Yes, George Dance addresses Lautenberg, but totally avoids Bob Barr's refusal to repudiate it and apologize.
Without that repudiation and apology, GOA isn't doing their reputation for "no compromise" any favors. It's evident they're jumping through hoops to redirect the argument to what he's done that they like. But Barr's and the LP's nonresponsiveness can only mean he's unrepentant (more like unwilling to take political heat). That GOA doesn't demand a retraction before jumping in to help the guy makes their "F-" rating for John McCain look more than a bit disingenuous.
And I think I've made my views on McCain pretty clear.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Good point, the GOA is a great group but they need to be careful of doing stupid stuff like this. Bob Barr can not be trusted and is a coward by refusing to address his own personal actions. He's not a man in any standards a real man would be judge by. Bob Barr is a puke and a liar.
McCain, has one thing going for him and only one thing going for him and it comes from Bush. Bush as we all know is a liberal and a huge disappointment. Nevertheless, Bush did what seems to be a half decent job at appointing judges to the High Court. By Bush being a loser in every field but this one, many people are holding out for McCain to do the same.
Here comes the kick in the teeth, Hillary is going to go for the prize in Denver. She's got her people in place to take Oboma down as totally unelectable this fall. So it just maybe Hillary v McCain after all.
The GOA needs to step back and rethink what they are doing with Bob Barr, because Bob Barr is trash.
I disagree that GOA's F- for McCain is disingenuous. I believe it to be correct and truthful.
However, I would agree that GOA's stance on Barr is disingenuous.
They got one right, doesn't excuse getting the other wrong, but let us not discount the one in response to the other.
GOA didn't "jump in to help the guy" or "try to redirect the argument." What they did was rate most of the presidential candidates (including the GOP primary candidates), on their websites, as those candidates declared.
You can accuse me of doing those things, if you want -- though I don't think fairly, since I wasn't aware of your blog and its pursuit of the issue (hence no mention of it) at the time I wrote my article.
But I'd ask you to please not get or leave the idea that GOA is engaging in partisan politics in this case.
Well then George, would you explain your fluff peice about Barr?
Address specific issues like Lautenberg. If you feel you aren't being treated fairly, say why.
I really would like a reply, thanks.
I'm quite certain that I said nothing about "partisan", George--but to suggest GOA, a political organization, is not engaging in politics here is absurd on its face. After raising the Lautneberg issue, they go through great pains to explain all the "good" stuff he's done since--with no mention of his refusal to even address--let alone retract his previous position. That is not consistent with their self-avowed reputation for "no compromise."
You may buy it, but I don't.
As for what you did or did not know, fine. But you know now.
Will you let your readers know "Libertarian" Barr refuses to address this issue and continue to support him?
George I find your silence very eloquent.
"George I find your silence very eloquent."
Good. I hope you heard what it was actually saying:
I'm reading. You want me to "discuss Lautenberg," so I'm reading about Lautenberg.
When I'm done, I'll write another article.
D.C.: "I'm quite certain that I said nothing about "partisan", George--but to suggest GOA, a political organization, is not engaging in politics here is absurd on its face."
You accused GOA of "jumping into" your argument with Barr to "save" him from you. That's absurd, since they printed the piece I used long ago. You know that; you've read the same piece, and it's been posted here since.
"After raising the Lautneberg issue, they go through great pains to explain all the "good" stuff he's done since"
Now that's inconsistent: you've complaining about me addressing facts you want addressed, and now you're complaining about GOA (and me) giving facts you'd rather see ignored.
"--with no mention of his refusal to even address--let alone retract his previous position."
Now, that is just not true; and again you should know that, as you've read the GOA page and it's been posted in full on WOG. I didn't quote it, because I was looking for examples of what he'd done, not the million+1 things he hadn't done.
As for what you did or did not know, fine. But you know now.
"Will you let your readers know "Libertarian" Barr refuses to address this issue"
Oh, sure. I'll have to look into this and write another article; and I promise to quote you on this.
"and continue to support him?"
I've voted Libertarian for 30 years. Who are you suggesting I vote for instead?
Sorry for the typo; s/b:
" ... you're complaining about me ignoring facts you want addressed ..."
You accused GOA of "jumping into" your argument with Barr to "save" him from you.
Really? From me? That's news to me. Where and when did I do that?
they printed the piece I used long ago. You know that
Actually, George, the first "piece" I cited in my coverage, which began in May, was from April '97, where they reported what he did with Lautenberg. My "complaint" is that the latest piece, released a few months back, before I ever heard of you, was structured to lead the reader to the conclusion that his record improved--which is true in a qualified way, but still unsatisfactory because he still evidently supports Lautenberg. That GOA is giving him a pass on no retraction has nothing to do with what I've written, and I never said otherwise--it does though, seem problematic to me that the "no compromise gun lobby" has redirected THEIR OWN ARGUMENT to the conclusion that he's now acceptable on RKBA. These short posts aren't written in a vacuum, George--regular readers who have been following this know that--and by including a link to this site's archives on Barr, interested newcomers can find all the background stuff, too. So yeah, I maintain they're not doing themselves any favors.
you've complaining about me addressing facts you want addressed, and now you're complaining about GOA (and me) giving facts you'd rather see ignored.
Really? How on earth did you extrapolate that? Barr's pro-gun record is just as valid to discuss as his anti-gun efforts. What I'm concerned about is why he has not repudiated his former position and why that's not an important fact for GOA to mention in their latest analysis now that he's a candidate.
Who are you suggesting I vote for instead?
I dunno--maybe somebody who's not FOR the Lautenberg gun ban...?
Post a Comment