In the spirit of a "new me," here is a story line I cannot support: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/02/Judicial-Watch-s-Ten-Most-Wanted-Corrupt-Politicians-for-2013 . It includes John Boehner and Saxby Chambliss as "corrupt" politicians. Sorry, but I am not interested in this story.
While I am very unhappy with John Boehner and would support a change in House Leadership, I do not believe that "corrupt" is appropriate, in this case. Character assassination does not benefit "the cause" and continues to divide the GOP in ways that may keep the GOP from moving, effectively, to the Right. Now, if John McCain had made this list, I might have given it more attention.
Having said that, I would make the same point as in the above. McCain is a buffoon and his conservative credentials have been proven to be nothing but lies, but, to call him "corrupt," well, that is not his problem. Rather, he is profoundly wrong. Understand that if misrepresenting one's position, even in the slightest of ways, is the working definition of "corrupt," then all my political heroes are or have been "corrupt." If we are going to brand a politician, I think we should do so using terms that are specific and without debate (in a relative sense).
You might want to read the Breitbart story and decide for yourselves. They do make their case, but I think this editorial effort is a bit much.
No comments:
Post a Comment