No surprise really, but George Allen seems to like hanging out with racist scumbags.
Gordon Baum used to host a radio show with a particular fan of mine….
I’ve discussed the CofCC before, but anyone who has a fascination with the South that Allen has demonstrated thoughout his life knows that the CofCC is an offshoot of the White Citizen’s Councils in the South. It was essentially the nice Klan and considered a more ‘reputable’ segregationist group. They also support the segregationist academies in Mississippi.
For a little fun, notice this picture here with Baum. Picture 4 shows Baum standing with a bunch of the assclowns on their Confederate Memorial Day. If you look over a few people you’ll see a guy with a suit, red hair and a goatee. That’s Frank Weltner–the guy who runs Jew Watch.
He’s a piece of shit. I’ve interviewed him briefly because he was backing a local Alderman and I was trying to expose that link . He lied repeatedly to me trying to save the Alderman’s skin. Lying is one of his better characteristics frankly.
Allen sought out the CofCC during the CPAC conference.
This man shouldn’t be a US Senator. Make sure the people of Virginia help rectify that grievous error.
UPDATE: Fixed link about Weltner. To learn more about Weltner go here.
The RFT article on the letter.
Did you ever get a recording of the time I called Baum on his radio show?
What do you mean “Picture 4”? I only see the pic with Allen, Heston, and the CCC guy–there’s nothing with the JewWatch guy.
Outrageous! It’s as bad as when Jesse Jackson called New York City “Hymietown” and when former KKK Grand Wizard Robert Byrd (D-WV) called a group of people “white-n*****s” on national TV.
Shorter rightwing moron: Lookee! A dimmiecrat did it too! Therefore, you can’t criticize the ignorant racist.
You got to wonder just how stupid some of these assholes are…
Anonymous 8/30/06 —
Those people have apologized and admitted their grievous errors.
White supremacists like Baum, et al, make no apologies for their perverted, distorted extremist racist views.
You don’t have to look far to find folks with similar, if not quite as overtly extreme, views these people.
Okay, I?ll start off by saying that I am certainly no fan of the CCC. I do not agree with to their beliefs, nor their agenda. That being said, I also want to give you some much deserved/belayed kudos. I was all hot to trot about making the obvious Blago-Nation of Islam comparison, when ? just to be sure I didn?t jam my foot too far in my mouth ? I looked back and saw that you took the Governor and his Party to task over their association with the largest black-separatist group on the SPLC?s list of hate groups. Well done.
What I find amusing is how, when you go to the farthest reaches of either ideology, you almost meet in the back. You assail NOI as a ?right-wing nuthouse,? which is ironic that the only politicians who will even touch them with a 10 foot poll are supposedly ?liberal? Democrats. Furthermore, you can find statements at least as equally anti-Semetic as the CCC?s comments anywhere on MoveOn.org, a purportedly left-wing organization.
My point is that racism, anti-Semitism, and, generally, ?hate? is neither a partisan nor an ideological issue. It exists in different ? and, increasingly, similar ? forms on both sides of the spectrum.
As for Allen himself, I must say that I like and support him less the more I find out about him. Obviously, this was ? in the best case ? a misguided attempt at pandering to an unfortunately important-enough segment of the Virginia population (not that I am saying that all residents of the Old Dominion are racists, but some certainly are). By itself, it?s not really an indictment of the Senator himself as racist. But it is reminiscent of Nixon?s ?Southern Strategy.?
Now (pardon for rambling), but a few words on the Southern Strategy. It?s pandering, to be sure. But I don?t find it to be any more or less objectionable than liberals scaring African Americans in urban areas about returns to segregation or lynching. Or Howard Dean saying (regardless of how many times he retracts and re-spins it) that the Bush Administration might bar girls from attending school. Both parties play on the base, irrational, and even racial fears of their most loyal constituents. And it?s not good for our national dialogue when either does it.
That all being said – whew ? Allen certainly has his hands full in this race. And I think he totally read the results of the Kilgore-Kaine race wrong. He should be moving to the center, not flanking further right. Furthermore, I think his Presidential ambitions are severely damaged. He?s way to the right of GWB, and doesn?t have the establishment support right now. McCain ? the only guy who gave W a serious run for his money 6 six years ago ? does. He?s the horse to watch right now.
Indeed, the Rove-strategy of heavy base-turn out has been very successful for the past few election cycles. But it has it?s limitations. Anti-coalitions have become successful in American political history, thought they often splinter later (see the anti-Jackson Whigs). The GOP needs to begin contemplating more ways to expand the base and enlarge the tent.
But, for the sake of ensuring that the words ?Majority Leader Reid? aren?t muttered anytime soon, I really hope that Allen gets his shit together and does something to not just run from groups like these, but take serious steps to forge positive alliances in other parts of the spectrum.
NW burbs — Hey! Terrific!! Allen apologized half-a- dozen times too. Now maybe we can start talking about the issues, instead of this smoke-and-mirror race-baiting of which the Intolerant Left is so fond. Now excuse me while I go buy Juan Williams’ new book … I heard it’s pretty good.
Smoke and mirrors? No, Allen has a fetish for the Confederacy and has both Confederate flags and used to keep a noose in his office.
Beyond that, here’s a guy who has a fascination with the south and would know what the CofCC is–the newer incarnation of the White Citizen’s Council and they still support segregationist academies. Allen sought these people out. They are scum.
===Furthermore, you can find statements at least as equally anti-Semetic as the CCC?s comments anywhere on MoveOn.org, a purportedly left-wing organization.
Okay, show me where on Moveon.org you can find equally anti-semetic statements.
grand old partisan: I don’t think you’ll find Anti-Semitic comments coming from MoveOn.org. What you will find are comments speaking out against the specific means Israel has chosen to take against Palestinians and Hezbollah. You may not agree with MoveOn concerning these criticisms (I certainly don’t agree with them on several points), but attacking how Israel prosecutes a war is no more Anti-Semitic than complaining about US tactics in Iraq is Anti-American.
And to the nameless poster above: The problem on the right is that it’s not enough to apologize if that apology isn’t backed up by action. The right has to be willing to distance themselves from these clearly racist organizations, even if that means losing their support. If they apologize on Monday, and are back to pandering on Tuesday, it’s hard to take them any more seriously than a sinner who repents on Sunday and is back to his old habits the next morning.
==which is ironic that the only politicians who will even touch them with a 10 foot poll are supposedly ?liberal? Democrats
And I think you got this–it’s my point. Why should liberal Democrats be backing a right wing hate monger–or a left wing one, but in this case Farakhan is a right wing asshole.
As I remember that post, I pointed out several positions that are on the right in modern American discourse, though the point isn’t to tar most on the right with his beliefs…
Anon #2 (or maybe you’re the same Allen apologist)….
When did Allen apologize? His campaign made a non-apology statement about calling an American citizen a derogatory racist epithet (…if anyone was offended about a joke…) and then kinda sorta retracted even that non-apology.
But we weren’t talking about Allen’s slur, now were we? So your claim holds no water even as a weak attempt at distraction.
What we were talking about (as the title of Archpundit’s post says) is that “Allen Hearts Baum” (Baum being a well-known hater of anyone not white — in other words, a racist).
To my knowledge, Allen has never apologized for cavorting with white supremacists and instead has actively sought them out in order to benefit politically, and perhaps on some bizarre level personally/emotionally.
MoveOn.Org = Anti-Semitic:
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=2345
Especially poignant is the use of the ALL CAPS feature to REALLY GET TO YOUR POINT (wink wink nod nod)
AnonymousPundit
Thanks for helping me with the leg-work, AnonymousPundit.
Devilstower, there IS something anti-Semitic about the rhetoric on Moveon?s forums. They aren?t simply critiquing how Israel prosecutes a war, they are opining about “Media owning Jewish pigs,” “sneaky Jewish sympathizers,” and ? my favorite ? ?Jew Lieberman.? Where is the apology from Moveon.org for this blatantly hate-filled rhetoric? Why aren?t any Democrats speaking out against it?
Liberals have a conniption fit over semantics like ?terrorist? or ?Islamic fascist.? Where is the outrage over ?Jewish pigs??
Am I supposed to be angry that some clown got on, made a racist comment, had 8 people rate it positively and was then deleted?
The stories tend to have 100+ raters so I’m not sure how this isn’t evidence that Moveon.org doesn’t take anti-semitism seriously and deletes such comments. I guess I don’t see how that makes MoveOn anti-semitic especially givne Eli Pariser is a Jewish American. There’s a certain irony that the bigots complaining about Jews don’t quite get that, but hey.
Islamic Fascist is an oxymoron. If someone wants to base a society on religious beliefs there is a perfectly good word for that–theocrat. It doesn’t make any sense and it simply adds to the ignorance over Islam and our allies and enemies.
Terrorist isn’t controversial other than, as George Will pointed out, you start identifying every combatant as a terrorist. An attack on troops is not terrorism, it’s guerilla warfare or simply warfare.
attacking how Israel prosecutes a war is no more Anti-Semitic than complaining about US tactics in Iraq is Anti-American.
Not that you’re wrong, but since a lot of people on the right think that complaining about US tactics in Iraq is anti-American, I don’t think this argument is going to get you all that far.
There’s a big difference between what’s going on in MoveOn’s forums and what MoveOn.org promotes. Anyone can post on the forums.
You could go over there right now and post a pro-KKK message, but that wouldn’t make MoveOn a promoter of the KKK.
Nice work, Larry. It’s amazing to me the lengths that folks will go to to justify their legislators cavorting with known hatemongerers.
George Allen is, to put it bluntly, a piece of shit undeserving of the title “U.S. Senator”.
All Allen did was pose for a photograph — why should he have to apologize for that? The Nation article you cite did not say he supports the CCC. In fact it goes on to say he walked with some guy to Selma in a show of solidarity and co-sponsored legislation denouncing slavery. Sounds like he’s clean.
Or is this guilt by association and are you demanding to know if he is now or ever has been a member of the CCC? Forgive me, but didn’t this line of questioning (re: communism) get the left in a snit 50 years ago? Or did I miss the memo where witch-hunts are OK now? It’s hard keeping up with you guys.
I am amazed (though sadly I guess I shouldn’t be) at the number of people who would come out and defend racism with excuses and red herrings.
It’s friggin 2006 people. We all bleed red.
NW Burbs,
You are absolutely right (no sarcasm intended).
Now, to get my tongue back in cheek, I’ll be thinking about that next time I read about the “Black Caucus” or “Latino Caucus” meeting. I’m looking forward to hearing about the all-inclusive “Red Blood Caucus.” How about the National Association for the Advancement of Red Blooded People.
The point is they, yes, the CCC is not a good group of people. They are not who I would associate with, personally. And I think less of Allen for doing it. But, in my experience, of all the times that I have been reminded or told that we are NOT all the same, it has usually been by people on the left.
To the extent that any Republican has or is running a “southern strategy,” it is blatantly obvious that the Democrats have and are running an “urban stategy.” Neither is an example of politics at its best. Can we agree on that?
===It’s hard keeping up with you guys.
Reading really helps. You might note that Allen has long had a fascination with the Confederacy and the South and anyone with such a fascination knows about the White Citizen’s Councils and the segregationist academies. Trying to turn it into only the picture is, as usual for you, disingenuous.
Trying to turn a photshoot into an election issue is, unfortunatley, the norm for the left though. When you have run out of ideas your major campaign plank has to be “my opponent is a racist.” Then watch as he squirms to try to disprove the charge. It would be comical if it weren’t so juvenile.
And again, you avoid the context. Impressive denial skills.
Is there something wrong with you people that you do not seem to recall that this isn’t the first (nor most likely the last) incidence of racist tendencies on Allen’s part?
Do you really think this would be such an issue if the idiot wasn’t on tape calling an American immigrant a racial epithet?
Seriously, how can you compare this to a witchhunt? And how can you say that the guy shouldn’t expect to be considered in alignment with these folks if he chooses to pose in pictures with them?
George Allen is a RACIST. Does he have to wear a white gown and hood for that to be fact?
Mr. Sidarth (the man George Allen called “macaca”) isn’t an immigrant, actually. He was born in Virginia.
**** Does he have to wear a white gown and hood for that to be fact?****
I dunno, ask Robert Byrd (D-WV) ……….. Once a racist, always a racist. Isn’t that the rule? Democrats have a far worse record on race relations than Republicans under any objective standard
Anonymous Pundit
“Democrats have a far worse record on race relations than Republicans under any objective standard”
Which standard? Macaca? Stars and Bars and a noose in Allen’s office? Southern Strategy? Willie Horton? Welfare queens in Cadillacs? CCC? Would have been better off if Thurmond was elected? “Call me back when you take the bone out of your nose” (Limbaugh)? McCain’s black child? Black men not the best swimmers? Affirmative Action bake sales? Just about anything Conrad Burns says? “States rights?”
Or perhaps it was the stunning response to Katrina.
If you haven’t been living in a cave, you know Robert Byrd was once a Klansman. Like 50-60 years ago.
Beyond that, you have reconstruction-era southern Democrats (today they have a different name – we call them Republicans) and isolated incidents from which to draw your “objective standards”
If I were a “Pundit” or your caliber, I’d remain anonymous too.
Oh here, let me save you the non sequitur reply: Ted Kennedy was once in a car accident. He was drunk. A woman died.
Well, Buck, allow me to bring three recent examples to the table (all of which would be more recent than a decade old picture with Ben Hur and three other guys):
1. The racist democratic operative who released Michael Steele’s credit report in an attempt to thwart the African-American’s campaign in Maryland;
2. Howard Dean forces the African-American former mayor of Atlanta out of the race for chair of the DNC;
3. Hillary Clinton forces the African-American Carl McCall out of the New York senatorial race in 2000;
Plus one more for fun:
Name all of the minorities in the respective Clinton and Bush 43 administrations. Pay particular attention to two of the “Big Three” positions of Secretary of State, Attorney General and Secretary of Defense. If you need to refer to the lesser positions such as Commerce Secretary and Secretary of Agriculture, feel free.
I got more if you need ’em, but my experience with this site is that you won’t respond to those above. Likely you’ll say these are “isolated events” and take all the fun out of the exercise.
As to Katrina — Pres. Bush authorized about 122 billion or so to the storm survivors. In New Orleans payments alone, their cut averages out to over $400,000 per family. $400,000. Per Family. That’s a house, a car and a boat to use to escape the next storm. Racism?-Not In Our Administration. No, the problem with New Orleans is that it has been managed by Democrats for over 40 years and the dispersement of the $400,000 per family was, is and will be directed by Democrats. Look for New Orleans to turn the corner some time in 2017.
Oh, and Ted Kennedy’s and the Democrats’ systematic misogynism is for another day. It’s nice of you to belittle the death of a woman. Where is NOW when I need them?
AnonymousPundit
Excepting for a moment the obvious fact that none of the three lame examples you list are racist, let’s explore why you think they are.
Black candidates are subject to the same intra-party politics in the Democratic Party that white candidates are because their place in the party isn’t new. They aren’t “Black candidates,” they’re just candidates.
Same goes for working to discredit Steele. He’s running for office. His personal life is on the table. If he were white, this wouldn’t be different.
And trying to make the case that Clinton is a racist because you can’t count that he appointed at least nine black cabinet members shows the shallowness of your intellect.
Sorry, champ. Clinton is a lot of things. Racist is not among them.
To top it all off, if everything in your intellectually hollow post was, in fact, rife with fact and bona-fide racism, it still wouldn’t equal the depths Republicans have sunk to over the last 50-years.
Is every Democrat perfect? Of course not. Are all Republicans racists? Not a chance.
But to deny that there’s been a race-baiting strategy pervading Republican politics over the last half-century is to deny written and recorded history.
AnonymousPundit asks us to:
Name all of the minorities in the respective Clinton and Bush 43 administrations. Pay particular attention to two of the “Big Three” positions of Secretary of State, Attorney General and Secretary of Defense. If you need to refer to the lesser positions such as Commerce Secretary and Secretary of Agriculture, feel free.
OK, here it is:
W-43:
Colin Powell, State
Condoleezza Rice, State
Alberto Gonzales, AG
Carlos Guitierrez, Commerce
Elaine Chao, Labor
Melquiades Martinez, HUD
Alphonso Jackson, HUD
Norm Mineta, Transportation
Roderick Paige, Education
Total: 9
Clinton:
Mike Espy, Agriculture
Ron Brown, Commerce
Norm Mineta, Commerce
Henry Cisneros, HUD
Frederico Pena, Transportation
Rodney Slater, Transportation
Hazel O’Leary, Energy
Frederico Pena, Energy
Bill Richardson, Energy
Jesse Brown, Veterans’ Affairs
Togo West, Veterans’ Affairs
Total: 11
Now that I’ve done the research for you: so what? Is this the Republican standard for determining who is racist and who is not — how many minorities are appointed to Cabinet level positions? Fine, by that standard: Clinton and the Democrats win.
That shouldn’t be the standard. The standard really should be who addresses the concerns of minorities better. The standard should be which party recognizes diversity and fully accepts other ethnicities and races, their cultures, and their beliefs.
It’s clear from his actions that George Allen does not meet my standard on race relations.
While we’re at it, Clinton appointed the first (and second, and third, if we count “acting”) African American Surgeons General.
With a big nod to Vasyl’s excellent post, it doesn’t really matter. But since you’re counting…
GrandOldPartisan, I suggest you go here: http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_Domestic/eli_pariser_letter.htm
You’ll find that MoveOn is far more responsive to notification about a few trolls posting anti-semitic trash than any right wing website would ever be. Face it: the Republican Party is the home of racists and thugs. If you’re a decent human being, you’ll stop being a Republican.
“If you’re a decent human being, you’ll stop being a Republican.”
Michael, you’re an asshole.
Vasyl — I count 7 to 6 (in favor of the leader of the “home of Racists and Thugs” -nod to Michael) if you go by positions in the cabinet offered to minorities. If you count repeat nominations in the same position or to the same person I count 10-10 (where the leader of the “Racists and Thugs” does just as well as our nation’s “first black president”). You counted Pena twice for Clinton and you left out Spencer Abraham (Arab-American) for Bush.
I will agree that counting is a poor standard but it does serve to denounce the intolerant wing of the Democratic party that holds Republicans as exclusionary, or frankly, racist. (see Michael, above)
As to serving the interests of minorities best — the Democrats have been offering the same tired promises (and warnings) to minorites for forty years. And where has it gotten the minorities? — If you listen to every Democratic candidate today, minorites have not improved their lot in life since 1964. Which is (1) untrue and (2) is a form of soft bigotry in and of itself. The Democrats had the House for 40 years, how were minorities’ interests served and what problems were solved aside from the Civil Rights Acts of ’64 and Welfare Reform of ’96 (both pressed by Republicans over Democratic objections)?
Just to clarify: I counted Pena twice because he was appointed to two different cabinet secretary positions, not re-appointed to the same one.
As for Abraham, I’ll concede the point. I was only counting African-American, Hispanic, and Asian Americans — based on the congressional Tri-Caucus of minorities. That’s the problem with this game: if we count Arab-Americans, should we count Jewish-Americans as well? As I said, we can change that numerical score to include Arab Americans as racial minorities; it’s a valid point, especially with the increasing discrimination they face.
But the main point is that counting the number of minority appointments should not be the standard. I won’t concede that point, even if it helps score rhetorical points for my (Demcoratic) team.
And let’s put the lie to rest that Republicans were the main proponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that most Democrats opposed it.
From the State Department:
The assassination of John Kennedy in November 1963 left most civil rights leaders grief-stricken. Kennedy had been the first president since Harry Truman to champion equal rights for black Americans, and they knew little about his successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Although Johnson had helped engineer the Civil Rights Act of 1957, that had been a mild measure, and no one knew if the Texan would continue Kennedy’s call for civil rights or move to placate his fellow southerners.
But on November 27, 1963, addressing the Congress and the nation for the first time as president, Johnson called for passage of the civil rights bill as a monument to the fallen Kennedy. “Let us continue,” he declared, promising that “the ideas and the ideal which [Kennedy] so nobly represented must and will be translated into effective action.” Moreover, where Kennedy had been sound on principle, Lyndon Johnson was the master of parliamentary procedure, and he used his considerable talents as well as the prestige of the presidency in support of the bill.
Yes, Southern Democrats in the Senate filibustered the bill. They were not the majority of Democrats. Here’s the breakdown from Wikipedia:
By Party
The Original House Version:
Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate Version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Majorities in both parties supported the Civil Rights Act. It was pushed by a Demcratic President, and Republican Everett Dirksen (from Illinois) was widely credited with engineering the legislative strategy that got it passed in the Senate.
The ideology that opposed the bill — that of segregation and states’ rights — is the reason for the opposition. I’ll leave it for others to determine which party has adopted this ideology in the 21st century.
GOP, being called an asshole by a Republican is like being called a drug addict by Rush Limbaugh.
Michael,
Bravo. That was actually pretty funny. Thank God I can?t stand Rush Limbaugh, otherwise I might have been offended.
Perhaps you missed the point: if you?re going to take the debate to the level of saying ?you?re not a decent human being because of your party affiliation,? when not just go ahead and say ?you?re an asshole??
But thanks for helping to prove another point: that those who claim to be the most open-minded and tolerant are often the least.
I am a conservative Republican. I?m proud of that, and don?t think it makes me any less of a decent human being. I listen to NPR, not Rush and Hannity. I watch PBS and CSPAN, not Fox News. I read the Economist, not the Weekly Standard.
I don?t feel the need to either defend or denounce everyone in the extreme wing of my party, and I don?t expect anyone else to either.
I consider myself to be a decent human being, and certainly not the racist that you?re guilt by association attacks seek to paint me as. I support school choice and vouchers because I think public education in urban areas like Chicago is failing the mostly-minority student populations there. I support faith-based initiatives because I want to see a viable alternative to gangs and drugs in the inner city (something that billions in government spending over 30 years has failed to do). I oppose affirmative action because I think the lowered expectations feed the inferiority complex that makes African American youths think that their only way out of the ghetto is sports.
Which party should I belong to if I want to advance those positions into policy? Tell me, I’ll join.
Being a Republican does not make you an evil, racist, ditto-head. And while I frequently spar, often glibly or with tongue firmly in check, with Democrats, I have never once questioned their decency as human beings just because of their party affiliation or ideology. Although, if suppose that if I wanted to, I certainly could.
I mean, what other conclusions could I draw about a party that wants to trap kids in a failed education system that cares more about what the teachers union wants than what the students need to succeed?
What conclusion could I draw about a party that wants to tie the hands of the only groups who have had long-term success in keeping inner-city youths out of gangs and off drugs?
What conclusion could I draw about a party that tells minorities: ?you?ll never be able to compete with white kids unless we set places aside and handi-cap your grades and test scores??
There are perfectly legitimate reasons for Democrats to believe what they believe. But if you manipulate and assign motives to suit your attacks, you can certainly make the case that no decent person would belong to that party, either.
Maybe you were just being glib and cute, Michael. But you touched a nerve. Your intolerant, ignorant rhetoric is every bit as damaging to this country as Rush Limbaugh?s. If you?re happy being part of the problem, fine. But if you want to start being part of the solution, I?ll be awaiting your apology.