NYT: Billing records show Fred did lobby for abortion group; Update: Pro-Fred blogger apologizes to LA Times

posted at 8:44 am on July 19, 2007 by Allahpundit

Patterico beat me to the punch. What on earth was Mark Corallo thinking when he told the LA Times no way nuh uh never happened when he didn’t know that for a fact? Did the campaign even think to check the billing records? If not, or if they couldn’t, then why not just spin it in a more fact-friendly way from the outset? E.g., “He didn’t really want to lobby for them but he was new at the firm and felt obliged to do whatever they asked at first” or “His profound moral opposition to abortion didn’t calcify until he reached the Senate, as his voting record bears out.” Now, instead, they look like liars. Flashback:

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…

Corallo, the spokesman for Thompson, was asked Friday about the board minutes and the five people who said they recalled Thompson accepting the lobbying assignment. He responded in an e-mail, saying that Thompson “may have been consulted by one of [his] firm’s partners who represented this group in 1991.”

Corallo said it was “not unusual for one lawyer on one side of an issue to be asked to give advice to colleagues for clients who engage in conduct or activities with which they personally disagree.”

And now compare today’s Times:

Billing records show that former Senator Fred Thompson spent nearly 20 hours working as a lobbyist on behalf of a group seeking to ease restrictive federal rules on abortion counseling in the 1990s, even though he recently said he did not recall doing any work for the organization.

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…

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.

Patterico notes that Fred himself was careful all along to use the “lawyers don’t always agree with their clients” defense — which is weak in the context of an issue as morally important to the base as this one but beats lying, at least — and Corallo backed off his earlier blanket denial a few days after the LAT story broke, telling Politico, “He has no recollection of doing any work for this group. And since he was of counsel and not a member of the firm, it was not unusual for the firm’s partners to trot their clients in to meet him, get his views and even some advice.” (As Patterico notes, incredulously, they trotted people in for 19 hours?) But meanwhile, a meaningless story that should have been defused the first day suddenly has oxygen again 11 days later. And his third-tier opponents, at least, are already taking advantage.

Eh, I doubt it’ll matter. Pro-lifers have nowhere else to go realistically among the top candidates. Still, as Patterico says, “To me, the controversy over Fred Thompson’s alleged lobbying for an abortion rights group has little to do with his views on abortion, and more to do with his honesty.” Exit question: Does it? Or does it prove what his aides have been saying about the campaign not being ready for primetime yet, which is why they need to wait a while longer to declare? (Shortly after Labor Day, according to the Times.)

Update: Fred 29, Rudy 28.

Update: Nice job here by Joe Carter. He’s gone and violated the 12th Commandment — on the “Blogs For Fred” site, no less!

[T]hose of us on the front lines of the campaign are putting our integrity on the line whenever we defend our (still unannounced) candidate. When a spokesman for Thompson speaks on his behalf, we need to be able to trust that the message is honest and accurate. It also needs to be conveyed clearly, and not require the nuance of a DC lawyer to differentiate between fact and supposition.

I claimed that the LAT article was a “hit piece”, when the basic premise was later confirmed to be true. I implied that that the people from NFPRHA might be lying, only to find that their central claim–that Thompson lobbied for the group–was largely true. I may not agree with their motives, but it was wrong of me to unfairly malign the LAT and the NFPRHA leaders. I owe them both an apology.

I don’t like being wrong. I don’t like having to apologize to abortion advocates. And I really don’t like finding I put my own integrity in question.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What’s all the hubbub about?

jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 4:08 PM

The hubbub is about the points you ignored.

1) McCain/Feingold
2) His flat denial of the lobbying in 1991 is disturbing.
3) His flip-flop on pro-choice/pro-abortion. And not so much the position, but the dishonesty about the switch.
4) No real experience or record of accomplishments

Your list, as you should know, are the counters to the fred?ites use of silly stuff as credentials for him. If you would like them enumerated I surly will, but I suspect you don’t really want to know.

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 4:46 PM

just man up to it and say you agree with the liberals on this one point…Fred is a loser.

You’re wrong again. As I have been one of the earliest vocal opponents to fred?, the libs happen to be agreeing with me.

So run along back to KOS or Huffpo and tell them they happen to be agreeing with a conservative.

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 4:50 PM

Exactly, you are stuck on those notes. I read your blog. That’s your right, everyone is entitled to their politics, but most conservatives care more about who is going to fight PC-enabled islamism, not who is going to rehash roe vs wade.

