The Aug. 6 U.S. Senate Debate -- Score one for Oxford
Well, things didn't start off too well for Mr. Oxford. Ed Bean of the Fulton County Daily Report popped it to him, right between the eyes so to speak, asking Oxford if character and personal life were proper areas of inquiry for someone seeking the seat of U.S. Senator. Mr. Bean continued, asking if Oxford's physical abuse of a spouse revealed "a deeply flawed character."
Oxford lied saying that he, the high and mighty Cliff Oxford, "could have had sealed the 504 pages" that comprised his divorce file. What a lie!! What a damn lie!! What an unadulterated attempt to deceive the public.
Continuing with his lie, his bald-faced lie, and appearing very forthright in stating the lie, he said rather than having the 504 pages of his divorce file sealed as he could have done so no one would have been able to see it, he opted to make it public and even furnished it to reporters. And yes, he thinks character is important, and his opting to make his 504 page divorce file public shows his character.
Folks, for us lawyers, it was throw up time. By this time we were looking around the room for a shovel. We were 6 feet in it and rising.
And not only did he opt to allow the public to have access to his divorce file he said, but after qualifying, he and his latest ex arranged for an interview in which the interviewer was able to ask any and all questions imaginable. Resulting, Oxford adds, in his being the "most investigated candidate" in Georgia history.
What Oxford did not say during this August 6 debate, and something that I am sure burned the collective ears of the ajc -- including the interviewer Jim Galloway -- was that after himself requesting the interview with the ajc, Oxford and his staff sent hate mail to the ajc about the ajc's writeup of the interview. Oxford, have you no personal pride?
The rest of the debate was same-o same-o questions and responses of the past two televised debates, with Oxford kicking poor ole Majette at every turn and her responding with more canned and unresponsive answers than debating rules ought to allow.
Majette started out in the hole and never looked any better.
Ajc's Jane Hansen started out the debate by popping Majette with her own right tween the eyes question. Why did you leave your Congressonal seat for an uphill battle for the U.S. Senate; what do you say to many of your constituents who are mad at you and blame you for Cynthia McKinney returning to Washington; etc.
Majette might have well just passed. It would have been a better response.
And yes, she even played the race card again, trying to make the public believe that Oxford's lack of interest in public affairs that is demonstrated by his failure to vote is related to why we should vote for her because she is an African American female (I will spare you the dots).
In summary, let's just settle for saying Majette did not instill confidence during the debate.
The highlight of the debate as far as yours truly was concerned was when Oxford told Majette that, based on her voting against the supplemental budget in connection with funding for our troops in Iraq, "the Republicans will open you up like a soft peanut on this," resulting in your getting only 25% of the vote in November if you win the runoff.
Open you up like a soft peanut? Is this the same as a boiled peanut? I don't know, but it made me think of what I wrote about Oxford earlier on my website when I said:
"Oxford is a fraud, and should not be in this race. He is one of the most egotistical and selfish people I know for having disregarded his children’s sensibilities and willingly exposing them to his baggage involving their mother and risking his own reputation by running, these being the very reasons he gave for not running when he announced that he was not getting into the race. When this thing is over -- assuming he makes the runoff and somehow survives that -- there will not be a grease spot left of the man."
OK, I admit, a soft peanut is not greasy, but his soft peanut bit still made me think of this.
And of course it goes without saying that following Oxford's comment about Majette getting opened up like a soft peanut for not voting for the supplemental budget that included funding for our troops in Iraq, she did not make the obvious rebuttal. Mr. Oxford, had you been in Washington Sir, based on everything that you have said during this whole campaign about wasted dollars being spent in Iraq, you would not have voted for it either.
But overall Majette was pitiful and Oxford ate her for dinner (or supper as many in South Georgia call the evening meal).
It was apparent that his handlers had been hard at work smoothing some of his rough edges and providing some good comeback answers (this comment disregards Oxford's ever present 5:00 o'clock shadow that has been his trademark throughout this campaign and that apparently he or his campaign staff think appeals to opposite gender -- go figure).
When he didn't like Majette's same response to his same question from the prior two televised debates about her having taken a $16,000 lobbyist paid trip to India, he accused of telling a whopper (not a lie mind you).
