I doubt it.

Years after his death, folks are still tiptoeing around Strom Thurmond. Having lived in South Carolina from 1996-2004, I have had the misfortune to have it all as local news (and to have local feedback on the same).

Smith's comments echo much of what was said in 2002: that Lott's awkward comments were misconstrued as he attempted to praise Thurmond's checkered political past. Its hard to explain: there were many folks in SC that found him repugnant, yet voted for him year after year because brought back money. In the same way, he was powerful and respected within the Republican party, even if those same people found his racial politics abhorrent.

It reinforces my belief that the apologies involved were damage-control and an apology for being stupid. Can you realistically say a Thurmond presidency would have been great, but for that segregation thing? That answer is the same as the answer to the question of whether you can say that Stalin was great, but for the whole Gulag/purge thing. I don't think so.

But back to the point: is this going to be an issue for Smith? Probably not. As a recent immigrant to the state, I've been surprised at how insensitive Oregon (in general) is to race. Not that its racially insensitive per se, but that racial issues don't cause the same resonations and ripples that they cause in other states (like South Carolina, where racial issues (and issues that impact race) are incredibly divisive). In South Carolina, Smith's comments would have been used as a club; in Oregon, it will be a faux pas quickly left behind because, among Oregon's undecided voters, its not going to make the same impact as other messages. Whether this difference is good or bad is unclear: Oregon will never find itself in a four year debate crippling its political process over a flag, but it may not hold someone accountable for being insensitive.

A fascinating example above of two commenters saying the same thing in very (quantitatively) different ways.

It helps, of course, that the Oregonian is firmly lodged in Gordon's pocket. They just love the guy, and love fooling themselves that he's a old-fashioned moderate in the image of Hatfield. The guy is just about as conservative as they get, yet the major media in Oregon continues to sell voters on this delusion that he's a level-headed moderate. As long as that charade continues, he's got nothing to worry about.

Allan writes:
"A fascinating example above of two commenters saying the same thing in very (quantitatively) different ways."
-----

"I doubt it." and "Probably not." are not very quantitatively different. In fact, they are nearly identical comments.

Unless you happened to read all the other stuff too.

Harry, look up "quantitatively". Your interpretation seems different than the norm.

What lw said.

Stepping in doo usually means you didn't spot the danger until it was too late. Then you're left in a pissy mood and looking for like a stick to clean it off with.

I think what happened here was slightly different. More like Smith bopping down the lane, spotting a big horse poo and heading right for it.

do you mean you can't say nigger anymore?
Lets burn all Mark Twains books.
By the way their are now two F words do you know them both, how about the C words?

Sounds alot like socialism to me and I am an african american

Re: The Oregonian's love of Gordon Smith,
The prevailing wisdom applies,

"He who owns the media dictates the discussion!"