“Hate, racism and Islamophobia are not Minnesota values. Anyone who embraces them as a “winning issue” does not deserve to represent Minnesotans at any level of government.
The days of a moderate Republican party are long gone. Republicans no longer have any legitimate claim to be the party that represents the ideals of liberty, freedom and the pursuit of the American dream.
The GOP of 2018 has embraced the most extreme elements of their party and pushed them fully into the mainstream. [...]
Karin Housley, Donna Bergstrom, Pete Stauber and Jim Newberger should be ashamed and embarrassed [for having attended a particular GOP fundraiser].”
About that fundraiser, MinnPost reported in part:
The evening’s keynote speaker was Chris Gaubatz, a man who brands himself as a “national security consultant, speaker, and conservative political activist” who “trains law enforcement on the severity and dangers of the jihadi network in the U.S.” Over turkey breast and green beans almondine, attendees listened to Gaubatz make inflammatory comments about Muslim-American organizations and refugees from Muslim countries, according to a recording taken from the event.
Gaubatz told the crowd that members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a leading Muslim advocacy group, consisted of “suit-wearing jihadis” whose ideology was indistinguishable from that of al-Qaeda or the Islamic State. He suggested the refugee resettlement program was a way for terrorists to infiltrate the U.S., and alluded to a conspiracy theory he has explored online, which argues that radical Muslims had something to do with the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas.
“I’m traveling all over this state and people are concerned about the refugee resettlement issue,” Gaubatz said to the attendees. He explained that one of the Republican Party’s problems is that its candidates do not make a “clear enough distinction” on the refugee issue in important political races.
“This is the one issue that for those particularly in very tight races or even those that are behind, in particular races, you start bringing this up and I promise you, the media will slam you, they will call you an Islamophobe, they will call you every name in the book, but the people sitting at home watching it will go ‘Yes, finally somebody’s saying something,’” he said. “So for independents, and for Republicans and Republican-leaning voters, this is a winning issue right now.”
The proximity of activists like Gaubatz to top Republican figures, combined with heated campaign rhetoric about Muslim refugees and controversies like GOP officials publicly warning that Muslims may “infiltrate” the Minnesota caucuses, has confirmed, for some, that Islamophobia is increasingly part of the Republican Party mainstream. And, as Gaubatz’s comments underscore in stark relief, stoking fear about Muslims in the era of Donald Trump might be a more potent political strategy than ever.
Further in the MinnPost item"
A spokesperson for the Republican Party of Minnesota, Rachael Grooms, said Jennifer Carnahan, the chair of the party, was present at the Chisago County GOP dinner but left prior to the keynote speech due to a scheduling conflict.
[...] The New America Foundation’s McKenzie says that his project to track incidents of Islamophobia was born out of a desire to have an independent, nonpartisan organization researching the trend.
“We proactively looked for comments by Democrats,” he said. “We wanted to find officials who are Democrats who are saying this stuff. The vast majority is coming from Republicans. We’re not stepping on the scale at all.”
[...] Steven Schier, a professor of politics at Carleton College, said that rhetoric surrounding issues like the refugee program has proven a useful dog-whistle for Republican candidates.
“You don’t have to make explicit anti-Muslim statements in order to appeal to people with such an orientation,” he said. “Obviously, immigration is a hot issue and Republicans are talking all about it. They frame it in terms of law and order; what that does is cast suspicion on immigrant groups by implication.”
Schier cautioned, though, that not everyone can get away with Trump-style rhetoric. “He did lose the popular vote. He has yet to crack 50 percent job approval. All these things matter,” he said.
There is much more detail for readers going to the MinnPost report. See the post and link below this one.
______________UPDATE_____________
More MinnPost. Honesty from one who has posed as wanting non-partisan "rule of law" privately promising a bloodbath purge, An opening screen capture:
In private, like Romney about the 47%, he spoke his mind and did not triangulate.
Seek out the original for hot links and the balance of the item. The opening MPR reference links here. Smell of a skunk? You decide.
“It’s really exciting now to be in a position for the first time in a half century to take this office back,” Wardlow said. “We’re going to fire 42 Democratic attorneys right off the bat and get Republican attorneys in there.”
What a piece of work is man . . .
And do you think any Republican lawyers will do, or has Monahan-string-working Wardlow mentor Andrew Parker already prepared and handed over a list?
____________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Or will the Wardlow intended firings list be triangulated? With Dobson and/or with Wardlow tutor Bob Kroll and his City Heat riders combing over a Wardlow-and/or-Parker list before Wardlow would act?
Remember, he would only get such an opportunity UNLESS YOU SHOW UP AND VOTE YOUR BEST INTERESTS, I.E., VOTE KEITH ELLISON. Or be a chump. Your vote is private so you can vote Wardlow and nobody would know you for gross stupidity unless you volunteer the information.
Use your vote to tell lawyer Parker and the two generations of Monahans to take a hike. Or be stupid. Your vote. Your option.
However, if seeing Wardlow posture one way in public and in private talk another, which Wardlow could you trust, in voting?
___________FURTHER UPDATE____________
An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't.
Anatole France
One might add a sharpening of the ability to find answers to questions about what one day is an unknown, and another day revealed by search and study. One may pose a question about a man having had two Asian brides and how he handles questions about race and racism. As an example.
Or about conceptualizations of how "rule of law" is to be fleshed out beyond mere naming of a term. Anatole France again:
The poor have to labour in the face of the majestic equality of the law, which forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.