Quick question, per this interview in which McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin disparages McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm: If, as Holtz-Eakin says, Gramm wasn't in any way speaking for McCain because only McCain speaks for McCain, why on earth should we believe him (Holtz-Eakin)? Why would Holtz-Eakin's words be any more reliable than Gramm's? Isn't he just as far from being John McCain as Phil Gramm is?
I'm afraid we've stumbled onto a bit of a paradox here:
If Holtz-Eakin is right about other people not speaking for McCain, then we can't believe him when he makes that point.
And if Holtz-Eakin is wrong about other people not speaking for McCain, then we can believe him in general, but, of course, what he just said turns out to be wrong
I think my head is about to explode...