many of you may have seen the email going around about the dem candidates and kirk. while I don’t know andy lappin, the writer, i sent him this:
It’s unfortunate that your email seems to be getting around, as you are painting the Democratic candidates with the views of some (few) supporters. You can’t believe that Kirk supporters are all pro-Israel, and you have to realize that many are anti-Semitic along with other equally offensive beliefs and traits.
Kirk has a long, strong history of voting with his constituency when it will make no difference and voting with the Bush administration when they need him, as in for the recent budget that many local rabbis found unethical. He also claims to support the troops while consistently voting to deny them basic benefits and equipment.
In addition, I know several strong AIPAC supporters who have heard Kirk speak to non-Jewish crowds and have been stunned and disappointed at his many references to Christian ideals.
Voting on one issue based on self-interest is dangerous. I’d encourage you to study the issues and Kirk’s voting record. If you can stomach that, go ahead and support him. But it is unfair and rather ridiculous to say Seals and Footlik are “bad” because you find a few of their supporters offensive. No one can pass a test like that – least of all Kirk.
[…] Arch also wrote some direct “open letter” responses to Mr. Lappin and readers of Mr. Lappin’s distortions. From Arch’s first letter (which he apparently emailed to Mr. Lappin) [CORRECTION: This passage is from someone else’s response which was forwarded to ArchPundit]: Kirk has a long, strong history of voting with his constituency when it will make no difference and voting with the Bush administration when they need him, as in for the recent budget that many local rabbis found unethical. He also claims to support the troops while consistently voting to deny them basic benefits and equipment. […]