I truly admire that sentence, Hent. Verve, snap, crisp syntax. No idea what it means. None. Is it one of those “quantum” things, like on Nova?
Apparently you do, at least when the politician using them is John Kerry:
When you imagined that Bush was “saying what he thinks”, you gave him credit for not being one of those weaselly political code-users like Kerry. Now that it’s become blindingly evident that Bush isn’t the straight-talking guy he might have seemed, your position is “Who cares about the stupid-ass soundbites?”
But giving a politician a free pass on dishonesty and deception in the “marketing” of what he does simply makes it harder to hold him accountable. The lying, spinning and marketing are all part of “what he did”, and to a large extent they’re what enabled him to get away with what he did.
I realize it’s unrealistic to expect anything like complete honesty and consistency in political rhetoric, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t important to condemn dishonesty and inconsistency.
[Karl Rove hat ON]
It was all because of 9/11.
You can’t let the terrorists win.
Our fight against the Axis of Evil continues.
The Democrats voted for it.
[Karl Rove hat OFF]
Attempted translation: “There is no venue anywhere in existence where the discussion of Bush’s dishonest rhetoric will prevent or exclude discussion of Bush’s catastrophically incompetent and cynical actions.”
Well, yeah, but looked at another way, such a seeming inconsistency might reflect nothing more than a change in opinion, on the part of someone reasonable and amenable to change, who has benefited from our efforts to guide him from the paths of political error. Fatted calf, and all that.
Previous to Kimstu
Too many for me. I fold.
Anyone who believes that a man is only as good as his word?
I might be tempted to cut the president a little slack if he told us that he’d decided that his ‘stay the course’ rhetoric was counterproductive; and that he wouldn’t be using it anymore. But that’s not what Mr. Bush did is it? He went on TV and told us that "We’ve never been ‘stay the course’ "
In addition to this bit of absurdity is the fact that the administration has publicly said that while they refuse to put out a schedule for winding down Iraq, they will be setting some “milestones”. Everyone who has ever worked with a construction schedule hooted in unison at this announcement, since the definition of a ‘milestone’ is a scheduled event, such as, oh I don’t know, troop withdrawal?
Thanks, Kimstu. You’re still the best. And wring, as always, if there is something that should be discussed and it isn’t, there’s nothing stopping you from doing so.
In fact, if I might be so bold, it might be more productive for you to talk about the thing that needs to be talked about so badly instead of talking about why we shouldn’t be talking about the thing that shouldn’t be talked about.
Hopefully elucidator can make that one out.
Hentor why let them frame the arguement?
But… won’t the sheep always vote for him? Let’s face it, the ongoing horror of current events demonstrates that there’s a sizeable fraction of the population that is absolutely immune to common sense and that would vote for the man even if he were to start dragging a parachute full of ass-raped puppy cadavers behind every car in his motorcade. We’ve got a few of them on this board, in fact. Really, all he’s doing with the current bit of ludicrous rhetoric is providing a tiny pinhead on which his hardcore adherents can dance. Doesn’t have to be any more than that.
If this is them framing the argument, they’ve really fallen off their game. This “frame” suggests waffling and lying and calls up all sorts of questions about what “course” means and whether we’re on it or not (clearly a component of which is the issue that you think should be discussed but don’t actually discuss).
A good frame for them was “stay the course” versus “cut and run.” That one reliably had us running to defend ourselves against our old spectres of being soft and weak and leaving America vulnerable. Where does this frame put the attention, wring?
I would think that “What do/did we mean if we ever said ‘stay the course’?” would be a spectacularly poor way to intentionally frame things for the Bush administration.
it’s the old magician ploy of misdirection. stay the course, we didn’t mean it that way.
This, of course, is irrefutably true, as dismayingly demonstrated by Aa-aa-aapos and his ilk.
Congratulations, Apos, you have now officially Got Ilk. Plus you’ve managed to convinced yourself that Words Mean Nothing (except when spoken by a Democrat). I honestly, literally, non-ironically believe, that if the situation envisioned by Cervaise above were to come to pass, you come in here and say, “Whatever. They’re just puppies.”
I think you are still confusing Apos with someone else. Don’t know who, but you must be.
Apos, wring, Mace–they’ve all Got Ilk.
Remember, John Mace isn’t a Bush apologist, even when he’s apologizing for Bush. 
No, honestly, I don’t think John Mace is a Bush appologist. At least, not the way I see it. I see him as a man who supports a politician, and would like to believe the best of him, but I also see him as a man who has, in the past, admitted that the man he supports doesn’t make the best of decisions. Not really an appologist at all, just a supporter.
That being said, I will refute John’s argument by saying: Bush is lying. He’s been caught in a lie. This upsets people when they put their trust in someone, and in a somewhat direct way, we, as Americans, are forced to put our trust in Bush. He’s in a position of power, and short of an absolute miracle, there’s no way he’ll be out of that position before his term is up. While he lies, people die. He has made decisions that cause troops and civilians to die every day, and then he covers up his decisions with these lies. This, and that the lies are pretty insulting to our intelligence, is what makes me angry.
Okay, this is the kind of situation the Pubbies love to see: Dems eating their own, even chowing down on their recently obtained allies, and all because someone doesn’t adhere to every speck of doctrine that some “purist” decides is demanded of us.
They’re saying that not every inconsistency or self-contradiction is as worthy of a “Gotcha (Ya! ;))!” as every other instance. They’re saying that this is one of those that is less worthy. I’m not sure whether I accept the first as true; I definitely don’t agree that this is too inconsequential to merit a “Gotcha!” But that doesn’t make the people who do hold that opinion Ilks.
Let’s keep our eye on the ball, and try not to give anyone a reason to think they might as well stay home on 11-07.