What does desperation look like? (Smith's new ads)
Somewhere in Gordon Smith's campaign office, they've got a glass case. It's labeled, "In case of emergency, break glass."
I always figured Smith was going to wait until mid-October, but it seems that desperation has set in already.
And no wonder, with the recent poll numbers and the revelations about his hiring of illegal immigrants.
So, what does a U.S. Senator do when he's desperate, unable to talk about his own accomplishments, and faced with an opponent who's barnstorming the state and talking about real issues on TV?
Answer: Release an eye-poppingly outrageous ad that misleads the voters with untrue claims - and tries to tie the opponent to a horrific crime that happened 20 years ago. In fact, release two of them:
For the record, when it was a stand-alone bill, Merkley voted to extend the statute of limitations for sex crimes. And he voted to support mandatory life imprisonment for serial sex offenders with possible parole after 30 years.
It's Gordon Smith who voted five times against funding the COPS program (the 100,000-cop neighborhood policing program) and against higher funding for the Violence Against Women program.
That's what desperation looks like.
To help Jeff Merkley continue to organize the biggest grassroots campaign in Oregon history - and put positive issue-based ads on the air - make a donation right now.
|
September 12, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Don | Sep 12, 2008 10:55:03 PM
I'm going to be honest, these make me want to hurl, I didn't think even Smith would stoop this low...
Posted by: LT | Sep 12, 2008 11:04:58 PM
Ever notice how many bills quoted in the ads are 2003, 2005, or some other year Republicans controlled the House?
Posted by: Cedar | Sep 12, 2008 11:11:55 PM
Umm...Merkley voted against Kate Brown and Ben Westlund on these!
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 12, 2008 11:42:49 PM
Go away, GOP hack. Here's the facts.
Posted by: Travis Wells | Sep 12, 2008 11:47:07 PM
Absolutely sickening. To politicize something so tragic and try to take the campaign away from the issues and get them to vote based on emotional impulse is absolutely wrong. It's unfortunately not a new idea (remember 2004?), but it's an idea that is long overdue for destruction. If you were on the fence about who you were voting for before, I think this should push you as far away from Smith as you can get.
Posted by: carla axtman | Sep 13, 2008 7:11:12 AM
This is where Republicans go when they know they're in trouble: fearmongering.
This is how we got into Iraq. This is how Bush was reelected.
It will work, if we let it.
So...let's not.
Posted by: dartagnan | Sep 13, 2008 8:48:42 AM
"To politicize something so tragic and try to take the campaign away from the issues and get them to vote based on emotional impulse is absolutely wrong."
Yes indeed, but it's SOP for Republicans. They know they can't win on the issues because all their policies are proven failures, so they have to distract voters with slime and smear.
What's REALLY tragic is that it so often works. I was hoping American voters had finally gotten sick of these tactics, but I might have been wrong.
Posted by: dartagnan | Sep 13, 2008 8:55:37 AM
"It will work, if we let it. So...let's not."
Great suggestion, Carla. So how do we stop it? By knocking on doors and making phone calls? Sorry, that's been tried.
"A lie gets halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its pants on." -- Winston Churchill.
The Repubs know this and exploit it to the hilt. They throw the lies out there and make Democrats waste time and resources trying to chase them down. Meanwhile the Repubs have spewed out a dozen more lies.
The only short-term solution I can think of -- and at best it would be a partial one -- is a strict limit on campaign spending. The only long-term cure is a more educated and better informed electorate.
Posted by: JHL | Sep 13, 2008 9:48:06 AM
The only long-term cure is a more educated and better informed electorate.
Good call. We ought to be investing in this now, with a greater emphasis on practical civics in our public schools. We need to go beyond "how a bill becomes a law" and get our future voters to understand how their government works -- from their city councilman to their state legislature to Congress. Too many students don't even know what a mortage is, let alone how personal finance relates to the current financial crisis.
Oregon has got a first-rate online archive of our legislative process... and anyone who knows how to use it can easily see through this bogus ad. But instead, we're graduating students who haven't even been taught the difference between Congress and the State Legislature. Can we blame them for taking some things for granted if we don't teach them how to verify such things?
First step is eliminating No Child Left Behind... but that's a topic for another thread.
Even though I've been planning to vote Merkley, I'm a moderate, so I didn't used to have too much beef with Gordon Smith. But this ad is personally insulting -- it basically counts on me not looking up the facts.
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 13, 2008 10:03:22 AM
These ads are clearly designed to raise Merkley's negatives. But they're going to raise Smith's own negatives as much if not more.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Sep 13, 2008 10:45:24 AM
You might have titled this post, "What Does the Loss of All Dignity Look Like?" Smith can now provide the answers.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Sep 13, 2008 10:56:42 AM
From Merkley's website:
Jeff Merkley has always supported extending the statute of limitations for sex crimes, voting FOR HB 2015 in 2005. This bill would have increased the statute of limitations for sex crimes from 6 years to 12 years and to age 30 for victims under the age of 18. Merkley opposed HB 2316 to protest secret back room deals in the Legislature.
In other words, Merkley voted for this law before he voted against it. In fact, he was for it even when he voted against it. He just voted against it to send a political message.
I'd say, "Message received."
Posted by: Interesting | Sep 13, 2008 11:24:36 AM
So wait, he voted no, but in reality he was for it....ive heard this before, like when he voted to show support for the Iraq war...but in reality thats not what he really voted for according to him.
Does Merkley know how voting works...can i vote for Smith, but really say i supported Merkley?
Posted by: genop | Sep 13, 2008 12:37:41 PM
I fear the prospect of the impact of Bush/Cheney war mongering on the elections. Will hostilities inside Pakistan bring retaliation?
Compound that with re-stocking Georgia's armory and one might think we're getting a bit provocative with our foreign policy. Is this R strategy to influence the elections? Would Smith be less vulnerable with "war-like hostilities" flaring on a number of fronts?
Would McCain get a "war-like hostility" bump?
One thing I am certain of is this election cannot come soon enough.
Posted by: Jim | Sep 13, 2008 12:45:35 PM
Aren't the trolls cute?
When they are stuck with damaged goods, and with resorting to a scorched earth campaign, they do come across as though they are operating in their own little doomed bubble. I would say for the Rs, it is nothing more than grabbing for the most comfortable tool when stuck on a sinking ship.
Posted by: Chris #12 | Sep 13, 2008 7:54:33 PM
Again, maybe the standard Democratic rap includes referring to people as "illegals", but most progressives, immigrant rights advocates, and human rights activists use the term "undocumented worker".
Kari and others, please stop using the term, or explain why you think it's ok.
Posted by: RebeccaWhetstine | Sep 13, 2008 8:10:07 PM
Chris: interesting language point. You may be assuming that Kari and others are members of said advocacy groups with an assumed philososphy. They may,be anti-undocumented employment. A NW economy that is never flush, but now bleeding out, can erode "good politics" as survivalism becomes more and more the order of daily life in a region. At such times it can be easy to let the gatekeepers divide the us against each other.
The term, "Illegals" is a volatile push-button geared to get reaction. Kari and Co, are you simply using that as a way to apply extra "juice" in your thrust at Smith? Or is there a nuance in your stance being expressed?
It's worth unpacking this, as it's not criminal to believe that the status quo on undocumenteds is not working for American working class people or youth workers needing employment. It's not working for the undocumenteds. A robust, well-managed guest worker program might be worth asking Smith about...
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 14, 2008 1:06:20 AM
Chris #12, did you mean to post your comment somewhere else -- because you're the first person to use the word "illegals" in this thread. In any case, I'm pretty sure that I've never used that word.
Posted by: Law-n-Order D | Sep 14, 2008 7:06:33 AM
OF all the silly Smith ads this ad with the rapist going with a "soft on crime" message is one I believe has appeal with the electorate. To have considered making a 30 year multiple rapist eligible for parole when he is 60 and able to victimize more people was not smart. However, this does not mean I am advocating a vote for Smith, rather to point out that if Ds want to win elections they need to stop handing the crime issue to Republicans in the legistlature. I think Ds are on the way (only a handful of Ds voted against Jesicca's Law) but it can certainly get better.
Posted by: DSS | Sep 14, 2008 8:11:23 AM
Law-n-Order D makes a good point... specifically, Minnis' legislative shenanigans on HB 2316 were going to pass anyway, so why didn't Merkley (as Democratic leader) just take a policy-stupid/politically-smart vote to avoid handing the R's something that could be spun?
Well, it's important to keep in mind how far out this ad is...
First, there are already provisions in state law to extend the statute of limitations for crimes against minors, so without knowing the precise details, it's unlikely this bill would have even addressed the issue brought up in the ad.
Also, that Merkley voted in favor of HB 2015. That he voted no on HB 2316-B might have been because Minnis gutted amendments requested by the Board of Parole. Let's keep in mind that doing so was probably an affront to the Sheriffs and Public Safety officers that were working on the pre-gutted HB 2316-A.
If the House reconsideration passed, it would have burned any hope for the resurrecting the collaborative work done on HB 2316-A. So at the time Merkley voted no, let's understand that there may have been a schism between the ACTUAL Public Safety interests who know what they're doing and the EXTREME victim's groups who just want to simply do away with statutes of limitations and all that.
Posted by: dickey45 | Sep 14, 2008 11:22:12 AM
Thanks DSS - I figured there was probably something inside the bill (during amendments?) that made it stink.
To add to this discussion, there is research out there (don't have the link) that shows that offenders at a particular age really stop/slow down re-offending. It seemed like it was around 60 or 70.
I really think at some age people can get beyond even being able to re-offend.
Posted by: RebeccaWhetstine | Sep 14, 2008 11:48:00 AM
Depends upon your definition of "offend". Perhaps the public is imagining rampant nasty images of full-on criminal acts. And, perhaps, wisely, they are aware that while the acuteness of the offenses may "ease" after a certain age, the psychodynamic continues to be active and injurious if not effectively addressed and treated in the individual. It is possible that the "offenses" simply devolve to the more-subtle, less-blatant and, ultimately, rarely-reported tenor. Unwholesome commentary, purchase of verboten content that has to come from SOMEWHERE... psychological injuries may occur on subtle levels from the influences of such individuals if not treated and truly in recovery and continued treatment.
Perhaps this enlivens the debate?
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Sep 14, 2008 3:34:55 PM
When will Oregon stop the B.S. of electing moderate GOP politicians who generally vote with the conservatives, rather that simply electing two progressive, Democratic Senators? Seriously, this state is too blue to be buying into Smith's "bi-partisan" junk. He votes with the right wingers when they need him. Merkley would vote against them, and would actually help support the agenda of a Democratic President (if we are fortunate enough to have one). Isn't it really just that simple?
Posted by: Chris #12 | Sep 14, 2008 8:47:47 PM
Perhaps I should have been more accurate, but I see little difference between "illegals" and "illegal aliens", which you used in the original post. I have an issue with you referring to people as illegal, as opposed to an act...
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Sep 15, 2008 8:06:04 PM
Chris, the worker may be undocumented but the problem is illegal hiring. You don't like the word illegal, get the law changed. Against the law - illegal. You don't like 'illegal immigrant'? Immigrating in violation of the law should be called what to satisfy you? You want to mangle the language to satisfy what? Fine, do you prefer 'criminal aliens?' That should satisfy the BS people aren't illegal.
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.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 12, 2008 9:14:24 PM
[Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.]