LP website: positive notes and dissection of a press release Since I bitched so aggressively (and with reason, of course) when Republican crap was posted at the LP website, I'd like to take some time and point out that the LP's website is posting some pretty hard-hitting stuff as well. Although I am not convinced that having a public (or semi-public) 'blog is a good idea on a political party's website, I think Stephen Gordon's recent dissection of Bush's WSJ piece was excellent. I would prefer to see things like this featured in the front rather than shunted aside on the 'blog, but it was nice to see it at all.

Also good is the reprinted/linked article about elected Libertarians (as opposed to the whinging maunderings of some Republican) featured on the page. And of course there is the Party press release about the Iraq disaster. I do have a couple of issues with that press release, though, and I wish the Party would take the time to have its press releases proofread (I have politely volunteered, but I guess my help is unwelcome). It is not good practice for people to edit their own work no matter how good at writing and/or editing they are. Perhaps two pairs of eyes do see every LP press release, but if so, they should probably get a third set :-/

Here are the main issues I have with that press release. It's not that I think the PR is a disaster; it's just that stuff like this can almost always be improved with good editing:

1. I just noticed this one, but it's a biggie. I can see how it might slip by in a review, but I think we need to work on this as it is a big blind spot many Americans have. The title of the press release is Bush’s Shock and Awe: Iraq Death Toll Surpasses 9/11 Body Count. The Iraq death toll passed 3K long ago, even if we just count this present (Bush) period of aggression.
2. This paragraph can be greatly improved: "The invasion and continued occupation of Iraq was based largely upon speculation and conjecture created and promoted by a powerful Republican regime and approved by a spineless Democratic minority," said Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory. "The case for war with Iraq was sold to the American people, with award-worthy theatrics, through the exploitation of hate and fear." I would convey essentially the same message this way (Of course I'd keep in the 'said Shane Cory, LP ED' part): "The invasion and continued occupation of Iraq was sold to the American public by creating and exploiting an atmosphere of fear and hatred. A powerful Republican regime created the lies and half-truths, and a spineless Democratic minority either fell for them or went along with them to increase their own political power."
3. The next paragraphs are fine, but probably should be condensed to one; or even a line saying that the 'evidence' mustered by Bush et al. was a pack of lies.
   
4. This paragraph is a bit troubling, because although as a Libertarian I understand that the evidence was insufficient for attack even if true, I'm not sure that comes across to someone who is not a Libertarian. The PR reads "Regardless of the evidence that was eventually proven to be false, the Libertarian Party stood firmly positioned against the invasion as it was, without question, an unnecessary and offensive engagement." I would instead write something like "The Libertarian Party was opposed to the invasion of Iraq even before these lies were obvious to all. Even had all the charges been true, they would not have provided justification for attacking another country and setting up a puppet government."
   
5. It's probably better to not hyphenate 'preemptive'. The trend is toward decreasing hyphenation. Instead of saying "... states a section of the Libertarian Party Platform," I would just say "... states the Libertarian Party Platform." Actually, I'd probably move that phrase to the beginning of the paragrpah and say something like "The LP platform is noninterventionist, stating ...."
6. In the next-to-last paragraph, I might have pointed out that the Democrats were probably going to go along with this 'surge' nonsense to try to get a draft going, and used that to demonstrate the 'ratchet' effect of the D/R system.
7. Last paragrpah is fine except for an embarrassing error where the word 'lead' was used when 'led' was probably meant. The closing could be a bit punchier, too.
   

Labels: LP

  ¶ 1:00 PM