Thirty years ago, before the public agency I worked for allowed me to be a spokesman on their behalf, I went to a training course on “how to talk to the media”. Among the ‘take-aways’ from that course was a technique to address problematic queries you’d rather not answer.
When asked such a question, begin with, “Thank you for that question!”
That response does two things. First, it appears you welcome the question, when if fact you don’t. Second, appearing to welcome the question attaches a veneer of sincerity to whatever answer you give.
Another ‘take-away’ is to ignore the question and give a ‘sound-byte’ answer that conveys your desired talking-point without having to prevaricate. One technique is to reassure the public (taxpayers) that you’re doing the job they pay you to do.
A generic example appropriate for any question would be: “Thank you for the opportunity to answer that very important question. Our office recognizes the seriousness of this case, and will devote all our resources to assuring the proper decision is reached. When that decision is made, we will promptly advise the public.”
While the first part of the answer strokes the questioner’s journalistic ego by complementing them personally, the rest of the answer by-passes the questioner and speaks directly to the intended audience with a completely true sound-byte the media can’t very easily distort.
However, that technique only works if you don’t overuse it. Like more than once in any interview. Then it sounds like BS. I’ve been reminded of that while watching the United States Senate confirmation hearings of Biden’s nominees for federal judges.
Some nominees preface nearly every answer with, “Thank you for that question, Senator!” It’s obvious they’ve been to the same training I had. Whenever I hear that from a nominee, I anticipate the rest of the answer will be evasive talking-point gobbledegook that doesn’t address the question asked.
I’m never disappointed.
This is especially problematic for judicial nominees. If anyone should give straight answers, it’s judges. But they are, after all, lawyers.
The second clause of Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution provides that the President shall appoint all federal judges “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” For most of our history, “Advice and Consent” was usually just a formality. Occasionally the Senate would refuse to confirm a clearly unqualified nominee — such as G. Harold Carswell, nominated for the Supreme Court by President Nixon in 1970.
A Senate supporter attempted to justify Carswell’s limited intellectual capacity by saying (on the Senate floor) that even mediocre people “are entitled to a little representation” on the Supreme Court – thus proving the old adage about how “birds of a feather” roll! Keeping intellectual incompetents off the Court is one thing. But then in 1987, the Democrats politicized the judicial confirmation process beyond precedent.
That’s when President Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. At the time of his nomination, Bork was already a federal Judge on the prestigious District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which required he be confirmed for that position. So he was already deemed qualified to be a federal judge by the Senate. Prior to serving on that Court, Bork was a widely respected legal scholar, and Yale law professor. His intelligence and legal acumen were beyond question.
But Bork had a fatal flaw that disqualified him for the Supreme Court — at least to Democrats. He was both a brilliant legal scholar — and a conservative.
Bork’s nomination was rejected by the Democrat-controlled Senate after they engaged in an unprecedented campaign of character assassination that has since become the modus operendi for Democrats opposing Republican presidents’ Supreme Court nominees.
Democrats even had a term for it. It was called “Borking” a nominee.
Now the Senate’s judicial nominee “Advice and Consent” process has become a politicized farce. The legal qualifications of nominees is irrelevant compared to their ability to spin answers to Senators’ questions. If you are familiar with the techniques of talking to the media, it’s clear the nominees have all been schooled in how to answer. The only way to judge their intellect is how well they pull it off.
You can see multiple examples for yourself on Youtube. For amusement, you can make watching the charade a drinking game. Every time a nominee prefaces an answer with some version of “Thank you for that question…” take a shot. You’ll be hammered in no time.