Talk:Lee Atwater

Old untitled thread

What's with the Rove and Bush comment?

Bounce polling is NOT a research technique, it's a smear tactic. For example, when Bush did it against McCain, he called up 10,000 homes in South Carolina, and asked: "If you found out that John McCain fostered 3 black children out of wedlock with his mistress, would you vote for him?"

It's not true, but the idea is make people think that John McCain has fostered 3 children out of wedlock. The polsters don't care about the answers (hence, it's not a research technique). The only purpose of it is to make people think bad things about the other guy, and that's a smear tactic.

--Raul654 16:20, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

it's also not true to claim that bush did any such thing. the source for this claim is that mccain's campaign manager, rick davis, saying that he had been approached by unnamed constituents claiming to have received such calls. no ecvidence of these calls actually having happened exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.67.247 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

---

The linking of Atwater doing or inventing bounce polling comes from Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, a book by liberal American humorist Al Franken. Franken does not cite any source. Jimmy Breslin, in an August 3, 1989 column in Newsday, states that Atwater denied it. I am removing the reference until another source is cited. (Breslin's POV is almost a lock on Franken's, so it's not a case of clashing POVs.) Ellsworth 23:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Atwater/Rove/Bush connection

Dropped this sentence:

During that election, Atwater was assigned a "minder" by the Bush campaign, George W. Bush. The younger Bush's political strategist, Karl Rove, would later employ Atwater's dirty tricks tactics against John McCain in the 2000 Republican primary.

This has been disputed, please cite sources if it is to be in the article. Ellsworth 20:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've restored some of this material, with clarifications. It's well known that Atwater was a political mentor and personal friend of Karl Rove, but their relationship actually predates the 1988 presidential campaign by more than 15 years. According to Time magazine (December 20, 1999), Atwater "ran Rove's successful campaign to become president of the College Republicans in 1973." Boy Genius, the biography of Rove by Lou Dubose, Jan Reid and Carl M. Cannon, also offers details about their friendship and notes allegations of Rove's involvement in dirty tricks dating back to the 1970s. (See, for example, pages 10-12.) The fact that George W. Bush had an office across the hall from Lee Atwater so that he could serve as a "minder" during the 1988 presidential campaign has also been reported in a number of places, including the Austin American-Statesman (February 21, 1999).

I've left out the specific reference to dirty tricks against McCain in 2000. Atwater was long dead by then, and although he was a mentor of Karl Rove during his lifetime, it doesn't seem accurate to suggest that Atwater was the mastermind of every dirty trick with which Rove or others have been associated. He's only responsible for the activities that he himself planned and undertook. --Sheldon Rampton 07:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That looks good. Ellsworth 23:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I've taken out the references to Terry McAuliffe and James Carville that an anonymous user keeps trying to add to the lead paragraph. Atwater was a Republican party strategist and a personal friend and mentor of both Karl Rove and George W. Bush. He was not a friend and mentor of McAuliffe or Carville. The anonymous user seems to be trying to insert a sort of "forced balance" into the lead that is actually POV rather than documentable fact. It may or may not be the case that McAuliffe and Carville use similar methods, but it is definitely not the case that they learned their political skills under his tutelage.

If other people find the current version unsatisfactory, I would suggest removing the entire sentence that begins, "Though Atwater died in 1991..." His relationship with Rove and Bush is described with greater precision elsewhere in the article anyway, and I don't think it needs to be part of the lead paragraph. --Sheldon Rampton 06:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Incongruous

This paragraph is incongruous:

"Atwater not only torpedoed enemies, he often made efforts to damage or destroy Republicans as well. Ed Rollins, who managed Ronald Reagan's 1984 re-election campaign, tells several Atwater stories in his 1996 book, "Bare Knuckles And Back Rooms." According to Rollins, Atwater ran a dirty tricks operation in 1984 against Vice-Presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. This included the accurate allegation that Ferraro's parents had been indicted - but never convicted (this fact, of course, went unmentioned)- of numbers running in the 1940s. Ferraro disappeared for a few days to 'recover' from the accusation. Rollins also described Atwater as 'ruthless', 'Ollie North in civilian clothes,' and one who 'just had to drive in one more stake.'"

The lead sentence states that Atwater used his "dirty tricks" against Republican candidates as well, and then goes on in the rest of the paragraph to talk about a particular dirty trick agains't Geraldine Ferraro, not only a Democrat, but a potential Democratic Vice-President of the United States. --B. Phillips 22:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article needs to be more balanced. It make Atwater out to be a total monster, which he wasn't. --rogerd 01:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's debatable. Raul654 01:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any untruths in there. He did some horrible things and admitted it when he faced death. Maybe if you had some suggestions instead of just an opinion, your NPOV tag might have some merit. googuse 02:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Googuse on this one. Unless you have some specific problem with what the article says, the NPOV tag should come down. "It's anti-GOP" is not even close. Just because you don't like what the article says doesn't mean it's biased - I'm sure there are plenty of Germans out there who don't care for what the Holocaust article says, but that doesn't make it biased either. Raul654 02:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so now you are comparing Atwater with Hitler? That seems a little over the top. Atwater's tactics were not a lot different that James Carville's. --rogerd 03:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to substantiate that? Show me a single instance where Carville did anything like the tactics Atwater used.

Furthermore, you have not yet answered the question put to you (by both Googuse and myself) to show a single factually inaccurate or otherwise biased section of this article. Raul654 03:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and lastly - if you read my statement, you'll notice I did not compare Atwater and Hitler; I said *your* tactic of saying "I don't like this article so therefore it must be biased" is flatly wrong. Raul654 03:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How about the third sentence: "Atwater is notorious as the very definition of smashmouth politics, in which every effort is made to destroy the reputations, careers and lives of political opponents." If that isn't POV, I don't know what is. --rogerd 03:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Then how exactly should it be rephrased? The fact of the matter is that he practiced smashmouth politics (extensively), invented many (if not most) of the techniques, and then tutored today's practioners like Karl Rove. Raul654 03:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be removed. That is your opinion. The very term "smashmouth politics" is inherently POV. --rogerd 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Anything can be inherently POV if you disagree with the answer! "Smashmouth" is exactly what the southern strategy was about. It's well known in political circles and Atwater was the architect who was most successful in deploying it. Furthermore, I think you're being willingly obtuse in your methods of obfuscation. 67.183.122.227 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)La-Tonia Denise Willis

Relationship to Nixon

I am fairly sure it is inaccurate to characterize Atwater as a "trusted advisor" to President Nixon. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution obituary of March 29, 1991, he was a South Carolina delegate to the RNC in 1972, then executive director of the College Republicans for a year before returning to South Carolina in 1974 to establish a political consulting firm at the age of 23. In any event, Atwater must have been far too young to have held a position of any importance in the Nixon White House.

1981 interview with Bob Herbert issue

Is there any other source for the "Nigger, nigger, nigger..." quote Bob Herbert attributed to Atwater from a 1981 interview? It seems extremely suspect to me. Why would Atwater have said that to Herbert, who he had to know wasn't sympathetic to it? Why would he have said it in a 1981 interview, when he remained unrepentant about cynical tactics until his tumor in 1990? And why would Herbert have kept it to himself until 2005? It seems at least as likely to me that Herbert just made it up, knowing that he couldn't be contradicted.

In the 2005 column in question, Bob Herbert is not quoting from his own interview with Atwater. The quote comes from the book, Southern Politics in the 1990s, by Alexander P. Lamis, a political-science professor at Case Western Reserve University. --Sheldon Rampton 07:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. But even the book wasn't published until 1999, correct? And it remains an unsubstantiated (and unable to be substantiated) equivalent of a hearsay quote. We can't be sure that it wasn't just invented. I don't think it belongs here; at the very least it should be treated skeptically.

