Blog comments are a great way (if we can keep our wits and maintain civility) to expand a conversation for the benefit of all readers. One comment I got from a gentleman named Jacob Perry dealt with the recurring theme among some anti-Andre Carson bloggers to point out that he attended a fundraiser attended by "executives" of CAIR, an organization whose principal, Yacub Mirza, had been investigated, though not charged, by our Department of Justice for allegedly being connected with the financing of terrorism.
Mr. Carson returned the donation. But what if he hadn't?
Can Mr. Perry (or anybody else who wants to weigh in) let me know precisely what you think CAIR would have gotten for their donation? Seriously. Which is more likely:
Scenario A: Mirza was giving money to Andre Carson because he thought it might be cool to have a second Muslim in Congress.
Scenario B: Mirza was giving money to Andre Carson because he wanted to capitalize on the substantial political clout of a first-term congressperson.
NOW, let's compare some other contributions by Mirza:
Spencer Abraham (R) for Senate - 12/17/1998
$500
Tom Campbell (R) for Senate - 2/4/2000
$1,000
Spencer Abraham (R) for Senate - 9/30/2000
$1,000
National Republican Senatorial Committee - 12/12/2001
$1,000
National Republican Senatorial Committee - 2/15/2002
$600
George Allen (R) for Senate - 5/24/2006
$500
Dick Black (R) for Congress - 6/27/2007
$2,300
Dick Black's contribution is the one that REALLY makes me nervous. Mr. Black was a U.S. Marine pilot at Iwo Jim and Valley Forge in the South Sea, so you KNOW he's a terrorist sympathizer.
Let's think about that donation to Abraham BEFORE 9/11. What did he get for that contribution, which occured only four months before Abraham became the head of the Department of Energy, an agency whose sieve-like leaks repeatedly jeopardized our national security. What did the RNSC give Mirza?
When Bob Dole ran for President, he accepted a check from the Log Cabin (gay) Republicans, noting that he couldn't be bought by a contribution. Then the fundies got to him, and he sent the check back noting that their views were not consistent with his own. So which is it? Can a donation change views? If so, which is more dangerous? A connection with a cabinet member or a congressman? What nuclear secrets was Mirza trying to buy from Spencer Abraham? And did he succeed?
Or, it is possible that Mirza just thought it would be cool to have an Arab in the Senate or serving as a cabinet secretary?
You already know, so let's put this one to bed.
4 comments:
You miss the whole point of the contribution issue. Mr. Carson insists his religion should not be an issue in his campaign. Yet he chose some of the most radical members of his religion, none of whom live in his congressional district, as a fundraising source for his campaign. Mr. Carson at the same time boasted of his credentials as an anti-terrorism expert because of his 7 month-stint as a watch officer for the Fusion Center within the state's Department of Homeland Security. Based upon his claims, he is more qualified than most when it comes to understanding terrorism. Unlike those other politicians you mention, shouldn't he have been more aware of potential problem contributions such as the one he was compelled to return after questions about it were raised? If he doesn't want his religion to be an issue, then he shouldn't associate and raise money from people who are sworn enemies of the state of Israel and have expressed sympathy for terrorist groups.
Gary,
The only reason Mr. Carson's faith is AN issue is because people make it one who are deeply suspicious or even prejudiced about other religions. People told Mitt Romney point blank, "I won't vote for you because you're a Mormon." That's crazy to me. But it's apparently not crazy to you because this is essentially the same discussion.
Now, you'll go back to your comment before about these "radicals," but you don't answer the question of what CAN Andre Carson give them (except pride) and what WILL Andre
Carson give them?
You'll say, "But these people are sworn enemies of the state of Israle." Yeah, and as I stated before, Mitch DanielSALAAM has connection with a group, the Arab-American Institute, whose principle policy goal is to attack Israel. Maybe they haven't sworn, "Death to Israel," but just because they're more savvy politically, it doesn't mean undermining Israel's international standing isn't their goal.
As an aside, if Israel behaves poorly or inhumanely, it SHOULD be chastized. The fact they are a democracy, in my opinion, doesn't mean they get carte blanche with respect to how they treat Palestinians in the occupied territories. Israel should be able to defend itself, but there's a way to do so without overkill, and I'm not sure they've maintained that balance always.
If you're not careful, Gary's going to be sending you obscenity-laced tirades before too long. It's like a hazing ritual for all of us reality-based Indiana bloggers. (Of which I am occasionally a member...)
Post a Comment