GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
I have been updating the original post about the LA Times omissions following the events as they take shape. Now John Sununu has responded, and really laid down the law. From ABC News:
ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: Speaking to ABC News on Monday, former White House chief of staff John Sununu re-issued his denial that former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., lobbied him in 1991 on behalf of a group that supports abortion rights and he grew angry when asked if the all-but-announced Republican presidential candidate had met with a member of his staff.
“He never met with me,” said Sununu. “I have absolutely no recollection of Fred Thompson coming in to see me, I don’t think it ever happened, and he never lobbied me on that issue.”
Asked if it was possible whether Thompson met with someone on his staff to lobby the first Bush White House to relax a controversial abortion restriction, the famously prickly Sununu flew off the handle.
“You know, with all due respect, may I comment on that? That’s the kind of dumb question that makes you wonder what’s wrong with the press. How do you get a job working for ABC asking a question like that? Did he meet with someone on my staff? Did he meet with someone in the street?” asked an incredulous Sununu.
Asked if he was suggesting that the abortion-rights group which claims to have used Thompson’s services had fabricated minutes from a Sept. 14, 1991 board meeting in order to undermine Thompson?s standing among conservatives, Sununu said, “I wouldn’t put anything past that group.”
Pretty harsh words from Sununu leveled at the LA Times, and the group making these accusations. I updated here earlier that my boss, Warner Todd Huston, has given a full update on who the people are at Newsbusters, which you can read from the earlier post here that I linked to. Sununu, of course, was a member of G.H.W. Bush’s White House and a former Governor of New Hampshire.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
obviously, someone is not telling the complete truth. If there is indeed a paper trail that indicates that Fred Thompson has worked for that organization, then I have to think that he did. If he lobbied for the group, it is in his best interests to confess and play the Romney line that he changed his views. If he did not do the work, but led the group into thinking that he did, he has bigger problems. I find it hard to believe that the group fabricated information to target Fred Thompson.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
The thing is, there is no paper trail.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Go down to the original post on the story and click the relevent links to see. I find it harder to believe that a Governor would blatantly lie about it because if there is proof, then he’d look like a fool when his son is in the middle of a tough re-election campaign.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Hey if THompson didn’t do it, then great. But, why the dodging of the question? If Thompson met with a member of his staff, well then you have Thompson lobbying Sununu. No one really cares if he met with Sununu, it’s not reprehsible to lobby him.
The controversy isn’t meeting with Sununu, it’s lobbying on behalf of abortionist, and that is what we really want to know. My guess is, if this is at all true, then probably what Thompson did was meet with staff and learned of his chances.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
http://newsbusters.org/node/13983
http://newsbusters.org/node/13944
Jason,
Check the above articles.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Having worked on Capitol Hill, I have to say that Sununu’s chiding of the reporter doesn’t make a lot of sense. Politicians’ staffers do nothing without the imprimatur of their boss. Had I been in charge of abortion policy in my public official’s office (I wasn’t), and had I met with a former U.S. Senator on that subject, not only would my boss know about it, but he’d still remember it today, and so would all of my coworkers. Sununu’s dodge, to someone who’s been on the inside, seems suspicious.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
DaveG,
He wasn’t a Senator. He was Bush White House Chief of Staff, or some similar position.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
So can we agree that if this turns out to be true, that it is bad? Or, will the Fred Heads claim that it’s no big deal? Personally, if it’s true, I would rather have him admit to it from the beginning than pretend he doesn’t remember, and wait to see if evidence comes out.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
John E. Sununu, “I know it never happened.”
-Check my original post for link
July 9th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
If it’s true, it’s hurts his credibility.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
bjalder,
Follow the background links on the post below. The thing is that they’ve misleadingly deleted sources from their article with absolutely no retraction. They’ve deleted witnesses from the story whose credibility is questioned.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Earlier Fred said “he had no recollection” of it occuring. Thats not a good line to use. Suggests he can’t remember the clients he lobbied for, so was not prepared to make a definitive statement.
