Patterico's Pontifications

5/30/2015

“Using Their Tactics Against Them” — Part 2

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:10 pm

Yesterday I published a post defending Charles C.W. Cooke against good-natured criticism by Ace on the issue of “using their tactics against them” as it relates to the Bernie Sanders deal.

As I expected, several people misread the post as an argument that we should always engage in “gentlemanly” or “Marquis of Queensbury” style behavior that eschews such lowbrow common tactics as questioning people’s hypocrisy. The people who read my post that way were wrong; that’s not what I said. But part of the problem is that people throw around phrases like “we need to fight fire with fire” without being specific.

So let’s look at a couple of specific examples.

How would you react in the following situations?

Example 1: You are a city councilmember and are foursquare against a minimum wage. Over your vote, your fellow council members pass an absurd $15 minimum wage that will certainly disemploy significant numbers of lower-skilled workers. A labor union that lobbied hard for the minimum wage now seeks an exemption.

You have the ability to cast the deciding vote. Do you hold firm to your principle that the minimum wage is bad in all cases, and vote for the exemption? Or do you hold the labor union to its own standards by voting against the exemption — an act that may also help promote your longer-term policy goals?

Example 2: The candidate you oppose for President smears your favored candidate with a dirty and false story which gains traction, and your candidate is looking like he may lose a close race. You have the opportunity to publish a blockbuster story about the opposing candidate that will almost certainly torpedo his candidacy. As you are about to publish, you learn your story is false, because you discover a document written by a now deceased person that utterly debunks your story. Only you know about the document. If you publish your story and burn the document, nobody will ever know your story is false.

Do you hold firm to your principles of honesty and refuse to publish the story? Or do you hold the opposing candidate to his own standards, and publish a false story to retaliate for his own false story — an act that will probably also help you elect your favored candidate and achieve other long-term policy goals?

Please consider what you would do in each instance, give your answer in the comments, and then only after you have commented, read further below to see what I would do.

Please answer in the comments before reading further, so we can get your views untainted by my answers. As a bonus, put in your comment what you predict my answers would be, before you actually read them.

Have you done that? Good. Now you can read on.

To me, the answers to these questions are not particularly hard at all.

In example 1, I would vote against the exemption. The labor union lobbied for this absurd minimum wage, and they are now going to have to choke on it. If they don’t like it, maybe that will teach them something about why businessmen don’t like it.

In example 2, I would not publish the story. Yes, I suppose this has the effect of “rewarding” a candidate who is willing to stoop to a level I am not willing to stoop to. But I simply refuse to lie in order to accomplish a political goal, even if the other side is doing it.

You know what? I suspect a lot of you answer these the same way. But, if you bothered to predict my answers, I bet some of you got my answer to #1 wrong. If so, that may be because you misread my earlier post about tactics as me saying that I would never “fight fire with fire.” Go back and read it again. That’s not what I said.

To me, these examples illustrate the point that “fight fire with fire” is not a principle that always makes sense — but it can make sense if you can follow it without losing your soul. I will not let my opponents dictate my morality. I will not engage in tactics that I would not be proud to teach my children to engage in.

I have more to say about this, but this is long enough for now.

210 Responses to ““Using Their Tactics Against Them” — Part 2”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  2. 1. I propose a law that makes minimum wage for Union Labor = $15+Union Dues

    This for the children. Union dues (close shop state of California) takes money from the mouths of children… Therefore, minimum wage + union dues. If not closed shop, vote against the union exemption. Special pleadings to give more money to unions and to DNC. Not for that.

    2. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Or the “Harry Reid” Law.

    BfC (8661e2)

  3. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v. California opinion in 1927, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

    BfC (8661e2)

  4. 2. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Or the “Harry Reid” Law.

    I strongly disagree. I can’t possibly see knowingly publishing a false story about someone.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  5. I think you are using the wrong arguments. The correct one is:

    For many years your political opponents and their wholly owned mass media organization have been taking minor events, such as one of your politicians speaking at an event many years ago that was given by a now disfavored group, and exaggerating this greatly in their media publications. They have often stuck the racist or other tags on that politician even tho his entire history shows that this is not true. And on several occasions have forced that fellow out of public office.

    Now you have the opportunity to do the same to one of their public office holders. The only injury will be to the office holder but you will show the oppositions that you are willing to take their pieces off the board too.

    How should you proceed as a political operative knowing that you will gain no influence over the public by abstaining.

    agesilaus (ebbe1a)

  6. I would vote against the union’s exemption. They should have to live with what they created, and it’s not hypocritical to set aside my objections to the minimum wage I order to make that point.

    Similarly, in the second example, I would publish the false story as well as the letter debunking the story. What better way to demonstrate how easy it is for false stories to damage candidates?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  7. That’s a nice loaded example, agesilaus, that assumes away part of the potential counterargument — but I am not interested in getting stuck in the Bernie Sanders example to the exclusion of discussing the issue generally. What were your answers to my questions?

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  8. I would vote against the union’s exemption. They should have to live with what they created, and it’s not hypocritical to set aside my objections to the minimum wage I order to make that point.

    Similarly, in the second example, I would publish the false story as well as the letter debunking the story. What better way to demonstrate how easy it is for false stories to damage candidates?

    That’s a good answer, and functionally equivalent to mine with a clever and wholly moral twist added to the second answer.

    The point is, however (well one point anyway), that we already have one commenter who would publish the false story without debunking it, using a goose and gander sort of argument. I’m curious to know how many agree. I am surprised anyone would. But it will interesting to see just how far this fight fire with fire argument goes.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  9. Example 1 I vote for it. Give the people what they want and give it to them good and hard. Obamacare would’ve never passed without all the fake exceptions.

    Example 2 I cannot say. I’d like to believe I wouldn’t publish the false information, but if it would permit say a Ted Cruz to get in office instead of a Hillary Clinton, I may commit the bad act and justify it to myself as the “less evil” act afterward.

    njrob (9abfca)

  10. By voting for it, I mean everyone gets the wage hike, not giving benefits to special groups.

    njrob (9abfca)

  11. On the first question, I would vote against the exemption, hewing to the other principal that special favors for political friends is not in the public interest, and is in fact a corruption of government.

    On the second question, I would do something similar to agesilaus and publish the story, then when it had bounced around the echo chamber for a while, I would then publish the second story outlining the new evidence showing the first story to be doubtful. But is to say the second document is any more trustworthy than the first source? Let the people have all the facts, such as they are, and let the chips fall where they may.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  12. Life is rarely as clear-cut as your examples because we seldom know the real or complete truth. That’s why I would disclose stories, plus the reality is false and unfair stories leak from all sorts of sources.

    Haven’t you argued in the past for fewer rules in criminal proceedings, so more evidence (good and bad) can come in and let the jury decide? I think transparency is also a good idea for politics.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  13. exemptions are for closers

    union trash are not closers

    happyfeet (831175)

  14. == but I am not interested in getting stuck in the Bernie Sanders example to the exclusion of discussing the issue generally. ==

    Well, it is nearly impossible to intelligently discuss “the issue” “generally”. There is no clear “issue”. Every potential situation is but a vague hypothetical or a strawman to be interpreted until it actually happens at a specific time and involves specific people. And then at that point the specific circumstances and correlates dictate what response or action is most appropriate. I think the reason many people here are focusing on Bernie Sanders is obvious. It’s tangible. It’s a real situation in the news and is one that has had parallels in American politics against which it can be weighed.

    elissa (211dac)

  15. Example 1: Even if rules are misguided, as the $15 minimum wage is, they should be consistently applied. Creating a two-tiered system isn’t just misguided, it is fundamentally unjust. It equal treatment is a core constitutional principle and, perhaps, the single most important. In a system like ours, misguided rules are inevitable. In addition, there will always be disagreement on what constitutes a good rule. Sometimes my position loses (as with the $15 miniumum wage) while at other times my position wins. That’s how the game of democracy is played and that’s okay with me. Evenhandness, which is the key issue in voting for or against the exception, transcends the normal back and forth of democratic rule making. I’d vote against the exemption.

    Example 2: “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

    ThOR (a52560)

  16. Since I am advocating specifics, who here is willing to pretend to be more upset about the Sanders story than they actually are? That is the specific question I think Cooke was addressing.

    Saying you wouldn’t pretend to be more upset than you are does not preclude asking a million questions about it, sticking it in people’s faces who prattle on about Republicans and rape, etc. That is a different question.

    I’m asking who is willing to go out and wring their hands and pretend like they think Sanders is a sexual monster when they actually don’t.

    I’m not. You?

    If you’re really upset by his statements, that’s a different story. If you want to contrast it with GOP statements to make points about hypocrisy, that’s a different story.

    But I don’t get the sense that many people actually think Sanders is a sexual monster because of this. Some just see a cheap opportunity to pretend they do. Count me out of that.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  17. Well, it is nearly impossible to intelligently discuss “the issue” “generally”. There is no clear “issue”. Every potential situation is but a vague hypothetical or a strawman to be interpreted until it actually happens at a specific time and involves specific people.

    That’s exactly my point — and it is exactly the point that many disregard when they seem to take the position that one must always “fight fire with fire.” My whole point is that each situation is different, and to discuss what the rules should be to govern our decision about what tactics are permissible.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  18. Life is rarely as clear-cut as your examples because we seldom know the real or complete truth. That’s why I would disclose stories, plus the reality is false and unfair stories leak from all sorts of sources.

    Haven’t you argued in the past for fewer rules in criminal proceedings, so more evidence (good and bad) can come in and let the jury decide? I think transparency is also a good idea for politics.

    I agree. It’s a different issue than the question I was posing in the post, though. I recognize that it is unrealistic, but sometimes that is the purpose of a hypothetical — to strip away all the excuses that people latch onto in real life (“well who really knows what the truth is?”) and force them to confront their principles (i.e. if you KNOW this is the truth, would you disregard it to achieve your political goal?).

    To those who would lie to achieve their political goals: on what basis do you think you have the right to criticize Obama for lying to achieve his? Just that you happen to think your goals are better?

    Me, I like to stand on firmer ground when I shellack him for his lies.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  19. ==and to discuss what the rules should be to govern our decision about what tactics are permissible.==

    Heh. I don’t see how you can agree so vociferously with my statement that each situation is different and must be treated so —and then say we need to discuss and have pre-agreed “rules” to govern what tactics are permissible to use for the situations that have not happened yet.

    elissa (211dac)

  20. 1. It is no hypocrisy to hold people to their own advocacy. If it were the National Association of Car Wash Owners, I’d vote for the exemption, but not in this case. They made the bed, they can lie in it.

    2. I do not publish, or I publish with the full information. Perhaps beneath the fold.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  21. The real question: Did councilman A have a serious means of establishing the mood of his representatives, via a town hall and/ or series of questionnaires about the 15.00 dollars purported new minimum wage? Moreover, Councilman B ran on a platform for the minimum wage to be raised to $ 15, ergo ,his vote reflects the will of his constituents. If this is the case for B, than post 9 is spot on. If A did the latter with introspection than post 8,is spot on. However, Ace is correct that the Left never cedes and is unwilling to compromise. In this toxic climate ,post 2 is no longer operative.

    mike191 (b4a717)

  22. This Sanders story, along with a couple of others that are floating around, make him seem more sympathetic in my eyes, rather than less. That doesn’t mean we can’t have some fun with it. The bumper sticker practically writes itself.

    ThOR (a52560)

  23. Similarly, in the second example, I would publish the false story as well as the letter debunking the story. What better way to demonstrate how easy it is for false stories to damage candidates?

    Which part do you put on Page 1?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  24. Heh. I don’t see how you can agree so vociferously with my statement that each situation is different and must be treated so —and then say we need to discuss and have pre-agreed “rules” to govern what tactics are permissible to use for the situations that have not happened yet.

