The Wolfpack Speech: 108 Words that reveal Gordon Smith's politics, style, and his very soul.
Kari Chisholm
It's been fun mocking Gordon Smith for his absurd defense of Trent Lott's 2002 comments in praise of Strom Thurmond.
But I think there's more to it than that. In fact, I think the 108 words of Smith's statement speak volumes about him. Let's dive in.
I was halfway around the world when an event befell Trent Lott that shook me deeply. I was celebrating my re-election and on vacation. I watched over international news as his words were misconstrued...
He opens with a bit of truth. He was on vacation. In fact, Gordon Smith was in New Zealand - as recounted by the Oregonian's Jeff Mapes. On December 20, 2002, Smith held a news conference when he landed at the Portland airport to declare, "Clearly this was a mess of his own making." (Not, by the way, "an event [that] befell.")
Today, Smith says that Lott's "words were misconstrued". As many have noted, it's strange then, that on December 17, 2002, the Associated Press reported that he was "deeply dismayed" and thought the words were "offensive".
Here we have a key question that the Oregon media should investigate. In particular, they should investigate because it goes to the core of their work. Did Gordon Smith actually approve the statement that his office issued in his name? If he was sitting in New Zealand appalled that Lott was being "misconstrued", why did his Senate office issue a statement from him saying that the words were "offensive"?
There's only two explanations. If Smith is telling the truth today, either he lied about his feelings back in 2002, or his staff fabricated them. If that's true, it's a very big deal.
Let's go back to that last phrase.
...his words were misconstrued...
Let's remember Strom Thurmond's presidential campaign platform. Here's a taste:
"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the n----- race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."
So, when Trent Lott praised him -- "if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." -- it's pretty clear what he meant.
It'd be good to hear Gordon Smith explain: in what way, exactly, were Trent Lott's words misconstrued?
...words which we had heard him utter many times in his big warm-heartedness trying to make one of our colleagues, Strom Thurmond, feel good at one hundred years old....
Sure, it's a fine thing to make a 100-year-old man feel good at his birthday party. Lott could have praised Thurmond for many things, but he chose to praise his role as the leading segregationist of his era.
And here's the reveal on a core part of Gordon Smith's character. He's a nice man. The kind of guy who holds the door for you, hand-writes thank-you notes, and would be sure to say nice things about you to your mother.
But substance doesn't matter to Gordon Smith. To him, style is more important. That's always been true about him. Whether he's arguing that it's "warm-hearted" to praise the racism of a segregationist leader on his 100th birthday - or whether he's hammering the patriotism of Democrats who oppose the war (after he says he had decided it was a fiasco, but didn't tell anyone) - for Gordon Smith, it's all about style over substance.
...We knew what he meant....
Now this is the most interesting phrase of the whole statement.
The key question: Who is the "we" that Gordon Smith is talking to? The public at large? The U.S. Senate? His fellow Republicans?
Keep in mind here that the only people who can elect or eject a Senate Majority Leader are the Senators of his own party. This is Gordon Smith calling out his fellow GOPers.
But why would he do that? He's always been a loyal soldier, dutifully casting critical and tiebreaking votes against his campaign promises and against Oregon's interests.
And that's just it. He's complaining about the lack of loyalty to Trent Lott. If his fellow GOP Senators "knew what he meant", and his words had been "misconstrued", then throwing Lott overboard was an act of supreme disloyalty.
Is Gordon Smith concerned that - as he wiggles and waffles on the Iraq War - the GOP might throw him overboard? He's been a loyal soldier, after all.
...But the wolfpack of the press circled around him, sensed blood in the water...
Sure, it's the usual "blame the media" silliness. But there's more going on here. A professional speechwriter would never have bollixed up a metaphor so badly. (If they go in the water, will the wolves drown?)
No, this botched metaphor proves one thing: For once, Gordon Smith is speaking from the heart. All this stuff about Trent Lott - he really means it.
...and the exigencies of politics caused a great injustice to him and to Tricia....
Once again, here's Gordon Smith elevating style over substance. The "exigencies of politics"? Gordon Smith is saying that sometimes you have to do things that you don't really mean because they're the politically smart or savvy thing to do. Perhaps it's the "exigencies of politics" that's driving his wiggling and waffling on Iraq. I can't wait to see what the "exigencies of politics" bring us in 2008.
Oh, and that "great injustice"? Trent Lott lost his leadership post. He didn't lose his U.S. Senate seat. He didn't lose his job. He didn't lose his house. He didn't go to prison. The "great injustice" was merely that a powerful man lost some of his power. I guess we know what matters most of all to Gordon Smith.
It was a wrong. But it was a wrong that was righted.
