<$BlogRSDUrl$>

My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.

2005-04-29

And In Defense Of Salazar. . .

Come the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News' Mike Littwin.

What's most hilarious about both attempts at the defense is that they both claim that Salazar had the "higher ground". To wit:

DPost:Until this week, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar had taken the high road in defending himself against hard-ball attacks from the conservative group Focus on the Family and its founder James Dobson.

Salazar has opposed GOP threats to eliminate use of the filibuster when judicial nominations are considered. Focus and others, claiming Salazar flip-flopped on a campaign promise, have questioned his faith and attacked him in print and radio ads.

And, Littwin: Politically speaking, though, this was a minor disaster. That's why he apologized. But an apology won't change the fact that Salazar has given away much of the high ground he had gained in his fight with Dobson.

Which leads to the following set of questions:

1. If Salazar had the "high ground," then by implication Dobson must have taken the "low road;" since when has engaging our public officials on matters of policy, and doing so within the context of the public debate, been the "low road"?

2. If it's simply the "hard-ball" approach that has earned Dobson the "low road," then what is one to say about the Democrats approach to the issue, which has included their caucus leader saying such temperate things as "this is just a big wet-kiss to the far right"?

3. And while he did have a right to attack Salazar as a "flip-flopper" (which, for the record, is not a "claim" since it can easily be substantiated by the public record), Dobson never reduced his discourse to name-calling, merely pointing out that Salazar was participating in the "mischief;" so, since Salazar was actually the first one to resort to name-calling (even his apology labeled Dobson as "un-Christian . . .self-serving and selfish), wouldn't Salazar actually be the one who staked out the "low-road" first?

This is a great example of the debate technique of the Left: do a thing; get called on the thing; call those who called you on it something derogatory; then feign shock--SHOCK--at "vitriol" from the other side while issuing a non-apology apology.

And they wonder why they can't win elections any more.
Posted by: Michael / 4/29/2005 09:47:00 AM

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?