Wash. Post reported that Thompson sees himself as "antidote to Washington politics," ignoring his history of playing politics
Washington Post staff writers Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz began their May 31 article on former Sen. Fred Thompson's (R-TN) potential candidacy for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination by noting that, according to "advisers," Thompson "will offer himself as a down-home antidote to Washington politics." Yet the article left out two elements of Thompson's record that undermine this characterization. The Post ignored Thompson's actions in 1997, when, as chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs committee, Thompson suspended an investigation into campaign finance abuses -- reportedly after Republicans expressed concern that committee Democrats planned to investigate questionable and potentially embarrassing GOP fundraising practices, particularly those of two Republican members of the committee. Moreover, the article did not mention Thompson's 18-year career as a lobbyist, during which he reportedly represented deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and a company facing billions of dollars in asbestos claims.
Following is the lead paragraph of Shear and Balz's article, headlined "Thompson Bid Would Stir Up GOP Race":
Fred D. Thompson will offer himself as a down-home antidote to Washington politics in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, running a campaign out of Nashville while promising leadership on a conservative agenda that will appeal to his party's base, advisers said yesterday.
But Thompson's career in the U.S. Senate was not, in fact, free from "Washington politics." Indeed, on October 31, 1997, as chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs committee, Thompson announced that the committee would temporarily cease its investigation into alleged campaign fundraising abuses by then-President Bill Clinton and then-Vice President Al Gore. (The hearings never resumed.) A November 1, 1997, Boston Globe article (fee required) reported that Thompson ended the investigation "[a]fter Republicans expressed concern that the Senate campaign-finance investigation could lead to a probe of GOP practices" and that "the most outspoken advocate for ending the hearings is Senator Don Nickles, an Oklahoma Republican, who serves on the committee."
A November 1, 1997, Los Angeles Times article (fee required) further reported that Democrats "had planned to call witnesses to show" that Nickles and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), both members of the committee, were involved in questionable fundraising practices:
The chairman of the Senate panel investigating campaign fund-raising abuses suspended hearings Friday after nearly four months, saying he believes they established that President Clinton politically exploited the White House in ways his Republican predecessors never did.
Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) said that after 32 days of hearings, his committee has no more vital information worthy of additional public sessions.
But Democrats noted another motive -- that going further would have required Thompson to give them another turn at playing prosecutor, calling their own witnesses to expose events that could embarrass the Republican Party.
[...]
Although Thompson said he reserved the right to resume hearings before the committee's Dec. 31 cutoff date if dramatic new evidence turns up, Democrats noted the suspension came as they were about to examine how two Republicans on the panel had benefited from secret donations given to a conservative consulting group.
Democrats had planned to call witnesses to show that the group, Triad Management Services, accepted donations totaling $ 400,000 to help Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) win election last year. Triad also paid for advertisements to benefit Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.), according to documents.
The day before Thompson announced his decision, The New York Times reported that "[d]ocuments released by Senate investigators today identified 20 donors to a private conservative organization [Triad Management Services] that worked outside the normal political channels in ways that benefited conservative Republicans," namely Brownback and Nickles. The Times article reported that the documents revealed that Nickles' political action committee "received tens of thousands of dollars in donations in 1996 from some of Triad's biggest donors" and that funds well over the amount an individual is allowed to donate to a political candidate were funneled through political action committees working with Triad to Brownback's 1996 U.S. Senate race.
In 1998, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) concluded that Triad had violated federal campaign laws by not registering as a federal political committee. According to a December 7, 2002, Kansas City Star article, the FEC found that "Brownback's in-laws, John and Ruth Stauffer of Topeka, violated federal election laws by funneling excessive campaign donations to him in 1996" through Triad and political action committees working with Triad. The FEC also ordered Brownback's campaign to refund to the U.S. Treasury $19,000 in over-the-limit contributions. A Media Matters for America search of the Lexis-Nexis database did not find any reports that Nickles' reported involvement with Triad resulted in any legal action.
Additionally, the May 31 Post article -- while reporting that Thompson "will offer himself as a down-home antidote to Washington politics" -- did not once mention Thompson's career as a lobbyist. From an April 2 Politico.com article on Thompson's lobbying background:
Over about two decades of lobbying (during which he also acted and practiced law), Thompson made nearly $1.3 million and represented clients including a British reinsurance company facing billions of dollars in asbestos claims, Canadian-owned cable companies, and deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, according to government documents and media accounts from his first run for the Senate in 1994.
