The funny thing about politics is that you could explain, in plain language, the probable reasoning behind public statements - and yet the words don't make a bit of difference on the intended effect of the public statements.
Take for instance how the national democratic party publish "game plans" on how they're going to campaign to voters. Party leaders stategize how they're going to emphasize certain election winning issues while downplaying others. Even though the party's plan is completely public, it never seems to affect how the public views the issue - or how the public interprets the party's explanation on where they stand on the issue.
Example: Democratic party chairman tells party loyalists to craft their message on "God and guns" to fit the views of southerners who are turned off by democratic views on those issues. Do people take exception to the fact that the party is only changing their message to get elected?
Of course not.
Having said this, consider the idea that Deidre Cole and her committee may not move forward with this recall at all. Even if they don't make another move, they've articulated the case against Craig Stahl and got it in the newspaper - which crystallizes public sentiment against the Stahl voting bloc:
...which of course hurts the Stahlin Voting Bloc regardless of whether the recall goes forward...
Hey Don Lee! Can I get a hat tip for the idea?!
Posted July 1st:
Don Lee on July 5th:
Biting the idea is my hat tip, I guess. (I just still can't get over how Joe-the-douchebag-citizen gets a mention, but the 411 gets ignored. Life just isn't fair.)