Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly.
He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
I expect to see a plethora of comments about how this is the same thing as what McCaskill did with Akins. All those comments will be as assininely wrong as ever.
The ads that the D’s ran in MO were clearly noted as being from the D election campaign. That they were designed to help and not hinder is irrelevant. It would have been no better or worse if the ads had attacked the R candidates in the lead.
I personally think, opposition should keep the hell out of nominating campaigns, but that is a personal thing and not something that should be legislated, or expected.
on August 22, 2012 at 11:17 am
Boo…facsinating how you focus on foibles of individuals who are Republican, as if indictes the entire conservative, small government.
Why do you do that? Does the fact that Bill Clinton was an adulterous philanderer who used the highest office in the land to his blank blanked indict liberalism, or does the fact that Anthony “Weiner” tweeted a picture of his Blank to a young, barely legal woman who was not his WIFE…indict Progressiveism?
If you seriously don’t understand the difference between breaking the law and doing something dumb but legal then I’m going to have to conclude that you’re an idiot.
on August 22, 2012 at 11:28 am
Okay…have any Democrats/Liberals/Progressives “broken the law”? Ever?
How is it relevant to political dialogue about the proper role of Government?
Of course they have. And just like Republicans, they should be punished accordingly. One springs to mind immediately.
This is not a dialogue about the proper role of government. BooMan’s post is about a Republican who appears to have broken the law and should be investigated and punished appropriately. If you want to talk about something else, go start your own blog, nothing’s stopping you.
And how are a politician’s sexual misdeeds (the two examples you cite) relevant to the role of government? I can understand immediately how violating a slew of campaign finance and reporting laws (among many other things) might be – and yeah, there’s crooks in both parties, but in recent years it sure seems like the vast majority are from the party that prattles on endlessly about freedom and family values. Though the rhetoric about law and order (outside the immigration debate) isn’t nearly as prevalent as it once was.
Are the people we send to our seats of government as our representatives above the law or are they to be held accountable to the same laws as those they represent? Or is that a question irrelevant to political dialogue?
According to that Wikipedia article (which lists several previous “controversies,” including some doozies), this isn’t the first time he’s tried to interfere with his opponents:
On September 6, 2002, Rivera was involved in a traffic collision with a truck carrying thousands of fliers, produced by Rivera’s campaign opponent at the time, that included a last-minute attack on Rivera’s character and detailed past domestic violence accusations against him.[7] According to reports filed by the Florida Highway Patrol, a car driven by Rivera hit the truck and forced it to the shoulder of the Palmetto Expressway, ten minutes before the truck’s 6 p.m. deadline to deliver the fliers to the post office, preventing the fliers from being delivered in time to be mailed.
Doesn’t Rivera know that the first rule of effective management of shady campaign tricks is to delegate?
I expect to see a plethora of comments about how this is the same thing as what McCaskill did with Akins. All those comments will be as assininely wrong as ever.
The ads that the D’s ran in MO were clearly noted as being from the D election campaign. That they were designed to help and not hinder is irrelevant. It would have been no better or worse if the ads had attacked the R candidates in the lead.
I personally think, opposition should keep the hell out of nominating campaigns, but that is a personal thing and not something that should be legislated, or expected.
Boo…facsinating how you focus on foibles of individuals who are Republican, as if indictes the entire conservative, small government.
Why do you do that? Does the fact that Bill Clinton was an adulterous philanderer who used the highest office in the land to his blank blanked indict liberalism, or does the fact that Anthony “Weiner” tweeted a picture of his Blank to a young, barely legal woman who was not his WIFE…indict Progressiveism?
Stick to ideas…stop the ad homenin attacks…
Small Goverent Movement!!!
If you seriously don’t understand the difference between breaking the law and doing something dumb but legal then I’m going to have to conclude that you’re an idiot.
Okay…have any Democrats/Liberals/Progressives “broken the law”? Ever?
How is it relevant to political dialogue about the proper role of Government?
Pray Tell?
Of course they have. And just like Republicans, they should be punished accordingly. One springs to mind immediately.
This is not a dialogue about the proper role of government. BooMan’s post is about a Republican who appears to have broken the law and should be investigated and punished appropriately. If you want to talk about something else, go start your own blog, nothing’s stopping you.
And how are a politician’s sexual misdeeds (the two examples you cite) relevant to the role of government? I can understand immediately how violating a slew of campaign finance and reporting laws (among many other things) might be – and yeah, there’s crooks in both parties, but in recent years it sure seems like the vast majority are from the party that prattles on endlessly about freedom and family values. Though the rhetoric about law and order (outside the immigration debate) isn’t nearly as prevalent as it once was.
Also, to paraphrase a line from campaign past, “It’s the hypocrisy, stupid.”
Are the people we send to our seats of government as our representatives above the law or are they to be held accountable to the same laws as those they represent? Or is that a question irrelevant to political dialogue?
So you admit that Marco Rubio’s best buddy is a crook. Good for you.
According to that Wikipedia article (which lists several previous “controversies,” including some doozies), this isn’t the first time he’s tried to interfere with his opponents:
On September 6, 2002, Rivera was involved in a traffic collision with a truck carrying thousands of fliers, produced by Rivera’s campaign opponent at the time, that included a last-minute attack on Rivera’s character and detailed past domestic violence accusations against him.[7] According to reports filed by the Florida Highway Patrol, a car driven by Rivera hit the truck and forced it to the shoulder of the Palmetto Expressway, ten minutes before the truck’s 6 p.m. deadline to deliver the fliers to the post office, preventing the fliers from being delivered in time to be mailed.
Doesn’t Rivera know that the first rule of effective management of shady campaign tricks is to delegate?