The Durbinization Of John Vincent

I was going to post part of this yesterday, but I was observing a moment of silence for a friend.

I offer you a non-hypothetical situation:  Observe a county commissioner considering changes to a large subdivision development project in his region.  He abstains from voting yea or nay on proposed changes, stating that he has reason to believe that the developer has not been completely honest in other counties, and he needs to verify the veracity of those claims;  he needed to find out the truth behind what he had heard.  Would you consider this person to be:

A)  A thoughtful administrator of his constituency's interests?
B)  A person who wants all the facts before giving an informed opinion on a topic, or
C)  A slanderous man with a reckless disregard for the truth, and for decency, and a man who "single handedly resurrected McCarthyism in Montana"!!!!?

Apparently, if you are the lawyer representing the developer, the answer is obviously C.  The administrator in question is, of course, Gallatin county commissioner John Vincent, and the author of the radically over the top claims of Vincent's villainous black agenda, is attorney John Kauffman.  John Vincent wants people to hear what he said, and judge for themselves as to the quality of his actions.  That's obviously not good enough for Kauffman.  Understand, I'm not blaming Kauffman; he's just pulling another trick out of the lawyer's handbook.  If argumentation doesn't get you want you want, rely on intimidation and smear.  You will notice, I hope, that Vincent has already said that if an apology is warranted once the full facts are known, he will respectfully give it.  You will also notice, I hope, that no such acceptance of responsible action comes from Kauffman.

Normally, this kind of local political spat happens a lot, and travels well below most people's radar.  It is not usually front page news, and yet this little tiff has rated the front page two days in a row.  It's not a mystery as to why.  John Vincent is running against the biggest kooky freak in the legislature next year, one Roger Koopman.  That affords Kauffman a certain leverage; "do what I want or I will assassinate your political chances" he says while twirling his mustache.  This is typical current political smear, aided and abetted by the Bozeman Chronicle.  Kauffman's rant appears the day after the commission meeting, yet Vincent's direct quotes appear a day later.  Such is the journalistic service that Gallatin county can expect, and I remind you that this incident affects all of Montana, not just Gallatin county.

This is exactly what happened to Rep. Dick Durbin; a complete mischaracterization of what was said, followed by an assumption of motivation that just doesn't hold water.  One has to respect the Kauffman reptile for recognizing the tactical efficiency of such a smear, but one doesn't have to agree ... at all.  From now on, I will refer to this tactic as "Durbinization".  No doubts, it will work very well on those too lazy to actually get the facts of the matter.  And I will happily follow up with the letters from the slugs who've bought the lie.  Sincerely, I hope that I don't need to.

Slightly related, it heartens me to find myself in the same exact local as the opposition.  I couldn't agree more, John.

Comments

[Nancy]

Yeah! I sincerely hope there are enough intelligent people in our little town who can see what's really going on and not take all this nastiness to heart.

[Rocky Smith]

Getting all the facts before you vote doesn't make you anything but prudent. Whether Mr. Vincent and I would agree on much is questionable, but I certainly can't see where he is wrong here. Sensible sounds more like the proper term to use.

[V]

One of the better parliamentarians I've known told me that the response vote you should always give is a "nay" if you haven't been completely convinced either for or against. The balance of proof always rests on the person or persons intending to change the status quo. It seems that people today feel safer with an abstention, but its a shirk of your duty not to make a vote on every issue on which you are not personally compromised.

[Rocky Smith]

Voting while in a state of ignorance on the subject at hand would be simply irresponsible. That goes for Democrats and Republicans. Maybe he should have gotten better informed before the vote was to be taken, but I won't fault him for abstaining. I wish more citizenry got informed before they voted. I know of people whom voted in elections who had no idea what was on the ballot. That's irresponsible.

[Matt Singer]

Rocky -- V's position is actually a conservative one. When in doubt, the default position is against change. The notion then is that on issues where much of the public feels uninformed, a small minority can't achieve goals by leaving the rest in a state of ignorance.