And Jennifer Rubin at PJM doesn't ask him even a single solitary question about the evidence that, as David Horowitz puts it, "it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.”
Why not?
Why not?
All the softballs are probably due to the topic of the interview - it was all about the economy and its effect on the election, relating to his position as the head of Americans for Tax Reform.
He probably wouldn't agree to an interview that would pose tough questions about his unsavory associations.
One hopes the Republican Party can build a big-tent,
to be "inclusive" (a word that - like "diversity - has become synonymous with all that is desirable in the Western ethos), in order to expand its popular base and command a majority in the coming election (an improbable prospect in this observer's eye).
Having said that, there is no place for the likes of Grover Norquist, both for ethical and practical reasons. Ethically, he is a defender of the indefensible - helping our enemies penetrate the US government and certain private institutions. Practically, he usurps one of the most most potent issues Republicans have against the Dems, that political-correctness and cultural short-sightedness have crippled the Democratic Party's ability to wage even the remotest form of an anti-Jihad.
Well said, Cornelius. I hope the next president's DOJ prosecutes treason, but I will not hold my breath - especially if Obama gets elected.