A little trial advocacy might help here. Johnson was asked the following question:
"
Do you want to open up more of the United States — the continental United States — to drilling. I mean, would you support drilling like in the Great Lakes for example, if there was oil found there, or using more exploration in Alaska, in ANWR, those kinds of things?"
Were this question to be put to a witness in a deposition or at a trial, many lawyers would object. The question is, we would say, "multiple," i.e., it asks a number of things - should we open up more of the Continental United States, drill in the Great Lakes, drill in Alaska generally, drill in ANWR specifically or do "those kinds of things" in general. In fact, the portion of the question about the Great Lakes is, additionally, hypothetical - would you support drilling in the Great Lakes if oil was found there?
Now a person can certainly answer all of those things, but the idea is that - in an oral exchange - it is unfair and untidy to combine too many questions into one. We can't be sure that the witness will answer all portions of the question and that results in ambiguity.
That ambiguity existed following the WisPolitics interview. Johnson answered generally - saying, without particulars, that we have to go where the oil is. Does that include the Great Lakes? Does Johnson contend that there is recoverable oil in the Great Lakes? We don't really know. Yes, the Great Lakes was specifically mentioned (albeit in a contingent way)but the answer did not specifically address them.
What Feingold did was to take this ambiguity and run with it. That isn't unusual in politics but it is hardly to be commended. What is hard to overlook is that Johnson has now resolved the ambiguity. He did not mean to endorse drilling in the Great Lakes. He does not believe that there is enough oil in the Great Lakes to justify it.
But Feingold continues to feature an ad claiming Johnson does support Great Lakes drilling.
I ask again - why isn't that a lie?
6 comments:
You left out a rather important word in his answer -- the first one.
Asked, "Do you want to open up more of the United States - the continental United States - to drilling. I mean, would you support drilling like in the Great Lakes for example, if there was oil found there, or using more exploration in Alaska, in ANWR, those kinds of things?" Johnson said:
"Yeah. You know, the bottom line is that we are an oil-based economy. There’s nothing we’re going to do to get off of that for many, many years, so I think we have to just be realistic and recognize that fact. And I think we have to get the oil where it is, but we need to do it responsibly."[WisPolitics, Interview, 6/14/10]
Dems, bloggers, Feingold and others jumped all over that answer but Johnson didn't "clarify" it FOR A MONTH.
It appears to be a simple case of a candidate accidentally saying what he actually thinks, with his campaign than taking a month to convince him he doesn't really think that.
Yes, it was a compound question.
The first part dealing with the local concern of Great Lakes oil Drilling.
Why didn't Johnson say, "No, that's a crazy idea,"?
Why are you flacking for this guy?
You know perfectally well the guy is lying.
What was wrong with Johnson's answer? That's what I don't understand. I thought it was fine without explanation.
Like it or not, we are an oil-based economy. So we need to go where the oil is, but we need to do it responsibly, which would not include waiving safety violations such as was done with the oil rig in the Gulf.
What's wrong with that answer? Feingold just freaked out over nothing. He's just running ads trying to scare people.
The question the reporter was asking wasn't whether he supported drilling in the Great Lakes. The question was if there was ANYWHERE he didn't support drilling and gave the example of the Great Lakes. That's an important distinction.
It wasn't multiple questions as you are suggesting. It was a broad question and that's why he gave a broad answer: Drill anywhere there is oil.
Have you stopped beating your wife ?
Trick question
Politicians thrive on these, and so do lawyers...oh, is Feingold a lawyer ?
The point of course is that Johnson wasn't in a court of law. If he were his objection wouldn't be "compound question" it would be "I'm a rich Republican businessman and we own the state supreme court, so I don't have to answer your questions, compound or not".
Post a Comment