Think about this hypothetical scenario: A well-known member of a big civic club, which has an officer some believe to be an adulterer, goes to the local press and attacks all fellow members of the civic club as supporters of sinful adultery including the great majority who have long supported the member doing the complaining, even having elected that member to leadership in the past.
The disgruntled member does not stop there, she, in her righteous indignation, announces to the press that the entire community should withdraw all support of the civic club and says all should join her in shifting support to only the other big club, which we will call Civic Club 2.
What would you think about this person if you learned there is no clear evidence that the club officer, used an pretext for this attack, is an adulterer; there is only innuendo to that effect coming from his rivals?
To most fair and thinking people that would be enough to discredit the actions of the prominent person publicly painting all the members of her former club as supporters of adultery just because she thinks one officer of the club has engaged in such.
How much lower would you categorize the grandstanding complainer if you knew that Civic Club 2, the one she says everyone should now support, has a written history of actually defending adultery as good and has had as its most respected leaders some of the most flagrant adulterers in the town and even has current leaders who praise their work with past well-known adulterer?
It begs credulity and shows that when it mattered she only used the Republican label for her own personal career gain. Good riddance and shame upon her.
Good riddance to former TCCA judge, Republican of personal convenience, Elsa Alcala
The disgruntled member does not stop there, she, in her righteous indignation, announces to the press that the entire community should withdraw all support of the civic club and says all should join her in shifting support to only the other big club, which we will call Civic Club 2.
What would you think about this person if you learned there is no clear evidence that the club officer, used an pretext for this attack, is an adulterer; there is only innuendo to that effect coming from his rivals?
To most fair and thinking people that would be enough to discredit the actions of the prominent person publicly painting all the members of her former club as supporters of adultery just because she thinks one officer of the club has engaged in such.
How much lower would you categorize the grandstanding complainer if you knew that Civic Club 2, the one she says everyone should now support, has a written history of actually defending adultery as good and has had as its most respected leaders some of the most flagrant adulterers in the town and even has current leaders who praise their work with past well-known adulterer?
It begs credulity and shows that when it mattered she only used the Republican label for her own personal career gain. Good riddance and shame upon her.