The Internet is abuzz with folks blowing razzberries over the distortion-laden attack email Mark Kirk-supporter Andy Lappin sent out earlier in the week. The fallacy-based hit piece was directed at denigrating Democratic candidates Dan Seals (Kirk’s 2006 opponent) and Jay Footlik, one of whom will earn the primary nomination and become Rep. Kirk’s 2008 opponent.

Ellen of the Tenth strongly reiterates points she has made several times:

It’s an email from a Kirk supporter basically accusing anyone who does not support Kirk’s pro-war position as anti-semitic. [...] As my readers know, I am Jewish, not at all anti-semitic, not at all self-hating and pretty fed up with people who presume to tell me and others what we are supposed to think with the threat of being marked anti-semitic for any disagreement. I am also fed up with the new spin on anti-semitism that leaves us vulnerable to real anti-semitism now unchecked in the new church merged with state country Bush wants for us, and supported by Mark Kirk who never says anything about its dangers.

The email goes further to insinuate that Jay Footlik and Dan Seals should not speak to anyone left of center and certainly not anyone who would use that pesky old free speech, a mere holdover from those Jefferson/Madison days. [...] (emphasis added)

Ellen concludes with this salient point:

As I always say, “it is what it is” and the above email from Kirk’s camp looks a lot to me like it’s from someone who does not believe in the America of liberty and free speech I grew up in and in which I watched a post-WWII Jewish community thrive. To be sure there is some language on Kos that is not good, but that does not mean that thought and speech should be stifled and that no one on Kos should be talked to or listened to. We can have the liberty our founders intended for us, the one that gives everyone opportunity to live and work and prosper, or the intellectual vacuum of one-sided, hateful thought police that Bill O’Reilly and Mark Kirk’s supporter want and was never conducive to a thriving minority. (emphasis added)

ArchPundit also covers the issue in detail with several posts. From his post, “It’s The End of the World and I Feel Fine,” we learn about where mud-slinger Andy Lappin is coming from ‘intellectually’:

Lappin himself is an interesting character. He’s a Republican which is nothing strange, but his activism on Israel is tied to the International Fellowship of Christian and Jews. Lappin is on the board of directors.

What I’ve always found fascinating is that a group like IFCJ allies itself with fundamentalist Christians who think they are bringing about the rapture. John Hagee has won awards from IFCJ for his support of Israel, but Hagee is one of these characters who base his support on the fact that by supporting Israel, we can lead to a war with Russia and the Muslim nations attacking Israel. He wants the world to end. [...]

Because someone ’supports’ Israel doesn’t mean they are for Israel’s security. IFCJ has ties to many premillenial dispensationalists who have a goal of bringing about Armageddon.

Seriously. The ’support’ isn’t aimed towards making Israel a safe, secure nation, but a nation that is attacked by Islamic nations and Russia in the case of Hagee. It’s not about peace, it’s about war and literally the end of the world. (emphasis added)

Trying to somehow induce the rapture through mankind’s own machinations is blasphemy as the actors involved inherently pretend that they (and they alone) know the Will of God and are simply acting according to Divine Plan (that they alone know).

Arch also wrote some direct “open letter” responses to Mr. Lappin and readers of Mr. Lappin’s distortions. From Arch’s first letter (which he apparently emailed to Mr. Lappin) [CORRECTION: This passage is from someone else's response which was forwarded to ArchPundit]:

Kirk has a long, strong history of voting with his constituency when it will make no difference and voting with the Bush administration when they need him, as in for the recent budget that many local rabbis found unethical. He also claims to support the troops while consistently voting to deny them basic benefits and equipment.

In addition, I know several strong AIPAC supporters who have heard Kirk speak to non-Jewish crowds and have been stunned and disappointed at his many references to Christian ideals.

Voting on one issue based on self-interest is dangerous. I’d encourage you to study the issues and Kirk’s voting record. If you can stomach that, go ahead and support him. But it is unfair and rather ridiculous to say Seals and Footlik are “bad” because you find a few of their supporters offensive. No one can pass a test like that – least of all Kirk.

And from Arch’s second response, aimed at those who may have read the attack email and explaining the actual context of Mr. Lappin’s wildly out-of-context “citations” [CORRECTION: This is another emailed response that was forwarded to ArchPundit]:

The Daily Kos is a blog and like any blog there will be posts that are distasteful because in this country we have the freedom to express our views, even views that we might not share or like. It is true that some people who post on the Daily Kos do not like Joe Lieberman but Andy Lappin took those comments out of context. The primary reason the Daily Kos bloggers don’t like Senator Lieberman is not because of anti-semitism but for the same reason I don’t like him – he has been a lapdog to President Bush and has been supporting the immoral and incompetent war in Iraq – a war Mr. Kirk has been supporting all along as well. Yes, there have been some inappropriate and racist remarks about Mr. Lieberman but by and large the negative remarks about the Senator are because of his unwavering support for our incompetent and dangerous President.

