Tuesday, February 03, 2004
The John Wilkes Booth of character assassination
Let's leave aside the fact that McAuliffe's accusation is true -- or at any rate, that the evidence supports his statement -- and the fact that Gillespie's words are themselves clearly an attempt at character assassination.
If you're going to call someone "The John Wilkes Booth of character assassination", then you're going to have to explain what that accusation could possibly mean.
Is Gillespie saying that McAuliffe is the sort of character assassin who, after metaphorically striking his opponent down metaphorically struggles with his metaphorical bodyguard, metaphorically stabbing him before metaphorically leaping from the metaphorical balcony to the metaphorical stage while metaphorically yelling, "Sic Semper Tyrannis", and metaphorically breaking his metaphorical leg, which will later be metaphorically treated by a metaphorical doctor whose name will not metaphorically be Mudd, but which will, metaphorically, subsequently become become metaphorically mud? Or is Gillespie just saying that, as a character assassin, McAuliffe is metaphorically like various historical assassins, of which John Wilkes Booth is a conveniently memorable exemplar?
All in all, I think Gillespie would have been better off sticking to the, "all those questions have already been answered" script.