Legal Commentary

"Stupid Attacks"

By Big Tent Democrat

Al Giordano writes about why he is criticizing President Obama's online town hall answer to a "legalizing marijuana" question:

Day in, day out, I defend the President from stupid attacks, so often that it's common that they respond by calling me an apologist for him. But, excuse me, while the substance of what he said was certainly informed by what he's heard in his cross-country journey, the mocking and mean-spirited tone of it is what I take issue with.

Some think critiques like Al's are "stupid attacks." More . . .

And therein lies the problem - judging what other people care about. I try not to do that. I support everyone, from Paul Krugman to Al Giordano to anonymous commenters, offering their views on issues they care about. I also support folks critiquing the substance of such critiques.

What I do object to is the critiquing of actually critiquing. The STFU mentality is what I object to. If you want a "fair trade" policy (Obama is a free trader like me, but a lot of folks do not agree with that approach), you are right to critique Obama's policy, even though the actual critiques may be wrong on the substance, imo.

Many are unhappy with President Obama's Afghanistan policy. I support it. They are right to offer their critiques. I'll critique the substance of the critiques.

Most Republicans oppose the right to choose. They are right to express this view. I strongly disagree with that view and will express my substantive critique of it.

And so it should go. Debate about issues is healthy and necessary. We should never tell anyone to STFU about the issues they care about. Enough with the demonizing of people who are expressing their views about issues.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on March 29, 2009 (boomark / email).