IF I RAN
This Oregon Democrat knows Sen. Gordon Smith can be beaten. Now he tells you how he'd do it.
Table of Contents: | War: What Is Smith Good For? | Of The Rich, By The Powerful, For The Special Interests | Mortgaging Your Future, Raiding Social Security | Trashing The Environment | Uncivil On Liberties | Someone Is Going To Beat Him | The Rest Of The Field
May 21st, 2008
A Bridge Over The River Why? | Local pols say global warming is a dire threat. But they want to spend $4.2 billion on a project that makes driving easier.17 comments
May 14th, 2008
Higher Ed | Reed College is exceptional for more than academics. It’s one of America’s most permissive colleges for experimenting with drugs.519 comments
May 7th, 2008
Best New Band 2008 | Portland music insiders take our local scene to the chopping block—and come out with 10 new faves. 0 comments
April 30th, 2008
For The Love of Politics | WW’s endorsement page-turner has all the candidates worth falling for this election.36 comments
April 23rd, 2008
Say Amen, Somebody | African-American ministers struggle to make their voices heard in America’s whitest city.25 comments
April 16th, 2008
Green With Envy | Seven things Portland should do if we’re serious about being green.64 comments
April 9th, 2008
Kvetch Fest | 27 things we hate about the city we love.227 comments
April 2nd, 2008
Bitter Pill | A Portland doc flips on big pharma and reveals its “dirty little secret.”33 comments
March 26th, 2008
Gunfight at the OR Corral | A crusader who fought the Mob or a long-established Oregonian? Inside the shootout to become the next attorney general.14 comments
March 19th, 2008
Lean Cuisine | Has Portland lost its insatiable appetite for its restaurant scene?41 comments
 IMAGE: TOM OLIVER |
[January 31st, 2007]
We are, too.
So we asked Democratic activist Steve Novick whether he thought Smith could be beaten. We chose Novick not just because he actually pays attention to this stuff. We also asked him because we know he's been thinking about taking Smith on.
Novick certainly has the résumé.
Raised in Cottage Grove, Novick was precocious enough to enter the University of Oregon at 14 and Harvard Law School at 18. After graduation, he worked at big law firms in San Francisco and New York before going on at age 24 to the U.S. Justice Department. There, he was lead counsel in the Love Canal lawsuit, winning $129 million for the federal government.
He returned to Oregon in 1996, working as issues director for Democrat Tom Bruggere, who ran unsuccessfully that same year against Smith.
In addition to working in 2000 and 2006 against ballot measures pushed by Bill Sizemore and Don McIntire, Novick also worked on Ted Kulongoski's successful 2002 run for governor.
(Full disclosure: Novick has been a regular contributor to WW's election-year Candidates Gone Wild extravaganzas.)
Since April 2006, Novick, 43, has been a senior project manager at Pyramid Communications, working on projects such as helping to improve recycling habits in the workplace.
Novick's brains aren't the only thing that makes an impression on those who meet him for the first time. There's also the fact that he has a hook for a left arm (he was born without it) and is short—4 feet 9 inches, thanks to the fact that he was also born without fibulas in both legs.
So, will he run? Novick says he'll spend the next month or three talking to potential supporters and other possible candidates before making a final decision. But he does add that "someone needs to take the fight to Gordon Smith. And a fighter needs a hard left hook."
Imagine if one of Oregon's two U.S. senators had repeatedly voted against raising the minimum wage, or voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies for reasonable prices for prescription drugs.
Imagine if strongly progressive Oregon had sent somebody to the world's greatest deliberative body who voted against investigating Halliburton, and who voted to raid the Social Security trust fund in order to pay for tax cuts for America's richest people.
Imagine if Oregon had a senator who believed that people who work for a living should pay taxes at a higher rate than people who make their money buying and selling stock.
Imagine if that senator was one of the prime sponsors of a massive tax cut for multinational corporations—especially drug companies—that stash their profits in overseas tax havens. A tax cut that George W. Bush's own treasury secretary denounced as favoring multinationals over domestic firms.
Imagine the senator not only voted for the Iraq war, and supported it for four years, but as late as June 2006 gave an impassioned speech defending the war as a noble fight for "freedom." Imagine that in December 2006 he said he was open to supporting sending more troops to Iraq.
Imagine that the same senator openly called for then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to override Oregon's voter-approved Death with Dignity law, opposed a woman's right to choose an abortion and was an unabashed supporter of the Patriot Act.
Imagine the senator was one of Congress' top recipients of trips on corporate jets, accepting rides worth over $69,000 since 2001.
Imagine the same senator voted to allow coal-fired power plants to increase their toxic emissions. Imagine that his position on global warming was so absurd that the Daily Astorian said he had joined the Flat Earth Society. Imagine that he had voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Imagine he had voted to give $11.5 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industries.
Imagine that the senator thought he could pass himself off as a "moderate" by continuously engaging
in transparently political contortions—like taking six different positions on the war in Iraq in six weeks.
If Oregon had such a senator, wouldn't all the pollsters agree that he was a ripe target for defeat by a Democrat in 2008?
Oregon does have such a senator. His name is Gordon Smith.
Smith is going to lose in 2008. Not everyone knows that yet. Few people have paid enough attention to his record to understand how vulnerable he is. But the Republican senator from Pendleton is just that.
Vulnerable.
Vulnerable despite having more than $2 million ready for his re-election bid.
And vulnerable despite a well-cultivated rep as a moderate, burnished by a national and state press that lauds him and Oregon's other U.S. senator, Democrat Ron Wyden, for bipartisanship (despite the fact that in reality, Wyden and Smith are on opposite sides of most major issues).
Some of those in the know are starting to think about running against him.
I happen to be one of those people.
If I did run against Gordon Smith, here's how I'd beat him.
^War: What Is Smith Good For?
In the past two months, the national media have anointed Smith a Republican who courageously shifted his views on the war in Iraq at the risk of alienating his party. Fortunately, Oregon voters are smarter than George Stephanopoulos and other Beltway pundits. I'd beat Smith by explaining his real record on the war.
For four years, as the war's costs rose and the casualties mounted, Smith proudly defended the war. In the fall of 2005, he told an Oregon family who lost a son in the war that they should understand that Bush was right to invade. In June 2006, when it was clear to everyone that our soldiers were caught in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war, Smith gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, praising the war as a noble struggle for "freedom" and against al Qaeda, and opposing a proposal to start setting a timetable for redeployment.
 Steve Novick says whoever takes on Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith next year "needs a hard left hook." |
In December, after Democrats parlayed the majority's opposition to the war into the majority in Congress, Smith suddenly announced that he believed our current policy in Iraq was "absurd" and "criminal." That's what made the headlines. But in the same speech, Smith said he was open to the idea of sending more troops to Iraq. For weeks afterward, he said he might support a "troop surge." Then he said he was against it.
When Eugene's Register-Guard asked him in mid-December if he had any regret or remorse for his four-year support of the war, Smith was quoted as saying, "That's all history." Then he said on Jan. 8, "I don't have enough information to say I'm against the [troop] surge." Now, he says he's against it but won't vote for the bipartisan resolution against the escalation, because he finds the resolution "demeaning" to President Bush.
If I ran against Smith, I'd ask him a few questions. "You think this war is 'absurd' and 'criminal'—but you wouldn't vote to stop it because you were afraid of insulting George Bush? You think it's 'absurd' and 'criminal'—but you have no remorse or regret over supporting it for four years? You think it's 'absurd' and 'criminal'—but you support a presidential candidate in Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who's sworn to continue it? How many 'absurd, criminal' policies does a candidate have to support to lose your endorsement?"
If I ran, I'd point out that in January 2004 I was in Iowa working on the presidential campaign of anti-war Democrat Howard Dean. But any D could make a strong anti-war case against Smith.
^Of the rich, by the powerful, for the special interests
Abraham Lincoln believed in government of the people, by the people, for the people.
I'd beat Smith by showing he believes in government of the rich, by the powerful and for the special interests. Time and again he has voted to make the huge gap between the rich and powerful and the rest of us—the rising inequality that Democrat Jim Webb discussed in his successful campaign last year against now-former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.)—even worse.
Last week, Smith voted against allowing an up-or-down
vote on an increase in the minimum wage. He's repeatedly voted against lifting the minimum wage. Once, he voted for a poison-pill Republican version of a minimum-wage increase. But his vote would have actually cut the pay of Oregon waiters and waitresses by overriding Oregon laws and letting employers with tipped employees pay less than the minimum wage.
It's not surprising that Smith won't help people who work for a living. He prefers people who make their money buying and selling stock.
Like other Republicans, Smith voted in 2003 to cut the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 15 percent. "Capital gains" largely means money made buying and selling stock. Smith's vote means that people who work for a living pay a higher tax rate than people who buy and sell stock. If a waitress and a firefighter have taxable income as a couple of $65,000, and one of them gets a $1,000 raise, they pay federal taxes at a 32 percent rate—7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes, plus 25 percent in income taxes.
But if billionaire investor Warren Buffett makes $1,000 in a stock deal, he pays only 15 percent. Buffett himself has pointed out that because his money all comes from investments, he pays a lower tax rate, as the world's second-wealthiest person, than his secretary. Buffett thinks that's crazy. So does Smith's Senate compadre, Ron Wyden, who has introduced a bill to tax capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income. Yet it doesn't seem to bother Smith.
But Smith's favorite people aren't even people. They're multinational corporations who stash their money overseas.
U.S. tax law encourages U.S. multinationals to keep their money in other countries. The law says that if they make money in another country, they don't have to pay U.S. taxes on it until they bring it back here. Since postponing paying taxes saves you money (you get the use of the money in the meantime), they have an incentive to postpone bringing it back. (When they do bring it back, the taxes they pay are reduced by whatever they pay in the other country, which makes sense.)
The law is problematic enough even when the companies really are making their money overseas. But tax experts such as Martin Sullivan, editor of Tax Notes, see overwhelming evidence that corporations use accounting tricks to artificially shift billions of their profits to overseas tax havens, in order to avoid paying American taxes.
Congress should certainly do something about this. At a minimum, as Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has suggested for individual taxpayers, Congress should treat transactions in tax havens as sham transactions, and tax those "overseas" profits at the same rate it taxes the profits of regular American domestic non-multinational corporations.
Smith had a different idea. He was the prime sponsor of a bill in 2004 that gave these multinationals a one-year tax holiday. If they brought the money home that year, they would pay only a 5.25 percent tax rate—less than what working Americans pay in Social Security taxes alone.
Big drug companies are especially good at stashing profits overseas. So when Smith's bill started moving through Congress, The Wall Street Journal reported June 14, 2004, "Big multinational pharmaceuticals and technology companies are salivating."
Story continues belowadvertisement
And no wonder. Pfizer alone got a tax windfall of $11 billion from Smith's bill. That's "billion" with a B. That's enough to get any company awfully excited—even without Viagra.
Smith's justification for his bill was, of course, "jobs." But the bill didn't have any enforceable requirement that companies use the money they brought home to invest in job-creating activities. Big winner Pfizer certainly didn't create jobs: The drug giant announced 10,000 layoffs recently.
Even Bush appointees knew that Smith's bill was a joke. The Washington Post reported on Aug. 19, 2005, that Treasury Secretary "John W. Snow objected that the measure would unfairly benefit multinational corporations over domestic firms, while White House economists said it would produce no substantial economic
benefit." Phillip L. Swagel, former chief of staff for Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, said that as far as stimulating the economy goes, "you might as well have taken a helicopter over 90210 [Beverly Hills] and pushed the money out the door."
There are numerous other examples of Smith's favoritism toward the rich and powerful for a Democratic candidate to point out. Smith voted in 2005 against a congressional investigation of Halliburton's contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Smith voted in 2005 against allowing Medicare to negotiate reasonable prices with (yes, again) drug companies. Smith fought in 2005 to preserve a very special tax break for wealthy financiers with part-time homes in the Virgin Islands. And, consistent with his mushiness over multinationals, he voted in 2005 against a budget amendment that would have repealed tax incentives for domestic companies that move manufacturing plants offshore.
If I ran against Smith, I'd certainly be able to create a contrast on the inequality issue. I helped to spearhead the successful fight against Bill Sizemore's massive school-killing tax cut for the richest Oregonians in 2000. I advised Wyden on his bill to tax capital gains at the same rates as wages. I was the largest individual contributor to Oregon's 1996 minimum-wage initiative that raised the wage above the federal level. (OK, I only gave $200, but it was more than anyone else.) And I would fight for legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act, to give workers a real right to organize in unions and negotiate for a fair share of the pie.
