PDA

View Full Version : Dems Taking Aim At Thompson



Kathianne
06-26-2007, 04:19 AM
They've started their talking points. It's pretty long, with lotsa links:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018041.php


Fred Thompson, Lobbyist?

The Democrats' have already put out several hit pieces on Fred Thompson; one of the points they emphasize is that he worked as a Washington lobbyist before and after his service in the Senate. Today, the Associated Press took up the theme in an article titled Looking at Thompson's Lobbying Past:


Republican Fred Thompson, who likes to cast himself in the role of Washington outsider, has a long history as a political insider who earned more than $1 million lobbying the federal government.

As a lobbyist for more than 20 years, billion-dollar corporations paid Thompson for his access to members of Congress and White House staff.

You get the drift. There's a reason why people in public life generally become lobbyists after they've run for office, not before. Lobbyists are like lawyers (many of them, like Thompson, are lawyers) in that they are available for hire by clients who may or may not be "right" in a public policy sense, but who deserve an opportunity to plead their case. A lobbyist need not agree with all of his clients' positions as a policy matter, any more than a lawyer need agree with all of the postitions his clients take in litigation. But it's easy to make a lobbyist look bad by associating him with his clients' causes.

That said, the ammunition against Thompson is pretty thin. Most of his lobbying activity fell between 1975 and 1993, when, according to the AP, "lobbying clients paid him about half a million dollars." That works out to a gross of less than $30,000 a year--small potatoes, although it may not seem so to the average voter.

...

theHawk
06-27-2007, 07:58 AM
Unless all the Dems have had nothing to do with lobbyists, they are really in no position to critisize him.

KarlMarx
06-27-2007, 08:16 AM
Unless all the Dems have had nothing to do with lobbyists, they are really in no position to critisize him.
Exactly... this is like the guy who works in a sewer criticizing a garbage man for having a dirty job.

The Dems are so in bed with the Trial Lawyers, for instance, it's a miracle that Chelsea Clinton doesn't bear a resemblance to the president of the American Bar Association

Black Lance
06-27-2007, 11:13 AM
So their point is... what exactly? That we should assume that a Thompson presidency would be in the pockets of big corporations because Thompson worked as a lobbyist for awhile? If that's the best "dirt" the DNC can dig up on the guy I like him much better already.

Kathianne
06-27-2007, 11:23 AM
So their point is... what exactly? That we should assume that a Thompson presidency would be in the pockets of big corporations because Thompson worked as a lobbyist for awhile? If that's the best "dirt" the DNC can dig up on the guy I like him much better already.

Considering this:
That works out to a gross of less than $30,000 a year I'd have to assume they are hoping to throw around the accusations and hope that 'lobbyist' is enough to stick.

Black Lance
06-27-2007, 11:38 AM
Considering this: I'd have to assume they are hoping to throw around the accusations and hope that 'lobbyist' is enough to stick.

To be effective this strategy would have to be implemented carefully. Any informed commentator would laugh at the accusation that "former lobbyist = corrupt", or "lobbyist = bad", and the DNC obviously meets with their fair share of lobbyists themselves, so this charge would have to be insinuated rather that stated, which would rather limit its ability to be used as a campaign slogan.

Kathianne
06-27-2007, 11:40 AM
To be effective this strategy would have to be implemented carefully. Any informed commentator would laugh at the accusation that "former lobbyist = corrupt", or "lobbyist = bad", and the DNC obviously meets with their fair share of lobbyists themselves, so this charge would have to be insinuated rather that stated.

Considering you are commenting on a political messageboard, you are disqualified from being 'an average voter.' Which part of Lobbyist=bad do you not see as a negative?

Black Lance
06-27-2007, 11:58 AM
Considering you are commenting on a political messageboard, you are disqualified from being 'an average voter.' Which part of Lobbyist=bad do you not see as a negative?

I did not claim to be an average voter. Do you mean which part of the statement do I consider to be false, or what part of the statement do I not consider to be partisan mud-slinging? If you meant the later, I do consider it to be such.

Abbey Marie
06-27-2007, 12:25 PM
I get the feeling that Thompson can easily handle these attacks, and even some of real substance.