McKinney challenger says 'Arab surnames' of donors mean 'I could say she's

[Gully Foyle]

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/VIDEO__Opponent_implies_Rep._McKinney_0804.html
Video: McKinney challenger says 'Arab surnames' of donors mean 'I could say she's under the control of terrorists'

David Edwards
Published: Friday August 4, 2006

Print This | Email This

During a debate with Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), primary challenger Hank Johnson alluded to the "Arab surnames" of some McKinney supporters before saying, "I could accuse her of being under the control of terrorists," RAW STORY has learned.

McKinney had criticised Johnson for receiving money from Republican contributors, indicating that his participation in the primary was benefitting the party.

A video of the exchange can be viewed below.


( Did I get this right? Newbie, doncha know)

I've posted other examples of Anti-Arab racism aimed at McKinney and how it was rooted in both her denial of AIPAC money and her Pro-Palestinian legislation.

[Posteritatis]

1. ....Wow

That's out there even by Republican standards. Ugh.

[Dhalgren]

2. And Johnson's supposed to be a Democrat!

[mom cat]

3. Supposed to be ... you said it all there,

[Gully Foyle]

5. I might add

for those who haven't watched the video that McKinney points out hank's accepting REPUBLICAN funding.
hank's terrorist claim was in reply to McKinney stating she would get the money to fund no child left behind by ending the war.
Then hank gives his own milquetoast answer about working with both sides of the aisle.
hank looks like a slick piece of joementum shit.

[EFerrari]

24. It's all right! That money could have gone to Greens.

:rofl:

I'm sorry. I couldn't help it.

Oh dear. That's one dirty kitchen, isn't it? :)

[Mnemosyne]

4. Despicable. n/t

[Dhalgren]

6. I for one LOVE Congresswoman McKinney!

I hope that the democrats of her district have the good sense and discernment to reelect her. She is one fine woman!

[Teaser]

7. McKinney is going to lose, though

At this stage, her campaign looks critical.

[Gully Foyle]

8. Um

You really think when this hits the news it won't torpedo hank?

[gully]

9. Really, has he checked out Bush's donor list to apply that same "logic?"

"Wadda morAn."

[Gully Foyle]

10. Dude

Watch the video. McKinney points out hank accepts REPUBLICAN donations.
hank don't care.
This must have come from a morning or afternoon debate. Still very fresh.

[w4rma]

11. Racist. (nt)

[Zhade]

14. Good call.

NT!

[KaptBunnyPants]

17. No other possible explanation.

That is so disgusting, accusing all Arabs of being defacto terrorists. If we had a free and fair press, that kind of racial slander would never be accepted in this day and age, but I bet this will quickly be swept under the rug.

On edit: Imagine if some candidate said that accepting Jewish contributions implicitly meant that their opponent was controlled by Israel.

[Zhade]

12. So Johnson's another Majette?

Another pro-corporate asshole who takes Republican aid and uses the same rhetoric as the b*s* administration?

Anyone got poll numbers on this race? I'd like to think Democrats in that district aren't stupid enough to pick a Republican-aided smear jockey over a pillar of progressive strength.

[OKNancy]

15. Majette had the most liberal voting record for Georgia

House reps.. including John Lewis.

[Zhade]

22. Does that negate her Republican support? No.

Nader is very liberal-minded, yet is rightfully excoriated for accepting Republican money.

As far as "most liberal", I'll have to look into that, since that's NOT my recollection of her record (and I don't just take people's word for granted).

[Janice325]

13. I live in her district.

It makes me want to vote for her all the more. That jab seems like a typical Rethug "terra, terra, terra" response. :puke:
Thanks for the link.

[LittleClarkie]

28. So, what other reasons do you have for voting for her

What do you like about her and not like about Johnson. Just asking, since you've idenified yourself as a constituent.

