Politics In Motion and Grains of Salt

Just when one Arkansas Republican Senate hopeful takes himself out by devouring his foot with an insensitive statement, another one puts on a bib and gets ready to chow down. Or was it?

This Curtis Coleman remark, the one about needing a visa and shots to go to southeast Arkansas, has caused a minor stir. I say minor because only one side is doing the stirring. That stirring is making the whole picture look like it's not just being stirred, but it's a-brewin'.

Its an excellent example of how everything viewed in the political light can be potentially beneficial and potentially hazardous. It just depends on which side one looks at it — and exploits it.

I have to admit the first I had heard about the statement was from the Democratic Party of Arkansas, decrying it. The Demozette certainly didn't think much of it, or otherwise they've gotten very bad about burying leads, which I doubt. The Party sent out an email calling it an insult and clamoring for an apology. At the time, I had nothing else to base that information off of, save for the statement itself, and the Democratic response.

So I called Coleman, and talked to him about it. He laughed the whole time, saying that it wasn't necessarily taken out of context, but was intended to denote a great metaphor than it was like a foreign land, traveling from one corner of the state to another. He says it certainly wasn't intended to refer to the southeast corner of the state as a disease-ridden third world country. He then went on about how long he lived in Southeast Arkansas, and how much family he had there, and how his first son was born there, and so on and so forth.

Stripped down: You have statement Y. You have political party, cause, affiliate, whatever X and political party, cause, affiliate, whatever Z. X is going to play Y to its own greatest benefit, same with Z. The variable X and Z are just that: variable, and in this case, to be taken with a large grain of salt.

Democrats, hoping to squash any semblance of a challenger from the GOP for their Sen. Blanche Lincoln, are going to make this sound like the worst thing that they can possibly make it out to be, hopefully derailing Coleman's maybe-campaign. "Outrage!" they cry, and begin to make inferences that maybe just aren't there.

Republicans — and one in particular, Coleman himself — will spin it the other way. A moderate spin would be to say that one who is offended by it, ought not be because that'd just be overly sensitive. The biggest spin, the path Coleman chose, was to say that it meant nothing but heartfelt and wonderful things, metaphors of diversity and such.

The truth is likely in the middle: It was probably not as insensitive as Democrats would let on, but it could be perceived as such, so Coleman probably shouldn't have said it. It's really as simple as that.

All we can do it look at the statements, the facts, and make our judgments. Whether or not someones wants others to agree with our judgments — which is the goals of all politics and especially political campaigns — is up to that deciding entity itself.