‘Callahan Condemns, Then Condones, Anti-Semitism’
The Dent campaign is already a laughingstock on this issue: No one can retain a shred of intellectual honesty and claim with a straight face that Dent is refusing to include third-party challenger Jake Towne in debates because an anti-Semitic band will perform at a Towne campaign event. For one thing, Dent’s campaign had already planned to freeze Towne out before this issue arose. And for good reason: Towne’s right-wing voters are likely to come out of Dent’s column in November.
The Callahan campaign, which favors Towne’s inclusion, is not operating on some high-minded principle of inclusion. It wants Towne in for the same reason Dent wants Towne out.
This morning LV Ramblings, passing along Dent campaign materials as usual, accused Callahan of condoning anti-Semitism. That is, to use an appropriate metaphor, beyond the pale.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Dent had indicated he did not want to debate Towne before this information surfaced, but was not resolutely opposed to the idea. Now he is, and you should be, too. The ADL states that candidates should steer clear of this kind of hate becauise it legitimizes it. Towne has called remarks about “Satanic jews” a little “overboard,” and will still allow the band uttering this garbage to perform at his “freedom” concert.. Those remarks, in fact, anti-Semitic. Towne’s refusal to disassociate himself from those remarks makes him poison. Dent refuses to share a podium with him.
Callahan, by sharing a podium with this poison, is doing exactly what the ADL cautioned againt. But I guess that’s OK bc he’s the Dem.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:21 am
“Dent had indicated he did not want to debate Towne before this information surfaced, but was not resolutely opposed to the idea.”
No one with a straight face…
July 30th, 2010 at 12:49 am
Jeff, Thank you for acknowledging my request. hate is hate, no matter the author. the hater claims a victory, but only further proves his true motivations. I never claimed to know who the author was, I only challenged him to reveal his name. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t, but someone has a guilty conscience. Not ME!
July 30th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
And I want to make clear that I did not take the comments down to meet Mr. Villa’s demand. I took them down because, as I declared many months ago, I want nothing to do with the dispute and won’t let the blog get dragged back in. Mr. Villa asked me to keep up the “Rudas”-authored comments, a request that I declined for the same reason I took the others down: the dispute is always OT here.