John Hinderaker on Thompson flap:
Tomorrow’s New York Times tries to keep alive the “issue” of Fred Thompson’s work on behalf of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. The Arent Fox law firm has apparently found its billing records and provided them to the Times–they should give the Rose Law Firm lessons in how to preserve billing records–and the files confirm that Thompson did a de minimis amount of work for the abortion rights group in 1991 and 1992.
Specifically, over that one to two year period, he spent a whopping 3.3 hours lobbying “administration officials” on behalf of the organization, and also talked to its president 22 times, presumably advising her about how to take her case to the executive branch. Nothing in the records contradicts Thompson’s statements that 1) he has no recollection of working on behalf of this group, and 2) he is quite sure that he did not lobby John Sununu on its behalf.
Arent Fox’s current chairman, Marc Fleischaker, says, ?Regardless of whatever the political ramifications are, Fred was being a good colleague by helping out one of the firm?s partners.” No good deed goes unpunished, I suppose.
The Times article isn’t especially unfair; it notes Thompson’s pro-life voting record and quotes his post on Power Line on his role as a lawyer. But the bottom line is that there is nothing here: a lawyer represents all kinds of clients. This particular representation, on Thompson’s part, amounted to very little.
What’s interesting, I think, is that the news outlets that are pushing this story are not conservative. They seem to think that the story will somehow discredit Thompson among conservatives, presumably because conservatives are too dumb to understand how law firms and the legal process work. The appropriate response from the right would be, I think, a yawn. So far, that’s what we’ve seen.
Update #1:
Captain’s Quarter’s Ed Morrissey:
The New York Times did the follow-up, as it turns out, but otherwise it seems about as advertised. It starts by saying that Thompson did “nearly 20 hours” worth of work for the NFPRHA, which again implies no continual working relationship. However, the Times says that the billing records show that he reported lobbying Bush (41) officials three times on the group’s behalf:
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.
In fact, it says that Thompson spent three and a half hours lobbying the White House — but it doesn’t say whom:
The billing records from Arent Fox show that Mr. Thompson, who charged about $250 an hour, spoke 22 times with Judith DeSarno, who was then president of the family planning group. In addition, he lobbied ?administration officials? for a total of 3.3 hours, the records show, although they do not specify which officials he met with or what was said.
That seems a little thin, although if it appears on billing records, one has to assume he at least chatted with someone. However, it’s clear that Fred was not the lobbyist for the NFPRHA, not unless they only spent 3.5 hours trying to effect policy change over 14 months. The current partner of Arent makes it pretty clear that Fred was consulting and not lobbying:
The family planning association became a client of Arent Fox through Michael Barnes, a former Democratic congressman who was then a partner at the firm. The firm?s current chairman, Marc Fleischaker, said, ?Regardless of whatever the political ramifications are, Fred was being a good colleague by helping out one of the firm?s partner.?
So it appears that Barnes was the lobbyist, and Fred consulted … occasionally. I don’t think Fred intended to live on $5,000 every 14 months, and Barnes would be the obvious choice for lobbying at any rate.
As one of the commenters on this post wrote, this story is a nothingburger. However, Fred’s team needs to make sure they don’t make matters worse when nothingburgers arise in the future. Patterico calls the response an “unforced error”, and he’s right. It’s one of the bumps in the road that serve as opportunities for improvement, but overall, my friend John at Power Line is correct — this story is essentially a yawn. “Lawyer Consults! Film At 11!”
Update #2:
Beldarblog gives his opinion:
However, even if we assume that the LAT was absolutely fair and scrupulous ? and truthfully, I don’t know of a single damned reason why we should so assume, but let’s do so anyway, for purposes of argument ? I tend to agree with Ed Morrissey and John Hinderaker that the appearance of the billing records and the NYT’s new story is still much ado about nothing much more than a possible mistake or loose misstatement by an ill-informed or insufficiently careful campaign spokeman.
Bluntly: The notion that Fred himself has been engaged in some sort of cover-up or duplicity here is an absolute non-starter ? even if you’re among the small segment of the population who believes that his half-a-percent one-off representation of this abortion rights group a decade and a half ago somehow affects his current fitness to be President.
I’m not sure this hill is even one bean tall. Actually, I tend to doubt it.
