Oh fun! A Smith staffer!

Yes, I agree -- there's a fantastic debate to be had about trade policy and its impact on Oregon families.

That's a debate that Jeff Merkley would love to have with Gordon Smith, to be sure.

But Gordon seems to be obsessed with furniture lately. And doing everything he can to avoid actual voters.

Exporting jobs isn't something that Oregonians want to be known for.

It's nice to know that a Smith staffer equates wanting to keep jobs here in America with being economically illiterate.

Rollie: I know you're just quoting the SSJ, but since you seem to suggest that you agree with them...

Please provide a link to any negative ad that Jeff Merkley has run in this general election campaign. Because I suspect you (and the SSJ) are confusing someone else's ads with Merkley's ads.

It's Jeff Merkley that's talking about issues while Gordon Smith yammers on and on about furniture.

Second, you are intellectually dishonest. Merkley may not control the DSCC adds and the DPO ads, but are you really so stupid that you think you can play us for fools? Those ads would not have run if Merkley made it clear privately and publicly he repudiated the DSCC and DPO.

LOL..seriously???

I don't think anyone is going to have to "play" you for a fool..cuz you're doing a fantastic job all by yourself.

The ads run by the DPO and the DSCC are their own--they make the decisions with absolutely ZERO input from Merkley's campaign. To do otherwise would be illegal. Even if Jeff were to stand up and repudiate the whole thing...it would be meaningless.

But why should he? They're effective....and they speak to the heart of everything that's wrong with Gordon Smith.

Smith's negative ads come directly from Smith's campaign. Shall we ask him to repudiate himself?

LOL

I think folks don't understand how the whole independent-expenditure thing works.

I have good friends that I literally can't talk to -- for months -- about the most important race going on in our lives... because they're on the other side of the wall.

It's been made exceedingly clear to everyone on the campaign staff, and on the consulting team, that we're to have ZERO contact with anyone affiliated with the IE program.

So, while the DSCC's IE team may be working to help get Jeff Merkley elected - Merkley, his consultants, and his staff have zero knowledge (much less control) over what's they're doing.

One more thing -- I don't have anything against "negative" or "attack" ads per se. I think it's important to draw meaningful and accurate contrasts between candidates - especially when you're trying to convince the voters to fire an incumbent. (I am, of course, opposed to untruthful ads - whether positive or negative.)

But that's not the question here.

The question here is - have Jeff Merkley and Gordon Smith been running non-substantive attack ads, focused on silliness rather than important issues that matter to Oregonians?

For Gordon Smith, the answer is yes.

For Jeff Merkley, the answer is no.

And the Oregonian does its readers a disservice to pretend otherwise. There's a difference between the two campaigns and their approach to the race so far.

OK, Pat, but did you tell your friend that none of those attack ads are from Jeff Merkley?

Yes, the Oregonian and Statesman-Journal are right to point out that the candidate ads to date are not dealing with the big issues before us. That's because Republicans cannot run on big issues and do not want them discussed. They want small issues, like furniture for the Capitol, or values issues, as in Gov. Palin. Let get back to big issues, war, peace, the economy, education, health care, etc.

The Oregonian has lots of reporters and lots of space in their paper and online to present the positions of the Senate candidates on the big issues. The editorial staff would be better off complaining about the news staff than about candidate ads. Let me further suggest that the Oregonian editorial staff can take one big campaign issue at time as the topic for an editorial.

This post seems like a petty complaint, more akin to whining, than a serious critique of the Oregonian. Really, Democrats should agree and encourage issue ads. We win on issues.

Although trade is a big issue, I, too, find the Merkley ad lacking in substance and would hardly call it an issue ad. It plays into voters' economic angnst, as if we could control, stop, or shut ourselves off from the global economic forces that are at work today. It may be a politically effective ad, but only touches at the seam of an immense issue, and, from my point of view, not in a constructive way.

Merkley agreed to have his campaign and message co-opted by Schumer and the DSCC/DPO a long time ago, Kari. You can't run away from their influence now...and as was pointed out, the legal differences between the funding sources are meaningless to the average voter.

In any case, it's pretty hypocritical to whine about the charge of running frivolous attack ads, when that's exactly the strategy employed by Merkley to win the primary. You reap what you sow. I seem to recall warnings that a traditionalist, by-the-book general election campaign would have difficulty against an incumbent traditionalist who knows the book so much better.

