Fred Thompson: First Lobbyist for President

DickMorris.com ^ | 09/10/07 | Dick Morris

[Neu Pragmatist]

Thank you , post that often ! It’s time to unite , not fight each other .

Fred is our only hope for unity and victory .

[SuziQ]

Fred lobbied for a democratically elected President who had been overthrown in a coup. Yep, he later turned out to be a despot, but the folks had chosen him at the time Fred's firm represented him.

As for the family planning group, from the papers filed, Fred did 20 billable hours of work for them over a two year period. Doesn't sound like he had a burning desire to represent their point of view. His lobbying firm was asked to make some phone calls about a piece of legislation, which Fred did, as a member of the firm.

[SuziQ]

Instead of being so arrogant and flippant why did he not just say, “yes, I did lobbied for them, although minimally”?

If he worked a total of 20 hours over the course of two years over 15 years ago, it's likely that he didn't remember anything specific about it when he was asked the first time. And I don't remember him being either arrogant or flippant about it.

It is my understanding that he wouldn't be allowed to discuss the specifics of the work because of client confidentiality. That kind of puts him on the spot when the client can say anything they want, but he can't refute it because he's held to the confidentiality agreement.

[jonathanmo]

Sorry, Reagan was never a lobbyist.

[ellery]

I haven’t dug into the lobbying issue very much, since I don’t see much difference between lobbyists, lawyers and other professionals who represent clients with whom they may not agree. I have no doubt that if we looked into any lawyer-candidate’s background, we would find that he/she represented some pretty nasty characters. It’s just a non-issue to me.

However, I do consider it hypocritical for Hunter supporters to criticize Thompson’s apparently minor role related to Aristide. Hunter crossed party lines to vote for a bill aiming to protect Haitian refugees fleeing the military coup that overturned Aristide — this bill explicitly called Aristide’s government “democratically elected,” and punished anyone who was involved with overturning Aristide’s government by barring them from the US.

[rockrr]

Don’t be a dick, Dick.

[Theresawithanh]

Welp, looks like you pulled a 'post-and-run'. Thanks for playing. Here is your lovely parting gift, suitable for framing...

[papasmurf]

Nice pic, thanks.

You just know that littin’ is teething. LOL

[dixiechick2000]

Haley Barbour was one of the most successful lobbyists on K Street.

I’d vote for him in a heartbeat!

[SuziQ]

I’d never heard that Reagan was a lobbyist, but some of the posters here had that information. Makes no difference to me.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I don't think Americans would want to vote for a lobbyist in a general election.

There's nothing wrong with lobbying. It's no different than being a lawyer picked randomly from the Yellow Pages.

[WildcatClan]

Everything I sourced was from “professional services” and that was a little over 2 hours lobbying administration officials along with 20 hours of legal services, telephone conferences etc, which were strategy sessions and formulating a battle plan.

I clearly stated it was token but not negligible. You seem a reasonable and intelligent person so let’s not get bogged down in semantics. I think we can agree it would have been in his best interests to have admitted it and moved on.

Like Ellery said it wasn’t a big deal, at least I didn’t see it as such in the beginning, so why be deceptive about it? No need for “says he doesn’t recall, says it didn’t happen”, or “the summer flies” remark. Own it, make clear it isn’t your position, just a job, and move on.

Ellery, I have to respectfully disagree with your analysis that it is hypocritical of Hunter supporters to broach Aristide and Haiti and Freds actions in regard to both.

I think it is obvious the vote was not for Aristide, nor against those fighting him. This was a vote to make sure we didn’t have pockets of the 3rd world in America, comprised of Haitians, who may or may not have fled in fear of a despot they were fighting. A very violent place and I am not sure there is a “good side”, but I am nearly sure I do not want a wave of immigration from there.

We simply can’t maintain the current immigration numbers and he realizes that. It’s always best to have people stay in their country and fight for the needed changes. Haitians and Mexicans immigrating here doesn’t change anything in Haiti or Mexico. It just burdens and punishes American taxpayers/citizens and lets these corrupt governments off the hook.

[Doofer]

I can’t believe I wasted my time going to Morris’s site to read that drivel.

[Josh Painter]

WildcatClan wrote: “You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but it appears you can fool a lot of them, every time.”

Spoken like a true Hunter “one percenter” - LOL!

[ellery]

I appreciate your respectful disagreement very much. I must respectfully disagree with you, FRiend, in turn. :)

The bill I’m referring to is the Haitian Refugee Protection Act of 1992 (HR 3844). It did not aim to keep Haitians in Haiti — it actually did the opposite. It said that Haitian in US custody (in Cuba, on US ships, etc.) could *not* be involuntarily returned to Haiti, and re-allocated 2000 refugee visas to Haitians fleeing the coup that overthrew Aristide. It specified that Aristide’s government had been the legitimate, democratically elected government of Haiti, and punished Haitians who participated in the coup that overthrew him by barring them from the US.

I wish I could link directly to the bill, but the Library of Congress doesn’t permit that. Here’s Hunter’s vote, followed by the text of the bill he voted for:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1992/roll034.xml

The Haitian Refugee Protection Act of 1992 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

102d CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 3844

AN ACT
To assure the protection of certain Haitians in the custody of the United States, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Haitian Refugee Protection Act of 1992’.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF HAITIANS IN UNITE STATES CUSTODY.

The President shall provide that no Haitian in the custody or control of the United States as of February 5, 1992, whether on board United States Government vessels, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or elsewhere, outside the United States will be involuntarily returned to Haiti until—

(1) 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act , or

(2) 5 days after the date of submission of the final report under section 3(c),

whichever occurs later.

SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT OF STATE STUDY AND REPORT.

