from Amazon
Monday, February 15, 2010
What is wrong with this logic?
This is a non-sports post, so reader beware!
I have read this kind of thing so many times and it makes my blood boil. The basic idea is that some commentator or politician complains about a politician being hypocritical or “flip-flopping” on an issue because they voted for or against a certain bill and then either voted the opposite on or criticized or touted something in the bill.
Here is a classic example:
Rachel Madow, a commentator on MSNBC, was interviewing Republican Congressman Aaron Schock. She criticized him by saying this:
“You, in your district, I just read that you were at a community college touting a $350,000 green technology education program, talking about how great that was going to be for your district,” she said. “You voted against the bill that created that grant.
She went on to say this:
“If you vote against the omnibus bill,” she said at the end of the exchange, “if you complain about the omnibus bill, if you tout your vote against the omnibus bill, it is hypocrisy to then go to your district and go to a ribbon cutting ceremony for something that is funded by the omnibus bill that you voted against.”
What is wrong with her logic, which, again, you hear all time in criticisms of politicians? Let’s put aside the fact that politicians are allowed to change their minds.
The problem is that there are all kinds of reasons to vote against an entire bill, and it usually does not mean that you are opposed to everything in the bill. Bills often have hundreds of different parts to them, and sometimes a bill has things tacked on that have nothing to do with the principal crux of the bill. You can even sometimes vote against a bill on principal alone yet actually agree with most of the things in the bill.
My main point though is that there are many things in a bill, and when a politician votes against a bill, it does not mean that he is opposed to everything in the bill.
Basically what Madow is saying is that because Schock voted against this bill, he has to be opposed to everything in it, and he cannot tout even ONE thing in the bill. That is ridiculous and even someone with half a brain should be able to see through her twisted logic.
Disclaimer: I am NOT in any way shape or form a Republican supporter or apologist.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date