Well, they got a good run out of their pet Critter before being exposed

Dec 30 2014 Published by under Politics

The new House Republican Whip went to speak to a David Duke associated group when he was working his way up. Claims he had no idea they were a Klan despite Duke being a front and center politician in the same state of Louisiana at the time.

Yeah, that denial is credible.

25 responses so far

  • Comradde PhysioProffe says:

    Why would this be a problem for him within the Confederate Party?

  • philapodia says:

    He's either lying or stupid, neither of which looks good for the new GOP majority. I would think that John Boehner will be having a talking to him soon like he just did with Michael Grimm, but that may be wishful thinking.

  • Dave says:

    He's either lying or stupid, neither of which looks good for the new GOP majority

    Are you kidding? This kind of stuff is what excites the GOP base. He will get a few extra votes for this, no doubt about it.

    The only reason Grimm is resigning is because he will probably do time for his crimes. But remember, he just won an election by a large margin, despite having over 20 federal counts against him.

  • philapodia says:

    No mainstream republican wants to be associated with the KKK. It may get him some votes from the racists, but would probably lose a significant amount since not all republicans are racists.

    Grimm is resigning because a felon can't be a part of any congressional committees or vote until re-elected, so he effectively reduces the GOP's majority by one if he stayed. Boehner basically kicked him out so they can keep that vote.

    Perhaps Grimm's constituents thought he would break them in half and throw them over the railing if they didn't re-elect him.

  • Dave says:

    Mainstream Republican? What is that?

  • DrugMonkey says:

    "Publicly associated", no. But privately?

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    So Scalise is a Confederate for a single speech, but Barack Obama never noticed that his pastor of 20 years was a racist anti-Semite who said G**d*** America.

    Got it.

  • Comradde PhysioProffe says:

    Dude, you forgot about the black panthers and Farrakhan. Get your right-wing talking points straight!

  • Philapodia says:

    Mainstream republican = not batshitte crazy (i.e. Michelle Bachman) but still drinking the Regan KoolAid.

  • qaz says:

    @philopodia "Grimm is resigning because a felon can't be a part of any congressional committees or vote until re-elected". This is incorrect. (source: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/felons-in-office/)

    PS. Please name a mainstream republican still in federal office who has not said batshit crazy things recently (within the last decade).

  • Philapodia says:

    House Code of Official Conduct (House Rule XXIII)

    10. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who has been convicted by a court of record for the commission of a crime for which a sentence of two or more yearsÕ imprisonment may be imposed should refrain from participation in the business of each committee of which such individual is a member, and a Member should refrain from voting on any question at a meeting of the House or of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, unless or until judicial or executive proceedings result in reinstatement of the presumption of the innocence of such Member or until the Member is reelected to the House after the date of such conviction.

    http://ethics.house.gov/publication/code-official-conduct

    Perhaps the operative phrase here is "should refrain", but from what I understand the convicted felon would be put up for a vote on their suitability for office and could be voted out by a 2/3rd majority. I guess it depends on who he pissed off in the House. Him staying would also start an ethics committee investigation into his actions, which would distract him from doing his job.

    Here's some non-batshite crazy republicans (as far as I'm aware). Unfortunately the list is getting smaller by the day...
    Mark Kirk (R-IL)
    Ron Johnson (R-WI)
    Ron Portman (R-OH)
    Pat Toomey (R-PA)
    Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)

  • Dave says:

    Pat Fucking Toomey!!!!!! Either you're taking the piss, or you is trolling.

    http://www.ontheissues.org/PA/Pat_Toomey.htm

    His entire voting record indicates 'right-wing nutbag' to me. Forget about what they say, look at how they vote. The ones you listed there are more careful about how they present themselves, but they vote the same way as the crazies, by and large.

    Low information voters = republicans.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Scalise voted against MLK Day in a small minority protest vote, N-c. What similarly revelatory political acts has Obama taken to back up your allegation?

