Identify Problem, Blame Opponents

What else can you call this?

For the third morning in a row, sewage about Christine Rankin’s marriage is splashed across the media. …

The second is that it is utterly irrelevant. Contrary to the beliefs of Christian Conservatives, it is not the role of the Families Commission to be a “moral exemplar”. Instead, their function is to be “an advocate for the interests of families generally” (and that means all sorts of families, not just straight married breeders). In addition, they have subsidiary functions of encouraging debate, promoting awareness, making recommendations, and conducting research into issues affecting families. It has very hard to see how the private lives of the Commissioners – who primarily have an oversight role – are in any way relevant to this.

So he correctly identifies the problem, but blames the opposite side instead of his own.

Now, forgive me for this, but isn’t it the left who are the ones griping about this appointment? Most on the right are happy to overlook Rankin’s dodgy family life (from what I’ve heard, most commissioners are equal on that basis) but rightly see the benefits of having someone who is actually prepared to spend her time tackling the real problems in our community – child abuse.

Christine Rankin and the Families Commission

I seem to be missing something in this whole Christine Rankin saga.

People seem to think that her character means she won’t be able to do a good job.

But, I don’t recall any other members being critiqued for their character.

Maybe that explains their results?

Perhaps if we had looked into the character of the commissioners from the getgo, we might have had something that stood up for families, as opposed to the limp outfit that has done nothing of any use whatsoever since it was founded?