Blumenauer: Gordon Smith is not entitled to his own facts.
Congressman Earl Blumenauer has followed up with a video addressing Gordon Smith's claim that he was one of the first to oppose the war in Iraq:
Meanwhile, former Congresswoman Elizabeth Furse is now claiming that she "misspoke" when she made that claim in Gordon Smith's ad. From the O:
Meanwhile, another attempt by Smith to build his bipartisan credentials ran into trouble Tuesday.Former Democratic Rep. Elizabeth Furse acknowledged she misspoke when she praised the Republican senator in a TV ad for his campaign.
Furse said she was wrong when she claimed in the commercial that Smith was "one of the first to stand up to George Bush and other Republicans to end this war" in Iraq. She said she should have stated that Smith -- who supported the war for its first 31/2 years -- was one of the first Republicans to speak out against it.
"I know that he wasn't the first to oppose the war," said Furse. "He was one of the first of his party to oppose the war . . . That is what I meant."
Of course, her statement came in a Smith-produced television ad - not an off-hand comment somewhere. Question: Can Smith duck responsibility for the ad's contents if Furse retracts them? Should television stations pull the ad - now that its lead spokesperson has acknowledged that it's false?
Discuss.
|
June 25, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
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
Jun 25, '08
Excessive minutia...
4:41 p.m.
Jun 25, '08
Well done, Congressman Blumenauer.
4:50 p.m.
Jun 25, '08
There were so many in his party that disagreed with the war long before he did. That's why they lost the 2006 election.
I just laughed when they were saying he was the first... apparently they forgot about many other people, including U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee (R, RI).
4:52 p.m.
Jun 25, '08
Great job, Congressman Blumenauer. Short and to the point.
This is the kind of response the Merkley campaign needs. It doesn't necessarily have to be Merkley saying it - the message can also come from respected members of the community, elected officials, etc.
Jun 25, '08
Elizabeth Furse and Avel Gordly need to be taken to task publicly for being a party to lies and betraying the causes they claim to support.
5:13 p.m.
Jun 25, '08
I am surprised that Earl stopped with only two Republicans that opposed the war before Smith. While the two he mentioned opposed it in 2003, there were others that were outspoken critics after the war started but long before Smith like Senators Hagel and Voinovich. Of course the fact that there were so few and that he is still loyal to his party is pretty damning by itself.
Jun 25, '08
Elizabeth got it right, everybody knew she was not talking about the few nutjob Demofacists who were anti-American from the beginning. She was only talking about being the first of the Republicanos.
Majoring in the Minors. Minutia is correct.
Nitwits.
5:29 p.m.
Jun 25, '08
"She was only talking about being the first of the Republicanos."
...to BECOME anti-American? Are you calling Gordon Smith a nutjob?
(doesn't it seem odd to you that the nutjobs were right, and soberminded people like you were apparently dead wrong?)
7:00 p.m.
Jun 25, '08
Are you calling Ron Wyden and Barack Obama anti-American nutjobs?
7:20 p.m.
Jun 25, '08
Even if you take Furse at her word, meaning she meant to say Smith was one of the first Republicans to come out against the war--she'd still be wrong.
Six Republicans voted against the Iraq Resolution.
I've also found three others who spoke out before Smith: Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC),Rep. Wayne Gilchrist (R-MD) and Rep. John Duncan, Jr (R-TN).
And those are just the electeds. Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft also broke with Bush on Iraq years before Smith pretended to do so (Smith continues to vote for funding the war).
7:26 p.m.
Jun 25, '08
Carla:
Exactly. She never says Republican Senators, or even Republican electeds - just Republicans. There are plenty of Republicans that were outspoken about the war between 2002 and November of 2006.
Heck, my husband was against the war and he's a Republican.
Of course, as we all know, Smith isn't against the war. If he was, he would try to do something to stop it. Instead, he continues to vote for the war while saying he's against it.
