Oregon charter schools activist Rob Kremer has impeccable conservative bona fides.
He is the founder of the Conservative Majority Action Project, a group that backs bedrock Republicans running for the state Legislature. He provides the right-wing perspective on a local talk show, chimes in frequently to agitate for the GOP on local blogs, and writes a column for a right-leaning magazine.
And yet, this November, Kremer won't be voting for Oregon's only statewide elected Republican, U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith.
"There are a lot more votes to be gained than lost by doing what he is doing, but I am one he has lost," Kremer said. "I can't vote for someone who has taken some of the positions he has taken, and if no one speaks out a little bit, it is only going to get worse."
Republican Gordon Smith's reaction in the article:
In an interview this past week with The Associated Press, Smith said he's not concerned that fed-up conservative voters - many of whom are not especially fired up about presidential candidate John McCain either - will simply sit out the 2008 election.
Republican Gordon Smith might not have reason to worry, as some Oregon conservatives don't care about Smith's lack of conviction or integrity (emphasis added by me):
Gail Atteberry, who heads Oregon Right to Life, the state's most influential anti-abortion group, has also seen the numbers. And while she said she was extremely disappointed by Smith's admiring reference to Obama in his ad - Obama, she said, is the most "pro-abortion radical in the Senate" - she said she's sticking with Smith.
"We know it is posturing," she said. "But I know his heart, where he stands on our issue, and I am confident that he will always remain true to that cause. For that reason, in spite of some of these other things, I am going to keep on keeping on with him."
Nevertheless, some conservatives are ready to hold Smith accountable in the voting booth:
Others are simply keeping mum on Smith's campaign-year decisions. June Hartley, a Republican National Committeewoman from Ontario who was a fervent supporter of Mitt Romney during his failed presidential bid, called the Smith-Obama ad "unusual" with a hint of disapproval in her voice before declining further comment.
And some are just fed up, said Ted Piccolo, who runs nwrepublican.com, a widely read GOP blog.
"People understand it is a campaign year, there might be some positions or votes that will frustrate you, but man, he has gone way, way out of his way to cozy up to the Democrats," Piccolo said. "I think the Smith people are going to take all Republicans for granted and just assume they will show up, and you can't assume that. Politics isn't a spreadsheet."
As for Kremer, he says Smith lost him when he sided with Democrats last month in support of a cap-and-trade system, which would cap greenhouse gas emissions. The bill ultimately failed, but Smith said at the time that the climate change legislation would have helped reduce reliance on oil from overseas, while stimulating renewable energy industry.
Fortunately for Oregon Republicans and other Beaver State conservatives looking to vote for a conservative with convictions, there is the Constitution Party's Dave Brownlow. I hope that Oregon conservatives send a message to Gordon Smith that convictions matter by voting for Brownlow over Smith.
We also set a lofty goal for Jeff Merkley. Merkley was at just $600 on the Expand the Map! ActBlue page a couple of days ago. Our goal was to get that total to $1,000. But, when the dust settled just now, Merkley stood at $1,900 on the page.
Though the Q2 deadline has passed, we are now in Q3 and the contributions still help. A lot. We crushed the $1,000 goal, and are just a mere $100 short of the $2,000 mark. Can you help Jeff Merkley get the last $100 needed to cross the $2,000 mark on the Expand the Map! ActBlue page?
As I noted in my wrap-up of the OR-Sen Democratic primary, Speaker Jeff Merkley and the Democrats have the grassroots, the issues, and the momentum. All Republican Gordon Smith has going for him is a campaign bankroll just shy of $5 million.
Smith is unquestionably vulnerable. With enough resources, Merkley will be able to cut through Smith's spin and deliver the facts of Smith's record to the voters of Oregon. But, of course, he'll need the support of people throughout the grassroots and the netroots.
To that end, I have added Merkley to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and am announcing the "Twenty Twenties for Jeff Merkley" effort. Basically, I'm pleading with twenty of you to contribute at least twenty dollars via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page toward helping Jeff Merkley oust Gordon Smith. Can twenty of you spare twenty bucks to bounce a bum like Republican Gordon Smith from the hallowed halls of the U.S. Senate?
I think we can get twenty twenties in by the end of Memorial Day weekend. Please contribute if you can. Many thanks!
(Moving up based on comment activity. However, it should be noted that the PolitickerOR article being originally cited now retracts the line in question. See http://www.politickeror.com/be... - promoted by torridjoe)
I can understand shedding candidates who aren't catching on as the debates go on (especially if there will be several debates) to give the candidates that are catching on more time and attention (for example, Mike Gravel in the Presidential race). But, for at least the early debates, isn't the whole point to give a forum to the candidates to give them a chance to raise their profile and offer their messages to the voters of Oregon?
Isn't it doubly hypocritical of Novick to work to exclude these candidates from the debate, given that he's trying to portray himself as an outsider, insurgent, champion-of-the-little-guy candidate? If he's trying to block out other "little guys" and insurgents from the debates, it just seems to me like he's invalidating the most fundamental message of his whole campaign.
I encourage the Novick supporters on this blog to offer an explanation and fill in any pieces that I'm missing that would justify Novick's position excluding candidates from the debate.
I recently received a fundraising appeal from Steve Novick's Senate campaign that included the following:
In the past few weeks, our underdog campaign has amassed quite a fistful of dollars. We’ve now passed the $500,000 threshold for the history of the campaign, but to meet our target for midnight December 31 we’re counting on you to send us a few dollars more.
In perspective, that’s more than Bill Bradbury had at this point in 2001 (almost more than he had in April right before the primary). More than Jon Tester had at this point in 2005, more than Ted Kulongoski had at this point in 2001 and way, way more than Paul Wellstone had at the end of 1989. We’re really in a great position to make our case to the voters next year.
Clearly, Novick is trying to motivate his donors by demonstrating some fundraising momentum. But the perspective he's providing is a bit skewed and may not offer a clear picture.
Sure Novick has more money than Tester had at this point in 2005 - Tester was also amid a tough primary, splitting Democratic donors, and keep in mind that the population of Montana is only about one-fourth of the population of Oregon! With far more residents, voters, and registered Democrats, saying that Novick has more money than Tester had isn't really giving the full picture because Novick has a much, much larger pool of donors.
Similarly, I don't doubt that Novick has more than Wellstone had at this point in 1989. That was eighteen years ago. We've experienced a bit of inflation since the late-80s.
I don't begrudge Novick his fundraising appeals; I'm just suggesting that these questionable comparisons don't really offer a complete picture and could even be called a little misleading.
As of the end of the third quarter of 2007, Gordon Smith had just over $4 million cash on hand. The Democratic nominee won't have to match Smith dollar-for-dollar, but it's going to take serious resources to oust Smith.
Both Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley are progressive voices fighting for greater opportunities for working families, more accessible health care, a cleaner environment, a safe return for our soldiers in Iraq, and so on. Both would be vast improvements over Gordon Smith. As such, I very much look forward to Mr. Novick's and Speaker Merkley's end-of-year fundraising tallies, to give us a better of sense of which progressive voice for Oregon's families will be better equipped to oust Gordon Smith in 2008.
Earlier today, Senate candidate Steve Novick sent out an alert e-mail in response to an article in the Bend Bulletin noting that the DSCC had spent $93,000 on behalf of Oregon Speaker Jeff Merkley's Senate campaign. The Novick campaign's e-mail suggested:
If we want to take our politics back from the Washington establishment, it is up to us to stand with Steve and make sure Oregonians are the ones who pick our nominee.
If Mr. Novick is true to his principle (and isn't just trying to take a quick shot at Speaker Merkley for enjoying some establishment support) that Oregonians, and only Oregonians, should be the ones to pick the nominee, and out-of-state fundraising is contradictory to that principle, will Mr. Novick agree to return every financial contribution to his campaign that comes from outside of Oregon? Surely, he wouldn't want the financial contribution of a Washingtonian or Californian impacting the electoral decision of Oregonians. Will Mr. Novick further eschew financial support from the DSCC should he win the Democratic nomination (and willingly put himself at a major financial disadvantage against Gordon Smith, who will no doubt enjoy some support from the NRSC)?
If Mr. Novick isn't willing to return every out-of-state financial contribution, then this alert rings hollow. If Oregonians alone should pick the nominee, and Mr. Novick extends that sentiment to financial support, he ought to return every contribution that has come in from outside of Oregon, lest his charge seems hypocritical, like the argument of a candidate who shuns "establishment" support not for any principled reason against it but rather for no better reason than he simply lacks "establishment" support.
My point with this post is not to pick on Mr. Novick by any means, though I found his "alert" flimsy. Both Mr. Novick and Speaker Merkley are progressive candidates who would be vast improvements upon Gordon Smith. Both Novick and Merkley want to bring the troops home from Iraq, want to expand health care, want to increase opportunities for workingclass Oregonians, and so on. Both also understand grassroots politics. Either would be a terrific Senator. So let's have a positive primary campaign that focuses on the policy differences between Merkley and Novick and discusses both men's experiences and demonstrates why it would be a mistake to re-elect Gordon Smith. And let's leave these fairly silly stunts out of it.
December 1, 2007 - Des Moines, IA, Brown & Black Forum
December 1, 2007 - Des Moines, IA, Heartland Presidential Forum
December 4, 2007 - Des Moines, IA, NPR News/Iowa Public Radio Debate
December 10, 2007 - Los Angeles, California, CBS
December 13, 2007 - Johnston, Iowa, Des Moines Register Democratic Debate
January 15, 2008 - Las Vegas, Nevada
January 31, 2008 - California
(Given the pathetic job done by the Redstate poster in the diary Sal links below, it's worth seeing what a more honest assessment of the Legislature yields for next year... - promoted by torridjoe)
I just read TJ's vivisection of a RedState.org "analysis" of Oregon's legislative races in 2006. By way of piling on, let me point out that RedState's "analyst" tapped Mary Nolan's district as a "Giuliani winner" despite the fact that there is an 18000 - 7000 voter registration edge for D's versus R's.
'Nuff said.
However, this may be a tougher year for Democrats in the legislature than is generally predicted. Gordon Smith, the top of the ticket R, currently has 20x the cash on hand than either of his Democratic challengers, and the GOP will likely have a healthy leg up in terms of building infrastructure around their coordinated campaign in 2008 compared to years past.
Also, there will be much stronger coordination between GOP legislative candidates with Smith than in years past as they have dumped Chuck Adams and will be using the same consulting firm, Mercury Public Affairs, for media and grassroots organizing.
Mercury specializes in pushing a moderate image for their Republican clients, who include Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Warner, Alphonse D'Amato, and George Pataki. Other than Smith, Oregon clients of the firm include Goli Ameri, who was trounced by David Wu in 2004, Democratic candidate, Jim Hill, and the Grand Ronde tribe.
(A grab-bag of topics from the candidate, mostly covering what he did and read over the weekend. Note once again the highly specific plans Novick is making for the beginning of his time as a Senator--vote to pass that, vote to repeal this, etc. I'd love to hear such an issues-based platform from the other candidate in this race. Will I? - promoted by torridjoe)
Gay Rights, Iran, the DPO Summit, the AFL-CIO Convention, Paul Krugman, the Talking Heads, the V-22 Osprey, Todd Haynes, Bob Dylan and the Idiocy of "Supply-Side Economics"
Dear friends,
First of all, as Basic Rights Oregon said, yesterday was a proud day for Oregon. The forces of intolerance failed to gather enough signatures to force a vote to overturn Oregon's new domestic partnerships law. YAY!!! Kudos to the Legislature (including my opponent in the primary, Speaker Jeff Merkley) for passing the partnerships law, and to the voters of Oregon for refusing to jump on a bandwagon of intolerance.
Second, on a scarier note, Seymour Hersh - one of America's greatest journalists - has an article in the October 8 New Yorker about the strong possibility that Bush and Cheney plan to attack Iran. And on September 26, the United States Senate - with Gordon Smith, but not Ron Wyden, voting "yes" - passed a resolution on Iran that Senator Jim Webb fears the Administration may well decide to 'interpret' as authorization for such an attack. Here's an idea for the week: Call Gordon Smith at (202) 224-3753 or email him and urge him to tell the President to rely on diplomacy, rather than military action, to deal with Iran.
(Is this an attempt to get GOP votes, or straight-talking them to get Dem votes?? Still a cipher campaign...but anybody who shoves it up Larson's Larse gets a check mark from me. - promoted by torridjoe)
John went into the studio at KXL to debate right wing talker, Lars Larson. The full audio download is supposed to be available here.
Here are some audio clips of their exchanges on some of the major issues that were discussed:
John went on Outlook Portland last weekend to discuss several issues this week. One of the most important was what the national leadership should do about Iraq.
