Saturday, January 28, 2006
The Meaning of "Is" Is...
Because, of course, I'm sure that they'll start pulling the "Clinton did it" excuse out of their butts at any moment...
Eschaton has been covering this for a couple of days now. Short version: Katie Couric makes blatantly false statement that Abramhoff donated to Democrats as well as Republicans. Howard Dean corrects her; it was the indian tribes that Abramhof ripped off who had donated to Democrats. Couric then counters with the lame excuse that, since the tribes had some connection to Abramhoff, saying that theconvicted felon lobbyist donated to the Democrats was "technically correct."
Oh, bullshit. That's like claiming that, after the husband of a rape victim gives money to NOW, that the rapist really made the donation. It's only "technically correct" in the sense that the husband might not have made the donation had his wife not been the victim of a twisted man.
So... who's parsing words now? Remember when the Republicans made a big deal over Clinton and the "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" thing? Time for the Democrats to throw it right back at Couric, and Matt Lauer and all the rightwing mouthpices of the so-called Liberal Media.
After all, John Kerry won in 2000. In every possible way, that is "technically correct."
Katie, on the other hand, is technically and factually full of crap. Let's not let her get away with this blatant lying this time, m'kay?
Eschaton has been covering this for a couple of days now. Short version: Katie Couric makes blatantly false statement that Abramhoff donated to Democrats as well as Republicans. Howard Dean corrects her; it was the indian tribes that Abramhof ripped off who had donated to Democrats. Couric then counters with the lame excuse that, since the tribes had some connection to Abramhoff, saying that the
Oh, bullshit. That's like claiming that, after the husband of a rape victim gives money to NOW, that the rapist really made the donation. It's only "technically correct" in the sense that the husband might not have made the donation had his wife not been the victim of a twisted man.
So... who's parsing words now? Remember when the Republicans made a big deal over Clinton and the "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" thing? Time for the Democrats to throw it right back at Couric, and Matt Lauer and all the rightwing mouthpices of the so-called Liberal Media.
After all, John Kerry won in 2000. In every possible way, that is "technically correct."
Katie, on the other hand, is technically and factually full of crap. Let's not let her get away with this blatant lying this time, m'kay?
Comments:
Post a Comment
