NY Times' Stolberg, MSNBC's Matthews cited Tony Perkins, GOP conservatives as espousing "ethics" and "values"
SUMMARY: New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg repeated a common media practice of suggesting that the GOP's "social conservative wing" cares more about "ethics and family values" than others, and quoted Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, in support. Similarly, MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked Perkins about "conservative people like yourself, who are not politicians, but are men of the church, who believe in values, rather than election results." Neither noted Perkins' reported ties to both the white-supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke.
In an August 29 "Political Memo" on the political implications of Sen. Larry Craig's (R-ID) August 8 guilty plea on misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges following his June 11 arrest during an investigation of "lewd conduct" in a Minneapolis airport restroom, New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote, "Some Republicans are indeed screaming, particularly the party's social conservative wing, which places a high priority on ethics and family values." Stolberg then quoted Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, saying: "There is an expectation that leaders who espouse family values will live by those values." Similarly, on the August 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Perkins whether "conservative people like yourself, who are not politicians, but are men of the church, who believe in values, rather than election results, will break with" politicians over Craig's actions. As Media Matters for America has documented, news outlets frequently suggest that "family values" are those espoused by conservatives. Further, in suggesting that Perkins represents conservative "ethics" and "family values," both Stolberg and Matthews ignored his reported ties to both the white nationalist Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke.
The Boston Herald reported in an October 16, 2006, article, "In 2001, [Perkins] gave a speech at a meeting of the Council of Conservative Citizens, which the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] considers a hate group." Indeed, a Fall 2004 article in the SPLC's Intelligence Report asserted that Perkins "spoke to the Louisiana Council of Conservative Citizens on May 19, 2001," during his tenure as a Louisiana state legislator. The SPLC characterizes the CCC as a "white nationalist" organization, and has reported that the group is "the reincarnation of the racist White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and 1960s." The CCC declares in its statement of principles:
We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.
In a July 30, 2005, article, The Vancouver Sun reported that Perkins acknowledged his speech before the CCC in an interview. The Sun also reported that Perkins claimed he could not recall what he said to the group and that he said he had been unfamiliar with the CCC's history at the time. From the Sun article:
The magazine [The Nation] also reported that Perkins, while a Louisiana state congressman, spoke in 2001 to the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC).
Perkins said he was invited by a constituent to speak to the group, and said he wasn't aware of its history.
"Never spoke to them again. That was over a decade ago," Perkins told The Sun, suggesting the speech happened in 1996, not 2001.
The Southern Poverty Law Centre, which keeps track of politicians close to the CCC, forwarded The Sun a March-April 2001 copy of Citizens Informer, the newsletter put out by the CCC, which included the following notice:
"The Louisiana CofCC met at the Mandarin Seafood in Baton Rouge May 19 to hear State Representative Tony Perkins discuss the current legislative session. At that meeting a recruitment project was developed."
When informed of the item by The Sun, FRC spokesman J.P. Duffy does not dispute the assertion that the event happened in 2001, not 1996, but added that Perkins "cannot remember speaking at the event, as he speaks to hundreds of groups each year." Duffy added that Perkins opposes racial discrimination and offered the names and phone numbers of two black pastors who support him.
While Perkins asserted during the interview with the Sun that he was unaware of the CCC's segregationist ideology, the group's views were widely reported in 1998 and 1999, after it was revealed that both then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and then-Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) had spoken at council meetings. Indeed, a Media Matters search of the Nexis database found that 38 articles including the phrase "Council of Conservative Citizens" were published in either the Baton Rouge Advocate or the New Orleans Times-Picayune during 1998 and 1999. For example, a July 25, 1999, Advocate article noted that "the CCC has been labeled as a racist group," while an October 1, 1999, Times-Picayune report called the CCC "a group critics have labeled as racist." Additionally, a January 20, 1999, Associated Press article reported that then-GOP chairman Jim Nicholson "wants his fellow party members to quit the Council of Conservative Citizens because 'it appears that this group does hold racist views.' "
Furthermore, while managing Republican state representative Louis E. "Woody" Jenkins' 1996 campaign for the U.S. Senate, Perkins paid $82,500 to use former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke's phone bank for Jenkins' run-off election with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Jenkins was later fined $3,000 for "knowingly and willfully fil[ing] false disclosure reports showing Courtney Communications as the vendor." According to a July 24, 2002, Times-Picayune article, Perkins "signed the $82,500 contract for the Duke phone bank," maintained by a company called Impact Mail Ltd., in the fall of 1996, and "said Tuesday that he didn't find out 'the complete Duke connection' until after the 1996 Senate campaign." The article went on to report:
In 1999, Perkins said he originally didn't know the Impact Mail contract was for the use of Duke's phone bank. When he found out, Perkins said, he and Jenkins decided to route the payments through Courtney Communications, the campaign's media firm, because "politically, we didn't want to be connected with Duke."