  • Philapodia says:

    I consider batshite crazy as spouting your conspiracy theories with no regard for or awareness of the consequences (Bachman, Cruz, Palin). Those listed vote partyline but don't spout off about it as much. That at least shows a modicum of restraint. Batshite crazies have no restraint. My mother-in-law is a prime example (pours another glass of GlenLivet 18).

    The problem with the republican party is that there is very little ability to have a different opinion than the party line. Go against the party leadership and you'll be punished (aka, reduced funds from the RNC, support for your primary challenger, etc.). This is why having someone like Scalise as House Majority Whip (#3 in the house leadership and the enforcer of party discipline) who appears to be sympathetic to the KKK is bad because it implicitly suggests that this is what the party believes in. I would assume that most (but obviously not all) Americans think the KKK is not an organization they would want to receive a Christmas card from.

    Not all republicans are low-information voters. There are lots of smart well-off people who vote republican because it's in their economic interest. There are smart socially conservative religious types who vote republican due to their faith but are willing to help others. There are many layers to the rotting onion that is the republican party, grasshopper.

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    All of them, DM. All of them.

  • Grumble says:

    Wait, N-c, let me get this straight. You are saying that ALL of Obama's political actions are motivated by anti-Semitic and anti-American beliefs?

    I'm struggling to find adjectives for such an inane point of view. Is "Foxnewsy" a word?

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    Take a deep breath, Grumble. I thought it was obvious that I was engaging in rhetorical hyperbole. My point is simply that you can find views consistent with his despicable pastor's worldview throughout his public record -- one striking example being his hostility towards Israel.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    How is a failure to be all buddy-buddy with Israel (a country, btw, that fails to equate with all Jews as an ethnicity) evidence of antiSemitism? Or, conversely, what is the legitimate reason for opposing the MLK holiday in 2004?

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    It's a bit more than not being "buddy-buddy"--recall that Obama began his administration by staking out a position on settlements that was to the left of Mahmoud Abbas.

    But rather than start the new year with a dreary rehash of Middle East issues, let me point to the dozens of White House visits made by Al Sharpton. Why is Obama so comfortable taking advice from this con man and grifter, who is personally responsible for riots and pogroms?

  • Philapodia says:

    Ah, the bait and switch. A tactic beloved by conservatives. We will probably also see the straw man attack, the ad hominem attack, at least one moral high ground fallacy, and many others. I'm getting some popcorn...

  • DrugMonkey says:

    N-c- that's still not showing a political act that supports a charge of anti-Semitism. Even if Obama was full-on siding with Palestine over Israel you couldn't claim any such thing. The MLK day vote, particularly in 2004 and in a tiny minority whip count, has no explanation or reason other than telling the racist base you are one of them. That's the difference here.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    What "pogrom" did Sharpton cause?

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom

  • Philapodia says:

    My bet is that n-c is going to pull out the Crown Heights riot because of what Big Al said at Gavin Cato's funeral about diamond merchants causing a pogram. This takes it out of context of the existing tension between blacks and Jews in that part of Brooklyn puts the blame on entirely on Sharpton, which is disingenious. It's sad that it happened, but perhaps it also ripped the bandaid of the festering wound in that community and forced both sides to start moving towards peace?

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    Wow, that is quite a justification. I guess incitement to riot is just a way to get both sides moving towards peace? Which of these comments helped move towards peace?:

    "Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights."

    “All we want to say is what Jesus said: If you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise, no meetings, no kaffe klatsch, no skinnin’ and grinnin’. Pay for your deeds.”

    "No justice, no peace."

    Then there's Freddie Fashion Mart, just in case you thought Crown Heights was an aberration.

  • Grumble says:

    Yup, Obama invites Sharpton to the White House a lot because O has the Jewish vote in the bag and really needs to shore up his ratings among the black community.

    Or, alternatively, Obama doesn't give a damn about Jews and is in fact a closet anti-Semite, which is why he often invites a pogrom-inciting anti-Semite to the White House.

    Whatevs. Neither position is defensible, but you're free to believe whatever fairy tale you want to believe. What Obama did NOT do is accept money from avowed racists. Even that silly reactionary rag Breitbart.com excoriates Scalise for this (and Boner, too, for defending him).

Leave a Reply