Leaving no stone unturned in search of cheap political points

Representative Cynthia McKinney behaved perfectly dreadfully in striking a law enforcement officer guarding the Capitol.  She deserves investigation, prosecution and, if adjudicated guilty, sanction under the law.  This does not, however, excuse plumbing the depths of political discourse in a partisan attempt to extrapolate a general disdain for security issues from the aberrant actions of one rather out-there party member.

Typical right-wing blogpost on the issue

In the linked post, Captain Ed concludes that:

One fact is for certain: now we know what the Democrats think of security in general.  To quote Nancy Pelosi, it's no big deal.

For shame, Captain, for shame.  We can all take statements out of context in the scoring of cheap political points, but we should resist the temptation.  Yes, I know it's rather fortuitous to be able to point to what is clearly reprehensible behavior that tars, by association, the party to which the miscreant belongs.  But it's hardly a "fact" that we know for "certain" that this inexcusable incident is representative of the Democrat party's policy stance on national security.

Comments

[Fenrisulven]

"But it's hardly a "fact" that we know for "certain" that this inexcusable incident is representative of the Democrat party's policy stance on national security."

Nancy Pelosi is House Minority Leader for the Dems. She thinks blowing past a security checkpoint and assaulting a federal officer is "no big deal". So its not unreasonable to associate her statement with her party's national security policy - "no big deal".

[Legal Ramblings]

Sigh. There goes another one. Level with me for a minute, folks. Do you honestly believe that it is a reasonable extrapolation to go from Pelosi's comment about a discrete - if inglorious - incident to a generalized view of the policies of an entire political party on an issue of vital import to our nation? Or are you after scoring a cheap partisan point? Be honest now.

[Mal Carne]

This is the same sort of logic that brings diets to ruin... "It's just one little cookie."

What do you mean by "discrete incident"? Just one security check? Just one examination of credentials?

That's how terrorism is prevented. One "discrete incident" at a time.

If Nancy Pelosi wants to argue that the same rules shouldn't apply to everyone... why should we not assume that that she would bring the same attitude with her if she become majority leader?

And how would that compromise our efforts at security?

Why are these questions not legitamate?

[Legal Ramblings]

Mel, my dear chap. Here, we are talking about a barking mad congresswoman seemingly breaking the law, and the refusal of her party leader in the Congress to make a mountain out of it. You cannot reasonably extrapolate from that a general flakiness on a broad policy issue. To do so is to scrape the very bottom of the barrel in search of a partisan "gotcha." It's not big, and it's not clever. So stop it.

[Fenrisulven]

"Do you honestly believe that it is a reasonable extrapolation to go from Pelosi's comment about a discrete - if inglorious - incident to a generalized view of the policies of an entire political party on an issue of vital import to our nation?"

Yes. It is a reasonable extrapolation. Mckinney's actions are metaphor for her party's policy re national security.

"You cannot reasonably extrapolate from that a general flakiness on a broad policy issue."

Careful. Someone might ask you to decribe the Democrat policy on national security...

Could you do that?

[Fenrisulven]

/edit

"Mckinney's actions are metaphor for her party's policy re national security."

Sorry, I meant Pelosi, not McKinney.

McKinney is an idiot and can be disregarded.

Pelosi is in a leadership position - her comments reveal that Dem leadership lacks a certain respect for basic security protocols. They do not take it seriously.