Subscribe Register Login
Wednesday, May 23, 2018, 3:55 p.m.


Top Picks - Mobile App

The Smear Cotton project

By Bradley R. Gitz

This article was published August 4, 2014 at 3:25 a.m.

Liberals are clearly rattled by Tom Cotton. Not because of his allegedly extremist views, but because of what his election in November could do to what's left of Barack Obama's presidency.

As everyone by now knows, the outcome of Cotton's race against Mark Pryor might determine whether Republicans gain control of the Senate. GOP majorities in both chambers of Congress would essentially halt Obama's efforts to "transform" America in the direction which left-wingers so fervently desire; hence the need to save Pryor's seat with what appears to be a well-coordinated, three-prong strategy.

The first and most obvious prong is to paint Cotton as a fanatic and ideologue, such that orders have apparently been issued to all liberal mouthpieces that the word "extremist" must precede any mention of his name. Cotton is therefore being depicted as too far right even for Arkansas, which leans further right than most states in a supposedly center-right nation.

What is so scary about Cotton's views--which seem fairly stock-issue conservative on matters economic, cultural and international--isn't all that clear, but the hope is that if you say "extremist" over and over again, and distort, caricature, and take enough out of context it might stick anyway. Campaign strategy 101: If you're stuck defending a dud, make an issue of the other guy.

Closely related to this is prong two, which is to try to repackage Pryor as a pragmatic "moderate" rather than the rote liberal his voting record suggests.

Prongs one and two, taken together, thereby reveal some interesting liberal assumptions, including that all conservatives are extremists and all extremists must be conservatives. Liberals like Pryor, on the other hand, are only "pragmatic moderates" occupying the middle of the ideological playing field and whose efforts at compromise are being persistently obstructed by the conservative extremists (like Cotton).

Thus, crucial to the repackaging of Pryor is the idea that someone who has sided with Obama and Harry Reid on just about everything and who has a dismal lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union of 19.8 percent isn't really a liberal at all because Obama and Reid really aren't liberals either, all appearances to the contrary.

Again, only conservatism can be ideological, liberalism is just plain common sense. If you rig the game at the outset by equating conservative with extremism and liberal with reasonable moderation, you get Cotton the extremist and Pryor and Obama the reasonable moderates. Neat how that comes out, isn't it?

The third and final prong embedded in liberal talking points is to pretend that the race is only about us simple country folk here in Arkansas rather than who ends up controlling the Senate in Washington, that it is who shows up at tomato festivals and opossum dinners rather than actual Senate votes that matters.

In other words, the liberal spin machine doesn't want to talk about how Pryor has faithfully served the Obama administration for the past six years, and is eager to continue serving if given the opportunity. They bemoan the "nationalization" of the race despite its national implications because they know that Pryor loses on that basis. In time-honored Democratic fashion, they want to sharply, if illogically, delink Arkansas Democrats like Pryor from the national Democrats like Obama, Reid, and Nancy Pelosi from whom they get their daily marching orders.

After all, voting liberal in Washington and then coming home at election time and pretending to be a moderate (or even a conservative of some sort!) is the standard survival technique for Arkansas Democrats. It will, accordingly, be amusing to count the times Pryor mentions his boss in his stump speeches or even allows a glimpse of him in his television commercials, even though it will be Obama's agenda that Pryor will be supporting if re-elected.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and liberals know that Pryor is an unusually vulnerable incumbent (that Obamacare vote!!) and that Arkansas went for John McCain by 19 percentage points in 2008 and for Mitt Romney by 24 percentage points in 2012.

In the end, then, the Pryor strategy involves a bet on the gullibility and ignorance of Arkansas voters, because it seeks to fool them regarding the consequences of their votes. More precisely, they seek to somehow convince lots of Arkansans who otherwise abhor everything Obama stands for to send back to the Senate someone who will faithfully do his bidding.

They also wish us to ignore the possibility that a Cotton victory might allow the Republican Party and its conservative values to take the Senate away from the Democrats and their liberal values, with all that that entails for the Obama administration's liberal agenda.

Arkansas liberals know that all of this is true, which is precisely why they don't want most Arkansas voters to know it, too. They know that the issue ultimately isn't Cotton or Pryor, but Obama, because a vote for Pryor is essentially the same as a vote for Obama. No more, no less.

So it all comes down to sending to Washington someone who will either oppose or support Obama; doesn't it? And how many Arkansans at this point support Obama? And are willing to vote for Pryor to prove it?


Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.

Editorial on 08/04/2014

Print Headline: The Smear Cotton project


Comments on: The Smear Cotton project

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

Subscribe Register Login

You must login to make comments.

Displaying 1 - 10 of 28 total comments

Jump to last page >>

CPLK9 says... August 4, 2014 at 5:52 a.m.

" . . . a bet on the gullibility and ignorance of Arkansas voters, because it seeks to fool them regarding the consequences of their votes. . . " = Burying the lede and projection. Yet another in a LONG list of examples why I won't line my birdcage with the ArDemGaz. Yet another example I will give their telemarketers, when they interrupt my dinner, of why i'd never subscribe. Yet another in a LONG list of Right Wing propaganda busts DESPERATE to cover up "their boy" and his DISASTROUS VOTES for the average Arkansan. (See Also: Farm Bill, VAWA, Paycheck Fairness, FEMA funding post Superstorm Sandy, NSA domestic spying, voting WITH the Socialist (I-VT) Sen. Bernie Sanders on the VA bill), THAT list goes on and on, as well. Keep grasping, desperately, at straws though, my Right Wing friends. A race where the craven, out-of-state-financed, politically ambitious 21 mos. experience 1st term Congressman SHOULD be ahead by 20 points by now. SHOULD be pulling away what with that "Socialist" "Economy Destroying" "Obamacare", Right? And yet, somehow, he ain't. Despite ALL that money and ALL those commercials and ALL that invective directed at a President who isn't running for A THING. 92 more days, We, the People . . . 92 more days of this RIDICULOUSNESS from both (R)Cong. Cotton and (R)ArDemGaz.

( | suggest removal )

paladin123p06130833 says... August 4, 2014 at 7:41 a.m.

Take Mr. Gitz like you would take a sip of water from Lake Erie.

( | suggest removal )

Populist says... August 4, 2014 at 7:48 a.m.

It's not just the liberals who find Cotton nauseating; it's us moderates too. The libertarians in the Republican Party don't like him either. Cotton simply would prefer that we spend more money trying to take part in foreign wars between the Sunnis and the Shiites than we spend any money trying to build a stronger economy at home. He needs to be sent packing.

( | suggest removal )

tinarm says... August 4, 2014 at 8:42 a.m.

I don't believe anyone is saying anything that isn't true. If your idea of a great Senator is a reincarnation of McCarthy and a touch of , well then he's possibly your guy. Check where Tom gets his money, check Tom's voting record, heck check Tom's story of who he is, that's a huge lie as well. I live here right outside of Tom's hometown. Want to know how many signs are up? 1, and that's on a vacant lot. Voting against Vets, voting against Farmers, children and senior citizens. Yea, don't let this liar lie his way into this seat.

( | suggest removal )

3rdWorldState says... August 4, 2014 at 9:39 a.m.

Obama is not liberal. He is a moderate Democrat at best. That's why I know Gitz doesn't know what he is talking about.
I would also remind Gitz that he be careful to demagogue liberals, as Jesus was nothing but a liberal - the "king" of liberals- what apparently Gitz hates, is almost everything Jesus preached. Have fun with conversation at the pearly gates.
U can't just believe in jesus and get in. Everyone knows that.

( | suggest removal )

Barmus says... August 4, 2014 at 9:43 a.m.

In my opinion, Dr. Gitz writes with unusual clarity and perspicacity. To sit in his classes as a student is money well spent.

( | suggest removal )

Dontsufferfools says... August 4, 2014 at 10:03 a.m.

Didn't Cotton just vote to sue Obama for not implementing every aspect of the Affordable Care Act? Sounds like Cotton is a bigger supporter of Obamacare than even Obama.

( | suggest removal )

Populist says... August 4, 2014 at 10:05 a.m.


Are you gunning for an A or what? It's pretty pathetic that Gitz has to have his students defend him.

( | suggest removal )

tinarm says... August 4, 2014 at 10:27 a.m.

Republicans Lie More Than Democrats, Study Finds
According to a new study from the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, Republicans are significantly more likely to lie than Democrats — and the gap is widening as President Barack Obama spends more time in office.

The study examined how Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-check site PolitiFact rated 100 statements involving factual claims from the first four months of President Obama’s second term — 46 of the claims were made by Democrats, and 54 were made by Republicans.

CMPA found that PolitiFact rated 32 percent of the Republican claims as “false” or “pants on fire,” compared to just 11 percent of the Democratic claims. Along the same lines, PolitiFact rated just 11 percent of the Republican statements as “entirely true,” compared to 22 percent of the Democratic statements.

Just 18 percent of the Republican claims were rated as “mostly” or entirely true, compared to 54 percent of the Democratic claims. Conversely, 52 percent of the Republican statements were rated as mostly or entirely false, while just 24 percent of Democratic statements received the same designation.

( | suggest removal )

Click here to make a comment

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.





Top Picks - Mobile App
Arkansas Online