I'd love to see an ad from a bunch of state legislators making the case for the Capitol upgrades, comparing the working conditions of our dedicated state legislators to their U.S. counterparts, and asking why Republican Gordon Smith does not support responsible planning for the future to support the important efforts of our state legislator.

Although trade is a big issue, I, too, find the Merkley ad lacking in substance and would hardly call it an issue ad. It plays into voters' economic angnst, as if we could control, stop, or shut ourselves off from the global economic forces that are at work today. It may be a politically effective ad, but only touches at the seam of an immense issue, and, from my point of view, not in a constructive way.

OK, Dave, you're on. You've got 30 seconds. How would you use it to explain trade? Keep in mind that we're not producing a documentary here, we're trying to move voters toward Jeff Merkley and away from Gordon Smith. So, whaddya got?

"OK, Dave, you're on. You've got 30 seconds. How would you use it to explain trade? Keep in mind that we're not producing a documentary here, we're trying to move voters toward Jeff Merkley and away from Gordon Smith. So, whaddya got?"

Friends, Gordon Smith talks about free trade, but his idea of "free trade" is letting US companies be free to outsource our jobs and then receive tax breaks from your pocket. And when those jobs make it overseas, Gordon Smith is OK if those companies abuse labor and product safety laws that they couldn't get away with here.

Jeff Merkley knows that the only truly free trade is FAIR trade--fair to American workers, and with standards to keep the things you buy from being produced in sweatshops by slave children.

"Free trade" only works for Gordon Smith's corporate backers. Fair trade works for all of us.

Yeah, TJ, that's pretty good.

It clocked in at 38 seconds when I read it, but that's a minor detail.

Compared to Merkley's ad, it includes the stuff about labor and product safety rules (and "slave children") - and hits Gordon Smith directly... but doesn't include the Oregon impact and the broader "Washington is broken" message.

Seems like a fine script to me -- but I'm wondering if Dave thinks it meets his standard for "substance" and getting at the "immense issue".

Too often, people who want advertisements to be loaded with info forget that an ad is only 30 seconds -- and isn't supposed to be a educational documentary, but rather to move voters.

Thanks K. It was off the cuff; let's see if we can't tighten:

Gordon Smith's idea of free trade is a company that's free to move your job overseas, while helping themselves to tax breaks that come from your pocket. Then those companies often feel free to put children into sweatshops, or to ignore product common sense safety laws meant to protect you.

I'm Jeff Merkley, and I say free trade isn't really free unless it's fair--fair to employees, fair to consumers, and fair to the environment. So this November 4th, feel free to trade in your old Senator!...for one who will be fair to you when it comes to your job, your family's safety, and the health of the planet we live on.

"common sense product safety laws."

In response to Kari: (1) I would not pick "trade" for an issue ad. I think it is an issue on which Democrats are significantly divided, with enough partisan fevor to split the party. Maybe Merkley has polls showing otherwise, but I would counsel caution. Work the other issues: education, other economic issues, health care, energy, global warming and wars. Skip "trade." (2) The fundamental problem with the "trade" issue is that there are increasingly hundreds of millions of people around the globe with skills and educational levels equal to ours that are willing to work for a fraction of what Americans work for. Even were we to succeed in bringing their labor, environmental, and politcal rights standards up to our levels, they would still be willing to work for a lot less. And we should not fool ourselves into thinking we could even make that happen. We are not that powerful. China's economy is forecast to be twice the size of the US economy by 2050, and India will not be far behind. Economy power is shifting away from us. In this emerging world, "fair trade" is not going to keep or bring back jobs. Other approaches are needed, i.e. education, retraining, and safety net programs. The game has changed on us. (3) I could not put this into a one minute ad. I might for a moment want to tell this emerging global economy what I thought of it (probably not, however, in a political ad like Merkley's), but then the adult in me would council caution, saying "Get real, this is the only global economy there is, we have to live in it, it is where the action is, we have to figure out how to make it work for us."

That's actually not half bad, TJ. I particularly like the free trade/fair trade treatment.

However... those looking to criticize could still find a lack of specificity to complain about.

It's a rock/hard place situation for the candidate, IMO.