Poor, pathetic Chuck Adams

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Tuesday, we learned that Chuck Adams - the campaign strategist for the House Republicans - had been fired by the caucus operation.

Of course, when a spin-meister gets embarrassed in public like that, what do they do?

Spin.

Here's a couple of paragraphs from the press release (pdf) sent by Chuck Adams. It's really pretty astonishingly bad.

Responding to those that are saying that Adams & Co. is being marginalized or pushed out, Adams had this to say: "Nothing could be further from the truth. I plan on continuing to play an important role in electing Republican candidates at all levels of Oregon and regional politics."

Translation: I'm still relevant! I'm still relevant!

"I plan to focus on those incumbents that are our ongoing clients along with open seats. There is plenty of work to go around. What I am not going to do however is be the consultant that is hired to try to take out sitting Democrats, I will leave that for someone else to do for a change."

So, Chuck Adams has been relegated to protecting safe incumbents and running candidates in open, but safe districts? Looks like he's been busted down to minor league. No more tough races for Chuck.

Many believe that Adams served as the General Consultant in the 2006 election cycle. “A lot of people think I was the General Consultant in 2006 which just simply isn’t true. Rep. Wayne Scott played the role of General Consultant and he made all of the strategic decisions for House Republicans in ‘06,” Adams said.

This is the best part. After years of making good money as the brilliant strategist behind the House Republicans, suddenly he's blaming all the bad decisions in 2006 on Wayne Scott. Sort of like the ol' blame-the-dead-guy strategy... but, of course, Wayne Scott is still alive and kicking.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in some of THOSE meetings. Poor Chuck Adams.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    So when campaigns across the state were being managed by consultants employed by Adams and Co, they were all reporting to Wayne Scott?

    Suuuure they were....

  • Adrian Rosolie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yes, and Dick Cheney is not part of the executive branch. Democrats just aren't mentally able to understand this sort of stuff, it's too complex.

  • Jeff Wilkenson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This site cracks me up - it's like Democrats = Good; Republicans = Evil. Period.

    You people are as laughable as the other side of the isle.

    Hey here's a new slogan for you "Kari":

    Why Work? Vote Democrat!

  • (Show?)

    Democrats = Good; Republicans = Evil.

    Did I say evil? Stupid, yes. Wrong, yes. But not Evil. Some of them, sure, but not all of them.

    Why are you even reading this site if you hate it so much?

  • Scott Jorgensen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yeah, I got a copy of that press release sent to me the other day. Needless to say, I didn't run it, and found it quite amusing.

    I remember shortly after the 06 election, me and a friend were looking over some of the C&E reports and were appalled at how much Chuck Adams charged to run crappy, negative, cookie-cutter campaigns.

    Good riddance. Republicans in this state should have sacked Adams ages ago.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Republicans = evil Democrats = good

    Of course not, in spite of all the evidence pointing in that direction.

    If you take a close look at the campaigns influenced by Chuck Adams, though, it's hard to avoid being overwhelmed by the cynicism, distortion, and mean-spiritedness. Democrats usually act so badly only when they are running against each other - or Ralph Nader.

  • Adrian Rosolie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think almost any Democrat here would be more than happy to be able to see a Republican do something agreeable. In fact, just to disprove your theory, I'd like to take this time to thank Sen. John Warner for calling on Pres. Bush to start troop withdrawal. Ooh, I feel the blissfulness of bipartisanship already.

  • raul (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff Wilkensen said:

      This site cracks me up - it's like
    
      Democrats = Good;       Republicans = Evil. Period.
    
      You people are as laughable as the other side of the  
      isle.
    

    Wow folks, who knew Oregon was an island? But clearly no Democrats are ever criticized on this site, are they? I think folks who have fancy degrees call that projection- and spell check really only works when you are reasonably literate.

    Newsflash! People who make money off of sleazy campaigns that try to divide the people of our state = evil. I dare you to disagree with that one-

  • Darrell Fuller (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari said, "Did I say evil? Stupid, yes. Wrong, yes. But not Evil. Some of them, sure, but not all of them."

    Gee, Kari. I read blueoregon daily and enjoy learning from you and others with whom I may disagree on many things. But I would never call you stupid because I don't agree with you. I think you are just as wrong as you think I am, but I know you come to your opinions intelligently. Are you really so narrow-minded as to believe every registered Republican is stupid?

    I thought much better of you and most of those posting here.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I know not every registered Republican is stupid--my grandfather was a Republican politician.

    But then, he was more of a Frank Morse or Gerald Ford sort of Republican, not Wayne Scott or Chuck Adams (and the big city he lived in made him very different than Ted Ferrioli).

    But Darrell and everyone else, it is time to watch the language people use, and the way they treat potential voters. A 20 year old sales clerk in a department store might fit into "retail people don't vote, and young people don't vote" but in a close election that person's vote counts the same as anyone else.

    Just like major news outlets say things like "it is a 2 person race between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama with Edwards looking desparate" (as if the expertise of Richardson, Dodd and Biden should be ignored in August of the odd numbered year because they want a cut and dried process where they determine the nominee absent an upset--such as how they missed the Edwards popularity in Iowa 2004) there are a lot of Oregonians who seem to see people behaving in stereotyped ways as members of groups--rather as thinking individuals.

    My Republican state rep. deserved the unexpectedly serious challenge she had in 2006 because she couldn't see how her words and actions sounded to constitutents like "my caucus right or wrong, and constituents asking questions are just voters." No one has to vote for someone they don't like/trust.

    Dan Lavey was right 11 years ago to say "the fastest growing party is no party at all", and my friend Julie remains right about something she said decades ago" "when they act like that, you know they know they are losing".

    Although they lost, no amount of talking about "red" districts or "lousy R to D ratio" districts can take away from the close contests of Sal Peralta and Jim Gilbertson. Seems to me in the future both parties and their supporters ought to decide whether trusting any consultant (esp. the "in your face" or "we know best and you only live in that district so you don't know anything" types ) is better than getting out there in the district, holding coffees and other events where dialogue takes place, pounding the pavement, and other old fashioned campaign tactics which my grandfather's contemporaries used.

  • (Show?)

    Are you really so narrow-minded as to believe every registered Republican is stupid?

    No, I suppose not. I was trying to find something short of "Evil". But you're right -- that doesn't fit. I'll stick with just "Wrong."

    Thanks!

  • (Show?)

    ...decide whether trusting any consultant (esp. the "in your face" or "we know best and you only live in that district so you don't know anything" types ) is better than getting out there in the district, holding coffees and other events where dialogue takes place...

    <h2>Well, this consultant -- and the ones I work with -- emphasize that candidates (especially local and legislative ones) win by going door to door. Everything else is just frosting.</h2>

connect with blueoregon