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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
I can't wait to see the links you're going to provide showcasing Thompson's votes that were anything other than pro-life. I can't wait, I tell ya!
Thompson may or may not have been pro-life back in 1991. I wasn't. I was an anti-life militant. 1991 was a long time ago. Thompson's voting on life issues while serving in the Senate is impeccable. That sure helps me make an informed decision.
Pissant, I admire your loyalty, but Duncan doesn't have a chance as the lead on the ticket. None. Doesn't stop him from being a good man--we need many more like him. You can bookmark this, though--Duncan Hunter will not be the GOP presidential candidate in the 2008 election.
i won’t vote for Romney even if Thompson choose to not enter the race.
ok, check the second page of this thread near the bottom. Post #89 I think. I’m not getting into another discussion about abortion.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1859244/posts
I didn’t say anything about voting for Romney. I’m just setting the record straight.
The more I hear that, the more I’m determined to show what weak sisters the rest of the pack is, particularly the frontrunners. Cheers.
So if they are lying about that, what do you think the odds are that they are lying about the whole thing? The whole TANG fiasco with Presidnet Bush shows the left is very willing to manufacture documents to support their claims.
I agree with you on the Hunter people. I am even
in Hunter’s district and met him few times..but I
realize he is limited and really has no chance in this
Presidential election. I give him credit for trying,
but the charisma, gut feeling, realization of the total
situation and, sorry, for Hunter but Thompson has the
tools to be nominated...and hopefully, to ignore the
brickbats and Dem-whores, Clintons, Shrums,etc. and
build on his popularity and win the damn thing..JK
Gee, guess you're right. Thompson should be running for prez of Planned Barrenhood, not POTUS.
The fact that Romney pushed for campaign finance reform as part of his 1994 race against Kennedy is public record — the link I gave you from the Hill documented it, and there are thousands more.
Are you denying that in 1994 Mitt Romney supported campaign finance “reform” measures including taxing some campaign contributions and abolishing PACs?
Romney lost to The Swimmer in a watershed year for Republicans. Had he embraced Reaganism instead of rejecting it and trying to pander to Masshole voters, he would have beaten Kennedy. In fact, he was leading Ted throughout the summer in the polls.
Posted by Mobile Vulgus
Fred Thompson Gets ZEROs across the board from Pro-Abortion Groups
http://www.vote-smart.org ^
Posted on 07/07/2007 10:55:46 PM EDT by new yorker 77
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 ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862437/posts
Well, lets look at the details. According to the article a bunch of lefties who absolutely do not want a conservative with a 100% pro-life voting record claim they hired Thompson for a few months 16 years ago. He says he has no recollection of it. At the time Thompson was a lawyer working for a private law firm, and not a partner. If he was hired, I would assume it was the firm he was working for that would have accepted the case and assigned it to Thompson. Lawyers are paid to provide legal representation for clients, they don't always have to like or agree with them. Considering that his whole political career he has voted 100% pro-life I doubt that representing family planning clinics on the single issue of overturning the gag rule (which has implications beyond the abortion issue) would sink him with any but the most extreme pro-lifers.
More problematic would be, if there is some evidence to back up their story, then is Fred lying? That would call into question his integrity. So could he have actually represented them on that one issue and not remember it? They say he reported meeting with Sunnunu about it. At first you have to think he would remember that. But if he did get a valuable meeting with the White House Chief of Staff I doubt it would about only one issue. He would probably have a list of issues of concern to the firm's clients, and the gag rule would only be one of many. So it's possible he could have met with Sunnunu, discussed the gag rule along with a number of issues, and reported that it was discussed, without particularly remembering it decades later.
Personally I doubt this will be more than a two-day story. Unlike Rudy or Mitt (who are the other two front runners), Fred has a strong pro-life record in public office. The average voter, even in Republican primaries, isn't going to base their vote on an alleged short job taken as a private atourny before he was ever in office.
You do support Romney right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
hmm...watch this video, Romney talks about not remembering, or not recalling supporting Mass Citizens for life.
Would you rather support a candidate who runs away from and says they can’t remember supporting a Pro-Life group, or one who can’t remember supporting a Pro-Death answer on a questionnaire?
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.