I think politicians are entitled to contrast what they’ve done to what their political opponents would do. In fact I think that’s like 90% of political campaigning. Here’s Obama getting loads of media coverage for exactly the same argument 4 days ago https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
>I think politicians are entitled to contrast what they’ve done to what their political opponents would do.
I’ll be blunt—I absolutely hate this mentality.
No, politicians (or anyone for that matter) are not entitled to contrast what they’ve vs. what their opponents *would* have done, unless they happen to be mind readers or time travelers.
If you’re fortunate enough to get elected, you’re in the hot seat. The guy (or gal) you beat, they don’t get to make the decisions. You do. You don’t get to win, make the wrong decision, and then say, “oh well the other guy would have done it way worse”.
Or unless their opponents have literally said what they would have done, which I hope you don’t object to, such as the many GOP members who support a national abortion ban. Mentioning that desire is absolutely fair game, even if they don’t get an opportunity to pass it. I don’t see how it wouldn’t be. We saw the same thing during the Obama years - “If we were in control there wouldn’t be an Obamacare/if we have control we will repeal Obamacare [our opponents won’t/wouldn’t].”
Speculation and inference are often totally reasonable.
