Skip to comments.Blatent vanity - If you would care to, please give me a quick paragraph/opinion on Dick Thornburgh
Posted on 02/08/2013 6:21:23 PM PST by FlJoePa
Just what you think of him. His career as PA Gov and Atty General. Good guy? Bad guy? Honest guy? Dishonest guy? Smart guy? Dumb guy?
Whatever you think.
Thanks in advance.
Later on, I suspect by virtue of his association with GHWB, he got a little close to the UN/CFR/Globalist crowd for my liking.
Thornburgh was a decent man, pretty good as Governor, okay as Attorney General. Much better than Holder or Reno or any other Democrat. Would put him in the original Arlen Spector class. Seems to have gotten a little softer on certain issues as he got older.
You’ll actually going to need some attorneys who either worked for him, worked against him in court, or who are serious students of Attorney Generals in the modern age.
All said, I think he deserves a B or B-, perhaps more as he is evaluated over time. Still, he is an honorable man which you cannot say about Reno or Holder.
He's got my vote!
Man, that’s a blast from the past. Don’t know why you want the info. I never had any direct contact with him but know from working with some of his opinions as AG he was a very strict law and order guy.
He had some rather famous cases to defend during his term and I suspect you can find some through Google by entering his name or go to one of the law sites.
That bad, huh?
Just curious because I think he’ll be in the news the next couple of days and wondered whether people here found him trustworthy, honorable (for an attorney), etc.
Far more conservative than Arlen Specter. And where Snarlin’ Arlen was a vicious-tempered, paranoid anti-Christian, Thornburgh was a thoroughly decent, deeply devoted man.
He's got my vote!In 2004, Thornburgh was asked by CBS to undertake an independent investigation of the so-called Rathergate controversy with former Associated Press CEO, Lou Boccardi. Following the investigation and report, Dan Rather relinquished his anchor position on the "CBS Evening News. Wiki
. . . but not mine, based on that episode. The things you quote Wikipedia as saying are true, but not the truth. Which, IIRC (and I believe I do), is that CBS brought in Thornburgh to whitewash Rather/Mapes.
I think if you read Thornburghs report your blood pressure will shoot up. It was a mistakes were made kind of conclusion which flew in the face of the facts. He said that the mistakes were not politically motivated. Whereas, in this universe, Mapes was as fixated on bringing down Bush as Captain Ahab was on getting the white whale. And Rather was and is an activist Democrat who was in cahoots with the Democratic Party on an attempted October Surprise. The Democratic Party was spring-loaded to exploit Memogate, and piled on instantly in a way which strongly suggested that they knew what was coming. Mistakes? Not politically motivated? Hah!
Having written the above, I got curious and started doing some searching - and ultimately bit the bullet and downloaded and scanned the PDF of the Thornbugh report on Memogate. I never did that before, as I recall. Reading it retrospectively, my judgement is not quite as harsh - but my original critique is entirely defensible.
Reading the report now, I see it as a lawyerly product which does in fact draw correct conclusions - it simply is maddening in the way it avoids certain conclusions which are transparently planted in the information the Panel examined. In addressing the issue of political motivation, the report cites some excellent reasons to believe the 60 Minutes piece was politically motivated - then blandly states that the validity of those reasons was outside the scope of the report. Then balances that with a couple of specious, as I see it, arguments against that thesis - in such a way as to sort of say that they constitute the preponderance of the evidence.
In a footnote the report mentions the Swift Boat controversy which was undercutting Senator Kerrys political momentum at the time. The report does not point out that 60 Minutes could have very easily done a straight reporting, just-the-facts segment on the SBVT organization which would have made the Kerry campaign roadkill - but it didnt have time for that because it was so busy ignoring smoking guns proving (as the Report does, without giving anyone a good sound bite to clamp their teeth on) that the TexANG memos were fraudulent. The preponderance of the evidence in favor of SBVT didnt matter to 60 Minutes, and the preponderance of the evidence against Burketts memos didnt matter to 60 Minutes either.
The Report, in sum, mentions just about every bit of appropriate data, and it mentions the logical conclusions which I draw from that data - but it then draws its conclusions precisely from the perspective opposite to where the data leads me. The Report protests that although it was paid for by CBS it was not controlled by CBS. Whether or not Thornburgh believes that, CBSs perspective and business model did control that report. The Report, as I read it, gets the facts right but studiously avoids concluding from those facts that the people who paid for the report are sailing under false colors.
I just went back to the Wiki quote and highlighted with former Associated Press CEO, Lou Boccardi. That suddenly jumped out at me as CBS putting its thumb on the scale. Thornburg, I now realize, can be seen as a pure figurehead for this report. A respected Republican who is not conservative enough to be a real threat, going along for the ride and picking up a paycheck while the report precisely reflects the perspective of journalism, of which the AP is the exemplar. What is wrong with the perspective of journalism? Objective journalism is sophistry. Journalists claim to be objective; the ancient Greek Sophists claimed to be wise. Theres a difference, right? If you think so, I invite you to explain to me what journalists mean by objective that the Sophists didnt mean by wise, and vice versa.
On the question of wisdom, there is a wise saying Time will show. You may think the course of action you have chosen is wise - but the results just might prove embarrassing. Or as Adam Smith put it, "It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. Just as it is very difficult to know that you are being wise, and impossible to know that you are always wise, it is very difficult to be objective - and impossible to know that you are always objective. So anyone who makes a blanket claim of his own objectivity is not objective about himself. Even if a journalist does not openly claim objectivity for himself, he will claim it for other journalists - and that they will do the same for him as occasion arises. Which, when you get down to brass tacks, amounts to the same thing.
There is only one way to attempt objectivity, and that is to be open and frank about any reasons you can identify which could tend to prevent you from being objective. So it isnt possible to make a good-faith attempt at objectivity without distancing yourself from any claim that you actually are objective.
If there is anyone that CBS could have chosen who would be on board with the idea that CBS, a member of the AP, was an objective, truth-telling organization (rather than the pro-socialist propaganda organization which it actually is) it would have been the former head of the Associated Press. The conceit that CBS was committed to telling the truth without fear or favor was the planted axiom which dominates the analysis in the Report. Anyone who recognized that fatuous conceit for what it is and always was is bound to find the Report, shall we say, limited. The Report concedes what it has to, and recommends stricter standards and controls, also because it has to. It is a CYA document, and Richard Thornburgs name is on it because a CYA document has to have a Republican front man.
I have no experience of following him as governor of Pa, nor Attorney General. But based on the PDF of the Thornbugh report on Memogate to refresh my memory, I posted reply #10 above, which IMHO fully justifies the Establishment assessment.
Very interesting, thanks for taking the time to sort all that out.
Maybe Thornburgh took the gig with CBS because he needed the money.
Again from Wiki: “ In 1993, Thornburgh’s campaign committee was sued in federal court by Karl Rove, who won the case and collected $180,000 from the Thornburgh committee.”
According to Wiki, his campaign committee was broke and Thornburgh had to pay out of his own pocket.
Is this related to Corbett's plan to sell off the Commonwealth's licquor stores and turn sales over to the private sector?
The other thing I wanted to mention about Thornburgh is that he readily conceded that Bush had favorable treatment by TexANG. And Bush was treated differently than Kerry - but then, as I think it was KC Tanker (? cant find the actual FR handle, or Id ping him) who pointed it out, timing makes all the difference in the world in these matters. When Bush let his medical status for flying lapse, it coincided with a rush of veterans returning from Vietnam and going into the Guard - suddenly the Guard, which had been struggling to get enough pilots and therefore had been glad to have a qualified volunteer when Bush joined, had more highly-qualified pilots than it could provide with enough flying time to keep them all current. So the mere changing of external circumstances, having nothing to do with anything Bush did or didnt do, converted Bush the fighter pilot asset to TANG into Bush the excess baggage to TANG. Bush the son of the politician might have been able (let us grant this much) to use connections in order to get enough flying time to retain his flying status - but Bush the team player simply let his flying status lapse. Losing status within the TANG in the process - at the convenience of TANG.
Im reminded of a friend who transferred into the department in which I met him; he said that his old department didnt have enough work to be able to keep its staff employed. Hank liked to say that when he told his boss he was leaving, his boss said, We hate to see you go - but gee, thanks!
. So Thornburg ceded more to the Democrats than was absolutely necessary.
OUTSTANDING posts/analysis, c_I_c! Thanks for the pings. Interesting thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.