And now we have the reason that Gordon Smith gave this speech at all. He wanted to claim credit for Trent Lott's redemption.
After all, when someone's retiring, you usually talk about all the smart and good things they did -- not the dumb and bad things.
But the redemption of Trent Lott has clearly been a major project for Gordon Smith, and (for some unknown reason), he wanted to make sure Lott and the rest of the Senators knew it.
Go back to that 2002 Portland airport press conference. He told the Oregonian that "he wanted to help Lott... recover from this episode."
And then, in 2006, Smith gave a "deeply emotional" nominating speech for the Whip job in which he "described Lott's honorable character and talked about the possibility of redemption", according to The New Republic. Lott won the post by a one-vote margin.
So, now that Lott's been redeemed - and he's riding off into the sunset (or at least over to the high-priced halls of K Street) - Smith is tipping his hat to Lott, and taking credit for his redemption.
I only hope it's because Smith knows that he's going to need a new job in 2009.
 |
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
8:19 a.m.
Dec 20, '07
Let's put things in perspective here: Trent Lott was 7 years old when Strom Thurmond ran for president; Gordon Smith wasn't even born. The Strom Thurmond they both served with in the Senate had long since made his peace with African-American voters in South Carolina and was much more involved in issues of national defense and foreign policy than race.
Lott's comment was ill-considered but there is not a scintilla of evidence that it was a mean-spirited longing for a return to segregation. Smith criticized the impression created by that statement at the time, not the intent, and upon Lott's decision to leave the Senate offers a gracious remembrance of a colleague.
When Robert Byrd leaves the Senate, I wonder how many of his Democratic colleagues will stand up and announce how thrilled they are to finally be relieved of the indignity of serving with a former Ku Klux Klansman. Meanwhile, people in both parties will continue to decry the loss of civility in politics.
If this is the best Democrats have on Gordon Smith, I'm not too worried about his reelection chances.
8:32 a.m.
Dec 20, '07
Brilliant!
This is something that I think both Merkley and Novick supporters can get behind. Many of whom are signed up via reddit. So go vote this one up: http://reddit.oregonlive.com/info/4q6/share
If we can't get the press to report on this directly, this way we can at least get the story up on the Oregonian's website.
Dec 20, '07
...We knew what he meant.... Now this is the most interesting phrase of the whole statement.
The key question: Who is the "we" that Gordon Smith is talking to? The public at large? The U.S. Senate? His fellow Republicans?
Yep. Exactly the on-topic post that I made the other day. WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT GORDO? WHO IS "WE"?
Nice post, Kari.
Dec 20, '07
I'd love to know if Wee Gordie, like his co-religionist Willard Romney, pulled his car over to the side of the road in 1978 and wept with relief when he heard that the Grand Wizards of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would abjure the following tenet, explained in 1966 in a book on Mormon Doctrine by Apostle Bruce McConkle:
"Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing is based and his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate."
Wee Gordie spent the first 14 years of his life hearing this doctrine as the Word of God. It's understandable if he's obviously flipfloppy about his feelings about Trent Lott's obviously flipfloppy approach to racism in America.
On the other hand, it could be that Wee Gordie, like Willard Romney, is a deceitful hypocrite of the highest (or lowest) order. Duh.
10:39 a.m.
Dec 20, '07
Barring evidence, I'd rather not make it about his religion. He's not responsible for the sins of his church, anymore than Rudy Giuliani is responsible for the sins of his.
11:25 a.m.
Dec 20, '07
Nice Kari.
If Lott wanted to be nice to an old man on his hundredth birthday, he could have praised him not only about other things, but about race and racism themselves in a different way.
He could have said something like,"After the Civil Rights laws passed, Strom Thurmond provided leadership to many of us in recognizing that our earlier belief in segregation was wrong. He helped us get past parts of the way we were brought up."
Giving Thurmond credit for leadership on that would be an exaggeration of course, a white lie, so to speak. But Thurmond could have been praised for coming to say publicly that Jim Crow was wrong, since he did.
Unlike, say, Lester Maddox, or the Council of Conservative Citizens... Oops.
Dec 20, '07
Jack
Couldn't have said it better myself. Kinda reminds me when Diane Feistein was praising Bob Packwood when he left office. I don't believe for a minute that she was praising his actions against women.
11:54 a.m.
Dec 20, '07
Got a piece up about this as well over at wiseass.org, entitled:
Gordon Smith, Whoring For Racists
12:03 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
The point you miss is the Byrd has vigorously renounced his past association with the KKK and such views on race, and the Democrats will be lauding his work since, and not making speeches waxing on about how if only that racist had been elected President back when he was with the KKK, "we wouldn't be having all these problems".
But back to the actual point that Kari here talks about (as opposed to your feeble attempt at deflection), and also to what I wrote over at wiseass.org on this, there is a whole other game that is being played here with Smith, who will flip-flop on any subject, and say anything, including giving wink and a nod to racists and their good ol' boy networks, in order to stay in power (and amass a golden parachute for themselves).
Oregoniains can do much better than Smith.
Dec 20, '07
"...how thrilled they are to finally be relieved of the indignity of serving with a former Ku Klux Klansman. Meanwhile, people in both parties will continue to decry the loss of civility in politics.
<h2>If this is the best Democrats have on Gordon Smith, I'm not too worried about his reelection chances."</h2>Nice summary, Jack.
Sen. KKK Byrd is the obvious retort to Sen. Thurmond.
I wonder if Kari and lesta, foaming at the mouth, can not understand why this has gotten minimal (if any) traction other in media, and even minimal traction on the blogosphere, other than on highly partisan lefty blogs (HuffPo, BO, Kos).
I am not too happy with Sen. Smith, but is this how you take him down?
Maybe Kari can create another website showing how Gordo hired illegals? Or, maybe, Gordo has a "love child" that Kari can publish? Or, maybe Gordo is the real father of Jamie Lynn Spears?
Or maybe, if this is all they got, Gordo takes this is a walk.
12:13 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
How is pointing out that Smith is whoring himself to the Lott network "foaming at the mouth"...?
Did you even bother to read what has been posted?
Dec 20, '07
"Did you even bother to read what has been posted?"
I did read it.
I still think that this has minimal traction, IMHO. I think that in a few days (tomorrow?) this will be gone. But focusing on other, more durable Gordo mistakes would be more profitable. In the short and long run.
But, hey, I might be wrong. Maybe this has legs and will take him out.
12:26 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
So pretending that a politician hasn't just spoken out of both sides of his mouth is "civility"? You mean like when Bill Clinton stupidly tried to parse what the meaning of "is" is?
Frankly, if this is the best that Republicans have with which to obfuscate Gordon Smith's duplicity, I'm not too worried about him deceiving enough Oregonians to get reelected.
Dec 20, '07
"If this is the best Democrats have on Gordon Smith, I'm not too worried about his reelection chances."
Nice try, Jack. So you were first to comment on this post, with future Republican higher office candidate Sid Leiken and "Larry" trailing behind you, because trolling on progressive websites is how you get your kicks?
No, you and your posse were sent here by the Smith-Republican team because the story is a major problem for the junior senator. A self-inflicted major problem. Otherwise, you wouldn't bother commenting.
And "Larry," if I were you I would icks-nay on the issue of the junior senator hiring illegals. Anyone care to venture a guess on how many food processing jobs are filled by illegals? If you're going to be on the R team, you have to remember to stay on message.
12:30 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
Regarding the whole Robert Byrd retort. I couldn't say it better than Matthew Yglesias, writing for The Atlantic magazine:
As for Larry's absurd comment that this is getting little traction... Last I saw, it had hit 200 newspapers and nearly 100 blogs.
And no, Jack, that's not all we got on Smith. It's just what we got today. There's a long list of reasons to eject Smith from the Senate.
Dec 20, '07
Sure, it's a fine thing to make a 100-year-old man feel good at his birthday party. Lott could have praised Thurmond for many things, but he chose to praise his role as the leading segregationist of his era.
Lott could have praised Strom Thurmond for the financial support he gave to the maid in his family home after she bore Thurmond's child. Of course, perhaps Lott realized that a white man in those days having sex with a black servant might have been characterized by some as a rapist.
On the other hand, what does it say about the senate that it kept a 100-year-old man in office when he was much more feeble and incompetent than the average senator?
Dec 20, '07
If somebody hasn't already put all of the hires from that Pendleton food processor through a very fine screening process I would only ask "Why not?".
So, Sen. Smith talks out of both sides of his mouth. Is that gonna get him to resign? Not.
But if you could show that he has been hiring illegals while sitting in the Senate, and his company profits him multi millions via illegal labor, is that gonna get him to resign? You bet. Resign by the end of this week. If there is anything there.
Illegal labor. Look into it.
Otherwise keep flogging this dead horse. Who are you guys? The pointy-haired boss from the Dilbert cartoon strip? LOL
Dec 20, '07
The reference to Senator Byrd is off-target. How is complaining about Democrats may or may not do when he retires excuse Smith's flip-flopping soft-peddling of Lott's praise for Thurmond's uber-racist 1948 campaign?
Lott, in many ways, has not been the worst Republican senator to serve in recent decades. Smith could have plenty to praise him about without excusing what Smith previously suggested was bad behavior. Politicians get away with a lot of historical revision, but Kari can hardly be faulted for pointing out some of it, can he?
1:00 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
No, it won't get him to resign, but it can get him cost him bid for reelection, particularly since we have a much better legislator to represent all Oregonians In the United States Senate and who doesn't talk out of both sides of his mouth to pander to racist good ol' boy networks.
1:08 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
It doesn't. But it does crank up the volume on the white noise (pun noted) to drown to the valid criticisms of Thurmond, Lott, and most importantly for us Oreagonians, Gordon Smith whoring it up to Lott's good ol' boy network. Which is why these clowns are using it.
It is a desperate attempt for GOPers and sympathizers to derail the hits Smith is taking over this and the 999 other death by a 1000 cuts he will be, and is starting to hemorrhage over.
And if the Smith-bots think this is all "we" got on Smith, I say great. Because the rude awaking Smith and the GOP are in for will be fun to watch. This all "we" got? No, this is but a self-inflicted morsel to begin to limber up on.
1:22 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
Ugh.
Should have read:
1:25 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
Jack Roberts,
When Robert Byrd leaves the Senate, do you think any Democrat will praise him for having been active in his youthful beliefs by belonging to the Ku Klux Klan, and claim it is just about treating an old guy nicely?
Actually I expect there to be division among Dems who ignore the issue, Dems who praise him for changing, and Dems who condemn him despite the costs to party unity.
You say Thurmond "made his peace with African-American voters." While exaggerated at best, let's assume that's true. What an achievement! Why didn't Lott praise him for that? You could have gotten the whole country behind praising Thurmond for listening to those better angels of his nature. Why didn't Lott choose to do that rather than reaching back for nostalgia for a nastily racist campaign of Jim Crow propaganda?
There is a great deal more than a scintilla of evidence that Trent Lott appeals to continuing racism in his politics, including nostalgia for the supposedly better days of Jim Crow. His very words on the occasion of Thurmond's birthday were not just about Thurmond. They were about invoking the politics of nostalgia for segregation for the younger people attending, and themselves provide more than an scintilla.
The fact that they were almost word for word the same as what he said about Thurmond in a speech as part of the Reagan campaign in 1980 shows that they were not just ill-considered, off-the-cuff remarks, but an unwise choice to use part of his regular stump repertoire.
Lott may have been 7 when Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat, but he was an adolescent and college student when Thurmond was an important leader of "Massive Resistance" to the Civil Rights movement, working closely with the White Citizens' Councils that were the more genteel face of the KKK.
Lott was the president of a fraternity at the University of Mississippi that was found to have many rifles at the time that Ole Miss' was integrated by James Meredith. Students rioted for days, burning cars and wounding hundreds of FBI agents and federal marshalls -- news footage reproduced in "Eyes on the Prize" is truly astonishing. If any comparable riot with similar attacks on law enforcement officials had occurred at a black college or university, there would have been a massacre committed against the students.
There is no proof that Lott was involved in violence himself. But he did not speak out against the violence or try to stop it, and there is no evidence he disapproved it. Saying he was 7 in 1948 is disingenuous as to Lott's generational placement in relation to white opposition to Civil Rights in the South.
Lott likewise made it a point for a number of years, until he was called out on it and it became an embarrassment, to address and seek the support of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a direct organizational descendent of the White Citizens' Councils, which expresses and advocates the crudest sort of racism and white separatism.
Whether or to what degree Lott is a racist is not the only question. The extent to which he is willing to play footsie with racists and mobilize support with appeals to racist nostalgia also matters to assessing the quality of his leadership.
Gordon Smith's willingness to give him cover for such repulsive politics is disgusting. Even worse is his willingness to condemn Lott when that was politically advantageous, to claim credit for principle at that time, and then to renege and back Lott now.
It seems as if whenever we talk about a given aspect of the many things wrong with Gordon Smith, you pop up here and say, "if this is all the Democrats have he needn't worry." On any given one of those issues, you might have a point, or not. But the thing is, issue after issue keeps coming up. So each individual one isn't all we have.
And how about you, Jack? Are you o.k. with other Republicans playing the segregationist nostalgia card and playing footsie with racists?
Dec 20, '07
can i just drop by here to say how much i <heart> chris lowe?
carry on, please.
1:55 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
????
Did a word get left out there somewhere?
Dec 20, '07
"But if you could show that he has been hiring illegals while sitting in the Senate, and his company profits him multi millions via illegal labor, is that gonna get him to resign? You bet. Resign by the end of this week. If there is anything there.
