I asked what would happen if a debate moderator puts the question to a Republican who replies by stating that other issues are more important — and names them — before giving the same point-blank answer about “boys” that, as it were, Acton actually gave.
I don’t see how Acton could then answer the moderator by describing the other candidate’s response that way: one is answering the question, one is dodging the question, and the one who’s giving a straight answer is saying they aren’t the greatest threat to the nation today.
I have. I believe a debater can — in a matter of seconds — note that other issues are more important, before delivering a “since you asked” answer to the question the moderator asked.
I believe their opponent can then dodge the question: obligingly handing the first debater a chance to say, “they dodged the question, and I gave you a straight answer.”
It’s a format where a trained opportunist waits for their opponent to dodge a question — for to posture for the camera, like a regular-guy straight-shooter, and honestly note that they dodged the question, but I tell it like it is.
I am. And, beyond that: as far as I can tell, the jumping-off point for all of this is that a real-life Democratic politician actually did stake out the position at issue, instead of dodging the question, because real-life politicians see value in doing that sort of thing: in and out of debates.
The alternative involves handing your opponent entirely too golden of an opportunity.
This quote from a commenter of the book What’s the Matter With Kansas? addresses this issue nicely.
Frank begins by asking a simple question, why do people vote against their economic interests? The Republican Party, he notes, has a penchant for big business, lessening regulations, and a diminution of the social programs that defined politics from the New Deal to the Great Society. The genius of the conservative movement, and the reason for its success, required a draining of the quest for economic justice that had dominated that earlier effort from the political agenda. Conservatives replaced it with values and cultural issues that attracted working class voters. The centerpiece of this was the anti-abortion issue, but it also included symbols of patriotism such as flag burning and the Pledge of Allegiance, the sanctity of marriage and whether it should be extended to gays, the stories told of American history, religious conceptions and their legitimacy in the public sphere, and the science behind evolution and other issues that some find uncomfortable.
That book is from 2004. Some issues have changed since then – abortion, gay marriage-- but have been replaced by just as divisive but still controversial issues.
I don’t understand these people. This appears calculated to drive away anyone who might vote for her. Are they taking campaign advice from Martha Coakley?
I agree with others that a Democrat expressing a transphobic conservative or Republican idea doesn’t really belong in the Stupid Liberal idea of the day thread.
Maybe, but I think halfassing the damage control like that, trying to thread the needle between telling your trans-supportive voters ”we apologize for the unintended insult and we care about your concerns” and telling your transphobic voters ”we stand behind every word we said”, is down to the stupid liberals themselves.
Didn’t you get the memo, the more likely a politician is to sell out any given segment, the more it makes them a liberal, not a True Leftist. Because as we all know, when leftists get into power, they definitely don’t attempt to destroy other flavors of leftism in their country (heavy /s).
(Furthermore, I see loads of people saying “why are we fighting about this when the real enemy is the rich/capitalism”, which evinces a willingness to sell these people out as well. I guess people saying this aren’t True Leftists either.)
Unfortunately, the links here are about the Ohio Democratic Party and their actions. Acton is very much not alone in this. She isn’t a one-off bad liberal.
Again, transphobia hasn’t been just a conservative thing since the rise of TERFism. Their version of transphobia is presented as being feminist, of being about protecting women and girls. They made transphobia compatible with liberal ideology, if not further left. (See the UK Labor party)
I get the desire to not claim her as one of your own. But this attitude of “oh, she’s just a shitty liberal” ignores what is festering in the heart of the Democratic party and the insidious threat of TERFism. It’s like saying that Evangelicals aren’t “real Christians.”