Thompson: ‘not very smart’

On his exploratory website, Fred Thompson boasts that he “gained national attention” as the “hard-charging counsel” who took the “lead” in revealing the audio-taping system in Nixon’s Oval Office. In effect, to hear the actor/lobbyist/lawyer tell it, the Watergate scandal turned on the clever work of a young Fred Thompson.

It all sounds quite impressive — just so long as you ignore the fact that all of Thompson’s claims are demonstrably false. At the time, Thompson was actually relentlessly partisan and anxious to protect Nixon during the Watergate investigation. Indeed, Thompson admitted in his all-but-forgotten Watergate memoir that he engaged in blatantly unethical and unprofessional leaks, divulging sensitive information to Nixon aides at the height of the inquiry. A former investigator for Democrats on the Watergate committee summarized it quite well: “Thompson was a mole for the White House.”

And what did Team Nixon think of their young helper? The Associated Press checked the Oval Office tapes.

Nixon was disappointed with the selection of Thompson, whom he called “dumb as hell.” The president did not think Thompson was skilled enough to interrogate unfriendly witnesses and would be outsmarted by the committee’s Democratic counsel. […]

“Oh sh*t, that kid,” Nixon said when told by his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, of Thompson’s appointment on Feb. 22, 1973.

“Well, we’re stuck with him,” Haldeman said.

Eventually, Nixon expressed concern that Thompson was not “very smart.” Nixon’s lawyer, J. Fred Buzhardt, agreed, saying, “Not extremely so.”

Now, to be fair, does Thompson’s humiliating performance during the Watergate investigation still matter now? Maybe a little.

He was a 30-year-old partisan lawyer who shirked his duties and undermined a critically important investigation, but that was over three decades ago. There’s a statute of limitations on these mistakes.

That said, Thompson is still, right now, inexplicably touting his behavior as something he’s proud of. He sees it as an impressive part of his c.v. Given his behavior at the time, that’s just odd.

On a related note, we learned over the weekend that the pro-choice National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. reportedly hired Thompson to lobby the H.W. Bush White House in 1991. Specifically, the group paid Thompson quite a bit of money to push the White House to ease restrictions that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money.

Except, at least at first, the Thompson campaign denied that this had ever happened. On the one side, we have six people and documented evidence that Thompson lobbied for the group. On the other, we have Team Thompson, which insisted, vigorously, that the entire story is fantasy. It led the soon-to-be-candidate to address the controversy head on.

Thompson gave an oblique response when asked about the matter, first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

“I’d just say the flies get bigger in the summertime. I guess the flies are buzzing,” said Thompson, who is considering running for president as a social conservative. He refused comment on whether he recalled doing the work.

The poor guy is not “very smart.” At least “not extremely so.”

If you like Bush, you’ll love Thompson.

The poor guy is not “very smart.” At least “not extremely so.”…If you like Bush, you’ll love Thompson.

Oh great. He’s a lock for the GOP nomination now. ugh. the last thing we need is someone the social conservatives can get behind.

  • Nixon was disappointed with the selection of Thompson, whom he called “dumb as hell.”

    Nixon got something right, didn’t he? I think his assessment of Thompson needs to be more widely circulated. As shallow as political “debate” has become in this country, GOP personality maladies deserve all the attention we can give them.

  • Now more than ever, I kinda hope Thompson gets the nod. This will be so easy to hammer him on early and consistently…that is, if the media actually has a mind to point out these little inconsistencies every time Team Thompson tries to muddy the facts or their importance.

  • I’m thinking the dumber Thompson looks, the more eager the Retards will be to nominate him. It will be easier to spin the inevitable loss on his own incompetence rather than the complete collapse of the Republican fantasy universe.

  • Since when has being dumb as hell been an obstacle for a Republican President? the base loves someone who’s dumb because they’re suspicious of anyone who appears to be smart. The people who pull the strings love dumb because they get to run things without accountability.

    Thompson will be President because the Dems will nominate Hillary: it’s their only chance to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Thompson will have his Cheney, likely someone recommended by Cheney himself.

    And the beat goes on…

  • Thompson will have his Cheney, likely someone recommended by Cheney himself.

    Or Thomson will have Cheney. The prince of darkness enjoys his power.

  • Next, he’ll confuse his movie roles with reality.

    Not that we ever had a president who did that, mind you.

    (sarcasm: off)

  • This just gets funnier and funnier — cannot believe the answers coming out of Thompson now. Nixon was right — “dumber than hell” fits him.

