Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Plot/Counterplot for Pubbie Primary

Belling told the Wisconsin Democrats their plan: attack Walker, just as Neumann is doing, to get Neumann the gubernatorial (R) nomination.

Then destroy Neumann.

How to do that?

Mark Neumann has a profoundly, if earnestly held, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic and anti-gay worldview that would make Neumann a weak general election gubernatorial candidate.

As we all know, being "anti-Semitic" and "anti-Catholic" requires no proof. Ask Joe Sobran.

10 comments:

capper said...

Neumann doesn't need our help. Walker is doing a grand job on destroying himself.

steveegg said...

So your calls to have your non-Milwaukee County brethern vote for Neumann (and Westlake) were just a joke?

Anonymous said...

Bugs Bunny said "Of course, you know, this means war".

So the Dems are putting to use the "buy more ammo" mantra that you demonically push. Underhanded politics as usual?

Yep. You reap what you sow.

MAL said...

Does repeated reference to the Pope as the "Anti-Christ" and the "the Jews and Their Lies" suffice?

Neumann was told in 1998 by his stratagists to keep his extremist WELS church under his hat.

Yet, he to his credit, has given several interviews explaining how his church drives his politics.

I can offer many examples.

http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2009/04/mark-neumann-mean-machine.html

It's Neumann who makes his religion the public basis upon which he seeks public office, specifically citing scripture text as interpreted by his church. So we're supposed to ignore it?

Dad29 said...

Yah?

I'm waiting for you to show me (and the world) that Neumann personally said that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, or show us all ONE anti-Semitic remark made by him.

Terrence Berres said...

If his church teaches something, and he hasn't indicated any disagreement with it, why shouldn't the assumption be he accepts, rather than rejects, that teaching?

Isn't the issue not what his church teaches but what results? There have been WELS members in government office, e.g., Congressman Neumann. So far no one is making any criticism of their performance in office due to WELS teachings.

Dad29 said...

I'll grant your point, Terry, that not disclaiming amounts to acceptance. IIRC, "silence implies consent" is the usual formulation.

Your larger point is what's really at issue--it's how he'll govern, not what he believes.

But the smear-machine knows how he'll govern, which is why they raise points which are not really going to be in play when dealing with a bazillion-dollar budget deficit bequeathed by Doyle.

MAL said...

Asked how he made his decisions in Congress in an interview with the WELS Communication Services Director, Neumann replied, "What we did in our office, and Sue (wife) helped me a lot with this, we established a checklist, so to speak, on any bill that would come before us. And we'd ask ourselves first, 'Is there a moral or ethical reason to a cast a vote in any particular way.' And if there was, it didn't' matter what anybody else said to me, we were going with the morals and ethics first."

From whence do his morals and ethics come? That Neumann has made clear--the WELS Church, an extremist, rigid religious outfit.

Why exactly do you think his stratagists told him in '98 to keep his WELS on the QT?

There's more interveiws--same point.

Dad29 said...

Disclaimer: I'm NOT a Neumann fan.

But your argument leads to interesting questions.

E.G.: What SHOULD be the first consideration in lawmaking (aside from Constitutionality, as a baseline)?

If not "morals or ethics," what?

Every Lefty leggie attempts to justify ALL their votes with 'moral high-ground' rhetoric, which is generally specious on its face. See abortion in all its forms, e.g.

Fortunately, anti-Catholicism is un-Constitutional in most of its typical forms. That hasn't stopped the Left, by the way, but it will stop Neumann.

Same with anti-Semitism, and for that matter "anti-gay-ism" in its essence.

MAL said...

Agreed.

Your statement (rather question posed): "If not 'morals or ethics,' what"? is precisely on point.

As an elector (voter), I have strong objections to Neumann's morals and ethics (values, beliefs and so on). Hence, I write against these morals and ethics, and Neumann's acclaimed committment to his ethics driving his pulbic policy.

Neumann, or anyone in the polity, quite properly refutes, agrees, or disputes my (or anyone else's) interpretation of Neumann's interviews, sources, positions and so on.

Proper politics ensues in the discussion.