Originally Posted by
gnome
It doesn't appear that you've understood the larger point I was making. That is my fault. I should not have used Dick Cheney as an example because he is largely considered as being a truly evil guy. So, let's put Mr. Cheney aside and focus on the concept of getting the best person for a particular job.
it is my position that one makes decisions both objectively and subjectively. Sometimes we subjectively we draw up a set of criteria and then rationalize an objective conclusion. In concrete terms, the plumber we hire to snake a drain is close by and available; we subjectively determine to discard the fact she also is an Aryan Nation charter member. We subjectively decide not to check those aspects of her character even though she sports a Confederate flag license plate. Her affiliation isn't central to the problem of having a clogged drain.
Once I was in need of some emergency surgery. I had a several unattractive bayonet wounds that needed attention. The surgeon was the prickliest prick in all of prickdom. A asshat of massive gaping assholery, but for his skill at rooting through my thoracic region he was The Man.
Would I hire that guy to babysit my children? Not on your life. Would I even want that guy to snake out a drain? No way. He was - and is - a miserable guy, but he had skills to do the job.
that should be the issue with Mr. Trott. Does he have skills to represent the interests of the 11th District? Not whether he is a smiley backslapper who donates all his income to charity.
the issue, the central concept, is found in the word effective. Not good. Good carries a subjective reality the varies from person to person.
You don't determine a couple's political views before agreeing to shoot their wedding. You don't look at a company's balance sheet before you photograph their building; you check your availabity and their ability to pay on time.
that said, I would as soon scoop out my eyes with a melon baller as vote for Mr. Trott.