And when Majette asked him again why he didn't vote in this year and that year -- again the same question from the last two debates -- he gave his same "I made a mistake" answer "just as I have explained during the last two debates," and that "I made a mistake" is something you folks from Washington don't know how to say. He made some hay in his response, no doubt leading many to think, why did she go back there.
But this time in rebuttal Majette did not start chasing a rabbit by denying that she was from Washington, and tracing her lineage and where she had lived when.
Rather she said if Oxford had taken the time to vote in 2000, then Gore might have been elected President rather than Bush. Now run that by me one more time Congresswoman.
But being that Oxford said hey, didn't you hear my pat "I made a mistake" response to your question, I must share something. Prior to the two debates that Oxford truthfully stated he had given his "I made a mistake" response, all of the candidates were at GABEO in Savannah on June 26. And yes, this was the same event when Oxford said in his closing remarks: “I want to take the Republican Party on on family values,” and I thought, spare us O.J., charity begins at home (and I returned home and on that day started the recent quotables section on my website).
At this same meeting former Savannah Alderman David Jones asks Oxford why he has not voted in years, thus contributing to the defeat of Barnes, Cleland and Gore (and for the record, the non-voting issue was first reported by ajc's Ben Smith and not the Majette campaign).
Oxford’s response: “I didn’t have time to vote. I was building my multi-million dollar business.”
This prompted my writing on my website: "When confronted recently in Savannah about not having voted in the past several elections, his response was a pitiful “I was too busy to vote.” He should have been honest and said, I am truly embarrassed; there is no excuse for this, and it will never happen again."
Our next public appearance as candidates was at the Georgia Municipal Association debate, and when asked about his not voting, he responded: "I am going to have to take my medicine on that one." Does Oxford read my website? Yeah, everyday (he has told me; I wish more voters had). Would he have changed his response without my berating him? Yeah, his first answer was dumb as it caught him unprepared. Changing was a no-brainer.
Important? No, but I am just letting you know that his pat answer has not always been his pat answer.
One more note of "what could have been" and I stop. I concluded my write-up of the Susan Hoffman PBS meeting of these two candidates' get-together on Friday, July 30, by saying:
"In summary, you didn't miss much. Ms. Hoffman spared Oxford of having to explain the Carter 'switch' that was noted by Ben Smith in the ajc this week. But it will come up during the debate next week, I feel certain."
Well, as usual, I was wrong again. Majette's staff reads my website everyday just as Oxford himself does. My conclusion was a hint to Majette, a big hint.
On July 29 Ben Smith of the ajc had reported "Cliff Oxford has frequently noted that he was encouraged to run for the U.S. Senate by former President Jimmy Carter. But Carter's son Chip, once an adviser to Oxford, has jumped to his opponent [Majette's] side."
In writing up this switch on my website on July 29, I noted:
"Jen [Brock] of the blog Good Intentions [in commenting on the switch]said: 'I suspect something is soon to hit the fan and Carter doesn't want to be tainted with its stench.' "
Sid responded: "This isn't the case Jen -- no more is coming than I have previously told you would come. . . . Pres. Carter is a good and honorable man, and it was dishonest for Oxford to repeat over and over on the campaign trail that Pres. Carter had endorsed him. He never did, and only on July 11 (the WSB Debate No. 3) did Oxford cease publicly using Pres. Carter's name."
Oh well, the debates are over, and Mr. Oxford was spared the task of telling us about "the" switch by President Carter's son Chip. I know he must have been ready to address the topic during the debate, and I for one would have liked to have heard his explanation.
(Hopefully his explanation would have been better than that of his Press Secretary. "Oxford spokesman Kevin Griffis called Chip Carter's endorsement of Majette 'surprising, since he's been a supporter [of Oxford] as well as a paid adviser.'" Sid noted on his website: "Smart comment Kevin, a real stroke of genius. Did you mean to belittle Mr. [Kevin] Carter or further the campaign of Oxford?")
I would hope that Ms. Majette would have been prepared for any rebuttal. For the life of me I cannot understand why this was not brought up. It could have become the headline of the debate. Did I hear someone say something about spilt milk? OK, I hear you, and will move on and conclude this post.
It is painful for me as a "born a Democrat and will die a Democrat" to recognize that this is where we Democrats -- truly the Party of the People -- are on the weekend before the runoff election. I know many of you share the same feeling. But I will keep the faith. I am wounded but not dead. I'll lay me down and bleed awhile, then rise and fight again. And I know you will keep the faith; let's all carry on, united and acting as if we are proud.
And please, do the Party a favor and help it save face. Vote for Majette on Tuesday.
Oxford lied saying that he, the high and mighty Cliff Oxford, "could have had sealed the 504 pages" that comprised his divorce file. What a lie!! What a damn lie!! What an unadulterated attempt to deceive the public.
Continuing with his lie, his bald-faced lie, and appearing very forthright in stating the lie, he said rather than having the 504 pages of his divorce file sealed as he could have done so no one would have been able to see it, he opted to make it public and even furnished it to reporters. And yes, he thinks character is important, and his opting to make his 504 page divorce file public shows his character.
Folks, for us lawyers, it was throw up time. By this time we were looking around the room for a shovel. We were 6 feet in it and rising.
And not only did he opt to allow the public to have access to his divorce file he said, but after qualifying, he and his latest ex arranged for an interview in which the interviewer was able to ask any and all questions imaginable. Resulting, Oxford adds, in his being the "most investigated candidate" in Georgia history.
What Oxford did not say during this August 6 debate, and something that I am sure burned the collective ears of the ajc -- including the interviewer Jim Galloway -- was that after himself requesting the interview with the ajc, Oxford and his staff sent hate mail to the ajc about the ajc's writeup of the interview. Oxford, have you no personal pride?
The rest of the debate was same-o same-o questions and responses of the past two televised debates, with Oxford kicking poor ole Majette at every turn and her responding with more canned and unresponsive answers than debating rules ought to allow.
Majette started out in the hole and never looked any better.
Ajc's Jane Hansen started out the debate by popping Majette with her own right tween the eyes question. Why did you leave your Congressonal seat for an uphill battle for the U.S. Senate; what do you say to many of your constituents who are mad at you and blame you for Cynthia McKinney returning to Washington; etc.
Majette might have well just passed. It would have been a better response.
And yes, she even played the race card again, trying to make the public believe that Oxford's lack of interest in public affairs that is demonstrated by his failure to vote is related to why we should vote for her because she is an African American female (I will spare you the dots).
In summary, let's just settle for saying Majette did not instill confidence during the debate.
The highlight of the debate as far as yours truly was concerned was when Oxford told Majette that, based on her voting against the supplemental budget in connection with funding for our troops in Iraq, "the Republicans will open you up like a soft peanut on this," resulting in your getting only 25% of the vote in November if you win the runoff.
Open you up like a soft peanut? Is this the same as a boiled peanut? I don't know, but it made me think of what I wrote about Oxford earlier on my website when I said:
"Oxford is a fraud, and should not be in this race. He is one of the most egotistical and selfish people I know for having disregarded his children’s sensibilities and willingly exposing them to his baggage involving their mother and risking his own reputation by running, these being the very reasons he gave for not running when he announced that he was not getting into the race. When this thing is over -- assuming he makes the runoff and somehow survives that -- there will not be a grease spot left of the man."
OK, I admit, a soft peanut is not greasy, but his soft peanut bit still made me think of this.
And of course it goes without saying that following Oxford's comment about Majette getting opened up like a soft peanut for not voting for the supplemental budget that included funding for our troops in Iraq, she did not make the obvious rebuttal. Mr. Oxford, had you been in Washington Sir, based on everything that you have said during this whole campaign about wasted dollars being spent in Iraq, you would not have voted for it either.
But overall Majette was pitiful and Oxford ate her for dinner (or supper as many in South Georgia call the evening meal).
It was apparent that his handlers had been hard at work smoothing some of his rough edges and providing some good comeback answers (this comment disregards Oxford's ever present 5:00 o'clock shadow that has been his trademark throughout this campaign and that apparently he or his campaign staff think appeals to opposite gender -- go figure).
When he didn't like Majette's same response to his same question from the prior two televised debates about her having taken a $16,000 lobbyist paid trip to India, he accused of telling a whopper (not a lie mind you).
And when Majette asked him again why he didn't vote in this year and that year -- again the same question from the last two debates -- he gave his same "I made a mistake" answer "just as I have explained during the last two debates," and that "I made a mistake" is something you folks from Washington don't know how to say. He made some hay in his response, no doubt leading many to think, why did she go back there.
But this time in rebuttal Majette did not start chasing a rabbit by denying that she was from Washington, and tracing her lineage and where she had lived when.