    “Rules” is probably inapt — “principles” might be better. I think it’s useful to discuss what principles should apply, so that every decision is not completely ad hoc.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  25. But to restate one of my main points for about the 20th time, elissa: “fight fire with fire” is simply not a principle that can be followed in every instance. People who think that it is, are people I probably do not want to associate with.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  26. In a larger sense, the second question asks if it is permissible to lie in order to win an election, because “they” do it. The next question would be whether stuffing ballot boxes is OK if you think “they” are doing it. The slope gets more slippery (slipperier?) from there.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  27. Against Exemption – Against Union Grifters
    Since I’m already headed to Hell, I burn the document with a devilish smile.

    mg (31009b)

  28. A third question:

    A political opponent has gained a lead in the polls because he’s shown that your preferred candidate evaded the VietNam draft. The opponent has also said that he had been willing to serve, but was never called.

    You find evidence that this is not true, that he had a draft number of 3, but he pulled strings with his draft board. Problem: you also evaded the VietNam draft for reasons of principle.

    Do you go public with the dirt on the opponent, even though you and he would have done the same thing at the time?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  29. Kevin M,

    You do go public, but if it were me, I would acknowledge what I did as well, in the same piece.

    Not a tough question for me at all.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  30. In a larger sense, the second question asks if it is permissible to lie in order to win an election, because “they” do it. The next question would be whether stuffing ballot boxes is OK if you think “they” are doing it. The slope gets more slippery (slipperier?) from there.

    Yup.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  31. Kevin M,

    Why do you want to play by Marquis of Queensbury rules? This is why the right always loses! The left stuffs ballot boxes! (And they do — witness Kennedy and LBJ, whose ballot-box stuffing is a matter of public record.)

    We have to start fighting fire with fire, man!

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  32. Patterico,

    As would I (or not publish). Would you do the same if their were serious ramifications for yourself (e.g. you might lose your job)?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  33. To those who would lie to achieve their political goals: on what basis do you think you have the right to criticize Obama for lying to achieve his? Just that you happen to think your goals are better?

    Me, I like to stand on firmer ground when I shellack him for his lies.

    Patterico (3cc0c1) — 5/30/2015 @ 2:06 pm

    False statement. In your hypothetical, you stated that the opponent already did lie to damage the election and lead to a loss for your candidate. The hypothetical nowhere states that an individual would use the lies purely for their own benefit without the other side already engaging in such actions.

    njrob (9abfca)

  34. Unions Charge Higher Dues and Pay Their Officers Larger Salaries in Non–Right-to-Work States

    happyfeet (831175)

  35. I never said I’d fight by those rules. If there was *ahem* a way to get a Jon Stewart to make fun of them on a daily basis, I’d have no problem encouraging it. The Canuck Letter could go either way. The stuff that was used against Dukakis (Willie Horton, the tank ad, etc) all seems quite fine by me.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  36. As would I (or not publish). Would you do the same if their were serious ramifications for yourself (e.g. you might lose your job)?

    Yup.

    I never said I’d fight by those rules. If there was *ahem* a way to get a Jon Stewart to make fun of them on a daily basis, I’d have no problem encouraging it. The Canuck Letter could go either way. The stuff that was used against Dukakis (Willie Horton, the tank ad, etc) all seems quite fine by me.

    I know, I was funnin’. You’re one of the few people who seems mostly with me on this issue. Although I think the more we talk through specifics, the closer many of us actually are, first appearances notwithstanding.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  37. False statement. In your hypothetical, you stated that the opponent already did lie to damage the election and lead to a loss for your candidate. The hypothetical nowhere states that an individual would use the lies purely for their own benefit without the other side already engaging in such actions.

    They will always claim the same — your guy lied first.

    Look at Obama vs. McCain. Obama lied like a dog. But McCain lied some too. So they can always point to one of your guy’s lies to justify theirs. If you sign on to the ethic that a lie is fine if the other guy has lied, it’s an endless cycle.

    Plus, it’s just wrong to lie. Didn’t your mom teach you that?

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  38. But the best ads are the ones that state your own case, not denigrate the opponent. If you can’t do that, maybe you aren’t the one who should win.

    Reagan’s “Bear” ad was perhaps the best I’ve seen. LBJ’s “Daisy” ad (no link for you), perhaps the worst.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  39. Having just read the two scenarios, I say:
    In the first one, vote to deny the exemption. I may be against minimum wage laws, but I am more against unequal treatment and micromanagement by government. If somebody wants an increase in the minimum wage and they get it, let everybody get it.

    In the second one. Don’t do it. Stick to the truth. “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” says the Lord. I would prefer to stick with the truth and look forward to coming out ahead in the end.
    Now I will post this and read further.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  40. Who is suggesting Sanders is a sexual molester? I just think he should be held to the exact same standard that a Sen candidate of our side is held to. He is a sitting Sen and presidential candidate, yet gets less scrutiny than Akin, that kid from a big family,’and countless others.

    JD (3b5483)

  41. Patterico,

    It’s worse than that. Obama justifies his lies about Iraq by the “fact” that Bush lied about the WMDs. The other side doesn’t even have to lie to justify things, you just have to imagine they did.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  42. i think you call it a “brood”

    happyfeet (831175)

  43. Exemptions suck. If the union progs want to push ridiculous wages on others,’it would be criminal to give them an exemption.

    Wouldn’t publish knowing there is evidence that refutes.

    There are miles of grey area not covered by examples.

    JD (3b5483)

  44. Kevin M,

    Like it or not, negative ads get attention and change minds. You may not care for them but you aren’t a typical voter.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  45. Example 2: The candidate you oppose for President smears your favored candidate with a dirty and false story which gains traction, and your candidate is looking like he may lose a close race.

    When Candidate A releases proof of the false story–Then I will release the proof of the false story against A in exactly the number of days/weeks/months it took them to correct their “smear” (false story and smear are not exactly the same thing).

    To quote a famous Constitutional Lawyer:

    That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

    Screw-em.

    Of course, this is all academic… Candidate A can be as pure as the wind driven snow–It is members of the flock that do the dirty dead.

    Look at the IRS–I am sure Pres. Obama did not tell the the various folks in the IRS management to “slow roll” Tea Party groups–They did it on their own. And have yet to be made to pay for their deeds (other than full retirement).

    Sorry–Dirty smears and false stories get me boiling mad. Charge and convict the people propagating false stories against candidates and by government employees against citizens should be charged and convicted (if guilty) of TREASON (defense is what they allow us against slander/etc. No trail of paper/testimony leading to other’s responsibility–The buck stops there).

    Until that happens–The only solution to speech you do not like, is more speech.

    I had this discussion a few years ago regarding Qualified Immunity for DA’s and Judges. It is nowhere in the law, but created out of whole cloth by “government employees” (including judges, etc.) to protect them from us citizens.

    And we have the “real immunity” of folks in government office:

    Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution states in part,

    for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place.

    Argument was that nobody would be a judge/DA if they did not have QI. Sorry–The dice are loaded against citizens. Just more drip, drip, drip against the public good.

    The Harry Reid Law allowed him to smear and spread false stories without repercussions.

    We are Citizens, and Harry Reid is an employee. Harry Reid is not a lord, and we are not serfs.

    20 years ago, this would not have been may answer(s). They have been good teachers/followers of Saul Alinsky.

    -Machiavelli: The end justifies the means

    BfC (8661e2)

  46. Kevin M., the Daisy ad was one of the best and most famous (infamous) ads ever done. It was so impactful and so controversial I believe it only ran one time. The next best ad was “throwin’ grandma off cliff”. Again, a lie. But it was so good, the bad guys won.

    If anyone has a problem printing the story in example #2, mail it to me. I’ll pay for a page ad in The New York Times and run it. Oh, and print the disclaimer on flash paper cause it’s gone baby. God and I are on a first name basis and he assures me if the article destroys a commie, a moslem or any other kind of leftist or despot He’s all for it. God suggested we call it “Hoagieing the opposition”. I kinda like it.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  47. having read through the rest, I do like DRJ’s plan with scenario #2.

    While we are speaking of how to deal with truth or lack thereof and public posturing…
    an OT question which y’all can ignore or even delete if I’m being too presumptuous…

    In an ongoing discussion with a friend about climate change, he suggested I check out a site called “ProCon.org” (“Pros and Cons of Controversial Issues”). Anybody have experience with that site? I share the opinion of many here that usually any “non-partisan” or “fact-check” organization ends up being a cover for a liberal slant. I took 5 minutes to look at the sight and found that of their top 5 “facts to know”, I could not locate the reference for claim #1 (a claim that I think is distorted), and claim #2 was the 97% fib- though at least they did quote it correctly that it was 97% of published articles, not 97% of scientists.

    I asked something similar before, and people were eager to be helpful, but rather than links to specific articles, I’m looking to see if there is any consensus on what people might see as the top global warming critic sites.
    Among those I know of and like: (BTW, My friend is not happy when looking at sites that include terms like “hoax” and fraud”, etc., thinks it shows a closed mind to honest discussion. I told him I use the terms “hoax” and “delusion” eagerly, but not when I’m trying to have a discussion with a pro-AGW person. but then again, I rarely bother trying.)
    PowerLine/Climate articles, they cover important things when they come out and stick to the main point.
    WUWT
    RoySpencer
    Climate Audit (Steve McIntyre)
    Polarbearscience- for all things polar bear
    Heartland Institute

    the thing about WUWT, Spencer, CA that I don’t like is that they are just overwhelming in the back and forth of every thing that comes along (at least that is my impression)
    PowerLine and Heartland are not science blogs by scientists, which makes some ignore them, but they do point out major topics in ways that are explained.

    Thanks
    BTW, I did find a (I thought) great presentation by John Coleman (of weather channel fame) that includes a historical perspective of how we got to where we are, never heard it before
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  48. Case 1: I don’t see that holding the left to its own standards by denying them special exemptions from the stupid laws they propagate is in any way against principle. The questions of the minimum wage and exemptions from laws for special groups are entirely separate questions anyway. That the requested exemption is from a wage law is irrelevant.

    Case 2: Depends. If I am a journalist, publisher, or blogger who holds out the stories I publish to be true, I don’t put out the false tale. If am working for the candidate falsely smeared in the first place, I probably do, since our side didn’t draw first blood. And if I’m in a fist fight and the other guy pulls a knife, I feel free to shoot him, too.

    Estragon (ada867)

  49. (1) Dear Labour: Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. You did. Interested in repealing, rather than an exemption? No? Ah, well.

    (2) Don’t run the story. Actually, wouldn’t have found either the story or the refutation. Not how I roll in those things, which may be why I’m so rarely elected.

    Good setups, Patterico.

    htom (4ca1fa)

  50. Who is suggesting Sanders is a sexual molester?

    I actually said “monster” but the point is, here’s what Cook wrote:

    Nobody honestly believes that Bernie Sanders is a sexual pervert or that he is a misogynist or that he intends to do women any harm. Nobody suspects that he harbors a secret desire to pass intrusive legislation or to cut gang rapists a break.

    Does anyone actually disagree with that?

    Holding him to the same standard is fine, again, as long as it is targeted towards particular people who are guilty of hypocrisy on this issue, and as long as we are not going around pretending to be more disturbed by this than we actually are.

    But just saying let’s crucify one member of “the left” because “the left” is bad in various ways is painting with a mighty broad brush. It’s a widespread belief, apparently, among conservative blog commenters that there is this monolithic “left” that is devoid of morality, and that literally millions of people fall into this category, making all kinds of nasty tactics fair game.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  51. I think every leftist that ever uttered the words Akin, misogynist,’patriarchy, or war on women should have to answer for this.

    JD (3b5483)

  52. I was in line behind Josh Duggar at Target today and I was like, “Dude. Your sisters have some amazing boobs – seriously.”

    And he looked at me and kinda lowered his voice and said, “Right? Especially that one – ”

    “The one that plays the piano?”

    “No the one with the – ”

    “Hah yeah the one with the microwave fish taco recipe – she’s effing stacked!”

    “Nonono – the one what always has the teddy bear!”

    “Oh yeah she’s hot,” I said, in that voice that said whatever you sick lil perv.

    It was just awkward.

    happyfeet (831175)

  53. Example 1: Vote against the exemption. Then issue a statement that you oppose the $15/hr minimum wage law and would vote to repeal the entire bill, but you do not support exceptions for political expediency.

    The rationale for this is unions are staunch Democrats, and I am a Republican. Unions will not switch to supporting me if I pass this law, but my potential Republican primary opponents will blast me for supporting an exemption for unions from a law they supported.

    Example 2: Publish the story. Then two days later print a “retraction and apology” on page G 83 noting that evidence has come to light casting doubt on the original story. After the election, retract the story.

    Politics is dirty. Playing clean is a sure way to lose.

    egd (1ad898)

  54. OK, before reading further, I would:
    1) Give the people what they want, good and hard. If you want an exemption, then it has to be an exemption for everybody.

    2) I would write the story as “Recently uncovered documents cast doubt on Candy Date’s horrible awful scandal”.

    Karl L (cb2ce3)

  55. The key is to do what you’ve seen your opponents (actually avowed enemies) do.

    In the cases above; vote against the exemption, AND publish the smear.

    No ones going to know right, so go right ahead and deliver a possible game winning blow.

    (hey this is politics. I don’t think God will judge us on political decisions.)

    jakee308 (49ccc6)

  56. i’m kinda liking how Mr. L thinks

    happyfeet (831175)

  57. “It’s a widespread belief, apparently, among conservative blog commenters that
    there is this monolithic “left” that is devoid of morality, and that literally
    millions of people fall into this category, making all kinds of nasty tactics
    fair game.”

    It’s widespread Pat because we can see evidence of their numbers anytime we want
    by perusing any leftist blog or any comments section of any liberal news article
    or watching the number of votes they get in elections.

    And I wouldn’t say devoid of morality. Let’s say “other moraled persons”. They
    have a morality. It’s just not the same one conservatives have and it sure isn’t
    the same one I grew up being taught.

    jakee308 (49ccc6)

  58. here is an actual politico headline what is a headline on politico

    Welcome to the Red State HIV Epidemic

    happyfeet (831175)

  59. And I wouldn’t say devoid of morality. Let’s say “other moraled persons”. They
    have a morality. It’s just not the same one conservatives have and it sure isn’t
    the same one I grew up being taught.

    Do you think leftists were taught to deliver a dishonest game winning blow as long as nobody will learn it’s a fraud?

    If so, I guess they were taught the same as you.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  60. Without the establishment’s media echo chamber accusations, accurate or not, don’t develop legs, never take on a life of their own, and even if they somehow score a few points inevitably fail to deliver a knock out punch. Best to keep pointing out the Left’s hypocrisy and let voters draw their own conclusions.

    ropelight (148081)

  61. 1. I’d vote against the exemption because I think the request is disingenuous and is clearly meant to take advantage of my principles.
    Patterico would do the same.

    2. I’d refuse to publish the story.
    Patterico would do the same

    On #2 and surrogates, I’d probably tell the media one time that I knew the story to be untrue and urge surrogates to stop… after that I’d want the media to bring my opponent personally on air to retract all the lies his surrogates had promulgated and then I’d be glad to do it again for him/her.
    The problem is that the media would label my find “100% FALSE” and the other guys “PARTLY TRUE”

    I think the original thread was about using a 42 year old rape fantasy against Bernie Sanders.
    To me that story is fair game as long as those are the rules being enforced by the media, and if it mattered, the DOJ. Not to mention his own hypocrisy.
    The rules inside the cage are finalized by the official inside the cage. If he/she wants to let one side dredge up 42 year old blatherings, then the other side should weigh in with their own.
    In the absence of principled officials outside and inside the ring, you’ve got to fight the fight you have, not the fight you’d want.
    I am assuming Bernie’s story is 100% true and if we can have old stories about when a college prank went sideways, or when a woman got raped in Alaska and some dumb agency billed her for the rape kits unbeknownst to the candidate, well yeah. You have to point out the representative for other side actually has behaved in a misogynist fashion and the war on women is at least as much of a Democrat problem as it is a Republican one. If this kind of thing is allowed to only be a window into the Republican soul, the cage match is lost.

    Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both happy to act as if they are above the dirty work, when they clearly are locked into meetings and coordination with surrogates who will say and do anything.
    Romney was a principled guy and got his butt handed to him.

    Maybe sometime after the Iran deal is signed, the LA Times will release the Khalidi tape

    steveg (fed1c9)

  62. OK in the first issue, the one who will be hurt are people who may have been forced to join the union. Assuming only a forced labor state would vote for a $15 minimum wage. So I would vote against the minimum wage and for the union even tho I would not be happy doing so.

    In the second case I would not lie to get back at political opponents, period.

    agesilaus (ebbe1a)

  63. In the second case I would not lie to get back at political opponents, period.

    agesilaus,

    Cool. That’s what I like to hear. Stick around.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  64. “Best to keep pointing out the Left’s hypocrisy and let voters draw their own conclusions.”

    MSM and (apparently) left wing voters never worries about left wing hypocrisy. MSM will suppress “the truth” about the other candidate, so your voters will never hear anything but the false smear.

    Rinse, repeat.

    BfC (8661e2)

  65. Maybe this is a distinction that only matters to me but I view this discussion as asking our opinions if we worked on a political campaign. I think the rules for campaigns are more lenient for both sides. It’s the nature of the political campaign beast.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  66. DRJ:

    That link demonstrates a dishonest ad by Romney, in my opinion. It does no credit to him and I do not excuse him for it simply because he is a politician.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  67. well no, that’s about the nature of narrative, patterico, we have the kernel of truthiness, from a supposed mccain advisor, probably John Weaver, although unnamed, upon which Obama’s sorcerers distort further,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  68. romney was never not a desperate ploy

    all the other candidates were just so… ludicrous

    herman cain srsly?

    newt?

    baby in a box?

    rick perry lol?

    happyfeet (831175)

  69. 1. A vote against the exemption would be holding true to the higher principle that government should not be picking winners and losers. So, nay.

    2. I don’t know if I could resist if publishing would save the country from the fate the left has in store for us. This one is like the “Who do you save, the person on the tracks or everyone on the train?” question. I’d like to believe I wouldn’t publish, but I am not certain.

    Matador (97d3c8)

  70. I can’t blame it all on Mittens, but he clearly didn’t understand the rules of political warfare, he hadn’t for instance forgotten how to get out of the bear trap, Kennedy’s minions had put him in 18 earlier,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  71. That Romney dishonest ad is benign in comparison to what the media does to conservatives on a daily basis.

    JD (54f1aa)

  72. everything is weaponized, justice went after Adelson, but left Corzione alone, Holder stage managed the Zimmerman tromp l’oielle, with astroturfed mobs,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  73. he had a plan to the use tablet technology for to revolutionize the voter turnout for jesus

    you can’t take that away from him, even today

    he really did have a plan

    happyfeet (831175)

  74. They will always claim the same — your guy lied first.

    Look at Obama vs. McCain. Obama lied like a dog. But McCain lied some too. So they can always point to one of your guy’s lies to justify theirs. If you sign on to the ethic that a lie is fine if the other guy has lied, it’s an endless cycle.

    Plus, it’s just wrong to lie. Didn’t your mom teach you that?

    Patterico (3cc0c1) — 5/30/2015 @ 2:55 pm

    They can claim whatever they like. It doesn’t change the facts. They made lying a necessary component of winning elections. They’re liars. That’s part of your scenario.

    njrob (9abfca)

  75. re the first scenario, the only way they might begin to learn is they get what they asked for, so no exceptions for them,

    it’s tricky because more often the dems attacks are through third parties, axelturf against the Huntress, Carlos Slim;s lies about Maverick, the failed IAEA hit on W, right before 2004

    narciso (ee1f88)

  76. They can claim whatever they like. It doesn’t change the facts. They made lying a necessary component of winning elections. They’re liars. That’s part of your scenario.

    I didn’t say they lied first.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  77. What if the very first lie was told by a Republican? All future lies by the Democrat are now fair game even if he lies five times as much?

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  78. What if the very first lie was told by a Republican

    Then it would have never made the NYT/ABC/CBS/NBC/PBS/MSNBC/or probably even FOX. So nobody would have heard it/would not have affected the race.

    The truth told, if it does not follow the template, never does make the major news outlets.

    BfC (8661e2)

  79. it’s a theoretical exercise, but practically every true statement has made about a Democrat, has been deemed a lie, and vice versa, it would have to be something exceedingly out of bounds,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  80. honestly though, I wouldn’t use something I knew to be false, therein lies the difference between us and them,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  81. “Us” is the people who don’t want power over the life, liberty, and property of others, and “Them” is the people who do. This discussion is lambs debating the morality of Republican wolves versus that of Democrat wolves.

    nk (dbc370)

  82. I’m with narcisco. Many times I report a story showing the left in a bad light to Mrs Gazzer. If it later turns out to be untrue, I always correct the record with her. I try to be fair and frankly Dems give us plenty of ammo with out resorting to lies. It’s also why we lose elections.

    Gazzer (01ec24)

  83. Like it or not, negative ads get attention and change minds. You may not care for them but you aren’t a typical voter.

    I did say I would have run the Willie Horton ad. But Reagan won in 1984 without a single negative ad.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  84. therein lies the difference between us and them,

    The difference between us and them narcisco, is they are winning the culture war with the strategy of lies and corruption. And we are taking the high road to extinction. BTW, they’re laughing at us and our “morality”.

    The other difference is we even consider the morality of these things which they’ve been using as SOP for years. Along with vote fraud, Black Panthers at the polls and many other dishonest tricks. Wise up or loose the Republic.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  85. the Daisy ad was one of the best and most famous (infamous) ads ever done

    Yes, the epitome of the negative ad, saying your opponent was a crazed nuclear warmonger.

    But look at other ads:

    Train.
    Morning in America.

    Powerful ads and as positive as could be. I cannot tell you how much I miss Reagan.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  86. the difference was Mondale was foolish, now had Reagan faced Hartpence, some illustration of his knavery might have been required,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  87. Holy smokes! Biden’s boy Beau dead from cancer at only 46. How very sad.

    Gazzer (01ec24)

  88. I believe one could publish the charges in the second case and then, in the 111th paragraph after the third jump let on that there was this document that, if valid, casts doubt on the entire story.

    That’s what a real journalist would do. I probably wouldn’t, but my editor might anyway. Scandals sell papers.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  89. holy smokes

    happyfeet (831175)

  90. Sorry to hear that about Beau Biden. Brain cancer is a terrible way to go.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  91. Am I a Republican or a Democrat?

    f1guyus (9cbd15)

  92. nk

    I’m all for letting the wolves fight it out… it’s when the sheep find themselves out amongst the wolves that the sheep need to not worry about how dirty the fight is.
    the sheep are not in it to cheat, they just have to win or they lose it all.
    Ummmmm consume y barbacoa de borrego con salsa borracho, tortillas, limones, aquacates y unas caguamas. Excepto las caguamas as I am not drinking beer in those types of quantities for a spell

    steveg (fed1c9)

  93. One more thing: what is at stake in this?

    If it is deciding who is the next city councilman from East Shibboleth, I would stand by my principles. If it was deciding who replaced the next 4 justices to leave the Supreme Court, who was to handle the coming debt crisis and restructure the government before it failed, and who was going to confront Putin and ISIS and China? I might be tempted to forgo the principles just this once.

    Henry Stimson famously said that “Gentlemen don’t read each other’s mail” as he shut down the State Department’s crypto section as Hoover’s Secretary of State. But when he was FDR’s Secretary of War during WW2, his attitude changed completely. Some things are too important.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  94. 1) I’d definitely vote against the exemption, because a minimum wage with a union exemption is even worse than a minimum with no exemptions. The exemption doesn’t mitigate any of the harm that the minimum does, and adds an extra harm, in the form of granting the union an effective monopoly.

    If I knew the story to be false I wouldn’t publish it, because publishing it would not just be dirty politics, it would be inherently wrong, malum per se. But if I only suspected it of being false I might publish it.

