A Step Back for Republicans?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

BVS

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
41,232
Location
between my head and heart
NASHVILLE, Tenn. Aug. 3, 2004 ? Republican congressional candidate James L. 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.




http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040803_904.html
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
NASHVILLE, Tenn. Aug. 3, 2004 ? Republican congressional candidate James L. 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.




http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040803_904.html

What a nutjob! I sure hope he hasn't reproduced. But it does look as if he doesn't have support from the Republican party, so that is very encouraging. I do hope the write-in candidate (in the Republican primary) wins in a landslide though.
 
He shows up at voters' homes wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a gun, and tells them that "white children deserve the same rights as everyone else."

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.

Republicans now desperately hope that a write-in candidate will stop Hart.


I think it is safe to say this person? is operating on his own, outside of the GOP.
 
Ok, I wasn't quite sure...so you can run as a Republican or Democrat etc without the party's consent?

It's still pretty scary if a write in doesn't come in. People will vote for him just because he's the only one labeled Republican.
 
I don't know if he's a step backwards for Republicans, but he's definitely a step backwards for humanity.
 
ThatGuy said:
I don't know if he's a step backwards for Republicans, but he's definitely a step backwards for humanity.

:eyebrow: I really hope that doesn't imply what it sounds. This guy's a racist, plain and simple. I know racists that are Democrats, Republicans, whatever. I'm failling to see why this is considered "a step back for Republicans".... :scratch:
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:
He believes the country will look "like one big Detroit" if it doesn't eliminate welfare and immigration.

Oooh, he just lost my vote. :wink: Not that he was going to get it anyway.
 
Ah social darwinism and eugenics, you would think that 19th Century Laissez Faire economics and the holocaust may have discredited such ideas, but then according to this goon you would be wrong.

Ignorance in public life is an exponential, when you have a fool in public office the constituency will actually become more ignorant - so dont let him get elected!
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


:eyebrow: I really hope that doesn't imply what it sounds. This guy's a racist, plain and simple. I know racists that are Democrats, Republicans, whatever. I'm failling to see why this is considered "a step back for Republicans".... :scratch:

I was just saying that, Republican or not, that fellow is a moron. BVS's thread title is "A Step Back for Republicans?" so I was just riffing off of that. No slam against Republicans. :)
 
The title certainly stirs the partisian waters.

Interesting how some incumbants are so far beyond scrutiny that it takes a nutcase to bring attention to the race.
 
nbcrusader said:
The title certainly stirs the partisian waters.

Interesting how some incumbants are so far beyond scrutiny that it takes a nutcase to bring attention to the race.

If you notice the title was a question. I asked the question, haven't really quite got it answered yet, does this person have to have any consent to run as a Republican? If so then I think the title is true, if not he's just a quack.
 
No. The article indicates that the GOP decided not to run a candidate in the district.




And questions can have the same impact as a statement.
 
So does anyone know how it works? What keeps someone from running on a ticket without really holding their policies? What if you ran in an area where the Republican ticket won the majority of the time and you knew many would just vote blindly(as many do with local and state offices) but really held beliefs that were liberal? And vice versa... This way assuring yourself a seat so to make your policies. Is there nothing there stopping anyone from doing this?
 
It is confusing. To what extent does a political party "own" the slot for an election?

When one party always wins a seat, there is usually more competition to run for that seat in the primaries. In the OC, Republicans usually win the seats, so the primaries are competative (cause you know if you win the primary, you win the election).
 
Back
Top Bottom