“There's no arguing that who the Republicans decide to elevate into a leadership position says a lot about what the conference's priorities and values are.” (Obama White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest referring to the recent Steve Scalise/David Duke flap.)
“...when House Republicans stand by him (Steve Scalise) years later, and GOP White House hopefuls defend or refuse to speak out, they legitimize his actions.” (Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the same issue.)
First off, the evidence that twelve years ago current House Republican Whip Steve Scalise addressed a “white supremacist group” titled “European-American Unity and Rights Organization” and led by ex-Klansman David Duke is very hazy.
So the current hysteria among the Democratic/Media axis concerns the following: long ago a Republican legislator might have addressed a group led by an ex-Klansman.
On the other hand, a Democratic legislator who served variously as head of the Senate Democratic Caucus, Senate Majority Whip, Senate Majority Leader, President pro-tempore of the U.S. Senate and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations (Robert Byrd) was an ex-Klansman. So which party, according to the mainstream media, has the image problem?
Where’s Rod Serling and Franz Kafka when you really need them?
But for the sake of this discussion let’s concede that Scalise did knowingly address this group. And let’s say he didn’t repeatedly apologize for the mistake. Also for the sake of this discussion let’s concede that pride in European heritage constitutes “Hate!” Whereas pride in every other ethnic heritage constitutes a healthy and commendable self-confidence.
Granted, in this age of Twitter and Facebook the notion of actually researching an item before mouthing- off on it seems as quant as buggy whips. But some members of the Democratic/Media axis might try it before mouthing-off on this Scalise-Duke item.
If so they’ll quickly discover that Duke’s group were actually “yellow supremacists.” David Duke, you see, classifies east Asians (Japanese, in particular) above whites in the racial hierarchy of intellect. In brief, he accepts the findings of several IQ studies including one by Nobel-Prize winner James Watson.
So shouldn’t his enlightened appreciation of non-western cultures and shunning of simple-minded ethnic chauvinism so typical of Tea-Party types commend itself to liberals? Shouldn’t it warm the hearts of the type of people who sponsor the Smithsonian Museum, finance the Democratic Party, and appreciate Hollywood’s Tom Hanks?
Remember how major Democratic financier Tom Hanks, while recently narrating HBO’s WWII special “The Pacific,” slammed ignorant middle-American bigotry? "Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different."
And remember how the Smithsonian’s display on the Enola Gay decried the yahoo jingoism of blaming “those sneaky slant-eyed Japs!” for WWII with a more “nuanced” and ‘enlightened “view: "For most Americans,” originally read the exhibit, “this...was a war of vengeance. For most Japanese, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism."
Well, David Duke’s “nuances” regarding that event surpass even the Smithsonian’s and Hank’s. Duke is also extremely “nuanced” with regard to U.S. “bullying” of Iran. He denounces the U.S. embargo of Iran because it “only hurts the Iranian people,” and is supported by a “tiny but rich powerful cabal of rich American string-pullers.” Such is Duke’s “enlightenment” on this issue that he made the plea on Iranian TV after a meeting with Iranian leader Ahmadinejad, where he also made heart-rending pleas for the rights of Palestinians “brutalized” by U.S. arms.
To some of us that sort of language regarding a U.S. “embargo” against a terror-sponsoring nation and such chumminess with “victims of U.S. imperialism” sure sounds familiar. But it usually issues from the very type of politicians and pundits now slamming Congressman Scalise.
In brief, shouldn’t Duke’s abhorrence of wanton “U.S. bullying of small nations,” his rejection of the “bigotry” against “slant-eyes,” “ragheads,” Persians and “Ay-rabs,” and his enlightened quest for international comity commend itself to liberals?
And by the way, his looniness aside, who has David Duke killed? Whose death has he even advocated? Fidel Castro’s murder toll, on the other hand, is estimated at close to 100,000.)
“We greeted each other as old friends,”(Jimmy Carter upon greeting Fidel Castro in 2011.)
“In 2002, we received him (Jimmy Carter) warmly,” Fidel reciprocated.“Now, I reiterated to him our respectand esteem.”
"Castro is very shy and sensitive, I frankly liked him and regard him as a friend." (George McGovern after his first Cuban visit in 1975.)
Jimmy Carter is widely hailed as the “Elder Statesman of the Democratic party.” His recent honors include addressing the 2012 Democratic National Convention. George Mc Govern is widely honored as the “Conscience of the Democratic party.”
And as seen above, far from crawfishing away from any claims they chummed-up with a Stalinist, terror-sponsoring mass-murderer who wantonly tortured and murdered several of their countrymen, whose lifelong dream was to nuke their homeland, and who jailed and tortured the most and longest suffering black political prisoners in modern history of the Western hemisphere—far from edging away from their association with Fidel Castro, some very prominent Democrats gloat over the event.
And oh!....I almost forgot another very prominent Democratic Presidential candidate, who among many other Democratic accolades was honored with the Presidential Medal of Freedom by president Bill Clinton:
“Viva Fidel!—Viva Che Guevara!” yelled the Democratic presidential candidate (twice) Jesse Jackson while arm and arm with the jailer and torturer of the most and longest-suffering black political prisoners in the modern history of the Western hemisphere.
And please note, Debbie Wasserman Schulz, these were not speculative Democratic “White House hopefuls.” They were outright Democratic presidential candidates and Democratic occupiers of the White house.
So does this Democratic fondness for a mass-murdering, terror-sponsoring, war mongering Stalinist “say a lot” about the Democratic party, Obama White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest?