Terrorist supporter gives to the Republican party...
 

Linky 1

Okay, if you think this is bad enough press, for a party that constantly accussed the Democrats being supported by the terrorists, their response to this makes it all the worse...

(From this Linky 2 coverage)

There's enough indication that this guy is at least potentially guilty, and holding onto the money at this point just doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, is giving to charity such a bad thing? Holding onto the cash, just makes it seem like you're trying to keep onto it right up until the point where you're forced otherwise.

I was on the fence whether this regarded discussion, or was just simply news. I opted on the latter, and that's why this is here.

SWB

I don't think holding on to the money for now is a bad thing. They probably feel that if the guy isn't guilty, they can use the money more productivly than a charity could. And for their purposes, they can, since a charity wouldn't be advancing political causes. I think it's logical that they would only want to give the money away if they have to.

But that's just my opinion.

There's the whole concept of public perception, and the fact that this could just bite them in the butt again later on. Plus, it gives people something negative to talk about. If the ppl on the other side had nearly the echo chamber the Republicans have, there certainly would be a quick 180 on this.

I mean, if the situations were reversed, there would be no end of calls for the Democrats to return similar ill gotten monies.

You can both be for a person's right to be innocent until proven guilty, and just say you're unconfortable having the cash around. I've seen it done plenty of times.

I just don't see why now is any different.

SWB

What I can't figure is why a terrorist would want to support the Republican party?

That sounds like an almost literal act of passing the buck. The charity after being donated to might end up being nicknamed "the charity funded by terrorists". Or "the charity funded by Republicans". Either one is a title not many organizations would want.

Well, to a certain extent, that's true. But passing the money onto a legitmate charity, is at least admitting that you want nothing to do w/ ill gotten money.

But waiting until the last minute, at the point where you practically have to, comes close to the mentality of finding a wallet, keeping it, and only returning it to the owner if he comes knocking at you door.

I mean, the mere fact that the donor was using a false name at least suggests he wasn't completely on the up & up. The news surrounding him, would certainly make me think twice about keeping any money he had given to me.

SWB

No, no, that metaphor works if they were going to return the money to the terrorist. This is situation is like a guy gives you money, and then you find out he's a suspected terrorist, but you decide to wait to give the money to charity until he's proven guilty or not. At least that's how I see it.

The party's position would be much more understandable were its de facto party policy that terrorists were guilty until, after, and in lieu of ever allowing them to be proven innocent.

Well, this is the Republican Party, and like any major political party probably feel that spending money on a TV ad slandering another person just so they can get one more vote in a legislative body is far more productive than clothing the hungry and feeding the naked.

Wait, that is Republican party policy, isn't it?

And as to why terrorists would ever donate to the Republicans:

It could be because, ideologically, the Right is far, far closer to those who commit acts of terrorism, so, really, they're not that different to begin with, or alternatively, it could be that thus far Republican foreign policy has done nothing but galvanize angry young Muslim men to join the cause, and these people want the volunteers to keep lining up around the (bombed out) block.