On Criticism and Motivation

[Stinky The Clown]

((To be sure, I can only speak with certainty to my own personal motivation. That makes the rest of this my opinion, not fact.))

When John Boner sends Obama a "strong letter" taking him to task for his actions in Libya, I find John Boner's sincerity suspect and believe his motivation to be purely and totally political.

When Newt Gingrich calls for No Fly Zones in critique of the president, I see his motivation pure self serving politics to make him look good for a presidential run. When I see the same Newt Gingrich call for caution and restraint in Libya (much closer to my own position) I do not see him as any sort of kindred spirit. I see him as a two faced political hack who is trying to not look as stupid as he did with his other position on the same matter. When he tweets that the two positions are not inconsistent, I laugh and dismiss him completely.

When Sarah Palin sits in India, in a paid interview, and says she's not criticizing the president, and then follows up by saying his actions are dithering, I roll my eyes and see her motivation much like I do Former Speaker And Serial Liar About Being A Serial Adulterer While Impeaching A Fellow Adulterer Gingrich

When I see a DU member, or any other honest liberal, criticizing Obama's actions on a plethora of topics, I tend to see their motivation as sincere concern, shock, outrage, or anger at the act.

While I can put BonerPalinGingrichBeckBachmann in the same category as a teabag nutter, I can't draw any equivalency to a fellow DUer, or any other honest liberal.

Apples and Fenceposts.

[Ed Suspicious]

1. Hear, Hear!

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[ChiciB1]

3. Thanks For Pointing Out What Has Been Obvious To So Many Of Us...

I NEVER wanted to feel about Obama as I do sometimes, but unfortunately I have to remain true to myself when I see him leaning and compromising with the "right" on various issues.

I KNEW he was to the right of me from the get go, but he has really STUNNED me with so many of his decisions.

Nuff said for now from me, I've spoken out before.

[DirkGently]

4. Moreover, questioning someone's motivation is ad hominem, not argument.

Good faith is important for ethical reasons, but at the end of the day, what matters is the quality of what is said. We have reason to take Newt and Sarah with large grains of salt, but if even they happen to make a valid argument, it's valid even though they are who they are and trying to do what they're trying do.

Accusing someone of being a _______ with regard to this or that doesn't prove any point one way or the other, and is usually a sign of an inability or unwillingness to argue the actual point. Or, a case of projection in which the accuser is arguing in bad faith themselves, and therefore assumes it in others.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. There really isn't total validity in that.

When a person demonstrates over time (a long time) a predisposition to certain beliefs and behaviors, one is likely right to assume the next instance when that behavior might occur, it will occur.

[timtom]

5. Thanks.

We needed that. And you're so right.

[guruoo]

6. One small problem with that theory

is that on the web, one never really knows...

"I spend about 30 minutes a day, just click, click, click, click. …
If there’s a place to comment, a place to rate, a place to share information,
you have to do it. That’s how you control the online dialogue..."
-AstroTurf Wars http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv99k7MPoXo