This is an example of how not to court swing voters as a conservative. You don't do it by alienating your base.
He probably had to say something because the other leaders are going to (and being the one party leader who doesn't is a great headline), and the media for sure already had their "Look how racist O'Toole is for [applauding/not applauding] the [not guilty/guilty] verdict" articles written before the verdict even came down.
The only way to win in instances like this is to not play at all. You have more to lose by making the wrong reaction in the eyes of swing voters than you have to gain by virtue signalling to your base with something inflammatory (like there's pretty much nothing he could say here that would gain him conservative voters, but plenty he could say that would lose them, and also plenty he could say that would lose swing voters).
This is one of those issues that's it's better to just sidestep with deference. "Yeah, great, justice was served. All's well that ends well". Something like that. A token conciliatory statement. Just enough so the media can't say you didn't make a statement.
What you don't do is go all-in with full throated enthusiasm, screeching "racist" and so forth. You say just enough to take the wind out of the media's sails, but not enough to convince your base that you really mean it.
They are low-thinking con-artists. They can not help themselves. If he DIDN'T comment, he would be regretting it for weeks. The other politicians would accuse him of being racist for not commenting.
Politics has devolved into a particular specialization of a job. Conning the rubes. You've got to be a shameless psycho to compete. The media helps with this.
This is an example of how not to court swing voters as a conservative. You don't do it by alienating your base.
He probably had to say something because the other leaders are going to (and being the one party leader who doesn't is a great headline), and the media for sure already had their "Look how racist O'Toole is for [applauding/not applauding] the [not guilty/guilty] verdict" articles written before the verdict even came down.
The only way to win in instances like this is to not play at all. You have more to lose by making the wrong reaction in the eyes of swing voters than you have to gain by virtue signalling to your base with something inflammatory (like there's pretty much nothing he could say here that would gain him conservative voters, but plenty he could say that would lose them, and also plenty he could say that would lose swing voters).
This is one of those issues that's it's better to just sidestep with deference. "Yeah, great, justice was served. All's well that ends well". Something like that. A token conciliatory statement. Just enough so the media can't say you didn't make a statement.
What you don't do is go all-in with full throated enthusiasm, screeching "racist" and so forth. You say just enough to take the wind out of the media's sails, but not enough to convince your base that you really mean it.
They are low-thinking con-artists. They can not help themselves. If he DIDN'T comment, he would be regretting it for weeks. The other politicians would accuse him of being racist for not commenting.
Politics has devolved into a particular specialization of a job. Conning the rubes. You've got to be a shameless psycho to compete. The media helps with this.