Shooting the Messenger…and Voting with Rose Colored Glasses I’ve often said we get few glimpses behind the façade of most political figures, so when we do we’d better pay attention. We’re pretty good at that when that curtain is pulled back on an elected official or candidate for the other political party but look through rose colored glasses when the curtain is pulled back on elected officials in our own party. Such seems to be the case in the recent brouhaha in the Lt. Governor’s race. Rather than engaging in a frank and objective discussion about the information being presented, most folks are shooting, or at least taking aim at, the messenger. As speculation about Commissioner Patterson’s motives for releasing information, including already public medical records, pertaining to Senator Dan Patrick, runs rampant, we all miss the very limited opportunity to have a discourse about how and whether these revelations affect the candidate’s fitness for office. Raise the why-now, why-didn’t-we-know-this-before questions but let’s quickly move on to the so-what? Does it matter that the candidate allegedly pursued an individual into a parking lot outside a night spot and engaged in an altercation that led to a criminal trial? Does it matter that the candidate sought in excess of $1 million for pain and suffering from the individual and their employer in damages for an altercation that he himself instigated? What do these actions alone have to say about what the candidate really believes about individual responsibility, plaintiffs and frivolous lawsuits? Notice none of those questions even begin to touch upon the mental health of the candidate. Is it not appropriate to at least consider whether the stress associated with holding arguably the “most powerful” legislative position in the state will again lead to dysfunctional mental health? If your answer is no, it does not matter that this candidate is litigious in the face of a physical altercation; if your answer is no, it does not matter that this candidate sought damages from the employer of the individual with whom he had a physical altercation, if it does not matter that this candidate used force against the individuals wife, if it does not matter that the individual required at least two psychiatric hospitalizations to address mental health issues, say so. But let’s have the courage to address those points. The question, after all, is whether you can cast a vote for this candidate in tomorrow’s runoff election. Shouldn’t we seriously and objectively consider whether he is fit for office?
Posted on: Mon, 26 May 2014 13:08:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015