Josh,

Not to "burst" your bubble, but you can forget about the "ignorance" (conservative principles, etc.) part of your concern. The course taken by the Bush administration should come as no surprise. The Bush philosophy as based in pragmastism rather than ideological principle would at least be tolerable if it were clear what their overall goals were and if they were seen as ahieving them.

There is much to be said in Fred Thompson's behalf. Stl, I am dismayed to discover that the long-held understanding that Thompson took a wholly principled course on Watergate is simply untrue. While these things go on all the time, Thompon's role in leaking Watergate investigation material to the Nixon Wite House is both dismaying and pathetic, not so much for how a then 30-year-old Republican loyalist might struggle between his role as party enthusiast and advocate for truth, but that in all these years since I'm not aware that Thompsn has ever taken a single step to indicate that his role was more conflicted than we were led to believe.

In the end, I think Thompson placed greater value in preservation of our constitutional system than on party loyalty, but his reputation for integrity will now require further scrutinty.

That said, I was an ethusiastic, if fairly young and naive, supporter of Robert Kennedy, who was both idealistic and ruthless, petty and compassionate, daring and timid.

What matters now is which of Thompson's charcteristics will be most evidenced in the campiagn? Once there was a political cartoon of Kennedy portraying the "good Bobby" and the "bad Bobby." Abraham Lincoln had significant character defects and personality weaknesses. For the presidency, by my understanding, Lincoln rose far above his limitations. What will Thompson do? In part that will depend on the ecpectations of his boosters. So, to some degree Thompson will rise or fall based on whether you advance his cause out of your strengths or instead pull him down out of your flaws. If you decide to support him then not only call on his best but offer your own best, not simply in effort or time, but in integrity and character.

Some of that approach depends on the venue. On the blogs, "ignorance" is a helpful word; with the general public and/or the Republican constituency at large, "misinformed" is probably a word more suited to reaching your goals.

As for Thompson's advice to his wife, that should be, "honey, withour respect to justice, fairness, morality, ethics, or whatever, if you want me to win the presidency, save the cleavage for the inaugural balls."

Not to "burst" your bubble, but you can forget about the "ignorance" (conservative principles, etc.) part of your concern. The course taken by the Bush administration should come as no surprise.

I'm not following your point here. I never stated Bush's ideology surprises me. It doesn't, and hasn't, so I don't know what bubble you are worried about bursting.

Josh,

"....can be traced to disrespect for...."(deleting the word "ignorance") -- I intended to express that almost everyone in the administration knows what the conservative understanding of federalism is, even if they aren't scholars on the subject.

The ideology part was intended for a larger audience, but I didn't want to break the comment up into addressee parts. I'm aware that you've known all along what Bush's ideology is, as I've read [carefully :-) or not :-( ] most of what you have written. Sorry if I put the comment together a little sloppily.

I hope Josh is right about Giuliani. A lot of NYers are fervently hoping that our former mayor will not be the GOP nominee - if you thought George W. Bush was polarizing, you ain't seen Rudy yet.

But Thompson? I'm a little surprised that Josh is not throwing his weight behind the best candidate, instead going for the guy with the magnetic personality and policy cred (am I mistaken or does that translate into 'electability?') I'm also surprised because a lot of us on the other side have kind of written him off at this point. (I'm thinking Huckabee's star is looking brighter, but what do I know?) Thompson hasn't participated in a single debate, and appears to be having difficulties even getting his campaign off the ground.

Even if Thompson is able sail through the primaries, I doubt the general electorate will be as forgiving as Josh of his neocon leanings. He has yet to break with Bush Policy on Iraq (huge problem), and I suspect his rumblings about regime change in Iran (aren't blockades an act of war?) will be less than appealing to the majority of voters.

I guess I'm not seeing the evidence based on the man's history that he really is so committed to, well, much of anything, but to this conception of federalism in particular. I think it looked like a nice, vacuous formula to run on, that would both let him try to put some rhetorical distance between himself and the Bushies, and that would let everyone project their own favorite policies onto. Is there any meat here?

Also, if the GOP retains the White House, there are a lot of now-deeply-entrenched interests that will put up a hell of a fight to keep their balliwicks (in particular the very neo-cons that have been so active in shredding the constitution). Is there any evidence that Thompson has the will or the fire to root these people out?

I also wanted to comment on this: "(Ron Paul, perfect on the issues, is sadly a long shot.)" I could certainly see "way, way better on certain key issues than the others", but... perfect on the issues? Megan McArdle hits this well:

"But then every time I hear about his actual policies, I'm pretty thoroughly appalled. He voted against CAFTA and wants us to withdraw from the WTO. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he's also hardline on immigration. He favors the stupid Cuba travel ban even though the Communist Menace evaporated almost two decades ago. And last week, sitting with one of his supporters at a wedding, I found out that he wants to move America back onto the gold standard. I cannot, in good conscience, even entertain the hope of electing a man who wants to outsource our monetary policy to Anglo-American."

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/rah_rah_ron.php

Also, if the GOP retains the White House, there are a lot of now-deeply-entrenched interests that will put up a hell of a fight to keep their balliwicks (in particular the very neo-cons that have been so active in shredding the constitution). Is there any evidence that Thompson has the will or the fire to root these people out?

This is my #1 reservation about FDT. By most indicators, he's an establishment Republican -- he whole-heartedly supports the administration's war effort and even raised money to foot Scooter Libby's legal bills. He is more palatable to the public (and the GOP primary electorate) than the current options, but in the end that might not be saying much. I don't really see him rolling back the security state in the name of civil liberties or questioning doctrines of pre-emptive war.

Then again, I can't see someone as paranoid as Hillary Clinton doing that either (can't appear soft on terrorism, can we?)

Ron Paul is right at least with regards to the security state. And I am giving both Mike Huckabee and Barak Obama extended looks...

I agree that if these overgrown-security-state issues are of central importance to someone, Hillary Clinton should seem like an unattractive candidate to them -- though still more attractive than McCain, Romney, or especially Giuliani. An Edwards or Obama nomination should seem clearly superior to really any plausible (i.e., not including Paul) GOP nominee this time around, though with Huckabee gaining momentum it'd be worth learning more about his stances on these issues; I admit I don't know what they are, since most of what I know about him are from what he did as governor.

In the last 30-40 years, Republicans have a very clear track record.

First, is their complete embrace of Keynesianism. President Bush "cut" nothing - he simply shifted the financial obligations of the United States towards more debt. Every dollar was borrowed.

He and the Republican Congress also followed the typical Republican programme of MASSIVE increases in government spending of this borrowed money - albeit on Republican initiatives.

Obviously Gingrich's Republican House wasn't going to spend massively on Clinton's initiatives, but once there was a Republican in the White House the VERY SAME legislators went insane with spending and increased the number of earmarks by almost TEN TIMES from 1995 to 2005.

Nixon embraced Keynesianism more directly and in different ways, but no more fervently.

Nobody in government - nobody - wants to raise taxes. That is axiomatic. Higher taxes cost you votes. Democrats know it. Republicans know it. Republicans are just more willing to borrow money.

All that spending does spur the economy, although it creates financial distortions, such as the crisis in Mortgage-Backed Securities we see today.

The very idea that Republicans are going to cut the size of government is laughable. Oh, they'll oppose any Democrat initiative, no matter how sensible, but cut spending? Never.

Re: Ron Paul, excellent point philosopher.

I gave up on FDT and his alleged federalism after I saw an interview where he talked about how important it was to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because otherwise the states might allow it.

Even if you agree with the man that gay marriage should be banned (and really, shame on you if you do - but I digress), it's not difficult to scoff at his position based on everything else he says.

Go back to Law & Order, man.

Nick:

From Team Thompson

Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens.

He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that.

If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.

Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

JohnS complains that "Thompson hasn't participated in a single debate"
Ummm... he hadn't declared yet...duh

Joel wrote:

While these things go on all the time, Thompon's role in leaking Watergate investigation material to the Nixon Wite House is both dismaying and pathetic

I have to disagree with the insinuation that Thompson did something insidious by telling the White House about the Watergate tapes. There were both Republican and Democrat counsel present during the closed hearings, and I'm not aware that there was any sort of gag order. Isn't that the sort of thing that would have to be disclosed to a defendant anyway? At worst, I think, Thompson took upon himself what was the ranking Republican counsel's responsibility to do.

Besides, Thompson wrote about his contact with the Nixon White House in his Watergate memoir. Certainly, he didn't think he'd done anything wrong, or else he wouldn't have written about it so openly.

Oh, come on. It doesn't have to rise to the level of a scandal for it to simply be a bad thing for Thompson, all things considered, that he carried water for the Nixon administration. It reveals a man more interested in party than country, and in general reveals a failure in judgment. It's surely not by itself anywhere near a sufficient reason to rule him out, but when he's running on a record that is basically just vaporware, it's a relevant datum. "Dismaying and pathetic" seems like a pretty fair formulation here.

Saying that his actions were simply those that were "the ranking Republican counsel's responsibility to do" is to commit the same horrible conflation of the office of the president and the president's party that has typified the current GOP leadership (in its complete abdication of oversight responsibilities). Nixon -- all questions of party aside -- had done wrong, and it was the responsibility of congress -- all questions of party aside -- to investigate. If he was guilty of that conflation, all the more reason to make sure he is not the next person to inhabit the WH.

"Besides, Thompson wrote about his contact with the Nixon White House in his Watergate memoir. Certainly, he didn't think he'd done anything wrong, or else he wouldn't have written about it so openly." That doesn't follow. It's also what you do when you've got something in your background that you want to get out in front of, and which you know you have no chance of keeping hidden.

phil,

I'm not arguing that Thompson was a paragon of integrity during Watergate, putting the pursuit of justice completely above the interests of his party. I just think the smear about Thompson being a Nixon mole during the Watergate era has no basis in fact.

Could you explain to me what law or ethical code Thompson broke by telling the White House about what the committee had uncovered? Was there a rule in place that the investigatee was not allowed to know what the investigators had discovered?

Eric (and others)

Thompson was minority counsel for the Senate, not for the Nixon administration. Again, though it is done so very often by both political parties, leaking from an investigation is legally apart from disclosing to a defendant upon the bringing of charges. Do you think it no big deal for the police or FBI to tip off an investigation subject about matters being looked into? Folks have been charged with obstructing justice for doing much less than Thompson did. I was unaware that Thompson disclosed his role so long ago. That does place him in a better light.

The leak matter really bothers me, but my understanding that the practice has been engaged from both sides of the aisle for so long perhaps takes it out of the partisan politics realm into a course of general public discussion.

I understand that Thompson himself said that he leaked "without authority." As well, some stories have cast doubt on his role in the 1981 investigation of CIA director Casey because Thompson was reported to have "cleared" Casey without interviewing anyone.

Thompson may be the GOP's best hope. It can be difficult to avoid deeply flawed candidates. There is some truth that those who have succeeded as political leaders have "dared" and sometimes that daring eithe leads to the edge on ethics or causes stresses that lead to personal failings.

Barry Goldwater once called former U.S. Senator Gary Hart, "the most decent man in the U.S. Senate." That was, of course before revelation of Hart's sexual affairs and his quirky explanations for his claims to have been born in 1937 instead of 1936 and for changing his name from "Hartpence" to Hart. I supported Hart in '84 because I thought he was a lot better than Mondale.

Because I doubt that Romney's changes on social issues are simply political, that may be an even far greater ethical concern.

Joel,

I don't have a comprehensive knowledge of either congressional investigations in general or of Watergate in particular, but my sense is that they are not equivalent to FBI or police investigations. One huge difference is that the former are not actually criminal investigations, and Congress cannot sentence someone to jail.

Another difference is that most (if not all) of what the committee uncovered was made public during televised hearings. From what I've read, the televised hearings pretty closely echoed the closed hearings, and that includes the revelation of the Watergate tapes. What I don't know is exactly how long the delay typically was between the closed and the TV hearings. But from what I understand, the public knew about the Watergate tapes before they were subpoenaed.

Unless I'm wrong on a key point here, I honestly don't understand the problem with this sort of "leak" which you say is common with both parties.

Eric,

Thompson was a mole for the Nixon White House. He tipped off the Nixon team after the committee found out about the taping system in closed door hearings - without the committee's knowlege. He also let them know that the committee would be making their discovery public.

As a general rule, if you're trying to defend the ethics of someone's behavior, and the best you can do is "at least he didn't break any explicit rules or laws!"... then you've basically lost. One more time: it's not a big scandal (as it would be if he _had_ broken any such rules or laws). It just reveals that his moral compass & capacity for judgment are both pretty darn weak. Again, "dismaying and pathetic" is a completely fair assessment.

An excellent article on Thompson & Watergate here:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/07/04/not_all_would_put_a_heroic_sheen_on_thompsons_watergate_role/

The article also notes the continuity between his defense of Nixon then and his advocacy more recently of pardoning Scooter Libby. Pretty good evidence that there's not much 'there' there, with the guy.

If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.

Hal, it just makes it worse, in my opinion, that FDT is ignorant of the law on top of a position that I don't like (I'll have to see if I can find the video clip I saw the other day where he said he supported banning; I don't think I just dreamed that up, but then, I haven't been getting a lot of sleep lately. :D).

States are already prohibited from imposing their laws on marriage on other states; full faith and credit has never applied to marriage laws. There has always been variance in what states allow with respect to marriage (1st cousins, 2nd cousins, 3rd cousins, step-siblings, adoptive parent/child, etc), and few if any are currently seriously looking to change that.

One note in Thompson's defense. Although he did not distinguish himself during the Watergate hearings (fellow committee Republican Lowell Weicker referred to Thompson as Nixon's "errand boy"), he did manage to balance partisanship/investigative responsibilities during his '97 Clinton campaign-finance practice hearings. As chairman, Thompson insisted on investigating the GOP too, and he himself hit Haley Barbour particularly hard in his questioning. (BTW, Thompson's committee was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the campaign reform legislation that passed in 2001 ---- and that was no accident, his aides claimed in the NY Times.)

phil wrote:

As a general rule, if you're trying to defend the ethics of someone's behavior, and the best you can do is "at least he didn't break any explicit rules or laws!"... then you've basically lost.

Actually, I don't think there's anything to defend against, because the insinuation that Thompson did something improper during Watergate isn't based on any substance. In the absence of a law or rule of ethics being broken, the burden is on Thompson's critics to explain what exactly he did wrong. All that have been offered here are flawed analogies to police investigations and the idea that any action which was friendly to the Nixon administration is inherently wrong.

As JohnS pointed out, the committee was going to make public their discovery of the Watergate tapes anyway, so Thompson's actions were clearly not in any way an obstruction of justice. It seems possible to me that Thompson basically ticked off those looking to ambush Nixon with this discovery.

By the way, the Boston Globe article is mostly a vehicle for Scott Armstrong to grind a decades-old axe against Thompson. Thompson was very critical of Armstrong in his 1975 memoir, in which he wrote:

Armstrong, in my view, should never have been on the staff. Although very capable, he was a close friend...of Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, which was running exclusive Watergate stories almost daily based on 'informed sources' within the committee... More than once I accused Armstrong of being Woodward's source.

(source)

Thompson seems to have broken no laws by leaking to the WH. Indeed, one of his his functions as minority counsel was to protect the president. However, Republican committee member Lowell Weicker had this to say about Thompson in his role as Nixon's “errand boy”: “As matters changed and it became increasingly obvious that the White House was standing on quicksand, Thompson himself evolved. But the measure of the man was in the early days of Watergate.”

Allow me to add this: It may very well be the case that information gathered in a closed Congressional hearing is only supposed to be disclosed with the committee's authorization. However, this procedural rule is so frequently ignored that it seems tantamount to driving 5 MPH over the posted speed limit. Unless the leaked information threatens national security or undermines an investigation, etc., it's a menial infraction.

And Thompson's disclosure did not undermine the Watergate investigation--the committee was going to publicize that information anyway. His actions *did* prevent the committee from catching the White House off-guard with an unexpected bombshell on national TV. However much Nixon may have deserved that, it doesn't even approach obstruction of justice.

JohnS,

I'd be interested to know when Weicker made his comments about Thompson which you quote. Was it during his service in the Senate as a Republican from 1971 to 1989 (where he was considered a maverick and Ronald Reagan called him a "pompous, no good, fathead"), during his 1991-1995 stint as the independent Governor of Connecticut, or perhaps more recently when he considered running against Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Senate primary, and eventually endorsed Ned Lamont?

Weicker is entitled to his opinion, but let's not pretend his party affiliation in 1975 discounts any partisan motivation in his opinion of Thompson.

"Actually, I don't think there's anything to defend against, because the insinuation that Thompson did something improper during Watergate isn't based on any substance." Then _that_ would have been the argument you should have run initially, instead of the silly "no broken rules or laws" argument. Which still seems, anyway, to be the argument you're running, since you then say:

"However much Nixon may have deserved that, it doesn't even approach obstruction of justice."

"Obstruction of justice"? *sigh* One. More. Time: no one is saying that Thompson broke any laws. No one is saying that this is the makings of some big scandal. So PLEASE stop moving the goalpost. His job at the time was to work for the Congressional arm investigating the President. But he took it upon himself to try to help Nixon dodge the investigation. (If you can't see why someone's trying to help Nixon to dodge this Congressional investigation would be, like, a _bad_ thing, then there's probably no point in continuing this conversation.) He chose to go secretly on the side and try to help, not the Congress that he officially worked for, but this corrupt President he misguidedly, dismayingly, and pathetically had more loyalty to than to his job or to his country. This reveals a weakness in the man's character and in his judgment. That's all. Again, no big scandal. But a black mark. If he'd done all sorts of wonderful things since then, then it wouldn't matter much. But put it with the fact that his actual record & accomplishments are pretty thin; that he seems to lack any real passion for any real political ideals; and that he's also more recently carried water for the likes of Scooter Libby -- and his interest in helping Nixon looks like part of the pattern, and not an outlying data point. He seems to have the heart of an administration loyalist, with the cravenness of being willing to just blow with the political winds. Not really the sort of person we should be looking to install in the WH.

Eric,

I gather Weicker's comments were made recently, as a private citizen. And he certainly is entitled to his opinion. After all, Weicker was the one who stuck his Republican neck out by aggressively pursuing Nixon, not Fred Thompson.

phil,

The reason I mentioned obstruction of justice was that Joel--who started this thread about Thompson and Watergate--wrote this: "Folks have been charged with obstructing justice for doing much less than Thompson did."

I appreciate the fact that you and JohnS don't see anything scandalous about Thompson's contact with the Nixon White House. However, you write that Thompson "took it upon himself to try to help Nixon dodge the investigation." How did Thompson's actions do that? How would his disclosure help Nixon dodge the investigation when the committee was going to disclose it anyway in a few days? Thompson may have helped protect Nixon from being blindsided in the media, but his actions didn't affect the investigation.

Furthermore, there seems to be some misunderstanding about what Thompson's official role was as minority counsel. JohnS says that part of that role was to protect the President. You imply his only official allegiance was to the investigation. I don't know which of you is correct, but again since Thompson's actions didn't undermine the investigation I don't see the problem.

As for Thompson and Scooter Libby, you're right, there's a pattern there. The pattern is that when Thompson thinks someone is being wrongly accused, he wants to help defend them. Perhaps he tends to stick his neck out too far, because he was obviously wrong about Nixon (and he stopped defending him when the Watergate tapes revealed that he really was a crook), and he may have been at least partially wrong about Libby (though many believe Libby was treated too harshly b/c he was the only one the prosecutor could get anything to stick to in the Plame affair).

Eric,

Thompson's official role as minority counsel was to the investigation, his unoffical role was to protect the president, and that is a delicate balancing act. At the time, Democrats on the committee and Lowell Weicker thought he leaned way too far in the direction of his partisan role. As I said, he got much better reviews in '97.

And although Thompson may not have broken any laws/rules with regards to the leaks, being seen as surreptitiously working both sides of the Watergate aisle (investigation/WH), probably won't be good for business, at least if he makes it through to the general election. I think the only president more unpopular than George W. Bush in America right now is Richard M. Nixon.

"The reason I mentioned obstruction of justice was that Joel--who started this thread about Thompson and Watergate--wrote this: "Folks have been charged with obstructing justice for doing much less than Thompson did.""

Fair enough.

As for the rest, though... well, if you really think an overly-selfless concern for the wrongfully accused is the best -- or even a remotely plausible -- interpretation of Thompson's pattern of behavior, then we've pretty clearly crossed into "not much point in having this conversation" territory.

Not an entirely selfless concern, phil. I do think Thompson was interested in Nixon's and Libby's cases because he thought they were innocent *and* because they were members of his own political party. I don't think he would have knowingly helped defend someone he thought was a crook.

But you're right, there's no point in continuing this conversation. Coming from such different political perspectives, there's no way we'll agree on the right interpretation of who Thompson was friendly towards, and when.

Differing political perspectives isn't a terribly good explanation here, since I'm pretty sure that most Republicans would agree with me that investigating Nixon was a good thing; and nearly half of them agree that Libby shouldn't have had his sentence commuted:
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28090

My views on the relevant matters seem to be fully in line with mainstream Republican opinion.