Posted on 08/12/2007 9:24:03 PM PDT by byteback
Fred Thompson is backing off his flat denial that he once lobbied for an abortion-rights group. He now says he doesn’t remember it, but does not dispute evidence to the contrary.
The climb-down could be a significant embarrassment for a prospective candidate with a plain-spoken appeal and who has courted the GOP’s anti-abortion base, although Thompson and his advisers had signaled for several days that it was coming.
Realizing that opponents in both parties are mining his legal career for damaging ammunition, Thompson also is engaging in a bit of preemption. He writes in a column posted Wednesday by the conservative Power Line blog: “[I]f a client has a legal and ethical right to take a position, then you may appropriately represent him as long as he does not lie or otherwise conduct himself improperly while you are representing him. In almost 30 years of practicing law I must have had hundreds of clients and thousands of conversations about legal matters. Like any good lawyer, I would always try to give my best, objective and professional opinion on any legal question presented to me.”
The abortion-rights issue arose when the Los Angeles Times reported last week that Thompson had “accepted a lobbying assignment” from the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which wanted the administration of President George H.W. Bush to relax a restriction on federal payments to clinics that offered abortion counseling.
Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo told the Times in an e-mail: “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period.” The Times said minutes from a board meeting of the group suggested otherwise.
So the difference may boil down to how you define “lobbying.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I changed the date of the article from the date you used (today’s date) to the actual date of the article.
I assume it was an error on your part.
Thankyou. It was an error and I did do a search and hadn’t seen this posted before.
I’m a total pro-lifer as well, and I’m done voting for dead senators.
Sure, I believe you.
Romney has the same record as Fred Thompson on abortion. Both ran as pro-choice candidates. Both have a 100% voting/veto record on the matter.
To Thompson’s credit, his is a longer-running 100% record than Romney’s.
I fail to see why I should hold a grudge against either for shifting their views towards life. The whole thing smacks of ridiculousness.
For every white horse, there’s a dark horse.
What's ridiculousness about someone proudly claiming he supports abortion rights until this election cycle?
Thompson was in Washington voting pro-life while Romney was telling us in MA how prochoice he was. And what exactly would a state governor have to do with abortion rights, which are Federally-protected?
Ah, nice to see Romney's supporters showing us all how "moral" they are.
Cute--real cute.
Probably another “staffer” bungle. Can’t wait for the video. “Staffers Gone Wild : Nashville”, heh.
After Duncan Hunter finished dead last at Ames, completely dashing his only hope of ever getting out of the 1% hole he’s in, you guys should both take your peanut gallery silliness down a notch.
Duncan Hunter’s campaign assumed room temperature over the weekend. Quit trying to tear down others because your guy can’t even get it together to at least place or show in the largest straw poll event of the season.
Yeah, I’ve heard all of your excuses about how he ‘didn’t have time’ or was ‘too busy saving all of our asses’ to campaign. Well, what kind of leader does that make Duncan, if he isn’t up to speed enough to know how important Ames was to his campaign? What does it say about his organizational skills that his time was so badly managed that he didn’t ‘have time’ to campaign for Ames?
Exactly what else is he doing with his precious time? He sure as hell isn’t showing up for work with his rotten attendance record.
Duncan Hunter won’t be getting any serious treatment as a presidential candidate from any media source, new or old after this debacle. He won’t be getting any real money either. Trying in petty futility to tear down Fred Thompson won’t change that.
Countdown to IOWA Caucuses
153 days
7. Fred Thompson – 1 percent
8. Rudolph W. Giuliani – 1 percent
9. Duncan Hunter – 1 percent
10. John McCain (less than 1 percent)
11. John Cox (less than 1 percent)
If you want to live in fantasyland, that’s just fine with me, but all of you who choose to do that should refrain from bashing other candidates while you do.
I would agree...
Flip flop, flip flop.
There were several things that happened. The LA Times posted a story and Fred called the other person involved [John Sununu] and verified this. The original denial was based upon the original story, which was then changed to billing records. That was a different issue, the lobbying charge was that he lobbied John Sununu which he didn’t. Confusing the story and changing it and twisting it made it a problem to deal with and a problem for the campaign staff to handle. The ones we should be upset with were the reporters. I heard Fred talk about the Sununu question in an interview.
After all NARAL gives Fred a zero rating, if they thought he truly had been helpful in lobbying for this issue I doubt that rating would be zero.
If a person prefers Fred more than any other candidate, what makes it “holier than thou”. Just means they’re sticking with him. Fred’s been attacked by the MSM. What do you want to do tear him down so he isn’t a viable candidate? So then the reporters could go on and tear down the next one and the next one? Everyone who I know who supports Fred realizes this is tough. But it is going to be tough on any or all of the other candidates if they emerge strong. Most people understand that.
I don’t see the point in posting this again. We could do this with all the candidates and have a circular firing squad and knock everybody out.
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.