A Planned Parenthood "Enemy" On The Abortion Payroll? I Think Not.

By Erick Posted in Comments (91) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Want to know who the Clintons are worried about? Witness tomorrow's coordinated Los Angeles Times article attack hitting Fred Thompson. Despite being a newspaper story tonight, it was posted after 6:30 p.m. and less than an hour later Kevin Drum was already hitting Thompson.

Let's put this in perspective. As the American Spectator notes

In the story that the L.A. Times will report out within the next 24 to 48 hours, the paper will claim that Thompson was "hired" by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Rights Association, whose director, Judith DeSarno, was acquainted with a then-partner at Arent Fox, former Congressman Michael Barnes. In fact, DeSarno worked as a senior aide to Barnes during his time in Congress. According to Arent Fox insiders, Barnes, who now directs the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and DeSarno are both well-known left-wing activists. Most recently, both were active against the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Thompson was an adviser to Roberts, and served as his Senate "sherpa" during the confirmation process.

Michael Barnes is a former Democratic congressman who was so left wing, Maryland voters rejected him in the Democratic Senate primary against Barbara Mikulski. DeSarno worked for him in Congress. They are both connected to Arent Fox, which is now a Democrat leaning lobbying firm filled up with Clintonistas.

Here's the deal: Fred Thompson made one phone call for a friend on a matter pertaining to Haiti and felt compelled to register as a lobbyist. Here, the claim Fred was retained to help an abortion group and yet there is no registration paperwork, there are no logs at the White House on the matter, and the former President's Chief of Staff has no recollection of it.

The only two people who do are two fringe lefties.

Meanwhile, Thompson has a 100% pro-life rating while in the Senate and is an "enemy" according to Planned Parenthood.

Two final details: remember, this is the same newspaper that wrote a "serious" news article about Fred Thompson playing an anti-semite in Wiseguy back in the 80's was going to cause him electoral problems in 2008. I guess the LA Times has decided to abandon all sense of fairness. Also, the reporter has issues with being soft on Dems.


« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | No Bias Here?Comments (30) »
A Planned Parenthood "Enemy" On The Abortion Payroll? I Think Not. 91 Comments (0 topical, 91 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

will find it interesting reading. This is good because they have become the two largest demographics in the LA Times reader base.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I don't know if what is being said is true. I do know the Senator's voting record and I know he helped get John Roberts on the SC, which last time I check was beginning to pay huge dividends. I also know that I myself have become more pro-life over the years. I'm a woman, have two kids, but until I actully felt my son kick me in the womb, I wasn't really pro-life. I never supported abortion, but I didn't become fully pro-life until I was pregnant.

Thompson has lost a child in the past few years and has had two little one's. I'd say those experiences have made him more pro life. And as Martha Stewart would say, "that's a good thing."

Please forgive any misspellings; I'm on pain medication of a bad tooth!

we wouldn't want you rooming with little Al.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Clearly there's something being covered up in the Algore Jr. case. Marijuana, prescription drugs sans prescription -- I have no problem believing a politician's kids could make the same stupid decisions other kids do. But a Prius going 105? No way.

and they mentioned some car review that tested the prius when it was first introduced. It can go 100 mph. And it does it in only 36 seconds. Maybe jr needed help to stay awake while it got up to speed.

...the Dems are scared of someone.
This has the smell of desperation already!
Interesting...

www.improvethesenate.blogspot.com

It looks like Thompson is quickly becoming the front runner, so the trashing begins, it will only get worse, particularly if a Clinton is the Democrats front-runner. They'll have to go desperately negative early in order for Hillary to have any chance whatsoever of getting elected.

is that the "Rudy trashing" and the "Mitt trashing" are constructed on some semblance of fact and a case - albeit flimsy - can be made for the trashing.

The Thompson trashing is so far out in left field as to be humorous. If this is the best they can do, gee whiz...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

but I just don't see this getting a lot of traction. This is more proof that Fred is scaring the beejus out of liberals. Good.

I know a lot of people read the LAT but not as many as used to. I grew up on it. When visiting my dad a couple of months ago, I picked up the paper a couple of times and put it right back down. The Sunday opinion section reads like a cross between Karl Marx and Cindy Sheehan. Holding the paper is creepy - it's like holding a copy of the Communist Manifesto.

Fred will have to win without the loony left L.A. crowd. I think he can do it.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

I think this barrage of attacks on Fred is going to backfire. Instead of weakening his popularity, it's just going to increase it.

Conservatives are going to look at how desperate they are to take Fred down and realize the fear that is driving this slime campaign.

They see what Fred can do, how he can articulate conservatism and it's beliefs.

