Full Version: Eugenics Advocate Runs For Congress
Many Republican faithful take umbrage at the notion that the GOP has a problem with racial diversity. I must admit the only reason I will watch a minute of the Republican National Convention is I can't wait to see what role black Republicans will play. Is there a GOP answer to Barack Obama?
However, in the meantime, the Republican party of Tennessee has a embarrassing situation to deal with.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Republican congressional candidate James LA. Hart acknowledges that he is an "intellectual outlaw."
He is an unapologetic supporter of eugenics, the phony science that resulted in thousands of sterilizations in an attempt to purify the white race. He believes the country will look "like one big Detroit" if it doesn't eliminate welfare and immigration. He believes that if blacks were integrated centuries ago, the automobile never would have been invented.
<snip>
Despite his radical views, Hart may end up winning the Republican nomination because he is the only GOP candidate on the ballot in Thursday's primary. His presence in the campaign has embarrassed Republican leaders, who were blind-sided by Hart after they didn't bother fielding a candidate. Democratic Rep. John Tanner has held the seat for 15 years and is considered safe in November.
<snip>
"I would characterize him as a racist, an elitist," said write-in candidate Dennis Bertrand, a financial analyst and former military officer. "His idea of ... genetically altering the human race in order to build a super race with super intelligence is appalling."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EUG...EMPLATE=DEFAULT
Hart isn't shy about saying exactly what he thinks is wrong with the nation. From his web site:
Why does Detroit look like it was hit by a nuclear bomb and Hiroshima look like it was on the side that won the war? Everyone knows the answer but is afraid to say. Because genes have a more devastating effect on civilization than nuclear bombs, and the reason for Detroit's decline is that there are less 'favored races' in Detroit with an average IQ of 85 and more 'favored races' in Japan with an average IQ of 104. (It is noted there are less 'favored races'* in Africa south of the Sahara with an average IQ of 70-75, which accounts for the extreme poverty there.) Richard Lynn's book, 'IQ and the Wealth of Nations' has clearly shown that the prosperity of a nation is determined in large measure by the average IQ of the population. The poverty genes of less 'favored races'*, which are spread by welfare and immigration, are destroying our cities no less than if they were hit by a nuclear bomb. Massive uncontrolled and illegal immigration portends not just the destruction of a few cities but of our whole civilization itself. If we had integrated with less 'favored races'* centuries ago, there would have never been an electric light. There would never have been an airplane. Unless we stop dysgenic welfare and immigration policies, the US will look like one big Detroit.
http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/
I have few concerns that the good people of Tennessee will not fail to repudiate this nut come November. But here's my question:
Should political parties try to keep extremist candidates off the ballot or is this kind of thing just what happens in a democracy?
However, in the meantime, the Republican party of Tennessee has a embarrassing situation to deal with.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Republican congressional candidate James LA. Hart acknowledges that he is an "intellectual outlaw."
He is an unapologetic supporter of eugenics, the phony science that resulted in thousands of sterilizations in an attempt to purify the white race. He believes the country will look "like one big Detroit" if it doesn't eliminate welfare and immigration. He believes that if blacks were integrated centuries ago, the automobile never would have been invented.
<snip>
Despite his radical views, Hart may end up winning the Republican nomination because he is the only GOP candidate on the ballot in Thursday's primary. His presence in the campaign has embarrassed Republican leaders, who were blind-sided by Hart after they didn't bother fielding a candidate. Democratic Rep. John Tanner has held the seat for 15 years and is considered safe in November.
<snip>
"I would characterize him as a racist, an elitist," said write-in candidate Dennis Bertrand, a financial analyst and former military officer. "His idea of ... genetically altering the human race in order to build a super race with super intelligence is appalling."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EUG...EMPLATE=DEFAULT
Hart isn't shy about saying exactly what he thinks is wrong with the nation. From his web site:
Why does Detroit look like it was hit by a nuclear bomb and Hiroshima look like it was on the side that won the war? Everyone knows the answer but is afraid to say. Because genes have a more devastating effect on civilization than nuclear bombs, and the reason for Detroit's decline is that there are less 'favored races' in Detroit with an average IQ of 85 and more 'favored races' in Japan with an average IQ of 104. (It is noted there are less 'favored races'* in Africa south of the Sahara with an average IQ of 70-75, which accounts for the extreme poverty there.) Richard Lynn's book, 'IQ and the Wealth of Nations' has clearly shown that the prosperity of a nation is determined in large measure by the average IQ of the population. The poverty genes of less 'favored races'*, which are spread by welfare and immigration, are destroying our cities no less than if they were hit by a nuclear bomb. Massive uncontrolled and illegal immigration portends not just the destruction of a few cities but of our whole civilization itself. If we had integrated with less 'favored races'* centuries ago, there would have never been an electric light. There would never have been an airplane. Unless we stop dysgenic welfare and immigration policies, the US will look like one big Detroit.