Funny, I care about PC-enabled Islamism as well. Romney wants to fight it just as much as Fred, as does Giuliani. I don’t know where you’re going with this unnecessary idiocy. Your drive to defend Fred is apparently even greater than my wish to address the inanity of his supporters.

As for my focus, guess what einstein there are other battles central to American culture than making sure a bunch of nutter Islamists aren’t on the prowl. The only difference between the pro-aborts and the terrorists is that the terrorists are more open about killing their victims. They shout “kill the infidels for in the name of Allah!”

The pro-aborts cause a 9/11’s worth of deaths every single solitary day. They protect people who rape children. For the pro-aborts, their fellow Americans are the kufar who must be culled if they oppose their agenda.

But yes, you focus on the Islamonazis who put their ideology out there for everyone to see. Pick the easy target that is over there, and ignore the home grown death cult we have here. It isn’t just about Roe v. Wade jihadwatcher. Maybe you don’t care what America is like if we’re saved from the Islamonazis. As for me, I don’t want America to descend into an immoral hellhole. The Islamonazis can’t touch until our “American Empire” falls from within. The pro-aborts are hastening that inward degradation. Oh, and fancy that, most of the pro-aborts are the same Islamonazi hugging Democrats. Abortion and other life issues are the domestic side of the culture war. Anyone can whine about how horrible and backwards the terrorists are. I’m more interested in the moral decay going on in America, I already know the Islamic world is about thirteen centuries behind the rest of us. Go ahead jihadwatcher, sell the soul that makes America great, just make sure we aren’t taken over by Islamonazis.

BKennedy on July 20, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Did you just say the only choice we have is fred? or Hillary?

…And for my friend Entelechy, his vacuousness. (love ya babe ;-) )

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 8:18 AM

No, I meant the state of our country and what would happen if it would continue to decline at this rate. I can think of others to lead it, though not Hillary. I’m so sick of Bush/Clinton and myriad others are too, or should be.

Love you too – can’t help myself. You are in your own way harmless and really a good chap. Whaterver makes you happy is your libertarian right. In the end we’ll sip that drink and laugh/cry over it. Regards,

Entelechy on July 20, 2007 at 5:09 PM

The pro-aborts cause a 9/11’s worth of deaths every single solitary day. The only difference between the pro-aborts and the terrorists is that the terrorists are more open about killing their victims.

Really. Is that the only difference? You just exposed your dementia. You just made a moral equivalence between those who support abortion rights and those that fly planes into buildings. Bravo. That’s like the leftists who compare Bush to Hitler, or Bush to bin Laden. Moral equivalence that totally distorts their, and your, view of reality.

I was right. Therein lies your hatred for Fred. He is not anti-abortion enough for you. The war for America’s culture is in preserving our history, our schools, our institutions from PC madness and in securing the border and closing down immigration routes, especially from muslim countries. That is what the average conservative cares about. That’s what’s important. That is how you preserve America.

Exit question:

If Hillary was anti-abortion, and the conservative candidate was pro-choice like Rudy, would you vote democrat in 2008?

BTW, if you really hate abortion so much, vote democrat. Once this country becomes sharia-compliant, I can assure you, no more abortions. Do you have a soft spot in your heart for the terrorists now? Maybe just a bit? They have similar ideas about cleaning up America.

jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 5:29 PM

No, I meant the state of our country and what would happen if it would continue to decline at this rate. I can think of others to lead it, though not Hillary. I’m so sick of Bush/Clinton and myriad others are too, or should be.

Love you too – can’t help myself. You are in your own way harmless and really a good chap. Whaterver makes you happy is your libertarian right. In the end we’ll sip that drink and laugh/cry over it. Regards,

Entelechy on July 20, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Oh yeah, I agree totally! The Bush/Clinton dynasty has gone on long enough. I’d like to see a candidate come forth that will take the lead on something that is important to all Americans. Bush had that with the war, but screwed it up. Now we have a situation in Iraq that has polarized this country. What happened? It surly wasn’t one party or the other. I can see plenty enough blame to go around.

So, who is the guy? I don’t know, but I sure as heck know I don’t want Hillary. I could deal with another Bush-type for 4 more years if it meant nominating him because he can beat Hillary.

And you know what? The biggest obstacle in the general election wont be Hillary. It will be the Clinton smear machine. That is why, in my honest opinion, we, the conservatives need the cleanest candidate possible. That is my main focus is to vet every candidate until we have “Mr. Clean” left standing. If we lose after that, well, I can live with that, but to have us nominate a guy just to see the Clinton’s dig up some dirt on him and lose the election, well, that would be just embarrassing.

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Are you assuming that Corallo attributed a comment to freddie boy that freddie boy never said even when Corallo SAID he talked to freddie boy and freddie boy said “it never happened”?

You apparently parse Corallo’s statement differently than I do.

Here are the quotes as reported:

“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.”

I parse the last phrase as “(that) says it didn’t happen”, as in “all of these things indicate it didn’t happen”.

You apparently parse the last phrase as “(Thompson) says it didn’t happen”. But as others have pointed out, it doesn’t really make any sense at all for someone to say they have no recollection of something and then immediately say it DIDN’T happen.

One is properly qualified and allows for the possibility of misrecollection. The other is an absolute categorical declaration. The two statements don’t really belong together, as I see it.

That’s why it makes more sense to me to parse the set of telephone interview quotes as Corallo laying out what he is claiming as the bullet points which all make the case that it didn’t happen.

It certainly doesn’t help matters that he’s stone-cold factually wrong on his assertions in those bullet points, and that his case that “it didn’t happen” is therefore completely false, but that still doesn’t tell me straight-out whether Thompson himself ever actually said the categorical “it didn’t happen”.

I want to hear from Fred himself whether he told Corallo that. Corallo has shown himself to be unreliable enough when it comes to make factually wrong absolute statements that I don’t treat one phrase in that pile of factually-wrong assertions as the unimpeachable gospel truth.

If Fred actually told Corallo that it didn’t happen (as a categorical), he falls several notches for me. That would seem rather inconsistent with everything else Fred has done in this respect, so I doubt that it happened.

If, in reality, Fred made a comment to Corallo more along the lines of “I don’t remember it happening, I’ve asked Sununu and he doesn’t remember it either… in fact, he said he’s sure it didn’t happen, so I don’t think it happened”, and Corallo turned that into what he said in his phone interview, then we’ve got nothing more than what we knew already:

That Corallo is a complete bonehead.

Barry Kearns on July 20, 2007 at 5:40 PM

1) McCain/Feingold
2) His flat denial of the lobbying in 1991 is disturbing.
3) His flip-flop on pro-choice/pro-abortion. And not so much the position, but the dishonesty about the switch.
4) No real experience or record of accomplishments

1)Campaign finance reform. Yes, a big issue with Joe Six Pack.
2) Disturbing to whom?
3) Ah yes, a flipflop on abortion. Nobody does that these days
4) Even better. Little to attack him on

Don’t forget…

5) His red pick up truck is not his daily driver

If you want a clean candidate, they don’t come much cleaner than Fred.

jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 5:44 PM

csdeven, no more Bush/Clinton for a long time. The populace is tired of them for now. Period.

To clarify the “decline” – I meant the state of political discourse and Wash. D.C. idiots children, on both sides.

On your other point – there is no such person around. People are fallible. To look for perfection is not realistic. I stated before what matters the most. The rest is totally insignificant in relational terms.

Entelechy on July 20, 2007 at 5:45 PM

But yes, you focus on the Islamonazis who put their ideology out there for everyone to see. Pick the easy target that is over there, and ignore the home grown death cult we have here. It isn’t just about Roe v. Wade jihadwatcher. Maybe you don’t care what America is like if we’re saved from the Islamonazis. As for me, I don’t want America to descend into an immoral hellhole. The Islamonazis can’t touch until our “American Empire” falls from within. The pro-aborts are hastening that inward degradation. Oh, and fancy that, most of the pro-aborts are the same Islamonazi hugging Democrats. Abortion and other life issues are the domestic side of the culture war. Anyone can whine about how horrible and backwards the terrorists are. I’m more interested in the moral decay going on in America, I already know the Islamic world is about thirteen centuries behind the rest of us. Go ahead jihadwatcher, sell the soul that makes America great, just make sure we aren’t taken over by Islamonazis.

Sure, because we all know that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

The problem with rabid one-issue voters is that they take on the same ideological methodology that the islamic terrorists use: That anyone who is not ideologically pure enough for them, even when they are 95% aligned on everything else, must be attacked.