They know what happened the last time we had a guy like that. ;)

"We are the land of the free. But if we weren't the home of the brave, we would not be the land of the free." -- Fred Dalton Thompson

The left and MSM has had it too easy bashing Bush for several years without Bush hitting back. They'll scream when Fred starts fighting back. It'll be good to see for a change.

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite

is a good club to use on conservative voters this election. Rudy and Mitt have already shown some weakness on the issue and apparently the left can make something out of nothing out of one phone call from Fred. I say we defuse the issue and take each candidate on his word as to where they stand at this point in time on abortion and let Hillary and Obama worry some more.

When i first read the headling about this, my initial reaction was "WHAT!?!?!?" Then I read the article and realized that the headline (and article) were very misleading. Don't be surprised if Romney's supporters latch on to this in an attempt to discredit the new BMOC.


Click here to join the effort to elect Fred Thompson!

...with demands that they produce billing records.

but the best way to attack the LAT is the way Patterico, Power Line and Redstate itself do it. I doubt many lefty rags pay any attention to individual letterbombs from us kooks on the right. ;-) The LAT, NYT, WAPO, etc. are not vulnerable to citizens the way Congress is (in fact, I'd say the Drive-Bys are actually impervious to us and getting more resistant every day). We need high profile blogs and talk radio on this. And we need Fred to speak, write and YouTube his responses to the nonsense and claptrap we know is coming.

Besides, as Patterico proves regularly, the LAT never, ever lets facts get in the way of its agenda.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Fighting back is about Fred Thompson taking them on head-on and calling them liars. In a high profile way. Nobody cares what RS thinks, or what Patterico says if Fred won't stand and fight. That's the problem with Bush.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)

His response to this issue at the Florida Young Republican convention: "Thompson gave an oblique response when asked about the matter, first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

"I'd just say the flies get bigger in the summertime. I guess the flies are buzzing," said Thompson, who is considering running for president as a social conservative. He refused comment on whether he recalled doing the work."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070708/ap_on_el_pr/young_republicans;_ylt=A...

If he really had no connection to this story that's among the lamest answers he could have given. A simple "I never did anything for them" would work. Heck, the answer in the LA Times by his spokesperson was much better demanding billing records because he said it never happened. "No comment"? That's sad...

The scary thing is you know he had to be expecting the question and for him not to have a good solid answer is scary. Either this is a real story or he doesn't know how to make an issue go away or to use the question to frame a response to his advantage.

Frankly, I doubt you could find a lawyer who at one time or another in their career didn't represent a client with whom they disagreed. But the lawyer's obligation is to zealously represent their client.

And as "of counsel" he would not have any say in the clients that his firm represented. A senior partner could raise hell, but not just counsel.

That said, I would like to hear from his campaign. I would have far more respect for him if he answered it by saying what I said (e.g., he didn't pick his clients but he had to zealously represent them) rather than trying to dodge it.

I just read the LA Times story and his spokesman denied it. I think that is foolish. He claims to not have billing records, etc. But the "client" will have records. He would have better off using my approach. Unapologetic. Adhering to professional duty.

Denying this is a bad thing. It's worse because FDT wasn't acting as a lawyer at Arent Fox, he was acting as a lobbyist. Now we're supposed to believe that he accepted a position at a left-wing firm, which used him to convince pro-abortion groups that the firm had ties to Bush '41 and that FDT would lobby on their behalf... but he never actually lobbied.

I'm sorry that just sounds to much like "I never inhaled." I see a pattern developing...

He fills out DoJ forms saying he's lobbying "On behalf of Jean-Bertrand Aristide" then runs for President and says he never had a client that didn't "deserve representation," a statement too broad for any trial lawyer to make.

He campaigns for Senate saying that an abortion "decision must be made by the woman" and should be legal in the 1st trimester but then runs for President and says he doesn't remember checking that box.

He worked for a left-wing lobbying firm with pro-abortion clients and then denies lobbying on behalf of pro-abortionists. Does it depend on what the meaning of "is" is?

I'm beginning to understand why FDT didn't think Clinton perjured himself when he denied his affair with Lewinsky. Conservative rhetoric or not, the man has issues.

for this tripe.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

but thanks for the welcome. ;-)

Thompson may or may not be the real deal, but either way he doesn't seem to be keeping his story straight. He's got very little campaign experience, and I don't think being on TV is going to help him overcome these issues in the general.

I don't understand why the single-issue, pro-life crowd doesn't like Huckabee.

on "life" Brownback is better. On everything else, Huckabee is a guy who thinks that government should solve your problems and he's never met a government program he didn't like. Think four more years of GWB...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

a do a little research.

Thompson wasn't a member of the law firm in question. He was "of counsel" which means he had desk space, did no legal work and shook hands with people at parties. That's what people who are "of counsel" do.

He was a lobbyist. Not with or for the law firm. He has no record of ever working as a lobbyist for PP or any abortion provider.

With respect to his representation of Aristide, first, do you actually know what Thompson DID for him? And second, just exactly who are you to tell anybody that Aristide "didn't deserve representation"?

Finally, with respect to your blather about abortion, FDT has a 100% voting record on pro-life issues. He's never wavered and not one single pro-life organization has anything but praise for his record.

Your commentary is idiotic and juvenile. If you're going to post here, learn how to do some basic research beyond the LAT and NYT talking points.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

mbecker908 wrote: Thompson wasn't a member of the law firm in question. He was "of counsel"

I didn't say he was a member. I said he accepted a position at Arent Fox. Regardless of semantics, based on Arent Fox's pro-abortion lobbying activities, I don't know very many pro-lifers that would voluntarily accept any association with this firm.

mbecker908 wrote: With respect to his representation of Aristide, first, do you actually know what Thompson DID for him?

All I know is that FDT's campaign denied his association with Aristide. According to Politico, back in April the FDT campaign claimed he "didn't file papers to represent President Aristide. He filed papers to discuss the Haitian embargo." Politico also posts the DoJ papers and FDT clearly filed to lobby "On behalf of Jean-Bertrand Aristide" to return him to power. My immediate problem is with FDT's apparent blatant denials.

mbecker908 wrote: And second, just exactly who are you to tell anybody that Aristide "didn't deserve representation"?

If representation means lobbying members of Congress, their staff, DoS officials and POTUS (as FDT's filings state) on behalf of a deposed foreign official who advocates murdering his political opponents... yes, I may be a nobody but I can say Aristide did not deserve that kind of representation.

mbecker908 wrote: He's never wavered and not one single pro-life organization has anything but praise for his record.

I know about his record of 1 and 1/3 Senate terms. I'm concerned about about what he did with the rest of his career. Is he the sort of man I can trust with the Presidency? He's been disappointing me for awhile and after this story I'm almost at my last straw. There are other good candidates and more important things to be concerned about than someone who won't talk straight.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I think he was making some good points that deserve answers.

answered over and over again in other blogs. I'm not feeding a troll. If you "need" answers, use the RS search engine. I'm not wasting my time.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I've read over your posts. You come to RS to make some very strong arguments against Thompson based on information provided by spurious sources and which are plainly denied by Thompson. You obviously place greater faith in media outlets that have a proven track record of lying and propaganda, than a man who has an actual voting record that refutes the charges.

Never once do you say that you were a supporter of Thompson's, only that "this is the last straw" - or what? You'll vote for clinton or obama? If this kind of lame attack from the his political enemies will dissuade you, I don't think you had very rational positions from the start.

If you want to support another Republican or Conservative candidate then fine, make your case why they are better than Thompson. But to toss around this kind of crap makes it look like your just here to trash a man based on the flimsiest politically motivated hearsay.
I think the term 'Moby' was coined to describe that behavior.

My criticism is the same as MichiganLibertarian and Yil above. I'm just as concerned with FDT's denial as the potential validity of the LAT's reporting. Even if he never had a professional lobbying association with this particular pro-abortion client, he did have a professional association with the left-wing lobbying firm Arent Fox. Either way, his Senate record doesn't explain why he ever took that job.

In the general election, I'll vote for whoever the party nominates. My concern is that we nominate the right person. After having lost both houses of Congress due to Abramoff-lobbying-earmarking nonsense, I don't want to loose the White House by nominating a lobbyist who refuses to answer for his own record as a lobbyist.

Right now I'm considering either Rudy, FDT, or Huckabee. In terms of character, I would rank Huckabee first because he didn't spend 20 years lobbying in D.C., he has the courage to field questions from the MSM, and he answers them directly and eloquently. In terms of conservativeness, I'd rank Huckabee first again. In terms of shear leadership and the potential to keep the Dems in check both in the election and in office, Rudy takes first place. At this point, the only reason I'm even considering FDT is that Howard Baker is endorsing him. (I'm from TN, and Baker's a hero to me.)

Actually, regardless of his "title", he was a licensed attorney and he was working for a law firm -- he had a professional duty to zealously represent his client.

If it is true that he did lobby for them, then he should stand up and say what I said before, i.e., that he was a lawyer and lawyer has an ethical obligation to zealously represent their client. That is a fundamental principle of our judicial system.

I would agree with you if he had been representing a client in the judicial system. He wasn't. He was lobbying on behalf of clients to legislators and executive officials. A lobbyist is basically a salesman. He pitches policy proposals and tries to persuade people in power to enact them. Yes, most if not all lobbying firms are organized as law firms and many lobbyist have law degrees. But lobbying is completely different than practicing law; as in criminal, intellectual property, contract law, etc.

