Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


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
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

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.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 6

I’m not asking you to. All I’m saying is that this shouldn’t be blown over. Again, if it was another candidate (Rudy, Romney, etc.), it would be the slam train in the comment section.

I highly doubt that Romney would be getting slammed. The guy is so far behind in the polls that I would be suprised if ANYONE commented about it.

Vaporman87 on July 19, 2007 at 10:00 AM

You people better get 4 years of Billary because you don’t have the good sense to observe the 11th Commandment over minor issue when the free of the World may hang in the balance. You’re all putty in the MSM’s hands. People better get their heads around that fact.

Oh, please. People sit in here everyday and bash away at every other Republican candidate but as soon as Fred gets called on his flat out lying we are sheeple of the MSM. That’s absurd. Rudy is a RINO. Mitt is a flip flopper. Fred is Zeus.

Just because you think Fred is the only human who can save us from Hillary, excuse me if I don’t fall in line. It’s not my fault if Fred has feet of clay and some of us, unlike many who bought into the PR that Fred was some conservative god, some of us knew the truth.

When this broke the dominant theme was this was a problem but if it was true then show us the billing records. Shown.

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 10:00 AM

I know plenty of good pro-lifers, but I’ll be so mad at them if they throw fred overboard because of 22 hours of consulting.

WhoKnew on July 19, 2007 at 10:01 AM

The point isn’t the time. The point is that they weren’t honest about it.

Allahpundit on July 19, 2007 at 8:56 AM

It sounds more like they were stupid about it.

Harpoon on July 19, 2007 at 10:02 AM

I. Give. Up.

speed911 on July 19, 2007 at 10:02 AM

The Ron Paul campaign would never lie to the American people.

Hahahaha. It’s hard enough to have an honest discussion with Fredheads, I don’t even want to try with Paulites.

Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 10:02 AM

20 hours? C’mon! I’m a consultant myself. 20 hours is nothing! He wouldn’t even have time to read, digest and comment on a brief in 20 hours. I’m anti-abortion myself but this is a lot about not much…

sabbott on July 19, 2007 at 8:53 AM

My experience also. I would be hard pressed to remember a job I worked on in the early 1990s where I only billed 20 hours. I have worked on more than 300 projects since then.

Mallard T. Drake on July 19, 2007 at 10:03 AM

Looks like the only candidate that is going to make it is the one with the glowing light above their head. When you all find him send me his name will ya?

Limerick on July 19, 2007 at 10:06 AM

Smooth. Real Smooth, guys. I don’t know if this is something that can be explained by incompetence or shiftiness. Either way, its not good for Fred. I wonder if this was him trying to duck the issue or that his staff is still in disarray.

I think its a crapshoot, as there is evidence for either scenario (how many different dates has his staff given for announcement?). In any event, Fred needs to show he can get things running in order, because if he can’t get his campaign in order, how the hell is he supposed to be the leader of a country of 300 million people, the biggest military power and economy, not to mention the Jihadist bipedal roaches who are itching to take a swipe at The Great Satan at any opportunity.

Again, I like Fred, and a marginal supporter of him(I’ve yet to commit definitively), but he needs to bring his A game, or I’ll fallback and go with Rudy. I can handle criticism of Fred, and this is absolutely fair. I think the people who are dismissing this out of hand need to rethink it, if you don’t seize the story and try and work it out, the media will do it for you, and you don’t want that, unless you have a pathological hatred of the guy like csdeven.

Bad Candy on July 19, 2007 at 10:08 AM

So 15 years ago Fred spent 3.3 hours, out of the 2000 work hours that year, lobbying somebody, and he doesn’t even remember. It’s inconceivable!

15 years ago I was still married to my first wife but I think I’ve managed to repress all those memories successfully.

Who won the superbowl 15 years ago, or the world series? We DO have a voting record for Fred and pro-life and it’s a good one. His voting record just doesn’t fit the action line for the dino-media.

Mojave Mark on July 19, 2007 at 10:08 AM

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 9:57 AM

You don’t want an explanation. You called the man a liar. In you zeal to support a particular candidate you’ve decided it’s a good idea to assume the worst in another any try to hurt him. No benefit of the doubt. No waiting for more information. Right for the throat w/o any thought of what long term affect that may have on all of us.

I am willing to give them all the benefit of any doubt (except Ron Paul LOL) and I’m not going to do anything to damage any one of them because I don’t want to think I played even the tiniest role in electing a President who could cause this country a great deal of harm. It’s too important.

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 10:09 AM

The Ron Paul campaign would never lie to the American people.

Hoodlumman on July 19, 2007 at 9:56 AM

And their tinfoil hats are so stylish.

Kowboy on July 19, 2007 at 10:09 AM

So 15 years ago Fred spent 3.3 hours, out of the 2000 work hours that year, lobbying somebody, and he doesn’t even remember. It’s inconceivable!

This isn’t about the work Fred may have done 15 years ago. I’m irritated that his campaign nuanced the truth 11 days ago.

Slublog on July 19, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Vaporman87 on July 19, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Hasn’t stopped them for trying to play on the Mormon aspect, thinking Republicans won’t like it.

Mallard T. Drake on July 19, 2007 at 10:03 AM

Would you flatly deny it? Oh, and I think I’m going to get this response on my business cards: When you’re trying to appeal to Christian Conservatives, it’s important to remember if you’ve ever lobbied for an abortion group.

Mojave Mark on July 19, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Like I said. Business card. It’s not the fact that he lobbied for the group. It’s the fact he flatly denied it, when the records show he did. He didn’t say he couldn’t remember, or he didn’t think so. His campaign denied it.

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 10:12 AM

Personally I find this more alarming.

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, a proponent of abortion rights, said Wednesday he would not use a judicial nominee’s stand on the issue or the landmark Supreme Court decision as a litmus test.

wryteacher on July 19, 2007 at 10:13 AM

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 10:09 AM

I do want an explanation. I’ve said countless times that I’m not against voting for the man. Am I committed to Rudy right now? Yes. Is it permanent? No.

Don’t give me that about benefit of the doubt. Rarely will another candidate get that treatment. Fred’s innocent until proven guilty. The others are guilty until proven innocent

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 10:15 AM

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t support any one candidate. I support them all. Got that? All of them (except Ron Paul). I support them all because the alternative is unthinkable at this point in history. And I’ll be darned if I am going to help the Left damage any Republican candidate.

And you are right, there are lot’s of people here on HA who take great pleasure in bashing each of the candidates and enjoy stoking the division among the faiths. Just because the do it doesn’t make it right or helpful.

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, a proponent of abortion rights, said Wednesday he would not use a judicial nominee’s stand on the issue or the landmark Supreme Court decision as a litmus test.

I’m fine with that. Abortion isn’t my number one issue. I’m more concerned if the justices are going to throw out cases against Gitmo detainees, and how they’ll rule on wiretapping.

And before you accuse me of having a double standard, I’ve told you I have no problem with the fact Fred worked for the group. I have an issue with the fact he said he didn’t, but it turns out he did.

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 10:18 AM

All of them (except Ron Paul).

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 10:18 AM

LOL.

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 10:19 AM

Abortion—the issue that never goes away. Abortion—the issue that’s never going to be resolved because it can’t be except on paper and that’s not resolution. Abortion—the issue that makes a great many people go a little glassy eyed when it’s mentioned. Abortion—no matter what your opinion is, let’s move on.

jeanie on July 19, 2007 at 10:20 AM

Abortion isn’t my big issue either. Security, spending and smashing the Nanny State are.

Bad Candy on July 19, 2007 at 10:21 AM

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 10:15 AM

And I’d be perfectly happy with Rudy but just because you support him doesn’t mean you have to try to hurt the other candidates. Just because we have other people here that bash Rudy doesn’t mean you are obliged to bash the others. It’s counterproductive to the MAIN goal which is keeping a Democrat out of that Office. We all have to wake up and grow up and join in common cause. United we stand, divided we fall.

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 10:24 AM

I don’t see any reason to doubt him if he says he can’t remember 19 hours from fifteen years ago. I guess I don’t see the big deal.

frankj on July 19, 2007 at 10:24 AM

jeanie on July 19, 2007 at 10:20 AM

Bad Candy on July 19, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Right. The anger isn’t that Fred worked with the group. I wouldn’t care about that. It’s the fact he said he didn’t.

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 10:25 AM

It begs the question, what is the NYT so afraid of?

Fred might declare his candidacy.

Question: When will the NYT begin investigating and reporting in detail what the Democrat candidates were doing and saying 20 years ago?

They can start with the Dem front-runner. The one who hid law records, flipped off the Secret Service/FBI/CIA, fired career employees in the WH travel office and oh yeah, made a killing in the commodities market.

Get real folks. It’s NYT hit piece.

fogw on July 19, 2007 at 10:28 AM

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 10:24 AM

First, I’m not trying to bash Fred. I’ve said numerous times in this thread that I don’t have an issue with the fact he worked with an abortion group. I also said I’m not permanently with Rudy, and that I’d vote for Fred. I also said all I’m looking for is an explanation – nothing else.

Let’s be honest. It’s not 1 or 2 people who bash Rudy when bad news comes out about him. For a while, it was followed by “Fred!” or “Rudy’s a RINO”, or something similar. I had to put up with that. Yet, I simply say that Fred shouldn’t have said he didn’t work for the group, if he did. And somehow that’s bashing him.

I don’t want him bashed. That’s why I want an explanation. He’s my number two guy right now. Why would I want to bash him? It would weaken the Republican front. What I’m saying is he needs to come forward, explain himself, and it will be over.

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 10:30 AM

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 10:18 AM

I’ll make you a deal. I won’t put words in your mouth if you don’t assume that some of us who have been pointing out the truth about Fred and taking monsterous amounts of crap for it are merely stooges for the MSM.

There is a primary campaign going on right now where we are supposed to examine the candidates and vote for the one we think best supports our values and points of view. Abortion is not a big issue for and it will only change once the court gets a conservative majority so arguing about who is mostest pro-life is kinda pointless.The question ought to be who is the most trustworthy and who has shown they understand the constitution.

I have known for a long time Fred’s true position on the abortion issue and have watched him try and nuance his way into a “pro-life all my life position”. I knew it was only a matter of time before this bit him. I also knew he was a strong supporter of McCain/Feingold which is not only unconstitutional, it has given rise to people like George Soros and his billion dollar 527 Democracy Alliance. If you don’t think that’s important, spend some time looking at Democracy Alliance, the people that make it up, the amount of money they are spreading around and the candidates and forums they support. You might start with Yearly Kos. Look at the groups who are sponsoring it, where they get their money and then look at the Dem candidates who are attending.

Fred and McCain have done more to help Dems get elected than my pointing out the hypocrisy of a Republican nominee ever will.

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 10:31 AM

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 10:25 AM

Its a big deal because there are a LOT of people, including some on this site, who have been LOOKING for a flaw in FRED! so they could tear him apart with it… the Liberal press is worried about him and will trumpet this out, while ignoring things like Hillary commiting PERJURY, or Obumas religious upbringing… or Rudis presiding over a sanctuary city…

This site, while conservative, has posted EVERY possible hit piece which has been written on Fred!, while pretty much ignoring the other candidates… it has become a microcosm of the MSM.

Well, if you look hard enough, you WILL find dirt on everyone… magnify that dirt to the exclusion of all else, and the MSM CAN destroy a politician.

Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 10:31 AM

Right. The anger isn’t that Fred worked with the group. I wouldn’t care about that. It’s the fact he said he didn’t.

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 10:25 AM

I don’t like the fact that he said he didn’t either. But, if he came out and said that he didn’t remember, all the evidence he had at the time said he didn’t, so he said he didn’t, but he was wrong, what would you say?

I’m not saying that’s what’s going to happen. I just know that in the past I have denied doing something because I couldn’t remember it, and then someone showed me proof that I did. I owned up to it, admitted I was wrong about it, and apologized.

So I guess what I’m asking is, could you accept that?

Kowboy on July 19, 2007 at 10:32 AM

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Agreed. Justices should not be chosen on the basis of their interpretation of a single 30 year old case. It’s likely that a number of cases we couldn’t even imagine now will be brought up in the next 30 years, and it’s important to have good judges who really know their way around the Constitution to deal with them.

Big S on July 19, 2007 at 10:32 AM

So I guess what I’m asking is, could you accept that?
Kowboy on July 19, 2007 at 10:32 AM

If he owned up to it, yes.

Slublog on July 19, 2007 at 10:33 AM

How about using a different word than LIE? LIE presupposes knowledge and intent to deceive. That requires the belief on the part of the listener that the speaker intended to deceive you.

I said it before, it’s a nonissue; a drop in the bucket of time that means very little. What an attorney does is confidential and attorney/client privilege can’t be waived by the attorney because he’s now running for president.

As far as the records go, now that it is “proven” by the NYT (and that still is an assumption; remember the National Guard Papers???) a flat denial was WRONG, but not necessarily a LIE as you all now want to call it.

I’ve never been wrong on any issue. Except for once when I thought I was wrong, but I really was right. :-)

Having heard the denial, then the change to not remembering, then the “proof” of 20 hours — 20 hours? Good Grief!! — I don’t come to a conclusion that someone lied. I come to the conclusion that they were WRONG.

Let’s see how this shakes out before strapping Fred! to the electric chair. Or is that too harsh?

Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 10:35 AM

I consider many issues either important or not-so-important, but abortion is the issue. Really.

No other issue distinguishes where a person’s values truly are. If you cannot defend helpless children, entitled to their God-given right to life and liberty, how can you be trusted with the other issues pressing this nation? The “life” issue is that important.

With that said, I think Fred is pro-life. This is all much ado about nothing.

Now, all of that said, I would just like to say that all of these petty fights about the top-tier candidates are getting old. I don’t understand you people. If you rant and rave about how you’re looking for that “real conservative,” why don’t you actually support someone like Tancredo?

“Because he’s not electable,” you say.

Fine then. Duncan Hunter? If we would just give him the time of day and help him gain some traction, he would be the best candidate of all of them. I don’t agree with this protectionist stances, but that’s minor compared to abortion, the WOT, etc, all of which Hunter performs in admirably.

Plus, his trade-stance will draw blue-dog votes from Ohio and Pennsylvania. And trust me, as an Ohio resident, I’m telling you that not appealing to the old manufacturing base could be disastrous. The GOP has collapsed internally here, and we need someone who can save victory from the jaws of defeat.

HYTEAndy on July 19, 2007 at 10:35 AM

I suppose Fred should probably throw in the towel. This is basically an impeachable offense if he’s President. Take your place in power murderbortion supporter Rudy. Enjoy the next 4 years Hillary! The office is yours! Yay! LOL.

Vaporman87 on July 19, 2007 at 9:44 AM

Well that pretty much proves the point doesn’t it? Clinton – how many times have I heard ‘it wasn’t’ about the sex, it was the lying to the American people’.

What Clinton did wasn’t wrong, so much as wrong timing: misinformation belongs before the primaries! Got it.

Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 10:37 AM

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 10:31 AM

You miss the point. The idea is why help the Left? Why feel the need to attack any of the candidates? Why not just support your candidate while avoiding bashing the others?

It’s unfortunate that so many people have a hard time seeing the big picture and are willing to help the other side in order to “prove” they were right. It’s like the Left hoping we lose in Iraq just to “prove” they were right all along. Their ego is so wrapped up in being right they can’t see the damage being “right” will cause.

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 10:37 AM

Kowboy on July 19, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Yes.

Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 10:31 AM

Right. Hit pieces. Like this one, where Allah writes that religious leaders are beginning to think Fred’s the right man for the job. And this one, where Allah tells Bush to leave Iran to Fred. Then of course, there’s the several posts Allah has devoted to pointing out that the mainstream media is trying to do a hit job on Fred. Or this one where Allah declares: “This makes two Times pieces in four days aimed detonating his conservative credentials. They’re sure looking to take him down early. Fear the Fred.”.

The hit pieces. Oh, the hit pieces.

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 10:41 AM

Amerpundit:”…the fact that he said he didn’t.”

You’re right. I’ll await his clarification—if it’s coming.

jeanie on July 19, 2007 at 10:41 AM

There is a primary campaign going on right now where we are supposed to examine the candidates and vote for the one we think best supports our values and points of view…The question ought to be who is the most trustworthy and who has shown they understand the constitution.
JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 10:31 AM

This is well said. I completely agree.

HYTEAndy on July 19, 2007 at 10:35 AM

Yes. I would like to see that myself.

Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 10:42 AM

spoke 22 times with Judith DeSarno

I have never had sexual relations spoken extensively with that woman Monica Lewinsky Judith DeSarno.

Big S on July 19, 2007 at 10:42 AM

Better:

I have never had sexual relations re-enacted a cowboy death scene for that woman Monica Lewinsky Judith DeSarno.

Big S on July 19, 2007 at 10:44 AM

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 10:37 AM

Because it’s not a matter of “helping the Left”. This is a discussion, where some people are saying Fred needs to give an explanation. People aren’t abandoning ship. If he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him. I may eventually even vote for him in the primary. Asking him for an explanation isn’t helping the Left.

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 10:45 AM

You miss the point.

No, actually I don’t. Did you seem McCain’s people sending out flyers in SC telling people not to vote for the cultist Romney? Did you notice Brownback’s team pouncing all over the Fred thing today?

How about Mrs Silky Pony saying Hillary wasn’t woman enough like her husband? How about Hillary and Silky attempting to push the other candidates out of the debates?

It’s unfortunate that some people don’t understand how elections are won. As they say, politics ain’t bean bag. And guess what, I ain’t doing the oppo research. What, you think if we ignore it somehow the Dems won’t notice? Yea, that ought to work.

Pointing out the flaws in candidates, even candidates on your own side, is a valid part of campaigning. I’m not going to ignore the obvious flaws of a Republican because 1) I want the best candidate and 2) I want to know what that person will do when they get into office.

Fred’s record so far is less than inspiring.

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 10:47 AM

Matt Damon!

Hoodlumman on July 19, 2007 at 10:47 AM

Only in Republican circles do I see the penchant for a “species to eat their young” type activity. I guess the good thing is…. it’s early enough to vett(sp?) everybody.
This upsets me for the reasons you have all stated…. Thompson did it, he didn’t own up to it. I’ve been supporting Duncan Hunter all this time but have been concerned I’m going to see another Bob Dole effort by Republicans. I have always said conservative values trump any political machinations but I am very concerned at this stage of the game. Oh and Kowboy? I could accept that.

MNDavenotPC on July 19, 2007 at 10:49 AM

You people better get 4 years of Billary because you don’t have the good sense to observe the 11th Commandment over minor issue when the free of the World may hang in the balance. You’re all putty in the MSM’s hands. People better get their heads around that fact.

I support whoever wins the nomination period because the alternative is unthinkable.

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 9:53 AM

Straw man argument.

Well, you who blindly believe that fred? is the ONLY candidate out there, better get used to at least 4 years of Hillary if you nominate a lying fake like fred? to run against her. Being too ignorant to proper vet your candidates will make the republican party look even stupider and inept than it already does. fred? is the worst possible person for the job. Period. We, as responsible conservatives need to get him out of the non-running so we can have a chance with an HONEST candidate, whoever that may be.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 10:52 AM

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 10:47 AM

Oh, I see. Others do it so you should too. have I got it right?

I want the Left to do it. It hurts them. Often badly. You’ll have to educate me on how the Right doing the same thing helps them in the end.

Try supporting your candidate in a positive way while avoiding bashing the others (Democrats excluded). This way, if your candidate does not win the primary you can support the winner with a clear conscience.

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 10:54 AM

Straw man argument.

Well, you who blindly believe that fred? is the ONLY candidate out there, better get used to at least 4 years of Hillary if you nominate a lying fake like fred? to run against her. Being too ignorant to proper vet your candidates will make the republican party look even stupider and inept than it already does. fred? is the worst possible person for the job. Period. We, as responsible conservatives need to get him out of the non-running so we can have a chance with an HONEST candidate, whoever that may be.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Fred can’t even vet himself.

Big S on July 19, 2007 at 10:55 AM

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 10:41 AM

And yet EVERY day these is some article, often TWO, about Fred! where detractors come in, and squawk. Where there are extremely vocal people who spend a lot of time and energy tearing down Fred!… even in the threads which were “supposed” to be positive.

This is the third or fourth Thread on this subject… and my point is that we are so busy talking about Fred! that information about truly heinous acts are slipping by.

Crap, there were even Fred! threads about someone the next day POSSIBLY putting out a hit piece… then another thread when it came out… double whammy….

I submit that if we spent as much time SUPPORTING candidates, as tearing down candidates, the conservative movement would be much better off.

Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 10:55 AM

…. so we can have a chance with an HONEST candidate, whoever that may be.

Dreamer. They’re politicians!

fogw on July 19, 2007 at 10:55 AM

Actually, I think Fred’s in more trouble with CFR than this boondoggle.

Nethicus on July 19, 2007 at 10:55 AM

Bad Candy on July 19, 2007 at 10:08 AM

hahaha

I was right, you were wrong. AND I was right MONTHS ago. He is a liar and a fake, and now you want to nuance your way out of it by attacking me.

You, are a coward. Too scared to admit your own failings and trying to shift it onto me.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 10:58 AM

amerpundit on July 19, 2007 at 10:45 AM

If you don’t think assuming the worst in one of “our” candidates and calling him a liar helps the Left then I guess we are no where near a meeting of the minds and one of us is in complete denial. Possibly me. Perhaps I misread these posts. When people said “Fred is a liar” I was supposed to insert “Fred need to explain this.”

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 10:59 AM

Rudy ftw. Fred can be the VP if he wants.

Dash on July 19, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Who won the superbowl 15 years ago, or the world series?
Mojave Mark on July 19, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Are you stupid?

Q: Who won the Superbowl 15 years ago?
A: Hell, I don’t know, but I look it up and get back to you.

Friggen moron.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:00 AM

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 10:54 AM

Look, I think your premise of positive press, positive support is a great thing. But we also have to be honest with ourselves about which candidates are dishonest with us and whether that matters to us.

One might say he needs to explain, except that he already did. He denied it (by staff) and then wrote an essay saying that past activities as a lawyer are irrelevant. That was not by mistake. It does us no service to call an average man a great man.

Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 11:01 AM

jeanie on July 19, 2007 at 10:20 AM

What about LYING jeanie? Is THAT an issue that should be ignored?

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:03 AM

I have a serious problem with candidates and officeholders who lie.

Unfortunately, they all seem to do it. But I still have a problem with it, and it certainly throws cold water on my enthusiasm for a candidate when he or she lies or “can’t remember” something. I would’ve remembered.

aero on July 19, 2007 at 11:03 AM

One might say he needs to explain, except that he already did. He denied it (by staff) and then wrote an essay saying that past activities as a lawyer are irrelevant. That was not by mistake. It does us no service to call an average man a great man.
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 11:01 AM

And it would have been so easy to get this out of the way. Thompson could have said “As a employee of an organization, I did this lobbying. Sometimes you’ve just got to do what the boss tells you to do, and this was one of those times.” It’s true, people can relate to it and most importantly, it puts him in control of a potentially damaging story.

Slublog on July 19, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Interesting revelation here, at least for me, since I did some digging to find out what the records show:

Posted By Rob on Say Anything, July 18, 2007 at 07:05 pm (Excerpt):

Quote
I’m sure that this will be painted as a bombshell revelation, given that Thompson is the nominee-apparent for the GOP, but I’m not quite sure it’s as explosive as advertised.

First, I’m told that the records detail Thompson doing about 19 hours of work for this client over the course of 14 months, and all of that work consisted of Thompson finding out information about the positions certain politicians had and sharing what he knew of the elder Bush’s administration’s stance on abortion. These records do not detail any lobby work done specifically with Senator Sununu.

Second, Thompson has been consistent in his response to this. He has denied ever lobbying Sununu, and he says he doesn’t remember (but doesn’t deny) doing any work on behalf of this client. Given that this work took place 16 years ago, it’s not unreasonable to think that Thompson doesn’t remember this.

Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 11:01 AM

So tell me… besides jokingly, who has called Fred! a great man??? Are you subscribing, as others have, that some of our support for Fred! is Man Love? Like the MSM, and some on this site has been saying (Fred groupies?).

Hes a man… who happens to say he believes what I believe much closer than the other candidates out there.

Perfect? no one said so… except his detractors… so they could more easily tear him down.

EVERY POLITICIAN LIES!!! Every politician has skeletons in his closet… so ya pick the one with the LEAST baggage.

Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Slublog on July 19, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Yep, and he could have even done it with one of his whimsical lines – you do what the silverback says, or big dog gotta eat, or whatever.

But dishonest=bad; pretending that dishonesty doesn’t matter=bad. You get what you pay for.

Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 11:09 AM

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Are you stupid?

Q: Who won the Superbowl 15 years ago?
A: Hell, I don’t know, but I look it up and get back to you.

Friggen moron.

Actually you’re the one who looks pretty stupid, Fred said right from the begining that he didn’t remember, one of his staff said it never happened. You claimed that Fred was a liar, you have yet to prove that. His staff member may not have known or might have been lying, neither of which has been proven. In either case this is still a non-issue.

doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 11:10 AM

Where there are extremely vocal people who spend a lot of time and energy tearing down Fred!… even in the threads which were “supposed” to be positive.
Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 10:55 AM

Which is the balance to those who blindly lap up all of freds? lies.

Fair and balanced. The groupies can’t abide it, but the rest of us cherish it.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:12 AM

Who the hell cares. At least the man had a job.

Timber Wolf on July 19, 2007 at 11:12 AM

Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 11:07 AM

‘Great man’ is my own construction; apologies for confusion. I merely took the idea that he is the most conservative, and most representative, and harks most to the foundation, ie a Federalist, and made that concise – great man.

I have never equated Fred’s support with man-love, nor will I be so base.

It maybe true that every politician lies. That is not cause for me to excuse it without objection.

Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Matt Damon!

Matt Damon!

seejanemom on July 19, 2007 at 11:14 AM

I think Fred has some explaining to do. I tend to think it’s an error of omission, not commission, but we’ll see. I also tend to consider the source – the NYT, for crying out loud.

Still, this happened what, 16 years ago. His voting record tells a different story.

We’ll see.

jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Here is my challenge again, please name me a candidate who has not lied. Name me one that has not been accused of lying.

I am no fan of Fred, don’t even care if he announces, never seen Law and Order, I don’t care about him. What is funny is people who pick and choose antedotes and repeat and repeat them and drone on and on, lose credibility when something of an issue is raised. Kind of like the kid who says “I told you so” after telling you a hundred different things. Twenty or thirty (can’t remember) I was not pro-life, and I spent time argueing with my friends (can’t remember how many hours).
The funny part, is the most vocal on this thread was caught in a big lie and never would admit it. Maybe he knows more about the subject than most.

Rudy, the most honest man running?
Mitt, the most honest man running?
McCain the most honest man running?
Hillary the most honest man woman running?
Obama the most honest man woman man running?
Edwards the most honest wife running?

Give me the names of your most honest candidate, lets see if we can find some descrepancies in their life.

right2bright on July 19, 2007 at 11:16 AM

If you don’t think assuming the worst in one of “our” candidates and calling him a liar helps the Left then I guess we are no where near a meeting of the minds and one of us is in complete denial.
TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 10:59 AM

Our candidates aren’t running against the left yet. So, yeah, you are in denial.

If we, conservatives, follow your lead and stick our heads up our a$$es about any candidates lies and nominate him, what in goodness name makes you think the Clinton smear machine wont find it out and use it during the general election? When that happens, we’ll be wishing we had nominated someone that didn’t have skeletons in their closet.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Let’s review:

Openly pro-choice = “I can’t in good conscience vote for Rudy.”

Lobbied for abortionists, but has a Southern accent = “Jesus would forgive Fred, and so should I.”

It seems that you social cons make a lot of excuses for Good Ol’ Boys.

Enrique on July 19, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 11:13 AM

It maybe true that every politician lies. That is not cause for me to excuse it without objection.

Nor should it, but let us remember Fred never claimed he didn’t do it, he said he didn’t remember, can you prove that he did in fact remember and lied about remembering? No I didn’t think so. So what we have in reality is someone on Fred’s staff claiming Fred never lobbied for a pro-abortion group, and Fred coming out right after that and making a correction to what his staff member said by saying I dont remember whether I did or not.

doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 11:19 AM

I hear Jesus Christ is pretty pro-life, but I don’t think He’s going to run in this election…

jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM

I’m going to vote for a liar, because I’m going to vote for a politician. Doesn’t make it okay, and I’m certainly not happy about it, but it puts my vote into the choosing the lesser of evils category. Which lies do I consider to be worse?

Very upsetting, because this is the kind of thing that makes voters stay home on election day. I won’t stay home because I don’t want a Dem picking the next two SCOTUS judges. But I can see how people look at this stuff and think, “What’s the use?”

aero on July 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Enrique on July 19, 2007 at 11:17 AM

I think you’re right.

Big S on July 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Nor should it, but let us remember Fred never claimed he didn’t do it, he said he didn’t remember, can you prove that he did in fact remember and lied about remembering?

It is not lost on me that he immediately came out and said that lawyers should not be measured by their clients. That was no mistake. And if he didn’t “say” it, the whole bit about the phone call, etc, was a pretty elaborate non-saying.

Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 11:23 AM

Which is the balance to those who blindly lap up all of freds? lies.

Fair and balanced. The groupies can’t abide it, but the rest of us cherish it.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:12 AM

No, you tear down… yet build NO ONE else up.

I see very few if any positive posts from you on the candidates… I do see a LOT of OUTRAGE because some of us happen to support Fred!…

You don’t give positive reasons why your candidate is superior, you tear down others…. your style is the epitome of the Clinton type hit squads which have flourished in recent elections….

Guess what…

RUDI IS A LIAR!!!
MITT IS A LIAR!!!
TANC HAS CHANGED HIS STORY!!!
HILLRARY LIED TO MY FACE ON TV!!!
OBUMA HAS LIED ABOUT HIS CHILDHOOD!!!

MCCAIN…. crap… can’t think of a lie, but his politics are anti American…

Fair and balanced? When I see your outrage directed at other candidates problems with the same amount of energy as you put into pulling down Fred!, then I’ll believe you.

Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Enrique on July 19, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Yes, and every time he voted, voted Pro Life…

Interesting…

Ever done a job you disagreed with? If so, then I guess you can’t run for office…

Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Ron Paul never forgets anything.

In varsity football, he was called “Steel Trap” Ronnie because he knew all assignments for all positions. He also loves pudding.

Hoodlumman on July 19, 2007 at 11:26 AM

aero on July 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM

But I can see how people look at this stuff and think, “What’s the use?”

I think that’s the idea.

I don’t want a Dem picking the next two SCOTUS judges.

Not just ANY Dem, but Hitlery! That makes me want to get out and vote.

I’m going to vote for a liar, because I’m going to vote for a politician human.

There – fixed it ;-}

jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 11:26 AM

Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 11:23 AM

It is not lost on me that he immediately came out and said that lawyers should not be measured by their clients. That was no mistake. And if he didn’t “say” it, the whole bit about the phone call, etc, was a pretty elaborate non-saying.

So what you are saying is that you are a mind reader eh? Good to know that, now I would really appreciate it if you would use those special powers to all of our benifit and read all the candidates minds and tell us which one really is the Anti-Christ.

doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 11:27 AM

doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 11:27 AM

which one really is the Anti-Christ.

Friend of mine once told me he thought it was Hitlery. Could be…

jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 11:28 AM

Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Fair and balanced? When I see your outrage directed at other candidates problems with the same amount of energy as you put into pulling down Fred!, then I’ll believe you.

You do know that that’s never ever going to happen right???

doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Enough of doriensgrey’s nuanced horse$hit.

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.”

fred? has no memory so it didn’t happen. But, alas, it did happen and fred? is either a lair, senile, or stupid. Take your pick, he is the worst possible candidate or non-candidate for the job. I KNOW he is the former because of his history for playing loose with the truth. Ya know, fake red pickups etc.

fred?, as he has done in the past, may try to blame this on a staffer, in which case there should be some firings going on.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Guess what…

RUDI IS A LIAR!!!
MITT IS A LIAR!!!
TANC HAS CHANGED HIS STORY

!!!

Could you tell us what each has lied about? I don’t mind a politician changing his stance, if none did the amnesty bill would have passed. But I’m not familiar with the lies of Mitt or Rudy so if you can list them I would appreciate it.

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Unforced error, says Captain’s Quarters

I think many on this blog are guilty of premature adjudication. Jumping to conclusions of LYING when there’s nothing there to lie about. Thompson’s campaign made a not-ready-for-primetime error in a blanket denial, but when you look at the FACTS surround the NYT hit piece, it sure does look a lot less like lobbying error and more like an unforced error that allowed a runner to advance.

19 hours in a 14-month span. 3.3 hours of talking to someone at the Whitehouse. It’s a liaison role, otherwise known as consulting, and Thompson never represented the client. Read the piece in Captain’s Quarters.

Then slow down the heavy breathing and jumping to conclusions. Or not. Your choice. ;-)

Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Seems to me, someone on this blog once wrote that billing records were never kept this long.

I question the timing.

jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 11:36 AM

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Thompson says he has no recollection of it, fred? has no memory so it didn’t happen. But, alas, it did happen and fred? is either a lair, senile, or stupid.

Thanks for proving my point.

doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 11:36 AM

I do see a LOT of OUTRAGE because some of us happen to support Fred!…

Fair and balanced? When I see your outrage directed at other candidates problems with the same amount of energy as you put into pulling down Fred!, then I’ll believe you.

Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 11:24 AM

I tear down a non-candidate fake and liar that you blind fred?heads try to put on a pedestal, in an attempt to balance it out.

A) I don’t control the thread topics. When we start having Mitt and Rudy threads where the candidates LIE and fake out their supporters, you’d better believe I will call a spade a spade.

B) You just refuse to pay attention. I am all about vetting ALL candidates.

So, spare me the straw man.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:37 AM

I just realized–most of the top candidates on both sides are lawyers, aren’t they?

Rudy, Hillary, Fred, Silky, Obama…all lawyers.

Lawyers have a poor reputation for honesty and ethical behavior. We shouldn’t be terribly surprised, I suppose.

aero on July 19, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 11:35 AM

I love his conclusion:

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!”

Yeah. Vaporize him!!!

Please.

jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 11:40 AM

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.”

Thanks for proving my point.

doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 11:36 AM

He swings, he misses….

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 11:41 AM

No question, this was a significant mistake on the part of his campaign; I don’t believe this was intentional dishonesty though. Would he really intentionally lie knowing that it could and probably would be proved? Especially on something that wasn’t going to hurt him that much anyways?

More likely scenario: Fred didn’t remember doing the work and his spokesman went overboard and issued a flat denial without first being certain. It was a long time ago and not something Fred spent a lot of time on and easily could’ve been forgotten- still you don’t issue a denial until you’re sure.

Sounds to me like he needs to tighten up on his campaign staff before they make another unforced error like this. The Romney campaign is already starting to go into full attack mode and it’ll get worse if (when) he gets the nomination. The MSM isn’t going to let even honest mistakes (and I suspect this was one) go by unnoticed.

Hollowpoint on July 19, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Rudi…

I will appoint strict constructionist judges….

A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state’s lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1.

Nuff said on Rudi… won’t even bring up the First Responders non support… or Second Amendment…

I’ll do the others in following posts….

Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 11:35 AM

I don’t agree. It goes to freds? character. A principled person would say he doesn’t remember but will look into it. A liar says he didn’t do it, then he can’t remember it, and lastly it doesn’t matter. The trifecta! Now, how will he nuance his three changing positions. I expect fred? will lie again. He may not, but surely there will be some heavy nuancing going on.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:42 AM

So what you are saying is that you are a mind reader eh?
doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 11:27 AM

When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.
And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.
When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring.

I don’t need to be a mind-reader to see the obvious. I just need not to be willing to ignore it.

Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 11:42 AM

A nothingburger.

jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Given Fred’s predisposition for chasing tail, he was probably just lobbying for a pro-abortion group so that he could find out the names of some loose women.

Sincerely,

Frank Gannon, P.I. P.I. (Politically Incorrect Private Investigator)

(seriously, I like Fred, although this is a gaffe for which he’ll have some ’splainin to do)

thirteen28 on July 19, 2007 at 11:44 AM

From http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010566.php

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:

A “nothingburger”

jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 11:44 AM

Thanks for proving my point.

doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Nice try. The point is that he would rather LIE, than be honest and stop at the point where he said “I have no recollection”. He nuanced his recollection by saying “IT DIDN’T HAPPEN”.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 6


You must be logged in to post a comment.