Thursday, June 09, 2011

Good Sense and Propriety in Politics

In the last week we have been forced to live through a couple of melodramas that should not have been.

#1 - Anthony Weiner - Yesterday as I was driving back from a board meeting, I heard a long discussion from a "friend" of the Congressman who said that Weiner had broken no laws in posting his photos to Twitter.   That is true but irrelevant.    Weiner has compromised the dignity of his office.    Weiner is one of those all consumed politicians who argues that as long as I am advancing the progressive agenda nothing else matters.  When he first ran for office he used a race baiting brochure to squeeze out a close win against one Audrey Cohen.   He should resign based on his long record of lacking any sense of propriety.

#2 - Sarah Palin - The former candidate for president made the absurd statement last week that Paul Revere's ride had been to warn the British.   There is indeed some evidence that is a correct interpretation of history.   Revere is one of those figures who is surrounded in myth and according to a couple of first rate historians Revere's own account of his ride suggests that he said things which could support Palin's assertion.  The problem I have here is not whether Palin is correct or wrong (history is full of nuance).  Rather it is how predictably the commentariat jumped on the issue in thoroughly predictable ways.   Lefties pointed out how dumb Ms. Palin is without ever having bothered to think about the statement and figure whether it has any validity.

#3 - Jon Huntsman - Yesterday on Hugh Hewitt the former Utah governor was questioned by the host about a series of issues including the possibility of vetoing an assault weapons ban.   I know that much of politics is code but the very premise of the question is absurd.  Does Mr. Huntsman support the Second Amendment?  Based on his record in Utah, one would think yes.  Is the Second Amendment an absolute restriction on the ability of citizens to own any firearm, of course not.   In the current configuration of  congress, which presumably Mr. Hewitt would support extending to the Senate, it would be absurd to assume that the House would vote to restrict purchase and sale of firearms beyond current restrictions.  So does Mr. Hewitt assume that the democrats would be able to take back the House in 2012?  Or does he assume that somehow a bill which would be against some pretty strong GOP principles would be able to be slipped by the majority in the House?

Elected officials have a responsibility to act not just within the law but within reasonable ethical standards.  Journalists, broadly defined, have a responsibility to measure their words.   In the last week the public has been mis-served because several in the public square of debate and discussion have forgotten those principles.

3 comments:

Wayne said...

You give this Poor lady to much credit. She barely knows that Washington was the first president let alone that she knows nuances of the Revolutionary War.

Wayne said...

You give this lady to much credit. She barely knows that Washington was the first president let alone nuances of the Revolutionary War.

Dr. Tax in Sacramento said...

I made no comment about her intelligence - I suspect she is a lot brighter than many of her antagonists suspect she is but I have no knowledge about her relative intelligence. Regardless, I think she has made some dumb comments over time.