All I'm saying is someone who accepts a lobbying position at a left-wing firm that uses him as a GOP insider in order to draw left-wing clients like pro-abortionists... well, in my opinion, that takes him down a notch compared to a principled pro-lifer like Huck (who was awesome on Hannity last night!). FDT needs to at least defend his record as a lobbyist.

the group in question? He says he didn't. The guy he would have talked to says he didn't. The law firm he was "of counsel" with says in their filings, that he was hired to lobby for international clients. And he apparently went to work for the firm AFTER the supposed contact by the group in question.

Go find another dead horse to beat. This one stinks.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Even if he never had a professional lobbying association with this particular pro-abortion client, he did have a professional association with the left-wing lobbying firm Arent Fox. No movement pro-lifer would do that. He was never a movement pro-lifer. So, why is he claiming he's always been 100% pro-life?

Regrading these supposed holes in the story (and I'm no fan of the LAT, by the way), lobbyist weren't required to file registration for domestic lobbying until '95. FDT was hired by Arent Fox sometime in April or May of '91. Philip Klein at American Spectator has been blogging this. But for me, it's already a problem that he voluntarily associated with a left-wing firm to begin with.

Actually there's more bothering me about this...

FDT won big victories in TN in '94 and '96 because pro-choicers thought he was close enough to pro-choice and pro-lifers thought he was tolerable. He didn't believe life began at conception, but he wasn't opposed to restricting late-term abortions. Most importantly he thought it should be a state issue, not federal. He was basically a pro-choice federalist who supported restrictions after fetal viability. Nothing in his Senate record indicates his position on abortion significantly changed. So, why is he now saying he's always borne the pro-life mantle? He's never been a movement pro-lifer. He subpoenaed NRL, for goodness sake, when he was supposed to be investigating the Clinton/China fund-raising scandal!

Rudy has very similar views to those enunciated by FDT in the '90s, the only other times he ever ran for office. Rudy's a pro-choice federalist, too. My priority with regard to abortion is scaling-back/overturning Roe, and both FDT and Rudy support judges who would tend to do that. But I trust Rudy more than FDT because he hasn't conveniently changed his mantle in order to run for office.

So you are flailing around this wet noodle of a story like you think it is a samurai sword. It isn't. It's a noodle. You look silly.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

But FDT needs to start talking straight and not just dismissing his past if he's going to keep up.

By the way, according to the American Spectator "none of the criticisms of the Times story have held up"; including "cowboy-gate". It looks like FDT lobbied for a pro-abortion group, lied about it, and then called his questioners flies. This is in a GOP presidential primary campaign a year after loosing the Congress in the wake of the Abramoff scandal...

That's not leadership.

American Spectator on one side and you on the other.

You are a raving lunatic. You've had your 15 minutes of fame (OK, your 3 days of fame). You can go away now. You have nothing to add to the discussion.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

with reality. The sad part, your stuff is so bland it isn't even worth working with. I need inspiration. Where is flyerhawk?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

is he. I miss him too.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

It gives Fred time to explain or rebut. If it had turned up in October 2008 as an "October surprise," maybe it would have gotten some traction. But it's not even October 2007 yet.

Fred did lose an adult daughter a few years back. And he has also said that when he was expecting his first child with his second wife, he saw the ultrasound of his unborn baby. That cemented his pro-life views forever.

The Dems must be worried about Fred. He has a longer record of service in the government than Hillary or Obama. He has the personality and comunication skills Hillary doesn't have, and the gravitas and experience Obama doesn't have. And if they make an issue of his second wife's age, well Monica Lewinsky was how old....

they are meant to damage him to the point that he opts to not join the race and become a candidate.

This attack is kind of idiotic anyway though-this is from almost 15 years ago, I think the ratings Thompson received from abortion groups while in the congress will in the long run mean more than what he may or may not have done as a lobbyist.

"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)

believe that every conservative is an anti-abortionist militant bent on setting off bombs. Yet this false accusation, even if it were true, has no impact. Certainly not to disparage the single issue voter but abortion isn;t going to raise interest this year.

I will say though that I am just overjoyed that Fred is able to strike this much fear this early on.

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

>>>abortion isn;t going to raise interest this year.<<<

Abortion raises interest every year. Pro-life issues aren't cyclical. They are always there and abortion issues are critical to pro-life voters every year, in every election. We don't forget about it. A pro-choice candidate (e.g. Giuliani) will not receive my vote and precious few votes of any other pro-lifer.

Yawn by bs

Comments such as yours are tiring. I've heard it a million times. I vote my principles and I will not vote for someone who holds to immoral standards. I will not vote for a pro-choice candidate, period. I won't have the blood on my hands.

Don't you see that if you stay home instead of voting against Hillary, there will be "blood on your hands." Lots more of it, too. I'm surprised that so many one-issue voters such as yourself don't get that. If you really cared about saving the lives of the unborn, I would think you'd do anything prevent Hillary from becoming president and picking SCOTUS noms.
__________________

"The GOP will be weakened if it adopts the exclusionary views of the religious right. The more the Republicans embrace fundamentalists or some of their self-anointed leaders, the more voters will be lost to the GOP."
Barry Goldwater

for someone who condones/supports murder. Period. I fear what God will say to me when I stand before him and answer for my actions. I do not want to have to explain to him why I approved of murder.

Sorry you can't understand personal moral standards. You'd better get used to this stance, because there is an ENORMOUS population of conservatives with the same standards. The GOP will cut its own throat if it nominates a pro-abortion candidate. There is no way on earth we can win that way. Rudy Giuliani and/or any other pro-abortion candidate will be the death knell for the GOP's chances in 2008.

Here I stand, I can do no other.

I'm hearing two moral positions:

1) Hear I stand, I can do no other
"I will withhold my vote from a candidate who is pro-choice so as not to be a party to his/her sin"

2) Lesser of two evils
"I will vote for a pro-choice candidate to try to prevent a greater evil from occurring"

I have my own preference between these two, but both positions are worthy of respect and both represent expressions of personal morality - just the weightings of principles are different. And both can lead to trouble if taken too far (withdrawal - rationalization).

If Rudy does become the Republican nominee, pro-life voters are either going to withhold their vote or walk around with clothes pins on their noses. Some even may prefer Hillary.

And Rightly So!

It is the influence of the religious right that keeps me from becoming a card carrying member of the GOP. I think libertarians are the true conservatives. The goal of government should be to stay out of my life. I certainly don't want the government mixing religion with their constitutional duties.

Funny how we Republicans criticize legislation from the bench yet you get the sense that some of those on our side would be quite happy to legislate from the bench just as long as they got things their way. You get that sense from the religious who seek to codify their values.

The true strength of the GOP going forward is going to come increasingly from libertarians more than the religious right, assuming that there is not going to be any big nationwide revival movement in the next 30 years. The libertarian streak lies in many a liberal and independent.

Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe. - Reid Bryson

Right, we shouldn't keep minor things like killing children keep us away from winning elections (assuming that you all are referring to abortion). Actually, I don't know many of us pro-lifers who want a federal law banning abortions, unless it is a Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, just a plain federal law would be a usurpation of states powers.

I tend to lean libertarian, but, to be honest, most people that I am familiar with who claim to be libertarians hold positions that conflict sharply with conservative thought. I would love to see a few libertarian ideas (really Constitutionalist ideas, the libertarians just claim them) gain a hearing in the Republican party; but if the party becomes a libertarian party in the way you all are talking, there are an awful lot of us that will leave.

I understand and respect your position on abortion. I hope you can respect mine.

Personally, whether or not a politician is pro-choice or pro-life isn't an issue that would sway me either way.

My vote is based on their views of the role of government, their responsibility as legislators, their personal history, etc.

Just for reference, I haven't decided what I would do for the general election yet. As I see it, the damage will already be done if voters choose Rudy in the primary (and states like mine won't vote for Hillary whether I leave that spot blank or not). The problem is that most Republican voters (even so-called "single issue" ones) will never know Rudy supports abortion if they do not become aware of the facts. Whether the 57 percent of Republican voters who do not know his stance will wake up (and whether it will have an impact) remains to be seen. Thus far, a significant majority of registered voters know next to nothing about the Republican candidates running.

On a related note, pro-life voters are not single issue. First and foremost, there are a lot of other basic issues on which we might not vote for a candidate. A lot won't vote for someone who supports illegal immigration, even if they agree on everything else. We may also not support a candidate who favors legalizing illegal drugs or prostitution. There can be more than one mandatory issue. Second, abortion itself includes a countless number of other issues (embryonic research funding, role of parents, inflicting pain and torture on humans, keeping doctors within the law, the role of judges). Third and finally, one's position on life informs us on other issues such as one's ability to know the Constitution, the role of the judiciary, basic biological principles, and the value of human life.

The "stay home" reference is invalid, because voters can and many would still vote for the other offices up for reelection.

The quote is not fitting. For starters, abortion is not (or at least should not be) a religious issue. It is a basic question of biology and values, NOT on personal beliefs or religion. I despise the term "religious right," especially when it comes to the issues of life and torture and especially when that is the ONLY matter being addressed. Anyone who would consider me part of the "religious right" I would consider a liar.

The quote also does not fit in today's world because the pro-life position has more support than many other traditionally conservative principles among the general population (and even among Republicans). Republicans will likely lose votes with a strong desire to reduce government size and spending, especially when it comes to health care. Indeed, far more people support more government involvement and spending in health care and welfare-type programs than oppose greater abortion restrictions.

