today's disgust brought to you by the letters A and S.

[kaigou]

I know that to some degree all politicians do this, just like Hollywood and even some book publishers. We joke about a review that says "not even the least bit exciting" and the blurb on the movie that says "exciting" or the original "hoped it'd be the best of the year but terribly disappointed" becomes "best of the year". Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's anecdotal because I've never seen any before/after, it's just always seemed kind of odd when a blurb only says "exciting" or "riveting" and no other context. Most of the time, hey, without an original context, you figure, well, I guess that's an accurate quote.

However, this has got to be the most egregious example ever. Really, truly. First, here's the context of the original quote.

Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.' And ultimately, that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall.

Now, watch the ad.

hat tip: andrew sullivan

I can't possibly be the only person who finds this offensive, undignified, and dowright simply unbecoming. If you have a point on the merits of an argument, then you argue the merits and you make your point. But if you find it necessary or useful to so thoroughly twist another's words in order to prove your point, this says far more about you than it ever will about your opponent.

Maybe you have a valid argument, maybe you don't. What you do have, beyond all doubt, is an utter lack of integrity -- and a now-proven willingness to engage in dialogue both deceitful and dishonorable. And that, my friends, I cannot, and will never, respect.

Comments

[rogue53.livejournal.com]

And have you seen the tax one? Where McCain forgets to mention that the taxes Obama wants are on the upper one to five percent of the country? Of course McCain doesn't want taxes on the rich, he's one of them. *sighs* Just... so... stupid... Sooner or later, doesn't he realize everyone's going to lash back at this type of ad? Is he hoping for later?

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

It's beyond stupid; I know to expect stupid from most political campaigns. Now it's just plain Rovian, and that disgusts me.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

And have you seen the tax one? Where McCain forgets to mention that the taxes Obama wants are on the upper one to five percent of the country?

I'm sorry. Do you really believe that it is possible to tax "the rich" without the effects also being felt severely by "the poor?" Whose investment do you think capitalizes the firms whose jobs provide the income for the working classes?

Of course McCain doesn't want taxes on the rich, he's one of them.

Whereas Obama is not rich?

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Hold on. I'm going to try to respond to that seriously, about taxes and income and capital. Wait, sorry. I can't.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Wow, you really did get suckered by the Reagan hype, didn't wake up for Bush 41's wisdom, and really did go hook-line-sinker for Bush43's absolute warping of Reaganomics, didncha. I'm not sure whether to be amused, or to... well, I'll stick with being amused. Better for my sanity, and besides, an economic treatise is not within the scope of this post.

I think it would be best if you simply ignored the rest of this thread, and recused yourself. You've proven you don't have any interest in discussing the meat of the issue: political manipulation of hand-picked, badly-culled out-of-context quotes to give an impression counter to the original quote's intentions regardless of origin. You've not posited additional examples of Rovian tactics used by others (which would have been acceptable as a corrollary-type answer to my post), but instead have gone into a defensive crouch.

I could overlook it once, but I'm not interested in more. The audience here is not interested, and my journal is not your soapbox. For this specific topic, however, you are clearly not objective enough to refrain from attempting to hijack my post, and I don't appreciate it, nor do I appreciate having to remind you, or anyone, of basic etiquette.

There is no need to reply. There are plenty of other topics I discuss in other posts, and to which you are welcome to participate. But for this one, I think it's best if you sit it out. Thank you.