Deja Vu, All Over Again

Check it out.  Matt Singer did the homework that the media should have done.  He's attempting to find an answer to a question that the Morrison campaign insists on hiding from.  Why didn't Morrison recuse himself from his office's investigation of the guy who's fiance Morrison adulterously boned?

What's been interesting, to me at least, is the response to Matt's work.  So far, it has been identical to the response from the GOP concerning Conman Burns and his votes-for-dollars dealings with Jack Abramoff.  I posted an abbreviated version of the response in a comment at Matt's place, but here is the blowback, slightly more fleshed out:

1)  Scandal?  There's no scandal.  There was no malfeasance at all ... the press said so.

2)  The opponents can’t win, because our guy has a good record and more money.

3)  The scandal is overblown (MSM! MSM! BLOGGERS!  DISTRUST!  BE AFRAID!)  and people really won’t care.  Nope, even though polls show they do, they really won't care.  Nope, not a story.  (I call this the Ostrich defense.)

4)  The opponents can't be telling the truth, because they have an agenda (with a quite piquant and lovely chaser of the Appeal To Authority fallacy).

5)  The Opponent is just playing dirty!  Voters  care more  about that than integrity in there elected officials!  Why don't you, you haters!?!

6)  It’s really about the issues.  Why won’t the opponent cover the issues?

Ouroboros spins; rinse and repeat. I wrote, not very long ago at all, that Morrison is just Burns with a D behind his name. We’re watching the evidence of that fact roll in right now.  The tactics of his online supporters are identical to those of the GOP in defense of Burns.  Your guy is dirty, tainted, so you do anything you can to obfuscate the truth.

It's really pretty simple.  Months ago, many of us, online and otherwise, were calling for Morrison to take a stand on issues beyond health care.  He ignored that call.  Now, many are calling for Morrison to simply explain himself and his actions before Burns buries his ass with the consequences.  And what do we get?  Burns' style spin.  No honesty, no honor, no integrity.  That's what the Morrison campaign offers.  What you will get is a Burns win, and more Democratic excuses for how "we" are all to blame that we wanted honest representation over a pretty candidate.

Some jerk-wad over at Left In The West actually had the brass cajones to intimate that Tester is a bad candidate for pointing out that he doesn't suffer from these ethical lapses and the consequences that they will bring.  That kind of idiocy just convinces me all the more strongly that I have backed the right horse. Jon Tester is the man I want working for me in Washington, because he's the guy who will.

Now, being as I am required to make more predictions (it's not just a local thing, I think it's a federal law about political websites, actually)  I offer this:

You will see a terrific rise in the polls, Tester v. Burns as opposed to Morrison v. Burns.  And it likely won't matter.  Morrison will get the nod, not based on any of the bullshit coming from his defenders, but rather based on Republicant crossover voting in the primary.  The only thing that will stop this is if Democrats wake up, and realize that Morrison is, indeed, the horny little loser that Burns' well-funded machinery  will paint him out to be.  We can continue this nightmare belief in "electability", and keep voting for the guy who gosh-oh-gee he seems like he might put up a little fight, or we can actually vote for a working man, a guy who represents the strengths of the Democratic party.  I'm not voting for the guy who gives a self-interested hat tip to opposing the GOP while agreeing with their lies and process.  I'm not voting for the guy who quivers with fear to even declare himself a Democrat.  I'm voting for the guy like me.  I'm voting for Jon Tester.

Comments

[NeoMadison]

To be honest, I don't get what Tester's appeal is. But then, I'm not a Dem, I wouldn't be expected to get it. For the sake of this post, I'll take Wulfgar's (and a large number of others) word that Tester exemplifies true progressive principles while Morrison exemplifies watered-down or non-existent principles wearing a fig leaf of electibility.

If that is the case, I firmly believe that the conventional wisdom is wrong and that the Tester backers have a piece of the truth here. From the perspective of a challenger candidate I believe it's always more effective to nominate some fire than it is to nominate some hairspray. The public senses passion. I know other Republicans will think I'm crazy, but I considered Dean a more potent threat to Bush than Kerry. Of course, I made that assessment before the famous scream, but still... Passion does matter. If it's true that Tester has it and Morrison doesn't, then I, as a Republican, am happy that Morrison's nomination seems all but inevitable.