@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:I'm really not going to entertain any intellectually dishonest arguments that Dems don't employ such attacks.
Don't worry, I won't play the game of "your candidate is more of an asshole than my candidate." Besides, I'm confident you've already made up your mind on that count and won't be swayed otherwise. What baffles me is why you'd justify any attack that
you yourself have admitted is unfounded, unfair, and unjustified. Saying "the other candidate was going to do it, so it's all right if my candidate does it first" makes no sense if you don't think your candidate is justified in making that attack to begin with.
Does that rationale work in other contexts? I can just imagine the domestic scene at the
Finn household:
Finn the Elder: Junior, why did you hit your little brother?
Finn the Younger: 'Cuz if he was in the same position, he woulda' hit me!
Finn the Elder: Ah, I see. Carry on, then, my boy.
Granted, we went to war fairly recently using the same line of reasoning - we somehow needed to fend off a hypothetical Iraqi attack by launching a real invasion - but surely you can hold yourself and your candidate to a higher standard than that of George W. Bush.
I suppose if you want your candidate to be as bad as or worse than his opponent, then you've chosen the right approach. I imagine that many people would prefer that their candidates adhere to a higher set of principles than that, but maybe they're just being naive.