UPDATE Auguest 11, 2006 — The Mae Beavers campaign has taken steps to distance itself from the original dirty trick covered in my posting. As of August 11, BobRochelle.com no longer forwards to MaeBeavers.com.

Congratulations to the Mae Beavers campaign for addressing this issue.

- - - -

UPDATE August 4, 2006 — This article criticized Tennessee politician Mae Beavers for apparently buying her opponent’s name on the web, www.BobRochelle.com, and re-directing that domain name to her own website, MaeBeavers.com. Or, if Beavers didn’t arrange the hi-jacking, at least she endorsed it by not fixing it. My point was: This is unfair conduct by Beavers, and shouldn’t be tolerated by her Christian-Right endorsers - it harms the reputation of Christians to be associated with indecency and unfairness.

Well, as of August 3, 2006, the following Notice appeared on www.MaeBeavers.com:

Notice: If you have been re-directed to this website from BobRochelle.com, I apologize for the inconvenience. I have no control whatsoever over that domain and was only informed of what was happening after it was already taking place and have had no luck with having it cease. Again, please accept my utmost apologizes.

I am writing this update as of August 4, 2006 — If Mae Beavers wants to fix the unauthorized forwarding of a GoDaddy-hosted domain (BobRochelle.com) to her website, she can contact GoDaddy: abuse@godaddy.com, or call the GoDaddy Abuse Department 1-480-624-2505.

I will update again when Mae Beavers actually fixes the problem.

Back to the article: The following is my article and comments, so you can see the evolution of this tiny little controversy - It was originally posted July 9, 2006. I was stimulated to write the article by a diary on Daily Kos about the same subject: GOP dirty tricks in Tennessee.

I’d bet the Mae Beavers campaign was contacted by readers of the Daily Kos piece, and / or the readers of my piece, very soon after July 9, 2006. And therefore, Mae Beavers has allowed this controversy to go unresolved for about one month so far.

Posted July 9, 2006 (and edited a couple of times since) -

When a Christian-Right-endorsed Tennessee politician, Mae Beavers, very publically displays a lapse in decency, should Christians respond? (yes) How? (public rebuke)

On a very small scale, not too important in the greater scheme of things, a Christian-Right-endorsed Republican politician has been caught in a slimy little ethical lapse. I’m not saying the politician has commited any sort of Big Crime.

The details are presented down below. It’s not a major big deal. It’s a little thing. But it’s illlustrative of a much larger concept. I’ve updated the language of the original article to account for the possibility that one of Mae Beavers’ helpers may be behind the dirty trick, but Mae could stop the dirty trick if she wanted. Plenty of time has passed, enough for her to end the dirty trick if she wanted to. See below for all the details, with more info in some of the comments.

One would think that Christians would be ashamed of their politicians when their politicians behave in a manner that is less than fair and just and decent. One would think that Christians would demand MORE fairness and honesty from their politicians.

Republican politicians are just normal people, same as Democrats, full of faults and ethical lapses, not necessarily followers of the Golden Rule, not trying hard enough to be fair and just — they are just politicians, no more worthy than the hated Democrats, and are unworthy of the devotion bestowed upon them by the millions of otherwise ethical and moral Christians out there.

I am surprised at Christians’ seeming willingness to tolerate, if not embrace and endorse, unChristian behavior, and sleeze and deceit, among their annointed political and opinion leaders. Read my Propaganda and Media category of articles for much more.

Politics is a dirty business as practiced today (and perhaps as always practiced). Ethical Christians need to speak out and demand rigid honesty and fairness from their annointed politicians, or else Christians risk being tarnished by their association with the natural sleeze of the business.

I’d bet that most politicians and political races are pretty much clean. But we don’t talk much about the good stuff. That’s not news. We talk about the exceptions. When a lot of exceptions occur, we begin to talk about trends. I am talking about a trend here, a trend that I (and many others) perceive, a trend by the Christian Right to tolerate (among its politicans and opinion leaders) the disregarding of Christian goodwill and ethics.

Here’s the scoop on this little event in Tennessee, the not-even-tempest in a teapot, involving the Christian-Right endorsed politician Mae Beavers

In Tennesee, there’s a state senate race. The incumbent is a Republican, named Mae Beavers. She is endorsed by the Christian Right, according to the Mae Beavers website. She lists endorsements from Right to Life (Tennessee) and Eagle Forum (Tennessee), as well as other Christian- Right-associated organizations.

Here’s what happened: Mae Beavers, or someone helping her, bought a domain name, the name of her opponent Bob Rochelle - “www.BobRochelle.com” - and she set up a website, www.BobRochelle.com. Those who want info about her opponent will search Google for “Bob Rochelle”. Google will innocently display “www.BobRochelle.com” in answer to the query. People will click on the link. Will they receive info about Bob Rochelle? Hell no. They will see Mae Beaver’s website. This was true on July 8, 2006 [and still up on July 17, 2006] [FYI Bob Rochelle’s REAL website is at RochelleForSenate.com].

Mae Beavers or someone helping her has inserted special code into the homepage of “www.BobRochelle.com”, in order to display a “frame”. The “frame” contains the contents of www.MaeBeavers.com. I have reproduced the code below.

The dirty trick doesn’t stop at Bob. Notice (in the code below) that in the “Keywords tag” of the code, it mentions “Janice Rochelle” (presumeably Bob’s wife). Hmmm. Now why would Ms. Beavers or her helper want to deceive people into finding the MaeBeavers.com site when they really wanted info about Janice Rochelle?

What legitimate purpose is served by deceiving web searchers in such a manner?

Here’s the code:

< head >
< title > www.bobrochelle.com< / title >
< META name = "description" content="Bob Rochelle Tennessee Senate district 17 Democrat Income tax big government tax and spend" >

< META name = "keywords" content="Bob Rochelle Bob Rochelle Tn Senatate Tennessee Senate 17th District Cannon Dekalb Smith Trousadale Wilson Sumner County Counties Legislation legislator middle tennessee tn
Bob Rochelle Robert Bob Rochelle Robert Rochelle Bobby Rochelle Democrat Income Tax Janice Rochelle Methodist attorney” >
< / head >

< frameset rows="100%,*" border="0" >
< frame src="http://www.maebeavers.com/" frameborder="0" >
< frame frameborder="0" noresize >
< / frameset >

For more about the Mae Beavers story, see GOP dirty tricks in Tennessee.

What’s wrong with Mae Beavers’ (or her helper’s) conduct?

It’s deceptive, for one thing. Why would Christians want to be associated with those who would deceive others? How much deception is acceptable to Christians? How forcefully should Christians respond when one of their political leaders has sullied the Christian endorsement with deceitful behavior?

For another thing, it’s just plain sleezy. Mae Beavers is not entitled, by internet rules, fair play, and the Golden Rule, to buy Bob Rochelle’s name and associate it with her website. Her helper can’t do that either. If Bob Rochelle wants the BobRochelle.com domain name, he can probably win it by petitioning the Internet Authorities (ICANN), because the domain name is not being used in a legitimate manner.

And so, Mae Beavers has taken actions [or tolerates her helper’s actions] that she should know are deceptive, and unfair, and are quite likely to be ruled as such, if Bob Rochelle wants to fight it. That means Mae is acting wrongfully. It’s a “little wrong” in the scheme of wrongs. But she is going to act wrongfully until forced to act rightfully. Is that a good Christian way to behave? I think not.

It’s slimy and dirty that Mae Beavers [or her helper] would mention Rochelle’s wife Janice in the keyword tag of her bogus website. (I presume his wife anyway, I don’t know). It isn’t cute, it isn’t a cool joke.

If I were Janice Rochelle, I would send a demand letter that Mae Beavers take my name out of the website’s keywords tag. If I were Mae Beavers and received such a demand letter, I would take Janice Rochelle’s name out of the keyword tag.

And so, Mae Beavers is taking actions [or not stopping actions] that she knows are wrongful toward others. And yet, she will not change her behavior unless forced.

I say Mae Beavers’ behavior is not the type of behavior that should be tolerated by good ethical moral Christians.

The Mae Beavers issue is just a tiny little speck on the radar screen of what Democrats feel about the Christian Right’s ethical lapses.

Read my category about Propaganda and Media for much more about how those associated with the Christian Right behave unethically and immorally (in my opinion). I am not talking about the human failings of the occasional crime committed by Republicans. I talk instead about the unethical, but legal, conduct of the Christian Republican Machine.

The Christian Right do not publically rebuke the unethical conduct I highlight in my Propaganda and Media articles (to my knowledge). The Christian Right’s embrace of immoral behavior by their political and opinion leaders tarnishes the reputation of the Christian Right generally (in my opinion).

To those of us who are not members of the Christian Right, we do not think the Christian Right sets a very good example in the political arena.

The Republican Machine is just as corrupt and immoral as any other political machine

Those of us who are not Republicans believe that the Republican machine is just as ethically challenged as the Democratic machine may be.

People are people and politicans are politicians. Power corrupts. No party has the market cornered on virtue. I am skeptical as hell of anyone who proclaims how good and pious he is. I recall lessons in humility, and I think something is wrong with people who so arrogantly proclaim their possession of truth and righteousness.

Sinful arrogance and lack of humility among Republicans and the Christian Right

Modern Republicanism as preached from the Radio and TV seems to be chock-full of sinful arrogance, lacks humility, and disrespects others. Moreover, from the real-world results of Republican governance, and from the personal failings of so many Republican leaders, (just as among Democrats), we see that Republicans have not earned a right to be so arrogant. Read my Propaganda-Media category for much more about the unfair, deceitful, and even hateful conduct of the Republican political and opinion leadership.

Here’s another example of extreme arrogance by a Republican opinion leader (one that I have not mentioned before). Consider the local St. Louis area case of radio host Crane Durham. Crane Durham, with comedic hyper-arrogance, names his radio show “Nothing but Truth”. Oh really? Nothing but truth? Crane’s mouth speaks only the truth? Crane’s always right? … Not bloody likely! By the way, Crane’s attitude in preaching Christian-Right Republicanism on the radio is completely consistent with the name of his show: He is as arrogant as the name of his show implies he might be. In my view, his lack of humility rises to the level of sin, for which he should be rebuked, not celebrated.

But Crane is not the only one; he is just one of a handful of local examples of the nationwide fascination with hyper-arrogant opinion leaders.

Wrapping this all up: When the Christian Right’s political and opinion leaders fail, they should be rebuked publically. I suggest the test should be “The Golden Rule”.

I think Christian ethics requires a spirit of humility and fairness and respect for others, an attitude of “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”.

But such an attitude of humility and fairness seems to be quite lacking among the political and opinion leadership endorsed by the Christian Right. The Christian Right smears its own reputation with mud by tolerating their politicians and opinion leaders when they behave inconsistent with Christian ethics.

I suppose I could insert a laundry list of failings by Christian Right supported media figures and politicians, for which public rebuke is lacking, but I won’t bother at this time to do such a thing. But I’ll go this far: Wouldn’t it be a great thing to hear Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson encourage their flocks to refrain from listening to Right-wing talk radio, due to the unChristian arrogance and mean-spiritedness of the radio hosts, and the evil things the hosts say? But that won’t happen.

One of the tyrranies of life is that people judge others. Those of us not on the Christian Right issue harsh judgement against the movement based on the unrebuked sins of the leadership of the movement.

And so, I suggest that the Christian Right should be sure to issue public rebukes of their leaders for failing to honor the Golden Rule. I want to listen to Sean Hannity and hear a lady say “Sean, I agree with you most of the time, but I think it’s unfair of you to say such awful things about xxxxxxx xxxxxx just because you disagree with him. People should be able to disagree without hating each other, didn’t your mother and your pastor teach you to respect others?”

In the case of Mae Beavers, I think Christians should write to her and express outrage at her sleeze. Moreover, they should write to the newspapers and make it known publically that they do not endorse her tactics, even though they might support her political stances. This would be a step in separating Christians from the sleeze that permeates our politics today.

And you know what else? If Christians spoke out in the manner I suggest, then our political debate might just begin to change for the better.

A Libertarian Democrat is vigorously pro-personal liberty, and believes government can play a constructive role in regulating our economy and providing a social safety net.

censored Says:
July 9th, 2006 at 5:16 pm

You sir, are a fargin hypocrite. In all fairness, you should warn your readers about your use of cookies and what type of deceptions they may encounter here at the glass house you call radmod. I think it’s time for a privacy statement with full disclosure.

Tim the RM Says:
July 10th, 2006 at 7:59 am

To my readers: This commentator did not have the courage to leave his real email address. He used the false email address “censored @ radmod.com”. Hmmm.

He makes a good point thought, in that I have never posted a privacy statement (cuz I haven’t gotten around to it). This being a php site, on which people with authority can login, the php program will set a cookie to retain login info across browser sessions. If you never login, the cookie doesn’t do anything. Someday I’ll get around to posting a real privacy statement.

When I talk about religion, I expect people to be sensistive.

The Christian Right has made their religion a political issue, so they have to expect others to point out inconsistencies.

When supporters of the Christian Right post messages on blogs, they are contributing to the public perception of the Christian Right, for good or for ill.

Lenny Says:
July 12th, 2006 at 5:33 am

One weekend morning I tried to post comments on radmod. Usually comments get posted immediately, but there was quite a delay this time. When it was posted, the main page still said “comments are welcome” instead of the number of replies, as it should have. Very fishy. I was wondering what the hell Tim had done. Then it dawned on me that I was using a new computer and had forgotten to block Tim’s cookies. I checked my cookies and there were TWO from radmod. Not just one, as Tim claims. After I deleted and disabled his cookies, I could no longer see the comments. There was no doubt that he had used the cookie to censor and deceive me. To let him know that it didn’t work, I submitted the exact same comments using the name “censored” and the email address “censored @ radmod.com”. The “Lenny” comments were eventually posted, but the “censored” comments never were.

Radmod Says:
July 12th, 2006 at 10:28 am

Lenny, there are several things gravely wrong with the info in your comment.

First, Blog software like Wordpress will occasionally hold a comment for approval if something about the comment triggers the spam catcher code. For example, if the comment contains a link it MIGHT be stopped for moderation and approval. If the comment contains two links it WILL be stopped and held for approval.

“Comment-spam” is a way to get spammy links listed in search engines. So comments with embedded links are scrutinized.

In your story, you admitted that your comment got approved and posted, although you were puzzled that the duplicate comment (under a different “censored” email addy) did not get posted.

Since your comment, under your real name, did get posted (and not edited for content), what’s your complaint?

And so, you once posted a comment that got held for moderation, and got approved, and your duplicate comment got deleted, and this is supposed to be evidence …… evidence …… evidence ….. of the Radmod’s DECEPTION!!!!!!

Lenny, that’s just plain Sean Hannity goofy! Such comedians you hard core Repubs are sometimes!

In case you dont know this, the RadMod Loves your comments, especially when you post stuff that reads like Repub kool-aid.

But when you post stuff that reads more moderate, then I wonder “Where’d the real Lenny go”?

The contrast and debate is welcome here! I surely post enough stuff that qualifies as Dem kool aid.

————-

Second, now let’s talk about the cookie stuff in your post.

I have taken your challenge, and done your test, using Firefox, to try to recreate your experience. My results completely contradict your story. 100% contradict. I cannot verify any of your alleged experiences. Hmmm. Of course, if you are using Internet Explorer rather than Firefox, then I could understand quirky browser performance.

But all your info is wrong about the effect of the cookies the Wordpress program sets, using Firefox anyway.

I will not accuse you of lying. It is not a lie to be wrong. It is certainly possible that some quirk in your computer or browser causes you to believe you are right.

Here is the test I just performed: I deleted my radmod cookies. I turn off cookies completely so that NO SITE can set ANY cookies.

I closed and re-opened my browser. I verified that cookies were indeed blocked.

I accessed radmod. I checked for cookies, and no cookies got set, because all were blocked.

I saw on the front page that “Comments 3″ were available for the cover post. [This is completely contrary to your post’s info]

Then I clicked the Comments link, and I saw the comments. I screencapped the comments to prove I could see them them without any cookies being set.

At each step I verified that RadMod.com had not set any cookies.

And finally, I am now posting this comment, still having prevented RadMod from setting any cookies.

Therefore, based on my own experiment, I conclude that RadMod does not require cookies for the casual browser.

I have failed to find any instance where the casual browser or the comment poster sees anything different based on the cookie setting.

The cookie setting is irrelelvant unless you want to login.

MYTH BUSTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Now why would Lenny post such an inflammatory and easily rebutted set of “Straw man” accusations? I know — because he has learned well from Sean and Rush and Ann, and Bill, and now thinks that it’s OK to make outrageous accusations based on flimsy factoids, jumping to awful unsupportable conclusions, as long as the target is a political enemy. Boo.]

Lenny Says:
July 12th, 2006 at 11:04 pm

I simply stated what happened and my conclusion. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable conclusion – especially after your editing incident, which I feel was an attempt to make me look foolish.
In order for me to be telling the truth, a quirk in my computer showed me the comments that weren’t actually there? Monkeys flying out of my butt is more likely, and you know it. You may as well have called me a liar. And why paint me as a kool-aid drooling lunatic? I don’t get the relevance.
I did not pose a challenge or ask you to perform a test. The idea that I wanted you to investigate yourself is ridiculous. So is your claimed self test and the idea that it would prove anything.
I see red herrings. I see plenty of insults. I don’t see an explanation for the second cookie on my computer. I don’t see a denial.
No myth. Nothing busted. I stand pat.

Tim the RM Says:
July 13th, 2006 at 8:40 am

I’m gonna turn this comment thread around and point it back at Mae Beavers.

But first, I gotta address Lenny’s new straw man. What “editing incident”??????

Your post didn’t claim that I “edited” your comments. To the contrary, your post claim, rightly, that I approved your comments for posting (but deleted your duplicate posting). Nothing remotely wrong with that, seems to me. In Sean-land, is that “evidence of deception”?

About my browser experiment, I’d like to see your own results, as a special favor to me. Wudya please run the same experiment? Turn cookies off, and see if the site behaves differently in any manner. My results say NO, the site displays the same.

And one more thing: Since you have cookies turned off, and yet were able to See Comments and Post Comments, you have your own proof that cookies are not required to make full use of the site.

Your story and evidence prove the following: Your prior comments have been posted unedited, but one time there was a delay in getting the comment posted, and duplicate comments are likely to be deleted. [BFD !]

I know why you are continuing this thread.

It’s because I scored a point with this Mae Beavers article, and it’s important to you Repubs that no Dem point can go unchallenged, even if you have to squirm hard to create a controversy out of nothingness.

Yes, Mae Beavers did something intentionally wrongful (in a minor way).

Yes, Christian Right advocates tolerate wrongfulness all the time, among their political and opinion leaders.

Yes, Christian Right advocates do not hold their leaders to tough enough standards of civility and decency.

In your own posting, you have made accusations of a personal nature that are not reasonably supported by evidence. This is uncivil and indecent.

I credit the original post with bringing up the good point that I have no privacy policy. But the lack of a privacy policy is not a wrongful act.

Mae Beavers committed an intentionally wrongful act, wrongful in the moral sense of what is civil and decent for a Christian-Right endorsed leader, and I hope my post gathers some attention.

I further hope that people study this comment thread and see that the merits of my Article’s point are not discussed by Mae’s defenders, instead Mae’s defenders issue silly personal attacks, just the same way as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly do things.

This comment thread has expanded on and (I think) even enhanced the value of the original point of my Mae Beavers article.

Maybe one day a defender of the Christian Right will see this article and thread, and be inspired to post a comment like the following:

“You make a decent point, and maybe we have been been too lenient with our leading personalities, in the interest of gaining political power.”

Dragonflies Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 10:10 am

We’ve done some research, and we’ve found that bobrochelle.com is actually owned by Daniel Lewis, a *Libertarian* candidate who apparently bears a grudge against Dems and Reps both. This would seem to be an attack on both Rochelle and Beavers.

Tim the RM Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 10:54 am

To Dragonflies:

Post some info that supports your comment. For example, who do your refer to when you say “We’ve done some research”?

Also, What research have you done that supports your point?

Your comment is suspicious because you did not post any supportive info.

And moreover, your theory is contradicted by the evidence that the dirty trick does not contain anything negative about Mae Beavers.

The dirty trick was just a little wrong directed solely at Bob Rochelle, and that’s inconsistent with your comment that a person with animosity toward Bevaers and Rochelle is behind this dirty trick.

So please post your supportive evidence, or else you leave the impression that you may be playing your own dirty trick, in support of Mae Beavers.

Here’s looking forward to receiving such evidence from you …..

Dragonflies Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 9:54 pm

Sorry, you’re quite right in that my statement was poorly phrased. “We” = an affectation.

Research = dnsstuff.com and godaddy.com, which point to Daniel Lewis, dtlewis.com. Also, the Libertarian Party of Tennessee has said that they approve of Mae Beavers - so I guess it *is* a dirty trick on her behalf.

And I’m Canadian; I have no horse in this race.

Dragonflies Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 9:55 pm

er, that is, lewisdt.com; sorry

Tim the RM Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 10:15 pm

Very good. Thanks for the updated info.

Let’s assume that Mae Beavers’ supporters have pulled this dirty trick for her, but whether she approved of it in advance is an unanswereable question at this time.

She certainly knows of the dirty trick by this time.

And so, at a minimum she appears to be permitting the dirty trick to continue (I verified this evening that the dirty trick is in effect still).

Mae Beavers therefore owns the dirty trick, it being done in her name with her continuing approval, and she and her supporters remain tarnished by this little bit of indecency.

James Herren Says:
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:17 pm

I took the liberty of alerting Mae Beavers of this issue to which I received this response. “Dear James:
Thank you for the heads up. We are aware of it but do not know who is doing it. We will post that message to our website.
Thank you,
Mae”
Her comment that “we will post that” is in response to my suggestion that they at least post a disclaimer on er site.

Tim the RM Says:
August 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 pm

To James, thanks for the info!

As of 1215pm central on 8-3-06, no disclaimer is posted. And
BobRochelle.com still forwards to Mae Beavers’ website.

BobRochelle.com resolves to the IP addy 64.202.189.170, which is hosted by GoDaddy.

Here’s how Mae Beavers can contact GoDaddy for help: abuse@godaddy.com, or call the GoDaddy Abuse Department 1-480-624-2505.

But I think the Mae Beavers campaign is fine with what’s happened. After all, it’s just an unfair dirty trick. Beavers certainly isn’t going to lose any Christian Right endorsements over committing an act of mere unfairness.

James Herren Says:
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:19 pm

I will forward this information to her campaign and see what happens. I for one am not ready to lump state for certainty that she truly knows what is going on. Just as it is possible that she is in league with the person(s) responsible, it is just as possible that she has nothing to do with it. Instead of leveling accusations maybe it is best to alert her and pass on information and then base opinions on what happens after that.

James Herren Says:
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:22 pm

Not necessary after all, as of 6:21 PM CDT, Mae Beavers website issues this statement, “Notice: If you have been re-directed to this website from BobRochelle.com, I apologize for the inconvenience. I have no control whatsoever over that domain and was only informed of what was happening after it was already taking place and have had no luck with getting having it cease. Again, please accept my utmost apologizes.”

