The moron who called TSA gropes "Love Pats" is up for reelection this year. Last time she won by only 2.3%.
Yeah, she recanted when she finally felt the full wrath of the TSA for herself. One grope at a time . . . .
This raises an interesting dilemma. In the case of a legislator who was pro-TSA and changed their stance, what's the best way to proceed? Is scorched-earth the best policy, in the interest of removing any chance of them switching back and supporting TSA again? Is it better to give them the benefit of the doubt? Somewhere in between, or varying by politician (I suspect this is the case)? On the one hand, I don't really like the idea of "tainted forever" and hanging someone out to dry even after they've seen the error of their ways seems, on its surface, excessively vindictive. On the other, we know how opportunistic politicians are and there's no guarantee that any anti-TSA sentiment on their part is genuine versus being simple advantage-taking of the tide of public opinion. This goes double in election years where political promises are like port-a-potties at Lollapalooza (i.e. plentiful and full of (expletive deleted)). Not particularly an issue for me, since all three of my legis-leeches (a.k.a. Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dumb, and Tweedle Dumber) are seemingly uninterested in standing up for the rights of travelers, but in the case of McCaskill and others who have realized the damage TSA is doing to the rights of the people...what's the best way to proceed?
I think, take it case by case. She has struck me as a smug beeyatch for much longer than the TSA has been groping people. If the other guy is anti-TSA and looks okay otherwise, kick her to the curb.
