CNN's King reported social conservative support for Thompson, but not his inconsistent abortion stance
On the July 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, national correspondent John King reported that leaders of socially conservative advocacy groups say that they "can't be with" Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani because he "supports abortion rights" and that they "don't necessarily trust" fellow Republican candidate Mitt Romney because he "has changed his position on abortion." King then said that leaders of such groups are "gravitating toward" former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN). King suggested a contrast between Romney, who has changed his position on abortion, and Thompson, who, by implication, has not. In fact, in the early 1990s, Thompson reportedly lobbied for a group seeking to ease restrictions on abortion. In 1993, Thompson reportedly said he was in favor of Roe v. Wade, but recently said he was "always" opposed to Roe. Further, the Nashville Tennessean reported that Thompson's previous positions "could be viewed as tolerating abortion," including an answer to a Christian Coalition survey in which Thompson said he opposed "criminaliz[ing]" abortion."
As Media Matters for America noted, a July 7 Los Angeles Times article reported that Thompson "accepted an assignment from a family-planning group [the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association] 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." According to the same article, Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo asserted: "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." According to a July 19 New York Times article, "Billing records show that former Senator Fred Thompson spent nearly 20 hours working as a lobbyist" for the family-planning association. The Times articled added that Thompson "spoke 22 times with Judith DeSarno, who was then president of the family planning group. In addition, he lobbied 'administration officials' for a total of 3.3 hours, the records show." The Times reported that Corallo said: "It is not unusual for a lawyer to give counsel at the request of colleagues, even when they personally disagree with the issue."
Moreover, as Media Matters has noted, a 1993 Memphis Commercial Appeal article and documents at Thompson's Senate archive at the University of Tennessee show that Thompson previously spoke in favor of abortion rights, articulating a view apparently at odds with his current opposition to Roe v. Wade. The Commercial Appeal reported on July 29, 1993, that Thompson said during an interview that he "supports the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion."
In contrast with The Commercial Appeal's report that Thompson "supports ... Roe vs. Wade," Thompson said on the June 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, "I've always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states," as the blog TPM Election Central noted. Thompson was quoted in an April Weekly Standard article asserting: "Although I don't remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice."
Additionally, on June 10, The Tennessean reported that it had found documents in the Thompson archive indicating "he has previously taken positions that could be viewed as tolerating abortion," including "a handwritten clarification" on a 1996 Christian Coalition survey that said, "I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people." The Tennessean posted Thompson's response to the Christian Coalition survey on its website. The "handwritten clarification" was near Thompson's checkmark "oppos[ing]" "legislation protecting the sanctity of human life except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is endangered." The Tennessean also reported:
In 1996, asked by the Memphis group FLARE (Family, Life, America, Responsible Education Under God Inc.) if human life begins at conception, Thompson circled "N/A."
CNN itself has reported on Thompson's earlier statements on abortion. On the July 9 edition of The Situation Room, correspondent Mary Snow aired a clip from a YouTube video in which Thompson was asked, "[D]o you support or oppose laws that prohibit abortions for convenience?" Thompson replied: "I do not believe that the federal government ought to be involved in that process." Snow called the lobbying controversy "a classic case of she said/he said."
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the July 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
KING: If you travel to the key primary states, if you ask Republican activists in Iowa, in New Hampshire, in South Carolina, they say he's waited along enough. Maybe not too long, but long enough. It's time to get in, especially if you want to lock up some of the conservative activists in on the ground. They want to know for sure he's running.
Look, he's running. He hasn't announced. That will come just after Labor Day.
But they want to see him, they want to see the campaign come in. They would like to see him in debates, because right now, he is what you want him to be, if you will. If you want a candidate who opposes abortion, that's Fred Thompson. But they want to see him in the debates to see if he has lasting power.
He has pretty good power right now in the polls, but let's see once he actually gets in the pool. And that will come.
BLITZER: Some social conservatives really think that he could emerge as the alternative to [former New York City Mayor] Rudy Giuliani, who's more liberal on some of these issues like abortion rights, gay rights.
Here's what Gary Bauer, himself a former Republican presidential candidate, said. He said, "Thompson has got a real good chance to emerge as the conservative alternative to Giuliani. They'll battle it out. But if I had to characterize it right now, I would say that the momentum here has moved to Thompson, at least among the social-issues conservatives."
Is Fred Thompson emerging as sort of the consensus for these social conservatives?
