I don't understand why an article like this gets written: Without any fresh news peg, it resurrects a stale, feeble argument from the Collins camp about the tiny percentage of votes Rep. Allen has missed over the course of his eleven year career in the House.
Moreover, the reporter clearly knows it's a vapid attack line--the writer casts a Rutgers political scientist in the role of The Voice of Reason, allowing the professor ample opportunity to dismiss the charge as nonsense.
But then why write the article in the first place? Why indulge--and give voice to--such a silly argument when it hasn't been made publicly in a month?
Incidentally, if Sen. Collins thinks family commitments and public service are incompatible, she should say so. If she thinks missing a vote on a post office naming ought to be of more concern to Mainers than her enabling of the worst foreign policy disaster of our life times, she should explain why.
At the same time, she ought to explain how she squares this view with her continued support for a presidential candidate who's missed more than half the votes this congressional term.
No comments:
Post a Comment