Obama’s culture of corruption: See, I told you so
The Summer of Corruption plot thickens
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010
In Chicago politics, there’s an old term for the publicly subsidized pay-offs and positions meted out to the corruptocrats’ friends and special interests: boodle.
In the age of Obama, Hope and Change is all about the boodle. So it was with the stimulus. And the massive national service expansion. And the health care bill. And the financial reform bill. And the blossoming job-trading scandals engulfing the White House.
There’s always been an ageless, interdependent relationship between Windy City politicos and “goo-goos” (the cynical Chicago term for good government reformers). Chicago-style “reform” has always entailed the redistribution of wealth and power under the guise of public service. And it has inevitably led to more corruption.
In March 2010, this column first took note of allegations by Democrats Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff that the White House had offered them jobs in exchange for dropping their respective bids against Obama-favored incumbent Sens. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Michael Bennet in Colorado. White House legal counsel Bob “The Fixer” Bauer’s attempt to bury questions about the Sestak affair with a Memorial Day weekend document dump failed. So has the attempt to make Rahm Emanuel-enlisted former president Bill Clinton the sole scapegoat.
Bauer’s memo mentions “efforts” (plural, not singular) to woo Sestak. But the White House refuses to divulge what offers besides Clinton’s were extended to Sestak. Moreover, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has now denied that Team Obama was involved in the one Clinton offer that has been publicized — an unpaid appointment on an intelligence board for which Sestak was ineligible.
After months of silence, Romanoff finally stepped forward this week to acknowledge that the White House had dangled several positions before him, too. He released e-mails detailing not one, not two, but three different paid positions offered by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina — whose boss, Emanuel, was subpoenaed this week by impeached former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois to testify in his Senate pay-for-play corruption trial.
So, can I say “I told you so” now?
In July 2009, when “Culture of Corruption” was first released, liberal critics scoffed:
How could you possibly write a 400-page book about Barack Obama’s rotten administration when he’s only been in office six months?!
When I proceeded to rattle off case after case of Chicago-style back-scratching, transparency-trampling and crooked special interest-dealing in the new White House, liberal critics such as “The View’s” Joy Behar interjected:
B-b-b-but what about Bush? Why don’t you write a book about Bush? Wha-’bout-Bush? Wha-’bout-Bush? Wha-’bout-Bush?
When I pointed out that I had reported extensively on cronyism in the Bush era (see Harriet Miers, FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security), and when I further pointed out that while the Bush-bashing market overflowed, there remained a massive vacuum of critical analysis of Obama, liberal critics sputtered:
So what? Doesn’t every administration have corruption?
When I patiently explained that no other administration in modern American history had set itself up as loftily as the Hope and Change reformers had done, or when I cited endless examples of Obama’s broken promises on everything from lobbyists to transparency to Washington business as usual, liberal critics changed the subject again:
RACIST FASCIST EVIL FOX NEWS RIGHT-WING HATE MONGER!
Two major job-trading scandals plus the start of the Blago trial this past week — on top of a year’s worth of uninhibited White House wheeling and dealing, broken transparency pledges, Justice Department stonewalling and brass knuckle-bullying of political opponents — have finally turned the once-derided thesis of my book “Culture of Corruption” into conventional wisdom.
Obama sold America a Chicago-tainted bill of goods. A nation of slow learners is finally figuring it out.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Report: Solyndra Sold Assets Cheap to Entity with Close Ties to Investors
February 9, 2012 10:08 AM by Doug Powers
49 Comments
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsThe SIGA scandal: Calls for investigation mount
January 27, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
Obama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 CommentsAttention: Obama’s coming to Arizona, Ground Zero of his Fast and Furious debacle
January 23, 2012 02:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 CommentsObama’s “Razist” Lobbyist Moves Up
January 13, 2012 06:29 AM by Michelle Malkin
233 CommentsThe Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
Of Course: MF Global COO Still Listed as EPA Financial Adviser
December 28, 2011 11:01 AM by Doug Powers
30 Comments
Categories: Corruption
JustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidRiehl World View
» Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your wayPatterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not ConservativePundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the Nonconformists
You’re feet stink.
I was simply playing off your own use of the word, my man.
Well, you have already proved ignorant of “tu quoque”. I assume you, as are many posters here, are equally in the dark about the proper meaning of “strawman”. Where would you like to start?
“You are” feet stink? I don’t know if that was a typo or some sort of weird conservative dialect that you only hear in backwoods Appalachia and Palin rallies.
Overlooked this. As I recall the debate, Rags pretty much refuted this claim, also – or at least called it into question. I can’t read your mind, and I can’t trust your words, so that only leaves whatever inference I care to draw – much as you do with what I write (see various insults above).
He certainly tried. Unfortunately, he was running square up against the plain meaning of the words “if”, “drops”, “out” “will” “give” and “job.”
Soooo…lesson learned. Saying wife looks “fine” will lead to her deciding she needs to redo her hair.
Never let it be said that I would not admit I wasn’t naive in some very fundamental ways.
No, you’re misusing the term but I guess it’s a lost cause.
Apparently I am, at least your understanding of the term, since I don’t recall making a “tu quoque” argument. You did, I think. And I also don’t recall making a “strawman” argument (although I don’t remember every post).
You’ll know better the second marriage – but she’ll think of something else to blame you for.
I know the meaning. My point is that I made no implication except in your imagination.
Which is why you don’t clearly understand the meaning of the term.
I don’t recall you specifically. But misusing that term is endemic here. So I figured I would give you a few options as to where you want to start your logic lessons.
Problem isas I pointed out subsequent to your debate with Rags, your source clearly refuted your claim. It’s linked in a quote above – look for yourself.
No, per the statute, it didn’t. Michelle made a point of emphasizing “direct or INDIRECT.” But apparently you think the latter only applies to Democrats.
I’ll be concerned with my clear understanding of the term “tu quoque” when you have a clear understanding of the difference between imply and infer. Since I made no argument that would fit in any way under the term “tu quoque”, I was assuming you meant your own. Once again, referring back to the previous debate, you attempted to deflect attention from the Sestak contretemps by drawing attention to what you clearly implied was a similar action by the Reagan Administration – or more precisely by Reagan himself. That could be interpreted as making a “tu quoque” argument, no matter your motivation or intent.
Only if you consider an incorrect understanding of tu quoque as an “interpretation.”
Of course there’s no way that you can be convinced that the clear language of the piece refutes what you believe, no matter how irrational. Nor is there any way to counter your irrational argument that a clear job offer through an intermediary is equal to a reporter asking a hypothetical question of a candidate. I leave you to your illusions at least on that subject. Now on to Romanov……
I know you love to imagine that you’re a logical thinker and that your arguments make perfect sense, but unfortunately, you’re a terrible reader, so little you post makes any sense. Since “tu quoque” is your construct and none of mine, I have no need to justify the debate in such terms.
tu quoque
tu quo•que [too kwṓkwee, too kwṓ kwày]
interj
used to accuse accuser: used when accused of an offense to accuse the accuser of the same offense
[Late 17th century. From Latin , literally “you too.”]
Encarta ® World English Dictionary
I’d much prefer the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” line of attack rather than use Chap’s glorified law jargon, especially when calling someone an idiot.
Understand the process, McCloud. The hearing officer is undoubtedly at a minimum a full Colonel. He wants a star. He knows the only way he will ever get one is to play the game and not piss off congress, which is required to approve his elevation to flag rank. I doubt anyone seriously believed an Article 32 hearing officer would go along with Lt. Col. Lankin’s motion. Ask Ilario Pantano how that works.
txvet, why do you bother playing word games with Chap? You know he’s a lawyer, and we all know lawyers are smarter than just about anyone short of Einstein. I mean – ask both Obama’s!
Oh wait – they both had to surrender their law licenses, didn’t they.
Never mind! LOL
It’s fun. I even learn things. I have to admit he has the advantage of me when it comes to some things. It’s entirely possible his father was still a sperm when I last saw a college classroom, so there’s a lot I’ve forgotten – besides, I was a Chemistry major and we just didn’t have time to get into much of this useless garbage. And of course you can’t disabuse him of his illusions, or more precisely his delusions, but the conversation isn’t for or about him (much as he believes otherwise), it’s for everybody’s entertainment and participation. That’s why I bug him until he responds. As I told him earlier, it’s boring when everybody agrees. We need somebody to defend the indefensible (and that’s what lawyers are for, after all) – although he usually avoids it or tries to change the subject just as he did tonight.
…as a justification or excuse for one’s misdeed.
I did no such thing.
“None of mine”? Huh? That is exactly what you were accusing me of until I set you straight.
The subject, as you presented it in this thread vis a vis me, was my alleged tu quoques using Reagan. I was in no way involved until you brought me up, but I have responded beautifully and elegantly to your absurd charges. So, if anything, you are the one guilty of straying off topic. Focusing more on your vendetta with me than the subject at hand.
On June 4th, 2010 at 7:00 pm, chapoutier said:
Hmmmm… I don’t know. Maybe because there are some people who are hopeless?
I leave it up to you and Chaps to hash it out.
Still making it up as you go along? In fact, I accused you of no such thing. What you do, and what I “accused” you of, is your incessant habit of trying to avoid the debate by changing the subject, (i.e. highjacking the thread, which you do with tiresome frequency) which I illustrated by first referring to, and then linking to the example of your witless Reagan accusation. I invited you into the conversation (what you described as “stalking” – - you have to get your own fatal attractiveness out of your mind), to get you to comment on the column – which was, as usual, beyond your ability, ergo your concentration on yourself and your indifference to an insult demonstrated by your obsession with it for the past several hours. You haven’t written anything “beautiful” or “elegant” in the time I’ve been reading your manure on this board – except in your own fantasies, of course. And you still haven’t commented on the column. But never mind. You do what is within your capabilities, limited though they may be. Good night, sleep tight, don’t let the bedbugs bite. Give your Mommy a kiss for me.
I don’t know whether you’re kidding or not but using such stereotyping of conservatives (and who you think is a conservative) makes you no better than the rest of the dregs of the liberal troll elite who come on here and lecture us on TEH WON (oh, I’m sorry, that’s a typo… I’ll leave you to figure it out).
Well, you know what, farm boy? The next time you want to point out that someone’s use of the English language isn’t perfect, I’ll point out that I still haven’t seen where all those stimulus jobs went. Or why a sitting president needs to indulge in a little illegal bribery to make primary opponents disappear.
Or, just point out your obvious flaws and errors (of which you have many).
You’re right, but I’ve had to live with it for this long, and it’s become a habit.
Uh oh, now you’re asking for it. He’ll be up all night arguing with you now. Personally, I’ve got other things to do and this conversation is pretty well exhausted.
I think you’re a masochist. God love ya (sorry Zero) for trying but you’re not gonna win.
Some people believe their own BS.
You know, I’m gonna say something I wouldn’t have said a couple years ago regarding folks like Chaps:
I’M NOT INTERESTED.
I’ve tussled with Rusty a time or two (before he just decided to go back under his rock) and all I got for it was a big fat migraine. I’ve had continuous, circular conversations with Chaps, of which Rags and others can attest and didn’t glean anything from them. I didn’t learn anything except what I already learned from my selfish, loopy, liberal sister:
You cannot converse with liberals unless there’s either respect, truth, or an outcome to the conversation.
Like you, I’ve got better things to do. More important things to do. And, frankly, I just DON’T CARE.
One more thing: I miss the guiding hand of AJ Montana, who used humor to dispel the nastiness of liberals and threadjacks. This blog sorely needs such a guiding hand again. That’s why I’ve discovered some other interesting blogs that are just as diverting, and not so migraine-inducing.
I miss AJMontana, too. He had a wonderful sense of humor and a great recipe for brownies to send the troops.
As always, thank you Michelle.
Don’t mess with The Obachappy…….
No. It’s not used as a justification or excuse for one’s misdeed. It’s used merely to discredit the accuser.
I’m lost. Where do the trains hit head on? St. Louis?
It is used as a method of dismissing the argument based upon someone else doing the same thing. The original meaning related to the accuser, but it is often used in a broader sense of excusing any behavior based on the accuser’s bad actions. The actual accuser and accused stand in the place of the actual actors. In the example cited here, that Obama did something illegal in reaching out to Sestak. I never sought to use the example of Reagan to disprove that notion. I used it for entirely different purposes. Thus, no tu quoque.
And some people choose to believe the BS of others without indepedent verification. Bad way to argue on the internet and a bad way to make career decisions.
So much effort to speak to how much you JUST DON’T CARE, don’t you think.
Anyway, I will miss you.
“Thus, no tu quoque.”
I thought it was “Et tu, Brute”?
“Thus, no tu quoque.”
Or is it “no triple peel croquet”?
Or is it “no torqued testicle today”?
I get confused so easily these days.
But hey, talk about lining up your balls….
and driving them through a wicket…..
From the ABC News: Reagan did not offer senator a job if he agreed to not run for re-election in 1982.
Which of course, leads us to this.
absentem laedit cum ebrio qui litigat
yeah there can only be so many crooked liberal democRAT lawyers like you. one of these days though, I’m sure you’ll be sharing a cell with an amorous inmate!!
“so many crooked liberal democRAT lawyers like you.”
How do you get to Chap is a crooked lawyer? That’s over the top and uncalled for. Sorry but there does seem to be a Chap fetish thing going on lately.
Sure he’s a Democrat. That does not mean you are justified nor is it appropriate to call him crooked.
Cat lover?
Sure.
Croooked?
Nope.
That is interesting, Dave. That is the first I had seen of this quote:
I still think it fits the definition of the statute, which is very broadly worded. I don’t think you can just absolve yourself by saying “of his own initiative.” Even if it is not your direct intent to influence his decision, any reasonable person would know that a promise of job security would influence a decision.
However, I am willing to say that it is clearly not as egregious a violation of the statute.
As an aside, I was kidding. Swede is someone I like. However, I would just love to point out the delicious irony of this paragraph.
“any reasonable person would know that a promise of job security would influence a decision.”
So are reasonable people concluding the Obama administration broke the law?
I think someone probably did, assuming the story about it being a nonpaying advisory position is false.
This isn’t high crimes and misdemeanors stuff, though. Really. If it was a staffer, fire him. If Obama knew and approved of it, censure him and lets move on.
“If it was a staffer, fire him. If Obama knew and approved of it, censure him and lets move on.”
How resonable of you….
A couple of problems/objections. 1. The covering up that is going on means “something” is worth covering up. 2. One of the defenses of the apparent hypsocrisy directed toward Rebuplicans is that after all Republicans run on a family values platform. So when Republicans have affairs the criticism of them vs. the lack of criticism against Dems is justifed because the Republicans create the higher expectations from the “family values” platform. Ok, so Obama created what kind of expectations? Now we’re just going to shrug and move on? 3. Did I mention a cover up going on? 4. Unintended consequences. The Bauer/Anita Dunn connection as an example. Gotta love it and the more stuff comes out the more Obama’s legal team is being seen for what they really are. So please, keep the investigation going if for nothing else other than the roaches that are scattered as the light shines brighter and brighter.
Then there’s the credibility factor for Blago’s trial. NOW its not so far fetched to believe all sorts of stuff was offered to Blago….
1. Not necessarily. Just means they are embarrassed and hoping people forget about it.
2. I didn’t say shrug and move on. I said “expose it, take appropriate action and then move on.”
3. You did indeed.
4. Not familiar with that connection.
2. I didn’t say shrug and move on. I said “expose it, take appropriate action and then move on.”
I’m good with that.
Anita Dunn, who is 51,is married to President Obama’s personal attorney, Robert Bauer, formerly a partner at Perkins Coie who is currently personal counsel to President Obama and the White House Counsel. Robert Bauer has also been the general counsel of Obama for America since January 2007.[1][14] In 2008, Newsweek named Dunn and Bauer the new “power couple” in Washington, D.C.
“Just means they are embarrassed”
I’m not good with that however. The actions by the Obama Whitehouse are intentional, sinister if you will, not “an innocent oops we didn’t know now we’re embarassed” kinda thing.
I guess anyone who gets caught in the middle of a criminal act is embrassed about getting caught. And there in lies the problem. The problem is they got caught, not that they did something wrong.
And that is the liberal politician in action.
This is not a new and better government, hope and change, leadership with integrity, that Obama promised.
Thuggery and as Michelle has pointed out, its about the boddle.
Yeah, glad you liked it. Now, how about re-reading all the run-around posts you peppered the site with on this issue? Like this one, or this, or this. It was obvious you were just seeking to push some buttons. You just don’t fly straight. End of story.
Won’t be too much longer now and we’ll be hearing that Obama really really really wanted to be all upright, transparent and lead with integrity, but with what George Bush left behind and how the Republicans do business Obama had to get dirty in order to make the changes he wanted to make so that America would be a better more just country.
Yes, Obama IS dirty, but its Bush’s and the Republican’s fault and the truth is Obama is a victim of his own high standards and them low down dirty Republicans.
Those wascally wabbits made Obama do it….
You wait. Betcha tomorrow its starts on the “news” shows.
Under no circumstances can you claim that intent to disprove a notion is a requirement of tu quoque.
What, exactly, do you think is the point of attempting to employ a logical fallacy? Or maybe we just have different ideas on what “the notion” is.
What notion do you think I am referring to?
Dave,
I have no idea what you are attempting to say with those posts you link to, one of which isn’t even mine.
Looking for more words to spin-away in another direction? I’ll not supply them, but I will use more of your words again.
I see. So this is the way you refute my statement. Are we going to have another go around about MY career choices or yours, Chaps? Weren’t you complaining about the ginormous student loan(s) you have to pay along with being an out of work ambulance chaser while I was stating that university/college education departments deploy a certain amount of deception to those training to be teachers?
Gosh, self-employed, debt-ridden, grouchy lawyers should talk about career choices and BS. I guess they go hand in hand when you gotta pay those bills. Then again, you’ve staked your “career” on being “green” and trends that may or may not last. I hope you did your research.
Again, a person lecturing someone else on not believing the BS of others but can’t seem to find the time to do any research on Sarah Palin, the lie behind the green, and “independent verfication” in general is perfect for internet arguments.
Talk about ironic.
Point of clarification on the relevance of the present corruption unfolding to Ronald Reagan:
He is bleeding demised. He’s not pining, he’s passed on. This president is no more, he has ceased to be. He’s expired and gone to meet his maker. This is a late president. He’s a stiff. Bereft of life, he rests in peace. He’s run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.
This is an X person.
I guess it’s easier to equivocate with a dead guy than deal with the rather obvious corruption in the present administration. Knock yerself out chap.
No, not really. I’m a really great typist and the computing thingy ain’t a big deal. I think my reaction is one of numbed detachment, mixed with a bit of boredom, with a hint of I don’t give a flying crap. I guess you bring out the best in me.
I read this blog regularly. It’s amazing how there are many more people than you on this blog that are informative and unwarped. I find it diverting to talk with people who don’t have an enormous ego fighting for supremacy.
Save it for your “green” clients. AJ Montana and Zero left more of an impression than the majority of the circular, self-absorbed, insipid comments you dish out to those you generally look down on.
Peace out, brah.
/sarc off
Wow, I’d like to know how you treat people you absolutely detest. Oh, never mind… I think we all know.
I’m glad you could see the “delicious irony” of my statement. Then again, it’s still a bit distressing that you cannot see past your own irony.
While we’re on the subject of “irony,” what were you most distressed about in my little homage? The stereotyping? The trolling? Or the lecturing? Three things that liberals are very good at. Was it too much for you, or should I have played it down a little more so you could put your irony detector hat on?
I don’t think you have a clue what I intended (not that you’ve ever had one) and I will leave it up to the other posters to figure it out. I’m sure they can dicuss the good ole days where you liked to show off the perils of conservativism versus the greatness of liberalism.
Ummm… let me take a stab at it. How do you know that he’s not? Do you know? The Chap fetish thing is a real eye opener though. I didn’t know that his wine advice was that influential.
Yep, he’s a Democrat. He’s also got big time student loan debt and was, at one time, an out of work ambulance chaser. No more! He’s caught the green bug and will do what he can to save Mother Earth from hapless wasters like the rest of us with his knowledge of the law.
Then again, for a person who gets to judge other people’s life choices as poor or wanting and yet that same person also practices questionable judgmenet (cats?) then a little bit of reaching can occur. None of us are perfect, but Chaps likes to psychoanalyze or reach beyond the context already given.
It’s good of you to try to understand the situation. Maybe you can help Chaps heal and at the same time reach some new level of self-awareness. Maybe it will be the first inter-political therapy session ever done online.