Well, without the benefit of a time machine, it would be rather difficult to write a book about politics in the 1990s and publish it much earlier than 1999. Raul654 21:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, as it is in a reputable source by a reputable author, I see no reason it should not be included, because so far there has not been a cintilla of evidence offered to show that Lamis made it up. Raul654 21:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The timing curiosity is for the Atwater quote alone, obviously. From 1981 to 1999 is an improbable delay for the revelation of such a damning and politically consequential confession. It is the absence of any evidence at all, other than the word of the author, which should merit our skepticism. There were many other people who worked with Atwater and must have been aware of this strategy in order for it to have been implimented. This can't be the only time he admitted this to someone if it is true. Verification should be available this way, but the quote stands in isolation. If it must be included, this weakness ought to be made known.

"There were many other people who worked with Atwater and must have been aware of this strategy in order for it to have been implimented." - And have any of these people actually denied the veracity of the quote? Surely if it were not true, someone would have. If not, then I see no reason why it cannot be included. Raul654 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone has denied it. I wasn't even aware of the quote before reading this wiki entry. But that's an extremely weak standard of proof, especially given the seriousness of the topic. Why should we expect people to have come forward just to say they they didn't know anything about it? It would prove nothing. After all, not hearing something said doesn't mean it wasn't said. We would only expect people who had heard Atwater say such a thing to feel that coming forward was worth anyone's interest. It appears that no one has, unless you know otherwise. Given this, I think the quote should be treated with a healthy skepticism. If it must be included, so should the qualification that it is unverified and suspect.

It's written in a book by a legitimate author and legitimate publishing house. Presumably, neither wants to get sued and will not simply make things up. To that end, I am willing to accept it on its face as being true, pending an actual claim that it is not. Other than raw speculation ("that doesn't sound like something Atwater would say"), you have not offered a bit of evidence to show it is false. You claim it is suspect - who, exactly, besides you actually claims it is suspect? Raul654 03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The man had been dead for 14 years. There was no risk of a lawsuit. The onus cannot be on me to disprove this. I cannot prove he did not say it. No one can prove a negative. I think it is common sense which claims it is suspect. I don't know if it is true. I'm not demanding its removal. I'm saying it shouldn't be presented as fact. (as an aside, unless the quote comes from the intro or the conclusion to the Lamis book, Lamis didn't write it; the book is a compilation of chapters by seperate authors which Lamis edited)

I don't know what the basis is for the quote in the book. Since it is a scholarly work, I imagine the book will have footnotes indicating the basis for the quote. It's quite possible that the source was an interview with Atwater that was published at the time in a newspaper or other journal that is obtainable in print form but which is not available on the internet. I did a LexisNexis search and couldn't find this quote mentioned prior to the Lamis book, but even LexisNexis doesn't have much in its archives from the 1980s. Given that the source is a respected academic with no history of fabrication, I think that if anyone here wishes to challenge the authenticity of the quote, the onus should be on them to actually look up the quote in the book itself and determine what source is being cited there. If it turns out to be merely someone's recollection 14 years after the fact, I would agree that it should be considered questionable. If, however, the source turns out to be an interview with Atwater that was published during his lifetime, I think it should be considered definitive. --Sheldon Rampton 04:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Thank you. I'll look into it.

I found a copy of Southern Politics in the 1990s by Alexander P. Lamis at the UMCP library. Here's the context for the quote from page 7-8 (written in Chapter 1, by Lamis).

As the party began to build at the state level, driven by white reaction to the end of segregation, the party made its most faithful converts among those attracted by its conservative position on New Deal-type economic class issues. But it also picked up substantial support from white Democrats angered by their national party’s “betrayal” on the race issue. Twisted into the situation was the logical compatibility of conservative economic-class Republicanism with the racial protest. The GOP, as the party philosophically opposed to an activist federal government in economic matters, gained adherents also from those who objected to federal intervention in the racial affairs of the states. The two streams of protests could not be easily separated in the public arena, and the Republican candidates, who recognized that they were beneficiaries of both prongs of reaction, rarely made the effort.

