For mayor, the campaign Portland deserved, but didn't get
By Stephanie Vardavas of Portland, Oregon. Stephanie is a political activist, attorney, mediator, and arbitrator. Previously, she contributed daily "Postcards from Charlotte" from the Democratic National Convention.
Primaries are tough. They pit old friends and allies against one another in high-stakes environments that reveal to an uncomfortable extent just how far some of us are willing to go to win an election. And in a place like Portland, where most of the candidates in our nonpartisan general elections are Democrats, nonpartisan general elections are in some ways tougher than primaries, because the stakes are even higher, and there is no post-election reconciliation process. There's just a winner and - for want of a better word - a loser.
It's easy to say, "It's just politics," but it isn't. Especially for those of us on the progressive side of the spectrum who like to believe that we are primarily animated by principle, our principles are a dearly held element of our personal identities. In short, to a large degree our principles are WHO WE ARE. The choices we make in the heat of a high-stakes campaign are revealing.
By announcing in advance that he would not engage in opposition research or negative campaigning, Jefferson Smith created a precious opportunity for the citizens of Portland. We were on the cusp of having a thoughtful, issue-driven campaign that could have been decided by an electorate that was steeped in substantive information about the candidates' views and philosophies. The people of Portland deserve such a campaign, and would have welcomed it.
But we didn't get it. Because the other candidate, for his own reasons, has been unwilling to go there.
In my mind, this in itself is a test, a test that Charlie Hales' campaign has failed.
His lawn signs say "Love Portland." But he doesn't love Portland enough to run an issue-oriented campaign that is respectful of voters' intelligence and focused on the future of their city. Instead, he has chosen the expedient of running a negative campaign. Instead of focusing on a deep exploration of the issues, he has gone to great lengths to obfuscate the policy differences between himself and Smith, and relied on the periodic release of negative tidbits about embarrassing moments from Smith's teens and 20s to discredit him.
(I might add that Smith is at a chronological disadvantage here. Hales is my age, a generation older than Smith, and for all we know might have some equally unappealing episodes in his own youth. But it is his good fortune that his youth was lived before the Internet took over American culture, and so his teens and 20s are inaccessible to us without opposition research.)
The dirtiness of these politics has been a real eye-opener for me. The carefully curated, timed, spaced hits in the press may be effective at turning voters off an opponent, but they are the worst, most toxic course of action if your goal is to actually engage citizens with one's own campaign, or just generally with the polity.
I think this is the real reason Smith refused to engage in opposition research and negative campaigning: not because he didn't want to spend money on it, but because it is 100% contrary to every scruple he has about civic engagement and the importance of citizen involvement in their government.
It's risky to run for office: more than half of the people who run for office lose, after all (and in general elections, exactly half). It's riskier yet to run an issue-based, high-information campaign. Such a campaign places a lot of faith in the voters to pay attention and think about the issues. But if you truly love Portland, that's the choice you make, because it improves the objective quality of the outcome. Because the voters get to choose based on relevant information delivered in a media environment designed to heighten their interest instead of turning them off.
The flip side of that is that if you care more about winning an election than delivering an objectively great outcome, then you go negative. You do opposition research a year in advance and parse it out slowly to obtain maximum advantage. You allow or even encourage the electorate to wallow in gossip, because you need to distract them from the issues. Why? Because in a campaign run on the issues, there's a somewhat better chance you could lose.
This is the cynical choice the Hales campaign has made. They are playing a dangerous game. Because the price of their game is that the people of Portland might become as cynical as they are, that they might disengage further from politics and public policy. Many citizens need a little encouragement to care about the big issues, to engage in the public dialogues of our time, even in Portland, where engaged citizens have already achieved so much. But you have to keep reaching out to citizens, keep engaging and encouraging them. This process never ends. At least not if you are doing it right. As the City Club of Portland motto says, "Good citizens are the riches of a city."
This is not my first rodeo, so don't tell me I'm naive. I've been through brutal primaries before. Longtime Blue Oregon readers will remember the 2007-2008 US Senate primary campaign between Steve Novick and now-Senator Jeff Merkley. I was on the losing side of that one, and it was hard for me. But it wasn't like this.
I support Jefferson Smith for Mayor because I believe in his vision for the future of Portland: a more inclusive, engaged, functional, sustainable city where all Portlanders share in the city's progress. And I am extra proud to support him because he respects Portlanders enough to have offered them a clean, positive, issues-based, high-information campaign. Of course he felt he could win a positive campaign, but he was willing to run the risk of losing because he loves Portland enough to feel that Portland deserves that kind of campaign.
I only wish his opponent had had enough confidence in Portlanders, and yes, enough love for Portland, that he had been willing to do the same.
|
Oct. 10, 2012
Posted in guest column. |
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
10:24 a.m.
Oct 10, '12
I think it's nice that when someone claims to be a citizen of Oregon by voting here, he also steps up to "Love Portland" by paying taxes here. Hales fails that test; and I don't think it's negative, as much as a rebuttal of his supposed new-found love.
10:45 a.m.
Oct 10, '12
Thank you Stephanie. I found Hales' sad-faced "it's troubling" concern trolling highly offensive yesterday. He knows to distance himself from the mud, but he's happy to capitalize on it and support its use as a campaign issue. We can do better.
11:06 a.m.
Oct 10, '12
I can't recall a time when I did not want to vote for either major candidate. This maybe a first.
11:13 a.m.
Oct 10, '12
Thank you Stephanie for saying what had to be said!
11:19 a.m.
Oct 10, '12
when the WWeek was publishing lies about Eileen Brady, Smith was silent & his supporters eagerly, gleefully posted the links all over social media. now, of course, it's all different.
11:47 a.m.
Oct 10, '12
TA, the differences between Brady and Smith that people were pointing out were of policy -- not negative character attacks.
2:22 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
no, Paul, WW accused Eileen of lying about founding NSM. on top of that, it was a sexist attack: she was a woman doing something we'd have no problem attributing to a man - holding down a full-time job & working on NSM in her spare time. there was nothing policy about Jaquiss' attacks: they were sexist, dishonest & very personal. and the Smithies loved every moment of it.
2:34 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
See Nigel's latest work re: Smith today at WWeek.com.
7:34 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
TA, wweek did that Smith didn't. I don't believe he ever participated in any of that. Nor is he bad-mouthing Charlie now. Looks to me like it's the O that's on a vendetta against Smith.
9:17 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
TA, I remember reading that myself, but not really caring about it, so I wasn't one of those people "gleefully" posting it all over the internet, and I don't remember anyone other Smith people doing it. Can you tell me who was? Otherwise, I think you are wrong. And besides, it's not Jefferson's job to defend other candidates, is it?
11:49 a.m.
Oct 10, '12
My heart aches that being an 'Oregon of Portland progressive' doesn't include standing against violence towards women.
When did that change? Who is causing that change?
4:48 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
Defending yourself against a drunken, mistaken attack is not "violence against women."
3:16 p.m.
Oct 11, '12
Punching a female who's a foot shorter than you and 100 pounds lighter is violence against women. Even if you really really like the guy who's doing it. Even if she's a crazy-ass drunk who started it, as he and his campaign present as an excuse. There's no excuse. He could have, and should have, walked away.
3:34 p.m.
Oct 11, '12
Overreacting to a female attacker is hardly violence against women. But anyway, the campaign isn't making excuses - Jefferson apologized and accepted responsibility. Pretty much everyone agrees Jefferson made a mistake 20 years ago. What we disagree on is whether frat party shenanigans 20 years ago are relevant to this election.
10:40 p.m.
Oct 11, '12
Punching someone in the face is violence. When that person is a woman, well, you know.
I'm not nearly as concerned with what happened 20 years ago as I am with what's happened this week: blaming the victim, omitting facts, etc. That's not accepting responsibility.
1:22 p.m.
Oct 12, '12
Not only are you being dishonest, but the way you are talking belittles the problem of actual violence against women. Equating what happened 20 years ago to guys beating up their girlfriends/wives is just irresponsible.
Regarding your trying to shame people for "victim blaming", you do understand that the person you are calling "the victim" initiated the violence according to all witnesses, don't you? How can you pretend that doesn't matter? She is a victim in the sense that she was the one who ended up hurt. That doesn't absolve her of responsibility for initiating the violent encounter.
Now, obviously what Jefferson did was wrong. But noticing the fact that he was defending himself from an attack is just accepting the truth. It is not blaming the victim at all.
5:37 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
If Jefferson were really a consistent abuser of women, we'd know about it. Did you ever do anything stupid in college? I've known Jefferson for years, and I know his stepmother even better. I had my reservations at first, but they had nothing to do with his attitude toward women. As a legislator, Jefferson has been very supportive of women's issues in general. I'm all in and a proud supporter.
8:44 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
I'm so torn by this. Yeah, Jefferson was a college kid, and everyone does stupid things in college. And Charlie did some shady things with his residence and voting as an adult, which in many ways seems worse.
On the other hand, my God, Jefferson hit a woman over whom he had a huge size advantage. She was unarmed. There's no way you can call that self-defense.
Dumb as I was in college, I never hit anyone, and in my life I've never hit a woman. Real men don't do that. Sorry. Not meaning to sound patriarchal, but real men really don't do that.
3:24 p.m.
Oct 11, '12
This incident of "violence towards women" appears to have been an accident, happened 20 years ago, and Jefferson apologized and accepted responsibility. We're only talking about it because a slime ball campaign needed an October Surprise.
Forgive me if I feel I can stand against violence towards women and also stand against slimy attempts to distract Portland voters from the real issues in this campaign.
1:12 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
A clean, positive campaign is an honest campaign. BOTH campaigns have failed that test.
1:37 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
I've been extremely disturbed by the progressive community's silence on the issue of Jefferson Smith's act of violence toward a woman, and the way his campaign has handled the incident in recent weeks. I've seen people that identify as feminists or pro-feminist brushing off this act as something that happened "a long time ago" or because the story was leaked by a consultant. I don't care how the story got here- I care about how we react to it when we hear about it.
What we we know to be fact: 1. Jefferson hit a woman (a foot shorter than him, and a hundred pounds lighter) in the face hard enough to send her to the hospital, and require police intervention. 2. He visited the woman's home twice in past 2 weeks, showing his (and his campaign advisors') incredible lack of empathy, understanding, and good judgement. 3. He lied to voters about his recollection of the incident, and minimized his description of what happened in order sway voters' opinions.
Do you know how hard it is for women to come forward about assault? Have you considered the cultural impact of a mayoral candidate holding a press conference about a night that he hit a woman in the face, with 20 people standing silently behind him? And what that has done to undermine the legitimacy of the victim's side of the story? What does that do for Portland women's sense of safety?
This is when we make a decision about how we really feel about women's rights- is it just a political football for the Democratic party? Or do we walk the difficult walk when it really matters?
I've been so ashamed to see otherwise decent Democrats defending this act. Steve Novick brings up Mitt Romney's dog incident (which took place 30 years ago) whenever possible, but somehow there's silence regarding the assault of a woman? Time to check our biases at the door, Oregon.
5:00 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
It's reprehensible to use the vocabulary of "violence against women" for political advantage.
Jefferson and a number of eyewitnesses have said that he was defending himself against the woman's repeated attempts to strike him. Of course I wish he had not injured her, but I also don't believe for a moment that Jefferson Smith is capable of just unilaterally deciding to hit a woman.
5:28 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
And I don't believe for a second that a man of Jefferson's size couldn't have exited the situation without punching the much smaller woman in the face.
We'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes "reprehensible" in this situation.
2:43 p.m.
Oct 11, '12
According to Smith and witnesses she had him against a couch, caught unawares. And what does this has to do with running a city, again?
8:20 a.m.
Oct 11, '12
You know, when I was in my early 20s, I was once beaten in a bar in Maryland. (The guy somehow thought I looked gay -- as it turns out, he was right; I am.)
It was very violent and traumatic. I required three stitches and hurt a lot.
The woman that Smith beat required six stitches. He lost control and engaged in an act of extreme violence, one that minimizes one of the most violent experiences of my life.
The vocabulary of "violence against women" surely applies to what happened in Smith's case, much as the vocabulary of "violence against gays" applies to mine.
In either case, it's descriptive and not a "reprehensible" tool used for political advantage. Smith's supporters (and I was one) may not want to face his history, but it's real and it's now there for everyone to see.
Permanent retribution against Smith for that act two decades past may not be appropriate, and forgiveness is certainly a sign of a gentle character.
But I don't intend to vote for anyone that beat another person in that way. I didn't like it when it was done to me. I surely don't like it when it's done to others.
2:45 p.m.
Oct 11, '12
Who were you drunkenly attacking in a rage when you were hit? Otherwise i don't see the connection.
8:08 p.m.
Oct 11, '12
No, Mark Bunster, I was trying to walk away from a hostile situation, something that Smith should have done 19 years ago if he had had a lick of good sense.
The connection is the level of violence. In my case, the guy who hit me used three stitches of violence, which was a big deal in my life.
Smith used six stitches worth of violence, which is really a serious level of violence. Given the fact that the woman was quite a bit smaller than him and was unarmed, I would call his use of violence disproportionate.
I thought the violence used against me was disproportionate, but it was moderate compared to what Smith dealt out.
A lot of people here have tried minimize what Smith did. It wasn't a small thing. I would find it difficult to land a single punch with such force that it would require six stitches to fix. That's what Smith did to this woman.
It was an act of extraordinary violence. It was a contemptible act. His endorsers who are backing out know it. The voters will know it. Smith's mayoral hopes are toast, and he deserves it.
9:17 a.m.
Oct 11, '12
You're making it into something it simply wasn't. Also, what would you expect Mr. Smith to do? He's promised not to investigate to find negative things like this about Mr. Hales. Mr. Hales has made no such promise. There's a steady drumbeat of negative stories being published in the O, which never identifies the sources, nor even why it isn't identifying its sources. Is Mr. Smith just supposed to stand silent in the face of these criticisms? He promised not to investigate his opponent's personal life, not to refrain from preventing false characterizations of his own past. Whether or not Mr. Hales' staff has been behind this, he has not distanced himself from it. Where's his promise to campaign on the substance?
Besides, this incident bears none of the hallmarks of a pattern of violence against women, despite your implication otherwise. Regarding your comment below, is Mr. Smith somehow not entitled to the legal principle of self-defense because he's what...a man? A larger person? A political candidate? He's already said he wished he could have dealt with the situation differently. He probably would, now that he has more life experience. But one incident of self-defense against a woman does not make this a pattern of violence against women. To attempt to make it otherwise for political gain demeans the cause.
10:29 a.m.
Oct 11, '12
I'm not sure what political gain you're referring to. I voted for Jefferson in the primary, and as a staunch opposer of the CRC, I can't bring myself to vote for Charlie in the runoff. I'm not voting for either candidate and I don't care about political gains or losses in this race, and I don't care about how many times a story about a very serious incident is brought up in local media.
What I do care about is women, and how we're treated by society- including our elected officials and their supporters. This situation with Jefferson has introduced a level of victim blaming that I haven't seen from my progressive community before, and I worry about the implications of normalizing assault against a woman when we categorize it as youthful indiscretion. This says nothing of the campaign's terrible handling of the issue in the past couple of weeks, which is also seriously problematic.
10:33 a.m.
Oct 11, '12
The evidence points to the woman as the initial aggressor and you want to make this into a story about violence against women?
1:51 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
When did the “Portland progressive” become a person who would rather blame political consultants for unearthing an alarming incident that the campaign had a responsibility to disclose than hold a candidate accountable for allegedly punching a woman in the face for declining a sexual advance and then lying about it when it became public? I missed that change in the season.
This is not just one of those “negative tidbits” or “embarrassing moments.” It is a very serious allegation. Seriously? “NEGATIVE TIDBIT?” And if the only part you (readers) find yourself caring about was that is was a long time ago, then I suggest you reevaluate your priorities. Many had a field day about that time Mitt Romney put his dog on top of the family car and drove for 12 hours that way. Because it was a terrible thing to do. That happened in 1983. And yes, I still find that important in the way I view a candidate on the whole.
As someone who has supported the Jefferson campaign exclusively in this mayoral race, I am absolutely outraged at the lack of disclosure about this incident by this campaign. Moreover, I am so terribly disappointed in my progressive colleagues who would rather place blame on others for letting the cat out of the bag than expect someone to take full responsibility, explain the incident honestly and completely (the first time asked!) and condemn this sort of behavior, then, now and ever.
Does this mean Jefferson shouldn’t be mayor? I don’t know. That is my decision to make for my vote and your decision to make for your vote. But I will not pretend this incident isn’t important in the framework in which I make this holistic decision just because a consultant dug it up. Violence against women and violence, generally — real, alleged, or otherwise — is always timely. And it always requires explanation.
2:56 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
Regardless of how this latest JS incident (one of several) came to light, it seems inevitable that it would have surfaced eventually. I'm reminded of our last mayoral election when some folks chose to withhold information about Sam Adams' relationship with an 18 year old intern. I suspect many voters were upset that information was suppressed until after the election. Would it have made a difference in the outcome? Maybe, maybe not. And then there was Neil Goldschmidt . . . do we believe it was ok to keep his behavior secret? Personally, I want to know and decide for myself if it's a deal breaker.
Listen, I'm no Charlie Hales booster. For the first time in my life I'm inclined to vote for "none of the above". But I am disturbed by the rhetoric I'm hearing from the JS camp -- "It's not my fault!" "It's not fair!" "He started it!" "He did it first!" "it was an accident!". They just reinforce my concerns about the candidate -- that he is immature and not yet ready to run a large, complex organization.
2:56 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
I want to thank Caitlin Campbell and Bridget Budbill for stating so eloquently what I've been feeling but unable to put into words. As a mother, I am desperately trying to teach my children, especially my sons, that it is not okay to hit other people, even when you’re mad, and that it is important to take responsibility for your own actions. I know the recent revelations are painful for the Smith supporters, but it’s not the other campaign consultant’s fault, nor is it the fault of the other campaign.
5:02 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
Deborah, with all respect, the Hales campaign has had this information for about a year. The fact that they chose to go public with it NOW, instead of allowing time for a fuller discussion and discovery of the facts, IS their fault. This was all about using the information as an "October surprise," for cheap political advantage.
5:29 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
When does it become Jefferson Smith's campaign's responsibility to tell the truth about him?
8:23 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
Stephanie, with all due respect, it's politics and campaigns use or don't use information bases on timing and position.
One could say Smith decided NOT to disclose this during the primaries as a political advantage over Brady knowing that it would have had negative ramifications on many voters.
9:45 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
Deborah, with all respect, the Hales campaign has had this information for about a year.
Stephanie, do you have any evidence for that assertion? After all, Jefferson has acknowledged not even telling his own campaign staff about it.
The Hales campaign may have dropped it at the last second. But that's why Jefferson Smith should have been a) more prepared, and b) released in his own way, and on his own timeline.
We political hacks and observers can debate campaign tactics all day long. But the Hales campaign wasn't at that party two decades ago, and they weren't at the woman's doorstep last week at 8 a.m.
6:23 p.m.
Oct 11, '12
See the faxed date stamp on the police report.
11:46 a.m.
Oct 11, '12
I thought that the entire Hales camp got the axe after the primary...
4:29 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
The assertion that Smith wanted to stay positive for idealistic reasons is hard to swallow after he's been repeatedly caught lying about his transgressions. It seems more realistic to assume that he wanted to avoid having his own past examined.
5:19 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
I would just add that I'm not sure it's possible to make a policy of voting only for candidates who never acted like a$$holes in their teens and 20s.
I freely concede that we've seen reporting of incidents in which Jefferson seems to have acted like an a$$hole. I'd be willing to bet folding money that Charlie Hales sometimes acted like an a$$hole in his teens and 20s too.
It goes with the territory.
Charlie Hales was in his 40s when he quit the City Council halfway through his term so he could make more money, and then decided to move to Washington State and claim Washington residency for tax purposes while continuing to claim Oregon residency for voting purposes. Those choices, by an adult, reflect character issues that are of deep concern to me as a voter.
But what I'm MOST concerned about is the future of Portland.
And that's why I still support Jefferson Smith.
6:05 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
Stephanie, the problem is that Jefferson's acts of violence have continued well into his adulthood, as recently as last year.
If that night back in college really was 'the worst night of his life' why is he still punching people.
He has shown nothing positive that he learned from the experience and wouldn't do it again. In fact he has shown quite the opposite, blaming the victim and showing up on her doorstep unannounced.
We have all acted like a-holes, as you so eloquently put, in our youth and adulthood. However, we have not all been arrested for assault. That is a whole different kind of person all together. And it is not someone who is fit for office.
Maybe Jefferson will take ten or 20 years to deal with his anger issues and make a new life story for himself. That would be wonderful. But it would have to start with him being honest with himself about just who he is and why he does the things he does.
I hope he finds some peace somehow. But not as Mayor of Portland.
6:53 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
Stephanie, we're all concerned about the future of Portland.
9:47 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
I would just add that I'm not sure it's possible to make a policy of voting only for candidates who never acted like a$$holes in their teens and 20s.
Agreed. Absolutely. Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes.
But it's what has been happening in the last two weeks that gives me pause.
3:30 p.m.
Oct 11, '12
Agreed. I went to a couple of JS house parties this year and liked a lot of what I heard. But I'm offended by the blaming of the victim that's been happening in the past week.
IMO, here’s the apology that Portland deserves (and didn’t get):
"I'm embarrassed about several things I did as a young and impulsive college student. But more than anything else, I regret the physical and emotional injuries I caused a young woman when I struck back at her in what I imagine must be one of the worst nights of her life. Regardless of the circumstances leading up to that moment, there's no excuse for what I did. I am profoundly sorry for my unacceptable behavior in this situation, and especially for the pain it caused. I’ve often wished I had made a better choice. If this same incident were to happen today, I would walk away, which is what I should have done that night."
An apology like that would have been fine by me.
10:16 p.m.
Oct 11, '12
Jennifer,
I'm curious where you've heard this "blaming of the victim". I've heard Jefferson talk about this for over a week and I've basically heard him say that. Did you watch the entire press conference that he spoke at a week ago? The press has excelled at dicing that bits since then to do their best and not convey what Jefferson actually said, spinning it into a victim-blaming narrative. Things can always be more eloquently stated but I am certain it is not Jefferson's intent to blame the victim -- the only blame I have heard him assign is to the media.
10:56 p.m.
Oct 11, '12
Here are a couple of examples from the October 1 press conference:
I know for sure that if someone who was a foot shorter than me and 50 percent of my body weight took a swing at me, I would not punch them back. I'd protect my face and get the hell out of there.
I'm not buying the whole "her face bumped into my fist" defense.
I think Jefferson Smith has done, and will do, great things for Oregon. But his whole reframing of this terrible night has made him look unrepentant. He should say he's sorry for hurting her and that there's no excuse for hitting a woman, IMO.
9:06 p.m.
Oct 10, '12
I guess the voters of Portland will have to decide if they prefer: A: a guy who defended himself from an attack 20 years ago, or
B: a guy who by all available information either committed voter fraud or tax fraud. Aren't these Class C felonies? And did so within the last couple years.
Hmmmmm.
9:06 a.m.
Oct 11, '12
There's been a lot of loose talk about "violence against women". All that I have seen reported is this single incident in the distant past, which does not appear to have any connection to domestic violence. I've fought against domestic violence and violence against women my whole career. I think it's demeaning to the struggle against violence against women to characterize this as part of some pattern of violence against women by Mr. Smith. If you have evidence of such, I'd certainly like to see it, but, until then, I'd prefer not to have an encounter that has none of the hallmarks of domestic violence turned into something it's not. Certainly it was an evening that both parties would like to put in their past, but it seems a stretch to characterize it as more than that.
10:08 p.m.
Oct 11, '12
Excellent way of putting it, Marshall.
I won't make any excuses for what Jefferson did almost 20 years ago, but I think that the other side is pushing a narrative here and using it to paint Jefferson like some sort of monster. Since that time he has been a great public servant and even worked on issues specific to women (e.g. human trafficking). Charlie seems to have struggled to connect to voters and earn his own votes, so the powers of the status quo, are taking the very serious issue of domestic violence and using it to attack Jefferson and take him down.
Jefferson Smith Speaks Against Human Trafficking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltqhz_cSMm8
11:13 a.m.
Oct 11, '12
For everyone arguing that what Smith did can't be called "violence against women" because she was the aggressor, I have two words for you:
Six Stitches.
That's a lot of stitches. That's not a love tap, or a defensive bop. That's a full-out hit-em-hard knock-em-to-the-ground punch.
It's a disproportionate use of violence. Really quite akin to some of the things Portland police have done in recent years.
11:19 p.m.
Oct 11, '12
It's troubling to me that people who defend Jeffereson Smith downplay what he did that night. His supporters seem to think the best way to protect his candidacy today is to keep downplaying that night as a long time ago, self-defense, crazy drunk woman, etc.
What would be more credible and palatable for me is to hear them say that JS made a bad choice that night, leave out the part where they trash the victim or downplay the seriousness of the offense, and still say he'd be a great mayor.
Of course it's possible to be stupid 20 years ago and be fit for service today. We've all made mistakes we wish we hadn't. But admitting to mistakes is better than shape-shifting if you're trying to rebuild trust.
5:49 a.m.
Oct 12, '12
I am with Kari on these events. I can forgive and forget what college students did 20 years ago after a few too many beers.
Visiting the person's house? Playing fast and loose with a no-contact agreement? Failing to inform your own staff about this?
Stephanie's original premise is wrong. By any measure, this has been a very poorly run campaign. What does this say about Smith's ability to take on a leadership role as Mayor?
Jennifer nailed it above on the apology, and it should have been issued months ago.