My Post on Paul's Post on Naugle's Post

Continuing the debate started yesterday about the post on Right Angle Blog about Jennifer Brunner' son. Here is what I said in yesterday's WMD Blast:

Would I have run something like that on WMD? I'd like to think not, but I will admit that I would have been tempted to link to it.

Is the kid out of bounds? According to his profile, the college student is a member of Brunner's "advance team" whatever that is...and as such, I'd think he is on the political stage and an appropriate person of interest.

Near as I can tell, this one is okay...but I really think the center-right is better than this sort of thing. There are plenty of things to point out about Brunner (and I suppose the point in pointing this profile out is to show Brunner's parenting skills - I guess) without resorting to "tabloid style" reporting.

I still feel that this post was "okay" but not something that I would have published. But let's get to what Paul Miller has to say at Newshound:

1. All personal stories/information must have relevance to the political debate and the public service post at issue. This is a journalistic standard, too often ignored today, even (maybe especially) in the mainstream media. Some questions: Could the information have an effect on the official’s performance in office? Does the information contradict a public statement by the candidate/officeholder which is relevant to the campaign or the office?

Notice that Paul admits that this standard is often "ignored" today even by the mainstream media. The point that I think Matt was trying to make with the post is that Jennifer Brunner's values can be seen manifest in her son, who claims to be a part of Team Brunner. Personally, I think that the time for Matt's argument was during the last election cycle, but that's me.

Back to Paul:

The public’s “right to know” is a flimsy excuse, tossed around as if it means “everything is fair game.” It doesn’t mean that. The “right to know” specifically surrounds information which could have an effect on the public, not just anything some members of the public might be “interested in knowing.” Lots of people might be interested in knowing how Hillary Clinton reacted when she learned the truth about Bill or how many drinks George W. could down before passing out in his alcoholic days – but the public doesn’t have a “right to know” those personal details!

And yet mainstream media reporters went nuts reporting on just those kinds of stories... The mainstream media has an agenda of its own and the very fact that Ohio's media would never have touched Matt's story is reason enough in my book to at least make a statement about it and link to Brunner's son's profile. Ask yourself if the Toledo Blade would have run that story had Brunner been a Republican...I'm of the opinion that they would...

More Paul:

Matt’s post on Jennifer Brunner’s son clearly fails this test. There is no relevance whatsoever to Brunner’s past campaign or her present position or her job performance. The post is purely meant to cause personal embarrassment and damage. I might add that similar personal attacks on the supporters of candidates, whether paid staff members or not, are also clearly out of bounds. What possible relevance can an embarrassing photo of a staffer have to the performance of a candidate seeking office?

Where is the "dialogue" and "outrage" when Democrats do this sort of thing? That's what I want to know. Why is it that moderates like Paul and Jill get all fired up when a conservative returns fire?

2. Respect the personal lives of others. This is a moral standard, based on Deuteronomy’s “love thy neighbor as thyself.” As conservatives, we claim allegiance to moral principles which promote family, community and country. Some questions: Does publishing the information uphold family-centered life? Does publishing the information improve relationships between family members, community members and citizens as a whole? More bluntly, would I be happy if another blogger published that information about me or one of my family members?

Not all conservatives are Bible-thumpers... Yeah, I support family, community and country...but I'm not one of those people who will "turn the other cheek" every time somebody slaps me. At some point, you have to fight back. There have been some VERY NASTY things said about conservatives (myself included) by liberals in the Ohio blogosphere and there has been ZERO OUTRAGE expressed.

If I read Paul right here, he would advocate that we not address family issues in politics. That's fine...he's entitled to that opinion, but it isn't mine. Personal issues of the candidates are very much a part of the game and fair turf. If the politician can't manage their own family how can they be counted on for public service?

Matt’s post clearly fails this test as well. If Matt sincerely feels Jennifer Brunner’s son has a drug problem or is an out-of-control young man, he should contact Brunner or her husband directly. What’s more, he should assure them he would NOT publish the information which has come his way, because that would damage the family. His posting is about as opposite of conservative values as anyone could get. It is an action specifically aimed at damaging the family, and falls in the same category as movies glorifying self-destruction through sex or drugs, school condom programs and “open marriage” advocacy. This one happens to aim at damaging one family – which in some ways is worse.

Politics is war by other means, Paul. That means that liberals are going to run stories like this one against conservatives. For far too long, conservatives have turned the other cheek and all it has done is create an abusive relationship.

Get back to me when the liberals clean up their house...

UPDATE: Matt Dole of LincolnLogsBlog asks "What has been accomplished this week?" Good question. My excuse is that Congress is on recess... :)