This OP demonstrates many intellectual inadequacies.
OP apparently has "principles":
1. He objects to Annie Duke as a PPA rep. because she is a bad person, obliquely referring to some horrible "cheating" incident he can't be bothered to summarize.
2. He supports Ron Paul.
There is nothing wrong with #2, we all want less government interference in our lives, but look at the political ignorance of his #1 beef ....
Annie is described by the OP as a "sorely disliked", "belligerent", "angle-shooting" cheater.
Booo, F*cking Hooo, OP. You miss the political point of whether or not Annie was an EFFECTIVE spokesperson with her testimony. This is not Church, nor a poker torunament, nor nor even a libertarian revival meeting. It is political theatre and she clearly starred in her role.
I cannot stand her personna and have heard firsthand reports from folks who worked closely with her over the years that she is a real pain in the butt. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that her performance before the Committee was exceptionally well handled. In no way did your gripes, even if true, detract from her effectiveness in her testimony and Q&A performance.
OP's "principled" bellyaching is counterproductive as a political analysis tool. OP, do you give a principled litmus test to the guy who cleans your pool or fixes the alternator on your car ?
|