Tuesday, September 26, 2006Democrats vs. Susan Allen?My wife in particular spent the better part of two years putting me through the wringer before marrying me. Most married gentlemen will agree: their wives know them best. I had the pleasure of meeting Susan Allen's parents some months ago, and they are tremendous people. They certainly did not instill in their daughter the values Democrats would ascribe to her husband. Anyone who has met Susan knows they are in the presence of a true lady, and can't help but walk away with a level of respect for her intelligence, demeanor, and touch. Republicans and Democrats both respect Susan Allen, and that's a good thing. Here's my point. Most of what the Democrats are alleging are things that happened long before Susan met George; things a lady would know about her future husband. Is there a Democrat in Virginia vicious enough to argue Susan Allen would willingly marry a racist? Susan Allen is a wonderful human being -- I'm certainly not that base or daring, first and foremost being I don't believe for a moment it's true. Want some more perspective? Mark Levin over at National Review lays it on thick: Let's see how many Republicans are quick to distance themselves from George Allen based on this kind of reporting. The Left is counting on it. These things can easily spin out-of-control on the Republican side as Republicans are often fearful of being on the wrong side of a perceived breaking scandal. I've seen it over and over again. And watch as they claim the moral high ground when doing so.Susan Allen knows better than anyone else in Virginia the character of George Allen. I find it incredible to believe that such a lady as Susan Allen would marry the man Webb's campaign describes. If Susan Allen can turn to the people of the Commonwealth and say her husband is an honorable man, then I believe Susan. Frankly, a handful of acquaintances and a disgruntled professor don't make the cut. Allen's political opponents have used this tack time and time again, and each time it has fallen flat on its merits. I don't believe it, I refuse to believe it, and voters are smart enough to know a hatchet job when they see one. (crossposted at Allen's A-Team)
|
|
JEFFERSONIAD POLL: Whom do you support for Virginia Attorney General?1) John Brownlee2) Ken Cuccinelli AboutShaunKenney.com is one of Virginia's oldest political blogs, focusing on the role of religion and politics in public life. Shaun Kenney, 30, lives in Fluvanna County, Virginia.ContactThe JeffersoniadArchivesMarch 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 April 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009
|
|
13 Comments:
Susan Allen loves her husband. And there's just no accounting for love. The only thing really worth saying on the matter is that it's best not to pry or speculate too much about what goes on in other people's marriages.
Seriously, let's keep George Allen's wife out of this. You're going down a path where you're saying that the Allens' marriage is open to discussion and where you're saying that Susan Allen's race views and her relationship with her husband should be debated. Please keep her out of this. She's an innocent bystander.
If you get responses from other bloggers that start smearing Susan Allen then don't say that they were the ones who dragged her into it.
Every. Single. One.
Now I don't defend racism, I don't condone it, I hate it with a singular passion that few get to see. If the Democrats are going to paint another human being with the brush of racism, they'd better back it up. To date, it's the same nonsense we've heard in 1993, 2000...
It's old.
I can only judge a man's character based on those closest to him. Susan Allen is just such a person.
This shouldn't be an invitation to lower the discourse either, it should be an invitation to raise the level of discussion.
Casting aspersions on Allen's character casts aspersion on his family, friends, and loved ones. I think that's despicable behavior, especially when it's based on baseless rumors and innuendo.
So should men be found innocent in spite of any other evidence just because they have nice wives?
There's no telling why a given woman loves a particular man. If you can figure that out then the world will flock to your door.
Did Allen even deny the incident with the severed deer's head? Because I seem to have missed that. He's saying that he did not frequently use the 'N' word but so far refuses to confirm or deny the thing with the severed head. That alone speaks volumes.
We heard directly from an eye witness about the deer's head. From someone who was in the car with George Allen. That's not hearsay. That's evidence admissible in a court of law.
As far as what Larry Sabato said is concerned: yes, that's hearsay. It's also neither here nor there at this point. Whether and how often that Allen used a racial slur becomes a pointless question in light of the fact that he put a severed head in a black family's mailbox and doesn't even deny it.
Please leave Susan Allen out of it. This is getting ugly enough as it is. This is just as wrong as dragging Allen's mother into things last week. If you're saying that Allen's guilt or innocence is dependant on his wife's character, then what will it mean for her if those Louisa County deputies dig up the police report next week? Your own logic suggests that that would mean there's something wrong with her character and that is just wrong. Please take a step back and reconsider your position. You're grasping at straws and I know that you're too smart for this.
Always leave the candidate's wife out of it. This should just be a basic rule of thumb for political scandals.
Racism never made any sense to me. I hate everyone equally. Why discriminate?
:)
My judgment would form around those who know the person best, not from political enemies with an axe to grind.
My bottom line is that I respect the judgment of Susan Allen and those close to the Senator more than I give credence to the hearsay from the opposition. To state that Allen is a racist casts a pall on all those who have associated with George Allen over the years.
Without solid evidence, I find that kind of character assassination to be absolutely deplorable.
But they waited until now?
That's a little strange, yes?
Mary Sue? Wrong Dem pol, methinks.
This may be more about Chuck Robb.
Even if they find a report of a deer stuffed in a mailbox, how dost one tie it to Allen, hmm?
All I do is contrast: Susan Allen and friends vs. a handful of malcontents trying to score political points.
Now if the argument is to shift to how Susan Allen is a discreditable person, by all means fall on one's sword.
All I ask is that if someone is going to make the charge that Allen is as despicable a character as certain people claim, they at least try to match with evidence.
The contrast stands firm.
If Allen is such a terrible person, why do such people of character rally around him -- most of all Susan Allen? If the most potent answer is "you're just exposing her to the same criticism," that only gives credence to the character assassination charge, not to any ideas that Allen is as bas as the Webb campaign is making him out to be.
My thoughts, anyhow.
The issue isn't what someone did or didn't do 30 years ago, it's what they are now, and what they would do today.
What Allen's wife gives him is one more character witness to the man he's been in the time she knew him.
That doesn't answer what he might have done 30 years ago -- I hardly think knowing her husband said the n-word somewhere sometime would be a terrible blow to her -- IT'S JUST A WORD, unless he used it to attack a black person.
The reason Allen doesn't say anything about the deer is that he doesn't need a headline 'Allen denies leaving deer head in mailbox'. You can't address every rediculous charge raised.
Here's the deal. Allen's been a public figure for years, and he has a record to be reviewed as to how he's treated people during that time. To believe he is a racist, you have to believe that multiple good people of sound reputation are all willing to lie to protect a racist, including people of the opposite political party, people of color, women, and people of other religions.
Even Webb doesn't think Allen is a racist -- he endorsed him for Senate 6 years ago, and when asked if Allen was a racist he didn't say he was.
The only people saying Allen is a racist today are Lowell and the netroots crew, trying to stir up negative sentiment. Oh, and a lot of people who DON'T know Allen are believing he is a racist, simply because of the coverage.
That's why two black ministers calling this a smear campaign is so important -- they wouldn't do that for a racist. They didn't just say they "endorsed" him, in fact they did NOT endorse him.
So when we read that Bishop Gerald Glenn says "I think what's happening is character assassination, blatant and unparalleled," it means MORE than a 30-year-old charge, even by someone like Larry Sabato, that a young Allen might have said the n-word, whether Allen remembers it or not.
If the webbies weren't so much in political mode, this question would be more revealing -- but I'm asking it anyway. I graduated college in 1981, a little later than Allen. And while I am CERTAIN that I HEARD the n-word, I can't remember a single specific instance where I heard it, or who said it, or what the context was.
So I ask sincerely -- does anybody recall a specific instance from the 70s where a person said the n-word in their presense, and who that person was?
1) Suppose a man is a racist. Can he change the laws as they stand? Will he be able to reinstitute segregational institutions and promote discrimination in hiring practices? Absolutly not. For one thing, the Supreme Court would overturn any such unjust legislations, and for another, he would lose most of his support on both sides by making such an attempt anyway.
2) Does racism indicate something about someone's character? Sure it does, but then again, so does his religion, his position on abortion, his position on socialism, and any other moral matter. However, as the Democrats made absolutly clear during the Klinton years, a man's personal life and personal beliefs should not impact his political life. Isn't that what the Democrats claimed when John Kerry was running for president? That even though he was a Catholic, his religious beliefs would not (and should not) impact his decision-making in relation to so-called "women's rights"? Doesn't Ted Kennedy make the same claim every time he is up for re-election? So even IF John Allen is a racist, if he keeps it to himself and doesn't act politically on what he may hold personally, then it is a non-issue.
Post a Comment
Home