When the L.A. Times endorsed former Congressman Pete McCloskey for Congress, and said he was “the best thing that could happen for the district, the state, the nation and possibly the Republican Party,” wouldn’t it have been good to note — to explain why he deserves election despite this — that he has referred to “the so-called Holocaust” in a speech he gave before a conference put on by the Institute for Historical Review?
McCloskey said at the time [2000], “I don’t know whether you are right or wrong about the Holocaust,” and referred to the “so-called Holocaust.”
According to the San Jose Mercury-News,
McCloskey said Friday that he has never questioned the existence of the Holocaust, and the 2000 quote referred to a debate over the number of people killed.
Okay, then. Note that McCloskey’s speech to the IHR was covered by the L.A. Times at the time.
I realize this is a bit of an old story (the editorial was on Jan. 25), but I just heard of it, and thought it worth noting, especially given that McCloskey’s primary campaign is still going on.
UPDATE: A reader points me to this letter from Pete McCloskey to the editors of the Institute for Historical Review’s publication:
I want to make a polite suggestion. So many of my friends and relations personally saw the Nazi death camps during the last days of World War II that I myself am convinced that there was a deliberate policy of extermination of Jews, Poles, gypsies, and homosexuals by the Nazi leadership. Numbers of the specific events can be challenged, but it is my personal view that the IHR would be far more effective if it were to concede that a holocaust did occur and focus on the ADL’s distortions of truth. Andy Killgore’s and Dick Curtiss’ publication would be an ideal example to follow.
Paul N. McCloskey, Jr.
Redwood City, Calif.
(Paul N. McCloskey, Jr. seems to be Pete McCloskey’s given name.) This is consistent with his statement that “the 2000 quote referred to a debate over the number of people killed,” and with one not uncommon line of Holocaust revisionist argument — sure, some Jews were killed, but not on the 6 million scale. It still seems to me worth noting that the supposedly “best thing that could happen for the district, the state, the nation and possibly the Republican Party” is (1) someone who has spoken of the “so-called Holocaust,” and (2) at the very least seems to flirt with the Holocaust revisionist position that the mass murder of the Jews was carried out on a considerably smaller scale than historians believe.
FURTHER UPDATE (reflected in a change I made to the title of the post): Yesterday, the San Francisco Chronicle also endorsed McCloskey, again without noting his comments on the “so-called Holocaust.” Thanks to CalPatriot for the pointer.