Johnson: I didn't say Great Lakes, I said ANWR; Well, no I didn't, actually, but I meant what I didn't say

Senate candidate Ron Johnson steps through the looking glass in Hudson and finds what's up is down:

... [Johnson] has also been criticized for allegedly supporting drilling for oil in the Great Lakes.

“There is no way I would support drilling in the Great Lakes,” said Johnson, who still wonders what that accusation is based on. “I never said Great Lakes, and I never said drill in the Great Lakes.”

He says he did say the nation should look at drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska.

“I think we need to realize we’re an oil-based economy,” said Johnson. He said the country has to look at the most environmentally friendly ways of producing oil.

At the risk of getting repetitive, this is what Johnson was asked, and what he replied:

Asked, "Do you want to open up more of the United States - the continental United States - to drilling. I mean, would you support drilling like in the Great Lakes for example, if there was oil found there, or using more exploration in Alaska, in ANWR, those kinds of things?" Johnson said:

"Yeah. You know, the bottom line is that we are an oil-based economy. There’s nothing we’re going to do to get off of that for many, many years, so I think we have to just be realistic and recognize that fact. And I think we have to get the oil where it is, but we need to do it responsibly."[WisPolitics, Interview, 6/14/10]

So he didn't specifically say Great Lakes, and he didn't specifically say ANWR either. What he did was answer the question, which included both ANWR and the Great Lakes.

Johnson keeps wiggling, and even convinced the Journal Sentinel editorial board that black is white. But he said what he said and didn't clarify it for a month, despite intense criticism. That is the mark of someone who accidentally told the truth in the first place and said what he really thought.