- comment
Jackson Landers - body
- I understand what you're going through. It's hard being let down by a candidate with whom you've invested so much faith. But this is really reaching. You know that, right?
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.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I don't buy that argument for a second. Why? Because all of these allegations are based on hearsay.
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.
- comment Jackson Landers
- body
- Shaun,
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.
- comment Mike
- body
- Now I don't defend racism, I don't condone it, I hate it with a singular passion that few get to see.
Racism never made any sense to me. I hate everyone equally. Why discriminate?
:)
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Perhaps I'm a bit more sensitive because I've run for public office once before, but I'd hate to think how the average person would respond if - based on hearsay alone - someone branded that person a racist based on distant acquaintances known to be members of the opposite party.
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.
- comment D.J. McGuire
- body
- Here's my question: Messrs. Sheldon and Sabato (especially Sabato) could have presented this in, say, 1991, 1993, and 2000.
But they waited until now?
That's a little strange, yes?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Interesting indeed -- methinks there's a few Virginia Democrats seeking revenge for Mary Sue Terry in 1993...
- comment D.J. McGuire
- body
- Shaun,
Mary Sue? Wrong Dem pol, methinks.
This may be more about Chuck Robb.
- comment D.J. McGuire
- body
- Um, Jack, what does a police report in Lousia tell us anyway?
Even if they find a report of a deer stuffed in a mailbox, how dost one tie it to Allen, hmm?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- The meme that I am speaking towards is that of character -- who gets to make those claims of a virtuous or vicious character.
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.
- comment Charles
- body
- I agree that this argument is a stretch.
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?
- comment Mike
- body
- What a dumb issue to bring up. I have always found the race issue to be a moot point on many levels.
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.
- comment Megan
- body
- My wife put me through the "wringer" for 3 months....guess my wife isn't as discriminating....
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