This post at dpud, and some of the comments, really bother me.  Not because there is disagreement on the issue of whackjob Tea Party candidates, but because the 'establishment types' seem to think it's fine to mischaracterize (to the point of outright lying about) their opponents' positions.

Look, if I want to listen to a bunch of lies about my positions, I'll read the NYT or watch MSNBC.  I don't need that bullshit on an otherwise excellent blog.

The real issue:  The situation within the GOP is so chaotic that the Tea Party has gotten a few shady characters nominated.  There is a legitimate debate to be had on the vetting of candidates, and whether the 'throw the bums out' movement has gone too far.  I'm all for having this debate and would be willing to do so in a respectful fashion if only those on the other side of the issue would stop lying about my position.

Attempting to use Paladino's homophobic comments to tarnish  the Tea Party as anti-gay is incredibly dishonest.  Making an outright assertion that Chris Christie would never have gotten elected in this environment is a bald-faced lie.  Saying that (paraphrasing) 'if the GOP had vetted candidates better it would have been viewed as a power move'  is complete crap.

Those who believe in a more cohesive, top-down approach to GOP candidates need to start making their points honestly, or I (and many others like me) are going to lump them in with the MSM and tune them right the fuck out.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 08:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.