    Now being reported that Fred also tried to keep the pro-life plank out of the 1996 Republican Convention platform. That was released by Terry Jeffries of Human Events who argued to keep it in the platform.

    This Country does not need a good old boy whose gives such a dumb answer to a legitimate question. How pathetic can one non-candidate be.

    But then he was a mole for the Nixon WH who took credit for outing the tapes all these years when he wasn’t even in the room when the revelation was made. Wonder how the Thompson folks are going to spin that away when AP listened to the tapes.

    No wonder all these years this Administration through its minions have been putting in everyone’s brain that the media is biased and lies so when the truth hits after the media has done investigative journalsim their minions will say it is because the media is biased and not telling the truth.

    The little minions are busted this time!

  • Hillary: it’s their only chance to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Jeez, all this defeatism over a prospective Hillary nomination. IMHO by 2008 a ham sandwich would be able to beat whoever the Republican nominee is. Hillary, if she gets nominated (not my choice, but it could happen) will likely be a formidable candidate. Get a grip.

    No votes have been cast yet in the primaries. If you don’t want Hillary to be nominated, get out there and work for one of the other candidates. We’re not going to improve anything by pissing and moaning.

  • Let’s see…the little red truck scam
    the watergate hero scam
    the lobbying for planned parethood scam
    Seems like Thompson thinks acting trumps reality.

    He has already demonstrated he is quite the phony, con man, and liar….all the traits needed to be a good actor.
    Except now he thinks his role should be more dramatic because he is also a vehement attack dog for the republican party. He must think the voting public is easily fooled as he is desperately trying to make himself “believable”. Just pathetic.

  • I think Thompson will make a fine representative for the Republicans. He reminds people of Bush, and that will make independents very uneasy. That’s all we need to win.

    The guy I worry about is Hagel. If he can fool people into thinking he’s a progressive republican alternative we may have a problem.

  • I think it’s sort of funny. Thompson seems so intent on running an unorthodox campaign that his opponents (and you know all these stories are coming from them) are tearing him down before he ever gets in. He may be history before he even gets started.

  • If you like Bush, you’ll love Thompson.

    I second comments 4 & 5 and I bet his fellow Nixonians (Rove, Cheney) are already fighting over who will get to pull the strings if Thompson makes it to the O.O.

  • not very smart

    dumb as hell

    You can’t have it both ways…
    Which is it?

    Like the name says:

  • Hillary if nominated will knock the heads off of any repugtard nominated.

    Note to trolls:

    If Hillary is nominated Dems will support her.

    Stop bashing Hillary, the repigtards are doing more then enough of it.

    Hillary will beat any one of those bozos the repigs put up, and a Hillary /Obama or Obama Hillary 2008 ticket is not beatable. and the Repigs know that.

    Hillary is

  • First, I’m not a troll.
    Second, I have severe reservations about a number of Hillary’s actions in the Senate as well as her stands on issues critical to me.
    Third, I question her electability.
    Fourth, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton….
    Finally: This is the same Democratic Party that managed to lose to George W. Bush in 2004.

  • If Hillary were a man I’d describe him as a ‘political whore’ but she’s not a man and the PC Hillarites would go nuts. She has two major problems that make me very trepidacious about her candidacy:

    (1) A very large segment of the electorate hates her every bit as much as I (we) hate GW Bush ~ if elected she will further divide and polarize a society that needs unification above all else.

    (2) She’s an equivocating, poll driven sellout. Her Iraq war vote speeches are available on the internet. She sold us out for positioning. I knew then what she knows now and so did she. Doing the right thing wasn’t politically expedient at the time. She traded the blood of our soldiers and countless Iraqis for personal political power.

    Anyway, Hillary will get the Democratic nomination for the same reasons and in the same manner as Dole got the Republican nomination. And she’ll do about as well.

  • I thump my chest and add a “w00t” to comments #17 and #18.

    Here we have the preferred candidate of the corporate elite, someone who seems to share the same verrrry expansive view of presidential power as the current Idiot King… oh, and someone who will torpedo our fledgling House of Representatives majority. (Imagine our freshmen in Indiana and Kansas trying to win a second term while relentlessly attacked as “Hillary Clinton Democrats.”)

    Public opinion isn’t budging on her. Those who hate her today–about half the country–will hate her next November. And not a few of us who should be on her side either won’t be, or will do so with all the enthusiasm of an 11 year-old forced to eat a full plate of raw vegetables while wearing a winter coat on a 90 degree day.

    Please, let’s just not nominate her.

  • if elected she will further divide and polarize a society that needs unification above all else.

    Public opinion isn’t budging on her. Those who hate her today–about half the country–will hate her next November.

    I sense some misunderstanding of the basic dynamic. Hillary is “hated” not for any qualities of hers, but simply because as a former (Democratic) presidential spouse she’s already been in the wurlitzer’s crosshairs. They’ve already done their number on her. Any other Democrat who gets within shouting distance of the Oval Office will be subject to the same attack. Give them a few months and ObamaEdwardsRichardsonWhoever will be just as hated, by all the same wingnuts who think they hate Hillary. It is utterly pointless to refrain from nominating anyone because they’ll be “polarizing.” What polarizes isn’t anything about a candidate other than the “d” at the end of their name.

    I’m not a big Hillary fan, but I must admit that the thing about her I like the most is the blinding hatred she inspires out in wingnuttia. There’s no better way to put those people in their place than by nominating and electing their worst bête noir. And God do they need to be put in their place.

  • jimBOB’s got a point… but if we resort to “spite voting” (as I admit I was thinking about after the Libby pardon last week–I wanted to cast the ballot that would most upset the assholes) we’re as bad as the other side.

    And I disagree that she’s “hated” simply because of of past exposure and that any Democrat would be similarly opposed. The problem isn’t that confirmed Republicans detest Hillary Clinton; it’s that a scary-big propotion of self-identifying independents do, too. That wouldn’t be true for other Dem nominees.

  • If Hillary were a man I’d describe him as a ‘political whore’ but she’s not a man […] — Wahoo, @18

    Well… How about a “political rent boy”?

  • The problem with Hillary is that while Democrats will hold their nose and vote for her if she’s the nominee, independents and moderate Republicans will never consider it. The polling already indicates how high her negatives are with people and no matter what disarray the GOP is in, she’d be the easy to capitalize on. The country is starving for change and Hillary is not change. To have the eighth consecutive presidential election with either a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot, will be too demoralizing for many. The GOP will hold their rabid right-wing base no matter who they nominate if the other option is Hillary and the stage is already being set for third and fourth party candidates, who likely will attract a lot of dissatisfied voters, probably at Democrats’ expense. Hillary is too big a risk to take.

  • Dale,

    Edo #6 makes me wonder if VP s are limited to two terms like the Prez?

    Sadly, there are no constitutional or legislative restrictions on the number of terms a VP can serve. Or should i say, “scarily, there are no…”

  • Now more than ever
    Thanks. That was good for a laugh. And as far as the media pounding on horribly unfit candidates, well, where are we now…

  • I think everyone should leave Hillary Clinton alone, especially if the only thing you have against her is her last name. There are a couple of things I have against her, especially her vote for the Iraq war and her support of the bankruptcy bill, but she is pretty smart, and I don’t have to agree with everything she does to say that I believe she is probably one of the most qualified persons running.

    My first choice for the nomination would be Bill Richardson because I believe he is the most qualified, and I respect the way he thinks and governs. He probably will not win because my candidates seldom do, but I do support him and hope for the best for him.

    As for Hillary, I think it is foolish for progressives to attack her, especially when I hear them say she can’t win. She certainly can win. That kind of thinking is why the DEMS LOST IN ’04. If we had been true to our principles, we would not have allowed the media attacks on Howard Dean to influence the outcome of our primaries. We went with the safe guy, John Kerry, and that was to our our own detriment.

  • “We” didn’t go with the safe guy, the Democratic establishment did. Hillary is the establishment candidate on this go-round.

    It isn’t the media attacks on Hillary, it’s the fact that she’s a facile, poll-watching weathervane in thrall to big money. It’s her carefully calibrated way of sounding as if he has a stand on important issues when she doesn’t. It’s her vote for the war in Iraq.

    She is, at long last, a member of the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party.

    Sure, she can win – and I can win the lottery. Both are unlikely to the point of improbability.

  • Amen Dennis. My probably with Hillary isn’t her name. (If her husband could run again, it’d be a different story). She’s cold and calculating and stands for nothing other than her own ambition, which colors every position she takes and every move she makes. Her husband never advocated flag burning amendments or go after movies and video games in fruitless attempts to suck up to right-wing voters who would never vote for her anyway.

  • Pretty much all of the above Hillary comments are from the Progressive (left) wing of the Left Party. As you move to the right her popularity drops. She’s got corporate backers and Media attention and not much else. She has the exact formula that nominated Bob Dole going for her.

    Put a fork in her, she’s done.

    The Democrats are going to pull off a certifyable miracle in ’08. they’re going to lose an unlosable election.

  • Comments are closed.