Illegal labor. Look into it."
Are you sure this is a good idea? Maybe they will name the website after you, Larry.
Dec 20, '07
Anon
I haven't talked with the Smith campaign. I like to read Blue Oregon from time to time and saw Jack's post and thought I would add a small piece.
2:20 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
Let's flip to the 2002 Gordon Smith:
And five years later (almost to the day) flops the 2007 Gordon Smith:
Dec 20, '07
well. so, you think gordon smith should be on his way out? then , do you have a better choice in terms of republicans, for his position? i mean, as non-republicans: is there someone of the republican party, who, if their party did win the seat again, would be a better choice than smith? and if so, why? as a moderate, independent, nonaffiliated voter, i have voted for smith over others at least once. i do not vote party lines at all. i vote what they are campaigning for.
2:48 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
Vixigoth,
I am a fellow Indie who doesn't vote a party line. I've also voted for Smith every time he ran for Senate. I won't be voting for him in 2008 and the above post illustrates one reason why. He pretends to be a moderate when he thinks he can get some political advantage out of it. The rest of the time he rubberstamps Bush's desires. In fact this flip-flop looks like it might be yet another example of that.
Back when Lott was in hot water for his comments, Gordon Smith said one thing. It just so happened that Lott wasn't rubberstamping to Bush's liking, whereas his replacement, Bill Frist, did rubberstamp as Bush wanted. Now that a few years have gone by Smith now thinks he can reinvent history and none of us will figure out that he's just lying.
Is there someone that the Republicans could run who might get my vote? It's hard to say since I don't know every Republican in the state. But it's a moot point because no Republican has challenged Smith in the GOP primary.
I'm looking forward to voting for Jeff Merkley
2:49 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
Not sure I understand the premise of your question about a better Republican to replace Smith. We have two great candidates who are Democrats who are much better than Republican Gordon Smith, Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick. Reasonable people can argue over who would be a better candidate, but either would be a vast improvement over Smith.
2:53 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
Absolutely spot on Kevin.
2:53 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
Vixigoth, Gordon Smith doesn't have any Republican primary opposition, so he's the R choice you've got. I encourage you to look elsewhere, e.g. at Steve Novick or Jeff Merkley.
If Jack Roberts ran against Smith, I'd certainly prefer him over Smith. :-) But he isn't :-( .
3:32 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
Nice try, Jack. So you were first to comment on this post, with future Republican higher office candidate Sid Leiken and "Larry" trailing behind you, because trolling on progressive websites is how you get your kicks?
No, you and your posse were sent here by the Smith-Republican team because the story is a major problem for the junior senator. A self-inflicted major problem. Otherwise, you wouldn't bother commenting.
Actually, I do read Blue Oregon pretty regularly and post here quite often. No one sends me here or tells me what to say. If they did, I probably wouldn't say half the things I do.
Gordon Smith has told me he thought Lott was not a particularly good majority leader but has been a great whip. There may have been a political advantage to Gordon piling on Lott in the aftermath of his original comment, but there clearly was no political advantage in bringing it up again now. It was a human and humane gesture on his part.
Those of you who are trashing Gordon over this were never for him in the first place. It is much ado about nothing.
3:34 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
Nice try, Jack. So you were first to comment on this post, with future Republican higher office candidate Sid Leiken and "Larry" trailing behind you, because trolling on progressive websites is how you get your kicks?
No, you and your posse were sent here by the Smith-Republican team because the story is a major problem for the junior senator. A self-inflicted major problem. Otherwise, you wouldn't bother commenting.
Actually, I do read Blue Oregon pretty regularly and post here quite often. No one sends me here or tells me what to say. If they did, I probably wouldn't say half the things I do.
Gordon Smith has told me he thought Lott was not a particularly good majority leader but has been a great whip. There may have been a political advantage to Gordon piling on Lott in the aftermath of his original comment, but there clearly was no political advantage in bringing it up again now. It was a human and humane gesture on his part.
Those of you who are trashing Gordon over this were never for him in the first place. It is much ado about nothing.
3:53 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
Not for public consumption I would agree since this has been a PR fuck-up for him so far, but the whoring himself to Lott as he golden parachutes a few blocks over to K-Street is a big advantage.
But thanks for conceding the point that Smith lies (which you euphomistically describe as "piling on") to the public when he went all high dudgeon back when the public was rightly outraged at Lott's wink-and-a-nod to the good ole boy racists network which Smith is quietly and out of the public limelight keeping connected through in sucking up to Lott on the way out the door.
As are the majority of Oregonians who are looking elsewhere for representation in the United States Senate (check your buddies approvals and relect numbers lately?)
LOL, good game face as you repeat the whistling past the graveyard schtick you GOPers learned from watching the Wizard of Oz one too many times... "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!".
Yeah no big deal, that's why it has run in over 200 newspapers and hundreds of blogs and has solicited furious back-peddling from Smith's office. Yep, nothing to see here.. move along.
4:05 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
So it human and humane to lie now about his views of Lott's racist remarks?
Or are you you admiting that Smith was lying then when he previously said this;
"His statement goes against everything I and the people of Oregon believe in."
...but now blames the media for his lying about Lott's views being against everything Oregonians believe in?
So can you get your friend to clear up for us whether he was lying then or lying now?
Dec 20, '07
Jack, I understand your point of view but think you are wrong. A politician I strongly backed was in a bipartisan setting and thus (for protocol as much as anything) said something polite about a Republican co-founder of an organization who was much more reviled than Gordon will ever be--perhaps because Gordon has more polish and more common sense. People were livid! Esp. people who were angry when my guy won a primary against an "establishment" candidate. As a result, my guy ended up making a special appearance to let people know he was not a supporter of the reviled Republican, he had just been doing the polite thing. (My friend who worked for this Democrat called me before the appearance was scheduled and asked "just how angry ARE people?".)
Jimmy Carter had some wise words about this sort of a situation long before You Tube was invented. He was accused of saying whatever an audience wanted to hear, and he said something like "Don't be silly--someone could follow me around with a small tape recorder and make the differences public if I did that".
Gordon is responsible for what comes out of Gordon's mouth. There have been comments about Gordon since he was Oregon State Sen. Pres. that there is a slick Gordon and a statesmanlike Gordon, and we never know which one will make an appearance. That is no more partisan than comparing Kate Brown and Ted Ferrioli not on their politics but on their people skills with ordinary citizens.
Dec 20, '07
"Posted by: Bring It On Larry" writes:
"But if you could show that he has been hiring illegals while sitting in the Senate, and his company profits him multi millions via illegal labor, is that gonna get him to resign? You bet. Resign by the end of this week. If there is anything there.
Illegal labor. Look into it."
<h2>Are you sure this is a good idea? Maybe they will name the website after you, Larry."</h2>I think that illegal immigrants are wrong to be here, and should pay the price for their illegal activity. I also think that illegal companies are wrong to hire illegals, and should also pay the price for their illegal activity.
And since politicians are and should be held to a higher standard, Sen Smith (if found guilty of hiring illegals) should pay a bigger price.
Please name the website one of the following:
1) Bring_it_on_Larry 2) Give_Em_Hell_Larry 3) Dirty_Larry
For the screenplay, can I have Jack Nicolson play me, if Don Knotts play Sen Smith?
5:26 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
Even on the goofy shit you are in la-la-land... Don Knotts died last year.
5:37 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
Can't resist beating a fool when he is down but this is too fun, just caught this in The Oregonian op-ed posted today. Good thing this hasn't gotten any traction in the other media.
/snark
Dec 20, '07
From the Oregonian's editors: "Following his own remarks, Smith hasn't exactly had the wolf pack of the press circled around him -- these days, the moon requires a lot of baying -- but questions have been raised about the Oregon senator's seeming contradiction."
Nope, not much traction at all. Butt for lesta's sake, let me add the editor at the Oregonian to the list of HuffPo, BO & Kos:
"I wonder if Kari and lesta, foaming at the mouth, can not understand why this has gotten minimal (if any) traction other in media, and even minimal traction on the blogosphere, other than on highly partisan lefty blogs (HuffPo, BO, Kos)."
As I said above: "Otherwise keep flogging this dead horse. Who are you guys? The pointy-haired boss from the Dilbert cartoon strip? LOL"
And as for Don Knotts, I think he would be a great one to play Sen Smith, rigor mortis and all.
7:09 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
But thanks for conceding the point that Smith lies (which you euphomistically describe as "piling on") to the public when he went all high dudgeon back when the public was rightly outraged at Lott's wink-and-a-nod to the good ole boy racists network which Smith is quietly and out of the public limelight keeping connected through in sucking up to Lott on the way out the door.
I never said Gordon lied. "Piling on" doesn't imply lying; it means jumping on someone when he's already down. It's a football term (which, for you liberals, in this country doesn't refer to soccer).
For the record, Gordon never said that Lott's statement was racist. He simply expressed his view that Lott's statement--namely, that the world would have been better off if Strom Thurmond had been elected President in 1948--"goes against everything I and the people of Oregon believe in."
He hasn't retracted that. Gordon now admits that he knew Lott didn't mean it the way it sounded (i.e., that Lott wished segregation were still the law of the land), but at the time Gordon expressed his displeasure with the fact the the leader of the Senate Republicans made a statement that could be construed in that way.
The two statements are not mutually exclusive, they are nuanced. Is John Kerry the last Democrat to understand nuance?
Dec 20, '07
The Strom Thurmond they both served with in the Senate had long since made his peace with African-American voters in South Carolina and was much more involved in issues of national defense and foreign policy than race.
But Lott was praising the Strom Thurmond who was a racist and segregationist when he ran for president, a campaign in which Lott wished he had been successful.
Dec 20, '07
Those of you who are trashing Gordon over this were never for him in the first place.
Not necessarily so. I'm sure I'm not the only one who gained a good first impression of Smith, but the knowledge that came with time has reversed that unjustified opinion.
Good thing this hasn't gotten any traction in the other media.
Does Think Progress qualify as "other media"?
10:46 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
There is a difference between nuance and weasel words. These are weasel words. Perhaps that's a nuance Republicans don't understand?
11:08 p.m.
Dec 20, '07
I knew what she meant, and I'm just serving notice that trishka will have to fight me for Chris Lowe.
Dec 21, '07
For people interested in democratic politics in Oregon, this is a prophecy fulfilled. The reality of the situation is that Blue Oregon comprises only a fraction of the whole. For the rest of voters, this is a moot point.
The electorate doesn't care about how Gordon Smith handled the Trent Lott speech in 2002. They largely don't know who Trent Lott is or what he said and even if they do, rehashing it would be too obtuse a process to make it worthwhile. Even if you were able to explain a forgotten situation that played out over 5 years ago, Smith's quotes are really confusing and do not lend themselves to a devastating, incontrovertible ad.
This just doesn't stick.
Dec 21, '07
yes, the word that typepad ate was "heart". (am not used to the coding on this site)...
and stephanie, you're on. heh.
10:18 a.m.
Dec 21, '07
I think voters in general know who Lott is. And it's not hard to make an ad pointing out that Smith led the effort to politically rehabilitate a Senator stripped of his post for offensive racial comments (and offensive is Smith's word), and then made excuses for the call in favor of segregation in 21st century America. There is no misconstruing Lott's call for segregation; it cannot b interpreted as anything but.
Oh Kari--Lott did lose his house,although via Katrina and not the GOP. Remember it was the Tragedy of Trent that seemed to mobilize Bush into action.
Dec 21, '07
torridjoe- Just re-read your post, even assuming people know who Trent Lott is and the general idea of what happened in 2002, your post has too much going on.
As effective attack ad is simple, black and white. Not as you suggest, "make an ad pointing out that Smith led the effort to politically rehabilitate a Senator stripped of his post for offensive racial comments (and offensive is Smith's word), and then made excuses for the call in favor of segregation in 21st century America. There is no misconstruing Lott's call for segregation; it cannot b interpreted as anything but."
12:57 p.m.
Dec 21, '07
BCM, just use his own words as I did up-thread:
"Gordon Smith will say one thing when the heat is on, and the opposite thing when it isn't...
Let's flip to the 2002 Gordon Smith:
And five years later (almost to the day) flops the 2007 Gordon Smith:
Gorodn Smith, the say anything politician."
2:09 p.m.
Dec 21, '07
[blush] (is there an emoticon for that?) Ladies, you are too kind. Really. However, a compliment from each of you is much esteemed by me, as an admirer of your own contributions to BlueOregon.
Shall we sublimate & form Blogrollers to Beat Smith? ;->
2:24 p.m.
Dec 21, '07
TJ,
Hmm, still have to set up what Lott said.
Would it be better just to focus on his Iraq positions?
Or could we look to a set of ads that all point to Iraq as well as to the character issue?
E.g. maybe several examples, each with a last line something like: "If he'll say this, no wonder he's two-faced about Iraq" Or "misled us" or "he flip-flops" (personally hate that term but it's recognized I guess).
And then a summary ad: "Gordon Smith: Talking out of both sides of his mouth isn't just a habit, it's a way of life. Time to put someone we can trust in the senate."
But maybe it would be cleaner and pack more punch just to focus on Iraq.
9:56 a.m.
Dec 22, '07
The electorate doesn't care about how Gordon Smith handled the Trent Lott speech in 2002. ... Smith's quotes are really confusing and do not lend themselves to a devastating, incontrovertible ad. This just doesn't stick.
I'm confused here, BCM. Is the new rule for articles at BlueOregon that we're only supposed to talk about things that make for effective attack ads?
10:34 a.m.