So either Fred thinks it might be true, or he’s not sure. Either way it doesn’t look good.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I agree with JayPe. Fred needs to say this didn’t happen. He is leaving the door open to back out by “not having a recollection”, but that makes me wonder why he thinks he needs some wiggle room.
It is clear Thompson was pro-choice before, which is why this story has legs. Someone with impeccable pro-life credentials like Huckabee wouldn’t be vulnerable to this type of attack. Either way, Thompson ought to have taken this as an opportunity to show people that he has energy. Rudy, Mitt, McCain, and Newt all have energy and can come across as intense competitors who will fight for what they believe in. Fred on the otherhand hasn’t shown any intensity or passion yet.
In any event, we are lucky if this is the best the liberals can do in attacking Thompson’s lobbying history.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
There are no documents that they will be able to bring forth. This will come down to a hesaid/shesaid. Thompson addresses the matter in an interview to be posted on Redstate, laying out his opinion on the matter and then why he won’t address every little attack thrown at him.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/rs_radio_part_2_of_our_fred_cast
You can agree or disagree with why he answers the way he does, but he doesn’t intend to stoop to their level.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Last month, Fred Thompson, when asked by Sean Hannity if he made a mistake checking a box in a 1994 questionnaire that said “Abortion should be legal in all circumstances for the first three months,” responded by saying:
“I don’t remember that box. You know, it was a long time ago, and I don’t know if I filled it out or my staff, based on what they thought my position was, filled it out…”
Thompson was explaining to Hannity that he has consistently and always remained pro-choice (at least through the first trimester) when he said [before being cut off/'saved' by Sean]:
“I would not be and never have been for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this, for example, that, if they chose to criminalize a young woman, and…”
With all due credit to Thompson, he has remained consistent on the issue, at least over the past 14 years:
In July 1993, in an interview with the Memphis Commercial Appeal, Thompson, then running for the Senate, said that he “supports the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.”
In October 1994, The Washington Post reported that “both” Thompson and his Democratic opponent in the 1994 Senate race, then-Rep. Jim Cooper, “believe in legal abortion.”
How much longer can this silly narrative continue in which someone who has never believed abortions should be illegal is now somehow considered ‘pro-life’?
July 9th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Tommy Oliver, honestly that’s a bad move. We have heard this from the Bush administration repeatedly while the Dems and the MSM framed the argument about the war. Also, how many people read Redstate. It’s a very minute percentage of voters. Can’t we ever have honesty from our candidates? Will Fred ever come down to the level of the Primary voters and talk to us? Hiding behind an internet interview just doesn’t cut it. This is very disappointing.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Tommy,
Even though I favor Romney over Thompson, I do not see any value in pursuing this story to discredit Thompson. Even with Romney’s conversion, it doesn’t change the fact that he was more liberal on the issue at one point. But that’s not the main reason.
The whole affair oddly reminds me of the Killian documents from the whole Rathergate affair. That was the ultimate example of liberal media conspiring and running a story without fully vetting it’s sources. It wouldn’t be that hard to fabricate minutes from 15 years ago, but where are the billing records and paper trail one normally finds in regards to employment?
I’m waiting this one out, but at this point I’m more inclined to believe Thompson. Jason, I’d likewise sit still on this unless something more substantial comes forth.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Aron, it will continue as long as people will want to believe it. When the truth becomes overwhelming Newt will step into save the party. Then when people see his negatives are higher than Hillary everyone will go back to deciding between Romney & Rudy.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:04 am
I, for one, believe the most interesting aspect of this is to see how long Fred? avoids answering questions about his record. Exactly what did he believe, and when did he believe it?
This potentially tells us more about Fred?’s character and seriousness as a candidate than it tells us about his abortion politics.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:13 am
…and lest it be pointed out that I support a candidate who once supported Roe, let me clarify. Fred?’s positions on abortion are becoming more clear, but that’s not primarily what I’m talking about. What remains to be seen is how much he believes in full disclosure and honesty, even when it comes at a cost.
Romney often quotes the old saying “Hang a lantern on your problems”. Fred? might as well get it over with and let us hear it from the horse’s mouth, it’ll be quicker that way.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:10 am
Tommy,
I find it harder to believe that a Governor would blatantly lie about it because if there is proof, then he’d look like a fool when his son is in the middle of a tough re-election campaign.
