The Candidates
Featured Archives
The title is supposed to be dramatic. For effect.
You see for months Romney has taken it on the chin for his previous stances on abortion. Whether it was RedState’s Erick Erickson abandoning all hope for Romney because of his wife’s paltry donation to Planned Parenthood. Or EyeOn08’s outrage over supposed “lies” from the Romney camp about abortion. Or Joe Carter casting his vote elsewhere because of the dog incident. But the outrage apparently stops only at Romney’s door.
According to records from Arent Fox, the law firm based in Washington where Mr. Thompson worked part-time from 1991 to 1994, he charged the organization, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992. The records show that Mr. Thompson, a probable Republican candidate for president in 2008, spent much of that time in telephone conferences with the president of the group, and on three occasions he reported lobbying administration officials on its behalf.
Romney’s sins were verbal for the most part, paying homage to a constituency that was overwhelmingly pro-abortion but demonstrating a strong voting record in favor of pro-life stances. Apparently, Fred was a working lobbyist for abortion advocates.
Three points here
1) In my book, I really don’t care. I wouldn’t vote for or against Fred because of this fact.
2) I do care that the Thompson camp has denied the fact.
2) I do care about the strange hypocrisy that many find themselves in: dissing Romney over abortion and rallying to Fred’s side with a blind eye to the past.
3) The shoot-from-the-hip bombs we’ve been throwing at each other are indeed coming back to haunt us (I don’t excuse myself from this criticism).
It’s not pretty…. but I guess, that’s politics.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Question, and it’s an honest one. Are the Dems going to appear as battle-scarred and as strained from the core as the Republicans are seeming after this primary?
July 19th, 2007 at 8:57 am
As long as the GOP can get a sure nominee before the convention, they will be fine. If they can’t, well, we have problems.
Anyway, I’ve got a better headline for you: “Fred Thompson Caught in Abortion Cover-up”
July 19th, 2007 at 9:06 am
I just don’t think you’ll ever get Fred heads to admit that A)he isn’t the the ultra so-conservative hope that they want him to be, and B) a slimey Washington insider with a southern accent (despite being some people’s dream candidate) has the best chance of getting landslid in a general election.
So-cons have to make a choice in this election. Either get excited about a GOPer who isn’t perfect (but will still probably put up judges that we all like) or don’t and usher HILLARY into office.
Fred has zero chance in a general election.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:11 am
This will, repeat, WILL become a big deal. Everyone’s been waiting for the drunk relative who will ruin the wedding…
…this is Uncle Beerguzzler.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Expect a barrage of Fred Heads to take over the comment thread now…The fact his supporters are so delusional and annoying is almost enough to say I won’t vote for him ha!
July 19th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Notice how every column that doesn’t cheer for Fred is an evil hit piece
but we Giuliani people just shrug off not so friendly articles. Some
candidate supporters should not be so sensative. This is politics
not a kid glove game.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Eric:
A) I don’t want an ultraconservative. Movement conservatives are untrustworthy. B) Could somebody please link to where Thompson or FOFT have ever claimed Thompson to be an outsider? I see noise from the anti-freds about this, but no reference.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Random,
Please see tommy’s post before this one where he claims the “insider” label is just liberal spin.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:42 am
I restate my opinion from earlier. I don’t care that Thompson did this work, especially with how little work he actually did. This was over a decade ago and really has no impact on his views, which when I hear him speak on Federalism I find myself supporting. It does bother me that he tried to dodge the whole thing, but then again — can you blame a man who’s being thrust into a role of “pro-life savior,” despite being only nominally pro-life from his statements/votes.
There’s no defending his dodging of this issue/lying about it — the best thing for Thompson to do would be to come clean and acknowledge that he made a mistake.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Surprise, surprise:
Nah, not really. This is one example which shows why SoCons are split. First, this abortion lobbying thing now out. Second, his divorce and marriage to a hottie trophy wife who is actually younger than his eldest daughter.
I agree (somewhat) with Justin’s point here:
1) In my book, I really don’t care. I wouldn’t vote for or against Fred because of this fact.
This really should not matter. But how can it not matter when they are holding Romney to such a different / higher standard?
I do marvel how, Romney who has had a solid family life, can be attacked the way he is from the Right. Look, I could expect this sort of thing from the left, but not from the right. SoCon Evangelicals need to understand that their candidates will be held to the same light. Perhaps they need to have a “come to Jesus” moment by recognizing their candidates have far more dirt on their hands. Perhaps they will not.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:57 am
WOW! I didn’t know Tommy was Actually Fred Thompson in Disguise! Or that he was in any way a spokesman for him.