KING: No question among people like Gary Bauer, who have advocacy groups here in the Washington area, political organizations here in the Washington area, that do have grassroots networks out in the states. The leaders of those organizations more and more are saying Rudy Giuliani supports abortion rights, we can't be with him.
Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has changed his position on abortion. They don't necessarily trust him.
So they're looking for someone they trust and believe in. More of them are gravitating toward Thompson. Not all, naturally. It's that organization you mentioned.
[Former Energy Secretary] Spence Abraham [R-MI] joining, [Republican strategist] Randy Enright joining, Mary Matalin of the Bush-Cheney days, and Liz Cheney, the vice president's daughter, also works for Fred Thompson.
They are reaching out to these social conservatives, saying, "Here is the next Ronald Reagan. Wait for our guy and get in."
Gary Bauer, people at the top of these organizations are supporting him. That is why you asked, "Is it too long?" The people on the grassroots level say, "Let's get him in, let's see him." But yes, they are giving him a very serious look.
BLITZER: John King, thanks very much.
Pretty slippery right now in the Republican gene pool...they're trying to slip Thompson in as their great new old guy with unswerving values.
Republican mole/lobbyist/actor/folksy red pickup truck driving hard rightie/like Reagan/all or none of the above
If by the strangest chanced Tennessee Tuxedo does get into office, the christian Right may find him just like Reagan--a handsome guy who smiles and waves, and in his entire tenure did not further their agenda one iota.
Which in the grand scheme of things might not be a bad thing.
But I'd rather have a qualified Democrat in there to undo all the damage caused by Bush/Cheney and their accomplices.
It would be interesting if the MAINSTREAM MEDIA were reporting Thompson's record the same way they report Progressives and Democrats ... as untrustworthy FLIP-FLOPPERS on the major issues. And gee, there's Thompson as a LOBBIEST for the pro-choice crowd ... an ACTUAL PROVABLE example of flippin' and floppin' ... those media provacateurs don't even have to make up a FAKE flip-flop in his case (like Kerry voting AGAINST a funding bill, right after voting FOR ... uh ... a DIFFERENT bill ...).
Yeah, promiting Thompson is requiring the Mainstream Media (some call it the "Liberal Media") to basically LIE about Thompson's record, to portray him as "acceptable" to those darn "social conservatives" out there. Maybe they will be fooled, eh? Maybe the Mainstream Media will get away with purposely falsifying Thompson's record ... in order to PROMOTE him, and mainly because he's not a rotten flip-flopping DEM.
Oh yeah, and he's an "outsider" with TWENTY YEARS as a Washington Lobbiest, Senate terms, and a rented Pick-Up for that "authenticity" thingie. If the TRUTH hurts a GOPer, depend on that Mainstream Media to instead report the MADE-UP IMAGE. If you're a sports announcer whose paycheck is paid by the Red Sox, you by God better exclusively promote the Red Sox. Ditto the RNC/elitist media owners.
You have to wonder sometimes what the media gets out of all this Repub tummy rubbing. Understandably the tax thing is great for the corporate overlords that run the networks, but by consistently underplaying Repub negatives don't they eventually risk eroding the very audience (through cynicism) that allows them to charge big bucks to peddle soap?
No, because to become a cynic, one would have to be intelligent and recognize contradictory information. Intelligent audience members may be culled from the herd, but the much larger contingent of ignorant consumers - the ones more likely to be persuaded to by the soap - are preferable marketing targets anyway.
MICK:
It's cool to peddle the soap, but you have to understand ... the rightwing are willing to operate their Media Propaganda arm AT A LOSS in order to gain the rewards from GOPers in office.
It's not only the tax breaks, it's the elimination of "expensive" regulations which protect the lives and limbs of line workers, it's NOT having to comply with enviornmental restrictions, it's having a federal government friendly to offshore banking, outsourcing jobs, and allowing worker's benefits to be eliminated. It's NO-BID contracts and a blind eye towards multi-million bonuses to executinves and windfall profits to near monopolies like gas and oil and tobacco. It's depletion allowances and big DEFENSE spending.
It's BILLIONS AND BILLIONS on the plus side for the political advantages of having plutocratic GOPers in charge, versus the loss of a few million funding networks and stations and paying Hannity and Limbaugh. It's the PROMOTION of unpopular ideas, which do HARM to voting Americans, who MUST be fooled into giving power to the Rightwing.
Is it WORTH it to take losses for cable networks and newspapers (Moon has been losing tens of millions a YEAR to keep the Washington Times going)? Worth it, in SPADES. With the GOP in charge, it's bonanza days for the select few wealthiest, and they damn well know how great it is to game the system. All they gotta do is scare and fool and misinform the public.
"All they gotta do is scare and fool and misinform the public"
Rich. Coming from you Tex, who's every post is layered in some conspiratorial media rightwing scare and fear tactic after another, that is indeed pot smearing it's own kettle.
And is this the new leftwing talking point now - that the evil rightwingers are sacrificing their media propaganda arm at a loss just to help their GOP'ers get to power? Do you have evidence or proof of this?
Of course you don't, but when has that stopped you before from spouting your patently ridiculous false claims to your brethren here?
I mean really Tex, if you have to make things up to make your case....? Tsk, tsk,
And is this the new leftwing talking point now - that the evil rightwingers are sacrificing their media propaganda arm at a loss just to help their GOP'ers get to power? Do you have evidence or proof of this?
It's propaganda that's worked for the right wing for a couple decades, so...
I am asking for Tex to pony up substantive proof or evidence that media companies are sacrificing profits and losses so they can advance GOPers to office - who are these companies, who are these GOPers that they are operating at a loss for to push into power? Name names Tex.
If he has proof, show us.
And I expect more than some company balance sheet showing decreased profits or some quarterly earnings loss - but rather documented information stating these are their goals, and these are the names of those who they are helping get elected at the expense of their profits.
I'm not defending Tex's position, he can handle that himself.
I was just saying that I've been aware of the "biased media" propaganda from the right since limpaugh was local in Sacramento. A conservative friend of mine LIVES off of it. It's the mythical whipping boy for all the troubles of the rightie arguments whenever the facts contradict them.
It's not new, and what Tex is saying isn't far-fetched.
Neon,
I am not saying there is not media bias, of course there is. I am not as convinced as some there is overwheliming bias either way, as proponents of both always whine about.
My question to Tex was to backup his statements with proof. If I came on here and said the media was sacrificing profits in the name of getting Democrats elected, do you think I would not be asked for proof of that? And I should be asked, as I wouldn't make a blanket claim like that just to make some point.
Read his full post.
In your haste to post rightous indignation, you missed the last paragraph.
That's proof? Tex statement about The Washington Times? I specifically asked for evidence and politician's names and proof that media companies sacrifice losses at the expense of getting their guys in office.
Sorry, you can take Tex's bloviating at his word, but I have seen enough here to know better.
We have a different opinion of Tex's posts. I find them to be passionate from a well informed person. Based on your beliefs, you demand proof of his claims that there are corporations who have sacrificed profits to further the Republican cause.
If you will read "The Republican Noise Machine" by David Brock, he documents how Paul Weyrich and Joe Coors founded the Heritage Foundation and poured money into the first twenty four hour news service, Television News Inc., in the mid-1970's. Coors hired Roger Ailes as "news director" The whole point of this enterprise was to further the conservative cause by presenting the news from a biased viewpoint. This enterprise tanked (lost money!) Twenty years later, Rupert Murdoch hired Ailes to head the FOX news channel, a money loser for years before it turned a profit.
Weyrich still at work, got the evangelical broadcasters to convert their flocks to the Republican party through funding by Richard DeVos (Amway) and Dallas billionaire Nelson Bunker Hunt, among others.
These backers of course want to make money and do. They are willing to pour money into losing operations at times, however, to further their long term goal of Republican dominance (hence more profits for them down the road)
TOMMY:
I would no more attempt to "prove" an assertion TO YOU than I would try to convince grandpa that the Chevy Truck is not the best on the market.
In both cases, there is a BELIEF, and no amount of proof otherwise will suffice to prevail. I won't be trying to convince grandma that her favorite color shouldn't be blue, either.
So I have accepted that there are SOME who will never be convinced, and I can live with that. I take comfort in TRENDS, such as the TREND for GOP support to be at two Americans in ten, and falling. There is hope for America.
Yep- when the MSM talks about Hillary Clinton talking to the Anti-war crowd, they ALWAYS talk about her vote to authorize the use of force in 2002 and how this "could be a problem for her." But Romney, Thompson etc can be shown talking to right wing groups and the MSM will just say, Matter-of-Factly, "Thompson and Romney are trying to appeal to these groups," without any of the caveats we get with the Clinton coverage. Same with Edwards- "he's talking about two Americas, appealling to the poor, but he got a $400 haircut!" That's much more important than Romney's flip-flopping on abortion rights or Thompson's equally fluid position on issues important to the right.