About Face, Dittoheads!
Reinhard has proved me wrong--in a very humorous way.
Instead of reacting how I predicted and ejecting glowing praise for Harriet Miers, Bush's latest Supreme Court Nominee, in his Thursday article Reinhard has obeyed the latest RNC marching orders to act disappointed in the pick.
But the rest of the article is filled with glowing praise about Miers' qualifications. What gives? Is she a good nominee, in Reinhard's view, or isn't she?
LOGICAL FLAW 1
He starts the article with his usual parroting of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and when he begins putting forth some actual arguments...they are all in favor of Miers.
"There is, for starters, the statement she made Monday," he says. He quotes her statement and follows it with, "Those words mean something," praising her perceived judicial ideology. Okay, are you happy about Miers or not, Reinhard?
LOGICAL FLAW 2
Reinhard cites "the fear conservatives have about the paper-trail-free Miers," which seems to be the point of his article. His headline was, after all, A DISAPPOINTING PICK. So she is a disappointing pick, right?
Wrong.
"A few things suggest those fears may be unfounded," he says, and then goes on to belittle the fears that are supposed to be the purpose of his article in the first place.
LOGICAL FLAW 3
Reinhard ends the article by quoting Leonard Leo, executive of the Federalist Society, and pointing to his praise of Miers as reason that conservatives should like Miers. Wasn't this article about...a disappointing pick? Could Reinhard, maybe, cite some reason she is disappointing?
Nope. "When Leo talks, conservatives should listen and cheer up a tad. Even in their legitimate disappointment."
So Reinhard has successfully accomplished two contradictory goals in this article: he has dutifully followed the RNC right-wing talking points, and he has blindly embraced Bush's pick for the Supreme Court.
Why does the Oregonian continue to employ someone who does not even understand the concept of a thesis statement?
Instead of reacting how I predicted and ejecting glowing praise for Harriet Miers, Bush's latest Supreme Court Nominee, in his Thursday article Reinhard has obeyed the latest RNC marching orders to act disappointed in the pick.
But the rest of the article is filled with glowing praise about Miers' qualifications. What gives? Is she a good nominee, in Reinhard's view, or isn't she?
LOGICAL FLAW 1
He starts the article with his usual parroting of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and when he begins putting forth some actual arguments...they are all in favor of Miers.
"There is, for starters, the statement she made Monday," he says. He quotes her statement and follows it with, "Those words mean something," praising her perceived judicial ideology. Okay, are you happy about Miers or not, Reinhard?
LOGICAL FLAW 2
Reinhard cites "the fear conservatives have about the paper-trail-free Miers," which seems to be the point of his article. His headline was, after all, A DISAPPOINTING PICK. So she is a disappointing pick, right?
Wrong.
"A few things suggest those fears may be unfounded," he says, and then goes on to belittle the fears that are supposed to be the purpose of his article in the first place.
LOGICAL FLAW 3
Reinhard ends the article by quoting Leonard Leo, executive of the Federalist Society, and pointing to his praise of Miers as reason that conservatives should like Miers. Wasn't this article about...a disappointing pick? Could Reinhard, maybe, cite some reason she is disappointing?
Nope. "When Leo talks, conservatives should listen and cheer up a tad. Even in their legitimate disappointment."
So Reinhard has successfully accomplished two contradictory goals in this article: he has dutifully followed the RNC right-wing talking points, and he has blindly embraced Bush's pick for the Supreme Court.
Why does the Oregonian continue to employ someone who does not even understand the concept of a thesis statement?
posted by platon at 2:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home