Bigotry in the U.S. Senate race

Uncategorized

The bigotry and intolerance demonstrated by the mainstream of the Republican Party–Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Rudolph Giuliani, Rick Lazio, et al., has come to Vermont.  The Times Argus reports today that the assured Republican candidate challenging Pat Leahy for Senate has jumped on the bandwagon.  

Len Britton, a Windsor County businessman looking to unseat Sen. Patrick Leahy in November, issued a campaign missive Tuesday denouncing the proposed mosque as a “slap in the face” to victims of 9/11. He called upon Leahy to do the same.  “Construction of the mosque in such close proximity to Ground Zero is incredibly insensitive to the victims’ families,” Britton said in the release.

 Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that Len Britton is a bigot. I don't know him personally, and the odds are I never will. Given the way his campaign is going–out of money and running a deficit–it's just as plausible that he's merely an opportunist.  

And what about that new kind of Democrat (i.e. the kind of Democrat who signs petitions and votes for Republicans), Dan Freilich?

According to the Times Argus, here's where he comes down:  

Daniel Freilich, Leahy’s opponent in the Democratic primary next Tuesday, said people have a right to build a mosque on private property, but that he understands why some would find it so objectionable.  “Victims at least might not be ready for it and … it could be potentially painful,” Freilich said.

Everything the opposition does makes Leahy look better and better.

7 thoughts on “Bigotry in the U.S. Senate race”

  1. They keep calling it a “mosque.”  Bigoted or not; opportunistic or not; an ignorance of the simple facts is hardly an asset to someone who would presume to challenge one of the preeminent voices of the U.S. Senate.

  2. Article 3:

    …[no person can] be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship…no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship.

    I’m sure they think it’s a clever gambit to say they support inalienable rights while whining about “sensitivity” (which is interesting since they decry such things when you bring up multiculturalism).  And I’m sure that will sway some people, especially when they’re polled using similar wording.

    But for any of these people to claim they are constitutionalists is to lie directly to the electorate.

  3. I would have stopped to snap a pic yesterday on a bike ride of a house flying the US and Confederate flags, along with Dubie and Phil Scott lawn signs prominently displayed out front.

Comments are closed.