Tennessee District 8 candidate for the House of Representatives, James L. Hart, seems to have won the GOP primary.
This is a bit confusing, because he’s listed as an Independent or a Republican (depending on which source you consult) and the GOP of Shelby County endorsed a write-in candidate (Dennis Bertrand):
On Thursday night, in an unprecedented move, the Shelby County Republican Party Steering Committee unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the write-in candidacy of Dennis Bertrand for Congress in the 8th Congressional District and repudiating the candidacy of James L. Hart. Hart is a candidate of hate who does not even claim to be a Republican and who said “It’s true that I don’t represent the ideas of the Republican Party” in a June 26 article in the Commercial Appeal.
Mr. Hart seems to be quite controversial:
Hart, 60, vows if elected to work toward keeping “less favored races” from reproducing or immigrating to the United States. In campaign literature, Hart contends that “poverty genes” threaten to turn the United States into “one big Detroit.”
[…]While campaigning, Hart sometimes wears a protective vest and carries a .40-caliber pistol, but he said he has run into no trouble.
“When I knock on a door and say white children deserve the same rights as everybody else, the enthusiastic response is truly amazing,” he said.
If a black person opens the door, he says he simply drops off campaign literature and leaves.
The national level leadership of the GOP needs to distance themselves from this guy and now.
Sounds like time to do what we did to David Duke and actively campaign for his opponent.
this morning the Yahoo headline was something like “GOP Runs Avowed Racist in Tennessee.”
So, yeah, probably ought to nip that one in the bud.
What about unity, Eddie? Shouldn’t we extend our unifying hand to loons, quacks and nuts?:)
An interesting aside (or maybe not):
1.The word “eugenics” has ugly connotation, but it means “good genes.” Think of Good Gene, Oregon!
2. The founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger was into Eugenics.
I’ve never heard of this guy, but he seems, I dunno, kinda like a neanderthal.
I hereby denounce him on behalf of the GOP!
What about unity, Eddie? Shouldn’t we extend our unifying hand to loons, quacks and nuts?:)
An interesting aside (or maybe not):
1.The word “eugenics” has ugly connotation, but it means “good genes.” Think of Good Gene, Oregon!
2. The founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger was into Eugenics.
I’ve never heard of this guy Hart, but he seems, I dunno, kinda like a neanderthal.
I hereby denounce him on behalf of the GOP!
As a covert, high-ranking operative of the VRWC, I also denounce him.
What about unity, Eddie? Shouldn’t we extend our unifying hand to loons, quacks and nuts?:)
I thought you already had, Navy. ;p
How dis-unifying, Eddie:)
It’s really worth taking a look at this guy’s website. He is even more insane than the quotes thus far make him appear.
He has a few Marxist moments like this: “The workers laughed when the king held up a crown and a scepter and claimed that these pieces of stone and metal endowed him with the divine right to tax the workers for the sun that shines and the rain that falls. Why do the workers cower today when Rothschild and Rockefeller hold up a dollar and a ruple and claim that these pieces of paper that they inherited when they were born give them the divine right to control the resources of the earth and the destiny of man.”
He might be a bit off-putting to the Christian Right: “Fundamental religionists have not merely jeopardized the health, well being and the survival of a few individuals, but of the whole human race.” Which is probably why “We in the Eugenic movement are not interested in competing against Adolph Hitler or Karl Marx for some minuscule little 1,000 year reich. We are interested in competing with Jesus Christ and Buddha for the destiny of man.”
Actually, he’s a sort of demented Hegelian: “When man came into existence, for the first time in forever, the universe could think and feel and see and purpose and direction were born amid the black chaos of space. In us, the universe has evolved into a mind and a conscience and a potential beyond that of a thousand super novas. As the most powerful organizing and directing force in the universe, man is the corporeal manifestation of the universe trying to comprehend and control its own destiny.” Or, to put it more briefly: “Man is the real miracle, the real God and he has proven it for a thousand generations.” “It is now time for you to meet God. Here is God. That God is you.”
