Running scared, Gordon Smith wades into the Democratic primary
Jeff Alworth
You can tell a lot about what scares a politician by looking at who he's attacking. Well, as of last night, Gordon Smith started attacking Jeff Merkley. I'll get to the content of the ad in a second, but first, let me vent a little wrath. You don't have to be a Merkley-backer (and I know a few of you aren't) to see how outrageous this is. Gordon Smith, with his $8 million war chest, is wading into the Democratic primary. It doesn't take a master logician to see where he's headed with this one--Smith sees Merkley as the strongest challenger, so he's trying to take him out now.
Here's the ad:
Leaving aside for a moment the unsourced lies and misdirection, let's parse the ad for what it is, a blueprint of fear. The Republican Party is a badly-damaged brand. Voters now associate it with corruption and incompetence, and incumbent Republicans are trying to wash the stain from their Scarlet Rs. So Smith hits Merkley for being the corrupt one and the ends with this capper: "Jeff Merkley, more of the same when it's time for a change." Let's see, why would a 12-year Senator be hyping himself as a candidate for change?
The text of the ad contains outright lies as well--de rigueur for Republican hit pieces. Merkley is, of course, the candidate who pushed for and passed ethics reform in Salem. The ad suggests he raised money from lobbyists during the session (sourcing, amusingly, two articles that ran before the session began--how's that for bungling a lie?); yet he didn't raise a single a nickel from any Oregon lobbyist or special-interest organizational PAC during the legislative session.
Gordon Smith, by comparison, has spent more than a decade dipping into the coffers of lobbyists and special interests. In fact, BlueOregon tracked him raising money for this election more than two years ago from lobbyists and special interests.
But leave aside the slander and muck--that we anticipate. The real outrage is that Smith is trying to hand-select his opponent. And he wants Steve Novick.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:02 p.m.
May 9, '08
So is this to say that the NRSC still isn't sure, but Smith is? Cause they're running ads and websites against both.
And isn't it just as possible that Smith realizes that it's much easier to attack Merkley than it is Novick, since Merkley's given him such a fat target with all his mistakes and hypocrisy during the campaign? Or that he worries if he attacks Novick, Novick's response might not only be good enough to rebut Smith, but so good that it makes Novick look like the better challenger? Attacking Merkley's a freebie, because his response isn't as likely to hit the mark?
Given Steve's one-liner dismissal of Merkley's own attack ad, maybe Smith was wise to let that sleeping dog lie...
2:04 p.m.
May 9, '08
You are not a master logician, TJ.
2:04 p.m.
May 9, '08
I don't think he's trying to hand select his opponent. Smith and the Republicans have done an ad, web site, etc. on both Merkley and Novick. Now they've run an ad just on Merkley. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see them run one on Novick as well.
http://www.nrsc.org/senators/details.aspx?id=91
I get tired of this "oh, that person must be the stronger candidate because the person he/she would run against in November is targeting him/her in an ad." That's been shown to be untrue so many times, yet people fall for it again and again.
That was the reason why so many people voted for Kerry in the '04 primary, and I think we all know where that got us.
They do this stuff to cause doubt in our minds. It's all about mind games.
2:12 p.m.
May 9, '08
"You are not a master logician, TJ."
Actually, I'm very good at it. It's a big part of my job. Can you explain what internal or external flaws you see?
2:15 p.m.
May 9, '08
Or, it could be that since Merkley is already attacking Novick, Smith jumps in to make sure both Democrats get their lumps.
I wouldn't let Republicans influence who I'm going to vote for in a Democratic primary (or in any other election, for that matter).
[snark]For all we know, they're pulling a reverse psychology game. "If we attack Merkley, then the Democrats are going to think we're afraid of him, when we're really more worried about Novick. They'll totally go for it![/snark]
Make up your own mind. Be proactive, not reactive. Don't try to play guessing games about "what the Republicans (might) want." Endless loops there. It's going to be a hard slog against Smith no matter who gets the nomination.
2:27 p.m.
May 9, '08
Um... he already DID attack Novick, along with Merkley, in his last ad.
Merkley's response? A rebutting ad was released within 48 hours.
Steve's response? :::sounds of crickets chirping:::
ya know, TJ... trying the triple fake with political junkies is a foolish move on your part.
