We received our ballots in the mail over a week ago but I still haven’t opened mine. The primary reason for this is that I’m not sure how to vote for the U.S. Senate race between Gordon Smith and Jeff Merkley. I’m not a huge fan of Smith (and I seem to remember some pretty nasty campaign tactics when he ran against Ron Wyden in his first Senate race) but I have a huge respect for his early opposition to the Iraq War. Oregon Senators have been centrists as long as I have lived here and most consider Smith to fit that description. I don’t know much about Merkley other than the first Senate debate I watched between him and Smith. Merkley came across as a hack Democrat who fits all the liberal stereotypes and is riding on the coattails of Barack Obama. From what I understand, both have waged an incredibly negative television campaign but I have been spared from that by the grace of Tivo.
So here’s my dilemna: I believe that Smith is probably the superior candidate to Merkley and will likely continue to represent Oregon as well as he has done in the past. However, one of the major stumbling blocks for the Democrats in the Senate has been the lack of a filibuster-proof majority. Thus, Merkley is somewhat attractive if only because he’s a Democrat whose election could help eliminate the Republican filibuster.
So I’m stuck right now. What do you think, reader? Should I vote for who I think is most competent or should I be looking at the larger picture?
Hi Mick!
Merkley has a pretty impressive bio (check it out at http://www.jeffmerkley.com). Did you know he was a director for Habitat for Humanity here in Portland before going into politics? I see him as a Democrat who cares about core Democratic issues (e.g. strong social safety net). I’m strongly supporting Merkley.
Merkley Bio: http://www.jeffmerkley.com/2007/09/meet_jeff_merkl.php
On the flip side, I see Gordon Smith as a Republican who enabled the excesses of the Republican agenda, and who only embraced bipartisianism when the election came into view. I don’t think he should be rewarded for record in this past term in the Senate.
good luck making your choice!
-Chris
Thanks for the info, Chris.
Assuming you watched the first debate, did it strike you that Merkley was pretty stuck on Democratic talking points where he essentially just railed against Bush? That really turned me off.
Also, as I remember it, Smith flipped on the war in the spring prior to the mid-term elections. That seems pretty far out from his election. At least to me.
Hey Mick:
Actually, Smith flipped on the war after mid-term elections. His speech on the matter was in December of 2006. And even after his speech, Smith has continually voted to fund the war and against time-lines for withdrawal.
On the economy, Smith has also been a consistent vote with the GOP. He continually votes for corporate welfare and tax breaks for big oil.
Hope that offers some insight.
Carla Axtman
Actually Smith was pro-war, all the time, until the Republicans lost in ’06. That was when Smith made his famous comments saying that our conduct in Iraq ‘may even be criminal’. It got him on the talking heads shows but in the end it was much ado about nothing: he has voted to continue the war, as is, at a staggering human cost to our troops & the Iraqis as well as to US taxpayers who have had to borrow money to finance the Iraqi boondoggle.
I think it’s important that we distinguish between centrism & mediocrity. Smith has not been a centrist. he has voted with President Bush almost 90% of time over the past 8 years and has moderated his voting this year as he’s up for re-election (and as Bush suffers from historic disapproval ratings). I’m not sure what Gordon Smith has actually done for Oregon and would invite anyone to enlighten us. I do know that he was the Chair of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Long Term Growth & Debt Reduction until the Republicans lost in ’06 and during that time, our national debt exploded. In the private sector, that sort of performance would have gotten him fired years ago. Frankley, I don’t remember him ever sounding the alarm on our financial profligacy and I actually followed him and spoke to his office on numerous occasions about it.
Regarding Jeff Merkley, in addition to being an actual expert on energy issues, as speaker of the Oregon House, he had a slim 1 vote majority and still managed to accomplish what the Oregonian called the most effective legislative session in a generation. he accomplished some very practical things like the establishment of a rainy day fund to minimize disruptions in gov’t services in the event of an economic downturn. The # of payday loan firms has plummeted in Oregon as a result of work he lead the way on and he’s one of the few Senate candidates to endorse the Responsible Plan to End the Iraq War, which basically calls for the US to engage with Iraq’s neighbors to help stabilize the country and then putting Iraqis in charge of their own reconstruction as America disengages itself from the rudderless war.
It is true that Obama will need a sufficient Demoratic majority in the Senate to pass landmark legislation and Merkley is far more likely to help implement sweeping changes than Smith. On a personal level, I’m an Oregonian living in Japan and I participate in their Universal Health
Care system both as a user & as a business person. It’s a great system, it’s transparent, it’s easy to use & it actually costs less than what Americans my circumstances would pay for similar levels of care – substantially so. There is absolutely no reason that Americans cannot have similar care. It just requires elected officials who are not beholden to the insurance industry & the pharmeceutical industry. Smith is tied to both even though none of them are even based in Oregon. Merkely is far more likely to help America finally join the industrial world and deliver meaningful health care reform.
The choice is clear, if you ask me. Vote Merkley.
Carla:
I thought you were wrong so I consulted the Wikipedia article to back up my intended argument to you. As it is, you are completely correct AND I found this: “Smith expressed support for the bill, but subsequently voted to prevent it from being debated by the full Senate.”
So it appears that Smith has done precisely what I am worried about.
Thanks!