User talk:Theodore H. Frank

See Ted Frank, which I edit to correct spelling mistakes when I find them unbearable to look at.

Photo
What are the chances we could get you to upload a nice photo? -- >David  Shankbone  17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's one for you
In the realm of wacky lawsuits. I wonder if anyone will settle it as a nuisance suit. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling Mr. Ted.
Ted, oh Ted. A question has arisen on your Wikipedia article. Is this true and would you care to have this included in your article?If so we would like to add it without the English error and without any innuendo, i.e. X did Z rather than X is the Y who did Z. Best, - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon] (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I've said to the reporters who have contacted me so far:

I can confirm that:

• I led separate teams of lawyers researching Lieberman and Palin, and that, in my spare time on nights and weekends, I wrote lengthy and detailed vetting reports on both of them that I believe fairly, accurately, and thoroughly identified the pros and cons of each. Other lawyers led teams of lawyers researching numerous other vp possibilities, usually as many as five or six each, and it was just a coincidence that the two Culvahouse assigned to me ended up being so significant.

• I was one of several lawyers sent to Alaska in August and/or throughout the campaign, though I probably was there longer than anyone else. (I was on unpaid leave of absence from AEI to work on the campaign, and was a paid RNC independent contractor in September and October.) The campaign offered me the opportunity to be public about my role in Alaska, but I recommended against it because my public position on the Exxon Valdez case would have been an off-message distraction given the local politics.

• And I'll confirm Governor Palin's account of the vetting process in "Going Rogue" as accurate.

Everything else I'll have to have no comment on without clearance from Mr. Culvahouse or Governor Palin or campaign officials.

Given WP:NOR, I'm not sure what relevance any of this has to Wikipedia. Theodore H. Frank (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. The issue actually arose in connection with some material from the new book, [Game Change]].  I think the editors working on your article will use it in the negative, as an argument in favor of accepting as reliable a published source that says that was your role.  There's some difference of opinion as to whether the original research policy applies to weighing the reliability of sources about a fact, but this is probably a good case of just following common sense.  We just didn't want to report that you were part of the vetting process if you weren't, and I'll try to hold the line on any implication that you were part of a failure of vetting because it seems you were not.  Feel free to stop by and let us know, here, there or on my talk page, if you have any concerns.  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)