James Herren Says:
August 4th, 2006 at 6:20 pm

A few things, is this still a “dirty trick” by Mae Beavers or is she just the beneficiary of a “dirty trick” by somone else?
Why is it that she has to do anything more to make this stop? As a Libertarian Democrat, do you not support someone else’s right to do with their property as they see fit as long as it is not illegal? He, Daniel Lewis a Libertarian, bought the domain name and is doing what he wants with it. She can ask him to cease all she wants and call Here is his website from the 204 election cycle http://www.lewisdt.com/house26/.
I took the liberty to call godaddy.com’s abuse department and the opinion from the gentleman I spoke to was that even if Mae Beavers were to make a complaint it might not stop the fending party from doing so. He felt like a complaint from Bob Rochelle would carry more weight in this matter since he was the party ultimately being offended by the trick. (I am going to make an assumption that Rochelle would be likely to allow it to stay if he thought it would make Beavers look bad, bt that is just my opinion formed after many years of watching his style.)
I feel like you made a lot of assumptions about her character while offering nothing in the way of documented evidence to suggest a pattern on her part. You criticized a poster to your article for offering you no proof to a statement he/she made but you yourself offered no evidence that she was behind this or that she knew anything about it in the article itself.
I guess what I am saying is that she might be behind this, but you offered nothing to show she was/is and when she was alerted by me to the issue, she posted a notice on her site. Personally, I think she has done enough.
This is your blog and I respect your right to say what you want but if it is credibility and ethics you seek to uphold, this article is a poor effort on your part.

Joltin' Django Says:
August 5th, 2006 at 3:09 pm

A fresh “take” on Mr. Bob Rochelle:

http://nighseencreeder.blogspot.com/2006/08/and-lard-ass-returns.html

Marti Says:
August 10th, 2006 at 5:20 pm

Speaking for the Beavers campaign, we were unaware of the redirection until it was brought to our attention, via e-mail by James Herron. Perhaps before you publish such inflammatory and incorrect information, you should check it out. You are so quick to believe that Senator Beavers engages in shady campaign practices, that you did not bother to call or e-mail to ask what was going on before you wrote your incorrect blog. She knew nothing about it and did the best she could to rectify the situation as soon as she was made aware of it. If you had made her aware of it when you first discovered it, she would have resolved it sooner. One look at the poor quality of her campaign website, should alert you the level of internet sophistication with which you are dealing. She is not computer savvy (and probably does not know what go-daddy is) and her campaign is a strictly volunteer operation (including her webmaster). The campaign staff has no time to surf the web, we are too busy going door to door to spend precious time looking up Bob Rochelle on the internet and we are indebted to Mr. Herron for letting us know that this was going on, so we could address it. You are the irresponsible one who engages in dirty tricks to meet the needs of your own agenda. She is a fine lady who has sacrificed much to serve the people of Tennessee. It is unfortunate that you know so little about her. PS. She does not need dirty tricks to beat Rochelle, she can simply refer to his pathetic record.

Marti Says:
August 10th, 2006 at 5:23 pm

Oops. Sorry I misspelled your name Mr. Herren.

Randy Says:
August 10th, 2006 at 6:15 pm

Of all of the unmitigated gall….
….to attempt to grant yourself the title of supreme christian and, then, attempt to brow-beat the remainder of us (who attempt to live the life of a Christian on a moment-by-moment basis) into falling into Lock-Step with you ! !

Quite Frankly….Sir….I think NOT ! ! ! ! !

If you had the intelligence of a nanny goat, and a modicum of internet savvy, you would be able to ‘run the numbers’ of the gentleman (yes, a male owns it) that has worked on publishing the web-site (that has so heavily drawn your ire) of BobRochelle.com.

On first blush the following Information would be garnered by running a “Who Is” Search:
___________________________________________
Registrant:
Daniel Lewis

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: BOBROCHELLE.COM

Domain servers in listed order:
PARK25.SECURESERVER.NET
PARK26.SECURESERVER.NET

For complete domain details go to:
http://who.godaddy.com/whoischeck.aspx?Domain=BOBROCHELLE.COM
___________________________________________

Once that could have been accomplished, simply go to the Network Solutions web site and the following could be found:
________________________________________
Registrant:
Daniel Lewis
7255 Lee Highway #603
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: BOBROCHELLE.COM
Created on: 09-Apr-06
Expires on: 09-Apr-07
Last Updated on: 09-Apr-06

Administrative Contact:
Lewis, Daniel lewisdt2@netzero.net
7255 Lee Highway #603
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421
United States
(423) 296-9306

Technical Contact:
Lewis, Daniel lewisdt2@netzero.net
7255 Lee Highway #603
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421
United States
(423) 296-9306

But, no, you would rather spend your MENSA Strength in, so-called, ‘Christian Bashing’. Instead of looking for the actual owners of a particular web-site you aim your hatred towards the very Lady that this site was intended to aid.

