Comments on: Tiger’s Bright Burning

By: Steve Dawson

Steve Dawson — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:15:28 +0000

Steve-
There are many people who (unfortunately) vote for the person not their platform. That’s why most successful candidates have a personal charm.

I do mind a flawed candidate who is sanctimonious.

By: steve hays

steve hays — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:43:47 +0000

David,

Voting for a political candidate is not an endorsement of the man. At most, that’s an endorsement of his campaign promises or policy initiatives. And it generally involves a compromise between one flawed candidate and another.

By: David Wayne

David Wayne — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:45:44 +0000

Steve, granted that – thanks for the helpful distinction between an abstraction and a person. But, just for the sake of argument – isn’t there a group of people who self-identify as the “religious right” and for whom a sense of “moral authority” or “moral superiority” is an important plank in their agenda. And would these folks not have claimed Sanford as a champion in days gone by and thus justifiably have to deal with the fallout from the moral failures of said champion.

By: steve hays

steve hays — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:00:03 +0000

“Sanford’s behavior stands out because he became yet another poster boy for the hypocrisy of the religious right.”

The “religious right” is an abstraction, not a person. An abstraction can’t be hypocritical. The statement is meaningless.

The “religious right” is simply a label for loosely-defined set of people. Some are virtuous, some are not. You can’t justify general statements about disparate individuals.