It leads (ironically enough) to far too many cases of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Ideological witch-hunts based on “not pure enough” standards are not going to substantially improve the world today.

Barry Kearns on July 20, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Really. Is that the only difference? You just exposed your dementia. You just made a moral equivalence between those who support abortion rights and those that fly planes into buildings. Bravo. That’s like the leftists who compare Bush to Hitler, or Bush to bin Laden. Moral equivalence that totally distorts their, and your, view of reality.

Three thousand five hundred and sixty (3,560) deaths. Daily.

Wrap your mind around that. That is enough to kill off a third of a small town. Every day. That number has been the same or more for over 17 years. A total death toll of over 40 million has ammassed. It is estimated that the black population is 75% of what it would have been without abortion affecting poor blacks so greatly. The Ku Klux Klan could never dream of killing as many blacks as Margaret Sanger’s ideological descendants have. And they got off scot free. See, killing black unborn babies is perfectly legal. Jihadwatcher refers to it as a right (as in abortion rights). If Hitler wanted to kill the Jews faster he would have invented abortion rights earlier (actually, Sanger had a lot of respect for the genocidal maniac).

Sleep jihadwatcher. Sleep comfortable in your bed. You are safe from terrorists so long as you live on American soil, at least until the Democrats force a surrender. Concern about abortion isn’t dementia, its reality.

Meanwhile, there are three thousand silent screams of those slaughtered today in the name of a right founded in “emanations and penumbras,” made available by organizations who protect child predators by covering up statutory rape in the name of “choice,” by organizations that want to “remove the stigma” of slaughtering human beings in the womb by profiting off of “I had an abortion” t-shirts, organizations who ignore the suffering of women who have been psychologically and physically destroyed by their abortion.

But tell me jihadwatcher, what do you find so neccesary about slaughtering a human being in the womb where you feel it must be protected as a right?

BKennedy on July 20, 2007 at 6:05 PM

Barry Kearns on July 20, 2007 at 5:40 PM

I have no problem with that and you’re right, fred? could easily clear this up himself.

Which reminds me that he could have cleared up the ever-changing announcement dates issue the same way.

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 6:06 PM

jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 5:44 PM

Why is it you fred?heads always talk in terms of the general election? Is it that hard for you to include in your calculations that fred? still has to win the primary?

Joe six-pack doesn’t vote in the primary. So yeah, CFR is a HUGE issue for freddie boy.

There are a lot of people disturbed by his flat denial of his lobbying in 1991. Have you not been paying attention to the many people just here on HA that have seriously backed up on their support of fred?.

Look, if you refuse to discuss honestly, what’s the point? I told you the issue with his abortion flip-flop was the lying in that video he did for the National Right to Life.

As others have pointed out, with everything being equal with flip-flops etc, why should were nominate a guy with zero experience?

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 6:15 PM

there is no such person around. People are fallible. To look for perfection is not realistic. I stated before what matters the most. The rest is totally insignificant in relational terms.

Entelechy on July 20, 2007 at 5:45 PM

“Mr. Clean” was meant in relative terms. Take the 10 we have, dig up every bit of dirt we can, and nominate the cleanest one with a realistic conservative agenda.

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 6:19 PM

I have no problem with that and you’re right, fred? could easily clear this up himself.

Which reminds me that he could have cleared up the ever-changing announcement dates issue the same way.

I see the “announcement date” dance as tied in very much with balancing the “free” publicity from the speculation in combination with the byzantine campaign finance reporting rules in place right now.

That being said, he did have something of a hand in that with CFR, and I’ll be wanting to hear some solid answers down the road explaining his reasoning behind his role (and hopefully an apology as well), and what he’ll push to do in order to fix it.

In the meantime, I understand the balancing act, and I see it (all taken together) as a savvy move. This election season started way too early, and keeping it close enough to the vest to avoid having to tip his hand early can be a smart move, and a definite money-saver. I like a guy who’ll save my campaign donation money instead of wasting it too early. Fiscally conservative… good stewardship of capital.

If I could put a bug in his ear, though, I’d recommend July over August or September. He’s running a very real risk of disillusioning some of those who are currently at the margins, and might lose them to other candidates if he doesn’t act soon enough. Lots of folks will write exactly one check… if it goes to someone else, that’s a direct loss to his bottom line.

It’s clear that he’s already a candidate, and he’s already starting to take flak for how close he is to stepping over the lines of the reporting rules. The marginal benefit of stretching it another month or two is probably less than the groundswell he’d get from acting sooner.

If it turns out that he’s deliberately waiting to dodge an upcoming debate, then he will fall SEVERAL notches in my book. Start mixing it up, already.

Pull the trigger, Fred, you’ve made your point. No need to slow-roll the hand, that’s just classless.

Barry Kearns on July 20, 2007 at 7:08 PM

More fred? = Less Newt =Buh Bye freddie boy?

Maybe! If people would prefer Newt over fred? because of his experience and MASSIVE proven conservative record, then they will drop fred? like a hot potato and wait for October.

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 10:44 PM

I was reminded of this little tidbit on another thread and it fits right in here…..

I just watched a video deriding every candidate for dropping Reagan’s name in speeches etc.

Well, I remember freds? appearance at the Lincoln Club in Orange County when he took credit for parts of a speech that Reagan gave. Of course there is no proof of that. And he didn’t stop there, he dropped Ahhnalds name and John Wayne’s also.

It starts about 3:20 into the vid. Make sure you have your puke bag with you, because it’s pandering vacuousness at it’s worst!

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 11:16 PM

Follow up to my last comment….the video deriding every other candidate was a pro fred? video! It’s message was that only fred? is like Reagan. Funny, I don’t remember Reagan taking credit for others speeches.

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM

I think its time the Fredheads role out the “Fred girls?”

Perhaps that will give him some “umff” to make up for his incoherent state of mind.

Fearing
Republicans
Exercising
Discretion

Run Mitt! Run!

Darnell Clayton on July 20, 2007 at 11:29 PM

Bkennedy, you’re an anti-abortion zealot, a moral equivalence nut that compares aborting a fetus the size of a finger nail to islamic terrorist murderers that actually murder real, fully-developed, sentient, conscious people. Actually, you think what goes on in America is worse than what goes on in Iraq or in Pakistan or anywhere else in the islamic world. After all, they only killed 3000 people once, but we Americans “kill” 3000 “people” every day, right? You would be happier at KOS, using that kind of calculus and moral equivalence.

Sorry, but to any normal person, that’s a little unhinged.

So far, I have yet to hear a good argument against Fred Thompson.

jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 11:37 PM

After all, they only killed 3000 people once, but we Americans “kill” 3000 “people” every day, right? You would be happier at KOS, using that kind of calculus and moral equivalence. jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 11:37 PM

A human life is equal to a human life. Size is irrelevant and so is self awareness. Newborns lack self awareness too yet they’re protected. We’ve all been learning about the Koran lately, why don’t you crack open your bible and learn what God has to say about the value of human life.

In the eyes of God a human life regardless of location and size has significance, purpose, and meaning.

Mojave Mark on July 21, 2007 at 1:40 AM

So far, I have yet to hear a good argument against Fred Thompson.

jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 11:37 PM

Well, well. Color us surprised!

There have been plenty of legitimate criticisms of fred?. And I don’t mean his wifes hotness factor or his change on abortion. Stuff like his flat denial of the 1991 lobbying he did for a pro-choice group. You already said it’s ok with you that fred? lies to us, so of course, you don’t view that as a good argument.

CFR is a huge problem for fred?, but you haven’t addressed that in this thread, so no one really knows why you don’t accept that as a legitimate argument against fred?.

fred? refuses to come clean on his abortion flip-flop. That speaks to his character, and again, you haven’t addressed that in this thread either, so no one knows why that isn’t a problem for you.

There are several other things I have issues with fred? over, and by themselves they are small, but when looked at in an overall sense, they reveal a pattern of behavior with fred? that he is desperately trying to hide.

csdeven on July 21, 2007 at 2:42 AM

jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 11:37 PM

jihadwatcher, I’m no zealot, but you’re just another eyes wide shut enabler of the pro-aborts. You’re the functional equivalent of the “moderate Muslim” who still thinks the kufar do not deserve to live unless they submit to your standards for defining who matters (their standard is “must be a Muslim). The kufar are the unborn and your standard is that they have to be sufficiently large enough to be detected by the naked eye.

Was Terri Shaivo sentient enough for jihadwatcher’s standards? How does jihadwatcher feel about Dr. Kevorkian? Was he an “agent of mercy” for convincing the weak to remove themselves from the population? Kevorkian and the pro-aborts ALL profit off of the idea human beings are disposable when they are inefficent/imperfect.

“Old and disabled? You are inefficent. Shall I terminate you (out of mercy)?” “Still in your mother’s womb? You are inefficent. You will be terminated. Resistance is futile. You were made and you can be destroyed.” How do you deal with the Scott Peterson disparity. Cases keep popping up where people who kill pregnant women are charged with two counts of murder. So what do you think jihadwatcher? Why is it out legal system thinks these human beings count when they’ve been murdered by anyone other than their mother. They either ARE human beings or AREN’T jihadwatcher, there isn’t a third way.

Enabling child predators is real. Culling the black population is real. All of it is done “safe and legal” by a non-right that you want protected.

I’ll ask again jihadwatcher since you obviously didn’t read it the first time.

What do you find so neccesary about slaughtering a human being in the womb where you feel it must be protected as a right?

BKennedy on July 21, 2007 at 4:30 AM

What do you find so neccesary about slaughtering a human being in the womb where you feel it must be protected as a right?
BKennedy on July 21, 2007 at 4:30 AM

It seems that he has a single issue focus. That being killing jihadists. That’s cool, but we as Americans have to make this country something worth fighting the jihadists for. That means protecting the unborn to the extent it is possible and not trying to make it an either or issue.

He is supporting the murder of babies and the killing of islamo fascists.
You are supporting the protection of babies and the killing of islamo fasists.

You hold the moral high ground.

csdeven on July 21, 2007 at 8:35 AM

Well, at least we can rest easy knowing that Republicans are all marching in lockstep. :)

Merovign on July 21, 2007 at 4:54 PM

At the risk of making this a debate on abortion, let me say that I do not equate a human life with a fetus. Not even close. To do so, is dogma, which everyone is entitled to, but surely can not be the basis for law for everyone else.

A cat or a dog is much more sentient, developed both physically and mentally than a tiny fetus, yet we kill them when we don’t need them, we cage them, we use them in nazi-style experiments, and we do so by the millions. Where’s your outrage at that suffering? Where’s your compassion for that? Cows and pigs? We inhumanely breed and slaughter them by the tens of millions just for meat that none of us really needs to eat, except for its taste. Then we have millions of children both into starvation and war, or born into bad familes, destined to suffer and die simply because birth control was not used.

To be morally righteous about a few cells of totally unaware throbing protoplasm, when you care not for the real suffering both human and animals, not in the womb but already born, that no election, or candidate, ever addresses, is morally and intellectually bankrupt. But then, to be opposed to stem cell research that can cure disease wile killing nothing, is of course, the logical extension of that illogical dogma. Even a stem cell raises the ire of an anti-abortionist, just like a cartoon raises the ire of an islamist.

So really, I find that anti-abortionists are not outraged because of any real suffering of sentient entities. There is none. It is not a sense of compassion that outrageous them. They are outraged merely at a concept. Just like the muslims are outraged at concepts that offend them, but not outraged at the real human misery around them. For that they have no compassion.

jihadwatcher on July 21, 2007 at 7:36 PM

At the risk of making this a debate on abortion, let me say that I do not equate a human life with a fetus.

Then what IS IT jihadwatcher? Its obviously alive, and obviously human. Otherwise there would be no need for abortion. Nonliving beings do not grow and emerge nine months later as human babies.

Not even close. To do so, is dogma, which everyone is entitled to, but surely can not be the basis for law for everyone else.

You’re right, a law which says it is wrong to slaugter human beings in the womb cannot be applied universally because… uh, because jihadwatcher doesn’t think the unborn count. Counting the unborn is subscribing to a dogma jihadwatcher cannot accept. Jihadwatcher doesn’t accept Islamist dogma either, which is fine for him. Unlike islamists nutters though, the unborn are completely innocent, and opposing their universal right to live is just as dangerous to the American culture as supporting a terrorist’s right to kill in the name of Allah.

And don’t even go down the animal rights warpath jihadwatcher (seriously, incorporating PETA’s line? What kind of fool do you take me for?). Animals are not and can never be human beings, and there are many, many standards for treatment that must be followed regarding experiments. We aren’t cooking dogs in ovens (well, maybe the chinese or filipinos, but they kill them first).

To be morally righteous about a few cells of totally unaware throbing protoplasm

You know, its funny how the pro-aborts started with your “just a few cells of throbbing protoplasm” until they built it up to partial birth abortion. Do tell me jihadwatcher, how did the slope get so slippery? Probably because it isn’t zealotry on my part, the pro-aborts really DO think human life that doesn’t meet their arbitrary standard is disposable.

when you care not for the real suffering both human and animals, not in the womb but already born,

Did you rip this one from plannedparenthood.org? Pro-lifers are the ones who overwhelmingly create all-volunteer centers to help the born and the unborn in need. It is Planned Parenthood and others like them that run a multi-million dollar abortion industry. They have a compelling financial interest in making sure nothing gets in the way of their operations.

that no election, or candidate, ever addresses, is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Funny, I remember A LOT of wailing and gnashing of teeth by the likes of NARAL and NOW about the Roberts and Alito nominations. Can we then infer you were asleep during that process?

So really, I find that anti-abortionists are not outraged because of any real suffering of sentient entities.

So then I suppose the girls who are raped by the child predators Planned Parenthood protects aren’t “sentient entities,” nor are the the thousands upon thousands of women that regret their abortions and suffer stress over it for the rest of their life, or the women whose fertility is destroyed by the invasive, unnatural procedure. Or the omen who die from botched abortions. Guess those aren’t “sentient beings” to jihadwatcher, probably because jihadwatcher gets all his information from trusted sources like “what is a golden shower?” teenwire and their parent organization Planned Parenthood.

I’d recommend not continuing a discussion in which you are hopelessly uninformed and outgunned jihadwatcher. If you really think someone’s a one-issue voter, why on earth would you challenge them on their supposed area of expertise? Seriously jihadwatcher, I’m in solidarity with you in taking on the Islamist threat, but only a fool employs a frontal assault against the storngest wall of a fortress.

BKennedy on July 21, 2007 at 8:55 PM

jihadwatcher on July 21, 2007 at 7:36 PM

BKennedy on July 21, 2007 at 8:55 PM

Terms like embryo, fetus, etc. get used a lot without regard to what they actually mean. jihadwatcher, the “few cells of totally unaware throbing protoplasm” you speak of is actually the early stages of embryonic development, lasting a couple of weeks at most, and the embryonic stem cells are actually harvested from these at less than one week after fertilization. The term “fetus” is only used beginning with the ninth week of development, at which point the major organ systems are all in place, and continue to develop until birth. Viability currently starts at about 23 weeks, but it is likely that this will get pushed back further as medical technology progresses.

There are many who use the term “life begins at conception” to oppose any form of abortion and some forms of birth control, and while this is technically true, and the embryo is “human” in the sense that it is made up of human cells, it is most definately not the same as the fetus will have developed just a couple of short months later.

Big S on July 21, 2007 at 9:43 PM

All of you aborto-centrists in here need to think carefully about dumping Fred Thompson as a viable candidtate, unless you want to be sitting in front of your TV’s on a cold January morning, watching the Hildebeast being sworn in as tha 44th POTUS.

You hard-core zealots are one of the groups that helped the dims re-gain control of congress in the last election.

Get over yourselves. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate.

Dave R. on July 22, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Dave R. on July 22, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Yeah, there are a few here who are single issue abortion voters. But there haven’t been any in this thread. The main problem with fred? is that he is a fake and a liar.

csdeven on July 22, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Then what IS IT jihadwatcher? Its obviously alive, and obviously human.

Yes, it is just as much alive as the bacteria in my stomach. But it is not a human. It is part of a human, just like the bacteria is apart of me. The fact that you would equate those cells with a human being, and therefore equate abortion with murder, or more absurd yet, equate abortion with terrorism, says it all. Anti-abortionists can not be reasoned with. They are so ideologically and emotionally invested in that absurd equivalence that they are blind to reason.

Pro-lifers are the ones who overwhelmingly create all-volunteer centers to help the born and the unborn in need.

Nonsense. What do the “pro-lifers” do about the millions of kids born to unfit single mothers? Do they raise them? Do they raise 1% of them? No, those kids eventually grow up and enter our welfare system, our prison system, or the morque. What about the 30,000 kids that die of malnutrition everyday in the third world, kids that were not planned? Do the “pro-lifers” raise those kids? Do they even care? Talk about dispensible humanity. And those kids are not cells. They are the real deal.

Admit it. This is not about protecting “life” at all. That is a euphemism. This is about a quasi-religious ideology that forbids not just abortion on dogmatic grounds, but even using stem cells to cure disease. Equate that with the mandate to “protect life”?

