« Romney To Officially Announce Candidacy In January And Other '08 Updates | Home | Rudy Reaching Out To Iowa Caucus Activists »
White House: "No Judgment" Of Goode For Anti-Muslim Comments
The White House is refusing to criticize GOP Rep. Virgil Goode for his assertion that having a Muslim in Congress is a threat to American values, making President Bush the leading Republican who's declining to condemn Goode's anti-Muslim comments. Asked by The New York Times for comment on Goode's remarks, White House spokesperson Dana Perino told the paper: “We’re aware of the situation, but no judgments have been made.” In other words, no comment. As TPM readers know, Justin Rood of TPMmuckraker has been struggling mightly to track down a single Republican who will condemn Goode's remarks, and has compiled a very long list of GOPers who are refusing to comment. Now we can add Bush to the top of the list.
Advertisement
This Republicans' non-response to Goode's outrage actually surprises and puzzles me, no irony intended.
We have learned not to expect ordinary political morality from the White House any more than we expect a dung heap to yield prom gowns. And with Rove still playing Claudius and pouring "run-to-your-base" poison in Bush's ear, one can understand their reluctance to condemn Goode's racism.
However, the GOP's Congressional delegation comprises a significant number who represent moderate districts and moderate states. Without appealing to whatever vestige of fairness or justice might still remain in their souls, we might expect that mere political expediency would prompt a few of them to come out against an outright attack on an entire culture.
Has the right side of the aisle in both houses oozed so far to the right that they refuse to condemn bigotry even when it might improve their own political standing? Or is it that all of the remaining Republicans come from such xenophobic districts that they feel safe wearing the rags of intolerance? If the former, shame on them. If the latter, shame on us.
December 23, 2006 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
This uniformity of Republican response to Goode's comments can only be a response to the leadership putting out the word to hew the line. It is unbelievable that every moderate Republican in national office agrees with Goode.
This isn't political reticence. This is Republican policy, directed and enforced by their leadership. This is a part of the Republican anti-muslim policy.
December 23, 2006 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is definitely a case of the latter.
December 23, 2006 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that such a policy is unAmerican.
Are we as Americans anti-muslim? Do we support our President who represents ALL Americans complicitly supporting with his silence an anti-muslim policy? This is analogous to someone being anti-black or anti-Irish, or anti-Hispanic or anti-Semitic while forgetting that our citizens are first and foremost AMERICANS.
Is this the same President who stood in front of the cameras, supporting his 'democracy adventure' in Iraq, by saying there are some people who think BROWN people cannot have a democracy? But I do not believe that? Renouncing those who would discriminate against the 'brown people' of Iraq??
Bush and the entire GOP need to be totally condemned by ALL Americans and news media for this complicity. Worst of all they are fostering the belief that we as a NATION are anti-religious and do not believe in the very principles set forth in our Constitution about RELIGIOUS FREEDOM in America. That is one of the most basic and fundamental tenets set forth and written UNAMBIGUOUSLY into the US Constitution by the founding fathers who were run out of England having suffered religious persecution.
I urge every single person to write and express their disdain and indignation about this affront to the very foundation of our democracy was built upon. It is intolerable.
These actions, on the part of the President, are right up there with warrantless wiretapping, indeterminate detention without charge, the right to habeas corpus and torture.
When will we stand up for ourselves?
December 23, 2006 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
White House: "No Judgment
YUPDecember 23, 2006 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
*claps*
Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.
December 24, 2006 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The only future devout Muslims can envisage - as Muslims - is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, subjugated, or killed... On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers.
On almost every page, it prepares the grounds for religious conflict... Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death..."
Sam Harris,
"The End of Faith" copyright 2004
December 24, 2006 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please clarify: Are we advocating, as Rep. Goode seems to be, legislation that restricts immigration based on faith? If so, this would clearly be unconstitutional.
Hadn't we better get busy abolishing the First Amendment, then? Or would it be sufficient merely to strike the establishment clause?
Incidently, Sam Harris's distaste for organized religion is not restricted to Islam. He notes that the "holy" book of Christianity and Judaism shares murderous xenophobic paranoia with the Koran and is only slightly more subtle about it. The Bible also prescribes death by stoning for encouraging apostasy.
December 25, 2006 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just last year in Afghanistan (a Muslim nation), a man, Abdul Rahman, was sentenced to death for converting to Christianity. He had to flee to Italy to avoid execution. On the day he flew to Italy, the Afghan parliament debated the case, protesting the convert's release and demanding that he not be allowed to leave the country. During the debate, lawmakers declared that not punishing Rahman violated shari'a, or Islamic law.
When is the last time something like this happened in a Christian nation? So much for Islamic tolerance.
December 25, 2006 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll repeat my question: Should we eliminate whole First Amendment or just the Establishment Clause?
And I'll answer yours: The last time we had that kind of mentality in America was back when we did have regional Christian governments. Remember the Salem witch trials?
The United States is specifically NOT a Christian nation. That's why those kinds of judgements are not passed down in these parts these days.
You and Rep. Goode both make my point: The less tolerant a nation is of unpopular religions, the greater the chance of religious persecution.
December 25, 2006 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, we should not eliminate either the First Amendment or the Establishment Clause. But I don't think limiting the number of immigrants from Islamic countries is too much to ask.
By the way, I don't remember the Salem witch trials, which happened several hundred years before I was born. Do you remember September 11th? Which of those 2 historical occurrences are the most relevant to Americans today? Maybe you can answer that question for me.
If America were under Islamic law, the Salem witch trails would look like a picnic.
December 25, 2006 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we do reduce immigration, the people we will let in will be engineers and the like...just like the people who hijacked the planes on 9/11.
As to your question, both are quite relevant. But unless we want to a nation become hate-filled fanatics like the 9/11 hijackers, we should be very careful to retain our tolerance.
By the way, I can't recall whether Timothy McVeigh was Sunni or Shiite. Can you help me out?
December 25, 2006 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Timothy McVeigh was an asshole. I don't think he was motivated by religion.
December 25, 2006 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then let's restrict immigration by assholes.
December 25, 2006 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I don't remember the Salem witch trials, which happened several hundred years before I was born. Do you remember September 11th? Which of those 2 historical occurrences are the most relevant to Americans today? -- charles hurd.
December 25, 2006 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was making the point that the Salem witch trials are less relevant to the matter at hand than events which are happening at this moment. Guess I should have spelled it out for you. I am not terribly concerned that I will be accused of witchcraft - but maybe I should be.
December 25, 2006 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've changed the name. Instead of "witches," now we call them "enemy combatants."
December 26, 2006 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me you've at least heard of "McCarthyism"?
December 26, 2006 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
When was the last time a government dominated by Christians engaged in the violent persecution of non-Christians, you mean? It's certainly been within the last decade.
For a more notorious (if slightly earlier) example, think "Nazi Gemany."
So much for Christian tolerance.
December 26, 2006 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 3 Months
December 27, 2006 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink