Said Scott Walker, opining on the news that the Russians preferred Donald Trump and got involved in showing the public a bunch of embarrassing email messages that various Democrats sent to each other.
Is this a good analogy? And did the leader of Scotland endorse Hillary? The answer to the second question is easy. It's yes:
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon broke with international protocol when she wrote days before the election that she hoped Clinton would win.But is it a good analogy? Sturgeon openly endorsed Hillary, but Putin's preference for Trump is merely a matter of guesswork. What Putin may have done about his preference is also a matter of guesswork, and it is connected to the illegal hacking into computers and the revealing of private communications that — through no action of his — contained statements that reflected badly on Hillary Clinton.
So the analogy doesn't match up on all points, but that's what's provocative about it. To the extent Sturgeon did something similar to what Putin is accused of, how bad is it? To the extent that it's different, is what Sturgeon did okay? And was it awful for Walker to compare these 2 things that are not entirely the same?
Jenni Dye, research director for liberal group One Wisconsin Now, called Walker’s comparing the two scenarios “simply jaw-dropping.” “Declaring one of these actions was not dramatically more serious than the other is either incredibly naive or the most disturbing example yet of Gov. Walker’s blind partisanship,” Dye said.Key word: dramatically. I'm tired of the continual drama. I'd prefer to calmly compare the 2 things in the analogy. If you want me to be upset that somebody is a "blind partisan," don't sound like one yourself.