> In your own life you never face a situation with no good choices and
> pick the least worst?
All the time -- which awful school to put your kids in, say. But here one doesn't have to choose.
> Anyway if you cheer for Weiner to be taken down
> by Breitbart you are picking between bad guys.
I don't think so. One doesn't have to prefer Breitbart to Weiner to be glad Weiner got sacked. There's an undistributed middle, or something, here. It would be easy enough to construct some fanciful analogy. Suppose Henry Morgan sinks Edward Teach. Do you have to "prefer" Henry Morgan in order to be glad Ned Teach sleeps with the fishes?
> Well I can see how walking and chewing gum at the same is asking a
> hell of a lot.
It is a source of unfailing amusement to me, how folks who at noon are deploring the use of personal insults against the foe are found deploying them at 12:01 against someone who is more or less on the same side. This particular contradiction is a daily occurrence on this list, and indeed on all the Lefty lists I read.
> Pretending [Beitbart] is not there will make him go away? Or it does not
> matter to you whether he goes away or not cause you have not noticed
> that he has gained a wee bit of influence and power?
He's a structural phenomenon. If he were taken off the board, a la Weiner, he would be replaced by another tomorrow, as Weiner will be. Seeing either one of them with egg on his face is of course intensely pleasurable. But viewing right-wing crazies as more of a threat than centrist crazies seems to me a quintessentially liberal outlook. Beware! Bewaaare!
-- --
Michael J. Smith mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://www.cars-suck.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com