Talk:Tony Perkins (politician)

Completely uninformative

I know nothing about this man. For all I know he might be the Grand Dragon; but I have read this article, and I still know absolutely nothing about this man, except malicious innuendo and guilt by association. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The most offensive section I have deleted, which read:

Connections to White Supremacists

In 2001, Perkins addressed the Council of Conservative Citizens 
(successor organization to the anti-integration White  Citizens Council.

This was founded by former members of the WCC - does that make it a successor organization? Does the WCC itself sponsor anti-integration? More relevantly, does Perkins' address to the group mean that he is in agreement with it, or doesn't it rather suggest that the group is in some sense in agreement with him: a very different thing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I restored this section. A quick glance at the Council of Conservative Citizens entry shows that they are most definitely a racist group.--Baltech22 03:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And WOW - his point was absurd anyway. Who gives a frack if they are in agreement of him, or he is in agreement with them - what the hell is wrong with your moral compass? What kind of person would decide it is a *good idea* to even appear in the same room with these people? Either he is with them in thought or he is so dumb as to fail to realize he is appearing in a room fool of racist criminals? He's not that dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.79.68 (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bob Barr spoke at a COfCC meeting once, because he didn't know the group was racist at first (he is strongly opposed to racism though, and after he learned what the group's racial views were, he dissociated himself from them). It's understandable, given that "Council of Conservative Citizens" is an innocuous-sounding name (kind of like National Policy Institute) and you wouldn't guess that it was a hate group just from the title. So let's not jump to conclusions about Perkins. I don't agree with his political views but there's no reason to assume that he wasn't a victim of the same type of misunderstanding as Bob Barr (and a whole host of other unsuspecting non-racist politicians, from what I have heard). I have a feeling the COfCC deliberately chose an innocuous-sounding name in order to deceive mainstream politicians, so that it could get more publicity after their appearances at its rallies get mentioned by the media (any publicity is good publicity, I guess). If they had chosen a more accurate name like "Racial Purity Front" or something, they wouldn't have nearly as much publicity.

That's just my two cents' worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There was definitely some malicious intent in the Controversy section. The source cited says: "This connection was not known to Mr. Perkins until 1999. Mr. Perkins profoundly opposes the racial views of Mr. Duke and was profoundly grieved to learn that Duke was a party to the company that had done work for the 1996 campaign." While the article says: "The Family Research Council says Blumenthal's claims about Perkins' connection to David Duke are false; FRC adds that Duke's "connection was not known to Mr. Perkins until 1999. Mr. Perkins claims to embrace the racial views of Mr. Duke and expresses satisfaction to learn that Duke was a party to the company that had done work for the 1996 campaign." I will edit this. Danielcoulbourne (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Title

"Tony Perkins (evangelical Christian figure)" is a dreadful title. How about Tony Perkins (politician)? Any other suggestions for a shorter identifier? -Willmcw 03:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, "politician" does make much more sense. --Diogenes00 17:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This article might as well have been written by a Media Matters blogger. Its incredibly biased. Just because Perkins spoke at CCC meeting on ONE occasion does not need to be mentioned in this article. I'll be removing that section, but the article still needs a lot of reworking. SP4 (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)