Posted on 07/06/2007 5:33:23 PM PDT by new yorker 77
WASHINGTON (AP) - Fred Thompson, who is weighing a Republican presidential bid as a social conservative, "has no recollection" of performing lobbying work in 1991 for a family planning group that was seeking to relax an abortion counseling rule, a spokesman said Friday. The Los Angeles Times reported on its Web site that Thompson was retained by National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association to lobby the administration of President George H.W. Bush to ease a regulation that prevented clinics that received federal money from offering any abortion counseling.
At the time, Thompson, a lawyer, worked as a lobbyist at Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, a Washington firm.
"He may have been consulted by one of the firm's partners who represented this group in 1991," Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo said Friday in a statement. "As any lawyer would know, such consultations take place within law firms everyday."
The newspaper cited minutes from a meeting of the association when Thompson's work was discussed as well as the recollections of five individuals.
Judith DeSarno, the association's former president, told The Times that she had specific memories of discussing Thompson's lobbying work with him in phone conversations and during meals at Washington restaurants.
Minutes of a Sept. 14, 1991, meeting of the association, cited by the newspaper, states: "Judy (DeSarno) reported that the Association had hired Fred Thompson, Esq., as counsel to aid us in discussions with the administration." According to The Times, DeSarno said Thompson told her he discussed the abortion restriction with John Sununu, then chief of staff to Bush.
Sununu told The Times that he didn't recall Thompson ever discussing the abortion restriction with him. "In fact, I know that never happened."
"It is not unusual for one lawyer on one side of an issue to be asked to give advice to colleagues for clients who engage in conduct or activities with which they personally disagree," Corallo said.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
It seems McCain is more interested pursuing bipartisanship with his Democrat friends than he is in sticking to conservative principles. I also think he is one of the big government socialists who inhabit the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party.
What are you saying--if someone changes their views after a certain age their views are no longer valid? Patent nonsense. My mom didn't come to be pro-life until she was in her 60s, fcol.
Besides, and I hope you don't mind my splitting hairs, but the ages of 20 to 35 are adulthood.
It seems to me there are a lot of “cults” here when it comes to candidates: Romniacs, Rudybots, etc. I like Hunter, as well, but realistically, he isn’t going to get the nod. FDT could, if he’d just declare and stop screwing around. A Thompson/Hunter ticket could get it done.
As far as CFR is concerned, is there anybody left in national politics who ISN’T a member?
God bless your mom. I take it she didn’t become pro-life when she decided to run for a nomination in a conservative party. As Tancredo calls it: a “road to Des Moines” conversion
You suck at sarcasm. That was a horrible comment.
Minutes of a Sept. 14, 1991, meeting of the association, cited by the newspaper, states: “Judy (DeSarno) reported that the Association had hired Fred Thompson, Esq., as counsel to aid us in discussions with the administration.” According to The Times, DeSarno said Thompson told her he discussed the abortion restriction with John Sununu, then chief of staff to Bush.
And this, the next line in the article, appears to counter the allegation by DeSarno:
Sununu told The Times that he didn't recall Thompson ever discussing the abortion restriction with him. "In fact, I know that never happened."
Only those who are pro American.
Care to put any money on that?
That is indeed the crux. I don’t think this is going to be proven true, and if so, it won’t matter. I don’t see that Fred has done anything wrong and this is more than likely just a smear attempt. Fred hasn’t done anything. Well general gasbagging and CFR but outside that he seems to be a swell guy. That’s my rational, he hasn’t done anything and I am not one who is comfortable with being pointed to what someone has said. Show me what they have done. I am finished with trusting and defending these politicians over and over again, and in the end being sold out. What is they call doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? I know what Hunter has done and I know where he was when his country needed him. That’s all I need to know.
The American Spectator
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11689
RedState
Captain’s Quarters
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
Blogs For Fred
I’m mainly posting these links for anyone seeking alternatives to LAT’s description of events.
Like I said a few times, I don’t buy the attack line on fred. He may, in my view, have some vulnerabilities on a few issues, but I don’t consider his pro-life credentials to be cause for doubt.
These are only four blogs that have already begun attacking the story. I’ve seen many more. Judging from the named sources, it appears to come directly from the Clinton camp and their allegations have not yet been substantiated. balls in their court to prove he even worked for them, let alone was a willing abortion advocate.
en masse (ŏn mās') adv. In one group or body; all together: The protesters marched en masse to the capitol.
As I am an F. Thompson supporter, and as I have not banded together as one with other Thompson supporters to descend upon Hunter and Paul, your allegation is provably false. For the record, I have stated that Hunter is not fiscally conservative enough for me, nor is he enough of a federalist...but I respect him and think he's a good candidate. Likewise, I don't think Dr. Paul is realistic about the Islamofascist threat, but I think he's fantastic on the Constitution and am glad he's added his voice to the race. I also don't deride candidates based on their current polls -- in the early primaries, it makes sense to support the candidate whose principles are the closest match to your own. For me, that's F. Thompson.
However, I never swear, and I never personally attack other FReepers. Too bad many of the Fredheads do not play by the same rules.
I'll give you that -- I've had specific assurances that you would NEVER personally attack people by calling them blind, unquestioning cultist attack-dogs. /s
"A review of Romney’s public statements from his 1994 senatorial and 2002 gubernatorial campaigns reveal that he once touted stringent campaign-finance modifications.
A Boston Globe article from July 1994 reported that Romney publicly advocated placing spending limits on congressional campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PACs)."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/romneys-about-face-on-campaign-funding-2007-02-08.html
"Other critics say Romney's complaints don't square with his past calls for campaign finance reform, including a 1994 proposal to publicly fund elections by imposing a 10 percent tax on the contributions to candidates choosing to finance their campaigns privately."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18401480/
“But all of his votes in the Senate were pro-life”
I believe that myth has already been debunked.
“A Boston Globe article from July 1994 reported that...”
If you’re gonna take that Boston Globe article at face value then I can post a few things they are reporting about Fred Thompson such about being a Nixon mole, about his wife, etc.. either you trust them or you don’t.
“Other critics say Romney..”
In other words, you are basing these wild claims on what his critics say.
Coming from someone who supports the candidate who brought us McCain-Feigngold to say this is hypocritical would be an understatement.
And what? You want to condemn him on that???????????????????????????????????????? Geez. You claim he is your #2 guy, but are always attacking him. There is nothing here but some lame guilt by association and vague inuendo. I can understand some skepticism about a candidate, but get real. You also need to be skeptical of how the leftwing media tries to twist things.
LOL, you are unbelievable. On life issues, Thompson's record was perfect. It is only when groups expand 'life' to mean things like CFR can you twist reality into something it is not.
Coming from someone who supports Romney, your continued attacks against Thompson are laughable. Did you ever see what Romney proposed on Campaign Reform, it was farther left than Hillary. In short it was pure socialized Campaign Funding. Go Rommey!
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.