Update #3
Riehlworldview:
Also recall that the original story said Thompson lobbied Sununu and I pointed out those records were available. I didn’t see a mention of Sununu in the latest piece. I wonder why? Unless it’s in the pending LA Times piece, we can only assume the records didn’t turn anything up, which casts at least some doubt on DeSarno’s memory that fueled the original story.
Thompson was making a living talking issues and politics between politicians and people with issues of interest to them back then. And given the hours and dollars involved, I don’t see anything to suggest he did a whole hell of a lot of it on this particular issue.
Tell you what, you tell me everyone you talked to only a few times over some few hours almost twenty years ago and if you forget someone, I’ll call you a liar. Sound fair to you? Not to me it doesn’t.
I have more important things to consider in picking the person I intend to support for President in 2008. I don’t know if it will be Thompson, or not. But if it isn’t, it sure as heck won’t be because of this.
Update #4:
The National Review:
Additional facts revealed in those Arent Fox billing records, having now seen them:
a. Fred’s work begins after a twelve minute conversation with Michael Barnes, a partner at the firm and former Democratic congressman. So this fits the narrative of Thompson being assigned the work.
b. It was 19 hours of work over 14 months. The bulk of the work (10 hours) was in the beginning, July 1991. The most work Thompson did for the group in a single day was on a Saturday, about two and a half hours.
c. I am more sympathetic to the argument of a faulty memory, as the “discussion with administration officials” consists of one meeting (a little under two and a half hours, and I’ll bet that includes travel time and waiting in the lobby) and two phone calls totalling an hour and twenty minutes. (And a half hour of that is on Thompson’s next-to-last day on this project, so it sounds like it’s the wrap-up.) So it’s about three hours and change of actual lobbying efforts from sixteen years ago. No wonder he didn’t remember.
Beyond that, almost all of Thompson’s remaining work is “telephone conferences,” mostly with Judith DeSarno. Almost all of them are less than half an hour.
I am told by someone familiar with the situation that the July 7 denial from Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo ? “There’s no documents to prove it, there’s no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, says it didn’t happen” – was in reference to the Times’ allegation that Thompson lobbied John Sununu. I asked if this individual was accusing the Los Angeles Times of taking his quote out of context; the response was that the initial e-mailed response, “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period,” was erroneous, but that the second denial was in response to the specific allegation of lobbying Sununu.
Update 5
Email from source in the Thompson camp from the Brody File:
“The way this has developed has been pretty unfortunate, apparently involving foggy memories from 15+ years ago, and let’s face it some poor communications. Let me give you some background.
There’s been a lot of confusion and inaccurate reporting about Thompson’s position – did he deny, or does he claim not to remember? Are those contradictory positions?
For what it’s worth, Thompson’s denial was to the allegation the LAT made – that Thompson lobbied Sununu for this group. Period. That was what the LAT claimed they had proof of, and that was what we thought was being denied.
Later, the allegation changed a bit – notice that Sununu is not in this NYT story? – and in response to that, Thompson has acknowledged that he genuinely doesn’t recall whether he’d ever spoken to people from that group in ‘91. I believe he’s been, and remains, consistent on those two points:
He didn’t lobby Sununu for this group, and?
He doesn’t recall whether he ever spoke to, consulted, offered legal or political information, etc for this client.
As far as I can tell, there’s nothing in these NYT records that suggests Thompson lobbied Sununu, as was alleged. It appears that Thompson was simply consulted, and asked questions of people he knew in the Bush administration. To the best of my understanding, those are the facts.”
David Brody goes on to commment that:
This story alone won’t hurt Thompson.
But expect rival campaigns to go after him as they package this incident with those pesky pro-choice friendly questionnaires he filled out in the 1990’s.
Loyal FDT fans won’t abandon him but will the Thompson campaign be able to define their candidate before the media and his Republican rivals do?
The race is on?and Thompson isn’t even officially in the race yet.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Tommy–you are turning a blind eye to the criticisms on this site. The lobbying is irrelevant. For the twentieth time (seemingly)…it’s the lie!!!
July 19th, 2007 at 11:06 am
nusrat,
Exactly. I DON’T CARE WHAT HE DID 20 YEARS AGO. I CARE WHAT HE HAS DONE AND SAID IN THE LAST MONTH! OVER AT FREDSTATE MOST HAVE JUST PUT THE BLINDERS ON.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:36 am
So, Tommy O., do you think I’m too dumb to understand how the legal process or law firms work?
I’ve got news for you. I’m a practicing lawyer at a large firm. I know that most lawyers genuinely want to believe that they can represent whoever and as long as they get paid for it doesn’t matter. Hinderaker is no exception. “What happens at the law firm stays at the law firm.” I also know that’s bunk and so do most of the American people.. My firm would never make me work on a hot-button topic like abortion if I asked to be excused. Thompson lobbied for federal funding for abortion becasuse he wanted his cut of $250/hour to do it.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I take it you don’t have a problem with that woman who got the WTC bombers off on a light sentence, or with the high-powered lawyers who volunteered for represent the Gitmo jihadis and win them a bunch of brand shiny new rights. I fyou do have a problem with it, I assume its because you’re too dumb to understand the legal process of how law firms work.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:45 am
So either Fred Thompson was intentially lying/obfuscating to cover up the issue, or he is just incompetent in remembering who he worked for in the past. Either way, it doesn’t scream presidential material to me. If you worked for the KKK or NAMBLA, do you think you’d remember that?
July 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Yeah, Nusrat echoes what needed to be said in #1:
I DON’T CARE THAT HE LOBBIED (OBVIOUSLY; I’M IN FAVOR OF ABORTION).
HE LIED ABOUT IT.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Now the Fredheads finally get a taste of what it’s like to actually have to defend their candidate from attacks. Welcome to the race, buddy.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
There was no lie by Fred Thompson. You know what Henry Heavner, stop the name calling. Tommy can match wits with you any time of the day. I too practiced law for many years, and you are nuts if you believe that an attorney with an ounce of ambition can refuse a favor requested from a partner. Fred was of counsel, which really, as you should know Henry, meant that he was getting office space and staff in return for the use of his name. Implicit in the use of the name is the requirement that the attorney who is of counsel do a favor when asked. This is such a non issue for the average person. when you guys can’t find anything else to attack you say but he lied!!! Not true.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Fred lied even if Fredheads won’t admit it!
July 19th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Wow. It’s interesting to watch surrogates move the bar for Fred. I like the NR line: if my paraphrase, “When Fred said ‘there were no records’, that just pertained to lobbying Sununu, not collaborating with a pro-abort group.”
Yeah. OK. [/sarcasm]
I still don’t get why so many are twisting themselves into pretzels for a guy who has done ZERO to show he’s ready to be President based on his actual accomplishments(which are a more meaningul measure than the man’s “hidden internal abilities”, unless you’re the President evaluating Putin).
Don’t get me wrong, I might still jump on the bandwagon if Fred runs cartwheels around the competition in the campaign (if he ever actually starts one), but why everyone wants to run away from an accomplished but ideologically heterodox candidate (Rudy) in favor of an unaccomplished, heterodox (as of a few years ago) candidate (Fred); or likewise, away from an accomplished but converted (i.e., not lifelong pro-life) candidate (Mitt) to an unaccomplished but converted candidate (Fred) boggles my mind.
I guess the “he’s folksy,” “he’s sexy,” “he drives a red pickup” line of arguments just don’t do it for me. I guess the silver lining is we might get a push to renew the McCain-Feingold-Thompson (as he liked to call it) legislation.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Riehlworldview: Tell you what, you tell me everyone you talked to only a few times over some few hours almost twenty years ago and if you forget someone, I’ll call you a liar. Sound fair to you?
That’s cute, Tommy. But Fred wasn’t asked for a list of people he lobbied for. He was asked if he lobbied for one pro-abortion group in particular. And he spent the next few weeks in denials, poor memory, and dodging. The only reason Fred (or any of his supporters on this website) have come clean about the existence of billing records is because it was PROVEN that team-Fred was lying to us.
The sentiments of Nusrat #1 and TLGuy #6 are the focus here. I really don’t see the appeal of a Washington insider who refuses to come clean on his record.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
There was a lie by Fred Thompson, and it comes in the form of a statement from his campaign. Here, got this from blogs4brownback.wordpress.com:
Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period,†he said in an e-mail.
