Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, November 20, 2008 09:59 AM

  @omooex

  I thought you like to refine your thinking through debate. What happened to that? Now we just agree to disagree?

  I commented yesterday that I can see looking at evidence of specific patterns of bad judgment in a candidate's past (I gave examples). And I agree that you can ask an AG pretty much anything you want, because it's that important.

  One data point may prove EVERYTHING, given the context.

  Sure, if you find one thing that was bad judgment or worse. Where is that one thing?

  The AG, I think all would agree, should be someone who is in the biz as a protector of the rule of law, not capitalism. In such an circumstance, if there are other candidates available, the client list should be of concern.

  If you'll allow me to expound a bit on the original premise. That client list should reflect a broad segment of the population, since the candidate would be serving the population, not just those who could afford to pay for their services.

  Now you're starting to make sense. But you're inventing a new definition of what an AG should be, and we can't be expected to already understand it. Has anyone ever heard of this? How would it work? How would it be enforced? What exactly are the new standards? How would you convince Republicans (or for that matter Democraps) to accept this?

  Ridiculing someone and reducing their argument to a caricature may be fun, but I can't see much to defend the habit.

  You're only just now making an argument---any argument---for this position for the first time.

  —Baldie McEagle Read Baldie McEagle's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel