[Welcome, NRO readers. Check out the wet bar. Tell ’em the guy under the stairs sent you. The password is “specimen jar.”]
Plus, there’s documents, and witnesses, ’n’ stuff.
There’s something so wholesome and satisfying about a splatterfest of exploding winger heads. LA Times:
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred D. Thompson, who is campaigning for president as a “pro-life” Republican, accepted a lobbying assignment from a family-planning group to persuade the first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction, according to a 1991 document and five people familiar with the matter.
A spokesman for the former senator denied that Thompson did the lobbying work. But minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. show that the group hired Thompson that year.
Snicker. Either the spokesperson is reflexively lying (he is, after all, a Republican), and/or the Thompson campaign really isn’t ready for prime time.
I mean, shouldn’t they have gotten their stories straight first?
And the Bushes would have sent an enforcer and dealt with the matter in the usual ways: buying silence, destroying the records, discrediting the source, releasing near-real records salted with disinformation… All the usual plays. So what’s the deal with Thompson? What is this, amateur hour?
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 receive federal money, according to the records and the five people who worked on the matter.
The abortion “gag rule” was a major political flashpoint at the time. Thompson’s lobbying would clash directly with the anti-abortion movement that he is now trying to rally behind his campaign for president.
Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period,” he said in an e-mail.
In a telephone interview, he added: “There’s no documents to prove it, there’s no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, says it didn’t happen.” In a separate interview, John Sununu, the White House official whom Thompson was hired to contact, said he had no memory of any lobbying and doubted it took place.
OK, flat denial from the Thompson camp. However:
Judith DeSarno, who was president of the family planning association in 1991, said Thompson lobbied for the group for several months.
Minutes of the board’s meeting of Sept. 14, 1991, a copy of which DeSarno gave to The Times, say: “Judy [DeSarno] reported that the Association had hired Fred Thompson, Esq., as counsel to aid us in discussions with the Administration” on the abortion-counseling rule.
So, the records exist.
Who are you gonna believe? Me, or the lying documentary trail?
Plus, we’ve got witnesses:
Former Rep. Michael Barnes of Maryland, a colleague at the lobbying and law firm where Thompson worked, said DeSarno had asked him to recommend someone for the lobbying work, and that he had suggested that she hire Thompson. He said it was “absolutely bizarre” for Thompson to deny that he lobbied against the abortion counseling rule.
“I talked to him while he was doing it, and I talked to [DeSarno] about the fact that she was very pleased with the work that he was doing for her organization,” said Barnes, a Democrat. “I have strong, total recollection of that. This is not something I dreamed up or she dreamed up. This is fact.”
And now the beauty part:
But Judith DeSarno, who was president of the family planning association in 1991, said Thompson lobbied for the group for several months.
At one of the meals, she recalled, Thompson re-enacted a cowboy death scene from one of his movies. She also remembered him telling her that Sununu had just given him tickets for a VIP tour of the White House for one of Thompson’s sons and his wife.
Fred Thompson may have shoulders you could land a bottle of English Leather on, but the base is really, really, really gonna hate this. Something tells me that Fred’s going to get the chance to re-enact a death scene all over again…
NOTE In the stopped clock is right twice a day department, NRO [DCOW
] points out that Sarno’s cowboy quote has been removed from the LA Times story (as indeed it has) without explanation. What’s up with that?
UPDATE The Thin One points to Thunderheart as the likely source of that loveable scamp, Fred Thompson’s clowning. So, the ball is back in the winger court. The NRO’s funded. Maybe one of them could phone the LA Times and find out why the paragraph was cut? ’Cause I’m waiting for a check to clear. The one with “gay agenda” in the signature line?
UPDATE The Mighty Wurlitzer is starting to crank . More from here:
The LA Times reports that according to a 1991 document and 5 witnesses familiar with the matter, Thompson was hired by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association to lobby the Bush I White House to withdraw a gag rule that prohibited federally funded clinics from providing abortion counseling. As the LA Times says, “The abortion ’gag rule’ was then a major political flashpoint. Lobbying against the rule would have placed Thompson at odds with the antiabortion movement that he his now trying to rally behind his expected declaration of a presidential bid.”
The LA Times reporters viewed NFPRHA board minutes of Sept. 14, 1991 stating “Judy [DeSarno, the family planning organization’s president] has hired Fred Thompson Esq. as counsel to aid us in discussions with the administration” on the abortion counseling rule.
