Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash
Interesting viewpoint. You don't care about someone sent to jail and wrong convicted, likely spearheaded by powerful figures if those who are harmed don't share your political party affiliation as lifetime members. A person with empathy would very much care what happens to anyone regardless of politics if their freedom is ended by a political prosecution that members of the same party as the prosecutors found to be an unjustified application of power.
Do you feel all those lifelong Democrats in the south who after the Civil Rights Act in 1964 switched to being Republicans so they could run in the changed political status of Alabama, Mississippi, etc. are dishonest and unethical? Or did they just accept the reality of the community in which they sought office and that the voters were no longer willing to vote for a Democrat.
But given the choice in Sumter county of two Republicans, one who supported the Developer in all the issues of the day and one who was willing to stand up against him when it benefited the public good, the voters here chose people with guts. It wouldn't have happened if Miller was a Democrat as so many only look at a letter. But once they looked at the platform of the person, not the party, he was overwhelmingly elected.
Recall that Oren Miller ran for the Florida statehouse and lost as a Democrat. His opponent... wait for it... was Bret Hage who later sponsored the Morse bill to deny counties the ability to set fees when it hurt Morse and who later was sent packing when it turned out he was seemingly a Morse bought official.
By the way, Gary Search was also charged with perjury for the same phone calls. He AFAIK has never switched parties and was forced to resign his office and accept a series of fines and restrictions on his freedoms pending the outcome of Miller's trial. He chose not to fight the powers and get on with his retirement. It turned out people with guts could easily be degutted if you were in power and willing to use that power. Everyone should care about that. |
That's one point of view. But I don't really believe that these 2 commissioners were squeaky clean by a long shot. They may have been acquitted, but that only means that in the opinion of the appellate judge, there was insufficient evidence to uphold a conviction, or that there was a procedural impropriety during the original trial. It does not mean that they are guiltless. I'm sorry, but to represent oneself as a member of party A after being a lifelong member of party B doesn't sit well with me. Yes, there are numerous examples of candidates changing parties, but usually due to a fundamental change in their perspective. This change seemed to be purely to get elected, as evidence by their entire history and platform. I also find it hard to believe that these 2 (3) peas in a pod never had a conversation outside of official meetings.
Here's a golf example--the recent Ryder Cup matches. The Europeans set up the course to give every advantage, some might even say an unfair advantage to their team. Yes, it's legal. Yes, both sides do it to some extent. But this year it was so over the top as the be on the verge of unethical. I mean, changing the distances of all the par 4's so they either need a long iron or could practically drive the green just to keep wedges out of the hands of the American team, coupled with narrowing the fairways and putting extra deep rough because the Euro's were straighter, was excessive and probably borderline violated the fairness of the game.
But, it was "legal", and in a court of law they would be "acquitted".