Jun 25, '08
Oh, Earl, Earl, Earl:
Maybe you are kicking yourself for not getting in this race. Bottom line is that you probably should of and now you want to play ball because the candidate who did take the leap appears to be sitting this one out for some reason. Bottom line is that the incumbent is outsmarting all of you right now. Tough stuff, I am sure, but maybe Earl should expend his energy on more worthy causes like legislating. Tough week when your own Speaker goes against you on FISA. Tough stuff indeed.
Jun 25, '08
I'll leave aside the substance of the ads for now, and just note that Merkley is letting Smith and all his ads get all the buzz, while his own campaign stays silent. (And a ground game is a silent strategy.) It's frustratingly reminiscent of what happened with Novick, where he was able to get all the attention for months, which led to higher poll numbers, which led to big endorsements, which snowballed into greater fundraising. Merkley won in the end by having a better statewide strategy, but Merkley won't have that advantage over Smith. I know Merkley's budget is smaller than Smith's, but it's going to be even smaller if he lets his poll numbers drop further.
Am I right to be concerned here?
Jun 25, '08
James X
Here is the difference between Novick and Merkley.
Novick has a personality.
You have a right to be concerned. The table is set, but no one is showing up for dinner. Schumer must be pulling his last few strands of hair out.
8:46 p.m.
Jun 25, '08
James and Tim --
Want to see Merkley respond on the air? Donate here.
TV ads aren't free.
Jun 25, '08
Kari, even when Merkley had more money than Novick, Novick was the one putting up ads. I don't think it's a lack of money, I think it's a strategy, and I'm concerned about that strategy.
Jun 25, '08
Well Mary (above) I suppose anyone who doesn't want a war monger, war profiteer in office is anti-American,. You just expect everyone to keep going along down this miserable nightmare we're living in without a word. guy gets in, they'll all be drafted, and they'll die or become maimed and then you will have ONLY YOURSELF TO BLAME! You Mary are a real American TERRORIST!
Jun 25, '08
Well Mary (above) I suppose anyone who doesn't want a war monger, war profiteer in office is anti-American,. You just expect everyone to keep going along down this miserable nightmare we're living in without a word. guy gets in, they'll all be drafted, and they'll die or become maimed and then you will have ONLY YOURSELF TO BLAME! You Mary are a real American TERRORIST!
Jun 25, '08
Yeah, James X., it is a strategy, and it's called being able to read a calendar.
Smith is blowing his money in June, whereas Merkley is touring the state, connecting with voters and garnering favorable coverage in local media, and building a statewide network that he'll be able to harness when it matters, in the fall.
Smith is running scared, which is why he's advertising now because he knows that his back is up against the wall in this state, especially with Obama's coattails.
Given the voter registration advantage that the Democrats will have statewide this election, it makes perfect sense for them (i.e. Merkley) to keep their powder dry until it matters, i.e. September and October, not June. It would be a colossal waster of precious resources for him to advertise now--- thank goodness you aren't running the campaign--- when he knows that all he has to do is hitch his wagon to Obama's tsunami in the fall (pardon the mixed metaphors) and he'll win.
11:32 p.m.
Jun 25, '08
"when he knows that all he has to do is hitch his wagon to Obama's tsunami in the fall (pardon the mixed metaphors) and he'll win."
Take it from someone who was told the same thing about his candidate--this is NOT a good strategic assumption. The same tens of thousands of voters who ticked for Obama and then left the Senate bubbles blank for Novick, also left Merkley's blank. He can't help but collect some advantage from the sheer number of new Democrats, but he'd better not be banking those people just yet. And Schumer's money will spend differently just to catch up, than it did flooding the zone.
Speaking of Schumer, wouldn't that $600K come in really handy for the nominee now?
Jun 26, '08
Kari, even when Merkley had more money than Novick, Novick was the one putting up ads.
How'd that work out?
Jun 26, '08
"Merkley won (the primary) in the end by having a better statewide strategy"
James, I know you're not that naive.
Merkley won because he went negative with a misleading ad and he got nearly $400,000 from the DSCC (not counting their TV ad expenditures).
