[eDebate] re: wilson smear campaign: debate community response?

Jack Stroube stroube
Fri Sep 12 15:29:18 CDT 2003

1) with the dominant idea of switching the conversation to other topics 
other than political charges and counter charges, the dabait community, whether 
deliberately partisan or not, is choosing to replicate the BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S 
RHETORICAL STRATEGY on weaponsgate.   we are sick and tired of the scandal.   can't 
we talk about something else?    poor dabaiters are sick and tired of wading through the 
scandal and would have given up on deepthroat, woodward, and bernstein before nixon 
was forced to resign.  as if i am going to shut up, the rove links to the novack leak are 
the MOST EXPLOSIVE political facts of recent days as al martin echoed.   

2) MOO MOO dabaiters will be forced to consider this issue more seriously if/when 
action succeeds in the courts.

3) the question is whether or not debaters who already signed a petition against karl 
rove (with not so good links beyond the idea that he used psychological dirty tricks to 
win debate rounds and that coincidentally the white house of which rove was an advisor 
was involved in cheating in public debate) are now going to help bring REALLY DAMNING 
EVIDENCE against rove into public deliberation.   NOW, we actually have an incredible 
direct link to rove and that could have him "frog-marched out of the white house in 
handcuffs" and debaters turn the other cheek to talk about their big dog critique args on 
the europe topic.

4) dropping the ball now, when there actually is a link to rove that will have public 
consequences, PROVES THE COMPETITIVE DEBATE BAD argument as well as the internal 
"activist kritik = fake" argument.  competitively isolated debaters could only muster the 
courage to "attack" rove symbolically.  there was no way to actually prove that rove had 
anything to do directly with the niger forgery and other components of the iraqi WMD 
deception, so debaters were comfortable with signing a petition that remained mostly 
symbolic and amorphous with little political implications for rove.   that is what debaters 
liked about the rove petition.  it was safe with harldy any direct political significance for 
karl rove.    i argued previously that a mccain amendment was necessary to give teeth to 
the petition and actually put rove on the spot for something he was directly responsible 
for, i.e. the bbq leaks against mccain prior to the south carolina primary vote.    now the 
wilson smear campaign has dropped into our laps with better links than eve, debaters 
run for cover scared to take a meaningful political stance in public that may shape the 
political future.  mitchell is siding with the whole rhetorical strategy of kritik that has 
bolstered non-participation in public debating for around a decade now.  

5) the rove petition was a premature joke and reeks of armchair covers.   debaters really 
"stood up for argument and 
the cause of debate".   when it cums down to naming names and holding cheaters 
accountable they flock to their stupid bbq tournaments to talk about more important 
things than crimes against in debate in our times.   combining the ideas that rove was a 
cheater in high school debate with contemporary instances of cheating in public debate 
is relatively weak compared to what is possible now in light of recent revelations.   again 
"activist debaters" are behind the curve using debate sophistry to justify not acting 
precisely when action is warranted and there actually are stakes at hand backing out just 
when the plot thickened.   everybody knows that rove is an election mastermind and 
that his departure would significantly hamper W's chances in 2004.   competitive debate 
is bad because it is divorced from public advocacy and ends up being a tool to justify 
political cowardice on the UT debate model and sing a long "thinking" exercises in 
debate rounds.   let me see, europe is a conceptual construction that needs to be 
rethought and "foreign policy thinking" uses a flawed  geopolitical concept according to 
spanos.   i mean karl rove doesn't even exist as long as you destroy the subject.  dude, 
can we smoke a bbq bowl and rethink politics into competitive nothingness of smug 
amicable niceness?   yeah, man all that shit about charges and countercharges can drag 
you down, dude?   let's just focus on the problems with the war on terrorism.  

i must agree with bear bryant's assessment that the competitive debate community is 
fundamentally fucked and a politically neutralizing force of old boy alliances with near 
zero potential. 

i agree w W.  it's time to put these political scandals behind us and build a unity of 
disdain for bbq politics in this nation.   fall for da bait and focus EXCLUSIVELY on the 
problems w the war on terrorism while we use your GRANTED POLITICAL IMMUNITY to 
steam roll through the war on terrorism no matter what you say.   thank you debate 
community of kritical scholars for being so stupid.    the whole effort for public 
accountability cums from negative nay sayers too focused on individual persons and 
their actions since what you do doesn't matter it's just what you say.   

george w. bush 

Phallus Jerkins Dabait League

More information about the Mailman mailing list