Beats me. Turns out that he did some lobbying work — 20 hours worth, to be exact — a decade and a half ago for pro-abortion concerns.
Now, as I’ve argued before (and as Powerline argues here), I don’t find (with, eg., Allah), that any “defense” is necessary: lobbyists and lawyers are paid to advocate for clients; they are advocates by proxy, and are not, of necessity, compelled to agree with their clients or their clients’ stated positions. And in any event, whether they do or not should not, at least in theory, factor into the work they do.
Allah finds this defense “weak in the context of an issue as morally important to the base as this one,” but he does concede that such a defense beats lying, which is what Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo seemed to be doing when he he adamantly denied that Thompson ever worked for a pro-abortion group — a statement now disproven by a NYT investigation into billing records.
For his part, Thompson had said he didn’t recall doing any such work — and such an explanation, it seems to me, is rather plausible: 20 hours is not much time spent in consulting work, and this work took place 14 years ago, so some conservative incredulity notwithstanding, I’m not sure we need be much bothered by vagaries of memory.
It’s just as likely that Thompson’s spokesman made a boneheaded denial in advance of having his facts straight. But so what? Thompson is avowedly anti-abortion (and his voting record shows as much), so if that’s what drives you to the voting booth, there’s no need for all the high moral dudgeon. Besides, Thompson hasn’t even announced yet.
But hey, whatever floats your boat. If it’s high dudgeon and a hairshirt that keeps you feeling all tingly and such, have at it.
Similarly, if it puffs you up to call something a lie that could just as plausibly be a mistake of memory (on Thompson’s part) and/or political judgment (on the part of Corallo)– all while labeling Thompson a “pro-abortion lobbyist” (which, while technically true 17 years ago, is hardly the same as being a pro-abortion candidate in 2008, as the title implies) — knock yourself out.
I don’t think this is anything Thompson can’t defuse with a few quick words on lobbying in particular and paid advocacy positions in general, but the gaffed does suggest that, as Allah points out, Thompson’s campaign might not be quite ready for primetime just yet.
It also points out that the NYT considers him enough of a threat that they think they can hurt him with his base.
And who knows? Maybe the Times is right, for once.
[…] 3: Welcome Protein Wisdom readers! We are […]
Other bloggers i.e., Captains Quarters, Polipundit have different takes, however, since I haven’t finished reading my usual blogs all I can say is “so what”? And the NYTimes actually let a columnist write a really true column, so who knows? I like Fred but I am waiting….too soon for anything!
I’m still waiting to see exactly what Fred lied about, as it appears that the only thing that happened here is one of his advisors spoke without vetting his comment through Fred first.
I will agree that the campaign staff could have handled this better, this being an issue that shouldn’t make or break a campaign. I wonder if this explains why Fred hasn’t formally declared his candidacy yet. He may want to make sure that things like this won’t happen after he declares, which appears to be a good idea.
If I was pro-life and worked for and lobbyied on behalf of a group that advocates the murder of babies in the womb, I think I’d remember that.
And Fred hasn’t exactly been making pro-life statements. Hannity had to cut him off to prevent him from championing the “right to choose [murder].”
If Fred would have come clean right away and not let his campaign lie about this, the story would have gone away. But that’s not what happened.
The description of the legislation he was pushing was that it involved “abortion counselling.” What was the nature of the counselling? It seems to me that if it’s a discussion of the procedures, risks, etc, without advocacy, that’s prudent rather than wrong.
Sure, psycheout, if that was the only job you ever did, maybe. But as Dan notes above, I rather doubt the work was presented to him as “help us murder babies in the womb!”
Fact is, I’m reluctantly pro-choice [ed-oops! corrected] (though I favor many restrictions on abortion), and it’s possible, I think, to view abortion in terms that aren’t quite so black and white, particularly for someone with both federalist and libertarian leanings.
You assume that Fred “let his campaign lie about this.” But it is just as plausible his campaign made a stronger denial than Thompson based on Thompson’s not remembering the work he did. Which likely had little to do with “help us kill babies in the womb!”