First, Sununu is a former governor . . .
And it’s not necesarily Sununu’s word vs the LA Times accusers.
Sununu may have been out of the loop completely on this one. All he’s saying is that “Fred?” didn’t lobby him on this issue. I’m more than willing to believe that.
But why are you so willing to take a former Governor’s word over a former Congressman’s word?
Former Rep. Michael D. Barnes (D-Md.), a colleague at the lobbying and law firm where Thompson worked, said that DeSarno had asked him to recommend someone for the lobbying work and that he had suggested Thompson. He said it was “absolutely bizarre” for Thompson to deny that he lobbied against the abortion counseling rule.
“I talked to him while he was doing it, and I talked to [DeSarno] about the fact that she was very pleased with the work that he was doing for her organization,” said Barnes. “I have strong, total recollection of that. This is not something I dreamed up or she dreamed up. This is fact.”
They both have their reputations at stake and they both could be telling the truth. I don’t want that scenario to be true . . . but it is possible.
Either way, we all deserve a forthright statement or comment from Thompson about it.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:53 am
There are indeed records which are available–the records of meetings and calendars of Sununu and his aides from 1991. They reside in the Bush 41 library and can easily be examined. Also, Andy Card was Sununu’s assistant then and no one has yet talked to him. There is also a firm filled with attorneys and they will slowly tramp forward. The question is honesty. Obviously whtaever their motives the abortion rights people didn’t phony up the board minutes so Fred’s flat initial denial was a lie.Or perhaps his spokesman is incompetent, got it wrong from Fred and should be fired. He needs to list out all his lobbying clients and come clean.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:55 am
You guys need to reconsider your positions! Most of you use logic that implies you know all the facts, which none of us does. Further, if FDT says he had no recollection, it just means that he is a lawyer and chooses his words wisely, not that there is a good chance he’s hiding something. If he said or did something for which he adamantly denies and it turned up to be true, then he would be criticized for that (ie, “No new taxes!”). As a lawyer, he would never want to say something adamantly that he is not adamantly sure of, because it speaks to his integrity. True it is popular these days to purger yourself, but I don’t think Mr. Thompson would find that acceptable — especially, in light of Mr. Libby’s obviously harmless mis-recollection.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Sununu said trust me on David Souter–Trust but verify.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:31 am
“I have absolutely no recollection of Fred Thompson coming in to see me, I don’t think it ever happened, and he never lobbied me on that issue.â€?…..
key words: no “recollection”, I don’t “THINK” … typical words of denial by a politician
July 10th, 2007 at 11:14 am
#murphy Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 1:04 am
I, for one, believe the most interesting aspect of this is to see how long Fred? avoids answering questions about his record. Exactly what did he believe, and when did he believe it?
This potentially tells us more about Fred?’s character and seriousness as a candidate than it tells us about his abortion politics.
# murphy
Murphy, you are right on with your reply. I and many others can understand a lawyer representing a client who they disagree with on an issue-even abortion. It’s the way that Fred is choosing to handle this. I have always supported President Bush and really like the man. But, the way Fred is handling this reminds me of the Bush White House. If I’m seeing this, so will a lot of voters in the general election if Fred makes it that far. His campaign-non campaign style is horrendous and insulting to the intelligence of Primary voters.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:52 am
The story in itself is not that damaging, as it happened so long ago. What is damaging is that it only adds to the fact that Thompson is skirting around dark spots in his past on the abortion issue. If he can’t answer about them, I don’t see how he keeps his favor with Conservatives.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Jennifer,
As I try to clear the water which you muddied with your vitriolic ” Rudy Stick ,
I have to admit that you’re right on one point; Rudy is a “Prosecutor”. I’m not aware
of him “Defending” anyone…ever ! Right now Fred Thompson is receiving no “pass” from
the media as you would suggest. If Rudy is under attack, it’s because he has brought
a lot more attention to himself than he ever should have. Rudy wants to be “The Bride
at the Wedding” and “The Corpse at the Funeral.” He just hasn’t figured out yet which
he wants most !