Thompson’s pro-choice client

Soon-to-be-presidential-hopeful Fred Thompson has struggled a bit to explain his position on abortion rights. On the one hand, he voted with the right during his Senate tenure. On the other, he’s also argued that he doesn’t want to see abortion “criminalized” and opposes a constitutional amendment on the issue.

So far, the GOP’s far-right base has been willing to overlook some of Thompson’s rhetoric and embrace him as a pro-life leader, but this might cause some conservatives to re-think their support.

Fred D. Thompson, who is campaigning for president as an antiabortion Republican, accepted an assignment from a family-planning group to lobby the first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction, according to a 1991 document and several people familiar with the matter. […]

His task was to urge the administration of President George H. W. Bush to withdraw or relax a rule that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money, according to the records and to people who worked on the matter.

The abortion “gag rule” was then a major political flashpoint. Lobbying against the rule would have placed Thompson at odds with the antiabortion movement that he is now trying to rally behind his expected declaration of a presidential bid.

Taking up the defense for Thompson is John Hinderaker, who makes a passionate case that a lobbyist should not necessarily be judged by his or her clients. Lobbyists, like lawyers, may take on patrons with whom they disagree. Fine.

But the story here is not just that Thompson lobbied for a pro-choice cause, but that he’s vociferously denying it now.

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, says it didn’t happen.” In a separate interview, John H. Sununu, the White House official whom the family planning group wanted to contact, said he had no memory of the lobbying and doubted it took place.

The response is … odd. The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. produced the minutes of a 1991 board meeting that say the group hired Thompson to lobby on the group’s behalf. Judith DeSarno, who was president of the family planning association at the time, said Thompson lobbied for the group for several months. Indeed, DeSarno noted the multiple meetings and conversations she had with Thompson about his progress in lobbying for her cause. What’s more, the LA Times spoke to “three other people [who] recalled Thompson lobbying against the rule on behalf of the family planning association.”

Former Rep. Michael D. Barnes (D-Md.), Thompson’s former law-firm colleague, helped connect Thompson to the family-planning group in the first place, and said it was “absolutely bizarre” for Thompson to deny his lobbying work.

“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,” Barnes said. “I have strong, total recollection of that. This is not something I dreamed up or she dreamed up. This is fact.”

If Thompson wanted to make the Hinderaker-like argument that he took on a client with which he disagreed, he could try to make the case and hope the Dobson crowd bought it. But it’s far more peculiar for Thompson to simply deny the work outright.

Getting away with lobbying for a pro-choice client is a minor challenge. Getting caught lying about it can dog a presidential campaign for quite a while.

officially, the republican’t national committee was against flip-flopping before they were for it.

but seriously now, you really don’t expect republican principles to get in the way when there’s lobbying money to be made, do you?

  • LOL!

    Mellowjohn, The flip-flopping line was very good. Can I use it? But since when is pretty much anything involving lobbying money not a core Republican principle?

  • Dear Mr. Thompson:

    Thank you for continuing to repulse those Republican voters who don’t engage in hypocritical hand-wringing over the fate of zygotes. The ones who are disgusted when they read about the fetus fetishists’ latest attempt to shut down a family planning clinic via criminal acts. The ones who think they aren’t any less of a Republican because they think abortion should be legal. The ones who are already sick of the neo-con whackaloons who’ve taken over the GOP and made it into a rabid mob of hateful, knuckle-dragging, Bible waving fuckwits.

    Now, some people might say you should ignore the insane portion of your voters because they only make up a small percentage of the people who will vote for you in an election. They may say that by addressing the concerns of the sane, sensible voters not only will you garner more votes, you might pick up votes from Independents and even a few Democrats.

    Pay no mind to those baby-hating hippies! If there is one of them among your campaign staff, cast him out! The members of the Neo-con Bedroom & Womb Patrol are your friends and you must appease them in any way you can, even if it means calling for the imprisonment of anyone who even mentions abortion.

    In other words, please continue to further bugger up the chance that you or any other member of the Republican party will sit in the White House for a very long time.

    Sincerely,

    A. Democrat

  • BTW, does anyone know for sure what current policy on this is? Did Thompson’s efforts pan out? Clinics who receive federal funding pretty routinely offer abortion counseling these days, don’t they?

  • Oops, never mind. The answer to that last question was in the LA Times article. (Clinton did away with the gag rule.)

  • Thanks, Mellowjohn. I checked out the site and some of those cartoons are pretty good. I thought the “catch and release” one (Libby) was pretty funny too.

  • It’s going to be interesting to see if the Thompson-infatuated media — they’ve got to love somebody now that McCain, their last creation, is on the ropes — even covers this, and if so, can they make it all go away.

    On the tombstone of the Republic will be the epitaph “Killed by a Story Arc.”

  • One problem with “white knight” candidates who come out of the blue is that they may not be ready for prime time. Thompson’s choice here to deny the obvious, including the “you can’t prove it!” style denial, isn’t something a wise pol would do. And it’s a long, long way to election day. A guy who’s already shot himself in the foot this early will likely take off another few toes with more blunders as time goes by.

  • Corporate Lobbyist and New World Order Frontman, Fred “The Head” Thompson, continues to prove that he is a “man” of limited principle and integrity. He represents one anti-thesis of what American elected federal representatives should embody.

    It is truly a sad statement on American Democracy when a “man” like Fred-T garners the attention and support of even a handful of Americans.

    I say kick all of the lobbyists out of Washington, D.C., including Fred The Head. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of the American Corporate Empire and people like Lobbyist Fred Thompson running our Constitutional Republic into the ground.

  • The FredHeads are turning into pretzels defending this man. These are the same people that are against the CFR and Trilateral Commission and mad at the Bush White House including the President.

    Thompson is a member of both groups, is supported by the same people that have been supporting GOP candidates since Nixon except for Reagan and Dole and with Reagan they got him to take Bush the elder for his VP which was a huge mistake.

    Do some research and you will discover that the Bakers (Howard and James, Cheney, Bush, Sr, Rumsfeld and others all go back to the days of Ford. Even Rove goes back as he was advocating dirty tricks as a CR Chair and two groups claimed the Chair and the person making the decision was Bush 41 who was head of the RNC at the time and he chose the dirty trickster Rove.

  • But the story here is not just that Thompson lobbied for a pro-choice cause, but that he’s vociferously denying it now.

    No, it’s that he lobbied for pro-choicers. Unlike lawyers, lobbyists don’t have a professional duty to see that everyone is represented. A lawyer that represents a client with whom she disagrees is discharging an ethical duty and protecting a constitutional right.

    A lobbyist that does that is just a fucking shill.

  • But the story here is not just that Thompson lobbied for a pro-choice cause, but that he’s vociferously denying it now.

    No, it’s that he lobbied for pro-choicers. Unlike lawyers, lobbyists don’t have a professional duty to see that everyone is represented.

    I see it another way. If you’re caught lobbying for something you disagree with, it means you can be bought.

  • These two LAT & NYT hit pieces come on the heels of Keith-O’s “Nixon’s Mole” charge and of course, Joe Skankborough’s idiotic remark about “working the pole.” Thompson isn’t going to drag his wife and mother of his daughter into the mosh-pit skanks like Elizabeth Edwards like to slosh around in.

    Mike Rowe should take a stint as a DNC fecal-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?

    Not to mention Hair-and-Makeup candidate Mr.Elizabeth Edwards.

  • Getting away with lobbying for a pro-choice client is a minor challenge. Getting caught lying about it can dog a presidential campaign for quite a while. — CB

    While getting caught (in anything) may be a disqualifier (indicates incompetence), isn’t lying, by itself, a requirement for a presidential candidate? Especially a Repub one?

  • What hubris makes a man with skeletons like “WH mole during Nixon hearings” and “lobbied for pro-choice client” in his cupboard decide that it’s a good idea to run for President?

  • I got a good whiff of Thompson and it stunk to high heavens. Take that back, it was much more sulfurous after all. If this is their Reagan candidate, let’s bring it on … I can’t wait to see him get trounced at the caucuses here.

    But then again, I could be wrong … there were enough idiots to go for GWB in 2000…

    Please prove me wrong!

  • Comments are closed.