Another Stupid Foster Friess Soundbite

Via ABC:   Santorum Donor Foster Friess Hopes Obama’s ‘Teleprompters Are Bulletproof’

"There’s a lot of things that haven’t been hammered at because Rick and Mitt have been kind of going at each other," Friess toldFox Business News’ Lou Dobbs on Wednesday.  "Now that they’ve kind of trained their barrels on President Obama I’m afraid his, I hope his teleprompters are bulletproof."

"I mean that figuratively," Friess added after a short moment of total silence.

As soon as the words were out of his mouth, Friess seemed to realize his mistake.

"I’m sorry. I probably shouldn’t have said that," the wealthy Santorum donor said, chuckling with what appeared to be embarrassment.

Friess was the fellow who noted a while back:

And this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it’s so — such inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.

Some people, it would appear, should just write the checks and stay off of television…

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Quick Takes, US Politics
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Dumb? Yes

    But why does the media focus on the comments of a guy in Texas who supported a guy who is no longer running for President?

  2. @Doug Mataconis: Because has now shifted support to Romney, which keeps him in the game.

  3. @Steven L. Taylor:

    So is the media now going to go through the FEC donor list of every candidate and interview people to see which one makes the stupidest comment? This is journalism?

  4. @Doug Mataconis: I guess I am missing your point. He apparently is willing to be interviewed and is a major players in terms of money and this whole SuperPac bit. And is generically something of a player in GOP politics. A lot of people get on TV for lesser reasons than that.

  5. @Steven L. Taylor:

    I’m willing to be interviewed too, that doesn’t make anything I say relevant to the race for President.

    This guy who has no connection to any active Presidential campaign beyond being a donor went on Lou Dobbs’ show, hardly a bastion of credible journalism to begin with, and then ABC News picks up the story as if it is suddenly something that America must know.

    I guess I’m missing the point. If it comes from a campaign aide, an official surrogate, or the candidate that’s one thing. If it comes from some old man in Texas, that seems to me to be quite another.

  6. Gustopher says:

    @Doug Mataconis: I think suggesting Friess is a mere “supporter” is missing his role, now that candidates are bankrolled by billionaires, and their campaigns can continue until the billionaires get tired of it.

    We pay attention to what he says because the Supreme Court decided that money is speech, and thus this guy speaks a lot louder than the lady down the street with 22 cats, and a Santorum lawn sign, who is feverishly knitting a sweater vest.

  7. @Gustopher:

    Some stupid off the cuff remark by an old man in Texas is not relevant to this campaign and the fact that the media thinks it is shows just how stupid our politics has become.

    And yes, I feel exactly the same way about the Hilary Rosen comment

  8. @Doug Mataconis:

    So, to play tin ear to Super PAC politics, you must pretend you and Foster have equal power. Amazing.

  9. @john personna:

    Please explain the relevance of one stupid comment

  10. @Doug Mataconis:

    First, I would note that I devoted a brief quick pick to this quote because it struck me as I was perusing the news. And my main point was, as noted above, “Some people, it would appear, should just write the checks and stay off of television…”

    Second, Friess is more significant to the Romney campaign (by far) than Hilary Rosen is to the Obama campaign and yet you wrote a roughly 790 word post on her comments the other day. As such, I am a bit vexed by your position here.

    BTW, I am not saying that this soundbite is of great import, I am saying it was stupid and it struck me that Friess seems to have a pattern of saying stupid things. As such, perhaps he should stay off of the television. The fact that he is a major donor in a system that privileges major donors makes him of some significance, yes? Indeed, in the cause of transparency there is an argument to be made that the more information we have about major donors the better off we are as we can at least understand from whence comes the money (I don’t like the notion that shadowy unknown figures can make huge contributions without us knowing who they are, come to think of it). This is problematic how?

  11. al-Ameda says:

    What a waste of a comment:

    “Now that they’ve kind of trained their barrels on President Obama I’m afraid his, I hope his teleprompters are bulletproof.”

    he would have been right at home at the NRA Convention in St. Louis.

  12. @Steven L. Taylor:

    It’s ABC News whose journalistic integrity I’m questioning here. Not every stupid thing that someone says on a cable news program is worthy of being given coverage in the media. In fact, I’d say that most of them can quite easily be ignored as irrelevant.

  13. al-Ameda says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    Not every stupid thing that someone says on a cable news program is worthy of being given coverage in the media.

    Okay then, do you believe that Hillary Rosen’s comment was worthy of blanket coverage? I do.
    Friess is a major campaign benefactor, and as such, I’d say that his comment was worthy of the coverage it received.

  14. Gustopher says:

    @Doug Mataconis: Let’s see…

    Stupid comment: yes. And, unlike the aspirin one, it doesn’t even speak to the billionaire’s cultural mindset.

    Old man in Texas: technically correct, but again missing the point that he bankrolled a candidate who wouldn’t have been a contender otherwise, and that he is now supporting Romney.

    Hilary Rosen: despite your need to claim that both sides do it and that you are perfectly balanced in the center to pass moral judgement, there are a couple of key differences. First, Rosen is not bankrolling anyone. Second, she was right — Ann Romney doesn’t know a damned thing about raising a family while working a full time job and not having a bunch of nannies and housekeepers.

    Try Soros rather than Hilary Rosen for your much needed “both sides do it” cred. He doesn’t really bankroll the Democrats, but he’s the closest the Democrats have.

  15. An Interested Party says:

    And yes, I feel exactly the same way about the Hilary Rosen comment

    It is little wonder that some people think you are in the tank for Romney, no matter how much you claim otherwise, as you wrote multiple posts about Rosen but are wondering why attention is being focused on this…

  16. @Doug Mataconis:

    Well, two comments.

    1. If someone in a position of power (which Friess is) then that makes it newsworthy in a general sense.

    2. The coverage wasn’t exactly frontpage stuff, and in the internet age there is a lot of info out there. It was reported on one of their blogs.

    3. And I am not trying to pick a fight, but you have elided my mention your lengthy post on Hilary Rosen, who is, as I noted, less significance a player than is Friess. If stupid utterances made by unimportant people should be ignored, then why post about that (or any other silly soundbite?)

    Does this soundbite have grave and lastly significance? No. It is a semi-interesting and ephemeral bit of news worthy of a passing note on a Saturday morning? Sure (or as least I think so).

  17. Hey Norm says:

    @ Doug…
    Drop a few million then you can be interviewed too.
    His freedom of speech is louder than yours.
    As a Libertarian it’s the world you want…deal with it.

  18. @Steven L. Taylor:

    Yes I did do a post on the Hilary Rosen story, mostly because at that point it had taken over the political punditocracy and was clearly the story of the day. Did I think it was a big deal worthy of the wall-to-wall coverage it received? No. Did I think it was appropriate for Wolf Biltzer to bring her on TV that afternoon and have her apologize into the camera like she was making some bizarre hostage video? No. Did I think it was worthy of any further mention after she had apologized? No.

    We don’t get to decide what the media is going to freak out over, though, which is why we’re left to react about it. I just happen to find the Rosen frenzy, along with the fact that ABC News would even waste the time to have a reporter write the Firies story, to be yet another sign of how depraved and useless the political media has become.

  19. @Hey Norm:

    Lou Dobbs can interview whoever he wants. ABC didn’t have to write about it.

  20. @An Interested Party:

    I wrote TWO posts about Rosen. One regarding the initial story. One regarding her apology. At the end of the post about the apology I said that i considered the matter closed.

  21. @Doug Mataconis: I would note that this quote is hardly getting huge play.

    I would also note that probably any time anyone of any significance makes a crack about shooting and the president that it will get at least passing reporting. It is something that we tend to be a bit sensitive about.

    I just happen to find the Rosen frenzy, along with the fact that ABC News would even waste the time to have a reporter write the Firies story, to be yet another sign of how depraved and useless the political media has become.

    Depraved? I am not sure that is the right word. Lazy, perhaps. Of course, the Rosen story did result in a substantial firestorm by political actors, making it a larger story.

    Still, I am not sure what the big objection is, ultimately.

  22. @Doug Mataconis:

    I wrote TWO posts about Rosen. One regarding the initial story. One regarding her apology. At the end of the post about the apology I said that i considered the matter closed.

    Ok, fair enough. But if your position is that these types of utterances are unimportant and evidence of a depraved media culture, why even write one post?

  23. Hey Norm says:

    @ Doug…
    Much as I don’t like it…he is more equal than you and me…because he has money. All men are created equal…but you become superior when you have $$$…at least according to the Supreme Court.
    This ain’t new…it’s how it works. Not sure why it’s suddenly a bee in your bonnet today.

  24. @Steven L. Taylor:

    Sadly, the media creates the narrative of the campaign. And our media is perhaps worse than it has ever been.

  25. @Doug Mataconis:

    Sadly, the media creates the narrative of the campaign. And our media is perhaps worse than it has ever been.

    Maybe. In some ways it is and in others not.

    Still, I am trying to understand your position: if these things are utterly unworthy of attention, why blog about them at all?

  26. @Steven L. Taylor:

    Because bloggers are often wont to write about whatever the story of the day happens to be, even when it’s incredibly stupid?

  27. @Doug Mataconis:

    But why does the media focus on the comments of a guy in Texas who supported a guy who is no longer running for President?

    Because the fact he can repeatedly say things like this and still be welcome in Republican circles says a lot about the time of people who make up Republican circles.

  28. @Doug Mataconis:

    You are kind of upside down in your argument.

    I get that he was just speaking in metaphor, and the metaphor was just unfortunate. No problem.

    But by calling it “incredibly stupid” you are saying it is something we should notice. This is a guy who shapes American political outcomes.

    If he is “incredibly stupid,” that is news.

  29. @john personna:

    The evidence for your contention that Foster Freiss “shapes American political outcomes” is very thin gruel indeed.

    And if what Foster Freiss is now relevant grist for the political mill, does that also apply to Bill Maher, who recently donated $1,000,000 to the pro-Obama SuperPAC?

  30. @Stormy Dragon:

    So is the fact that Bill Maher is still welcome in Democratic circles also relevant?

  31. al-Ameda says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    So is the fact that Bill Maher is still welcome in Democratic circles also relevant?

    Sure, it’s important to know where the money is coming from – that’s all I really want in this Citizen’s United world. I believe that all individual contributions to PACS should be disclosed to the FEC.

  32. @Doug Mataconis:

    So is the fact that Bill Maher is still welcome in Democratic circles also relevant?

    Yes, it is. I don’t think either side is particularly savory.

  33. grumpy realist says:

    Clueless white geezer says something stupid, film at 11.

  34. DRS says:

    Doug, did you lose a case or something? You seem very grumpy today.

  35. MarkedMan says:

    Steven, I think it is obvious to most readers that Doug is wrong on this one. His replies are tendentious, don’t answer questions raised (I.e. just why isn’t it relevant that a major founder of Republican candidates repeatedly says dumb things?), etc. but that’s just another way of saying “Mataconis”. There is no point in arguing with him. He never changes his mind or admits he as wrong.

  36. Davebo says:

    I’m willing to be interviewed too, that doesn’t make anything I say relevant

    And yet you keep talking. Although recognizing the problem is a good first step.

  37. An Interested Party says:

    I wrote TWO posts about Rosen. One regarding the initial story. One regarding her apology. At the end of the post about the apology I said that i considered the matter closed.

    You consider the Rosen matter as well as this Friess matter to both be insignificant…yet you wrote two posts about the former and you respond to Steven writing about the latter wondering why it is even being discussed at all…obviously you have faied to see the disconnect in your actions and thinking…

  38. An Interested Party says:

    *failed

  39. AIP,

    And obviously you fail to understand what I’m saying

  40. An Interested Party says:

    And obviously you fail to understand what I’m saying

    Your actions speak far louder than what you are now saying…

  41. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: The reason that Doug is objecting to your point so strenuously is because he really IS in the bag for Romney.

    Cue the “I’m not supporting either one” rejoinder in 4…3…2….

  42. G.A. says:

    I don’t see the big deal in this statement but I am sure it will be used by the left the next time some nutty product of liberal society causes a man made disaster…

    Comparing it to what seems to be neo follower of Aleister Crowley said and thinks don’t make much sense.

    One statement shows a cowboyish phrasing and the other demonstrates how one was indoctrinated as it goes with worldviews. So I say Doug is half right like most always.

  43. Tsar Nicholas II says:

    Lou Dobbs still has a T.V. show?

  44. An Interested Party says:

    I don’t see the big deal in this statement…

    No, of course you wouldn’t…as someone who would actually make the ridiculous comparison between Sandra Fluke and Aleister Crowley, of course you wouldn’t see anything wrong with this fool’s statements…

  45. G.A. says:

    No, of course you wouldn’t…as someone who would actually make the ridiculous comparison between Sandra Fluke and Aleister Crowley, of course you wouldn’t see anything wrong with this fool’s statements…

    And maybe because i’m not PC indoctrinated idiot? Who studies things like world views and influences?And I was talking about the Rosen girl or whatever she thinks of herself as, but hey the professional advocate Fluker i’m sure has a lot of that worldview too….

    That you or they know they do is a whole different subject….

  46. G.A. says:

    of course you wouldn’t see anything wrong with this fool’s statements…

    That they are metophoricaly(errr, something tlike this) going into to battle together against his teleprompters…. lol…

    I already said that I think his promters are because he is right brained. So I guess I have an issue with it but not a big deal. Not that I think he is all that smart but I understand being left handed and scatterbrain and ten steps ahead of every one in a conversation and not being able to focus on the details and mostly only on the big picture.

  47. gVOR08 says:

    Two comments. One, is this a great country or what? Foster Friess is showing once again that you don’t have to be terribly bright to make a whole pile of money in this country. The biggest example, of course, is Donald Trump. Made billions of dollars (or at least claims to have) despite being too dumb to know Obama could produce a birth certificate any time he wanted to.

    Two, Doug, I don’t know if you’re a litigator, but I would offer some advice to make comments a happier experience. Sometimes you need to regard an argument as like a child. Raise it as best you can, put it out in the world, and let it stand on its own two feet. Don’t keep coming back. You’re right, this is trivia. Don’t raise your blood pressure over it.