The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Mayor's Pants On Fire: Hanks blames Kooiker

What will he do next? Does it really matter? The incumbent mayor's campaign staff has led him down the ugly path that won him the election four years ago. Hey, it worked four years ago.

So, certainly we can expect the mayor to do something even more drastic, deceitful and desperate in the last week before the election.

There are people who visit this blog and post on it, who claim to be political consultants. They advise their clients to do what it takes to get elected and worry about character later. It's one of the reasons this country is in the shape it's in.

I'm sorry it's in the shape it's in.

Knowing what we know and expecting history to repeat itself, here is what I think we can expect from the Hanks campaign: More of the same.

Expect a last-minute mailing that will distort the truth even more than the previous two fliers. Expect a barrage of negative radio, television, print and internet advertising hammering the voter with a Niagara of distortions and outright lies, all hitting the media leaving no time for Sam Kooiker to respond. I've no idea what they will accuse Kooiker of next. But, they have already demonstrated that they're willing to put anything out there in hopes voters will believe even part of it.

And so it will be up to us – the voters – to swim from beneath that Niagara of sewage that we know will be cast upon us and go to the polls to change it. Remember, gentle readers, that only you have the power to send the high-powered, well-financed political machine the message that we're just plum sick of this.

I support Sam Kooiker. We disagree now and then, but I'm never in doubt about whether Sam will do what he thinks is the right thing – not the conservative thing; not the politically safe thing; not the easiest thing, but the right thing. Integrity is his political capital.

In the movie, Liar Liar, Jim Carrey's character (a dishonest, win-at-all-costs lawyer) is cursed when his son's birthday wish that he can't tell a lie for one day comes true. In the end, the curse is a blessing and Carrey learns that truth sets him free and he wins his son and wife back. Cute story. But the magic of the boy's wish coming true is just a sliver of the movie's fantasy.

The love of one's family is a small price to pay for those who are addicted to power. Alan's money guy, Stan Adelstein, is so addicted, and I believe that Alan is too, I'm sorry to say. Stan has played a major role in Alan's political career. And he claims to be a holy man – a lay rabbi. And yet he supports the character assassination, distortions and outright lies of the last few weeks. Nowhere in the 613 commandments (Mitzvot) can I find where it is accepted to lie about a man and sully his character. Perhaps he studies a different Torah. And, The Old Testament has that pesky 9th Commandment about bearing false witness.

If voters believe the material they receive from the Hanks campaign, the election could be his again and dishonesty (and, yes, distorting the truth, is lying) will prevail. Right now, the numbers would indicate that can't happen. But the truth is, anything can happen.

Expect the very worst is yet to come from the Hanks camp. You can vote early at the courthouse. Do it now. Do it on election day. Just do it.


Rick K said...

Great post Mike, love the artwork.

Wayne Gilbert said...

I recommend you avoid referring to religious beliefs in your glib character analyses for a couple of reasons: (1) I have had religious discussions with Mr. Adelstein from time to time over a thirty year period and I have heard him say anything which could remotely be characterized as proclaiming himself to be a "holy man" or a "lay rabbi" (whatever that is); and, (2) your discussion of doctrine is muddled and ill-informed.

Wayne Gilbert said...

Obviously I should have said "I have never heard him say...".

It also strikes me that criticism of a public figure based upon one's perception of his or her religious beliefs does not have a place in the dialogue, unless a candidate or supporter actually bases some campaign statement upon religion.

Michael Sanborn said...

I too have had religious discussions with Mr. Adelstein along with a mutual friend named Peabody, who used to attend Shabbat Services at Synagogue of the Hills, over which Mr. Adelstein presided. Mr. Adelstein was introduced to me as a "lay rabbi." I did not question and Mr. Adelstein did not correct the person.

I recognize that you hold a high position in the Synagogue of the Hills, and respect that. And, I've no doubt that I may have muddled a discussion of Jewish doctrine. It's been a very long time since my mother and I discussed it.

So, with your expertise, could you tell me where in Jewish doctrine it is permitted to engage in personally or sponsor another's character assassination of a righteous man?

I yield, sir, to your greater expertise.

BF said...

Is it just me, or is Mike really starting to sound kinda paranoid, Wayne? He seems as nervous as a one-legged man at a butt kicking contest.

BF said...

Worth reading:

BF said...

Check Pat Duffy's entry at 9:06 pm June 24. Ouch, huh?