Some thoughts on Gabbard
The reception accorded Mike Gabbard by some Democratic elected officials has provoked more anger, disgust and demoralization among Hawaii progressive Democrats than any other single event in recent Hawaii political history.
I have had many people tell me they are going to resign from the Party and, while I have talked many of them out of taking that final step, I do believe that many of them, while not quitting the Party, will simply drift away, disheartened and demoralized.
It is true that the Rules of the Democratic Party make it almost impossible to deny membership to any registered voter who applies to join. But certain Party elected officials, mosty notably U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka and State Senate President Colleen Hanabusa enthusiastically embraced Gabbard’s switch. That was unneceasary. When these Democrats embraced Gabbard, they gave him a new lease on life. They took a man whose politics had been anathema to most Democrats and lent him their credibility, saying, in effect, that Mike’s politics are acceptable to them.
I have been told by two progressive friends who had worked hard on Senator Akaka’s campaign that they “will never vote for Akaka again.” I share their feeling of having been betrayed by Senator Akaka’s warm embrace of Gabbard. But I think the point about “never voting for Akaka again” is probably moot as I really hope that Akaka and his people will not bother to run the man for office again despite their recent expressions of bravado about his plans to run again in 2012. I recognize that the Senator has a big heart, but he was badly served by his aides who did not advise him against embracing Gabbard.
Early in the Akaka-Case race, it was recognized that “haole liberals” were a key to an Akaka victory. There were many reasons to fear that these folks would support Case unless a conscious effort was undertaken to split them off from Case, especially on the war in Iraq. In consultation with key Akaka people, I willingly took on the responsibility of innoculating the liberals against Case’s arguments, and I think I did a good job in that work. I do not think I said anything unfair about Ed’s views in my work, but I think the early, pre-emptive timing of my work played a major role in keeping Ed from winning over enough of that group and played a role in his loss.
When my friends now say they will never vote for Akaka again, I cannot believe that they believe their support for him during the last campaign was a mistake. I think it was important that Ed Case was defeated.
But looking back at it now, forgive me if I feel a bit confused. Back then, we were portraying Ed Case as a DINO (Democrat in Name Only) because he was too conservative. But now Akaka is embracing the extreme reactionary and bigot Mike Gabbard and encouraging him to join the Party? Frankly, Ed Case looks pretty good in comparison to Gabbard. And I think Ed Case is a beneficiary of this ill-considered embrace of Gabbard. Just a short while ago, Case was viewed as being a major figure on the conservative fringe of the Democratic Party. Now, with Gabbard in the Party, Case has shot right into the center of the Party. Yes, Mike is “better” on labor issues than Ed Case, but I have no sense that is rooted in Mike’s philosophy. His “philosophy” is silent on labor issues. He is only “good” out of a RealPolitick understanding that it helps him win elections, get contributions, and strengthen his ties with the strategic constituencies (for him) of Hawaiians and Filipinos. Labor isn’t to particular if they get votes for “Real Politick” reasons. Such allies are probably more reliable than a lot of the more “pro-business” Dems and the yuppies in the House.
But compared to Gabbard, Ed Case looks pretty good on most other issues.
It’s getting late and I have to fly out to Maui early tomorrow morning, but I’d like to plant a few seeds before I come back to this topic in the near future.
Mike Gabbard and I agree on a number of things. First, I believe he is a man of deeply held convictions. At that level, he is more “principled” than most politicians, including some of those that foolishly welcomed him into the Party. They lack deeply held core values and can therefore easily betray apparent “philosophical allies” if they can gain an extra vote in the Senate or if a bigot’s daughter treats them kindly.
Mike is an “ends justify the means” type of guy, once you get away from core values, so it means nothing to him to form unprincipled alliances if they put him in a better position to advance his politics.
Mike has objected when I, and others, raise questions about his religious beliefs. And some foolish people think they are being “liberal” by refusing to explore the questions. After all, many of us have some oddball beliefs of one kind or another and people should be free to practice their religious beliefs, even if they might be unpopular or strike some as exotic.
In his presentation to the special meeting of the Executive Committee of the Hawaii Democratic Party and the chairs of the caucuses and the co-chairs of the Legislative Committee, Mike early on defined himself as “eclectic” and hard to easily categorize. He said, “I’m a social conservative, but I’m pro-Labor. I am a practicing Catholic, but I engage in bhakti yoga.” So Mike apparently thinks if people want to understand him, it is important understand the religious roots of his world view. Indeed, one often comes across, in his campaign interviews, statements about his politics being rooted in a desire to “serve God.” Such expressions are generally pretty unusual in Hawaii politics. Although virtually identical statements were often made by Rick Reed.
