Posted on 10/04/2002 9:50:55 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
When U.S. Senate candidate from Texas Ron Kirk came under fire last week for a multitude of wavering positions on national defense and policy toward Iraq, the ex-mayor of Dallas lambasted his critics. "[Q]uestioning my patriotism, I'm insulted by that," exclaimed the Democrat as he carefully claimed support for a regime change in Iraq, albeit in the most general of terms. Then again, with over two thirds of the public supporting such a move Kirk has little choice but to go along.
One has cause to wonder about Kirk's irritation over accusations of weakness on defense and Middle East issues. Aside from campaign pledges, Kirk's record is covered with a string of embarrassments in the area. They cross several years and include employing a political friend of John Walker Lindh, holding fundraisers with radical anti-military leftists, and a campaign donor with felony charges in an anti-terrorism investigation.
Despite this embarrassing record, expressions of outrage characterize the Democrat's recent responses to critics of his foreign policy positions. It's a classic tactic of the left: deflect attention from one's own flaws by blaming the opposition. "[M]y opponent has attempted to distort my position on the War on Terrorism, my support of President Bush and our troops, and my support of a strong national defense" insists a seemingly annoyed Kirk as he tries to shed an image of being soft on defense, terrorism, and Iraq. Always absent is the role his own actions and statements have played in creating that image.
The most recent controversy erupted in the wake of comments by the Democrat on Iraq. Kirk recently expressed an interest in reevaluating several aspects of taking action against Saddam Hussein — but not for the normal reasons of tactical issues, diplomacy, or national security. Kirk wishes to examine our Iraq policy over issues of racial and class composition among the ranks of American troops.
Kirk injected race into his stance on Iraq at a September 13 speech. "Look who would be doing the fighting. They're disproportionately ethnic, they're disproportionately minority," he told a Democrat audience. Kirk latter added class into his position as he questioned whether or not proponents of ousting Saddam would be supportive of military action "if I get to the United States Senate, and I put forth a resolution that says the next time we go to war the first 500,000 kids have to come from families who earn a million dollars or more." Evidently Kirk is unaware that our voluntarily joined military has more important things to worry about than organizing itself into racial and class quotas at the request of liberal politicians.
The speeches ignited a firestorm of controversy from conservatives who rightly hammered Kirk for racial pandering at the expense of a vitally important national defense issue. Realizing the political implications of his comments, Kirk attempted to dismiss the controversy he created as simply showing "concern" for the people "on the front lines."
Indignant attacks on his critics followed as the Democrat purported shock that any Republican would dare question his priorities on the Iraq issue. After all, Kirk only asked in the plainest of language that racial and income class quotas weigh in on a major decision of national security. Kirk only mentioned the possibility of going to the Senate and putting forth a proposal to impose class divisions in the military. Now he wonders how anyone could dare criticize his priorities on national defense. Call it the Combat-Ready Affirmative Action Plan with a sponsor bailout corollary in case the public responds negatively.
Barely a week passed before Kirk again came under fire for weakness on national defense and Middle East affairs. Though he never apologized for injecting race and class into the Iraq debate a week prior, Kirk continued to present himself as the more experienced candidate on defense issues. The claim was based on an internship with Senator Lloyd Bentsen two decades earlier. Amidst his claims, Kirk left for San Francisco for a campaign fundraiser hosted by Rep. Barbara Lee.
The latter's name should spark familiarity with good reason. Lee was the only member of Congress to vote "no" on the authorization of military force against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Osama bin Laden after September 11. This same unapologetic radical is accurately described as a leader of the "blame America first" faction in Congress. Lee is a former Black Panther activist who served as a top aide to Rep. Ron Dellums during the radical congressman's notorious courting of Granada's Marxists. Her recent activities include traveling to communist Cuba with Maxine Waters during the Elian Gonzales dispute and, most recently, putting together a coalition of Congressmen opposed to action in Iraq.
Lee also shares in Kirk's opposition to a missile defense system. Kirk, who publicly stated "I oppose deployment of a national missile defense," recently lashed out at Republicans for implying this further demonstrated his weakness on defense issues. Not surprisingly this stance has earned him support from a radical anti-military, anti-missile defense lobby group that has strong ties to Lee, the Council for a Livable World (CLW). According to the group's website Kirk says he is "honored to have the council's support." The group also solicits donations to Kirk through its website, an action it says is "authorized by the Kirk for Senate campaign."
Sadly, affiliations with radicals such as Lee and the CLW are nothing new for Kirk. The Senate hopeful received embarrassing publicity last June when the Austin Review revealed the Kirk campaign's employment of a radical anti-Israel activist with ties to militant Islamic figures such as American-Taliban John Walker Lindh. Kirk employed Steven L. Hyland, a former University of Texas Middle Eastern Studies student, on his campaign payroll through mid June of this year.
A June 23, 1995 editorial by Hyland in UT's Daily Texan newspaper reveals the radical extent of this individual's beliefs. In an editorial about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hyland wrote "The U.S. government labels Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad as terrorist organizations, but they are really freedom fighters defending their rights in Lebanon and Palestine." Elsewhere Hyland described Israel's policies as "Nazi-like" and blamed them, not Palestinian terrorist organizations, for suicide bombings in Jerusalem. The Review further reports that Hyland is a personal friend of American-Taliban John Walker Lindh. He befriended Lindh in 1998 while studying abroad in Yemen and was interviewed by the media regularly during the latter's recent court proceedings.
Before publication in June, reporters from the Review attempted to contact Kirk's office to determine what role Hyland played in the campaign, including the shaping of their positions on the Middle East and the War on Terror. One call was even transferred to Hyland, who immediately hung up the phone. Kirk's campaign never replied to requests for a statement. Several weeks later the Austin American Statesman quoted portions of an email sent by Kirk fundraiser Lane Luskey in response to complaints over Hyland. Despite Kirk's unresponsiveness to interview requests by the Review, Luskey dismissed the Hyland story as a "smear campaign." His email told supporters that Hyland had been asked to leave the campaign. This however was not true. According to the Statesman, "Hyland quit and was not fired." A Kirk spokesman eventually conceded that Luskey's email had not been "factually accurate" about Hyland, though the campaign never gave an explanation about the radical Israel-hater's employment. Amazingly Kirk still wonders how anyone could dare question his strength on defense issues!
Embarrassing affiliations with radicals such as Lee, Hyland and the CLW, rather than chance incidents, appear to be an ongoing pattern with the Democrat. The Austin Review reported that the former Dallas official took multiple donations to his 1995 mayoral bid from persons affiliated with radical Islamic organizations. Several Kirk donors are involved with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a radical organization that protested a Los Angeles billboard criticizing Osama bin Laden after the 1998 U.S. embassy attacks. One CAIR official hosted an August 1995 dinner in Kirk's honor along side former Democrat congressman and ex-Holy Land Foundation (HLF) lobbyist John Bryant.
The Review also reported, and ethics reports confirm, Kirk's receipt of a $500 donation from 'Ishan Elashyi' dated April 24, 1995. For the past year Elashyi has been at the center of a federal investigations involving the illegal export of computer equipment to terrorist states. The Bureau of Export Administration (BXA), which enforces national security and anti-terrorism related export controls, placed an export ban against the Richardson-based Infocom and Tetrabal corporations. Elashyi, who was specifically named in the order, runs Tetrabal and works for Infocom. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft at a press conference on the investigation, "Infocom, like the Holy Land Foundation, received much of its early money from Mousa Abu Marzook, a top Hamas official who, the U.S. courts have determined, was directly involved in terrorism."
For the record, the HLF is a U.S. based non-profit organization run by Elashyi's brother. The government shut it down for terrorist connections last December. President Bush stated that funds raised through the HLF were "used by Hamas to support schools and indoctrinate children to grow up into suicide bombers."
The BXA banned Infocom and Elashyi from exporting after anti-terrorism investigations found evidence of the company's illegal shipment of computer electronics by way of Malta to Libya in 1997 and directly to Syria in 1999 and 2000. The United States has designated both Libya and Syria as "state sponsors of terrorism." Exports to the two countries are prohibited for anti-terrorism reasons. Elashyi continued making shipments of computer equipment to the Middle East in violation of the export denial order last September, leading to his indictment on multiple felony charges. He pled guilty to the charges last June and, according to the Justice Department, faces sentencing of up to 50 years in prison.
While candidates cannot be expected to keep past donors on the right side of the law, that Kirk attracts such donors is consistent with positions he has enunciated in his campaign for the U.S. Senate. By comparison the Democrats rarely forgo an opportunity to berate GOP candidate John Cornyn for receiving Enron contributions years ago. Such tactics leave little ground to dispute the careful examination of Kirk's Cynthia McKinney-esque contributor list from his days as mayor of Dallas.
Though a lengthy pattern of embarrassing behavior and radical affiliations follows Ron Kirk around, Kirk's only visible response is to blast Republicans for questioning his priorities on defense and Middle East issues while purporting the strength of his support for national defense. What remains to be seen in Kirk's candidacy is the result of the test it imposes upon the ability of Texans to see through pledges of support for President Bush in the Middle East when a candidate's behavior pattern of radical affiliations and positions is wholly inconsistent with that pledge.
Dallas Repubicans know he's not a moderate and the rest of the state doesn't know him.
I'll agree that Rylander is probably the strongest, followed by Combs and Patterson. Abbott and Perry are somewhere in between and then Cornyn. But I think the weakest is going to be Dewhurst for lt. gov., not Cornyn. Cornyn's got a lead but he's also got a race on his hands. That's why info about Kirk's shady connections and past needs to be spread. It's all there and all documented, but the media won't touch it for fear of hurting "moderate" Kirk's reputation.
Do any of you on FreeRepublic think that "white guilt" over the dragging death of the black James Byrd of Jasper is helping the Ron Kirk campaign this year? Could it be that "moderate" Anglos want to "prove" they are "not" "racist" and are going for Kirk. Or is it sheer ignorance about Kirk?
I'm inclined to say that it's ignorance rather than Byrd. Voters here have heard the Byrd thing overplayed and shoved down our throats since the 1999 legislative session. They used it to push and eventually pass hate crimes legislation in the '99 and '01 sessions, they used it to smear Bush in his presidential campaign in 2000, and those of us in Houston got it again as a smear against the GOP candidate in our '01 mayor's race. People have gotten sick of it and pretty much the only ones it resonates with any more are the blacks and the white liberals. As for white guilt, the only ones that have it are the leftist reporters in the media who feel "guilty" that there aren't any black senators.
People flock to Kirk because his media-supported campaign strategy is to portray himself as a "moderate" who will be a "bipartisan" supporter of Bush. This is complete nonsense as at BEST he'll be another Tom Daschle. More likely he'll be another Cynthia McKinney.
Also, Isn't Cornyn practically not campaigning? Does Cornyn think that his wipeout of Jim Mattox four years ago insures that he will also be elected senator?
Cornyn's been up on the airwaves pretty frequently for about a month now. He's making lots of campaign stops all over the state, while Kirk's only hit the money crowds in the big cities. But Kirk's clearly got the media on his side in this one, and that's what Cornyn's gotta overcome.
Freepers can help by spreading the word about Kirk's national defense record. Spread it to Texans by word of mouth, bombard the conservative-friendly national news people with complaints about Kirk's weakness, whatever you can do to get the word out there because the local media has been trying to downplay it and ignore it.
They apparently share the same type of politics. I just did a google search on Lindh and Hyland. It pulled up 44 hits, most of them news articles where Hyland was quoted about Lindh's trial as a "friend" or "associate" who knew Lindh personally. Several of them recount anecdotes where Hyland talks about what he and Lindh did in Yemen.
He is an ultra-liberal trying to masquerade as a conservative, friend of business while campaigning here in Texas, but what he says when he is with the big-bucks liberals in his New York, San Francisco and Washington DC fundraisers is extremely liberal.
No intelligent Texan will vote for this turkey.
Dewhurst IS campaigning -- more than Sharp is. So my friend probably forgot about the Dewhurst-Sharp race. It seems to me that Sharp is not much stronger than he was in 1998. This time though he has ads being promoted by the one-time conservative icon, Nolan Ryan. Dewhurt is doing the best he can, but I don't think Cornyn is doing much at all.
Wouldn't it be odd if Texans reject Greg Abbott for attorney general because of his handicap, but the Georgians reelect the liberal Senator Cleland largely out of sympathy for his handicap? Greg Abbott is a solid conservative -- maybe that's why he could also be in trouble. The liberal former mayor of Austin, Kirk Watson, is a strong candidate.
BTW, Carole Rylander is also a former mayor of Austin. That woman is always running for some office, holds it a term or so, then moves on. But she has mastered public relations as comptroller almost as well as Bob Bullock and John Sharp did earlier. Ultimately, all this politics is public relations.
Yes, Deport, the black base is fired up. A Republican woman from Killeen called C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" Friday morning. She said that Demos in TX have a plan to bring out all the dispossessed to the polls. Each of the dispossesed will be called twice on election day and reminded to vote. On the third call, if the dispossessed person has not voted, a Demo van will immediately come to the residence and carry the dispossessed individual(s) to the polls. They are being told that they must vote Democrat one more time to preserve their lifelines. I expect a minority turnout increase of well over 500,000 through this effort, being largely funded by the pockets of Democrat gubernatorial nominee Tony Sanchez of Laredo. It was this kind of active Demo strategy that led to the Democrat sweep in TX in 1982, and the reelection defeat of ascerbic Governor "Bill" Clements to the Democrat Mark White. Please tell me that the Republicans have a get-out-the-vote strategy. I bet that they don't because most Republicans would feel insulted if someone called them and offered them transportation to the polls. Republicans feel it is THEIR responsibility to get to the polls, not the mission of some corrupt political machine.
I'm not sure where you're going with your arguments, but at best you're talking possibilities not probabilities. Are you trying to energize Cornyn supporters by making this race appear closer than it is or do you truly believe what you typed? I don't see your scenario unfolding at all.
What I have seen is Dim polls showing Kirk running neck and neck with Cornyn. All other polls I've seen show Cornyn ahead; some by substantial margins. The fly in your ointment will be the significant numbers of undecideds who, I believe another poster stated also, trend conservative.
What we can't quantify this election is the level of voter fraud the Dims are likely to try. You can probably recall some of the horror stories from the Lyndon Johnson school of dirty politics. 200%(?) turnouts in south Texas counties and lost voting records? It could happen again with the Dims. That will be the only way Kirk can win. IMO, of course.
FGS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.