After the Obama campaign tossed General Wes Clark under the bus for stating the obvious, that getting shot down in an airplane is not command experience, they better get used to this
[McCain spokeperson] Nicolle Wallace: ""The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous."
Sure it's stupid, but stupid works when you don't push back
Now first of all, Harrogate is by no means a Clark cheerleader, but it is fair to say that he has been a voice of reason in the mainstream public discourse. Which aint exactly something we've got such a surplus of that we can afford to sideline such voices in the name of some perceived political expediency.
But while that is the primary concern of BTD, it is by far the lesser concern for Harrogate. From a Rhetorical perspective, Harrogate isn't even sure what kind of Logical Fallacy this is, that Nicolle Wallace is pushing here. Christ on a crumb heap, it might be all of them.
The only comparable statement that Harrogate can think of is when Bush underling Karen Hughes said, in 2002, that after 9/11 more Americans were "valuing life," which meant, naturally, that a majority was now clamoring for Roe to be overturned. Hughes was not hammered for the statement, nor did she ever retract, or even qualify it. Remember, Readers, how Bush surrogates always referred to him as "Commander in Chief" to quell criticism of his domestic policies, ranging from Tax Policy to Education to Abortion to Faith Based Initiatives to Social Security? How dare they pick at the "Commander in Chief" during a time of war? Etc.
With McCain what we're going to get is, he got tortured and he's our "Commander in Chief" during a time of war. So, do the patriotic thing and stop making his Judiciary Appointments so difficult.
The Big Question is, Why O Why are people allowed to make public statements like Nicolle Wallace's, and then retain credibility? Indeed, one might ask, why don't they get hit with rotten tomatos everywhere they go?
2 comments:
Wallace's comment is a non sequitur. Wallace establishes a claim (McCin is honest) and relies on evidence (he is a prisoner of war) to support that claim.
Of course, being a prisoner of war possesses no relationship whatsoever to whether or not a person is honest. But, since it is a Republican topoi that it is bad to attack veterans, the trope McCain as a veteran will be relied upon for any and all occasions. Of course, mentioning this reinforces the false belief that because McCain was in a war (but did not lead) and was a POW, he will be an effective commander in chief. Which does not make too much sense but...
It is effective in the way that other forms of identity politics are effective: Obama supporters get pissed when rival candidates apparent race claims are used against Obama. Clinton supporters get upset when there are apparent claims of sexism against Clinton.
Hughes' comment is another non sequitur as the evidence does not warrant the conclusion. However, the goal for political discourse is not to appeal to a universal audience; the goal is to appeal to a particular audience while acting if you are appealing to a universal audience.
non sequitur!!!! Thank you, that's the one.
Post a Comment