Thursday, September 24, 2009
Politics / Woods Did Gordon Accuse His Constituents of Racism? He Clarifies His Remarks
Posted by Jeff Woods on Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Only hours after the story hit the Internet, Republicans pounced. Rutherford County GOP chair Lou Ann Zelenik, who's thinking about challenging Gordon in the 2010 election, declared the congressman had just accused his constituents of racism. And if he didn't do that, then he called them ignorant hillbillies who won't vote for a sophisticated candidate. One or the other. From the press release:
"These statements are appalling," Zelenik said. "When you have spent 25 years in Washington and cannot find the time during a 30-day recess to visit the 15 counties you represent, I suppose you start to think we can't understand 'urbane.' Tennesseans know bad policy when they see it. That's why Obama lost and that is why Tennesseans understand that Gordon is out of touch with the district."State GOP chair Chris Devaney has just joined in the fun:Addressing Gordon's charge of racism, Zelenik said, "I cannot imagine what would lead a congressman to insult his constituents in this manner. The idea that Tennesseans vote based on race is a suggestion I reject entirely. ... He should immediately explain his remarks and apologize to the people of Tennessee."
"The citizens of Rep. Bart Gordon's district have every right to be angry about his comments," said Devaney. "His insinuation that 6th district constituents voted a certain way because of race or because they couldn't comprehend an 'urbane' candidate is an insult to those he was elected to represent."In response, Gordon is sorta clarifying what he told The Hill newspaper. Gordon was backed into a corner by a crafty reporter, says the congressman's chief of staff, Kent Siler.
"He was asked, 'Can you say racism had absolutely nothing to do with the way that they voted?' Who can say that as an absolute? Whether you're talking about white voters, black voters or brown voters, how can you say that race played no role in anyone's decision?'"
And now, dear Pith reader, the moral of this sad little tale: A politician can't lapse even into a quick moment of candor without somebody whopping him upside the head. Of course, racism played a role in the shellacking Obama took in Tennessee. Everybody knows that. Too bad our political leaders can't talk honestly with us about it. Until that happens, we'll never come to grips with it. Here also for your reading pleasure is the official statement from Gordon's office:
Congressman Gordon was asked by a reporter if racism was the reason Barack Obama did not do well in Tennessee. Gordon responded by stating no. He went on to say that Obama did poorly because he did not campaign in Tennessee and was a candidate from a large urban area with whom many Tennessee voters could not relate. This judgment was based on 30 years on voting history in Tennessee. Democrats like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton who were from rural areas were able to do well, while urban Democrats like Michael Dukakis and John Kerry did poorly.Update: Chip Forrester defends Gordon.
Comments (9)
Showing 1-9 of 9
If the Republicans honestly think the issue of race did not factor into the elections (and by that I mean race issues from all sides and colors) then they are the ones defining themselves as ignorant hillbillies.
It's absolutely ridiculous to pretend like race issues are still alive today. That being said, I'm sure policy issues were also a factor for many people, but don't act like race wasn't a concern for some.
As a secretary said in my office, "I'll never vote for a black man to be president."
like
dislike
"If the Republicans honestly think the issue of race did not factor into the elections (and by that I mean race issues from all sides and colors) then they are the ones defining themselves as ignorant hillbillies."
Don't kid yourself, they know it. They're just trying to obtain political traction from Gordon speaking the truth. This is why politicians parse everything, because the minute they tell you what they really think, this happens. You won't see Gordon doing that again.
"'These statements are appalling.'"
Another example of Republicans turning up the hyperbole. Gordon says what everybody knows, that Obama's race was, and continues to be, a factor in SOME of his opposition. And how is this appalling? I wonder what Zelenik thinks about some of the signs at the tea-bagger events that are clearly racist. Something tells me she doesn't think they are appalling.
Oh, and I forgot this gem: "The idea that Tennesseans vote based on race is a suggestion I reject entirely."
Can a person really say this with a straight face? I live in "progressive" Nashville and I have heard people that I personally know say disparaging things about Obama's race.
Mr. Woods,
If one assumes that Republicans voted for the Republican candidte, then where did McCain's margin come from?
New voters? Since Obama ran well in high growth areas like Williamson County and Rutherford County, one might think not.
So what is left?
Check out the percentages from the 2008 Democratic primary sometime. In the Democratic primary traditionally Repiublican counties usually went for Clinton by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1. But some other counties went by 5to 1 and higher.
So if you are going to suggest that racism was a factor, check out the voting patterns. You might be enlightened.
As for hyperbole, you and Pith have been tossing the racism charge at Republicans and anyone else you dislike for years. One assumes that this beats actually making a serious argument. Having made a career crying wolf, it is not surprising that you are cynical when someone else hears growling.
Rodgers, you're making an assumption that exposes your bias. You're implying that factoring in race bias automatically makes for a non "serious argument."
I just wonder why some White folks loose their minds if you mention the R word, like it's completely impossible for anyone to consider race in making decisions.
Unless of course it's a Black person voting for a Black elected official.
Mr.Rogers, you don´t need to be so defensive. No one is suggesting that all Republicans are racists. Certainly, many that don´t like Obama don´t like him for political reasons. But you´re living in a parallel universe if you don´t think race continues to play a role. Even among some who would not have voted for Obama had he been white, his race made them angrier. I have heard it from several people and a quick glance at some of the signs at these rallies also calls into question your assertion that race isn´t a big deal here. You should be angry at those in your own party who bring embarrassment down on the entire movement, not ¨the liberal media.¨
MM,
Where did I say that?
I posed a question about where Mr. Woods thought the McCain majority came from. Republicans? Independents? Democrats?
I further noted that it was odd that Pith has an unhappy habit for accusing others of racism when it suits their ideological or political goals. Go back and look at their coverage of the rezoning controversy.
No reasonable person believes that race is not an issue. In some cases it is a major issue. I don't Congresman Gordon is a racist or was playing the race card or anything like that. But Pith would never give a Republican or a Conservative the same consideration, even if they had no previous grounds for making the charge.
You do know what the word implies means don't you?
What was wrong with Woods coverage of zoning? Whether or not he was wrong will be outed in Court, won't it? I mean on one side, you have several people testifying and the law saying race only need be a factor, and on the other side, you have low rung politicians saying "Uh-uhhhh!"
It doesn't matter whether he was right or wrong. Rule #1 - don't bash your constituents. It's bad enough being a Democrat in the South. Look for his constituents to direct their "populist" anger at him in the coming weeks.
For the record, I hope I'm wrong.
http://tomoveanation.com