    More importantly, though, if the story is true but irrelevant, and by all rights ought not to affect anyone’s vote, but I know that it will damage the candidate, (e.g. suppose I found out that his grandfather was black, and I know there are among his supporters some bigots who will not vote for him if they know this), then it’s not wrong to publish it, it’s just unfair. In normal circumstances I wouldn’t publish such a story, but I don’t believe I owe such an opponent a duty of fairness, so I would gleefully publish it and do all I could to bring it to the attention of those voters who would be swayed by it.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  95. I don’t know what Bernie Sanders thinks and, quite frankly, I don’t care to know. What I do know is that he’s a lying scumbag and a purveyor of a failed political system. I also know that – like most Leftwingers – if someone were to give him an enema, he could be buried in a shoebox.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  96. Bernie Sanders never remembered to exhale, that about covers it,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  97. It’s fun to remember the uplifting Reagan ads but those weren’t his only ads. We may remember them in hindsight but there were several attack ads aired by the campaign or affiliates of the campaign. They used surrogates, including Reagan’s wife, to help make Reagan look positive:

    1. A Democrats for Reagan (affiliated with the Reagan-Bush campaign) powerful Iran ad that made Carter look especially impotent, and

    2. A Democrats for Reagan ad of a Teddy Kennedy speech that portrayed Carter as unacceptable to Democrats.

    3. A Reagan campaign ad featuring Nancy Reagan that can only be described as an attack ad. Using the candidate’s wife to attack a sitting President strikes me as novel.

    4. A Reagan campaign ad that focused on the economy and featured Reagan’s Can we afford 4 more years of this? quote.

    5. A Reagan campaign ad featuring former President Gerald Ford that Carter was a weak and ineffective President, and suggesting the way to make up for electing Carter instead of Ford in 1976 was to vote for Reagan in 1980.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  98. Negative ads work.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  99. Since I am advocating specifics, who here is willing to pretend to be more upset about the Sanders story than they actually are? That is the specific question I think Cooke was addressing.

    Saying you wouldn’t pretend to be more upset than you are does not preclude asking a million questions about it, sticking it in people’s faces who prattle on about Republicans and rape, etc. That is a different question.

    I’m asking who is willing to go out and wring their hands and pretend like they think Sanders is a sexual monster when they actually don’t.

    1) I don’t think there’s any need to pretend anything. Our opponents don’t get upset about the things they trot out, and they don’t pretend to be upset, they just create a general assumption that these things are inherently upsetting, that they ought to be upsetting, that anyone who isn’t upset by them has something wrong with him, and let it go from there. I don’t see why we can’t do the same to them.

    2) Independent of that, I don’t think pretending an emotion one doesn’t feel is a falsehood.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  100. Which republican child molesting pervert will be outed next? Most think it will be home schooler huckaboob. I think it will be ted cruz!

    bernie (e50416)

  101. Another question is to whom do you owe a duty of telling the truth. I don’t think we owe such a duty to everyone. So what is the moral problem with knowingly publishing a false story about someone who has himself published a false story about our candidate? I don’t think I would owe him a duty to be truthful about him. The only duty at issue would be one to the general public, to the readership, the voters, not to lie to them, even in the cause of misleading them not to vote for a bad person. So no, I wouldn’t publish a story I knew to be false.

    But I have no problem making scurrilous accusations against someone who has done the same. for instance accusing Harry Reid of raping children, in response to his accusation that Mitt Romney had not paid any taxes in 10 years. Both accusations could be true, but have no foundation, so there’s no reason to suppose they are true. No evidence is adduced for either accusation. So two can play at that game. By making an outrageous (but possibly true) accusation against Reid, we highlighted what he had done to Romney, and I think that was fair.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  102. Oops, I hit submit too early. Continued from the previous comment:

    … But I would not make up a false news report, purporting to have found evidence of the accusation, that would mislead the reader into thinking it’s actually true.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  103. Which republican child molesting pervert will be outed next? Most think it will be home schooler huckaboob. I think it will be ted cruz!

    See, right there, just as I was writing about this, Perry comes along and gives us an example. So, Perry, I think it will be Harry Reid.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  104. The next question would be whether stuffing ballot boxes is OK if you think “they” are doing it.

    See, I don’t have a problem with that at all. If they’re stuffing ballots, and we can’t stop them, then stuff away. By doing it themselves, they have changed the rules; and while we can and should protest this change, we have no duty to ignore it and pretend the old rules still apply. That’s very different from knowingly publishing a false news story.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  105. They will always claim the same — your guy lied first.

    What difference does it make what they will claim? The bottom line is that they are lying, and will lie no matter what we do. Not lying will not stop them from lying. Lying can’t make things worse. So the only question is whether the lie in question violates our own consciences. In other words, your second point: “Plus, it’s just wrong to lie. Didn’t your mom teach you that?” Except, of course, that it’s not always wrong to lie, so the circumstances matter a lot. But that is the only question, not whether you want to “stand on firmer ground”.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  106. The problem is that the Left does not have principles, only will-to-power.

    The Left applies different rules to their opponents from themselves because they are different people. They don’t play by rules, they play by power.

    Mitt Romney was too old, now the Republican candidates are too young. Mitt Romney was too rich, not the Republican candidates are too middle-class. Todd Akin said a stupid thing for which all Republicans everywhere must answer. Denny Hastert did an evil thing (possibly) for which all Republicans everywhere must answer. But it is ridiculous to expect any Democrat to justify their vote for war in Iraq, or where their foundations get money, or even say what they think about Hillary Clinton’s record and finances, and of course it would be absurd to bother them about something Bernie Sanders wrote 40 years ago, especially since they’re so busy asking Republicans to defend how Mitt Romney packed his dog and gave wedgies in high school and if they approve of his car elevator.

    Gabriel Hanna (badb0c)

  107. Gabriel, you, of course, are correct. Simply put, LIBTARDS, don’t care about MORALITY, ETHICS, HONOR, HONESTY, DECENCY, or any sense of RIGHT vs WRONG. They care about POWER and CONTROL. They would abort their own MOTHER for power. It’s PATHOLOGICAL and it’s DISEASED, but it EXISTS.

    Gus (7cc192)

  108. Example 1: Any city that passes a minimum wage law is a cesspool. I have not chosen to live in cesspools, and I would recommend that the erstwhile city councilman resign his position three days after closing on the sale of his house. When he moves he will be in a position to intelligently evaluate the situation in other municipalities, and more than likely he will find a place that has good schools, decent health care, and honest hard working neighbors. Life is short, don’t waste it on fools whose driving spirit is fueled by greed and envy. And I’d avoid New Mexico just out out of general principle when evaluating alternatives. No need for undergoing a forced colonoscopy for rolling through stop sign.

    Example 2: A dying man’s confession may be unimpeachable by U. S. standards? I’m not a lawyer but I doubt it. So I would be unconvinced if the “evidence” was just this person’s word. However, if the new information divulged by this person led to new, verifiable evidence, then I would follow that and adjust the manuscript as suggested by the truth. It might still be a good story. Heck, you might stumble over Hillary!’s hard drive.

    Life is short. Don’t live in a cesspool, and don’t behave in ways that you end up covered with excrement. Find real beauty, and don’t tilt at windmills. The U. S. Interstate Highway system is a road to freedom. Use it. Opportunities abound if you aren’t chained to a single payer health system and demagogic “fairness”.

    bobathome (f50725)

  109. If I am a journalist, publisher, or blogger who holds out the stories I publish to be true, I don’t put out the false tale. If am working for the candidate falsely smeared in the first place, I probably do, since our side didn’t draw first blood.

    See, this gets to what I wrote above: someone who owes the public a duty of truth-telling versus someone who doesn’t. Though I’m not convinced that being a paid advocate for someone releases one from a duty not to lie to the general public.

    Perhaps I don’t publish it myself, I feed it to a journalist who is capable of finding the truth if he bothers to investigate it, and see what he does with it. If he is lazy and just publishes it, that’s on him, not me.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  110. Example 2: Publish the story. Then two days later print a “retraction and apology” on page G 83 noting that evidence has come to light casting doubt on the original story. After the election, retract the story.

    You know, I might almost be OK with this. It is what the MSM does, after all.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  111. 2) I would write the story as “Recently uncovered documents cast doubt on Candy Date’s horrible awful scandal”.

    Yes, that’s another way to do it. Publish the truth, but in a thoroughly unfair manner, just like they do. Provided that the target has participated in this sort of thing himself. I’m with Patterico on not lumping the entire “left” together. If they have someone who has always been fair to us, then be fair to him.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  112. Do you think leftists were taught to deliver a dishonest game winning blow as long as nobody will learn it’s a fraud?

    If so, I guess they were taught the same as you.

    Patterico, I wonder whether you’re falling into the trap of treating all ends as equal, and judging people purely on the means they use to achieve those ends. It’s a commonplace that the end doesn’t justify the means, but that’s obvious nonsense. On the contrary, there is no means that can’t be justified by a sufficiently important end.

    The opposition isn’t wrong because they lie. They lie because they’re wrong. Lying isn’t always wrong, and if lying were the only thing wrong with them then they wouldn’t necessarily be wrong. They’re wrong because their ends are wrong, because their cause is wrong, and therefore the means they use are also wrong. As the national anthem says, “And so conquer me must when our cause it is just”. Conquest for a bad cause is bad; for a good cause it’s good.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  113. Easy decisions for me: vote no to exemption, the union lobbied and now they must live with what they wanted. Principles mean something.

    I absolutely would not publish the story, no matter how much benefit my candidate of choice might derive from it. Because although “If you publish your story and burn the document, nobody will ever know your story is false” I would know if was false. A clear conscience is more important to me than just about anything else. Politics is a dirty game, and from what I see, a really easy one to lose your soul to in order to win. Just not worth it.

    Dana (86e864)

  114. Or how about a DA and Police/Jail officials get together to gather information to conduct a smear/false story against criminal defendants–After all, they are all guilty and the ends justifies the means:

    http://abc7.com/news/oc-district-attorneys-office-removed-from-seal-beach-mass-shooting-case/555434/
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/orange_county_prosecutor_misconduct_judge_goethals_takes_district_attorney.html

    Is the above actually better than the it appears (I don’t trust the news sources either, and the defense attorney has his axe to grind too)?

    Or lie about illegal cell phone simulators used by local police without warrants?

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/county-sheriff-has-used-stingray-over-300-times-with-no-warrant/

    Somewhere there are a lot of people lying… Is it the government officials, the news organizations, both?

    Lying in during a campaigning–Pretty small stuff compared to the rest of the stuff that is going on.

    BfC (8661e2)

  115. Patterico, I wonder whether you’re falling into the trap of treating all ends as equal, and judging people purely on the means they use to achieve those ends. It’s a commonplace that the end doesn’t justify the means, but that’s obvious nonsense. On the contrary, there is no means that can’t be justified by a sufficiently important end.

    The opposition isn’t wrong because they lie. They lie because they’re wrong. Lying isn’t always wrong, and if lying were the only thing wrong with them then they wouldn’t necessarily be wrong. They’re wrong because their ends are wrong, because their cause is wrong, and therefore the means they use are also wrong. As the national anthem says, “And so conquer me must when our cause it is just”. Conquest for a bad cause is bad; for a good cause it’s good.

    Both sides believe their cause is just, so according to your logic everyone can lie with a clear conscience.

    But of course only we are right.

    I agree that some causes are worth lying for. Would I lie to the Nazi at my door asking if I was hiding any Jews? Yes, I would. But lying in the way described to win an election? Nah.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  116. If lying to win an election would have prevented Nazis from winning–Would you still not counter lying Nazis with smears/lies to defeat them if they would work?

    The above is obviously not anything very useful to answer. Along the line of “if you knew then what you know now, would you still ….?”. Only asked of Republicans/Tea Party/Conservatives… Never asked of a Democratic candidate because we all know that good intentions always matter and reviewing failing policies don’t.

    BfC (8661e2)

  117. @Patterico:Both sides believe their cause is just, so according to your logic everyone can lie with a clear conscience.

    But of course only we are right.

    But this is not how a Leftist reasons. A Leftist can legitimately lie for Leftist causes; a person opposed to Leftist causes cannot even legitimately tell the truth as far as a Leftist is concerned and of course lying is right out. It’s the fact of being a Leftists that gives the Leftist a clear conscience.

    This is why the “factchecking” breed of journalist has come up.

