November 17, 2005

Vapid Points Memo

I don't often read Josh Marshall, but he had a reputation for being a reasonably objective lefty (was willing to point out that the Rathergate memos were, well... not really evidence of anything negative about GWB) so I decided to see what he has to say about the Democrats' "that bad man tricked us, mommy" meme. Alas, there isn't even a mustard seed of objectivity now. To whit:

There's one point that's important to remember about the White House's pushback to cover up its collective dishonesty about Iraq. We've noted before that in scandals or political nominations the decisive issue is not the number of opponents, the intensity of their opposition or even the quality of their arguments. The decisive issue is most often whether the scandalee or the nominee has some committed base of support, even if it only amounts to a distinct minority.

So, if you were thinking some semblance of objective truth has any relevance, well just grow the heck up you impossible romantic. Because even though Joe Wilson's CIA debrief said the opposite of his NYT piece, we know what he meant, right? Because within the boundaries of the hermeneutic circle the phrase "the Iraqis were seeking uranium in Niger" means the same as "the Iraqis were not seeking uranium in Niger." Nobody's counting anyway. Do you see anybody counting? I don't see anybody counting. Relatively speaking...

A parallel dynamic is in play with respect to what the White House is trying to accomplish with this current pushback.

Isn't this a misuse of the term "parallel?" I mean, isn't he saying that the decisive issue is whether or not Bush has a committed base of support? Which, strictly speaking, would be the same, rather than a parallel dynamic... right? But maybe he means something else?

Virtually all of the arguments the White House is now advancing are transparently ridiculous on their face to anyone who has closely followed this evolving debate over the last three years.

But that doesn't matter. The White House doesn't need to win any debates. What they need is for their core supporters to have something to say. Anything. And to be able to say it loudly. The one thing that would be fatal for the White House from its defenders would be silence.

Nope, that's pretty much what I thought he meant:

1. The President's "push back" is transparently so ridiculous that we needn't even reiterate its content here... because it's so ridiculous... and just silly... and not worth our time at all. No way, no how!

2. And all of those arguments we can't hear through the flesh and bones of our thumbs might as well be a chorus of airhorns at a football game, because we're not even listening... na na na na... can't hear... na na na na... a word... na na na... just noise... na na na... to impress... na na na... the evil Bushitlerburton's base... na na na na na na!

Not circular reasoning. It's really not. With two centroids it's more like... elliptical. Yeah, definitely not circular.

I don't say this as a counsel of pessimism or futility. It's just important to understand, to know what they're trying to achieve. The good news is that most Americans have already figured this out. Clear majorities of the public now believe this president misled them about Iraq. And they'll certainly grow. The key is to press these on the specifics, why they said these things they knew weren't true.

You mean, specifics like these, Josh? Yeah, somebody's being transparently ridiculed alright. Don't take out any bank loans based on that projected "growing majority," because sticking your thumbs firmly in your ears won't make those unfamiliar oppositional words any less meaningful. That's why they call it "pushback."