Gordon Smith: flip-flopping on racism
Today's Gordon Smith story is moving fast - and breaking all over the national blogosphere.
(If you're just getting started, start with the previous BlueOregon post here.)
Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo notes that while Smith says now that he was shaken when he saw "a great injustice" done to Trent Lott and that his resignation was "a wrong" done to him -- Smith sang a different tune back in 2002.
Turns out that isn't what he said at the time. According an Associated Press article on December 17, 2002, Smith reacted as follows:"However they were intended, Senator Lott's words were offensive and I was deeply dismayed to hear of them," Smith said in a brief statement. "His statement goes against everything I and the people of Oregon believe in. I look forward to working with my Republican colleagues to arrive at a decision that is best for the U.S. Senate and the country."Three days later, according to the AP, Smith also said:
"I appreciate that Senator Lott has stepped down, it was a courageous thing for him to do..."Senator Lott's decision is best for the Senate and best for the country."Classic Gordon Smith -- condemns Lott when the pressure is on, but completely exonerates him when no one's paying any attention.
We couldn't have said it better ourselves.
This would be a good time to make a donation to Senate candidates Jeff Merkley, Candy Neville, Steve Novick, or the Democratic Nominee Fund. Use the box in the right-hand column.
Read the rest at TPM. Discuss.
|
Dec. 18, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Dec 18, '07
[duplicate comment removed]
10:48 a.m.
Dec 18, '07
Sam Stein over at Huffington Post got the ball rolling on this one. The flip-flop is definitely the issue on this one.
10:59 a.m.
Dec 18, '07
BINGO!
That is precisely the problem with todays flip-flop from Smith reveals. What you highlight as the take-away about Romney is equally applicable to Gordon Smith.
From his promises to not drill in the ANWR, to his post election night conversion on Iraq, to the salmon fish-kills, you name it, Smith will pander and flip-flop depending on the audience and the impact on his getting re-elected.
Swap Smith's name for Romney and you have a perfect distillation of either. Frozen peas in a pod.
Dec 18, '07
Yet another example of Gordon Smith saying anything just to win a few votes. But people are starting to catch on- check out more of the criticism Smith is facing for his flip-flops here.
11:01 a.m.
Dec 18, '07
Why did Pat's comment get removed?
It was not a duplicate in this thread. Bad call by whoever nuked it.
Dec 18, '07
And what does this say about Democrats for Smith? And at the same time, what does this say about the other Oregonians supporting Smith?
11:54 a.m.
Dec 18, '07
Another reason why we need Jeff Merkley to kick Smiths *ss
12:23 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
Smith is a lot of things, he might even be a bigot, but I doubt he is a racist. Sometimes things get mixed up in the world of politics and when these things happen one has to lean on the character of the person we know and not all of the fuzzy stuff that is being said about them.
Remember the people we are considering running for office are all white...well that is how they appear. God knows I am sure some of them might have said the "N" word in their life, been in a fight with a brown skinned person or held a person that is as racist as Trent Lott in high esteem. A week from today many of us liberals/Progressives will be enjoying Christmas Dinner with racist family members and bigoted close friends.
Lets focus on what Smith has done for Oregon and what he can do in the future compared to what Novic, Merkley and any one else that wants the job can offer us. Playing the race card right now is not productive for Oregon.
Fred
12:56 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
If the issue is the flip-flops, which it is, we should leave Romney out of it.
To me the question about this particular flip-flop is not what it already says about Smith supporters, but what their reactions or evasions now will say about them.
Up to now Smith had spoken the truth about Lott's praise of Jim Crow, whether sincerely or not.
Dec 18, '07
Playing the race card right now is not productive for Oregon.
Fred, are you advocating that we ignore his words and this flip-flop in order to avoid talking about race?
Dec 18, '07
How much precious Senate time did Smith and the others waste blathering on about this and stroking Lott's ego? 1/2 day? An entire day of Senate business shoved aside?
Is Smith angling for a job at Lott's consulting firm that he is forming with John Breaux?
Dec 18, '07
Lott's racist comments are not limited to this one remark about Strom Thurmond.
This diary from 11/27/07 at dailykos details Lott's long history of racist actions and remarks.
1:09 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
James,
If you feel Smith is a racist and has used his office as a tool to oppress brown skinned people like Trent Lott has....then the flip flop means something. Other wise pulling the race card on Smith is a waste of time.
There are issues in which Smith and the people of Oregon depart on that are more substantial and obvious.
Prove to me that Smith is a racist and I will join you in pulling the race card. I will drop an whole deck of cards on the guy if need be.
Fred
Dec 18, '07
A snippet from that dailykos diary about Lott's "less than enlightened views":
CCC is an extremist racist group - google them to find out more.
1:31 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
Disagree Fred. The flip-flop shows a legitmate lack of character by Smith, and that he is willing to pander to the poltical winds and is an empty suit.
THAT is what this shows.
I agree it isn't about any revealing "tell" about bigotry or racism Smith has as an exploitable character flaw, but rather that his flaw is that he's all for making a flip to condemn Lott when the light and heat were on, but when nobody was looking and the Senate was busy masturbating in intraparty dick-sucking each others egos, flops the other direction.
1:32 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
Why did Pat's comment get removed?
Because it's bad form to copy and paste your comments on multiple threads. Have the conversation about it where it was initially posted. People do know how to read posts from earlier in the day.
Dec 18, '07
Sorry, Kari. My mistake.
"Prove to me that Smith is a racist and I will join you in pulling the race card."
I don't think anyone serious is saying that. But there's certainly ample evidence here that this is a case of Smith saying whatever is the most expedient and opportunistic thing at the time.
And it works against the finely polished image he's tried to create that he is some kind of independent-thinking maverick. He's the opposite of that. It's his character. The more concrete examples of there are, the better.
1:44 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
George "Maccaca" Allen was/is tied to the CCC as well. Lott is a piece of work on that we don't disagree, but it is a politically thin Six Degree's of Kevin Bacon to paint that on Smith, and it won't get traction on that angle.
His flip-flopping depending on the audience and the media heat are the reason why SMith needs to be beat over the head with this, along with his flip-flops on drilling in the ANWR, his all-over-the-map statements on Iraq while backing it in every vote that matters, his involvement in the salmon fish kill, his praising McConnell for obstructionism in the Senate then condemning it as the election season starts up (and the GOP are going to run on the "do-nothing Democratic Congress)... the list goes on and on.
But it is the flip-flopping that is the issue.
1:53 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
Kari, there are more than a few people who won't or don't click through to the other post and read through all the comments. It is not really bad form Kari when it is 100% relevant. Overly micromanaging the threads can sometimes limit their getting good info and discussion out there. Just my 2/100th of a dollar intended as constructive observation.
Dec 18, '07
Yeah, Fred, what others said. I never claimed that Smith "used his office as a tool to oppress brown skinned people." I didn't know that was the threshhold I had to pass to criticize stupidity and flip-flops.
1:59 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
Particularly in the context that it was being sold in the punditry that it was such a HUGE issue to rush through the bad FISA fix bill with the telco amnesty in it. Kinda pops that balloon of Reid's and the GOP don't it?
2:05 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
Aren't people supposed to evolve past racism? It seems as though Gordon Smith is flip flopping the wrong way! I can't believe he would defend such comments. It's a really stupid move. OTOH, it just makes it easier to elect Jeff Merkley, a progressive who would never, ever defend such disgusting comments.
Dec 18, '07
Because it's bad form to copy and paste your comments on multiple threads. Have the conversation about it where it was initially posted. People do know how to read posts from earlier in the day.
Kari, there are more than a few people who won't or don't click through to the other post and read through all the comments. It is not really bad form Kari when it is 100% relevant. Overly micromanaging the threads can sometimes limit their getting good info and discussion out there. Just my 2/100th of a dollar intended as constructive observation.
Gosh, i'm glad kari brought this up, otherwise i would be off-topic. While he can do whatever he wishes with his website, I also prefer more latitude.
