This explanation doesn't cut it for me. < -snip- > In other words, instead of this explanation making me more credulous, it makes me less. Which leads me to the same place this thread has led me. I am troubled by some of the things regarding Norquist which appear to me to be undeniable, such as why he was pushing for the election (as a Republican) of someone who fits in well with Stalinist groups like the IAC. But I am also skeptical of some of the information presented as evidence of his perfidy.
|
The problem Norquist has, I think, is that even if not everything Gaffney's written were to bear out, there is too much there for that alone to exonerate Grover.I'm pretty much where you are at.Particularly unconvincing are Norquist's lies and race-baiting in response to this story.
I'm not sure that the way Norquist has reacted is as revealing as one might think. Imagine for a moment that he was really duped by these folks, and now he's being accused of being an active abetter of terrorists, essentially being accused of treason, for want of a better word. If I were falsely accused, and had been duped myself, I myself might react very badly to charges that I was a knowing accomplice of terrorists. In any case, though, his answer has to be better than "my accusers are racists" - that won't wash.