Big Sky Cairn

People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

I’d say it’s a more principled stand to not answer the survey at all, rather than to selectively choose the questions that are essentially without controversy.

Mind you, I’ve been critical of both Senator Tester and Governor Schweitzer for not having filled out the test, but Rehberg’s response is pathetic.

You know, even Driscoll left sections blank. Like the section on gun control (he supported gun control in 2000).

Pogie, it just seems like difficult intellectual contortion to make Rehberg’s 90% response worse than Baucus (you left him off your list), Tester and Schweitzer’s 0% response.

It’s not that complicated, actually. Choice 1: choose not to submit the survey because you disagree with it for one reason or another. Choice 2: submit the survey to give the appearance of illustrating your beliefs, but leave out the hard parts, in case they hurt you politically. At least the first group had the intellectual honesty to reject the survey as a whole.

And 90%? You might want to look at Rehberg’s survey again…he doesn’t even answer half of the questions.

The hypocrisy isn’t with the candidates Pogie. It’s with you and your position. Either:

1) You think surveys are bad - and MT Dems are right not to take them.
or
2) You think surveys are good - and MT Dems are wrong not to take them.

If #1, you have no grounds to attack any candidate for anything they put on a survey that you think is pointless. If #2, your criticism ought to be levied much more harshly at the MT Dems who haven’t bothered to take the survey at all.

But when you hold Republicans and Democrats to different standards, you trip the partisan hypocrisy line. I don’t buy the “he didn’t take the whole survey” cop-out because that assumes #2 in which case some is better than none.

Where in the hell are you pulling your so-called ‘logic’ out of, Wiley? As Pogie clearly pointed out, there are possibilities well beyond your demands. For instance, thinking that surveys are helpful in exposing the cowardice of those who feel that certain questions deserve answers and some … well better not. You’re just trying to force a very square peg of “intellectual honesty” into a very round hole.

Let’s say your playing poker, Wiley. You know your opponent is cheating. Now who’s the more honest, the guy who chooses not to play, or the guy who only cheats on some hands, but not others. Yeah, let’s hear all about your Republicant intellectual honesty, Wiley.

Well, I suppose it depends on whether you think Poker is a game worth playing.

If it is, then sitting down at the table and playing the hands that your opponent doesn’t cheat on and folding on the ones he does (he’s got a tell) is a lot better than not playing at all.

If it’s not worth playing, then you don’t get to criticize someone who plays a few hands for sitting out on the hands where the other guy is cheating just because he’s smart enough to recognize the tells.

If it’s not worth playing, then you don’t get to criticize someone who plays a few hands for sitting out on the hands where the other guy is cheating just because he’s smart enough to recognize the tells.

Uhhm, yeah. Yeah, you do. You’re making the rules up as you go, aren’t you? You’re not playing poker. You’re playing Calvin-Ball where the Republicants get to make up the rules., Screw that.