<p>Logicalidea:</p>
<p>You’re argument is to make a moderate document more extreme, in the hopes that, as it will be extreme in one direction, extremists on the other end (such as Zimmer) will look more foolish. </p>
<p>Absent an adequate description of what the revisions will be (all you offer is that there should be “stronger language” regarding corporate social responsibility), this seems to be a sorely misguided plan. Countering an extremist administration by fueling extremism in another direction does not seem like a sound strategy. </p>
<p>If Zimmer defies a policy that looks quite extreme in its own right, what looks foolish, the administration, the policy, or the entire operation? Again, until you can identify - with more specificity - what the “revisions” should be, your argument is callow. You can argue that the revisions would read completely reasonably, but, until more specific language could be provided, that argument can’t be evaluated. Further, given the murkiness of what the “revisions” would be, I just don’t see this as a feasible path. In fact, the path you offer seems rife with trouble.</p>