Anyway, the goal now should be to focus on the primary elections, not the general one. If we could get the Republican primary voters informed on the candidates and their positions, we wouldn't have this problem in the general as the majority of Republicans would find no need to choose Rudy over one of the others like Fred. It's not that voters will not care about the life issue; they simply won't know.

This (so far) isn;t an abortion year, it's an immigration one. Sure it could change but I don;t believe so.

Sure people will base their vote on a single issue and if the candidate dosen;t espouse those ideals then no vote. Big deal, happens every year, but as I see it defeating Hillary is a monumental battle to rid ourselves of the Clintons for good. I'd vote for McCain just to stop Hillary.

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

I won't vote for John McCain because he would shatter this party far worse than anything George Bush has managed.

I won't vote for Rudy Giluiani because I don't vote for liberals. If I wanted to vote for liberals I'd join the Democratic party.

Most any other Republican, including Ron Paul, would probably be my choice on the ticket, though.

But then again, the way you've warped in your mind Sen. Clinton into some nigh-invincible juggernaut who would bring utter ruin to the country, I think is quite an exaggeration.

Run like Reagan!

year. I don't think that means people who are very concerned about abortion will all the sudden not care about that issue either, but I think the key components of who is voting for who and why will focus on other issues.

Abortion, I think, will always be an important issue, but some years it seems to be more important than others. I figure this go around you are right that immigration and I would also say Iraq and Iran will take the point.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that life was on a schedule. I'll notify the dead babies that are killed by the permissiveness of the pro-choice candidates that "we're sorry, it just wasn't your year."

Good Lord, what a lame, heartless statement. That makes me sick.

"The GOP will be weakened if it adopts the exclusionary views of the religious right. The more the Republicans embrace fundamentalists or some of their self-anointed leaders, the more voters will be lost to the GOP."

"There is too wide and complex a range of opinion for us to reach a national consensus on issues of morality. If either side insists on legislating morality in absolute terms, then the challenge to democratic society is too great."

Barry Goldwater

titled "Yawn". It applies to you also.

There's no need for me to reread it.

Enjoy your red bloody hands after you aid Hil in becoming POTUS. Alas . . . at least you'll still have your principle.

Don't worry about the GWoT, or Hil's uber-liberal SCOTUS nominees, or The Fairness Doctrine, or taxes, or entitlements, or anything of those silly issues. You stick to you guns, man, and whatever you do, don't compromise your principle!

I find it so interesting that so many Republicans deride our pols for pandering to the Hispanics, big business, etc, but when it comes to pandering to them and their pro-life, moral beliefs, well, it's all right.
________________

"There is too wide and complex a range of opinion for us to reach a national consensus on issues of morality. If either side insists on legislating morality in absolute terms, then the challenge to democratic society is too great."

"For a democracy to function, there has to be give-and-take, some room for compromise."

Barry Goldwater

I won't by bs

>>>whatever you do, don't compromise your principle!<<<

You can count on it, no matter how much derision and criticism that others throw at me.

The next President could get to appoint 3 or more SC members and therefore will shape the court for many years to come. We are for the first time in many years at an equilibrium today - 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, plus Kennedy as a swing vote. We could have 3 of the libs go at any time - you'd think for sure Ginsberg and Stevens will not last out another President, and many people think Souter wants to retire. Scalia and Kennedy will turn 75 during the next Presidental term, and Breyer is only two years behind them.

As much as I may dislike the next Republican nominee, the alternative on the other side is definitely going to be much worse. If we get 3 more uber-liberals on the court, even if it's just to replace 3 existing liberals, it means the current court is as right as it's going to be for the next generation. Even if we replace some of the most liberal justices with moderates like O'Connor and Kennedy we'd be WAY better off than we are today.

So personally I cannot sit this one out. If it was just a question of electing a President who could only do four years worth of damage it would be one thing, but this President is going to affect us for the next 25 years via the Supreme Court and that's too important to overlook to me.

So, you'd stay home and let Hil win?

Would you vote for Hillary if she became a Republican?

Ever since Reagan, the MSM and political experts have been lecturing the GOP that they'd better ditch their constituency and become just like the Dems or they'd never win. Bush 41 did it and won a second term by a landslide. From 2000 through 2006 the GOP lead Congress and White House worked 24/7 proving to their constituency that they were just like the Dems but better because they had an R after their name. And look where that strategy got them.... a hold today over Congress and the White House of such strength; truly never before seen in the history of the party!

Wu is likely correct. If Hill registered as an R tomorrow at breakfast, she'd very likely have a strong and loud following among the GOP elite by lunch time.

