Oh, come on. There has to be a tipping point-- a point at which voters who don't obsessively read blogs and newspapers and so on will take notice and see that something is seriously wrong. I have no idea where it is, but I can't imagine it's far from where we are now. I mean, the two testify together? What is this, some kind of sick joke?
This idea is so weird that I'm baffled by it. If Bush just stonewalled and fumbled his way through, wouldn't that be better than this? A bad solo performance is something that, say, Kevin Drum will pick apart, and the people who read and care at all are not, to put it mildly, undecided voters. A joint appearance with flawless content gives rise to a million jokes on late night TV and everywhere else, and that's far more damaging in the long run. It really adds to the impression that GWB isn't really leading at all, and that undercuts his election narrative. Am I missing something?
But their testimony won't even be public, right? Nobody will get to dissect it or the performance. So it wouldn't make a lick of difference if Bush stumbled through it. The only way I can make sense of it is that they know they are going to lie about something and can't take the risk of unexpected follow-up questions that they might answer differently.
Oh, right-- we'd hear about bumbling through leaks from the democratic members, but that's to be expected, hence easily dismissed. Huh. The mystery deepens.
"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" starts to look straightforward.
They're not worried about the kind of bumbling we've come to expect from Bush, so much as inconsistencies between his testimony and Cheney's. Those could (and would) be dissected in public.