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

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I'd seen a link to that article but not read it. What great lines! McCain's people speak Crazyfundie, but they don't speak it fluently. Hah.

Actually, I think they've studied the Reagan Years but all they took away was, "we can convince people that cutting taxes for the rich is good as long as we call it pro-growth", without realizing it was a lot of other stuff that actually made Reagan a president worth remembering. Okay, that, and the fact that regardless of what I think of Reagan's economic policies (not much!), it really was his charm and his charisma and his ability to connect to people -- especially in a diplomatic, world-leader sense -- that gave him the ability to change the world. Neither Bush nor McCain have that charisma; Bush don't got it because he's too busy playing I Are Stupid Folksy Guy, and McCain don't got it because, well, I don't know. But he don't.

Sometimes I wonder if that isn't a big part of it. If Bush/Cheney/McCain/etal had a tenth the oration skills of a Reagan or a Bill Clinton, they would take diplomacy as the first route... because in doing so, they'd get results. Knowing their tongues are anything but silver, they skip the diplomacy rather than get shown up as the non-persuasive, non-skilled folks they are, or think they are, or agree that they are because their handlers said so. I dunno. I just suspect.