Will GOP back Scalise after supremacist speech scandal?

House GOP leader Steve Scalise gains the support of party leaders in an ongoing controversy surrounding his speech to a white supremacist group.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP/File
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of La., right, with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Calif., left, and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, following a House GOP caucus meeting. Scalise acknowledged that he once addressed a gathering of white supremacists. Scalise served in the Louisiana Legislature when he appeared at a 2002 convention of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization. Now he is the third-highest ranked House Republican in Washington.

Republican lawmakers are closing ranks behind the No. 3 House GOP leader, Steve Scalise, as the party aims to move past the controversy over his speech 12 years ago to a white supremacist group.

Scalise has said the speech was a mistake he now regrets, and party leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner, have backed him.

Several incoming rank-and-file lawmakers added their support Sunday, including Utah's Mia Love, the first black female Republican elected to the House.

Love told ABC's "This Week" that Scalise has the support of his colleagues.

"I believe he should remain in leadership," Love said. "There's one quality that he has that I think is very important in leadership, and that's humility. And he's actually shown that in this case. And he's apologized, and I think that we need to move on and get the work of the American people done."

The issue arose last week when a liberal Louisiana blogger uncovered Scalise's speech to a 2002 Louisiana convention of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, which called itself EURO. Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke founded the group, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has classified as a hate group.

Scalise moved quickly to distance himself from the group, saying he opposes its views and that as a state legislator at the time, he didn't have much staffing and didn't always know details of the groups he was invited to address. Party leaders backed him, and he picked up key support from Rep. Cedric Richmond, a black Louisiana Democrat.

Scalise's position in leadership now appears secure, and party leaders don't anticipate the issue becoming a major distraction as they convene the new fully Republican-controlled Congress on Tuesday.

Along with Love, incoming GOP freshmen Martha McSally of Arizona, Lee Zeldin of New York and Barbara Comstock of Virginia all indicated their support Sunday for Scalise, as did Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.

Comstock said on CNN's "State of the Union" that colleagues view Scalise as "a man of good heart and good character."

Barrasso said that speaking to the group was a "grave mistake," but he cited Richmond's backing for Scalise and said the matter was not an issue for his constituents.

"This has not come up as a discussion point in Wyoming," Barrasso said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.