Will McCain's Association With Richard Quinn Sink His Campaign?

[Brainster]

Since this association has been brought up in several threads, it's worth examining. Here's the essence of the accusations about Quinn:

Criticized the MLK Holiday as "Vitriolic and Profane." Richard Quinn, identified as "McCain's South Carolina spokesman" as recently as December of 2005, was also a South Carolina "strategist" for McCain in the 2000 campaign. [Spartanburg Herald-Journal, 12/23/05; Vanity Fair, 11/04] McCain has defended Quinn as being "highly respected" and a "fine man." [Associated Press, 2/18/00; New York Times, 2/8/00] In a 1983 column Quinn wrote, "King Day should have been rejected because its purpose is vitriolic and profane. By celebrating King as the incarnation of all they admire, they [black leaders] have chosen to glorify the histrionic rather than the heroic and by inference they spurned the brightest and the best among their own race...Ignoring the real heroes in our nation's life, the blacks have chosen a man who represents not their emancipation, not their sacrifices and bravery in service to their country; rather, they have chosen a man whose role in history was to lead his people into a perpetual dependence on the welfare state, a terrible bondage of body and soul. [Partisan View, Southern Partisan, Fall, 1983] Quinn has also advocated electing David Duke, and sold T-Shirts through his magazine celebrating Abraham Lincoln's assasination. [Partisan View, Southern Partisan, Winter, 1989, PFAW Release, 2/17/00]

Here's a New York Times' article (cited above) about Quinn. Although it certainly notes his participation in the Confederate Flag controversy, it doesn't mention the more inflammatory charges about MLK Day, David Duke and T-Shirts about assassinating Abe Lincoln. Quinn defends his editorship of Southern Partisan rather oddly:

''I am not the working day-to-day editor of Southern Partisan,'' he said. ''My title as editor in chief is purely honorary. Frankly, I do not personally read the articles before they are printed, and I certainly disagree with many of the opinions expressed by others on the pages of the magazine.''

There's a fine line here; clearly nobody expects the editor of a magazine to agree whole-heartedly with everything it publishes. On the other hand, if it publishes really offensive stuff, the "honor" that goes with being its editor in chief is dubious and any sensible person would terminate his association.

The NY Times article includes this:

'It goes back to Jefferson's ideal of the yeoman farmer,'' said Dr. Blease Graham, an authority on Southern history and politics at the University of South Carolina. ''They venerate the idea of a lost way of life, the intrusion of the fast-food chains and industrialization on the sense of place in the South. Of course, the grand old days for Southern aristocrats were grim days for African-American slaves, and there's no way that can be reconciled.''

Dr. Graham, who knows Mr. Quinn, says the consultant does not hold racist ideas.

''He is actually a thoughtful intellectual with a square head on his shoulders,'' said Dr. Graham, dean of the university's College of Criminal Justice. ''But he has that states'-rights, pro-Southern point of view that some people find disagreeable.''

Southern Partisan has a website, but only a few articles are available there. It's certainly strange. While criticizing the state legislatures of North Carolina and Virginia for apologizing for slavery, it notes:

We’ve given our Scalawag Award to groups before (such as the Ku Klux Klan), but never to any so large or so deserving of our contempt.

Hmmm, doesn't sound like they think so highly of the Kluxers there. They certainly despise Lincoln as this article reveals:

To remedy the situation, Ferguson has not acknowledged Lincoln criticism. Instead, he’s written another flattering book about Lincoln, adding to the heaps for the burnings after the revolution. We must restore the icon, he says―the proposition of the Union, dedicated to the principle that all men are created equal. “Without [the Lincoln] icon, without the personification of this principle … we risk losing the principle.”

The New York Times sought Quinn's take on the Trent Lott controversy in 2002. At a dinner for Strom Thurmond, Lott praised Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat run for the presidency.

Mr. Quinn, in South Carolina, said he had watched the original comments on C-Span. ''I just audibly said, 'Euuww,' '' he said. Those who have worked for Mr. Thurmond, he said, know to relegate the 1948 campaign to the distant, unmentioned past. Still, he said, the Democrats unfairly continued to hammer Mr. Lott for the remark, and Mr. Lott erred by allowing them to.

''It was not much ado about nothing to begin with, it was an apology that needed to be exacted,'' Mr. Quinn said. ''But by now it's overblown and has become driven by partisanship rather than by principle.''

Here's the People for the American Way letter discussing the David Duke issue.

The year before he attacked Mandela in print, Mr. Quinn wrote an article about former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke's bid for public office. Although he made a point of claiming that his article should not be construed as a defense of Duke, his own words supporting those who voted for Duke don't square with that disclaimer. He wrote:

* "What better way to reject politics as usual than to elect a maverick like David Duke? What better way to tweak the nose of the establishment?"

Duke is of course loathsome, but Quinn's words appear to have been carefully quote-mined. Given that bit about "he made a point of claiming that his article should not be construed as a defense of Duke," I am pretty sure that the article included some denunciation of Duke and his views that the People for the American Way did not quote, since it would tend to weaken their argument.

I disagree with his comments about MLK Day, although I have to admit I am puzzled by the wording quoted:

King Day should have been rejected because its purpose is vitriolic and profane.

And given the hatred for Lincoln that does appear obvious in Southern Partisan, this quote in that same passage seems exceedingly odd:

...the blacks have chosen a man who represents not their emancipation....

Let's hear some more about Mr Quinn.

 

[T.A.M.]

to the OP question.

No.

TAM

 

[NotJesus]

to the OP question.

No.

TAM

Correct. His insistence on prolonging the Iraq War and his cluelessness on the economy will sink his campaign.

 

[Oliver]

BS. The guy who will sink McCain's campaign-ship [after Bush flooded 95% of it already] is this crazy mother F:

 

[corplinx]

The guilt by association fallacy was Ayers, not Wright. Its funny that people who complain about the guilt by association fallacy keep bringing up preachers in what I think is a deliberate attempt to try to claim that Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright as as gossamer as Parsely/Hagee/etc.

 

[T.A.M.]

Hagee, Ayers, Quinn, Wright, etc...are all ridiculous distractions. NONE, get it, NONE of them are reflective of the CHARACTER of the nominees, IMO. Others think differently, fine, but you'll not get me, unless out of sheer frustration from others doing so, bringing this crap up.

TAM

 

[corplinx]

Hagee, Ayers, Quinn, Wright, etc...are all ridiculous distractions. NONE, get it, NONE of them are reflective of the CHARACTER of the nominees,

I would consider a persons choice of pastor, teacher, and mentor for 20 years to be reflective of the person. I am amused at the cognitive dissonance shown in that statement.

Hagee/Ayers/Rezko/etc are distractions.

 

[T.A.M.]

I would consider a persons choice of pastor, teacher, and mentor for 20 years to be reflective of the person. I am amused at the cognitive dissonance shown in that statement.

Hagee/Ayers/Rezko/etc are distractions.

You are entitled to your opinion. I personally do not hold Rev. Wright's words against Obama, nor do I think the man will have any negative effect on how Obama will run your country as president.

As a result, for me anyway, he goes in the same category as Hagee/Ayers/blah blah blah.


TAM

 

[Brainster]

Hagee, Ayers, Quinn, Wright, etc...are all ridiculous distractions. NONE, get it, NONE of them are reflective of the CHARACTER of the nominees, IMO. Others think differently, fine, but you'll not get me, unless out of sheer frustration from others doing so, bringing this crap up.

So why don't you just ignore these threads? I don't get it, TAM.

I consider this stuff to be of vital importance in assessing the characters of the two men most likely to become president. You think it's meaningless, a distraction from the vital issues, blahblahblah. Okay, so contribute to all those threads on the vital issues and stop checking in after every post on one of these threads to say "I fail to see the relevance."

 

[Puppycow]

In response to the OP: Probably not unless there is some damning video that can highlight the association. There was some mention of the controversial Rev. Wright in newspapers last year, but it didn't become a "scandal" until ABC showed video of Rev. Wright saying GD America, etc.

This seems to be what makes the difference these days between a scandal with legs or traction and a scandal that is quckly forgotten if even noticed at all by most voters. Same with the Abu Ghraib scandal. Nobody paid much attention until actual pictures were shown on TV. There had been reports of prisoner abuse before that, but most people didn't read those articles.

 

[Policenaut]

You are entitled to your opinion. I personally do not hold Rev. Wright's words against Obama, nor do I think the man will have any negative effect on how Obama will run your country as president.


TAM

I think it shows his character judgment. Remember Bush=crap but Bush+Cheney+Rumsfeld+Rove+etc.=BOOM.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Okay, so contribute to all those threads on the vital issues and stop checking in after every post on one of these threads to say "I fail to see the relevance."

I don't quite understand your objection.

 

[kallsop]

I would consider a persons choice of pastor, teacher, and mentor for 20 years to be reflective of the person.

I don't know how you can go to sermons like that given by Rev. Wright for 20+ years and claim for 12 months to have not heard any of the hate filled garbage he spews, then say you might have heard something but he's like a dear uncle and did I mention that my granny is a typical white racist, then repudiate all the same anti American hate talk when Rev. Wright repeated it again.

Is Obama really that inattentive in church?
[alternative wording - does he think we are that stupid]

 

[Dr Adequate]

I don't know how you can go to sermons like that given by Rev. Wright for 20+ years and claim for 12 months to have not heard any of the hate filled garbage he spews, then say you might have heard something but he's like a dear uncle and did I mention that my granny is a typical white racist, then repudiate all the same anti American hate talk when Rev. Wright repeated it again.

So --- do you suffer from some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder, or what?

 

[Texas]

So --- do you suffer from some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder, or what?

Read up on "Black Liberation Theology" and then you may understand why Wright and his church will be an issue in the GE when it comes to Senator Obama if he becomes the nominee. It is a very enlightening read.

 

[T.A.M.]

So why don't you just ignore these threads? I don't get it, TAM.

I consider this stuff to be of vital importance in assessing the characters of the two men most likely to become president. You think it's meaningless, a distraction from the vital issues, blahblahblah. Okay, so contribute to all those threads on the vital issues and stop checking in after every post on one of these threads to say "I fail to see the relevance."

lol...you have a point, and it does strike me to simply give up posting here.

God knows it causes me gastric upset sometimes to see CS go ballistic on me, when I know he is simply supporting his candidate. It makes me shake my head when I see you post this stuff, knowing what a talented skeptic you are, and what a common sense rationalist you are.

I mean really, do you really think that the Ayers thing is relevant?? really?

Wright, ok, I will admit, has more merit in terms of looking at the candidate as a whole, but Ayers???

If you are going to damn Obama for Ayers, then you should be rejecting McCain outright, for Hagee.

What does analyzing this really accomplish. Do you honestly feel that Ayers makes Obama less of a good man then McCain with his sought after Endorsement from Hagee?

So Political sleeping with the dogs is less important???

To be perfectly honest, most of my response in these threads comes from disappointment in the people starting them...I guess when you spend most of your time on JREF (at least until recently) in the CT forum where the regulars seem beyond pettiness, beyond the ridiculous, it is hard to see such when you venture over here. I guess Politics is a very different animal...so be it.

You know, in the end, I think you are right, I should simply not comment...but for reasons related to preventing GERD, rather than anything else.

TAM

 

[Brainster]

lol...you have a point, and it does strike me to simply give up posting here.

God knows it causes me gastric upset sometimes to see CS go ballistic on me, when I know he is simply supporting his candidate. It makes me shake my head when I see you post this stuff, knowing what a talented skeptic you are, and what a common sense rationalist you are.

I mean really, do you really think that the Ayers thing is relevant?? really?

I will post my response to the Ayers part of your comment over in the Ayers thread. This is supposed to be a thread to discuss Richard Quinn.

To be perfectly honest, most of my response in these threads comes from disappointment in the people starting them...I guess when you spend most of your time on JREF (at least until recently) in the CT forum where the regulars seem beyond pettiness, beyond the ridiculous, it is hard to see such when you venture over here. I guess Politics is a very different animal...so be it.

Yes, I know how it is, all these people who seem so rational until you start discussing politics with them, when suddenly they go all (liberal/conservative) on you, when we all know only (conservative/liberal) thought is rational.

Seriously, Doc, I am one of maybe 120 million or so people who are entrusted with the choice of who is to be the most powerful man on the planet for the next four years. I don't think any information that helps me or others make their decision is irrelevant.

I started this thread because I wanted to collect information about Quinn and his relationship to McCain, because the latter is now one of the two men who has a chance to be president. Having all this information in one place seems to me to be a potentially valuable function of this subforum, just as having information about the Truthers gathered into one thread matters over in the CT subforum. But inevitably here as there, the peanut gallery stuff ends up dominating the thread.

 

[T.A.M.]

I will post my response to the Ayers part of your comment over in the Ayers thread. This is supposed to be a thread to discuss Richard Quinn.



Yes, I know how it is, all these people who seem so rational until you start discussing politics with them, when suddenly they go all (liberal/conservative) on you, when we all know only (conservative/liberal) thought is rational.

Seriously, Doc, I am one of maybe 120 million or so people who are entrusted with the choice of who is to be the most powerful man on the planet for the next four years. I don't think any information that helps me or others make their decision is irrelevant.

I started this thread because I wanted to collect information about Quinn and his relationship to McCain, because the latter is now one of the two men who has a chance to be president. Having all this information in one place seems to me to be a potentially valuable function of this subforum, just as having information about the Truthers gathered into one thread matters over in the CT subforum. But inevitably here as there, the peanut gallery stuff ends up dominating the thread.

Have you seen "Godfather 3"?

Remember the scene where the old Michael Corleone is in the kitchen talking to IIRC his sister, and he says something to the effect of...

"just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in!".

That is how I feel. I thought after the Obama NC win, I was out. I said to myself "Screw it, what happens happens...so be it."

Then A few posts by a few people, and I am back to the bickering, and the "tit for tatting".

I think I am just gonna stick to the issues, like you said, and perhaps be more of an observer, or casual commenter.

TAM

 

[kallsop]

So --- do you suffer from some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder, or what?

I don't need another girlfriend, but thanks anyway.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I don't need another girlfriend, but thanks anyway.

O ... kay, evidently this goes way beyond OCD.