Fred reaches fundraising target for new ad? Update: Fred appeals to Fredheads to keep donating

posted at 1:19 pm on December 28, 2007 by Allahpundit

According to the campaign site, with less than five hours to go they’re still $65,000 short. No matter, says Politico — somehow they came up with the balance and will be on the air tomorrow in major cities across Iowa. Can the dream of third place at last be within reach? Don’t stop believing, my friends.

Update: Lame. Everyone knew what Huckabee meant, including the people pretending they didn’t.

Questioning Huckabee’s response to the death of Benazir Bhutto, Thompson, R-Tenn., told a Pella, Iowa, crowd, “I am not sure what Governor Huckabee meant when he said we needed to apologize for this assassination. I am more concerned about people around the world would think when they see a presidential candidate was apologizing for assassination of the former Prime Minister Bhutto.”

Update: Team Fred sends along this video and asks for redoubled efforts to reach the $250K target so that the new ad can run until the caucuses.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Congrats Fred!

Of all the candidates, I think Fred has more of the positions I take than any of the others. If I had to pick any one else, I would pick Rudy or McCain, Mitt would come in fourth. Huck would be 5th, and Paul just wouldn’t get my vote, even if up against Hilarity.

Just Remember,

Kucinich/Paul ’08

(Just Kidding, I could never vote for someone from Cleveland.)

Go Steelers!

pennjazz on December 29, 2007 at 1:59 PM

500 wow

TheSitRep on December 29, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Yes, two of Fred’s girlfriends say he was a gentleman. And that is good. My point is that he was engaged in behavior that is not conservative to a great many folks. The reason it is viewed that way is that casual encounters outside of marriage have a great potential of creating issues that are viewed as immoral. Fred is way more likely to have a skeleton in that closet than say a guy like Mitt does. Thus, Fred has a potential problem in that respect.

Are we nominating a dem we expect to be a dirtbag or a conservative we expect to be conservative? Can Fred compare himself to another conservative and still claim a moral high ground?

csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 10:35 AM

It’s a damn shame you cant seem to tell the difference between conservative behavior and religious behavior.

doriangrey on December 29, 2007 at 2:20 PM

I don’t think going out with ladies while single is an immoral thing, even several women. At least he didn’t say, “I have a wide stance” to explain his encounters. :)

And, BTW, I like the kinder, gentler CSD a lot better. My thanks again to your sons’s service to the country. And may you and yours enjoy a very Happy New Year.

Texas Nick 77 on December 29, 2007 at 1:38 PM

The description of his behavior has been that of a playboy. That is why I believe his intentions were much more than simply going out with the ladies. Having said that I have to say that this just represents a possible area where an October surprise could come from. I think he has worse problems already.

Thanks and the same to you and yours.

Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Our sailor surprised my wife for Christmas. he walked in the door and she took a double take look, jumped up and hugged him like there was no tomorrow. Our soldier is rotating between an FOB and a PB. He was lucky to be at the FOB for Christmas dinner, but he prefers the PB because it feels more like his home. Not here home, but his home away from home.

You know what amazes me is how these troops adjust to the horrific conditions. When I think about how much we pay these patriots for their service to our country, I am truly embarrassed.

csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 2:23 PM

It’s a damn shame you cant seem to tell the difference between conservative behavior and religious behavior.
doriangrey on December 29, 2007 at 2:20 PM

If you were right about that, all conservative candidates would be bragging on their sexual exploits. And that would mean with women and men. Can anyone imagine a Margret Thatcher type bragging on having a reputation as being a playgirl?

I believe conservatism is based on conservative ideals. Bragging on your multiple conquests has never fit that mold.

csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Either way, I am truely done with this thread.
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Don’t leave. I’d really like to hear a rebuttal to his defense. It sounded rational to me, but if you have something substantive to further your argument, please list it.

csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Our sailor surprised my wife for Christmas. he walked in the door and she took a double take look, jumped up and hugged him like there was no tomorrow. Our soldier is rotating between an FOB and a PB. He was lucky to be at the FOB for Christmas dinner, but he prefers the PB because it feels more like his home. Not here home, but his home away from home.

You know what amazes me is how these troops adjust to the horrific conditions. When I think about how much we pay these patriots for their service to our country, I am truly embarrassed.

csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 2:23 PM

I’m so happy for you and your wife. What a gift! I love surprizes. This one tops many big ones. Thanks for sharing,

Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 2:43 PM

Indeed. And with a son serving in Iraq if I’m not mistaken.

