Craig, I'm warming up to you lately
Thanks for the nice words
(kudos on the Ellsberg thread by the way - except for the unfortunate assertion that Obama has attempted to change any of Bush's most egregious abuses)
Sorry, I stand by that strongly; I put up a sampling of 10 areas I think can be defended as such; I've also said there are major areas has has not improved and some he's worse.
but you've got to lighten up.
I smell disagreement nearby
Why do you persist on associating law with logic?
I don't think I did. Arguments about law can have good or bad logic.
"Law" is nothing but a bad joke being played on the dumb schmucks who don't have the power to bend it to their will.
I think that's overly cynical and inaccurately so, though sometimes is a good description.
Sit back and have a good laugh at the absurdity of it.
I find absurdity funny in harmless things more than in politics. I'm not addicted to giving Sarah Palin or whoever that 'witch' woman was a national platform for laughs.
Do you really care which state some politician chooses as his "home" state?
The substantive impact of the issue, as I've said a couple times, is very low - just as any one voter fraudently registering is, unless an election is decided by one vote.
What I've is that we should recognize he is breaking the law, and not being honest.
Why does that matter?
A couple reasons. One is noting the fact given how Republicans treat those issues as extremely important - in attacks on Democrats, but ignored often for 'their side'.
We should point out the fact it happened, to make it just a little harder to pretend their side doesn't do it.
Another is that there is an issue of principle with corrupting the electoral process, and lying.
Another is that there is some character issue - if a President lies about that, he lacks some block to lying I'd like him to have. Many on both sides have that problem.
People I'd really rather didn't it have had that problem - Edwards, Weiner for a couple.
It doesn't mean I won't vote for them - especially against a worse candidate - but it's a real negative and should be condemned.
As if it has any bearing on how effectively they "represent" (hah!) their constituents? Life is too short to care about meaningless tripe like that.
I think I understand your point, but what you may not be appreciating from this as far as the 'real politik' aspect is that self-righteous screeching about such issues is a very real part of our political process (ask Weiner, ask Spitzer, ask Bill Clinton, ask Obama when he's caught in a lie and savaged if that happens), and this is both staking the ground to say, if you're going to attack our guys for low-impact lawbreaking and lying - and I'm not saying they shouldn't - that goes both ways. Let's see some consistency.
In other words, if I accept your argument that this sort of issue shouldnt' be made a big deal - then perhaps the best way to make that point with those who make it a big deal about Democrats, is to hold them to the same standard for their guy, so they have to decide which way to go - which may well be having to admit they shouldn't make such a big deal about it, something they can avoid doing if it's not raised as an issue.
It even raises issues about what's right and wrong when our political system adopts practices of ignoring lawbreaking for 'privileged' people and such.
Just how often should politicians get to ignore the law and not be held accountable?
In short, it's saying multiple things - some partisan, some straightforward defenses of principle, some simply reporting facts.
The issue isn't only the impact of his committing voter fraud, which is small; and it's not even only the politics of a Republican breaking the law and not being honest.
It's also a larger issue about how we should handle such issues, whether they're about voter fraud, sex, or major policies. Was Reagan 'right' to allow Iran-Contra - the Nicaraguan terrorists to important cocaine into the US to raise funds for a war Congress had banned funds for, for example - if he thought he was doing what's best for America?
When is lawbreaking ok, using this as a clear but low-impact example? When is a politician lying to the government, to the public, ok, using this as a low-impact example?
Those can be rhetorical questions, or actual questions, but I think that pointing out the Republican front-running clearly breaking the law dishonestly is worth reporting.
Whatever it forces in the election discussion, if nothing more than serving to make the point Republicans are in a glass house as they like to throw stones.
If you'd like to make the point that this is not a big policy issue - everyone's agreed on that since my OP. Those are much more important.
But IMO this is important too, in part as having some accountability for those on the right who like to go wild with what some call 'faux outrage' over such issues.
Hopefully, this is keeping it where it belongs - well below policy, but saying we should not just accept the behavior.
How many who called for Weiner to resign for lying about virtual sex have held Romney to the same standard for lying?
Finally, this does fit into a larger criticism for Romney, not for this being an important issue - it's a minor technical issue it appears may be the standard practice there - but Romney is the worst flip flopper on issues I've seen of any major candidate in several elections for the wrong reasons, political convenience, to the point I think his honesty, including on policy, should be made an issue - along with his 'credential' to run as a 'business expert' (deja vu to our 'first MBA candidate Bush) who made hundreds of millions from a vulture-like business that trashed large numbers of American jobs as the way it made money, who had a reported terrible record on the economy and jobs running on jobs.
This just 'fits the pattern' about his level of being honest.
Facebook
Twitter