Come the primary, I'll vote for the best Republican I can find. In the general, I'll vote Republican, if there is one. If not, I'll vote 3rd party or leave it blank. And I'll make no apologies to the party elite and I'll sleep fine.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

of these kinds of sentiments. Statements like "So you'd rather let Hillary win?" are absolutely asinine. Listening to these socially-liberal "conservatives" you would think that the GOP would have to abandon its principles and its heritage as the party of Life and Family Values. We don't have to abandon our principles to win. Reagan was staunchly pro-life and won reelection. In fact, every single democratically-elected Republican President has been pro-life. Their stance against the needless wasting of innocent life did not hurt their chances for election. It is time to realize that being pro-life does not hurt a candidate.

And let me lay it out for you why I won't be voting for a pro-choice Republican: If I voted for, say, Giuliani, I would be voting for at least 8 more years of pro-abortion policies. Why? Because, assuming Giuliani is elected, he will be replaced by YET ANOTHER pro-life candidate: a Democrat. It is highly unlikely that he will not seek re-election if he won in 08. And that would mean another election where both parties are running pro-abortion candidates.

Comments like these lead me to despair over the fate of our nation and the fate of the GOP as a nominally conservative party.

Fred Thompson is not my first choice (Tancredo, Paul, or Huckabee would be), but I am extremely happy he is leading over Rudy and McCain, for at least he is somewhat socially conservative.

The notion that social conservatives are one-issue "mobies" who want to wreck the party is absolutely absurd. If conservatism means anything these days, it means respect for tradition and respect for human life. ___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

a controlling interest in the L.A. Times' parent company.

Coincidence? I think not.

At least a link . . . and not some secret e-mail circulating in the FDT world.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

they cant find too much dirt on Fred.

Meanwhile Hillary's closet doors are getting ready to blow off of the hinges and she is still polling well??!!

highest negative rating (percentage of people that would never vote for her) of all the candidates from either party (including Gravel), then you would be right.

Whatever Fred says, I'll believe.

I've been converted.

“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan

Care to revise this story?

It's not looking like "two fringe lefties" vs. "Fred?" as is stated above.

The cccounts clearly state that there are at least five people remembering this episode as reported and now "Fred?" isn't answering questions about it ( http://www.miamiherald.com/692/story/163634.html ) aside from repeating his supporter's refrain (that is getting very old, very quickly) that it's all left-wing media lies because he's such a stud that scares the libs so badly.

I was taken aback when "Fred?" said he didn't recall/remember anything about his 1994 or 1996 pro-choicy surveys. It seemed like a "too-slick" way to slide away from his previous statements/stances. He's largely gotten away with that tactic thus-far, but it's not going to get him out of this one (espeicially when his "non-recollection" turned to outright denial by his campaign).

Do all the "Fred?" supporters really believe that there are falsified documents of 1991 meeting minutes and that 5 different people are in collusion to destroy him before his imminent annointing to the GOP nomination and gauranteed obliteration of any Democratic nominee? If not, then why hasn't this story been re-visited/updated?

"Fred?" has been very evasive with the media and is only doing interviews with known friendly sources. I can't count the number of times I've read an article about him where it's said that he "declined to comment/participate" in the piece. What is he afraid of? . . . I guess we're finding out piece-meal.

Look, all of us who support a legitimate candidate have seen the MSM/libs and those within our own party try to tear our guy apart (excluding Rudy who is almost one of them . . . at least on social issues). It's part of running for the GOP nomination. How these attacks are dealt with is the bigger issue. This story may play out into further episodes . . . but if things stand as is, it's not looking good for "Fred?" and team on this one.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

Beuller . . . Beuller . . . anyone . . . anyone . . .

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

When you make yourself this unpleasant to be in a thread with, don't expect people to jump at your smarmy command.

Run like Reagan!

And this advice is coming from mister smiles and sunshine himself?!?!

I provided substance and links and commentary (admittedly with some attitude thrown in there as well). No one has addressed those issues yet.

You, true to form, respond back by attacking the commentator and not the comments. You could use more than a healthy dose of your own advice.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

your comments are really stupid. There, is that better?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I try, but to say I'm wrong because I don't always manage to apply it is an ad hominem fallacy.

Run like Reagan!

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

is at best tenuous. See Captain's Quarters, I'm too lazy to link.

I find it a bit silly that the same people who will go to the wall insisting that Mitt hasn't flipped several times on this issue (and for the record I could care less) are flogging this like like a new gospel.

You guys are about the last people who should be howling about "too slick" and "evasive" answers. Heck, Mitt can't come up with a convincing reason for not running for a second term, let alone his now pro-life positions.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

but I agree that primary-voting Republicans deserve a better response to this story than has so far been provided by Mr. Thompson and his supporters.

Either he lobbied for the group or he didn't, and his billing records will be dispositive of the matter.

Captain's Quarters...

A couple of the group's principals swear that they hired Thompson; Thompson denies working for them, and the man whom Fred would have had to meet categorically states that he never discussed the gag rule with Fred at all.

[...]