An article on Thompson in the April 30 edition of New York Magazine noted that "[c]ritics point out that Thompson's aw-shucks, shit-kicker populism is more than a little bit phony" because "he spent eighteen years as a registered Washington lobbyist, doing the bidding of such high-powered clients as General Electric and Westinghouse, pushing for the passage of the deregulatory legislation that led to the savings-and-loan crisis of the eighties."
Further, on May 31, blogger Glenn Greenwald noted:
Although Thompson does not mention it, he also has been -- for two decades -- what a 1996 profile in The Washington Monthly described as "a high-paid Washington lobbyist for both foreign and domestic interests." This folksy, down-home, regular guy has spent his entire adult life as a lawyer and lobbyist in Washington, except when he was an actor in Hollywood.
In contrast to the Post, a May 31 USA Today article on Thompson's candidacy noted his past lobbying experience:
After a lackluster start, Thompson swapped his tailored suit for a plaid shirt and jeans and began driving a red Chevy pickup across the state in a bid to fill the final two years of Al Gore's term. Despite his background as a Washington lawyer and lobbyist, Thompson derided Congress as larded with legislators who had lost touch with their constituents and, in some cases, their principles.















chris matthews was on the today show this morning, touting what a homeboy thompson is.
Matthews is a GOP talking hack.
Except for the fact that he's a registered Democrat and used to work for Jimmy Carter. And also that he hasn't changed at all since then. He's still the same partisan Democrat that he always has been. He just isn't quite far enough to the left for you.
and ronald reagan was a liberal union head in the late 40's and a rock hard conservative by the early 60's. people change.
YOU are out of your mind. So he worked for Democrats thirty years ago. He is a fairly conservative Dem who voted at least ONCE for Bush. He isnt anywhere NEAR being liberal. I think Tweety's biggest problem is that he just isnt that bright. You have to be blind and brainwashed to think he is even in the same solar system as being liberal
If he was intelligent, he wouldn't be on TV.
If you think Mathews is A "GOP Hack" then nothing you say can be taken seriously.
Talk about blinders.
I have advice for Thompson. Go back to Law and Order.
I believe Thompson will be the Republican nominee after the primary dust settles, and will probably be portrayed by most of the media as a "folksy, down-home, regular guy"--no matter if the facts tell a different story.
Because of the favorable press I expect he'll receive I'm not altogether certain any of the three top Democratic candidates could defeat him in a general election.
As a native of a state that has sent one B movie actor to the White House via our Governor's mansion, a state that currently has an ex-bodybuilder and action movie star as governor, I have a tough time saying Thompson doesn't stand a chance.
The defenders of the conservative media who post here like to point out how insignificant and meaningless the preoccupation with haircuts and windsurfing are. These things should be laughed off. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that at least a few of our fellow voters are going to walk into that booth with visions of a red pickup floating in their heads, thinking;
"He seems like a pretty regular guy!"
We have a "regular guy" in office now. Isn't that working out really well?
I've agreed with Thompson's views back when he was a Senator and apearing on cable shows discussing various issues. I think he's the strongest Republican nominee out there.
However, it isn't going to matter in the general. The Iraq war has sunk the Republican Party for the short term and the Democratic nominee WILL defeat the Republican nominee handily in 2008. If you can't see that, you're not paying attention. You have nothing to worry about.
Please, oh please....don't throw me in the briar patch! Okee dokee.
Bruce, I disagree. If Hillary is the strongest candidate the Democrats have and she ends up winning the nomination and facing Thompson, it may be a close general election but I believe Thompson will prevail.
Bruce, you look at the President's approval ratings and you are dead on, however if you look at the Congressional approval ratings and it closes the gap considerably. It will be an interesting 17 months.
It's a gut feeling, but I really don't think this country will elect a Republican for a third straight term after what we have been through. I never thought Hillary could win in past, but the "Perfect Storm" of politics is presenting itself whereby Republican ineptitude is coinciding with her candidacy and it could land her in the White House after all.
Bruce,
I agree with you, but it really depends on who the Democrats nominate in 2008 - I don't believe they are immune to losing, even to the pathetic Republican party that George Bush has nearly destroyed. Look at some of the polls and the matchups, they are pretty close with some Rep. candidates beating the Democrats.