JiangxiDad on December 28, 2007 at 9:50 PM

It’s two sons in the service.

Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Having offspring , siblings, cousins, neighbors in the military does not give someone’s argument more weight.
Cindy Sheehan [mother]
Nor does being in or having been in the military make you more honest, brave, or insightful.
I met a few bad apples while in the Corps. You always have a percent of people that are incorrigible regardless of affiliation.
Jack Murtha [ EX-Marine]
Lee Harvey Oswald
Charles Whitman
Wesley Clark [Ex-Army guy]
I strongly encourage my son of 13 to join the Corps ASAP but that doesn’t mean I am right..

TheSitRep on December 29, 2007 at 2:53 PM

csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 2:29 PM

You really need to put the religious crack pipe down. Fred doesn’t go around bragging about his conquests and the women he has dated who have publicly spoken about him call him a gentleman. Conservatives as a general rule, don’t have a problem with a man who is a gentleman regardless of how many women he dates. Just because you dated a woman doesn’t automatically mean you had sex with her.

Unless you are really comfortable with thinking that every man who ever went out with your mother or sister screwed them, you really need to reconsider what you are saying.

doriangrey on December 29, 2007 at 3:08 PM

TheSitRep, while I agree that there are a few bad apples everywhere, your examples all being valid, let’s please separate csdeven’s anti-Fred-rabidity, from the fact that his is still a great family, from many accounts.

For that rabidity I’ve given him plenty of hell, and will continue to. For his other side I’m greatful. He definitely has the two of them, and needs to control the former. It’s totally up to him.

Not fighting with you – like/respect you the same as always, respectfully,

Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Man I just typed a 20 minute post and it didnt post. Im not doing it again, sigh.

broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Oh, I have said more than once that I like and support csdeven, but his being a great guy is a product of his sharp and agile mind nothing more nothing less.

I just get crazy when we misapply causation.

TheSitRep on December 29, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 3:08 PM

I think the problem the TheSitRep, along with quite a few others, are having is reconciling the notion that a person like csdeven could post such vile comments and still be a genuinely decent person.

Personally I have long since accepted the fact cs is playing games with Fred supporters. The worse his language and more vile his diatribes are the more the Fredheads heads explode and the louder and harder cs laughs.

I have read enough of his comments in other threads on other topics to be pretty sure he is just playing games. And if you remove the personal aspects to cs’ comments they usually are pretty dang funny, even rather self deprecating in their lack of logic and honestly. Something I am sure you are aware the vast majority of his other posts do not lack.

doriangrey on December 29, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Not fighting with you – like/respect you the same as always, respectfully,

Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 3:08 PM

You’re a rather sweet, kind, and trusting person.

I just hope you aren’t too trusting. Or more importantly, I hope that if your trust is abused, it won’t cause you too much pain. I hope you’re prepared to find out that people aren’t always exactly what they claim to be on these InterTubes.

Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Entelechy and JiangxiDad,

Regardless of Bryan’s restrictions on me responding to stupid comments like that, I will not let a biased person color your comments to fit his derangement. I did not read your comments as a endorsement of my views on Fred nor as a statement that I am right. Nor would I ever expect someone to do so. Neither would I sully a persons family by suggesting that they think so.

I appreciate the fact that you take the time to remember my sons. We have shared certain parts of our private lives in the spirit of mutual respect and admiration. I know most of us will continue to do so.

csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 3:28 PM

doriangrey on December 29, 2007 at 3:23 PM

No, I get it and support csdeven and I’m on record saying it.
Can y’all imagine if every one here was of the same religion, and supported the same candidate, etc.
No two people here see eye to eye on every issue. That is what makes it fun and enlightening.

TheSitRep on December 29, 2007 at 3:47 PM

A co-chairman for Rudy Giuliani’s veterans’ coalition in New Hampshire resigned Saturday after telling a British newspaper that Muslims need to be chased “back to their caves.”

Can the co-chair run for president?

Just sayin…

broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 3:47 PM

TheSitRep on December 29, 2007 at 3:47 PM

Got ya, how that old saying go? He’s a loon, but he’s our loon…Heh heh heh

doriangrey on December 29, 2007 at 3:50 PM

Fred was Of Counsel. You, as an attorney, are deliberately misleading people when you make the characterization that he was a member of the firm. He was approached to consult on jurisdictional paperwork issues.