May 9, '08
i get the spin angle you are all going for, but even if it were actually a fact rather than just spin, do people really care what Gordon Smith thinks? Seriously; Smith is wrong on so many things--practically everything, actually, why would he all of a sudden be right in this one instance?
Most likely he is attacking Merkley because Merkley attacked him first.
May 9, '08
Yes, Gordon Smith is trying to hand-pick his opponent, and he wants his opponent to be Steve Novick.
Gordon Smith is not a stupid man... nor are his media consultants. There is absolutely no reason on earth to air this if he had no preference of opponent.
TJ, 99 times out of 100 your logic cuts through b.s. pretty well. But this time it's not happening. If Gordon Smith preferred Merkley (or had no preference), he'd just stay out of the contest.
Bottom line: Gordon Smith spent money on this. What does he get in return for that money? There's only one answer.
2:48 p.m.
May 9, '08
FYI All,
I did a post that I published at 2:10. Upon return to Blue Oregon to view any commnets at about 3:40, I saw that Jeff Alworth had a very similar (but undubtedly much more polite) post up at around the same time and that Charlie had a sorta rebuttal up after mine so I deleted it.
I stand by my assertions, but in the interest of clarity in the commnets section......
7:57 a.m.
Nov 21, '10
http://www.anadolucambalkon.com
2:51 p.m.
May 9, '08
Rhinowatch endorsed Novick yesterday too. Maybe they've all become progressives this week.
2:51 p.m.
May 9, '08
Is there any way to get those comments over here? As there were some good ones, including one from RinoWatch.
2:55 p.m.
May 9, '08
I'd like to bring over the comments that were on the other post, since they're now inaccessible. I'll copy everything in my cache...
<hr/>Posted by: Jenni Simonis | May 9, 2008 2:13:45 PM
As I said below, Smith and the NRSC have targeted both Merkley and Novick. They've spent money on ads and web sites against both.
Now they're breaking out and doing individual ads.
This stuff about them focusing on one, so that one must be the better candidate, is just mind games.
That, and they know that the person they target then has to spend money refuting the ad, so that's more money spent in the primary and less in the general. The only people who will really remember these ads in November are those who already know they're going to vote for and are very politically active. So Smith isn't spending money now to win him points against Merkley or Novick, he's doing it to get them to spend some of their money.
We fell for it hard in '04 with John Kerry, do we really have to make that mistake again?
Vote for who you believe is the best candidate and best able to win against Smith. Don't base it on who you think they don't want you to vote for based on a commercial and a blog posting.
<hr/>Posted by: Galen | May 9, 2008 2:18:06 PM
This is disingenuous garbage and it needs to stop. Gordon Smith has attacked Steve Novick, as well, but I'm sure you already knew that.
<hr/>Posted by: torridjoe | May 9, 2008 2:18:34 PM
By this logic, the Bend Bulletin is telling us Novick is the stronger candidate, right?
And I can't believe anyone wanting Merkley to win would bring up the ethics reform law that failed miserably and threatened to nearly obliterate the civil ranks in our state's smaller cities and towns.
We don't need another "Letter of the law" candidate, banning robocalls then using them before the law takes effect, or banning contributions during session--and then taking contributions during session. That's the same old politics.
<hr/>Posted by: RinoWatch | May 9, 2008 2:28:13 PM
Thanks for the mention Pat.
RinoWatch (no H) doesn't endorse Novick over Merkley thinking that Novick is more easily defeated by Smith.
RW will never endorse Gordo, and will not vote for him nor will many other Conservatives. Does this mean a vote for Novick? No, but I do like his spunk & honest approach to the issues. I even agree with him on a few....
<hr/>May 9, '08
The Novick partisans here are hilarious.
The Smith ad attacking both of them was primarily a hit on Merkley. The charge (ethics) is one that (if true) would hurt him across all parties.
The hit against Novick (he loves taxes) is something that actually may HELP Novick in the primary, although it will potentially kill him in the general.
This isn't rocket science.
Smith wants to run against Merkley.
But he doesn't want to be too blatant about it.
So he runs a small # of ads attacking both of them.
But then comes in heavier with attacks against Merkley later.
Watch and see -- the $ going into the Merkley attack will dwarf what he put into the Novick one.
Merkley is clearly the candidate Smith fears, and for good reason.
3:01 p.m.
