I've been following the story up here about a Somali woman running for state legislature. There is apparently at least some reasonably credible evidence that she either married someone in order to get them a green card, or married someone while being married to someone else. Either of these two things would violate the law.
One might think that these allegations could be quickly and accurately dealt with by simply providing the proper documentation and the whole thing goes away. This method would also have the benefit of discrediting the source and enhancing her reputation for being forthright and honest.
But instead of simply demonstrating that the allegations are false, she/her campaign/surrogates have chose to frame this as an issue of prejudice. Anti woman, anti-Somali, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, or whatever floats your boat. They've also managed to portray those putting forth the accusation as somehow being another incarnation of Donald Trump. They've also played the "They just want to stop the first Somali..." card. Which would be fine if her opponent wasn't also Somali.
Now I have absolutely no idea if these allegations are true, even if they are and she's convicted, she'll still win the election given the nature of her house district, and the willingness of the left to vote for anyone with DFL attached to their name. But, I have to wonder why she would choose to muddy the water and make this story drag out even longer by not simply demonstrating that the story is false.
Maybe it's a liberal thing. I've had personal experience with folks on the left who (when faced with something they don't like) choose to obfuscate or ignore things rather than to simply provide the evidence that the other person in wrong. It seems simple to think that if one can vindicate your position, and prove someone else wrong, that one would fail to do the simple obvious thing. Why even give the appearance of throwing up a smoke screen? It's simply beyond me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
It's the same thing we saw with Obama doing nothing to dispel rumors regarding his on situation, be it his place of birth, his school records...whatever...which suggests to me something somehow damaging if revealed. All would be cleared up and the accusers put to flight if these people would actually engage in the transparency they pretend to favor.
I think one of the problems these days for anyone seeking public office is how every little detail of one's life can be up for scrutiny, regardless of whether or not it has any relevance to the run for office. Now, at the same time, some of that irrelevance might be relevant to some, but still, it is a daunting thing to be so opened up. I would imagine most people have something about their own lives that, for whatever reason, they would prefer to have remain outside of the public eye. But once running for office, all manner of negative is ripe for publication, usually by those looking to see someone else win the office. Note how every little thing about Trump is inflated to importance, even when there are truly legitimate reasons to oppose him that doing so is completely unnecessary.
...and yet, still no tax returns. The man is running solely based upon his experience and value as a businessman, and we have no idea how well he's doing, what he's doing with his money, what charitable donations he has made... if any...
Given the topic of your post, I would assume you're amongst us who want Trump to share his tax returns?
Given that the topic of the post is incredibly stupid behavior on the part of a DFL candidate and wondering why the default liberal position is to blame everyone else first, I fail to see what Trumps tax returns have to do with the actual topic of the actual post.
Having said that I think Trump should release his returns. Just like P-BO should have released the various records he didn't.
But if you'd actually like to comment on the topic, feel free.
I see no stupid behavior on her part. Feel free to find stupid behavior where there appears to be none. She seems like a great candidate, may God bless her.
Of course you don't. You think it's perfectly acceptable for her to this story by creating a false narrative and to blame this poor response on others.
Perhaps your problem is a failure to read the original post which would explain your off topic response as well as your most recent response.
I don't see anything false in the story. Just the claims that she's married to her brother... THOSE claims appear to be false, but I don't see anything that she has said to have been demonstrated to be false. Feel free to find "false narratives" where none exist, though, if that makes you feel better somehow. I don't see how it would, though.
Oh I don't know, maybe the false narrative blaming the story on anti-woman, Somali, Muslim, etc bias, or the it's Trump's fault false narrative.
But you're pointing out exactly why she'll get elected, no matter what she might have done. Folks like you who pull the DFL lever despite any failings if the candidate.
No, you are mistaken. NOT "no matter what she's done..." If she's done something actually seriously wrong (like Trump, for instance), I would not support her. No, it's not that. It's no matter how many unsupported, scurrilous charges are thrown at her.
See the difference?
I guess I just have to assume you've either not read the original post or just chosen to ignore it.
To review. The issue is not the nature of the charges (not unsupported by the way), it's the fact that her campaign chose not to simply provide an explaination which would have ended the story, but chose to go with a false narrative and to blame others which simply extended and broadened the story.
The further point is that this is a choice that many on the left make when confronted with a difficult situation.
I also have to wonder if you've actually paid any attention to the fact that I not a Trump supported nor will I engage in blanket excuses for his actions. The fact that you are choosing to obfuscate the point of the post by introducing Trump, simply reinforces the point of my post.
Thanks.
"Maybe it's a liberal thing. I've had personal experience with folks on the left who (when faced with something they don't like) choose to obfuscate or ignore things rather than to simply provide the evidence that the other person in wrong. It seems simple to think that if one can vindicate your position, and prove someone else wrong, that one would fail to do the simple obvious thing. Why even give the appearance of throwing up a smoke screen?"
Dan,
The above quote was the last paragraph of the original post. Since you've previously admitted that you don't always read entire posts or comments before you respond, I thought I would give you a bit of help with your misunderstanding of the topic. My hope would be that by doing do, I could prevent further off topic comments from you.
Unless, your off topic comments are an intentional way to obfuscate....
Not so curiously, Dan seems to be doing pretty much the same type of thing that is highlighted by your post. Ironic, no?
That's an interesting observation, I'll have to think about it.
Post a Comment