A few more thoughts about today's New York Times story looking into the lobbying activities of the two sons of Fred Thompson. The longer you consider the story, the more you realize that its much ado about nothing. While the story was designed to make you think there might have been unethical activity, the truth is at no point does the NYT explicitly make that charge. Not against Fred Thompson and not against his two sons. Only artful writing by the NYT reporter spins a whole lot of nothing into a story the NYT could use to attack Thompson.
In fact, the story notes that the Thompson family specifically avoided using their family connection for clients.
As I noted in an earlier post today, son Tony's lobbying activities focused on the state government of Tennessee, not the federal government, while Fred Thompson served in the U.S. Senate. Fred's son Daniel Thompson was registered as a lobbyist only at the state level, where he worked as executive director of a statewide business group, the Tennessee Business Roundtable.
Odd, too, that the NYT downplays some key facts about others who played key roles. The paper does admit that it was a Democrat - "departing incumbent senator Harlan Mathews," - who hired Thompson's son as a lobbyist, but somehow to the Times the focus is on the Thompson family rather than on the highly connected Democrat who was clearly playing the access game.
The NYT also reports that one of Thompson's son lobbied Bill Richardson, then the Clinton administration's secretary of energy, about Lockheed contracts, and says that after that Richardson "deferred a decision about the fate of the contracts." Oddly, the paper finds no space to mention that Richardson is a current Democratic Presidential candidate.
A memo to the Democrats who think this story represents an opportunity to slime Fred Thompson: A note at the bottom of the story says the reporting was assisted by a contributor named E. Thomas Wood. I know E. Thomas Wood - he's one of the best investigative journalists in Nashville. If what's in the NYT story is all he came up with, there's no "there" there.
Ok Bill, you've been riding this one-trick pony about Thompson for weeks. Let's say Thompson's lobbying activities WEREN'T a big deal.
That still does not mean Thompson has anything to offer the American electorate except for the ability to read cue cards.
Thompson is washed up. The only thing he has going for him is that he's NOT Mormon.
Posted by: Claire Celsi | July 2, 2007 1:33 PM | Permalink to Comment