"The Reverend Bill Owens Stands Behind Trump."

Isaac Chotiner interviews Bill Owens (in The New Yorker).

Owens said that Trump has talked with him and other "inner city pastors" about "ways the President could help the African-American community with their challenges and their problems." Trump was, according to Owens "very receptive" and had (to use Chotiner's words) "a pretty deep understanding of the problems affecting the black community."

Owens justified Trump's criticism of Elijah Cummings on the ground that Cummings attacked Trump and Trump "felt he should respond."

Chotiner prodded Owens to say that Trump's recent attacks on "the four Democratic congresswomen" had "a racial basis," and Owens said:

I don’t see that. This country is based on race now. Everybody tries to make a race issue out of everything, because they are trying to say the President doesn’t like black people. I don’t see that. They are using that because it is popular to do it now, and it polarizes black people against the President. I think it is very unfortunate.

Owens said that black pastors are often "reluctant to be interviewed by the press":

They ask, “Where is the trap? What are you trying to get me to say that I don’t want to say?” That happens every day to me. But I am bold enough to take my shot and try to be as honest as I can, regardless to where it takes me.

Chotiner asks about same-sex marriage, which Owens has opposed. He still opposes it:

It’s terrible! It has terrified children! Look at what they have done. Look at the men playing women in kindergarten. I forget what they call it, where they call it a civil right. These big men pretending they are women, playing with little children. And it sends the wrong message to little children. They think it is O.K., and it is not O.K.

Well, then, how does Owens feel about Trump's "romances and sleeping with porn stars," Chotiner asks. Owens answers like a preacher: "If you are a sinner, and repent your sins, your sins are forgiven."

Asked about the separating of families at the border, Owens prioritizes "the black children in America who have lost their parents":

For years, they put the black father out of the home. The federal government hired a hundred thousand social workers to put the black father out of the home and put the mother on welfare. What did that do to children? It was done by our government on purpose.... Can we just take children from all over the world and do better with them than we have with our citizens? Black people died for this country. We fought for this country for hundreds of years. And we are still being neglected, and no one is talking about it.

After all that, why didn't Doug Hoffman win?

That's the first question of the morning. I think it must be resolved before we can move on to the big question: What do the Election 2009 results mean for Obama (and the congressional Democrats)?

Here's something mrs whatsit wrote in the comments to last night's election post. (I found the photos to illustrate her painful observations about the appearance of the 2 men, and I corrected her misspelling of "Scozzafava.")

A few points about the Congressional race from someone who lives in upstate NY (not in district 23, but nearby.)

1) We have been inundated with TV commercials here. On TV, Hoffman comes across as exceedingly weird, skinny and overeager with googly eyes, bright yellow teeth, and an odd, halting way of speaking.



He kept repeating a slogan that he was a common-sense Reagan conservative and common sense isn't so common any more. It got annoying.

Owens, by contrast, is big and rugged-looking. He's an Air Force veteran and he has that military solidity, calm and self-possession.



He seems like a country guy, and this is a rural district. He presented himself as a centrist. On the human level, Owens is the kind of person voters around here feel comfortable with. Hoffman's not. Neither was Scozzafava.

2) On the numbers -- as of this morning, with 93 percent of the vote counted, the math-challenged local newspaper is reporting that the split is 46 percent Hoffman, 49 percent Owens, and 6 percent Scozzafava, who was still on the ballot, not having quit until Saturday. (Adds up to 101 percent, but who's counting?) In any event, Scozzafava's vote is bigger than the split, which seems to put most attempts to diagnose the Owens/Hoffman outcome into guesswork territory.

Owens came across as to the right of Ms. Scozzafava, whose ads emphasized her support for such lefty favorites as card check. Hoffman, by contrast, seemed to belong pretty far over on the right. Upstate NY has traditionally been rock-ribbed Republican but has been trending Democratic recently, with the result that Blue Dog Democrats and other center-tending politicos have been doing well. I don't think the Owens win has as much to do with the candidates' political parties, though, as it does with who they are personally and with their ad presentations.

"This despicable attack on Assemblywoman Scozzafava offends me personally and exemplifies exactly what's wrong with Hoffman and his right wing backers."

Democrat Bill Owens chivalrously defends the erstwhile Republican. The despicable attacker is Rush Limbaugh, who said:

Scozzafava has screwed every RINO in the coun -- we can say that she's guilty of widespread bestiality. She has screwed every RINO in the country. Everyone can see just see how phony and dangerous they are. You know, 2010 might be a nightmare for PETA. Two animals may become extinct; RINOs and Blue Dog Democrats. Pelosi's gonna kill off the Blue Dogs, and the conservatives are gonna finally get rid of RINOs. The American people have had enough.

Audio at the link. I'd embed, but the photo used there (Media Matters) is of the old (fat) Rush, and I don't want to display that here.

So are you shocked at Rush's crude humor, or do you think that's a level of sexual humor that you hear all the time coming from, say, Chris Rock or Bill Maher, and aimed at conservatives? It's a twist that you've got a woman in the masculine role, but that's good feminism. Meanwhile, Owens's defense is retrograde. Not only did Scozzafava withdraw from a tough fight, she sought refuge in the arms of her former opponent, who now absorbs her and enfolds her in protection. That's not progress for feminism. Why doesn't Scozzafava stand up for herself and — as they say — punch back twice as hard?

But, feminism aside, what is Owens really saying "exemplifies exactly what's wrong with Hoffman and his right wing backers"? Is it that they make sex-themed wisecracks? I think he's referring to the fact that real conservatives are actually conservative. They don't like RINOs and they want to discredit them, and they are exulting over Scozzafava's endorsement of the Democrat because it demonstrates clearly that RINOs are not really Republicans. Conservatives want the GOP to be conservative. That's "exactly what is wrong" from the point of view of a Democrat like Owens, because he would have preferred to compete with a liberal Republican. Presumably, he knows it's easier for a Democrat to argue that he is the better liberal than to pit liberal values against conservative values. That is what he admitted, isn't it?

UPDATE: Rush, on his show today:

[W]hat's happened now is that Owens has come out and issued a statement defending Dede Scozzafava against this outrageous personal attack launched by me.  Now, Dede Scozzafava is a liberal woman.  I thought she could take care of herself.  Why do these wimp liberal guys have to come out and start defending these women?  What happened to feminism in this country?  I mean, why did she quit in the first place?  That's not what feminism taught women to do.