Scalise is Guilty of Pandering to KKK | Jen Kuznicki

It appears Steve Scalise is guilty of pandering to Duke supporters to gain election.

A few days ago, I wrote that I thought it was unfair to tie Steve Scalise to the likes of David Duke, but more information has come out and Scalise, in trying to make the allegations go away, botched his own remarks on the debacle.

H/T Facebook

H/T Facebook

From :

“One of the many groups that I spoke to regarding this critical legislation was a group whose views I wholeheartedly condemn. It was a mistake I regret, and I emphatically oppose the divisive racial and religious views groups like these hold. I am very disappointed that anyone would try to infer otherwise for political gain. As a Catholic, these groups hold views that are vehemently opposed to my own personal faith, and I reject that kind of hateful bigotry. Those who know me best know I have always been passionate about helping, serving, and fighting for every family that I represent. And I will continue to do so.”

But this was an insincere commentary, since it has been found that Scalise hadn’t spoke to the EURO group. So the problem is, Scalise assumes he did, showing he doesn’t have a natural visceral disgust of the type of hatred David Duke espouses.

Now, Scalise’s biggest defenders are hanging on the words of a political operative of the grand wizard of the KKK who said Steve was there at his behest.

Kenny Knight, a political operative for David Duke, who used to be a representative before Scalise, and espouses views common to Jew-haters and white supremacists, would have been known to be associated with Duke.

It isn’t splitting hairs when you realize that Scalise, instead of harshly rebuking the Duke group now when comments about the event surfaced twelve years after the fact, didn’t lift a finger to erase ties to Duke through Knight. The very fact that Scalise was friendly with Knight showed his interest in using him for, in essence, KKK votes.

And Scalise’s words from the past point this out. He doesn’t denounce Duke, he assumes no position on whether the influence of the KKK within his range of supporters is a bad thing.

From :

“The novelty of David Duke has worn off,” said Scalise. “The voters in this district are smart enough to realize that they need to get behind someone who not only believes in the issues they care about, but also can get elected. Duke has proven that he can’t get elected, and that’s the first and most important thing.”
And New Orleans Advocate politics blogger Stephanie Grace says that Scalise once told her he was like David Duke without the baggage.

Back in the day, Scalise didn’t sound like he vociferously denounced David Duke, he sounded like he merely thought Duke was unelectable. But what of Scalise’s words when he said, “they need to get behind someone who..believes in the issues they care about.” Clearly that is a comment directed at Duke supporters.

From the :

Knight continued, “Now, at the time, I was a prominent person in state politics. I was on the radio, I was doing campaigns. Steve knew who I was, but I don’t think he held it against me. He knew I lived by his street and that I was active in our community. And I didn’t see a problem with having him speak.”

Steve knew who he was, and didn’t hold it against him. Are Scalise’s GOP defenders going to go to the mat for him when they realize he pandered to, got and obviously with the glowing commentary by Knight, continues to have great support from the racists who branch from the KKK?

So you see, now people like Brian Walsh of the detestable NRSC defends Scalise by saying that the KKK Grand Wizard’s right hand man Knight said Scalise didn’t address the group Knight was the leader of.

Huh?

“Emerging discrepancies,” as reported by the right-hand man to Duke, the Grand Wizard of the KKK. That right-hand man was known well to be an associate of Duke, and also was in charge of the group EURO before it had undergone yet another name change.

Yes, that is also part of this story. Kenny Knight, the man who contacted Steve Scalise to speak to his neighborhood group a few hours before the EURO convention, . Hate groups often change their names to sound less caustic. Yet Scalise defenders are saying that he never addressed the group. That’s hardly relevant anymore, since we know who Kenny Knight is, and so did Scalise.

Here’s some more of the brain-dead at the NRSC:

Not long ago, the NRSC, working with the Mississippi GOP chair, decided that Chris McDaniel, who spoke at a tea party event where one vendor sold white pride merchandise, disqualified him for office. Now, the NRSC’s Brian Walsh says that Scalise never said anything questionable, but McDaniel had.

But did McDaniel speak to a group at the behest of a political operative who campaigned for, and held a 40-year association with the Grand Wizard of the KKK? No, he didn’t.

Speaking of the detestables at the NRSC, I recall this one very clearly:

Scalise defenders can’t have it both ways. You can’t use the comments from the right-hand man of the KKK Grand Wizard to confirm Scalise never spoke to the EURO group, when that same KKK associate was the guy who booked your room.

Tagged with:
 
  • BearNJ

    Scalise is the enemy of the conservative base. A wolf in sheeps clothing or Rove and the Rinos wouldn’t be uniting to protect him. Its time we use this to our benefit. They can tar and feather Scalise for all I care. Lets use this to have the conservatives show some guts and demand 30-40 stand up and throw out this leadership team that doesn’t represent the GOP party or the platform.

    • David Thompson

      I’m with you BearNJ……

    • Gatortrapper

      I agree that Scalise is a handmaiden of the establishment and that is as far as the inquiry should go. But I disagree with the imposition of some penalty for merely being “guilty of addressing” any group no matter how offensive I might find the values of the group. There’s no bright line standard that can be written but I invite everyone to try.

      • Jen Kuznicki

        I have a bright line. How about we refuse to acknowledge leftists who focus on race and believe the Jews are keeping the white man down? how about that line? If you want to equivocate on that– Get lost.

        • Gatortrapper

          ROFL… you think I’m a leftist or an anti-Semite? Merely because I argue that the proper measure is the content of the speech, not the fact of the address? I’m hardly a leftist by any measure and I have nothing but affinity and support for those of the Jewish faith.

          • Jen Kuznicki

            but you are an idiot. This has little to do with the speech, it’s who got him there and why.

          • brian

            No you redneck she’s referring to Knight. The whole point was Scalise had no problem associating with someone with leftist antisemitic views. I guess gator trapping isn’t rocket science.

      • LifeandLiberty

        The “bright line” already exists – it’s called taking a “Leadership” position. If he was “just” a congressman from wherever his constituents in his district can hold him accountable however, when they accept a position within the “Leadership” they then represent everyone no matter where you live within the U.S..

        In addition, it’s difficult enough defending ourselves from false “racism” accusations simply because we oppose someones policies but this situation places too much of a burden when it is uncalled for. Scalise isn’t the only member of congress qualified to hold that leadership position – or maybe there isn’t anyone else available to cover for the Speaker?

        • Gatortrapper

          That’s not a bright line, that’s a position. It doesn’t begin to establish penumbra for what is acceptable let alone provide clear guidance. That’s a rule for the unwary and nothing more.

          What if it came to be that his address was to a racist group and the content of his address was one of strong condemnation and rejection of their values? Would his “address” all of a sudden be held up as a paragon to be emulated and followed? Wouldn’t it then be something commending him for positions of leadership? And what if, God forbid, his views expressed later became viewed as vile and contrary to the new PC view of such matters? What then?

          So again, I ask for that brightline standard, not some cocktail party comment. It’s too early for you to be into the cups already isn’t it?

          • LifeandLiberty

            I see, you simply don’t care do you. The old saying applies here. When you can’t win the debate make personal attacks. Face it your side has lost this debate.

          • Cory D Cress

            I see your point agree that we shouldn’t condemn someone simply for speaking to a group. I do condemn Scalise, and I belive you do as well for his clear association with this group and clear intent to put money and politics over morality. I can’t say he supports the group but it is clear he knew what he was getting into and didn’t seem to object.

            Here’s my line in the sand: if you accept money, directly or indirectly, or benefits, you are accepting your affiliation with the group.

          • Peggy Hall

            You know, you had an interesting conversation going, and you just ruined it.

    • task

      Right!

      Scalese is not a small “r” republican. He is a Boehner soldier, a definite count me in, reliable vote. And his party affiliation is only important to the extent that it gives him the best opportunity to win an election. Charlie Crist is an example and so is Micheal Bloomberg. Principled party affiliation is about as important to these types of politicians as Constitutional fidelity is. And David Duke is no different. He has run as both a Democrat and Republican in Presidential Elections.

      Forget the obvious hypocrisy and double standards that protect liberals from these same accusations… true or otherwise. Scalese should go not just because of his David Duke affiliation but because the opportunity now exists to take him out, send a message and hope that the replacement will be better than McCarthy was for Eric Cantor. And there are other reasons which are even more important.

      Do you think that current Republican Leadership would defend Louie Gohmert or Jeff Sessions this strongly? They might on the surface while behind the scenes they can be counted upon to seal their fate. The would connive to do same for any predictable conservative whose vote would defeat Leadership’s attempts to trash the Constitution and screw the American people simultaneously.

      This event provides an opportunity to remove a RINO but it does something that is just as important and probably even more so. It will show America that there is one party that can be counted upon to clean their House. It helps to restore trust and God knows that DC suffers from a severe deficiency of that. It is, simply put, the “Right Thing to Do”. Furthermore it throws the ball back into the Democrat’s court. The question can now be asked: Exactly how do they plan to deal with their members who are guilty of the same thing? And on that note they will certainly have lot of answering to do.

    • Peggy Hall

      I have already contacted my congressman. Tried again today and the mail box is full. OH WELL, time for faxes and emails.

  • binky354

    Scalise hasn’t embroiled him self in nearly the questionable associations Obama has been involved in. Research might suprise youl Let me give you something to start on:

    Obama’s Father was a communist or socialist

    Obama’s mother was a communist or socialist

    Obama’s grandparents were socialist

    Obama’s friend Bill Ayers is a communist

    Obama’s childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis was a communist

    Obama’s friend Bernadine Dohrn is a communist

    Obama taught the organizing principles of communist Saul Alinsky

    Obama actively sought out Marxist and communist professors in college

    Obama told Joe the Plumber that it is a good thing to spread the wealth around (a socialist principle)

    Obama’s cousin Raila Odinga was a Muslim extremist who sought Sharia for Kenya

    Obama’s former Green Czar, Van Jones, is an admitted communist

    Obama’s former White House communications director Anita Dunn said Mao Tse Tung (communist) was one of her two favorite political philosophers.

    Obama’s friend Rashid Khalidi is a supporter of Palestinian terrorist

    Obama’s White House Christmas tree carried a communist ornament featuring Communist dictator Mao Tse Tung

    Obama was a member of the New Party, a socialist party founded in Chicago

    Obama was supported in 2008 and is supported in 2012 by the Socialist Party of America

    Obama was supported in 2008 and is supported in 2012 by the Communist Party USA

    Obama has installed numerous members or sympathizers of the Muslim Brotherhood into his Administration

    Obama’s policies since taking office mirror the steps taken by socialist, communist or Marxist leaders ( take over of a nation’s economy by the centralized government)

    Obama has several members of his staff and cabinet with socialist or communist connections in either subscribing to communist principles or supporting known communist or radical organizations.

    Carol M. Browner, White House Energy/Climate czar, was a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (SWS) at Socialist International (SI).

    Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s regulatory czar, openly promotes a socialist “bill of rights,” supports the abolition of marriage as a legal institution, and advocates a “New Deal Fairness Doctrine” to regulate the news media.

    Obama’s friend Professor Derrick Bell was a racist and promoter of racial strife.

    Obama supporter Carl Davidson was a former leader of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and a Maoist.

    Obama Campaign supporter, Sam Graham-Felsen — Socialist/Communist, ran the Obama’s 2008 campaign’s blog. He spent time in France taking part in labor riots, has written for a socialist magazine, hung a communist flag in his home, and was a fan of Marx while at Harvard.

    Obama associate Mike Klonsky is an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom. Obama funded him to the tune of nearly $2 million. Obama, moreover, gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas: a “social justice” blog on the official Obama campaign website

    Obama Associate Alice Palmer. In 1995, Alice Palmer represented the state’s 13th District, and decided to run for the United States Congress. She hand-picked Barack Obama to run to replace her. She was an executive board member of the U.S. Peace Council, which the FBI identified as a communist front group, an affiliate of the World Peace Council, a Soviet front group.

    Believe it or not this is a short list of Obama friends, associates and staff members with questionable associations, radical ideology and Marxist, communist or socialist ties. A wealth of additional information can be found here at the web site The Obama Files, Commieblaster.com and Barack Obama.

    Perhaps with the exception of Rashid Khalidi and Raila Odinga, who are Islamic extremist, all of the associates, friends and staff members listed here are radical Marxist, communist or socialist. There is also a wealth of information on Obama’s associations with radical Islamist and radical Islamic organizations. We reference readers to a Glenn Beck GBTV video,Rumors of Wars 3, posted on our blog site.

    – See more at:

    Articles: Obama: Love Him. Hate Him. You Haven’t a Clue.

    .

    American Thinker

    Sep 3, 2012 – Obama continued his radical associations and Marxist revolutionary studies at Colombia University and Harvard. The New York Daily News …

    There’s more but I don’t want to do you research for you. He’s had a known Communist placed in his “Czar” advisors; he’s placed Muslim Brotherhood high up in different agencies, including HomeLand Security. He’s bringing Muslims into our country by thousands – not Arab Christians, who are being slaughtered, but Muslims, our avowed enemies. His buddy Farakhan is preaching building up an army and teaching little kids how to make and through molotov cocktails. Have you heard anybody try to stop him becasue of his anti-American hate speech and fomenting violence against white people. The information is available. Look for it.

    • Jen Kuznicki

      So you want a guy in Republican leadership that tolerates Jew haters as a constituent group? I’m aware of what the President has done, but the false logic that it means we should keep Scalise in leadership because if Obama is deeply flawed. He can’t stay because he’s going to have us defending him for 2 years against Dem attack, and for what? What point? Gee, he just came running when the KKK lieutentant called?

      • BearNJ

        Exactly right. We all know the Democrat party’s history with the KKK. The point is this guy is Boehner’s henchman who destroyed the Republican Study committee and has been a front man to isolate conservatives. Let use him to get 30 Republicans to stand up against Boehner and vote him out as Speaker.

        • Peggy Hall

          Goes to show how far left the republicans have sold out to, er, I mean moved to.

      • Gatortrapper

        What I want is for you to set forth the rules outlining the standards on “guilty for addressing” groups that harbor offensive positions on issues. I’m just dying to see how you articulate a moving litmus test of PCness. Is it based on the number in attendance? So it’s okay to have a conversation on tax policy with say 10 folks who are registered voters in a barbershop that happens to be owned by skinheads? Or is location based? You could talk with them on the sidewalk in the elements but not in the barbershop? Or is it based on the beliefs and values of the larger group? Does that mean that groups that support Hamas, or are anti-Semitic or promote Islamisation like C.A.I.R. or Nation of Islam are banned audiences for ALL public officials, or does it only apply to conservatives? And is it purely content based or does it have a numerical component. If it’s content based does that mean I have to plum the political positions of my co-workers and apply the shifting litmus PC test before I can engage in a non-work current event conversation? Seriously, let’s see your fine, well considered standard. I’m waiting.

        • Jen Kuznicki

          Well, Mark Fisher, how about we don’t come running when the political operative of the Grand Wizard of the KKK calls? The very fact that Kenny Knight called on Scalise to speak, and he knew who he was, and actually, in his modern argument, thought it was plausible he had spoken the KKK, shows Scalise used Knight to get KKK votes. He must leave leadership. We will all be labeled white supremacists because of his pandering.

