Dean’s on Record: Anti-Semitism is Bad. There’s Still No Word on If He Believes our Soldiers are Like Sadistic Murderers
It seems, today, that the Democrats have retained some small shred of decency. Howard Dean, self-professed hater of Republicans and white Christians, has drawn the party’s hate line at the Jews.
WASHINGTON — A handful of people at Democratic National Headquarters distributed material critical of Israel during a public forum questioning the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, drawing an angry response and charges of anti-Semitism from party chairman Howard Dean on Friday.
“We disavow the anti-Semitic literature, and the Democratic National Committee stands in absolute disagreement with and condemns the allegations,” Dean said in a statement posted on the DNC Web site.
That a courageous move in his party nowadays, even though he didn’t disavow the similarly anti-Semitic statements made by one of the “witnesses” at the “hearing” nor the statement of support from Congressman John Warner.
We are still waiting for an apology from Senator Dick Durbin, or any member of his party, for Durbin’s craven comparison of our soldiers to genocidal sociopaths.
It’s also good to see that these recent events have finally tripped the good-sense breakers on a couple of notable Republican bloggers. It’s sad, though, that it’s taken blatant anti-Semitism and insane Nazi comparisons to divert them from evangelical Christians and give them back some sense of perspective.
Jeff Goldstein has it exactly right, though when he asks, “How telling is it that a Democrat publically disclaiming overt anti-semitism has conservatives so surprised and happy…?”
Hey, I was surprised.
No related posts.
Category: Anti-Semitism Everywhere, Moonbat Nonsense
<!– spamk : Failed Discussion tab checks. –>
<!– spamk : KARMA: -4 –>
<!– spamk : Treatment: purgatory –>
I don't get your evangelical Christians reference.
Jeff, from my reading – and I'm perfectly willing to be wrong here – most of your heavy criticism of late has been against evangelical Christians who you feel are injecting their personal beliefs into their public lives and, though you've not said "theocracy", you've skated pretty close to it.
<!– spamk : Failed Discussion tab checks. –>
<!– spamk : KARMA: -4 –>
<!– spamk : Treatment: purgatory –>
Any examples? I was vociferously against the McCain judicial compromise; I was a staunch defender of the Catholic Church's choice of Pope… The only things I can think of are my disapproval of certain public displays of priggishness (those who made a big deal out of Laura Bush making a horse-milking joke, or Sensenbrenner's desire to see "indecency," as he, presumably, defines it, punished with criminal prosecutions rather than fines) — but those are speech issues, and I go after the left on those types of things all the time. For me, protectiing the First Amendment is imperative.
Re: Schiavo, I argued that that having Randall Terry as your front man during the Schiavo affair could, in the end (and with the help of the mainstream press), embolden Democrats to filibuster Bush’s judicial nominees as “too extremist,” using poll numbers of the public’s dislike of federal involvment in Schiavo to bolster their decision. Is that anti-evangelical?
Help me out here.
Jeff, I, personally, thought you went way overboard on the priggishness criticisms. Perhaps it was because you had people there defending it whereas you have very few people who show up to defend the left on your blog. I don't honestly know. It struck me as more dogmatic than I'm accustomed to reading from you and it stuck with me.