Five months ago I wrote about a spat between Joe Carter of the Family Research Council and Max Blumenthal of The Nation and Huffington Post regarding a hot linking incident.
In the course of the post and the subsequent conversation, FRC President Tony Perkin’s and his past came up.
11 years ago Perkins was campaign manager for a US senate Republican candidate named Woody Jenkins. The campaign used a group called Impact Media (owned by white supremacist David Duke) for an election phone bank operation. There was a stink raised in the 1990′s, and it’s come up several times since.
Make no mistake.
There is no love lost between Max Blumenthal and The Family Research Council.
As much as Tony Perkins has tried to make this issue go away it keeps coming up.
Blumenthal wrote a piece about the Jenkins campaign and it’s ties to Duke’s Impact Media back in 2005.
In 1996 Perkins cut his teeth as the manager of Jenkins’s campaign for US Senate. It was during that campaign that, in an attempt to consolidate the support of Louisiana’s conservative base, Perkins paid David Duke $82,000 for his mailing list. After Jenkins was defeated by his Democratic opponent, Mary Landrieu, he contested the election. But during the contest period, Perkins’s surreptitious payment to Duke was exposed through an investigation conducted by the FEC, which fined the Jenkins campaign.
In the piece Blumenthal mentions that in 2001 the FRC president spoke at the:
Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America’s premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South
Perkins countered with a column at The Family Research Council. He leaves out details.
I’m not clear on why he is permitted to use his work website for counter claims, but he is.
A Response to the False Claims made by The Nation.
This past week Louisiana Senator David Vitter was found to have earmarked one hundred thousand dollars for The Louisiana Family Forum. It might have gone relatively unnoticed or stayed at the local level if:
a) Vitter hadn’t admitted his involvement with prostitutes and nationally apologized
b) The Louisiana Family Forum hadn’t been founded by then state representative Tony Perkins
c) The group wasn’t connected with Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins, David Vitter and known for its extensive push to have creationism taught in state schools.
After the Vitter earmark story came out, some documents were taken off the Family Forum site.
The Dispatches from the culture wars story begins here.
Joe Carter popped in (as he had here at BDBO) to defend his boss Tony Perkins.
That was fine by me five months ago, dialogue beats potshots, I voiced my skepticism and the same occurred at Dispatches.
What I am unable to understand is why Joe Carter would continue defend his boss online, especially regarding an incident he was not around for.
Dispatches from the culture wars followed up with a post and that’s where The Federal Election Commission documents were revealed by a commenter. In the matter of Jenkins for Senate 1996 and Woody Jenkins.
Joe Carter has fallen silent.
What is he going to say?
Meantime; Perkin’s prior appearance before the CCC, Vitter’s current earmark for the Family Forum fall under closer scrutiny and the Family Forum winds up getting national attention by media and bloggers. And the David Duke/Impact Media connection resurfaces as part of background and history.
Richard Bartholomew is a flawless researcher and he is covered the Louisiania and one it’s odder offshoots called PRC Compassion ( a minister’s network) since 2005: here and here.
No matter how the Louisiana Family Forum or Senator David Vitter attempt to spin the earmark, now that the information is public it is unlikely voters in Louisiana will stay silent. I could be wrong, we’ll see.
The story isn’t quite over. Once again Ed Brayton, who is also meticulous, posted an update at his blog, questioning who knew what and when. He questioned an claim Max Blumenthal made in his original article.
I think this reveals that both versions of the story are inaccurate in different ways. It does not appear that any mailing list was bought at all; rather, a contract was given to Duke’s company to make phone calls on their behalf. And the $82,500 figure that Blumenthal uses was not any fee paid to Duke but was the figure that the FEC said would be the usual fine for the violation of FEC regulations in the case (though they settled for only $3000).
Perkins’ version of the story is also inaccurate, but it’s inaccurate in ways that are clearly more important to the substance of the complaint. It isn’t true, as Perkins claims, that Duke’s ownership of Impact Mail – not a mere “interest in” the company, but actual ownership; the phones were in his name – was only revealed by an unrelated investigation. Duke’s involvement was known by Woody Jenkins from the very start because Duke asked him personally to hire his company.
Is it possible that Perkins did not know that? Yes. Joe Carter tells me that Perkins did not know it at the time and also says that Woody Jenkins has confirmed that he never told Perkins that Impact Mail was Duke’s company when he instructed him to sign the contract with them. I have no reason not to believe Carter; we may disagree on virtually everything, but I have never known him to not be honorable and honest. I have no doubt that this is exactly what Perkins has told him.
Could Perkins be lying? Of course.
Okay.
Ed Brayton and Max Blumenthal took their debate over to a research site they both write for. Ed Brayton: Dissecting a Claim: Perkins v Blumenthal Max Blumenthal: Dissecting an Error-Laden Post: Brayton v. Brayton
While I can appreciate wanting a wide group of people to be aware of these events and the background, it may not have been a wise choice.
Both writers are very different in personality, style and approach. I doubt they’ll be sitting down for a beer together anytime soon. But they are travelling the same road in their research and concerns and thin skin at a reputable site doesn’t help. Will the FRC try to make hay out of Brayton verus Blumenthal? I wouldn’t rule it out.
Which brings me back to Joe Carter.
Like Ed, I’ve found my conversations with Joe to lead me to believe his sincerity and his honesty, I know he believes what he passionately defends.
I’ve seen Carter go after Blumenthal, there is nothing family value friendly about his attack, he did not do himself proud. Carter acknowledged his behavior was juvenile, that’s as good as it’s going to get. Blumenthal is not going to park his ego, and apologizing doesn’t seem to be a concept to him.
While writers disputing and clarifying can be interesting (it’s like being in the newsroom) most of us know when it goes to far.
The facts have been presented, Perkins needs to be answering for himself.
*absolutely a lame post title, a couple of bloggers packed a lot of info into a few posts and slid their personalities into the story. What good blogging is.
Perkins wouldn’t be the first Southern conservative to be friendly with the CCC. Mississippi governor Haley Barbour and senator Trent Lott both have spoken to them, although Barbour had a bit of selective amnesia when the issue was broached in his 2003 election bid. Lott’s connection to the CCC was brought up as additional proof of (to put it politely) racial insensitivity when his speech at a 2002 Strom Thurmond birthday party praising his ’48 Dixiecrat segregationist run came to the fore.
I don’t know much about the Duke printing outfit beyond what’s you’ve presented, so I’ll hold judgment there. However, Perkins would have shown bad judgment at best if he did speak to the CCC, especially after the Lott fiasco in late 2002, where Lott’s CCC connections were a part of the mix.