Now a new bit of indirect evidence has been found. Arent Fox brought Thompson into the firm to be "of counsel" in 1991 for his expertise in their lobbying business, including the representation of foreign governments. Anyone involved in such lobbying has to register with the Foreign Agent Registration Unit at the Department of Justice. Arent Fox filed its registration for its lobbyists, complete with the listings of all its lobbyists -- including their start and termination dates.

Take a look at registrant #2661 in the FARA search system (unfortunately, the results are unlinkable). Fred D. Thompson, according to their records, starts as a lobbyist for foreign business on 10/10/1991 and terminates on 9/17/1993, which is when he decided to run for the remainder of Al Gore's term in the Senate. That gives some indication that Thompson started lobbying for Arent in October and not September of 1991. It's possible that Arent had limited Thompson to lobbying for domestic clients until October, but that seems rather odd, given their desire to have him on board as a major attraction for DC lobbying.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"Do all the "Fred?" supporters really believe that there are falsified documents of 1991 meeting minutes and that 5 different people are in collusion to destroy him before his imminent annointing to the GOP nomination and gauranteed obliteration of any Democratic nominee? If not, then why hasn't this story been re-visited/updated?"

I don't know what you consider obliteration, but this sure ain't it:

Election 2008: Clinton, Thompson Tied
Clinton (D) 46% Romney (R) 42%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_cl...

Fred is what we need.

Delaware Reformer

"Fred?" has the potential to dominate the South. But his national poll numbers likely over-represent his true electoral potential IMO.

What does he offer beyond Bush's tenuous electoral map?

It doesn't matter if Fred beats Hillary 80%-20% in TN, or 68%-32% in MS . . . the electoral votes will be the same. What does he offer in swing states or anywhere outside the south? Maybe he'll catch fire and do well outside the south . . . but there's not much evidence of that happening yet.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

You know what "they" say about opinions...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

outside of Iowa and maybe NH either. And he's spending big bucks, Fred is spending zip.

Got a point? Other than the one on your head?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

My point is clear, but I'll re-explain the obvious for you . . . "Fred?"'s national poll numbers are almost assuredly pumped up by super-charged numbers from the South (the recent Cook Political report showed that his support in the south was essentially double that as elsewhere in the nation) . . . but that this means nothing in an electoral race. If there is a liberal woman and/or a liberal African-American on the Democratic ticket there is no way the GOP nominee will lose the southern state support that Bush had.

I asked for someone to put forth what states they think "Fred?" could win that Bush didn't and why he could keep the close swing states red. No response has been provided at a site that is swarming with "Fred?" supporters.

And I don't think you'd be saying Iowa was meaningless if your guy(s) were leading there.

And lay off the the personal attacks if you want your opinions to be taken seriously. You don't know me, and if you did you would not be calling me a "Pin Head." That much I can assure you.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

for about 20 years. Pretty much the same for NH, but for different reasons.

The bottom line with the primary season, is that it is now being compressed into the front end "so the big states will have a say" and I think it's likely that the net effect will be to dilute, if not eliminate, the media impact of IA and NH. In the past, they've been the only story in town for a "news" hungry press and the results would get dissected and analyzed for weeks, if not months. That's not likely to be happening this cycle. Somebody loses in IA, they will have to deal with it for a couple of weeks - at most - before the story is something like "how X is polling in FL".

With respect to what states particular candidates could carry that Bush didn't, the only candidate I see right now who has any kind of bragging rights to make that case is Rudy. He will make NY competitive - I don't think he can win it, but he'll make the D's spend lots of money there. He won't lose the South, he may not win it at "Bush margins", but he won't lose it either. He could pick up a couple of NE states and make the West coast competitive.

Romney's not likely to pick up MA, and I don't see him doing anything in any of the Blue states that's overwhelming. Who knows about Fred, he hasn't announced and I really don't think anybody's paying all that much attention. Nobody else matters. Except Ron Paul, who will sweep TX. (clicks heels on ruby slippers)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

because a lobbyist's job is to represent his client. Washington and the state capitals are full of lobbyists doing their thing on behalf of persons with whom they do not agree. It's how the system works. Fred had to make a living like everyone else and probably took some clients as favors to colleagues (just as Chief Justice John Roberts helped out with a gay rights case).

The assumption that people must be lying because they are leftists is not fair IMO. Nor did Mike Barnes lose the Maryland Democratic Senate primary because he was "even more leftwing" than Barbara Mikulski. He lost because the Baltimore area has more voters than Montgomery County, where he lives. He just didnt have the name recognition she had. He would have been a better senator, although I'd take Michael Steele over both of them any day of the week.

Though I rarely agree with anything Mike Barnes says on political issues, I doubt he is lying about what he recalls. Liberal as he is, he is just not the kind of person who is prone to make stuff up.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


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