FRED THOMPSON: FIRST LOBBYIST FOR PRESIDENT

Martyn4802

New member
FRED THOMPSON: FIRST LOBBYIST FOR PRESIDENT

By [beeep] MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on FoxNews.com on September 10, 2007.

Printer-Friendly Version

There’s a new first in the 2008 presidential campaign.

We’ve already se en the first woman candidate, Hillary Clinton and the first African American with widespread support and a serious chance at winning the presidency.

But now there’s another groundbreaker: the first lobbyist candidate — Fred Thompson.

Thompson was a lobbyist for 20 years before he was elected to the Senate, representing the Tennessee Savings and Loan Association, the deposed Haitian President Aristed and the National Planning & Reproductive Health Association.

Although Fred bills himself as strongly against government interference and handouts, he also lobbied for Westinghouse in its bid for government subsidies for a nuclear power plant in Oak Ridge. After retiring from the Senate in 2002, Thompson went back to lobbying, earning $750,000 since then from Equitas, the British insurance company that wants to limit payments to the families of those who died due to asbestos exposure.

Now Fred’s campaign is attracting other lobbyists, who are bundlers and donors to the Thompson campaign.

Most Americans feel strongly that a presidential candidate should not accept any money from lobbyists. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans find it unacceptable for candidates to finance their campaigns with contributions from lobbyists — and 80 percent want candidates to return any contributions they do receive from lobbyists

But Fred definitely doesn’t agree with them. His promising campaign is positively overflowing with advisers and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms. Aside from Thompson, there’s his wife, Jeri, who worked for the PR/lobbying giant Burson-Marsteller and law firm/lobbyists DLA Piper after she met Fred. Then there’s Ken Reitz, a senior campaign adviser, who works for 360Advantage — owned by two lobbying firms Burson-Marsteller and Quinn Gillespie & Associates. Reitz is the former CEO of Burson and became famous for creating the National Smokers Alliance — a faux grassroots group opposing tobacco regulation that was funded by the tobacco companies.

Fred’s first campaign manager, Tom Collamore, was a former tobacco lobbyist. He is one of the many Thompson staffers who was shown the door after disagreeing with Mrs. Thompson. Fred’s chief counselor is Michael Toner, an adviser to Bryan Cave Strategies, which represents Shell Oil and other corporations. Then there’s Tom Daffron, COO of the Jefferson Consulting Group that lobbies on homeland security issues. Ed Gillespie, co-founder of the Quinn Gillespie & Associates lobbying firm is also a close adviser.

Then there are the bundlers and donors. Public Citizen identified six Thompson bundlers as registered lobbyists, but the number associated with lobbyists significantly increases when the names of employees of lobbying firm, who are not necessarily registered lobbyists, are added:

Bundler/Lobbyists (amounts collected are not available)

• Richard F.Hohlt, a lobbyist for tobacco, nuclear energy, Chevron, and Fannie Mae
• Rachael Jones Hensler, lobbyist for the Nickles Group
• William Hilleary, lobbyist, Sommerstein, Nasy & Rosenthal
• Robert L. Livingston, lobbyist, The Livingston Group
• W. Timothy Loche, lobbyist, Smith-Free Group
• David Lugar, lobbyist, Quinn Gillespie
• Mach F. Mattingly, lobbyist
• Tom Collamore
• Michael Toner

Registered Lobbyist Contributors:

• Katie Huffard
• Chris Lamond
• Jeffrey Bloemaker
• Patrick O’Donnell
• William Timmons
• William Hilleary

Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics

Other:

• Johanna Hardy, Dir., Legislative Affairs, Rolls Royce
• Kirk Clinkenbeard, Potomic Advocates
• John Dowd, partner Akin, Gump which has lobbying practice
• Sarah Newman, employee, Cassidy and Associates

Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics

So the "Fred Thompson for President" campaign — based on his promises to shake up Washington — is being run by and paid for by corpor ate insider lobbyists.

Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?


Thompson in 2008?
 
Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?

YES, there will be more pigs feeding at the trough than ever before.

Oh, wait, did I dare criticize the fav Republican candidate on PM? Shame on me for having a dissenting opinion about dear Fred.
cb
 
Fred Thompson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR), a group dedicated to a one world government. I have noticed that his name is not on all the membership lists. It is my opinion that he is running to detract from the real conservative American, Ron Paul. I agree with you Charlibee.
 
I'm really sorry to read all that about Fred... I was hoping he might be a bright spot in the upcoming elections....

I agree with Ron Paul looking the best in the record books, but I don't think the perception of the general public gives him a great chance... But I've been wrong before..

He really needs to do a lot of 'image' work with a good PR firm.....I realize he is standing on his record and ethics, but this is a "Television" voting public and they are mesmerized by 'good looks and smooth talk' and to heck with the truth... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 
I'm voting for Fred Thompson, donate to his campaign & will support him wholeheartily for President of The United States because I believe he is the best candidate for the job. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
I WILL NOT support a DEMOCRAP! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
I'm not bothered in the least by his lobbying activities. It's how we do things, like it or not. So he's been a lobbysit, so what? I am too. And so is every last one of you who has ever contacted your senator or representative to express your views on an issue.

I am bothered by the disconnect between what he has said & how he has voted while in the senate.
 
Quote:

I WILL NOT support a DEMOCRAP! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif



Neither would I, Ron Paul is a Republican, a true Republican. Not a RINO.
 
Quote:
Quote:

I WILL NOT support a DEMOCRAP! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif



Neither would I, Ron Paul is a Republican, a true Republican. Not a RINO.


I know what Ron Paul is & if nominated by the republican party, he will get my vote because he is not a democrap.
 
Quote:
Quote:

I WILL NOT support a DEMOCRAP! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif



Neither would I, Ron Paul is a Republican, a true Republican. Not a RINO.



Gotta disagree with you there Greg. Ron Paul is more Losertarian than Republican. He's come out with some really wacky statements. I've maintained all along he is the Republican's Kucinich. We're still friends, right? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
 
Quote:
We're still friends, right? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif



/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gifFor sure, unless you decide to vote for Hillary Obama /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif. I think Hell will freeze over first. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I don't let politics get in the way of a lot of things. I learned that in the two times I ran for the State Senate. I have been approached by several to do it again but I just really don't feel like. I have a couple of months to decide.
 
I dont have a problem at all with Thompson's lobbying. It is part of how we do things here in the US. It ain't perfect, but there is no better way thus far.

Anyhoo, how many of you are NRA or JFPO or NSSF or some other shooting organization? They lobby. And aren't you glad they do????

A little perspective here....
 
The issue is NOT that he was, and is a lobbyist.
It's who, and what, he lobbied for.
One of those organizations he lobbied for is very pro abortion... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
So, Fred is for abortion. I am not.

Martyn
 
Quote:

So, Fred is for abortion. I am not.




Actually Martin, the company he worked for did lobby for a pro abortion organization. His voting record in the Senate tells a far different story. Fred Thompson is solidly "anti-choice". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
 
First - Lobbying is not against the law and it isn't necessarily the sort of activity which immediately puts a black mark on someone's political aspirations and possiblities. Being elected or considered for election as the first lobbyist is no more extreme than electing a catholic president for example... Which has already been done... Neither is voting in someone who is a mormon or Jew (Isn't Al Gore a jew?).

In the context here I have to say. Most americans I know can give a rats [beeep] about ROE Vs Wade and believe there are bigger issues at hand. However that's not everything which is being brought up here. The other part is whether or not Mr. Thompson's credibility is on the line. Like mentioned... I feel that his voting record speaks for itself. If I work for a company that doesn't mean that company's actions speak for me in every aspect of life and politically. Some people have to make money one way or another and a conflict with Mr. Thompson's beliefs may or may not have existed. Maybe Mr. Thompson was pro choice at that time and changed his mind as well (which I could care less about). If the latter then I don't think it makes him more than anything but human.

A lot of people do base their opinions on voting record and that is very important. However with this matter I don't see any evidence for me to consider him a poor choice for a presidential candidate.

Mr. Thompson is a lot more practical than most people in this race.
 
Quote:
(Isn't Al Gore a jew?)

No, Al Gore is a nitwit.


If most Americans don't care about the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies than we're even worse off than I thought. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 
Quote:
If most Americans don't care about the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies than we're even worse off than I thought.




It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong it's an observation.

