An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Castro for Clinton/Obama?
Cross-Posted at The Debate Link
Jim Lindgren says he “endorsed” them. But a closer look at the linked article seems to indicate that Castro was only making a political prediction as to the likelihood and electability of such a ticket. Specifically, Castro says it would be “unbeatable”–though where Castro gets the expertise to know how one wins a contested democratic election remains a mystery (certainly, it’s not through personal experience!).
The mistake looks to be an honest one, and as Professor Lindgren says, even if Castro was offering his “endorsement”, it wouldn’t say anything about either Clinton or Obama, neither of whom sought it. But still, even in this very minor form I don’t think the story should be overblown.
6 Responses to “Castro for Clinton/Obama?”
Castro balanced his nation between the Soviet Union and the United States and survived.
He may not know what it means to be democratically elected himself, and he may be a crazy old man on an iron lung, but he should be given some level of credit for political savoir faire.
though where Castro gets the expertise to know how one wins a contested democratic election remains a mystery (certainly, it’s not through personal experience!).
ROFLMAO.
Bablau Blog: Vanities of the absurd, defending a ghost
You forgot to mention that the youthful Castro was a better athlete than Mao, and much more handsome than Stalin.
This is a common debate tactic employed by partisans who appeal to reason rather than logic:
1) Identify a policy or a person you don’t like.
2) Identify a dictator/terrorist/enemy of the United States that endorses or sympathizes with this policy or person.
3) Announce that this dictator/terrorist/enemy of the United States agrees with this policy or person.
4) Imply that because this dictator/terrorist/enemy of the United States agrees with this policy or person, this policy or person is wrong.
It is a tactic that has been used time and time again by partisans–particularly with regards to the 2004 election and our foreign policy.
Don’t vote for Kerry, we were told because Osama Bin Laden wants him to win (I voted against Kerry but for a completely different reason).
Don’t vote to bring our troops home, because that’s exactly what the terrorists want.
It’s an illogical way to debate a given topic, but it works because people are stupid.
Let’s consider just how illogical this debating tactic is.
1) Let’s say I want to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran. Obviously, there are quite a few Americans who don’t want to drop a nuclear bomb an Iran.
2) President Ahmadinejad is a dictator. Needless to say, he doesn’t want us to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.
3) People who oppose dropping an nuclear bomb on Iran agree with President Ahmadinejad, who is a dictator.
4) Therefore, people who oppose dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran are wrong.
See what ridiculous argument this is? The fallacy is assuming that every single thing a dictator/terrorist/enemy of the United States says or believes must be wrong.
I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton, and there isn’t a circumstance I can think of that allow me to vote for her in 2008. But the idea that we shouldn’t vote for her because Fidel Castro “endorsed” her or implied that she was preferable to her opponents is a very silly argument.
Jim Lindgren can do better than that (as can all people who continue to employ this silly debate tactic).
Hmmm…appeal to emotion rather than logic was what I had in mind. But I can’t help but try to sabotage my own comments as every turn.
Lit was right. I am my own worst enemy.