From the Republican National Coalition for Life, the leader of the Pro-life movement within the National Republican Party, posted at their blog:
As far as we are concerned, the jury is still out on whether Fred Thompson is truly pro-life at this point. While it is true that his record on votes scored by National Right to Life Committee is pro-life, we must remember that those votes were on matters related to regulating or restricting the practice of abortion. There were no votes on the essence of the right to life cause.
We are troubled by his recent comments regarding the Roe v. Wade decision. While he said he thinks it was a bad decision, he thinks the matter should be resolved by the individual states and that the states “should have some leeway.” (Tennesean.com, 6/10/07)
The right to life is a fundamental right that should be protected under the United States Constitution. States should not be able to decide willy-nilly whether or not to legalize the killing of unborn babies. Period. Our goal is to end legal abortion in America. At this point, it does not appear that Fred Thompson or, for that matter, most of the current Republican presidential candidates, share that goal.
And here’s an update on the denial lack of memory of whether or not he lobbied on behalf of an abortion rights group.
You know, I think his wife must be fairly tall. I mean, standing next to him in that photo her head is clearly higher than his shoulder and Fred is six feet five.
Aparently a woman of stature.
Now let me address the “update” from “Politico.”
First, you need to understand that Politico is the collective liberal propaganda blog that assisted Chris Mathews in the first Republican debate. It was Politico that contributed the following questions:
“If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?”
“Thousands of reputable scientists have concluded, with almost certainty, that human activity is responsible for the warming of the Earth. Do you believe global warming exists?”
“Will you work to protect women’s rights, as in fair wages and reproductive choice?”
“…55 percent of Americans say victory is just not possible in Iraq. They’ve made up their minds on this war. Why shouldn’t they have a president who will listen?”
and…
“’What do you dislike most about America? ”
The “update” is, in fact, a Politico hit piece, full of lies and carefully crafted distortions. Let me point out a few:
“Fred Thompson is backing off his flat denial that he once lobbied for an abortion-rights group.”
This statement is a flat lie. Thompson has not backed off anything.
“He now says he doesn’t remember it,…”
This is a distortion. He has always said he doesn’t remember it.
“…but does not dispute evidence to the contrary.”
Another flat lie. There IS no evidence to the contrary, unless you count a photograph with him sitting next to the person making the charges as evidence that her claims are true.
“The climb-down could be a significant embarrassment for a prospective candidate with a plain-spoken appeal and who has courted the GOP’s anti-abortion base, although Thompson and his advisers had signaled for several days that it was coming.”
Distortion. “Signaled” means that they didn’t say it at all but Politico wishes to interpret it that way to support the thesis of this hit piece.
“Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo told the Times in an e-mail: ‘Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period.’ The Times said minutes from a board meeting of the group suggested otherwise.”
Distortion. There is NO “evidence otherwise” to suggest the veracity of the claims. The “minutes” are the sole production of the group making the accusation. It’s like Clinton producing minutes of a White House staff meeting where he denied any involvement with Monica Lewinsky as “evidence” that he had no involvement with Monica Lewinsky. Repeating a claim adds nothing to the claim itself.
“So the difference may boil down to how you define “lobbying.”
This is a world-class Distortion. There is not, now, nor ever was any objective evidence that Thompson lobbied for this group and much evidence that he did not. The root of this hit piece, however, is the possibility that he held conversations about the issue with members of the law firm with which he was associated at the time (that did, in fact, lobby). Because of the insignificance of that potential discussion, and the unlikelihood that he would remember a conversation, many years ago, about a case on which he did not participate, Thompson says “I don’t remember.” That is entirely reasonable. If, in fact, he did remember he should say so, but, as is absolutely the case and Politico is well aware, it would make no difference in any way with regard to the claim that he “lobbied”. But to attempt to give life to this dead story, Politico wants to re-define “lobbying” to mean any discussion with someone who actually is lobbying. This is the journalistic version of “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” Perhaps they can say he “lobbied” if they can re-define the word.
“It has been clear for several days that Thompson was not going to stick with a complete denial.”
Another lie. The denial was that Thompson lobbied. The “I don’t remember” applies to whether or not he discussed the issue with attorneys at his firm who were lobbying. The only change is the scurrilous attempt, by Politico, to confuse one with the other and call that a “change.” Like most liberals, Politico has no conscience.
“When an Associated Press reporter asked him about the matter this weekend at the Young Republicans National Convention, he deflected with one of his folksy observations: “I’d just say the flies get bigger in the summertime. I guess the flies are buzzing.”
Lie. Thompson’s statement is not a “deflection.” It is going on offense. The “flies” are liberal media propagandists, like Politico, who, already having an answer, keep bringing up the same question to attempt to resurrect a dead slander.
“Then in an interview with Sean Hannity that was reported by Thomas B. Edsall of The Huffington Post, Thompson was even more evasive: ‘You need to separate a lawyer who is advocating a position from the position itself.’”
A complete lie. That is not evasive at all, but a comment on the decision by Democrat activists, like Politico, to attack Fred Thompson on his legal work. This plan, already under weigh by Mainstream Media, was announced, prominently, by Democrat strategist Dick Morris via several media outlets. Here is the template: “Did Thompson, as an attorney, defend a murderer? Well, obviously, he supports murder!” It is precisely that, the baseless attacks that the liberal opposition is reduced to, that Thompson addressed to Hannity.
“The lobbying controversy illustrates the harsh scrutiny that awaits Thompson when he formally kicks off his campaign,…”
Distortion. The “harsh scrutiny” has been in full swing for some time already. Thompson is, already, the number one target of the biggest Liberal newspapers in the country. They are already acting as if he has the nomination and are slinging mud as fast as they can scoop it out of their own liberal slime pits.
Doug @ 1: I respect you for your well trained eyes!
Doug @ 2: So your beef is with the Politico, not so much this post. And a big beef, it is, while side-stepping the major issue being addressed here: is Fred Thompson pro-choice or not? Do you dispute the quotes cited by RNC for Life?
Meanwhile, in defense of Politico, put aside their liberal agenda, the many stupid questions in the presidential debates, their ability to see that Thompson carries broad appeal to the Republican base currently, and their subsequent determination to take him out because he appears to be able to get the nomination. You must admit that their partnership with Chris Matthews in the presidential debates, while seeming “obsessed” with the candidates’ positions on abortion, especially those of the “front runner” candidates, their format certainly did go along way in exposing the pro-abortion views of Rudy to anyone who had not yet been aware. Rudy was considered the “frontrunner” then. Should we be critical of Politico for attacking Rudy because they saw a way to take out our top Republican?