I see that you list St. Louis as your, supposed, home town. That being the actual truth you have absolutely NO Firsthand Knowledge of the underhanded, it not downright lying, antics of one Mr. Robert Rochelle and what he has attempted (and down) to the Citizens of Tennessee. You would also, if your a Citizen of Tennessee, realize that Senator Mae Beavers actually resided in a rural area just east of Nashville (TN). And, for the record, the owner of BobRochelle.com lives in Chattanooga (TN) which is quite a distance from Nashville.

Everyone in Tennessee, to a soul, that I have personally spoken to about this web-site has recognized it for what it, truly, is.

You, for whatever reasons, have seen fit to use it to your advantages.
….more’s the pity.

Tim the RM Says:
August 11th, 2006 at 9:32 am

The point of the article was that Christian-affiliated politicians need to be MORE fair and MORE decent than the norm, or else they tarnish the reputations of Christians generally.

I don’t think the Christian Right does itself any favors when it embraces an almost win-at-all-costs mentality and tolerates indecency and unfairness.

The ends do not justify the means, in my opinion, because hearts and minds are not changed.

Hearts and minds are changed by setting the example of fairness and decency.

Instead, the leaders of the Christian Right embrace unfairness, indecency and ignorance, as they play the political power game.

Evidence: Suggesting that Democrats and liberals should be killed.

Evidence: Preaching ignorance about world affairs, the Rush Limbaugh North Korea example.

Those kinds of broadcasted ignorance and indecency occur too often for a solo blogger to be able to keep up with. Examples abound though.

I’ve never heard Falwell or Robertson rebuke right wing radio hosts for preaching ignorance or spreading disrespect for Democrats and Liberals.

I’ve never heard any leader of the Christian Right warn the public that the ignorant buffoons on the radio are not to be taken seriously, even though they are members of God’s Party.

And so I conclude that the leaders of the Christian Right knowingly embrace and encourage indecency and unfairness, and the teaching of an ignorance, in the name of gaining more political power.

Here in my little corner of Web, I highlight such examples as I have time for.

In the case of the Mae Beavers incident, it was a little thing, in the scheme of things.

And she got around to doing something about it, to her credit.

I heartily congratulate her for distancing herself from such a dirty trick.

On a much larger scale, I wish the leaders of the Christian Right would distance themselves from the ignorant ranters of the radio.

One more thing: Have you taken the Ann Coulter vs Hitler Quiz (who said it).

Those of you who think I’m way too critical of the Christian Right, I’m sure you have good solid reasons for your viewpoint. I don’t expect you to agree with me.

Try not to be too thin-skinned about it, because your religious leaders have willfully entered the political arena and worn their religion on their sleeves. Accordingly, your organization has become as much a political player and target as any other political organization.

Libertarian Democrat

Categories:

About

Help Beta Test:

Credits:

Internal Links:

A Moderate Motto:

When a Christian-Right-endorsed Tennessee politician, Mae Beavers, very publically displays a lapse in decency, should Christians respond? (yes) How? (public rebuke)

One would think that Christians would be ashamed of their politicians when their politicians behave in a manner that is less than fair and just and decent. One would think that Christians would demand MORE fairness and honesty from their politicians.

Here’s the scoop on this little event in Tennessee, the not-even-tempest in a teapot, involving the Christian-Right endorsed politician Mae Beavers

What’s wrong with Mae Beavers’ (or her helper’s) conduct?

The Mae Beavers issue is just a tiny little speck on the radar screen of what Democrats feel about the Christian Right’s ethical lapses.

The Republican Machine is just as corrupt and immoral as any other political machine

Sinful arrogance and lack of humility among Republicans and the Christian Right

Wrapping this all up: When the Christian Right’s political and opinion leaders fail, they should be rebuked publically. I suggest the test should be “The Golden Rule”.

21 Responses to “Mae Beavers’ association with dirty trick on Bob Rochelle illustrates Christian Right’s ethical problem”

Leave a Reply

The RM is a "Libertarian Democrat"

Recent Rants:

Links: