So as of Friday senate candidate Joe Miller will no longer be answering any questions about his or his family's past. Now, people can still ask about it, he just won't be answering. Miller is taking this position under the guise of keeping the election about the issues, not about a persons personal past. Unfortunately for Mr. Miller, his past is not only an integral part of who he is, but it is also perhaps the only thing we have to judge him on aside from what he says he supports or will support if elected.
Personnally I place more weight on a person history than I do their speech, ESPECIALLY when that person is a politican. How often are we reminded of a politician that says one thing (especially during an election) only to do another afterward. I think Mr. Miller's history is perhaps more important and speaks more about him than he could ever say himself. As Aristotle once said "We are what we repeatedly do." Is one of the great philosophers of human history wrong when it comes to Mr. Miller?
Perhaps it is just me, but it feels more as if Mr. Miller is attempting to hide his past than to focus on the issues. Lisa Murkowski's past is certainlty available for scrutiny and has been the focus of many of the ads against her re-election. Lisa's past is often used to provide evidence that she believes this or doesn't believe that, that she will push this agenda and ignore another. Are we as voters not entitled to have the same history on Joe Miller so we can draw similar conclusions?
I think it is time that Mr. Miller faced up and accepted that as a public figure his private life is essentially over. It is important that the details of his past be revealed so that the voters can make informed decisions on who they would like to represent them in Washington D.C. Mr. Miller has said that 'he is not perfect, no one is perfect' and I agree and accept that. However, the information still needs to be available so that voters can make their own determination.
Perhaps I am being unfair, perhaps the media is really 'out to get' Mr. Miller. Or, perhaps his lack of disclosure only adds fuel to the fire and blood in the water, even if nothing is there it still encourages people to dig deeper, just in case.
P.S. This brings me back to a though about repealing the 17th admendment and giving selection of senators back to the state governement. It Mr. Miller did supress his past and win the election, then afterwards something immoral, unethical, etc. was uncovered, how would we bring him back? The voting public would have very little recourse, we have almost no protection from something like this.