NPR's Cornish reinforces myth of Thompson as Watergate hero
SUMMARY: Reporting on Fred Thompson's Republican
presidential campaign, National Public Radio's Audie Cornish cited
the"renown[]" Thompson acquired for his role as Republican counsel on the Senate Watergate committee during Watergate,
but her report did not mention
Thompson's own admission that he provided crucial information to
President Nixon's lawyer without authorization.
In a September 3 report on the expected official launch of former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson's Republican presidential campaign, National Public Radio's (NPR) Audie Cornish left out a significant admission by Thompson himself that tarnishes what Cornish described as the "renown[]" Thompson acquired for his role as Republican counsel on the Senate Watergate committee.
Cornish reported:
CORNISH: When Al Gore gave up his Senate seat in 1992 after being elected vice president, Thompson decided to go for it. Armed with his film celebrity, years as a Washington lobbyist, and renowned for his work as a GOP attorney during the Watergate scandal, Thompson hit the campaign trail, but his first steps were wobbly.
Cornish's reporting echoes that of The Washington Post's John Solomon, who, as Media Matters for America noted, wrote on July 26 that Thompson "gained fame in the early 1970s as the 30-something lawyer who helped Republican Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee pursue Richard M. Nixon's misdeeds during the Watergate hearings."
But in his Watergate memoir, At That Point in Time: The Inside Story of the Senate Watergate Committee, Thompson acknowledged that he provided crucial information to President Nixon's lawyer without authorization from Baker or anyone else. In a July 4 article, Boston Globe reporter Michael Kranish, citing Thompson's memoir, wrote:
The day before Senate Watergate Committee minority counsel Fred Thompson made the inquiry that launched him into the national spotlight - asking an aide to President Nixon whether there was a White House taping system -- he telephoned Nixon's lawyer.
Thompson tipped off the White House that the committee knew about the taping system and would be making the information public. In his all-but-forgotten Watergate memoir, "At That Point in Time," Thompson said he acted with "no authority" in divulging the committee's knowledge of the tapes, which provided the evidence that led to Nixon's resignation. It was one of many Thompson leaks to the Nixon team, according to a former investigator for Democrats on the committee, Scott Armstrong , who remains upset at Thompson's actions.
"Thompson was a mole for the White House," Armstrong said in an interview. "Fred was working hammer and tong to defeat the investigation of finding out what happened to authorize Watergate and find out what the role of the president was."
As Media Matters also noted, the website for Thompson's presidential exploratory committee, like Solomon's and Cornish's reporting, does not mention Thompson's leak to Nixon, asserting only, "He gained national attention for leading the line of inquiry that revealed the audio-taping system in the White House Oval Office."
From Cornish's September 3 report on NPR's Morning Edition:
CORNISH: Prior to 1994, Fred Thompson spent the decade furrowing his brow as a character actor playing authority figures in movies like The Hunt for Red October and In the Line of Fire -- films in which he mostly fought off overpowering musical scores and similarly suited bad guys.
[...]
CORNISH: When Al Gore gave up his Senate seat in 1992 after being elected vice president, Thompson decided to go for it. Armed with his film celebrity, years as a Washington lobbyist, and renowned for his work as a GOP attorney during the Watergate scandal, Thompson hit the campaign trail, but his first steps were wobbly.
Tomorrow Thompson is going to be on the Jay Leno show, where I guess he'll make his "big announcement" about running for prez.
I still can't figure why "conservatives" think of Thompson as the next Reagan.
Thompson has nothing really to offer.
"Thompson has nothing really to offer."
Sounds like Reagan to me!
Good One Bransby:
Although I must say, Thomson is no Reagan. He's not the communicator, he's not the leader and he definately comes up short in the Acting and Movie Star department.
The reason I said Good One is that both Reagan and Thomson being the under dogs and yet Reagan won the election.
BUT - Still, Thomsom, is NO Reagan.
So you think Reagan (the guy who was in Bedtime for Bonzo and Tropic Zone) is a better actor than Thompson? Humbly, I disagree.
I have to agree. Even the late Bette Davis said that Reagan was never a great actor.
Reagan was a lousy actor but ironically a good liar. As for that 'Great Communitcator' garbage, it makes me really sad to hear decent people parroting that line. It's fitting that while we're on the subject of Thomson someone would demonstrate the results of what the Republican myth-makers made of that twisted old bastard. Some seem bent on making Thomson into a lot more than he is too. Reagan was a great communicator in that he was up there reading these deviously manipulative speeches that were meant to play on peoples injured pride after Vietnam, fear of the Soviet Union and nostalgia for the 'good old days.' (psst and racism shhhh) The reason it worked well is that Reagan himself couldn't tell fiction from reality. He was a good liar because he didn't know and didn't seem to care what the truth was if it didn't fit into his fantasy. He stayed out of WW2 by playing the part of a war hero in propaganda films. Eventually, he remembered himself as a war hero. He gave names of Hollywood 'commies' during the McCarthy era. At one point as president he told a group of surviving Medal of Honor veterans about one of his favorite winners of the medal. No one could find the guy he was talking about in the books until someone turned it up in an old fictional Readers Digest story. The media left that one alone as usual. The Greatest Generation heckled him in Normandy when he visited the battle sites. "Hey Ronnie, don't remember you here in '44." And yet we were given the impression that he was one of them. He was a callous bastard when it came to the actual lives of other people. He would talk about the good old days when there wasn't any racism and he was rarely challenged on this fantasy. Of course he was just talking about the time when they weren't so 'uppity.' But he sure liked telling stories and posing in front of cameras. He had a comic book understanding of the world that appealed to people who had enough of reality and didn't mind the GOP rewriting the history of Vietnam in order to clear the way for the Right Wing's next series of wars which we are currently enjoying. So if you're unhappy with the current batch of scoundrels you might want to review your take on the Gipper because it's the same batch of scoundrels with the same tricks. Hell, they succeeded in making a 'hero' out of Shrub in enough people's eyes to take the White House twice with that indescribeable little twerp. They are very adept at myth-making so please stop helping them do it with Reagan.
Pardon my ranting lack of paragraphs if you made it through that. Allowing the Reagan Myth to thrive is what paved the way for this current administration. So the continuing preferred treatment he gets makes my blood boil. How many former Reagan people wound up working in the W White House? Shrub's administration has just basically been the worst parts of Reagan's and it was made possible by the myth of Reagan being a great president.
Thank You SUNDOG! - Your words are worth repeating:
Quote: As for that 'Great Communitcator' garbage, it makes me really sad to hear decent people parroting that line. Reagan was a great communicator in that he was up there reading these deviously manipulative speeches that were meant to play on peoples injured pride after Vietnam, fear of the Soviet Union and nostalgia for the 'good old days.' (psst and racism shhhh) The reason it worked well is that Reagan himself couldn't tell fiction from reality. He was a good liar... Un-Quote
Right On Doggie! Pardon your ranting? OK, you are hereby Pardoned. And thanks for calling me a decent person and admitting Reagan was a great communicator - - of lies that is.
I was fishing for your comment and you said it all better than I could have. When I stated that Thompson is no Reagan I was trying to see if someone here likes Thompson more than the other poor options on the Republican Presidential horizon.
Thompson is no Reagan because he's ten times worse. On the 6th Thompson will show if he can communicate lies as well as Ronald did. On that day he's to announce his plans on the Leno Show.
I'll give him 2 or 3 months and then I venture to say he'll drop out of the race.
Thank you sams computer. Will you tell Sam about what we've been talking about? Seriously, it's good to hear someone else who gets why making the Thomson Reagan comparison actually IS relevant. They think they may have another Reagan simply because they want the White House. And actors make good right wingers because, well, it's all an act. Love the way they always slam "Hollywood elites," while they are the party of Reagan, Schwartzenjaggermeister, Thompson and even freakin Sonny Bono. Is there anything they aren't total hypocrites about?
Two Good Ones in a row Bransby!
You're correct, Reagan was not the best actor. Never won an Oscar and was criticized for not preping for some roles. The movies you mentioned were not his best but that's why you invoked them.
That said, I STILL believe Thompson's acting skills are below Ronnie's and Thompson will never be considered a Movie Star or The Communicator, that enabled Ronnie to be President, Governor and Pres. of the Screen Actors Guild.
Are you a Thompson supporter. He'll have his chance to do what Ronnie did in the next few months. Republicans are desparate for a better choice than current options.
Good Luck To Thompson - But I Still have to say:
Thomson Ain't No Reagan
No, I'm not a Thompson supporter, I just happen to think he's better at acting than Ronald Reagan. You're right though, I don't know if he'd be as good playing the role of president as Reagan was.
"Thompson tipped off the White House that the committee knew about the taping system and would be making the information public."
Can someone please explain this one to me.... How is this, in and of itself not a crime in which Thompson wasn't charged for?
Isn't this Obstruction of Justice or some kind of crime?
Niether did Reagan. A folksy look and talk is 95% for them.
I like how MMfA decided to include NPR's jab at Thompson's movie career, even though it had nothing to do with the point of the article.
I know MMfA think that Thompson should get no credit for anything it deems "good" about Nixon's scandal, but even a lie can be "renowned" if it was repeated enough. I don't really think NPR was endorsing anything...they're usually pretty good about not making subjective statements.
I don't think that was a "jab." It seems like Cornish thought Thompson's acting was pretty cool. That's kind of an odd thing for a journalist to be swayed by, and it definitely forwards a conservative political agenda when you discuss Thompson's celebrity and not his policy proposals.
I think you are right. Journalists seem to love Celebs. Especially actors I think many of them are frustrated actors.
Republican slime-ball or Republican hero? You lost me. What's the difference?
I defy anyone to tell me the difference between a Republican of great "renown" and a disgraced Republican. From Joe McCarthy to Richard Nixon to Karl Rove, the slimier the rightwinger, the greater his prestige.
There have been some good ones. Mark Hatfield was against the Vietnam war and was not popular with his party for that. He was also an environmentalist. Hard to find anyone lately, though.
Lowell P Weicker Jr, Senate Watergate Committee, he was one of the "good ones". This of course was before the Republicans sold out and became slaves to the extreme religious/social conservatives.
Typical propaganda by the NPR and public TV has started to prop-up the right wing candidates, similar to what they have done in the past.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070607D.shtml
For a good article about Fred Thompson's role in Watergate.
Hi JULIA !
Dear Fellow Texan....I hope ya'll had a nice Labor Day. I'm kidding, but in my heart of hearts, I will always be a Texan. After returning from the Vietnam War I stayed on the West Coast near San Diego.
That's where I hang my Stetson Hat. I was so happy when the Texas Longhorns won the National Title in 06 against Southern California here at the Rose Bowl. It was the game of the Century.
I Still like the Dallas Cowboys but add to that the Chargers, Saints, and the Titans. San Antonio Spurs! Remember the Alamo!
But I can't do this here - - Oh who cares.!? Are you turning 3 shades of red, if so I'll stop right now. If not I'll keep going.
I see all your comments and I must say - - You Go Girl! - - Very interesting, funny, entertaining and excellent points. No I didn't get a call from Pat Sumerall.
I was born on Galveston Island and lived between Galveston and Houston for about a thousand years. See you later.
Sam I Am a Texan
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
'Watergate Water-Carrier' and Mole is what Thompson was, and he would have the gall to represent himself as a fair arbitor, HA!!!!
He was sworn to secrecy while he served on the Watergate Investigation, and thought so much of his oath that he was a direct pipeline to the White House from day one!
Another Two-Faced Scoundrel for the Republican Nomination! I wonder if he has his Band-Aid Purple Heart ready for the upcoming RNC in Minneapolis, may he find his constituency in the airport bathroom or under the collapse bridge!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
So let's sort this out - A liberal paper publishes a story that quotes a liberal activist who criticizes Thompson over the decades old "Watergate" thing, and we are supposed to throw Thompson's career into the trash? I don't think so. Especially since the liber activist, Armstrong, couldn't even hold onto his job at the liberal " National Security Archive"... what a loser.
This attack on Thompson is weak... I mean, even for MMFA, it's just so weak!
Unfortunately, when lies will not do, one is forced to quote liberals of one or another occupation. If opinion were added to the mix, Thompson is, as are all the Repugnants thus far identified, unfit for exisitence in this plane, and has been barred from entering any better.
Howdy to any who may have missed my attacks on the Repugnants: I have been occupied rebuilding my 'puter, working against Cheney's proposed attack on Iran, and attempting to support BradBlog's efforts to dispel the miasma of Corporate lies about those wonderful direct-entry electronic voting machines (in favor of allowing the citizenry to vote, and then count the votes). 'Puter is now about 80% operational, and does most of the things I need daily, so I may spend more time attacking Repugnants and their Corporate Media allies here.
Or not - the wifely person in my house insists that posting on MMFA is as bad for the aura of the household, as watching Corporate "news"casts.
Glad to see you back Conley you HAVE been missed
Yea I'm glad to see you back too CT. Curiously been very few Seagulls arround recently.
Keep your Aura dry.
Can you repeat that in English?
Ok, In English.
Happy?
YOU are weak. Your every post is weak. You havent made a single decent point since you showed up here. Mostly you troll and attack very weakly. It isnt any problem reading your posts is like getting gummed by a newt, it isnt any real problem but leaves you feeling annoyed and in need of a shower. The Watergate thing may be decades OLD but Audie felt it appropriate to use his Watergate days to impute what she referred to as renown. If it is not too old for THAT it is not to dated to bring up that he acted unethically at that time. Then again perhaps, given the GOPs sliding ethical scale perhaps that ethical lapse is exactly what he IS renouned for.
YOU are weak. Your every post is weak. You havent made a single decent point since you showed up here.
I must bow before your incredible reason and logic.
You want to see some logic? Put some conent in your post. An ignorant foray into baseless assertions, mischaracterizations, and a dumb attack on this site dont CALL for logic rather for responding in kind. Since you have not put one iota of logic, facts or insight into any post you have ever made you havent done anything to DESERVE any logic in a rubuttal. Step up your game if you want to see some logic.
"But in his Watergate memoir, At That Point in Time: The Inside Story of the Senate Watergate Committee, Thompson acknowledged that he provided crucial information to President Nixon's lawyer without authorization from Baker or anyone else."
John, are you saying that Thompson is a liberal activist??? How is this a weak attack?
You needed to cite the next sentence -
...In a July 4 article, Boston Globe reporter Michael Kranish, citing Thompson's memoir, wrote:
This makes it very clear that MMFA is NOT citing Thompson. They are citing a liberal writer's opinion of what Thompson wrote. This is not a direct quote - and, in fact, it's kind of sleazy.
So, have you read the memoir? Is he lying?
Thompson has yet to display any great leadership skills in real life. I guess he does on TV though, which what is republicans care about most. They constantly harp about Hollywood, yet they turn to Hollywood when it suits their ends. Isn't this more Repug hypocrisy? And unlike most republicans I can accept a rational argument proving me wrong on this . point
Like another blog wrote (I forgot which one) with a made up Thompson quote:
"I wasn't in Vietnam, but I was in The Hunt for Red October.
Sad to see NPR reduced to this...
They've become just another con mouthpiece. I don't even listen to them anymore.
Hahaha.. and a damn fine aircraft carrier captain at that!
Krom,
I tend to agree with you. I don't know what all the fuss is about regarding Thompson? But that may be due to my purposeful lack of interest in most of the candidates this far from the election.
It'll be interesting to see if Thompson is mostly fluff or if there is something behind his 'aura'.
I think your argument about Hollywood has merit. However I also think your comment about lack of leadership also describes another Presidential candidate on the Democratic side who worked in the Watergate investigation.
When folksy Fred Thompson was young,
He acted the hero unsung
Giving tip-off to Dickie
Then outing him--tricky!
His ethics as shiny as dung.
Good one, Mary. I likey. 'Specially the dung part!
Okay, so he talked with a Nixon lawyer about his line of questioning the next day... I think the key point is missed is that he brought up the line of questioning THE NEXT DAY. It is that line of questioning that eventually brought down Nixon. In another time Thompson would be a hero on the left.
On top of that, it is 30 years ago. Is Thompson running on his record as a Watergate Council? Is he reporting for duty? This is nothing but a thinly disguised partisan attack by the Republican hating MMFA. Good luck. I doubt this one will ever make it past this website.. Oh wait.. Keith Olbermann will probably give Thompson one of his Worst Person awards and MMFA will dutifully re-report it. ;-)
AA,
He admitted he was a mole for Nixon. What more do you need?
It is not the LINE OF QUESTIONING that brought Nixon down it was questioning about the EVIDENCE that brought Nixon down. Are you pretending that Thompson could have ignored it and Nixon would have been cleared of wrongdoing? WARNING about a line of questioning so he can get his story as straight as possible and definitly not perjur himself is NOT doing the case any favors. Also so WHAT if it is 30 years ago it is STILL what the woman CITED as bringing him renown. IF it isnt too dated to cite as what gave him renown then it is ALSO not too dated to bring up the the leak
Frankly I don't care. My presumption is that they probably sat around having drinks and did the good ol' boy bragging after a few.
Of course that is pure conjecture, but it doesn't seem to me to have lessened anything that happened to Nixon. He still resigned and a number of his administration went to jail for the cover-up.
So it is way too old and of no consequence if you ask me. but go ahead if you like and make a big deal about it. It's all yours.
AA,
Do you think that issues of credibility/honesty have an expiration date? I think instances where the credibility of a candidate is tested are invaluable to the decision-making process especially when there were huge ramifications.
I also think Thompson should have a chance to talk to these and discuss them as well.
So then it is NOT too old to bring up to shine his resume but it IS too old to bring up in the context of him leaking and calling his ethics into question. RIIIIIGHT.