Fred Thompson was a pro-choice lobbyist

By: Rob
Published On: 7/7/2007 1:29:43 PM

It's one thing for the GOP primary voters to swallow a candidate's pro-choice position. It's another thing for them to have to accept a candidate's lobbying for pro-choice causes:
Fred D. Thompson, who is campaigning for president as an antiabortion Republican, accepted an assignment from a family-planning group to lobby the first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction, according to a 1991 document and several people familiar with the matter.

A spokesman for the former Tennessee senator denied that Thompson did the lobbying work. But the minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. say that the group hired Thompson that year.

His task was to urge the administration of President George H. W. Bush to withdraw or relax a rule that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money, according to the records and to people who worked on the matter.

The GOP's knight in shining armor just fell off his horse. (H/T TPM)

Comments



Will it Matter? (Teddy - 7/7/2007 4:40:52 PM)
Listening to the fulsome praise for anybody that pretends to be Reaganesque, I think the diehard republican voter will overlook a wart or two and decide to support Fred. Those repub voters are so programmed to fall under the spell of any macho patriarchal-sounding leader, that flipflops and recent conversions, even guys with a lot of baggage like Giuliani, are okay. And Fred is an actor, so he can be convincing if he just maintains the Reagan-mask long enough.


Perhaps. (JPTERP - 7/7/2007 9:21:16 PM)
Although if Thompson claims to have rendered services in 1991 and received compensation for those services--and he now is asserting that he did NOT render those services, but was still paid he could have some liability. 

I don't know what the statute of limitations are for lobbying fees that run through DC law firms, but this could get ugly if someone really wanted to press the matter. 



The sound bite/Mantra: PAID to lobby for pro-abortion reform!! (Dianne - 7/8/2007 8:46:25 AM)
If said clearly, frequently, and loudly enough....it just might stick!


Lobbyists have no soul (relawson - 7/7/2007 9:21:17 PM)
Harris Miller comes to mind as a case in point as a lobbyist without a soul. 

Even though I may disagree with people on political views (regarding a variety of issues) I have personal respect for them as individuals and accept that we often agree to disagree.

In the case of lobbyists, their only moral guide is money.  They genuinely discust me.  They will advocate for their clients no matter their personal beliefs.

Lawyers do the same thing, however I understand and support what they do because it is part of our legal system - a necessity. 

But that argument doesn't hold water for lobbyists.  It is shameful that our political system is so influenced by people who care only about making money, not about the future of our nation. 



But what about the lobbyists who advocate for progressives? (Dianne - 7/8/2007 8:47:47 AM)


Good point. (Lowell - 7/8/2007 10:04:48 AM)
For instance, lobbyists for workers' rights, human rights, womens' rights, the environment, GLBT equality, stem cell resarch, etc?  I don't agree that they "have no souls;" quite the contrary, I am very glad that they're doing what they're doing. 


Why do we need lobbyists for this? (relawson - 7/8/2007 7:48:37 PM)
First of all, the good lobbyists will never win in a race against billion dollar corporations.  There are four healthcare industry lobbyists for every member of Congress. 

Traditional political action such as participation in public hearings, public forums, activism, and so forth should be adequate.

It isn't adequate - but the reason is because the system is broken.  Fix the system and lobbyists should not be needed.



Agreed, fix the system. (Lowell - 7/8/2007 8:05:59 PM)
But right now, it's not fixed.  I want someone who will fight the corporations and stand up for workers and the environment.


Agreed (relawson - 7/8/2007 11:10:39 PM)
"But right now, it's not fixed.  I want someone who will fight the corporations and stand up for workers and the environment."

We need more Webbs, Testers, and the like.  Maybe strong and honest leaders will change things.



It doesn't matter - lobbyists are not needed (relawson - 7/8/2007 7:42:03 PM)
Unless they genuinely believe in what they are advocating, I find their behavior reprehensible.

Money corrupts the process.  I can't think of a good reason that we need to hire someone to represent our interests in Washington.  Our representatives should be actively seeking input from constituents - not on junkets funded by corporations.

If you really want to be "progressive" seek true representation of the people.  Seek campaign finance reforms.  Seek ethics reforms.  Enough of this corporate controlled government.



Right, I agree with that. (Lowell - 7/8/2007 7:44:15 PM)
But for now, given the way the system is, I'm very happy that we've got people up on the Hill fighting for the environment, education, labor, etc. 


I agree that lobbying is a sleazy business but as long as.... (Dianne - 7/11/2007 8:39:33 PM)
someone is lobbying for the corporations, I'd like to know someone is lobbying for labor, the environment, etc.  If you haven't already the latest Washingtonian, there's an article about lobbying Hired Guns: The city's 50 top lobbyist, that will make you ill and angry.