The elections commission ruled that the transaction violated federal elections law because it was never disclosed on Jenkins' campaign finance reports. Instead, three payments of $27,500 each were listed to Courtney Communications from Oct. 7 through Nov. 2, 1996, according to commission documents.
The Jenkins campaign "knowingly and willfully filed false disclosure reports showing Courtney Communications as the vendor," the elections commission wrote in a settlement that Jenkins signed this year.
A spokeswoman said the commission voted in executive session in February to fine the Jenkins campaign $82,500, the value of the transaction. But Jenkins said he couldn't afford to pay that, so the fine was dropped to $3,000, she said.
While Perkins purports to "promot[e] pro-family public policy," a December 14, 2005, Washington Post article quoted him as saying: "There is a [biblical] mandate to take care of the poor. ... But it does not say government should do it. That's a shifting of responsibility." The article also reported that Perkins "said the government's role should be to encourage charitable giving, perhaps through tax cuts."
Moroever, contrary to Matthews' description of Perkins as a "m[an] of the church" unconcerned with "election results," in addition to managing Jenkins' 1996 U.S. Senate campaign, Perkins spent eight years as a Republican state legislator in Louisiana and himself ran as a GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2002.
From the August 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Tony Perkins, let me ask you to respond to that. Do you think that they're -- that the conservative people like yourself, who are not politicians, but are men of the church, who believe in values rather than election results, will break with the pols on this one?
PERKINS: Oh, I think increasingly there is a divide that is growing.
And I would take issue with Mark that the -- that we could not have any influence over those issues unless we reflected the American public on this issue. And they do not like duplicity. They like moral values. They like marriage. They like family. They want those issues upheld.
And if they did not, we would have no influence over public policy.















Men of the church? Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing I seem to remember hearing from the Teacher these men say their churches are built on...for inside they are ravenous wolves.
Seems like a bad time for MSNBC, Matthews, Tucker Carlson.
Wow. Talk about your faulty premises:
MATTHEWS: Tony Perkins, let me ask you to respond to that. Do you think that they're -- that the conservative people like yourself, who are not politicians, but are men of the church, who believe in values rather than election results, will break with the pols on this one?
What makes Matthews think these guys don't care about election results as much as values? I don't accept that at all.
The kind of "guilt by association" tactic used in this topic is a pretty ugly attempt to smear Tony Perkins.
MMFA should be ashamed (but they are not.)
In any event, the true religious conservative is interested in things such as preserving the institution of marriage and keeping NAMBLA out of leadership positions in the Boy Scouts - my understanding is that libs want change.
Nice one John. Good stuff there. Do you believe any of your garbage or is it just fun to be.. you know ... that way.
In any event, the true religious conservative is interested in things such as preserving the institution of marriage and keeping NAMBLA out of leadership positions in the Boy Scouts - my understanding is that libs want change.
Maybe the "true religious conservatives" should be practicing":
judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure y mete , it shall be measured to you again.
No, guilt by association would be if one of your friends was a communist and the FBI opened a file and investigation on you alleging YOU are a communist, like in the McCarthy era, or if your brother in law robbed a liquor store and people blamed you. If YOU speak twice to a racist organization YOU are associating yourself with it and it is absolutly legitimate to question that. As to your specious characterizations, I can only say your delusions abound.
Hmmm, which set of ethics are they superior at? Is it Craig ethics, or Foley ethics? Maybe Gingrich ethics? Perhaps Delay ethics. So many role models to choose from...
Snoop dawg,
The people that you listed are out of power or diminished because of the decision of those who supported to demand that our leaders meet ethical standards. WE withdrew support because of their behavior. We have already seen how Craig's position is tenuous because he has lost support from those disappointed by his conduct, those in his party.
Rather than seek dismissal or censure of those who violated generally accepted codes of conduct, members of the left fight bitterly to protect their own. I cannot think of a democrat the left has dispensed with because of ethical lapses or failings, can you?
Ethics do not exist because someone fulfills them, they exist 'a priori' and should not be situational, unless of course your values believe only in the expediency of conduct, ie, the ends are justified by the means.
When a leader fails to meet our expectations, WE do not reward them with our favor or fight to the bitter end to protect them. It would hypocritical for us now to say that Craig's behavior didn't matter and then blitz the world with speculation about the sexuality of police officer in Minn, or make the case that 'everyone' kicks the foot of someone in the next stall sometime and therfore he did nothing that warrants losing his senatorial seat or committee appointments. Conservatives won't do it because we expect our leaders to meet our standards.
"your values believe only in the expediency of conduct, ie, the ends are justified by the means."
Wait a minute.
Isn't this Bush's justification for Iraq? That it doesn't matter that there weren't any WMD's. All that matters is that democracy flourishes in Iraq?
And on the flipside, didn't those against this war from the very beginning believe that the ends did not justify the means?
Maybe you should look at your values and that of your fellow conservatives before mischaracterizing the values of others.
Scallion-nogin,
We could argue the virutes of providing liberty and freedom to individuals or letting them rot in despair but my posting related to the left continually defending obvious moral failings of its political leaders. Have there been any members of the democrat party that have been forced from power by their own party because of failures in ethical/moral behavior?
Jim Wright, Dan Rostankowski, Tom Foley, just to name a few. Of course you must know that the voters of each district or each state determine who should represent them. It's not for you or me or anyone else to decide except those voters as to who should and does represent those voters. Dont you think it's pretty pathetic that the "Right" keeps bringing up Gerry Studs and Barney frank in this conversation. Ill bet 99% of the nation doesn't remember who the hell Gerry studs was, plus the dude is dead. That's digging deep.
Fleetwood,
You guys make this all to easy. Look at the 'uproar' for cleasing the democrat party showed when their leaders had failings.
Check these stories out from none other than that right winged NY Times.
Regarding Jim Wright:
It took TWO YEARS for him to loose his speakership from when the book deals and speaking engagement pay scandals came on the seen. It was also interesting to see in the interim how he was 'criticized' for speaking in the USSR about how fine a government they had and later how it was intimated that he passed on military secrets to the Sandanistas who were 're-educating' their populace to the wonders of communism. Take a look if you dare!
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40711FE355F0C778EDDA00894DF484D81
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0711FF3E5E0C7A8DDDAC0894D0484D81
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0715FC3A590C778CDDAF0894D1484D81
Dan Rostenkowski: Poor Dan, he was really treated as a pariah by his party. During campaigns AFTER his INDICTEMENT, none other than President Bill Clinton and others went to Chicago on his behalf. He didn't resign during the years after his shenanighans, he was voted out and replaced by a republican. The first one elected there in like 70 years. So much for cleaning your own house!
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/dan_rostenkowski/index.html?offset=80&&&
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE6D71E30F933A25751C0A963958260&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fR%2fRostenkowski%2c%20Dan
And Tom Foley had no scandals other that getting dumped by a republican during the 'de-Foley-ate congress' during the 1994 election sweep.
Thanks again for making this easy! Again, any other tries to show how democrats are concerned about ethical behavior in their leaders?
There is no such thing as a Democrat Party. You ReNAMBLAcans protect your own MUCH more than Dems. Notice that even though they KNEW about Delays ethical violations they changed the rules and makeup of the ethics committee to protect him and knew about FOLEY FOR SIX YEARS, protecting him all the while. Ya got NOTHIN. The ReNAMBLAcans are worse about protecting their own.
WE withdrew support because of their behavior
Ah not quite true for Newt, Foley, Delay, Cunningham, Ney..... and the rest.
The only reason that these people are not in office is not because "we withdrew support", it didn't have a damn thing to do with support. How long was the Republican party aware of Foley but did nothing. While Newt was going after Clinton he was getting busy with his own office worker. Henry Hyde had a "youthful" affair at 40 and good old Dan Burton fathered a child that he does not see but pays for.....yeah you guys are reformers. Dan Abrams looked at the last 10 years for scandals and Republicans beat Dems 2 to 1. Yeah the good old "family values" crowd. Foley and apparently Craig going after young pages. Yeah those good old "christian values" SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, and also [former Rep.] Duke Cunningham [R-CA] -- another peep of mine -- who actually would go to poker matches and apparently take part in this trading of sex for votes. Trent Lott a member and Tony Perkins speaking to the group who's mission statement is: The CCC declares in its [link to cofcc.org] title="http://cofcc.org/?page_id=60">statement of principles: We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.
If they hadn't been caught they would still be doing the same crap. Hypocrisy has a name and it's Republican. I'm sure your proud.
Pearls before swine,
Again, the folks you mentioned do not wield the power they held before their shortcomings were found out. And where was the onslaught of the people defending them? Accusing the media of conspiracies, claiming that the sexual proclivities of the cop was the cause of the investigation or that 'everybody lies'. It has not and will not be there because of the moral belief system found in conservativism.
Rather than turn a blind eye, individual conservatives in this country did not stand up to defend them or encourage them to ignore what we demand of our leaders, that they live up to reasonable expectations for behavior.
And I ask the question, has there every been a democrat that has been caught in scandal (just look around there have been plenty) that could not count on the left defending them to the bitter end?
Proud Moron, Delay WAS protected to the bitter end. They even changed the rules of the ethics committee and took out the republicans that voted to censure him to protect him. Foley was KNOWN about for YEARS and was protected until the scandal became public so unless you are telling me that the GOP Congessmen ARENT conservatives then your delusional attempt at a point disintegrates right there. Vitter was supported and IS supported today. Meanwhile the Democrats DID reprimand Frank and censured Studds. Immediatly. NOT SIX YEARS LATER after having protected him like the GOP leadership did Foley.
So-Long,
You are talking about politicans protecting politicans. I'm asking about individuals asking of their leaders to behave properly. Once those foilbles were known to the public, there was never a groundswell generated by the RNC to protect those people. Why, because conservatives in the party would not support it. As for Vitter, he has the good fortune to be from a state that has shown great ineptitude in political and managerial leadership. Again, I see no attacking of those who 'outed' him by the party machinery. He certainly won't become the standard bearer for virtue in the party.
So-Long,
And those tough measures of 'reprimands' were way over the top. How could anyone stand the vicious thundering of feigned repudiation. Oh the humanity!
By the way,Barney still collects a paycheck from his office and Studds did the same for what, six more terms after boinking an underage intern? Add a murdering senator and an N-word using KKK Klegle bird brain and you have quite the moral A-team. Why did they all stay in power? Leftists individuals and the Democrat party accepted and tolerated the conduct and fought to protect them. More than politicians protecting politicians, leftists still stand behind them.
ProudMoron. Bunk Delay was relected LONG after his shenanigans came to light. AFTER he took Abramoff money for a Golf trip to Scotland. AFTER the ethics reprimands. Congress isnt the justice dept. They are limited in what they can do when what was done WAS NOT ILLEGAL. It is up to the voters. You ReNAMBLAcans voted Bush back in AFTER he was caught lying us into a war. The big difference is you ReNAMBLAcans LIE and conceal the wrongdoing to KEEP it from the public. Like you guys did for Foley for SIX YEARS. Politicians or NOT we are still talking about ReNAMBLAcans. Did the voters oust Gingrich when HE was caught in an adulterous affair? Why no they didnt. Did the ReNAMBLAcan voters turn on Raygun after his constant lying and BREAKING THE LAW in violating the Boland amendment? Nah you ReNAMBLAcans still adore the doddering old moron. Your selective reading of history is amusing but YOU. HAVE. NO. POINT.
"When a leader fails to meet our expectations, WE do not reward them with our favor or fight to the bitter end to protect them.<snip> Conservatives won't do it because we expect our leaders to meet our standards." Posted by PC
I had a whole well-reasoned response to your whole comment, involving the distinction between ethics and morality, and citing numerous examples to the contrary of your ludicrous claims, but it's actually easier to just point out that this is one of the stupidest comments I've read in quite a while, and let other people deal with the 'facts'. In summary:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Down-under Dude,
Please do illuminate us on the differences between ethics and morality. Your wisdom would surely benefit us all. Or, just make a random and rambling statement with no point.
AHHHHAHHHHAHHHH
"When a leader fails to meet our expectations, WE do not reward them with our favor or fight to the bitter end to protect them" by PC.
That leads me to the obvious question. In what ways has Shrimpy McFlightsuit met your expectations? Is it enough that he hasn't had any sex scandals?
I'm going to agree with him on this. They allow their leaders to be liars, crooks, and incompetents as long as they make sure they put their penises only where the base thinks it belongs they’ll give them get a pass on anything. They seem to have a very very narrow definition of morality apparently it only applies to adhering to their defined acceptable standard of sexual behavior, which is why there are so many social conservatives living what is often referred to as living on the down low.
Jimmy Crack Corn,
I have felt that the president lost a great opportunity to further the conservative cause. He didn't demonstrate the right kind of leadership in stopping the out of control spending by the Republican led congress. Tax rate cuts have worked by we needed greater fiscal conservatism. He could have done a better job with Social Security reform and the immigrant stuff was a disaster. But he has been right about the value of changing the dynamic of Middle East politics. Another arab democracy, Lebanon and Iraq to go along with Israel would go a long way to contering the threat of Islamic extremists.
He's not articulate but he's been stupid enough to get elected twice. And, unless Rove did his homework, an MBA from Harvard still stands for something.
Proud Ignoramus. Sure Bush was right about Iraq. Your delusions are astonishing. I guess that is why he had to LIE in order to take us there. The tax cuts have been wonderful for those who own oil companies but for the working man, not so much. Corporate profits have skyrocketed but wages and the median income has been stagnant. Face it Bush is a catastrophe that walks like a man which is why only about a third of the country approves of him. He will go down in history as at best one of the worst presidents in history if not THE worst president, your delusions notwithstanding.
If "W" was so freakin right about changing ithe values of the Middle East. (that's worked out well for us.) And you wholeheartedly agree, why are you sitting at a PC and haven't signed up to put your arse on the line to further those values????? Oh, that's right.......... you must be like the rest of the Hannity, Orally, Limbagh crowd. It's a great idea as long as "I" dont have to sacrifice my life or any of my family. Lets' here that excuse, are you too old, medical issues, or like dickhed cheney, have other priorities?
Before you get to far along in your "GOP talking points," let me point out the following facts.
1. Duke Cunningham wasn't thrown out by your party. He is in jail for accepting bribes.
2. BOb Ney.......Same thing.
3. Your party actually changed House of Rep rules to allow Delay to stay in power while under investigation.
4. The GOP knew about Rep. Foleys penchant for pages long before he was exposed and actually used him for fundraising and didn't throw him out. He quit because he got caught. Even the House leadership knew about him and did nothing. Oh, thats right, they put him in charge of a committee on missing and exploited children. That;s real "values."
Need I continue............ OK, lets roll
Ted Stevens, ummm... Still there.
David Vitter, ummmm Still there
Gingrich, ummmm Still active in GOP politics and even considered a possible Presidential candidate. DOnt you love when he brings up the "values" card.
The GOP doesnt throw them out, they sweep them under the rug, protect them, and then blame the Media and Bill Clinton for thier transgressions. PLease. Please, please.................Face the facts, the GOP is no better or worse than the Dems. They all fail the voters and they all have little courage or leadership. Your post was a pathetic attempt at deflecting blame.
That's your trouble. You are proud of being a conservative. As the saying goes, "pride goeth before a fall." Seems this party is now attracting the modern day Pharisees and scribes.
Christians are directed to practice humility, charity and service. They do not continually point fingers at the "other" while ignoring the beam in their own.
I should have said, they continually see splinters in the eye of the "other" while ignoring the beam in their own.
Mary,
Thank you for your concern about my spiritual standing before the Lord. I truely believe that no one every came to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ by having the correct set of political beliefs. Saving Grace is the perview of God alone and that faith comes by hearing the Word.
As for my tag, ProudConservative, I chose that early on when another poster said that I should be ashamed of anything that had to do with the Republican party, free market economics, or conservative values. I do think that conservatism embodies the best opportunity for every individual to experience personal liberty and excellence.
As for ignoring the splinters (Let me go King James on you and say, moat) in my eye, the point of my first posting is to say that we DO look at those splinters in our political eyes and remove them. I just have not seen the same veracity in cleasing the eyes of the left when they act foolishly or destructively.
Take care
Yet you still seem to be proud when your side acts stupidly, dishonestly, and catastrophically like say lying us into a war. Good luck with that.
So-long,
Lying to get us into war? Come on, do you need a refresher on how the CIA briefed the congress and the statements made by all political leaders during the run up to the war? Nice try but anyone with a synapse or two to fire will see how vapid that lame arguement is.
How would YOU know you never had a working synapse in your life. If you STOLE two brain cells to rub together they would die of lonliness. Bush LIED flat out, no way out of it. He MADE UP the IAEA report he cited at the press conference with Tony Blair. It didnt exist. He pulled it directly out of his ASS. That is NOT a mistake the CIA made. He claimed this non existant report said the polar opposite of the IAEA's actual position. He sent 12 reports to Congress saying the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used for Gas Centrifuges, while telling the American people the same thing. All the while a year old report by OUR scientists in the field COMPLETELY refuted that claim. Bush is a liar, he lies so much I was suprised when I found out his name really was George. You can pretend whatever facts you want on your homeworld of Planet Wingnut but here on Planet Earth, part of the reality based universe that argument is OVER. Bush LIED.
I agree with you Mary. When I first started posting here there was a poster very much like Proud foot here; it may have even been him. He used to chase me all over this board because I had the audacity to call myself a Christian and a Liberal. According to this poster God had sent him here to witness to us misguided Liberals especially the ones that called ourselves Christians. He actually thought he was on a real mission. According to him God wanted me to be a Conservative and at the very least I should stop calling myself a Liberal and call myself an Independent. It was really bizarre, I played with him for a while but he got so serious and progressively more weird and started chastising me like I was a child while quoting cherry picked scripture that I eventually had to tell this presumptuous internet evangelist a thing or two and then he decided he couldn’t save me from the gates of hell so his mission to save me ended. He probably moved on to the Huffington Post or Daily Kos.
Well, thanks for staying and not letting him b.s. you outta here.
Not me Lynn, I would never challenge anyone's standing with the Lord based on politics.
guys, mr. perkins and his ilk do believe in "family values", soprano family values. they'll just take sen. craig out and whack him.
Now I’m really confused Chris opens the discussion with
“Conservative people like yourself, who are not politicians, but are men of the church, who believe in values, rather than election results."
Let’s examine this particular bit of propaganda.
Tony’s bio includes some fun facts
We may be able to argue that you can’t say he was a politician when he was the President of Christian Family Research Center, which is the POLITICAL offshoot of Focus on the Family. We may be able to argue that he wasn’t a politician when he helped to organize Justice Sunday, an event that featured conservative politicians calling for conservatives to take action against the Democrats to stop the Filibuster of Judicial nominees. But I find it just a little difficult to except that a person who was a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives 1996-2004 and ran for the U. S. SenateIn 2002 isn’t by definition a politician.
MOTS BS from conservative media....
I am not surprised.
They are the epitome of what they "accuse" the left of being.