          • Gatortrapper

            I’m waiting for your standards to be articulated, not some contrived rationalization for a specific instance. Especially when you IMPORT as “fact” essential factors. Factors essential to your argument and which involve conjecture as to the circumstances and environment at the time. No one defends the values of the KKK least of all me. It’s ironic to see the lynch mob mentality at work here though don’t you agree?

          • Brooklyn_Dodger

            You want standards here, but not for Obama. OK, wait here. Hold your breath.

          • Gatortrapper

            The point is that no standard can be written and that it’s a pointless exercise of “guilt by address” to suggest that anyone should be excoriated for speaking to any audience, no matter how repulsive the audience might be. The content of that address, however, is a different matter and clearly one should held to account for that content.

          • Jen Kuznicki

            Congratulations. You have just formed the next Steve Scalise bumper sticker.

            Vote for me, Steve Scalise; I have no standards!

            Ted Cruz stopped speaking to that group of middle east Christians who hate the Jews. Yeah, we have a standard, and you don’t seem to have a problem with any views.

          • Gatortrapper

            Hmmm… in the wilderness Jesus spoke to the Devil…. should he have been condemned for that? He also preached to gentiles and sinners who not only held different values but engaged in offensive conduct. Should he be condemned for seeking to convert those on the wrong path to one of virtue that acknowledges God’s laws, values and desires for man?

            That’s why the emphasis, if any at all, should be on what was the content of the address, not the fact of the address.

          • Jen Kuznicki

            I’m not even sure you can read at this point.

          • BearNJ

            Liberal Republicans are like liberal Democrats. They are mindless drones who care only about votes and power. Its been that way for 100 years.

          • LifeandLiberty

            Brooklyn, we are wasting out time here. He asks for a “bright line” and when given one or several he then claims there can’t be one to justify the Leaderships cover-up of improper behavior. It’s not different than “It’s Bush’s fault.”

          • Brooklyn_Dodger

            Oh, I dunno. This is Jen’s site, and I like coming here for her work. Even when some one whips out leftist agenda points that mean nothing. He was shown MANY reasons Scalise should step down, and he still wants someone to write him a freeking book.

          • Peggy Hall

            WHO SAID THAT?

          • Jen Kuznicki

            perhaps you don’t know who EURO and the KKK are, perhaps you don’t know who David Duke is, perhaps you don’t know who Kenny Knight is.

            You’re thoughts are muddled on this.

          • Gatortrapper

            Typical. Ad hominem instead of a response. Perhaps you don’t know what ad hominem is? Should I explain it to you? How about sarcasm? Do you need help there too?

            I drew a sharp distinction asking you for a set of standards by which we measure the efficacy of a public official speaking to a group. You respond with “he’s a lapdog of discredited group (my words)” which I point out is non-responsive. You respond with ad hominem.

          • Jen Kuznicki

            you are still avoiding the facts on this. It has less to do with speaking to someone than it does working with certain people.

            I never said Scalise was a lapdog, liar, I never said he was a racist.

            I said what he did was work with the KKK friend to keep him in his graces for votes. That’s different.

          • BearNJ

            This is the issue. Scalise still worked with David Duke’s campaign manager and pandered to this group. This is the problem with Rinos like Scalise in that they have no belief system, no principles and no values. its just about getting votes. It’s why Boehner had Scalise, a guy with only a 76% conservative voting record, pull a coup and take over the Conservative Study Committee and make it useless. If the House reelects Boehner then they will lose Congress the way Rove did in 2006.

          • Peggy Hall

            Typical lib.

          • Peggy Hall

            Man it must be nice to have an ego as big as yours

          • Peggy Hall

            Save your breath Jen. This guy is just in it for a fight.

        • Peggy Hall

          You really think you have the right to demand what you want?

    • task

      Even if we can eliminate him for the wrong reason it still should be done. That is the silver lining that the liberal attack apparatus has given us. It will not be a capitulation to them but a message to the Bone Head. Coming from conservatives it stresses that the Boehner may told for him, and his positions, just as loudly.

      • MartinAustinTX

        The Left and Republican Establishment play hardball unrelentingly. Whoever sets the rules must be expected to play by the rules. I may not always agree with them but I did not set them. Scalise and Boehner have shown themselves to be dishonest. That, alone, disqualifies both from leadership positions.

        • Gatortrapper

          Now that’s a statement I can subscribe to.

          • Jen Kuznicki

            Oh I see, you just don’t want outlying groups like say, Jew Haters or Lincoln Was A Tyrant types to be ostracized. Thanks for showing your colors. Block.

        • task

          In today’s politics it seems dishonesty is a plus.

    • Feathers

      So… we’re supposed to lower the bar???

      • Semprasectum

        Boehner must go. .. .for he good of this country, he must be replaced.

      • binky354

        We’re supposed to point out what hypocrites liberals are and remind them of who their Dear Leader is.

        • Jen Kuznicki

          Of course, but saying that the libs are haters and we can too–is not an argument you want to win.

          Not only that, but the KKK are liberal Democrats, they claim they are fighting for liberty when they want Jews and Blacks gone from America. They claim they have conservative values but their religious views make them out to be the saviors of the nation. They focus on race, just like the left.

      • binky354

        I don’t know whether he should step down or not. My point was it would be a good time to shove the facts about their side back down the throats of liberals every time they dare to criticize a Republican. These facts should have been shoved down their throats in 2007 but the Republican candidates didn’t have the balls to do it.

    • Semprasectum

      And so your argument is, Scalise isn’t as bad as obama, so he’s ok? Sorry, but two wrongs don’t make a right and Scalise is wrong and wrong to be in any leadership position. . he, is quite simply the worst kind of politician, the kind that will do anything to be elected….societal scum.

    • David Thompson

      This is not about Obama!

      • binky354

        Liberals are hypocrites!

    • Peggy Hall

      NO EXCUSES.

  • ltd

    Fox News, most Congressional Republicans, Drudge, National Review, and others all pretend to be conservative in order to influence/corrupt conservative voters into doing as they say.

    Right now, there are MAYBE a couple of dozen conservatives in the House and MAYBE a handful in the Senate.

    The rest aren’t squishy moderates – they’re crypto-liberals. These crypto-liberals will talk tough, stage phony fights, get angry, and take show votes, all in the name of pandering to the base, but in reality, they are double agents who are just as set on moving this country leftward as the Democrats are.

    The liberals figured out to set up a fake opposition so that no matter the results of any election, they still win. They set up a fake conservative media organization and have fake Republicans running in elections and serving in Congress.

    We have so much work to do if we’re ever going to remedy this situation. In order to ever combat progressivism/socialism, first we have to make sure we’re not being led into battle by those clandestinely conspiring with the enemy.

    • Peggy Hall

      So, to quote a famous hero, LET’S ROLL.

  • Semprasectum

    IT is time for the entire GOP Congressional leadership to be changed.. . .New Speaker, new Whips, new Majority leader. . . unless this is done, the next two years will be a carbon copy of the past 6 ..

    • Peggy Hall

      That time is passed for sure. Yes, we can still do it, but should have done it long ago. We have the power of term limits with our votes and the voters continue to vote for more of the same. So tell me how they have the right to complain about congress, you know, the one they just voted in …….. again.

  • Texas_TEA_Time

    Mark Levin is linking to this spot-on article. If Scalise remains in a leadership position, conservatives must divorce themselves from the GOP or their scum will taint the conservative cause. It is odd that Scalise is being identified as a Tea Party darling, yet he has all the RINO henchmen circling the wagons for him. We must make it perfectly clear that conservatives do not stand with unprincipled politicians no matter what party hat they wear.

    • Nannette McGowan

      After the past year of Karl Rove GOP RINO leadership openly declaring war on the Tea Party and conservatives in the media, as well as recent news that Tea Party and conservative members are being ousted from committee positions by GOP RINO leadership, just the fact that they are showing support for Steve Scalise should be evidence enough that he is neither Tea Party supported nor conservative.

      • BearNJ

        Scalise was Boehner’s front man on his coup to take over the Conservative Republican study Commitee to make it useless. Boehner has been fighting Conservatives and their agenda that got him elected Speaker while cutting deals with Obama. Scalise is a traitor and no friend of the conservative movement. His conservative voting record ranks behind 60 conservatives in the house. He’s not our friend or our ally.

        • Nannette McGowan

          That’s what I’m saying. As a Boehner brown-noser, it’s obvious that Scalise is NOT a “conservative.” I’m surprised that true “conservatives” and the Heritage Foundation didn’t broadcast their opposition to Boehner’s ploy with Scalise to denegrate the CRS committee.

          I don’t understand why REAL “conservative” members and their support groups aren’t up in arms over the stunts of RINO leadership. Maybe there is hope during the next few weeks that they’ll come forward oppose these RINOs pulling the Republican Party to the left of center.

    • Peggy Hall

      That is McConnell and Boehner working against the tea party and having their pr people put out the lies about the tea party.

  • John Lee

    It’s an excellent point, and precisely why all conservatives/tea party supporters should distance themselves from, and condemn Scalise and Boehner. Shame on the ‘so-called’ conservatives I hear from that defend Scalise.

  • Heath Teoh

    Well argued out article, Jennifer. I read Quin Hillyer’s article exonerating Scalise on NRO earlier this week. In that article, Liberals and Democrats were coming out of the woodwork to defend Scalise. That group of Scalise defenders, from the other side of the aisle, did not include Democrat House members (for obvious reasons)

    There is more than meets the eye. Interesting observation on Scalise – strategy of keeping himself open to receiving KKK votes, for, what else, political expediency. This is a sign of one who is unprincipled, happy and comfortable to play politics. Not far fetched to call it political greed. What is paramount is getting and keeping power; principles are just an inconvenient thorn in the side.

    You quite rightly pointed out the principled response that Ted Cruz took with Middle Eastern Christians. In this instance, Cruz won’t get their votes. I am sure Cruz, being the brilliant person he is, knew exactly the consequence of his principled stand.

  • task

    Scalese is not a small “r” republican. He is a Boehner soldier, a definite count me in, reliable vote. And his party affiliation is only important to the extent that it gives him the best opportunity to win an election. Charlie Crist is an example and so is Micheal Bloomberg. Principled party affiliation is about as important to these types of politicians as Constitutional fidelity is. And David Duke is no different. He has run as both a Democrat and Republican in Presidential Elections.

    Forget the obvious hypocrisy and double standards that protect liberals from these same events. Scalese should go not just because of his David Duke affiliation but because the opportunity now exists to take him out, send a message and hope that the replacement will be better than McCarthy was for Eric Cantor. And there are other reasons as well.

    Do you think that current Republican Leadership would defend Louie Gohmert or Jeff Sessions this strongly? They might on the surface while behind the scenes they can be counted upon to seal their fate. The would connive to do same for any predictable conservative whose vote would defeat Leadership’s attempts to trash the Constitution and screw the American people simultaneously.

    This event provides an opportunity to remove a RINO but it does something that is just as important and probably even more so. It will show America that there is one party that can be counted upon to clean their House. It helps to restore trust and God knows that DC suffers from a severe deficiency of that. It is, simply put, the “Right Thing to Do”. Furthermore it throws the ball back into the Democrat’s court. The question can now be asked: Exactly how do they plan to deal with their members guilty of the same thing? And on that note they will certainly have lot of answering to do.