Nazi on ballot for Montana state legislature as a Republican

Great Debates
#1

In 2004, a racial-eugenicist crackpot named James Hart got on the ballot for Congress in Tennessee, as a Republican. He managed to fly in under the radar, as it were, simply by filing in a district that was such a Dem safe-seat no career Pub bothered to contest it. Needless to say, the state party spared no effort in distancing itself from him. (In case you were wondering, Hart lost; he got 82% in the primary and 26% in the general election; and he has been effectively frozen out from seeking the Pub nomination a second time.)

Here we go again. The only Pub on the ballot for House District 76 in the Montana legislature is one Shawn Stuart. And in April, after he was safely on the ballot, it came out that Stuart is the state leader of the National Socialist Movement (to whose website Board rules will not even allow me to link directly, but here’s a Wikipedia article, external link at the bottom). The state Republican leaders are nonplussed.

Of course this is not the Pubs’ fault and does not reflect badly on them – except in the sense that they appear somehow to have become the default choice for this sort of thing. (Up to the '60s, it would have been the Dems.) And, as this article argues, it may be significant that a lot mainstream Pubs have been falling back on various forms of hate politics, especially this year.

What is become of the party of Lincoln?!

(If this be Godwinization, you will never see it done more gracefully! :smiley: )

#2

So?

Regards,
Shodan

#3

So as a Pub, doesn’t all this embarass you even a little?

#4

And I’m not talking only about such as Hart and Stuart! Read the (last) article linked in the OP.

#5

I think having a Nazi as a candidate is absolutely great. The more we can put these people in a place where theyhave to explain the disgusting views the better. Come to think of it, let’s have a Muslim Fundamentalist and one of Fred Phelps boys, as well, and have them actually explain and argue for their positions. I’d pay to see that.

As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

#6

Well, doesn’t that say it all? The Republicans aren’t happy about it any more than you are or I am. What more do you expect?

#7

A little self-examination on their part would be a start. Why did Stuart choose the Pub rather than the Dem label?

#8

True dat! :slight_smile:

#9

Because the Republicans would at least agree with the portions of his platform that weren’t based on virulent racism?

#10

I don’t see why it should, any more than someone who is pro gun rights should be embarrassed by a shooting spree or someone who is pro First Amendment should be embarrassed by someone’s writing of Olsen twins-rape fanfiction. It’s an unfortunate use of the system, but trying it to oppose with anything stronger than tongue-clucking and finger-wagging does more harm than good.

What were you expecting, an easy moral victory or something?

#11

My guess would be that it was because he saw a chance to sneak in. If there were a number of Republicans running and no Democrats, he’d be running as a Democrat. Just my possibly mistaken opinion. I honestly don’t think it’s a big deal.

#12

Yeah, so “nonplussed” that in the article you link to the Republicans said to vote for the Democrat:

“News of Stuart’s affiliation, first reported April 1 by the Montana Standard, prompted a fast and furious denunciation by the Montana Republican Party, which denies it knew of his views or encouraged his candidacy, and whose spokesman told the Independent April 10 that it will throw its support behind the winner of the Democratic Party primary to cement its opposition to Stuart.”

whistlepig

#13

I’ve often wondered what it would take to engender more bipartisanship in this country.

Should’ve known it would be Nazis.

#14

Quite true, quite true. But I would characterize that less as a “crisis of conscience” than “running scared.” Just as it was in Hart’s case.

#15

Ah. There’s the difference in our views. I believe that the Republicans are honestly opposed to the beliefs these fellows espouse, and you believe that they only distance themselves for political reasons.

#16

I’d just like to remind any Dems who are feeling slightly superior that this guy picked the Pubs to run under that both Fred Phelps and Lyndon LaRouche have run for office on a Democrat ticket…

#17

No, I believe that (at the current stage of our political evolution) Pubs are rather readier than Dems to put aside their consciences and compromise with evil for the sake of victory. (In the past, it was the reverse.)

#18

Nice ignoring of the FACT that the Montana Republicans said that the party, " denies it knew of his views or encouraged his candidacy". The guy came in under the radar because Republican candidates in Butte are as rare as hen’s teeth.

whistelpig

#19

I’m sorry, BrainGlutton, but that doesn’t make sense. Where’s the compromise? The Republican Party will support the Democrat in that district. Seriously, what more do you want?

#20

Just being circumspect again? :slight_smile:

What do you want people to say, BG? That this marks the end of the Republican party and that Dems will sweep into power at all levels of government come November? Just exactly who is compromising with evil here?