There is an old saying among lawyers, as I recall it sounds something like this: If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if the facts and the law are against you, then just plain argue! I’ve witnessed, first hand, this practice and I confess a skilled and impassioned orator affects impressive results, or at least entertaining theatre, using this strategy. Still, even the seasoned advocate is constrained by court decorum and procedural restrains.
In the political arena however, there is no such decorum or procedural prohibitions. Politicians have developed a paradigm all there own and it appears either singularly or as a medley of the following:
- “Say whatever you like so long as you don’t have to mean what you say.”
- “You can call it whatever you like so long as you don’t have to say what it truly is.”
- “When you shape the argument to your liking, the content may be as fluid as your intentions require.” And my favorite,
- “You can defend the indefensible by arguing from the vantage of utter lunacy or unrelated premise.”
I am observing that the public is picking up the incredulous nature of the political schemes that plague this Country. From the malfeasance of Charles Rangel, Chris Dodd, Charles Schumer, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Lindsey Graham – to name a few – right on over to Mr. Obama. The People are growing increasingly troubled and the government polling data affirms this observation.
This country is enduring far too many failures and arguing the finer points of an unrelated premise, as Mr. Obama habitually does, serves no greater purpose other than to illustrate my observation: This country can not endure continuous failures of conscience and sound decision making. If you’ve a moment, take a quick view of Representative Anthony Weiner in action
– one of the purest forms of the apocryphal in action and a superb example illustrating the caliber of individual(s) occupying the U.S. Congress.
Pay close attention, he does not argue the point of his objection, he argues the procedure of the process and then if that isn’t sufficient to sustain his utter incompetence, he drapes his premise under the fluid interpretation of what constitutes “…what is right…” and implicit in what he defines as being “right” is, not so coincidentally, synonymous with his own view. Perhaps even more amazing is that the “chair” doesn’t silence him for procedural breach or for that matter, down-right raucous behavior!
Is it any wonder the American People are increasingly repulsed by the current Administration and Congress!
“Tolerance should only be the internal process of self-imposed restraint, not the imposition of another whose actions defy all boundaries of reason, civility and probity.”
I believe we can do better than this! I believe if we are to evolve to a higher notion and practice of independent action, mind and thought – we are going to have to!
“A man must be Free for Independence to be at Liberty to be Expressed!”
Where do you stand?
Curtis C. Greco, Founder