| CBS News | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| Zogby | North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up |
0 |
| SF Chron | 0 | |
| KDVR | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Big Government- Hot Air
- Michelle Malkin
- Wheeling & dealing: Snowe pow-wows with Obama; Landrieu, Schumer, Daschle behind the scenes
- Saturday in the Senate: Cash for Cloture; Reid gets 60; Update: 8:15pm Eastern cloture vote – 60-39; Voinovich absent; Dems invoke Teddy Kennedy; Reid: “Ted would be happy.”
- Another day, another Berkeley tantrum
- Jake Tapper
- Lynn Sweet
Controversy: Fred Thompson was once hired as a lobbyist for a pro-abortion group
James Joyner has a definitive recap and link round-up at this LATimes-breaking story about Thompson’s ties to a pro-abortion group under the first President Bush’s administration.
The blogosophere is going wild with this story. Here is a sampling of what’s being said:
Given this story, that Fred Thompson lobbied against the so-called gag rule, a non-pro-life position, in 1991 … let’s look at what was actually going on at the time. In summary, Bush did make a sort of concession by sending a memo to HHS stating that doctors were not to be prevented from counseling patients fully, but could not refer them, basically, to clinics whose primary purpose was abortion. It’s said it was a confusing directive, good thing they didn’t have to read his lips, ay? By the time they claim to have engaged Thompson, it looks like things were already firmed up. But, who knows? Sununu’s records in the Bush library, I suspect. See below. Evidently Sununu was very active on the issue. But I can’t find anything DeSarno would have been pleased with during the relevant time frame.
The American Spectator’s “Washington Prowler” section:
In the story that the L.A. Times will report out within the next 24 to 48 hours, the paper will claim that Thompson was “hired” by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Rights Association, whose director, Judith DeSarno, was acquainted with a then-partner at Arent Fox, former Congressman Michael Barnes. In fact, DeSarno worked as a senior aide to Barnes during his time in Congress. According to Arent Fox insiders, Barnes, who now directs the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and DeSarno are both well-known left-wing activists. Most recently, both were active against the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Thompson was an adviser to Roberts, and served as his Senate “sherpa” during the confirmation process.
Elrod at KnoxViews:
Note to social conservatives: if you want a Southern, proudly evangelical Christian, pro-life conservative Republican, your man is not Fred Thompson. Your man is Mike Huckabee. Hell, Huckabee even has gubornatorial experience. And if Huck isn’t your cup of tea, you’ve got Senator Sam Brownback, no marginal figure in American politics.
Meanwhile, Thompson has a 100% pro-life rating while in the Senate and is an “enemy” according to Planned Parenthood.
Captain Ed has several updates on this story, which you should read in full.
Here’s On The Issue’s brief rundown on Fred and the abortion issue:
Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)
Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007)
Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
So long as the guy is listed as an “enemy” of Planned Parenthood and has a 100% pro-life rating, I’m down with that. Fred’s position on abortion seems to be similar to mine. Mine is that abortion shouldn’t be outlawed right now – that we need to change hearts and minds on the issue first (and I think we are), and then outlawing it later when enough of those hearts and minds are changed. His – via the NYT link from Joyner’s post:
In addition, the Gannett News Service has reported that another questionnaire submitted during Mr. Thompson’s 1994 campaign contained a handwritten note that stated: “I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people.”
I honestly don’t know what to make of the LAT story. It’s obviously a hit piece, but at James’ post points out, there’s too much detail in there for Fred to be able to credibly deny that he did this work.
Stay tuned …
—
BTW, chalk me up as someone who is right now lukewarm to Fred Thompson – frankly none of the ‘top tier’ candidates are really inspiring me at the moment.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
10 Responses to “Controversy: Fred Thompson was once hired as a lobbyist for a pro-abortion group”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
These two LAT & NYT hit pieces come on the heels of Keith-O’s “Nixon’s Mole” charge. Mike Rowe should take a stint as a DNC truffle-snuffer nosing through the garbage heaps of slander and innuendo—beats most of the Dirty Jobs he’s done on his Discovery show!
Fred Thompson reeks integrity, and Clinton Inc has a thousand skeletons buried, in closets, & in plain sight. Can you imagine the shrieks & twittering if B. Hussein Obama gets a closer look in his childhood madrasa in Indonesia?
I don’t quite understand the Democrats tactic of criticizing Republican candidates by claiming that they once had a liberal position. I mean, I don’t recall Republicans criticizing Democrats for their conservative positions, we normally criticize them for their liberal positions.
You know they’re worried about Fred when they’re going after someone who’s not officially in the race yet.
Yay way to go…
Not…
“…there’s too much detail in there for Fred to be able to credibly deny that he did this work. ”
Look at the whole story. Corallo is VERY definite in stating that Thompson did no lobbying, and Sununu is VERY definite in stating that Thompson never did any lobbying of him on this.
Thompson was “of counsel” at Arent Fox, meaning he was not an active partner but was on board primarily as a lure for clients. He most likely had some peripheral discussions with Arent Fox attorneys on the issue (a point Corallo concedes is possible) but never took part in any lobbying activities. The two lefties who sourced this story, I suspect, are inflating Thompson’s rolel to generate just the response that the blogosphere is giving them. They don’t have to actually lie, just make it sound more that it really was.
I would vote for Fred if he was running against Hillary, but I think there is something a little slick about him. For instance, he not only supported McCain Feingold, he worked with Diane Feinstein on an amendment to it and his ranking as a conservative was the same as McCain’s and back in the days when he was a Senator he was very much like McCain. There is nothing wrong with that, but when I see him with the cigar and sounding like God’s gift to the right…I wonder if he is acting, after all, that is as much his profession as the politics is.
This is an overview of his voting record when in Senate.
Funny how we had an eruption of these hit pieces from the drive-by media following a Rasmussen report which showed that Fred had caught Hillary Clinton in its polling data and was essentially tied with her.
Follow the money. Except in this case, there is no money trail to follow. This “family planning” group, which is curiously made up of donors to Sen. Clinton’s campaign (go figure) hasn’t produced a billing record.
Until they do, this is just more of the politics of personal destruction being practiced by the masters of the black art, the Clintons.
Terrye, thanks so much for showing me his voting record and I saw not much that disappointed me and everyone can have a change of heart. flip flop moment.
Its what he will do now that counts — times have changed since 1998 so for now he is my man.
I think he knows what most sane people who wpuld vote for him are demanding of a candidate and I think he will do what we want.
Lobbying firm billing records are kept indefinitely. They are part of the public record, detailing the expenditures and billing of the lobbyist.
If he was paid for lobbying, the records exist. Since the LA Slimes can find no records this is a smear.
All contacts and the purpose for them (even meetings on the street and phone calls) with lobbyists by members of the Executive Branch have to be logged. The Slimes should have sent someone to Texas A&M to look into GHWB’s library to look up Sununu’s lobbyist contact records. If there is no such entry (likely) I would have to put this on a libelous smear level.
So far the only documents we have are the minutes of a staff meeting in which Thompson was not present, that the LA Slimes claims to have but won’t reveal, that were probably discovered right before the ink dried. Their only purpose is to cover the butts of the reporters because running a story like this without some kind of documentation might even overcome the Slimes editors’ retch reflex.
Thanks for the info Random.