Kos reviews the latest SUSA polling data on the purple states. In Oregon, Guiliani is the only GOP candidate who can come within the margin of error of catching any of the Democratic top three:
It's totally unscientific, definitely open to being freeped, and the sample size is tiny enough so as to make it all but irrelevent. None of that changes the fact that John Frohnmayer won the first Oregon Poll on the US Senate.
Independent Senate Candidate John Frohnmayer wins his first time on The Oregon Poll. Even when you combine the vote totals for Democrats Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley, Frohnmayer still wins. Republican Gordon Smith also did better than the two Democrats combined but fell one vote shy of the Independent.
Results
Jeff Merkley 3 votes
Steve Novick 8 votes
Gordon Smith 11 votes
John Frohnmayer 12 votes
(I was going to post something on this anyway, but Sal did the work for me...not sure what I think of a Frohnmayer candidacy, but there's no denying he's dead-on here. - promoted by torridjoe)
The Oregonian today published John's op-ed on the need to impeach the current President.
Impeachment is not a political issue. It's a constitutional issue. The U.S. Constitution describes impeachment more fully and carefully than practically any other power delegated to Congress. Impeachment is mentioned six times in the Constitution as the remedy for any misbehavior of our high officials. Yes, President Clinton's impeachment was a political circus, but impeachment of President Bush is necessary to maintain our government's separation of powers, our checks and balances, our Constitution's integrity.
Colleagues, I have not been and am not today persuaded that Iraq was a significant threat to the United States or that the war we fight today is the best strategy to fight terrorism or the wisest application of our superpower resources. But that is a conversation or a debate for another day.
Today I rise to praise our young men and women serving our nation at great personal risk. Today we are not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal; we are Americans concerned about the safety and support of our troops.
I praise our sons and daughters – their courage, their professionalism. I pray now that the fighting will be brief; that the casualties on both sides will be sparse; that international aid to rebuild Iraq will be swift and abundant; that the terrorist repercussions will be few or none; and that there will be a new Iraqi government soon that will rule with wisdom and will provide the opportunity and freedoms for every Iraqi citizen to survive.
May that be the outcome.
Regardless of one's thoughts on the intent of the resolution (a "trap" or "bait" by Republicans), Merkley makes his position at the time on Iraq clear (unconvinced and skeptical - certainly not supportive of Bush's War), and Merkley also makes clear his rationale for voting in favor of the resolution ("to praise our young men and women serving our nation at great personal risk").
Gordon Smith was wholeheartedly in support of Bush's War until his election cycle came up and he had to disingenuously temper his rhetoric. Merkley and Novick both opposed Bush's War then and oppose Bush's War now. And that is just one of many reasons why either would be a far better Senator for Oregon than Smith.
As candidate for U.S. Senate and a former litigator in the Environment Division of the United States Justice Department, today I encouraged Oregon voters to hold Gordon Smith accountable for the disgraceful tenure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
It deeply bothers me when the few remaining supporters of Bush's Iraq War still can't separate support for the well-being of the troops from support for the war, that one can say both that the Iraq War was wrong and Bush's execution of the war has been a failure and also that the troops have performed admirably and done the best they could given the Bush administration's poor (or non-existent) planning. (Similarly, it angers me when a conservative says, "If you don't support the war, then you don't support the troops.")
Supporting the troops and supporting the war are two very different things - which is why it also bothers me that Oregon Republicans are dishonestly trying to turn Speaker Jeff Merkley's vote back in 2003 for a resolution in the Oregon House meant as a show of support for our troops into some sort of declaration of support for the war, as though it somehow exonerates Gordon Smith from his election cycle conversion on Iraq. Dishonest and shameful. Jeff Merkley has supported the troops all along. Gordon Smith has supported Bush's Iraq War all along, up until his election cycle came up and his rhetoric had to disingenuously shift to prepare for a re-election bid. Very big difference.
The Oregonian reports today that Attorney General Hardy Myers is hanging it up:
"Attorney General Hardy Myers announced today that he would not seek a fourth term in office. 'This decision is not the result of any waning of my desire to serve the people of Oregon as attorney general,' said Myers, a Democrat. Rather, he'll be turning 68 in October, and running for re-election'would have me pushing hard on the age envelope.'"
We know what happens when Republicans serve in the capacity of Attorney General: the law of the land evaporates.
So obviously Democrats need to retain this important position, but who will that be?
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
