Gordon Smith under fire for Lott praise.
On Tuesday, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) took to the Senate floor and defended Trent Lott’s controversial comments on former senator Strom Thurmond, despite claiming in 2002 that he was “deeply dismayed” by them. Today, Smith’s home state paper, the Oregonian, sharply criticized the senator:
It’s true that speakers at retirement tributes are under no oath to tell the whole truth; if they were, such events might be a little less warm but a lot more interesting. And nobody thinks that Smith’s remarks on Lott’s remarks on Thurmond somehow make Smith a racist twice removed.
But on issues carrying as much emotional freight as race — and there aren’t many — a U.S. senator needs to speak with care and consistency.
Otherwise, he could find people speaking at his own retirement tribute.
(HT: The Crypt)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
he could find people speaking at his own retirement tribute.
I’ll second that motion. Oregonians?
December 20th, 2007 at 5:17 pmI’m fairly sure that Smith will have a retirement party soon. Last I saw his approval ratings were around 40%. That’s not enough to get yourself re-elected. Oregonians are on to Smith who speaks with a forked tongue. He has consistently said one thing to get himself elected and then gone and done the exact opposite. He’s not going to get away with it this time, though.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:18 pmThe day I find myself with that idiot Lott, you’ll find a note on my dead body.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:22 pmI just hope it’s not the same progressives that stereotyped Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom, a stealer, a crack smoker, a rapeist, or as ignorant from the other thread today. That would be hypocritical.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Captain - a one trick pony. Anyone want to bet that he posts this drivel on every thread for the next week?
I have news for you Captain - no one cares what you think. Why not go over to Redstate.com and join your brethren. They will compliment you and meet your need to be wanted.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:25 pmAh yes, the inclusive Republican Party without a single elected African-American in the House or the Senate.
-GSD
December 20th, 2007 at 5:34 pmCue Condi Rice retort in 3…..2……1……yawn
December 20th, 2007 at 5:36 pmbilbobaggins and I disagree on Smith’s chances in 2008, but this latest contremps is edging me toward bilbo’s opinion. He believes Smith is doomed, but I’ve heard that before and the most visible Oregon Democrats that could have challenged him have refused to do so. I believe (and bilbo can weigh in) that they did that, in part, because Smith looked too solid. DeFazio refused because he has a very solid seat with good seniority and he’s doing a lot of work for his district. Taking a risky run at the Senate doesn’t suit him. The highly popular former governor Kitzhaber simply doesn’t want anything to do with Washington DC.
The most likely Democratic nominees at this point are solid activists, but they have almost no name recognition. Smith has a huge pot of money to draw on (personal fortune) and has complete support from the state Republicans. None of them are likely to vote for a Democrat and the overall state numbers of very even.
The business with Strom Thurmond, though, with Smith obviously switching stories, doesn’t do him any good. At least one blogger has suggested that the original statement about Thurmond being out of line was actually issued by Smith staff, because he was vacationing in the South Pacific at the time.
The man is a weasel and a hypocrite. He’s mouthed concerns about the Iraqi occupation but voted in line with the Bushies.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:37 pmApparently Sen. Smith forgot he was one of the people who condemned Lott at the time and called for his resignation as majority leader. Oh my, how time flies when you are being sentimental.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:37 pmComment by bilbobaggins — December 20, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
I have news for you Captain - no one cares what you think. Why not go over to Redstate.com and join your brethren. They will compliment you and meet your need to be wanted.
Nah, he won’t do that. They sent him over here as their “best and brightest” to teach us all a lesson.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:39 pmGood ole Gordon has always said whatever it took to get re-elected, but I agree that he is toast. He has large amounts of money in the bank for his next run at the senate, but the people of Oregon (I am one) have had enough of this Bush supporter. He only voted against Bush when he saw the people of Oregon were up in arms and ready to secede due to Bushie and his incompetent appointees. If re-elected, Gordon will go back to being the good Bush conservative he has always been.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:40 pm“the Oregonian, sharply criticized the senator…”
Sharply? Oh puh-leeze, tongues may be stuck out at each other. Rude gestures could be made. Mildly harsh language may be employed.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:45 pmProgressives have a great record when it comes to race, but if your going to try to paint conservatives as racists, better have your own house in order.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
You’re on the wrong thread, idiot. This is about Gordon Smith, the Oregon Senator who is decidedly White.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:45 pmCappy, hop back over to the Thomas thread and answer my challenge on #202.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:49 pmAll I’ve got to say is, thank goodness Larry Craig is keeping his yap shut.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:50 pmI still find it amazing that out here on the CIVILIZED west coast we still get pockets of NEANDERTHALS.
Seattle, enjoying our mostly Republican Free Zone and most of the republicans I know here want Bush and Cheney impeached also.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
December 20th, 2007 at 5:58 pm“But I don’t think you’re an idiot.”
Comment by CaptainMantastic
There is no reason you should.
We, on the other, do consider you for a pretend idiot.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:00 pmSo how do you read this (in the context of Lott’s comments at the Strom Thurmond retirement) and conclude this thread doesn’t pertain to race and racism?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Because you immediately started blabbing about Clarence Thomas?
The thread pertains to Smith’s hypocrisy and only tangentially to racism — Strom Thurmond’s and Trent Lott’s. Clarence Thomas has nothing to do with it, nor do “progressives.”
That’s why I called you an idiot.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:03 pmAs disgusting as these self-serving mutual admiration society members may be, focus! Iraq war; tax shift from rich to poor; uninsured children; shredded constitution, etc.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:19 pmWhat’s sad is to see the Black Soldiers who are dying for the United States of America, without knowing this is how the Law Makers really feel about them. When will our country respect all Americans and not just use some Americans when they need help, but never giving them equal rights. With comments like that the world knows we have serious problems right here in the US.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:26 pmHere are some of the “racist” quotes that Cap’n Masturbastic compiled from the last thread:
‘Progressive’ racists quotes just from this thread: 6 (and counting)
Otherwise, smoke some crack and get on with your REAL life!
Comment by DieNowForPeace — December 20, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Maybe you can find a nice quiet cabin in the woods to park your motorhome, Uncle Thomas…
Comment by Nevar — December 20, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
He would rather be dominating people, raping women, and stealing.
Comment by Namtillaku — December 20, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
and more:
“He’s just bitter because he knows he got the job as a quota, plain and simple;â€
“If you were incompetent and unsuited for your job, you would hate it, too. He, like all Uncle Toms, is quite pitiful. â€
“who accurately view him only as an ignorant pawnâ€
Only one of those — the “Uncle Thomas” quote could be accurately described as “racist”.
The “smoke some crack” is offensive and uses “code words” familiar to racists, sure. Trolls are frequently accused of smoking crack, but in a thread about a black Justice, its racial implication is clear.
But the rest are simply criticisms of action or character. The “raping women” line recalls the charges of sexual harassment that nearly derailed his nomination.
And the “ignorant pawn”? How is that racist? Is the Cap’n saying that “ignorant pawns” are exclusive to the black community? If so, that’s far more racist than anything else posted here today.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:37 pmI apologize.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:42 pmbilbobaggins I hope you are right and gummitch I share your concerns BUT Oregon as well as the entire Pacific NW tends to be racist. As a white person, moving here years ago from another area I was/am offended by the attitudes towards minorities, and also concerned to see how some of the minority folk, which is few, let these people affect them. You do not see proud multi culture groups here as compared to other parts of the country.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:08 pmFor this reason, this latest news on Smith probably will not make a dent in his ratings.
I understand what you’re saying, justasking. There were several comments that were out-of-bounds. But many of these comments that the Cap’n complains about are not racist; they’re just disparaging of a man who happens to be black. The fact that Thomas is seen by many as unqualified for his position, or incurious on the bench, or the author of disgraceful judicial opinions have no impact on the right-wing complainers. To them, if he’s black and a conservative, all criticisms MUST be due to his race.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:13 pmActually, I think this discussion should be about what a weasel Gordon Smith is. This is a guy who magically became critical of the war in Iraq when it became apparent that Oregon voters were going to deep-six him for his tireless support of Bush’s policies. He’s a weasel and a snake.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:29 pmHere is a good one from youtube on Smith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOSnmA7hlyc
December 20th, 2007 at 7:43 pmSmith is a lying two faced shill for corporate interests. I’d vote for a pile of dog poo over him.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:34 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
chuck if you endorse affirmative action then i feel we’re building a bridge here.