I have not seen a report where he was “of counsel” but that he was “part-time.” As a lawyer I know “of counsel” has no meaning other that it is a formal association with a firm but not a full profit sharing situation — each contractual association would be different. I still would not be “of counsel” to a firm representing terrorists.

2. Fred did not tell the partner to get out of his office and immediately start drafting his resignation letter (like Mrs. Kennedy)

Of course he wouldn’t. He consulted. For three billable hours. No one with half a brain would consider this “representation.” From the NYT article: Mr. Culver, a former Democratic senator from Iowa, said that Mr. Thompson was not a primary member of his team, and that his contribution amounted to “a couple of conversations.”

The Libyan lawyer remembers hearing Fred’s name in connection with the case. And check this out. Lawyers all over DC were refusing to work on this case and resigning from firms.

3. he worked with his partner for 3.3 hours coming up with a strategy on how to avoid extradition for murderous terrorists.

Again, “Of Counsel,” not a partner; a consultant. “coming up with a strategy on how to avoid extradition…” is the rankest speculation I’ve ever seen.

That is the only reasonable assumption to make from the available information. The firm was paid almost $900,000 in connection with the extradition fight. Fred consulted for 3.3 hours on jurisdictional issues in connection with this effort.

4. Fred’s firm made hundreds of thousands of dollars. The terrorists avoided justice for 11 years.

It wasn’t his firm. It was someone else’s. Arent Fox. Now, the amount made over the 11 years by Arent Fox re the Libyans was around 900 grand. For a DC firm, that is not even one if its large clients.

Once again, I’m not sure he was just of counsel, but that doesn’t tell you anything. What profit share was he entitled to, we do not know, because it is case by case. However, he was a member of the firm when he was working on the firm’s matters for the firm clients — like the terrorists.

Tired of playing yet?

Tennman on December 29, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Just getting started…

tommylotto on December 29, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Jesus wept.

3 hours. 16 years ago. Unbelievable.

Can you at least go back to attacking the girlfriends? Maybe offer up some pictures and juicy details?

At least that would be interesting.

Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 4:26 PM

Personally I have long since accepted the fact cs is playing games with Fred supporters.
doriangrey on December 29, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Moi? No. Never.

hahaha

csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 4:35 PM

This is a long thread I should not have read. Can I get a refund?

infidel on December 29, 2007 at 7:20 PM

tommylotto on December 29, 2007 at 4:22 PM

I have not seen a report where he was “of counsel” but that he was “part-time.”

Arent Fox brought Thompson into the firm to be “of counsel” in 1991 for his expertise in their lobbying business, including the representation of foreign governments.

The Libyan lawyer remembers hearing Fred’s name in connection with the case.

Again, from a NYT hit piece:
Arent Fox, in papers it was required to file with the federal government, reported that from February 1992 to August 1993, it provided advice on American and international law to Ibrahim Legwell, the Libyan lawyer appointed by the Libyan Bar Association to represent the two intelligence officials charged with the Flight 103 bombing. Arent Fox received $833,960 in fees and expenses for its work on the case.
Mr. Legwell, reached in Tripoli, said his main goal was to see that his clients were tried in Libya or in a neutral country. He said Arent Fox “contributed a lot” to the defense effort. Mr. Legwell said he had no record of ever speaking with Mr. Thompson but noted: “I remember that this name was mentioned.”

Everyone is entitled to a defense by American law, and especially by your very own Code of Professional Resposibility:

EC 2-27
History is replete with instances of distinguished and sacrificial services by lawyers who have represented unpopular clients and causes. Regardless of his personal feelings, a lawyer should not decline representation because a client or a cause is unpopular or community reaction is adverse.46

And footnote 46:

46. “One of the highest services the lawyer can render to society is to appear in court on behalf of clients whose causes are in disfavor with the general public.”

I submit you cannot make your assumption as the “only reasonable assumption”; rather, you can only make a reasonable assumption based upon the codes of ethics and professional responsibility. Which you have not done.

Tennman on December 29, 2007 at 7:34 PM

youre all a bunch of retards do you know that?

It’s time to watch some football!

amish on December 29, 2007 at 7:35 PM

{{{retards}}}

RushBaby on December 29, 2007 at 8:16 PM

I hope that if your trust is abused, it won’t cause you too much pain. I hope you’re prepared to find out that people aren’t always exactly what they claim to be on these InterTubes.

Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Professor, I’m kind, but I’m not that sweet/trusting of others, including here, especially when abused. I assess them as I see them. I work with human strangers far higher and lower than here, of all kinds. I’m actually very selective in all my relationships, and fortunate to have control over that. The InterTubes are not that different; some surprise, some entertain, some enlighten, some brighten, and others disappoint. Of course the mystery is more prevalent, but still, there is much transparency. One of my many interests is human nature, and what drives humans to behave/react the way they do. csdeven is just one such subject.

I’ve omitted many Fred-threads because of csdeven. He hasn’t altered my inclination toward Fred on iota. I’ve met Fred twice and like him a lot. I’m also a realist and know that any could make it. If Huckabee does, we’re screwed. I also hope that csdeven hasn’t affected any of you either. He hasn’t touched you in this regard, but has entertained you. But you are a strong character. It always makes me happy when you comment.

Finally, I’m here for the news, the learning, the sharing, the wit, the bantering, the give/take, the entertainment, the mostly similar political views to mine. Key word is “mostly”. I have no illusions and no special expectations of anyone here. Therefore the disappointments can’t be that great.

Please know that I do appreciate your note, and that I know what you meant to convey. Your e-friendship matters because of your witty brain. There’s hardly anything I like more in people than wit.

Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 10:05 PM

God bless you, Entelechy.

Good night.

Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 11:43 PM

Good night Professor, and I hope you’re asleep already, and that you dream of beautiful Jessicas, floating scantily clad on balloons :) You’re a good one. Stick around for long,

Entelechy on December 30, 2007 at 12:12 AM

Ten reasons not to vote for Fred Thompson

sonnyspats1 on December 30, 2007 at 2:26 AM

Hillary can say that whatever her failings are, she never gave legal advice to terrorists nor did she lobby for a dictator.

csdeven on December 28, 2007 at 11:37 PM

Prove those claims. They have been around for years and nothing has come of it. Compared to her deniability and Fred’s admission, Fred loses.csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 12:36 AM

cs taking a SECOND LOOK AT HILLARY?!

OK, that’s my one & done.

soundingboard on December 30, 2007 at 6:18 AM

Tennman on December 29, 2007 at 7:34 PM

I explained why it does not matter whether or not he was “of counsel” here.

I addressed the “everyone is entitled to a defense” argument here.

I explain why we can conclude what the general nature of the legal advice was here.

I certainly do not want to repeat myself. Do you have any new purported justifications for Fred’s unjustifiable behavior in assisting terrorists to avoid justice for money?

tommylotto on December 30, 2007 at 6:42 AM

Ten reasons not to vote for Fred Thompson

sonnyspats1 on December 30, 2007 at 2:26 AM

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the guys over at FredState forgot to address Fred’s career as a lobbyist (for the likes of murderous dictators, against workers injured by asbestos and for a pro-abortion group), his stealth pro-choice position on abortion, his willingness to sell his services to terrorists in an effort to avoid justice, his funneling of campaign contributions to his son for “consulting” that never took place, his total lack of executive experience, his undistinguished and short career in the Senate, his undistinguished career as a US Attorney in Tennessee when all he did was chase down toothless banjo playing moonshiners, etc.

Keep setting up those silly straw men and keep your head firmly planted in the sand, sonny.

tommylotto on December 30, 2007 at 6:56 AM

tommylotto on December 30, 2007 at 6:56 AM

Blaming a lawyer for having to work on a dirty case is analogous to blaming a Plumber for have sh*t on his sleeve.
If you are a Lawyer or a Plumber long enough you’ll eventually get some on ya..

TheSitRep on December 30, 2007 at 7:14 AM

Stanford University’s science department just started to perform lab experiments on lawyers instead of rats. Why? Because there are more lawyers than rats, and they found that there are certain things a rat just won’t do.

Why is that so funny? Because there are guys like Fred == dragging down the reputation of my profession and the profession of the likes of Darrow and Lincoln.

tommylotto on December 30, 2007 at 8:04 AM

tommylotto on December 30, 2007 at 6:42 AM

Your explanations don’t suffice. Just because you say it’s so isn’t a good defense of your position in light of your own Code of Professional Responsibility. So I guess I don’t have anything new. When you’re right, you don’t have to rely on all things speculated.