At the meeting, I called attention to Gabbard’s claim of being both a “practicing Catholic” and a practicioner of “bhakti yoga.” Gabbard bristled. “Are you saying that I am NOT?,” he bellowed.
I said that I did not feel comfortable playing the role of “Defender of the Faith” for the Catholic Church, but that the plain truth is that he is a disciple of Chris Butler. Gabbard demanded to know how his relationship with Chris Butler had any relevance to his wanting to join the Democratic Party. At that point, Mike McCartney intervened, perhaps in the tradition of the sloppy liberalism that will allow politicians to wrap themselves with easy claims of religiosity but is uncomfortable with a close scrutiny of those claims.
I think we should HAVE that discussion about why Mike Gabbard’s religion might be relevant to understanding who he is, how he is likely to behave and whether he is likely to abandon the positions that have offended so many of Hawaii’s Democrats in recent years.
When Gabbard said he was a Catholic AND a practicioner of bhakti yoga, I doubt that anyone in the room besides the two of us knew what he meant by “bhakti yoga.” Oh, he practices some form of yoga, well that’s cool, and aren’t we beyond a point where yoga should be viewed as unacceptable or suspect? People think of “yoga” and they recognize that there are different kinds, taught at different schools, at the “Y,” and a nearby church. Maybe they have heard of Iyengar, or Bikram, or “Purple Yoga.” Madonna does some kind of really athletic yoga. These are all forms of “Hatha Yoga”, the use of physical postures, stretches and breathing exercises to strengthen and relax the body and mind.
Bhakti Yoga is something very different. It is not something that is inherently bad or disreputable, but despite my reluctance to adjudicate theological disputes, I do dispute that it is compatible with being a “practicing Catholic.” Here is a useful explanation:
What Gabbard is saying, when he says “I am a Catholic and I do bhakti yoga” is that he is a Catholic AND a devotee of Krishna. And that he is a disciple of a spiritual master. In this case, that is Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, spritual master of the entire manifest universe.” So, once you decode it, he is actually being a bit more honest than he would hope you would be capable of understanding. Does it matter that Gabbard is a member of a “Hare Krishna” cult who chooses to camouflage himself as a Catholic? OK, so Mike is a “crypto-Hindu”, what’s the big deal? Hinduism is kinda cool and alternative anyways. Don’t be such a square!
I gotta go to bed. We can continue this discussion. I certainly think it is important. To better understand the “Hare Krishna” group to which Mike belongs, you may want to read this thread on an anti-cult website:
Butler Krishna Group in Hawaii
haribol!
![[PDA - Heathcare NOT Warfare - Sign the Petition.]](http://pdamerica.org/images/ads/HealthNotWar_final.jpg)
MIKE GABBARDS WEB SITE
PICTURES OF DEMOCRATS PROUD TO STAND WITH MIKE;
I HEART MIKE ROLL OF INIQuITY;
AKAKA-there!
He can’t thank Akaka enough!!
HANABUSA-there! SAKAMOTO-there! MCCARTNEY [NOT PAUL]-there!
mentioned but no photo…. Abacrombie, Other leadership Democrats
Comment by Alika — September 11, 2007 @ 11:53 am
I think it is important to understand that the press conference was NOT called by the Party leadership, but by Mike Gabbard.
I have heard the following elected officials were there: US Senator Akaka, Sen. Hanabusa, Sen. Norm Sakamoto, former Sen. Randy Iwase, and former Republican senator Rick Reed. Gabbard’s wife, and many of his kids, including Tulsi, were there. The heads of several building trades union were there. Senator Ron Menor appeared briefly before the event began, disappeared and returned at the end.
Neil Abercrombie and Senator Inouye apparently developed some discomfort and developed “scheduling conflicts” at the last minute and were unable to be there. Mazie Hirono was not there and was likely NOT invited.
State Party chair Mike McCartney was there , but I think the look on his face in the picture on Gabbard’s site pretty accurately reflected his mood:
http://mikegabbard.com/images/Dem-HQ-Smiling-_1aW.jpg
Comment by Bartman — September 11, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
It seems to me that those of us who call ourselves “progressive democrats” are in danger of being marginalized as being nothing more than a lobbying group for same-sex marriage.
The reason I say this is because Mike Gabbard as a Councilman and State Senator has not only proven himself to be a strong proponent of the interests of the working men and women of Hawaii, but has also been one of Hawaii’s most influential environmentalists.
Noel Kent, Bart Dame or other “progressive democrats” were not the ones who fought against and successfully stopped the landfill which was going to be put in Kunia over the Pearl Harbor aquifer – which supplies 70% of our island’s potable water. There was only one person who can be credited with stopping that misguided and imminently catastrophic project: yep, at that time-Honolulu City Councilman Mike Gabbard.
It also wasn’t Kent, Dame or any of the others that went out and got 12,000 signatures to help stop HECO from putting in the power lines on Wa’ahila Ridge above Manoa Valley. Mike Gabbard is the one who organized that petition drive and made it succeed.
There are many other examples of Mike’s courage in regards to environmental issues—including leadership with his non-profit, Healthy Hawaii Coalition, which for years has been educating keiki statewide about the importance of watershed protection.
If those of us who call ourselves progressive democrats were interested in anything other than the one issue of gay marriage, we would have been honest and applauded Gabbard’s efforts and successes in the areas of labor and the environment. And as far as the blatant religious bigotry that’s being expressed by some so-called “progressive democrats”, it is sheer hypocrisy considering the primary complaint they have against Mike Gabbard. In this connection, I find it very strange that Bart Dame is posing as one who can tell us who is and who is not a Catholic.
Comment by Tom S. — September 12, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
Bart, you’re way off man.
Before making a fool of yourself, you should have picked up the phone and called the Democratic Headquarters to check your facts. A friend of mine who works for one of the TV stations was at the press conference. He told me that 1) the media advisory came from the Democratic Party; nothing was sent from Gabbard. And 2) Rick Reed was not present.
Comment by John — September 13, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Hi Tom,
If Mike Gabbard helped prevent the wasteful unnecessary Waahila ridge line, that’s terrific. Progressive Democrats actually did work on that too, as did Republicans. I don’t remember Mike being a leader in that effort. Jeremy Lam, Mary Cooke, Life of the Land, the Outdoor Circle, Malama o Manoa, and other groups and individuals are memorable in their commitment and effort. Mike Gabbard may have helped but I don’t remember seeing him at any of the many opportunities to testify. He certainly wasn’t one of the groups before the PUC. I’m not saying he didn’t help, just that I was there too and I had no idea he was individually responsible to the degree you mention. Tom, do you know how many total signatures were collected, and of those, how many Mike was responsible for bringing in?
The landfill over the aquifer was also certainly not a fight won by Mike alone.
I think it’s terrific that Mike is active in protecting the environment. Building bridges between communities, shedding insubstantial divisions , and working for the common good is definitely a valuable objective. But not all divisions are without substance.
I don’t interpret Bart’s comments in the same way that you did at all, rather as an effort to better understand Mike and his new conversion to the Democratic party. It takes courage to look at those elements that are unclear and work to understand them. If asking questions is forbidden, we are in trouble. Mike’s faith is a dominant note in his public work which he mentions regularly. There is no prejudice or hypocrisy in trying to discern what it means.
Democrats are being asked to accept a person whose key political accomplishment was to defeat equal rights. Gay people are human beings too, and we shouldn’t even have to debate whether or not they are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us. It’s really shameful that we even have to have this conversation.
As to what progressive democrats are interested in, I invite you to read the key objectives.
“Our mission is to build unity among progressive individuals and advance progressive values in the Democratic Party of Hawai‘i. We work to elect progressive Democrats to office, encourage other progressives to join the Party and become effective within it, and attempt to get more progressive policies and positions adopted in the Party. We support various community groups in their efforts.
Some issues important to us:
Stop the war
Healthcare for all
Impeach Bush & Cheney
Publicly financed elections
Sustainable Environmental Policies”
I know Mike supported publicly financed elections, because he testified in hearings when I was there. Do you know where he stands on the other matters? I would love to know. I would encourage you to dial down the rhetoric and try instead to help us understand where your friend is coming from if you wish to assist him here. Otherwise your efforts to persuade are counterproductive. Thanks a lot!
Comment by Mahina — September 14, 2007 @ 10:31 am
OK, I gotta eat some crow. John is correct on several points.
1) The Democratic Party DID send out a press advisory at about 9:30 am on the day of the event advising reporters that Gabbard would be signing his card at HQ that afternoon and providing quotes from Senator Gabbard, Party Chair Mike McCartney and Senate President Hanabusa.
But the “press conference” itself was still an event that was shaped primarily by Gabbard himself and NOT by the Party. It was not the Party that invited the elected officials to be there. Nor was it the Party that invited the building trade union leaders to be there. That was Gabbard’s work.
Perhaps John’s friend did not see the press release from Gabbard, but we can view it on Gabbard’s website for ourselves:
http://www.mikegabbard.com/113.html
Reporters were aware of the August 30th cardsigning photo-op well before the Dem Party HQ ever sent out its media advisory. I was called by reporters several times during the week preceeding the event and they had clearly been talking to Gabbard before they had talked to me. It was from one of these reporters that I had learned the date of the scheduled event.
The original plan for Gabbard’s welcome reception/ press conference had been for there to be a “Grand Opening” of the new State headquarters and a photo op with Abercrombie, Inouye and Akaka present. Both Inouye and Abercrombie developed last minute “scheduling conflicts” and the “Grand Opening” act was squelched by the Party. Mike McCartney’s lack of enthusiasm is evident in the photo I referenced from Gabbard’s own website.
As further evidence of “the Party’s attitude” towards the Gabbard switch, I offer up my assessment of opinions expressed at two meetings of the leadership. The first was the “interview” meeting with Gabbard at Party HQs. While some members there recognized that this was a “done deal” signed off on by powerful elected officials, I venture to say that opinion there was almost uniformly hostile to Gabbard joining the Party. I may have been the one to openly “grill” Gabbard about his Chris Butler connections, but virtually NOBODY there actually thought the Party would benefit by his joining us.
The second meeting was the meeting of the SCC (the State Central Committee) of the Democratic Party, held on Maui shortly after Gabbard joined. In conversations before the meeting, during the meeting, during the luncheon after the meeting and during the many hours spent at the airport trying to get out, not one person spoke in favor of Gabbard joining and many people spoke against the unprincipled way in which he had been “welcomed” by some elected officials. I KNOW this body of people, as I have spent a total of almost 12 years on the SCC, building relationships and learning to guage the sense of the body. Virtually everybody on the SCC is hostile to him and thinks his reception has harmed the public image of the Party.
There were many others present at the two meetings, so I am setting myself up to be contradicted if anyone on the SCC wants to disagree with my assessment.
Let’s be clear. There is only a small minority in the formal leadership of the Party structure who believe Gabbard could have been refused membership. But the overwhelming majority of the Party leadership wishes Gabbard had not applied AND wish that those elected leaders had not embraced him as they did.
Back to John’s other correct observation. I was wrong to include Rick Reed on the list of elected officials who had been there. (Actually, my exact words were that I had heard these people had attended.) I did not have the stomach to attend the event myself and had relied upon a report from a young person who had confused the names “Rick Reed” and “Rick Fried.” It was Rick Fried, the attorney and (more important for this discussion) tennis player who attended the ceremony to support his tennis buddy, Mike Gabbard. Mr. Fried’s politics are NOT in synch with those of Gabbard, but they have forged a longterm friendship as opponents on the tennis court. Let me say something nice about Mike Gabbard by acknowledging his expertise on the tennis court, which was only second to bodysurfing as the favorite sport of my mispent teen years.
-Bart
Comment by Bartman — September 14, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
Bart Dame, Co-Chair of the Progressive Democrats of Hawaii, wants us to get information about Senator Mike Gabbard from the fascist Rick Ross and his “anti-cult” website. Rick Ross has dedicated his life to interfering with the rights of individuals to choose their religious or spiritual path. He has been deeply involved in, and to my recollection has been found guilty for depriving people of their civil rights (i.e. kidnapping individuals to “deprogram” them). The fact that Bart Dame has become a follower of Rick Ross and advises us to do the same raises this question: Should the name “progressive democrats” be changed to “progressive fascists?” Talk about an oxymoron!
Comment by Eddie — September 15, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
I don’t think Bart is a “follower” of Rick Ross, as you say. He merely directed readers to a forum where there is a considerable amount of discussion on Mike Gabbard and the Science of Identity group in Hawaii.
