simply dismisses Giuliani's history of being pro-abortion as if it's exactly the same as this one situation.
I hope Thompson has a good answer for why he did what he did, but even if he doesn't, it's just not a dealbreaker for me--one incident of this in hiw whole life isn't the same as Giuliani's consistent pro-abort position.
The MSM sure seem nervous.
The haters just can’t stop the hating.......
Well stated!
I deal in reality, and Newt has as much chance of becoming president as Dan Quayle.
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.