TTFN

Tennman on December 30, 2007 at 8:39 AM

FRED LIVE!

Good political explication and stable repartee with Chris Wallace, Fox.

Vote Thompson ’08

maverick muse on December 30, 2007 at 10:29 AM

tommylotto on December 30, 2007 at 6:42 AM

Ha hah hah No tommyboy, what you did is prove that it is people like you, not Fred Thompson who are dragging down the reputation of your profession and the profession of the likes of Darrow and Lincoln.

doriangrey on December 30, 2007 at 10:31 AM

Tommy,

I surmise the reason my you can’t get a rebuttal is because the eventual result is pretty obvious and they don’t want to go down that road. I’m sure, as an attorney yourself, you could make a counter-argument for Fred. Fred’s counter is simply that those actions were part of his “personal” life and therefore should not matter. WOW! That is the kind of justification that puts attorneys in a bad light. I could make a argument for Fred also, but I’d like to hear his supporters argument, just to see if they can/will attempt one.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 11:26 AM

Good night Professor, and I hope you’re asleep already, and that you dream of beautiful Jessicas, floating scantily clad on balloons :) You’re a good one. Stick around for long,

Entelechy on December 30, 2007 at 12:12 AM

I like your dreams much better than mine.

Professor Blather on December 30, 2007 at 11:29 AM

csdeven, you nasty little shrew, this is your last warning.

That is all.

Bryan on December 28, 2007 at 6:00 PM

There are no words to tell you how happy I am that I missed this thread.

Jaibones on December 30, 2007 at 1:18 PM

The only plausible defense of Fred for his work for terrorists is the “everyone is entitled to a defense” argument. I make the distinction that Fred was not defending the terrorists in a system of justice (which is admirable), but was attempting to shield the terrorists from ever facing a system of justice (which is ignoble). I honestly believe that to be the case, but if I were a Fredhead intent on defending my man, I would argue that a lawyer is charged with zealously defending his client with any and all arguments, rules, tactics, etc. that are within the bounds of ethics. Jurisdiction and venue is part of that, and of course you want your client to face trial in the most favorable forum possible. The prosecutors will try to haul them to Scotland or the US. The defense will try to get the case to Libya. It is part of the adversarial system. If both side zealously represent their client, the truth will ultimately win out and justice will be served.

That is the best I could do in support of Fred’s conduct, but then I must still question his ethics. Is it within the bounds of ethics to try to keep this trial in a corrupt justice system like Libya, particularly when Libya itself was implicated in the bombing? In my mind it is not consistent with good ethics. Defend the terrorist in court if you must, but it is not ethical to work to keep the terrorists out of a legitimate system of justice.

tommylotto on December 30, 2007 at 5:17 PM

Tommylotto, I can tell you that I’m not one who would argue any and all legal tactics, rules, etc., and I’m not now arguing that theme. Thank heavens I don’t have to because I would’t.

My argument is with the amount of billable time. 3.3 hours is simply not enough time to accomplish anything that you now try to say that Fred accomplished by himself — the obfuscation and evasion of eleven years by the Libyan terrorists. I’m sorry, but nobody’s that good in 3.3 hours.

In an aside, thank God for attorneys who fulfill the role of public defender. They, not the ACLU, are truly the first line of defense of the Constitution. No one would argue that a public defender shouldn’t zealously represent his/her client. And nobody tries to hang the actions of a public defender client onto the public defender.

Tennman on December 30, 2007 at 6:55 PM

My argument is with the amount of billable time. 3.3 hours is simply not enough time to accomplish anything that you now try to say that Fred accomplished by himself — the obfuscation and evasion of eleven years by the Libyan terrorists. I’m sorry, but nobody’s that good in 3.3 hours.

Tennman on December 30, 2007 at 6:55 PM

The number of hours to me is irrelevant. The fact that he billed his time indicates that he voluntarily contributed to the effort in what ever his firm was doing for the terrorists. The published reports indicate that Arent Fox was retained to fight extradition. So, Fred voluntarily allowed himself to become a part of that effort — a small part, but a part nonetheless. As I pointed out before, a number of attorneys in DC refused this work and some ended their association with their law firm rather than be associated with a firm doing this work. From that, you can tell that the effort asserted by these firms was different ethically than just defending an unpopular client.

tommylotto on December 30, 2007 at 7:29 PM

Well perhaps Fred should have gotten more involved in the case.

Vital Lockerbie evidence ‘was tampered with’

Nearly two decades after Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Scotland on 21 December, 1988, allegations of international political intrigue and shoddy investigative work are being levelled at the British government, the FBI and the Scottish police as one of the crucial witnesses, Swiss engineer Ulrich Lumpert, has apparently confessed that he lied about the origins of a crucial ‘timer’ – evidence that helped tie the man convicted of the bombing to the crime.

And it looks like they are getting an appeal:

At a trial in the Netherlands in 2001, former Libyan agent Abdulbaset al-Megrahi was jailed for life.
He is currently serving his sentence in Greenock prison, but later this month the Scottish Court of Appeal is expected to hear Megrahi’s case, after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ruled in June that there was enough evidence to suggest a miscarriage of justice. Lumpert’s confession, which was given to police in his home city of Zurich last week, will strengthen Megrahi’s appeal.

Noone has ever brought up the notion that they were innocent. Trust me, Im no terrorist sympathizer but read the rest of the article from September.

Here it is

broker1 on December 30, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Here’s the TRUTH ABOUT FRED THOMPSON!

sonnyspats1 on December 30, 2007 at 9:03 PM

January 8, 1997

THOMPSON ELECTED CHAIRMAN OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Washington, DC–United States Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) was elected Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on January 7 by his colleagues on the Committee. The Republican Conference and the full Senate are expected to confirm his election later this week.

Thompson said that he wants the Committee to continue to build on the reform agenda begun in the 104th Congress and he will focus first on the enactment of Regulatory Reform legislation. The Committee also will seek to strengthen its historic role of overseeing the structure and operations of the Executive Branch. It will examine the implementation of recent reforms aimed at strengthening those operations, including the Government Performance and Results Act, the Chief Financial Officers Act and the Information Technology Management Reform Act.

“I intend to work closely with Committee members of both political parties,” Thompson said, “on a number of important bipartisan initiatives. Following on the work of the Committee in the last Congress, we will prioritize the passage of regulatory reform. And we will again take up the creation of a commission to identify and eliminate unjustified subsidies for profit-making entities.

“The Committee in 1997 also will continue to work to make government more accountable and efficient. As government grows smaller it is even more important that it work effectively so that people who depend on it will be better served.”

In addition, the Governmental Affairs Committee will undertake an investigation into alleged improper or illegal activities growing out of the 1996 presidential campaign and related matters.

Members of the committee include Senators William V. Roth, Jr. (R-DE); Ted Stevens (R-AK); Susan Collins (R-ME); Sam Brownback (R-KS); Pete Domenici (R-NM); Thad Cochran (R-MS); Don Nickles (R-OK); and Arlen Specter (R-PA).

Democratic Members of the committee include John Glenn (D-OH), Ranking; Carl Levin (D-MI); Joseph Lieberman (D-CT); Daniel Akaka (D-HI); Max Cleland (D-GA); Richard Durbin (D-IL); and Robert Toricelli (D-NJ).

Subcommittee chairs and membership will be announced within a few weeks.

Hannah Sistare was named Staff Director and Counsel by Thompson. She served as Thompson’s Legislative Director during the 104th Congress. She was Chief Minority Counsel and Staff Director to the Governmental Affairs Committee in 1980, and then Chief of Staff to former Senator Charles H. Percy (R-IL). She served as Special Counsel to the Secretary of Health and Human Services during the Reagan Administration. Earlier in her career she served as Chief Legislative Assistant to Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott (R-PA). Ms. Sistare also is an adjunct professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

The committee’s Chief Counsel will be Fred Ansell. Ansell was Chief Counsel to the Judiciary Subcommittee on Youth Violence under Thompson in 1995-96. He first came to the United States Senate in 1991 as Minority Counsel to Senator Charles Grassley on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice.

Senior Counsel to the Committee is Richard A. Hertling. Since 1995 Hertling has been Chief Counsel and Staff Director of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information for Senator Arlen Specter, and has been with the Judiciary Committee since 1990.

Paul Noe will be a Counsel on the Committee, and will focus on regulatory reform, administrative law and federalism issues. He has served on the Governmental Affairs Committee staff since 1995.

Ellen B. Brown will be Counsel on the Committee. She served as Procurement Counsel for the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight since 1993 under former Chairman William F. Clinger, Jr. (R-PA). She will help oversee the implementation of the new procurement and information technology management laws.

