Replies

So he continues to oppose a Federal ENDA, but supports it at the state level. Where's the second change? He supported a Federal ENDA, but now opposes it. There's no change in his position on state-level ENDAs. That's one change. Or did your mother never teach you to count?

For some reason you have a mental block here. Here, let me help you out by just switching to another hypothetical issue that we'll just treat as parallel (please note that the most important component of the hypothetical parallel below is bold-faced & underlined; whereas the secondary consideration is italicized):

Candidate R wants slavery legalized at the fed level. A dozen years later, he does a u-turn: No slavery at the fed level. One year beyond that, he takes a new position which you say is not new.

Effectively, your argument in this illustration is tantamount to saying: "Hey, his position a year before was no legal slavery @ the fed level and his position this year is no legal slavery @ the fed level. What's you're problem? You can't count the # of changes?"

The problem is you are just making a technical point on the secondary portion of the concern in order for you to claim a phantom consistency. The problem is that a candidate who would go from a pro-fed slavery position to an anti-fed slavery position and then onto a pro-state-level slavery position is certainly more pro-slavery than he would be re: any anti-federal imposition considerations!

But nice try. Quite Clintonian of you, in fact. (Have you ever thought of running for public office?)

To hear you tell it, the door thru which legislation passes is all that matters for consistency sake. (It doesn't matter about the content of the issue itself).