There has been a lot of unfair criticism directed at Armando today. I will not mention names, but if you read this, you know who you are.
This is my perception of Armando, based on reading many of his posts: If you show him respect, he will show you respect. He loves a good argument, so if you disagree with him, you better be prepared to defend yourself. If you don't show him respect, that is when the fur starts to fly.
Here are some of the unfair criticisms I have seen, just today, in my words:
--Armando is a Communist.
--Armando's argument is not vaild because he's a lawyer.
--Armando has not had proper legal training.
This sort of behavior is offensive to me personally, because I feel entitled to defend myself against abusive posts the way I see fit. I don't have to take stuff like that from anybody, and neither should anybody else here.
These kind of comments are the exact reason why so many people left this place after the pie wars. People don't have to put up with that sort of stuff, and I can hardly blame them for leaving.
Armando has done a lot of good things here:
--He is knowedgeable about polling; he was able to help the community call BS on the oversampling of Republicans that was being done during the election campaign by Gallup.
--He helped mobilize massive opposition to Alberto Gonzalez. This sort of thing helped move Lindsey Graham from a blind war cheerleader to a critic of the war effort. If enough people talk, even GOP politicians have to listen.
--His recent diary did an excellent job of explaining what the law says about eminent domain. The courts have historically given broad discretion to city and state authorities in deciding whether a compelling public interest justifies eminent domain.
--He has excellent ideas about how we can win in 2006 and 2008, starting with using Lincoln's Union Station speech as a model; that kind of an approach helps us develop a clear distinction as to why I am a Democrat and not a Republican. That was the approach that was sorely missing from the last few election campaigns.
Let me give an example of the right way to disagree with Armando, or anybody else for that matter. Let's say you want to argue with him about eminent domain: Go to FindLaw, The Supreme Court website, or other such legal sites, look up the law for yourself, and make your case. You don't have to be a lawyer to do that. Or, you can go to your local college library; they have a lot of legal publications. Give us a legal reason why you think he's wrong. Maybe you know something he doesn't. We have plenty of lawyers besides Armando who will help explain what the law says. That is what this site is all about. Not the online version of Crossfire, where the only objective is to outshout the other person.
And finally, how much of the attacks on Armando are part of the "not like me" syndrome? When making an argument or defending yourself, you have to be yourself. You can't try to conform to other people's standards to get their special approval. Failure to be himself was what cost Gore the election in 2000. Gore is so much more effective today because he is being himself and not worrying about what other people might think.
So, if Armando DIDN'T call people out for obscurantism and bias, he wouldn't be Armando. MaryScott wouldn't be MaryScott if she didn't use choice language when ranting about the latest Republican outrages. Just like I wouldn't be EH if I DID.