William C. Greenwalt will be a Professional Staff Member for the Committee. He has served as Chief Investigator for the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management under former chairman William S. Cohen (R-ME). He will focus on oversight of the Government Performance and Results Act, and the implementation of other financial and management initiatives.

Curtis M. Silvers will become a Professional Staff Member. During the 104th Congress he served as Senator Thompson’s foreign affairs, trade and defense legislative assistant. He has served previously as a staff assistant to the Foreign Relations Committee under Senator Richard Lugar. He will focus on national security and international affairs issues.

Susanne T. Marshall will remain a Professional Staff Member of the committee on which she has served since 1985, and will continue to have a broad range of administrative and issue priorities. Michal Sue (Mickey) Prosser will stay Chief Clerk to the Committee, a position she has held since 1987. Chris Lamond will be head of the committee’s information technology and computer services department. And Paul Clark, previously Communications Director for Senator Thompson, will become the Communications Director for the Committee. He previously served as Communications Director for the Office of Personnel Management (1989-93).

Return to the Press Release Directory

[Committee Members] [Subcommittees][Special Investigation]
[Jurisdiction] [Hearings] [Press Releases] [Sites of Interest]

This home page was created and is maintained by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
Questions or comments can be sent to: webmaster@govt-aff.senate.gov

sonnyspats1 on December 30, 2007 at 9:06 PM

January 29, 1997

STRONG AGENDA SET FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Washington, DC–At a meeting today to help organize the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee’s agenda in the 105th Congress, Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) made it clear that the Committee would undertake a sweeping set of initiatives which would focus on federal oversight, reform of the regulation-writing process and making government more efficient and effective.

“The American people deserve and demand a government,” Thompson said, “which effectively and efficiently serves them, and does not add cost without adding value. They have every right to a common sense approach to the business of government.”

The Governmental Affairs Committee will build on the reform agenda of the 104th Congress and will strengthen its historic role of overseeing the structure and operations of the Executive Branch.

One of the first priorities of the Committee, Thompson said, will be to “bring more common sense into the regulatory process.” Right now the Code of Federal Regulations is about 130,000 pages long, and takes up more than 21 feet of shelf space. The regulations which are enumerated in these 200 volumes cost the average American family about $6,500 every year.

“Even well-intentioned laws can produce unsatisfactory results,” Thompson said. “I will encourage the Members of the Committee from both sides of the aisle to work together to improve the quality of scientific and technical information on which regulations are based. Better scientific and economic analysis will help agencies to find more sensible solutions under current laws. We need a clean environment, safe products and safe medications. But if we regulate smarter, we can have them and still make our government more effective, more efficient and more accountable than ever.”

Other areas where the Committee will provide leadership on regulatory reform will include the Congressional Review Act, which sets up expedited procedures for Congress to review most new final regulations, and regulatory accounting to help ensure that OMB provides a fair and objective report on the costs and benefits of regulation.

Return to the Press Release Directory

[Committee Members] [Subcommittees][Special Investigation]
[Jurisdiction] [Hearings] [Press Releases] [Sites of Interest]

sonnyspats1 on December 30, 2007 at 9:07 PM

Id like to see Fred with LINE ITEM VETO!

President Fred Dalton Thompson has an ooh so nice ring to it.
Does it not?
By the way,
the last Fred thread got 547 posts.

TheSitRep on December 30, 2007 at 10:06 PM

President Fred Dalton Thompson has an ooh so nice ring to it.
Does it not?

TheSitRep on December 30, 2007 at 10:06 PM

It does indeed.

RushBaby on December 30, 2007 at 10:54 PM

450 baby, Yeah!

TheSitRep on December 31, 2007 at 1:48 PM

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.

The Good News: Fred’s Goal of 3rd Place in Iowa is in Reach.

The Bad News: Fred’s Goal in Iowa is 3rd Place.

amerpundit on December 28, 2007 at 1:22 PM

The Actual News: Fred comes in 1st Place in Iowa.

TheSitRep on December 31, 2007 at 2:30 PM

The Actual Fatasy News: Fred comes in 1st Place in Iowa.

TheSitRep on December 31, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Fred has no money and limited organization, he hasn’t a prayer of 1st place.

BKennedy on December 31, 2007 at 6:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6