    Gabriel Hanna (badb0c)

  118. I would make the union live with the minimum wage they imposed upon everyone;
    and I would leak, through suitable cutouts, the false story to someone who would publish it as that is what my opponent would have done, and has, because that’s the kind of slimeball he is.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  119. Both sides believe their cause is just, so according to your logic everyone can lie with a clear conscience.

    I don’t know whether they actually believe their cause to be just, or they only pretend to. The Clintons, I’m sure, don’t believe in their own cause. Sanders may, more fool him. But really, I don’t care whether they believe in their cause. It isn’t just, so what difference does it make whether they’re cynical manipulators or honest fools?

    I also don’t give a d**n about their consciences. I only care about mine. I have to justify what I do to my conscience; I neither know nor care whether they have consciences; I can’t know what standards these hypothetical consciences apply, nothing I do or refrain from doing can affect these hypothetical consciences in any predictable way, so from my perspective they may as well not exist.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  120. @Patterico: I think this is where your analysis suffers. You’re coming up with these general rules that are going to apply to everyone, but the fact is that one faction does not believe any rules apply to them.

    Examples:

    They deny that “racism” and “sexism” apply to themselves, because they define these in terms of who? whom? “Power differential” means that a black female cannot be racist or sexist and a white male cannot but be both, regardless of what actual circumstances apply to them as individuals.

    Journalistic “fact-checkers” who proclaim entirely factual statements to be “true but false” or equivalent convolutions for people they oppose, and of course are equally flexible when covering for people they support.

    The “gay marriage” amnesty that applies to any Democratic politician who takes advantage of it, no matter how recently–and of course black Democrats are never required to seek amnesty.

    This is why SJWs act as they do, as well as journalists and academics who are progressives, which is nearly all. Because they are good people, so what they do is good, and their opponents are bad and whatever they do is bad.

    This discussion of articulating principles that if we abide by them we have to live with it when the other side does to, is completely beside the point.

    Gabriel Hanna (badb0c)

  121. The labor union lobbied for this absurd minimum wage, and they are now going to have to choke on it. If they don’t like it, maybe that will teach them something about why businessmen don’t like it.

    And narcisso wrote:

    re the first scenario, the only way they might begin to learn is they get what they asked for, so no exceptions for them,

    I think this approach to the question, while superficially correct, misses the point. It assumes that the unions don’t know how a minimum wage hike hurts people, and making them live with it will teach them this, and perhaps they’ll reconsider their position. But the unions know exactly what minimum wage hikes do, and that is precisely their intention. Giving them an exemption from the laws won’t just insulate them from the consequences of their mistaken policy, and thus lead them to continue with it; it would actually make things worse. The unions’ purpose in raising minimum wages is to reduce the relative difference in cost between union and non-union labor, and thus make union labor more attractive to employers, and drive non-union labor out of the market. Making the minimum wage higher for non-union labor than for union labor would do this even more effectively. It would give the union an effective monopoly. Relatively few employers would hire non-union labor at $15 an hour when they can get union labor for the same price; far fewer will do so when they can get union labor cheaper. By making it illegal for non-unionists to compete with unionists for jobs, the former would be forced to join the union or starve. And that’s their goal.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  122. @Patterico: Our progressive opponents say we are bad people because we are bad. It matter not a whit what we actually do.

    Every Republican is motivated by racism, sexism, and contempt for the poor, and this is why the policies they espouse will hurt minorities, women and the poor, and they support these policies because they know that this will happen and desire it.

    No evidence of any kind is necessary. It is essential, to progressives, in Republicans to be this way. They are Bad People and their badness makes all they do bad.

    This is where progressives are coming from. Like when the President said that Christians spend all their time money on opposing gay marriage and ignore the poor, when literally the opposite is true.

    The best you would ever get them to admit is that the good works among the poor are just a cover for their nefarious attempts to oppress them. The usual charge is that Christians only do it to proselytize.

    So this discussion, oh should we lie if the Left does it and can we live with the consequences if everyone is justified in doing it–is completely missing the point. The Left has already licensed itself to do whatever, and has already revoked any moral standing for the Right, without any reference to what anyone is actually doing.

    Gabriel Hanna (badb0c)

  123. Patterico,

    Would you publish that story if it would put Ted Cruz over the top against, say, Elizabeth Warren? Sure, you would be professionally ruined three days after the election, but would it be worth it considering what was at stake?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  124. Patterico,

    Would you publish that story if it would put Ted Cruz over the top against, say, Elizabeth Warren? Sure, you would be professionally ruined three days after the election, but would it be worth it considering what was at stake?

    No. What is really at stake? Spending was wild under Reagan. Bush had a Republican Congress and gave us a prescription drug benefit. I can’t get that excited about a President given the state of the country these days.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  125. Scenario 2 presents a false choice as it implies my oppo research would have only come up with one skeleton on which to base attack stories. When I turn my gaze from your hypothetical to the real world I can not see one Democrat who is a potential candidate for President, for instance, where I’d only have one story to go with.

    As far as knowingly publishing a false story, no, I wouldn’t. There are rules to the game, Pat. One of the rules about reprisals is that they must be effective. If I were to knowingly (or even unknowingly) publish a false story then I’d become the story. Rendering me and anything else I produce ineffective.

    Steve57 (4f6474)

  126. Scenario 1 is a no-brainer for a couple of reasons. One, in line with the principal of reprisal your enemy’s greater immorality/illegality legitimizes actions that normally would be immoral or unlawful.

    By voting against the exemption I’d open myself up to charges of “hypocrisy,” as the left defines hypocrisy as failing to live up to their cartoonish view of conservatives. But the only way the city is going to learn how awful these mandatory minimum wages are is by keeping them mandatory across the board. My principals do not require me to act like a chump for a union.

    In fact, they require me not to do so. Which brings me to the second reason. By acting as a tool for union organizing I’d be slitting my own throat. By penalizing employers for using non-union labor I’d be forcing those employers who don’t leave the city (and state) in droves to allow their work forces to unionize. And all those new union dues would be used against me.

    You’ve got to fight the long war. You can’t if you commit suicide.

    Steve57 (4f6474)

  127. The candidate you oppose for President smears your favored candidate with a dirty and false story which gains traction, and your candidate is looking like he may lose a close race

    How would we know that the smear is false?

    Michael Ejercito (d9a893)

  128. 128. …How would we know that the smear is false?

    Michael Ejercito (d9a893) — 5/31/2015 @ 9:58 am

    When you have incontrovertible video or other evidence.

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/14/ted-cruz-quotes-pro-choice-jerks-accurately-is-falsely-accused-of-calling-them-satan-worshippers/

    Calling their opponents Satan worshippers and savages, anti-abortion lawmakers on Wednesday insisted that Republican contenders keep an intense focus on social issues in the upcoming midterm elections and the 2016 presidential race.

    No, the pro-abortion Wendy Davis supporters were chanting “Hail Satan” to try and drown out pro-life speakers and Christians who were singing Amazing Grace in support of the Texas ban on abortions past 20 weeks.

    Instead the AP and other news outlets tried to smear Ted Cruz and other pro-life Republicans as out-of-control Xtofascists who were making wild, irresponsible claims and simply calling people names. Instead of accurately quoting the abortion enthusiasts.

    Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican who is a favorite of the tea party, said supporters of abortion rights chant “Hail, Satan” to silence their enemies. …

    “Arm-in-arm, chanting ‘Hail, Satan,’ embracing the right to take the life of a late-term child,” Cruz said of supporters of abortion rights.

    AP reporters covered the event in question. They knew the truth. They chose to lie.

    Or, how about when you can demonstrate that a Texas Air National Guard memo being passed off by a major TV news network as an authentic original supposedly from the Vietnam War era can’t be reproduced on a typewriter but can be reproduced exactly in Microsoft Word?

    The treasure trove of examples is almost limitless.

    Steve57 (f41960)

  129. The AP issued a “correction” that simply substituted one biased and patently false story for an equally biased and misleading one.

    http://twitchy.com/2014/03/13/cant-make-this-up-ap-corrects-false-claim-ted-cruz-called-pro-abortion-protesters-satan-worshippers/

    Steve57 (f41960)

  130. what new entitlement did Reagan give us, Patterico, the truth in Stockman, is the Cabinet officials didn’t want to give up their prorogatives, but that is something beyond what a President can do,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  131. after reagan we were entitled to have socially backwards moral majority duggartrash write the party platform for us

    every. damn. word.

    happyfeet (831175)

  132. here is some los angeles news and some south texas news all in one article for your convenience

    Toyota to lay off 100 at Long Beach plant

    The layoffs are a result of Toyota executives’ decision to shift the manufacturing of some parts for the Toyota Tacoma pickup truck to San Antonio, according to a Toyota statement. Toyota has a Tacoma truck factory in the South Texas city.

    this is good for america

    happyfeet (831175)

  133. it’s like a slow motion San Andreas, sans Carla Gugino or Alex Daddario,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  134. it’s interesting to juxtapose that news with this Darleen post i think

    the excuse of Global Warming has allowed Democrats and Jerry Brown to punish people for the crime of owning their own transportation

    building trucks in california is same same as making guns in vermont

    it’s just not a smart business model

    happyfeet (831175)

  135. And the Democrats have socially backwards brinkintrash writing the words of the platform for them.

    Michael Ejercito (d9a893)

  136. and i feel just awful about it

    what’s a brinkin

    happyfeet (831175)

  137. they have Lena Dunham and Sandra Fluke writing the platform,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  138. yes yes but we were talking about poor addled reagan’s sad legacy

    happyfeet (831175)

  139. I can’t get that excited about a President given the state of the country these days.
    Patterico (3cc0c1) — 5/31/2015 @ 12:55 am

    I completely agree.

    felipe (56556d)

  140. The Bernie Sanders twitchy stuff is just priceless.

    elissa (1e59a3)

  141. you don’t have to be a candidate, but it helps,

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/05/30/media-still-determined-to-get-george-zimmerman/

    narciso (ee1f88)

  142. Scenario 2 presents a false choice as it implies my oppo research would have only come up with one skeleton on which to base attack stories. When I turn my gaze from your hypothetical to the real world I can not see one Democrat who is a potential candidate for President, for instance, where I’d only have one story to go with.

    As far as knowingly publishing a false story, no, I wouldn’t. There are rules to the game, Pat. One of the rules about reprisals is that they must be effective. If I were to knowingly (or even unknowingly) publish a false story then I’d become the story. Rendering me and anything else I produce ineffective.

    You’re trying to wriggle out of the hypo. You won’t become the story because nobody will ever find out.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  143. Patterico,

    If you don’t care about the Presidency then I guess you don’t care about the Supreme Court anymore, either That’s fine with me. You know I’ve almost given up on America but I didn’t realize you had, too. Nevertheless, I submit a Democratic-controlled America won’t have much tolerance for your ethics or leaving you in peace to live by your code.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  144. You are, contrary to your claim, arguing that the right should play by Marquis of Queensbury rules. Piling on Sanders for what he wrote doesn’t entail lying about the content of what he wrote, so example 2 is irrelevant to this entire issue. And the left has no compunctions about outright lying anyhow. So you’re arguing that the right shouldn’t just avoid lying, but should put itself two steps behind the left–don’t lie (agreed), and don’t criticize leftists with less-than-pristine arguments (absurd). Your strategy, if implemented, will guarantee that the left will never suffer one-thousandth as much as it makes the right suffer. Your banner is the white flag.

    Part 1 of your post reminded me of Gandhi’s advice to Churchill about how to deal with Hitler. I’m glad Churchill didn’t listen.

    Alan (786364)

  145. Scenario #1: No exemptions for those who wanted it. “What is good for me is good for thee”

    Scenario #2: It depends on some factors that may be implied but not stated in your scenario. If the document only I am aware of is beyond reproach and I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt of its veracity, then I would not publish the story. Since there is no verification possible as to its truthfulness or even accuracy/relevancy, then I would publish, but include all the facts (one the one hand THIS, on the other hand THAT) and let the public decide. Likewise, if there is corroboration of either side, reveal it. No slant or favoritism, just report what you found, conflicting accounts.

    Yehoodi (83c728)

  146. If you don’t care about the Presidency then I guess you don’t care about the Supreme Court anymore, either That’s fine with me. You know I’ve almost given up on America but I didn’t realize you had, too. Nevertheless, I submit a Democratic-controlled America won’t have much tolerance for your ethics or leaving you in peace to live by your code.

    No, I do care about the Supreme Court, but mainly as a way to slow down what increasingly seems inevitable.

    A Democrat-controlled America would be a nightmare, but a Republican-controlled America is not all it’s cracked up to be, as history shows. The Leviathan grows either way.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  147. My point is, I guess, that it would take a pretty clear-cut case to actively lie in the way described in the example in the post. Something like the Nazi at the door is a clear-cut case. Strongly increasing the chances of my preferred candidate being elected doesn’t mean the correct Supreme Court appointments get made, or that they are confirmed if made, or that the Justices vote the correct way even if confirmed. To say I would throw my ethics to the wind for a slightly better chance at slowing down the Leviathan for four years doesn’t feel right to me.

    It is in this context that I make my comments about the importance of the Presidency. I did give money to Ted Cruz, after all, so I guess I still care to some extent.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  148. You are, contrary to your claim, arguing that the right should play by Marquis of Queensbury rules. Piling on Sanders for what he wrote doesn’t entail lying about the content of what he wrote, so example 2 is irrelevant to this entire issue. And the left has no compunctions about outright lying anyhow. So you’re arguing that the right shouldn’t just avoid lying, but should put itself two steps behind the left–don’t lie (agreed), and don’t criticize leftists with less-than-pristine arguments (absurd). Your strategy, if implemented, will guarantee that the left will never suffer one-thousandth as much as it makes the right suffer. Your banner is the white flag.

    Part 1 of your post reminded me of Gandhi’s advice to Churchill about how to deal with Hitler. I’m glad Churchill didn’t listen.

    I didn’t say the examples are an exact parallel to the Sanders situation. You want us to “pile on” Sanders for what he wrote. OK. In what way do you advocate doing so, and in what way do you think I don’t — specifically? In part 1, I noted several avenues of attack I consider legitimate. What do you mean by “less than pristine” arguments? You need to be a little clearer.

    Comparing my post to Gandhi and Hitler and Churchill seems silly and overwrought. Because I disagree with lying (apparently you do too, even though it puts us one step behind the left!) and don’t want the other side to dictate how I conduct myself, all of a sudden I don’t want to fight HITLER! Godwin’s law vindicated yet again . . .

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  149. back in the day, like 10 years ago, people could get bumper stickers that said, “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for Bush”.

    Just think how the analogous to that would go over today.

    We are so close to mob rule it isn’t funny.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  150. Basically I think people just want a blogger who will scream inspiring stuff about TAKING IT TO THE ENEMY!! And while I am perfectly willing to call out and mock stuff I find mockworthy, I am increasingly genuinely tired of the partisan crap, and concerned primarily with the spread of the federal government and its ever-increasing role in taking our money and freedom.

    So it’s not that I don’t care, it’s that I am just increasingly unhappy with our electoral options for fixing this. So the partisan fire is dimming in me as a result.

    There are other options — Article V convention, using states to resist federal power, creating other mechanisms to resist federal mandates and to create independent communities, etc. — but electing Republicans just doesn’t seem like the solution to me any more. I’ll vote for them, sure, why not? But I can’t subscribe to the notion that it will make much difference to do so. I sure won’t sacrifice my personal ethics to see them elected.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  151. No. What is really at stake?

    Well, you are ducking the question pretty well there. OK, what is at stake is replacements for Ginsberg, Breyer, Scalia and Thomas.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  152. Obviously, my reference to less-than-pristine arguments meant piling on Sanders for what he wrote. You don’t have to lie about what he wrote to use it as a weapon against him, even if it’s arguable that the writing wasn’t a monstrosity. For this reason, example 2 isn’t just an imperfect parallel; it’s entirely off the subject.

    I didn’t say you oppose fighting Hitler. I said your piece reminded me of Gandhi’s advice, which it did and should. Both illustrate the high-and-mighty-wuss strategy, which is a stupid strategy. It guarantees defeat based on a ridiculously exalted system of ethics. What’s unethical about criticizing someone without lying about what he said?

    And I’m reasonably certain that truth isn’t such a flexible concept that the wrongness of an argument can be established by the fact that there’s a Nazi reference in the argument. One doesn’t disprove his own point by saying, “And another thing–Hitler,” or something of the like.

    “Overwrought” is a good word to describe your poorly reasoned reply to my comment.

    Alan (537955)

  153. Alan (537955) — 5/31/2015 @ 2:18 pm

    Translation of last sentence” “I know you are, but what am I?”

    Welcome to the Pee Wee Alan show.

    felipe (56556d)

  154. To be clearer, by “piling on” I mean criticizing him for any sentiment, position, or belief reasonably inferable from what he wrote, whether or not one personally believes that such sentiment, position, or belief is personally held by Sanders.

    Alan (537955)

  155. The number one way to smack Leviathan in the kisser would be for the SC to overturn INS v Chadha.

    When all these huge regulatory agencies were delegated their quasi-legislative power, Congress siad that one or both houses had to tacitly confirm each regulation by not passing a resolution of disapproval. This became known as the “legislative veto”. In the lamentable INS v Chadha, the Court decided this was 1) an unconstitutional intrusion of Congress into the Executive power, and 2) separable as it was not deeply attached to the powers delegated.

    The decision seems wrong on at least the 2nd point, and the Obama administration has proven that in detail. Returning to a single-house legislative veto of regulations would put paid to the Imperial excesses we have seen of late.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  156. Well, you are ducking the question pretty well there. OK, what is at stake is replacements for Ginsberg, Breyer, Scalia and Thomas.

    Ginsberg yes. Scalia, very possibly. Breyer, very possibly. Why Thomas? He’s only 66.

    Yeah, that’s important. I can’t deny it.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  157. The number one way to smack Leviathan in the kisser would be for the SC to overturn INS v Chadha.

    I hate this Chevron doctrine. The bureaucracy seems beholden to nobody. But the “conservatives” seem to love them some Chevron.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  158. To be clearer, by “piling on” I mean criticizing him for any sentiment, position, or belief reasonably inferable from what he wrote, whether or not one personally believes that such sentiment, position, or belief is personally held by Sanders.

    Yeah, well, you folks go nuts with that then. I personally don’t want any part of it.

    I guess that means I WANTED HITLER TO WIN!

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  159. 144. …You’re trying to wriggle out of the hypo. You won’t become the story because nobody will ever find out.
    Patterico (3cc0c1) — 5/31/2015 @ 12:29 pm

    Not at all. If you go back and read what I wrote I said I wouldn’t knowingly publish a story I knew was false.

    I am also saying that I can not imagine a single announced or potential Democratic; Clinton, Sanders, O’Malley, or Warren, that I couldn’t get legitimate dirt on, and in multiple areas.

    So A) I could look myself in the mirror B) I wouldn’t render myself ineffective as a “liar in one thing, liar in all things” and C) why should I bother when the truth provides such a target rich environment.

    Steve57 (f41960)

  160. If you go back and read what I wrote I said I wouldn’t knowingly publish a story I knew was false.

    From the Department of redundant writing Department.

    Steve57 (f41960)

  161. Thank you for reinforcing my point about which of us is reacting in an “overwrought” manner.

    Alan (5286e0)

  162. Thank you for reinforcing my point about which of us is reacting in an “overwrought” manner.

    Which one of us was it that suggested that my post advocated ideas similar to rolling over for Hitler?

    That word “reinforce” — I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  163. I may be negative on America but I’m still positive that one man like Cruz can make a difference, if Americans will give him a chance. And what fun would it be to see Boehner’s reaction!

    DRJ (e80d46)

  164. Alan

    You can call me overwrought if you want. Big deal.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  165. KNOW WHAT, YOU’RE RIGHT–THERE’S NOTHING OVERWROUGHT ABOUT WHAT YOU WROTE AND HOW YOU WROTE IT!!!!!

    And, yeah, that word does mean what I think it means.

    Alan (5286e0)

  166. To make a sports analogy: There are rules as written. There are informal rules which allow for certain infractions of the rules as written that everybody including the refs understand. And there are infractions which are to be penalized.
    If one team is pushing the second category toward the third, and not being called, it means the second category is changing and…are not both sides entitled to play by or within it in its new configuration? Both the other team and the officials have said,implicitly, that the second category has changed.
    I’d be inclined to publish the story and tell the opposition that we understand the new rules. Do they want to continue with both sides playing this way? Up to them.

    Richard Aubreyr (f6d8de)

  167. Why Thomas? He’s only 66.

    Because the world is perverse.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  168. KNOW WHAT, YOU’RE RIGHT–THERE’S NOTHING OVERWROUGHT ABOUT WHAT YOU WROTE AND HOW YOU WROTE IT!!!!!

    OK, I see, you’re just unfamiliar with my style. The all-caps and exclamation points were intended to convey irony.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  169. I hate this Chevron doctrine.

    Chevron Schmevron. I want the House of Representatives to be able to strike down an EPA regulation with 218 votes no matter what anyone else does (or the Senate with 51 60 votes). In the enabling legislation of most of these agencies, that was the string to the delegated powers. The SC cut that string for no good reason, and look at where we are.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  170. Just an observation. I think almost everybody’s coming across on this thread as being a little overwrought, and therefore many statements are mis-communicative, over generalized, mis-interpreted. I blame global warming.

    elissa (d7014a)

  171. me i’m just chillin’
    in carmel-by-the-sea heh
    like e.e. cummings

    Colonel Haiku (519254)

  172. gonna eat fried prawns
    salad oysters clam chowdah
    it’s all good bitches

    Colonel Haiku (519254)

  173. gonna eat fried prawns
    salad oysters clam chowdah
    it’s all good bi+ches

    Colonel Haiku (519254)

  174. I, for one, welcome our new overwrought overlords.

    carlitos (56c27e)

  175. livin’ the good life
    enjoying baseball, hockey
    no drought here, either

    elissa (d7014a)

  176. well almost all good
    my mother-in-law’s with us
    ev’ry rose has thorn

    Colonel Haiku (519254)

  177. god this gal can talk
    try to keep up but often
    stare off into space

    Colonel Haiku (519254)

  178. such a drama queen
    ev’rything can’t be “so sad”
    my eyes glazed donuts

    Colonel Haiku (519254)

  179. My mother-in-law
    Not doing so good these days
    That’s what marriage is

    carlitos (56c27e)

  180. GODDAMNIT LADY!
    IT WAS JUST A FRICKIN’ CAT!
    GO GET A NEW ONE!

    Colonel Haiku (519254)

  181. Some say John Wesley was the reason that England did not have a civil war like France,
    and he wasn’t even in government.
    Even Assyria was spared for a season.
    So there is hope,
    and using their tactics against them is not favorable to intervention from on High.

    But that doesn’t mean for one second I am in favor of letting their lies work their poison while we are “nice” and “polite” so as not to offend anybody
    some people need to be offended for their own good

    besides, Aslan was not a nice and polite lion.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  182. Whose lies and what?

    carlitos (56c27e)

  183. My father in law is 88 with dementia and cannot have alcohol. My brother in law is a 57 year old alcoholic who free-falled of the wagon today and gave my father in law a few beers. If I get him on the roof and he falls, it would be a shame.

    mg (31009b)

  184. Sorry to hear that, mg. I will pray for you and your family.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  185. Thanks, MD. My wife is a saint.

    mg (31009b)

  186. How about a group of citizen bloggers wrote a post that took a politician of the opposite party to task on a completely phony story… To the point of creating a second fake blog as the source, moderating posts that question the story, and even conspired with others to hide the facts:

    http://patterico.com/2012/04/01/66580/

    End of Section 230 Protection for Bloggers?
    Filed under: General — Patterico @ 3:53 pm

    According to the blog McIntyre v Ohio, an anonymous blog devoted to promoting anonymous speech, Senator Joe Lieberman has proposed stripping blog hosts of the immunity they currently enjoy from liability for things their blog commenters say.

    If legislation like this ever actually passes, I’ll be shutting down comments.

    Those who followed the recent smack down of a serial troll at Popehat will no doubt remember that Ken invoked section 230 as the reason I cannot be held responsible for stupid things said by my commenters. I have the finest comment section on the planet, but you can’t prevent idiots from walking in the door if you are going to have open comments. And there are always the Kilgore Trouts of the world, too: people who deliberately plant inflammatory or racist comments on sites to smear the blog proprietors.

    And coordinated with others to get a wide distribution of the smear across multiple platforms/ideologies:
    http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2012/04/section-230-april-fools-hoax-a-deconstruction.html

    And a day later–April Fools!

    http://patterico.com/2012/04/02/april-fools-there-is-actually-no-bill-threatening-anonymous-commentary-on-the-internet/

    As was JRM’s:

    I’m slightly surprised . . . that *no one* appears to have looked at their calendar when analyzing this proposal.

    Actually, several people had — I was just exercising my prerogative to disappear their comments. All the comments that I moderated out of existence have now been approved. Each contains my original note to them, followed by a note dated today saying I am releasing the comment from moderation.

    There is a serious component to the argument I was making yesterday. It is actually a little frightening how easily people believe assertions by anonymous commenters on the Internet. I have been the victim of anonymous smear artists who have conducted Internet-based whisper campaigns about me, and I have seen it work on people who should know better. If yesterday’s exercise helps remind people that unsourced factual assertions by anonymous Internet entities are completely worthless, then I will have succeeded.

    But the remedy is not government intervention. The remedy is more speech. In my case, the people conducting the whisper campaigns are all going to be exposed. Their reputations will suffer badly, and the weapon that will accomplish that suffering will be the best weapon of all: the truth.

    So Joe Lieberman, you can take your phony proposal and go to hell!

    So–I am not publishing a false story/smear campaign about a sitting senator… I am publishing a joke and will do the “reveal tomorrow”.

    Pretty much what I said in the first post… Make the smear and release the truth later.

    And, as far as I can tell, this was not picked up by any of the MSM (also a prediction–Mainstream Media protects the Democrats).

    I understand it is your traditional April 1st joke feast–But it is also a reason I have a bit of a nagging suspicion whenever I see “black and white” choice/click bait based entries here because of this April 1st post.

    BfC (8661e2)

  187. mg, there is a point where you toss him out and change the locks. It really is no favor to him to cushion his fall.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  188. 1) You have the ability to cast the deciding vote. Do you hold firm to your principle that the minimum wage is bad in all cases, and vote for the exemption? Or do you hold the labor union to its own standards by voting against the exemption — an act that may also help promote your longer-term policy goals?

    I hold firm to the principle that they made their bed, now they can lie in it. That’s not the same as violating my own policy position. Even if I think A Law is wrong, then it’s even wronger to make exceptions for that law which don’t apply to everyone. Exceptions to laws should only be used to correct injustices, not give political benefit to well heeled ward handlers.

    Do you hold firm to your principles of honesty and refuse to publish the story? Or do you hold the opposing candidate to his own standards, and publish a false story to retaliate for his own false story — an act that will probably also help you elect your favored candidate and achieve other long-term policy goals?

    Hmmm. Depends partly on how strongly I oppose the candidate. If it’s a choice between Hitler and my candidate, yeah, I publish. If it’s a choice between Elizabeth Warren and my candidate, well, I can’t say I think Warren is so evil as to make violations of principle important.

    There is a spectrum here — if you hold so fast to your principles, you die**, then your principles do not have survival value, and you’ve died for nothing. But therein lies the crux. While one can, and should, violate principles, there are standards for it that tie to survival.

    I’m put strongly in mind of possibly the best Star Trek episode ever, DS9’s “In The Pale Moonlight“.

    =====================

    ** The exception would be, if, by visible example, your stand for a principle would cause others to rally around that principle: “Give me liberty, or give me death.
    If that phrase never gets out, then you’ve died for nothing. But the phrase stands beyond your death as a symbol of what you died for, a principle, and becomes a stirring support for it that rings through time, becoming more important than your individual life and individual support of the principle itself.

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  189. Minimum wage: now that the city has made an increased minimum its policy, everyone should be treated equally under the law, even if you don’t like the law. It’s like the Obamacare law: it stinks, but if we are saddled with it, make everyone comply with the law. That’s the fastest way to get it voided, if that’s at all possible.
    False Story: Can’t sacrifice your own standards just because the other guy does.

    Ken in Camarillo (061845)

  190. DRJ #6: what a fantastic solution! (publish the false story, but also the debunking letter).

    Ken in Camarillo (061845)

  191. Vote against the Union exemption in the first case. Refuse to publish the false story in case 2.

    Bar Sinister (b48c12)

  192. This is the end of a long thread–But just to be clear, did not Patterico back in 2012 knowingly organize and publish a false story against a sitting senator, then a day later admit to doing that?

    http://patterico.com/2012/04/01/66580/
    http://patterico.com/2012/04/02/april-fools-there-is-actually-no-bill-threatening-anonymous-commentary-on-the-internet/

    And the whole point the above blog entry was he would never do such a thing?

    2. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Or the “Harry Reid” Law.

    I strongly disagree. I can’t possibly see knowingly publishing a false story about someone.
    Patterico (3cc0c1) — 5/30/2015 @ 1:29 pm

    BfC (8661e2)

  193. he didn’t know it was false, that’s the point,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  194. Who is “he”?

    Of course Patterico and 13 other bloggers/writers knew it was a false smear–They wrote and coordinated the “story”:

    http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2012/04/section-230-april-fools-hoax-a-deconstruction.html

    One big source of inbound traffic was a popular forum called Hacker News. I felt bad about that because, well, those folks are a lot smarter than us and know how to break our digital windows. (Please. Don’t. Keep reading.)

    But before any of you get angry at me or my co-conspirators listed below, remember this: Each of the authors participated because we feel strongly about protecting the First Amendment. (I’ve twice defended defamation claims, one in the past and one currently.) So while you may have been fooled for a few hours, or even angered, you should know that those who did the fooling are your teammates in vigilance against those that wish to encroach on our rights to speak freely. Most of the jokesters are lawyers. We get it.

    There are civil libertarians on both sides of the aisle:

    Joe Lieberman v. the Internet: It’s not over. (Adam B. @ Daily Kos)
    End of Section 230 Protection for Bloggers? (Patterico @ Patterico’s Pontifications)
    Thanks To Senator Lieberman, You Guys Are Going To Get Me Sued (Ken @ Popehat)
    Dear Commenters: We Can’t Protect You Anymore (Mystal @ Above the Law
    Anti-terrorism law threatens First amendment? (Frank @ Point of Law)
    Section 230 Amendment strips websites of immunity from anonymous commenters (Randazza @ Legal Satyricon)
    A Free Speech Disaster — The End of Anonymous Commenting? (Cuban @ The Cuban Revolution)
    Lieberman to Internet: You’re Fungus (Greenfield @ Simple Justice)
    Anonymous Commenting Legislation By Joe Lieberman? (Tannebaum @ My Law License)
    Blind-Squirrel Lieberman Finds Acorn (Bennett @ Defending People)
    A One-Two-Punch Against Free Speech (Draughn @ Windy Pundit)
    The Community You Create (Zubon @ Kill Ten Rats)
    First Amendment Malpractice (Barovick at NY Medical Malpractice Law)
    Will Free Speech in America Meet Its Match In Lieberman? (Wise @ Wise Law Blog)

    There are some who may wonder why I go to all the bother of doing this each year. You will find the answer to that question in the same place where I explained why I not only dressed up in a turkey suit at Thanksgiving time, but actually published the pictures.

    Finally, I’ve now run gags regarding the Supreme Court, the White House, and now Congress. I’m officially retired from the April Fool’s dodge. For real. My wife told me if I do this again she will kill me. Then divorce me.

    My 14 year old is at that point where hypocrisy in adults (and others) sets her off in a rage. And I am hard pressed to convince that people do not “suck”.

    So, why is 2012 so different from 2015?

    BfC (8661e2)

  195. The best you would ever get them to admit is that the good works among the poor are just a cover for their nefarious attempts to oppress them.

    Cf “pinkwashing”. Same argument, different props.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  196. 144. …You’re trying to wriggle out of the hypo. You won’t become the story because nobody will ever find out.

    Patterico (3cc0c1) — 5/31/2015 @ 12:29 pm

    It’s amazing how you can read my mind over the internet and determine my motives.

    Perhaps if we had done the same thing with Obama he wouldn’t have won a second term.

    As I recall form 2008 some people were determined to state that Barack Obama was a good man. There was no evidence for that other than he loved his own children. So does a totalitarian regime torturer.

    On the other hand I’ve consistently said that based upon the evidence Barack Obama only wanted to become President of his enemies so he could help his friends. Not because it was a convenient smear, but because it was what I determined to be the truth at the time.

    Who here thinks the past 6 1/3 years has proven me wrong?

    I’m not naieve; I know that nothing conservatives could have said would have prevented him from becoming President in 2008. But had we had a policy of being brutally honest throughout his first term he may not have had a second. Not only would we have accurately defined who Obama is, we may even have gotten a better candidate. But instead the cowering GOP adopted the party line that Obama was a nice guy who wanted the best for the country, and they condemned Rush Limbaugh who had the integrity to say flat out that he hoped Obama failed.

    The Mitch McConnell’s of the GOP distanced themselves from Limbaugh and adopted this bizarre stance that when the President succeeds the country succeeds. Really? That was a disgustingly Stalinist position to take. What did Barack Obama want to succeed at? Fundamentally transforming this nation. To fundamentally transform a nation you have to tear the edifice down to the foundation before you can replace it with something else.

    The upshot was that this refusal to speak the truth led to the disastrous 2012 Mittens campaign; “He’s a nice guy, just in over his head” said the man responsible for Romneycare. That campaign was groan worthy from the start. No wonder so many people stayed home.

    And the upshot in 2015 is Iraq. And you didn’t need to be prescient; I don’t have a crystal ball. I just paid attention. Obama told us before he was elected to his first term that what we are seeing now in Iraq would be the natural result of his policies, and he didn’t care.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19862711/ns/politics-decision_08/t/obama-dont-stay-iraq-over-genocide/#.VWx0_ZV7zZY

    SUNAPEE, N.H. — Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

    “Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

    “We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said.

    Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it’s likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq.

    “Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis,” Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. “There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there.”

    This was a moronic, cavalier, irresponsible, and frankly evil thing to say on so many different levels. Even more so to do it. But that was the plan, and he carried it out. I’m not going to analyze it but to make four points. 1) Of course nobody was proposing that the US leave precipitously; had Obama publicly stated this now obvious intention he would have lost. 2) The US didn’t help shape events in the Congo or Sudan. We did in Iraq, and by every measure including the UN Convention on Genocide not only was preventing one a good reason to stay it was our legal obligation. 3) We should have pounded on the obvious hypocrisy of illegally going into Libya due to the dubious legal doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect” which is an outgrowth of legal conventions to prevent genocide contrasted with his refusal as candidate Obama to take any responsibility for the genocide that even he acknowledged would result when we suddenly left Iraq as was his intention all along. 4) It’s now obvious the “international force” he had in mind was Iran. This goes back to my 2008 assessment that he only wanted to become President of his enemies to help his friends. Keep that in mind every time Josh Earnest says that the White House ISIS strategy is an overall success. I’m sure from their viewpoint it is. The majority of Americans just find that ridiculous because here it is nearly 7 years into onto the Obama administration and they still haven’t caught onto who Obama is working for, and who he is working against.

    Perhaps had the GOP not insisted on lying about what a nice guy Obama is and how well intentioned he is and how he only wants the best for the country what’s going on now in Iraq, around the world, on our southern border, indeed every social and economic development in the US, wouldn’t be so hard for them to figure out.

    But it’s too late now for the GOP to credibly turn around now and tell them it’s been the plan all along. That inexperience never was the problem. Carter was inexperienced; he truly was in over his head. Which is why he was able to grow a bit in office after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and adjust somewhat in his one and only term. The problem (for America) is Obama’s ideology. What we are seeing is his refusal to adjust because he is ideologically committed to achieving exactly the results he’s getting.

