In the legal biz we often distinguish between two sets of facts, in order to argue that the law should be applied in different ways to each. Oftentimes, while there may be a superficial dissimilarity between them, on a deeper level, there is none. The distinction is bogus, and we dismiss them as “distinctions without a difference”. Usually, but not always, the courts see through such arguments, and the lawyer who, often out of desperation, tries to use one ends up on the losing side.
Not so in politics, where distinctions without a difference are a trick of the trade, especially nowadays from the Republican side. Whether out of desperation or not, they are past masters at the art, and, so long as they can get away with it, they’ll keep it up. It is a subset of a tactic I described in another post-changing the subject from one they cannot defend to one in which the facts are murkier.
The latest example involves everyone’s favorite incompetent Republican candidate, Sarah Palin.
As we discussed earlier this morning, the McCain campaign has admitted that Sarah Palin attended the AIP’s 2000 Convention (as a “courtesy,” they maintain), but denies that she attended the group’s 1994 Convention.
You see, the second of these conventions was in Wasilla, when she was mayor, and how could the mayor of the town not put in appearance to say “Hi!” to the conventioneers? On the other hand, if she attended the 1994 convention, she did so as a private citizen, thus implying agreement with their goals. That’s a distinction. Even the diarist at Kos to whom I’ve linked appears to have fallen for the distinction somewhat. But is there really a difference?
The convention at issue involved a group of people who advocate breaking up the United States of America. Their founder had this to say about this country: “The fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American government.”. Now, maybe that sort of talk is business as usual in Alaska, but I doubt that feelings are the same in the lower 48. Even the oft traduced Reverend Wright never said anything that inflammatory. Attending the AIP convention, even to say “Hi”, implies a certain comfort level with the objectives of the organization. Would Palin, for instance, have stopped by had NARAL held a convention in Wasilla? Should the mayor of Anytown, USA say “Hi” to a KKK convention, rather than rolling up the welcome mat?
I would submit that the distinction is without a difference. I would further submit that her Republican voter registration records prove nothing, one way or the other, about her level of sympathy with the goals of the AIP. After all, Joe Lieberman is still a registered Democrat. But what the evidence actually proves is pretty much irrelevant nowadays. All that matters is what the media consensus says that evidence proves, and that jury is out. Unfortunately, based on past performance, it’s not likely that the decision will make sense in light of the evidence.
Post a Comment