I think it will be interesting to see how far they can distance themselves from Bush if the war is still spiraling downward - McCain will have a tough sell since he is a hawk, but the others may package themselves effectively and win.
And Senators notoriously lose presidential elections, so it will be interesting.
Tommy & Bruce,
I think Thompson could bring a whole new dimension to the Presidential race..
First I think it bumps Rudy & McCain to the sidelines. Romney might still have staying power.
I don't see Obama or Edwards winning the Dem nomination...in a general election Thompson could defeat Hillary. That's my "gut feeling".
Interesting. I'm thinking I will vote for the Democrat next time since the Republicans deserve to be kicked to the curb for awhile. That way, I can forever label myself an "independent". :-)
How have Republicans screwed up other than immigration, spending issues, and the execution of the Iraq War? Would you honestly vote for Hillary Clinton just because the Republicans have screwed up on a few issues?
Mrs Lincoln how was the play other than that unfortunate shooting your husband in the head thing?
Now I got to call you out Rhino. A few issues? Even if the ones you point out sum it all up they're 3 of the biggest issues this country could face.
Don't be a straight idealogue so many of the posters here. Let's admit it when our side has botched it.
You're right. Most current polls have McCain and Guiliani both beating Clinton in a general election. (By a very narrow margin) New polls also have McCain and Guiliani both leading in the blue state of Pennsylvania. It will be a very close election.
it's always a close election anymore. Never firm majorities in the houses, never a landlside presidential victory. The Reds and Blues are equalling themselves out, they've reached parity, stalemate. Stagnation has set into the establishment, the entropy is increasing, and we can all smell the rot of their decay. Even this cannot last. Nothing is forever.
I'd say you're probably right Bruce but I wouldn't call it just yet.
If he wins it won't be due to "favorable press."
It will be because,
A) The other republican candidates suck(just my opinion but I odn't mush care for anu of them)
B) The democratic candidates will get killed on policy issues. The dems have no one with ideas of much substance and 2 out of 3 candidates just don't have the political experience. Hillary has so much baggage, whether most of it's true or not, that she's going to have the worst time of it.
But Thompson won't win cuz of media bias. If he wins at all, that is.
Well almost. The truth is that Dems have plenty of people with terrific Ideas. Read Kucinich website sometime. You might not like the ideas as they are liberal but they are definitly shake them up policy ideas. End our commitment to Nafta and Worldbank. Withdraw the troops from Iraq, lots of ideas across the board. Here is where your repeated talking point has SOME validity. On both sides the energy and ideas come from the margins. That is the liberals for Dems and the conservatives for the GOP. Now the GOP has embraced their farther to the right brothers and the Dems have fairly marginalized their farther to the left brothers. So a Brownback or a Geoge Bush pretty far to the right gets respect in the party even Ann Coulter gets GOP respect. On the left a Dennis Kucinich or a Paul Wellstone while he was alive are respected in their jobs but are marginalized within the party no one saying anything about them but they cant win. I am not sure if this is the natural dynamic inherent in Democratic spinelessness or if the rightwing has done such a good job of making the word liberal a perjorative that it is a natural progression either way it makes Dems look like they have no ideas because those producing those ideas are marginalized in their party.
Roll up your pants legs...the crapstorm is about to start. The Propaganda Parrots that dominate Cable TV and Talk Radio will try to turn this troglodyte into the reincarnation of Ronnie Reagan himself. I expect to see a lot of mewling remembrances of the "greatness" of Reagan and idiotic talk of how the Reagan Mantle fits Thompson so well. The Savior has returned....Gag me with a spoon!
We won't fall for the Bush trick again. Taking Washington out of Washington smoke and mirrors campaign of times past.
Anybody know what number wife this is for Thompson, how much younger than his kids she is, and how the family values crowd ignores this so conveniently?
It's his second wife and I think she's four years younger than his oldest daughter.
Aw Gawd, a teeny bopper for a First Lady ?
Aw Gawd, a teeny bopper for a First Lady ?
Yeah quite a choice we might me facing.
Hillary & a male sl#t First Gentleman
Or
Fred & a teeny bopper First Lady.
Me thinks George & Martha may be turning over in their graves ;-)