Skip to main content

View Diary: Elizabeth Warren and the Definition of "Controversial" (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes. And then he says... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque, bythesea, louisprandtl, laker

    "The question is, 'Is she confirmable?' And there's a serious question about it."

    I do not think my saying she may be unconfirmable distorts his message one iota.

    Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:07:33 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, you completely distorted him (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      taylormattd

      Dodd may be right. Warren may be unconfirmable.

      Dodd:right::Warren:unconfirmable.  

      You laid it out quite plainly.

      •  "may" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        louisprandtl

        "Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle." -Helen Keller

        by ridemybike on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:14:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Are you remotely aware of what the word... (6+ / 0-)

        ..."may" means? You're the one who is distorting Dodd, not me. Dodd says there is a "serious question" about whether Warren is confirmable. I didn't say that she is unconfirmable. I didn't say Dodd said so. I said "may" twice.

        You, on the other hand, avoided both Dodd's quotation
        and mine, because that was necessary for you to come up with with bogus complaint.

        You are right about one thing. I did lay it out plainly.

        Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:16:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm very aware of what "may" means (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          taylormattd

          PI: MB is distorting what Dodd said.

          MB: PI may be right.  I may be distorting what Dodd said.

          When you use the same word to connect Dodd being right with Warren being unconfirmable, the natural reading is that Dodd says she's unconformable.

          What if you wrote it like this:

          Dodd may be right.  Warren may be confirmable.

          The natural reading would be that Dodd says she is confirmable.  In fact, in the quoted article Dodd actually does say she "may" be confirmable.  

          In the larger sense, of course Dodd is right that they might not be able to get a Republican to vote for her.  No one could deny that is a possibility.

          •  The article in question,... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bythesea, louisprandtl, laker, Tulips

            ...which is all we have to go with since we don't know what else Dodd may have said, is quite clear. It's about doubts. There wouldn't even be a story if Dodd didn't have doubts. No place did I distort a single word of what Dodd said. I didn't put anything in quotation marks that The Hill didn't put in quotation marks. And I certainly did not truncate what he said in an attempt to show you were distorting Dodd's meaning the way you did trying to prove I was.

            Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:33:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You didn't respond to anything I wrote (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              taylormattd

              Dodd may be right.  Warren may be confirmable.

              Dodd may be right.  Warren may be unconfirmable.

              According to you, these statements mean exactly the same thing.  In reality, they each give the reader opposing impressions of what Dodd actually said.  You're a good writer; you obviously know this.

              You didn't lie about what Dodd said; you simply distorted it.

              •  Finally, we agree on something! ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                louisprandtl

                "In reality, they each give the reader opposing impressions of what Dodd actually said."

                Once again what Dodd actually expressed, throughout the cited article, was doubt about Warren's confirmability. To say that "Warren may be confirmable" as a summary of an article in which he stresses his doubts is spin, the epitome of distortion.

                Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 11:02:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The problem is using "may" in both sentences (0+ / 0-)

                  It gives the reader the impression that the chances of Dodd being right are the same as the chances of Warren being unconfirmable--which leads to the conclusion that Dodd said she's unconfirmable.  It's tantamount to writing "Dodd may be right that Warren is unconfirmable."

                  It's a very common phrasing: "X says Y.  Maybe X is right; maybe Y is true.  But..."

                  •  OK. We've both wasted enough time... (6+ / 0-)

                    ...on this and we're never going to accept each other's interpretation. I've made my critique of davidsirota's approach elsewhere in this thread, as have you. I imagine we agree that Warren would be an excellent choice and ought to get the White House nod. I personally think this is important because the CFPA is the best part of FinReg reform. As I wrote when the first HuffPo piece came out, we'd be better off uniting around pushing Warren for the CFPA post rather than fighting with each other by making the issue so much about whether Tim Geither is blocking her, something the article failed entirely to prove.

                    Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

                    by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 11:15:24 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site