Linked from Ace who quips:
Of course they've all read the law -- it's ten pages. Claiming to have not read it allows them to speak of vaguely-defined "concerns" without having to point out specific language in the bill they object to -- because if they did the latter, they'd be unable to find anything illegal here.
What they're attempting to do is claim they support, of course, the substance of the bill -- of course they agree with enforcing the border! -- while pretending their objection is over procedural matters. This pose allows them to pretend for the 70% of the country that supports the bill that they're on their side, at least as regards the big substantive goal of the bill.
Frankly, I'm not so sure they even read it. This is an admin that has the habit of not reading the new laws they're for. And why bother reading the law itself when a flunkie can explain it to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment