Admin

Admin

 

Verse of the Day

The Newsroom

Powered By
widgetmate.com 		Sponsored By
Digital Camera


Site Design By: SC Themes

Proud to be Americans



Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Newspaper Rack

Categories

Potential Rivals Digging Dirt on Fred Thompson

As any Boy Scout will tell you, their motto is “Be prepared”, and like good Boy Scouts the announced Republicans are preparing for a Fred Thompson run by digging up anything they consider unsavory for a Republican presidential candidate in the primaries.

Here are the roles into which opponents will likely try to cast Thompson and the ways in which he may seek to inoculate himself:

Tricky clientele

– Lobbyist: Thompson made nearly $1.3 million over about two decades of lobbying both before and after his eight-year Senate stint, according to government documents and media accounts from his successful run for the Senate in 1994.

Though Thompson won in a landslide, that was in a watershed Republican year and before the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal helped Democrats effectively wield the culture-of-corruption theme against Republicans.

Some of Thompson’s clients could prove tricky to explain, from a British reinsurance company facing billions of dollars in asbestos claims to deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

If Thompson formally enters the race next month, as his aides have signaled, his campaign will likely try to minimize his lobbying.

Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo called the list “incredibly old news and incredibly stale news” and stressed that lobbying was but a small part of Thompson’s legal practice.

“He had a law practice for over 30 years and he had about half a dozen lobbying clients,” Corallo said.

Trial lawyers are bogeymen?

– Trial lawyer: Before Thompson won his Senate seat, published reports said his private law practice handled personal injury cases and defended people accused of white-collar crimes. And in the Senate, he opposed some legislation intended to rein in escalating jury verdicts and attorneys’ fees.

Trial lawyers are bogeymen for some conservative groups, which consider them Exhibit A for a legal system that rewards greed over industriousness.

But Thompson appears likely to tout the public service aspects of his legal career, including stints as an assistant U.S. attorney and Watergate congressional counsel, as well as a case in which he uncovered a payoff scheme that landed a Tennessee governor in prison.

“This is a guy who was an incredibly accomplished attorney,” Corallo said.

As for the Senate record, Corallo pointed out that Thompson supported some tort reform measures.

He voted against others because he felt they infringed on states’ rights, Corallo said, asserting, “He was consistent in voting against measures that provided the federal government powers that the federal government shouldn’t have. … People understand that.”

And as the guy on the infomercials says, “But wait! There’s more!”

One thing Republican voters need to get out of their minds is that he is Reagan incarnate. He is Fred Thompson and not Ronald Reagan.

If they don’t measure him by the Reagan standard he should stand a good chance of winning the nomination. Otherwise they can settle for a pro-choice liberal in conservative’s clothing.

Democrat Camille Paglia thinks Thompson would be the easiest Republican to beat.

Who knows what the primaries will bring, how excited the electorate on either side will be after this marathon presidential campaign, and what will happen in November 2008, except we will have at least one day without campaigning.

Oh, how I look forward to that one day!

Written by ~J~

9 Responses to “Potential Rivals Digging Dirt on Fred Thompson”

  1. Ayschlay Says:

    June 13th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
    Visit Ayschlay

    Paglia’s a Democrat? I never figured that. . .

  2. Jim Robinson Says:

    June 13th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
    Visit Jim Robinson

    Fred refuses to officially announce so he doesnt have to debate his opponents or particpate in the process he is quick to criticise.

    Fred refuses to field questions from reporters or even his own supporters.

    Karl Rove, who is the mastermind behind the amnesty bill is the one pulling strings and stiff arming people into showing support for Fred. Fred will ultimately support the bill no matter what lie he is speaking right now.

    Matlin/Carville is sending Thompson to Israel and London later this month to make it appear Fred has foreign affairs experience, when in reality, he doesn’t.

    Fred was for abortion before he was against it.

    Fred was for Mcain/Feingold before he was against it.

    Fred is a globalist.

    Fred is a lobbyist.

    Fred is a dirty ol man with a fetish for young girls.

    This is just the begining and this is all anyone really knows about the guy. I predict that the more everyone knows about Fred, the less people will support him. It is however, interesting to see SoCons twist themselves into a pretzel trying to sell this guy as the SoCon candidate when he is anything but that.
    :-w

  3. ~J~ Says:

    June 13th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
    Visit ~J~

    Paglia calls herself a Democrat in her article, so I guess she’s a Democrat. I always thought she was a Republican or Independent. Now that’s the sign of a good reporter when you can’t tell their party affiliation.

  4. ~J~ Says:

    June 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
    Visit ~J~

    Jim,
    When he finally does get in it will be interesting to see what we hear for the first time.

  5. Big Mo Says:

    June 13th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
    Visit Big Mo

    Jim - can you back up what you’re saying? Can you honestly say you’ve never changed your mind about something?

    He’s a “dirty old man?” Why, because his wife is a lot younger?

