- Lee County state Reps. endorse Lizbeth Benacquisto in CD 19Posted 7 mins ago
- Today on Context Florida: Veteran paradise, CPAC takeaways, Rubio love and stonewalled Medicaid expansionPosted 52 mins ago
- Rick Scott can’t even tell the truth about writing a bookPosted 3 hours ago
- Pinellas Park to choose new city councilmember todayPosted 3 hours ago
- St. Pete Beach to decide on a new mayor TuesdayPosted 3 hours ago
- Beyond CD13: Other municipal elections on the ballot todayPosted 4 hours ago
Anti-Islam professor reacts to cancellation of his speech to Pinellas GOP
After learning that his speech to the Pinellas Republican Party had been cancelled — in no small part to the attention put upon it by this blog – Dr. Jonathan Matusitz, an assistant professor at the University of Central Florida, emailed me to express his “dismay” at the cancellation of his speech, which he says “is the first time that some Republicans have openly expressed their objection to my presentation on Islam.”
Let me repeat this for umpteenth time, I really don’t care what Dr. Matusitz believes about Islam or Muslims or the Huguenots or Quakers or witches. What I care about — what the leaders of the Republican Party of Florida and the Pinellas Republican Executive Committee have come to care about — is that Matusitz’s speech, however interesting, has no business at the monthly meeting of an organization whose paramount purpose is to win elections.
Nothing Dr. Matusitz would have had to say will organize volunteers for Senator Jeff Brandes’ re-election campaign.
Nothing Dr. Matusitz would have had to say will raise money for Representative Larry Ahern’s re-election campaign.
Nothing Dr. Matusitz would have had to say will turn out voters for Congressman Bill Young’s campaign.
What it would have done is make those extreme elements in the GOP choir feel better about the songs they were singing. Matusitz’s appearance was a paean from the moderate leaders of the party to the Tea Partiers who don’t believe Republicans like Jack Latvala are sufficiently conservative.
Matusitz’s appearance would have been nothing more than bloody-rare red meat thrown to a wing of the party hungry for … well, who knows what will satisfy it.
Of course, Matustiz does not see it that way. In his email, he says that Chris Latvala and I “would sacrifice pro-American conservative values in order to earn votes from people of all religions and creeds.”
Yes, that’s exactly what we would do! In fact, in discussions with Chris about the possibility of him running next year for the State House, he and I have said to each other, “How do we build a campaign that sacrifices pro-American conservative values? Because that’s the only way to earn the votes of the Huguenots, Quakers and witches.”
Dr. Matusitz, darn it, you nailed us!
The good professor wants to also make it clear, “(Y)our strategy of earning votes from Muslims will not be efficient. Indeed, in regards to Muslim constituents themselves, for the past few decades, in the Western world, no matter what method Republicans and Conservatives have used to earn votes from Muslims, the vast majority of the latter have always voted for Democrat, Socialist, or left-wing parties.”
May I refer you, dear reader, to the aforementioned explanation that Latvala and I’s objection had little to do with the veracity of Matusitz’s arguments. Our objection was to whether it was germane to have a speech about religion at a political meeting. Church and state, and all that.
Matusitz ends his email to me asking that I clear up any “misconceptions” about him and that my argument that he is “controversial” is “flat-out wrong.”
No, not controversial at all.