Yesterday, fellow blogger Bernie O'Hare patted the blogosphere on the back for it's election coverage. Bernie did provide much information, but some with much more bias than he may concede. I found his coverage of the Cunningham/Ott church housing situation so spinning, I got dizzy reading it. According to O'Hare, Cunningham may have been justified sicing the IRS on Ott, because a church was encouraging it's members to vote for the more spiritual person. My understanding of the sequence of events, was that Cunningham first questioned a church affiliated camp about providing housing to Ott, who was a former employee. The question asked if this indeed was a contribution in kind from a tax exempt church to a political candidate. (I wouldn't think so, because he was living there previously and it was part of a severance compensation) Bernie's spin on the story included humorous distractions, such as Mennonites throwing rocks at Cunningham's house from a horse buggy.
I don't relish the idea of questioning O'Hare's version of a story. We all get tired when Bernie and I go at it. But Bernie's version, spin or not, was about the only coverage on the subject.* BUT WHY BRING IT UP NOW? THE ELECTIONS OVER. Today, in The Morning Call, Brian Callaway analyzes the County Executive election, and Cunningham provides a DIFFERENT REASON for the IRS letter.
Cunningham defended the tactic, saying Ott had based most of his campaign on fears of a tax hike but doesn't pay property taxes of his own here.
This revelation raises several questions. If he really didn't believe the housing situation was a contribution in kind, the letter to the IRS really was vindictive and petty. Does Cunningham think that only voters who pay property taxes are entitled of having an opinion on County policy? SmileBoy should know that some of our Congressional Representatives and Senators are tenants.
* Bernie does link to Ken Petrini and his posts at Examiner.Com Apparently Mr. Petrini also covered the Cunningham/Ott/Church issue.
I'd like to know where the hell you get the notion that I have some obligation to present things from a neutral point of view. I've never made that claim, but there you go in one of your typically mean-spirited slams at a blogger, ironically made because of your own bias against Cunningham.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons, incidentally, for the strict prohibition on religious involvement in politics is because it tends eventually to lead to religios persecution, something with which you should be familiar.
I have never justified Cunningham's decision to attack Ott because he is housed, rent free, by some church. What I did say that Cunningham was right to question the arrangement, but that he should have accepted Ott's explanation. His insistence on pursuing it was clearly idiotic.
His letter, along with the cc to the IRS, did invite the religious attack that ensued. But make no mistake, it was a religious attack. And it was an improper religious attack, violating the rules which charitable nonprofits must follow.
The Christian schoolmaster I quoted did not just encourage his flock to vote for the more spiritual person. That's a purposeful distortion of what he said. What he said was this: "I urge every one of you to get out and vote, particularly those of you in Lehigh County who can affect the outcome of the race for County Executive, where there is the potential for a very godly man to replace the incumbent and make a real difference in our county!"
This is going too far, and the schoolmaster himself acknowledged his error, unlike you. In addition to this schoolmaster, I have since heard of several churches that did the very same thing.
Perhaps this preacher should have said this - "My children, let's vote for very godly men to replace the Jews and make a real difference in our county."
By your reasoning, that's permissible. Would that be OK? Fortunately, our founding fathers had a different view.
You are allowing your hatred for Cunningham, disparagingly referred to as Smiley Boy, to cloud whatever is left of your judgment.
bernie, your response is not unexpected, almost predictable. i tried to explain that referencing your blog was necessary as the frame of reference on the cunningham/ott/church scenario. what concerns me is cunningham now defending his action because ott doesn't currently pay property taxes; as if a tax increase should therefore be of no concern to ott? it seems as if that reply by cunningham was a poor excuse for a vindictive action by his campaign. of course the concept of only property owners having a stake or say is offensive
ReplyDelete"i tried to explain that referencing your blog was necessary as the frame of reference on the cunningham/ott/church scenario."
ReplyDeleteBullshit. You have written blog after blog and comment after comment that just snarks me. That's your frame of reference.
bernie, re-reading your comment,you deserve more attention. YOU TREAT BLOGGING LIKE A TRIAL ATTORNEY, LOOKING ONLY TO CONVINCE READERS, INSTEAD OF JURORS. your reply was longer than my post. you start out describing my post as a "mean spirited slam"
ReplyDeleteyou try and re-enforce your position by saying because i'm jewish i should be extra sensitive to separation of church and state. had some else used your arguments, you would be claiming "off topic", non sequiturs, etc. etc.
you brush by cunningham attacking ott's living arrangement, and then concentrate on the preacher violating church and state separation.
you continue to assume what my reasoning is and end by saying i'm blinded by my hatred of cunningham.
of course you don't address the topic; why did cunningham now tell the reporter the issue was ott not paying property taxes but campaigning against any future tax increases?
you conclude by referencing the founding fathers and my cloudy hate impaired judgement. in recent months you have stated i hate bloggers, pawlowski, cunningham, phillips, etc. etc.
unlike you, there will be no deletion threat here, your comments are always welcome
Bernie -
ReplyDeleteIf you want to hear what an improper religious attack really sounds like, I suggest that you attend LifeChurch in Allentown around election time.
Guess who runs that church, and who is among its other "prominent" members?
Why are we even talking about this?
ReplyDeleteIt is so trivial when compared to what else is going on in Allentown and Lehigh County, from an ethics perspective.
Anon.
Boys, boys can we all just agree that Don is a self serving rat and move on?
ReplyDeleteScott Armstrong
scott, we're all different. as you know, when i copied and pasted your post on the commentator about the church letter to the IRS, i deleted the word rat. i found it too strong. likewise, bernie finds my smileboy label offensive. i lingered on the nerl revelation, after you were ready to " move on".
ReplyDeletecunninghams attack on a church is dispicable,pure and simple. But what do you expect from a dimitcrapic party machine cog who is a puppet for rendell. Remember when rendell defended the beating of a hitlerhea protester in Philly by union thugs?
ReplyDeleteanon 12:35, i print your comment, but i'm unclear what incident your referring to in phila.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteA few years back there was a protester carrying an anti Hitlerhea sign in the street. A group of union thugs attacked him, beating him badly with hospitalization. Rendell was the Mayor at the time, and his response to the attack can be paraphrased as "You don't want to mess with the union". There was a lawsuit, but not sure of the exact outcome other than there was a slap on the wrist of the union goon attackers.
cunningham learned his lessons well from his mentor on how to fight dirty and have the dimwitcrapic party wink and nod at each other as, after all, the ends justify the means.
please elaborate on anti-hitlerhea?
ReplyDeleteMr. Molovinsky,
ReplyDeleteIt is a sad surprise to hear today that Bucky Boyle Park at 1 pm in broad daylight Thursday had playground equipment set afire. How could that happen with all those nearby video cameras and businesses? Today's radio accounting states the loss was estimated at $60,000. The city's new park director during public meetings has repeatedly stated he will protect all park equipment from vandals.