In a telephone interview, he added: “There’s no documents to prove it, there’s no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, [he] says it didn’t happen.â€
That last line is a flat denial of any work for or with a pro-abortion group. We now know that he did, indeed, lobby and advise the group. Thompson lied, and that is what is going to get him.
As a Romney supporter, I am more than willing to accept and support conservative converts. The fact that he lobbied is largely irrelevent to me, since it seems to be an assigned position, was done on only a limited scale, and was done a long time ago. I have three problems with Thompson:
1) There is overwealming evidence that Thompson was, at least at one point, pro-abortion. He has refused to answer to this evidence, and has said he was always pro-life.
2) I have not, at least thus far, been convinced that Thompson is CURRENTLY pro-life at the state level, particularly during the first trimester (when most abortions are performed). The GOP, as well as the country, needs a strong, pro-life leader, and if Fred Thompson is indifferent, or even pro-choice at the state level, than he is not good enough.
3) HE LIED ABOUT HIS PAST. It would be perfectly understandable if Thompson had come out and said “There was a time during my career where I was choosen to do work for a pro-abortion organization, I took the job, but did not agree with the aims of the organization.” Instead, he lied, he tried to hide his past from the American public. I cannot accept a President who lies to make himself look better, that is how we ended up with the Clinton mess.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
ACT Blog:
‘Pro-life at the state level’? Certainly you are not suggesting a president would/should dictate to states what they should do?
Please explain.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I am not suggesting that a President should dictate what states do, but I do not believe that we do ourselves any favors by selecting a President who is only halfway pro-life. If we want to work towards eliminating most abortions, we needs a storng pro-life leader, who can hit the trail in favor of life. A person who opposes abortion at the federal level, but is, as I said, “indifferent or even pro-choice” at the state level is not that kind of person.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Gary,
I also would like to know what Fred’s views are at the state level. Simply put, it sweeps aside the federalism argument that he hides behind and gets to the roots of what Fred believes about abortion.
Perhaps Fred will turn over a new leaf and come clean with what he actually believes. That’s the quickest way for him to put this stuff to a rest.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Tommy is right in that this is pretty much a “nothingburger”. Personally, I don’t really care much about this, lie or not.
Get used to it. Since Romney and others have been attack by supporters of Fred (not just the left) over things more petty than this, we better get used to having “nothingburgers” for lunch till November 2008.
Real winner in all this – Rudy Giuliani.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Gary,
I’m pretty sure you’re being deliberately obtuse in that response. Thompson’s position on abortion at the state level is relevant, because pro-lifers want to know what their candidates think about abortion, as a moral and political issue, divorced from the practical consequences of their actions. Certainly, it could be argued that Thompson’s actions wouldn’t differ one iota from those of a Sam Brownback, even if he weren’t pro-life at the state level. I’d likely agree. But, the same could be said about Rudy (though less plausibly). Unfortunately, that argument was roundly rejected by RudyMcRomney critics everywhere. Do you, by any chance, find the fact that Thompson opposes gay marriage, but favors no federal action on the issue, an irrelevant stance? That is to say, would you expect social conservatives to be as amenable to, say, a Deval Patrick type presidential candidate, who favors gay marriage on the state level, but opposes it federally? Or would you expect them to give Thompson significant brownie points for opposing it on the state level, even though his actions as president (vis-a-vis legislation and a constitutional amendment) might well be identical to Deval’s? It’s really a fairly simple question of philosophy, and a rightful insistence that candidates refuse to hide behind the “I’ll let the states decide the issue”, to avoid discussing the underlying merits of controversial questions.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
No one with an ounce of intellectual honesty can look at this situation and say, “Wow, this man has what it takes to be president.”
As has been pointed out before, he either lied, or he can’t remember lobbying for a group that is, supposedly, diametrically opposed to his actual views.
I am against taxes. Period. If I, for some reason, gave legal counsel to a pro-tax group, you can damned well bet I’d remember it. If you do something for someone that is against your values, it will stay in your conscience.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Its hard to see how Rudy benefits from this, at least in the long term. While this may cause Thompson to stay out of the race, or loose support, in the long term, it has little effect on Giuliani. The real winner of a Thompson fall is Romney, who is much more Conservative than Rudy. I think that most support from Thompson would go to Romney, and that Romney would be able to continuing increasing his support (at a faster rate than he currently is) should Thompson collapse.
Rudy gets a couple headlines about being back in the lead, Romney gets to win the South.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I think tommy stated that he wasnt going to jump into comments earlier today did he not?
July 19th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
GinnyD.,
As I understand it, (1) Tommy O. thinks I’m dumb, (2) you think I’m nuts, and (3) I need to stop namecalling.
Check.
Lots of lawyers who have an ounce of ambition would turn down requests to work to get federal funding for abortion. All that’s needed is also having an ounce of principle. Being pro-life may matter a lot to Thompson now but ti obviously didn’t back then, and Thompson has gone to some unsavory lengths to hide that.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Correction:
Tommy O. hasn’t actually said that he thinks I’m too dumb to understand law firms. He’s just passed on thatHinderaker thinks that.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Giuliani benefits if there’s no clear conservative standardbearer come primary time. His RINO-fiscalcon coup requires that the conservative house be divided.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Another thing that bugs me as a pro-lifer: Thompson has refused to apologize for it or even acknowledge that there might be anything wrong with it. His attitude is that lawyers can represent anybody for any reason and its none of our business. Lots and lots of lawyers think that way and it makes me sick.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
ACT blog:
Fair enough. To be more clear, my comments were coming from the perspective that if social conservatives remain divided, Rudy is the clear winner.
Romney is by far the most competent, intelligent, and articulate candidate who has a real shot at this. He is well organized, funded, and is an extremely hard worker.
Perhaps evangelical conservatives may realize FDT may not be up to this task. Perhaps they can put aside petty religious differences and focus at the larger common picture & ultimately support Romney. Honestly, I’m not optimistic about that . Just remember what that nut-job Bill Keller, a Florida TV evangelist, said by calling support for Romney “a vote for Satan.â€
July 19th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
#14, #15 & #17:
I guess I don’t know what to say. When Roe is overturned I will work for every conceivable restriction on abortion in the state of Minnesota. That said, the only thing more bone-chilling to me than the procedure of abortion is the notion that a president should be involved in the abortion policy of individual states. Benevolent tyranny is, nevertheless, tyranny.
If you mean the president should use his position to speak to the immorality of abortion, I don’t disagree. But this “state level” stuff is scary. I can’t begin to imagine what constitution you read.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Cool, do you know, you can now buy from Bill Keller’s website, liveprayer.com, a Romney/Satan 2008 bumpersticker.
Awesome, I can’t wait for the coffee mug.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Wow, I just can’t believe the hate coming out here. There is no that Fred lied. It was 16 years ago and he and Sununu both say that Fred did not approach him about this. That is not a lie. Many scared people want to blow this up into something that it is not so our candidate will be elected/nominated. It’s very sad that, in the world we live in, you can focus so much of your energy on this just for your candidate. There is no proof of wrong-doing here. Fred is a class act. He’s a good man. He’s a conservative against abortion (with a record and endorsements to prove it). Let’s focus on some real issues, not something that isn’t even clear-cut. We’re wasting our energy here. Stop with the hate and vitriol. It doesn’t win elections.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
(no proof that Fred lied)
July 19th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
just as i said, no one on the conservative blogs cares, in fact they’re all defending Fred. That must hurt, Rombots. Your guy is toast.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
When Roe is overturned I will work for every conceivable restriction on abortion in the state of Minnesota. That said, the only thing more bone-chilling to me than the procedure of abortion is the notion that a president should be involved in the abortion policy of individual states.
Speaking for myself, I’m totally fine with Thompson or any other pol saying that abortion should be left to the states. But I also want to know what Thompson actually thinks about abortion and so far he has refused to address the topic. He’s said that he’s “pro-life,” he’s said that he’s against Roe v. Wade, but he’s also implied that states cshouln’t outlaw abortion and used pro-choice talk about “throwing women in jail.” Thompson owes it to th electorate to come clean on these issues instead of hollering ‘liberal media bias’ ever time the questions are raised.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Gary,
Tsk, Tsk, tsk. Again, with the deliberate obtuseness. No one that I’m aware of has even hinted that the President, via some sort of executive presumably, should dictate state abortion laws. I don’t even think Congress can dictate state abortion laws largely, and think the Commerce Clause implicates laws even as relatively uncontroversial as the federal partial birth abortion ban. I’m in favor of constitutional amendment protecting life from conception onward, but would vociferously oppose all other efforts to ban abortion nationally (and therefore, for the states). That’s not the point.
It’s perhaps relevant if all you’re looking for is a candidate who will bring about an arbitrary, though personally desirable set of results. But, that’s not the sum of what it means to be a presidential candidate. I feel the same way about the judiciary. I don’t merely want judges who’ll vote conservatively on a variety of issues, because he or she happens to be conservative. I want someone who’ll vote conservatively, for the right reasons. Because they have a proper respect for Democratic branches of government. Because they recognize that the consitution is only a legitimate charter for governance, because it was adopted by the people themselves and that, to the extent that it departs from Democratically adopted meaning of those who endorsed it, it’s invalid. And I want someone who’ll vote for abortion restcitions, because he’s geuinely opposed to legalized abortion, not because of some misplaced, absolutist sense of federalism, or through a desire to please a certain constituency. So, yes it’s quite important that we know what Fred Thompson believes about abortion on the state level, not because his answers are likely to impact his policy, but because they go the heart of his fundamental political beliefs.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I’d also note that I’d actually be fine with Thompson being pro-choice on the state level, but anti-Roe due to the fact that the constitution is entirely neutral on the question of abortion. It’s not as desirable a position, from my vantage point, as one that’s simply pro-life all around, but it’s acceptable. What I won’t accept, is that bizzare notion that we’re not entitled to know what Thompson thinks about abortion on the state level simply because his decisions as President aren’t likely to turn on the answer.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Henry, I don’t think you are nuts, but you are deliberately misstating the real world of our profession, and you and I both know that. We have had Attorneys serve as Counsel for our firm, and I have also been of Counsel for a few firms. I know how it works, and I think you do too. This is a nonissue, as I said before. Tommy really doesn’t need me to defend him, but he is one of the smarter people blogging.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Good ol’Fred has been caught lying. He profited from abortion lobbying then lied about it to cover his tracks. Lied about his past, lied about the money. Where is the money Fred? Where is the money?
July 19th, 2007 at 2:58 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. But lies about all of the above.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Henry, I don’t think you are nuts, but you are deliberately misstating the real world of our profession, and you and I both know that. We have had Attorneys serve as Counsel for our firm, and I have also been of Counsel for a few firms. I know how it works, and I think you do too.
I’m not misstating a thing. Most principled people don’t represent causes they are opposed to in order to accomplish purposes they are opposed to and most law firms don’t try to make them. Its disgusting how many
lawyers who try to claim that working towards some evil end is OK just because you happen to be
a lawyer. And apparently lobbyists are now supposed to get the same pass for their work.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I agree with Henry.
Also, for example, abortion doctors DON’T HAVE TO perform abortions.
Similarly, lawyers DON’T HAVE TO represent pro-abortion clients.
*Especially* damn lobbyists that are trying to influence the law!
July 19th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
#8 Ginnyd “I too practiced law for many years, and you are nuts if you believe that an attorney with an ounce of ambition can refuse a favor requested from a partner. Fred was of counsel, which really, as you should know Henry, meant that he was getting office space and staff in return for the use of his name. Implicit in the use of the name is the requirement that the attorney who is of counsel do a favor when asked”
So you are saying that Thompson is willing to sell out his “core” (I personally don’t think that Fred has any core beliefs regarding abortion) beliefs to grant a favor to a benefactor?…hmmm, that could spawn some interesting inuendos.
July 19th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
[...] Update 4: Predictably Fred! defenders are in full spin cycle. [...]
July 19th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
no Jack, that is not what I said. Don’t try to put words in my mouth. I said that i know my profession, and it has nothing to do with Senator Thompson. Fred Thompson will be the nominee of the Republican party. This is a non issue. The reason that you are trying to make it an issue is because you are getting desparate.
July 19th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
GinnyD:“Fred Thompson will be the nominee of the Republican party.”
How so? When was the last time someone with a mediocre resume who only put in the minimum amount of effort became the GOP nominee?
