Every trial lawyer looks forward to catching an adverse witness in a fib. The juiciest way to impeach a fibber is by catching him in a "prior inconsistent statement." Best example is when the witness testifies on the stand that the light was green when he started through the intersection. He had told the policeman at the accident scene that it was red, or that he didn't notice. Either way, you pounce with the "Are you lying now, or were you lying then?" zinger.
This is why election years are so frustrating for us spectators. Mr. Romney, you are telling us that you will not support laws limiting abortion? Didn't you tell us a couple of months ago that you would abolish Planned Parenthood because of its support for abortion education, among many other services? Haven't you shifted your position on many issues to attract more mainstream, less Tea Party voters?
We actually kind of like the new, moderate Mitt. But there's this uncomfortable feeling that we don't really know you. We're not sure if what you say is what you mean, or what you will mean tomorrow. Mitt, were you lying then, or are you lying now?
No comments:
Post a Comment