Some Questions About the New LA Times Hitpiece Against Fred Thompson

By Posted in Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Well, just in time for the weekend and all the weekend news shows, the Los Angeles Times has released the newest hitpiece on Fred Thompson. This time, it is a breathless piece alleging that Fred did lobbying work in-behalf-of a pro-abortion organization. They allegedly hired him to lobby John Sununu, the cheif-of-staff of then President George H. W. Bush, to lessen restrictions on abortion counseling.

According to the article, here is the reaction of Fred Thompson to the accusation:

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." In a separate interview, John Sununu, the White House official whom Thompson was hired to contact, said he had no memory of any lobbying and doubted it took place.

In response to the flat denial by Corallo, the article gives the following as evidence:

1. Minutes of a board meeting of the pro-abortion group that claims to have hired Fred. The LA Times says they have the minutes.

2. The personal statements of about four people who worked for the pro-abortion group.

3. Former Rep. Michael Barnes, who worked at the law firm where Thompson did at this period.

Now let me point out several reasons to believe this is a fabricated or at best misconstrued hitpiece:

1. The flat denial of Fred Thompson. His spokesman Mark Corallo said, "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." There's no equivocation there at all.

2. The man who was supposedly lobbied, John Sununu, says it did not happen: Sununu said in a telephone interview: "I don't recall him ever lobbying me on that at all. I don't think that ever happened. In fact, I know that never happened."

3. Fred Thompson would have known it would be pointless to lobby Sununu and GHWB because they were adamantly opposed to lessening abortion restrictions.

4. A very strange statement is made in the article that does not ring true. The woman who supposedly hired Thompson is quoted as follows: At one of the meals, she recalled, Thompson re-enacted a cowboy death scene from one of his movies. If you go to IMDB, a movie database, you can look up every movie and TV show Fred Thompson has been in. If you look at the entries for all movies and TV shows prior to 1993, and actually his entire career, you see no entries for a western -- none at all! So, when did Fred make this "cowboy movie" that he supposedly re-enacted the death scene from in the middle of a Washington D. C. restaurant? Is it just me or does that sound really odd?

5. The whole thing smells bad coming at the end of a week in which the liberal media has put forward one hitpiece after another. It appears very contrived. The tone of the article is just too gleeful about the whole thing.

We'll see how this unfolds in the days ahead. But I believe it will unravel like the CBS National Guard hitpiece in 2004. Fred is taking a lot of shots before he ever gets in. Whether it is the Democrat National Committee, Fred's GOP rivals, or the liberal media -- or a combination of all three -- it is clear there are a lot of people afraid of Fred Thompson, and they are trying to take him down.

As for their "evidence"...

1. Meeting minutes can easily be changed to say whatever you want.

2. Pro-abortion folks use deceit every day (e.g. protecting the identity of rapists, lying about the dangers of abortion, etc.)

3. They're going to trust a lawyer that held government office to tell the truth? I think we've seen (especially lately) that the truth is the furthest thing from their minds.


About Number 3, you may want to be a little careful with that. Fred Thompson is a lawyer who held government office. Heck, outside of lobbying and acting, his entire adult professional career has been within the U.S. government. Just saying, if you don't trust lawyers who work for the government...

Asked why it was dishonorable to return without a shield and not without a helmet, the Spartan king, Demaratos is said to have replied: "Because the latter they put on for their own protection, but the shield for the common good of all."

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service