GOP calls on Reynolds to withdraw for 'gross stereotypes of minorities'

CHAMPAIGN – The chairman of the Champaign County Republican Party has called upon Illinois Senate candidate Al Reynolds of Danville to withdraw his candidacy in the Nov. 2 election.

Reynolds is opposing incumbent Sen. Mike Frerichs, D-Champaign, in the 52nd District that includes most of Champaign and Vermilion counties.

"I call upon Mr. Reynolds to immediately withdraw his candidacy for state Senate in the 52nd District," said party Chairman Jason Barickman. "His negative comments are unwarranted, gross stereotypes of minorities and specifically, African-American men.

"Mr. Reynolds' opinions are in stark contrast to the core values of the Champaign County Republican Party and are personally offensive to me."

Champaign County leaders have been cool to Reynolds' candidacy from the beginning, a point the candidate complained about. Reynolds has raised only about $6,000 and hasn't received any money from the Champaign County party. He did get a $250 contribution from the Vermilion County Republican Party in September.

"Mr. Reynolds independently ran as a write-in candidate and has implied that he was not being supported by the Champaign County Republican Party," Barickman said. "We had been concerned about his candidacy for other reasons, but comments of this type are disgusting and are the final straw. The voters of Champaign County deserve a better choice than they've been given by Mr. Reynolds."

At a candidate forum Wednesday night at the Champaign City Building, Reynolds said that black men "find it more lucrative to be able to do drugs or other avenues rather than do education."

The forum was co-sponsored by the NAACP and the Champaign County League of Women Voters.

Reynolds is the former head of the East Central Illinois Tea Party.

In a statement Thursday afternoon, Craig Golden, chairman of the Vermilion County Republican Party, and the county party's executive committee called for Reynolds to
suspend his campaign or withdraw.

An e-mail from Golden said: "Mr. Reynolds got on the ballot by virtue of his write-in candidacy in the February 2010 primary election. He was not a member of the Vermilion County Republican Party and had returned to Danville less than three years ago. His remarks were a gross generalization and dealt with racial issues which have no place in a political campaign in 2010, or any other year."

Comments

Comments for this post are read only.

John O'Connor wrote on October 21, 2010 at 11:10 am

It's no surprise that a 'tea party' Republican holds such repugnant views regarding race. It's not a coincidence that so few young people and non white people attend their rallies. They are the new birchers and I wouldn't be surprised if Reynolds is also a birther.

Sad, but not at all surprising.

neptune1 wrote on October 21, 2010 at 3:10 pm

Your comments about Reynolds are just as ridiculous as your attempt to tie the tea party to him. Quit reciting the media handouts on the tea party.

John O'Connor wrote on October 21, 2010 at 5:10 pm

Uh, no media handouts. His own webpage promotes the 'tea party' and he has always been a big 'tea partier.' Nice attempt to rewrite history.

jthartke wrote on October 21, 2010 at 11:10 am

Reynolds is just one of the candidates not polished enough to know not to say this stuff out loud. Kinda like Mayor Schwiegart. It appears to me, however, from the policies these "Tea Party" people support, that many of them feel the same way, even if they don't say it. Another reason why minorities need to make certain their voice is heard on November 2.

wtechau wrote on October 21, 2010 at 12:10 pm

Mr. Barickman is right to ask Al Reynolds to step down and away. Racism is not acceptable in the Champaign County GOP. Al needs to go!

However, the comments here in the forum which paint all or most Tea Party people as racists are equally unacceptable. It is so sad that others, like Al Reynolds and some participants on forums like this, discriminate against people who are different from themselves--whether the difference concerns race, sex, orientation, religion, or political points of view.

Tea Party bashers are no different from Al Reynolds. They just lie about others for different reasons.

John O'Connor wrote on October 21, 2010 at 1:10 pm

"Tea Party bashers are no different from Al Reynolds. They just lie about others for different reasons."

That is demonstrably untrue. Carl Paladino sends incredibly racist emails. Jim Russell supports eugenics and decries 'race mixing.' Rich Iota dresses up in waffen ss uniforms and says we can't judge the nazis because 'we weren't there.' The Virginia Beach GOP head just resigned for a vile racist email. Our own 'tea party' Republican mayor believes that our first biracial president 'isn't an American.' Look at the comment section of pretty much any article involving race. The list is virtually endless.

I'm certainly not claiming that all 'tea party' Republicans are racist, but a large chunk of them certainly are. Again, why do you think their rallies and membership is overwhelmingly made up of older white people.

ronaldo wrote on October 21, 2010 at 3:10 pm

Again, a wreckless use of words. Exactly how large is "a large chunk"? When the numbers of people who identify with the Tea Party running from a low of 2 million to over 10 million depending on who you listen to, you've listed a whopping four.

And you're claiming that anyone - Mayor Schweighart in particular - is racist because he doesn't believe that Obama is American? How on earth is that racist??

And what if I told you almost half of the Tea Party members are independent and Democrats?

neptune1 wrote on October 21, 2010 at 3:10 pm

In a recent issue...USA TODAY, reported that 60% of all tea party participants were either independent or democrats?

John O'Connor wrote on October 21, 2010 at 5:10 pm

Care to provide a link? Here's one to a NYTimes/CBS study that finds:

"The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.”

And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as 'angry.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?pagewanted=print

ronaldo wrote on October 21, 2010 at 11:10 pm

Funny you should ask as I was hoping you'd bite:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/tea-party-obama.html

John O'Connor wrote on October 21, 2010 at 7:10 pm

There's also a new poll from Bloomberg:

"Bloomberg Businessweek reports in its Oct. 15 issue: Respondents who identify with the Tea Party are almost unanimous in saying it stands for lower taxes, smaller government and personal responsibility. More than six in 10 say it advocates government based on Christian principles.
---
Tea Party supporters are more likely than other voters to be white, married, 55 and older, and call themselves born-again Christians. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-14/tea-party-s-economic-gloom-fuel...

freechampaign wrote on October 21, 2010 at 8:10 pm

If being a member of the "Tea Party" means believing in lower taxes, smaller government and personal responsibility, then count me in. It's better than believing that those that work hard and are rewarded for that hard work by making a good wage and living are responsible for those that feel they need not work because the State will send them a "check". The key words are "personal responsibility". This is what we are lacking in today's world. Too many people are waiting for the almighty hand out.

John O'Connor wrote on October 21, 2010 at 5:10 pm

Yes, I think the mayor was showing racist tendencies when he questioned whether our first biracial president is really American. Do you think Obama is American? Do you really doubt he was born in Hawaii?

If you told me that I'd know that you weren't telling the truth. Do you have any evidence to back up your contention?

buzorro wrote on October 21, 2010 at 8:10 pm

I'm having some difficulty understanding the logic of that first sentence. How does questioning the birthplace of the President show 'racist tendencies?' Thou dost protest too much, methinks...

John O'Connor wrote on October 21, 2010 at 9:10 pm

"Thou doth protest too much..." Really? What exactly do you mean by that?

And why is it that no president in the modern era faced this question except the first biracial one? Why do people believe the first biracial president is not really and American? I contend that such insane conspiracy theories are motivated by racism and an unwillingness to accept a non white president as legitimate.

Should I take it that you don't think Obama was born in this country, that he's not a citizen, that he's 'not an American' and that he isn't legitimately president?

buzorro wrote on October 21, 2010 at 10:10 pm

This is a typical neo-liberal, closed-minded, knee-jerk reaction. Thank you for your display. Now I don't have to read your previous posts to know where you're coming from. You have no basis on which to reply logically, so you verbally attack anyone who questions your thought process.

Let me ask you this, just to further tighten the knot in your underwear. Are you of the opinion that it is impossible that our President wasn't born in Hawaii?

I'm going out on a limb here, but did you vote for Obama to prove that you are not a racist yourself?

ronaldo wrote on October 21, 2010 at 11:10 pm

Well, when both the paternal grandmother and Kenyan lawmaker both come out publicly and say with no uncertainty that Obama was not born in the U.S., then the "race" of the person in question really plays no roll, now does it.

JJS wrote on October 21, 2010 at 9:10 pm

Mr. Renyolds, please don't quit.... as usual the liberals are twisting words & making a mountain out of a molehill.

"His remarks were a gross generalization and dealt with racial issues which have no place in a political campaign in 2010, or any other year."

He was asked a racial question, of course his answer was racial, and he didn't imply that ALL Blacks. And maybe the liberal name-calling experts should look at the statistics.... look in the jails & prisons and see who is incarcerated for drug crimes. On a percentage basis are Blacks more likely to offend?? Sometimes the truth hurts! But it's still the truth......