March 08, 2004
Two Random Things About Kelly Clark
Having gotten to see Kelly Clark in action today, as he unsuccessfully tried to convince Judge Dale Koch to issue a temporary restraining order against Multnomah County's issuance of same-sex marriage licenses, we already are anxious to what weirdness he tries in court next.
In the meantime, we'll satisfy ourselves with a couple of things. First, we should know better to remark upon something he said in this KGW story, but we can't help ourselves:
"Even if you could get away with doing it this way, as a matter of law, why would you want to get away with doing it this way, as a matter of public policy?" said coalition lawyer Kelly Clark after Monday's hearing. "This is not good government."
Now, we're actually going to put aside, for our purposes here, the merits of the political questions about the process, because those merits, or their absence, are irrelevant to the point we want to make.
It seems to us that what Clark is doing here intentionally is injecting the "politics of the process" issue into his rhetoric, even though the politics of the process have no bearing on his clients' case in court.
Why would he be doing this? Well, he's speaking to the press, who will then report his comments to the rest of us. While we find Clark to be a little addled, he's being clever here. He knows that the "politics of the process" matter has more support than the "lawfulness of the process" matter (an element of his clients' case on which he will fail) -- especially amongst supporters of same-sex marriage.
So by suddenly deciding to speak in terms of the "politics of the process" debate (and, in the course of doing so, edging somewhat closer to having to admit that his "lawfulness of the process" argument is weak), he manages to dress himself up in an image more appealing to a wider spectrum of the audience.
What he hopes to do is make it seem as if he's the champion of all of those who find political, rather than legal, problems in the County's process -- in the hopes that anything else he might happen to argue in public will have that much more credibility.
It's the same sort of cynical hoodwinking at was trying inside the courtroom. People ought not to fall for it.
Meanwhile, a reader posted a comment to our earlier report on the hearing.
"Well," this reader writes, "Kelly Clark seems to be a favorite over at the National Review." They even provide a handy link so we can see for ourselves.
What's there when you click through? A weblog entry which ends, "One of my best friends, Portland attorney Kelly Clark, is on his way to the courthouse this afternoon seeking an injunction to stop it."
Based on what we're experience of Clark so far, if familiarity on the part of someone at National Review isn't an appropriate character reference, we don't know what is.
Comments (16)
Jack Bog on 08 Mar 2004
Gee, b!X, if that's the best you can do to smear Kelly Clark, you're slipping.
Why not drop the ad hominem stuff? You seem to be sure enough about the issues without sinking to that.
You know, more than half of the voters in the county agree with at least part of what Clark is saying. They deserve legal representation.
Scott on 08 Mar 2004
He is also the lead attorney for the sexual abuse suits against the Oregon Archdiocese. He was quite successful in that so I think it may be a weak case rather than a weak attorney.
But IANAL, so Jack could speak to that better.
lisha on 08 Mar 2004
Are you kidding? The arguments that Kelly gave in court (as reported by b!X) are hilarious. I thought the commentary was astute. Kelly Clark smears himself - he doesn't seem to need help. If half the county agrees with what he's saying, they deserve better legal representation. At a minimum, representation that can articulate exactly what the problem is.
Alicia
The One True b!X on 08 Mar 2004
You know, more than half of the voters in the county agree with at least part of what Clark is saying. They deserve legal representation.
That may very well be. The point, however, was to point out his strategy of trying to intermingle the political and legal issues regarding the process in order to be more accessible to people.
He has every right to try to play to the public audience, of course. I'm just pointing out what I think it is he is doing.
And if anything, the only ad hominem in here is probably directed at National Review if anything else.
The One True b!X on 08 Mar 2004
I think it may be a weak case rather than a weak attorney.
Well, I certainly agree that it's a weak case. But I'd like to believe that an attorney who knew what he was doing could come up with something more creative than tepid attempts at television courtroom drama "gotcha" moments or laughably quoting all the times Commissioners used the word "we" as evidence that they must have held some sort of law-breaking meeting.
Jack Bog on 08 Mar 2004
"we already are anxious to what weirdness he tries in court next."
"if familiarity on the part of someone at National Review isn't an appropriate character reference, we don't know what is."
That's ad hominem, and smug to boot.
The One True b!X on 08 Mar 2004
Well, the latter I'll cop to.
But as for the former, I was in the room. His performance at certain moments qualifies as "weirdness." That's no ad hominem, it's accurate description.
Jack Bog on 09 Mar 2004
He's a good lawyer. A person with fairly right-wing politics. A former state legislator. Maybe with a weak case in this instance.
Throwing around phrases like "cry-baby Roberts" and "weirdness" goes past "journalism," if that's what you're aspiring to.
There's been a lot of comparison to MLK and Rosa Parks over the last week. I don't remember them calling their opponents names, even when they richly deserved it.
Dave Lister on 09 Mar 2004
Like myself, Kelly Clark is a lifelong Episcopalian and a moderate. I had the opportunity to hear him speak on the gay bishop ordination. Rapid change has been occurring in the Episcopal church since I was in high school (thirty some years ago), starting with a modern english version of the liturgy. It was over the years followed by ordination of women and gay priests. Kelly's position on the gay bishop was not that it was wrong, but that it was rushed through in an elitist process strikingly similar to the Multnomah County Commission on gay marriage. He thought that the gay bishop ordination process should have been much more open and taken much longer to avoid a scism in the church. He's an articulate and intelligent person. Don't mistake him for a bible thumping fundamentalist... he is not.
The One True b!X on 09 Mar 2004
Throwing around phrases like "cry-baby Roberts" and "weirdness" goes past "journalism," if that's what you're aspiring to.
Well first, we're obviously not going to agree on the "weirdness" issue. I've had my say on that my offering that it's an entirely accurate descriptive word for some of the approachs to pitching his clients' case in court. Perhaps interested parties could go get the videotapes from the news of the entire eharing, watch them, and tell me if it's in inaccurate description. I do not believe that it is.
As for "crybaby" I threw that term in deliberately, tho perhaps I did a piss-poor job of explaining why. Namely, that Roberts isn't really mad that he's been left out of a decision, since he wouldn't have been able to change it. He's ticked off at the decision. He doesn't like that the County is performing same-sex marriages. But, like other parties involved, he trots out the "oh alack and alas, we've been LEFT OUT" argument and because we all know that this is really about opposition to same-sex marriage, it just rings fakely.
There's been a lot of comparison to MLK and Rosa Parks over the last week. I don't remember them calling their opponents names, even when they richly deserved it.
Well, I'm also no speaking to a DC mall full of people or daring to sit where I'm not supposed to, but I don't see how this is relevant in reference to me. The County Commissioners aren't calling people names, but then again, I don't work for them.
The matter of prevailing on the arguments rather than ad hominems is not entirely illegitimate. Perhaps, on the one hand, I need to make it clearer what certain usage of certain terms is for, exactly, and why I've used them; and, on the other hand, readers need to better discriminated between what's ad hominem and what's not (e.g. "weirdness").
Betsy on 09 Mar 2004
But you really can't have it both ways - either you're reporting (which means you leave editorializing language like "cry-baby Roberts" or "weirdness" behind) or you're writing opinion pieces. Both are laudable goals, mind you - but they're also in direct conflict with each other - inserting opinion diminishes the credibility of your reporting.
And if your goal is to convince others currently not sharing your opinion of your rightness, you'll not do so by using inflammatory or dismissive language.
On the other hand, if what you want to do is preach to the choir - go to it, but don't call it journalism.
Noah on 09 Mar 2004
I feel like Betsy may bring up an interesting discussion. While I don't feel like opinion and journalism are mutually exclusive, I do think that in some of your posts you intermingle straight reporting and opinion/analysis to a degree which makes a lot of people uncomfortable. I feel that this post is clearly an opinion/analysis post, but other may not see it this way. Maybe some sort of clear labeling of posts as analysis or opinion would reduce confusion.
brett on 09 Mar 2004
> you intermingle straight reporting and opinion/analysis
Isn't that the whole point of blogs? Last thing we need is more traditional media. I, personally, want opinion and analysis.
Just a Mom on 12 Mar 2004
Isn't Kelly Clark a convicted sex offender? Why isn't anyone talking about this?
julie on 15 Mar 2004
I did some research and actually he plead guilty to a misdeamenor involving trespassing and sexual abuse about ten years ago. I don't know why people aren't talking about it. I think it's relevant myself.
jsandrsn on 16 Mar 2004
Years from now, historians will pour over these blogs looking for true feelings at a given moment in time. They will surely appreciate the opinion in the reporting. Give readers more credit than not being able to seperate fluff and conjecture. Labels consume too much of our lives.
As for Kelly Clark, consider this reporting: I look into his attractive-in-an-Aryan-aestheic face daily, and I see the arrogance that allows him to demand that he has a "right" to due "process" in governing another's life. There is a "weirdness" to the repulsion he experiences when he looks at me and my partner. I hear him "crying" to a colleague or into a cell phone about "they, they, they," often. I agree the above description was reporting.