With George Bush's money, Gordon Smith pledges to stop "President Obama"
Here's what's been happening over the last 48 hours or so in the U.S. Senate race:
- President Bush directed the RNC to take out a $5 million loan -- to be spent on RNC-coordinated ads for Gordon Smith (watch, and look for the disclaimer) and independent expenditure ads from the NRSC. That's on top of the millions being spent by Karl Rove and Freedom's Watch.
- Abandoning his campaign message of "reaching across the aisle", Gordon Smith told Lars Larson that he'll work to stop Barack Obama's agenda.
Smith wasn't talking up common ground with Obama when he appeared on Lars Larson's talk show on Tuesday, however. For the conservative audience, he made it clear he would be standing in the way of a lot of what Obama - and the Democratic majority in the Senate - would like to do.
"One-party dominance, a blank check, no checks and balances, could be a very unfortunate thing for our country," Smith said. "That doesn't work and Americans know that."
- Of course, it's work noting that "one-party dominance" is a tacit admission that Barack Obama is on the way to victory. No surprise - the NRSC is running an independent ad making the same admission.
- Meanwhile, the Smith campaign is touting an NRSC poll by Bob Moore - Smith's usual pollster - that purports to show Smith winning 45 to 41. Another, slightly earlier, poll by Tim Hibbits for the Tribune showed Merkley up 45 to 40.
Let's make sure that Bob Moore's poll isn't right. Volunteer now. Donate now.
|
October 29, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (26 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: David English | Oct 30, 2008 4:01:28 AM
The part where Smith says pledges to work against Obama is a flip flop given the fact he put out an ad claiming he worked with Senator Obama. So let me get this straight Senator Smith, you worked with him and now you are pledging to work against him? Which is it?
Maybe it's time you take up surfing!
Posted by: tl (in SW) | Oct 30, 2008 5:54:17 AM
Obviously Smith was for Obama before he was against him...
Posted by: janek51 | Oct 30, 2008 6:15:24 AM
"One-party dominance, a blank check, no checks and balances, could be a very unfortunate thing for our country," Smith said. "That doesn't work and Americans know that." Yeah, Gordie, they know that based on the last 8 years of Bush/Cheney et Cie (as the French would say).
Posted by: Robert G. Gourley | Oct 30, 2008 6:59:07 AM
Phone banking for Jeff yesterday makes me wonder if more ads will make much difference, more phone banking will. Lots I talked with had already voted, but I hear heavily Republican areas are not voting as well. Gotta keep it up, right down to the wire.
Posted by: Mick Goldman | Oct 30, 2008 7:45:22 AM
Did this money come for foreign sources?
Obama's campaign took million$ from foreign sources, which is illegal, but you don't seem to care about that. If McCain or Gordo were flush with ca$h rest assured, this website would be full of headlines like "Gordon Smith buying the Senate - Follow the money"...
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 30, 2008 8:47:51 AM
Obama's campaign took million$ from foreign sources, which is illegal
Source, please?
Posted by: joeldanwalls | Oct 30, 2008 9:17:53 AM
One-party rule is only OK when it's by Republicans. I thought everyone knew that already.
Posted by: Stacy6 | Oct 30, 2008 9:55:32 AM
Living in Portland, it was very easy to stop by the Merkley campaign office on SE 31st and Division and give what I could. I'm currently a student and all of my income comes from my small online business, but if my $16 (everything I had in my wallet) helps to put Merkley in the Senate, I'm glad to give it.
$16 represents roughly 10% of my income for last week. I challenge BlueOregon readers to step up and donate a small amount like $16, more if you can afford it. Don't just get made because Bush and his cronies just threw millions at Gordon Smith, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. :-)
Posted by: Mick Goldman | Oct 30, 2008 10:22:52 AM
Kari,
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_illegal_donors/2008/10/29/145612.html
"For example, hidden away amidst the unprecedented $150 million Obama claims to have raised from individual donors in September was more than $42 million raised from secret donors. These donations appear in the records as a single entry under the heading, “Donors, Unitemized.”"
You people are making a big deal over $5Million loan to Gordo, but look the other way when $42million is raised from Secret Donors from your boy Obama.
Posted by: RichW | Oct 30, 2008 10:26:55 AM
"Obama's campaign took million$ from foreign sources"
Well, if you have proof of that then you have an obligation to follow through with a complaint to the FEC. On the other hand, if you don't have proof, you are just blathering.
