I’m not fond of seeing campaign spokesmen attacked — generally, they’re just doing their job and saying what their candidate needs said. But I do like calling the good bits as I see them, and I see that a couple of points go to Kilgore’s press secretary, Tim Murtaugh. (Us Charlottesvillians know Tim for his time as NBC 29‘s Richmond bureau chief.)
In today’s Washington Post, as Commonwealth Watch’s Walt Ball points out, Murtaugh got in this great line:
Tim Kaine is a trial lawyer, well known as a smooth talker. People say he’s Clintonian in his debating style. He’s a master debater, so we’re certainly taking it seriously.
Murtaugh is trying to turn a huge positive for Kaine into a big negative by dropping in some code words — “smooth,” “trial lawyer,” foolishly tying him to the tremendously-popular Clinton and…what’s this? “Master debater?”
*giggle*
I wonder what I.P. Freely would say about this?
Heh. Looks like Michael Shears got punk’d.
Murtaugh managed something similar when talking to Shears a couple of days ago. This one only appeared on the Post‘s little-noticed Virginia Governors Campaign blog: Race to Richmond, which carried this bit about the Kilgore campaign’s reaction to criticism by black Democrats:
“These are card-carrying Democrats. It’s not surprising that they react violently when a Republican shows success in reaching out to the African American community,” he said. “The fact is that Jerry Kilgore’s agenda and positive vision appeals to all Virginians and we’re trying to make that clear.”
Get it? African American? Violent? He’s suggesting the stereotype of blacks as violent, trying to diminish black support for Democrats. This is part of the old Republican line that “if you take out the black vote, Democrats would never win any races.” The underlying assumption of that statement is that blacks don’t really count — and it’s just not fair that they’re allowed to vote.
Two points to Tim Murtaugh.
Update: Check out Lowell Feld’s background on this at Raising Kaine.
That bit about the African Americans is a pretty far stretch. You appear to be accusing Murtaugh of racisism and I don’t think that this ‘evidence’ is really sufficient to support that. This is border-line character assasination without real cause. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Kilgore himself is embarassment enough for Tim Murtaugh. There’s no need to reach for this kind of thing.
Nah, I think Murtaugh is a smart guy. It’s not like “violent” is in any way a reasonable description of the Kaine campaign’s response to Kilgore’s attempt to get blacks to vote for him. That phrase was dropped in there deliberately, as is all wording in such statements.
“The underlying assumption of that statement is that blacks don’t really count — and it’s just not fair that they’re allowed to vote.”
Wow. You’re better than this, Waldo. I’m literally stunned that you’d stoop to such
a level — and that’s a long way for a man of your stature to stoop.
Hopefully a friend will let you know about the poppy seed in your teeth. On this one,
you really could use a clue. Not your best work, big guy.
*Laugh*
“I’m shocked — shocked — that you would acknowledge the existence of racism!”
Publius, this is a long-, widely-discussed topic in politics: why do some Republicans treat “the black vote” as if it’s something fungible, somehow different from “the real vote.” Josh Marshall, in particular, has written a lot [1, 2, 3] about this over the years. Josh writes, better than I:
You never hear Republicans say “without the X vote, Democrats couldn’t win” without “black” being the variable. Why? Because it wouldn’t make sense. “Without the blue-collar vote, Democrats wouldn’t win.” “Without the women vote, Democrats couldn’t win.” “Without the 18-34-year-old vote, Democrats couldn’t win.” Such observations are either stupid or obvious, so nobody makes them. What makes the “black vote” so different? I suspect — as do many others — that it’s because the black vote isn’t the real vote — it’s somehow cheating to get it. The same objections were raised when women got the vote — it would just double the husband’s vote, and that’s hardly fair. There are remain people who believe that to be the case, and that comes from the underlying assumption that women just plain count less.
I’m reminded of several news anchors (all at Fox, IIRC), who said after the London bombings something to the effect of: “Muslims are shocked by this, as are normal Englishmen.” That, of course, can only come from an underlying assumption that Muslims are not “normal” Englishmen, but somehow different.
I’m very comfortable talking about race. I suspect what “stuns” you is such a frank acknowledgment of some people’s unconscious racial assumptions.
“a frank acknowledgment of some people’s unconscious racial assumptions.”
Or rather, some people’s unsupported assumptions of what other people think.