Frank(en) Dishonesty

As Flash notes - and responds to clearly and succinctly, Mitch Berg at Scared of The Dark is once again creating fictions to then have the opportunity to do the entirely easy, namely, tear down his own fantasy.

Berg asks whether there is anything to 'like' about Franken, and wants justification for votes FOR him, as opposed to say, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, in the upcoming US Senate election in Minnesota.

A couple of thoughts for the perpetually logic-challenged M.Berg:

1. Negative voting constitutes a HUGE percentage of votes in any election. Certainly it would be hard to argue that the Republicans don't engage in negative campaigning - often to an extremem - (e.g. the Bush campaign's actions against John McCain in South Carolina, or oh, gosh, say SWIFT BOATS) - so it is the height of arrogance and dishonesty to actually try to claim the Republicans either require a reason to vote for someone themselves, or have any justification asking someone else to justify their vote. I can vote against someone with a clear concience and without second thought if he/she is corrupt, for sale, out of touch, or just an extraordinarily poor choice, as I believe Mr. Coleman is.

2. There are plenty of positives with Franken specifically, but since when, once someone has been endorsed by the party, is it a requirement to love the candidate? In fact, Mr. Berg, not more than a couple weeks back, pointed out he doesn't exactly LOVE either Coleman or McCain. Franken, as an informed Democrat, makes it more likely filibusters won't be sustained, he obviously wouldn't vote for band-aides on a flood (e.g. lifting Offshore drilling bans), or utter political pomposity and economic boondoggle for the benefit of corporations (summer gas-tax break). No one is required to go any further than that, and Mr. Berg has no right to expect such justification.

It's as if he thinks he has some peternalistic lordship over our thoughts, over our justifications. As Flash rightly points out, people have left Scared Kitty in the Dark in droves because Berg's bragadoccio and arrogance has reached a point where discussion is no longer possible, and this is just another manifestation.

Mitch, when no one replies, it isn't because we don't have reasons to like Franken, it's because we don't feel compelled to stoop to justifying ourselves to someone who will not listen, doesn't actually care, doesn't know the facts, and worse, may twist our words into something unsaid and unthought, since that is your normal M.O. Flash gave you reasons on his blog, I'll give you two or three here.

1. Franken is extraordinarily well-informed, far more so than Coleman
2. Franken did not sign-off blindly on a war justified by requiring the other side to disprove negatives, and he's likely bright enough to know such claptrap is, in fact, claptrap
3. Franken supports reasonable solutions to difficult problems. He has not, in contrast, resorted to simplistic logic and sound bites as a way to back-hand any reasonable discussion, as opposed to say, YOU.
4. Franken's stance on global climate change is reasonable. He niether requires an all-out ban on green house gases, nor does he grasp at the tiniest of straws to justify doing nothing.

If you have the guts to criticize, get the guts to discuss the topic rationally. Your site, is no longer such a venue.