•  
       

    Reynolds' Lame Excuses

    Glenn Reynolds tries to extricate himself from one of the lamest piece of partisan rationalization I've read in a long time. My advice to Glenn: when you're in a hole, stop digging. My post was based on his own stated reasons for voting. And I stand by it. So Reynolds now has another stab. He says a libertarian would have supported Corker over Ford in the Tennessee race. Here's why:

    Ford voted for the detainee military commissions bill, which Sullivan regards as anathema. And he took a hard-line stance on immigration. As for spending and pork, which Sullivan also mentions, both Ford and his opponent, Bob Corker, say they support spending reforms, porkbusters, and increased transparency. Ford also supports public display of the ten commandments, a ban on flag burning, and says he's closer to Bush than McCain on military interrogations.

    So is Reynolds saying that Corker is more libertarian than Ford on these issues? That's the only relevant question when picking between the two of them on libertarian grounds, and Reynolds ducks it again. By the way, I am not enthusiastic about Ford and have never said such a thing. But Reynolds is adept at putting words in other people's mouths. Then there's this:

    As for the "outing" business, I'll admit that Republicans run on opposition to gay marriage, etc. - but so do Democrats (see John Kerry and Ford, above). And deliberately targeting individuals' sex lives as a form of political blackmail seems to me to be nastier than policy positions with which, alas, most Americans agree.

    Again: Pathetic. The difference between the GOP and the Dems on gay issues nationally is vast, as Glenn knows. Choosing Republicans over Dems if you are a single issue voter on gay matters means your partisanship has warped your judgment beyond measure, as, in Reynolds case, it has for a very long time.