The liberal Los Angeles Times dropped a political dirty bomb on undeclared GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson this morning. It claims Thompson lobbied against the “gag rule” for a pro-abortion organization way back in 1991. The gag rule was “a rule that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money.”
Thompson denies ever working for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Rights Association. And the two primary accusers in this brouhaha, the organization’s director, Judith DeSarno, and former Congressman Michael Barnes, are both described by The American Spectator as “well-known left-wing activists.”
This is clearly an effort to undermine Thompson’s rising support among social conservatives. But opponents are going to have a tough time making hay out of this trivial matter, even if true, thanks in large measure to Thompson’s actual record on abortion while he served in Congress.
“Thompson was listed as an ‘enemy’ by Planned Parenthood during his time in the Senate,” note the Spectator. “He was twice endorsed by the National Right Life Committee, and had a 100 percent voting record on life issues during his time in the Senate. He has publicly stated his opposition to Roe v. Wade, federal funding for abortion and embryonic stem cell research.”
What this attack tells us is that the Democrats are clearly worried about Thompson’s pending candidacy.
However, such a bush-league attack is likely to backfire. Conservatives, including many undecideds and fence-sitters, will now rally to defend Thompson. Indeed, the Thompson campaign will be able to use this attack to their own advantage, explaining that it proves he’s the candidate the D’s most fear can win the White House for Republicans. Ought to help his fundraising, too.
Sometimes in politics, your opponents do you a favor by attacking you. Fred Heads just might need to send some “thank you” cards to the LA Times today.
Posted on July 7th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
The D’s have no problem creating controversy out of whole cloth where none exists. You are right on the money regarding Thompson. Once declared, he becomes the primary candidate and against his persona Hillary hasn’t a chance, especially in debate.
I can accept most of the Republican candidates, and none of the Democrats. But Fred Thompson is far and away the very best choice possible. He will be President.
When the Democrats stop blowing all this unnecessary and false hot air, then global warming will no longer be a problem.
Now you understand why many of us in this overcrowded city refer to it as the LA “Slime”!
Must agree with Chuck that this could very well help Fred’s campaign, but it doesn’t change my plan to re-register back to the party that left me in ‘75 just to vote for Ron Paul!
NYTimes (Jo Becker) also has story today on Thompson’s alleged “pro-abortion” lobbying in its Politics section.
Bob Beers is right on! Even if Thompson did lobby against the “gag rule” as alleged, there is no controversy! Clearly he only did so for the money, to put food on the table for his kids and wife, not because he believes the issue was “pregnant” to him morally or socially. When it came time to be in Conress he voted pro-life (it’s not like he cared if he was re-elected; he voted his conscience).
Fred is SUCH a DC outsider he will be invincible to ANY candidate challenge in the primary race, he’ll win every one of them! That he “leaked” info to Nixon WHouse during Watergate is baloney too, fabricated out of whole cloth.
And his lobbying work for tobbaco back in the 1980’s will help him in the South and live free or die West! He even had his family members involved in the family business of lobbying when he was in the Senate. This reflects the Values of the Republican Party.
Run Fred run!
I have closely observered people since I was young boy, watching their moves, listening to their speech, and all the other nuances that go into making a person an indivdual. Not for criticism but for enjoying fascination. At 82 I still like to do that and over the years I’ve learned to separate the phonies from the real deal with about 75% accuracy. What you see in Fred is what you get. The real deal. Because of that reality, I predict that he will whup anything the Demorats put up there. I further suggest that he is the only one on the Republican side that can.
Who’s with me in thinking that Cecil should start a blog if he hasn’t already so the rest of us can reap some of his wisdom!!! I hope I’m half as spirited and intune at 82!
I once debated a gay life promoter on public TV, but that didn’t make me anti folks with that struggle in their lives. Anyone the totalitarians can throw at Thompson is already on record as being willing to breech a baby at great risk to the mother and suck its brains out to protect her life. We even have Democrat grannies in Congress in that business representing us deluded folks from California!
Go Fred!
These attacks are good for three reasons. First, they’re coming way too early (six months before New Hampshire, 16 months before the election), so there’s less chance that they’ll serve any decisive purpose, and they give Mr. Thompson plenty of time to respond.
Second, because the attacks came so early, they show the fear in the ranks of the opponents of a Thompson candidacy. Basically, these pre-emptive attacks have two purposes: Either try to force Thompson to reconsider his plans to become a candidate, or weaken him relative to the other Republican candidates to increase Republican infighting and lessen the chances that all elements of the party will rally around the eventual nominee. The only motivation to attack this early would be a fear of what will happen once he becomes a declared candidate.
Thirdly, this attack is good because it’ll force Mr. Thompson to react and will give his potential supporters a measure of the man. Mr. Thompson has been criticized for a supposed lack of a work ethic while in the Senate, and some have questioned whether he has the “fire in the belly” to fight for the presidency in the midst of any and every adverse situation that arises (and we all know that these situations will arise). In retrospect (a year from now), the story in the LA Times may be considered a minor road bump on the way to the presidency compared to other issues that may arise later. How Mr. Thompson deals with it should give his supporters an idea of how he’ll deal with other situations like this if he becomes a candidate.
Just one question about Fred: How do we deal with the fact that he is a member of the global-elitist CFR, which has designs on undermining our national sovereignty and turning us into a third-world slave plantation?
I have in mind a new bumpersticker idea (no apologies to the Democrat-Socialist Party’s Litigation Lottery candidate…,) and in a break with my trademarking tradition I hereby give full permission to anyone who’d like to use it:
“You Say ‘LA Times’ -
I Say ‘Soft & Absorbent’”
Seriously, the fact that the most strident left wing rag west of the Hudson River is attacking Thompson should be considered both a badge of honor and reason for a good chuckle.
As for me I would very much like to be a supporter of F. Thompson, but first he would have to:
a.) Make a 180-degree about-face on the McCain/Feingold/Shays/Meehan First Amendment Arsewipe-Transformation Act of 2003 and commit himself to fully and permanently abolishing that Act within something like 21 days of his Inauguration;
b) Demonstrate familiarity and agreement with Martin Durkin’s landmark film “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” then demonstrate a willingness - nay, *enthusiasm* - for attacking the fraud that is anthropogenic “global warming” anywhere and everywhere it comes up;
c) Just mention any or all of the following: “government reduction,” “deregulation,” “capitalism,” “individualism,” “privatization,” “nationwide concealed-carry as a right under the 2nd Amendment.” Just mention one of them. Even once. That would be 100% more than we’ve heard from any of the other 10 GOP candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul, who unfortunately remains in the grip of a Kantian view of foreign policy.)
I am, however, encouraged by his willingness to get right in Michael Mooooore’s face - ’shows a refreshing absence of the kind of craven “PC” timidity we’ve seen from the rest of the GOP field. I plan on…keeping my eyes and ears open. But I will not vote for a supporter of political censorship in any guise or label. If we lose our First Amendment rights we’re all just serfs marking time until the dictator du jour decides to dispense with us.
I would be very willing to support a Fred Thompson for president, IF Ron Paul was running with him as Vice President
Fred Thompson and Dr. Ron Paul
or
Ron Paul and Fred Thompson
WHAT A TEAM!
Dear Objective Eye;
You mention “Litigation Lottery” and I had to laugh having just read where no less a tort reformer than Judge Bork has recently initiated a $1,000,000,000 lawsuit against Yale University. The Judge was invited to speak at the University and on his way to the diaz tripped and fell.
I can only conclude from the amount he is requesting for “damages” that he must be in a coma.
Oh, man… Just don’t get me started on Bork…