Think running for president as a senator is hard? Try running as a lobbyist
Posted on September 9th, 2007 at 2:56 pm by Contributor ArchiveFred Thompson, the outsider, anti-Washington candidate, is running into a few bumps in his nascent campaign, with questions arising about his work in the 1990’s as a K Street lobbyist.
Thompson’s pre-campaign hit one of its biggest stumbling blocks over the fact that he lobbied on behalf of a pro-choice group. Now, The New York Times reports Thompson gave advice to Libyan intelligence officials implicated in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. Talk about an opportunity for an attack ad.
Mr. Thompson has said he makes no apologies for his legal and lobbying work, emphasizing in one online essay that every person, no matter how unpopular, is entitled to representation and that lawyers’ work on behalf of a client is no indication of their own personal views
I’m not sure Americans see lobbyists in the same way they do lawyers, because lobbying involves more of an advocacy aspect. (While the Libyan work may have been simply legal advice, the Times article points out other work he did for clients involved a much greater deal of hands-on involvement.)
Arguing that he would lobby for anyone doesn’t speak well of his personal convictions, while arguing that he doesn’t remember who he lobbied for doesn’t speak well of his work ethic.
So who else has Fred lobbied for? You can bet it’s all going to come out in the course of the campaign, and fair or not, he’s going to have to come up with a better response.
4 Comments
Leave a comment
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Mr. Thompson has given subtle hints in the past that he is a pro-choice kind of guy, regardless of his conservative voting/public demeanor. With Romney and Giuliani trailblazing the front, this actually provides Thompson a good place to be. He can jump on sides with either of the frontrunners as the appealable counter-part-candidate, while letting their camps (and ultimately their dollars) work the poles until he figures out where to move next. I think either way, he will be able to pull some votes out of the moderate pool because of the lobbying. The Libyan thing may pose a little bit of a problem, but I dont see anyone really being able to hit him with something his camp cant handle. The “Unforseen Consequences” argument would probably deal with any attack ads on this one. Thats my two cents.
Uh-oh…pro-choice…he’s dead.
LOL…Fred is chosing the best defense for supporting pro-choice…being a sell out. ‘Me no care what lobby is about, me make money…that all that count.”
So we have Ron Paul…all conservative principle…being hated by Republicans, and Fred Thompson…at best, a no-principle sell-out…being loved by Republicans.
Yeah. That pretty much sums up the Republican party for the past few decades.
I somewhat agree with you BJD, once again, and that was a hillarious post by the way.
Ray, we all know Fred’s conservative principles aren’t as deep seeded as he would like us to believe. Despite his “subtle hints”. The real question facing his campaign is whether or not he will debate Governor Huckabee. Personally I think he knows he’ll lose, and he won’t do it. What do you think?
I think there’s actually a reasonable defense in what Fred is saying, but one that would require him to take a moderate stance in all things. “All people deserve representation,” in actual practice, would prevent him from taking the strong neocon stance he’s expected to represent. That being said, I seriously doubt that he’s going to be consistent with it.
As far as debates, I think his only real strategy is to avoid them and play up a very tailored campaign image. His message is not strongly differentiated, and he lacks the “folksy appeal” of Huckabee. If no meaningful differences can be debated, people look to a candidate’s charisma, and Huckabee projects a smart-but-down-to-earth image, and is both funny and quick on his feet.
Until recently, I didn’t think his chances were good, but my bet is on Huckabee among the pro-war candidates. If Thompson debates him, I expect sentiment to swing that way more strongly, but either way, that’s how I see it. Thompson’s biggest advantage was not being one of the blessed three (Giuliani, Romney, McCain); that’s been squandered by letting another contender hit the field.
In the end, I expect the result to be determined by two factors:
- Pro- v. Anti- war sentiment in primary voters
- The fragmentation of the pro-war field
Since 38% of self-identifying republican’s are against the war (which is consistently ranked as the most important issue of the election), the pro-war candidates have only 62% left to divide on this issue. Anything less than a significant majority of the pro-war voters (>> 31%) behind a single candidate will leave that 38% able to swing the decision in any manner (This is why I believe Ron Paul actually has a chance).
Fred entering the field exacerbates this effect. Now, if Giuliani or Romney exit the arena and throw their support behind a different candidate, anything can happen - but I doubt they’ll exit while they’re still in the top tier, and a second-tier candidate exiting will do little to address the fragmentation.