Jim,

>I'll agree with this. But doesn't this happen to just about anyone?... And don't they use the same tactic (backpedal)?

>I know I've said things that suddenly raised the eyebrows of my listener(s), so I do a quick mental exercise to discern what may have been interpreted and then add qualifiers to the rest of my talking to bring it back where I wanted it to go.

Indeed, but somehow I don't think you're making statements about aborting black babies on the public airwaves for (potentially) millions to hear you. Then again, I've never attended a Toronto VFP user group meeting. Maybe I'm missing something there?

>We know the guy's against abortion. We know the guy wouldn't buy that declining crime rates were caused by abortion. Yet when he tries to "illustrate" the point in a more direct manner he gets crucified???

But that's the problem... regardless of what we think he meant, or what he probably should have said, we can only go by the transcript... and that's exactly what he said:

"But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down"

Only later does he backpedal, saying that this is "impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible." But by the time he gets around to this disclaimer, the bell has been rung.

As I pointed out to Peter the unfortunate undertone of the statements sounds very much like someone who's just made a ridiculously offensive comment, realized how uncomfortable everyone is (or how quiet it's become), and then tried to rectify the situtaion, yet ends up just digging the hole deeper by blurting out something inane (e.g., "but I'm not a racist!")

>I don't like the guy at all, but fair is fair.

Yes, and again... to be fair, I would tend to believe this should be filed under "extremely unwise word choice" rather than "Holy crap, Bill Bennett's a racist... film at 11!" But I can definitely understand why it's got some feathers ruffled.