No, I don’t agree this sentence correctly captures the balancing of equities here.
While I agree his act was criminal, I don’t agree it makes him a “bad guy.” How would that work, exactly? Having committed misdemeanor assault, is that it for him, for life?
Is this the standard you’d impose across the board? Consider Professor Mirelle Miller-Young, who was criminally convicted not only of misdemeanor battery (on a 16 year old victim, no less) but of grand theft and vandalism. All three charges arose after Miller-Young struck an anti-abortion advocate and then stole and destroyed his sign; Miller-Young refused to plead guilty but entered a no-contest plea in which she acknowledged that the state had sufficient evidence to convict her.
Is she also a bad guy? Does her set of criminal convictions bar her from seeking public office? For how long?
I’d say that Gianforte is far from an ideal candidate. but that on balance, and even including his misdemeanor assault, he’s a better candidate for the country. In a sense, this is “giving me what I want,” but what I want are what I regard as better outcomes for the nation.
At what point, behavior-wise, would you be more concerned about damage to the country and further coarsening of American politics than the issues you favor?
Suppose the reporter Gianforte assaulted had been a woman. Would that change your view? What bad behavior would be too much for you to prefer Gianforte to his opponent?
I think you’re not looking at the bigger picture of the circumstances around the assault. This was not a shove at a backyard BBQ. In fact, his intention (given the evidence of his prior words and behaviour) was to intimidate the press; to ensure that the press did not ask him embarrassing questions; to make sure the press knows that that they can be beaten physically. This goes beyond his own actions, and really does speak to how the GOP desires to treat the press in the future. This is not about his actions in a vacuum - it comes from the very top of your party - your president Trump has enabled and encouraged these actions, and now we see if your party as a whole embraces them.
The Hyde Amendment, like any congressional act, is vulnerable to repeal. But more to the point: it was intended as an example. Other examples: House members can vote on bills defunding Planned Parenthood unless it strictly separates accounting for abortion services – not simply “not using federal money” but not allowing abortion providers to benefit from shared infrastructure and sunk costs.
House members can ensure future health bills do not mandate employer-provided contraception when there exist religious objections.
House members have considered H.R. 36: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,
H.R. 644: Conscience Protection Act of 2017, and H.R. 217: Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act just this year.
I’d say multiple assaults, felonious activities, behavior that evinced moral turpitude or was sexually assaultive in nature are all examples of things that would move me off the support button.
I’m shocked to hear you suggest that the gender of his victim is relevant. In today’s society, women and men should be judged equally, as offenders or as victims.
Unless your question was a proxy for asking how I’d feel if there were a dramatic weight, strength, or size differential in play? If so, then yes, that would also move me off the support button.
Well, that’s a difference between you and me: I am concerned with legal punishment. In fact, I’m so concerned with legal punishment that I’d say punishment should be applied even to someone I’d vote for – and, well, vice versa.
If he’s guilty, then I want him punished regardless of whether he’s going to vote the right way; and, if he’s going to vote the right way, I want him to do that regardless of whether he’s going to be punished. They honestly seem like separate questions.
I’m asking about your feelings; I’m not suggesting anything about my own. Are you saying that if the hypothetical woman assault victim was about the same size as Gianforte, that wouldn’t ‘move you off the support button’?
I’m not planning to “gotcha” on this answer – I think (and hope) I’d oppose any candidate who assaulted a reporter, but I’ll freely admit that assaulting a woman reporter would bother me more.
If I’m being honest, I’d have to say there is a lot of bad behavior I would overlook by someone who “votes the way I want.” Hell, I was willing to over look Weiner’s initial conduct, until it became clear it wasn’t a one-off stupid thing. But I think I would draw the line at assault. There are some things that simply reveal too much about a person’s character. Physically attacking someone reveals some huge character flaws to the extent I would not trust that person to act rationally in Congress. Civilized people don’t assault other people without justification. Period. We have enough uncivilized people in government. If this was the Democratic candidate who did this, I wouldn’t vote for him. (On the other hand, I would not go so far as to vote for his opponent)
With the understanding that “support,” in this case means preferring his win to his opponent’s win, yes, that’s correct.
Is it just reporters and politicians?
In post #61 I asked about Professor Mirelle Miller-Young’s assault on a minor who was an anti-abortion protester; Miller-Young hasn’t been fired by the university despite her triple criminal convictions arising from the incident. Is this incident analysed differently?
Well, I misspoke, but if you want to snarkily imply that you think I was suggesting that legal punishment should not apply to candidates for office, let me clarify a bit more:
I do think that if he’s committed a crime he should be punished. I don’t think that a person’s actions are subject to criminal punishment means that their sins are forgiven and that my voting for them doesn’t imply a tacit approval for their behavior. So, I agree with all this:
But, our political leaders are more than just YES/NO issue voters. We put ourselves in the hands of our elected officials, who manage in varying degrees all aspects of our lives. They write, debate, and compromise around policy with other politicians. They are the leaders who shape the landscape for our future.
As Procrustus says, “Physically attacking someone reveals some huge character flaws to the extent I would not trust that person to act rationally in Congress.”
Maybe that’s not true for you, but own it. “I don’t care if my congresscritters assault people, I’ll vote for them anyway, as long as their position on X aligns with mine.”
And I am horrified by the idea of being represented by leaders who push, punch and shove other people in order to get their way. Maybe you are not.
What’s the rationale for overlooking the first unprovoked assault? We all have one assault in us? I don’t know about you, but I’ve managed 55 years so far without every assaulting anyone. In fact, to my knowledge, no one I’m close to has ever assaulted anyone. Normal people don’t do shit like that. This asshole is, therefore, not “normal.” Thus, I don’t want him in Congress.
And once more we are reminded, in spite of decades of bullshit spewn from these hypocritical bags of douche on the right, that character doesn’t matter a fucking whit. Ryan and all his buddies are already on record stating that Montanans will be well represented by someone who beat up a reporter. Trump and his ilk are in favor of running the government like a company; if this rageaholic had pulled this while working for any company in the world he’d have been walked out to his car with all of his shit in a file box. But a Republican is punished by being sent to Congress instead of the pokey.
This country is fucking lost, I swear. And I don’t know if its because Republicans are such nakedly power-hungry pieces of shit or if its because Democrats are so goddamned useless.
Based on the audio, he was triggered by the press asking questions.
His intent is that the press be discouraged from asking him questions.
That’s not a problem?