Mary Matelin and Carville seemed to have pulled it off as a marriage.
/Shrug
self edit: judgmenet= judgement
I never complained about my student loans. They are a fact and a means to an end. One which I knew I was getting into at the outset. Because, unlike some, I take personal responsibility for my career choices.
IZ not chapoutier French for zee enema?
I can’t tell if this is you parodying WE82 or devolving into your very own puddle of delusion.
But in any case…my goodness, you certainly do seem to care a lot about something you JUST DON’T CARE about. I can hardly keep up with all your non-caring.
Tu francais eez as pauvre as tu attempt at le humor.
You know, jsmiddleton…she does have a point here. How DO you know I am not corrupt? I mean, you have no more way of knowing this than you would of knowing whether or not the real reason emjem can’t find a job in the teaching profession is because she is on some sex offenders list. Not saying she is. Just saying, how do you know she’s not?
I thought they were still arguing over how to spell “French Guy hat”
I’ve been busy today, but skimming here I guess Chap’s wife is peeved over her hair, and the Obama Administration is corrupt. I didn’t know about the hair.
Et tu, Aloha?
Also, Nancy Reagan had a problem with her hair ca 1985. Or something.
In other news: First Dude, out of the mare Run Sarah Run, didn’t win the Belmont Stakes. Sarah and Todd joined in on the fun. I’ll bet Joe McGinniss was home alone, angrily banging his keyboard.
Does Chap still have a cat?
Fixed it for you. This is easy, did you vote for Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin?
“How DO you know I am not corrupt?”
How do you know I’m only cool on the internet?
That envelope of unmarked bills I sent you was returned to sender unopened.
Not sure why your wife’s hair matters. Maybe folks would like to know just some of the ways your wife has advocated for the impaired folks in your community?
Course that’ll ruin everything hey?
“It’s good of you to try to understand the situation.”
Thanks. And I think I do. The situation is you have an unhealthy obsession with Chap. For “not caring” you seem to care way too much. In a way that makes me feel uncomfortable as if you are touching me in special places without my permission.
Sorta like that.
The way you obsess on Chap is creepy.
The point is to say, “You’re just as bad so you can’t criticize me.”
That’s different than, “You’re just as bad, so therefore you’re argument is false.”
It doesn’t matter what the notion is.
you’re a democRAT, its par for the course.
and of course you believe in an ideology that has led to the deaths of tens of millions, and the suffering for untold millions, nay billions more…socialism….and yet you still believe it, and think its good.
if nothing else, you are profoundly evil.
Wow chap. That’s a lot of stuff you are responsible for. When do you have time to fed the cats?
nice lie. you seem to be good at it.
“nice lie. you seem to be good at it.”
Huh?
Now I’m a liar and exactly what is it I’m lying about?
I don’t have enough paper to make a list of all the things Chap is now responsible for. You guys sure keep Chap busy…..
Well I guess I’ll never know. At least my pants aren’t on fire.
That is more true than even you realize, Michelle, more true than you know.
The ultmate point is to discredit the argment itself. Take the exampls given here:
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
Note that P, the argument is what is being dismissed.
Same with this example, which is the “inconsistency” version of tu quoque.
A makes claim P.
A has also made past claims which are inconsistent with P.
Therefore, P is false.
Again, it is P, the argument being made that is the ultimate target. Attacking the accuser is just the means to that end.
Too weak. You’re stretching logic beyond its limit of elasticity.
Yeah, see, dismissed is different than discredited.
In your first example P wasn’t discredited at all.
I’ll repeat that. In your first example P wasn’t discredited at all.
chapoutier, did you take stupid pills this week?
P isn’t false simply because A has made other statements inconsistent with P.
2+2=4 isn’t false just because A had previously stated that 2+2=5.
Nobody except an idiot would attempt to use this logic in a debate. Besides, I don’t even this this version is actually considered tu quoque.
First, those weren’t my examples.
And second, of course P isn’t false just because A has made past claims inconsistent with P. That is why it is a logical fallacy. I am arguing over the proper definition of the fallacy and you seem to think I am trying to defend the fallacy itself.
Just ask yourself, when one employs tu quoque in an argument, what are they trying to accomplish? The goal is not simply to say “yeah what I did was bad but you did it too.” No. You are saying “It can’t be bad because you did it too.” The ultimate point of any logical exercise is to prove your point, or disprove the other’s. In the first example, you are conceding the point and adding extraneous information. In the second, you are “proving” (though not really) your ultimate argument.
It is the same with any fallacy, or legitimate rule for that matter. With ad hominem, you are not conceding the point and then calling the guy an idiot. You are saying his argument is wrong because he is an idiot. It doesn’t logically work, but it is at least trying to accomplish the goal of a logical exercise.
Nobody is going to try claiming murder isn’t bad simply because the accuser has also murdered.
A murderer would be attempting to silence a critic.
I disagree. With ad hominem, you’re saying he is an idiot and hoping the audience will infer that his argument is wrong. You’re not claiming, saying, or even implying that the argument is wrong.
Apparently you haven’t looked at the Yugoslavia war crime tribunal transcripts. The defense made exactly this argument, which the court rightly dismissed. Look at page 206 here.
So you agree the ultimate point is to convince that he is wrong or you are right.
Of course you are, at the very least, implying that. I don’t see how that is debatable. A logical fallacy is always part of a logical argument. There is always a “therefore” statement or conclusion in logic, even if in casual speech it may be implied. What you seem to be saying is that a logical fallacy can stand on its own as a premise or inference. Well, in that case, it is not a logical fallacy at all. It is just a statement. The fallacy NEEDS the “therefore” statement to put it in the context of a logical argument.
Not on page 206 they didn’t. Page 206 describes claims regarding customary international law. Nobody was making a claim that the court or plaintiff had engaged in such actions. A second person claim is EXACTLY what’s required for tu quoque (that’s the “tu” part). A third person claim doesn’t cut it.
chapoutier, it doesn’t matter what the ultimate point is. An attempt to convince isn’t a requirement of tu quoque.
You attempted to state that you didn’t make a tu quoque argument because you didn’t intend to convince anyone that their argument was wrong. I’m telling you that your intent has nothing do with with the definition of tu quoque.
However, you’re actually hurting yourself now. The more you broaden the issue, the easier it will be to claim that you were, in fact, attempting to ultimately convince someone that their argument was wrong. You’ve back yourself into a corner now, and you’re kinda screwed either way.
Did I get the page wrong? Did you happen to spend 2 seconds looking beyond that page for the extensive discussion the Court had regarding the tu quoque defense? I’d try to find the right page now, but my adobe acobat is messing up right now and honestly, I expect you actually did see the discussion and are merely trying to push your disproven notion one further post down the road.
Like hell it doesn’t. You keep clinging to this silly notion that a tu quoque can exist outside the confines of a logical argument. It cannot. And I was making no such argument. I brought up Reagan for reasons entirely other than proving his wrong or Obama’s right. Of course, I have only said this a million times. If someone wants to misinterpret that intent to infer some argument, and then accuse me of a logical fallacy in making it, that is their mistake and their problem, not mine.
I am the one broadening the issue? Huh? If you want to make the argument that a tu quoque can only occur first to second person, you are welcome to do that. However, there are many who consider these degrees wrt ad hominem attacks absolutely irrelevant when the substance and intent are exactly the same. But if that is your definition, then again, how is anything I have done a tu quoque?
But getting back to “broadening”, YOU (among others) are the ones accusing me of making an argument I have specifically, and frequently, refuted making. Maybe if you just pointed to the post where I make the argument you claim I am making, this would be easier. Don’t worry…take as much time as you need.
It’s page 201. My notion is most certainly not disproven, and I didn’t not (yes, you read that correctly) read an extra 10 pages (5 in either direction) in an attempt to delay anything.
What did defence counsel actually state? Excuse me if I don’t take opposing counsel’s characterization of this at face value. It’s absurd to assert that all self-defense claims are a tu quoque. But if that’s good enough for you, then I’m sure you have no problem with third party readers blindly believing my claims about you.
Wrong. Intent is not a requirement for a tu quoque.
Reread all my comments in this thread. …take as much time as you need. I have never once claimed you made a tu quoque. Actually, it’s pretty pathetic that you accuse me of doing so. It should be obvious that I’ve merely challenged your assertion that intention could prevent a tu quoque. And I’m right.
See above.
See above.
See above.