Mark Warner calls NRA, home schoolers, people of faith a “threat”, then lies about it to the press
There’s no need for me to offer any additional commentary other than to present the evidence:
Mark Warner “angrily denied” in the Richmond Times-Dispatch that he called the NRA, people of faith, home schoolers and people who believe in the right to life “a threat to what it means to be an American.” He called it “inaccurate.”
Let’s go to the video tape:
Warner owes every group in that litany of people he listed, including the Republican Party, an apology. There’s no room for anyone in the 21st century, let alone a “radical centrist” such as Warner, to insult whole groups of people as threats to this country.
Category: Uncategorized
Loading ...
Jim, where in the RTD did Marky-Mark say that he hadn’t said this? I’ve searched the site, but can’t find it. Also, do you know the location and time for when he said those recorded remarks? Not at all that I doubt you, I just like to have as many supporting links as I can when I post things like this…
This is a case where your words will come back to haunt you…and it appears the Gilmore campaign is endeavoring to remind folks of the past:
Mark Warner said these words to the National Jewish Democratic Council on May 25, 1994.
The article in the RTD appeared on Halloween 2001, as Republican Mark Earley tried to bring the subject up:
RADIO ATTACK AD DRAWS ANGRY DENIAL BY WARNER- NATIONAL GOP SPOKESMAN DEFENDS COMMERCIAL
Richmond Times-Dispatch – October 31, 2001
Low and behold, a few years later and some further research, it appears Warner’s words are more than accurate and Earley is vindicated.
[...] Bearing Drift is reporting that Warner is actually denying he said that the faithful, home schooling parents, gun [...]
Thanks, Jim – I appreciate the additional info!
So, this is 14 years old? I guess Gilmore really is out of ideas…
I guess it depends on your perspective and context. NRA, people of faith, home schoolers and people who believe in the right to life are no more a threat to what it means to be an American than Buddhists, homosexuals, pro-choice supporters, and atheists. I think the argument Warner is trying to make is that the lifeblood of the GOP has been composed of certain groups of people who, together as a party, are more apt to limit the freedoms of Americans rather than promote pluralism.
I’m not saying that all conservatives are anti-pluralists, but it’s not an extreme observation to note what groups have a significant impact on the direction of the GOP.
Context?
Defending the 2nd amendment is “threatening what it means to be an American?”
Home schooling, too? Religious freedom?
Joel, what Constitution are you reading? Warner basically said that groups who defend the Bill of Rights are anti-American.
Don’t try to spin what you think he meant. Listen to what he said.
[...] worse, when it came up in the 2001 gubernatorial campaign, Warner insisted he said no such things (Bearing Drift). [...]
“Christian Coalition” =/= “People of faith”
There are many people of deep and sincere faith who are not part of the Christian Coalition, and the right-wing Christians would do well to remember that.
Video is 14 years old and out of context. It is put forth by Bearing Drift (not to mention Gilmore), a WAY right wing website. Let it be known that this same video was used in the 2001 election and failed. Mark Warner has been Governor for several years since. I think people in Virginia have pretty good handle on who he is. Gilmore is out of ideas and Warner already has 20% of the GOP vote in VA. Come On! GOP needs more than smear tactics to win! It’s already been determined they don’t work for this election!
hey Brian Kirwin-
Not to nitpick, but there’s a vast difference between “practicing” and “defending.”
By simply having guns, one is not defending the 2nd amendment.
If I go and protest about having my gun rights violated, then I’m defending the 2nd amendment.
If I go and hunt, using my gun, I’m just practicing, or enjoying, my rights.
GOP I – 14 years old or not, under what context do you correctly call home schoolers, christians and gun owners a threat to what it means to be an American?
So? I think he’s right. If you look at the long history of bigotry and ignorance spread by these groups then yeah, they are a threat to what it means to be an American. (That is unless you think bigotry and intolerance are the American way) Doesn’t matter if it was 14 years ago… it still rings true today.
Now, I’m a deeply spiritual person, I own and believe in gun ownership, and I think home schooling is great if you can do it. But! the freedom of religion includes all religions, not just Christianity. Gun ownership doesn’t mean that I need a .50 caliber machine gun for home protection, but the NRA would have you believe otherwise. (Besides, if you can’t defend your home with just a semi-auto and a shotgun then either A) you don’t know how to use a gun properly so you probably shouldn’t have any, or B) we’re being overrun by zombies or a foreign army, in which case don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes!) Finally, not all home schoolers are right wing Bible thumpers who believe that the only thing their kids should learn is that “Jesus is coming so you better be ready when he comes or he won’t take you to Heaven with mommy and daddy.” But I think those are the kind of home schoolers that he was referring to, and yes that kind of schooling does nothing more than breed future domestic terrorists.
Bigotry and ignorance are threats to America. The GOP has been over run by people with those two qualities. You do the math.
Granny, the 2nd amendment wasn’t written to protect hunting.
Mark, your comment proves your own point – “Bigotry and ignorance are threats to America”
Mark – He didn’t call out bigots. He called out gun owners, home schoolers and Christians. If he had said “bigots” then this would be a different argument, but he broad brushed neatly half the electorate (maybe more if this was said in ’94).
“He called out gun owners, home schoolers and Christians.”
No, the NRA =/= gun owners. Not every gun owner endorses LaPierre’s paranoias. And the Christian Coalition, as has already been pointed out, does not equal “Christians”, thanks be to Jesus.
I do wish he had not blasted all “home schoolers”, not all of whom are of the same type either. I am sure he had a particular subset of the home schoolers in mind.
Jim, I’m a evangelical Christian. And I have to say there is a WORLD of difference between what you’re accusing Warner of (claiming he called “people of faith” a threat ) and what he actually did (blast the Christian Coalition and the right-to-lifers). What part of “Thou shalt not bear false witness” do you think doesn’t apply to you?
That’s one hell of a commandment to bring up to Mark “I won’t raise your taxes” Warner.
The problem is that every group thinks that THEIR group is the definition of what it means to be American. If tomorrow I stated that the immigrants, the atheists, and the released felons are ruining America, I’d be a small-minded jerk.. Really, I would be. America is a melting pot, so being born elsewhere, and coming here makes you just as American as a sixth generation American. There is no national religion, so being an atheist has nothing to do with your “Americaness”. And we are a country based on paying your debt and being given a fresh page once you’ve done so. But no one is likely to jump to my defense. But let’s look at the facts: it’s the church that wants to exclude gays, atheists, and many non-Christians from being fully accepted as “Americans”. And I’d say 75% of home-schoolers are doing it for religious reasons, to prevent their kids from being exposed to the “liberal/atheist/corrupt” public school system. It is the GOP who has found a place within their ranks for these people. And have given them a free pass for being bigots. Somehow, being small-minded is now “folksy”. Being xenophobic is called “traditional”. Jingoism is now the only “true patriotism”. When asked what quality is more admired, “likable” has become more attractive than “qualified”. Leaders are praised for “thinking with their hearts and their guts” instead of using new information to make informed decisions. I think THAT is what Warner was speaking out against. Clearly, there is an underlying message that was lost by people who found the labels thay identified with. I’ll say this; if I were Warner, I would have been more careful with my words, but I cannot say I blame the guy for his frustration. But I believe that it was the single-issue voters like the NRA, Pro-Lifers, and the Religious Right that put their pet issue higher on the priority list than the economy, civil rights, and National security, and the country is worse off because of it.
To all:
First and foremost, as Jason pointed out, Warner was not calling out bigotry, he was calling out specific groups of people.
This is an audio recording showing someone who is simply intolerant of people who do not agree with his positions. There are plenty of people who have different opinions on issues than I do, but do I consider them a “threat” to what it means to be an American? Absolutely not. In fact, the entire premise behind our Constitution rests in the decision by the Founders to allow a marketplace of ideas, something they did not have before the Revolution. The beauty of the United States of America is that we all can share different opinions without having to be labeled as a “threat to what it means to be an American.” Someone running for the United States Senate, or any office for that matter should be aware of this beauty within our system. This principle, so eloquently established by our Founding Fathers is apparently lost with Governor Warner. In fact, he cares so little, he doesn’t even respond. For hundreds of years, we have fought wars, court battles and movements within the nation to PROTECT these groups to have the opinions they do, NOT to label them a threat to what it means to be an American. If the commentators on this website consider his comments to be those of calling out “bigots”, what is your assessment of Warner labeling those people as “threats to what it means to be an American” simply because he disagrees with them?
It can also be claimed that these comments were brought up during the 2001 election. I would concede that point, but not to the extent that an audio tape of these comments was ever released. In fact, Governor Warner was able to skirt the issue completely because Mark Earley could not corroborate the claim. For anyone with access to Lexus Nexus look up Warner’s response within the Richmond Times Dispatch on the date of October 31, 2001.
So, given that it was indeed said in 1994, how is it justified that he could lie about in 2001? Are these comments too far in the past to be held against him? Given your claim that someone could state something at one point time, and it could be viewed as meaningless a few years down the road, at what point should we draw this line? Is it something that we should use when it is simply convenient to get away from your past issues?
To suggest that Governor Warner has changed his opinions is also a difficult notion to simply concede. During the final televised debate this year, Governor War said he opposed Justices like Scalia (defended freedom of speech with regards to flag burning), Thomas, Alito and Roberts (All Justices joined in the majority opinion in DC vs. Heller). Warner claimed these Justices were out of the “mainstream”. I was not aware Justices Constitutional requirements were to reside in the mainstream of public opinion? It has always been my understanding that they are to read the law. How can one claim he has changed his opinions from 1994, when he is currently so vehemently against our Justices? Could it have something to do with him being a supporter of Roe v. Wade, while the pro-life community (mentioned in the tape), and majority of Americans oppose it? Does he still consider them a threat to America?
I apologize for the length of this response, but I just find it so difficult to simply “discount” these comments made, which hit a broad spectrum of people (granted not all). Intolerance within our political system is something we should not tolerate and when it is prudent, question the candidates who make such statements. It is dark day when a politician can make such statements, and feel zero obligation to not only those affected, but his own supporters to justify his claims.
Who’s to say that a pro-life voter is any different from a civil rights voter?
Mark Warner is way WAY off base here. The bottom line is the special interests he likes are fine and dandy, but the special interests he doesn’t like are anti-American.
I don’t think those who created America would think protecting life, religion and arms was anti-American.
One thing for use, Mark Warner said he wasn’t going to raise taxes and he lied and we already have Webb in office, he was a bad choice and I know Gilmore kept his word while he was Governor. I figure a man is about as good as his word.