Fred! worked for 20 hours as a lobbyist for a pro-abortion outfit.
[shrugs shoulders, mutters ‘who fucking cares’, turns to important matters]
With any luck, during the next President’s tenure the technology will be discovered enabling a human baby to be brought to term from conception to birth without ever seeing the inside of a womb. This will make Roe v. Wade overturn itself, and then we can get to work on the social compromise that was short-circuited by the Supreme Court in 1973.
Turing words: should feated. Exactly.
yours/
peter.
I suppose one could try looking at what he did as an elected official and then ponder his “true” intent when he said “I think Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad medical science And the way to address that is through good judges. I don’t think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It’s contrary to what it’s been the past 200 years… That’s what happened in this case [Roe v. Wade]. I think it was wrong.” coupled with the actual meaning of “Planned Parenthood gave him a ZERO rating because of his pro-life voting record. NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) gave him an “F” rating when considering potential vice-presidential candidates in 2000.”
Or parse a stumbling reaction to a LAT hit piece on what he did as a lobbyist.
BTW – I give the reaction a solid D-. Campaigns really have to have speed and accuracy in their responses.
I agree. One of the reasons he hasn’t declared yet, I imagine.
What that O’Brain guy said.
I’m what would be considered a social con (pro-life, Godbotherer, civil unions, chickenhawk) and, despite Mr. Brownback’s best attempts (and I like the Senator) this doesn’t in any way cause me to doubletake on Thompson.
Although I must say that I did doubletake one of Brownback’s commentators who said that Fred’s wife looks like a “Vegas Streetwalker.” Shockingly, she’s from “Baptists for Brownback.”
*sigh* Sometimes being a fundie social con has its sad moments.
Now there’s an ethical dilemma waiting to happen. Luckily, I can’t see that sort of technology appearing any time soon.
Because Mobys don’t exist.
Seriously, I really don’t give a rat’s ass. Primarily because it’s not a critical issue for me, but also because the shocking revelation of his having billed 20 hours and made a couple dozen visits 14 years ago doesn’t strike me as all that big of a deal.
And if we want to start looking at who does lobbying for which groups, couldn’t the press be the least even-handed about it?
3.3 hours spent 17 years ago talking to Administration officials. Sure, I’d have that seared into my memory.
His supporters will wave it off with a “meh”, his foes will trumpet it. I will yawn and load the car to head up to WI for a three day weekend of pistol qualification, then lookout Dells, here I come.
Nothing to see here. Move along. I have to agree with Rick Ballard. I do believe his voting record would be the most prudent place to see where Fred sits on the issue. I like that record, too, btw. And his campaign staff screwed up royally. It may be time for Mr. Corallo to be re-assigned to literature folding duty.
Wow, Major John. Have a good time, and say “hi” to the Badger State for me: “Eat Cheese, or Die!”
If you have time, get over to the Dodgeville area. Beautiful country.
Maybe I’m too squishy on the socialcon part of my politics, but it never fails to piss me off when a socialcon candidate for some high office focuses huge amounts of his energies to slamming an opponent for not being 100% “correct” on abortion. I care about abortion, but I also care about other stuff.
When my then-congressman, Mac Collins, was running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 2004, every single g.d. message he sent out was slamming Johnny Isakson on abortion. I ended up supporting Herman Cain instead, and had no significant problem voting for Isakson in November.
Brownback is in danger of joining John McCain on my “not in this lifetime” list.
Fact is, I’m reluctantly pro-life
Jeff? Are you moving over to my side??? Or a mis-print?
Anyway, I heard Fred say that his pro-life beliefs solidified when his daughter was born in 2003. A sonogram will do that to some people.
I’m taking him at his word.
I hear you. Years ago I remember listening to a Christian radio station that was interviewing some guy who was a political operative for one of the pro life orgs. When asked about abortion he responded exactly this way, “Abortion isn’t just the most important issue, it’s the only important issue.”
Huh?
I am Pro-Life from a religious perspective and called “bullpucky” on that. Sometimes the pro life people remind me of some of the enviro-loonies in their single minded, blinkered approach.
Even my boss, a true Massachusetts liberal and pro choice, was supremely pissed at the Senate Judiciary committee and the endless Roe v Wade questions (remember Arlen “poster child for senility” Spector trying to get Roberts to say that Roe was “super precedent?”)
Here’s a clue to Brownback; this pro life social con evangelical has many other questions that need answers. Don’t be a one issue candidate.And, BTW, don’t be so quick to jump down a fellow Republican’s throat on that one issue to provide yourself a little short term bump.
Oh, that sooooo does it.
That does it. I’m finished!
I am THROUGH with Fred.
Because of the abortion thing?
Hell no.
Because I’m with Burge-Goldstein.
Wait. What is there abortion position anyway?
TW: victory weren’t
OK, now I’m having second thoughts
Anyone who thinks Brownback is a single issue candidate isn’t paying attention.
Psychout;
I wasn’t suggesting that he was, only that he runs the risk of appearing to be a single issue candidate when he jumps all over this issue, which is less than trivial.
Dude, I like your guy, he shares many of my values. I was just a little put out how quick he was to dropkick a Republican because of this particular issue.
The last time I checked it was all about beating Dems in 2008 not scarpping over crumbs.
The issue is not less than trivial; Thompson’s work in the early nineties is less than trivial.
I miss preview.
Pyscheout,
Senator Brownback has been (and will continue to be) very solid in the Senate. You chose to come here and give Thompson a whack on a “single issue”. Brownback is a second tier candidate with remote prospects which would have to improve tremendously in order for it to be worthwhile to spend much time reading about his stands on other issues.
A low ‘Q’ isn’t very susceptible to change and flailing at other candidates sure isn’t a promising method of elevating your candidate.
I wasn’t aware that Senator Brownback was attacking Fred! on this issue. Not a mention on his campaign website and no mention on their campaign blog. So BJTexs I don’t think he’s jumping all over this issue or dropkicking anyone.
I chose to come here to read and participate in the discussion since Jeff linked to our website.
Psycheout – Maybe Senator Brownback is not attacking Fred, but blogs4brownback sure seem to be doing so. Good luck.
Psycheout – I went and read the post where you accuse Sen. Thomson of being a liar, and the various comments you have made throughout about him. How could anybody characterize your position as anything other than an attack. It will take more than you making up a controversy to get national recognition for Sen. Brownback. Don’t get me wrong, I have no particular qualms with the Sen., except for the 3 state partition idea, but to think that he is a viable player for the nomination is silly. At this point, all you are doing is flinging feces at people that are ostensibly on the same side as you.
Mis-print, RWS. Thanks for finding it!
Personally, I’m more concerned that Fred supported McCain Feingold.
He’s going to have to walk that one back.
Rightwingsparkle – Are you still a McCain supporter?
Jeff – te McCain/Feingold issue should be easy to walk back. He should stand in front of a camera, and say he made a dumb decision, and a horrible mistake.
Yet Fred! likes to refer to it as McCain-Feingold-Thompson. And they couldn’t have done it without Fred! And there’s this:
It did and it wouldn’t have. Great job, Fred. Thanks for standing up for conservative values!
Yes, psycheout, we get the idea. You do not like Fred!, and you happen to think Sen. Brownback is one fine lad. What could have possibly given that away? If you are going to come here to campaign, why don’t you give us an affirmative reason to support Sen. Brownback, rather than tearing into a not yet announced opponent, and former colleague of Sen. Brownback’s? Simply sniping at the rest of the field is how the Dems play ball. Show us in what way your guy is different.
Sounds like the proper preparation for a visit to the Dells. Going Duck hunting?
So, last summer when I was in the Dells, I saw a pub that was named Nig’s, and had a slogan “Have a swig with the Nig”. Does anybody from around that area know the story on that place. Odd name. I kept looking over my shoulder for the inevitable protest from Jesse and Al.
Psycheout disappeared after Brownback didn’t bother voting for the John Doe provision the Dems killed in the Senate.
Imagine that!
So, what did we learn about Sen. Brownback today? 1) Somebody that calls themselves psycheout posts a shit load of stuff on blogs4brownback that would be more appropriately called psycheoutagainstfred, 2) psycheout is not very good at this whole discussion thing, and 3) at least Sen. Brownback did not vote AGAINST the amendment.
Yeah, Jeff, I disappeared. How mysterious that I have other things to do with my life than to monitor this particular comment thread. The shame of it all!
But I do enjoy your blog and appreciate you linking to mine.
If you want to find out more about why Brownback is better than Fred!, why not visit Blogs 4 Brownback and check out our extensive coverage of Sam Brownback and his issues?
It’s rather silly that you would expect me to rehash everything that’s over there in this comment thread. Try here and here. We’ve already done the homework, all you have to do is copy our notes before gym class is over. Sheesh.
Wow JD, you hurt me to my soul. I am mortally wounded by your witty rejoinder. Punk.
At least Jeff is good with the insults when he’s inspired. You, on the other hand, are about as effective as a shy little girl with a speech impediment. And probably half as interesting.
I’d be bored stiff to read your blog, if you were creative enough to have one. Halfwit.
psycheout – That is an incredibly effective campaign strategy. Every time you post, you really make me want to write a check to the Brownback campaign. You must be hell on Dems, since you are oh so friendly to people that are likely quite ideologically similar.
Hopefully, Sen. Brownback does a better job managing his campaign staff and message.
Oh, please, JD, I’m sorry. Please contribute your five dollars in allowance money to the Brownback campaign.
I deeply and humbly apologize if I have somehow offended you, your honor.
You are really cool and I throw myself at your feet hoping that by licking your boots you will find it in your heart to forgive Senator Brownback.
That, or you could shove that five dollars up your tailpipe, you worthless moron.
Sam Brownback doesn’t need checks that come back NSF.
THAT’S HOW BROWNBACK ROLLS, BITCHES!
BROWNBACK DON’T PLACATE
Word, OHNOES.
That Blogs4Brownback site is likely a spoof. With articles like this arguing against heliocentrism, along with a mention at this site (be sure to check the comments at both), it appears the site is there simply to make fun of Brownback and make him look bad. Of course it would attack Fred Thompson (in Brownback’s name, of course).
Bill B – I commend you on wading through all of that. The post on heliocentrism was hysterical, and the comments even better.
I do not like it when somebody purports to support someone, but in this case, given Brownback’s probability of success, this blog will not hurt anything. Another Moby.
I must congratulate blogs4brownback with a creative and far reaching blog strategy. This is the finest example of insuring a candidate’s fringe status I have ever seen.
Well, out side of Ron Paul’s campaign.
Certainly, going to a conservative/classical liberal site populated by some social/religious cons and insulting the readership is a POWERFUL CAMPAIGN TOOL.
You may be right, Bill B, but it wouldn’t be half as fun.
Psycheout – Nice try. I refuse to get into a pissing contest with a man without a dick, or a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Congrats on an excellent spoof site. Well done.
As for Fred!, this seems to be more of an organizational type of issue. As Tman alluded to, this may be designed to come out now, before he announces, to take the starch out of the argument. If so, well planned, and if not, fortunate. Clearly he worries the powers that be at the NY and LA Times, as they are already focusing their guns on him, trying to erode his support amongst traditional R’s.
Yikes.
I shall have to declare Psycheout the winner of both this comment thread and the other Fred! one. Sorry guys, but them’s the breaks.
I had somewhat suspected, but was not sure enough to believe.
Why are so many of these comments incoherent or just plain incomplete?
Why do wingnuts hate English? Why?
Jeff – You sure do attract some brilliant moonbats. toby there is currently reading the 3rd Reich, and notes on his blog the similarities between the rise of the Nazi’s and the rule of the Bush crime syndicate. Really truly inspired leftwing thinking, that.
t4toby, its obviously an artform you are still too early in your development as an audience to appreciate.