(a) STUDY OF HAITIANS RETURNED TO HAITI- The Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, in conjunction with the United States Coordinator for Refugee Affairs, shall conduct a study concerning Haitians who were interdicted or rescued by United States Government vessels after September 29, 1991, and were returned to Haiti and concerning Haitians who were deported from the United States after such date. Such study shall assess their condition and circumstances in Haiti after their return, with particular attention to any violations of fundamental human rights.

(b) PARTICIPATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS- In conducting such study the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs shall use the resources, information, and expertise of internationally-recognized human rights organizations and such other sources as may be appropriate.

(c) CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS- The Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs shall prepare and submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate a detailed preliminary report of the findings of the study under subsection (a) not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act , and a final report not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act .

(d) CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRIES- The Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs shall respond not later than 7 working days after receipt of a written request of a Member of Congress for information concerning the study or reports under this section.

SEC. 4. REALLOCATION OF 2,000 FEDERALLY FUNDED REFUGEE ADMISSIONS DURING FISCAL YEAR 1992 TO HAITI.

(a) IN GENERAL- The President shall change the allocation of refugee admissions for fiscal year 1992 provided in Presidential Determination 92-2 (pursuant to section 207(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ) so as to provide for an allocation of at least 2,000 Federally funded refugee admissions to Haitian refugees of special humanitarian concern.

(b) USE OF CURRENT FEDERALLY FUNDED REFUGEE ADMISSIONS- In changing the allocation of refugee admissions during fiscal year 1992 pursuant to subsection (a)—

(1) the total number of such refugee admissions shall remain the same;

(2) the 1,000 refugee admissions allocated to the category `Unallocated (funded)’ shall be reallocated to refugees described in subsection (a); and

(3) the remainder of the refugee admissions reallocated under subsection (a) shall come from such other category (or categories) as the President specifies.

SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT.

The Congress urges the President and the Secretary of State to participate actively with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the governments of the member countries of the Organization of American States (OAS) in the convening of an international conference on Haitian refugees and displaced persons which seeks to adopt a comprehensive program of action to solve the Haitian refugee crisis in all its aspects, taking into account the concerns of all interested parties and the rights and welfare of Haitian refugees and displaced persons.

SEC. 6. CERTAIN HAITIANS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND EXCLUDED FROM ADMISSION.

(a) EXCLUSION- During the period specified in subsection (c), an alien designated under subsection (b) shall be ineligible to receive any visa and shall be excluded from admission into the United States.

(b) DESIGNATED ALIEN- An alien designated under this subsection is any alien who—

(1) is a national of Haiti; and

(2)(A) provided financial or other material support for, or directly assisted, the military coup of September 30, 1991, which overthrew the democratically-elected Haitian Government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide; or

(B) provided financial or other material support for, or directly participated in, terrorist acts against the Haitian people after that coup.

(c) PERIOD OF EXCLUSION- The period of exclusion specified in this subsection begins on the date of the enactment of this Act and ends on the date on which the President certifies to the Congress that democratically elected government has been restored in Haiti consistent with the Haitian Constitution.

SEC. 7. REIMBURSEMENT FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COSTS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to reimburse State and local governments for incremental costs associated with Haitians permitted to enter the United States under this Act .

SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

The Congress urges the President and the Attorney General to take all appropriate actions to ensure that no State is impacted, disproportionately, with respect to the provision of services for Haitian refugees and displaced persons entering the United States.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of the Congress that the President, in conjunction with the legitimate democratically-elected government of Haiti, should urge the United Nations Security Council and, as appropriate, the Organization of American States—

(1) to dispatch a peacekeeping force to Haiti—

(A) to provide security for human rights monitors,

(B) to provide protection for Haitians repatriated from abroad, and

(C) to assist in establishing a climate of security in Haiti in which the rights of all persons will be respected; and

(2) to send human rights monitors to Haiti, under the aegis of an appropriate international human rights organization such as the United Nations Human Rights Commission or the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, to assess and report to the international community concerning internationally-recognized human rights in Haiti.
Passed the House of Representatives, February 27, 1992.

[WildcatClan]

Apparently, I misunderstood what you were attributing to Hunter and how he voted on the issue. I don’t spin or rationalize, he voted “aye”, I disagree with that vote.

Still I don’t see the nexus from that vote to a vote in the affirmative for Aristide, if you follow my line of thinking here. I hope you do because this is starting to get confusing, heh. :)

I didn’t realize these people were being held at Gitmo and that there were so few. I was thinking the numbers were far greater than they actually were. Like I said, I am not sure there was a good side in this and I can’t see a nexus, at least anything direct, that would place a vote for this act as support for Aristide or anyone else in power in Haiti.

I think the vote was mainly concerned with 12k human beings and what to do with them and what happened to the 5k + who were sent back. I misunderstood the intent of the bill, you were right, but really don’t see that as supportive of Aristide. I disagree with Hunter on the Haitian vote and Fred on the Nicaraguan/Cuban vote but can’t say either was supporting the leader of any particular country by doing so. Oh, btw, I thought you might find it interesting as well that B 1 Bob voted in the affirmative, so that confuses me even more. If there was ever a harda$$ in Congress, it was Dornan. :) Confusing...........

Thanks for digging up the info and setting me straight.

SW

[W04Man]

POST AND RUN

[Paperdoll]

>Spoken like a true Hunter “one percenter” - LOL!<

Watch it, Ruger. You may be laughing out of the other side of your mouth one of these days.

[FreepersareproAmerica]

His book “Outrage” is considered popular.

[FreepersareproAmerica]

Unfortunately, some influential Christians are considering backing a third-party candidate. They don’t realize that doing that would give Hillary a victory.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_el_pr/conservatives_third_party