I believe it is immoral to use abortion as a form of birth control but only because women shouldn’t be resorting to medical procedures to cover up their irresponsible sexual proclivities. They should have used birth control. But then again, most anti-abortionists are opposed to birth control as well. So go figure.

jihadwatcher on July 22, 2007 at 8:28 PM

Nonsense. What do the “pro-lifers” do about the millions of kids born to unfit single mothers? Do they raise them? Do they raise 1% of them? No, those kids eventually grow up and enter our welfare system, our prison system, or the morque. What about the 30,000 kids that die of malnutrition everyday in the third world, kids that were not planned? Do the “pro-lifers” raise those kids? Do they even care? Talk about dispensible humanity. And those kids are not cells. They are the real deal.

First: Unsupported straw-men and Red herrings.

Second: Catholic Charities. You’ve heard of them right? You know, the ministry that goes around to every despotic hellhole in the world and helps the poor and suffering, running completely off the donations of the charitable?

Third: Perhaps you also missed the stem-cell debate. My issue is with the embryonic stem cells, which have caused no scientific advances. The only thing they’ve done is killed off a bunch of embryos on a theory that didn’t work. Adult stem cells don’t require the destruction of a human embryo to be obtained, and have already been used in many modern scientific advances. Seriously jihadwatcher, if the left started opposing the Islamofascists would you change your party? You’ve thus far parrotted every left-wing screed I’ve ever heard used against pro-lifers, including the laughable “you don’t support science!” and “you haven’t adopted every single solitary suffering child in the world!”

The equivalent on the issue jihadwatcher understands would be:

“You don’t support religious tolerance! and How many jihadis have you killed? Do you personally fight them? Not even 1%? No, those moderate muslims are just regular people who don’t support extreme Islam. What about the Muslims who suffer racial profiling at airports! Do you want them to suffer? Do you even care? Talk about fighting Islamofascism. You don’t fight jihadis at all. You aren’t the real deal.

Admit it. This is not about fighting islamofascism at all. This is about hating the brown people, and even supporting racial profiling. Equate that with a desire to fight Islamofascism?”

If you want to continue to live in ignorance jihadwatcher, that is your choice. Next time don’t show up to a dogfight with a hang glider.

Oh, and this particular branch-off discussion has little or nothing to do with Fred or his non-candidacy. The whole damn thing started when our brilliant contributor jihadwatcher had the gall to call me a one-issue voter, assumed I didn’t support Fred because of his stance on that one issue, and then attacked me for it by assaulting the issue he thinks I know the most about it.

Fred isn’t that important to any discussion of this nature (or most discussions at all). He used to lobby for pro-choice groups, then he said he was always pro-life, then he retracted it. Fred probably is pro-life to the core, it’s just that his needless cover-up shows him for the inexperienced fool he is. For anyone who bothered to listen instead of bloviate and make accusations, I said I’d vote for Fred if he won the primary. However, I want a better, more experienced man who could win the general to win the primary.

BKennedy on July 23, 2007 at 7:45 AM

Fred probably is pro-life to the core, it’s just that his needless cover-up shows him for the inexperienced fool he is.

Yeah, but the groupies aren’t voting for fred?. They are voting for some character he played on a TV show he was on. I hear that guy was totally hip and righteous!

csdeven on July 23, 2007 at 9:43 AM

More evidence that fred? at his core is, and will always be an arm twisting lobbyist.

csdeven on July 23, 2007 at 9:48 AM

If Rudy is the tough mayor of New York, Fred is the guy they would hire to play Rudy on TV.”

Baahahahahaahhahahahhaha!!!

csdeven on July 23, 2007 at 10:00 AM

…The main problem with fred? is that he is a fake and a liar.

csdeven on July 22, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Really? News to me. I think many conservatives are allowing themselves to be manipulated by the liberal MSM, in this case the shamelessly Marxist LA Times, just like they did with the Foley non-scandal just prior to the last mid term election.

Fred is the only true conservative who can win in the South. Romney has no chance here.

Dave R. on July 23, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Dave R. on July 23, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Am I surprised that it’s news to a fred?head that fred? is a fake and a liar? Nope. Most of you ignore his history in favor of a perception he has manufactured out of thin air.

csdeven on July 23, 2007 at 11:37 AM