- None of the candidates, as my friend Michael put it on Facebook, are candidates for Mount Rushmore.
- Speaker Gingrich seems to think he can run away from his record as a fined, dismissed (by his party,) and unsuccessful speaker.
- His marital record contributes to the perception of his moral and judgment issues.
- Properly appreciated, elections are a good thing. They allow the voters not only to choose, but to make their case.
Elections are the pressure release valve of society. Which is why I find myself rather at odds with some of my liberal friends. There seems to have been a sort of "given" scenario out there. In it, Mr. Romney became the GOP nominee, picked a nice moderate VP nominee, and they had a reasonably civil and intellectual debate, of course won by liberals, after which Mr. Obama governed. If we learned anything in South Carolina it is that this is simply not going to happen.
Voters who chose Mr. Gingrich are not stupid, not morally deficient, and do not deserve to have their franchise removed. They simply made choices. They can do that: their right to choose, even to choose wrongly, is absolute. If I do not agree with their choice, my job is not to put them down, it is rather to make my case and get them to change. That is called, "democracy." To date it is about the best system ever conceived. When James Madison thought up our constitutional system, he never for a moment thought we would all agree. The idea was to permit us to disagree, vote, and live together.
When I hear of voters who want to move out of country if a particular person is elected, or if a particular bill passes, I shudder. These are the attitudes that destroy republics. It is simply wrong to think that way.
I am perfectly capable of being a slasher in debate. One of my readers has been known to call me to task on the tendency. And I am no friend of Speaker Gingrich. I consider his "ethical lapses" and sexual adventures indicative of a flawed judgement we cannot afford in office. But(!) that does not make me right. And it does not license me to think his supporters are troglodytes.
Here then a hint for my liberal friends. You are not gonna convert anyone by calling them a dolt.
FWIW
jimB
5 comments:
Jim B I agree with this totally as well!!
I get more than a little put off by the term "stupid" being so liberally applied (literally, since it's by liberals) towards Republican voters. Having said that I don't live in the US and I don't have to contend with the Republican candidates, who are without exception a monumentally offputting bunch, but I agree with you that I don't think calling someone thick amounts to an argument.
I don't agree. It's easy to dismiss fear-mongering when it's not your rights these people are attacking (and make no mistake, they are attacking)-- whether it's a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body, a gay person's right to marry, a Muslim's right to worship, or a Mexcian-American's right to drive while brown. But if you arent a woman, gay,Muslim, or Mexican, hey, no problem!
IT, you miss-read my post. I did not in any way suggest any of the evils you mentioned are OK. What I said was something else entire.
None of what, for horrible example, Mr. Santorum says about women, is less than reprehensible. But neither you nor I know if some women voted for him in spite of, because of, or ignorant of his (bs) ideas. Calling any woman who did vote for him stupid, evil or some similar ad hominum does nothing to defeat him, which is an entirely good thing to do.
Cathy, thank you for actually reading the post! I am glad someone did. I think we need to engage those who think they can have Mr. Gingrich without the oppression and get the truth out there.
FWIW
jimB
The truth. Do any of these politicians even know what it is?
I am actually going to watch the next debate and try to learn something. Dad, good for you for actively seeking the truth.
Christal, <<:-)>>.
Never take what anyone says as truth without testing it.
FWIW
jimB
Post a Comment