Dec 22, '07
Come on, it's not that hard:
"As Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott said if America had voted segregation forever in 1948, 'we wouldn't have had all these problems.'"
"When America was rightfully outraged, Republicans were forced to take away Lott's power. Gordon Smith applauded that move, calling Lott's comments 'offensive.'"
"But Smith was already working to bring Lott back to power, to make him Minority Whip. Now Gordon Smith sings a different tune:"
[clip of speech]
"Senator Smith, you can try to re-write history--but you can't erase it."
Dec 22, '07
The controversy over Gordon Smith's remarks regarding Trent Lott shows Smith's capacity for talking out of both side of his mouth which for politicians is not surprising when we consider that Americans in this vocation of dubious virtue have been playing loose with facts since slave owners signed the Declaration of Independence that claimed all men are created equal. In all of this from the Founding Fathers to the present the American public has been credulous or complicit. If we consider other issues the Smith/Lott affair can be seen as a relatively minor matter.
If we are to assume the role of concerned citizen we should be more alarmed with Smith's oath to defend the Constitution and his failures to live up to that pledge thus making it virtually worthless.
Smith and 76 other senators failed to live up to their Constitutional responsibilities when they voted to surrender authority to wage war on Iraq to the president. This was after Senator Robert Byrd explained to them what they should already have known; that is, their Constitutional responsibilities relating to Congressional mandates for declaring war. This vote was no small matter like deciding what to say at a birthday celebration. It was a vote to go to war, surely one of the most serious votes an alleged representative of the people can ever take. In this case, it happened to lead to what many knowledgeable people have concluded is this nation's greatest blunder thereby compounding their treachery.
So, if Smith's oath to defend the Constitution is not worth the breath expelled to say it, what does that say about him as a senator representing the people of Oregon? And what does it say about the Democrats for Smith and others who will vote for him? Are they as indifferent to betrayal of an oath to defend the Constitution as Smith appears to be?
Let's be fair and bi-partisan on this. Hillary Clinton falls into the same category as Smith on this issue, so what does it say about a large segment of the Democratic Party that she is a front runner for the party's nomination for president? Are they also indifferent to their candidate's failure to live up to her oath to defend the Constitution? And, what does it say about Oregon's governor who has endorsed her?
Walter Karp writing about the Pledge of Allegiance and the part about “one nation, ... , indivisible” recognized the many ways in which the nation was divided when he wrote, but he said despite these divisions that what unites us as a nation is the Constitution. If the Constitution is now a meaningless sheet of paper except when it suits politicians' and lawyers' purposes and the people don't care, what does that say about the republic? Is the American Republic destined to go the way of the Weimar Republic? Is America destined to be some version of post-Weimar Germany?
When I was a child I was taught that one of the most important elements of a man's character was that his word was his bond. In more modern phrasing we would say that a person's character is defined to a great extent by whether her or his word is something that can be trusted and depended on. Unfortunately, that seems to be another old-fashioned concept that no longer applies, and our society and nation, I submit, is the worse for it.
Dec 22, '07
Bill writes: "If we consider other issues the Smith/Lott affair can be seen as a relatively minor matter."
<hr/>Bill gets the last word, and he says well what I said early on up thread. This'll be gone before Christmas, ancient history before New Year's Eve.
But pointy haired bosses will try and flog this dead horse for quite a while, to no lasting effect.
Dec 23, '07
Bill writes: "If we consider other issues the Smith/Lott affair can be seen as a relatively minor matter."
<hr/>Bill gets the last word, and he says well what I said early on up thread.
Not so fast, Harry.
You see Smith's talking out of both sides of his mouth as a non-issue, or would like to frame it as such. I see it as a minor matter when compared with other issues. Without this comparison Smith's habit of tailoring his comments to his current audience is still significant. It can be evidence that his word is not worth much. If he goes over to Brookings and tells the fishermen there that he is concerned with their ability to survive as fishermen and then goes over to Klamath County and sells those fishermen down the Klamath River then only fools in Curry County would trust anything Smith has to say.
Did you read the rest of my commentary about Smith and others reneging on their oaths to defend the Constitution? What is your position on that? Or, are you just on this thread to enclose it in a very narrow frame hoping to do some damage control on behalf of the incumbent and hopefully-to-be-ex senator from Oregon?
2:18 p.m.
Dec 23, '07
OK TJ, looks pretty good. As you say, not that hard, but it does take a little work :->.
9:33 p.m.
Dec 23, '07
"OK TJ, looks pretty good. As you say, not that hard, but it does take a little work :->."
Well, a little work for an amateur anyway. :)
Whatever the commercial says about Lott, it needs to include the phrase "Minority Whip"...!
<hr/>