Fred to MSM: 'I Owe You Nothing'

[ColonialMarine0431]

I love it. How does the old saying go? "I don't suffer fools lightly"?
<SMALL></SMALL>
<SMALL></SMALL>
<SMALL></SMALL>
<SMALL></SMALL>
<SMALL></SMALL>
http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/01/2008-01-06NBCTSThompson.jpg

Fred to MSM: "I Owe You Nothing"

Fred Thompson today blasted the media for propagating a false rumor about his impending withdrawal, while reinforcing the role he has created for himself as the candidate in this race who does not suffer unwelcome questions gladly.

Back in Iowa, Thompson famously refused to respond to the debate moderator/school marm's demand for a hand-show on global warming. On this morning's Today, he declined to engage in horse-race speculation about his own prospects, then took the media to task for its propagation of that false rumor about his impending withdrawal. Weekend anchor Lester Holt interviewed the former Tennessee senator.

ARTICLE & LINK TO VIDEO HERE (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/01/06/fred-after-false-withdrawal-rumor-i-owe-media-nothing)

[Timberwolf]

Fred to Media: Spank you very much. :evilgrin:

[UnkHiram]

well thats another reason to like Fred

[Beowulf]

HA!! I love it!!

[DesertFox]

Fred to media: Fug you very much.

This is proof positive that he's my man. I've been waiting about 40 years for someone to say this to the DBM.

[TheIrishman]

I can still remember QB Jim McMahon spitting in a reporters face for asking stupid questions. Maybe Fred will increase his disgust, too.

[Rhino]

Fred wouldn't sink to that level.

[DesertFox]

He did this the best possible way. He politely told them to go get fugged. Message received, you can bet on that.

[Maggie_T]

Well, not bad for someone who is perceived as lazy, nonchalant, and disinterested. :evilgrin:


GO FRED!!!!

[Lazarus]

They tried their best to get Fred engaged in a hair-pulling girl-fight with one of the other candidates there, and he stayed totally focused on HIS war plan... I dont know how many of the other candidates would have thrown that bait back at the Media Pimps...

They just don't know what to do with Fred... Which is why they will do their best to freeze him out of this race - The MSM believes they own politics and no one plays unless they pay their extortion fee to them...

I dont know if Fred is gonna win this fight, but when its done, the media is gonna damned well know they have been in a fight...

[DesertFox]

The media tries its damnedest to make candidates look adolescent, so they they (media) look paternal and all-knowing. Other candidates haven't known how to respond, but now Fred's shown how and it's likely his example will be followed by everyone from now on, and not just in this campaign.

This might well signal the beginning of the end of the MSM's arrogant reign in the public realm, begun with Walter Crankcase at the end of the Sixties.

[Maggie_T]

What Laz and Fox said.

I love the way Fred refuses to be pushed around. :thumb:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

First he refuses to raise his hand in the silly quick-poll during the debate, and now this, telling the media (what is true and already known) he don't owe them a thing! I absolutely LOVE IT! This is the Fred that needs to be seen more, but of course, don't count on the Mainslime Media giving him ANY attention if they can help it, because they know, they have the fear, that if the country could just HEAR Fred Thompson, the race would be over.

[TeenageRepublican]

No wonder why the media's scared of him. He has the power to control them like Bush controls the Congress.

[Maggie_T]

Fred is exactly what we need to fight terrorists and the NEA.

What? So I repeated myself. Sue me.

[Timberwolf]

...and when Fred wins South Carolina by 8-10%, the Lamestreamers will HAVE to pay attention to his campaign...he'll THEN take the nomination by storm.

[Venus de Smilo]

Maybe Thompson just didn't want to answer the question. He's answered questions about his campaign plans and contributions in the past. Now he doesn't want to?

[Venus de Smilo]

...and when Fred wins South Carolina by 8-10%, the Lamestreamers will HAVE to pay attention to his campaign...he'll THEN take the nomination by storm.
I pray you're right.

[Rhino]

Maybe Thompson just didn't want to answer the question. He's answered questions about his campaign plans and contributions in the past. Now he doesn't want to?That wasn't what the question was about.

[Venus de Smilo]

That wasn't what the question was about.
Well, here's what he was asked: "What is your gut check right now in terms of your own viability? will it be South Carolina, will it be Super Tuesday?"

It was a rude question, one Holt would never ask a 'rat, say Joe Biden or Chris Dodd, and it deserved a rude answer. But Thompson answered in a way that didn't address the rudeness but rather suggested that the question was about the "process", which are indeed questions he has answered before.

I think he should have been even more direct and addressed the real issue which is the media's ongoing rudeness to him instead of reframing the question for Holt and then responding to that, which, as I said, he's responded to in the past. So I have to wonder if he was really all that angry or just didn't want to answer.

[Rhino]

That wasn't the question Fred gave the 'I Owe You Nothing' response to. I think he did answer the question you refer to, just not in the way the commentator expected. It was a stupid question, considering his motivations for being in the race. Fred has said all along that his campaign was not about him being in office. It was about dealing effectively with the challenges affecting this country. The question the commentator asked was all about 'when does Fred give up on gaining the office'? Since that isn't what his campaign is about, it's a stupid question, and one that has no answer, since Fred's goal was never to gain office.

These campaigns are far too focused on the person in office, or running for office, than they are about the issues themselves. That's the point Fred has been trying to make all along, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The elections are not about who is in office. They are about how we will deal with the problems facing this country. That's what really sickens me when I hear people say 'I don't like him' or 'I like this guy'. Those folks have completely lost sight of what elections are for. They are fixated on the personality rather than on the solutions that each candidate represents. We aren't marrying these folks. We are electing them to lead the country. Personality or likeability should have nothing to do with it.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

These campaigns are far too focused on the person in office, or running for office, than they are about the issues themselves. That's the point Fred has been trying to make all along, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The elections are not about who is in office. They are about how we will deal with the problems facing this country. That's what really sickens me when I hear people say 'I don't like him' or 'I like this guy'. Those folks have completely lost sight of what elections are for. They are fixated on the personality rather than on the solutions that each candidate represents. We aren't marrying these folks. We are electing them to lead the country. Personality or likeability should have nothing to do with it.

:claps: Spot on, Oh Great Horned One!

[Timberwolf]

These campaigns are far too focused on the person in office, or running for office, than they are about the issues themselves. That's the point Fred has been trying to make all along, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The elections are not about who is in office. They are about how we will deal with the problems facing this country. That's what really sickens me when I hear people say 'I don't like him' or 'I like this guy'. Those folks have completely lost sight of what elections are for. They are fixated on the personality rather than on the solutions that each candidate represents. We aren't marrying these folks. We are electing them to lead the country. Personality or likeability should have nothing to do with it.

:thumb: :thumb:

Absofrigginlutely!

[Venus de Smilo]

That wasn't the question Fred gave the 'I Owe You Nothing' response to. I think he did answer the question you refer to, just not in the way the commentator expected. It was a stupid question, considering his motivations for being in the race. Fred has said all along that his campaign was not about him being in office. It was about dealing effectively with the challenges affecting this country. The question the commentator asked was all about 'when does Fred give up on gaining the office'? Since that isn't what his campaign is about, it's a stupid question, and one that has no answer, since Fred's goal was never to gain office.

These campaigns are far too focused on the person in office, or running for office, than they are about the issues themselves. That's the point Fred has been trying to make all along, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The elections are not about who is in office. They are about how we will deal with the problems facing this country. That's what really sickens me when I hear people say 'I don't like him' or 'I like this guy'. Those folks have completely lost sight of what elections are for. They are fixated on the personality rather than on the solutions that each candidate represents. We aren't marrying these folks. We are electing them to lead the country. Personality or likeability should have nothing to do with it.
Agree 100% with your second paragraph, but still think he could have handled the question with specific attention to what it was really typical of.

I obviously wasn't talking about the 'I owe you nothing' reply. As I already stated, I was talking about the reply to the first question, which I already posted:

"What is your gut check right now in terms of your own viability? will it be South Carolina, will it be Super Tuesday? FRED THOMPSON: I'm not going to engage in that -- further beating the process issue to death."

The transcript is part of the article and includes the part I reference. That should make it fair game and imposing a limitation to only commenting on the 'I owe you nothing' seems ridiculous since the linked article carries more than the 'I owe you nothing'; so it makes no sense to assume that I was speaking of the 'I owe you nothing' reply. It's an interview, which usually means the so-called journalist asks more than one question. All of the questions in the article focused on the condition of his campaign itself and his plans.

By the way, whether the gaining of office is Fred's immediate goal or not is irrelevant. In order for him to do anything in connection to his stated goal of effectively dealing with the challenges affecting our country, he needs to be president, or at least have stayed on the job in the senate. I think his campaign for president is an acknowledgment that he needs to be president to accomplish his goals. If not, the question of why would he be running comes to mind. After all, altruistic sacrifice without the need of the sacrifice would be quite an absurd situation for a highly-accomplished and experienced man to place himself in.

[Rhino]

Okay. I think he said that because he's answered that question so many times before, and his response has always been that it is far too early in the process to be even thinking of something like that. Now one might want to make the case that he hasn't answered the question with this reporter, but any reporter interviewing a candidate for President should be very well aware of his stance, since he has repeated it numerous times. If that reporter truly doesn't know, which I highly doubt, then it's his bad, not Fred's.

[Maggie_T]

These campaigns are far too focused on the person in office, or running for office, than they are about the issues themselves. That's the point Fred has been trying to make all along, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The elections are not about who is in office. They are about how we will deal with the problems facing this country. That's what really sickens me when I hear people say 'I don't like him' or 'I like this guy'. Those folks have completely lost sight of what elections are for. They are fixated on the personality rather than on the solutions that each candidate represents. We aren't marrying these folks. We are electing them to lead the country. Personality or likeability should have nothing to do with it.

:urtheman:

I've gone blue in the face bitching about this. The way these campaigns are conducted (and listening to the comments of the great unwashed) you'd think we're about to elect Miss Congeniality.

If I hear one more imbecility about Fred looking tired, or Hillary being a woman, or Obama being black, or the Huckster "being nice" ( :rolleyes: ), or any other idiocy that has nothing to do with problems that affect the country, I'll pop a blood vessel (I know, I know; better wear some ear plugs).

We're facing global terrorism and cretins are focusing on candidate's wrinkles. It's enough to drive one to booze. :flame: