Wednesday, October 11th, 2006...7:16 am
Pearce: I’m Not a Racist, I Just Can’t Read
Our man Russell Pearce is making the unlikely claim that he didn’t know that an article entitled “Who Rules America? The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken” contained white supremacist statements.
Hogwash.
(I think I’ve read that word somewhere, who knows why it is in my head.)
The article in question was originally published in a publication of the National Alliance. That may have been clue number one that the article may have been racist. This is like one claiming that one didn’t know that an article in Hustler was sexually oriented.
He claims that he did not read the whole article. Yeah, I usually forward articles from people that I didn’t read. Well, I went ahead and read the original article. If Pearce had read only to the seventh paragraph, he would have found this:
For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a “take charge” Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist—that is, any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America—is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. The White racist “gun nut,” in fact, has become a familiar stereotype on TV shows.
Yeah, he had no idea that might contain “insensitive” statements. It gets worse from there for those of you willing to read the whole vile thing.
Pearce claims that he didn’t know the contents of the article and doesn’t agree with them. I find this incredibly unlikely. The local media should pursue this. This isn’t a matter of him just using the word “wetback,” this is a matter of asking questions about who he is associating with and what motivates him politically. Unfortunately, the media and political establishment is too quick to laugh this sort of thing off as “well, that’s Russ.” This guy has an awful lot of power, and was even talked about as a candidate for higher office. It’s high time some one asks some tough questions.
Of course, he could just be a moron that is sending articles to people without reading them.
So, he’s either a bigot or an idiot. Which is it, Russ?
12 Comments
October 11th, 2006 at 8:43 am
That’s almost as bad as Pederson speaking before a Jewish hate-group.
October 11th, 2006 at 9:08 am
As much as I dislike Pearce, I’m inclined to go toward idiot instead of racist. I read his apology as printed in the paper and it sounds sincere, unlike the usual political backpedaling “regret” statements.
As for the argument that he should have known who the National Alliance is, I don’t take much stock in that. Unless you specifically follow that kind of thing, who’s to know what any of these groups are all about. Virtually every political group (on the left and right) these days uses some innocuous name that makes them sound like a bunch of swell people who love puppies and kittens and babies.
Finally, I’ve gotten an email from him that you could tell was fired off without thinking. When I called him on the stuff he said in his email, he apologized. I got the impression he’s the kind of guy who has a short temper and goes with his gut w/o taking the time to reason it out.
October 11th, 2006 at 9:31 am
You know…this bothers me to a major major degree. The social and intellectual networks that candidates and office holders run in matters. A person who subscribes to and discusses The Nation is a different type of person, as is a person that subscribes to and reads the NYTIMES or regular national newspapers.
In an age of numerous information sources and overload it takes effort and conscious choice to determine what papers, articles, stories you choose to subscribe to, read, and forward.
The fact that he was reading and forwarding a story from the National Alliance DOES say something about him, his philosophy, and how he thinks. It doesn’t mean he is an out and out biggot, but it also does tell us about how reasonable and mainstream he is.
What this tells me, at the least, is that this guy is not just conservative but that he grasps for and covets ideas that most Americans would view as ancient, unreasonable and indeed out of the mainstream of society.
It is no different that what many have known about Allen (VA) but have come to see now in the light of day.
October 11th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
I just find it funny that JD withdrew his endorsement of Pearce.
October 11th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Phx Kid,
I think you are being a little bit lazy. The Jewish News of Greater Phoenix identifies CAIR as “an organization whose anti-Israel views are well known.” This isn’t the same as what you are saying. Pederson later told teh Jewish News:”Certainly if I had known CAIR is not considered a moderate organization I would not have attended the event,” … “My position on the situation in the Middle East is clear: U.S. support for Israel has to be unequivocal. There can never be any doubt about our commitment to Israel.” And the article also notes that one of the co-owners of the Jewish News has made a donation to the Pederson campaign.
article
Meanwhile, you can’t tell me that Mr. Perice doesn’t know the word “miscegenation.” If so, he really needs to read up on Loving vs Virginia:
Loving vs Virginia
“Section 20-59, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:
“Punishment for marriage.—If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.”
Does he really want to associate himself with people who look back fondly to those days?
October 11th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Tedski, you talked a while ago about some accident that Kyl was involved in back in’99. Are you also calling for an investigation in the reports that Gabrielle Giffords got in a car accident during the primary race this year. Supposedly she hit some foreign student, I think from an Asian country, and she begged him not to call the police. Is there any truth to this? Don’t you think the Star and Citizen should investigate such a charge? According to some reports the guy she hit is kind of nervous about talking because he does not want to cause any problems with his visa.
Did Gabby use any of her influence as a former legislator to intimidate the poor guy? Did she really insist that he not call the police? Do you think there was a cover up or are the papers just incompetent? Would be nice to hear the full truth of this story.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
You got me Sandy. And everything that Mark Foley did was okay because of Gerry Studds.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
I think what Mark Foley did was a disgrace and he should resign immediately and seek help. Oh, sorry that’s exactly what he did. End of story I guess.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Sandy is reporting a report of a report.
Sandy doesn’t say who he is; and Sandy doesn’t say whose report he is reporting.
Moreover, this the currently polular debating point of Repubicans regarding the Foley situation — the challenge to prove or disprove reports or assumptions that are not in evidence.
Now why would any reasonable person give this any serious thought; and in particular, why would any serious news organization devote resources to following it up?
In fact, Tedski, why is this still posted?
October 11th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Made some phone calls, here is what I came up with.
Gabby was at a stop sign, behind a gentleman (who was Asian). While waiting she starts digging in her purse for something, lets the car creep forward, and bumps him. Supposedly, neither car suffered so much as a fender dent, but I wasn’t a witness.
Anyhow, Gabby was ticketed (it’s public record), and she did traffic school a couple weeks ago to have the points removed.
Not sure where the big story is in that, but have fun with it.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Phx Kid,
You’re absolutely right — what Foley did was sick and disgusting, and he was correct to resign.
Of course, that misses the point that what keeps the story going isn’t what Foley did — any large organization will have some people doing bad things. What reflects poorly on the Republican party is how long they had the info, and what they chose to do (or not do) with it.
Not to mention the continuous conflicting and changing stories.
What I find particularly despicable is Reynolds talked Foley into running again AFTER he had information about Foley’s inappropriate behavior. That just emphasizes politics (retaining a House majority) is what mattered to the House majority leadership, and just about anything else, including common decency, could be sacrificed to the cause.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
The citation and court record of disposition show that Aug. 21, 06, Ms. Giffords got a speeding ticket, was sentenced to defensive driving school to avoid MVD points.
Nothing about an accident, or accident report anyway.