Republican revisionist history?

  • Context: History 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    History
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around comments made by Rep. Virginia Foxx regarding the murder of Matthew Shepard, a young gay man, and the implications of her statements on hate crime legislation. Participants explore the accuracy of her claims, the context of her remarks, and the broader political ramifications, including the role of the Republican Party and media influence. The conversation includes elements of historical interpretation, political debate, and the impact of language in legislative contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Rep. Foxx described the murder of Matthew Shepard as a "hoax," claiming it was primarily a robbery rather than a hate crime, which some participants argue contradicts court testimonies from the murderers' girlfriends.
  • Some participants question the validity of Foxx's claims and whether they reflect a broader Republican National Committee (RNC) stance, seeking evidence for or against this assertion.
  • Others suggest that Foxx's comments may stem from ignorance rather than a deliberate misrepresentation of history, noting the sensitivity of the situation given Shepard's mother's presence during the remarks.
  • Participants discuss the implications of labeling the murder as a robbery and the potential motivations behind Foxx's choice of words, including references to media reports that may have influenced her perspective.
  • There is a focus on the legislative context, with inquiries into how many Republicans supported or opposed the hate crime bill and whether Foxx's views align with those of her party.
  • Some participants express concern over the perceived marginalization of hate crime victims and the political motivations behind the framing of such discussions.
  • Foxx later issued a statement clarifying her remarks, indicating that her use of the term "hoax" was a poor choice and referencing a specific media report that questioned the motivations behind Shepard's murder.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on whether Foxx's remarks represent a broader Republican viewpoint or if they are an isolated incident. Disagreement persists regarding the interpretation of her statements and their implications for hate crime legislation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the discussion, including the potential influence of media narratives and the historical context of hate crimes. There are unresolved questions about the motivations behind Foxx's statements and the accuracy of the information she referenced.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,215
Reaction score
2,661
Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., used the word "hoax" to describe the killing of Matthew Shepard, a young gay man who was tied crucifixion-style to a fence, repeatedly pistol whipped and left for dead. He later died in a local hospital.

". . . We know that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery," Foxx told the House. "It wasn't because he was gay This -- the bill was named for him, (the) hate crime bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."

The "hoax" argument is directly contradicted by court testimony by girlfriends of the two men who murdered Shepard. Both girlfriends testified that the killers set out to find and rob a gay man. They befriended Shepard in a bar. The slight Shepard asked them to give him a ride home...
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/167655.asp?from=blog_last3

An honest mistake, or the intentional mispresentation of the facts? I don't suppose she got her information from Fox News?
 
Science news on Phys.org


What are the "facts"?

Do you have any evidence that this position is promoted by the RNC in it's entirety?

Do you have any evidence that this position was promoted exclusively by FNC?
 


Here's the video of Virginia Foxx making her pitch to demean the death of Mathew Shepard..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLxbQmlOT1I

Is she in some kind of sick contest with Michelle Bachmann?
 


Nice try...but it sounds like one member of the RNC talking about a case in which she's not familiar with the facts and picked the wrong word (hoax)...not exactly revisionist history. This case was disgusting. However, my guess is there were other cases to choose from, based in larger cities/metro areas, that may have been more indicative of the problem the ruling is intended to remedy.

In response to the 2 gals on MSNBC, of course the gay community wants special treatment and protection from hate crimes...why wouldn't they? Why would anyone argue that the gay community doesn't want special treatment? What do you call the gay marriage argument...it's special legislation. (And for the record...I could care less who gets married to whom...as long as they are of legal age and not being forced/coerced)

But (again, MSNBC) why group African American, homosexual (and he wasn't a child-he was picked up in a bar), and women together in the discussion? If the whole group needs a single piece of legislation...fine. If each group needs separate protection...fine. But don't make the argument both ways (MSNBC)...it all sounds like classic Left Wing Whining...and designed to enrage as many people against the RNC as possible.
 


To be clear she is a R-N.C. Republican from North Carolina.

Not a member of the RNC.

From North Carolina that would be:
Wikipedia said:
North Carolina: Linda Daves, David R. Lewis, Ada Fisher, Chris McClure

Her fault is that she is just apparently ignorant of the facts, and didn't let that stop her from further spreading her ignorance, even though Matthew Shepard's mother was apparently in the Gallery to see the passage of the legislation. Insensitive too. She hit the daily double.
 


Shepard's mother was sitting there and listening as Foxx made these comments.
 


seycyrus said:
Do you have any evidence that this position is promoted by the RNC in it's entirety?
Agreed, there is a big difference between *a* republican and "the republican party".
 


Who do you think she was referring to when she said:
Representative Virginia Foxx said:
But we know that that young man was killed in ah the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay.

Sure sounded like she was speaking for the opposition of the H.S. 1913.

Now who opposed the bill?

How many Republicans voted no?

Did any vote yes?

How many of them identify with her remarks?
 


Skyhunter said:
Now who opposed the bill?

How many Republicans voted no?

Did any vote yes?

How many of them identify with her remarks?

18 Republicans in the House voted Yes.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-223

Interesting that Anh Joseph Cao, who replaced William Jefferson in the LA-2, voted Yes. I guess it takes a minority to relate to a bill about hate. Would Virginia Foxx have been more receptive if a Catholic had been branded with a cross? (She's Roman Catholic.) Would she have brushed it off as a tattoo gone bad?
 
  • #10


russ_watters said:
Agreed, there is a big difference between *a* republican and "the republican party".

As previously pointed out, this has nothing to do with the RNC to begin with. That's apparently a straw man misreading of her being a R-NC. I don't see any suggestion that it had anything to do with the RNC itself. (They have their own troubles with Michael "Hip Hop" Steele.)

As to it not being the Republican Party, 158 voted No.

It hasn't been until this year that the Republicans have been thoroughly repudiated and Bush now gone that the legislation had any hope of actual passage and signing into Law. To suggest that it is not a Republican position - maybe not the specific oh it was just a robbery nonsense justification - when it is clearly something Republicans have been against is not exactly correct either.
 
  • #12
http://fav.or.it/post/1393708/rep-foxx-backtracks-my-matthew-shepard-comments-were-a-poor-choice-of-words
Virginia Foxx said:
It has come to my attention that some people have been led to believe that I think the terrible crimes that led to Matthew Shepard’s death in 1998 were a hoax. The term “hoax” was a poor choice of words used in the discussion of the hate crimes bill. Mr. Shepard’s death was nothing less than a tragedy, and those responsible for his death certainly deserved the punishment they received. I am especially sorry if his grieving family was offended by my statement.

“The larger context of my remarks is important. I was referring to a 2004 ABCNews 20/20 report on Mr. Shepard’s death. ABC’s 20/20 report questioned the motivation of those responsible for Mr. Shepard’s death. Referencing this media account may have been a mistake, but it was a mistake based on what I believed were reliable accounts.”

Drum roll, please.

I thought that report also gave the accounts of their girlfriends.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13


LowlyPion said:
As previously pointed out, this has nothing to do with the RNC to begin with. That's apparently a straw man misreading of her being a R-NC. I don't see any suggestion that it had anything to do with the RNC itself. (They have their own troubles with Michael "Hip Hop" Steele.)
The title of the thread has been changed to eliminate/withdraw the assertion (removal of the word "party").

There is still the matter of the implied assertion of Fox news pushing that interpretation...
 
  • #14
VirginiaFoxx said:
I was referring to a 2004 ABCNews 20/20 report on Mr. Shepard’s death. ABC’s 20/20 report questioned the motivation of those responsible for Mr. Shepard’s death.

I bet her staff had to work overtime to come up with that reference. (I'll bet they were told it had to be a non-Fox Cable News reference too.)

And this account, out of all the others, including the reports of the Wyoming Police, was what stuck in her mind, and led her to call this hate crime just a robbery gone bad? That now these many years later she clutched to this one report as the basis for questioning if it was a hate crime? (Robbery entered into it when one of them claimed they thought about robbing his apartment after leaving him hung out on cattle wire?)

And at trial one of the defendants tried to use the defense that Shepard had grabbed his leg in the bar? That this somehow made his acts justified because he had been homosexually abused as a child?

No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus.
 
  • #15


russ_watters said:
The title of the thread has been changed to eliminate/withdraw the assertion (removal of the word "party").

There is still the matter of the implied assertion of Fox news pushing that interpretation...
It's not much of a secret that FOX is virulently anti-gay, is it? (Regardless of the number of "conservative" or "evangelical" figureheads that have been caught up in gay-sex scandals in past years.) Do you expect fair coverage of an anti-discrimination law from FOX? The only anti-discrimination law that they would support is one protecting Republican neo-cons from violations of international laws and the treaties codifying them.
 
  • #16


turbo-1 said:
It's not much of a secret that FOX is virulently anti-gay, is it? (Regardless of the number of "conservative" or "evangelical" figureheads that have been caught up in gay-sex scandals in past years.) Do you expect fair coverage of an anti-discrimination law from FOX? The only anti-discrimination law that they would support is one protecting Republican neo-cons from violations of international laws and the treaties codifying them.
I don't know, but none of that has any specific relevance to this thread, does it? You believe that Fox is anti-gay, therefore any issue that comes up that is anti-gay must be an issue pushed by Fox. That's some interesting logic you are using/assuming, but that doesn't come close to an actual acceptable reference for the claim (or any of the additional ones you've made, for that matter :rolleyes: ).
 
  • #17


LowlyPion said:
Here's the video of Virginia Foxx making her pitch to demean the death of Mathew Shepard..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLxbQmlOT1I

Is she in some kind of sick contest with Michelle Bachmann?


I made the mistake of reading the U-tube comments with the I-am-reading-PF-comments mindset. I will have to remain on PF for a least one hour to restore my faith in humanity.
 
  • #18
This is nit-picking; attempting to draw attention to crumbs, to ignoring the banquet.

Revisionist history is far and above most predominate and culturally efficacious in public school texts. And it is certainly not conservative in trend. Revisions are most notable, not by content, but by what is given to larger verbosity, compared to what has been given over to scant attention.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Ivan Seeking said:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/167655.asp?from=blog_last3

An honest mistake, or the intentional mispresentation of the facts? I don't suppose she got her information from Fox News?

Someone didn't do her homework. A pretty bad mistake; I assume she did not know/research the entire story. On top of that, she chose poor language. "Hoax" seems to be too extreme and antagonistic, just like your political threads Ivan. I don't suppose you could give up your vendetta against Fox News?