"Want to see Merkley respond on the air? Donate here. TV ads aren't free."
Believe it or not, I almost donated $25 to Merkley yesterday, but a credit card glitch meant the deal didn't go through.
Then I read Mapes' article about the 400 grand Merkley got from the DSCC during the primary.
So then I said "fuck it, if Merkley needs money let him get it from his buddies in Washington, D.C."
Jun 26, '08
Jack Sullivan,
I think your perception of who did how much campaign advertising in the Merkley/Novick primary is mistaken. Perhaps Novick's off-beat ads were more memorable for you.
10:38 a.m.
Jun 26, '08
I'd love to see how all of these arguments would have and will play out if Novick had gotten the DC money (that he DID ask for) instead of Merkley.
8:18 a.m.
Jun 27, '08
Ah party unity. Gotta love it.
I was worried about Clinton supporters getting behind Obama, but these fears have proven to be alregely unfounded.
As it turns out, it's TJ, Malach, and a very few other former Novick supporters who continue to travel around the net taking shots at the democratic senatorial candidate.
Seems like they have three choices:
1) Slag off the Dem nominee, not for any real policy differences, but because they just can't let go of a race that was over with weeks ago (as they are currently doing over on Kos and on this thread).
2) Grow up, and start actively supporting Jeff's candidacy so we can defeat the Republican Gordon Smith. (Or at the very minimum shut up and quit trying to actively sabotage Jeff's candidacy).
3) Admit that they are more interested in whining and getting even than they are in getting another progressive elected to the US senate, and join the thriving Dems for Smith group.
Jun 30, '08
"Grow up, and start actively supporting Jeff's candidacy so we can defeat the Republican Gordon Smith. (Or at the very minimum shut up and quit trying to actively sabotage Jeff's candidacy)." P. Ryan
Of all the Merkley supporters here, Pat comes off the most petty. He actually turned on Novick because he didn't shake his hand or make eye contact with his wife. (I read that in one of his comments where he was slagging off Novick - you could just sense the pathetic insecurity. "I'm a big man. Look at me. Look at me!")
Seems he got more love sucking up to Merkley.
Jeff Merkley is still looking for a coronation. No' gonna happen, Paddy my boy.
9:49 a.m.
Jun 30, '08
Good enough. Let's concede my pettiness and insecurity.
There are currently two contestants in this race. I ain't one of 'em and Novick ain't one of 'em.
I'm still unclear how that explains why you guys are running all over the blogosphere slagging off the Democratic nominee in a tough race. You guys seem to have gone from Denial to Anger and gotten stuck there.
Jul 1, '08
"I'm still unclear how that explains why you guys are running all over the blogosphere slagging off the Democratic nominee in a tough race."
I am not a Democrat. I am a progressive. There's a difference.
"There are currently two contestants in this race."
What's your point? Have you never heard of write-in candidates? Besides, thanks to Merkley's reluctance to debate (I think he waited something like 6 months) and his negative ads there was a tremendous undervote. I expect the same in the general election.
Jul 1, '08
Talk about hypocrisy.
Earl Blumenauer, Mr. No Ceasefire in Lebanon: How many times have you voted for war funding?
When did you support justice for Palestinians?
When will you stand up to AIPAC?
When will you support impeachment of war criminals?
When will you apologize for your vote in favor of H.J. Res. 64, "Authorization for Use of Military Force", which gave Bush authority to single-handedly conduct war against unspecified nations, organizations, or persons for an unspecified duration?
When did you join Kucinich in pressuring Pelosi into disallowing any supplemental to the floor of the House for debate or voting?
You are a right-of-center regressive poseur whose primary accomplishment is that you've convinced right-of-center Democrats that you are "anti-war".
A VOTE FOR MEO IS A VOTE FOR PEACE
Jul 1, '08
Here are some facts that Earl doesn't want to acknowledge: Most Publics--including Americans--Oppose Taking Sides in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
"No country favors taking Israel's side, including the United States, where 71 percent favor taking neither side."
<hr/>