E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Friday, August 14, 2015

Politicians have always been accountable for their supporters

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Candidates for elective office have always been held accountable for the actions and words of their supporters, and this standard has been upheld by both Republicans and Democrats. That holds true even when that supporter is the candidate's spouse, as we saw when Democrats challenged Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin for their respective husbands' political activity. Yet in Bloomington and Monroe County politics, Democrats argue that rule does not apply - because it is politically inconvenient for Democrats.

You will understand why I refuse to play by those rules.

On Sunday, the wife of John Hamilton (the Democratic candidate for mayor) penned an editorial attacking efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. In the comments on HTO and on Facebook, I asked why it was not disclosed that the author was Hamilton's wife. This made Hamilton supporters angry, and I was (predictably) accused of misogyny. Never mind that I have criticized both male and female candidates and elected officials for their spouses' public words and political behavior - it is "misogynistic" to bring that up. Unless, of course, a Democrat does it. Then it's not only acceptable, but encouraged.

Hamilton's wife wrote about defunding Planned Parenthood on a national level, but that issue is of local importance as well. After all, about 150 people rallied at the Planned Parenthood "clinic" on South College Avenue calling for no more tax dollars to go to the local abortuary. This includes grants by city government, which Hamilton wants to lead starting on January 1. Given the local policy connection to this issue, and given that any candidate's most enthusiastic supporter is his or her spouse, it is wholly appropriate to bring up the relationship. It is reasonable to at least ask if Hamilton shares his wife's views.

This is very simple: The opinions of Hamilton's wife, especially because there is a local policy angle on this issue - are relevant to Hamilton's candidacy. The Herald-Times should have disclosed that the author of that editorial is married to the Democratic candidate for mayor, especially since they do not share the same last name. It speaks volumes that Democrats become angry when factual information about a candidate and his supporters becomes public knowledge.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.