Regarding the first Q: excellent. What about those smear campaigns ads?
Merkley: "Issue-based campaign is where I plan to focus."
Smith: "I'll take my ads down if you'll take yours down, Jeff."
Jeff's starting to sound loose and friendly. Gordon sounds like he's been embalmed. He's harping on how his wife's feelings have been hurt, but then tries to weave in that this campaign isn't about him, it's about us. Only, it doesn't feel like it. It feels like he's talking about his wife's need for therapy because of campaign ads.
Q 2: Nat'l debt has risen, greatest econ crisis in three decades; how do you, Sen Smith, defend Bush tax cuts, your support for making them permanent?
Gordon Smith: "Jeff, I believe in pro-growth, tax-cuts, I believe in tax-cuts that support families; every Oregonian, bc of how I have voted, is paying lower taxes today; every Oregonian is paying higher state taxes bc of how Jeff voted. [He then references Kennedy (which I totally don't get), Reagan to infer that cutting taxes = economic growth; that revenue has increased in DC. tries to infer that Clinton caused a recession that Bush had to manage, then references wars, Katrina, suggests that Bush has had to "try and help the state, help America get through these" .. but then doesn't really resolve it with any statement as to where the money came from; I suppose he's trying to say that the reason our economy is failing is bc of Katrina and war - which, btw, is Bush's, as if everyone didn't already know that.]
Jeff's rebuttal: "Gordon, you voted for taxes 67 times. Which is some extraordinary record. When you HAVE sought to cut taxes, it's on the wealthiest, the most powerful, the special interests. I'll be backing up Obama's tax plan. ... You were chair of the debt reduction committee; this committee was asleep at the switch while our nat'l debt doubled to ten trillion dollars. they've even had to take a digit off the debt clock."
Q 3: Oregon has a real urban divide. Rural v. Urban - bridge the gap?
Jeff: I'm the son of a mill worker; know about the timber industry, rural Oregon. Have talked to people around Oregon about kitchen-table issues. People, regardless of political affiliation, want living-wage jobs, affordable health care, quality education for their kids. Gordon has attacked me as a Portland liberal (I'm a Portland liberal. And if being a Portland liberal is wrong, good. Because I definitely don't wanna be Right); I've worked on timber issues, transportation issues; I've redirected transportation funds to timber-affected counties, lobbied Senate hard on our timber payments; so glad Senator Wyden got that into the most recent bill.
Gordon: Folks, you can believe what Jeff says, or what he's done.
Jeff has snubbed rural Oregon hard. I've been there for rural Oregon.
Jeff hasn't. Jeff hasn't helped rural Oregon, he has taxed them. Okay,
dude, have to intercede, b/c Gordon is just SUCH A TYPICAL BUSH-STYLE
REPUBLICAN. Gah. He's not responding with what HE'S done, he's merely
accusing Jeff of lying. Jeff actually recounted things he's tackled
for the state.
Thus far, Gordon = more of the McCain.
Jeff
= stumping on the issues. Talking about things he's succeeding in
doing for Oregon using taxpayer money. Being straight about, yes,
taxing and using those taxes to apply to Oregon's infrastructure.
I guess I'm more moderate. And while I am no Bush/ McCain fan, I'm a little surprised that you were so slanted on reviewing the debate between Gordon Smith and Jeff Merkley. I thought Gordon Smith won handedly, whether you agree with him or not. Smith had one or two bad moments but was poised and specific. Merkley was more talking points that revolved around Smith being a Bush lover. Well, I haven't agreed with all of Gordon Smith's votes, but honestly, I think his independent thinking is rare in the Senate and it is what we will need in the upcoming years if anything is going to get done.
Posted by: CJB | October 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM
CJB - DUDE, this is a PARTISAN site. We're pretty open that we support progressive candidates. And intelligent minds can disagree. Clearly Debbie doesn't agree with you. And based on what she's written, I don't see where you get more specifics out of the incumbent. If anything, I thought the last question in this post in particular pointed out that Merkley gave specifics about what he's actually done, whereas Smith just points fingers & says no you haven't, I have, without backing that up in any way.
Are you saying that Debbie's left something out? If so, let us know what it is.
Posted by: Lawyer Mama | October 10, 2008 at 06:14 PM