Replies

I heard Gaffney's comments at CPAC and I thought it was awful.

I wasn't at CPAC, and this thread, as I recall, was discussing Norquist's appearance on Fox News. I was not aware of the background of the story, so was watching through unbiased eyes. Norquist looked bad, and his tactics, as I described in my original post, were worse.

He is taking the position that we shouldn't have hatred or bias towards people because of their religion and because some evil people performed evil in its name.

If that it his intent, that is honorable, but his tactics on Fox News were dishonorable, and definitely did not further his cause.

Considering the documented evidence of exactly who Norquist (the apparent liason with the Muslim community), has invited to the White House in the past (and to the 9/11 Memorial Service at the National Cathedral), I don't believe skepticism regarding his judgement are unwarranted, and certainly Gaffney is not the only conservative who has questioned that judgement. Are they all wrong? Are the anti-American, anti-Semitic statements of Norquist invitees, which are a matter of public record, to be disbelieved?

he does not date a moslem

I could care less who or what he dates. I made no reference to Norquist's love life in my original post.

I heard the CPAC remarks as well and Gaffney did, as advertised, single out a peron who works in the White House -- by name -- and essentially accused him of letting terrorist sympathizers in to see the president based on nothing more than the allegation that his father is the treasurer of a mosque in Houston, Texas.

Norquist, in my view, has every right to be upset. Rather than confront him directly, Gaffney has been writing columns about him and otherwise smearing Muslims by altering facts to fit his theory. If Norquist went over the top, and I don't think he did, he had every right to.

Think about how you would feel if Gaffney were Blumenthal or Brock talking about Free Republic as a group based on what a few of the posters say.