May 9, '08
"TJ, 99 times out of 100 your logic cuts through b.s. pretty well. But this time it's not happening. If Gordon Smith preferred Merkley (or had no preference), he'd just stay out of the contest."
Or he'd run ads against both, which he has, or he'd headfake.
"We can't wait to run against Howard Dean!"
Following the GOP's lead is old politics. Losing politics.
3:03 p.m.
May 9, '08
"Merkley's response? A rebutting ad was released within 48 hours.
Steve's response? :::sounds of crickets chirping:::"
Which one could very easily interpret as Gordon Smith laughing his ass off that Merkley would spend PRIMARY money against his GENERAL opponent, and wanted to see if it would work again.
3:13 p.m.
May 9, '08
Nice work on salvaging Pat's comments, Jenni. I regret I didn't get to read his (undoubtedly more entertaining) post on the subject. Pat writes far too few posts for my tastes.
TJ, there are a nearly infinite number of reasons why Smith may have decided to attack Merkley instead of Novick. I invite you to spin them out (and I do mean spin) to your pleasure. (A top ten list, anyone? Number 10--Oh wait, Merkley's the tall one?. Number 9--Followed the advice of a fortune cookie. Number 8--Always resented the fact that he was the Senate Pres and never Speaker of the House. Etc.)
But sometimes a cigar's just a cigar. Smith is spending precious lucre to help his campaign, and so he's taking out the guy most likely to beat him.
3:21 p.m.
May 9, '08
Jeff:
Thankfully, for once it worked. Most of the time if I go to "offline" and try to grab a site from my cache, it doesn't work. I'm glad it did this time.
But I disagree that he's doing this ad because he thinks that Merkley is the best guy to beat him. I've seen Republicans do this time and time again in primary races. Much of the time they're actually playing mind games with us, making us think they think Candidate A is the bigger threat when it was actually Candidate B. It's all about mind games, getting our guys to spend money defending themselves, etc.
3:23 p.m.
May 9, '08
"TJ, there are a nearly infinite number of reasons why Smith may have decided to attack Merkley instead of Novick. "
Doesn't this flatly contradict your assertion that it's not logical to conclude so, when you believe there are an infinite number of plausible reasons?
3:27 p.m.
May 9, '08
torridjoe: Which one could very easily interpret as Gordon Smith laughing his ass off that Merkley would spend PRIMARY money against his GENERAL opponent, and wanted to see if it would work again.
Yes, imagine how much his ass would be laughed even further, if Steve Novick stopped focusing his attacks on Jeff Merkley, and instead focused on him!
Both of his opponents attacking him! In the PRIMARY!! Instead of each other!!! Yes, I can definitely see the humor of the situation from his point of view, TJ.
Or not.
3:28 p.m.
May 9, '08
Doesn't this flatly contradict your assertion that it's not logical to conclude so, when you believe there are an infinite number of plausible reasons?
Who said plausible. My point, obviously, was that none of them were plausible. Keep spinning, man.
3:31 p.m.
May 9, '08
Onb my journey toward enlightenment, I'm hoping to master the spelling of both "comments" and "Rinowatch".
Please be patient.
3:32 p.m.
May 9, '08
"if Steve Novick stopped focusing his attacks on Jeff Merkley, and instead focused on him!"
You know Novick has attacked Smith WAAAY more than Merkley in his campaign. Don't be silly. Novick's never released an attack ad on Merkley; Merkley's released THREE on Novick.
3:33 p.m.
May 9, '08
What's implausible about either misdirection, or you simply misinterpreting that Smith is "attacking Merkley," when in fact he's attacked both?
3:43 p.m.
May 9, '08
In skimming through these comments, I can't believe no one has brought this up yet. I feel I should remind everyone that attacking the person you want to run against is a well-established Rovian trick. In early 2004, when the Bushies were worried about having to face a true anti-war candidate in Howard Dean, what did they do? They attacked Kerry. Seeing Republican attacks on Kerry solidified his partisan Democratic support.
Come on people, it was only four years ago. Do we really forget these lessons so quickly?
3:51 p.m.
May 9, '08
Nate:
Nope, didn't forget. That's why both TJ and I have brought it up.
May 9, '08
"Or he'd run ads against both, which he has, or he'd headfake."
Why would Gordo do that if he didn't have a preference of opponent? Just because? Gordo does not play in the Democratic primary just for shits and giggles.