Try harder, Moon(ey?). I want to see where Fred Thompson, with all the Washington experience he has as a member of study groups, think tanks, and policy committees, has EVER claimed to be an outsider. Such a claim may exist, but I haven’t found it in 2 months of looking.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:10 am
cwpete. Speaking as an evangelical. A lot of them are, for lack of a better word, naive or stupid. They will buy into anything that preacher X or Y told them in regards to either theology or politics without even looking at the Bible, or information regarding a certain politician. Quite tragic especially considering how many “preachers” and “evangelical leaders” sole motive anymore seems to be political power.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Im amazed how evangelicals give him a pass on “I checked the wrong box on being pro choice” and “I never said this or that on abortion” or “I dont recall lobbying for this pro choice firm”, and they look past his 2 marriages, and his southern talk “uh” “um” “uh” and his “im a southern man in a red pickup” demeanor and still find him to be the next Reagan. Please… They diss Romney and claim that it was because he use to be pro choice. At least he was honest when he flipped on it. Looking past Fred’s faults while dissing Romney just shows the real reason some evangelicals dont like Romney. BIGOTRY! It comes down to his Mormanism for many.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:15 am
I think on the other thread this morning one of the FredHeads was claiming that Fred had the best resume of the bunch. That’s just laughable.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Now lets see all the so-called “so-cons” let FDT off the hook….unlike Rudy…
July 19th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Here is an idea. Why doesnt Fred get out of the basement he is in and campaign like the rest of them. Maybe even go a step further and finally announce, and stop riding his fame to the top of the polls. Romney’s “hit piece” only asked if Fred was going to work as hard it requires to beat Hillary. Its a fair question for a guy who is doing well in the polls now, and has done little to nothing to earn his spot there. At least Rudy and Romney are out there campaigning, and answering questions.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:17 am
You know eric, sometimes I think the Rudy people are just as bad as the Fred people. The Fredheads try to build Thompson up as a Conservative Messiah, blatantly ignoring evidence to the contrary, while the Rudy supports go the route of “Its Rudy or a Hillary.” Perhaps then, you can explain why Romney is close to or within the MoE, even when he is only running at 55% at name recognition. The truth is, by nominating Romney, we can have a candidate who is both electable and Conservative.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:19 am
For the Race42008 suggestion box:
In the “Biography’s” and “Categories” sections, I think it would be good to remove some of them, such as…George pataki, Chuck Hagel, George Allen, Condi Rice, etc etc..
July 19th, 2007 at 10:21 am
I’m sure that Giuliani supporters feel just horrible about all of this unnecessary fussing and fighting between Fred’s and Mitt’s camps.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:22 am
In my own defense, I too called Thompson an abortion lobbyist today.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Looks like Fred and his camp lied. What else are they lying about? Also, looks like a lot of “naive” Fred supporters are getting a first look at the candidate they support.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Fred’s ballon is punctured as the anointed one. He is still in a good position, but now he has to earn the nomination just like everyone else.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Looks like Fred Lied. Caught in a lie, what a beautiful thing.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:34 am
CK:
Yeah we Rudy people are just broken up over it all. In fact we are so
devastated over it all that we can offer a compromise: Rudy becomes the
nominee and they both get cabinet spots; sound fair to everyone?
July 19th, 2007 at 10:53 am
1) In my book, I really don’t care. I wouldn’t vote for or against Fred because of this fact. I care some. Lobbying for more federal funding for abortion groups is not OK. But its not a dealbreaker either.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Fred is not electable.
And now…he’s not really even that conservative.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Fred is not electable in this current anti-Bush climate.
And now…he’s not really even that conservative.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Looking past Fred’s faults while dissing Romney just shows the real reason some evangelicals dont like Romney. BIGOTRY! It comes down to his Mormanism for many.
Calm down, bro.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Hey, Justin Hart, you’re just too dumb to understand how law firms and the legal process work. What happens at law firms stays at law firms, got it? If lawyers are trying to get jihadists out on bail or whatever, no big deal.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Perhaps people have written off Romney for much less because they didn’t like Romney and they were just looking for an excuse? Really, the attacks against Romney have been utterly pathetic.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Fred is a liar and most of us knew it from his Clintonian weasel wording to Hannity. No way was Gred going to get by with his games. He is no DC outsider either, and the accent is as phoney as a $3 bill for someone who has been in DC most of his life when not acting. Fredheads don’t want the truth even if it hits them in the face. They won’t even admit that he was a co-sponsor of the CFR legislation he now skirts and doesn’t pay attention to but then he is Fred who is above everyone — don’t believe just ask Rove and the WH who they are supporting.
I want someone who tells it like it is and doesn’t weasel word to gain votes which Fred has been doing. That I don’t remember didn’t work with Hillary and it shouldn’t work with Fred.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
“Fred’s ballon is punctured as the anointed one. He is still in a good position, but now he has to earn the nomination just like everyone else.”
