Just after virulently anti-gay Bob Good won the Republican nomination for a Virginia congressional seat, another hateful nutjob is likely to win the party’s nomination for a seat in Georgia. (Thanks to commenter Tadas.)
The House’s highest-ranking Republicans are racing to distance themselves from a leading GOP congressional candidate in Georgia after POLITICO uncovered hours of Facebook videos in which she expresses racist, Islamophobic and anti-Semitic views.
The candidate, Marjorie Taylor Greene, suggested that Muslims do not belong in government; thinks black people “are held slaves to the Democratic Party”; called George Soros, a Jewish Democratic megadonor, a Nazi; and said she would feel “proud” to see a Confederate monument if she were black because it symbolizes progress made since the Civil War.
Greene finished first in a primary for a deep-red, northwest Georgia seat last week by a nearly 2-to-1 margin over the second-place candidate. She is entering an August runoff as the favorite to secure the Republican nomination for a district where that is tantamount to winning the general election in November. Her initial victory — which has sparked panic in GOP circles — comes as Republicans are grappling with a national reckoning over racial injustice and police brutality after George Floyd, an unarmed black man, was killed by a Minneapolis police officer last month.
…Now GOP lawmakers, aides and operatives fear Greene — a wealthy businesswoman who has already drawn national attention because of her belief in a trove of QAnon conspiracy theories — could create an even bigger black eye for the party if she wins the nomination. Greene will face neurosurgeon John Cowan in the Aug. 11 primary runoff.
The Democratic party has its own problems, nominating a candidate Chris Janicek for the Nebraska senate seat who has said terrible things in text messages about a female staffer.
The text messages, which were obtained by The Associated Press, were from a group chat involving Janicek and five other people, including the female staffer. At one point, he wrote that he had argued with her and then asked whether the campaign should spend money on “getting her laid.”
“It will probably take three guys,” he wrote, before describing in graphic detail an imagined group sex scene involving the female staffer.
He then tried walk back those comments as “a joke,” and texted an apology to the group.
The state Democratic party has demanded that he withdraw his name as the candidate so that they can run someone else but he refuses to do so. His defense did not help matters.
The campaign staffer, who has since quit, filed a formal complaint with the party alleging that Janicek violated its code of conduct that prohibits sexual harassment.
In a brief phone interview, Janicek said he doesn’t plan to drop out of the race. He alleged that the party was targeting him because he disagreed with its more liberal activists on issues such as abortion rights and gun control.
“They’re using this as a crutch,” he said.
Janicek didn’t deny that he made offensive comments, but he said he apologized for them and assumed the matter would be kept private.
Really, he thought his utterly repugnant statements would be kept private? You can be sure that this is not the first time he has said such things. Doesn’t anybody vet these people before they get to this point in the process?
And of course apologising makes it all just go ‘poof’ as if it never happened *eye strain from too much rolling*
Greene fits right in -- but why didn’t Janicek run as a Repub in the first place?
The past few years have done wonders to expose the repugnant views held by people on both sides of the aisle. The past 5-6 years have really opened my eyes to some of the odious views held by other atheists, many of whom I once respected.
The direct answer is: No, nobody ever vets any political candidate from any party for any office in the USA. To run for office, a person submits paper woe to say their state’s Secretary of State. Not the party. The paperwork has the candidates name, address, and party affiliation. The office checks their age and that they are already registered to vote in that party, which implicitly verifies their citizenship and residence just like any voter who registered.
These filings often include signatures from voters, which are checked regarding the voter. But there is no more checking of the candidate, if they get enough good signatures.
The system presumes that there will be primary or general elections in which anything questionable will be raised by an opponent.
In short, there is no mechanism to vet anyone running for an elected office. At no point are parties consulted, unlike certain appointment situations.
It’s all up to voters on election month.
That’s paper work, not woe.
That was the question on my mind too. It’s almost as if they’re just desperate for candidates and will run any yahoo that can type.
Don’t forget that Kim Davis, of homophobic fame, ran as a Democrat.