Rather she said if Oxford had taken the time to vote in 2000, then Gore might have been elected President rather than Bush. Now run that by me one more time Congresswoman.
But being that Oxford said hey, didn't you hear my pat "I made a mistake" response to your question, I must share something. Prior to the two debates that Oxford truthfully stated he had given his "I made a mistake" response, all of the candidates were at GABEO in Savannah on June 26. And yes, this was the same event when Oxford said in his closing remarks: “I want to take the Republican Party on on family values,” and I thought, spare us O.J., charity begins at home (and I returned home and on that day started the recent quotables section on my website).
At this same meeting former Savannah Alderman David Jones asks Oxford why he has not voted in years, thus contributing to the defeat of Barnes, Cleland and Gore (and for the record, the non-voting issue was first reported by ajc's Ben Smith and not the Majette campaign).
Oxford’s response: “I didn’t have time to vote. I was building my multi-million dollar business.”
This prompted my writing on my website: "When confronted recently in Savannah about not having voted in the past several elections, his response was a pitiful “I was too busy to vote.” He should have been honest and said, I am truly embarrassed; there is no excuse for this, and it will never happen again."
Our next public appearance as candidates was at the Georgia Municipal Association debate, and when asked about his not voting, he responded: "I am going to have to take my medicine on that one." Does Oxford read my website? Yeah, everyday (he has told me; I wish more voters had). Would he have changed his response without my berating him? Yeah, his first answer was dumb as it caught him unprepared. Changing was a no-brainer.
Important? No, but I am just letting you know that his pat answer has not always been his pat answer.
One more note of "what could have been" and I stop. I concluded my write-up of the Susan Hoffman PBS meeting of these two candidates' get-together on Friday, July 30, by saying:
"In summary, you didn't miss much. Ms. Hoffman spared Oxford of having to explain the Carter 'switch' that was noted by Ben Smith in the ajc this week. But it will come up during the debate next week, I feel certain."
Well, as usual, I was wrong again. Majette's staff reads my website everyday just as Oxford himself does. My conclusion was a hint to Majette, a big hint.
On July 29 Ben Smith of the ajc had reported "Cliff Oxford has frequently noted that he was encouraged to run for the U.S. Senate by former President Jimmy Carter. But Carter's son Chip, once an adviser to Oxford, has jumped to his opponent [Majette's] side."
In writing up this switch on my website on July 29, I noted:
"Jen [Brock] of the blog Good Intentions [in commenting on the switch]said: 'I suspect something is soon to hit the fan and Carter doesn't want to be tainted with its stench.' "
Sid responded: "This isn't the case Jen -- no more is coming than I have previously told you would come. . . . Pres. Carter is a good and honorable man, and it was dishonest for Oxford to repeat over and over on the campaign trail that Pres. Carter had endorsed him. He never did, and only on July 11 (the WSB Debate No. 3) did Oxford cease publicly using Pres. Carter's name."
Oh well, the debates are over, and Mr. Oxford was spared the task of telling us about "the" switch by President Carter's son Chip. I know he must have been ready to address the topic during the debate, and I for one would have liked to have heard his explanation.
(Hopefully his explanation would have been better than that of his Press Secretary. "Oxford spokesman Kevin Griffis called Chip Carter's endorsement of Majette 'surprising, since he's been a supporter [of Oxford] as well as a paid adviser.'" Sid noted on his website: "Smart comment Kevin, a real stroke of genius. Did you mean to belittle Mr. [Kevin] Carter or further the campaign of Oxford?")
I would hope that Ms. Majette would have been prepared for any rebuttal. For the life of me I cannot understand why this was not brought up. It could have become the headline of the debate. Did I hear someone say something about spilt milk? OK, I hear you, and will move on and conclude this post.
It is painful for me as a "born a Democrat and will die a Democrat" to recognize that this is where we Democrats -- truly the Party of the People -- are on the weekend before the runoff election. I know many of you share the same feeling. But I will keep the faith. I am wounded but not dead. I'll lay me down and bleed awhile, then rise and fight again. And I know you will keep the faith; let's all carry on, united and acting as if we are proud.
And please, do the Party a favor and help it save face. Vote for Majette on Tuesday.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 8:06 PM
1 Comments:
sid, i think you're right on - i heard some of cliff's staffers are jumping ship and looking for other jobs.
Post a Comment
<< Home