Frank J.’s Fred Thompson Facts are pretty funny. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.) Yeah, it’s basically the same thing as Chuck Norris and Jack Bauer jokes, but still, funny. Scrolling down, I found the Harry Potter edition of Fred Thompson Facts, from back in July. Heh.
I love how Fred Thompson says he doesn’t know enough about the Terri Schiavo case to have an opinion. This guy isn’t going very far.
Dick Morris made the same criticism of Thompson, to which Ray Robison of American Thinker responded quite well:
I find it refreshing. Most politicians who do not know the specifics of a particular subject would merely answer with platitudes, misdirection, or broad generalizations. How often do we hear a politician say “I don’t know”? I personally would much rather hear that said then a five minute dissertation of painfully obvious drivel. He could have answered the Shiavo question with something inane like “It’s always an unfortunate tragedy when a young person suffers a debilitating disease or injury” if he did not know the specifics. That’s the kind of response the politicos expect and that middle America balks at.
Do we expect our politicians to know everything or do we just expect them to pretend they do? Have the D.C. insiders become so desensitized to political BS (like what Morris wrote for Bill Clinton during his administration) that they no longer understand the difference between informed comment and obvious pandering for the great media sound bite; “I feel your pain” comes to mind.
Given how many politicians on all sides of the Terry Schiavo story who were ignorant or misinformed about the issues but nonetheless felt compelled to give an opinion, I doubt “I don’t know” will hurt Thompson very much.
That’s a fair point about the Schiavo case in particular. The right response probably ought to have been “I don’t know” for a whole lot of people who claimed to know. But I think the Thompson “I don’t know” extends far beyond just Schiavo. We’ve discussed this on the the blog before, but as George Will pointed out, Sean Hannity recently asked Thompson, “When you look at the other current crop of candidates — Republicans — where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?” And Thompson said, “Well, to tell you the truth, I haven’t spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions.” I take it that this, for instance, is a case of “not knowing,” which is a bit more damning than the Schiavo case.
We have indeed discussed George Will’s quoting of Thompson’s interview with Sean Hannity. You and other Thompson critics seized on Will’s quotes of Thompson in his article comparing Thompson to New Coke as proof that Thompson is unfamiliar with his GOP rivals’ positions on the issues.
Unfortunately, Will failed to mention the rest of Thompson’s response to Hannity’s question:
“To tell you the truth, I haven’t spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions. I mean publicly. I obviously know where they stand and what they’ve done and what they’ve written. And there will be a time when we will need to have a good debate, if they’re interested in debates… and we’ll get into that. Right now, I’ve got a lot of work to do about myself… If I do what I’m supposed to do and if I’m in synch with the American people and if I have the priorities that they think should be our nation’s priorities, it doesn’t matter what any of these other guys say or do because taking a position is an important thing. But you also have to ask, where’s that person been before? How does that compare with where he is today? And more importantly, where will he be tomorrow when the strong winds blow?â€
The rest of Thompson’s answer belies Will’s point, which is probably why he left it out of his article.
Now, I don’t think we can have a meaningful debate on George Will’s motives for leaving it out, but I think it makes more sense that Will left it out not because it hurts his argument, but because the Thompson quote as a whole doesn’t make any sense. Thompson says, “I haven’t spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions. I mean publicly.” Right. That’s why Hannity asked you to go into the details. Thompson continues, “I obviously know where they stand and what they’ve done and what they’ve written.” Ok. So it shouldn’t be a problem to explain, then. But then he pushes the question off and says, “And there will be a time when we will need to have a good debate, if they’re interested in debates… and we’ll get into that.” Now, I don’t know about you, but if I obviously knew where the other candidates stood, as Thompson claims, I certainly would not have answered the question like that.
You are right that we cannot have a meaningful debate about Will’s motives, but I couldn’t agree less that Thompson’s complete answer, especially that which immediately followed the quote Will cherry-picked, did not hurt Will’s argument. Thompson saying that he “obviously knows where they stand and what they’ve done and what they’ve written” directly contravenes Will’s (and your) assertion that Thompson doesn’t know his GOP rival’s positions on various issues. Period.
Now, you may take issue with Thompson deciding to avoid answering Hannity’s question because, as he said, “there will be a time when we will need to have a good debate . . . and we’ll get into that. Right now, I’ve got a lot of work to do about myself . . .” All fine and good, but that’s another matter. Thompson may have thought he didn’t have time during the interview to get into each candidate’s position on unspecified issues, or perhaps he simply thought he didn’t need to answer such a question right after he officially started his campaign and so far in advance of the first primary vote being cast, or perhaps he didnt’ want to use his airtime to give voice to his rivals’ positions. But whatever his reason for not answering the question the way Hannity asked it, Thompson in fact said the exact opposite of what Will attributed to him in his article.
A politician avoiding a question could mean that he is unable to answer it, or it could mean that he is unwilling to answer it. The latter should hardly be a shock to anyone who has ever spent more then 2 minutes listening to a pol being interviewed. A debate about Thompson’s motives in answering Hannity’s question won’t be anymore meaningful than a debate about Will’s motives in writing that article.
I don’t fault Thompson on the sole grounds that he didn’t answer the question. In that respect, he’s no worse than any other politician.
Maybe I ought to lay this debate to rest since I hate the paranoid speculation into motives which runs rampant in political discussions these days.
But if I could indulge in this kind of inconclusive speculative argument about motives just one time, I would say the following:
If someone claims, as Thompson does,
1) “I obviously know where [the candidates] stand and what they’ve done and what they’ve written.”
Yet this same person admits in the previous sentence,
2) “To tell you the truth, I haven’t spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions. I mean publicly.”
And when given the opportunity in a friendly venue to explain to Hannity how he differs from the candidates,
3) he declines in a friendly public venue to state how he differs from the candidates.
And instead, he claims,
4) He will state his differences at some time in the future, “A time when we will need to have a good debate.”
Do you really think that his first claim is true, that, “I obviously know where [the candidates] stand and what they’ve done and what they’ve written.”
Yes. I think it’s much more likely that Thompson declined the opportunity to explain to Hannity how he differs from the candidates, for the reasons I explained above, than it is he is running for president while being completely ignorant of his GOP rivals’ positions on issues.
Moreover, I think the fact that Hannity presented a “friendly venue” for Thompson supports the notion that he simply declined to take shots at the other GOP candidates’ positions, since Hannity’s audience would likely rather see Republicans take shots at Dems rather than each other IMO.
“I Don’t Know” in an situation like this is like saying “I Can’t Recall.” Fred Thompson is just being a political coward or really is a dumb as the current occupant of the White House.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:49:57 am
I love how Fred Thompson says he doesn’t know enough about the Terri Schiavo case to have an opinion. This guy isn’t going very far.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:27:10 am
I love Fred Thompson :)
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:27:07 am
I love how Fred Thompson says he doesn’t know enough about the Terri Schiavo case to have an opinion. This guy isn’t going very far.
Dick Morris made the same criticism of Thompson, to which Ray Robison of American Thinker responded quite well:
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:35:05 am
Of course, optimally you would want a politician who actually did know about the issues.
But if Ray Robison is right that second best is not knowing, but admitting it, then I think Thompson will end up exactly there: in second place.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:52:06 am
Given how many politicians on all sides of the Terry Schiavo story who were ignorant or misinformed about the issues but nonetheless felt compelled to give an opinion, I doubt “I don’t know” will hurt Thompson very much.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:06:32 am
That’s a fair point about the Schiavo case in particular. The right response probably ought to have been “I don’t know” for a whole lot of people who claimed to know. But I think the Thompson “I don’t know” extends far beyond just Schiavo. We’ve discussed this on the the blog before, but as George Will pointed out, Sean Hannity recently asked Thompson, “When you look at the other current crop of candidates — Republicans — where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?” And Thompson said, “Well, to tell you the truth, I haven’t spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions.” I take it that this, for instance, is a case of “not knowing,” which is a bit more damning than the Schiavo case.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:25:43 am
We have indeed discussed George Will’s quoting of Thompson’s interview with Sean Hannity. You and other Thompson critics seized on Will’s quotes of Thompson in his article comparing Thompson to New Coke as proof that Thompson is unfamiliar with his GOP rivals’ positions on the issues.
Unfortunately, Will failed to mention the rest of Thompson’s response to Hannity’s question:
The rest of Thompson’s answer belies Will’s point, which is probably why he left it out of his article.
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:10:08 pm
Now, I don’t think we can have a meaningful debate on George Will’s motives for leaving it out, but I think it makes more sense that Will left it out not because it hurts his argument, but because the Thompson quote as a whole doesn’t make any sense. Thompson says, “I haven’t spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions. I mean publicly.” Right. That’s why Hannity asked you to go into the details. Thompson continues, “I obviously know where they stand and what they’ve done and what they’ve written.” Ok. So it shouldn’t be a problem to explain, then. But then he pushes the question off and says, “And there will be a time when we will need to have a good debate, if they’re interested in debates… and we’ll get into that.” Now, I don’t know about you, but if I obviously knew where the other candidates stood, as Thompson claims, I certainly would not have answered the question like that.
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:42:54 pm
You are right that we cannot have a meaningful debate about Will’s motives, but I couldn’t agree less that Thompson’s complete answer, especially that which immediately followed the quote Will cherry-picked, did not hurt Will’s argument. Thompson saying that he “obviously knows where they stand and what they’ve done and what they’ve written” directly contravenes Will’s (and your) assertion that Thompson doesn’t know his GOP rival’s positions on various issues. Period.
Now, you may take issue with Thompson deciding to avoid answering Hannity’s question because, as he said, “there will be a time when we will need to have a good debate . . . and we’ll get into that. Right now, I’ve got a lot of work to do about myself . . .” All fine and good, but that’s another matter. Thompson may have thought he didn’t have time during the interview to get into each candidate’s position on unspecified issues, or perhaps he simply thought he didn’t need to answer such a question right after he officially started his campaign and so far in advance of the first primary vote being cast, or perhaps he didnt’ want to use his airtime to give voice to his rivals’ positions. But whatever his reason for not answering the question the way Hannity asked it, Thompson in fact said the exact opposite of what Will attributed to him in his article.
A politician avoiding a question could mean that he is unable to answer it, or it could mean that he is unwilling to answer it. The latter should hardly be a shock to anyone who has ever spent more then 2 minutes listening to a pol being interviewed. A debate about Thompson’s motives in answering Hannity’s question won’t be anymore meaningful than a debate about Will’s motives in writing that article.
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:09:55 pm
I don’t fault Thompson on the sole grounds that he didn’t answer the question. In that respect, he’s no worse than any other politician.
Maybe I ought to lay this debate to rest since I hate the paranoid speculation into motives which runs rampant in political discussions these days.
But if I could indulge in this kind of inconclusive speculative argument about motives just one time, I would say the following:
If someone claims, as Thompson does,
1) “I obviously know where [the candidates] stand and what they’ve done and what they’ve written.”
Yet this same person admits in the previous sentence,
2) “To tell you the truth, I haven’t spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions. I mean publicly.”
And when given the opportunity in a friendly venue to explain to Hannity how he differs from the candidates,
3) he declines in a friendly public venue to state how he differs from the candidates.
And instead, he claims,
4) He will state his differences at some time in the future, “A time when we will need to have a good debate.”
Do you really think that his first claim is true, that, “I obviously know where [the candidates] stand and what they’ve done and what they’ve written.”
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:33:15 pm
Yes. I think it’s much more likely that Thompson declined the opportunity to explain to Hannity how he differs from the candidates, for the reasons I explained above, than it is he is running for president while being completely ignorant of his GOP rivals’ positions on issues.
Moreover, I think the fact that Hannity presented a “friendly venue” for Thompson supports the notion that he simply declined to take shots at the other GOP candidates’ positions, since Hannity’s audience would likely rather see Republicans take shots at Dems rather than each other IMO.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:57:30 pm
The main differences between the Fred Thompson facts and the Jack Bauer and Chuck Norris jokes.
Is one side are jokes and the other, by your own admission, are FACTS.
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:34:43 pm
“I Don’t Know” in an situation like this is like saying “I Can’t Recall.” Fred Thompson is just being a political coward or really is a dumb as the current occupant of the White House.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:44:17 pm
Being as “dumb” as the current occupant of the White House is precisely his plan.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:31:13 pm
Heh.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:02:36 pm
Joe Mama-
History is going to record Bush as one of the most inept Presidents ever. I’m glad you are proud of him. History won’t be so kind.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:20:37 pm
Thanks so much, Nostradamus. Now go back to www.democraticunderground.com
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:08:14 pm
Max has proven his douchiness over and over.