Gordon Smith's Voting Record
Time to do some research this weekend on Gordon Smith's voting record. The challenge to Blue Oregon readers is find and record at least one vote that demonstrates why Gordon Smith should not be re-elected to the US Senate.
1. In April of 2003 Gordon Smith voted against giving our troops the body armor they needed.
Your turn!
|
August 15, 2008 |
Paulie Brading | Comments (20 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 15, 2008 8:43:52 AM
2. Gordon Smith voted for authorization of funding the Iraq War - 2002
3. Gordon Smith voted for authorization of the Iraq War - 2002
Posted by: backbeat | Aug 15, 2008 9:22:51 AM
It would be easier to try and name one good thing he did for this state. Much shorter list.
Posted by: Laura Taylor | Aug 15, 2008 10:04:36 AM
In 2005, he voted against a $100 million budget to fund crazy things like birth control and other family planning services.
Senate vote #75 (3/17/05)
Posted by: Fair and Balanced | Aug 15, 2008 12:01:22 PM
I'd like to find all the instances over a few years when Smith voted opposite Wyden, canceling out Oregon's influence on legislation. Theme for Merkley: let's send a Senator who will work with Ron Wyden, not take his vote away.
Anyone know how to distill all those votes down so we can find those instances of cancellation?
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Aug 15, 2008 12:12:57 PM
-Demanding Integrity,
How about demanding some tact? So sorry that everyone cannot live up to YOUR standards.
Posted by: negev79 | Aug 15, 2008 12:21:07 PM
Fair and Balanced - I think Smith has canceled out Wyden's vote something like 1700 times. We've effectively had no voice in the Senate for years.
Posted by: Linley | Aug 15, 2008 3:07:21 PM
He voted to approve torture when he voted to approve the torturer Alberto Gonzales' nomination to Attorney General.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Aug 15, 2008 3:12:27 PM
Voted to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 2006.
Posted by: local mom | Aug 15, 2008 3:18:58 PM
I don't think any votes in an election year should count in a candidate's voting record. Gordon Smith in 2008 is not the same Gordon Smith who voted the other 11 years.
Posted by: Jack K., the Grumpy Forester | Aug 15, 2008 7:47:28 PM
...on the Gordon Smith body armor vote:
Vote #116, 108th Congress, 1st Session. April 2, 2003, 05:35 PM
Motion to table Amendment by Senator Landrieu (D-LA), to appropriate $1, 047,000,000 for procurement for the National Guard and Reserves (including improved ballistic body armor for NG and Reserve troops being deployed to Iraq who were being sent without or with ineffective Vietnam-era armor).
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Posted by: RW | Aug 15, 2008 8:48:29 PM
Dated 4/10/08: Voted No on Vote 94: H R 3221: Alexander Amdt. No. 4429; To provide a longer extension of the renewable energy production tax credit and to encourage all emerging renewable sources of electricity, and for other purposes.
****
Fair & Balanced: use this link to run a manual comparison between Wyden and Smith if you like - this is set to Smith -
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s001142/key-votes/
****
Generally speaking:
Gordon Smith has voted with a majority of his Republican colleagues 72.2% of the time during the current Congress. He missed only four votes thus far. Makes him a relatively high-percentage go along/get along guy who shows up most of the time to get it done. Interesting to review how his verbal cant has shifted to the softened middle of late, but his record remains resolutely partisan.
If we return him to office, we had better be sure we want him there, he definitely does his job, no matter how little we like him (as compared to McCain, who has a compelling record of missed votes).
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s001142/
Compare him to McCain, with a 6oth percentile vote-miss.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/
Posted by: Demanding Integrity | Aug 16, 2008 12:09:24 AM
Dated 4/10/08: Voted No on Vote 94: H R 3221: Alexander Amdt. No. 4429; To provide a longer extension of the renewable energy production tax credit and to encourage all emerging renewable sources of electricity, and for other purposes.
Isn't this interesting:
Smith: Nay Wyden Nay Feingold Nay
Which means if Merkley would vote like Wyden as he says: Merkley Nay
-----
Vote 349, 2007, 110th Congress: To express the sense of the Senate regarding Iran (the infamous Kyl Amendment)
Smith: Yea Durbin Yea Feinstein Yea Dorgan Yea
-----
Vote 245, 2005, 109th Congress: Confirmation of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States
Smith: Yea Wyden Yea Feingold Yea Murray Yea
----
Vote 134, 2004, 108th Congress: To increase the penalties for violations by television broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane language
Smith: Yea Wyden Yea Dorgan Yea
----
On the votes WaPo designated as key votes, Smith and Wyden voted the same 50% of the time.
In 2004, when Wyden was up for re-election he and Smith voted the same 54% of the time. To be sure, many of those votes were when Democrats were rubber-stamping Republican judicial appointments, but I can't remember Wyden leading many filibusters on the votes they split on and that Democrats lost by a smaller margin then required by cloture.
Posted by: RW | Aug 16, 2008 1:26:39 AM
D.I.: another poster earlier mentioned that perhaps election year votes should not count against a politico. I assume this is because of election-year pressures creating anomalous voting patterns we take for granted as evidence of American political process/structures...
In one way, perhaps one might savvily overlook it. But the idealist [dogmatist?] in me observes the departures from a given politician's typical positions and expressed values. The degree of departure could signal the relative strength or lack of personal conviction, as well as devotion to the will of one's constituent electorate.
Under pressure: how intensely do you fold, and on what issues, which nuances of which issues?
I noticed in Smith's voting record a spate of some 4-5 land use and transparency issues that seemed so closely clustered as to be, in effect, an initiative of some kind. He voted against disclosures I would approve of...
Appallingly, on key votes for this year, I found in the WaPo resource that Smith was not the toad I like to think he is. Time to read the legislation in its entirety to get back my posture.... or look to other resources to see if they consider the same votes as "key", and how this changes his profiling.
Yuck. Please don't let me approve of this legislator. I shall feel quite rudderless if this should come to pass.
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Aug 16, 2008 9:50:39 AM
But what can be even more telling than a vote is bill sponsorship. While votes show Senator Smith's opinion on any given issue, sponsored bills show where his true priorities lie. With that, I give you S.2372, the Affordable Footwear Act.
I think I just wrote the Merkley campaign's next TV ad:
"Times are tough. But what is Gordon Smith doing in the Senate? Ensuring access to imported shoes, of course!"
I'll keep an eye out for that advert contractor check in the mail.
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Aug 16, 2008 9:53:17 AM
And before anyone demands integrity of me, here's the bill.
Posted by: Dan Meek | Aug 16, 2008 6:26:32 PM
To his credit, Gordon Smith did fill out the VoteSmart survey. See http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=425. His answers there reveal that Smith advocates increasing nearly all categories of federal spending (while cutting spending in none of the categories). He also advocates decreasing or eliminating nearly all categories of federal taxes, including abolishing the estate tax. He caps it off with this comment: "The budget should be balanced with the exception of war time or economic instability." How do you accomplish that by taking a $482 billion deficit, then increasing spending and decreasing taxes?
1) Budget Priorities
Slightly Increase a) Agriculture
Maintain Status b) Arts
Slightly Increase c) Defense
Greatly Increase d) Education
Greatly Increase e) Environment
Slightly Increase f) FEMA
Greatly Increase g) Homeland security
Slightly Increase h) International aid
Slightly Increase i) Law enforcement (Federal)
Greatly Increase j) Law enforcement (State)
Greatly Increase k) Medical research
Slightly Increase l) National parks
Greatly Increase m) Public health services
Slightly Increase n) Scientific research
Maintain Status o) Space exploration programs
Greatly Increase p) Transportation and highway infrastructure
Maintain Status q) United Nations
Maintain Status r) Welfare
s) Other or expanded categories
2) Defense Spending
Slightly Increase a) Armed forces personnel training
Slightly Increase b) Intelligence operations
Slightly Increase c) Military hardware
Greatly Increase d) Modernization of weaponry and equipment
Maintain Status e) National missile defense
Greatly Increase f) Pay for active duty personnel
Slightly Increase g) Programs to improve troop retention rates
Slightly Increase h) Research and development of new weapons
Greatly Increase i) Troop and equipment readiness
j) Other or expanded categories
3) Taxes
Indicate what federal tax levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one number per category, you can use a number more than once.
Family Income Taxes
Slightly Decrease a) Less than $12,000
Slightly Decrease b) $12,001-$40,000
Greatly Decrease c) $40,001-$100,000
Slightly Decrease d) $100,001-$180,000
e) $180,001-$350,000
f) $350,001 and above
g) Other or expanded categories
Other Taxes
Maintain Status a) Alcohol taxes
Slightly Decrease b) Capital gains taxes
Slightly Increase c) Cigarette taxes
Maintain Status d) Corporate taxes
Slightly Decrease e) Gasoline taxes
Eliminate f) Inheritance taxes
g) Other or expanded categories
Deductions/Credits
Slightly Increase a) Charitable contribution deduction
Slightly Increase b) Child tax credit
Slightly Increase c) Earned income tax credit
Slightly Increase d) Medical expense deduction
Slightly Increase e) Mortgage deduction
Slightly Increase f) Student loan credit
g) Other or expanded categories
Yes 4) Do you support the permanent repeal of the federal estate tax?
Yes 5) Do you support requiring the federal budget to be balanced each year?
6) Other or expanded principles
The budget should be balanced with the exception of war time or economic instability
Posted by: tower defense | Apr 30, 2009 2:36:55 AM
Many of those votes were when Democrats were rubber-stamping Republican judicial appointments, but I can't remember Wyden leading many filibusters on the votes they split on and that Democrats lost by a smaller margin then required by cloture.
Posted by: web tasarım | Sep 9, 2009 3:48:41 AM
This and similar information-sharing my vocabulary expanded again. Thank you for your writing ...
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Demanding Integrity | Aug 15, 2008 7:36:16 AM
Paulie, you're not credible unless you give the recorded Roll Call Vote number in the Senate. They are available at www.senate.gov.
Your turn lazy.