http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/
I have few concerns that the good people of Tennessee will not fail to repudiate this nut come November. But here's my question:
Should political parties try to keep extremist candidates off the ballot or is this kind of thing just what happens in a democracy?
Edited to conform cited portion of article with forum Rules.
It makes sense for the parties to try to keep the idiots from getting nominated, much less elected, but unfortunately not all of these idiots are stupid enough to brazenly display their ignorance and bigotry up front. This guy is doing just that, and it is very likely that his vote count will show that he has a very limited following.
What is interesting to me is that when I was young and growing up in Texas, it would most likely have been a democrat acting like that.
What is interesting to me is that when I was young and growing up in Texas, it would most likely have been a democrat acting like that.
This really has to be the most ashamed I have ever been to be a Tennessean. Sure, we have the "Scopes Monkey" trial and a county that tried to ban gay people altogether (ironically enough, the same county where the Scopes trial was held 
), but this truly takes the cake. To think that I share the state as this man... I need to go shower . I'd read a brief on him in our local newspaper, but I was unable to find a web address; this is a gem.
And I thought one of our local state senate candidates was a nutter:
Raymond Finney for Senate
The only unfortunate thing is, his website is mild in comparison to some mailings he's sent out recently. The scariest thing: he has a good chance of winning the seat.
Should political parties try to keep extremist candidates off the ballot or is this kind of thing just what happens in a democracy?
They can try to recruit candidates who have a better chance of winning (or at least reflect better on the party's image), however I think they should just let it settle itself if there is a strong candidate running against them. While Mr. Hart may reflect poorly on the Republican party, I can almost guarantee you that Rep. Tanner isn't going to cede his seat. The only thing the Repubs really have to do is put up someone to beat out Mr. Hart in the primary. Considering they can't legally silence him, they just have to find someone able to beat him. It comes with the territory: it's kind of like the Freedom of Speech in that the most ridiculous and virulent speech doesn't last too long in an open forum.
), but this truly takes the cake. To think that I share the state as this man... I need to go shower . I'd read a brief on him in our local newspaper, but I was unable to find a web address; this is a gem. And I thought one of our local state senate candidates was a nutter:
Raymond Finney for Senate
The only unfortunate thing is, his website is mild in comparison to some mailings he's sent out recently. The scariest thing: he has a good chance of winning the seat.
Should political parties try to keep extremist candidates off the ballot or is this kind of thing just what happens in a democracy?
They can try to recruit candidates who have a better chance of winning (or at least reflect better on the party's image), however I think they should just let it settle itself if there is a strong candidate running against them. While Mr. Hart may reflect poorly on the Republican party, I can almost guarantee you that Rep. Tanner isn't going to cede his seat. The only thing the Repubs really have to do is put up someone to beat out Mr. Hart in the primary. Considering they can't legally silence him, they just have to find someone able to beat him. It comes with the territory: it's kind of like the Freedom of Speech in that the most ridiculous and virulent speech doesn't last too long in an open forum.
Should political parties try to keep extremist candidates off the ballot or is this kind of thing just what happens in a democracy?
I don't know that there is really anything a political party can do to keep someone from claiming membership in their party and running for office. I think this falls under the "stuff happens" category. What the party can do is what the GOP is doing here and what they did with David Duke in Louisiana and disavow them, refuse to support them even if they win the nomination and even in some cases support their opponent. At least it doesn't appear that this kook has a chance of actually winning the Congressional election so there's really no lasting harm done. Next time maybe the GOP will actually try to field a candidate and lead that person to the lions so they don't get embarrassed by this sort of thing.
I don't know that there is really anything a political party can do to keep someone from claiming membership in their party and running for office. I think this falls under the "stuff happens" category. What the party can do is what the GOP is doing here and what they did with David Duke in Louisiana and disavow them, refuse to support them even if they win the nomination and even in some cases support their opponent. At least it doesn't appear that this kook has a chance of actually winning the Congressional election so there's really no lasting harm done. Next time maybe the GOP will actually try to field a candidate and lead that person to the lions so they don't get embarrassed by this sort of thing.
This is one area where I don't really get the US party system.
In the UK, a party can "withdraw the whip" from any candidate it doesn't like, and local constituency parties can deselect people on the same basis.
If the person is already in office, it doesn't mean that they are ejected. It just means that, come the next election, there will be another "official" candidate for the party they were kicked out of, and the "whipless" sitting politician will have to either join another party and get their official endorsement as a candidate, or stand as an independent.
In other words, I don't get why the Republican party cannot stop this guy standing as a Republican (or the same in the Democrats) if he doesn't stick to the Republican manifesto. But then, I don't even know if you have party manifestos there.
If you don't, how the heck does anyone vote by party over there?
In the UK, a party can "withdraw the whip" from any candidate it doesn't like, and local constituency parties can deselect people on the same basis.
If the person is already in office, it doesn't mean that they are ejected. It just means that, come the next election, there will be another "official" candidate for the party they were kicked out of, and the "whipless" sitting politician will have to either join another party and get their official endorsement as a candidate, or stand as an independent.
In other words, I don't get why the Republican party cannot stop this guy standing as a Republican (or the same in the Democrats) if he doesn't stick to the Republican manifesto. But then, I don't even know if you have party manifestos there.
If you don't, how the heck does anyone vote by party over there?
QUOTE(Julian @ Aug 4 2004, 10:13 AM)
This is one area where I don't really get the US party system.
In the UK, a party can "withdraw the whip" from any candidate it doesn't like, and local constituency parties can deselect people on the same basis.
If the person is already in office, it doesn't mean that they are ejected. It just means that, come the next election, there will be another "official" candidate for the party they were kicked out of, and the "whipless" sitting politician will have to either join another party and get their official endorsement as a candidate, or stand as an independent.
In other words, I don't get why the Republican party cannot stop this guy standing as a Republican (or the same in the Democrats) if he doesn't stick to the Republican manifesto. But then, I don't even know if you have party manifestos there.
If you don't, how the heck does anyone vote by party over there?
In the UK, a party can "withdraw the whip" from any candidate it doesn't like, and local constituency parties can deselect people on the same basis.
If the person is already in office, it doesn't mean that they are ejected. It just means that, come the next election, there will be another "official" candidate for the party they were kicked out of, and the "whipless" sitting politician will have to either join another party and get their official endorsement as a candidate, or stand as an independent.
In other words, I don't get why the Republican party cannot stop this guy standing as a Republican (or the same in the Democrats) if he doesn't stick to the Republican manifesto. But then, I don't even know if you have party manifestos there.
If you don't, how the heck does anyone vote by party over there?
How to explain this.... Julian, our parties in the US are most likely as confusing to you as your system is to me. All a person needs to do to "join" a political party in the US is to check a box on an application for candidacy. If I want to run for Congress as a member of the Democratic Party, all I have to do is say, "I want to run for the Democratic Party nomination for Congress", fill out their forms, pay the registration fees involved and voila! I'm a candidate in the primary. If nobody else runs, I'm the candidate in the general election unless there is a write in candidate that gets more votes. Let's say I win the general election and end up in Congress.
Once I get to Congress, I have the choice of which "caucus", if any, I want to join. The Democratic Party Caucus or the Republican Party Caucus, or I could start my own caucus. Even if I won the election as a Democrat I could decide I was actually a Republican and join that caucus. To do that I would vote for the Republican caucus leader as the Speaker of the House and in return, that caucus would assign me to committees in Congress, but I wouldn't be required per se to vote with them on the issues. If I bucked the party that put me on the committee though, I would risk retribution from that party by them taking me off the committee and I would lose influence in Congress. I could still vote on bills before the entire Congress, but I wouldn't have a say in committee which is where everything really gets done.
That's the basic course - abridged.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.