“Let me start by saying, I cannot imagine wanting the government to be able to tell me and my faith community where we can build a house of worship on private property,” Perriello said. “… I have opinions on whether it’s a good idea or not, but … compared to the importance of solving the economy right now… this is a distraction of what our biggest priorities should be.”
The crowd overwhelmingly applauded his answer.
Now I've applauded Robert Hurt for finally trying to force Perriello to stand up to his Muslim overlords. We know that 70% of Americans stand with Hurt against Obama and Perriello. But I could understand Perriello getting applauded for his pro-Jihadist agenda in a pro-Tom Perriello crowd. That's what Benson indicated showed up. But Amos has so many references to "angry constituents" and hard hitting questions I can't wrap my head around what she's trying to convey about the meeting.
I believe that the combination of Benson's observation and the overwhelming applause for Jihadists indicates that this was a strongly pro-Tom Perriello crowd. We know he heavily won Danville in 2008 and is expected to run strong in the city this time as well. There may have been some Hurt supporters giving Perriello hell, but I can't believe they were a large group if being pro-Jihadist was so popular of a position. But Amos seems to be playing up the number of Perriello opponents in the crowd. Why?
At first I was wondering if Amos was just trying to provide balance and give Perriello a hard time. That's great, if she could do it without being so obvious about it. Then I re-read the article and realized that her emphasis on Perriello's opponents attacking him on health care but applauding the Mosque at Ground Zero makes them sound out of touch with Robert Hurt's defense of America's Judeo-Christian values. Is she trying to pull a fast one on the people of Danville and convince them that everyone, even conservatives, are in support of the Obama-Perriello stance against the government defending our freedoms?