Funny letter to the editor today from Chairman Stewart accusing Fairfax Supervisor Connolly of attacking 11th Congressional District candidate Keith Fimian over his religious beliefs. In part it says,
As a devout Catholic, I am troubled to see this. As an American, and a constituent of the 11th District, I am incensed. It was almost half a century ago that the same bigoted attacks were made on President John F. Kennedy.
How Chairman Stewart is able to recongnize these as bigoted attacks when he’s been unable to recognize bigoted attacks in the past is beyond me.
Is Corey saying that he would support Kenndy today because he was Catholic? Obviously, he looks at issues with a big pair of blinders on. BTW, aren’t most Hispanics Catholic?
Maybe ‘bigoted’ has to do with whose ox is being gored in order for Corey to recognize it.
Devout Catholic? Obviously he missed the scripture in Matthew that says “What you do unto the least of these you do unto me”
I really do not like saying this because I do not like to judge people but based on what I have seen and heard from CS. He is a devout egotist.
I am not real sure but I do not think Gerry Connelly has said anything about Mr. Fimian’s religious affiliation. I think Mr. Connelly’s supporters have and he has not made any comments one way or the other. I guess CS believes his silence is condoning his supporters views.
But isn’t Gerry Connolly Catholic? Didn’t he, early in his life, study to be a priest?
Hard to see him as an anti-Catholic bigot.
Corey apparently didn’t name the organization to which Fimian belongs. Fimian is on the board of directors of Legatus, a catholic organization of CEOs which was started by Tom Monaghan (former owner of Dominos Pizza and the Detroit Tigers).
This organization has come under fire from progressive groups in the past for quoting the papal party line on social issues. There used to be boycots for Dominos Pizza back in the 90’s.
http://www.legatus.org/public/index.asp
http://www.keithfimian.com/action/?page=biography.about
Corey has a nerve asking Gerry Connally to control his supporters. When is Corey going to control his puppeteer? When is Corey going to control his anti-immigration supporters? Pot meet kettle. PUH-leez Corey.
Didn’t Greg have this all over his blog already? Guess the dynamic duo are back. As a devout Catholic myself I call him one devout and raise him three devouts over that relationship. Devout is typically a characterization used about another. Not something you claim.
A devout Cathoic.
I feel bad for the Catholic church.
Catholic churches have been helping, not hurting, the immigrant and international communities for decades. They are about charity and social justice in many cases. They dislike murder, war, hatred, etc.
Corey is such an embarassment.
Thanks Moon-Howler for the 411 post September 2008, 9:50.
Corey Stewart claims to be so devout.
(Others might prefer the word “lout”.)
To Fimian he panders
While Gerry he slanders
In his endeavour to gain some more clout.
Wicked good, Censored.
You guys crack me up.
Oh Censored! Excellent!
Hi Moon-howler, I’m not sure how many anti-immigrant supporters Corey has but I know he has allot of anti-illegal immigrant supporters which is why he was voted into the office he holds.
As I’ve said before, I’m pro-immigrant and anti-illegal immigrant. However, there seems to be no difference between the two here.
Marie, Juturna, et al,
Why do you hold Corey–and, by extension here, Catholics–to such an extremely high standard? You have a lot of nerve attacking Corey’s devotion, while asserting that you yourselves are devout and “do not like to judge people.” You have nothing but contempt for Corey, and take every opportunity to ridicule him. That’s devout? This entire thread is beginning to drip with contempt and hatred. Excuse me, but the Catholic Church is a HUMAN institution, and humans are notoriously imperfect. Attacking Corey’s faith is cheap and desperate.
If you don’t think Connolly had anything to do with the DCCC’s attack on Fimian, then I would imagine you also don’t think the Republican Party had anything to do do with John Kerry’s “swiftboating.” Sounds fair to me.
Hello: It sounds like I touched a nerve somewhere. When the anti-immigration people fail to make the distinction between illegal and legal immigrants, I don’t see why you should expect me to. Furthermore, tell me how I am supposed to tell the difference between a legal and an illegal immigrant.
I know what rhetoric is said when people are making a political point. I also hear and see how people talk when they think it doesn’t count. I think Corey probably has quite a few more anti-immigrant supporters than he wants to admit to.
Moon-howler, I’ve never claimed to have the super-power of being able to tell if someone is illegal or legal by looking at them. I also think that it’s unfortunate that some people do speak without caring who is illegal or not based on their race, I’m not one of those people.
However, by your logic it’s perfectly fine to just do the reverse? I don’t get it… I personally don’t know of a single person that’s anti-immigrant but I know a ton that are anti-illegal immigrant. I would be willing to bet you that there is an overwhelming majority of people out there that are pro-immigrant/anti-illegal immigrant but for you that doesn’t matter. You just choose to offend the majority because of a few loud mouths and that fine with you? I like reading your comments and agree with some of the things that you say but with logic like that I’m not so sure anymore.
Emma, I didn’t claim for one second to be devout. Corey is who described himself as devout. I don’t know if he is devout or not.
When you are a public figure, even in PWC, and you write a political letter to the editor, you open yourself up to skeptics and comments.
Moon-howler, Juturna called herself devout, Marie claimed she doesn’t like to judge people, yet both are in a position to judge Corey’s devotion to his faith because he doesn’t agree with them on their favorite political issue? I hope they, too, are in COMPLETE lockstep with whatever their religion happens to be. I wouldn’t want anyone to question their “devotion” if they aren’t.
Hello, perhaps I was somewhat strident. Let me try again. Way too many people don’t really make the distinction between legal and illegal when discussing it. Many people seem to be opposed to any form of legal immigration or means for illegal immigrants to adjust their status.
Truthfully, I have grown weary of making the distinction myself. Words like pro-illegal (not accusing you) apologist and similar things just make me roll my eyes. I don’t think anyone on this blog is in favor of illegal immigration. We would like to see a humane way of dealing with problems.
I believe Corey is just trying to make nice with the Rep. Party of Va. just in case they win the governor’s race next year. He may be looking for a political appointment or a job in Richmond. That way he could walk away from the mess he created in PWC.
Moon-howler, I have grown just as weary of people calling anyone who is opposed to illegal-immigration anti-immigrant as your are of people calling most here pro-illegal apologist. However, the difference is that I haven’t caved in to the mob mentality that some here have and just said F it, Ill just call everyone anti-immigrant. I’ve never called anyone here a pro-illegal apologist (I know your not accusing me I’m just saying).
Everyone here complains about being “painted with a broad brush” but your doing the same thing, why? It’s frustrating to here people here complain about the same things that they do themselves.
Emma,
Actually I don’t think Marie or Juturna were judging Corey’s faith. I think they were judging his descension into hypocrisy-ville. He accused Connally of being biggoted towards Catholics. I believe that Marie and Juturna were accusing Corey of being bigotted towards Hispanics.
Perhaps they should have just said: Physician, heal thyself.
But I am glad you didn’t accuse me of being devout. Juturna is, I am not. 😉
Point taken, Hello. Maybe we can think up a new name for those opposed to illegal immigration only. By the time all those descriptors are added, I barely know which end is up.
I honestly cannot think of anyone I know who thinks illegal immigration is cool, even those who are illegal. I certainly don’t think it is a good thing. However, the difference in me and someone say in HSM, would be I don’t see all illegal aliens as criminals and bad people. I see many of them as people who want to better their lives. I would like to see productive members of the community be able to have a way to adjust their status to legal. I want criminals in jail or deported.
Corey kisses FAIR’s and HSM’s asses. These are ANTI-IMMIGRANT hate groups, NOT anti-ILLEGAL immigration groups.
Corey takes their money and their policy. Hence, Corey is in the same league they are.
And since Corey wants to play at being a holy man, it’s only ‘FAIR’ to note his other affiliations besides the church.
Imagine someone from another religion being connected with the KKK. How proud would THAT church be of its bragging member?
If Corey had any brain at all, he would separate his religion from his politics. Unfortunately, he HAS no brain which he continues to prove.
And no, I don’t think I have to “be nice” about this one. His behavior is a shameful sham.
how about anti-illegal immigration, kind of says it all right there? I agree with your point that not all illegal immigrants are criminals and bad people (I know a few myself). However, I do think that those that use stolen or counterfeit id to either get a job or drive are criminals. If you went out and purchased a counterfeit drivers license and got caught you would get into a bunch of trouble, why should we let illegal immigrants that do the same go free and just chalk it up to them trying to better their lives (off subject but just thought I’d ask)?
kgotthardt, I disagree with most of your comment but I do agree with you on one thing… religion has no place in politics.
kgotthardt, 2. September 2008, 18:42
And no, I don’t think I have to “be nice” about this one.
You’re right, kgotthardt, you don’t ahve to be nice. Why on earth would you want to elevate this discussion beyond personal attacks?
Being “nice” doesn’t always elevate a conversation. In fact, it can promote hypocrisy and veil the truth.
This isn’t about personal attacks. It is about MY county CHAIR and WHO he affiliates with and for WHAT purpose.
I have the RIGHT to be upset about MY BOCS and THEIR ACTIONS. And I have EVERY right to be EMBARASSED when MY CHAIR spouts off about his religion alongside his campaign and party lines. HOW DARE HE violate both government and religion in this way?
Emma,
Like Moon-Howler said I was NOT judging Corey’s faith. I was judging his descension into hypocrisy-ville.
I am not holding Catholics an extremely high standard? I am NOT attacking Corey’s devotion. I do not have contempt for Corey, I just do not like the way he does business and I do not take every opportunity to ridicule him. Yes, the Catholic Church is a HUMAN institution, and humans are imperfect. Again I was NOT Corey’s faith. He accused Connally of being biggoted towards Catholics. I was trying to say is that Corey is bigotted towards Hispanics.
Boy, I need to proof better. Please excuse my excluded wording.
Marie, I get very frustrated because the Catholic Church is always fair game for attack. People say things about the Church that they would never dare say about Islam, for example, and people’s affiliations with the Church and associated organizations seem to be scrutinized so much more closely than almost any other faith. Yet I wonder how many people are aware of this tidbit I read while I was away last week:
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article790204.ece
Writing anything negative about Islam in an American publication, even a direct quote that might cast Islam in a negative light or make any possible link to terrorism, and the consequences can be dire. At least Catholics are safer targets.
No religious group should be targeted ever. Corey has painted a big bull’s-eye right on his church.
Politicians should just leave each other’s religions ALONE and get on with the business of LEADING. But then, we have such pathetic leaders, I guess it’s easier to mix everything up instead of doing the job they were elected to do.
I realize I’m ranting here, but that letter ticked me off.
I don’t know much about the issues in Fairfax, but I find it disingenuous that Corey suddenly cares about how catholisism is treated when he could care less about all the horrible comments that have been written on BVBL. Interesting that he will hold Gerry Connolly responsible for the democratic party but not Greg Letieque for the obvious racial overtones in his blog. THAT is what stands out for me in this story. BTW, Corey is still more than happy to associate with Greg AND HSM, Geez, John Stirrup is a member!
Emma,
kgotthardt is right. No religious group should ever be targeted. I hope you know I am not critizing the Catholic Church, nor its members. As a matter of fact, I went to Catholic School until I was 14 years old. I was being critical of Corey Stewart who was pointing fingers at Connelly, forgetting he has three pointing back at himself. Connelly never said anything about Fimian or his affiliations. CS’s editorial pointed the finger at Connelly but Connelly is not responsible for what other’s say or do. CS even says in the editorial it was Connelly’s supporters who were critical, not Connelly himself.
Hello,
I am assuming that your post was to me. I don’t think illegal aliens or anyone else should steal identities. I am all in favor of people who do that going to jail.
I might be less harsh about counterfeit identities since many a kid has had one. That doesn’t make it right but there is less harm involved.
I’m with Cory. You should not attack another person’s religion, unless they are breaking the law. I do not see Corey breaking any laws, in fact I see him enforcing them. I support that. You do not seem to understand that “religion” is not a public law, but a law between one man (the “individual”) and God. The rest is political whinning, when the majority rule of law does not go the way some gender, racial, religious or ethnic group(s) politically want it to.
Moonhowler, I so agree with you about stealing Identities. See we can agree on some things, and it is a privilege to side with you on this. Identity theft is another of the widely documented “damages” with many criminal consequences of “illegal” immigration, and is not just limited to “illegals”.
Counterfeit identities are a misdemeaner, identity theft a criminal statute. I would treat each as such, based on the damage each does to “individuals” in the Majority of a Democracy and to all “individuals” protected by those laws.
Michael,
Have any new threats for people here? Are you saving our comments to one day sue us for our “subversive” behavior ? “
Marie, that comment was not directed at you, I understand what you were talking about. When I comment it is ususally to the blog at large, unless I address individuals. It is the best way I know of yo state your views, and not upset anyone directly, unless they decide to make it personal.
Elena, do you really think I have no rights under the law. If any one is breaking law here and I have a personal damage claim (by legal counsel) are you saying I am not entitled to it?
I am not picking on anyone here in particular, not even you. Never have I said anything directly to you as a personal statement of intent, but you seem to have erroneously taken it that way. Let’s get it straight, I only advocate that if “anyone” on this blog (that means ALL of us), are breaking the law, or supporting “illegal” immigration or lawlessness, and that support or political activity, causes me personal harm that can be proven by counsel to be a direct or indirect result of any action or political advocacy by anyone engaging in it, then I am entitled under the law to compensation for any “laws” broken. It is up to a judge to decide what “laws” are broken in the support of lawlessness and “illegal” aliens. Not you, not me. Is that clear enough for you to understand my position on “legal” and “illegal” concepts. Unlike most here, I clearly seperate them and make sure I don’t blur them, just because I have a political axe to grind.
You are the one calling it a threat. I am calling it an “individual right”. Every indiviudual in a Cemocracy has a right by counsel for damages under the law, and a right by entitlement to have that law enforced. Anyone in the process of not enforcing it (the law), can be held accountable based on the evidence of the damage it has caused.
You should read about John Adam’s support for law over sympathy or vengeance sometime. HE says it far more clearly than I can.
Thanks but no thanks Corey Stewart. Please leave this and all Congressional races to politicians who have NOT destroyed their own credibility by screaming an anti-immigrant duet with Greg Letiecq, an infamous liar and hate-mongerer, over the past 18 months. Please leave the baseless and fruitless fake-outrage attacks to people on the other side of the aisle upset about teenage pregnancy all of the sudden. Please leave the rah-rah Republican talking points to people who have NOT publicly attacked John McCain for wisely rejecting F.A.I.R.’s anti-immigrant hysteria electioneering kit.
Corey Stewart, you want to point the finger at SOMEONE ELSE about using bigotry as a political ploy?????? You’ve caused the county and the party enough damage to last a lifetime. You’ve earned your legacy of bullying and policy disasters, and the leasr effective leader to ever hold the Chairmanship of Prince William’s BOCS. So, in particular, when it comes to races in jurisdictions that know what an immoral demagouge you have become, please shut the hell up.
Democracy, for you copy editor police….
Michael,
I think you are in desperate need of attention. People on this blog believe that there is a credible debate to be had regarding immigration, legal and illegal. There is a professor that acutally espouses the premise that illegal immigration is good for this country, is he on your list to sue? The reality is that unless there are divergent views, there is no possiblity of debate. You ARE threatening people Michael, and although I believe your behavior is attention seeking, your threats are not welcome here. Anti was created in order to allow people a place with opposing views, especially ones that were in direct oppostion of Greg’s. Now people may get heated, and they may “pummel” people with facts, there is no place for you continued overt threats.
You said:
“I am not picking on anyone here in particular, not even you. Never have I said anything directly to you as a personal statement of intent, but you seem to have erroneously taken it that way. Let’s get it straight, I only advocate that if “anyone” on this blog (that means ALL of us), are breaking the law, or supporting “illegal” immigration or lawlessness, and that support or political activity, causes me personal harm that can be proven by counsel to be a direct or indirect result of any action or political advocacy by anyone engaging in it, then I am entitled under the law to compensation for any “laws” broken.”
You ARE clearly trying to intimidate the free flow of debate here Michael, and your actions make me very uncomfortable on behalf of all the people that post here.
It’s a shame Corey Stewart can’t personally answer that and defend his right to take the stand he has. I also support WHWN’s right to RANT. A good rant WHWN.
I need no attention, (professor of psychology wannbe), I simply have an opposing view you don’t like. So what? I also have a set of rights under the law that you don’t like. That does not remove them or my right to them. If you want to stoop to the low level of attacking me personally, go ahead. I’m not offended, simply in disagreement that the tactic is a useful one in a debate on “issues”.
So informing people that a LAW EXISTS is intimidating people and shutting off debate? What LAW SCHOOL did you go to?
Some laws make some people uncomfortable, especially when they are not sure they are not breaking one. I am very sure I am not breaking any, because I do not support “illegal” people in ANY way.
I am all for DIVERGENT views, I am not for DIVERGENT views that support, aid or abet “lawlessness” or the breaking of any federal statute, including “illegal” immigration. If anything constitutes a “threat” it is the “threat” of LAW ENFORCEMENT on people who are breaking, or advocate breaking of our nation’s laws, regardless of their “political” views or “opinions”.
Everyone is entitled to a divergent opinion. None are entitled to break the law. It is that simple. Can I be more clear, or do you still want to attack me personally in a petty way?
Michael,
Just wondering, is George Bush on your “target” list to sue also. He was a very vocal proponent of immigration reform if I am not mistaken.
So Michael, during the civil rights movement, you would have been on the side of the segregationists then. It was the “rule of law” back then, seperate but equal.
I have no “target list”, Elena. I’m simply pointing out my rights under existing law. You seem to think I am not entitled to hold people accountable to existing law. News flash, this is a Democracy, we can all be held accountable and we can all change law. If I have evidence, I can sue anyone, but a judge has to agree with me and counsel has to agree to take it to court.
George Bush made some very bad strategic decisions, that is why the nation will replace him (gotta love Deomcracy). So did Bill Clinton, So did Ronald Regan, and a host of congressmen along the way. All made decisions that were not supported and are still not supported by the Majority of people in this Deomcracy, because “groups” have subverted democracy, and now buy off politicians with political funding.
I no longer support Bush though I have republican leanings in my “centrist” political ideology. I think he is an idiot.
I’m still not sure which person is going to be the better President next, Obama or McCain. I like the fact that both are Centrists in their own party and are very close together ideologically, they both throw out the extreme elements (politically) in their own party and come under fire from the extremists.
If I had to vote tomorrow, I would vote Obama, but I’m waiting for the “substance” of the debates first.
And yes, I ignored your “sarcasm” and gave you an open and truthful, honest, respectful and polite answer as I have always done here. People who don’t like my honest and truthful answers are the only ones who “attack” and deflect the honesty of the “issue” offered for “honest” and “respectful” debate.
I need to get some sleep, so if you wish I will return as soon as I can and we can “debate” some more if you wish.