Yes, I know this is late, but, well, this is partially in preparation for something else.
I'll start with excerpts from the 2nd presidential debate on 10/08/04 (yes, I said this was late)
[Kerry was asked a question about tax money funding abortions. He didn't answer explicitly but talked about a bunch of stuff not important to me right now since this is not about abortion. Then came Bush's response, which included this:]
BUSH: I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban.
[amongst other related comments. Kerry responded to this response thusly:]
KERRY: Well, again, the president just said, categorically, my opponent is against this, my opponent is against that. You know, it's just not that simple. No, I'm not.
[KERRY:] I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother.
[and then he went on about parental notifications, then Bush responded]
BUSH: Well, it's pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no?
[BUSH:] And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no. And that's just the way it is. That's a vote. It came right up. It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said: You can run but you can't hide the reality.
[and then the debate continued with a new question.]
I added the italics but I also added the bold italics.
At first it appears that Bush all but explicitly said that Kerry had just lied; that Kerry's vote against one particularly worded ban on partial birth abortions proved that he was against banning them in general.
But then I noticed that Bush said "a ban on partial birth abortion" not "banning partial birth abortion." Literally Kerry was against "a" ban, he voted against it. That part is clear, he was against that ban.
I don't know, maybe Bush was saying Kerry had just lied, maybe Kerry had just lied (I don't buy this, though.)
Dammit, I was going to say something but then I got bogged down in what could possibly be a flaw; it is entirely clear that Bush was trying to call Kerry out - though the other option is that he wanted people to think he was calling Kerry a liar but was speaking carefully, walking a very fine line, in a way that would allow him to deny it.
These details are minor - at least with regards to what I was posting about. What I was trying to convey, part of what I am trying to approach, is in there still - and the fact that it's not clear, besides being inevitable, is helpful as well.
As a reminder to myself, I love Mamet, but his efforts (on one, particular front) are misguided (or, quite distinctly, doomed to fail.)
