One, can you demonstrate that the GOP has more corrupt members than the Dems? Doubtful.
The article was an ad hominem attack on Ford's opponent. The article is indefensible in that regard. Period. End of story.
This is where your lack of logic makes you look partisan and foolish. When comparing relative merits, i.e. in an election, Strawman is a PERFECTLY ethical argument. If one says vote for A instead of B because B's a scumbag then A's history of scumminess ALSO becomes an issue. Why? Because you're asking one to make a relative choice.
If one made the statement "you should leave A for San Diego because San Diego has great weather" is that not an invitation to argue the relative merits of A's weather compared to SD? Is saying SD is smoggier and colder then a strawman or ad hominem attack on SD. Not at all.
If the author had endorsed Ford WITHOUT the attack on Corker then there'd be no argument. But the author introduced ethics into a CONTEST between two candidates. Ford's "circle" then becomes as relevant as Corker's.
The article was an ad hominem attack on Ford's opponent. The article is indefensible in that regard. Period. End of story.
This is where your lack of logic makes you look partisan and foolish. When comparing relative merits, i.e. in an election, Strawman is a PERFECTLY ethical argument. If one says vote for A instead of B because B's a scumbag then A's history of scumminess ALSO becomes an issue. Why? Because you're asking one to make a relative choice.
If one made the statement "you should leave A for San Diego because San Diego has great weather" is that not an invitation to argue the relative merits of A's weather compared to SD? Is saying SD is smoggier and colder then a strawman or ad hominem attack on SD. Not at all.
If the author had endorsed Ford WITHOUT the attack on Corker then there'd be no argument. But the author introduced ethics into a CONTEST between two candidates. Ford's "circle" then becomes as relevant as Corker's.
