Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I completely disagree 100%. The consideration is for Rehnquist, and talking in someone's presence as if they were already dead is inconsiderate. When your parent go in for cancer surgery, would you start arguing about who benefits most from the will while they are in the recovery room (oh, and ma, I really hope ya make it!)?
In any case, at least agree that this is a matter of judgment (upon which we can disagree). And the 10 or 50 or 90% of the country who would find your suggested speech tactless, are not necessarily all democrats or republicans. Which is to say, you are likely to piss off some portion of your own constituency along with the opposition. The last thing anyone, but particularly Kerry, wants to be doing at this time.
Bet?
Hello
|
Nobody is talking as if somebody were dead. Did you read my suggested text? The trick is to bring up Renhquist's illness as a mere example of the general fact that no one on the Court is immortal. I'd hammer that fact home to women, particularly young women. Only mention Rehnquist as an aside, but make sure you get that little nugget of evidence in there. Saying the Supremes are old is a prediction which can be discarded - noting that one got sick makes the listener pay attention.
Oh, you're right... someone will get pissed off no matter what you say, but I think this fact is too important not to be at least cited. I'd normally agree that the press will take care of that for Kerry, but from what I read about the voting populous, they aren't reading too many stories about the Supremes. I'm a little Atwaterish in that regard.