[Janice325]

53. Not for really well thought out reasons like some folks here

Mainly 'cause she makes Rethugs go nuts off on a tangent,IMO. My logic tells me that if they dislike her and want her out so much, she must be doing something right.
Also, I'm disturbed about Johnson's previous financial problems,here from the ajc.com/newss, August 1, 2006:

"Johnson acknowledged that he had financial problems involving nonpayment of taxes and had filed for bankruptcy several years ago..."
Here's the link:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/dekalb/stories/0731metdebate.html?imw=Y
As a taxpayer,it really bugs the crap out of me when supposedly intelligent folks (Mr. Johnson is an attorney, after all) don't pay their taxes.
I know people can have financial problems, but people entering the political arena should know in advance that everything in their background is fair game and going to be scrutinized.
Thanks for asking, LittleClarkie; :hi:
Just my two cents.

[OKNancy]

16. I watched the whole thing and when viewed in context

it is not what this is all about. I

Edit: in fact rawstory is trying to sensationalize this and being dishonest.

Mckinney accuses him of being in control of landfill operators because he took money from them.

He says, I did not and I could say because you took money from Arab surnames that you are in control of terrorists ( exact quote) " but that just does not make sense".

[Gully Foyle]

18. WTF?

"not what this is about? Viewed in context?
Just what video did you see?
He stated so CLEARLY the moderator reprimanded him.

[OKNancy]

20. read my edit.

I watched it.

[LoZoccolo]

62. Watch the video while you're at it. n/t

[KaptBunnyPants]

21. That does not excuse him at all.

He explicitly equates being Arab with being a terrorist. Is that acceptable to you?

[daleo]

25. He could have used a less inflammatory counter-example

He may have been wanting to sneak in an insinuation, while providing himself cover that he wasn't. It is one of those cases where you wonder if he was being too stupid or too clever.

[OKNancy]

27. I agree

I think he was trying to sneak it in, but I don't think it was a bigoted comment, just sneaky and dirty politics. McKinney did it too, so that's the game they are playing.
My problem is with this sensationalized headline from rawstory.

[Left Coast Lynn]

29. " rawstory is trying to sensationalize this and being dishonest"

Gasp!

Raw should be banned from DU IMO.

[SaveElmer]

30. That is exactly correct...

And you included the full quote!

[LittleClarkie]

31. Goodness, what a fine smear. Worthy of the Vets for Truth

He countered an accusation he considered over the top by giving an example of an accusation he could level at McKinney that would make about as much sense.

How nice of them to leave out "but that just does not make sense."

Disingenous indeed.

[ulysses]

32. perhaps, but that exact charge against McKinney

*has* been made on DU.

[NYCGirl]

34. So what does that have to do with the Raw article? NT

[NYCGirl]

33. Well, we don't want to spoil any of this righteous indignation with some

real facts, do we?

[LittleClarkie]

36. Nah, we live on half truths

It's always amazing to me how many people will take the word of a post on DU over going and looking for themselves and engaging their brains long enough to come up with their own conclusion. So much easier to swallow the red meat whole.

[KaptBunnyPants]

38. I still don't see how that makes it much better.

She said that taking money from contractors makes him beholden to contractors. It's a debatable point, but no one seems to have a problem when people use that argument against Bush. The meat of the story is that he felt an appropriate comparison to that argument is taking money from Arabs makes her beholden to terrorists. Even in context, the only way that comparison works is if Arabs=terrorists. Could someone please explain to me a non-racist interpretation of that comparison?

[NYCGirl]

39. If you're pointing out that your opponent's claim is false and outrageous

you should use the most outrageous comparison you can.

[LittleClarkie]

44. And I still can't get anyone to explain to me what's so horrible about

Johnson except that he's running against McKinney. That makes him a shill and a Hank(kercheif)Head.

That all by itself? Or does anyone have another reason why he's heinous and beyond contempt.

[NYCGirl]

46. I'm as much in the dark about it as you are.

:shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

50. I don't understand those who support Johnson merely for not being

McKinney either, to be fair. I mean, support Johnson or support McKinney, but do we have to vilify one or the other?

[oasis]

40. Johnson broke the rules of the debate in order to revive the issue.

He's a lawyer and he knew damned well that it was an indirect smear.

The audience knew it too. :puke:

[NYCGirl]

41. That debate had rules?? NT

[oasis]

45. The debate on this thread does, so why are you changing the subject?

[NYCGirl]

47. They both broke the rules, repeatedly. NT

[oasis]

48. Johnson injected the "surname/terrorist" issue into the debate as a smear.

Do you deny it, or will you continue to dance?

[NYCGirl]

49. And her remarks were not? They were pretty much BOTH full of shit.

Sad excuse for a debate.

[oasis]

54. Accepting money from GOP=accepting money from"terrorist". Same impact

on voters. I see. :eyes:

[NYCGirl]

58. Even when he said, after the statement, "but that just does not make

sense"?

[oasis]

59. So why did he bring it up? He knows damn well that "terrorist" have

never contributed to Cynthia's campaign. He also knows that he has accepted GOP money.

[AtomicKitten]

35. I saw the debate and your edit is correct.

It was taken entirely out of context.

Rawstory also had a piece from the Washington Times today about Lamont having Wal*Mart stock at the same time slamming them.

S-E-N-S-A-T-I-O-N-A-L-I-S-M

But, as always a launching pad for some.

On edit: And off they go .... not even caring what the truth is.

[oasis]

42. Johnson slyly slipped the "surname" issue into the debate by breaking the

rules. Even the audience was annoyed at his tactics.

[LittleClarkie]

52. How was that different than what McKinney was trying to insinuate

Except that you like McKinney and don't like Johnson, what makes either's tactics better than the others.

[oasis]

57. Please read # 54. (n/t)

[Tight_rope]

19. WTF....Racist Pig!

No offense to PIGS!

[EFerrari]

23. Now we know who the terrorists are! Us!

Somebody turn me in immediately!

I wonder how long before they just throw up a Brown Person Alert Hotline.

These people are crazy.

[aquart]

26. So, Hank. How many Arab-Americans are terrorists? All? Some?

Should they be detained without trial, Hank? Tortured, Hank? Treated as second-class citizens because of their NAMES, Hank?

Get back to me with your answers, Hank.

[LittleClarkie]

55. He was saying that her statement about him was as ludicrous

as if he would make the statement about terrorists about her. Context.

[WestSeattle2]

66. Stop confusing this issue with that annoying little thing

about "context". Putting Johnson's quote in its proper context, means they can't vilify the guy. Stop trying to confuse us with facts!!!!

:popcorn:

[LittleClarkie]

68. Oh, sorry. I'd forgotten.

He dares to challenge Ms. McKinney, hence he is the devil himself.

Ol' Hank(erchief Head) himself.

[oasis]

37. Now we know the "real" Hank Johnson.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[MrBenchley]

43. Good for him!

She's a fucking disgrace to the party in every way.

Besides, it's not like the zombies that back McKinney aren't lying about him now.

[LoZoccolo]

63. Now we know Raw Story cannot be trusted either!

World Net Daily of the left!

[MrBenchley]

67. LOL!

[leesa]

51. I do believe her contender has been put up by the GOP

I think there was enough voter fraud in the primary to force a run-off and I suspect the GOP was behind it. These tactics have their mark all over them.

[NYCGirl]

56. I keep reading this here, but as yet no one has offered any proof.

Republicans donated to Nader in 04 and a GOP operative ran Al Sharpton's campaign in 2004. Do you think they were put up by the GOP?

[fujiyama]

60. I don't even like McKinney

and I think that was a low blow...Sorry, but equating Arab surnames with terrorists is racist. Even if he said, "it doesn't make sense". After all, she was attacking him over taking money from republicans and special interest groups.

Now, if she had criticized him about taking AIPAC money and he responded that she had taken money from questionable sources of Arab origin (with proof of course), then his statement may have made more sense. But even then, it's still not excusable to stereotype all Muslim names as being terrorists.

[LincolnMcGrath]

61. Scandal plagued Hanky must have been trolling DU for anti CMac

Talking Points.

[tammywammy]

64. Context is everything

Raw Story is sensationalizing this. Another example of why I won't use Raw Story.

[oasis]

65. Johnson is the one who engaged in sensationalism. He revived the

"terrorist contribution" story.

[KingFlorez]

69. So all Arabs are terrorists?

Isn't that essentially what he is saying? Is this guy really a Democrat? If he gets in Congress he might switch to GOP.

[MarkDevin]

70. According to this "good Democrat," yes they are.

:puke: