Thompson's Slow-Pitch Softball

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 10, 2007 8:42 AM

At first, the media were giving non-candidate Fred Thompson one heck of a ride.

While the former senator rarely ventured beyond the friendly confines of Fox News and conservative Web sites, he was widely portrayed by the press as having such vast reserves of charisma and "Law & Order" starpower that he would shake up the Republican presidential race. He was running without running, avoiding such annoyances as having to answer reporters' questions.

But the act wore thin as summer wore on, and news organizations started picking apart Thompson's record as a lawmaker and lobbyist. By the time he kicked off his bid Wednesday with Jay Leno -- and followed with his seventh sit-down with Fox's Sean Hannity -- Thompson had accumulated his share of journalistically inflicted scars. And as the new kid on the block, he now faces a fierce level of scrutiny.

In the space of a few weeks, the Los Angeles Times reported that Thompson had once lobbied for a family-planning group trying to ease abortion restrictions -- a stint that Thompson had initially denied. The Washington Post said Thompson's wife, Jeri, had court judgments rendered against her for unpaid bills in the 1990s. The New York Times, reporting on how Thompson leaked to the Nixon White House when he was the Senate Watergate panel's minority counsel, noted that Richard Nixon once called him "dumb as hell." The Washington Times said he was soft on illegal immigration. And a Newsweek cover story last week questioned whether he is lazy.

By clinging to his undeclared status, the part-time actor took a high-stakes risk: allowing news organizations to tell his life story without his participation. News stories have frequently noted that he married his girlfriend at 17 after getting her pregnant, that he accomplished little in the Senate and didn't particularly like the job. His second wife, Jeri -- dubbed a "trophy wife" in one New York Times feature -- has been portrayed as a divisive force in the Thompson organization, who, according to the Los Angeles Times, once conducted a spot check at the campaign office and chided those who were AWOL. And the fledgling Thompson venture has been depicted as a turnover-plagued mess and fundraising disappointment.

Had Thompson been out doing more interviews, or chatting up Barbara Walters with his wife, he could have helped shape the narrative. The question now -- in light of his "Tonight" show debut and online video -- is whether the Tennessean will continue to run an alternative campaign that minimizes direct engagement with mainstream journalists.

Thompson told Hannity on Thursday that while press inquiries were "aggravations" and "unfair," "you can't bypass the media. That's part of the game. I understand that. . . . This process is probably pretty good training for being a president."

Thompson did submit to questioning by Diane Sawyer on the next day's "Good Morning America." She asked about his health (he is a cancer survivor), whether it says anything about him "that you have a younger wife" (24 years his junior) and about reports "that she's running the campaign." The candidate said he had asked Jeri to help and that she is "an easy target." Thompson also talked to CNN and chatted with a half-dozen print reporters.

Circumventing the press is not exactly a novel concept. Ross Perot tried it in 1992 (though it was in a "60 Minutes" interview that he ultimately self-destructed, charging that the first President Bush's campaign had secretly plotted to disrupt his daughter's wedding). Some clueless commentators argued at the time that it was unpresidential for Bill Clinton to play his saxophone on Arsenio Hall's talk show.

Now, of course, such stunts are embedded in the campaign landscape. Even George W. Bush shared his feelings on "Oprah," as did Clinton last week, when he was pushing his new book on volunteerism but also promoting his wife's candidacy. Hillary Clinton was on Ellen DeGeneres's show, joking about the host's being gay, and earlier did shtick with David Letterman ("We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions.") Barack Obama and John McCain are among the presidential contenders who have flocked to Jon Stewart's couch.

Still, actually launching a White House campaign on a late-night comedy show might seem a tad frivolous -- except that Arnold Schwarzenegger blazed the trail by announcing for California governor at Leno's side.

When Thompson aides talk about their man communicating directly with the public, they really mean avoiding the "filter" of skeptical journalists. That strategy might have an outside shot at succeeding because of the power of the Internet, a magnet for such buzz-generating videos as the Clintons' "Sopranos" spoof.

For all his performance skills, Thompson may find that the game still requires him to hit big-league pitching from established journalists. And even with his late entry, there are still plenty of innings to go.

To Catch a Network

ABC's Brian Ross, who exposed Mark Foley's X-rated correspondence with House pages, is again looking into sexual exploitation of youngsters. But this time he has taken aim at his former network, NBC.

In a "20/20" segment Friday, Ross questioned the role of NBC's "Dateline" in a sting against child predators in Murphy, Tex. The controversy surrounding the program's "To Catch a Predator" series reached critical mass after a Texas prosecutor dropped charges last spring against 23 men arrested in the probe, and another suspect committed suicide.

