Skip to comments.Thompson, Teaching Rose About 'Issues' and 'Principles' (Fred, Charlie Rose and Rush Limbaugh)
Posted on 12/05/2007 4:15:12 PM PST by ellery
Here at the Campaign Spot, we've previously wondered if Rush Limbaugh, officially neutral in the GOP presidential primary, prefers one of the candidates and is periodically offering statements that seem to be an endorsement-without-an-official-endorsement.
Earlier today, Limbaugh was chuckling and enjoying the following exchange between Fred Thompson and Charlie Rose an exchange that suggests that Rose is fuzzy on the difference between "principles" and "issues."
CHARLIE ROSE: You constantly say in this campaign that you are a conservative. What does that mean today? Is George Bush a conservative?
FRED THOMPSON: Well, let`s talk about me. (LAUGHTER) I thought we might get to that. I think that it means things that are consistent with God`s design for man. It`s consistent with human nature. It`s consistent with the lessons of history and the lessons of the ages. They found form in the Constitution, I think, and what our founding fathers believed. They understand that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to error, and sometimes do terrible things. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing, that power is a corrupting thing.
CHARLIE ROSE: In all of that, you didn`t mention abortion, gay rights all things that have been part of recent presidential elections.
FRED THOMPSON: Those well, you`re talking about different things there. Those are issues that are before us, which derive from principles. I don`t consider them to be...
CHARLIE ROSE: Principles.
FRED THOMPSON: ... the first principles. But the principles are what guides you in coming to positions with regard to the issues. You know, the Declaration of Independence said that our basic rights come from God and not from man. The founders talked about, you know, life and liberty and the importance of that. And everything is based on those basic principles. And I take those principles, and you know, for example, I come to a pro-life conclusion there. And when we had issues, you know, for eight years when I was in the United States Senate about whether or not the federal government should be funding, for example, abortion-related activities and things of that nature, you know, the application of those principles in that instance told me the answer was no, properly.
ping — more speculation about Rush unofficially endorsing Thompson...this time from Geraghty over at the National Review.
I started watching this show last night and turned it off in disgust — not at Fred Thompson, but disgust at the producers of the show.
They used the “extreme close up” camera technique on Fred in order to make him look menacing. Just a few days ago Charlie Rose had John Edwards on and the camera angle was normal, even flattering. Typical crap from public television.
Five “you know” in that statement by Fred. He should stop that, it’s a Hillary thing.
I was thinking the same thing, you know. Otherwise, you know, it was a good...you know...answer.
Mrs Thompson should tell him, you know, in a nice way not to say....you know.
The difference is that Fred's are transcribed verbatim, while Hillary!'s are ignored by the transcriber.
In Fred's speaking style, they are not as obtrusive as they appear in print, you know...
Fred’s older than Hillary. It’s a Fred thing. And it is insignificant, so why bring it up?
Ping to ya
it isn't insignificant. It's a bad habit and does not sound good for someone in Fred Thompson's position to be saying "you know" before and after every sentence.
AND that's why I brought it up.
"As far as Charlie Rose was concerned, Thompson was speaking Mongolian."
Sorry— it seems just a bit pompous to have you criticizing a successful US senator and lawyer who shepherded a man through the hoops to become Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. How did Thompson manage to do all of those things without taking your opinion into account?
Fred gets it, you know. sorry I couldn’t resist. :)
because it’s like, totally funny that Fred ...I mean he’s like so cool, you know...he is just so cool! and he like, talks like this but that’s like totally cool with me, you know?
Oh let them pick apart the way Fred speaks. It all most of them have. Its been a while since I’ve read ‘no fire in the belly’ or ‘his wife is too young’.
My daughter does that and it drives me crazy.
I think I heard somewhere that their minds are way ahead of their verbal language and that is why they do that. Regardless, I think it is an annoying habit.
I did not say the man is dumb so don’t change the subject. In fact I think he is very intelligent. For that reason he should break the you know habit.
Fred was just great in the interview with Charlie Rose. He gave all the right ‘conservative answers’!!!!
The more I hear from F.T. the better I like him.
Sorry, but I don’t hear a 16 year old when I hear Fred Thompson speak. The speech patterns are completely different.
The effort to destroy correct English language usage as a parameter of education and social standing by the allowance of slang ghettoSpeak (”ho-ho-ho”, or “that dude be cool”) or arrogant ValleyGirl Speak (”ugh, like I was so like spiked at her uncoolness, just whatever!!”) is no small matter.
It is a critical component of the marxistLiberal’s assualt on America and has been since the 60’s.
Specifically, via the takeover of English departments and grammar school curriculums.
It is the telltale SIGNATURE of an uneducated and/or unaware person to speak in such phrases and incomplete thoughts.
Winston Churchill would be aghast at such poor oratorical skills.
F.Thompson should know this notion well and be better prepared to counter this assualt on America.
As a practictioner of rhetoric and public speaking and phrase timing/staging, he is or WAS an actor and these skills are stock in trade tools for said folks, or at least the good ones.
So to socially allow/encourage such gross and incorrect language skills -as paraded by too many folks under 40- in ANY POTUS candidate is a proper query of said candidate as to where they are/what they are aware of/where they see the battlefield in this Culture War on the West.
To paraphase R.Limbaugh as he has often stated recently, the 2008 election is about whether USA will survive or go the way of the EU/NWO.
As a card-carrying language-Nazi, I'm as annoyed by "you know" as the next guy, but Fred's distinguishing between issues and principles in this interview was deft and, by our low standards of political discourse, rather profound. I'd rather we focused on that.
Rush has been a conservative for decades. He knows the real deal and someone who is a poseur. Oh, he’s also a Republican and will vote Republican no matter what. With exception for maybe Leiberman. I disagree with him on that point, but he genuinely believes it’s the best course to preserve what he fights for. The man converted me to conservatism, so I take our difference on that point for what it is and let it go.
I had no doubt Thompson is his preference, and he’s letting it be known in the way he does and I thank him for that. he did the same on behalf of Toomey, but it remains to be seen if conservatives will have learned from that mistake and choose the conservative this time.
I read Hugh Hewitt's Townhall site on occasion. For the most part they live in darkness there, it seems -- Thompson is simply nonexistent in most posts, and the few that mention him dismiss him on empty charges. A lot of them are like Hugh and made dewey-eyed by Romney, but a lot of them are very disgruntled and in search of a "true" conservative. They like Huckabee and Hunter. The only thing they can legitimately lay at Thompson's feet is CFR, that's it. Yet they never deal with Thompson; the few who dare to bring him up write him off lazily with things like, "He's no different than the rest of them if you do a little digging when it comes to changing positions or being consistent." They cite polls where he's at 4%, and I'm thinking, "The guy's within an easy margin-of-error of second and first place in a lot of the polls I see." They are oblivious to Thompson, and it's weird!
I'd post more to help open their eyes, except I find Townhall to always be a pain for posting. Half the time my password doesn't work. Probably just as good. It's just amazing that so many there have zero clue.
It is called a “joke.” I burst out laughing imagining Fred impersonating a valley girl.
The Charlie Rose interview was Fred at his best. I like the fact that he can’t be steered. He takes control of every interview and gets his points across. In this case he dominated the whole interview and got to fully explain every answer in depth. All this with no notes no cue cards no handlers and he doesn’t submit his own questions in advance. Hillary could never do this because she cant remember what her position was yesterday much less during her former co-presidency. I for one can’t wait to see him debate Hillary.
When I read the transcript, the “you knows” seem to jump out at me. However, when Rush played the excerpt on his show today, I didn’t hear any of them - probably because I was listening to the points he was making.
“Uh, you know, he’s uh got no fire in the belly, uh, or you know his wife is too young, or something.”
Sadly, Charlie Rose does *not* know these things.
I’ve also noticed that the attacks on Fred, in the press and on this forum, are almost always attacks on him personally, not attacks on his principles. “He’s too old, his wife’s too young, he got in too late, he’s lazy, no fire in the belly, he says ‘you know’ too much.” Which makes sense, since ad hominem attacks are what people resort to when they have no substantive argument.
well there is a difference between critiquing his campaign (and you have to admit it’s not the best campaign in history) and dumping Fred for some RINO or someone with no chance such as Hunter or Tancredo.
This will work in the elimation of curse words from ones orations.
how does that work? try to recite Gettysburg adress with uh’s in between each word?
It’s not the best campaign in history. The best campaigner in modern history is probably Bill Clinton, and look where that got us. Constructive criticism is one thing, but repeating MSM attack statements about Thompson that are demonstrably untrue should be beneath Freepers, and there has been plenty of that.
Thompson is not what the MSM is used to on the campaign trail. He hasn’t been contemplating this run since he was in diapers, he’s a slow, southern speaker, he doesn’t wear his ambition on his sleeve, he got in after the political elites said the proper time was past, and he started slow, although he has picked up the pace greatly in the last few weeks. In short he doesn’t fit the MSM template of a presidential candidate, and woe be unto him who challenges the preconceptions of the media. But because the “brainiacs” in the MSM can’t countenance a candidate who thinks and works outside the box, doesn’t mean that we conservatives can’t.
I think a lot of people were bothered by Bush’s butchering of the English language. It gave the perception that conservatives are stupid. I don’t think we’ll see that with Fred, even if he does throw in a few “you knows.”
Bush’s butchering of the language bothers me, that’s for sure. Would that we could get another Reagan, an eloquent movement conservative. The most glib one in the current field is Huckabee, but he’s a nonstarter for me.