Raising Kaine on George Allen and a link to the CCC.
The CCC is one of the most racist groups in America. Raising Kaine lays this out articulately and I agree that the CCC is an awful organization.
But the link to George Allen is questionable at best. He took a picture with the leaders of the group. That's bad, but what did he know about this group? The article RK is referencing says he did, but provides no evidence to that fact other than one person saying: "He knew exactly who and what the CCC was about".
The CCC is a horrible organization. They have said things like "Each of the three major races plays a distinct role in history. . . . The whites were the creators of civilization, the yellows its sustainers and copyists, the blacks its destroyers." and "The Jews' motto is 'never forget, and never forgive.' One can't agree with the way they've turned spite into welfare billions for themselves, but the 'never forget' part is very sound."
If it is proven that George Allen had ties to the CCC, this election is over. But I'm not yet convinced. This just gets added to a growing list of questions Allen needs to answer before Virginians will be willing to return him to the Senate.
Indeed it's a point which Sen. Allen should address. And, by that, I mean address personally, and not simply through through his staff, which has already admitted ignorance of both the CCC and of the Senator's association with it.
Senator Allen can easily put this latest matter to bed by stating personally what I believe that we'll hear tomorrow from his campaign.
"I did not know that I was having my picture taken in the company of three individuals (Charleton Heston excepted) who were leaders in an organization which advocates the mandatory segregation of the races and which believes that the Caucasion race is destined by God to rule the World."
That ought to do it.
Posted by: GinterParked | August 29, 2006 at 11:08 PM
Now, you say the only evidence posted was "He new exactly who and what..." but the full paragraph is:
According to Baum, Allen had not naively stumbled into a chance meeting with unfamiliar people. He knew exactly who and what the CCC was about and, from Baum's point of view, was engaged in a straightforward political transaction. "It helped us as much as it helped him," Baum told me. "We got our bona fides." And so did Allen.
I don't quite follow your selective editing. That sounds like a selected (I admit) quote from the founder, but that's a lot more than what you posted in your entry!
Posted by: Doug | August 29, 2006 at 11:08 PM
Given who Baum is, I consider his word about as good as a pile of shit.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | August 29, 2006 at 11:15 PM
But it is a quote. If you are going to discredit one quote, you should put up both, because the preceding quote you put up is based on Baum's. I think that is basic integrity, to be honest. Ok, maybe a journalist needs to contact the people in this photo and get further on record quotes from them about Allen's knowledge, I'll admit that. Who will do that? Guess that's rhetorical. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk (maybe I do, but not trying) but what's the next step for something like this story? If your title is "I'm not convinced" then what happens next?
Posted by: Doug | August 29, 2006 at 11:22 PM
Allen's communication director's statement is pretty damn close to a confirmation:
"I am unaware of the group you mention or their agenda and because we have no record of the Senator having involvement with them I cannot offer you any opinion on them".
In otherwords, "Oh shit, how did you find that out?"
Better spin would have been: "George Allen once supported the group, but he has since distanced himself from them and their mission."
Unless someone convinces me that John Reid is an 18-year-old GOP intern from the Northeast with zero understanding of Southeastern politics, I'll have a hard time believing his statement at face value. His statement sounds like a pretty classic example of stonewalling. There probably is something to this.
Posted by: JPTERP | August 29, 2006 at 11:23 PM
I agree with you, Ben. It's a loose connection. And Baum would've said what he had to say look like he had support of a state leader.
But if this hits the news, it's still bad news for Allen. It keeps him on the defense. And, as the writer of the article points out, there is enough to at least make you think. Without M-Gate, this is a non-issue. But combined with the recent events, I think the average Virginian may be a little more willing to accept the idea that Allen knew who these people were.
If this stays in the blogosphere, and it's very possible that it will, then it's no big deal. But if the news picks this up, regardless of the connection, Allen has some splaining to do.
Posted by: Dannyboy | August 29, 2006 at 11:23 PM
You forgot to mention the quote from the Leader of the CCC regarding Allen's knowledge of the organization. That is a as close a source as one can get without talking to Allen, and what he said did not make Allen sound like he was simply taking a picture with a bunch of guys he stumbled across.