ArchPundit also notes that Dan Seals has a sensible and forceful policy paper on Israel (PDF). In essence, this is a Seals “pre-sponse” to such goofy innuendo hit pieces as the Lappin email. Jay Footlik’s campaign also had a direct response to the Lappin hatchet job (which, as James Boyce notes in his own Daily Kos diary, borders on slander). ArchPundit lists the Footlik reply, which reads in part:

Unlike Mark Kirk, I have lived in Israel, and for much of my time there, Israel was experiencing the most violent period in recent memory. Homicide bombers were blowing up cafes and buses nearly every week. I worked alongside Israel’s leaders devising strategies to improve safety and security – and help strengthen the US-Israel relationship. My wife, an Israeli, wore the IDF uniform, serving in the Israeli Air Force. My family and I were in Haifa when the first missiles hit during last year’s Israel-Hezbollah war. I know what security and peace would mean to Israelis – and I will work my hardest to achieve it.

I have come face-to-face with anti-Semites, and in every instance – every single one – I have condemned any form of anti-Semitic speech. Whether it comes from the mouth of a blogger or a preacher, anti-Semitism – like xenophobia, racism, and homophobia – has no place in the 10th district, in Chicagoland, in Illinois, in the United States, and the entire world.

The National Jewish Democratic Council has also taken note of this malignant email, distributing a press release which include this quote from their executive director:

“Rep. Kirk should condemn this over-the-top email sent on his behalf of his campaign by Andy Lappin,” said NJDC Executive Director Ira N. Forman. “Mr. Lappin’s email seeks to deceive voters about the strong, pro-Israel candidacies of Jay Footlik and Dan Seals and makes a ridiculous leap in logic that suggests a few inappropriate comments posted on a blog somehow represent the opinions held by hundreds of thousands of activists. There are some on both the far right and the far left that hold anti-Israel views. The bloggers cited by Lappin no more represent the views of most progressives than the views of Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul represent mainstream conservatives.”

At that same post (though not part of the press release), NJDC blogger Steve notes:

We also point out that Kirk’s supporters used sleazy tactics in 2006, when a staffer threatened to retaliate financially against Tel Aviv University because a prominent U.S. backer of the university endorsed Kirk’s Democratic opponent.

And regarding instances of anti-semitism at Daily Kos, a commenter on Steve’s post points out:

It should be noted that we fight the anti-semitism on this site [DKos]. Thank you for your support.

That simple statement highlights precisely why such cases of anti-semitism at Daily Kos become “Hidden” as DKos users themselves police the site and downrate such offensive posts.

Again, though he claims to have found five cases of anti-semitism (out of literally millions of compiled posts and diaries), Mr. Lappin arguably found only two … maybe. The others turned out to about different things entirely and one was actually a half-quote with the full quote in fact supporting the Jewish heritage. Mr. Lappin further claimed that some of those comments were eventually “Hidden” or removed is evidence of some nefarious cover-up plot. No. It’s evidence that the DKos community does not agree and prefers to remove such crap.

Michael in Chicago explains at Prairie State Blue just how vacuous this tactic is by comparing Mr. Lappin to the Master of Spin, Bill O’Reilly:

Remember last week when Bill-O went after the Democratic presidential candidates for daring go attend the Yearly Kos convention? Essentially his argument was that Daily Kos was a hate site filled with hate speech that was vile. Vile just like the Nazis! And of course he based this well reasoned bias and ideological free argument on 4 or so comments of a few regular bloggers out of the 500,000 plus bloggers who read and comment on that site daily.

It worked so [well] for Bill-O that all the Democratic candidates attended anyway, Bill lost an advertiser in the backlash, and he wound up having to show his fair and balanced side by citing the same type of comments from Red State – a conservative blog.

Michael goes on to describe the many ways in which Mr. Lappin’s five flimsy “citations” were utterly lacking as any sort of evidence.

Like NJDC Executive Director Forman, Mr. Footlik himself says what needs be said:

I call on Mark Kirk to denounce these types of divisive and dishonest attacks.

If you wish to join that call, Mark Kirk’s campaign office is easily found online.