Senate '08: Gordon Smith and the lying liars who love him.
Kari Chisholm
- The Daily Astorian says "Jeff Merkley has the look of a winner."
When Sen. Gordon Smith's challenger, Jeff Merkley, walked into our conference room Thursday he had the look of a winner for the first time in this long campaign. Merkley spoke on a host of topics and in a depth that Gordon Smith does not exhibit.
The Smith-Merkley race is close, and there is an assumption that Barack Obama will have coattails in Oregon. Smith continues to cooperate in his own defeat by running a cynical television campaign. The inevitable conclusion is that Smith has nothing else to talk about.
- PolitickerOR speculates on Jeff Merkley's third-quarter fundraising total:
If true, that would mean that the Merkley campaign brought in upwards of $1.42 million between July 1 and September 30. The $1.42 million was the amount that the Merkley camp brought in during the second quarter, which spanned from April 1 to June 30. At the time, the Merkley campaign said that was their best fundraising quarter ever.
Of course, that probably still means that Merkley and the pro-Merkley IEs will be out-spent by Smith and the pro-Smith IEs by something like a million bucks a week over the next five weeks. Speaking of which...
- This is literally unbelievable: The NRSC claims they "accidentally" shot, edited, shipped, and aired a TV ad with claims that were unable to be substantiated (i.e. lies). When Oregon's TV stations asked for the proof, the NRSC was forced to take down the false ad. (Gee, funny, they haven't taken it off YouTube. Lying liars.)
- Just so we're all clear: Gordon Smith wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. But he really, really, really doesn't want to talk about it, according to Jeff Mapes.
I asked Sen. Gordon Smith's campaign folks what they thought of a new ad from Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley that attacks Smith for repeatedly voting against legalized abortion.
Generally, when I do this, the subject of one of the plentiful attack ads in this Senate race will come back with a blizzard of counter arguments that their guy's votes have been taken out of context, that he really wanted to accomplish the same thing, etc.
But of course, abortion is not like most issues, and the response I got from Smith spokeswoman Lindsay Gilbride didn't challenge anything in the ad.
- Mapes also notes that the Rothenberg Report says that Smith is in a "very tough situation". Quoting Nathan Gonzales, Rothenberg's political editor:
"I think part of the problem for Smith is that it's a tight race, but he has remained in the mid to low 40s," Gonzales said. "...Being in the mid to lower 40s as an incumbent - I guess I should qualify that, as a Republican incumbent - in this environment is a very, very tough place to be just a few weeks out from election day."
- A key issue in the Senate race, reports OPB, is free trade. Willamette Week heads to Mexico to find jobs that used to be done by Oregonians, shipped overseas because of NAFTA.
Smith wasn't in the Senate to vote for NAFTA, but says he would have if he could have.
And he did vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
Merkley says if elected, he would vote against free trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA.
Jeff Merkley: "I would have voted against the initial NAFTA bill. When Ross Perot said this creates the 'great sucking sound' of jobs being sucked out of America, he was absolutely right. It did not have substantial labor or environmental protocols, and it didn't have real enforcement mechanisms for those protocols." ...
Voters complain about the ad war between Smith and Merkley being waged ad nauseum on their televisions.
But, with the economy and jobs a major issue this year, one thing voters can't do is complain that the candidates are basically the same.
On the issue of free trade, itâd be hard to create more of a difference.
 |
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
10:42 a.m.
Oct 2, '08
[Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.]
11:39 a.m.
Oct 2, '08
And just so we're clear: Gordon Smith has never, ever voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Nor has he ever supported a constitutional amendment that would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Nor has he ever voted for a Supreme Court Justice nominee who claimed he or she wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade. (In fact, the only two Supreme Court nominees who publicly criticized Roe v. Wade prior to their nomination were Robert Bork and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom were nominated well before Smith came to the Senate.)
So, again, to be clear: The Jeff Merkely ad, which he says he approved, saying that Gordon Smith voted to overeturn Roe v. Wade is a LIE.
I'm glad we can agree on that much.
Oct 2, '08
Gordon Smith's record on abortion:
Both pro-life and pro-stem cell research. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Rated 14% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
Rated 50% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
12:33 p.m.
Oct 2, '08
Thank you, Tom, for those notes.
For Jack and the rest of our pro-Smith friends, I'd like to focus on just this one:
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.