    He’s a “globalist?” What the heck is that? And why is it bad?

    And how do you know he’ll support the amnesty bill despite whatever “lie” he’s telling now?

    And Carville !!! is sending Thompson to Israel and London? Never heard that.

    Could you please provide some documentation?

  6. Ayschlay Says:

    June 13th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
    Visit Ayschlay

    I don’t follow Paglia closely, and didn’t know she did political commentary. The opinion pieces I’ve seen have been cultural criticism–she loves to skewer feminists and postmodernists, and my sense was that she’s a darling of conservative male intellectuals.

    But I could be wrong.

  7. Sue Says:

    June 13th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
    Visit Sue

    Jim:

    Fred is smart. These debates are certainly not chock full of information which will assist anyone in making their choice (if they haven’t already).

    It is simply to early to fully scrutinize these candidates and by next January most will have no recollection of what was said by any candidate at any debate.

    Let’s see what happens when the nominees are selected and we get down to the nuts and bolts of the election..until then all of this is like children competing for an adults attention. (And IMHO in many instances not acquitting themselves very well.)

  8. david Says:

    June 14th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
    Visit david

    As a lawyer, I’ve never understood the criticisms of “trial attorneys.” I don’t even know what that phrase really means. We’re lawyers. We get hired by citizens who feel their rights have been violated or they have been injured in some fashion. If we can’t settle the case–and more than 90% do settle–we go to trial. What’s the big deal? What makes an attorney like me, who represents a county, different than a “trial attorney”? I’ve never done a lot of personal injury or wrongful death cases, but why should a lawyer be subject to criticism for handling these cases? I would never have taken any of these cases to trial if my clients were treated fairly by the insurance companies. I’m not saying that as attorneys we are superior to any other working person, but that’s all we are. Just folks who practice law for a living. For each $58 million dollars lost-pair-of-pants case, there are millions of cases for Americans who were injured by drunk drivers or suffer from abusive parents or spouses. These cases go to trial, too. If I hired Fred Thompson to represent me, I’d expect him to do so “zealously.” That what our Rules of Ethics require. I don’t get why people can’t understand behind every lawyer, there’s a client that hired him/her. If I don’t believe in the case, I don’t take it.

  9. MoniQue Says:

    January 12th, 2008 at 3:49 am
    Visit MoniQue

    It was absolutely ridiculous listening to Fred Thompson during the South Carolina debate last night, who went on his over-the-top irrational rant about Mike Huckbee being “liberal” and having the nerve to highlight issues related to immigration or national security.

    Here’s why…
    ….Thompson was a US Senator in the years following Reagan’s illegal immigration plan that in 1986 mandated that a fence be built on the Mexican border along with amnesty for the then 3 million illegal immigrants who were here. And Thompson served in the US Senate during the sweet spot of the “Contract with America” movement that swept a majority of Republicans into power, enabling them to practically dictate legislation to Bill Clinton’s Whitehouse.

    So……where is the border fence that Ronald Reagan’s illegal alien amnesty plan mandated? And as a senior Senator, why was he not forceful enough or able to get this done? The fact is, Fred Thompson likes to lecture his opponents on their policy positions and trumpet his own “accomplishments”. What accomplishments can ANY member of congress claim on immigration since 1986? The answer is NONE!!!

    We know the rest of this story and the colossal mess we are now dealing with.

    Thompson also loves to tout his “super secret meetings” with the US intelligence community as a former member of the senate intelligence committee. Well…..let’s see, we’re talking about an intelligence community which was clearly gutted and dysfunctional, enabling Al Qaeda to incubate and emerge throughout the 1990’s. Thompson served almost every single moment in the 1990’s during which time our intelligence capability was ravaged by the Clinton Administration.

    We know the rest of this very tragic story and the colossal mess we are now dealing with.

    Fred Thompson can rightly claim his experience in intelligence and national security affairs having served in that area. The problem is that during the 1990’s he and the rest of congress were ineffective and drunk with the breakup of the Soviet Union, now re-emerging as an economically rejuvenated Russia under ex-KGB agent Vladimir Putin, by the way. Our intelligence capability is STILL rebuilding from this period of time that it was gutted, and our immigration mess grew exponentially during the same time, leaving governors like Mike Huckabee to deal with a completely preventable mess at the state level had congress done its job.

    So in these two areas…national security/intelligence and immigration, Fred Thompson can claim all the experience he wants as long as he offers a true summary of his efforts.
    And that summary is 12 million illegal immigrants, and a war on terror that could have been set back decades had the threat been correctly identified and dealt with while he was in the US Senate as a member of the intelligence committee, instead of allowing our guard to come down….AGAIN….and allowing for enemies we knew were bound to crop up in the vacuum of the Soviet collapse.
    Experience??…..

    my summary is that I’m not sure how much more of Fred Thompson’s “experience” we really want.

    Paul Anagnostis - Palmdale CA