Posted by: thegools | August 29, 2006 at 11:28 PM
Haha...when I saw that CCC thing, I was like hunhhh,
Because one of our member organizations is the:
Construction
Contractor's
Council
aka CCC
so I was like, hey, we're not racist
Next time, I will read said article before coming to conclusions...
Posted by: Matt | August 29, 2006 at 11:30 PM
It is not a smoking gun, but it still could appear bad.
(No one caught in a photo shaking hands with Hitler ever looked good, though I have met one who actually was a good fellow and a nice guy and a severe critic of Hitler. Still, it just doesn't look good.)
Posted by: thegools | August 29, 2006 at 11:32 PM
i hope to god the voters of VA prove me right when i say that felix picked the wrong state to haul his carpetbag to all those years ago. maybe the virginia of 25 years ago was prime territory for his feaux-redneck bullshit but VA has changed a lot since then, thank god. perhaps he should have chosen a state a bit deeper south to use as a launching pad for his presidential ambitions.
Posted by: | August 29, 2006 at 11:32 PM
Y'know, here's the thing that really gets me about this. I'm closely involved with a state-wide GLBT organization (surprised?). We do a damn fine job in attracting politicians of both parties to our events. But I've gotta say, we've never had the governor just drop in becuase he was in the neighborhood. (Don't get me wrong, we've had the governor, but it was work).
So, here, we have a group which advocates the forcible separation of the races having its party in a hotel, and George just drops by. Maybe it was last call at the bar, and the ballroom was on the way to the elevator. It could happen.
Seriously, someone on KOS made the comment that he or she had been following George for years and had never heard of this.
Same here. For me, this is the final proof. I'm old enough to have gone along with the misty-eyed nostaligia for days gone by. I'm a criminal defense lawyer, and I could see how a "law and order" guy like Allen would (stupidly) do the noose thing.
But damn. Trent Lott was up this group's butt before Allen got in the Senate, then Allen screwed Lott on the Strom Thurmond gig.
Allen has *no* shame. Period. And, I want to hear from all his macaca apologists now.
As the other George would say: Bring it on.
Posted by: GinterParked | August 29, 2006 at 11:33 PM
Ginter, I understood the article different.
It sounds like it was a CPAC convention and the CCC had a booth in a large convention hall. It also sounded like Governor Allen stopped by the convention hall where the booths were.
That's way different than stopping by a party by the CCC. It's like the difference between Equality Virginia having a booth at the State Fair, and Tim Kaine stopping by to shake hands, and getting him to headline a dinner for the organization. The former doesn't mean much, the latter means a ton. Right?
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | August 29, 2006 at 11:40 PM
The picture in and of itself isn't damning. Politicians take photos with all sorts of interest groups.
Once again, I return to the statement by Allen's communications director. Is he in a position to know what CCC is, or is he just playing dumb? That statement of his sounds like it was written by an attorney. That's one signal that there may be something to this.
Posted by: JPTERP | August 29, 2006 at 11:47 PM
Ben: When this picture was made, George Allen was Governor of Virginia, with a staff of hundreds dedidcated solely to the proposition that George Allen would become something other than Governor of Virginia (which, after all, is a shittly job... you get fired after four years).
It boggles the mind to believe that a governor - in a freaking tuxedo - would have his picture made in a trade show booth which I've got to believe was filled with literature espousing the rascist crap the CCC stands for.
Are you saying his staff screwed up? Was Dick Wadams *on* his staff then?
Posted by: GinterParked | August 29, 2006 at 11:49 PM
First, he didn't know who Ben Bernanke was. Then he claimed he didn't know what the word meant. Now he doesn't know who the group of individuals he was getting his picture taken with is. I sense a pattern.
Posted by: ajacied | August 29, 2006 at 11:51 PM
I was still in HS when this happened. What really raised my eyebrow was Lowell's quotes from the CCC. They are all dated for AFTER Allen was Governor. How much was known about this group back when the picture was taken?
I'm not saying this is bad- I'm just saying it isn't a slam dunk, yet.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | August 29, 2006 at 11:51 PM
This just hit me:
If George Allen didn't know who these people were, as you say is possible Ben, don't you think it's odd that he got a picture with them? I mean, if you're a skilled politician like George Allen, don't you check who somebody is before you get your picture taken with them? And this isn't a "handshake" picture. This was a "look at the camera" picture.
Option A: George Allen didn't know who these people were, or misunderstood what the group stood for, and got his picture taken with them.
Option B: George Allen knew what they stood for, and got their picture taken with them anyways.
Either way, it's yet another political booboo for George Allen. The guy just can't catch a break.
Posted by: Dannyboy | August 29, 2006 at 11:56 PM
Dannyboy, haven't you been to these kind of events before? He probably took 100 pictures in one day. How can you check who everyone is first?
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | August 30, 2006 at 12:01 AM
Ben, this photo was taken in 1996. The quotes are from 1997 and 1998. Do you really think they had a radical change from a simple conservative group to a major white supremacy organization like that in a year?
The argument of "what the organization stood for at the time" is a bad one. We know what they stood for. The question is this: did George Allen know what the group stood for? Regardless, this can't be good for Allen.
Posted by: Dannyboy | August 30, 2006 at 12:03 AM
Ben:
Yes, I understand. But I'm assuming that a group like this had literature all over the place. George couldn't take the time to look? Couldn't take a little time to see who these people were before he gets a photo? Ask them who they are, what they stand for?
I'm just saying, George Allen has been elected all the way to US Senator. He CAN'T be that stupid.
Posted by: Dannyboy | August 30, 2006 at 12:07 AM
It looks like to me they asked him to take a picture with them and he agreed.
I doubt Allen was thinking "man I really wanna get my picture take with this bunch of racists, that will be cool".
He probably just did it not knowing or thinking what he was doing.
Posted by: GOPHokie | August 30, 2006 at 12:08 AM
Ben: You can't check everyone out. If this was a picture with the local Rotary group (which, unknown to Sen. Allen also ran a drug ring), I'd cut him a break.
Look at the right side of the picture.
MOSES
Do you think that George Allen just dropped into a picture with Charleton Heston without knowing anything about what was going on?
Posted by: GinterParked | August 30, 2006 at 12:09 AM
Or, it just occured to me. Just blame it on Moses. Fits right in.
Posted by: GinterParked | August 30, 2006 at 12:12 AM
That's definitely a possibility, GOPHokie.
But with all the controversy sorrounding Allen right now, it's going to be hard to convince people of that.
Either way, this is a political goof for Allen. And think of how bad this sounds:
It has nothing to do with lnyching, it's about capital punishment.
It wasn't a symbol that I support the confederacy, it was part of a flag collection.
It wasn't a slur, it was based on his haircut.
It wasn't support photo, because I had no idea who they were.
I'm just saying that there are too many excuses here. He shouldn't have to defend himself this much.
Posted by: Dannyboy | August 30, 2006 at 12:16 AM
And I'm done with this for now. I'm not going to comment on this until I see what happens. Who knows? If this doesn't leave the blogosphere, it's a non-issue.
Posted by: Dannyboy | August 30, 2006 at 12:18 AM
Well first I would like to mention that this isn't something that originated at Raising Kaine. A national magazine called The Nation is the original source of the story. They have a website and the link to the entire story is on the RK site I believe. If not here it is: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060911&s=george_allen
Some things I found to be interesting in the article are: "Former Reagan speechwriter and conservative pundit Peggy Noonan pithily declared that anyone involved with the CCC "does not deserve to be in a leadership position in America."
So you mean to tell me this organization is prominent enough to be mentioned by an official under the president but Allen knew nothing of the group?
and this quote
"In 1995, he appointed a CCC sympathizer, Virginia lawyer R. Jackson Garnett, to head the Virginia Council on Day Care and serve on the Governor's Advisory Council on Self-Determination and Federalism. According to the CCC's Citizens Informer, Garnett delivered a speech before a CCC gathering saying that the Federalism Commission was "created to study abuses by the Federal government of constitutional powers that rightfully belong to the states."
I'm not accusing him of being associated with the group I just find some of these things to be a bit troubling.
Posted by: | August 30, 2006 at 12:27 AM
Anon 12:27 is on the right track.
Keep in mind Allen hasn't made any statement about this in the affirmative or negative.
His communications director's statement though is a journalist's red flag.
"BECAUSE WE HAVE NO RECORD OF THE SENATOR HAVING INVOLVEMENT"
This is a non-denial denial.
If the communication'd director says "The Senator denies any involvement". That's one kind of denial. This is NOT that type of denial.
If the journalist turns up information later, the communications director can say "Oh, I wasn't aware of that"--and still be telling the truth (in a PR version of truth telling). Plausible deniability.
When a PR person plays this type of game there's usually a good reason.
Once again:
"I am unaware of the group you mention or their agenda and because we have no record of the Senator having involvement with them I cannot offer you any opinion on them."
This is not a direct statement from Allen.
This is PR speak for "please leave me alone".
A direct answer from Allen would be nice.
Posted by: JPTERP | August 30, 2006 at 12:34 AM
JPTerp, agreed. As I said in the post, Allen has questions to answer.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | August 30, 2006 at 12:37 AM
12:27.. thanks for the Nation link. The Nation is like the National Review, except that the writers are going to heaven.
Peggy Noonan is known to be pithy. But what interests me most is not her pith, but instead her position. It seems that Reagan loyalists are supporting Webb.
Which is only appropriate.
Posted by: GinterParked | August 30, 2006 at 12:37 AM
I don't buy the Allen didn't know what he was getting into non denial defense especially after reading this:
"At the same time Allen also cultivated support from the SCV's sister organization, the United Daughters of the Confederacy. He was a frequent guest at their conventions and in March, 1997, in his second letter of commendation to the group, praised its members for "promoting historical accuracy and a clear understanding of the War Between the States," employing a euphemism for the Civil War popularized by neo-Confederate groups. (An article in a 1989 issue of the UDC magazine asserted that "the worse suffering group among those engaged in the [slave] trade" was "the crews of slave ships." "
He was a frequent guest? That's all you need to know. George Allen isn't dumb. He's too much of a skilled politician to be a "frequent guest" at a pretty much white supremacist organization's events and plead ignorance.
Posted by: furrycat | August 30, 2006 at 12:55 AM
Sorry 12:27 is me.... when you delete cookies it erases the automatic info :-/
Posted by: UVA08 | August 30, 2006 at 01:01 AM
Look, not every SCV member is a racist. And certainly, no one is going to criticize the UDC.
Those two groups are oriented to heritage and history issues. The SCV treads a fine line, but the line is tread, in Virginia anyway.
The CCC is another matter. The expressed purpose of this organizations isn't the commemoration of the valiant struggle of a people or the suffering of its widows. Instead, it advocates the destruction of American society by the forcible separation of the races.
I imagine there are few history lectures or bake sales on the CCC calendar.
Posted by: | August 30, 2006 at 01:08 AM
NOTHNING TO SEE HERE FOLKS MOVE ALONG! ALL IS WELL! ALL IS WELL!
Posted by: Tricky Dicky Wadhams | August 30, 2006 at 01:45 AM
ajacied nailed it. how many times can allen play the "i'm a moron" card before 50.1% of voters realize he really is a moron? allen is spending this campaign establishing the fact that he's either a racist or a moron. which represents the majority of VA voters?
Posted by: | August 30, 2006 at 05:00 AM
I find myself strangely in agreement with the author. Odd of you to defend George, though. I guess you are trying to be like your namesake. Please don't take that as a compliment. Yo yo GinterParked!!! To paraphrase one of GP's heroes, Just Vote No, Bay-Bee!!!
Posted by: Not Frank Hargrove | August 30, 2006 at 07:58 AM
Again, Ignorant or Racist who cares? We're full-up on both. Time for a change.
Posted by: Bubby | August 30, 2006 at 08:13 AM
furrycat - He was NOT a frequent guest of the controversial group. He was a frequent guest of the UDC which is a very different organization. UDC is mainstream and supported by politicians on both sides of the aisle. The writer tries to make a big deal out of this by calling them a "sister organization" which is very misleading.
Posted by: | August 30, 2006 at 09:01 AM
I remember seeing another group photograph of these guys and a prominent politician. It was taken outside; the small group was standing about casually. Anybody know who it was? Was it Allen, by any chance?
Yes, I cross-posted this at Daily Kos. It
s driving me crazy!
Posted by: LAS | August 30, 2006 at 09:21 AM
Oh, well. It was Barr.
Nevermind!
Posted by: LAS | August 30, 2006 at 10:53 AM
I'm POSITIVE that was a staged photo op where people stand in line at a private reception and wait to have their photos taken. This WASN'T at the CCC booth as that article suggests. George Allen and Charlton Heston would not have just been wandering around the exhibit hall at CPAC together (and with Allen in a tux no less.) Allen was in black tie for the gala dinner to follow the private reception where these photos were taken. That was the dead giveaway to me on it (as is the American flag positioned behind Heston specifically for photos.)
I've been to these private CPAC receptions, both as an attendee and as a staffer for Steve Forbes when he was a candidate, so I know the way this operates from both sides.
Ben is right about what Baum's word is worth and I applaud Ben for being fair here.
Posted by: Riley, Not O'Reilly | August 30, 2006 at 12:12 PM
what is "CCC"?
Posted by: huh? | August 30, 2006 at 12:14 PM
Hi,
I saw this story today. I have called my local T.V. station, newspaper. I also emailed Keith Olbermann, George Stephanopoulos and Tim Russert. Hopefully 1 or more of them will investigate this and we can get the answers if it is true that Allen is at best a racist.
Posted by: Jennifer | August 30, 2006 at 12:45 PM
Riley, I am still curious about this claim in the article:
"In 1995, he appointed a CCC sympathizer, Virginia lawyer R. Jackson Garnett, to head the Virginia Council on Day Care and serve on the Governor's Advisory Council on Self-Determination and Federalism. According to the CCC's Citizens Informer, Garnett delivered a speech before a CCC gathering saying that the Federalism Commission was "created to study abuses by the Federal government of constitutional powers that rightfully belong to the states."
Perhaps Allen didn't know he was a "sympathizer" and that he had made speeches before the group. I don't know. I think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. With that said, however, like I said months ago, one of these things can be ruled as an isolated incident but when you start adding one thing after another, some where common sense has to take over. All of this just makes me wonder if Allen's co-sponsorship of the apology for the government not passing anti-lynching laws was all about pre-positioning himself before a ton of unflattering information came out.
Posted by: UVA08 | August 30, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Sure. And let's attribute to Lowell the views of every person with whom he's been seen. Oops! Does that mean he is anti-forced-unionism? After all, he sat next to me for a time at last year's Sorenson summit.
Posted by: James Young | August 30, 2006 at 12:51 PM
UVA08, given that the Southern Poverty Law Center didn't designate the CCC as a racist organization until 1998, I'm not sure how anyone could be held responsible for something that happened in 1995, including appointing someone to a commission who had spoken to the group.
If anything, it sounds as if these bozos were hangers-on and now they're blabbing to the left-wing Nation because Allen & Co. spurned them.
Posted by: Riley, Not O'Reilly | August 30, 2006 at 02:13 PM
"If anything, it sounds as if these bozos were hangers-on and now they're blabbing to the left-wing Nation because Allen & Co. spurned them."
Riley- which is hilarious. Slap nuts funny, as a matter of fact.
Posted by: Doug | August 30, 2006 at 03:01 PM
Riley:
I'll tell you how Allen knew these bozos were white supremacists - they were officials of its predecessor; the White Citizens Council. And their show booth was "festooned" with the Confederate Battle Flag.
Posted by: Bubby | August 30, 2006 at 05:01 PM
You keep that up, Bubby. And please: persuade your Democrat friends to agree that display of the Confederate Battle Flag is how one determines whether a bozo is a white supremacist. That'll sell quite well in the South.
BTW, could you provide some evidence that these men were displaying their vita when they posed for this picture?
Posted by: James Young | August 30, 2006 at 05:05 PM
Mr.Young:
If you were truly concerned about the reputation of the Battle Flag you would make certain that it never showed up next to a white supremacist.
Now why don't you visit with your kindred over at the Council of Conservative Citizens and see why the conservative movement has a problem with relevancy.
http://www.cofcc.org/
Posted by: Bubby | August 30, 2006 at 05:58 PM
The CCC didn't have a booth at CPAC. They were "unofficially" set up behind the NRA. That's how they squeezed into an Allen/Heston picture. I'd be willing to bet at least 50 other random pictures were taken with Allen/Heston that day and probably hundreds with just Allen and random folks.
Posted by: | August 30, 2006 at 08:14 PM
Anon 8:14, in 1996 they were had a booth and were sponsors. More recently, after the were evicted, they have hidden behind the NRA booth. Feel free to continue peddling your little explanation, maybe Allen will pick it up and start using it...
Posted by: | August 30, 2006 at 10:26 PM