Posted on 07/13/2007 7:48:24 AM PDT by pissant
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.
On Thursday, Corallo offered a less sweeping comment about Thompson and the group: “He has no recollection of doing any work for this group. And since he was of counsel and not a member of the firm, it was not unusual for the firm’s partners to trot their clients in to meet him, get his views and even some advice.”
So the difference may boil down to how you define “lobbying.” It has been clear for several days that Thompson was not going to stick with a complete denial. When an Associated Press reporter asked him about the matter this weekend at the Young Republicans National Convention, he deflected with one of his folksy observations: “I’d just say the flies get bigger in the summertime. I guess the flies are buzzing.”
Then in an interview with Sean Hannity that was reported by Thomas B. Edsall of The Huffington Post, Thompson was even more evasive: “You need to separate a lawyer who is advocating a position from the position itself.”
The former “Law and Order” actor has an anti-abortion voting record as a U.S. senator from Tennessee, but some statements he made early in his political career have led some conservatives to question whether he once had favored abortion rights.
The lobbying controversy illustrates the harsh scrutiny that awaits Thompson when he formally kicks off his campaign, and shows the difficulty of trying to answer high-stakes questions without a full campaign infrastructure.
Thompson aides say they do not believe the brouhaha has hurt him with Republican voters. “Consider the source,” said one Thompson adviser. “Conservatives don’t pay much attention to liberal groups that say they want to help, and tell them why their guy isn’t as great as they think.”
The lobbying story is one of several recent pieces criticizing Thompson, and advisers are now considering pushing back his announcement even further. They had planned to schedule the announcement before an Aug. 5 debate in Des Moines, Iowa, but now are considering jumping in even later than that.
The advisers say they realize how searing the scrutiny will be and want to be ready. And they want to have more of their staff in place. Thompson has to convince skeptics he’s ready for the race and ready for the job, and hopes that a top-flight campaign operation will help make that case. The announcement date will be based on factors that include IRS regulations governing when Thompson will have to disclose the millions of dollars he has already raised.
Thompson says in the Power Line column that he had “half dozen or so lobbying clients.” His column concludes: ‘I’m certainly not surprised that such a diverse career is being mined by others. As we get further into this political season we will undoubtedly see the further intersection of law, politics and the mainstream media.”
Export act?
Hmm...
Here is my original post to this thread
___________________________________________________________
I've never heard him rail against this ever growing government or our lawless borders. Before this current up coming election, never have I seen him stand up in Congress or anywhere else, and voice outrage at the state of affairs in this country.
Some people just keep saying, "Boy, I hope Fred is the next President". And that's it.
What's he done? Where is the leadership? Has he stood up in Congress or anywhere else, and pounded on the tables demanding less government and secured borders?
___________________________________________________________
Again, to be honest, the years old speech you provided from Thompson, was just not impressive, and had little to do with what I'm talking about. It just rambled.
I like Fred, but you know what? We need someone that is as outraged over the above issues as most of us Americans are. And I just have not seen that in Thompson.
For example, during the Bush years, this illegal invasion of our country has *exploded*.
And I don't recall hardly hearing a peep from Thompson.
Just a guess, but I'd say we need someone a bit more tuned into reality.
“Besides a Hollywood movie, is there a video somewhere that will show him banging on the podium, voicing his outrage and demanding something be done?”
During Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings, was Fred T outraged? Guess not. Fred T voted to convict but he also voted not to hold Bill Clinton accountable for lying under oath. Wishy washy. Fred doesn’t seem to really care passionately about anything - issues, I mean.
Ouch! Thats what I call a southpaw jab. heh
Which leaves you out completely.
Here...for you to peruse at your leisure since it seems you are too lazy to look for your own information. Check the date.
FDT on the incomprehensible Immigration Bill Posted on June 13th, 2007
Excerpts from commentary aired at ABCRadio.com on May 18, 2007:
Most Americans know that we have an illegal immigration problem in this country, with perhaps as many as 20 million people residing here unlawfully. And I think most Americans have a pretty good idea about how to at least start solving the problem — secure our nation’s borders.
