The once proud GOP moderate John McCain is paying for his wild swing to the right with sinking poll numbers and deflating coffers. Like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton's Achilles' heal is the disaster in Iraq; first she was for it, now she's against it. Or something, who knows, who cares. And Mr. Massachussetts Mitt Romney used to go on and on about protecting a woman's right to choose. Now he considers himself an anti-abortion "convert." Just in time for election season too!
Abortion is an issue that could dog Fred Thompson as well. Thompson is the former lobbyist who, according to his exploratory committee, wasn't really a lobbyist. Certainly the second coming of Reagan would never have gone to bat for a pro-choice organization, would he? Except that Fred would, and did:Thompson was retained by National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association to lobby the administration of President George H.W. Bush to ease a regulation that prevented clinics that received federal money from offering any abortion counseling.Thompson, a social conservative these days, says he "has no recollection" about that. Nope, can't remember a thing about it. Of course, Thompson's an actor. Maybe he'll be able to give a convincing performance to the religious right on the abortion issue when and if the curtain ever goes up on his campaign.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. Oh you don't really believe this story. It may have been discussed, and I doubt that.
Even if he did, he had the the right to take a case that did not coincide with his beliefs. It sure is no deal killer.
Don Jones
MyManFred.com
Don Jones at 4:14PM on Jul 10th 2007
2. That Thompson story hit the wires Friday or Saturday, and detail after detail keeps disappearing from the original report as one person after another disavows their alleged role in the deal that doesn't appear now to have ever happened.
While we're on this issue, can you quote specifically who in his team said he was never a lobbyist? Further, is lobbying an improper profession, any more than blogging? If you want to really research the issue, rather than repeat unfounded rumors that appear to have originated from the HRC camp, the information's out here in cyberspace. Just look a little further.
Pastor Dan at 4:22PM on Jul 10th 2007
3. You're quite correct Don. This story and the information contained therein is in no way a deal killer. In fact, once Thompson gets the nomination (if he does), he could use this to his advantage showing how he is personally pro life but at the same time when having a job to do does not let his personal positions intervene.
Because often times that is precisely what a lot of people want to here. Ie. That one's personal beliefs will not inhibit them from enforcing the laws on the books even though they may have a personal position against such laws.
Christopher Tyler at 4:29PM on Jul 10th 2007
4. Go Big Fred!!!
Christopher Tyler at 4:27PM on Jul 10th 2007
5. Uhmmmm... guess what? Just like Romney... Thompson is no conservative. He's an opportunist. When will you republicans begin to recognize the difference? Bush is not conservative. Cheney is not conservative. Nearly every republican in congress is neither conservative or libertarian. They are corporatists. They are opportunistic. They believe and pray to money and power and nothing else.
Robert Crush at 4:58PM on Jul 10th 2007
6. Let’s say it did took place in 1991 - We can believe in fairies and flying monkeys too. I'm still not seeing an issue.
In 1994 Thompson said he was not a Supporter of Roe Vs. Wade but he had an issue with criminalizing a decision of a 16 year old girl made with her parents and doctor. This is a subject he kinda lived through. He being a 17 year old high schooler once in the same position. He and is 1st wife Sarah got hitches and made a 25 years run at it. (Let’s face it people. In 1958 having an abortion was illegal, but it still was very available.)
Between 1994 and 2002 His Senate voting record was decidedly anti-abortion.
2007 when asked repeatedly about Roe v Wade - he basicly repeated the same thing in 2004 Roe Bad - Over turn - Send back to the states to decide. So he was asked to explain his beliefs and possible contradictions. He said "My Heart and Head sometimes were in conflict. “But then I saw the ultra sound of my little girl Hayden." (Back story - not 2 years earlier he had lived through ever parent’s nightmare he had buried a child, his daughter Besty.) I'm sure staring at that monitor in the OB-GYN office may have become a sledge hammer moment.
So OK say he did Lobby for this Family Planning Place with deep ties to The Dems and Clintons in 1991. The reality is the man has not gone too far off his point here. Roe Bad - Over turn - Send back to the states to decide.
Recapping:
1958 When faced with the choice, he became a father.
1994 When asked in a debate he gave an honest caring answer.
1994-2002 When asked to pay for abortions with Federal money he voted against it repeatedly.
2007 Roe Bad - Over turn - Send back to the states. to decide. He explained any contradictions with the most believable and plausible reason I have heard. I'm still looking up have the verbiage blathered out by Mitt Romney used to explain his "heart felt" explanation?
memmie at 6:27PM on Jul 10th 2007
7. I have no idea if Fred Thompson lobbied for a pro choice group or not. It would not surprise me. Republicans are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to abortion rights. I have not hear one ELECTED republican - not one - say all abortion should be banned and women who try to obtain one should be locked up in jail for it.
Even Bush - who who is not the brightest bulb in the pack - admitted in a press conference a few years ago that Americans would not tolerate abortion being made illegal. At least the guy was telling the truth for once.
Republicans know that if abortion were criminalized they would be voted out in droves - which do you think they would choose - taking a major stand on abortion or keeping their power? Gee, I wonder...
David S. at 6:39PM on Jul 10th 2007
8. Do you ever research the facts of what you print, or do you just take it 'de facto' from the "LA Times' yellow rag"? First mistake --they lied, no proof of any of the story, no bills, no anything, such as facts. You copy lies as if it is fact=double yellow, then they back off , drop items, but still no retraction nor facts issued = "triple yellow journalism" and you are in the big trap as well = stupid you!
j fraser at 3:12AM on Jul 11th 2007
9. Thompson is a shill! A joke! Name one thing he did while in office? Try looking up his record? He's a lazy loaf of white bread! Why didn't he get in the race before? cause he would have to pull his show and he would lose money! The man is greedy and has the ethics of an ant!
cjjanis001 at 7:26PM on Jul 10th 2007
10. Abortion is a very tricky problem as a political issue. I've been on both sides trying to find the middle myself. Most recently, as a man, I have decided that I can recommend against it but it is a woman's final decision.
Steve Bonomo at 8:53PM on Jul 10th 2007
11. The fact that Thompson took the case is not the deal killer...
...nor is the fact that Thompson lied about taking the case.
THe deal killer with Thompson is that he has no leadership experience, no platform, and he has a record of being lazy. If he wanted to be president, he should have entered when the others did, months ago. I fully expect him to be outmatched in terms of leadership experience (there is a reason America doesn't elect senators) and organization by the other candidates.
Mark at 10:41AM on Jul 11th 2007
12. Come join the troops and show your support at the Fred Thompson Forum. http://fredthompsonforum.com
Fred Thompson Forum at 7:20AM on Jul 11th 2007
13. Why do you consider an allegation by those philosophically opposed to Thompson on the subject of abortion to be an accepted fact?
Or, to turn the question into a statement, it's amazing- given the unsupported mud the Leftist media has thrown at Fred Thompson in the last week- how terrified of him they apparently are.
Bob Waters at 8:03PM on Jul 11th 2007
14. We were not supposed to care what Bill did in the oval office with Monica, cigars and his wank, even while avoiding calls from heads of state of other countries. Yet Fred might be a bit lasy? We are not supposed to care or ask about what really happened to Vince Foster, but care about the age of Thompson's wife? We are not supposed to care that Borat Obama is an apologist for the radical moslem factions, but we are supposed to care about some lobbying gig Fred did from 16 years ago?
Get the publication.. Hillary Rodham Clinton, What Every American Should Know. Then you will have some questions to ask.
The left is truely scared out of their wits of Fred. Hillaryland antics and lies are just beginning.
Gus Burk at 9:53PM on Jul 12th 2007
15. Its almost comic to read a post saying Thompson should not because he lacks leadership? Who does this person that posted that realy think who makes the decisions? (Hello?) Its the party my friend ad as it is, the party in power makes the decisions in order to stay in power. The person that is President (sadly) is only a mouthpiece. This is why Karl Rove is always close to the Prez. He has been since Bush's days in college. Rove is the messenger from the RNC and a nanny for Bush. Rove never graduated from any college altho he atended four, he is clever and snide. Just what the RNC wanted to prime GWB.
Back to Fred.
Thompson has gotten where he is by himself. There is no front guy pushing Fred. Bush is what we call in Texas a "Post turtle" ie; you are going down a country road and see a turtle on the top of a fence post. 1. You know he didn't get there by himself.
2.He has no idea what he is doing while there he is dependant on others to get him out of a fix. He is waiting on his "Karl" to come help him out of the jam.
If you listen to Fred and his points, you can see that his "leadership" will come from chosen inteligent people in his administration.
Fres just needs more exposure and a commitment.
Bill Gast at 2:59PM on Jul 24th 2007