Rep. Alvin Holmes is a hatemonger and a race-baiter, but is he a wacko?
This question was inspired in the aftermath to my post about the ridiculous Bob Marshall, a Virginia legislator who blights the Republican Party in my home state. The question I raised in that post was whether it was true that GOP elected nut-cases are further out in orbit than their Democratic counterparts. The related theory offered (not be me) in the ensuing thread was that while liberal-slanted media sources criticize the deranged in their ideological camp, conservative media sources tend to defend the GOP’s mutants. In fairness, I thought that I should raise the case of Mr. Holmes.
He was recently featured in a column by the Washington Post’s mildly conservative—perhaps the better term is “wishy-washy”—columnist Kathleen Parker. She notes, accurately, that he has at various times…
- Called Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina “Uncle Toms” because they don’t toe the required “you’re black so you must be a liberal” line. (An African-American calling another an “Uncle Tom” is roughly the ethical equivalent of a white man calling a black man a “nigger,” and perhaps more hurtful.)
- Said that it’s acceptable to Holmes if men want to marry mules. (I assume this was hyperbole, but the assertion is that no form of sexual deviancy is the business of the state, even if it amounts to cruelty to animals. Moreover, most would agree that marrying mules is further down the ethics scale than marrying daughters, women’s soccer teams, sons, or 12-year-olds.)
- Claimed that white people are only pro-life “until their daughter gets pregnant by a black man” (Nice, Congressman…)
- Offered $100,000 to anyone who could demonstrate conclusively that “a bunch of whites” had adopted black babies in Alabama.
We’ll see if he pays up. This last bit of nastiness and gratuitous slur on, well, all white Alabamans predictably enraged the pro-adoption community and a rather large number of Alabamans who are both white and the parents of adopted black children, who rallied to show the Congressman to be the ignorant racist he unquestionably is.
One wacko proves nothing, of course, but do you think Holmes is as bad as Marshall, less horrible, or worse? The next question is, can anyone find a typically left-leaning website or blog that condemned Holmes’ hate-mongering? One would have to admit that, as a U.S. Congressman and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, his statements and apparent attitudes are more significant and potentially harmful than a perennial Republican loser who serves as a state delegate, like Marshall.
Let’s have a poll!
Ethics Alarms 
I’m looking into the idea of becoming a “lonely, half-mad hermit, living in a shack in Wyoming.” I assume news like this doesn’t bother such a person.
“while liberal-slanted media sources criticize the deranged in their ideological camp, conservative media sources tend to defend the GOP’s mutants.”
*********
If this can be judged by who is retained in office and who is either voted out or forced to resign I think conservatives have a better record of weeding out the nuts and wackos. But, I’m not invested in that theory enough to go looking for statistics.
I think conservatives probably have (and have had) a better record of weeding out nuts and wackos among their most high-visibility “champions” because the racketeer media are so predominantly anti-conservative, conservatives have no place, and virtually no power, to hide and dodge and deflect and to excuse “their” nuts and wackos.
How many more conservatives than non-conservatives (especially men) who are elected (and re-elected) executives have been hounded out of office for adulterous relations? I don’t know the numbers, and don’t really care. But I would bet a 32-ounce Dr. Pepper Icee that a tgt-approved “study” would show, for starters, that more Democrats who are adulterous stay in office for full terms after being discovered, while most if not all adulterous Republicans resign or are otherwise removed.
Make it a Pepsi!
The source of that quote must have gone to the same university that a relative’s son attends. This was the very “progressive” dad’s FB post this morning:
“My son posed a difficult question for me. Who is the craziest Republican out of the whole insane mob? Ideas. He attends one of those socialist universities you know and needs to write a paper on the subject.”
And of course Dad, like most lazy liberals, always posts those far-left websites that use sound-bite references, slogans, and name-calling instead of accurate information or facts.
I haven’t responded yet. Any ideas?
Depends… Do you like this relative? Do you care if you get unfriended or blocked?
I usually refrain from commentary, instead I try to find and post something of an opposing view from as unbiased a source as possible. I really never wanted to stoop to the same level, but I guess appealing to reason and trying to counter-balance opinion doesn’t work very well anymore.
Is Holmes black? Really? He looks more Jewish.
(Note to blog newcomers and lurkers-only (to regular commenters, too): I said the above ONLY because I have been commenting here for a LONG time, so I trust that Jack understands me well enough to know what I mean.)
“An African-American calling another an “Uncle Tom” is roughly the ethical equivalent of a white man calling a black man a “nigger,” and perhaps more hurtful.”
For some reason, that leaves me unsettled. Wouldn’t it be clearer, even more to the point, that is, if the ethical equivalent involved a white man calling another white man something? Maybe I could just nod in agreement, like I want to and expect to whenever I read Jack’s description of ethical equivalents, if a context of history and current culture was included, like this:
“An African-American calling another an “Uncle Tom” these days is roughly the ethical equivalent of a white man calling another white man a “nigger” in the U.S. during times when the Ku Klux Klan was at its zenith – and is perhaps more hurtful.”
I see your hang-up. But I don’t think you can find an equivalent, because the painful and blunt reality is that racially centric self-grouping WITH a blatant and offensive demand of racial loyalty, is rapidly on its way to non-existence amongst whites… surviving only in the most outlying groups. However, with black culture today, it is the prevailing mindset.
You won’t be able to find a typical interaction between whites that involves hurtful accusations of racial disloyalty… which is what the “Uncle Tom” epithet is in black culture.
So, the parallel Jack makes, is not to describe racial-disloyalty accusations, but rather the intended emotional harm of the two words. “Uncle Tom” from a fellow black man is just as, if not more than, hurtful as “Nigger” is from a white man.
Just FYI—I just received a racist (based on the screen name and email) comment to this post that I don’t even understand, and that may not even be English.
You have all the fun!
Just FYI—I just received a racist (based on the screen name and email) comment to this post that I don’t even understand, and that may not even be English.
**************
Put it up and let us at it.
All politicians should be exposed and mocked for when they say dumb stuff like this as a prelude to other consequences. One accident or two might be forgotten and laughed off if it was a bad day or they were learning. Part of the job of speaking for the people of your constituency is knowing when to shut up.
(I tend to think #3 is a bitter joke as a college friend had a similar situation)
I say “more incompetent”. The man is actually in the US House of Representatives already, as opposed to merely trying to get in. That makes his fuckwittery even worse.
Credit where it’s due
That doesn’t make him more incompetent, only in a position to make his incompetence matter more. I’d call it a draw.
Is it wrong that I was tempted to enter in “a great american” just to troll the board and confuse the hell out of people trying to figure out who would say such a thing?
I’d say he’s just as incompetent… but less of a lunatic.
Nah, Chase. I nearly did the same thing.
Speaking of Godwin’s Law…
“If anybody says Alvin Holmes is against interracial adoption, they are just as wrong as Adolf Hitler,” Holmes said.
Hitler said Holmes was against interracial adoptions?????
Yeah. You know, those crazy time-traveling Nazis. The ones that reliably show up at least once in every Star Trek series?
Apparently! A corollary to Godwin’s law. Not only is the name of Hitler brought up but Hitler actually knows you and has opinions about you therefore if anyone else has those same opinions they are siding with Hitler.
Hitler watches you when you sleep. Section 3C of Godwin’s Law.
Praise be to the gerrymandered Democrat-heavy districts that can give us such spectacles of human freakishness in the legislatures. Otherwise, we’d have to rely on tabloids and Miley Cyrus videos to lend us a sense of superiority!