2:45 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
Good to see the liberal Oregon blogosphere still knows how to spring into action on a common cause.
I don't think the flip flop is the big issue--would it be better if he were consistently supporting a bigot?--but simply his defense of those comments today. They're indefensible, whether Smith agreed with us at one point about that or not.
Dec 18, '07
Wait, why is this story only about Smith's pandering and flip-flopping? Why isn't it also about Smith's actual statement that a "great injustice" was done to Lott when he was forced to resign? Smith is clearly saying that Lott's racially charged statement wasn't enough to force him out of the job. That is the primary issue; the pandering and flip-flopping is important, but secondary.
3:34 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
I don't think the flip flop is the big issue--would it be better if he were consistently supporting a bigot?--but simply his defense of those comments today.
True, true, true.
Dec 18, '07
I agree with David Kurtz:
For my money, this is the best part of Sen. Gordon's defense of Trent Lott's Strom Thurmond homage:
"We knew what he meant."
Who's we? And what did he mean?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061327.php
Dec 18, '07
The row over Smith's flipping and flopping over Lott is an even better example of his slipperiness than his duplicity over GOP obstructionism and bipartisanship in the Senate.
From the DSCC (oooh, scary...pfff):
From a December 4 press release:
Which is it, Gordon? Both, either, or neither? None of the above answers will save your Senate seat. But it is clear that you'd like to appear publicly ashamed for the outlandish things you continue to support.
Want a real consensus builder who's true to his word in politics? Vote Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate.
4:47 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
Let's be clear about how the Thurmond praising by Lott cost him the leadership position. The issue is NOT what forced him out. That was the cover and the flap that allowed Bush/Cheney to push Lott out and install Dr. Bill "I Kill Cats" Frist into the leadership so he could get a sock-puppet in control of the Senate. This was done so they could push through the blizzard of shit which handed them everything they wanted.
If anyone thinks the GOP cuacus in the Senate was sincere when they got all high dudgeon over how horrible it was for Lott to do what he did, is taking soma.
Dec 18, '07
I think it odd that Smith would make such a comment when he could of easily gave him a nice retirement speech that avoided that 'unpleasant' episode.
Perhaps with a difficult re-election campaign looming next year he subconsciously is sabotaging his chances so he can embark on the endless golf vacation he has trained his whole life for.
Dec 18, '07
Let's be clear about how the Thurmond praising by Lott cost him the leadership position. etc.
It's hard to prove, but I believe lestadelc has a point above.
As for Smith and racism I wouldn't charge him with that; although, having been raised in the Mormon church when it excluded blacks there is a good possibility of latent racism. I believe Smith's more likely problem is that he was raised in a privileged society and he is indifferent to anyone outside what might be described as his own class. Which is another good reason for getting rid of him. The various class structures in Europe created problems from which almost all European nations still suffer to one degree or another. We already have some of that here and don't need more.
Another problem with Smith is that he is not much of a student of military history despite his claim last year. If he learned anything from the history of wars he should have known the horrors and barbarism that are inevitably a part of them, and in the case of the Second World War he should have gained an appreciation for the Geneva Conventions that would have encouraged him to vote against war, weapons of war and torture. But because people in his family and his social circle are not likely to don a uniform and get their butts in harm's way he can ignore the tragedies that might befall others.
6:55 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
Interesting discussion! A few thoughts...
I'm not sure that exposing Smith's flip-flop is necessarily playing the race card. Race is part of the context and therefore ought rightly be included, but that doesn't mean that it's the premise of those shining a light on Smith's blatent flip-flop here.
In addition, from where I sit the issue is as much Smith's credibility as whatever the context of this latest flip-flop may be. I think that a legit case can be made for Smith demagoguing his position(s) here. Which means that he's being less than honest with Oregonians. And if he's dishonest about this then why/how can we trust him to be honest elsewhere? Effing, lying politicians is a major hot-button issue for me.
VERY interesting point, Mitch. It seems to me that, among other things, it underscores what a pro-Bush tool Senator Smith has been... his election year "moderate" posturing not withstanding.
6:55 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
Interesting discussion! A few thoughts...
I'm not sure that exposing Smith's flip-flop is necessarily playing the race card. Race is part of the context and therefore ought rightly be included, but that doesn't mean that it's the premise of those shining a light on Smith's blatent flip-flop here.
In addition, from where I sit the issue is as much Smith's credibility as whatever the context of this latest flip-flop may be. I think that a legit case can be made for Smith demagoguing his position(s) here. Which means that he's being less than honest with Oregonians. And if he's dishonest about this then why/how can we trust him to be honest elsewhere? Effing, lying politicians is a major hot-button issue for me.
VERY interesting point, Mitch. It seems to me that, among other things, it underscores what a pro-Bush tool Senator Smith has been... his election year "moderate" posturing not withstanding.
Dec 18, '07
Bloggers have been working Smith over at Think Progress.
8:38 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
Ditto what Bill Bodden said....LOL
Fred
8:51 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
I agree with what Bill Bodden posted but I would add that Smith and the republians that are prasing Lott are just after his money and the money of Lotts long time supporters. If anything Smith giving a clear indication he knows he will have a tough fight for his job regardless of who the people of Oregon sends out to retire him. So he is slutting himself out to Lotts racist right republican base so he can collect some of that Mississippi gambling money....LOL
Fred
12:36 a.m.
Dec 19, '07
After reading this thread I think that TJ, Miles and Kari have a point about going after Smith on the substance of defending Lott's racism.
That point is strengthened because Smith's defense "he was only trying to say something nice to an old man on his hundredth birthday" is just plain wrong, even apart from the plain meaning of Lott's words.
The CommonDreams story behind the Daily Kos link above, in a part Kos doesn't quote, points out that Lott said exactly the same thing about Thurmond at a Reagan rally in 1980. It was reported in 1980 and re-reported in the Washington Post in 2002. It's nearly verbatim.
So Lott didn't make a maladroit, ill thought out fumble grasping for something nice to say. He pulled out an easy, familiar, comfortable talking point. It wasn't new, it was in the repertoire.
So Smith is just wrong that he was only being nice to an old man on his birthday.
Further on that, Lott could just as easily have praised Thurmond for giving up defense of Jim Crow and accepting integration. The choice to praise him for his early career rather than for learning better later is telling. It wasn't just about praising Thurmond, it was about rehabilitating and legitimizing that part of Thurmond's career.
But attacking Smith for the substance of defending Lott's racism doesn't need to conflict with attacking the opportunism of saying whatever he thinks will be most politically advantageous at a given time.
12:39 a.m.
Dec 19, '07
After reading this thread I think that TJ, Miles and Kari have a point about going after Smith on the substance of defending Lott's racism.
That point is strengthened because Smith's defense "he was only trying to say something nice to an old man on his hundredth birthday" is just plain wrong, even apart from the plain meaning of Lott's words.
The story behind the link above, in a part Kos doesn't quote, points out that Lott said exactly the same thing about Thurmond at a Reagan rally in 1980. It was reported in 1980 and re-reported in the Washington Post in 2002. It's nearly verbatim.
Lott didn't make a maladroit, ill thought out fumble grasping for something nice to say. He pulled out an easy, familiar, comfortable talking point. It wasn't new, it was in the repertoire.
So Smith is just wrong that he was only being nice to an old man on his 100th birthday.
Further on that, Lott could just as easily have praised Thurmond for giving up defense of Jim Crow and accepting integration. The choice to praise him for his early career rather than for learning better later is telling. It wasn't just about praising Thurmond, it was about rehabilitating and legitimizing that part of Thurmond's career.
Attacking Smith for the substance of defending Lott's racism need not conflict with attacking the opportunism of saying whatever he thinks will be most politically advantageous at a given time, of course.
12:41 a.m.
Dec 19, '07
After reading this thread I think that TJ, Miles and Kari have a point about going after Smith on the substance of defending Lott's racism.
Smith's defense "he was only trying to say something nice to an old man on his hundredth birthday" turns out to be just plain wrong, even apart from the plain meaning of Lott's words.
The story behind the link above, in a part Kos doesn't quote, points out that Lott said exactly the same thing about Thurmond at a Reagan rally in 1980. It was reported in 1980 and re-reported in the Washington Post in 2002. It's nearly verbatim.
Lott didn't make a maladroit, ill thought out fumble grasping for something nice to say. He pulled out an easy, familiar, comfortable talking point. It wasn't new, it was in the repertoire.
So Smith is just wrong that he was only being nice to an old man on his 100th birthday.
Lott could just as easily have praised Thurmond for giving up defense of Jim Crow and accepting integration. The choice to praise him for his early career rather than for learning better later is telling. It wasn't just about praising Thurmond, it was about rehabilitating and legitimizing that part of Thurmond's career.
Attacking Smith for the substance of defending Lott's racism need not conflict with attacking the opportunism of saying whatever he thinks will be most politically advantageous at a given time, of course.
12:42 a.m.
Dec 19, '07
After reading this thread I think that TJ, Miles and Kari have a point about going after Smith on the substance of defending Lott's racism.
Smith's defense "he was only trying to say something nice to an old man on his hundredth birthday" turns out to be just plain wrong, even apart from the plain meaning of Lott's words.
The story behind the link above, in a part Kos doesn't quote, points out that Lott said exactly the same thing about Thurmond at a Reagan rally in 1980. It was reported in 1980 and re-reported in the Washington Post in 2002. It's nearly verbatim.
Lott didn't make a maladroit, ill thought out fumble grasping for something nice to say. He pulled out an easy, familiar, comfortable talking point. It wasn't new, it was in the repertoire.
So Smith is just wrong that he was only being nice to an old man on his 100th birthday.
Lott could just as easily have praised Thurmond for giving up defense of Jim Crow and accepting integration. The choice to praise him for his early career rather than for learning better later is telling. It wasn't just about praising Thurmond, it was about rehabilitating and legitimizing that part of Thurmond's career.
Attacking Smith for the substance of defending Lott's racism need not conflict with attacking the opportunism of saying whatever he thinks will be most politically advantageous at a given time, of course.
12:43 a.m.
Dec 19, '07
After reading this thread I think that TJ, Miles and Kari have a point about going after Smith on the substance of defending Lott's racism.
Smith's defense "he was only trying to say something nice to an old man on his hundredth birthday" turns out to be just plain wrong, even apart from the plain meaning of Lott's words.
The story behind the link above, in a part Kos doesn't quote, points out that Lott said exactly the same thing about Thurmond at a Reagan rally in 1980. It was reported in 1980 and re-reported in the Washington Post in 2002. It's nearly verbatim.
Lott didn't make a maladroit, ill thought out fumble grasping for something nice to say. He pulled out an easy, familiar, comfortable talking point. It wasn't new, it was in the repertoire.
So Smith is just wrong that he was only being nice to an old man on his 100th birthday.
Lott could just as easily have praised Thurmond for giving up defense of Jim Crow and accepting integration. The choice to praise him for his early career rather than for learning better later is telling. It wasn't just about praising Thurmond, it was about rehabilitating and legitimizing that part of Thurmond's career.
Attacking Smith for the substance of defending Lott's racism need not conflict with attacking the opportunism of saying whatever he thinks will be most politically advantageous at a given time, of course.
12:49 a.m.
Dec 19, '07
After reading this thread I think that TJ, Miles and Kari have a point about going after Smith on the substance of defending Lott's racism.
Smith's defense that Lott was only trying to say something nice to an old man on his hundredth birthday turns out to be just plain wrong, even apart from the meaning of Lott's words.
As CommonDreams reported, Lott said exactly the same thing about Thurmond at a Reagan rally in 1980. It was reported in 1980 and re-reported in the Washington Post in 2002. It's nearly verbatim.
Lott didn't make a maladroit, ill thought out fumble grasping for something nice to say. He pulled out an easy, familiar, comfortable talking point. It wasn't new, it was in the repertoire.
Lott could just as easily have praised Thurmond for giving up defense of Jim Crow and accepting integration. The choice to praise him for his early career rather than for learning better later is telling. It wasn't just about praising Thurmond, it was about rehabilitating and legitimizing that part of Thurmond's career.
So Smith is just wrong that Lott was only being nice to an old man on his 100th birthday.
Of coure, attacking Smith for the substance of defending Lott's racism need not conflict with attacking the opportunism of saying whatever he thinks will be most politically advantageous at a given time.
12:51 a.m.
Dec 19, '07
After reading this thread I think that TJ, Miles and Kari have a point about going after Smith on the substance of defending Lott's racism.
Smith's defense that Lott was only trying to say something nice to an old man on his hundredth birthday turns out to be just plain wrong, even apart from the meaning of Lott's words.
As CommonDreams reported, Lott said exactly the same thing about Thurmond at a Reagan rally in 1980. It was reported in 1980 and re-reported in the Washington Post in 2002. It's nearly verbatim.
Lott didn't make a maladroit, ill thought out fumble grasping for something nice to say. He pulled out an easy, familiar, comfortable talking point. It wasn't new, it was in the repertoire.
Lott could just as easily have praised Thurmond for giving up defense of Jim Crow and accepting integration. The choice to praise him for his early career rather than for learning better later is telling. It wasn't just about praising Thurmond, it was about rehabilitating and legitimizing that part of Thurmond's career.
So Smith is just wrong that Lott was only being nice to an old man on his 100th birthday.
Of coure, attacking Smith for the substance of defending Lott's racism need not conflict with attacking the opportunism of saying whatever he thinks will be most politically advantageous at a given time.
12:55 a.m.
Dec 19, '07
Annoyingly, Typepad says that my very unspamlike post looks like spam to it. Can we get guidelines on triggers to avoid? I am going to try posting it in sections to see if I can identify the offending text.
<hr/>After reading this thread I think that TJ, Miles and Kari have a point about going after Smith on the substance of defending Lott's racism.
Smith's defense that Lott was only trying to say something nice to an old man on his hundredth birthday turns out to be just plain wrong, even apart from the meaning of Lott's words.
As CommonDreams reported, Lott said exactly the same thing about Thurmond at a Reagan rally in 1980. It was reported in 1980 and re-reported in the Washington Post in 2002. It's nearly verbatim.
12:56 a.m.
Dec 19, '07
Lott didn't make a maladroit, ill thought out fumble grasping for something nice to say. He pulled out an easy, familiar, comfortable talking point. It wasn't new, it was in the repertoire.
Lott could just as easily have praised Thurmond for giving up defense of Jim Crow and accepting integration. The choice to praise him for his early career rather than for learning better later is telling. It wasn't just about praising Thurmond, it was about rehabilitating and legitimizing that part of Thurmond's career.
So Smith is just wrong that Lott was only being nice to an old man on his 100th birthday.
Of coure, attacking Smith for the substance of defending Lott's racism need not conflict with attacking the opportunism of saying whatever he thinks will be most politically advantageous at a given time.
3:30 a.m.
Dec 19, '07
Well said Fred. That is what I think we are indeed seeing. Just like Reagan's dog-whistle calls when he launched his 1980 bid. Wink and a nod to get backing from the southern GOP donors and signposting from its establishment.
That makess sense of what/why they were doing what Smith was doing on the floor speech's. That Smith has a massive war-chest already, but is pandering for more support from out of state good ol' boy club might mean his internals are looking really bad.
Dec 19, '07
Is Gordon raising a lot of money in the South this year?
7:11 a.m.
Dec 19, '07
VERY interesting point about the backstory. It would appear to be yet another example of Gordon Smith serving the interests of Bush rather than the interests of Oregonians.
10:33 a.m.
Dec 20, '07
The multiple postings by me above apparently are what happens if you try to get by the spam block -- eventually something / someone figures out that it isn't spam but can't tell it's the same or nearly the same.
Paradoxically the effect is spamlike. If they'd just let my first message through, it wouldn't have done this.
<h2>If I'd known, I wouldn't have tried again, but apologies despite my not knowing.</h2>