Comment by rachel — September 17, 2007 @ 9:35 am
I am not a “follower” of Rick Ross. I doubt that Rick Ross encourages people to be his “followers.” Devotees of Chris Butler have sworn themselves to lives of devotional service to Chris, their spiritual master. For them, knowledge is passed on in an unquestioning, disciple-guru relationship, so perhaps it is difficult for them to understand that others might recommend a source of information to readers with the full expectation that the readers will use their independent critical judgement to determine for themselves what to believe.
I think the rickross.com discussion thread on the activities of the Butler group in Hawaii is probably the best, online source for reports on what the group is up to, but each assertion of “fact” should be screened for bias or incomplete knowledge. The thread runs on for over 136 PAGES as of this writing and the quality of the posts is uneven and the hidden agendas of the posters are not always evident. There are former Butler devotees posting about their experiences. There are some who continue to practice “Krishna Consciousness,” but who view Siddha swarup (Chris Butler) as a false teacher. Some folks are Christians, some are atheists and, for all I know, some might be Buddhists. And some of the posters are clearly current followers of Butler trying to disrupt the discussion.
“Eddie” at least does not explicitly pretend to be a “progressive democrat,’ unlike “Tom S.” in his post above, but he employs the same tactic of warning the progressive democrats not to go along with the anti-Gabbard line.
“Tom S.” pretends to speak for progressive Dems, just as another Butler follower, using the name “Victor Perera” wrote a letter to the editor of both papers, pretending to be a member of the Democratic Party, pretending to speak for the majority of Party members in welcoming Gabbard and labelling me a “so-called Democrat.” “Tom S.” calls me a “so-called progressive democrat.” Deja vu.
PDH does not pretend to speak for all “progressive democrats” in Hawaii. We recognize the Americans for Democratic Action and the Democracy for America networks as other groups consciously trying to articulate a progressive vision for Hawaii politics and know that most Democrats share a lot of the progressive vision.
It is silly to label Rick Ross a “fascist” because of his anti-cult work. The Butler cult shares several major characteristics of a fascist movement: an extreme anti-liberalism, a celebration of national jingoism and uncritcal support for war, anti-feminism, homophobia and a cult of the leader, with an emphasis on obedience. So I do think the term “semi-fascist” is useful as a descriptor of the group and how it functions. I think Margaret Atwood’s novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, is a pretty good exposition of what Butler’s social views would look like is implemented in the US, though Krishna symbols would likely come out of the closet and displace, or at least sit alongside, Christian symbols.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid’s_Tale
Frankly, I am playing into the hands of Chris Butler’s operatives by paying attention to these trolls. They are engaged in a process of harassment and it would take too much time to continue to try to meet them tit for tat on this blog. The blog is designed to promote discussion among Hawaii progressive Democrats on what tactics, strategies, programs and policies we should be promoting. Now that Akaka and Hanabusa have foolishly invited the Butler cult into the Party, it is necessary for us to develop an understanding of how they operate and what they stand for.
I recommend the Rick Ross thread for those wanting to learn about the cult.
Here is an extended post I made on a Honolulu Advertiser blog during the last election. It is rather lengthy and the first paragraphs are not relevant to the Butler group, but further down, I lay out the case that it was Butler’s group that was responsible for the so-called “Heftel Smear.” This is important evidence of how the group operates:
http://blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/index.php?blog=10&title=case_keeps_going_postal&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c3390
A NOTE ON “FREE SPEECH” AND “TROLLS”
The purpose of this blog is to promote discussion among progressive activists in Hawaii interested in developing strategy, tactics and an understanding of issues both local and national. Non-progressives are welcome to participate to the extent that they contribute to that discussion. Troll-like comments by Butler’s followers, making false representations about their “progressiveness,” distract from that discussion. And, watching how these guys have acted in other situations, that is clearly the intent– to sow division and malign their critics.
If a Butler follower wants to have an honest discussion about their beliefs, even on those topics where there is disagreement, I think it might be productive. And, on a few issues, we might even have some agreement– I think of sustainable economic development as an obvious posibility. But they have also got to own up to their uncritical support of Bush’s warmaking, their hostility to equal rights for women and gays, opposition to sex education, and their support for the death penalty, to name a few obvious sources of conflict.
Could such a discussion be productive and in alignment with the purpose of this blog? Perhaps, but it would require more honesty than has yet been exhibited.
NOTE: I except the post from “John.” He disagreed with me, but he actually did catch me with some errors. I don’t expect people to agree, but I do expect honesty.
Each author on this blog has to make their own choice on how to respond to trollish comments. Remarks from trolls stand a good chance of being deleted if they are posted in response to a thread I have initiated.
Comment by bartman — September 17, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Dear Bloggers from Progressive Democrats of Hawaii,
You may not be aware, but a side effect of Sen. Mike Gabbard switching parties, means that former US Congressman Ed Case also has a new lease on his politcal future.
Also have you considered the very notion that Sen. Mike Gabbard is now honor bound not to oppose the Party’s platform and resolutions? He can help by not actively supporting those in opposition to the various caucus’ platforms and resolutions and especially the Party’s Legislative COmmittee, the PD-HI Steering Committee, even if he were to ignore our events and candidates that we support. The main point is that he and his supporters are not to be energized and mobililzed against everything we stand for. Other wise, we’ll be forced to bring Sen. Sam Slom into our fold the neutralized the Grass Roots Institute and the Aloha for All, and other groups that undermine some of the Kanaka Maoli’s wish for self-determination and a plebsite. You do know that Sen. Mike Gabbard is a strong supporter of the issues important to the Host Culture, right!
Arvid Tadao Youngquist
“1 of 14,664 voices”
Comment by Arvid Youngquist — September 20, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Hi Arvid!
You write that Gabbard is now “honor bound not to oppose the Party’s platform and resolutions,” but I am not sure that he would agree with your argument. Yes, Party rules require all candidates running under the Democratic banner, as well as all members, to “support the platform” of the Party. Mike Gabbard is an adult and voluntarily joined the Democratic Party with full knowledge of this rule.
I respect your assumption that such a person would feel “honor bound” under such circumstances, and I think it speaks highly of you that you believe Mike would feel the same way, or he would not have joined us. I had actually hoped that Mike would have recognized our commitment to our platform and pulled back from joining. I suggested to Mike McCartney that Gabbard become an independent, saying that he disagreed with things in the platforms of BOTH political parties. I think he could have generated some public sympathy with such a statement and it would have been true to who he is. Senator Hanabusa could still have invited Mike to caucus with the Democrats at the Lege, without imposing him upon the Party. Or, without imposing Party obligations upon Mike.
Like you, I had illusions about Mike’s need to maintain his integrity. Instead, he joined the Democratic Party knowing full well that he is in serious disagreement with core values of the Party. But he thinks the Party is fundamentally an unprincipled organization, so why should he be obliged to be principled in his dealings with us?
Gabbard feels “honor bound,” not to his obligations as a new party member, but honor bound to increase his political power and influence in order to “be of service to God” as directed by his spiritual master, Chris Butler. The end justifies the means.
This quote from Mike Gabbard will indicate to you how seriously he takes his obligation to “honor” the platform adopted by his fellow Democrats at last year’s state convention:
“If everybody who didn’t believe in the Party Platform left the Democratic Party, the Party would consist of a couple thousand people at most.”
Gabbard was given the same survey form that is handed to candidates who wish to run for office as a Democrat. They are asked to indicate which platform planks they support, oppose, or have reservations about. Since Mike wanted to assume office as a Democrat, it was suggested that it would be appropriate if he followed the same path as candidates, and that it would give him a good opportunity to assess his own stance towards the platform. Mike declined to do so.
I still believe the “honorable” thing for Gabard to have done would have been to have become an independent. But, unlike Mike, I don’t have God’s personal representative serving as my moral advisor.
Comment by bartman — September 24, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
Bart,
Thanks for your extensive posting on Mike Gabbard’s connections to Chris Butler’s group. I had heard bits and pieces over the years, but hadn’t seen it all pulled together in one place.
About the “trolls”: I think the posts from the Gabbard supporters are useful and would urge that you refrain from censoring them. You say that Gabbard is a member of Butler’s group, and they respond by calling you a religious bigot. If Gabbard were not a follower of Butler, shouldn’t they call you a “liar” instead of a bigot? But they don’t, which seems to confirm your statement.
Also, if Gabbard is simply a Catholic and not a member of the cult, why would Eddie, a Gabbard supporter, get so bent out of shape about Rick Ross, the anti-cult activist? Unless Gabbard, and perhaps Eddie, is a member of a group Ross has labelled a cult? If not, why the over-the-top attack on Ross, and the progressive democrats, as “fascist”?
The more postings you get from the Butler “trolls,” the more evidence they provide that they are indeed, a nasty, dishonest gang that deserves scrutiny.
Comment by sylvie — September 27, 2007 @ 10:30 am