More From The Mobile Register   |   Subscribe To The Mobile Register
Bonner remark raises eyebrows
Monday, March 28, 2005
Editor's note: "The Political Skinny" is an inside look at Alabama politics prepared by the staff of the Mobile Register. The column is compiled by Political Editor Jim Van Anglen, who can be reached at :jvananglen@mobileregister.com or 251-219-5608.

During "town hall" meetings in Baldwin County last week, U.S. Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Mobile, most likely expected tough questions about President Bush's Social Security proposal.

But the congressman probably did not anticipate that several constituents at his stop in Gulf Shores would spend much of the hour-long meeting criticizing his support of the Iraq war.

To make his case, Bonner recounted his experience traveling to Iraq and hearing horror stories about Saddam Hussein. The congressman also visited the dictator's torture chambers. He said that although some of the reasons for invading Iraq may have turned out to be off-base, the end result -- Iraq's first free elections -- made the endeavor worthwhile.

None of this satisfied the critics, who said the war was a waste of lives and money. Bonner then said: "The great thing about this country is if you don't like it, you can leave."

That comment drew gasps from the audience, some from those who had told the congressman they agreed with his position on Iraq.

One woman asked, "Excuse me?"

Bonner quickly redacted his remark, saying that he meant no offense, nor that his anti-war constituents in south Baldwin County should pack their bags. It was intended to mean that citizens in a democracy have options not open to those under totalitarian rule, Bonner said.

"My point was not to offend anybody," he said. "My point was that if we don't like something, we can change it peacefully."

________________

I think the "America: Love it or Get the Hell out" will be a marvelous campaign slogan for Congressman Bonner. It's catchy. Don't ya think? Bonner was re-elected with 63% of the vote last cycle, wouldn't it be sweet if we knocked him off?

I thank you all for your responses. For the record, I am a Democrat. Just don't consider myself a liberal. I'm not going to spend any time saying why I'm pro-life, it's pretty basic. I think I'm right, I think the pro-life agenda is correct, and the majority feel you're correct. That's fine.

Point is, we're democrats.

My point is, let's not have litmus tests on our candidates, especially on abortion. We should nominate the guy who could best represent his/her constituency.

Remember.. ALL POLITICS ARE LOCAL!!! That's how the local Democrats (Schweitzer in Montana, Manchin in WV etc.) The party has to find a way to connect with the standards of the people, rather than the National standard.

I read an article, the NY Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/national/28abort.html? which was focused on how Dennis Hopper's wife had written a letter supporting Rhode Island Secretary of State Matt Brown over Congressman Jim Langevin. Why? Because he's pro-choice. Langevin is not.

I think Mrs. Hopper should let Rhode Island decide who is best fit to represent their constituency.

My suggestion was never to abandon the pro choice platform, even though I feel it's wrong, it isn't all that matters to me. Education, Health Care, minority rights, that's what makes me a Democrat. My suggestion is to just be a little more inclusive and not simply dismiss posts such as mine as "suspicious" just because I'm not a liberal or because I wasn't exactly enthusiastic about the party's candidate.

Bring on '06.

Interesting note on '06, especially in Virginia, it seems that the legislature is attempting to schedule the Gay Marriage amendment on the ballot for Election Day in 2006. The possible ramifications? If by any chance Gov. Mark Warner decides to run for Senate (sources say it's unlikely, but half the fun of politics is speculation) this could be a blow if he would run. Sen. Allen is a formidable candidate, Virginia likes him, most in VA say he's a good man, was a good governor, couple that with a Gay Marriage Amendment.. could definitely complicate any chance the Democrats have to capture the seat (it's not something I'm expecting anyway)

It's a question that often baffles me. I'm a pro-life Democrat, but I constantly see posts about how the left wing of my party disapproves of a pro-lifer either on top of the ticket or on Senate races.

I am a Democrat, not because of one issue. But because on the majority of the issues I side with the democrats and I feel ostracized from my party because I'm not pro-"choice."

I read a current journal entry that suggested that the online blogosphere support Rhode Island Senatorial Candidate Matt Brown instead of Congressman Jim Langevin. Langevin is pro-life. Brown is pro-choice. One issue automatically determines how qualified you are to represent your constituency? I totally understand the Democratic party is the party that supports a woman's right to choose, but I also realize it's the party that supports gay and minority rights, health care for those who can't afford it, achieving the best education for all. That's my party right?

Apparently not. If you're pro-life you aren't wanted. Let the people of Rhode Island choose their candidate. Current polls (which mean nothing by the way) have Langevin puttin a whoopin on Lincoln Chafee while Matt Brown trails the Senator. I am GLAD the national party is WISING UP and attracting candidates that give them the best opportunity to win the seat and preach on the principles of what the Democratic Party are about. Ok, we disagree on issue? Can't we be a little more inclusive? I'm happy the party is going after Bob Casey in PA, and Langevin in RI.

The Democratic Party is very out of touch with mainstream American values. That's why they lost last election. Plain and simple. A move to the center will do the party some good, until then, the Republicans will continue their stranglehold on the federal government.

Is the party really inclusive?