He’s not too keen on democracy: “Suppose you wanted to fly to the moon? Would you take a poll of the people in the street and ask them what components they thought would be necessary to incorporate in a space ship? If we did, what is the probability that we would ever get there? Why should the people in the street know more about politics than they do about aerodynamics? Why then do we ask the man on the street to vote on the components that he thinks are necessary to establish an efficient workable social economic structure? For a politician to implore all the people to vote however they feel on election day is like asking a monkey to throw sand into the mechanism of Apollo 11 before it takes off. If we are to survive as a species, we must give rule to the few who think rather than to the many who merely fornicate.”
He advocates printing money rather than borrowing money when we spend too much, and blames inflation, among other things, on our failure to do so. He then adds: “If the government can print usury bearing treasury bonds to finance the government, as they do today, why can they not just as easily print usury free dollars like Lincoln did? If he had not been assassinated, our national debt today would be zero.”
And of course eugenics, which is the central theme of his site: “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.”
Great find hilzoy. Did you see the online survey he had. He may want to reset it:
Government should enforce eugenic standards 8.92 % (337)
Doctors should be involved in eugenics 1.43 % (54)
I should judge the genetic suitability of spouse 5.11 % (193)
Government should not encourage dysgenics 2.46 % (93)
Only god should be concerned with eugenics 7.25 % (274)
There is no proper role for eugenics 72.03 % (2722)
I have no idea 2.80 % (106)
“The poverty genes of less ‘favored races’*, which are spread by welfare and immigration . . . “
I guess that’s the problem — the more ‘favored races’ spread genes through sex, which is often more difficult to get than welfare. 😛
The founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger was into Eugenics.
If memory serves, there are two kinds of eugenics, positive and negative. Sanger was a positive eugenicist, i.e. a believer that the human race could be improved by the careful selection of mates. The usual connotation of “eugenics” nowadays, though, is that of negative genetics, i.e. not just of careful breeding to accentuate the positive but of the outright elimination of the negative.
[In Nazi Germany, for example, not only were there tiers of genetic qualifications — from Juden through Mischlinge of types I and II up to Aryan — but there were corps of euthanasists who sterilized or killed the mental ill, the “deviant” and, in some particularly gruesome cases, the war-wounded. It was from these teams, whose name I forget, that the mechanics of the Final Solution sprang.]
It’s been a while since I read up on eugenics, though, so those more familiar should feel free to intervene here.
Navy Davy: 2. The founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger was into Eugenics.
And Thomas Jefferson held innocent human beings in captivity, enriching himself from the sweat of their toil, even as he put to paper the principles of liberty on which our great nation is founded. I suppose sometimes you have to look at a person’s views and accomplishments on balance.
ND did that quite nicely, Gromit.
Sure, he did for Hart. I’m just curious why he brought Sanger into the discussion. There are much more accomplished Eugenicists in history, are there not?
Ho-lee $#17!
This guy is a nutjob. And I mean, wow, a /serious/ nutjob.
From a strictly strategic standpoint, I think the Tennessee Dems should run the sanest liberal they can find–not a DINOSAUR like Zell Miller, or a “centrist”, but an honest-to-god progressive Liberal who’s sane enough to not get tarred as a leftist. One of two things will happen: either the liberal will get elected as the lesser of two evils, and Tennessee will have a good progressive to work with… or the nutbar will get elected, in which case the GOP gets what they deserve for running and electing this wack-job: national shame every time he takes the floor and opens his mouth.
Win-win situation from where I sit, strategically and practically speaking. Now, from a more sensible, gap-bridging standpoint, my advice is for the national and Tennessee GOP to completely disavow association with this guy. Having his own party kick him to the curb is probably a lot better for the country and the state of discourse, in the big picture.
Gromit,
Considering our recent “dialogue” on Springsteen & Reagan, I hereby denounce you for using inapt analogies:)
ND did that quite nicely, Gromit.
He did? Must have missed that. Looked to me like an “interesting aside”.
why he brought Sanger into the discussion.
Because the primary reason Hart is a wacko is because of his view on Eugenics.
There are much more accomplished Eugenicists in history, are there not?
No. Well,Yes, maybe the Nazis, but that’s too extreme. Also, maybe William Shockley, but he’s probably too obscure.
I think the Tennessee Dems should run the sanest liberal they can find–not a DINOSAUR like Zell Miller
Miller is a liberal?
Calling him a “dinosaur” is offensive to dinosaurs. He’s the most pathetic excuse for a whore I’ve ever seen.
“Calling him a “dinosaur” is offensive to dinosaurs. He’s the most pathetic excuse for a whore I’ve ever seen.”
Yikes I shudder to think what you must have said about Jim Jeffords. 😉
He’s the most pathetic excuse for a whore I’ve ever seen.
Where’s the unity, Eddie, the unity?:)
Yikes I shudder to think what you must have said about Jim Jeffords. 😉
Jim Jeffords changed party affiliations. Zell Miller has not. I suspect that’s the crux of the difference.
Navy Davy: Considering our recent “dialogue” on Springsteen & Reagan, I hereby denounce you for using inapt analogies:)
You seemed convinced that Reagan’s political activity began with running for governor. I let it drop after a couple of rounds. Yet you cross-thread it, and treat it to scare quotes no less?
From the White House Reagan Biography page:
You said Bruce should “STFU” because he is ill-informed (an extremely subjective assessment) and because he has never won public office (and not simply because you disagree with his views). Reagan was a Hollywood activist before he held public office. The comparison is completely valid.
Anarch:
In her 1932 article “A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, cf. here, Sanger pretty clearly advocated what you’ve characterized as “negative eugenics”:
A lot of the cricisms of Sanger are guilt by association: quite a few of her circle were out-and-out racists. Neither here nor there but FYI.
“Because the primary reason Hart is a wacko is because of his view on Eugenics.”
No, the primary reason Hart is a wacko is that he believes Detroit is poor because it has too many black genes. It’s one thing to consider eugenics as methods to select more advantageous genes. It’s another to suggest that being black is to carry disadvantageous genes. Christ, he leads his campaign home page off with the insinuation that if early hominids had integrated (whatever that would mean in that context), we wouldn’t have airplanes.
Don’t carry a single drop of water for this guy.
“Did you see the online survey he had. He may want to reset it:”
Don’t read the comments below the poll, though. The goggles will do nothing.
“The national level leadership of the GOP needs to distance themselves from this guy and now.”
As soon as The Left distances itself from Michael Fatty Moore!!!
Sorry, just innoculating.
I’m with sidereal: this guy is nuts with or without eugenics. A serious eugenics fan might be a particularly distasteful sort of crank. But someone who says that if Lincoln had not been assassinated, the national debt would be zero is off the wall.
Gromit: why he brought Sanger into the discussion.
Navy Davy: Because the primary reason Hart is a wacko is because of his view on Eugenics.
Okay. Again, what does it have to do with Sanger, who held some views that, while quite commonplace in her day, are now rightly looked upon as objectionable (and are rejected outright by the very organization she founded), but whose real legacy is the availability of cheap, safe, and effective birth control?
Gromit: There are much more accomplished Eugenicists in history, are there not?
Navy Davy: No. Well,Yes, maybe the Nazis, but that’s too extreme. Also, maybe William Shockley, but he’s probably too obscure.
So the Nazis are too accomplished and Shockley is too obscure. But Sanger is just right! And what’s that? She’s also a hero of progressives for entirely unrelated reasons? Sweet serendipity!
My friend Gromit,
Have some mustard for your pretzel logic:)
This is very, very, simple. I’ll type slowly for you (just kiddin’, you’re allright!)
PRIMARY ARGUMENT:
1. The gang at ObWi think Eugenics is bad.
2. Hart is a fan of Eugenics.
Therefore,
3. The gang at OBwi are not fond of Hart.
Quod Erat Demonstratum
Because the fine folks at ObWi desire free-wheeling, civil and poignant dicussion, ND makes a very modest aside about Eugenics:
An interesting aside (or maybe not):
1.The word “eugenics” has ugly connotation, but it means “good genes.” Think of Good Gene, Oregon!
2. The founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger was into Eugenics.
Uh-Oh! Major controversy! Gromit has been stirred into a frenzy! Why? We don’t know. Is he a denizen of Eugene, Oregon and insulted by the connection between this humble college town and the bizarre, Nazi-like practices of genetic selections?
Probably not.
Is he a big fan of Margaret Sanger — the founder of Planned Parenthood? Does he feel the sting that her humanitarian mission to promote a woman’s “right to choose” is somehow tainted by her association with crackpot theories, such that Hart adopts? Perhaps, but so what.
I’m sorry if I rained on your parade about Margaret Sanger. But, like this idiot Hart, she wuz into Eugenics. That is historical fact.
If you wish it wasn’t brought up in this thread, well, again, I’m sorry about that. No harm intended. Didn’t mean to set you off on 9 different tangents about slavery and Jefferson:)
But, if we don’t like Hart becuz of his views on Eugenics, wouldn’t the same rationale apply to other devoted followers? Seems kinda simple and logical to me.
That’s all folks.
“PRIMARY ARGUMENT:
1. The gang at ObWi think Eugenics is bad.
2. Hart is a fan of Eugenics.”
Wrong.
Read the post again, please. The ‘gang at ObWi’ thinks Hart is bad because he advocates racial determinism and elimination of races he doesn’t like.
Eugenics is great. My wife is hot.
Navy Davy: If you wish it wasn’t brought up in this thread, well, again, I’m sorry about that. No harm intended. Didn’t mean to set you off on 9 different tangents about slavery and Jefferson:)
I don’t wish anything of the sort. I simply wish it hadn’t taken you four posts to get to your actual point:
But, if we don’t like Hart becuz of his views on Eugenics, wouldn’t the same rationale apply to other devoted followers? Seems kinda simple and logical to me.
Okay, now apply the same logic to Jefferson and the issue of slavery. If I am correct in assuming that you abhor slavery, you must really hate Jefferson by your own logic. Personally, I think the positives in his legacy outweigh the negatives–they don’t excuse his misdeeds, but they prevent me from detesting the man.
“I think the positives in his legacy outweigh the negatives–they don’t excuse his misdeeds, but they prevent me from detesting the man.”
And why not? In contrast to yourself, I hold to the opposite viewpoint – that one can admire a man’s ideas while detesting the man himself, as I most certainly do the hypocrite slavedriver called Thomas Jefferson.
I really can’t explain why so many people insist on making excuses for Jefferson, other than to attribute it to hero-worship instilled by custom and social pressure, as it isn’t as if the recognition that slavery was a great evil was a cutting edge idea. Men like Samuel Johnson* and even America’s own Gouverneur Morris saw clearly that slavery was one of the basest of practices known to man, so the usual “he was a man of his times” apologia simply won’t wash.
The all-too-common refusal to acknowledge the gravity of the failings of some of the founding fathers smacks of idolatry to me; one might be forgiven for thinking that doing so would somehow automatically invalidate the ideas behind the American republic.
*In 1776, on learning of the American declaration of independence he wrote “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?”
Miller is a liberal?
No. I was unclear.
Calling him a “dinosaur” is offensive to dinosaurs. He’s the most pathetic excuse for a whore I’ve ever seen.
DINOSAUR is an acronym, an extension of DINO: Democrat In Name Only, Shamelessly And Unambiguously Republican.
Lieberman dips into this territory occasionally, but Zell Miller fears no competition for the title.
The problem with Zell Miller, to address someone else’s question, isn’t that he’s stumping for Bush or that he advocates any number of relentlessly conservative positions. The problem is that he’s practically the literal definition of Democrat In Name Only. That’s fine per se; a person has the right to call themselves whatever party they want–but in the process, he gives the rest of the party a bad name and gives ammunition to the people who think it’s in any way meaningful to point at him and say “look, even a Democrat says ____!”
It is as if I ran as a Republican, but advocated for higher taxes, gay marriage, gun control, legal abortion and drugs, and campaigned for Kerry.
It is as if I ran as a Republican, but advocated for higher taxes, gay marriage, gun control, legal abortion and drugs, and campaigned for Kerry.
And slammed Bush and your fellow Republicans at every opportunity. That’s the part that I find particularly galling.
Catsy, that’s brilliant! It’s worth it. Then we can say ‘even Republicans like Catsy think he’s a douche’
Actually, now that I think of it, Jesse at Pandagon did almost exactly that. It was vaguely amusing while it lasted.
The problem with bringing Zell Miller into the conversation here is that he is not a nut, he just agrees with Republicans on a lot of things. James Hart, however, is a nut.
The problem with bringing Zell Miller into the conversation here is that he is not a nut, he just agrees with Republicans on a lot of things.
Upwards of 90%, according to some sources [which I can’t seem to find right now, dagnabbit.]
James Hart, however, is a nut.
No disagreement — on either the claim or the distinction — there.