Life In A Swing State: Fair Scrutiny? Not!

One of the many downsides of being in a Swing State is the scrutiny it brings, often unfair scrutiny at that.

Here's one example.

Sunday, the Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a piece looking at companies that took stimulus money but chose to donate to President Obama's opponent or his opponent's party.  The piece seemed to take the tone that those companies are hypocrites for taking the government cash the ARRA program dangled while putting their personal cash into campaigns that target the ARRA program's top champion.

That's unfair scrutiny for those companies and for Ohio. 

Should only givers to President Obama be the ones that received stimulus dollars?  If so, what would that say about the ARRA program's intentions?

What if another writer took that logic one step further and declared that the ARRA stimulus money should have only gone to places that voted for President Obama in 2008?  Should people who drive on the new asphalt put down on roadways paid for with stimulus dollars only be Democrats?

That's flawed logic.  I'm crying foul on this one. 

I hope this article wasn't inspired by the President's campaign. I suspect if Ohio wasn't still in play politically, we would have never seen this piece of work make the light of day.

Such is life in a swing state.