It's been a while since I harped on Robert Spencer's asymptote (his disinclination to oppose all Muslims -- the most common and persistent asymptote throughout the West, including among many if not most in the "Counter-Jihad"). When two egregious instances came to light in the span of less than a week, I had to say something.
And both also figured (it figures) in the context of individuals being castigated for stepping on PC MC toes. Spencer apparently thinks that if we avoid stepping on particularly the Big Toe -- the sacrosanctity of "all Muslims" -- then maybe we won't anger the PC MC gods overmuch, and maybe this time they'll be nicer to us.
In a story reported on Jihad Watch about a politician, Republican candidate for Congress Gabriela Mercer, who made the horrible faux pas of observing the screaming truth that:
If you know Middle Easterners, a lot of them they look Mexican or like a lot of people in South America - dark skin, dark hair, brown eyes, and they mix in... And those people, their only goal in life is to cause harm to the United States...
Spencer then had to wedge in his editorial anxiety that her error was not the dreaded A word:
"Obviously Mercer meant those Middle Easterners who enter the country illegally from Mexico, not all Middle Easterners who come to the United States. And so the uproar is clearly a cynical orchestrated hit for political purposes, like virtually all of the shock and outrage that the Left generates for supposed "gaffes" by figures on the Right."
But in fact, Spencer was patently incorrect; for the quote of Mercer's words go on to report the rhetorical question she asked:
...so why do we want them here, either legally or illegally?
An eminently reasonable question. It's a shame Spencer would answer this on the wrong side, and not be as brave as Ms. Mercer.
Similarly, as I noted here the other day, when a much dimmer Republican, Fred Camillo of the Connecticut House of Representatives, voiced his concern over the anti-terrorist public ads disseminated by Spencer and Pam Geller, and as the Greenwich Post reported of Camillo's position:
...he supports vigilance to protect Americans but that doesn’t extend to “casting a suspicious eye on everyone that is Muslim” adding that is “against everything we stand for as Americans.”
-- Spencer's asymptotic reflexes were as acutely alert as ever, and he just had to ask:
How exactly does this ad cast "a suspicious eye on everyone that is Muslim"? Unexplained.
As though we shouldn't be casting a suspicious eye on everyone that is Muslim!
After all the veritable mountains of data Spencer has been amassing on Jihad Watch over the years that -- to any reasonable person with an open mind who possesses (as Hugh Fitzgerald so wryly and pointedly put it) the mental pencil capable of connecting the dots -- positively screams for casting a suspicious eye on all Muslims (at the very least, for Criminy's sake!), Spencer still edges cautiously away from that stance..!?
And again, it's not as if this carefully gingerly stance of his that ever avoids the fragile popsicle toes of PC MC is working: They still -- as that article about his and Geller's anti-terrorist ads demonstrates -- imply that he's a bigot unfit for polite society.
No matter how carefully we avoid stepping on the hot potato eggshells of PC MC toes (mixing metaphors galore), they still blame us for being holistic bigots anyway. So the gingerly approach evidently isn't doing its job.
If that's the case, then we have nothing to lose by going whole hog, I say.