James L. Hart, Tennesee GOP Primary Winner

Read On

MEMPHIS, Tenn. - An unabashed racist will represent the Republican party in the November election for a congressional seat after a write-in candidate failed to derail his effort.

With 86 percent of the primary vote counted Thursday, write-in candidate Dennis Bertrand had just 1,554 votes compared to 7,671, or 83 percent, for James L. Hart, a believer in the discredited, phony science of eugenics.

In November, the GOP candidate will oppose Rep. John Tanner (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat who has represented the northwest Tennessee district for 15 years.

Hart, 60, vows if elected to work toward keeping "less favored races" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States. In campaign literature, Hart contends that "poverty genes" threaten to turn the United States into "one big Detroit."

"I didn't expect to win," Hart said. "I thought their network would beat my ideas."

He has run for the 8th District seat before and drawn little attention. But people began to notice this time because he was the only Republican on the ballot.

Since the deadline for getting on the ballot had passed, Bertrand, also a Republican, began a write-in campaign, saying he wanted to protect the party's honor.

"I think his beliefs are not beliefs of any party that I know of," Bertrand said Thursday night. "I knew it was going to be a really long shot, but in good conscience, I had to at least give it an attempt."

Bertrand, a financial analyst and former military officer, was on active duty with the National Guard when the deadline to get on the primary ballot passed.

Hart said he will have lots of time to campaign for the general election since he was forced Wednesday to resign from his job as a real estate salesman because of the attention he drew during the primary.

"They didn't say 'You're fired' in exactly those words, but it was pretty clear what they wanted," Hart said.

While campaigning, Hart sometimes wears a protective vest and carries a .40-caliber pistol, but he said he has run into no trouble.

"When I knock on a door and say white children deserve the same rights as everybody else, the enthusiastic response is truly amazing," he said.

If a black person opens the door, he says he simply drops off campaign literature and leaves.

I think this speaks volumes, not of Republicans, mind you, but how voting strictly on party lines without knowing who the hell you're voting for is... well... stupid.

The guy will not win the general election. I hope he gets no support and is trashed on a daily basis.

The highest praise that I could usually scrounge up for the GOP is that they run a tight ship nationwide. So much for that.

"Sanjuro" wrote:

The highest praise that I could usually scrounge up for the GOP is that they run a tight ship nationwide. So much for that.

I know. They should have put someone up faster to beat this guy.

Hart, 60, vows if elected to work toward keeping ""less favored races"" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States.

It''s appalling and embarassing that people like this get on the ballot in the first place.

I''m sorry, but why is this news?

Just kidding.

This guy should get trounced.

I live in Memphis and this story gets little or no press from what I have seen, quite sad really. There is no way this eugenics idiot will ever win the general election. Tanner is the incumbent and pretty well-respected in the state by Democrats and Republicans and should win easily.

This is horrible, but I must admit that there are still parts of this country where ""men"" like James Hart are quite popular and gain a high percentage of the vote.

When I was in middle school in rural Louisiana, there was a mock election staged for the governor race at the time. It was between David Duke and Edwin Edwards. Now, granted, it was fairly well rumored that Edwards was a corrupt politician at the time. However, Duke had a very strong racist/white supremacist record, and his claims of being ""reformed"" weren''t really believed by anyone.

There were about 350 students in the school at the time. Duke got all but about 5 of the votes (I don''t remember the exact number, but it was in the mid-single-digits). My sister and I accounted for 2 of the Edwards votes.

I knew the kids well enough from their comments and opinions that a large part of the reason they liked Duke was his white supremacist (albeit tempered a bit) agenda.

It''s very sad that there are people in this country who are still so intolerant that they will actively seek to oppress people based on their ethnicity, religious belief (or non-belief), or what have you.

I know I come off pretty strongly against the conservatives/Republicans a lot of the time, but I want to make it clear that in no way am I pointing at them in this post. There are people all across the political spectrum with hateful beliefs like this, regardless of whom those beliefs are targetting.

It''s sad. I will be quite distressed if this man is elected because of party-line voting (again, both parties can be accused of things like this happening).

It''s sad. I will be quite distressed if this man is elected because of party-line voting (again, both parties can be accused of things like this happening).

I bet a majority of the people that voted for him didn''t know a single one of his views. They just voted for the ""R"", and we can find fault and have to understand that in our system that is what many people do. I think that the same % of people across all races, party lines, sexes, ect. are racists and scum.

I think that him getting on the ballet comes from the fact that people are happy with our two parties. They didn''t even think to question if he is a racist, and I think in the end that is a good thing.

I think the best view of race relations in this country comes from Harold and Kumar goto White Castle. That movie you have to people from different ethnic backgrounds playing young men. They do things that all college-age guys in movies do. They aren''t portrayed as their race but as their sex and age.

Actually, I find it strange that so many americans are attached to two party system. You preach free market and cutthroat competition in economy (and it works well, mind you) and then settle for two ""monopolies"" in politics front, stiffing any real competition.

If I were american, after some reading on programms of both parties, I think I wouldnt vote at all, because both of them have some points I respond well and some points I feel very antagonistic about. It would always be choosing of lesser evil.

I understand that its quite hard to break a tradition, but hasnt there been at least serious talk about switching to multiparty system in States?

"Most" wrote:

Actually, I find it strange that so many americans are attached to two party system. You preach free market and cutthroat competition in economy (and it works well, mind you) and then settle for two ""monopolies"" in politics front, stiffing any real competition.

If I were american, after some reading on programms of both parties, I think I wouldnt vote at all, because both of them have some points I respond well and some points I feel very antagonistic about. It would always be choosing of lesser evil.

I understand that its quite hard to break a tradition, but hasnt there been at least serious talk about switching to multiparty system in States?

Haha, silly European...

"Most" wrote:

Actually, I find it strange that so many americans are attached to two party system. You preach free market and cutthroat competition in economy (and it works well, mind you) and then settle for two ""monopolies"" in politics front, stiffing any real competition.

If I were american, after some reading on programms of both parties, I think I wouldnt vote at all, because both of them have some points I respond well and some points I feel very antagonistic about. It would always be choosing of lesser evil.

I understand that its quite hard to break a tradition, but hasnt there been at least serious talk about switching to multiparty system in States?

We have more than two parties. The other parties don''t have the base as the two major parties and that is due to the fac that we are not a parliamentary system. If you could elect a handful of Libertarians and Greens (the major of the small parties) they wouldn''t have any voice. In most of Europe you only have Labour and the Conservative party in power. The smaller parties have more power due to a parliamentary system.

Erm no that''s not correct. In most of Europe there is a coalition of several parties in the government.

"chrisg" wrote:

Erm no that''s not correct. In most of Europe there is a coalition of several parties in the government.

Again, we have a different system of government. I am correct that the coalition forms of government is considered part of a parliamentary system.

Our system works fine. We don''t need to go EU on it and screw things up.