Reply #6: That's a lot of text dedicated to semantics.

[Buzz Clik]

I say let the good perfesser have his day -- Haggard is not a hypocrite. Regardless, he helped win the day for the Dems in 2006 with his behavior.

In my opinion, Asst. Professor Miller is filling his day splitting the very fine line that separates a hypocrite from one who is morally weak. Miller is suggesting that Haggard may not be a hypocrite because he may believe that his behavior was wrong but couldn't help himself. I suppose that's possible, but we can only guess if it's true.

This is reminiscent of arguments of whether Bush lied about WMD and al Qaida in Iraq -- "he only lied if he said something he knew to be untrue." It boils down to Bush being either a liar or completely uninformed; neither are desirable qualities in a president.

Likewise, Haggard being so weak and so lacking in self-control that he cannot keep himself away from a male prostitute (in contrast to being a hypocrite) still disqualifies him as a moral leader. Trying to guess his inner motivations is a fool's game, and Dr. Miller is up for it.


LATE ADDITION: Miller's comment about your tone is a distraction. He is trying to get you to be defensive about your position. I find it amusing that Assistant Professor Miller wrote a few hundred words in rebutting you and then accused you of being too passionate about the subject. Seems a bit inconsistent ... or even hypocritical. ;)