This columnist, one of the few Google references I could find, says it was in a “speech”. I can’t find the speech itself anywhere offhand.http://www.rrstar.com/opinion/columnists/pat/0329.shtml
Campaign distortions often include certain amounts of truth but create false impressions. The classic example of this was a speech made by Rep. George Smathers of Florida in a Democratic primary campaign of 1950 for a U.S. Senate nomination in Florida.
Smathers told an audience of bumpkins that incumbent Claude Pepper was “a known extrovert,” practiced “celibacy” before marriage, practiced “nepotism” with his sister-in-law, “matriculated” with women in college, that his sister was “a thespian” and his brother “a practicing homo sapien.”
Smathers carried the rustic vote and won the election.
Here’s the other reference, another columnist, in which he mentions that Smathers always denied the story.
By combining cutting-edge research, the teaching of outstanding students, and direct interaction with practitioners, we have an impact on solving public problems that no other institution can match.
Sometimes arcane and high-falutin’ words can be used as weapons. No one knew this better than former Senator Claude Pepper of Florida. In 1950, Pepper, a three-term incumbent, ran for re-election and faced off against Congressman George Smathers in the Democratic primary. Smathers launched an infamous smear campaign against Pepper that today sounds more like a fake political ad from Saturday Night Live.
Smathers outed Pepper as “a known extrovert,” his sister as a “thespian,” and his brother as a “practicing homo sapien.” He accused Pepper of practicing “nepotism” with his sister-in-law and of “matriculating” with young women in college. Worst of all, he “practiced celibacy” before marriage.
Naturally, voters were horrified, and Pepper lost by over 67,000 votes. (To be fair, Smathers denied the story until the end of his Senate career in 1971, perhaps fearing that his own homo sapien past would come back to haunt him.)
Interview with Claude Pepper. He does not mention it.http://www.history.ufl.edu/oral/FP30.html
He recalls that in the election of 1950, six senior senators were defeated, including himself, over the liberal issues of national health insurance, civil rights, liberal attitudes favoring labor, minimum wage, and adequate hospital and medical care.
An analysis of the election, which does not mention it.http://www.folioweekly.com/archives/old%20stories/0718/page7.html
Over time, writers and political historians have recast the 1950 election as a battle between Ball and Pepper, almost eclipsing the role of Smathers in his own election. That is only a part of the story. Smathers had his own ambitions and agenda. He found Ball a valuable supporter, but did not make him the foundation of his campaign. Wolfe was more active in raising money than Ball. Ball’s prominence was due not so much to what he did for Smathers, but the constant refrain of the Pepper camp that it was engaged in a battle with the reactionary forces of the duPonts led by Ball.
There were overtones of McCarthyism in Smathers’ campaign. A booklet emphasizing Pepper’s past associations with the far-left, including known communist organizations and party members, was circulated in the late days of the campaign. It emphasized the “Red Pepper” theme, a Pepper sobriquet gleaned from an earlier article in the Saturday Evening Post. By 1950, most Americans recognized the threat posed by the Soviet Union, and Pepper’s actions seemingly on its behalf was a source of dismay to many, and treasonous to others. That, coupled to the strong opposition of the business community, unions, and the medical profession gave Smathers the victory. Pepper was defeated by more than 60,000 votes.
So, you tell me. Smathers denies it, Pepper himself and a fairly serious analysis of the election don’t mention it. That’s about as far as I got.
I don’t think Florida voters were that ignorant in 1950, so if I had to guess, I’d guess that it’s just a “humorous rustics” story repeated by columnists.