The problem with most republicans who want to get bent out of shape about abortion is that they cannot come to grips in order to craft and propose legislation which would outlaw the actual "wholesale slaughter" you speak of without using much common sense. There are times when people do need abortions such as in rapes or certain medical conditions. Wholesale outlawing the act is not the answer and the general public doesn't want it any more than than you want to have a ban on guns.

Oh yeah... I have just confirmed via a reliable source (the internet /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif ) that Al Gore is Jewish.
 
Quote:

The problem with most republicans who want to get bent out of shape about abortion is that they cannot come to grips in order to craft and propose legislation which would outlaw the actual "wholesale slaughter" you speak of without using much common sense. There are times when people do need abortions such as in rapes or certain medical conditions. Wholesale outlawing the act is not the answer and the general public doesn't want it any more than than you want to have a ban on guns.





IMHO, this is the #1 issue facing America and whether one thinks so or not, we will be judged by that issue. A nation cannot kill over 40 million babies and get away with it. There are no reasons for abortion, period.

BTW, so what Gore is a Jew? That means nothing. Dawg is right, Gore is a nitwit and thats all that matters, not his ancestry.
 
Quote:
IMHO, this is the #1 issue facing America and whether one thinks so or not, we will be judged by that issue. A nation cannot kill over 40 million babies and get away with it. There are no reasons for abortion, period.



Well I think most of america would disagree about it being the number one issue. It's "beating a dead horse" in many people's eyes. Like I said... The public wants a wholesale ban on it like you want a ban on your guns. Once that is digested any candidate with a clue realizes he doesn't stand a chance if he is on a religious and righteous crusade to ban abortions. It's a recipe for failure. Like it or not - that's life.



Quote:
BTW, so what Gore is a Jew? That means nothing. Dawg is right, Gore is a nitwit and thats all that matters, not his ancestry.



I was just using Gore being a Jew as an example of how "extreme" it would be to elect someone with a less than normal or ideal background. Now inhale and then slowly exhale because you sound like you are starting to get winded. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

So much for levity /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
 
The issue is not "beating a dead horse" but it is certainly about death. Abortions performed after rape or incest are a tiny fraction of the total. There is no precedent where a baby had to be killed to save the life of the mother. The procedure does the opposite- it puts the mother's life at great risk. Those words are cleverly inserted by the abortion crowd into pro-life legislation regarding the mother's health-MENTAL not PHYSICAL. All she has to do is claim the child will affect her mental health and she's covered under the law. The baby may be inconvenient to her lifestyle so it has to go. It is also nothing like a gun ban. The 2nd Ammendment is as plain as the nose on your face but it took a very liberal court to "find" the "right" to kill a baby. That's the same bunch that opposes the death penalty for murderers. Any politician running for the highest office in the land who advocates the butchery of the unborn can't be trusted to make crucial decisions because their moral compass is so out of whack they haven't a clue about what's right and what's wrong. Since when is being a Jew "less than normal" or not "ideal"? Hitler had the same view, and he was pro abortion as well. Your type has as much a right as any one else to be here on this forum, but boneheaded anti-Semitic remarks won't be well received.
 
Quote:
Since when is being a Jew "less than normal" or not "ideal"?



It's not. That's the whole point. Like I said - so much for levity. Maybe you don't know what that means. No surprise. I will try to keep things a little on the low brow next time.

Quote:
The issue is not "beating a dead horse"



I disagree. I think the republican party has been unable to get this agenda solved because is because America doesn't want it. It sounds to me like you just don't like to hear that more than anything else.

Calling my remarks anti semitic and boneheaded is simply an oversight on your reading comprehension.

I suspect that you fall into the angry redneck category that screams so loud you can only hear yourself. From my standpoint that's just as bad as being a dummiecrat. And you expect people to listen to you when you write here? And expect them to come back here and talk with you?

My mother was raped and it was her [beeep] right to get an abortion if necessary. Now get off your high horse and wake the hell up. That line of thought to just outright ban abortion is so far out of touch with reality it stinks to high heaven and that's what ruins the republican party. Some self proclaimed internet ninja who thinks he knows about the subject is spewing his mouth off here like he's going to tell our family that it was morally wrong to even think about it is just dumb. Get a grip.

Consider relating your personal experiences on the matter so that people can have an understanding about your point of view. So far it's looking a little stinky.
 
Back
Top