What does this mean? It means that if a female service member is serving in a country that outlaws abortion (like, say, Saudi Arabia) and get pregnant... that means that there's no way to exercise her right to choose to terminate the pregnancy. Can't get an abortion on the base, can't get an abortion off the base.
12:34 p.m.
Oct 2, '08
Oh, and one more thing: If the Merkley ad is a "lie" as Jack Roberts claims, why hasn't it been taken off the air - as the NRSC ad was? Hmmmm?
Oct 2, '08
Remember three months ago when I said that this guy shows up and really does the job you send him to do? Smith has a very high score on the workhorse percentage count. IF YOU WANT CONSISTENT VOTING AGAINST all of the underlying support factors that uphold women and girls' rights to choose their fate based on their own life, needs, health and understanding, you should be sure to do one of the following: 1. Don't vote; 2. Vote for Smith.
This guy will faithfully and relentlessly go to the office and WORK, people. And it ain't the work we want done.
Thanks, Thomas. Ever the resolute researcher salting the waters of FOCUS.
Oct 2, '08
It wasn't taken off the air because Smith's campaign didn't complain about it. Smith's campaign didn't complain because they don't want to talk about this issue.
Smith can only win if he manages to hide his record and stances. That's his campaign plan.
12:50 p.m.
Oct 2, '08
Jack, didn't Gordon support both John Roberts and Samuel Alito?
And who really thinks that Roberts and Alito aren't eager to undermine Roe v Wade, despite their efforts to parse around the issue in confirmation hearings?
Alito wouldn't call it "settled law"
and Roberts as a lawyer claimed it was wrongly decided and should be overruled while arguing for the gag rule prohibiting federally-funded doctors and clinics from discussing abortion.
Oct 2, '08
and this from Preemptive Karma:
Gordo to Native Americans: screw you!
12:55 p.m.
Oct 2, '08
Obviously, if Gordon Smith had ever voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, Tom would have found it.
I also appreciate Tom pointing out that Gordon does support embryonic stem cell research. In fact, Gordon has personally talked to President Bush about this, trying to get the president to change his position (and, in my opinion, very likely could have were it not for Karl Rove).
Like Mark Hatfield, Gordon is pro-life as a matter of personal conviction. But also like Hatfield, he has supported funding for international family planning even when this includes abortion counseling.
Thanks again to Tom for pointing out that Gordon puts his money behind his pro-life message by supporting SCHIP and even supporting covering unborn children.
It sounds like everyone agrees that Gordon Smith has never voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and that the Merkley ad is a lie.
Oct 2, '08
Thomas = resolute, focused. Jack = dogged, stuck.
I've got no bias. None. Heh.
;)...
2:14 p.m.
Oct 2, '08
Thanks for posting that link, Tom.
That post is on the short, short list of posts that I'm proudest of. But much more important than that is the fact that it got a total pan.
It's shameful that the plight of, and many gross injustices done to, Native Americans is so far off our collective radar that it constitutes little more than a speed bump on our way to the next Spears/Federline drama.
Oct 2, '08
Of course, he hasn't voted to overturn RvW---unless I'm mistaken, such a vote has never come up in time he's served in the Senate. But to put blinders on and assume he'll support a woman's right to choose is reaching a bit.For me the issue isn't has Smith voted to overturn RvW, it's WOULD HE DO SO in the future if such a vote could and did come before the Senate?
So, let's turn this around. If we ask both Merkley and Smith "If a vote comes up in the next Senate term that would overturn Roe v Wade" how would you vote---Yea or Nay, what do you think the answer would be?
Merkley has stated that he will always stand up for the right to choose, in other words he would vote Nay to overturn RvW.
Smith? I doubt we could get him to say (and I did call his office and all I could get when I asked the question is "he's pro-life") for certain, but based on his past votes, I'm not hopeful he'd uphold RvW.
And thus another reason to vote for Merkley....
Oct 2, '08
If you do nothing else today, follow the link posted by Tom above. Read it and weep.
Oct 2, '08
Gordo is slime that deserves to lose for the same reason that every other Repub deserves to lose.
Having said that, I can confirm that Gordo has never voted to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) which was the foundation of the separate but equal doctrine. Neither has anybody else in the last 100 years, but perhaps this website could construct an argument about Gordo being a racist.
<h2>Gordo is a middle of the road Repub. As I navigate my Lincoln Towncar down the road of life, I hope to see Gordo in my headlights as I bear down at 100 miles per hour, but he is no better or worse than all the other Repub scum.</h2>