And you can poo-poo what Doug Wead writes, and attack the messenger all day long .... and that won't make it untrue - if it actually is (true) ....It is whatever it is ....
Nor will it make it true. His piece is a textbook case of the author offering his opinion passed off in a manner to appear truthful and authoritative. Journalism textbooks use the very examples he uses as a teaching tool to not do that. Any journalism teacher in high school or college will confirm as much. Just because you or anyone else strongly believe what he wrote to be true, does not mean it should be taken at face value and should not be criticized for the badly written piece that it is.
While that (highlighted) is true, you went beyond merely doing that .... and asserted that what he had written was entirely made up (and therefore false) .... with no evidence to back that up ....
Yes, that's the way it works (except "entirely made up" isn't necessarily therefore ergo thus false - it could very well be true despite it being made up, and I never asserted it was false, only that it was made up in order to pass off his opinion as fact). The burden of proof is on the author, not the reader. In the absence of any substantiation, and in its place textbook examples of "fictus substantia" (the actual term for the techniques he used), one can logically and correctly assume a certain level of falsity and misinformation in the underlying premise that the "fictus substania" supports. That's how it works. Unless... you buy into the propaganda, which is what the piece is.
Thanks for clarifying that this is just an opinion .... and not really based on any particular facts that pertain specifically to this event ....
"This event" is the article itself and the claims made within the article. The
fact is, he attributed quotes to nobody, and substantited not a single claim.
Sure he did: he quoted them anonymously ....
That's a stretch of immense proportions. He didn't quote anyone anonymously. If he did, he would have said "anonymous sources" or the like. He didn't attribute any of the quotes to anyone. You may think he did, and that's what he wants you to believe, but he only attributed the quotes to generic nobodies which are utterly unverifiable. Anonymous sources can remain anonymous, but they still have to exist in the first place, and they have to be at least plausible. "
The more angelic Romneyites" and "
some of Romney’s own personal team" aren't verifiable nor plausible. They are concretely generic, though. He even reinforces that by doubling down on one of the quotes with an "Or so they say" kicker. That's laughable <suppressing LOL>. It's classic overcompensation. All this information, quotes even, that he's getting from deep inside the Ronmey camp isn't even plausible that they'd say that to him. If he got if from third or more parties, then he should have said so. But he didn't. He quoted someone.
And one can view that however they would prefer to ....
I prefer honestly, actually.
So that would be an admission then, that while you have evidence that there is no substantiation for what Wead writes, you have no evidence that what you've asserted (falsity) is actually true ....
Got it.
I didn't assert falsity. I asserted fabrication. There's a difference. For all I know, he knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy deep within the Romney camp who truthfully relayed information to him, which he then incorrectly quoted. But that's not very plausible at all, either. If you would like me to assert falsity in order for you to make your argument, I'll be happy to, but the burden of that is still on the author of the piece, not me. I don't have to provide evidence to disprove something that was never substantiated in the first place.
He's a campaign spokes-mouthpiece .... not a reporter for WaPo or the NYT ....
I was going to note that, but decided there wasn't any reason so smear Dr. Paul with a guilt by association deal. Why would the Paul campaign allow a mouthpiece such as this, with a proven history of trickery and misplaced trust, which is only reinforced by the article above?
I can't believe you actually expect him to name sources either within, or close to, the Romney campaign .... surely you are well aware of what the consequences of that might be ....
Well, that's good, because I don't actually expect him to name sources. I do, however, expect him to not use actual quotes that aren't actual quotes, to support a position reminiscent of Baghdad Bob. No matter how much you want to believe every word in the piece, it's an opinion piece offered as fact and supported by no facts whatsoever.
[Panic? Really? Panic?]
Yup ....
really ....
Panic -
a sudden overwhelming fear,
with or
without cause, that
produces hysterical or
irrational behavior, and that often spreads quickly through a
group of persons
or animals.
Just for starters, the Romney campaign legal team went to the mat several hours ago to try and overturn the elections of convention chairman and secretary (who were legally elected) at the Maine GOP State convention .... and it failed (the substitute nominee withdrew their name)
Sounds like a measured and prudent (and expected) action, rather than a sudden overwhelming fear, with or without cause, which produced hysterical or irrational behavior.
And secondly, it's being reported that at both the Nevada and Maine conventions that Romney supporters (including one "disguised" with a Ron Paul t-shirt .... lol ....) are attempting to circulate a false "Liberty Slate" of delegates (three different ones in Maine .... lol) in an attempt to mislead Ron Paul supporters into mistakenly voting for Romney delegates .... and the efforts failed (with several substitute nominees withdrawing their names)
That doesn't sound like panic, either. Sounds more like politics as usual. It also sounds a little like the sneaky trickery that Ron Paul supporters have been known to try by (falsely) saying they support some candidate other than Paul, and then pull the rug out from everyone right after delegates are chosen. Oh, wait, that's politics as usual, too.
Third, the Romney campaign and the Repuglican National Committee are already acting jointly, in concert with one another .... in direct violation of RNC Rules (since there is not yet a nominee) .... a fact which has already been widely reported and documented on the 'net .... including on their own websites ....
Conspiratorial panic on a national scale. Got it.
For someone who supposedly has it "in the bag", ol' Mutt Robamney is starting to look kinda desperate .... stay tuned and don't touch that dial ....
Newp, not gonna touch that dial. I can't wait to see if real, actual panic ensues from the desperation. Then again, I just saw Romney on the news a few minutes ago, and he didn't look desperate, nor much in a panic.
My problem isn't with what he wrote, it's with how he wrote it. Wead is a smart man, I've read all of his books except his latest, and there is little doubt in my mind that what he wrote, and how he wrote it, was deliberate.
Amen