District Attorney John Roach told ABC the evidence was too flawed for him to prosecute, in part because of mistakes by Perverted Justice, an organization hired by "Dateline" to lure predators to meeting places by having decoys pose online as teenagers. As in past episodes, police made arrests after correspondent Chris Hansen confronted the men with the cameras rolling.

In an interview, Ross rejected criticism from NBC executives that he is just trying to tarnish a competitor . The Texas tale, he says, "just really seemed like a good and important story. . . .

"What is the role of the media? Are they agents of the police?" asks Ross, who left NBC in 1994. While he regularly works with law enforcement, Ross says, in this case "the thing I was struck by was how the police and media roles seemed to have merged."

The Texas case marks the first time that charges have been dropped in the two years of the "Dateline" series. In 10 other stings, more than 200 men have been indicted and 120 convicted.

Louis Conradt Jr., a prosecutor from another county who was caught in the sting, shot himself to death last year when arresting officers broke his door down at home as Hansen and his crew stood nearby. Former detectives told Ross that such tactics were used to accommodate "Dateline." Conradt's sister has filed a lawsuit against NBC.

In a follow-up segment last week, Hansen cited a police report in saying Conradt may have been worried about "something possibly more damning" -- child pornography found on his computers. Hansen also contended that Roach could have made a case against the other suspects despite the fact that the Murphy police arrested them without warrants. NBC says warrants are not required under Texas law.

In an interview, Hansen calls it "preposterous to suggest we tried to influence police to execute an arrest warrant at the home of Louis Conradt Jr. It just didn't happen, and that's the truth."

"Dateline" Executive Producer David Corvo says ABC used "merely recycled, unfounded accusations from discredited sources." He did not explain how Roach had been discredited, other than to criticize his prosecutorial judgment.

Citing previous articles, Corvo says, "There was not a single new solitary fact or interview in the whole piece. I wonder what their motive was." Asked why NBC did not grant "20/20" an on-camera interview, Corvo says: "We're not going to help another program with ratings."

Ross acknowledges that "Dateline" deserves credit for having "made us all realize there is a serious national problem" with child predators. But he questions whether Hansen misleads the suspects into thinking he is a police officer by not initially identifying himself as a reporter. (One asked Hansen, "Am I under arrest?") Hansen has said he always identifies himself if asked.

Rival network or not, Ross says, "I tried to make it a very straight report."

Furthermore . . .

Back to Thompson: Now that Fred is in, the right is wondering if he has what it takes. National Review Editor Rich Lowry puts it succinctly:

"The best question for the Thompson campaign doesn't have to do with timing, but with rationale; it isn't about 'When?' but 'Why?'

"The Republican presidential field doesn't obviously lack for a former senator with an unremarkable public record and a career as a character actor. Excitement built around him earlier this year as the default candidate, the 'someone else' when underwhelmed Republican primary voters were looking for one. Now that he's moved from 'someone else' to 'another candidate in a field of nine,' the default position no longer will suffice. Thompson isn't 'lazy' -- the rap against him -- by any reasonable measure. He didn't become a Watergate investigator, prosecutor, actor, and senator by sleeping late and watching daytime TV. But his Senate career tells against him. Not because he didn't have the energy to make much of it, but because he apparently didn't have the desire . . .

"Thompson has two main draws. One is stylistic, even though he has a kind of anti-style -- a low-key, no-nonsense bearing that gives him a sense of quiet authority. The downside is that this can seem to be a lack of passion. His appearance on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno announcing his candidacy was so somnolent that you could be forgiven for wondering if he wasn't already bored with running for president. His other appeal is ideological. Thompson has a more consistent conservative record than Romney or Giuliani. But, a product of the moderate-conservative Tennessee GOP, he was never a firebrand either. In the gotcha environment of the primary race, Thompson will have to defend past heterodoxies on abortion, immigration, campaign-finance reform and tort reform."

Every candidate has to defend past twists and turns. The larger issue--Thompson's rationale--is echoed by the Wall Street Journal editorial page:

"The biggest question he has to answer is, Why President Thompson? So far he hasn't provided one, other than he's none of the other candidates. But voters will want more than that, and it would behoove Mr. Thompson to think big in terms of campaign themes."

Peggy Noonan ticks off the other candidates' weaknesses before turning to Fred:

"Mitt Romney is--well, he continues to seem like someone who's stepped from the shower and been handed a dress shirt by his manservant George."

Thompson "has come in saying, essentially, I'm not the other guys. That's good, but raises the questions: Who are you? And the reason you're running for president would be . . .?"

Noonan also detects "a certain dissonance in Mr. Thompson's persona. He seems preoccupied, not full of delight that he's at the party."

When Fred finally hit the stump, he didn't wow many people. Or, at least, he didn't wow most of the reporters. Slate's John Dickerson is among the lukewarm reviewers:

"Thompson's speech was fine, I suppose, but at times it seemed rambling and forced. It included all the standard appeals you would expect a politician to offer a Republican audience--support for local control, lower taxes, and judges who will protect the constitution. Thompson made no effort to distinguish himself from the other candidates. At applause-line moments his staffers clapped loudly and whooped, an age old tactic that succeeded in prompting clapping from the audience . . .

"Thompson's aides are selling him as the great communicator candidate: He is supposed to have the ability to sell conservative principles to the public, which will help him to win the nomination and also will make him the only Republican who appeals to moderates and independents in the general election. So for Thompson's candidacy above all the others, the theater of politics matters, and not just on TV or on the web."

The New York Sun's Ryan Sager cuts to the chase:

"The quick take: This is a whimper of a start.

"I'm writing from the filing center that the Thompson campaign has set up in the Polk County Convention Complex, and the verdict from the grizzled and cynical Des Moines press corps is harsh: 'Pathetic' was the word used by one vet. 'Small' and 'low energy' were the words used to describe the crowd."

Elsewhere on the Thompson front, London's Daily Mail delves into his relationship with his first wife, Sarah Lindsey:

"Though Thompson tries to portray their 1985 break-up as amicable and his family says Sarah will campaign for him, we can disclose that in her original divorce writ - which until now has never been made public -- she accused him of 'cruel and inhuman treatment' . . .

"She withdrew the petition the following March, and according to her brother, the marriage improved for a while.

"But Sarah renewed the proceedings in November 1984, this time citing 'irreconcilable differences.'

"Asked if Thompson was unfaithful, her brother [Oscar Lindsey] replied carefully: 'He has said he 'takes opportunities' [with women]. I will tell you it wasn't physical cruelty and it wasn't mental.' "

The war debate kicks into high gear today, and here are the latest numbers:

"Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they are open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. . .

"Only 5 percent of Americans -- a strikingly low number for a sitting president's handling of such a dominant issue -- said they most trust the Bush administration to resolve the war, the poll found. Asked to choose between the administration, Congress and military commanders, 21 percent said they would most trust Congress and 68 percent expressed the most trust in military commanders.

"That is almost certainly why the White House has presented General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker as unbiased professionals, not Bush partisans."

Nearly two-thirds say the United States should withdraw or begin reducing forces now.

As more Petraeus leaks dribble out, Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum makes a discovery:

"BURIED LEDE ALERT . . . Fred Kaplan has a good piece in Slate about the upcoming Petraeus report and what Congress needs to ask about it. But I was more taken by an astonishing statement at the end of the piece from Stephen Biddle, a member of Petraeus's advisory panel. Here's his comment about the current plan to restore stability to Iraq via a 'bottom up' strategy of working with tribal leaders:

"Biddle also said (again, expressing his personal view) that the strategy in Iraq would require the presence of roughly 100,000 American troops for 20 years -- and that, even so, it would be a 'long-shot gamble.'

"Holy cats. This is coming from a 'key proponent' of the tribal strategy? 100,000 troops for 20 years only gets us a 'long-shot gamble' of success? What the hell do the pessimists think?"

In the last two presidential campaigns, the job of Matthew Dowd was to sell Bush as a leader. Now that he's broken with the president, here's what Dowd has to say about the war, on the Huffington Post:

"1. In the public's mind, the Iraq War was a mistake, and continuing the status quo is simply continuing on with a mistake. As a result, most Americans now view the situation in Iraq as a 'rearview' mirror issue -- meaning that the public believes it is time to focus on the process of ending our involvement and getting out quickly. They see American troops as targets in a place we aren't wanted, and they desire a plan which achieves responsible withdrawal in the quickest and safest way.

"2. The public does not see withdrawal from Iraq as a signal America doesn't support the troops. In fact, the public sees removing the troops from harm's way and having them in a place where the mission is supported, welcomed and understood as the most proper way to support our troops.

"3. The public is waiting for leaders from both political parties to stand up to the president and say enough is enough. They would like this situation resolved -- and soon -- and there is no other solution acceptable to them other than bringing the troops home. The public will support leaders who would use funding decisions as a way to encourage and push the president to resolve this situation quickly."

Well, the White House can't dismiss him as an anti-Bush partisan, right?

The NYT has the perfect lead on this stunning development:

"When is some information too much information?

"In an interview with Glamour magazine, Michelle Obama reveals that her husband, Barack, is so 'snore-y and stinky' when he wakes up in the morning that their daughters won't crawl into bed with him."

Michelle says she doesn't want to "deify" her husband. No chance of that.