Yes, no, and yes.
Fred Thompson is fading fast as the GOP’s messiah, and he is now going to have to fight for the nomination if he runs, but I don’t think he is in a good position. Consider the following facts about him:
1) Has no executive experience
Vision for America is what?
2) Has a less than impressive Senate career
3) Came out of the Senate with a reputation as lazy
4) Has 30+ years experience as a Washington insider
5) Career as a lobbyist and Trial Lawyer, neither of which are popular occupations.
6) Stands for what?
7) Plan is what?
9) Was, and may still be, pro-choice on the state level.
10) Has been exposed as a liar.
11) Is not a gifted speaker.
12) Seems to lack the ability to think on his feet.
Thompson is in a good position in the polls, but in reality, is probably the least qualified and least impressive candidate in the GOP “top tier”. Should Thompson run, I expect to see his support really drop off after the debates.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Is there anyone here who has actually been converted by this all, though? We non-Fredheads are making a lot of noise, but what do the Fredheads think?
July 19th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
The actual “Fredheads” – that is, the die-hard Thompson supporters, are unlikely to be swayed by this, for whatever reason, they swear by Thompson, and want him to be President – no matter how unimpressive of a President he would make.
Instead, the goal of this ciritcism and noise on our part is aimed to do two things: 1) Reveal the truth so Thompson does not get a free pass and 2) Prevent people from jumping on the bandwagon becuase of a false impression.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy:
My guess is that the Fredheads are looking at it this way: His explaination is being accepted at face value — this time — but he’s probably squandered much of his goodwill, which means that if he gets tangled up in a spider web of his own making again, it will cost him.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I’M A FRED HEAD OUTSIDER AND I THINK YOU ARE ALL MAKING A BIG DEAL OUT OF
THIS. FRED HAS SAID HE’S PRO-LIFE, THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE HAS SAID FRED
IS PRO-LIFE. DID HE DO WORK FOR A GROUP THAT SUPPORTED ABORTION–SOUNDS
LIKE HE DID; RONALD REAGAN USED TO BE A DEMOCRAT. THE PART YOU GUYS DON’T
UNDERSTAND ABOUT US “SOCONS” IS THAT WE WANT TO BELIEVE IN A CANDIDATE
THAT BELIEVES IN OUR VIEWS AND NOT JUST USING OUR VIEWS TO GET ELECTED.
THOMPSON IS TIED TO THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT, AND I DON’T THINK THERE’S
ANYONE THAT’S PERFECT (EXCEPT MAY HUCKABY, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN),
BUT FRED IS ALL WE HAVE.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Fred, what is it like to be a liar, with your pants constantly on fire?
July 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
“THE PART YOU GUYS DON’T UNDERSTAND ABOUT US “SOCONS†IS THAT WE WANT TO BELIEVE IN A CANDIDATE THAT BELIEVES IN OUR VIEWS AND NOT JUST USING OUR VIEWS TO GET ELECTED.”
Jody, if you really believe this statement, you should support Mitt Romney or one of the lower tier candidates.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
1991: Lobbies for militant pro-abortion organization
1993: Thompson tells Memphis Commercial Appeal he opposes banning abortion;
1994: Thompson tells National Right to Life Committee he opposes legalized abortion, but then tells the Tennessee Conservative Spectator) “I’m not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions.” He tells Republican Liberty Government should stay out of it… The ultimate decision must be made by the women.”
1996: Thompson opposes Constitutional Amendment banning abortion.
1997: Thompson writes, “Government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area.”
2007: Thompson is solidly pro-life.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
One quick addition:
Thompson 2007: Lies about all of the above.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I think Jody, what you may be forgetting, is that Romney supporters are also, largely Social Conservative. The way I see it, Romney and Thompson were both once abortion supports, Romney has admitted it, and has willingly accepted the criticism that comes with once holding the wrong opinion. Fred Thompson on the other hand, has maintained that he has always been pro-life, ingnoring evidence to the contrary. In addition, I see Romney as a generally more impressive candidate. He is more experienced, more polished, more skilled, and a generally more impressive candidate.
and one more thing, if you want a candidate who “believes in your views”, why don’t you go with Romney, who has actually led an effort in favor of a socially conservative position? Romney was at the front of a fight to ban Gay marriage in Mass.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Looks like Fred has his “McCainies”, the hard-nosed supporters who would stand behind their candidate, no matter what condition his ship is in. Amazingly, McCain, though his campaign is all but destroyed, continued to get more supporters than Romney at national level (12% to 16% vs Romney’s 9% to 14%).