Over at Politico's Arena, former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith has decided to go on the warpath against Daily Kos contributing editor Greg Dworkin. (As you may know, I'm also a Daily Kos contributing editor, although I haven't communicated with Greg about this post.)
It all started when Greg said he hoped to see people working together to solve problems after eight long years of Bush:
I agree with (fellow Nutmegger) Mickey Carroll and look forward to having some of the hyper-partisanship fade away. Since much of it was in reaction to Bush and Rove's strategy of running a country as if only their base counted, Obama's approach should not elicit an 'equal and opposite reaction'. If it does, it will be dismissed as 'politics as usual', a lesson I suspect his political foes will need to learn the hard way.
Out of nowhere, Smith then offered this screed:
Is it not at least a little unseemly to have a contributing editor to one of the most visciously partisan sites on the web discussing how much he looks forward to a fading away of "hyper-partisanship," now that his preferred candidate is in office? Should not pleas for lowering the tone come from those with a shred of credibility on the issue - like almost anyone else here at the Forum?
Later, Smith added:
Repairing the tone of our politics begins, for those who are contributing editors at the Daily Kos, at home. I hope Greg will take on that role.
So apparently Bradley Smith has annointed himself the "tone" police, and the aribiter of who does and who does not have credibility on political issues.
So given his self-appointed status, just who is Bradley Smith? From his Politico bio:
Bradley A. Smith is Professor of Law at Capital University Law School.
He is one of the nation's leading authorities on Election Law and Campaign Finance. In 2000 he was nominated by President Clinton to fill a Republican-designated seat on the Federal Election Commission, where he served for five years, including serving as Chairman of the Commission in 2004.
Wow. He must be one of those moderate Republicans -- even President Clinton liked him enough to appoint him to the FEC, right? Just like William Cohen.
I mean, isn't that the clear implication of touting his appointment by Clinton in his biography?
But let's take a look at the actual record. As it turns out, Bradley Smith was in fact appointed by Clinton. That much is accurate. But it's not the whole truth.
Clinton didn't appoint Bradley Smith because he thought he was a good candidate for the FEC -- he appointed Bradley Smith because Republicans wanted him on the FEC.
President Clinton nominated Mr. Smith as a concession to Republicans to advance his judicial nominees, who have not been confirmed. Mr. Gore said Mr. Smith is ''unfit for the office'' to which the president nominated him because ''he is completely and totally opposed to the campaign finance laws'' that he would be required to uphold.
This evening, a White House spokesman said: ''We don't disagree with the vice president's criticism of Mr. Smith's views. However, this is traditionally a Republican spot on the F.E.C., and this is who the Republicans have chosen to reflect their point of view on that panel."
In fact, Clinton took the unusual move of saying his own appointment should be condemned:
Q. Both Senator Bradley and Vice President Gore have condemned your nomination of Bradley Smith to the F.E.C. Would you care to take this opportunity to explain exactly why you've nominated this man, and, to say what exactly this says about your own commitment to the campaign financial reform that you have said you support?
A. Well, it doesn't say anything about my commitment although I think they were, they were right to condemn it, except that, look at what the law says, the law says: A. This is a Republican appointment and B. is a practical matter. The way the appointments process works in the Senate, if you want anybody to be confirmed for anything, you have to take, and -- and the Republicans in this case happen to be in the majority, the majority leader always makes that recommendation. Now I have, I argued with him as he will tell you for months about this. And there's a reason they wanted Bradley Smith on the F.E.C. You know he -- he hates campaign finance reform. Bradley Smith does. He's written about it. And he'll get a three-year appointment now where he'll be one person on the F.E.C. and I don't like it, but I -- but I decided that I should not shut down the whole appointments process and depart from the plain intent of the law, which requires that it be bipartisan and by all tradition that the majority leader make the nomination. . . .
So it turns out that Bradley Smith is just another right-wing extremist masquerading as a moderate, telling progressives what they should and shouldn't say.
But the truth is that if Smith himself wants any credibility on this topic, he needs to start by being more honest about his own past. To say that he was appointed by President Clinton is literally true, but to fail to note that Clinton condemned Smith is a lie by omission.
© Jed Lewison