The [Fred]Thompson Effect

The Washington Post ^ | July 19, 2007 | Chris Cillizza

[2ndDivisionVet]

Ever since former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) floated the idea of a presidential candidacy earlier this year, we've been grappling with where he fits in the field.

We've talked to any number of Republican strategists -- both those working for other candidates and those who are unaffiliated -- in an attempt to learn who Thompson helps, who he hurts, and whether or not he belongs in the top tier. Some believe Thompson is the frontrunner-in-waiting, a movie star with a southern drawl -- the answer to the prayers of conservative voters looking for a candidate to call their own. Others suggest the early days of the Thompson campaign-in-waiting reveal a candidate not all that interested in campaigning, and an operation that has already committed a major faux pas in its handling of the questions over Thompson's work for a pro-abortion rights group.

--snip--

So, where are we when it comes to Thompson?

Let's take the abortion question first. It now seems clear that despite Thompson's previous dodges that he did in fact log hours lobbying for a group that was advocating the loosening of restrictions on abortions. What remains to be seen is whether or not this fact makes Thompson unpalatable to social conservatives. To date, questions about the strictness of Thompson's beliefs on the abortion issue have done little to damage his ascent in both state and national polling. For the moment at least, voters seem content to ignore any negative information about Thompson that might tarnish the golden boy image he has enjoyed in the race.

[2ndDivisionVet]

"America's Mayor" my Aunt Fanny!

[PetroniusMaximus]

“”America’s Mayor” my Aunt Fanny!”

Yea, more like America’s Cross-Dresser.

[iowamark]

We've talked to any number of Republican strategists -- both those working for other candidates and those who are unaffiliated -- in an attempt to learn who Thompson helps, who he hurts, and whether or not he belongs in the top tier.

Translation: We in the MSM have been working hard on our plan of attack against Fred Thompson.

[fromscratchmom]

“Translation: We in the MSM have been working hard on our plan of attack against Fred Thompson.”

QFT

[ConservativeMind]

I don’t have a problem with this. If he did some work and got paid, so what? I don’t know a single conservative who runs his own business that refuses reimbursement from liberals.

[WildcatClan]

It now seems clear that despite Thompson's previous dodges that he did in fact log hours lobbying for a group that was advocating the loosening of restrictions on abortions.

It seems clear, is it clear or not? Did he dodge or not? The author might have offered some facts to back up the statement because as far as I know, nothing is clear. I don't think it hurts Fred if he had represented the group or not. If he did lie, dodge as this guy is asserting, that is the breaking point. How is the author so clear on this? If he knows something he might well have added that to his article. I want proof and I do not mean someone from the group mentioning his name in a meeting. That is not proof.

[Lumper20]

Good post. Fred is very highly regarded and some cannot stand that.

[lkco]

But is he going to wait until September? The Emmy nominations just came out, and “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” got 17 nominations (sorry ... none for Fred, but they did get one for hair ... maybe his?

http://www.emmys.org/awards/2007pt/nominations.php?action=search_db

So, the Emmys are September 16 ... does that affect his timing?

[Gelato]

The author might have offered some facts to back up the statement because as far as I know, nothing is clear.

FOr what it's worth, this appears to be the background for the article:

Records confirm Fred Thompson worked for Pro-Choice group
July 19, 2007 at 11:31 am · Filed under NewsLog

Billing records uncovered by the New York Times show that Fred Thompson was paid for about 20 hours of work as a Washington, DC lobbyist on behalf of a group to ease restrictive federal rules on abortion counseling in the 1990s. Recently Thompson "flatly denied" the charge and "said he did not recall doing any work for the organization."

The records show that Thompson worked part-time from 1991 to 1994 for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, and earned about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992.

From the New York 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.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/19/nyt-billing-records-show-fred-did-lobby-for-abortion-group/

[WildcatClan]

Thanks for taking the time to educate me. I do appreciate it. What someone did 16 years ago can be weighed as circumstantial evidence, but his votes in the Senate trump that, in my reasoning. Reagan himself didn’t start on the right side of this issue. That said, what we have from these politicians is their word and when that is broken we have little left. If they can’t be trusted on the smallest matters how can we entrust them to be truthful on the very large matter of leading the free world? I am a Hunter supporter yet if he doesn’t make it to the dance, what then? I just couldn’t vote for Rudy and have serious reservations about Romney. Again, thanks for the info.

[Gelato]

If they can’t be trusted on the smallest matters how can we entrust them to be truthful on the very large matter of leading the free world?

Well put.

[TennTuxedo]

I love the smell of liberal fear in the air in the morning..........it smells like...victory.

[Kimberly GG]

“For the moment at least, voters seem content to ignore any negative information about Thompson that might tarnish the golden boy image he has enjoyed in the race.”

Huge, fear-based mistake, imo.

[BobS]

Lawyers represent their clients as their job. All kinds of clients. That’s why they are trained to argue both sides of issues.

[LucyJo]

Bingo!

[txjeep]

“What remains to be seen is whether or not this fact makes Thompson unpalatable to social conservatives”

Chris Cillizza, here is your answer. I am a pro-life social conservative, I support Fred Thompson, and no liberal hit piece is going to change that.

Freepers, it is so ironic that the pro-abort people are trying so hard to use the life issue to make pro-lifers sour on Fred. All this means is that they want us to stay home instead of voting. It won’t work.

[SuziQ]

“Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” got 17 nominations (sorry ... none for Fred, but they did get one for hair ... maybe his?

Since he ain't got any, he musta been wearing a wig, which could account for a nomination for 'hair'. ;o)

[SuziQ]

What I heard Fred Thompson say was that he didn't remember working for the group, but that even if he did, he couldn't speak to the matter because he doesn't speak about his clients,and the work he does for them. I guess he considers his lobbying work like the lawyer/client privilege thing. There were 22 phone conversations, which may or may not have been Fred actually talking to someone at the group. Someone pointed out on another thread that anyone else, secratary, paralegal, etc, calling on behalf of the case would show up as Fred's calls, and be part of his billable hours. Also 3.3 hours spent lobbying govt. officials isn't exactly burning the house down for involvement.

Interesting that this particular client is brought up in order to try to damage his pro-life bona fides, if in fact he CAN'T speak specifically about it. Kinda puts him behind the 8 Ball, don't you think?

[txjeep]

“Huge, fear-based mistake, imo.”

I like Duncan Hunter a lot and will happily vote for him if he gets the nomination. My opinion is that his chances of getting to that point are not much better than my own. Ignoring the hit piece on Fred is not about fear, and it is not a mistake. The social liberals are trying to keep him out of the race. The fact is that Fred voted 100% life while he was in the senate. There is every reason to believe he would appoint excellent judges and be an excellent POTUS. I like his positions on just about every issue. We need to support our favorite candidate in the primaries and remember that we are all on the same team after that.

[lkco]

I heard he had a fantastic fake beard.