NOTE A note from the reporter, as promised:
Hi. Thank you for your email. The Thompson article was first posted on the LA Times website on Friday afternoon. It was replaced Saturday morning by the version that was published in the newspaper. The Times often reworks stories between the time of their initial posting on the web and their final publication in the newspaper. The print version is the one that we keep posted on the website. In this case, deletion of the movie reference was one of many final editing changes; we decided to delete the reference until we could confirm the film title, which we were unable to do before final publication. Based on DeSarno’s account, the scene that she said Thompson reenacted appears to be from “Keep the Change,” a TNT television western that would have been in production around the time of the lunch and dinner that she described.
Front page
Shrug
It doesn’t matter if Thompson used to perform abortions. The Base will vote for whoever they are told to vote for.
I sincerely believe you are wrong.
The base also has seen that they are being used. For all of its ugliness, the illegul immigrationg issue has put the base on notice that their vote is a ’given’ and they have no say in the matter. It loses.
Ruth
Thompson not ready for prime time
That’s the other moral, here. And I don’t think the base knows how to lose. It’s gonna get ugly. What a shame.
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
what could happen
2008 arrives, with candidates neither the Rethuglican base nor the progressive base really cares for.
$election day arrives, and passes, with delays and obfuscation and name calling.
A weiner emerges, showing the system “works” as ballyhoo’d in the main$tream. Voices questioning the results are marginalized. Business goes on as usual for the good of the Homeland.
After a winter of wildly erratic temperature swings across the nation, calling into question any global warming, spring settles in warmer than usual along the Gulf.
In June, a category 5 hurricance develops in the Western Atlantic, and the eye stalls between Daytona and Bermuda for three days, as tropical and arctic surges feed it from both directions.
At the end of the week, everything south of Vero Beach in Florida simply ceases to exist.
But Apple/ AT&T introduces a New and Improved iPhone cortical implant, Paris Hilton announces her impending marriage, and the band plays on…
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
Fred Thompson
At one of the meals, she recalled, Thompson re-enacted a cowboy death scene from one of his movies.
It doesn’t appear Fred made a cowboy movie before 1993. Maybe Sarno was talking to Ronald Reagan.
Find me the movie
Find me the movie DeSarno’s talking about, and I’ll admit there’s some possibility of truth here:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000669/
Sure looks like it’s DeSarno, not Thompson’s spokesman, that’s lying. Interesting that the L.A. Times no longer carries the bit about the “cowboy death scene”. Wonder why that might be?
So let’s see…your “documentary trail” is the minutes from a 1991 meeting of a pro-abortion group with every reason to want Thompson to tank, and among your witnesses is a former Democrat representative, and the head of said abortion group, who is quoted as recalling a re-enactment of a movie scene that couldn’t have occured, since Thompson hadn’t made any westerns.
Dunno, but it doesn’t sound all that credible to me. Perhaps it’s DeSarno and the L.A. Times that aren’t ready for prime time.
You're right, you're right! Calling all IMDB weenies!
I meant to bring this comment forward, anonymous, but what with one thing and another—-
Readers? Any IMDB readers out there?
Because if this story is wrong, we’ve got a chain of p0wning going on.
(Thanks again, A.C.)
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
If Thunderheart is the film anon references
…it’s a modern western…it was released in April of 1992, which means that it was probably shot 1991, and that makes it entirely likely that Mr. Thompson might have acted out a scene from a film he had made during that year.
And in case anyone wants to find out whether Thompson himself had a death scene in the film, even if that turned out not to be the case, there are plenty of death scenes in the movie, and Ms. DeSarno might easily have misremembered the death of which character Fred was acting out.
Update: In fact, Thunderheart is undoubtedly the movie being referenced by DeSarno, and there is no doubt the film couldn’t have been shot in the year it was released, so Ms. DeSarno’s memory is just fine.
I’m not sure what movie Jim B is referencing, but let me assure one and all that Thunderheart can easily considered to be a “western.”
Mary Mapes Part II?
Now having been exposed, the useful idiots at LA Times are deleting the fraud from DeSarno’s many press releases, which the LA Times dutifully swallowed whole? DeSarno didn’t lie; she has merely mistaken her favorite lunch of eating the internal organs (e.g., brains, livers, kidneys, hearts) of the children killed by her favorite abortionists for the “cowboy death scenes” in one of Thompson’s movies. The LA Times will claim it was a “mere” “minor” “irrelevant” “detail”.
Take your hand out of your pants, Tom
And read the comments, and the updates. Or, did you call the LA Times, as we suggested, and you’re just being coy about the results?
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
Who cares? Is the ACLU a
Who cares? Is the ACLU a group of pro-Nazi fanatics because they represented them? Trying to tar the lawyer with the clients mindset is cheap and wrong. Even if Thompson did lobby for the group all he has said is he doesn’t recall it.
"Tar"? Hey, Thompson selling his lobbying services to anybody...