    This is why European socialists gave him the Nobel Peace Prize. It was a down payment. As I said, you didn’t need a crystal ball. You just needed to pay attention to his past actions and his statements.

    I don’t mind that you state what believe I’m trying to do, Pat. I’ve been stating what I believe Obama has been trying to do since 2008. Based upon the evidence I think I”m better at it. So let me explain what I was trying to do.

    I was saying I am all for the politics of personal destruction. That’s why I objected to your hypothetical. I wouldn’t have just one story to go with to “take them down.” I’d have one every single day. The difference is I would use the truth, while they use lies. They also use the truth, as when Obama unsealed court records to destroy his foes in order to become Senator. But the truth is just one arrow in their quiver. The truth would be the only arrow I need. All I have to do is tell the truth about what they want to do to this country. It’s unfolding right before our eyes.

    The progressive left is defined by what they hate, not what they’re for. What they hate is this country. What they’re for shifts over time, depending on where they need to stand on an issue in order to be in opposition to the country they hate. I wouldn’t publish a false story. All I would need to do is brutalize them with a constant barrage of the truth.

    The choice is between destroying them, or letting them destroy the country. And make no mistake, all they can do is destroy. Look at Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, what DeBlasio is doing to New York. Shift your gaze to Cuba and Venezuela and see what the country would look like if/when their policies go nationwide.

    Hence my war analogies. Hence my emphasis on the principle of reprisals. I wouldn’t make any fine distinctions. If Sanders is part of the opposing force he deserves exactly what he should get.

    Steve57 (f41960)

  197. I hate this Chevron doctrine.

    Chevron Schmevron. I want the House of Representatives to be able to strike down an EPA regulation with 218 votes no matter what anyone else does (or the Senate with 51 60 votes). In the enabling legislation of most of these agencies, that was the string to the delegated powers. The SC cut that string for no good reason, and look at where we are.

    Exactly. It’s got nothing to do with Chevron. All Chevron says is that where Congress was silent, the agency is entitled to form its own understanding of its duties, and no administration is bound by its predecessors’ understandings. Here Congress is not silent. It gave agencies the power to make detailed regulations implementing its will; if either house disapproves of a regulation, then clearly that regulation does not reflect Congress’s will, and is therefore invalid. But Chadha effectively gives the administration legislative power regardless of what Congress says.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  198. 1) Laws that are not applied universally, i.e. laws with numerous cut outs and exceptions, are not laws at all. They are either punishments or dispensations from the ruling class. Given we are not a monarchy no exceptions should be given.

    2)The lying behavior of others has no effect on me. To allow it to impact my ethics ad behavior is to give the liars and cheaters control over my actions.

    Eramus (8c487b)

  199. 1. The labor union has to pay the minimum wage too. I’d use the opportunity to push for the repeal of the whole law and fail.

    2. I like the ideas that I’ve read before. The idea I had before I read them was that I would publish it as satire, much like the many well-sourced reports of Harry Reid’s pedophilia. Only after the election would I reveal the truth in the secret letter, because tit for tat is fair play.

    To go to the next portion, ballot box stuffing is against the law. First I attempt to have it punished within the law. If it appears that is not possible, one must go outside the procedures of law.

    luagha (e5bf64)

  200. I really hate to say it, but Sal Alinsky was correct–We need to follow it (and force the the others to live by their rules/direct results of their actions). Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” just just another name for total war.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

    The rules[1]

    1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
    2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
    3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
    4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
    5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
    6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
    7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
    8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
    9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
    10. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
    11. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
    12.“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

    I may choose not to do something–But I am not going to broadcast to my “enemy” what my limitations will be in advance–And those limitations will probably be situational/change over time.

    BfC (8661e2)

  201. 201. …But I am not going to broadcast to my “enemy” what my limitations will be in advance–And those limitations will probably be situational/change over time…

    BfC (8661e2) — 6/1/2015 @ 11:52 am

    I don’t understand why you put the word enemy in scare quotes. Our enemies chose to be our enemies. We didn’t choose the situation, but we need to recognize that it is the situation. Two examples:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-campaign-to-mislead-the-american-people/2015/05/29/04a2c448-0574-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html

    The fossil-fuel industry’s campaign to mislead the American people

    …Their activities are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health dangers of smoking. Big Tobacco’s denial scheme was ultimately found by a federal judge to have amounted to a racketeering enterprise…

    …Thankfully, the government had a playbook, too: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies and their associated industry groups, alleging that the companies “engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.”…

    In reality the opposite is the case. The vast majority of money (over 90%) pouring into climate research comes from governments, NGOs, and yes even energy companies with a vested interest in proving that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming does exist. In the case of government, that would empower petty tyrants like Sheldon Whitehouse to curtail representative democracy, the bill of rights, here specifically free speech, in order centralize power in his and his friends hands to “save the planet.” Clearly, only higher taxes and central control of all aspects of our lives can stop global warming. He and his progressive friends are the ones who are the organized crime syndicate; Sheldon and his fellow travelers attempted to use the power of their offices to intimidate legitimate scientists into science.

    Sheldon Whitehouse can’t convict anybody yet for interfering with the progressive left’s will to power, but every once in a while the mask slips and he or someone like him reveals that he would if he could.

    That makes him a very real enemy, not a hypothetical one.

    http://news.yahoo.com/video/obama-americans-no-favor-americans-103133596.html

    Obama: Americans Have No Right To Favor Americans
    by Wochit 0:30 mins

    The only Americans who can legitimately object to immigration are native Indians, President Barack Obama told his Chicago audience Nov. 24, as he made an impassioned ideological plea for endless immigration, cultural diversity and a big government to manage the resulting multicultural society.

    In which Barack Obama, constitutional law professor, declares himself an enemy of the Constitution and the American people. In fact, he’s arguing there should be no such thing as an American people.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Not only do we have the right to favor Americans over non-citizens, we wrote that right into the Constiution. And it is his obligation to favor Americans citizens over all other people.

    Essentially Obama gave us the finger and is telling us he swore a false oath to support and defend a Constitution that he uses as toilet paper.

    Steve57 (f41960)

  202. Sorry, “enemy” was my attempt at “generalization” (i.e., real enemies, people on the other side of the debate, business, etc.), not to use scare quotes as in “terrorists”.

    Otherwise Steve57, I don’t disagree with a thing in your post.

    I am not so sure why Patterico (whom I respect) is so black and white on this issue… 3 years ago he did exactly the same thing that he said a few days ago that he would never do. Write a known false story about a politician. Sure, the intent was to attract attention and change minds on an important subject–But somehow that was “different” because—Why? The ends justifies the means?

    I don’t know/understand 2012 Patterico vs 2015 Patterico. This was OK in 2012 because Sen. Lieberman had announced by the story date (April Fools Day) that he (Lieberman) was not running for reelection (splitting hairs)? Has Patterico changed his mind and he will never write a false smear again? Morality/integrity has a “day off” every April 1st for conservatives & liberals?

    BfC (8661e2)

  203. In your first example, I would agree with those who argue for several good reasons for voting against giving the union an exemption (plus the fact that an exemption would manifestly hurt both workers and employers, as well as provide a perverse incentive for employers to agree to unionize). Then again, since this exemption would have to be an amendment, it’s quite probable that an abstention would be as effective as a vote against. Though I think that voting against with an explanation would be more in the public interest.

    Your second example is just another situational ethic hypothetical. And as I find in almost all such posers, the premises are highly suspect as they assume facts that cannot reasonably be known with certainty. Here you are assuming (1) that your assessment is correct that publishing vs. not publishing this false article alone will swing the election. Maybe, maybe not (for example, look at the Clintons and their mountain of scandals); (2) that the letter is absolutely true [but since the letter does raise doubt as to the veracity of the article, it at least should give you pause], and (3) that you are the only person with exonerating evidence. In fact, if someone on this candidate’s campaign does have exonerating evidence, running the story will blow up in your face.

    Thus given that you is probably overrating your importance to the election outcome, that after this election, you will have to live with violating your journalistic ethics regarding not publishing stories you truthfully can’t stand behind, not to mention the risk of your publishing backfiring both in terms of the election as well as damaging your reputation as a journalist – I would avoid the situation ethics trap of publishing the story without providing the mitigating evidence of the letter. Not publishing is a suboptimal choice, because there likely are rumors lurking about that you’re in a position to cast light on; better is to report the story and to also fairly present the evidence of the letter, and let the reader decide, as you aren’t the infallible arbiter of the truth.

    Incidentally, the hiding a person from the Nazi example is also a false dilemma, but that would involve a lengthy explanation.

    civil truth (b17b8a)

  204. I voted the same as you and in regards to #1 if the unions are paying the $15 minimum wage they’ll be on your side of the debate when/if a repeal effort is started.

    Worc1 (0abe3c)

  205. Example 1 is easy. I deny the exemption. Granted, the harm caused by the $15 minimum would not be ameliorated. But like with Obamacare, the perpetrators need to face the consequences of their actions. Who’s to say we can’t use the pain caused by the minimum to put the screws on the offending pols and educate the public to better effect. An honest debate needs to happen before any political progress can be expected.
    Example 2 is a tough one. However I’m inclined to think that the reporter’s efforts might be better spent defending his victim candidate with the truth and embarassing/attacking the lying pol with the truth regarding the original accusation and its source. Certainly this is true ethically. Probably better from a realpolitic point of view as well. Still, I’m tempted to do the dishonest thing here.

    smokedaddy (e20469)

  206. How can you be 100% that the document debunking the story is real, and hasn’t been planted by the opposition or his staff just in case the story that they KNOW is true shows up? (Here I am thinking of the many lies/excuses/attacks distributed by the Clintons through their cronies to debunk/deflect the many “bimbo eruptions” during the first campaign and during the impeachment battle, especially the Juanita Broddrick story.)

    You can’t confirm it with the deceased (And, oh, isn’t it oh-so-convenient that the document writer is dead?). If you take it to the campaign, they’ll swear the document is true and deny your story is false…and then you find out 5 years later, after the 2nd inauguration, that the story was true.

    Too late. And we’re 5 years closer to being a 3rd world socialist state.

    Evan3457 (a8d833)

  207. You are both right.

    I would explain that by saying your desired outcomes are different. If you wish to get to heaven then of course turn the other cheek. If you wish to win a fight, you punch back.

    Honorable competition such as ghandi’s non violent protests will succeed only when your opponent has values they will not violate. A Ghandi-style protest would not have worked against the Nazi’s but worked fairly well with the Brits. In our situation the animating spirit of the left is valueless these days, and setting a good example will do you no good with them. Note I did not say all democrats. As long as the driving force of the democratic party is thus the only thing that will curb their behavior is reprisal.

    Having said that, I note the downside to such a strategy. By reprisal you also likely alienate “good” democrats. So winning elections will be difficult and governance even more difficult. Taking the high road, means you will hamstring yourself also in winning elections. In essence you have a lose-lose situation. However, I think the ship of state has left the dock so to speak. You will not solve this Country’s problems now barring a miracle.

    So as a man of honor, if I am going to die/fail I(you Patterico) might as well die with honor intact. On the other hand, as man, if I’m going to die/fail and want to do my DUTY which is to take out as many of the bastards with me as I can so the next guy doesn’t have to deal with them. Its really a tough call and I won’t disparage either choice. (By the way I don’t think Ace is saying we should be dishonorable but he is saying don’t be so freakin’ polite and above it all. He isn’t advocating lying about what Sanders actually said, just not putting it off limits. But I concede to you that each man’s conception of what is honorable is going to vary somewhat.

    I write to point out that I think neither of you has given the other’s position enough credit.
    I will respect you both as men who thought it out and made the decision they wish to finish with . . . because the end is coming. Ultimately you both are in the bargaining stage as you want to negotiate the terms on which you go down. (If you think I’m wrong about then you are still in denial.) I respect your choices in this regard. In the end everyman hauls his own carcass to market.

    joe (21c041)

  208. 1. Stick it to the union, no exemption. 2. Don’t publish the false story. What is it with unions demanding onerous laws for everyone but themselves?!

    waelse1 (ce49d6)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8762 secs.