I'd have to say you are completely wrong. Although your interpretation is far too common. The guy had a 3 step question where the first two questions were really rhetorical, just laying out the basis for his real question. Paraphrased it went like this:Originally Posted by Chopper
1) The election was really close - in fact based on this book here you actually won. Why did you conceded so easily?
2) If clinton could get impeached over a blowjob, why haven't you tried to impeach bush for his recklessness with respect to Iraq?
3) Is the reason you conceded and won't push for impeachment because you two are members of skull and bones? (and thus by implication sworn to always support one another in all things)
If he had let Kerry answer the first or second question, he would never have had a chance to ask his real question. Without the background of his first two points, the third question would have been meaningless.
So the smartass response is to say, "well duh, he didn't get an answer this way either" but that should cause people to ask, "why?" It's easy to join the herd and denigrate the guy for getting worked up when they started hassling him (note he only got agitated at about 1 minute in when the female officer tried to pull him back and he shook her off). But time limits at political Q&A's are guidelines not rules. If you were asking an important question don't you think you would get agitated if someone cut you off and tried to haul you away in the middle of it? The alternative is that all questions are limited to sound-bites which, in my not so humble opinion, would be a terrible way to run a political Q&A. Perhaps you disagree.
I'll take it one step further. If you believe in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to hold our politicians accountable, then his response was the right one. If he had not struggled or yelled, he would have been hauled off and locked up without a second of news coverage. That kind of thing happens all the time and usually the charges are dropped with a "no harm, no foul" kind of attitude.
Except there is harm, harm to the political process. It's really not that much different from Bush's "free speech zones" - where you can have all the freedom of expression you want, but no one can hear you.
George Bernard Shaw said, "Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men." It's important to remember that our founding fathers were unreasonable men. The ones who fought the British for independence were a minority of the population and much of the rest of populace wanted nothing to do with them, they were happy enough with the way things were and thought the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin ought to just shut up and go the hell away.
Reply With Quote
