Grift put together a commentary piece that is not so much about Karen Handel, but rather her supporters and detractors. He's wondering if the simple question of whether or not she's trustworthy enough to lead Georgia should be enough rather than the voter fraud witchhunts she's pursued or the claims from progressives that she disenfranchised voters through her partisan actions.
I think it's an interesting read, but I also think he's misguided somewhat.
For me, the argument against Handel has never been that she's hellbent on disenfranchising voters, but rather her incredibly awful judgement as Secretary of State. It's the type of judgement that led her to open a qualification process up for only one party in a vacated state legislator race. It's the type of judgement that led her to ignore two legal opinions and two court decisions in trying to throw Jim Powell off the ballot. It's the type of judgement that led her to champion a law that would, admittedly, throw potentially thousands of legally registered voters off the state rolls. It's the type of judgement that led her to let Georgia become one of only a handful of states to deny keeping the polls open to satisfy the long winding lines of eager voters.
These, to me, seem to be legitimate questions worth asking and valid concerns worth exploring. And the impression I get from Grift's commentary is they should be casually ignored because, well, these are partisan arguments coming from partisan players. That seems to be a rather convenient way to dismiss these issues rather than confront them.
Furthermore, if the argument is that Handel herself engaged in partisan politics while executing the duties of a supposedly non-partisan office ... then why are those who question those actions acting in a partisan manner? Will they only be valid criticisms if a Republican comes forward and issues them?
If the goal is to determine if Handel is 'trustworthy' then should we include these actions in our decision-making process?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh I see more over here now. Still not used to your new site.
ReplyDeleteActually those are exactly the types of questions that I am arguing should be asked because they all go to competency which in the past has been Handel's political refuge.
If you can make the argument that should turned her primary duty (the running of elections) into chaos by actions in the Powell case and how polls were run, then you start to chip away at her competency shield.
If you can THEN layer on top of that the ultimate motivation for this chaos was partisan politics then the chips turn into chunks.
But if you focus on disenfranchisement and grannies who supposedly can't get IDs, then the voters will turn off. The Republicans will make you play defense at every turn.
It's a matter of tactics and I think even though we are coming at it from different angles, we actually agree.