July 19th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Its a non-issue because you say so. Or is because you’re also a lawyer, and no one should be allowed tto cricticize lawyers if other lawyers say so?
July 19th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
This story does hurt Fred!
It’ll convince many SoCons to gravitate back towards Giuliani-McCain-Romney and will make it near impossible for Fred’s campaign to attack any of the other candidates on the issue of abortion.
Can you imagine some of the counter adverts that could be put against him?
Rudy:
Example
“Recently another candidate spoke about my position on abortion. Granted, while I personally oppose abortion, I believe it is an issue that should be left to the states and the person or persons making the decision. It is a big decision and a matter of conscience.
Former Senator Fred Thompson recently attacked my position on abortion, and made mention that publicly funded abortions should not be possible. To an extent I agree with Senator Thompson, and that is why I am proud of the increase in adoptions that occurred under my watch as Mayor.
Though what concerns me about Senator Thompson’s attack is the hypocrisy on his end. As Mayor, I never signed any piece of legislation that would kill or harm the unborn. While my opinion on the matter may differ with Senator Thompson, I never during my term as Mayor of New York, quite possibly the most liberal city in all of the United States, made into law any measure designed to give abortion more precedence.
So I don’t know what is worse: a former Mayor who believes that abortion is a matter of choice or a former Senator who claims to be pro-life but openly did lobbying work on behalf of pro-choice organisations.
Actions speak louder than wordsâ€
July 19th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I don’t know Henry, you are the one who seems to know everything about attorneys so you tell me. It still is a non-issue. No matter how you try to spin it. Check Fred’s voting record. That is all that counts. What he did when the chips were down, proves that he is 100% pro life.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Gary,
You are funny. Do you know that the state legislation leaders have in the past brought in heavy muscles to tweak the arms of other legislatives. Case in point: marriage ammendment in Massachuettes. The Houses leaders brought in the like of Speaker Pelios and Senator Kennedy, among few, to change the mind of selected states legislatives.
Point aside, I agree with you that a President should be neutral on the making of policies at state level. However, Fred is not there yet. He has this big deal of being federalist, which is great. It will be nice to know where he stands if the federalism is not in the way. In other words, we want to know him personally – how he feels about certain issues that are important to us. Unfortunately, he has been doggling around thouse issues, which cannot be helpful for him.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
GinnyD,
No. Fred’s voting record proves that he is 100% pro-life on the fringe issues such as PBA, parental notification, etc.
There is nothing in his record that shows him opposed to first trimester abortions, for example. And there is everything in his past statements on the issue that lead us to believe he is in favor of 90% of abortions remaining legal.
He may be anti-Roe, but there’s no way you can summarize Fred as 100% pro-life and retain any credibility.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
What he did when the chips were down, proves that he is 100% pro life.
Sweetheart we’ve been over this on the board before…the votes in the United States Congress dating back into the mid-1990’s are hardly indicative of a, in your words, “100% pro life” candidate. It is entirely possible for a mildly pro-choice candidate to have amassed a decent “life” voting record in Congress. Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) is adamantly pro-choice but her record for 2003-2004 in the House was a 73%. You can’t just keep repeating that argument. Fred may have changed but I think what people like myself are looking for is substantive proof…and no a “pro-life US Senate record” is not substantive.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
What he did when the chips were down, proves that he is 100% pro life.
Well, now, Fred says he’s pro-life, so maybe he thinks like you that being pro-life means you oppose partial birth abortion and support parental notification while keeping abortion legal. If that’s your definition, I agree that Thopson is 100% prolife. I don’t want to get into a semantics argument, so maybe you can just tell me what term I should use for people who think most abortions should be illegal. Whatever that term is, Thompson’s not 100% of it. Not real close, actually.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
What he did when the chips were down, proves that he is 100% pro life.
Fred says he’s pro-life, so maybe he thinks like you that being pro-life means you oppose partial birth abortion and support parental notification while keeping abortion legal. If that’s your definition, I agree that Thopson is 100% prolife. I don’t want to get into a semantics argument, so maybe you can just tell me what term I should use for people who think most abortions should be illegal. Whatever that term is, Thompson’s not 100% of it. Not real close, actually.