Yawn: Smearing And Sliming Rob Portman Edition

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on August 11, 2009

As is the case with just about any lawyer who runs for office, an effort is made to confuse representation of a particular client by that lawyer–or that lawyer’s firm–with a political endorsement of some kind. This is silly when one considers the various duties of representation a lawyer or his/her law firm may have, but desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess. If all Rob Portman’s opponents have on Rob Portman is that the very large law firm of which he is a part are representing the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in a trade dispute, then Portman ought to skate to victory easily if there is any justice in the world.

Kevin Holtsberry is properly scornful of this line of attack:

. . . Here is my question for the lefties pushing this story: Do you really want to follow this path?

Are you saying that if you work for a firm then any and all cases handled by that firm reflect on you? That this guilt by association should be equally applied to Democratic elected officials and candidates? Are you saying, for example, that anyone Barack Obama worked with or whose issues his firm supported are fair game? Joe Biden? Hillary Clinton? You get the idea.

No, I am pretty sure this is in fact a giant case of hypocrisy. Given that there are a great many law firms and companies that handle cases that cross ideological and party affiliation. Lobbying, consulting and law firms in particular often represent a wide variety of clients and issues; some who are likely on different sides of any given issue.

No one who has experience in government and the law is going to buy the argument that what a large law firm does is reflective of everyone who works there. Heck, lawyers don’t even agree with their individual clients all the time. This is how the legal system works.

No, what is really going on here is that Democrats are afraid the Rob Portman is exactly the type of center-right experienced and appealing politician that Ohio voters support. They know there is no real scandal in his squeaky clean background and they can feel the political ground shifting under their feet.

So they are simply throwing whatever slime they can find at him in hopes that some of it sticks. Portman = Bush must not have been working so now they are trying to find some other distraction.

  • gopflame

    Robert Portman is not guilty of being a lawyer. But he is guilty of crafting and/or supporting (unfair) trade agreements that have gutted the U.S. manufacturing base. 3 million jobs lost overseas and 250,000 of them right here in the Buckeye State OHIO. He helped to push the Normalization of trade status for China at a cost of 1million U.S. jobs. It is NO shock he would work for the Chinese now. He seems to have been doing so for a very long time.

  • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

    You show no relation whatsoever to trade agreements and the loss of jobs. There is, of course, a significantly greater relationship between the enactment of trade agreements like NAFTA, and the increase of over 20 million jobs. While everyone does appreciate your drone-like recitation of Democratic talking points, they are as devoid of evidence as are the attacks I link to, and critique.

  • gopflame

    My question would be, 20 million jobs where? Unemployment in America is 9.5%. 2 million American jobs have been exported under NAFTA, CAFTA and 23 other unfair trade agreements.
    http://www.economyincrisis.org/articles/issues?i=Outso.... According to this article the rate of jobs leaving the U.S. is 20,000 a month.
    Here is a good Democratic Union website I propose you study. They are quite truthful.

    Oh and by the way I am a Republican. GOP. I do not know how familiar you are with U.S. politics but I will help you to understand more if you wish.

  • CSBadeaux

    I believe the lifelong American citizen and resident to whom you're responding has a good grasp of U.S. politics, thanks.

  • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

    Not that our guest has a good understanding, of course. And for the record, I don't believe for a moment that you are a Republican. Stop lying to us.

    As for your so-called “evidence,” I am not in the least bit surprised that you would cite partisan sources with skin in the game for your fatuous and nonsensical assertions. First things first: We are in a global recession, which is the cause of job losses. Trade, is not the cause of job losses. Neither is outsourcing, which you confuse with trade; thus, your first link. If you actually want to learn something about outsourcing, read this. Also, read all of this. There are actual facts located in these readings, which will do much to disturb your worldview, of course, but allowing one's worldview to be disturbed with contrary facts is a sign of intellectual courage. We shall see if you have any.

    As for the job losses in Ohio, which you claim are attributable to free trade, Factcheck.org calls your claims “nonsense.” As well it should. Note that it also calls Barack Obama's claims–which are the same as yours; no surprise since you both belong to the Democratic party (your lies to the contrary notwithstanding)–”nonsense.” Note as well that the nonsense in the AFL/CIO link is also refuted by Factcheck. Again: Please stop lying to us.

    Please stop citing concerns regarding the trade deficit. This is more misleading nonsense. The trade deficit–your propaganda notwithstanding–is a lousy and useless metric, designed to propagate bad policies. You know, the kind that you advocate.

    Since you see fit to cite partisan sources in support of the absurd belief that free trade is bad, I suppose I can cite a partisan–but more intellectually honest–source to point out that free trade, in fact, is excellent. And look, here is another.

    Finally, I would no sooner take lessons from you about American politics than I would take lessons from a centipede on how to operate the Large Hadron Collider. Your bigoted notion that I don't know anything about America because of my exotic name–and again, don't lie; that's precisely what you thought–is duly noted, of course. Your interaction with me makes it no wonder that you dislike interacting with the rest of the world.

  • gopflame

    Believe me I know your friend is an attorney who lives in Illinois, but that does not mean he is up on his politics. Real simple example my handle is GOPFlame ? But I am reciting Democratic talking points? I am an officer of the County Republican Party.
    Perhaps what should be said about your liberal friend is he needs an education in economics in addition to political sciences if he supports these UNFAIR trade agreements. 2 million U.S. jobs lost and 20,000 more leaving every month.
    I would quote Ronald Reagan ” Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.”

  • CSBadeaux

    This would be Ronald “Free Trade” Reagan, right?

    My friend is an American citizen, to whom you could do the courtesy of replying personally. My friend is also capable of writing in coherent English, which puts him ahead of you. Last but not least, my friend doesn't make weird assertions like “I am an officer of the County Republican Party,” without identifying which County, or what kind of officer; but at least your handle has the letters GOP in it!

    Last but not least, my friend, who is no modern liberal (free trade has been a conservative position since, oh, the 70s) is capable of identifying cause and effect, and understanding the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You, obviously, are not. Good day.

  • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

    Couldn't even take on one of my links, arguments, and proffers of evidence, could you? Apparently, information is far too much for you to handle, as is the burden of arguing with any semblance of coherence.

    Thanks for the laughs you inadvertently provided. Much appreciated, really.

  • gopflame

    And my friend can understand the hobknobbing, goobersmooching that goes on between the two of you. Good day Gentlemen have fun playing with yourselves.
    I do apologize for using the word gentlemen so loosely.

Previous post:

Next post: