Somebody--but not Michael Steele--will be RNC Chairman next year.
And somebody else wants to make sure it's not Reince Priebus, whose (R) folks won just about everything in sight in the State of Wisconsin several weeks ago.
RedState lays out a few facts.
...The argument goes that since Priebus’ law firm (where Priebus is, unsurprisingly, in the government affairs practice group) advertised that it was willing and able to help clients understand the implications of Obama’s stimulus bill and take advantage of it, this somehow constitutes an endorsement of the stimulus bill itself on Priebus’ part.
...In the first place, one of the things that is explained very early on in the career of every law school student is that advocacy on behalf of a client does not indicate endorsement of the client’s views or activities. In fact, this principle is even enshrined in binding ethical canons upon lawyers. The reason for this is that lawyers have an ethical duty to diligently represent their clients to the best of their abilities, which sometimes requires making arguments on a client’s behalf that are necessarily not in line with the personal viewpoints of the lawyer. As a lawyer, you are merely the agent of your client, and have a fiduciary and ethical obligation to use their best independent judgment to maximize results on behalf of their clients.
...Law firms (especially firms that have practice groups that specialize in regulatory and legislative compliance, as Priebus’ firm did), frequently advertise their ability to help clients understand and (where applicable) take advantage of laws and regulations, both State and Federal. Helping prospective clients understand, comply with, and take advantage of changes in the law is a major part of the raison d’etre of lawyers.
I'm not a Republican; I'm a Conservative. I don't know if Priebus is the best candidate for the RNC job. He might be the worst.
But the attack is horse-s*&^, period.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Really? Which non-Republicans have you voted for in the past fifty years?
If there had been a Conservative Democrat in the last 50 years, he or she would have gotten my vote. But the fact is, there are no conservative Democrats and haven't been since the Kennedy administration. And the Democrats continue to move Left, while claiming the GOP is "extreme". Only extreme from an extreme point of view.
So a conservative can vote for Republicans for decades presumably while holding their nose, but it's not reasonable to call them a Republican, or connect them to the damage done by Republicans. Is that in Aquinas somewhere?
Post a Comment