Helms and "dirty" campaigning
Congratulations to Jesse Helms for claiming two entries among "The 10 Dirtiest Political Races in U.S. History," according to the November issue of Reason, a magazine published by the libertarian Reason Foundation.
David Mark writes about Helms' U.S. Senate campaigns in 1984 and 1990:
"Incumbent Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) sensed early on that the state's moderate Democratic governor, Jim Hunt, posed a strong re-election threat. So Helms started running TV ads attacking Hunt a full 18 months ahead of Election Day, taunting him as a liberal flip-flopper with the tagline, 'Where Do You Stand, Jim?' Hunt fired back with a graphic spot linking Helms to right-wing death squads in El Salvador. Helms squeaked out a narrow victory.
"Six years later, Helms faced architect Harvey Gantt, the first black mayor of Charlotte and a supporter of affirmative action. Helms hit that issue with an ad showing a pair of white hands ripping up a job rejection letter. Once again, Helms won."
In person, Helms was a Southern gentleman, mannerly and soft-spoken. On the floor of the Senate or in committee, he could be combative. At campaign time -- and he won six Senate elections -- he showed a mean streak.
I have no idea whether his 1984 and 1990 contests really belong on anyone's "10 Dirtiest" list. There are just so many political brawls to choose from. But it's a shame that any part of Helms' legacy will be his win-at-all-costs campaigning. It made him a polarizing figure, and it gave the impression that he was satisfied to win the support of the barest majority, and damn the rest, as long as he kept his office. He could and should have done better.
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Jesse Helms was one of the most disgraceful snd ignorant senators this state ever had. I have a letter signed by him in which he stated "no female could become pregnant as a result of rape". This was at the time he did everything in his power to defeat the abortion rights law, which fortunately was passed despite his ignorance.
Posted on October 3, 2006 7:16 PM
As far as I know, Jesse Helms never became a fan of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s.
I don't believe he was crazy about having a holiday to celebrate King's legacy.
I'm not sure if Helms ever made his views about Malcolm X widely known. (I've read a transcript or two from his television commentaries in which he made it clear how negatively he regarded King.)
Helms does appear to have been a proud supporter of the popular notion, "by any means necessary."
Among American citizens and politicians, "by any means necessary" seems a much more accurate reflection of our approach to living than the pursuit of non-violent strategies.
Posted on October 3, 2006 7:42 PM
Clarification: The Doug of the comment above is not me.
Posted on October 3, 2006 8:41 PM
I'd be stunned if the 1950 Willis Smith/Frank Porter Graham race didn't make the list. Helms, as a Willis aide, played a key, and despicable, role in that race as well.
Posted on October 3, 2006 9:44 PM
Consider yourself stunned, Lex. Others on the Reason list:
1800 president race, Jefferson vs. Adams
1884 presidential, Cleveland vs. Blaine
1934 California gubernatorial
1964 presidential, Johnson vs. Goldwater
1968 presidential, Nixon vs. Humphrey
2002 New York 1st congressional
2002 Georgia U.S. Senate, Chambliss vs. Cleland
2004 Texas congressional, Sessions vs. Frost
All very subjective.
Posted on October 3, 2006 9:53 PM
Vernon Robinson had this to say about incumbent Brad Miller ducking a debate with him in the 13th District congressional race: "The guy's a chicken."
I would be much more impressed if Robinson issued this statement: "Just as Jesse Helms behaved cowardly when he refused to debate Harvey Gantt, Brad Miller's a chicken for avoiding a debate with me."
My guess is that Robinson would never issue such a statement, and he probably was at no point concerned or bothered by Helms refusing (in both elections) to debate Gantt.
And if Robinson wins and runs in the next election as an incumbent, I would not be surprised to find him behaving just like Helms and Miller (and others), choosing not to debate his opponent. (The only exception would be if he gauged that his chances of winning would be helped by him participating in a debate. Remember and never forget: "by any means necessary.")
Way too many politicians and citizens find fault with the behaviors of individuals who belong to another political party while turning around to ignore, explain, excuse, and defend the exact same behaviors by members of their own political party.
The funniest thing is when individuals try to suggest that inexcusable behavior only comes from one party.
How can anyone respect such self-chosen blindness?
Posted on October 3, 2006 11:44 PM
My sentiments exactly Mr. Floyd
Posted on October 4, 2006 2:15 PM
Except for enlightening the public on his positions, since he has a sizeable lead already on Robinson, why would Miller want to possibly squander his lead to Robinson by accidentally making a gaff on TV during a debate. He's on easy street.
Miller's playing it smart, "I'm ahead in the polls, Robinson is perceived to be a nut job, why debate him? It would only give him a forum to advance his views at my expense. And what if I debate him and I make a stupid mistake which narrows the race. At this point, no way, the Republicans are self-destructing as a result of Foley, I'm way ahead of this guy, the debate to debate is over."
Miller's playing it smart.
Posted on October 4, 2006 4:44 PM