My point was (and it wasn’t a criticism of you, just pointing out what the argument had been) was that by saying you “commend” some folks, you “imply” that the other folks don’t deserve commendation.
That’s the argument style I am rejecting — the argument that you can’t say something nice about one group of people because people NOT in that group will be offended.
It’s like a rock band at a concert, saying “Fans in Kansas City are the Greatest!!!”, and having some fan visiting from another state complaining that the band attacked his state.
I certainly agree that “who did the filing” isn’t the important question. We know in Gingrich’s case that HE did the cheating.
It is sad that being married to the same woman your entire life is “commendable”, and not the vast norm. I’m not saying it has huge significance, but I think it’s sad that a candidate can’t say he’s happily married to his first wife and not get ATTACKED for “attacking” other candidates who aren’t.
I didn’t make this about Romney; the argument against him would have applied equally if Bachman, Santorum, or Perry had said that they were still married happily to their first husband/wife.
We attacked Giuliani for having multiple marriages when he was running in 2008. I think the “acceptability” of the argument seems to be based here on who is making the argument, and who it is made against, and not the underlying argument itself. I guess I took a chance because it was Romney; I’m not “defending” Romney, I’m defending the argument. Like saying the KKK has a right to free speech.
We attacked Giuliani for having multiple marriages when he was running in 2008. I think the “acceptability” of the argument seems to be based here on who is making the argument, and who it is made against, and not the underlying argument itself.
People can pretty well rationalize anything, can’t they?