"The way of a guilty man is perverse;
But as for the pure, his work is right."
Proverbs 21:8
Dan Patrick yesterday:
Dan Patrick last week:
We had originally intended to tear Patrick a new one over this. Buuut...as we read Patrick's comments a second and third time, it doesn't seem crazy to argue that Patrick is discussing different topics. So, speaking for no one but ourselves, we don't necessarily have a problem with cutting Dan Patrick a little bit of slack here.
Buuuuuuuuuut...it took us multiple readings of Patrick's comments, combined with a detailed knowledge of the context to reach that conclusion. And that's just about the nicest way to read it. And Dan Patrick squandered that level of widespread benefit of the doubt a long time ago. And it's difficult to argue that more hostile takes are necessarily wrong.
Bottom Line: When the charitable explanation is complicated, and the uncharitable one is plausible, that's never a good place to be.
Proverbs 21:8
Dan Patrick yesterday:
.@DanPatrick on Fox tonight calls @TexasGOP convention cancellation “nothing but a political hack job by Mayor Turner,” says convention will happen “either in person somewhere else or online” https://t.co/ttUhsEglFx #txlege
— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) July 9, 2020
Dan Patrick last week:
New: @DanPatrick says he agrees with SREC members who opposed in-person convention due to anticipated low attendance. “It also risks the exposure of those who do attend. But I respect the will of the 40 people who voted and I will be there.” #txlege pic.twitter.com/rOZDPXuPz5
— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) July 3, 2020
We had originally intended to tear Patrick a new one over this. Buuut...as we read Patrick's comments a second and third time, it doesn't seem crazy to argue that Patrick is discussing different topics. So, speaking for no one but ourselves, we don't necessarily have a problem with cutting Dan Patrick a little bit of slack here.
Buuuuuuuuuut...it took us multiple readings of Patrick's comments, combined with a detailed knowledge of the context to reach that conclusion. And that's just about the nicest way to read it. And Dan Patrick squandered that level of widespread benefit of the doubt a long time ago. And it's difficult to argue that more hostile takes are necessarily wrong.
Bottom Line: When the charitable explanation is complicated, and the uncharitable one is plausible, that's never a good place to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.