Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Ah. It's not wrong. It's just not "sellable".
You've hit on the main hope for your party this cycle - avoid substance. I like that.
|
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The issue is not "sellability", the issue is "credibility". Even IF your argument is technically correct regarding whether the Administration ever did/did not say imminent harm, it is not credible to any thinking human being who even attempts to adopt a modicum of impartiality. Second, in substance, you are arguing technicalities. It doesn't make the Administration look or sound good.
Accepting your POV would be to accept the premise that Rumsfeld, et al. were sitting down with dictionaries and cleverly parsing out their words to create a certain impression while still maintining deniability in the event it all went South. That doesn't make you look good. Why keep making those arguments?
I've referred back to the "IS IS" and "no controlling legal authority" arguments, but the best analogy is the assertion "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky".
Clinton _may_ have been technically correct, but what did that statement do to his credibility?
Hank is absolutely right -- just fucking say: "OK. We were wrong about that stuff. But we believed what we said and we did the right thing for XYZ reasons." That would go over much better with the electorate, I think, and would make the GOP leaders look less like a bunch of mealy-mouthed teenage boys exaplaining that they were just holding the backpack for a friend, and didn't know there was pot in it. No one who was going to vote for Bush _should_ have their mind changed by such a basic, honest approach.
S_A_M
P.S. Avoid substance, hell no!
WE ARE GOING TO BEAT YOU LIKE A RED-HEADED STEP-CHILD RIDING A RENTED MULE, AND WE'LL DO IT ON SUBSTANCE.
(Or, we'll do it on what passes for substance in this dumbed-down, entertainment-as-news-as-entertainment political culture.)
[edited typos]