4:13 p.m.
May 9, '08
"Why would Gordo do that if he didn't have a preference of opponent? Just because? "
Does the phrase "hedging bets" mean anything? How about "sowing confusin?" Or "covering all bases?"
4:15 p.m.
May 9, '08
The Republicans joined Biden and some Kerry ops in painting Dean as a radical leftist, while he was, at the time a moderate with libertarian leanings. He was destroyed long before The Scream.
That's what I remember.
Funny how each of us remembers the history that fits our own narrative in the current argument.
May 9, '08
Who cares what Smith is saying. When Novick gets done with him, Smith will be looking for a new job.
The argument that Dems should base their votes on Smith's ads makes about as much sense as those who base their votes for President on whoever Rush Limbaugh is bashing in any given week. Don't be stupid, folks. Vote for the best person -- the person who'd be the best Senator. Period. If you think that's Merkley, then vote for him, but stop letting the Republicans make your mind up for you.
4:31 p.m.
May 9, '08
George W. Bush's top strategist from 2004, Matthew Dowd, is on record discussing the tactic of hitting the weaker nominee as strategy. From Joe Trippi via the Washington Post:
<blockqutote>He quotes Matthew Dowd, Bush's political strategist, as saying: "Whomever we attacked was going to be emboldened in Democratic primary voters' minds. So we started attacking John Kerry a lot in the end of January because we were very worried about John Edwards."
So Daniel's right. Let's support our candidates and let the Republicans get back to figuring out how to campaign on a third Bush term and a 100 year war.
4:39 p.m.
May 9, '08
Sure, and it'd seem applicable here... in a hard information vacuum.
The fly in the ointment here is that we have polling evidence showing Merkley surging. The more plausible explanation is that Merkley continues to surge and thus Smith has gone from attacking Merkley and Novick to attacking only Merkley because his internal polling shows that Merkley continues to surge ahead.
I submit that my explanation better fits the known facts.
I further submit that the fact that Smith including Novick, however weakly, in the earlier attack ad pretty much destroys the hypothesis that Smith is now attacking the weaker candidate.
6:10 p.m.
May 9, '08
The only logical reason Smith aired an ad against Merkley right before the primary is because he does not want to face him in November. It's very obvious.
I'd like to add that his smear is totally ridiculous. While Novick and Merkley have taken less than $9,000 in lobbyist donations combined, Smith has taken nearly $175,000 from lobbyists. Smith tried to connect Merkley to lobbyists in his ad, which shows what a lying manipulator Smith is.
May 9, '08
"Does the phrase "hedging bets" mean anything?"
Going negative in May in the hopes that it will pay off in November (six months down the road) is the worst investment in politics. Negative ads have short-term effects -- and the added danger of possibly "immunizing" a candidate for the same type of hit later on in the campaign.
10:33 p.m.
May 9, '08
I don't think there is any credible question but that JHL is right about the May/November thing. The "hedging bets" hypothesis is the weakest hypothesis floated so far by anyone. And even that is an overly generous characterization of it's merits.
May 10, '08
Hillary Clinton will be our next president. She is smarter than Obama and she is a great American woman and should be an example for many women in this country.
Hillary is very strong and I like that.
Alberto Borges
May 10, '08
Arriba Latinos Hillary will be our next president.A woman in the power will bring order and prosperity in this country.
God Bless America.
Everybody we Hillary.
Alberto Borges
May 10, '08
Universal Health Care is Hillary plan... Very good.. American deserve that.
Health Care is an Human Right.
Alberto Borges
8:04 p.m.
May 10, '08
Is there not some way to eliminate the posts from the spambot that calls itself Alberto Borges? These repetitive comments unrelated in any way to the thread they are posted in are annoying.
May 10, '08
Doretta, there does happen to be an Alberto Borges who is a registered Democrat in Portland. He's a relatively new voter. The comments may be off-topic, but he is not a spambot.
¡Bienvenidos Alberto! Welcome to the Party and welcome to BlueOregon!
7:59 a.m.
Nov 21, '10
ANADOLU CAM BALKON Istanbul'da ki En Kaliteli Katlanır Cam balkoncu, Cam balkon, Bizim İşimiz.Türkiyede ilk ve tek 10 yıl Garanti TEL:0216 306 98 56 http://www.anadolucambalkon.com