Why Fred Gets A Pass On Lobbying Issue

Patterico sure seems to have the bar set pretty high on Fred Thompson on the lobbying issue. As I blogged on it, researching it back to 91 and was critical when Thompson appeared to back step a bit, I'd like to make a few points I believe weigh heavily in Thompson's favor given everything I've seen up to the minute.

I have said I don’t much care if he did lawyer’s work for an abortion rights group. But I’ll be upset if it turns out that he has lied to us about it.

"Lie" is a pretty strong word. Did Thompson lie, given that the LA Times will allegedly produce billing records for 19 - 20 hours of work over a 14 month period from back in 1991? You'd think so given the statement below, but I believe it actually proves the opposite to be true.

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."

Thompson, despite his down home qualities, is no rube. A statement such as the one above would never have been issued if Thompson had any recollection of having done any work at all on behalf of this group we've since learned is more concerned with contraception, than abortion.

I chronicled the extensive history of this issue circa 1991. It was so significant that then President Bush 41 was being asked questions about it overseas, for heaven's sake. And now we hear what? That Thompson billed around 19 - 20 hours most of which were on the phone with the client over a 14 month period. If that's lobbying, count me in. But, then, I like to fish as much as I can, so, ... just sayin'.

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.

Also recall that the original story said Thompson lobbied Sununu and I pointed out those records were available. I didn't see a mention of Sununu in the latest piece. I wonder why? Unless it's in the pending LA Times piece, we can only assume the records didn't turn anything up, which casts at least some doubt on DeSarno's memory that fueled the original story.

As Fred might say, Friends ... the way I see it, we just got done almost sendin' a good man to prison, ... still made quite a mess of his life, I reckon, for nothing more than, well, perhaps nothin' more than mis-remembering a simple conversation, or two. And, now, oh, well, hell, this was about twenty or so years ago, wuddn't it?

Thompson was making a living talking issues and politics between politicians and people with issues of interest to them back then. And given the hours and dollars involved, I don't see anything to suggest he did a whole hell of a lot of it on this particular issue.

Tell you what, you tell me everyone you talked to only a few times over some few hours almost twenty years ago and if you forget someone, I'll call you a liar. Sound fair to you? Not to me it doesn't.

I have more important things to consider in picking the person I intend to support for President in 2008. I don't know if it will be Thompson, or not. But if it isn't, it sure as heck won't be because of this.

Comments

[not the senator]

As I said when this first came out, it's the lying and coverup that will hurt Thompson more than the lobbying if the story turned out to be true.

When he give categorical denials and called DeSarno a partisan liar and then it turns out she was correct and you were the one being dishonest, it doesn't reflect well on Thompson's character. What else is he willing to say to get elected?

[Kathy]

The problem with the word 'lied' here is that the evidence of deliberateness required to make that stick is missing. In a political climate where conservatives are infuriated with the prosecution of Scooter Libby are conservatives prepared to do the same thing to Thompson whose recollection must go back twenty years instead of two?

Thompson's ProLife record in the Senate speaks volumes.

[Psycheout]

If you were pro-life don't you think you'd remember working for and lobbying on behalf of a pro-abortion group? But then Fred! has been making pro-choice statements throughout his career. Hannity had to cut him off recently to keep him from reaffirming the "right to choose [murder]."

See: Fred Thompson: Pro-abortion Lobbyist and Liar?
http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/fred-thompson-pro-abortion-lobbyist-and-liar/

[tally]

okay, i'm not a fred supporter, however, actions speak louder than words. the man has a solid anti-abortion record in the senate - period. perhaps fred could tatoo "i hate abortion" across his forehead. then again, nothing short of the pope would appease these nutbags.

[Andrew]

Thanks for your previous blog post about what happened in 1991. However, I'm surprised that you didn't draw a different conclusion. You linked to an article which apparently shows that Thompson's lobbying on this issue actually helped the pro-life side.

See "Future uncertain as Congressional drive to block Title X gag rule fails", Wash Memo Alan Guttmacher Inst. 1991 Nov 22;(18):1-2, 4.

It looks to me like Thompson helped convince President George H.W. Bush to eased the so-called gag rule when by sending a memo to Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan stating that the rule should allow women to receive referrals to facilities that perform abortion, but not to facilities whose principal business is providing abortions. Due to this easing of the rule, Congress then failed by just 12 votes to override a veto by Bush of legislation that would have completely overturned the rule. In other words, Thompson apparently saved the gag rule by helping to water it down.