The NYT Looking to Get FDT

Elephant Biz has posted a comment on a NY Times article discussing FDT's son FDT Jr. Basically the NYT is trying to dig some dirt on FDT and they are heading down the lobbying path. The knock here is that FDT Jr. became a lobbyist based on the fact that his dad was a senator. But, as much as they would seem to like there to be a problem, they could not find anywhere where FDT Jr. lobbied his dad or where anything even smelling a bit off could be found.

The NYT did, however, let their biases show.

In the folksy drawl that built him a lucrative sideline as a screen actor, Mr. Thompson is presenting himself as a reform-minded outsider taking on Washington, just as he did when he campaigned for the Senate as “Ol’ Fred” the “real live country lawyer,” and cruised Tennessee in a rented red pickup truck.

You can see where they are going. But as I posted yesterday in the Q&A video clip from his South Carolina, FDT is NOT presenting himself as an outsider. He is, however, presenting himself as reform-minded and taking on Washington. But the real idea here is to try to show that FDT is disingenuous.

As money pouring into lobbying firms has soared in recent years, many lawmakers have watched family members get into the business. But ethics experts say the case is all the more striking when the relatives, like Tony and Daniel Thompson, have scant qualifications other than their family ties. And the elder Mr. Thompson was one of the Senate’s most outspoken advocates of tighter ethics and campaign finance rules.

So, since they could not find any actual wrongdoing the NYT is saying it appears bad and FDT wanted tighter ethics rules, so his children should not be lobbying. Huh?

The section that really bothers me, however, deals with FDT's positions regarding the MPAA and personal injury lawsuits.

As an actor, for example, Senator Thompson was a natural champion for the Motion Picture Association of America on subjects like copyright protection and obscenity regulation. As a former trial lawyer, he was sometimes one of the few Republicans to oppose limits on personal injury suits and lawyers fees. And as a former lobbyist for certain cable television concerns, it may have been natural that Mr. Thompson supported the cable television industry’s goals in a regulatory overhaul of the telecommunications industry.

They want to imply that his positions are driven by the fact that he is an actor and a trial lawyer. I am not sure what positions they are referring to regarding the MPAA, but the trial lawyer material is well documented. The part that is misleading is that the NYT would like for you to believe that he has this huge track record of supporting trial lawyers. But the reality is that what is at issue are two votes as described in the linked file. My guess is that when you look at whatever the NYT is insinuating on these votes that you will find FDT's concept of Federalism at the core of his vote.