(this would a wonderful opportunity for you to apologize.)
December 20th, 2007 at 8:42 pm“He’s just bitter because he knows he got the job as a quota, plain and simple;â€
The implication here is that Thomas only got the job because he is black. Not because he was the most qualified candidate for the job.
If you think about it long enough, you will understand that what you have been saying is racist. Even if that’s not what you intended.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
You mean, if I think about it long enough that my eyes start to get blurry and I get light-headed?
The charge that Thomas only got the position because he is black has a lot of merit. He was replacing the first black Justice in American history. Do you think he was the most capable candidate at the time? If so, why wasn’t he nominated when Bork was voted down?
It’s very likely that Thomas, as a black conservative (not exactly a big group), was just the right guy, in the eyes of the Right, to fill the shoes of Justice Marshall. That’s simple, straightforward analysis. Nothing racist about it. Sure, it acknowledges that there are racial elements to the question. It would be dishonest to deny it. the first black Justice, a legendary liberal force on the bench, was replaced by the second black Justice, an avowed conservative. Is there not a racial element to that transfer?
Again, I say, you must have a different definition of racism than I do. I say racism is the policy of judging a man first, and possibly strictly, by the color of his skin.
How do you define it?
December 20th, 2007 at 8:44 pmHere is a wider angle view which actually points to what’s really going on with Smith and Lott, Gordon Smith, Whoring For Racists.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:52 pmI was doing some research and I stumbled upon a site that caught my eye.It (http://www.naturistspace.org) is for people who enjoy naturist living, skinny dipping,meeting naturists, dating naturists and celebrating the naturist lifestyle.I was wondering if anyone knows more about this I am extremely interested. I would love to check it out and if i hear anymore info ill post it.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:08 pmAs an Oregonian I am proud of one of my senators and deeply ashamed of the other – guess which.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:34 pmHe’s a weasel and a snake.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — December 20, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Kinda ’splains why he’s a GOOPer, huh?
December 20th, 2007 at 10:10 pmI read the editorial and it isn’t that sharp or critical for what Smith said, and yet, not surprised considering the source. The Oregonian didn’t bother to report a racist statement by Smith until this. They have been a support mechanism for this senator all along, an enabler to put it mildly.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:15 pmHe will not return to the senate folks, our apologies and we will vote him out so you he won’t be an embarrassment to our state or this union.
We must now nominate Smith for the KKK, and grand dragon if he is all ready a member.
Bye, bye, Gordie. You can pack up your Senate office. You’re gone in 2008.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:31 amHe’s a weasel and a snake.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — December 20, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Kinda ’splains why he’s a GOOPer, huh?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 20, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
That seems to fit the profile, and unfortunately it fits some of the Democrats currently in Congress right now too.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:59 amGood people on either side of the aisle are damn hard to find right now. Too *%^*&(%)* many Bush lapdogs are still in office and they still roll over on queue like circus dogs.
Gordon Smith is a weasel who changes his tune for political advantage and now is acting as an apologist for Trent Lott’s appeals to racist nostalgia for Jim Crow.
Clarence Thomas was not the best qualified person for the job at the time he was appointed, and he was appointed under pressure to appoint a black justice to replace Thurgood Marshall, a man who towered above Thomas intellectually.
However, the rest of the items cited seem quite racist to me. I count two “Uncle Toms.” “Rapist” historically was the charge most often leveled at black men prior to lynchings and the stereotype of black men as rapists is both a historical and continuing trope of racism. Check out the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens (to whom Lott looked for support until it got too embarrassing) to see the persistence of the trope. Tied to “dominating people” and “stealing” it is even worse. “Crack” has a racial charge. While Thomas was a mediocre appointment, it really isn’t true that he’s a pawn.
These attacks certainly are hypocritical and raise the rather ugly specter of “progressives” who get a secret prurient thrill out of racist expressions.
We can do better.
But Gordon Smith is still a double-faced snake making political hay from being an apolgist for racism.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:23 amGood
December 21st, 2007 at 7:27 amSen Smith’s comments are a reaction a rat would make as he cowers in the corner. He knows the pukes are on their way out and he is screaming to be heard one more time.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:02 am