In case you've missed my earlier entries, I've been combing through the columns of Washington's worst pundit, Ron Fournier, to point out his many logical fallacies, using this helpful website as a guide. Amazingly, Fournier had two non-objectionable columns in a row, including a surprisingly decent take on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. But fear not! We're never more than a couple of days away from a Fournier stinker! Let's take a dive into today's pointless, vapid column, "When Impeachment Becomes Fundraising Bait".
Anecdotal: Really the stupidest part of this article is that the entire premise relies on one quote from one White House official. The "White House" hasn't engaged in a fundraising pitch based on impeachment. The White House official, Dan Pfeiffer, simply said that he's taking impeachment seriously. Fournier has absolutely no evidence that Pfeiffer was coordinating this message with Democratic fundraising committees, even though Fournier presents coordination as an established fact. A comment from one White House official is a far cry from "using the office of the Presidency...as bait for campaign cash."
No True Scotsman: This one is a bit of a stretch, but I think it works here. The way this fallacy works is that you constantly change the definition of "x" so that "person y" can never be an "x." I think this applies to Fournier's refrain (repeated in every column) that Obama's action goes against the promises he made in his 2008 campaign. If you're constantly making up things that Obama promised to do and didn't, you can always claim that Obama is not living up to his promise. Did Obama promise to never be political? Did he promise not to use the GOP's crazy ideas against them? Obviously not. He said some vague (and perhaps unwise) things about rising above the old politics, but his campaign certainly engaged in its share of politicking. Who doesn't? Nevertheless, Fournier can use Obama's vague 2008 talk of a "new politics" to constantly claim he's breaking promises (promises that he never really made).
Black and White: Check out this quote:
A better choice would be to sic the White House's team of taxpayer-funded lawyers on the lawsuit, while the rest of Obama's team runs the country and manages foreign policy crises. Clinton proved in the 1990s that good governing trumps bad Republicans.Fournier cannot foresee a possible scenario in which one White House staffer makes one comment about impeachment, while lots of other people are focused on foreign policy crises. He can't even conceive of that? I think one person can walk and chew gum at a time....certainly hundreds of White House staffers collectively can do the same.
Loaded Question: I think this excerpt gives great insight into "loaded questions."
Pfeiffer has denied Obama moral high ground on impeachment. Yes, Democrats will say that Republicans started it. But why lower your party to the GOP's level? Why lower the presidency? Why sound like a kindergartner whining to his teacher, "He started it!"By asking these questions, Fournier is taking for granted that Obama is lowering the Presidency. Really? One adviser makes an offhanded comment and now the Presidency is "lowered?"
So there you have it! Despite these obvious logical flaws, Fournier still will get thousands of clicks and lots of $$ to write pure drivel! Meritocracy FTW!