The Colorado Springs Gazette, which is local to the US Air Force Academy, had a short article on Michael Weinstein that seems to show Weinstein warming to the USAF Academy view on religion.  What was interesting was the Gazette‘s summation of Weinstein’s method:

The broad outlines of Weinstein’s approach: Condemn in the strongest language possible. Publicly embarrass. Sue if necessary. Each new step raises the pressure on his publicity-averse targets.

Criticize.  Humiliate.  Intimidate and threaten.  This has long been Weinstein’s approach; it enables him to circumvent the policy-making processes, as well as the policies themselves, by coercing a public official to accept his demands.  His intimidation and threats follow a fairly routine form: surrender, or be on a late night news show in a negative light.  What some of his victims fail to realize is that Weinstein has occasionally been scoffed and ignored, and in response he has done…nothing.  He has routinely failed to follow through on even his most impassioned promises (like appealing the dismissal of his clients’ cases).  In that respect, Weinstein is an empty suit.

On the other hand, some may now be wising to Weinstein’s ways and realizing that even if they bow, they’ll still end up on the news…because it’s publicity Weinstein wants.  If his chosen victim rolls over, he’ll soon send out a press release proclaiming his own self-importance (along with, of course, a fundraising request).

As already implied, Weinstein’s m.o. is likely the reason he hasn’t appealed the dismissal of any of his multiple failed lawsuits:  the cases (and his “clients”) aren’t important, he seeks only publicity.  Even Weinstein’s wife admitted that he goes “overboard,” but that such extremism gives him the notoriety he wants:

“When he goes a little overboard, we talk about it,” [Bonnie Weinstein] said. “But people don’t realize that going overboard is what’s getting the attention.”

“He tried quiet and nice,” she adds. “Quiet and nice doesn’t work.”

(Mrs. Weinstein doesn’t seem to realize that observers have long realized that Weinstein’s extremism is “what’s getting the attention;” its certainly not the content of his accusations.)

The article also notes that Weinstein “vigorously disputes” accusations that he is “anti-Christian.”  Oddly, that is not truly the case.  In response to such assertions, Weinstein has only said 96% of his “clients” (a term even the Gazette puts in quotation marks) claim some form of Christian belief, a fact that has nothing to do with his own conduct.  (This is little more than a re-worded “I have friends that are [x]” defense, a common logical fallacy.)  What he has not done is explain why he targets only Christianity for what other religions do at the same time.

Casey Weinstein has called the Gazette‘s summation of his father’s method a “great” excerpt.  It is interesting he would be proud of having his father publicly described in terms most often used for pre-adolescent bullies, albeit a bully with access to the courts.