"But LeBlanc isn't arguing either of those positions. She's arguing something far more repugnant: She's conceding that the Amirault case was a travesty of justice, and that Coakley was wrong for her extraordinary efforts to keep Gerald Amiralut in prison. But she's then arguing that Coakley deserves a pass specifically for her actions in the Amirault case, anyway, because all prosecutors do it, and because it's what Coakley had to do to accumulate political power and move on to higher office.
That is one hellaciously disturbing statement of values. LeBlanc is either arguing that she believes the accumulation of power and advancement of one's career is more important than justice—more important than ensuring that innocent people don't rot behind bars—or that she's willing to give a pass to politicians who do.
Actually, not just a pass, but a promotion."
2 comments:
Not really all that disturbing for democrap politicians; it's how they always do/view the political process. And why they should be seen as a hostile species and treated as such.
"All out for justice, unless it causes a problem for their candidate."
That's why they never cared about due process in any eastern bloc country, or the rights of women in the third world. Better to argue about the disthesia of female university presidents in Santa Cruz or New York than actually try to do something about the status of women in Afghanistan, where suddenly the situation is supposed to be the result of freely exercised "self determination".
Post a Comment