… just makes me respect him all the more.*
I mean, I think family planning is a good thing, and if one of their advocacy groups wants to use a Republican to reach out to the White House, may The God(ess)(e)(s) of Their Choice love ’em, say I.
Now, the Christianist
rump of the Republican Party might feel differently, and I might feel a bit gleeful about that, but that’s hardly “tarring.” Same deal with Shooter’s grandkids. Who cares? Not me. But the base does.
NOTE Not to say that “more” is the same thing as “netting out positive”…
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
Where's the paper trail? SHOW US THE MONEY!
Let’s review the “witnesses” whose otherwise unsupported word we’re supposed to take as gospel:
DeSarno, president of the pro-choice group and Democratic partisan.
Barnes, head of the anti-gun Brady Campaign and Democratic partisan.
The other three witnesses (all also solidly pro-choice admin people linked to DeSarno, also all Democratic partisans) offer only recollections of what DeSarno might have told them, not any first-hand knowledge. Nah, none of those people would have any reason to torpedo a potentially strong conservative GOP candidate!
It’s real simple. IF Thompson actually did any paid lobbying for them, they’ll have the law firm invoices and cancelled checks for same. If they don’t have invoices and checks, if the law firm (Arent) doesn’t have corresponding billing records, then it’s pretty certain DeSarno and Barns are either lying outright, or substantively misrepresenting what actually occured.
Such as (perhaps) Barnes hooking DeSarno up with a meal-with-Fred or two so she could try to lobby him on the cheap into lobbying for her. And Thompson going “That’s nice, but not my cup of tea. I’m going to work for Arent. Call them if you really want to make arrangements for that kind of lobbying. They know all the right people.”
DeSarno and Barns should need to show the bills from Arent naming Thompson if they expect anyone to believe them—other than credulous LA Times reporters and wingnuts. Any such bill would spcify the lobbyist they’re billing for. Having maybe had a dinner with Thompson and attempting to wheedle him into freebies doesn’t cut it. If he worked for them, they were charged or it, and there’s a paper & money trail. Show the trail.
Update: In fact,
Update: In fact, Thunderheart is undoubtedly the movie being referenced by DeSarno, and there is no doubt the film couldn’t have been shot in the year it was released, so Ms. DeSarno’s memory is just fine.
Fred played an FBI agent and he didn’t die.
Can't recall if it was White Sands,
but on the scale of weird, that movie’s a cowboy classic.
Hey, send me a check so I can rent the DVD of this turkey
Parsing
your words, Winger
Commenter of Many Names:
So?
LA Times:
Leah:
You know, Leah may be too thin, but she does know the industry…
Any results with that call to the LA Times? You’re the guys with funding. Why aren’t you breaking the story instead of hanging around on a C-list blog?
I see you’re on a first name basis with Thompson. Good to know. Campaign staff?
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
Standards
In any event, without independent varification of the DeSarno’s story (billing records, a credible third party), the Times should never have publiched the story. Will the Time print every accusation made by an adversary based only on the adversary’s word—or does this standard only apply when talking about a Republican. Now I’m waiting for the story about how the allegation may not be true, but the “perception” that it might be true will hurt Thompson with “values voters.” Despicable journalism.
Oh Winger Commenter of Many Names
Calm down and go read the story.
Am I the only one in here [fans himself] who’s overheated? ’Cause the foil reflects light, right?
How’s that call to the LA Times coming? Any response yet?
NOTE I’m working really, really hard to avoid saying “It’s worked for you guys for years, so what’s the problem?” and see? I succeeded.
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
Also, Nixon didn't call Fred "a lazy shiftless cracker dumbfuck"
that was TBOGG.
Just to set the record straight, make sure we dot or I’s and cross our T’s. Plus I think we need some more Civility
around here.
Nixon’s actual words, caught on tape, btw, were “dumb as hell” and “oh, shit, not that kid”.
Credibility, Nick?
There are five people willing to tell the Times that they have specific memories from the time of having had discussions with DeSarno about Thompson’s specific lobbying activities on a specific aspect of the abortion issue, i.e., the gag rule placed on what doctors could say to their patients.
Please note that Michael Barnes was a colleague of Thompson’s at the same lobbying company, as well as knowing DeSarno; in fact, Barnes recommended Thompson. Note also that for understandable reasons, this organization wanted a lobbyist with access to the Bush I White House. And Barnes remembers conversations with Thompson about the lobbying.
The lobbying was only for two or three months in 1991; there is no reason why an NGO non-profit like a Family Planning Association would keep their billing records for more than ten years; it is now sixteen years since that event.
Nick, if the media were to use your standards of credibility they wouldn’t have printed and broadcast 90 percent the garbage they ran with about the Clintons, most of which came directly from Republican sources, or perhaps you think that the Times should prove its non-bias by assuming that all liberals, progressives, pro-choicers and Democrats should be assumed to be liars.
A comparison of how “Tully” puts together a story and how the LA Times put together this one does not reflect badly on the Times.
What is so disgusting about Thompson’s campaign is its readiness to straight-up lie and to imply that someone whom Thompson must know is telling the truth is herself a liar. But then this is what present-day Republicans do. It was not ever thus.
As to Thunderheart, that DeSarno doesn’t remember the details of what Thompson acted out at a lunch which took place sixteen years ago is not in anyway telling;her use of “cowboy” is sufficient to suggest its was Thunderheart, and yes, Thompson plays a Marshal, a local one, and where do they have Marshals and Sheriff’s - the west, and yes there are Indians in the film, and ranchers, and yes, cowboys; I think DeSarno can be forgiven if she was less interested in Thompson’s film career than he was in entertaining her with a Hollywood story, but the fact that he did is one of the kinds of details one might well remember.
Oh, and the reason I don’t believe Thompson’s story that he doesn’t remember what DeSarno does, remembers none of it, mind you, is that blanket denial by his representative; if it was really just a question of a busy man not remembering, that denial wouldn’t have been as total. He would have said he has no such memory, and let it go at that. It’s that artful hedge of the man doesn’t remember, but his representative knows for sure it never happened that suggests guilty knowledge.
BTW, minutes of monthly meetings are the kind of thing that an organization would keep and that is what DeSarno supplied the Times.
The Times reproduces a copy of it; maybe the doubters ought to get their crack document analyists at PwowerLine to show that its a phony.
We Agree!
I think we can both agree that the documents should be checked out. This type of journalism, taking highly motivated partisans at their word and not verifying their storys is distructive to everyone, whoever does it. That said, there are many similarities between this and Rathergate.
This story should also be considered in context of the two other original LA Times stories about Thompson. So far they’ve written stories that he will be hurt because he played a racist in an unpopular movie, this story, which we agree could have been handled better (document verification, secretly altering the article) and today a non-story about how some other Republican senators once disagreed with him. What is the Times problem? They need to chill out.
Same goes for the NY Times calling Mrs. Thompson, professional and happily married mother of two of Fred’s children a trophy wife. A social conservatives take these cheap shots as a good sign for the general election. Note that the president of the Family Research Council, a leading social conservative group, is defending Thompson.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/192165.aspx
The similarities with Rathergate, so-called, are not so great
Despite the excitement of the Cheetohs-stained ones.
Though I am pleased that the NRO folks have sent some smarter trolls; the “we agree” riff is excellent, and I’ll be happy to make use of it.
I wrote:
Now that would be like the most excellent diversion that the loyal Bushie staged to destroy the story of Bush’s real record in TANG. (Did anybody ever claim the $10K reward? Thought not.)
I regard the Board minutes as dispositive, and the rest of the yammering is diversionary. If you guys want to go down the serifs road again, have at it.
As far as “highly motivated partisans”—The VRWC
brewed that particular poisoned chalice with their own well-manicured hands over a generation. If, at long last, they are forced to choke on it themselves, I couldn’t be more pleased.
As far as those poor, sensitive souls, the “social conservatives,” clutching their pearls and worrying about tone because the extremely-low-cut-dress wearing Mrs. Thompson got called a “trophy wife,” well, sweet Jeebus. You guys have an entire industry devoted to vilifying Hillary Clinton in the most vile terms imaginable, and a little love tap like that rocks your world? Get over it, or go do your whining over at Dean Floater’s place.
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
Nick, I have nothing to add to Lambert's excellent rant
A most civilized rant I must add. But then your response was also civilized, so thank-you for that.
Lambert contacted the Times to ask about the edit re: the movie reenactment, and the reader representative emailed back immediately that there should have been both a flag to the reader and an explanation of the edit at the time it was made and that he would investigate and get back to us with an answer. We will update when we have that information.
So, yes, we agree that the Times should not have changed a story without noting it had and explaining why. And yes, we agree that the media should be regarded with some skepticism and fact-checked. But please note, it was Lambert who did, Lambert who went after the clearest vulnerability in our own argument in defense of the story. This despite Lambert suggesting that our disagreeing commentators do just that.
Well, that was unpleasant
It’s always unpleasant to see wingerdom working itself up to another circlejerk. And the pathetic aftermath is even more unpleasant.
Thanks for the hits, though—meagre as they are.
So, can the Mittster strap Fred on top of his car now, and go for a long, long drive?
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.