When Rhetoric Runs Red

The right has been pushing back against accusations of inciteful rhetoric.  We know the stories about the violent, racist, tea partiers.  We also know that many, if not most, of them are not true.

So it doesn’t help when someone from the right actually steps over that line.

J.R. Hoeft at Bearing Drift has the full story:  Regarding Eric Cantor and Red State

Hoeft says:  Unfortunately, in a post written late yesterday on Red State about House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), facts about him were widely ignored, distorted, and taken out of context.

The post is entitled “The Passion Deficit.”

Hoeft does an excellent job of pointing out why it’s a bunch of malarkey.  But what struck me about it is what Hoeft gets to in the last paragraph:

I was struck that in this week before Lent in Christianity, Hammond used the title “The Passion Deficit”, an allusion to Christ’s passion, and compared the number of abortions conducted to a “Schindler’s List” for a post that is primarily critical of our first Jewish Majority Leader.

Hoeft says he’s willing to give Hammond the benefit of the doubt…maybe.

I saw the post today in my Google Reader. I was intrigued by the title “The Passion Deficit.”  Why?  Because this coming Wednesday is Ash Wednesday. As a reminder “The Passion” of Christ refers to his physical, spiritual, and mental suffering on the way to the cross and his crucifixion.

The author, or the editors at RedState saw fit to use this term to attack the Majority Leader, who just happens to be the only Jewish Republican in Congress.

Appalled yet?  Hang on, it gets worse.

Michael Hammond goes on to attack Cantor for not committing to defund Planned Parenthood by saying “So, given a Schindler’s list with 324,000 names, why would anyone who believes the unborn are human beings not move heaven and earth to protect them?”

Schindler’s list?  He invokes the Holocaust to attack the Jewish Majority Leader?


Look, if you want to make a case against Cantor’s politics and policies, have at it.  I haven’t always agreed with everything he’s done.

If these were unintentional ignorance that’s bad enough.  But these were intentional then they’re just disgusting cheap shots and RedState should be ashamed that they’re still standing tonight.


    • Daniel Boyd on May 14, 2011 at 5:30 am

    Would you explain something for me? If Eric Cantor wants to cut social security for those under 55 years old and he says that he is not cutting Granny’s social security how does that happen? Only those that are under 55 years old and disabled can draw social security. If a woman that is 50 years old now and finally makes it to 65 they will be someones Granny at that time and will have less to live on if Mr. Cantor does what he says that he is not going to do.

    • Mike on May 14, 2011 at 9:34 am

    We’re all going to have to live on less in the future. I’d have to go back and read what Congressman Cantor has actually said (and I’m not going to do your research for you).

    But my understanding is that benefits wouldn’t be cut, just delayed. Americans are living a lot longer than we did when SS was first started. The system just simply can’t keep up. Something has to be done because the system is failing. If you don’t like what the Congressman is saying, suggest your own plans.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.