Back in May 1985, Congress promised us that it would come up with a comprehensive plan to solve the problem of illegal immigration and our porous borders. Eighteen months later, in November 1986, that comprehensive plan was signed into law.
Twenty-two years and millions of illegal immigrants later, that comprehensive plan hasn’t done what most Americans wanted it to do — secure America’s borders. Now Washington says the new “comprehensive” plan will solve the problem that the last comprehensive plan didn’t.
Is it any wonder that a lot of folks today feel like they’re being sold a phony bill of goods on border security? A “comprehensive” plan doesn’t mean much if the government can’t accomplish one of its most basic responsibilities for its citizens — securing its borders. A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation.
No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it’s not going to win any beauty contests.
We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders — or at least made great headway. That would give proponents of the bill a chance to explain why putting illegals in a more favorable position than those who play by the rules is not really amnesty.
People, the perfect candidate does not exist. Major figures in the GOP simply do not feel as strongly about the social issues, do not take them as seriously, as the base does. Wake up and smell the coffee, accept imperfection, and think about who is best, or least bad.
The Rats are evil, are they not? So why are we whining about someone not being perfectly good?????????????
Excerpts from commentary aired at ABCRadio.com on May 18, 2007:
Oh, you mean he finally commented on our lawless borders recently? At about the same time he started kicking around the idea about running for president, and doing the talk shows? What a coinkydinky.
Where's Fred been on this for the past 7 years or so slick?
He's was obviously missing in action, and certainly NOT among the small chorus of voices demanding action in the past decade.
You see where I posted this below? I made this comment anticipating posts such as yours.
>>I've never heard him rail against this ever growing government or our lawless borders. Before this current up coming election, never have I seen him stand up in Congress or anywhere else, and voice outrage at the state of affairs in this country.<<
Nevermind that Fred term-limited himself, nevermind he decided to bury a child, remarry, raise a family, stay out of the insanity that is the beltway and raise kids, act, and otherwise enjoy his life. Nevermind he helped usher Roberts throught the grueling Senate process, as asked for by the President himself, AND continue to do his acting gig or commentary for Paul Harvey or ABC Radio.
You want the same banter you get from EVERY politician, on any subject, so you can feel good about it. You want the same rhetoric day in and day out that has been the PROBLEM with Washington forever.
Thanks for showing us exactly what you are looking for in an electable president, slick. You want the status quo.
Rudy cookies and kool-aid are to your left, help yourself.
dragnet2 said:
“Right. That’s why I currently favor Hunter by a nose.”
WAIT! what has Hunter done to limit government? Isn’t he a part of the huge lawless current congress? Isn’t he one of the biggest pork barrel spenders? Show me where Hunter is talking about limiting government and cutting spending...
If Hunter isn’t out there trying to lead congress into limiting government, then don’t you think he could be part of the problem?
You bet he is. I make no excuses for any politician, and I don't consider any of them my friend.
He just seems to have a much better grasp on the state of our borders, and seems to understand the magnitude of this invasion.
Oh please.
Giuliani or however you spell this New Yorkers name is the last person on the Republican stage I would vote for. The very last. Actually, if he were the only one on the stage, he wouldn't get my vote. Let that sink in for a moment.
You want the same status quo of the career politician,whose main job when elected is NOT the work of the people, but to get re-elected.
Again, you could not be more incorrect.
Do yourself a favor, stay out of the mind reading and assumption business. You'll starve to death.
I agree with your premise and your conclusion. Besides that, love your tag line!
You're the one whose thinking appears to petrified.
Shows undeveloped thinking...the type I mentioned earlier.
Similar to your undeveloped sentence structure?
LOL. Look who's talking about sentence structure!
I always laugh when an FR poster resorts to "grammar policing" and such rather than the points made in debate.
Again...undeveloped thinking is apparent.
>Fred has not convinced me that he is the right one, but that doesn’t mean I am rooting for Hillary.......<
What Fred has done to date, and the Fredheads have convinced me that Fred is definitely not the candidate for me. But I will settle for Duncan Hunter, Tancredo or Huckabee in that order.
And I'd like to win the lottery!
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.