The best exposition of the subtle merger of these twin forces was offered by South Carolinian Lee Atwater eight years before he became chairman of the Republican National Committee after serving as the architect of George Bush’s 1988 presidential election victory. It came during an interview while he was a member of President Ronald Reagan’s White House political staff:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964… and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster…

Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps…?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.'

This makes more sense. Atwater was talking about his effort to dilute or abstract race from the Republican Party's appeal in the South. He was talking about Reagan's "New Southern Strategy".

--130.85.194.154 22:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Atwater was talking about his effort to dilute or abstract race from the Republican Party's appeal in the South."

What a disingenuous attempt at whitewashing! Atwater may have convinced himself and a few gullible others through this superficial proclamation of innocence, but let's look carefully at his words. He is openly admitting that an appeal to racist voters was central to the original Southern Strategy. He then simply states that appeals to racism have become less overt, more coded, and their effects more roundabout. There is nothing here that suggests his goal was to actually lessen racism, only that he was aware that it could not be appealed to as directly as before. He then throws a sop to potentially hostile readers/listeners by putting forward a deceitful, silly piece of false logic: "... I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other." Simply speaking about something less directly, while leaving motivations and ideology unchanged, is not changing anything! This is only the statement of a consummate propagandist trying to placate his conscience and create the illusion of purer motives.

-- Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This section shouldn't have been removed. Typical right-wing censorship -- right out of 1984. Re-writing history to fit what they want you think today. Some party of faith, they always want you to prove 100% what they fail to understand -- from global warming to lead in toys. Jesus could show up at their door on a cloud and they'd demand to see ID. Please restore this section -- as noted, it is from a credible published, academic source. Just because they don't like it doesn't mean it should be censored and erased from history.

--Eamartinez (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Career

This section should be about Atwater's career only. The paragraphs about his thoughts on the GOP's Southern Strategy should either relate to his own career or be put in another section. Since there is no indication that he participated in the creation or implementation of Nixon's Southern Strategy, including it in his Career section leads readers to the wrong conclusion. The expanded excerpt shown in the above comment titled "1981 interview with Bob Herbert issue" indicates that Atwater's involvement in South strategizing was to de-racialize Southern politics with a New Southern Strategy under Ronald Reagan. This is not mentioned at all in the article. I deleted the paragraphs as irrelevent but my changes seem to have been automatically reverted. I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia editing, so I don't know if I just went about it incorrectly or what.--136.160.174.103 07:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a new section called Atwater on the Southern Strategy.--130.85.194.154 22:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me from the discussion on the talk page that the interview cited in this section was actually cojducted by Alexander Lamis. Are you sure that's the case? The interviewer is only identified in the transcript that you provide here as "questioner." Is it possible that Lamis is actually quoting from an interview conducted by someone else? --Sheldon Rampton 10:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section in question. It is interesting, but it is more appropriate for general GOP articles or possibly a Reagan article rather than this one. More space was given to it than to Atwater's actual tactics during campaigns (in other words, what he's famous for), his music career, or his deathbed apology, and since he doesn't ever say in any of the attributed quotes that he engaged in that type of alleged misbehavior, like the above editor, I don't see the particular relevance to this article.--Gloriamarie (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It was ethically unsound to remove this section. This is a credible quote from a credible source and goes to the heart of what Lee Atwater did in his political life. If it's good enough for Paul Burka at Texas Monthly [1], it should be good enough for Wikipedia. From Justice Bradley's decision in the Civil Rights Cases (1883) to Karl Rove's New Southern Strategy -- this quote sheds light on an important aspect of American political history. Censorship makes it no less existent and relevant to the making of Lee Atwater and his influence on American political life.

--Eamartinez (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the irony

`Though no credible evidence has been uncovered, the "whisper campaign" that damaged McCain's chances in that state is often attributed to Karl Rove.' Isn't that, in and of itself, a weasel-worded whisper campaign against Karl Rove? Citation, please. Dricherby 10:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There were eventually citations inserted, but none of them mentioned Atwater as inspiring this incident or having anything to do with it (he had been dead for many years at the time, so it's not likely that such citations exist in any case). I have therefore removed that section. It should, at best, be in Rove's, Bush's, or McCain's articles, not this one.--Gloriamarie (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Strom Thurmond

I think it is misleading to describe Strom Thurmond as a segregationist in this article. Although technically correct, it implies that he was still campaigning on this issue in the 1970s. Suggest omitting the word or stating "who ran for president in 1948 as a segregationist". The Four Deuces (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Atwater in Hell?

According to the documentary about him called 'Boogie Man', Atwater's motivation for the apologies rendered as he lay dying was his fear that he was bound for Hell. Given the near monopoly on christian fundamentalism claimed by the clients of Atwater and his protegeé Karl Rove, the irony of this is something too precious not to appreciate; it speaks to the idea that those believing in christianity frequently violate the very principles of that religion when engaged in politics, and for the stated reason of advancing the very principles they violate while doing so. I think it bears mentioning, but since I do not know how to make the appropriate citation, I was wondering if someone here can show me how to cite a movie like Boogie Man as the source before I make the posting. Thanks Rain City Blues (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lede needs help

Can we get a source for this material. Also, can the Darth Vader stuff go in a critizism section? --Tom 17:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Lamis is one of my Professors

He actually mentioned that interview once in class —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Correcting Turnipseed connonations

The article has a misleading verb. In the third paragraph of the "Early Life and Career" section, the third sentence refers to pushing polls intended "to convince white suburbanites that Turnipseed was a member of the NAACP."

Turnipseed was a member of the NAACP from the 1970s, and in his own Wash Post letter cited by the article, says the push polls were to "inform" voters. "Convince" has the connotation of a controversy, of which there was none. Turnipseed was proud of having joined the NAACP to atone for his segregationist past. The article would be more accurate if "convince" was replaced by inform. No new reference is needed since reference 13, Turnipseed's Wash Post article, uses "inform." My original source for this is Turnipseed himself (personal communication, 12-28-08).

Additional note: in the following reference in the Daily Game Cock (USC student newspaper) Turnipseed talks about his involvement with the NAACP since 1973. He doesn't say membership - still looking for a reference to independently verify that.

http://media.www.dailygamecock.com/media/storage/paper247/news/2003/02/10/News/Former.Segregationist.Talks.To.Usc.Naacp-364804.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfern (talk • contribs) 02:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Deathbed penance

If any of you saw Boogie Man, the guy mentions at the end that his Bible was still in the cellophane, which adds a certain element of doubt as to the sincerity of his deathbed epiphany. I'm not really sure how to cite this but I think it's worth mentioning. Casey J. Morris (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Colapse republican party temlate at bottom of page

Can we colapse that template at the bottom, not sure how to do that, thanks, --Tom 14:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit lead

I removed some unsourced material from the lead. I also removed the Rove firends material from the lead. Also, the huffington post muckracking can maybe go in the body of the article? --Tom 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Atwater did not apologize, he repented. In fact he said he did not regret negative campaigning, it's all in the book Bad Boy - The Life and Politics of Lee Atwater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadel (talk • contribs) 20:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Anita Dunn (Whitehouse Communications Director) Mao, and Atwater

Anita Dunn recently said that she got the idea, in relation to saying that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers and praising his takeover of China, from Atwater. I can find no such comment, or any about Mao that Atwater said or wrote. Can any of you? Thanks.JohnHistory (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory