Senate '08: As ballots arrive, the Oregonian puts its thumb on the scale
Kari Chisholm
In the four years since we started BlueOregon, the most consistent theme here has been the news coverage of Senator Gordon Smith, particularly by the Oregonian.
It's no longer surprising (if it ever was) that the Oregonian - especially in its editorial decisions - would be a full-throated backer of Gordon Smith.
After all, they've been the leading proponent of the silly idea that he's a "leading GOP moderate" - while utterly ignoring right-wing vote after right-wing vote.
Way back in 2006, we had already cataloged dozens of right-wing votes by Smith, noting that the Oregon media was asleep at the switch. In 2005, we noted that the O had "gushed absurdly" over Smith over another of his ridiculous faux-moderate dog-and-pony shows.
But even I'm surprised at the lengths to which the Oregonian - in its editorial and news coverage - went to help Gordon Smith this weekend, as ballots arrived.
Consider the evidence:
- On Saturday, a front-page story repeating Smith's excuses for hiring illegal immigrants at his factory. Odd for a front-page story, there wasn't an ounce of actual news; it was all a rehash.
- On Saturday, a front-of-Metro story warning Republicans that voting for David Brownlow could swing the race to Jeff Merkley.
- And on Sunday, their endorsement of Smith was printed on the front page of the Opinion section (while their endorsement of Obama was buried inside).
No one is surprised by their endorsement of Smith, of course, but it's rather astonishing that they weren't able to do it without resorting to copying-and-pasting from Smith's talking points and repeating a series of factual inaccuracies:
- The Oregonian argues that his seniority makes him an effective advocate for Oregon. For starters, no, he's only the 54th most senior senator.
And consider some of the other Senators with the same or less seniority -- all in leadership or leading major committees: Dick Durbin, Chuck Hagel, Tim Johnson, Chuck Schumer, John Ensign, Lamar Alexander, Richard Burr. It's clear to me that Smith is dramatically under-performing based on his seniority.
- The Oregonian claims that he "was an early supporter of Wyden's innovative national health insurance plan." Seriously? They can't possibly be making that case with a straight face. Wyden has 17 co-sponsors for his plan. Smith was number 15 of 17. If anything, Smith was a LATE supporter - endorsing Wyden's plan only AFTER Jeff Merkley had done so.
- The Oregonian cited his vote against oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a reason to support him. Here's the thing: When some of the most critical votes, when Smith's vote mattered, he actually voted IN FAVOR of drilling in the Arctic. (An incident, by the way, when the Oregonian was absolutely silent.)
In October 2005, Smith even explained why he was flip-flopping on Arctic drilling, saying that drilling "is not the lightning rod it once was. ... That's a fact. Even in Oregon."
And in November 2005, the vote that the Oregonian loves so much took place. Here's the thing: While Smith initially voted to kill Arctic oil-drilling in an amendment, once he lost, he voted for the big budget bill that included the drilling provision. (Yes, he was against oil-drilling in the Arctice after he was for it. Ugh.)
On March 22, 2006, a drilling provision was included in a budget reconcilation bill. That bill passed 51-49 with Smith's vote. At the time, Senate Finance Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said that Gordon Smith was the key player on that vote. Senator Landrieu got some hurricane relief for her vote. Senator Specter got $7 billion in health and education spending. Gordon Smith? Nothing at all.
It's a good thing that numerous polls over the years have shown that an endorsement from the Oregonian is a net negative - with more voters saying it'll make 'em less likely to support a candidate than there are voters who say it'll make 'em more likely to support a candidate.
 |
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
12:53 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
[Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.]
1:15 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
Every time you vote for Jeff Merkley, Fred Stickel cries.
Oct 19, '08
And consider some of the other Senators with the same or less seniority -- all in leadership or leading major committees: Dick Durbin, Chuck Hagel, Tim Johnson, Chuck Schumer, John Ensign, Lamar Alexander, Richard Burr. It's clear to me that Smith is dramatically under-performing based on his seniority.
How many of those Senators are in the majority party, and therefore eligible to serve by leading a committee?
And when the pendulum swings back to R control, which it might again in the next 6 years, won't Wyden and the Senators above nolonger by Committee Chairs?
I don't like Sen Smith much, but having him represent Oregon gives Oregon more clout than two Wydens. Clout = pork. Oregon is too small to matter, unless we have seniority Senators like we had with Packfield and Hatwood.
Oct 19, '08
"Oregon is too small to matter, unless we have seniority Senators like we had with Packfield and Hatwood." I don't know what switching the second syllables of people's last names is called, but there must be a word for it! You sound like a typical Repug. What's in it for me? Sure sounds like Gordie's philosophy. How about what's best for the country?
1:56 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
I strongly suspect that The Oregonian's endorsements reflect editorial board horse-trading and that the pro-Smith line in particular reflects this, the O's history as a partisan Republican paper when there were more papers, and an element of the kind of reasoning that we see also in the Willamette Week endorsements, where they were looking for any half-way respectable R's to endorse simply out of concern (whether legitimate or not) for partisan imbalance (e.g. John Nelsen over Nick Kahl).
In addition to your points about Smith's relatively unimpressive use of his seniority, another thing that is striking to me is his lack of clout -- or apparent effort -- to influence the Oregon Republican party. He's their only guy or gal elected statewide at present. If he were really so all-fired moderate you'd think he'd be in there pitching a lot harder to reduce the stranglehold of the ultras that has been driving them down, driving out people like Ben Westlund etc. But apparently he doesn't give a rat's ass about moderation in general organizationally, but only episodic, opportunistic imagery of moderation.
Which is one reason I think the O endorsement is a horse-trade or internal patronage benny to David Reinhard (probably not just him) because if it were really and a across-the-editorial-board concern for moderation in Oregon politics they'd be more critical of Smith for his lack of leadership in his own party.
1:58 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
How many of those Senators are in the majority party, and therefore eligible to serve by leading a committee?
Of the seven I named, four are Republicans. Chuck Hagel, elected in the same year as Smith, has dramatically more influence - because he really is a maverick, unlike Smith and McCain.
Jon Ensign, with less seniority than Smith, is the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. (Their DSCC.)
Lamar Alexander, with less seniority than Smith, is the chairman of the Republican Policy Conference, basically the third-ranking Republican leader.
Richard Burr, with less seniority than Smith, is the Ranking Republican on the Veterans Affairs Committee.
One I left out: John Cornyn, with less seniority than Smith, is the Secretary of the Republican Policy Conference, basically the fourth-ranking Republican leader.
It's not about majority or minority status. All of these positions are available to Smith -- and if he wasn't so lazy, or such an inconsequential thinker, he'd have actually achieved a leadership position by now.
2:02 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
Which is one reason I think the O endorsement is a horse-trade or internal patronage benny to David Reinhard (probably not just him)
Well, almost certainly not for David -- since he's leaving.
Probably more likely to Bob Caldwell. Or maybe he just overrode all the others. Remember, in 2006, the editorial board voted to endorse Kulongoski, but Caldwell - as the editorial page editor - basically overruled the rest.
2:03 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
There's a title called "ranking member," what in Britain would be something like "shadow chair," for committee leaders who would be chairpeople if their party were in control of the house in question. Chuck Hagel is an example I expect. So it's not just a question of being chair.
(Although Smith's anti-furniture ads have struck me as funny because he so often reminds me of a piece of furniture himself.)
Of course, if Merkley gets elected, his seniority is going to be in the high 90s.
2:03 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
How many of those Senators are in the majority party, and therefore eligible to serve by leading a committee?
All of them. And they'll be in the majority party for the next two years, at least.
And when the pendulum swings back to R control, which it might again in the next 6 years, won't Wyden and the Senators above no longer by Committee Chairs?
Given that when it was under "R" control, Smith did virtually nothing and was completely ineffective, totally lacking in gravitas or hard work, how exactly is it better to continue to send him to DC whilst crossing our fingers for the "R" majority to reemerge?
I don't like Sen Smith much, but having him represent Oregon gives Oregon more clout than two Wydens. Clout = pork. Oregon is too small to matter, unless we have seniority Senators like we had with Packfield and Hatwood.
Given that Merkley will be in a strong majority party--he'll have the opportunity to work hard and gain eventual leadership positions. Smith had a number of years to do so while his party held the majority and he utterly failed. And that includes county timber payments.
2:05 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
Thanks for the info, Kari, I have little insight into the specifics of the editorial board, just a suspicion about process given the distribution of outcomes.
Actually would be an interesting topic for a post-election column, if we have anyone knowledgeable enough to write such.
2:12 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
Kari, you left out the contributions that Smith did make, like in the 2004 presidential campaign when he was palling around with George W. Bush, saying John Kerry looked French and was a socialist. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
He really put out some energy that year, raising money for Bush/Cheney.
2:19 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
And Kari, I know it wasn't meant to be complete, but Pat Roberts (R-KS) -- who was inducted into the Senate the same day as Smith -- was the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from January 2003 until January 2007, during the invasion and most of the occupation of Iraq and the "War on Terror." It was one of the more potentially influential posts of that era, not that Roberts did much but help keep things under wraps.
2:48 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
Ah yes, Darrel, thank you. That's another example.
Dear gawd, Smith is really such a lightweight.
Oct 19, '08
I don't like Sen Smith much, but having him represent Oregon gives Oregon more clout than two Wydens. Clout = pork. Oregon is too small to matter, unless we have seniority Senators like we had with Packfield and Hatwood.
Oh yes, the faux pas with Packwood's and Hatfield's names is amusing, all right, but isn't this of more interest?
Clout = pork
That's the bottom line, folks. Whenever I hear someone flogging the Mark Hatfield cult of personality--something that even happens occasionally here on BlueOregon--I always remark that Hatfield's true skill, the one that won him so many terms in Congress, was that he was a consummate pork-barrel politician. There are more public buildings named after Hatfield in this state than you can shake a stick at. Similarly with Ted Stevens in Alaska: I have friends and professional acquaintances in Alaska who, although Democrats, have routinely voted for Stevens, with the explicit justification being his skill as a pork-barreler.
Maybe that's just the way politics works, but good gawd, IMHO, if you've got someone whose politics are repellent, but you vote for him anyway because he brings home the bacon...allow me to suggest that you reconsider.
Oct 19, '08
This is very disappointing from The Oregonian because Smith voted with President Bush just as often if not more than John McCain. He is, in Hillary Clinton's great expression, a Plantation Republican if there ever was one. At least they endorsed Obama, but it makes it look as Smith has tried to portray it all along that he and Obama were always on the same team.
Here in Central Oregon the cruddy Bend Bulletin has a huge spread endorsing McCain. They are so out-of-touch with how this area has changed demographically.
Oct 19, '08
I don't like Sen Smith much, but having him represent Oregon gives Oregon more clout than two Wydens.
This is ancient history for the average American, but back in October 2002 Smith violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, despite a lecture by Senator Robert Byrd, by signing Bush's blank check to wage an unnecessary, criminal and deficit-enlarging war on Iraq. Wyden voted against the war. So Smith is better than two Wydens?
Clout = pork.
I was reading Joseph Persico's book, "Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial," last night and came across a part that dealt with Hans Frank who was at one time a financially-strapped lawyer in Germany. He originally didn't care that much for the Nazis, but Hitler offered him a job that paid well and in a version of "Clout = pork" he signed on with Hitler and eventually became governor-general of Nazi occupied Poland. He apparently didn't like the idea of turning Jews and Poles over to Heinrich Himmler and his Sturmschutz (SS) but realized if he wanted to continue having clout and pork he would have to continue selling his soul.
Clout does equate to pork in Congress and helps to explain why Congress is so corrupt. Clout can have its virtues, but in the hands of the morally defective and ethically impaired it is cause for great concern.
Oct 19, '08
PS: Perhaps it is time for all of us to take time out to read George Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language.
4:09 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
JDW, let me agree and disagree with you.
It's true that one form of clout is pork. Senator Hatfield and Senator Stevens were both the Chairman of Appropriations. So, yes, their clout was very much in the form of pork.
(And this is a big aside, but an important one: To Hatfield's credit, he never used his pork-clout to get military spending for Oregon. He traded away military bases for aquariums, hospitals, and federal courthouses. It is not by accident that Oregon is the 50th most militarized state in the country. That is Hatfield's legacy, and one that served us well as military spending collapsed in the 1990s.)
