Dukakis's "no comment" rationale

Via Taegan Goddard, Michael Dukakis confuses reporters with this classic rationale for not commenting on a possible Senate appointment:

“I’m not commenting,” he said. “Why not? 'Cause I don’t want to comment.”

It's either a PR masterstroke (you answer the question while saying nothing), or a statement of his belief in free will.

Comments

[Rob]

I guess I don't get it. I've read the Boston Globe article, I've read the Goddard blog, and I don't see where any reporters are confused. Where does that come from? And there's nothing to be confused about. Dukakis declined to comment, and declined to explain his refusal to comment. That's what "no comment" means: I'm not answering questions. So Dukakis gave a "no comment" response, and the Globe reported it. And this is noteworthy, why?

[Howard Craft]

When asked to comment Dukakis told the press, "No tanks!"

[bnyhan]

Rob, "confuses" is a joke (i.e. it was so circular they were confused on how to follow up). It's obviously not a big deal. I just thought Dukakis saying he wasn't commenting because he didn't want to comment was funny.

[Michael Koplow]

Brendan, I think that's sort of Rob's point. They were confused on how to follow up? Why would they follow up on a "no comment"? And what's someone supposed to say when asked why they won't comment? In general, that would be tantamount to giving the comment.

I guess people just have different senses of humor. To me, the funny part was the reporters trying to follow up on the noncomment.