Posted on 07/07/2007 5:04:11 AM PDT by kellynla
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.
media go out of their way to run hit pieces at republican candidates but never the democrats
Look, a dishonest post that needs refutation.
I’ll go first. Fred Thompson voted for one of a slew of minimum wage increases. It was the only one that included business tax cuts to offset the increase.
He voted FOR medical savings accounts. (6/29/2001,Vote 216: S 1052: NO to motion to Table Craig Amdt. No. 851; To express the sense of the Senate regarding making medical savings accounts available to all Americans.)
Besides, Fred beat Ron Paul solidly in the Cobb county straw poll on the 4th, didn’t he? Even when they try to stack the odds like they did.
“Is Thompson not “announcing” because there may be other issues yet to emerge? It would be smart to wait so these become “old news”, though.”
__________
I disagree. The public knows Thompson as an actor but little about his politics. If he allows this void to continue, enemies will fill in the blanks. He should announce already, does he really think that he has some sort of elelment of surprise?
I don’t think NewsMax qualifies as Drive-by, MSM.
Patterico:
“As evidentiary support, the paper cites no billing records, memoranda, letters, or other evidence of correspondence between Thompson and the group. Instead, the article provides quotes from two Democrats, and quotes (but does not produce) the alleged minutes of a meeting of the group’s board members.”
“It is inexcusable for the paper to fail to provide readers a copy of this, the only document supporting the allegation. I have complained many times about the paper’s failure to show readers key documents that are central to major stories. I can imagine no excuse for this failure, especially in this case. Perhaps the paper doesn’t want the document itself subjected to scrutiny? Do they fear that the bloggers who discovered Dan Rather’s memos were forgeries might take too close a look at the document underlying this story?”
“Let the newspaper provide the documentation to back up its claims first. Then we can discuss what, if anything, it means.”
http://patterico.com/2007/07/07/did-thompson-lobby-for-abortion-rights-group/
Posted by Mobile Vulgus
I support Ron Paul because he supports al Qaeda.
Posted by Mobile Vulgus
I bet if he rushes his announcement and then flops because of lack of organization, you will be first in line to celebrate.
The ones who don't know his politcs and know him as an actor like him. The ones who know his politics LOVE him.
If he allows this void to continue, enemies will fill in the blanks.
They're doing a bang up job so far! All they're doing is dredging up memories of Billary's sordid past. Every time they do one of these stupid hit pieces, there's a collective 'So What???' and then all of the slung mud ricochets right back to the Clintons.
He should announce already, does he really think that he has some sort of elelment of surprise?
Let's put it this way: if Fred Thompson wanted to announce today, he wouldn't need any fanfare or even a press release. He could simply put a video up on youtube and link to it from his site. If that video was 10 minutes long, within 48 hours it would be played in it's entirety on every major network and repeatedly on cable networks. It would be viewed online by millions more. It would be emailed from person to person and saved and shared. He would get more face time with the American people than any candidate has had to date. And it would cost him exactly nothing. Youtube would even pay for the bandwidth.
You think maybe he could be just a step ahead of the 'conventional wisdom' on this? :)
I’m gonna call the “BFD” alarm here.
You’re right, of course. Because everything negative about Fred Thompson? A smear. Probably something Ron Paul said. Because Ron Paul’s just crazy. I mean, the man thinks that we should fight unlimited and declared wars against real enemies, instead of budgeting limited amounts for civil policing actions against amorphous ‘enemies’ like Drugs and Poverty and Terror. That’s just crazy talk! Plus, he wants to abolish [shudder] whole departments in the federal government, and he claims we should abolish them—get this—because they aren’t legal under the Constitution! What a goof!
“So what? He has the best looking wife and won’t be afraid to drop bombs on the ragheads. Works for me.”
Gosh, I’ll keep my fingers crossed that his wife and his bomb-dropping button finger stay healthy. God forbid that your entire election rationale gets thrown for a loop because she gets a cold sore and he gets a blister.
“I support Ron Paul because he supports al Qaeda.”
Ouch, that stings. Let me see, you probably support him because he’s for abortion and open borders, too. ZZZZZzzzzzzzzz...wake me when you come up with some slime that sticks, ‘kay?
On the video that supposedly documents past support for abortion: are you referring to the one where he says he doesn’t want to criminalize young women for seeking abortions? If so, that does not equal support for abortion.
I have had many arguments here about the difference between decriminalization and legalization, in regards to another issue: the war on (some) drugs. I am in favor of decriminalizing drug use — i.e., stop sending SWAT teams to beat down the doors of the citizenry and shoot them or their dogs on mere suspicion of drug use, stop spending billions of taxpayer dollars to jail people for simple drug use, etc., etc. Get the feds out of it, and in my state make drug abuse a ticket/fine offense.
This argument invariably has people wrongly accusing me of supporting drug abuse. In accusing Thompson of supporting abortion because he didn’t or doesn’t believe women should go to prison for seeking an abortion, you are making the same mistake. That video said nothing about how he believes abortion doctors should be handled (just as my stance on decriminalizing drug use does not address the issue of how drug dealers should be handled). His statement merely addressed the tactical issue of appropriate punishment for women who seek abortions. Agree with him or not on the appropriate punishment for women seeking abortions, but don’t absurdly accuse him of supporting abortions themselves based on his tactical statement.
By the way, although I don’t think Dr. Paul is being realistic about the Islamofascist threat, I respect him immensely for his adherence to the Constitution. I wish more politicians had his reverence for our Founding documents.
Thompson also has a powerful record of reverence and respect for the Constitution — it’s one of the main reasons I support him. He took a lot of unpopular stances in the Senate because of his support for the Constitution and our Founders.
As just one example (and there are many), the senate designed a bill that would allow the government unlimited access to the private business records of federal contract applicants merely suspected of using child labor. It was for the chiiiiiiiildren — who in the senate would oppose this and risk being painted as a supporter of child slavery? Thompson did, by introducing amendment 3533 to limit unlimited government intrusion, on fourth amendment grounds. Here is an excerpt of his remarks (the entire speech can be found on page S9109 in the Congressional Record):
TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999 (Senate - July 28, 1998)
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment addresses a certain provision in the Postal-Treasury appropriations bill at section 642. It is a section that deals with procurement policies. It is a section that deals with a problem of goods that are produced by child labor—a problem about which we are all sensitive. I do think that this provision should not be in this bill. I offer this amendment to amend the provision, leaving in the portion that addresses the child labor issue, but taking out certain portions that I believe are clearly unconstitutional and unneeded.
-snip-
The problem that is the major one in this particular section has to do with the provision that is on CB, a capital B, which says the following: That an acquisition contract has to include the following language:
A clause that obligates the contractor to cooperate fully and provide access for any official of the United States to the contractor’s records, documents, persons, or premises, if requested by the official for the purpose of determining whether forced or indentured child labor was used to mine, produce, or manufacture any item furnished under this contract.
I believe this is clearly unconstitutional. I know the intent was good. We all have the same intent with regard to the end result here. But we have picked out a particular area—not drug dealing, not selling faulty parts for an airplane that crashes and kills our pilots, and not faulty parts that go on machines that kill our Armed Forces—all the terrible things that could happen.
We have picked out one and have given some Government officials, any Government official, total, unlimited access to the books, records, and persons of anyone whom they choose to exercise that with regard to.
There is a body of law, of course, with regard to unwarranted administrative searches. Under certain circumstances, warrantless administrative searches are permissible. But we have to keep in mind that under those circumstances, under the warrant clause of the Constitution, there is no probable cause requirement.
So these are dangerous things that the courts have said you have to be careful with, and you have to have certain requirements in the statute giving you the right to carry out these warrantless searches, if they are going to be constitutional.
First of all, the Government needs to have a substantial interest. I think that is covered here.
Second, the regulation of the business had to serve that interest. I am willing to concede that.
Third, statutory safeguards are needed to provide an adequate substitute for a warrant requirement.
We have a warrant requirement. Whether we are dealing with the most heinous criminal activity imaginable, we have generally been speaking about a warrant requirement, a due process requirement, under the Constitution. But the courts have said that if you do not have that, if you are going to carry out a warrantless administrative search, you have to have certain statutory safeguards.
They have discussed what they are. None of them is here, Mr. President.
First of all, there is total discretion with regard to the Government official as to which business he decides to check on that day, or which individual. There is no probable cause requirement, or no evidentiary requirement at all. He has total and complete discretion under this language to decide which business he wants to check on.
That is constitutionally suspect from the outset, according to the court cases.
Second, any official of the United States can do it.
I don’t know if that includes me or not, or the staff. But any official of the United States, I guess from fire marshals to officials over at the Department of Energy, or whoever.
Third, there is no statutory procedure for challenging of the warrant at all. Some of the statutes say that if the concern refuses to consent to this kind of process, search and seizure, there is a statute, a civil provision, whereby it can be contested. That is not here.
Lastly, it is not just the premises that we are talking about here, but it has to do with all records and documents and persons apparently that are subject to this particular provision. It is a provision that has not been applied to and cannot constitutionally be applied to the most heinous criminal activities imaginable. And although these are certainly reprehensible activities we are dealing with, they cannot amend the Constitution of the United States with regard to all of the various things for which a person or a business can be debarred. Your imagination is the only limitation as to what those things might be. There could be some very, very terrible things, as I indicated, and this is one of them. But here we have selected this particular activity and placed a burden on the supplier of Government goods that, frankly, cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
And from the next day, additional remarks (page 9201):
My problem, other than the fact that I believe the best way to legislate in this matter is to have hearings on a complex subject like this, is that it sets up a procedure that basically is overreaching and unfair, and probably unconstitutional. Because with regard to this area, as in no others, a contractor is required to sign a statement with the Government that will allow a Government official at any time at his discretion to come in and look at the books and records, or talk to the individual at any time at his discretion to see whether or not a child labor law has been violated. He should not be required to give up the fourth amendment rights in order to contract with the Government.
As I say, trafficking in those kinds of goods and services is against the criminal law. There is provision that prohibits such immoral activity by that company when dealing with the Federal Government as it is. But it certainly does not call for an abrogation of rights that we otherwise hold near and dear.
It is nauseating enough for me that Thompson DID deliberately lobby on behalf of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, one of the most murderous Marxist tyrants in the Western hemisphere. Combined with his fantastically ill-advised point-man cheerleading for the First-Amendment-shredding McCain-Feingold-Thompson Campaign Reform Act, it's enough to disqualify him in my mind.
But this "Family Planning Lobbyist" story simply does NOT have a leg to stand on without some public record documents supporting the allegations. Some "official minutes" from an alleged 1991 meeting provided by the accusing group itself? Puh-lease. Just type up some fake minutes and stuff them in the appropriate cabinet in the File Room, to be conveniently produced for LA Times reporters on demand.
For this story to walk, there needs to be a Lobbyist Registration filing (as there is for Thompson's work on behalf of Aristide), or a "check paid" record in the Family Planning group's Bank files, or a Thompson-signed billing invoice, or an "accounts payable" record in the group's 1991 Federal Tax filing... something, ANYTHING of public record to demonstrate that Thompson's services were contracted, services rendered, money paid -- that sort of thing. Without that, it's just "Take the Abortionist's word for it". Uh, yeah... O-kay.
Personally, I can't bring myself to support a candidate who would willfully lobby for a Marxist murderer and try to imprison our sacred Free Speech rights within a dungeon of good-ole-boy network Incumbent Protection regulations (some of which even threatened to shut down Free Republic for up to 60 days before an Election!). Nope, wouldn't be prudent.
But without some kind of public record backing up these allegations, this particular Thompson hit piece is just so much flimflammery.
As always, JMHO.
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
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.