That said, there are other kinds of clout. The ability to drive legislation, in particular. Senator Wyden, for example, has only a tiny bit more seniority than Smith (elected just a few months ahead) - but has some substantially more clout, more power. Why? Because he's a hard-working, smart, creative policy wonk. He's known in Congress as the guy who understands the internet better than any other Senator, and as a thoughtful and creative guy on health care.
Most of the well-known Senators are either workhorses or showhorses. A few are both. Senator Smith is neither. He has spent 12 years accomplishing nothing. He is a lightweight of almost no consequence to the day-to-day workings of the U.S. Senate.
Oct 19, '08
PPS: Perhaps we should also take time out to read and ponder the United States Constitution and send copies to the presidential and vice-presidential candidates.
4:12 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
I am beginning to think of Chris as my better-eductated, more gracious doppelganger--and here he strikes again with the same point I was going to make.
It is especially bizarre given that in the same issue the Oregonian makes the argument for Obama that hardly squares with the logic for re-electing Smith.
The next president will make crucial appointments to a sharply divided Supreme Court. This issue is generally raised in terms of the abortion issue, but it goes far deeper than that.
At a time when the Bush administration has repeatedly assaulted American traditions protecting privacy, banning torture and guaranteeing the right of habeas corpus, even a generally conservative Supreme Court has stood against his incursions. But the addition of more justices embracing a doctrine of an all-powerful executive could change American law and rights beyond recognition.
But even more unnervingly, the time has also seen the American people's confidence in their system and their society erode rapidly, until the most recent CBS poll found only 7 percent thought the country was moving in the right direction, while 89 percent thought "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track."
Oh yeah, and by the way, vote for the senator who supports radical justices, helped drive the country into the ditch, and voted with Bush 90% of the time. We're on the wrong track, so stick with Smith.
Err, right.
Oct 19, '08
PUSH POLL ALERT
I was just recipient of a push poll pretty clearly on Gordo's behalf from a so-called "Voter Consumer Research". After several relatively innocuous questions along the lines of "do you have a generally favorable/unfavorable opinion of McCain/Obama/Smith/Merkley?", the questioning morphed into message testing about tax policy, with glowing comments about Smith and slams against Merkley. I said to the caller, "This is a push poll, goodbye," and hung up.
That Orwell essay is a fine one, BTW.
Oct 19, '08
I hate to disappoint anyone, but there's no conspiracy behind The Oregonian's endorsement of Gordon Smith, no parting gift for our conservative columnist, and no linkage with the stories the news department published Saturday or any day leading up to the election.
There's just an honest disagreement about the best choice for voters in the U.S. Senate. I'll not speak for the editorial board here. That's editorial-page editor Bob Caldwell's job. And he and other members of our board will be available on our blog, at oregonlive.com/thestump, to take comments and answer questions beginning Monday morning. I encourage your readers to stop by our blog on Monday.
But I'll tell you all that a strong majority of board members were in favor of endorsing Smith. You saw most of our reasoning in Sunday's editorial. I'll tell you that on literally dozens of occasions over the past eight years interest groups ranging from environmentalists to social service advocates have come into our office and told us that Smith was the key person in the Oregon delegation, the one they had to reach in order to advance their goals, the only one with connections to the administration and the GOP leadership in the Senate. Perhaps that won't matter over the next four years, but you never know. And things change, don't they?
I know how strongly the readers of this blog feel about Smith. I don't have a problem with criticism of our reasoning. But don't waste time looking for some kind of conspiracy here. The editorial board spent time with the candidates, examined their records, talked about what would be best for Oregon, and made an endorsement. That's all there is to it.
And Kari, we're under no illusions that Oregonians were waiting around for us to tell them how to vote in either the Senate race or the presidential contest. But both candidates seemed to want our endorsement. I guess neither one had seen the "numerous polls" you cited that show that The Oregonian's endorsement is a curse that only costs people votes.
Oct 19, '08
RE: PUSH POLL ALERT
Hi folks. I work for Jeff Merkley and we've been receiving a ton of calls about push polling AND robocalls against Jeff Merkley. Please, DO NOT HANG UP THE PHONE. Listen to the entire message, write everything down, or if you have a recorder handy, record the phonecall. If it's on your answering machine, do not erase it. Please report any and all calls against Jeff Merkley, to Merkley Headquarters by calling 503-274-4439. Thank you.
5:09 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
Rick sez: Perhaps that won't matter over the next four years, but you never know.
If it won't matter over the next four years (the bulk of the Senate term at stake, btw) as even you seem to recognize will be the case, then why cite it? Especially at a political blog where virtually everyone understands that if that criteria is important than it's another reason why your newspaper's endorsement of Smith makes no sense!
Oct 19, '08
Rick,
When I took Pacific NW History, the prof. told about the establishment of the Oregonian (1859 as I recall) and the newspaper's history. One remark I have always remembered was what he said about their news policy and endorsements:
" The Oregonian was established as a Whig newspaper, and it still is."
For those who don't remember the history, Abe Lincoln was the first Republican elected president. Prior to that time, the parties were the Democrats and the Whigs.
Oct 19, '08
I don't suspect a conspiracy at the Oregonian to endorse Smith. I see it more as 'business as usual.' If indeed Senator Smith has been doing all these wonderful things for us Oregonians, it sure has been hard to see especially since his party was in the majority.
Senator Wyden, being in the minority party seems to have accomplished quite a bit more in spite of that handicap. Smith is an underachiever to put it kindly but the Oregonian seems to have a deep fondness for him that we citizens just don't understand.
In the 2009 Democrat dominated Senate Smith would be basically useless. We can do better. Smith? He may be a nice guy but...........thanks, but no thanks.
Oct 19, '08
Smith is an underachiever to put it kindly but the Oregonian seems to have a deep fondness for him that we citizens just don't understand.
I have to suspect that social class might have been a significant factor in this decision. Certainly, indifference to reneging on oaths to uphold the Constitution played a role.
Oct 19, '08
Here's my thing with the endorsement. The O routinely denigrates Rep. Wu every chance they get for not having any clout or leadership positions by now. Why isn't this a concern when it comes to their pet Senator?
Oct 19, '08
Slightly OT, but the O also listed an endorsement for the WA Gov race so...
Just saw a Rossi ad that identified party affiliation as "GOP". Reminded me that that's how it will be on the ballot as opposed to "Republican". Gave me a little chuckle.
7:29 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
I thought the endorsement of Smith, which included all of the usual garbage about him being "moderate", was quite the interesting approach. David Sarasohn did a great job of pointing out, in his editorial today, that the Republican Party sure has spent a lot of millions to help someone who supposedly doesn't vote with his party. Seems to me the R's intend to get something for their investment, as I doubt very much they care about what's best for Oregon.
Oct 19, '08
Rick Attig's lengthy commentary above about How Things Actually Worked With the Oregonian Editorial Board is frankly besides the points. Just look at the so-called news coverage of Smith over the years. It's been one fluff piece after another. No, Mr. Attig, I'm sure you're right that few voters have been sitting around waiting for the O's predictable endorsement, but so what? The O promotes Smith on its "news" pages, and those are read by people during the six years between Senate elections.
I really wish we had overtly partisan newspapers the way that they are in, say, the UK. At least when one picks up The Guardian, say, there's no way to suppose that news and opinion are separate: the prejudices are out there for everyone to see. But instead here we get the pretense of neutral reporting.
Oct 19, '08
Rick Attig's lengthy commentary above about How Things Actually Worked With the Oregonian Editorial Board is frankly besides the points. Just look at the so-called news coverage of Smith over the years. It's been one fluff piece after another. No, Mr. Attig, I'm sure you're right that few voters have been sitting around waiting for the O's predictable endorsement, but so what? The O promotes Smith on its "news" pages, and those are read by people during the six years between Senate elections.
I really wish we had overtly partisan newspapers the way that they are in, say, the UK. At least when one picks up The Guardian, say, there's no way to suppose that news and opinion are separate: the prejudices are out there for everyone to see. But instead here we get the pretense of neutral reporting.
Oct 19, '08
italics off
Oct 19, '08
Dear Rick Attig,
Please stop with the BS. Gordo is stroking you guys down below the belt and you know it. After that bonehead move with that anti-Muslim DVD I was personally responsible for The Oregonian losing at least 4 subscriptions.
Hit The Oregonian where it hurts. Cancel your subscriptions until the editorial board at leadership gets it that reporting talking points of a Republican toady like Gordon Smith isn't what is best for Oregon or The Oregonian's readership.
Oct 19, '08
While I do believe Smith has been an effective Senator for Oregon, to think he has much pull with the other GOPers in the Senate is a joke. This is a party where you can't be conservative enough. While it is admirable to seek balance, that isn't the way things work in Washington. A vote for Merkley will double the influence Oregon has in Washington instead of cutting it in half or worse by sending Smith back.
9:47 p.m.
Oct 19, '08
Rick Atttig --
Thansk for dropping by. Your willingness to engage over here is a breath of fresh air.
Regarding this... But I'll tell you all that a strong majority of board members were in favor of endorsing Smith.
Dave Reinhard is a tried-and-true conservative. Is there anyone on the editorial board that you would describe as a true-blue liberal?
Oct 19, '08
Dave Reinhard is a tried-and-true conservative. Is there anyone on the editorial board that you would describe as a true-blue liberal?
We're talking about a paper that didn't endorse a Democrat for President until 1992 and didn't do it again until 2004.
Also you're referring to Dave Reinhard as a so called, "conservative." Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley were conservatives. Dave Reinhard would be better termed as an anti-intellectual fascist. Just my view...
Oct 19, '08
Rick Attig - What "environmental" groups are you talking about? Certainly none actually endorsed Smith.
I have no doubt Oregonians were told they needed to kiss the Smith ring when the GOP was in charge. I have even less doubt that it got them anywhere. Smith has no accomplishments to speak of - on county payments, forest policy, water policy, salmon habitat conservation, rural development, etc. etc. What has he done? Nothing. So little in fact that your editorial was forced to make stuff up to give him some veneer of success.
As Kari notes, he wasn't actually an "early" supporter of Ron Wyden's health care bill. He didn't actually buck his party on ANWR. And I'll throw another one out there - his famous Iraq speech, while not actually being followed by votes to end the war, also had no influence on the Bush Administration. You are forgetting the real factors - the debacle of the 06 elections, the firing of Rumsfeld and the Iraq Study Group's findings were all influences. Gordon Smith is a backbencher, a do-nothing, he has no great pull nor has ever indicated any desire to get some.
the Oregonian missed the boat on this one, wowed as I'm sure you always are by Gordon Smith's yarns and choosing to ignore his actual record.
(And I do find it ironic that you laud his pull with the Bush Administration while your board simultaneously says Jeff Merkley can't use those same ties as a reason to NOT support Smith....)
Oct 20, '08
Kari, et al:
I post sometimes on BlueOregon because you often have some really good political discussions here -- the kind I'm hoping to get started on our site -- and because there's a lot of misunderstanding and suspicion about the editorial board. But it's a little discouraging when it results in one of my colleagues being called an "anti-intellectual fascist," some of your readers use my posts as an excuse to call for people to cancel the paper and and my point of view is dismissed as being the result of being "stroked down below the belt."
As for your question about the political leanings of my fellow board members, I don't think it's appropriate for me to describe each of their political leanings, or give them a label like "true-blue liberal," but I would say that at least half the board sees the world very much like you and the readers of this blog.
Rick Attig Associate editor
Oct 20, '08
I think the Oregonian just likes the idea of Oregon having one Democratic and one Republican Senator. It appeals to their idea of evenhandedness and fair-play especially when it comes to issues of concern to our dry side, rural residents.
If we have, in their minds, Ron Wyden representing the brainy nerds of Portland and the Willamette Valley, then we should have as an equalizer, Gordon Smith representing the ranchers, farmers and wood products producers of the East side of the state.
Gordon Smith fits the bill as a 'not too threatening' kind of republican. He doesn't take loud, radical, crazy policy positions like some of his fellow republicans. He just quietly votes the republican line and hopes nobody notices when it's time for re-election.
We can do better. We deserve better. He's good enough for the Oregonian but not good enough for Oregonians!
Oct 20, '08
Yesterday, I carefully read The Oregonian's endorsement of Gordon Smith and then just as carefully filled out my ballot, sealed and signed it. Here is at least one vote for Jeff Merkley.
9:22 a.m.
Oct 20, '08
I'm just surprised that Reinhard hasn't already come out with an editorial about how "anti-American" Obama is for "palling around with terrorists." He's been a reliable pusher of GOP talking points on national issues for years, without adding a single bit of innovation or original thought to the arguments, so I've figured it's just a matter of time before he drops into full Palin mode.
2:15 p.m.
Oct 20, '08
Rick,
As someone who offers the occasional comment here, I appreciate your willingness to join the discussion. If you are going to join the discussion, rather than flopping on your fainting couch over a few nasty remarks, why not just respond to the substantive criticisms offered (and ignore the crazy)? There's plenty of substantive criticism in Kari's original post and in the thread.
Oct 20, '08
Thanks for the advice, Not Really Jacoby Ellsbury. Guess I'll just have to steel my nerve, hop off the fainting couch and ... adopt a screen name so I can be just as anonymous and well, tough, as nearly everyone else on this blog.
Rick Attig Associate Editor The Oregonian
8:09 p.m.
Oct 20, '08
Rick,
I suspect that you and the other members of the Oregonian's editorial board are aware of the vitriol that sometimes gets posted in a comment thread, whether it be here or at your web site. I know that it must be difficult to respond to all comments, given the sheer volume of incoming comments, but I was just hoping you would respond to some of the substantive comments disputing statements in the editorial rather than lamenting the tone of the discourse. I think the overwhelming majority of the posters at a web site like this lament when an argument degenerates into, say, references to someone being a Nazi, socialist, fascist, etc. My points are basically these: (a) you can't really honestly be shocked at this point when someone, somewhere says something crazy in a comment thread, can you? and (b) rather than devoting your time to lamenting the tone of the discourse, you can choose to just ignore the crazy and keep it substantive.
Keeping this on matters of substance, I've seen several posts disputing whether or not The Oregonian was correct when it said Senator Smith was an early supporter of Senator Wyden's plan. Why did the Oregonian say that?
Second, I have a comment of my own on the substance of the editorial. You took issue with the timing of Jeff Merkley's opposition to the initial bailout bill by stating that "The economic bailout view is remarkable for its timing. Merkley expressed it before the House had even finished writing its version of the bill." I think it is very unfair to criticize Merkley for this. The White House essentially proposed a back door recapitalization of banks by means of giving the Treasury Department the money and authority to buy up toxic assets from banks who can't unload them right now (because no one is interested in buying them at hold-to-maturity prices and there's effectively no market for them). The first bill to come out of the House more or less followed this approach, but with more oversight of the Treasury than the Bush/Paulson proposal. It was broadly understood, however, that the first House plan was still tracking the basic concepts of the Bush/Paulson plan for how banks would be recapitalized. My recollection is that the basis for Merkley's opposition to the bill was the core concept of how the recapitalization would be effected, because Merkley felt it would end up being a huge waste of taxpayer money to buy up the toxic assets from banks at hold-to-maturity prices and hope on a wing and a prayer that the government could unload them later at something other than a large loss. The contents of the bill changed rapidly over the course of a week, however, and, although not widely reported/understood at the time, the final bill also included authority for the U.S. Treasury to effect the "front door" recapitalization of banks by just putting money into them and taking preferred equity. As it turns out, Paulson and Bernanke have now migrated to the view that this is the better approach for recapitalizing the banks. I think Merkley deserves credit for opposing the core concept of the bailout as originally proposed because it was a bad idea that appears now to have been abandoned. Your statement makes it sound like Merkley was just engaging in political grandstanding, and ignores that Merkley opposed a proposal that many economists said would not work and has now been abandoned by the people who first opposed it. I guess in the Oregonian's view, though, Gordon Smith deserves more credit because he supported some plan, any plan.
8:12 p.m.
Oct 20, '08