Posted by: Not Really Jacoby Ellsbury | Oct 30, 2008 10:40:09 AM
Mick,
The $42 million in secret donations are just donations from those donors who gave any amount less than $250 to Barack Obama. Barack Obama is not required by law to disclose those donors. There's a similar line item on John McCain's disclosure forms, albeit with a much smaller number because he's unable to convince nearly as many people to give him money. If you have given John McCain less than $250, you are one of his "secret" donors.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 30, 2008 10:40:32 AM
Mike, Newsmax.com is almost as credible a source as The National Enquirer.
Do you have a credible source?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 30, 2008 11:29:56 AM
The required-disclosure level is $200. Obama's $42 million in unitemized donations is just that -- small donors.
You still haven't provided a source to back up your original claim -- "millions from foreign sources".
Posted by: Nice | Oct 30, 2008 12:02:29 PM
Wasn't sure if this was going to make it in, with all of the great other stories being cherry picked
Posted by: genop | Oct 30, 2008 12:11:13 PM
Just wanted to come out of the closet and admit: I'm one of the "secret" donors. On three separate occasions I donated less than 200.00 to Obama. Ah, I feel better now.
Posted by: genop | Oct 30, 2008 12:16:55 PM
By the way, Mr. Goldman's use of the term "boy" ought to warrant a lifetime ban from this site.
Posted by: steven andresen | Oct 30, 2008 12:23:33 PM
The idea that get out the vote efforts and phone calling are crucial seems about right. The effort to spend 5 more million on television and media buys seems desperate at this point because people may be turning off the political blather and /or paying attention to campaign ads. I suspect it will come down to which effort is stronger, the get out the vote effort by Dems, or the suppress the vote effort by the Repubs. Some of my friends believe that McCain will win because Repubs vote and Dems don't. They believe that Dems might register, because it doesn't take much work, and then talk about it, but, they won't put out the effort required to go through the hassle of voting. The Repubs suppress the vote effort is counting on this fact and so part of their effort is to make as many hassles as possible to discourage numerous but lazy Dems.
I am hoping that the Obama people not only work hard on get out the vote but have legal teams to deal with the court challenges of voter fraud that Repubs might raise during the intra-vote period.
Nothing is over until the fat lady sings.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Oct 30, 2008 12:24:45 PM
OK, you found me. I am one of a handful of secret, foreign donors to the Obama campaign.
Secret because I gave $25 last month.
Foreign because I don't live in Portland. I live in the Middle East - Damascus to be exact. Damascus, Oregon out on the east side of town.
Posted by: Not Really Jacoby Ellsbury | Oct 30, 2008 12:28:59 PM
Kari,
Thanks for correcting me on the dollar amount above which donations must be itemized ($200). The federal dollar-for-dollar match contribution limit for Presidential candidates who accept public financing is $250. I often mix up those two amounts.
Posted by: Not Really Jacoby Ellsbury | Oct 30, 2008 12:31:43 PM
Genop,
You shouldn't be "secret" anymore: I believe campaigns aggregate donations made by the same individual, and, when those donations go over $200, they then report that person in an itemized list of donors.
Posted by: mp97303 | Oct 30, 2008 12:36:21 PM
By the way, Mr. Goldman's use of the term "boy" ought to warrant a lifetime ban from this site.
That statement is why so many people of sick of liberal PC crap. I always refer to my group of friends as "my boys" and there are several A-A in the group. Grow up.
Posted by: Gregor | Oct 30, 2008 12:55:32 PM
Can someone tell me where the RNC gets credit for $5 million? Aren't Oregon Republicans the ones with credit problems? And if the campaign is losing, what are the chances that the lenders will ever see the money?
PS - Was the $5 million part of the $700 milion bail out?
Posted by: genop | Oct 30, 2008 3:30:54 PM
The spurious rant about Obama's "secret" donors ending with "your boy Obama" is a racist insult. Run it by your "A-A" friends if you don't believe me. At my age, I rather enjoy being asked to "grow up" though, thanks for that.
Posted by: genop | Oct 30, 2008 11:14:46 PM
"So the phrase "my girl Sarah" is sexist?"
Sexist, presumptuous and inaccurate. The phrase "your rabblerouser Sarah" fits the bill far better. Try removing gender from your quotient and call a candidate a candidate and try losing the divisive mindset, it's so pre-Obama.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 29, 2008 11:58:04 PM
[Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.]