Monday, July 18, 2005

Number One Reason To Use Top Ten Lists Sparingly

You know you've been away too long when readers get tired of waiting for new content and start sending in their own.

Former Stag President Josh Walter offers this ranting reaction to the RNC's attempt to top-ten-list their guys' way out of responsibility in the Plame controversy. It is, of course, a fundamental political tactic to scream "partisan politics!" when you are pretty sure you're going to lose the substantive battle but have a slim shot at winning the rhetorical war.

Did you see the the RNC released a "Top Ten" list?

Are they kidding? A freakin' "Top Ten" list? I think Letterman can actually sue for copyright infringement.

My Top Ten ridiculous things about the RNC Top Ten List

10 - Don't they know that a real Top Ten list always goes from 10 - 1? You can't tell everyone the number 1 thing first. Da'a.

9 - I am not an English expert by any means, but what is the deal with not using articles? For example - "Wilson Claims CIA Thought To Ask Him To Make Trip Because He Had Previously Made Trip For Them In 1999, Not Because Of His Wife's Suggestion." - How about using "the" or "a" in there sometimes?

8 - More on the English tip. How about not capitalizing every freakin' word? Crap that is annoying.

7 - In their # 1 (which should have been on the bottom and not the top, that is still pissing me off), they use quotes from VP Cheney and George Tenet to rebut Wilson. Need I say more?

6 - The more I read it, the more it seems to prove George Tenet is an idiot. Example in #2 - The RNC is saying that since Tenet did not brief the VP on the report (which would have hopefully helped determine whether or not to go to war)then Wilson is wrong. Is Wilson wrong? Or was Tenet? Doesn't this prove Wilson even more right?

5 - The whole way through the RNC is trying to discredit Wilson by saying that his report was junk. Do they still think that Niger was selling Uranium to Maddas (Saddam backwards, but I knew you knew that)? How can you discredit someone by saying he was wrong, when it turns out (and I think most of us agree) that he was right? Isn't the RNC throughout their Top Ten, actually just proving Wilson right?

4 - Their # 8. "Wilson Claimed His Book Would Enrich Debate:" They are right. Wilson's book has not enriched debate at all. No one is making up top ten lists years later about it.

3 - Their # 9. Wilson said that his contacts in the CIA told him about the alleged Iraqi - Niger transactions. The RNC rebuttal is that the DO Reports Officer says that he didn't tell Wilson anything. Well maybe the DO is lying to save his ass or maybe the DO is not one of Wilson's contacts. Just a thought.

2 - How does this (as wrong and idiotic as it is) do anything to actually rebut the fact that Rove is the leak and should therefore be fired? I thought that we were past the whole, does Iraq have WMD or not?, issue. In not rebutting the actual story in play right now, you know the one about Rove leaking (don't personify that image)?, are you basically saying that it is true? Turns out we've heard about and know how to change the topic, too.

1. - Don't make Top Ten lists and think that you are being cool or respectable! Top Ten lists are for Talk Shows, ESPN, and VH1. They are not for the RNC or any political party trying to make a serious point about anything! Next they will come out with the Top Ten reasons the go to war with Iraq and in trying to prove themselves right they will ultimately prove themselves wrong, as they did here.
Well ranted, Josh. Though I will say I've read a few top ten lists linked to political parties that I've found amusing. But since we're a partisan blog here, it's fine to live by double-standards when it comes to the employment of comedy in the political area via such lists. I'll take any example of Democrats using any form of comedy effectively, since our "that's not funny"-isms of the past few years have, predictably, given us zero big wins when the President, et al, get to strap on their "neener neener" masks and run amok.

No comments: