Souder Jumps The Shark While He “Pals Around” With Former Communist and Black Panther
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 10/22/08 @ 11:27 pm - Filed Under 2008 Local Elections, Featured
Every time I think congressman Mark Souder couldn’t get any more ridiculous I am brought back to reality and proven wrong. Seriously, how could one top the comment that all the worthless paper assets the government would be buying up via the Wall Street bailout were really worth 95 cents on the dollar?
Now Souder is saying that congresswoman Michelle Bachman’s comments calling all liberals anti-American and suggesting we should have a McCarthyite congressional investigation really weren’t her fault. No, you see she was tricked, tricked I tell you, by that evil genius Chris Matthews:
SOUDER: I read the whole interview. Chris Matthews tried to trick her into that question, over and over for the entire interview. Unfortunately, her last comment, she fell for the trap. No, we shouldn’t have an investigation into Congress. They are elected by the people of the United States. I have full faith and confidence. Now, I think some of them, for example, Sen. Obama, should be careful who he pals around with.
And it doesn’t end there. Souder was also one of 17 politicians to sign David Horowitz’s new book “Party of Defeat - How Democrats and Radicals Undermined America’s War On Terror Before and After 9-11.”
For those of you that don’t know, Horowitz is a former Communist and Black Panther financier turned far-right neoconservative whackjob and racist. Here’s a quote from some of his previous Marxist work:
More than ever before, for humanity to live under capitalism, is to live on borrowed time.
I can only assume that Mark Souder would call the Black Panthers a terrorist organization yet he’s supporting somebody who was a personal confidant to Panthers’ leader Huey Newton. And Souder has the audacity to question who Obama “pals around” with?
Can we please end this sad and embarrassing chapter of 3rd District congressional representation?
Comments
16 Responses to “Souder Jumps The Shark While He “Pals Around” With Former Communist and Black Panther”
Leave a Reply
So can we look for the Republicans to trash and malign Souder’s affiliations? Or will they do the usual and try to somehow justify or explain away the associations?
Hmm - I bet not!
What a guy, that Chris Matthews. He can trick a slick politician, so used to dodging reporters that they never answer anything directly. And…. just how do Bachmanns dumb remarks relate to whom Mr.Obama may or may not know?
It’s always a “mis-statment”, “taken out of context”. Come on Mr. Souder, did Matthews alter the video too!
Jeff, the problem is that I thought Souder jumped the shark when he had his mother doing attack ads for him in 1994. He has survived a lot of shark jumps.
I have a difficult time understanding how Congressman Souder, a man who applied for Conscientious Objector status based on religious grounds during the Vietnam War, has been such a staunch, vocal supporter of sending US troops into armed conflict on the battlefield.
Based on Mr. Souder’s record, it’s OK for him to vote to send America’s young men and women to die on the frontlines of the battlefield, but when his own opportunity to be drafted into the Vietnam War came, he chose to avoid the option of picking up an M-16 himself on the basis of “religious“ grounds. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me, don’t you think ?
It would seem likely to me that a deeply religious man such as Mr. Souder, who said he believes the Bible to be the actual “Word of God”, would have a difficult time asking other Americans to go and fight in wars, when his particular religious faith preaches the opposite.
Souder has to go, but unfortunately the democratic option isn’t much better. Souder needs to have a good candidate run against him in the primary. Then he can be beat. But its going to be tough this time.
Maybe if Souder leaves he’ll take Steve Shine with him!!!!
Cumtwa for Congress! (2010)
Jeff,
Do you really fail to see the difference between “former marxist intellectual” (Horowitz) and “unrepentant marxist terrorist” (Ayers), or are you just honoring the time-tested liberal democrat tradition of spouting Sorelian “useful untruths”?
I’m not suggesting a moral equivalence so I’m not sure where you get that from.
Souder is now, as of this very day, supporting a “former marxist intellectual” and “former confidant to the leader of the Black Panthers” and modern day racist and fear-mongerer.
But hey I’m sure nobody would point that out if the shoe were on the Obama foot right?
Surely you’re suggesting some equivalence between Horowitz and Ayers, or you wouldn’t bring it up. My point is that the men are different in kind, as is the nature of the Obama-Ayers relationship from the Souder-Horowitz “relationship.”
Believe me, I’m no Souder fan–I just don’t think the point you’re trying to make here is fair.
I didn’t bring up Ayers - Souder did.
There can be varying levels of good and bad. I can point to two people that I think have questionable character w/o having to claim one is good and one is bad. They can both be bad - even if they aren’t morally equivalent.
Also, I think the Souder-Horowitz relationship is more substantial than the Obama-Ayers one. Souder is promoting Horowitz’ new book and thus helping him raise money by spewing divisive garbage. I don’t see Obama doing that in any way with Ayers.
Nearly everybody, if stretched as thin as possible, probably has a connection with some type of unsavory character; I suppose that was my real point here…
“Nearly everybody, if stretched as thin as possible, probably has a connection with some type of unsavory character; I suppose that was my real point here…”
I don’t think anyone can really disagree with that. The relevant question is whether Obama or Souder agree with the unsavory views of their associates. We know Souder doesn’t agree with Horowitz’s unsavory former marxist views–in fact, Souder only associates with Horowitz now because Horowitz recanted marxism altogether.
Ayers isn’t a former marxist–he’s a current marxist. And the evidence keeps mounting that Obama agrees with that viewpoint.
The issue isn’t that Obama “pals around” with marxist terrorists. It’s that he’s very comfortable with their political viewpoint.
Andy;
Figuring out Souder is not that difficult. You begin with the realization that he realigns his conscience every ten years - wait, my mistake, it’s the Congressionel districts that he realigns every ten years.
Here’s a riddle for you. If a Congressman will only serve twelve years until he retires, but sets the clock back to zero every ten years, then won’t he actually serve forever? But how can he serve forever if he will only serve ten years? See, I told you it’s a riddle. Souder lied about term limits (the hallmark of his original campaign), and he’s not even man enough to admit it.
Now, as far as his concience is concerned, examine the evidence. He opposed the Vietnam War when it meant a threat to his physical safety. When the Iraq War was popular and he wasn’t personally threatened by it, he supported it. Then, when it lost it’s support among the majority of Americans, he changed again. Sure, people do change their views as they grow, but this kind of back-and-forth approach, especially when it coincides so strongly with political expediency and personal safety, actually points to a consistency. It appears that Souder is a coward as well as a liar.
Finally, Souder’s other main theme is to claim himself as a fiscal conservative. I had strong doubts about this years ago when I heard him try to explain why he was supporting funding for lighthouses or windmills in Michigan. But his support of the recent $700 Billion bailout proves it beyond doubt.
So as I said, Souder is really not that difficult to understand. He is the typical career politician who will say whatever he thinks he has to say to get re-elected. Any talk of principles, personal or policy-wise, is just that - talk.
I understand your frustration, I really do.
However, what is the alternative? To look at Montagano’s issues webpage make me want to vomit:
http://www.montaganoforcongress.com/
Phil @ Charles
Phile makes some great points. Being someone who worked countless hours for Souder during his first two runs believe he is a “changed man!” Believe it not he has not moved to the right or center more. He has moved all over the map and that comes from trying to keep his face in the wind, at all times. I did not vote for Souder the last cycle as I believed Hayhurst would be much better for us, my family, and myself.
It is little known, outside my own family, that I have a banana stand in my kitchen that was made from a oak stake from a Souder For Congress sign from his first run.
I was all set to vote for Montagano until I saw his answers to questions posed by the Young Leaders group. They where nearly lifted, word for word from Obama’s platform. This was not what he advertised himself to be early on.
So do I vote for someone I find far worse then Sounder, vote for a thrid party person and toss my vote to who ever wins, or vote for Souder as a check on a Democrat controlled congress? Then I wait, if I am still around, to vote for someone else in two years?
For me, it is voting for the lesser of evils this time. I see no progess from any of them and vote in hoping whoever does the least damage.
Charles;
I agree with you about Montagano. He really doesn’t seem to have much of substance to say.
This Congressionel seat is a real enigma. I voted for Souder in ‘94, but haven’t liked him (policy-wise) since he took office. The personal distaste didn’t take effect till much later. And yet, I have only voted against him in one general election during his entire tenure.
Other than Houseman in ‘96 & Hayhurst in ‘06, I don’t think any of his other Democratic opponents have even risen to the level of professionalism that is mandatory to even be considered by anyone other than hard-core Democrats.
I would say the highlights (or rather, low-lights) were when Mark Wehrle blamed Souder for having Hooter’s and Showgirl’s Stip Club here in Fort Wayne during the ‘98 debate, and when Maria Parra gave us the silent treatment in ‘04.
I usually do not put much weight in endorsements. However, give a little thought to the JG endorsing Souder this morning. Can you imagine what they must think of Montagano? and, can you imagine how poorly Montagano must of performed before the JG editorial board. Are you kidding me? He literally must have come across as a young unprepared, no experience kid.