Attorney General Rob McKenna has yet to reply to my email asking if he still endorses far-right-wing rising star Hans Zeiger, now that his anti-Muslim/anti-Girl-Scout/anti-Baptist views have come to light. But at least one local Republican appears eager to come forth and denounce Zeiger’s impressive portfolio of wing-nuttery: Hans Zeiger.
The last time I looked at the writings of House candidate Hans Zeiger, the 25-year-old Republican was drawing fire for his published views on Girl Scouts (“a pro-abortion, feminist training corps”) and public schools (“polluted with the filth of moral relativism.”)
Zeiger said he no longer stands by those columns and blog posts, made when he was 18 and 19. He had some of them pulled down from the Web, which unleashed attacks by Democrats and liberal bloggers accusing him of hiding his real views.
But Zeiger’s posts continue to trickle out, and one unearthed by blogger David Goldstein (warning: foul language) is especially incendiary.
The post on WorldNetDaily, “The right must unite against Islam,” calls for conservatives to rebuild their coalition after their 2006 defeats by making a common enemy of “the cult of Islam.” […] I asked Zeiger about it today. He called the column “unacceptable.” and repeated comments that he has grown a lot since being a “young and naïve” college student schooled on talk radio.
Yes, according to Zeiger, he’s done a lot of growing up these past four years, and is very, very sorry for the two books and couple hundred columns worth of wackadoodle hate speech he published during his nine-year stint as Andrew Villeneuve’s evil twin. Kinda reminds me of the Monty Python sketch in which a convicted serial killer charms the court by offering a profuse and heartfelt apology.
But the problem is, all apologies aside, this is who Zeiger really is. Indeed, according to his own online Voters Guide statement:
No information submitted
Other Professional Experience:
Hans Zeiger is an author and a senior fellow at a national non-profit organization.
That’s his entire resume. Zeiger is an “author” and, at 25, a “senior fellow” at The American Civil Rights Union, a right-wing think tank whose board includes Ed Meese, Ken Starr, Linda Chavez and Robert Bork. And why do you think they hired this 25-year-old kid as a “senior” fellow? Because of what he wrote as an author. In fact, Zeiger was hired by the ACRU back in 2007, just months after writing the anti-Islam screed he now recants as “unacceptable.”
Since his first book was published at the precocious age of 16, with a foreword by Oliver North, to the day after his primary victory, when he first started scrubbing the Internet of his vast and embarrassing written record, Zeiger’s whole identity has been wrapped up in his prolific and often offensive right-wing rantings. Over the past nine years Zeiger has produced a portfolio that is as impressive as it is crazy. That’s why he’s been described by his fellow Republicans as a “wunderkind” and a “rising star.” And that’s why a national right-wing think tank would make him a “senior” fellow at the tender age of 22.
So for Zeiger, rightfully worried that general election voters might be shocked and offended by his views, to attempt to dismiss his very raison d’etre as mere youthful indiscretion is as absurd as it is disingenuous. It would be sorta like me attempting to use my notoriety as a controversial blogger to propel me into public office, only to take down HA as an irrelevant distraction.
Goldstein regrets having accused Luke Esser of fucking pigs, the candidate told me today. He called the post “unacceptable,” and repeated comments that he has grown up a lot since 2006.
So does he still think Esser fucks pigs? “Luke Esser’s sexuality is very complex, and I would not profess to make sweeping judgments about it.”
I mean, it was almost four years ago, right? All the way back in 2006. I’ve matured a lot since then… just look at my hairline.
Or is there some statute of limitations on authorship for which my lack of a J-School education has left me unawares? Is seven years too long to hold Zeiger responsible for his own words?
“Our public schools have assaulted the Christian faith time and again, and the present hyper-glorification of Islam only exacerbates the confusion to which young students are now subjected. We must decide, with finality, whether we will be a people reflective of our Christian heritage in ordered liberty, or whether we will deepen our wounds already inflicted by the poisonous doctrines of multiculturalism and moral relativism.
While America decides, parents must be vigilant. They must beware of the radical Islamization of their children’s schools.”
Or is the statute of limitations more like four years?
“Conservative Christians have prepared their children far better than liberals to fight the battles of our generation. Liberals, in fact, haven’t had many children. They’ve aborted too many. And out of the curse of abortion has come this blessing: The left is losing demographically.”
Or for one as young as Zeiger, is a post from a mere one year ago too ancient to criticize?
“As an operative view for society, atheism is destructive, to say the least.”
I’m not doubting Zeiger’s ability to change or mature or even, dare I say, evolve. Nor do I dismiss the possibility of redemption. It was a mere three years ago that Zeiger railed against “the tyranny of political correctness,” and yet in the years hence, as a writer, Zeiger has certainly appeared to submit to exactly that. His more recent pieces have tended to be more measured, more cautious and in turn, more boring. Indeed, I think it is fair to speculate that if Zeiger’s writing style had been this understated and uncontroversial from the start, he’d have no published portfolio nor wunderkind reputation to speak of.
Instead, I’d argue for Zeiger the same standard that I have long argued for myself: that if you want to judge his character, his temperament and his values, then you must read Zeiger and his words within the broad context of his entire oeuvre, and not by the selected excerpts of the author or his critics.
As for me, I feel comfortable that should I ever run for public office, I could proudly stand by and defend nearly every word I’ve written, even the foul ones. Sure, I might wince at some of what I wrote during my high school and college years, but mostly due to the quality of the writing, not the content. And while I’ve no doubt been wrong or wrongheaded from time to time, I’d never attempt to scrub the Internet of my mistakes, for I remain confident that my collected work speaks well of who I am and what I stand for.
Zeiger, on the other hand, while he often writes about honor and morality, has sought to hide from voters who he really is… or at the very least, who he recently was. And that is a coverup our local media should not allow him to get away with.