If true. He’s toast.
The article shows no evidence that Thompson lobbied for anything.
Thompson was part of a huge firm and the firm did something, therefore, Thompson did it.
The AP lied.
How could he be toast if the AP lied?
Furthermore, how could Thompson be toast against a Democrat that would make it the law of the land to have partial birth abortions on demand.
Will Pro-Life voters really allow partial birth abortions to happen by rejecting Thompson over hearsay?
I missed that in bible study.
Every time you Hunter guys read an anti Fred Thompson post you get your cookies and pray he is toast. Why dont you get a life. You dont hear us Thompson people knocking Humter.
As for this story its probably a media shot in the dark put oput on the slimmest of evidenc. Somebody’s recollection of 8 or 10 years ago
Get over yourself.
Hahahaaha! No he’s not.
No, he is the next President. BTW, it's not true.
Tommorrow’s headline: “He slept with his daughter and molested his son. He beat his wife every week, and was a KKK executive. When asked to respond, he said “I never beat my wife.” They are really sending out the trolls now—must be worried.
Research the stories on Justice John Roberts a couple years ago.
Same thing recycled.
I supported Roberts’ strongly then. I’ve seen nothing to indicate I was wrong to have done so.
Basically I’m supposed to suddenly attack Thompson for participating in the same legal courtesies Roberts’ extended to his collegues? Not happening. I nailed Coulter for doing that on Roberts’, I’m not going to be a hypocrite here and act the way she did then.
I don’t even know what others are trying to prove here anyway. I don’t believe Thompson is as pro-life as Bush.
I don’t think most people do.
I do think he’s more likely then not to appoint a Justice like Alito or Roberts. And I do believe he believes R v W should be left to the states. Nothing that has popped up has changed my mind on that. If anything I’d be more questioning on whether he’d stick to his stance on embryonic stem cells, given the issue is more political now then it was then and even some social conservtaives have no problem with it.
Frankly, I think he’s more vulnerable on amnesty questions, his relationship with McCain and whether when he recognized a bad law (mccain/feingold) he’d VETO it rather then go along with the establishment next time. These are certainly the areas of concern I’m focused on, mainly because I haven’t seen a big red flag suggesting I should worry about his pro-life intentions.
hey, but what do I Know? If folks want to try and weaken his support among the important evangelical block go ahead. I think you’ll find yourselves disappointed since Christians will listen to colson and perkins more then they will these stories. And those two place a lot more importance on his Senate record vs the questionable records of the others running.
Give me a break. If FDT makes it to the general election with ANY of the RAtS in contention, his clip will be full ten fold compared to the opposition.
To much wringing of hands this early in the process.
You know it's not true pissant.
LOL, you would toast him for littering. I can't even figure out what the article is alleging.
If true. He’s toast.
Nope,,,McLame is toast.
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.