By FITSNews || A South Carolina Congressional candidate is in hot water Monday after several controversial remarks resurfaced from her past on a popular political blog.
Christina Jeffrey, a Republican who is running for the Palmetto State’s Fourth Congressional District (which includes GOP strongholds in Greenville and Spartanburg), is facing criticism for comments she made in previous years related to inbreeding, the Nazi regime and the Ku Klux Klan. The remarks – which were reprinted Monday on the political blog The Garnet Spy – threaten to derail her bid to defeat incumbent Congressman Bob Inglis (RINO-Greenville) and a host of other uninspiring challengers.
So … what did Jeffrey say, exactly? And when did she say it?
Well, in one 2007 comment, Jeffrey told a national reporter covering the 2008 presidential campaign that South Carolinians, herself included, were “inbred.”
“We’re inbred like all South Carolinians,” Jeffrey told Mike Littwin of the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News. “I did my duty by marrying an Iowan to improve the gene pool.”
Ouch.
Dating further back, Jeffrey was fired from her position as historian of the U.S. House of Representatives in the early 1990′s after a writing a controversial review of a program called “Facing History and Ourselves.”
“The program gives no evidence of balance or objectivity,” she wrote. “The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view and is not presented, nor is that of the Ku Klux Klan.”
Hmmm … Jeffrey, who wrote the review in the mid 1980′s, later claimed that she was “fired by the press.”
“Words have teeth and Christina Jeffrey has taken a bite out of her own candidacy,” the Spy opined regarding Jeffrey’s comments.
But has she?
With the exception of the inbred comment – which was obviously a joke (and not entirely inaccurate) – should we really call the “P.C. paddywagon” and haul Jeffrey off to “sensitivity jail” for a three-decades old remark about the Nazis and the KKK that really wasn’t all that offensive in the first place?
Seriously … even the most liberal history book will throw in a token sentence about the point of view of the Nazis and the KKK, won’t they?
What’s wrong with insisting some program do the same thing?
Don’t get us wrong … we don’t know this woman from Eve, and as a Republican candidate in South Carolina we have to assume that she’s every bit as worthless as the rest of this field. Also, her choice of a political consultant – the notoriously unstable and ineffective Jeffrey Sewell – indicates that she’s a few bricks short of a full load.
WEB EXTRA
Words Bite (The Garnet Spy)
Pic: The Conservativist
By south mauldin March 15, 2010 at 10:16 am
She’s completely nuts. When she was in some town hall meeting/debate with Inglis and all of the other candidates a couple of weeks ago moderated by the most boring man in the Upstate, Bob McClain, she said that if she was elected, she would make Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank pee in their pants when they saw her. Where does the Tea Party find these losers/idiots?
By Sid March 15, 2010 at 10:54 am
she’ll fit right in with the SC Delegation.
By Matt March 15, 2010 at 11:11 am
The reason the ‘inbred’ comments resurfaced were as a result of the self-inflicted dust-up Jeffrey is experiencing over the question of who she supported for president in 2008. Most people involved in politics know she was on board the Rudy Giuliani train. She is close friends with Karen Floyd and was also employed with Floyd’s Palladian Group firm in Spartanburg which did consulting work for Rudy in SC. Jeffrey also presented herself as a citizen supporter of Rudy at numerous events and frequently talked at political events about the importance of having to elect Rudy as president in the GOP primary. Now when asked in the radio forum about who she supported in the primary, she saying that she was a huge Duncan Hunter supporter. Before that she was refusing to answer the question about who she supported for president when asked by the Herald-Journal. WTF? Does she not know that people have memories?
By Moniker Lewinsky March 15, 2010 at 11:18 am
She couldn’t win an uncontested election. This is just her latest attempt at relevance on Earth. Another failure at that effort is at hand.
By James Strickland March 15, 2010 at 1:16 pm
However, it is worth noting that both Mrs. Jeffrey and her husband have Ph.D.s, and that the issue of including Nazi and KKK points of view isn’t so much an indication of one’s personal sentiments as it is a historiographic interpretation. History is a process of understanding, and this process requires the proper contextualization of certain ideologies. It is crucial not only to know what happened, but why it happened and how. One is entirely correct that “even the most liberal history” books include some alternate views, as many liberal history books are written entirely from an atlernative view. After all, Nazism most certainly isn’t conservatism.
I hope that when Mrs. Jeffrey’s husband, Professor Robert Jeffrey of Wofford, comes to USC in April, we can resolve several of these “issues.” It seems from Mrs. Jeffrey’s biography that she has strong libertarian ties, which substantially disqualify her as a standard SC RINO (if her biography is adequate, which I’m sure it is).
By Dr. Kinard March 15, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Have heard national lame-stream media has gotten ahold of this. They are waiting to see if she actually files to be on ballot in the next 2 weeks. If she does, she is going to be national news. They are looking to demonize the Tea Party movement anyway they can. The fact that she has been calling herself “the tea party” candidate everywhere she goes is probably enough for them but I believe she actually has the endorsement of one of the tea party groups which makes her a legitimate tea party candidate. With her newfound “inbred” comment combined with her former support of Nazis and KKK, she is about to become the main stream media’s national poster child for the movement.
Jeffrey is losing all her support fast. She can’t win no matter what and she should be looking at dropping out of the race. Really the best thing before she brings further embarassment to her family and friends.
By No Name March 15, 2010 at 1:43 pm
The women is not dumb….I think calculating might be a term to use ….but if you engage her for long enough in any type of public setting she eventually comes across as a barking loon.
That smile is scary and is her default look….more investigation into the second husband might be fruitful….she also represents at various time being employed by Wofford…where I think her husband is a department head….lately it is the Greenville University Center.
The Duncan Hunter lie was a classic…any mention of the baby killer Rudy in the upstate makes the Bob Jones mafia go crazy …Bob Taylor the puppet master of the Greenville GOP….. prefers the secret underwear of the flip flopper polygamist.
I expect her role in the end to be the smear against Inglis at the end.
BJU mafia is supporting Inglis so the fireworks should be fun to watch.
By HIPAA Violator March 15, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Among Sic’s “related entries” to this post, above:
“Ricci: Bangin”
“Christina Hendricks is Racktacular”
“Frolicious”
By Nathan Earle March 15, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Fortunately, the candidates most likely to replace Bob Inglis are Trey Gowdy and Jim Lee, both of whom possess tact and circumspection as well a predisposition toward free-market principles and limited government.
By Spartanburg Local March 15, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Dr. K is right she will be the poster child of the tea party movement. I think it is crazy to believe she truly supports the Nazis or KKK, but the story will have legs.
By Earl Capps March 15, 2010 at 5:29 pm
I’m pretty sure the inbred part was a joke, even if it wasn’t the kind of thing you share with the news media.
However, I don’t know what to make of the other stuff.
By Fred March 15, 2010 at 6:45 pm
I like her…she is very smart.
By baker March 15, 2010 at 10:53 pm
While I do not at all think that Christina Jeffrey supports the KKK or Nazism, and while I think that she probably meant her analysis in a true spirit of academia, I do wonder:
Just what would be the proper Nazi or KKK “perspective”? Just how are history books supposed to present that “perspective”?
How deeply are historians required, in Jeffrey’s view, to dig into the views of the Nazis? I mean, I guess it’s known that Adolf Hitler hated Jews, right? It’s generally acknowledged, I think, that Germany went through some awfully rough times after WWI and that folks there may have been susceptible to demagoguery and scapegoatism. But is this the same as a “perspective”?
I guess what I mean is that, OK, maybe we should take it as legitimate that Jeffrey meant to put across some serious academic argument. Fine. But, then, what are historians supposed to do with that? How would Jeffrey suggest that her take on all this — the need for KKK and Nazi “perspective” — be incorporated in textbooks or the teaching of history?
By Rich March 15, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Christina Jeffrey is a great candidate. Her platform and principles are sound, conservative, and articulate.
Going after her for these past comments seems petty and dishonest, especially given their substance. It seems like she was simply pointing out that educational programs ought to point out that the Nazi’s and the KKK possessed points of views, a set of beliefs. Nazi’s weren’t an evil to be destroyed because they wore shiny uniforms and the KKK wasn’t despicable because of their scary robes. Their ideas conflicted with our fundamental values and that is what made them evil. If you don’t understand what made them dangerous, you cannot combat emergence of evil in the future. We should reward those with bold moral clarity.
Go Jeffrey!
By Dr. Kinard March 15, 2010 at 11:17 pm
A couple more interesting quotes by Jeffrey:
http://www.audubon-area.org/NewFiles/jef97ses.doc
“The first clue that the leader is corrupt is the failure to tell the truth. These kinds of leaders have to be replaced. You are not going to like this, but Kelly Flynn needed to be removed from the Air Corps, the officer corps of the United States, not because of adultery, but because she showed herself capable of lying. A leader must tell the truth.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1378217/posts
“If we were serious,” Jeffrey said, “the punishment would be loss of the ill-gotten gains — to wit, the job one obtained by cheating.”
By baker March 16, 2010 at 8:16 am
That would make sense, Rich. But that wasn’t at all the tone of — or explained in — her quote. Here’s the quote:
“The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view and is not presented, nor is that of the Ku Klux Klan.”
That sounds like she was saying the course should simply give “equal time,” or something thereabouts, to Nazi and KKK perspectives.
You may be correct that what she meant was a discussion of evil ideologies — but that isn’t at all clear based on the quote itself.
By WorkingTommyC March 16, 2010 at 10:53 am
I have more of a problem with her past associations with Newt Gingrich. She would appear to be another sheep in wolf’s clothing.
By The Conservativist March 16, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Read the story that broke the news on March 10 at The Conservativist.
http://theconservativist.com/2010/03/10/who-did-jeffrey-support-in-2008/
By kelly May 20, 2010 at 12:29 pm
How clear can a quote taken out of context actually be? And what if she supported Rudy and Duncan Hines? Can you support two candidates during the same 2 year long election process?
Sure you can, just ask the Conservativist writer Gary Coats who supported Andrew Smart but now supports Jim Lee.
Pingback: Christina Jeffrey 2008 Presidential Primary Timeline | The Political Vise Blog
By Will Folks' Cock August 16, 2011 at 7:08 pm
I love to my licked by big brothas.