Iott attacks Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, for being offended that Iott spent his weekends dressed as an SS soldier in an unit that committed horrible atrocities on unarmed Jewish citizens and captured Allied soldiers (including Americans.)

On a side note, I can’t imagine a worse graf to have running under you that says: “Candidate’s Nazi hobby” three weeks before an election.

Cantor is not the only one Iott who could call as someone acting like a Democrat.  The Republican Jewish Conference also strongly condemned Iott and declared him unfit for office.  

But if Iott believes that these folks reacted without all the information, he’s fooling himself.  Nothing new has come out in his defense that wasn’t already in the Atlantic piece which mentioned not only that this was a re-enactment troupe, but one of several Iott had participated in.  The article fairly presented Iott’s point of view.

And yet, for some reason, Iott complains about people acting without all the information about a guy who is quoted as saying about Nazi Germany:

“I’ve always been fascinated by the fact that here was a relatively small country that from a strictly military point of view accomplished incredible things. I mean, they took over most of Europe and Russia, and it really took the combined effort of the free world to defeat them. From a purely historical military point of view, that’s incredible.”

Iott keeps talking about his SS reenactment as educational in nature, but the Atlantic piece points out that most historians find the troupe is presenting a sanitized and romanticized portrayal of an SS military brigade.  That’s a hard thing to romanticize.

The problem now is which Iott do we believe?  The one who issued multiple press statements apologizing for offending people (like Cantor), or the Richard Iott who we now see on our television attacking those who say they are offended as “misinformed”?  Tonight, Iott actually brought up the Nazi SS photos in a debate to attack Kaptur as being behind their release.  (Which, I can only imagine was not what the campaign strategists advised Iott to do.)  Like it would matter.  Regardless, Kaptur denies she knew or had any involvement. 

Two days into this, and Richard Iott has been all over the map on how people should react.   Iott is running a textbook on how not to handle this situation.  Then again, in his defense, I doubt any textbook dealing with this situation effectively exists.

Meanwhile, nobody in the media has gotten a comment to find out who John Boehner, the man the would be Speaker, supports.  Does he stand with the Lucas County GOP chairman standing behind Iott, or his second in command, Eric Cantor?  I’d be curious to know.

 
  • Here’s the thing: the guy should have stood by what he does, if he really wanted to, and accept that some of us find what he does creepy. End of story. This is not a situation in which, no matter HOW MUCH we learn about what he does, it’s going to be not creepy for some of us. He should have allowed for legitimacy of why some people – Cantor, the RJC, me, plenty of others, conservatives included – who disagree with his hobby, we just do. He can disagree with us not liking it, but we’re not saying he shouldn’t do it. And then he needs to get back to whatever he thinks he’s got to get back to.

    Honestly – the obfuscation of campaigns, often created by the candidates themselves, is ridiculous – as if NO one wants voters to see any of them. Of course, given who some of them are, that’s not so surprising, but still, it’s absolutely infuriating. Just campaign for goodness sakes. Yeesh.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!