But any decent Democratic candidate could take advantage of Smith's record.
^Mortgaging Your Future, Raiding Social Security
Pundits say voters don't care about deficits and the federal debt. But I think that's changing. Voters are—and should be—worried that every time Congress increases the debt, it's a charge to the credit card of every American, which we'll all have to pay back.
I'd beat Smith—who, comically enough, served in the last Congress as chairman of a subcommittee on "debt reduction"—by pointing out that he did as much as anyone in Congress to turn the Clinton surpluses into the more recent Bush deficits. When you vote for every tax cut in sight, and support a multi-hundred-billion-dollar war, and won't let Medicare negotiate with drug companies, and don't even try to investigate Halliburton's boondoggles, that's what you get: debt.
Bush and Smith have been crowing recently that the deficit—the annual additional charge to the national credit card—went down to around $250 billion last year. But that's misleading. In fact, the real deficit was over $420 billion. As it's long done, the government hid the real deficit by raiding the Social Security surplus, which last year was $176 billion.
That Social Security surplus results from an increase in the Social Security tax that was passed in 1983, to prepare for the day the baby boomers retired. But Bush and Smith decided to start raiding it, to pay for tax cuts for rich people and the war in Iraq. Now, when the baby boomers start to retire, the surplus won't be there to pay their benefits, and we'll be looking at either cutting Social Security, raising taxes or cutting other services that Smith "supports," like Medicaid.
If I ran, I'd have some advantages on fiscal responsibility. As a federal Justice Department environment division lawyer from 1987 to 1996, I helped the government's balance sheet by forcing polluters to reimburse the government for more than $100 million in cleanup costs. In Oregon, I have successfully fought since 1999 against real waste in government—the state's absurd overpayments to lottery retailers.
But any good Democrat will look more fiscally responsible than Smith.
^Trashing the Environment
Everyone knows Smith campaigned against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—then voted for it in 2005 when it was part of a budget bill.
I'd use that fact in environmentally conscious Oregon to beat Smith. But I'd also use these facts:
When the Bush administration started loosening the rules that apply to toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants, and Democrats tried to stop them, Smith voted in 2003 to let the toxics fly, endangering public health.
Smith voted in 2004 against restoring the tax on oil and chemical companies that financed the Superfund toxic-waste cleanup program. (He'd rather have you and me pay for cleanups, out of general tax revenues—or have no cleanups at all.)
Smith has repeatedly voted against raising gas efficiency standards for cars. (He's sometimes supported weaker increases.)
Smith voted for an energy bill in 2005 that gave $11.5 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry.
And on global warming, Gordon Smith—as the Daily Astorian put it—belongs to the "Flat Earth Society." In 2003, Smith had an op-ed in The Oregonian reciting the oil industry myth that "just as many scientists" believe that human activity isn't causing global warming as believe it is. Smith's op-ed triggered a horrified response by a group of scientists who pointed to the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. But Smith was undeterred: In 2005, he was among the minority of senators who voted against a simple resolution saying, essentially, "Global warming is real and bad, and we should do something about it."
As a former federal Justice Department lawyer who spent over eight years suing polluters, and a nine-year board member of the Oregon Environmental Council, I'd be able to draw a stark contrast with Gordon Smith on the environment. But so could any good Democratic candidate.
^Uncivil on Liberties
Ten-plus years ago, Smith's ad wizards put him in a sweater and had him tell the camera, in effect, "Yes, I'm pro-life, but that shouldn't bother you—I'm not a radical anti-choice activist, I'm just a nice man in a sweater."
But one sweater doesn't make a social moderate.
Smith remains opposed to the right to choose an abortion. He voted in 1999 against a resolution supporting the Roe v. Wade decision. He'll support any anti-choice Supreme Court nominee who gets nominated.
Smith is still the man who encouraged John Ashcroft to overturn the will of Oregon voters on death with dignity.
And Smith is a staunch supporter of the Patriot Act, with its ever-growing restrictions on civil liberties.
As they demonstrated once again last November by beating the anti-choicers' latest initiative, Oregonians believe in civil liberties. That's one more reason that Smith is going to lose in 2008.
^Someone Is Going to Beat Him
Someone is going to beat Smith. Now-former Sen. Mike DeWine had a much greater claim to "moderation" than his fellow Republican Smith—and DeWine lost last year in Ohio. Lincoln Chafee had no real liabilities in Rhode Island other than the "R" by his name in 2006—and he lost, too.
Smith won his last race in 2002 because it was a Republican year, and even Oregonians weren't yet disgusted with George W. Bush. Now, they are—and an aggressive candidate will go to every corner of the state, pointing out that when Bush was taking the country to hell, Smith had his hand on the handbasket every step of the way.
The Democratic candidate against Smith will take a lesson from Gov. Ted Kulongoski. Nobody thought Kulongoski would win re-election last year. But he made a simple statement, about himself and his Republican opponent, Ron Saxton: "You know whose side he's on."
It is painfully clear whose side Gordon Smith is on.
And it isn't yours.
Steve Novick's email address is cica@mindspring.com.
|
^THE REST OF THE FIELDGordon Smith is no dummy. He witnessed the Democratic sweep of both Congress and the Oregon Legislature last November and must have realized that his re-election in 2008 would be difficult, despite the $2 million-plus war chest he has built up. Even so, the potential Democratic candidates who might have the best shot at unseating the Republican senator have demurred, for the moment. The biggest of these, ex-Gov. John Kitzhaber, has taken himself out of the mix. So have former state Sen. Randy Leonard, who's having too much damn fun roiling the Portland City Council, and 10-term U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio. The Eugene Democrat has said he won't take on Smith, given that DeFazio's now chairman of a key Transportation subcommittee that allocates billions of dollars. DeFazio's Oregon Democratic colleagues, such as Reps. Earl Blumenauer and David Wu, haven't ruled out running against Smith. Both could raise serious cash. But both also would be betting their House seats on a Senate run that could leave them out of a job. Blumenauer, who now sits on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, has mused before about risking his safe congressional seat and decided against it. In 2003, he dithered for months about running again for Portland mayor before taking a pass. Wu is a formidable fundraiser. But his alleged assault of a woman when they were at Stanford University in 1976 would be a Republican operative's wet dream in a statewide race. Besides, like DeFazio, both congressmen are now in the Democratic majority and may be less willing to gamble away long-sought juice on a run against even a vulnerable incumbent Republican like Smith. Other names that are tossed about are new House Speaker Jeff Merkley (D-Portland), whose spokesman said Monday that Merkley is too focused on the current legislative session to think about a 2008 contest. Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown (D-Portland) or Sen. Vicki Walker (D-Eugene) could make a pitch that it's been 40 years since Oregon sent a woman to the U.S. Senate. But Brown says a U.S. Senate race is the last thing on her mind given that she and other legislative D's "have been handed the opportunity of a lifetime." Walker says it would be a very expensive and exhausting race, and not on her radar screen. The name that comes up most often among Democrats is onetime gubernatorial candidate Sen. Ben Westlund (D-Bend), who in December changed from an independent to a D (after leaving the Republican Party earlier in 2006). He now says he's too focused on the current legislative session to think about it. One who has said he's interested in a run is independent John Frohnmayer, former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts and brother of Dave, president of the University of Oregon. But John Frohnmayer is having trouble gaining much traction. Or there's this guy named Novick. —Henry Stern
|
In the 2002 election, Smith beat Democrat Bill Bradbury 56 percent to 40 percent.
Can you back up that claim with any sources, Karla, or are you just bringing your mindless trolling over here from BlueOregon?
I think Steve and his big brain analysis of politics broken down into common speak, along with his willingness to boldly challenge the status quo have already made outstanding contributions to Oregon politics. I know I've seen more than one elected official sweat while anticipating his questions. Go Steve!
Karla's comments obtusely explain the whole thing...Democrats will have to come up with a far bigger power player than Novick to beat someone who Conservatives and Independents see as "fiscally conservative", even though Gordo is as far from "fiscally conservative" as a flip flop republican can be. Karla doesn't even know who will be running against Smith and has already made up her mind. We still got a real problem here in this "blue state".
If Gordon Smith moved to Wyoming, he'd find his true constituency. And Karla, I want an accomplished liar to represent Oregon's interests in the D.C. swamp, someone who can twist the facts back around the other way. Someone who can say to little children, "Things are going to get better in your future" with a straight face, and mean it, even if it is an obvious lie.
I had a lot of hope for Gordon Smith. As a solid Republican conservative in my heart, I thought he would be better. As a lifelong Democrat who just left the party of no-traction-or-action in disgust, I agree with Mr. Novick that Senator Smith is vulnerable in 2008. He'd get my vote if he ran.
Crystal, if anyone was to "challenge the status quo" here in Oregon they would have to be an extreme conservative. Oregon is about the most liberal state in the country, so what the hell are you talking about?
I've know Steve for 15 years, since his days as an environmental attorney at the Department of Justice, litigating Love Canal and the like. Karla obviously doesn't know Steve--he's got integrity to burn. He speaks the truth, and backs it up with facts. He doesn't spout rhetoric. He thoughtfully considers the issues and has innovative ideas and solutions for problems. Steve has actually thought about where government money comes from and goes and has made solid suggestions about dealing with budget problems. He is the quintessential independent, thoughtful, concerned Oregonian and would be a great candidate for the Senate.
I still can't believe that all of you yuppies (which have profited immensely) and hicks (who have fallen further into poverty, idiots) put this prick Gordon Smith into power. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Do you not care about the overwhelmingly dismal future that is currently being manifested? Which is producing a enormous burden upon all of us, silently, right before our own very eyes?
Thank you Willamette Week for exposing some vital facts about this traitor. Hopefully more people are informed now of his agenda, and realize that this place is silently collapsing.
Big businesses have controlled Oregon's fate in politics since this prick took power. This is the first time in history that the U.S. has given tax breaks to the rich in a time of war, while they kept the federal minimum wage at stand still for almost 8 years. Have you taken a look at our public schools lately?
“The number of children living in poverty increased by more than 11 percent between 2000 and 2005. There are 1.3 Million MORE CHILDREN living in poverty today than in 2000, despite indications of economic recovery and growth.” (NCCP - National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University.
Now the rest of us (the majority of Oregonians) need to wake up, and make this place great once again.
Peace
Alessandro Di' Costanzo
Intelligence aside, Novick's best attribute is that he doesn't waffle on important issues like the war in Iraq, tax inequities, and civil liberties. That sets him apart from too many so-called Democrats serving in the Senate.
I say run, Steve, run!
I'm sorry that the name of John Frohnmayer was just glazed over at the end of this piece as an also-ran without any comment save he's having trouble "getting traction". Research this man's background - you might just find out what thoughtful and courageous political leadership really is, irrespective of party.
The republic of socialist Multnomah county isn't going to beat Smith. The Dimmos must come up with a fiscally-conservative with a social moderation. Smith is really in a position to be done in. But do the Dimmos have the will? Novick will have to shed his socialist facade and have a war chest that is bigger than Smith...remember Smith has made friends with big Pharmas who will spend big bucks on Smith. The repugs cannot afford to lose this race, and will back Smith with everything they have. Sound bytes win elections and I hope the Dimmos have good writers.
Great story backed up by facts that should be of interest to all U.S. citizens not just Oregonians. I know Steve personally and professionally - a more honest person will not be found in the State of Oregon. His attitude makes me want to move back to Oregon just so I could support him with my vote.
Come on, Steve Novick?? He's never been elected to any public office, he has never had to balance public budget before, no legislative experience, no money, no name recongition... nothing except his Havard law degree. Steve, I know that you must be bored but come on man, US Senate?? It may seem easy when you take pot shots from the left field but being "the decision maker" is a lot different. I agree that Gordon is vulnerable but we need to get a real candidate to go after the seat.
There was a time when I had a great respect for Gordon Smith. He's done a lot of good things in congress, and has worked pretty well with Wyden (as much as can be expected between a Dem and Rep).
Which doesn't mean that I'll be voting for him this next election cycle. I have come to dislike many of the things he has done in his latest term in the Senate, and see in him the same stupid political pandering after the Republican losses last election that other Republicans are doing, hoping to muddy up their record on the Terror/Iraq issues. There are a few things in this article (and I use that term 'article' loosely) about Smith that you can't argue with. However, there also is considerable propaganda and twisting of facts from Novick that shouldn't be left alone either.
One is the obvious twisting of Smith's own words about the Iraq war. Smith has criticized the policy of Iraq building and current strategy, but hasn't reversed his opinion on the initial invasion or war. So is it fair of Novick to state that Smith is now saying that the 'war' is absurd? That's not what he said.
Which doesn't excuse Smith's fuzzy policy on the war now, but Novick is not doing anything to inform us here.
Also, Mr. Novick spends much time trying to convince you that we all pay 26% in federal income tax, and that Smith has allowed investors to pay less in taxes then all of you. But check your return this year.
I myself, with a family and two kids, I assure you that I pay less than 10% in federal taxes every year. It's something closer to 5%, or 11% if you include Social Security withholding. That doesn't sound like I'm worse off than investors. And, yes, we do make in the range of what Novick used as an example.
Did Smith and company raid SS for money to bring down the deficit? Sure, but so did Clinton and company and also the Democrats in the 80s. That's what they do.
Tell the whole story, Novick, not just what you want people to hear.
I could go on.
Truly there are many reasons to dislike Gordon Smith, but this isn't a fact filled article enlightening the masses, this is a campaign stump speech. There's enough BS up above to light up a decent sized town in the Willamette valley. But I expect that from a partisan candidate for office.
What I don't expect is that WW's respect as a source of good investigative journalism is going to increase any time soon as a result of this. What's up here guys? You renting out space in lieu of adequate material this week? Are you actually going to be fair and devote the space to an "article" by Gordon Smith next week?
Give me a frickin' break!
For some reason, the extremist conservative reactionary militia in Oregon don't scare me. Could it be their dismal record in electing their bat-guano-crazy candidates to national or state-wide office? Maybe the fact that they obscure their records and can't stand behind their positions come election time? Maybe it is the overly-enthusiastic (and hence telling) cries of "but, I'm so moderate" in all of their commercials.
Shine more light on the state legislature and there would be fewer of them there as well, I have no doubt. If this trolling wasn't so transparent it would be funny.
I really hope this guy runs against Gordon Smith. This would be an easier walk than beating Bradbury was in 2002 and let me tell you...that was EASY.
Imagine you had a pseudo-intellectual believe that anyone with and "R" next to their name was the embodiment of evil. Imagine that any stance that "R" took you publicly bashed him, regardless of the merit of that stance. Imagine that you painted a picture of your Senatorial representative in black and white leaving no room for gray, let alone color.
Run Novick. Run and lose and become marginally well-recognized for a short period of time in the process.
Richard - A thoughtful critique. On taxes, I was talking (I thought I made this clear) about the marginal rate you would pay on your 63,000th dollar of taxable income; you are absolutely right that the typical person does not pay an overall rate of 26% in Federal taxes, and I did not mean to convey that impression. I said that if the middle-class couple gets a RAISE, they pay a higher rate on that extra income than Warren Buffett does on an extra $1000. Which is true. We all pay 7.65% soc sec / Medicare on wages; the % you pay in income taxes will vary depending on how many deductions and exemptions you have -- people with kids and mortgages tend to pay less -- but clearly some solidly middle-class people pay a total of more than 15%. Personally I believe in a progressive tax system where people with higher incomes pay a higher percentage; lower tax rates for capital gains clearly undermine that system. As to Social Security, at least at the end of the Clinton era he was banking the Social Security surplus, and resisting pressure to cut taxes instead. On the war, I agree that Smith did not technically, literally say that "the war" is "absurd" and "criminal," but that's the impression that a lot of people were left with, and I think Smith was well aware of that and cultivated that impression when he allowed Stephanopoulos to compare him to Hatfield, who was genuinely anti-war. If Smith's position is, "the precise policies that we were following on Dec. 7 2006 were absurd and criminal, but I am confident that a slightly modified war involving more troops and overseen by John McCain would not be absurd and criminal, although I personally am opposed to more troops," I think he should be forced to explain that. I don't think that would make much sense to most voters. As to ManT's comment, I certainly agree that nobody should base their vote on a Harvard Law degree, but I did spend two years working in the Oregon Legislature, and I think the Democratic Senators I served would tell you that I was rather obsessed with the budget and making sure that all of them who weren't themselves on ways and Means were all well informed on budgetary matters. In fact my proudest moment that session was when the Senate Democrats presented their own budget plan, which I had some hand in crafting. And by the way, in 1980 Ron Wyden came out of nowhere to knock off an incumbent US Congressman, and he hasn't done too badly since ...
- "I still can't believe that all of you yuppies (which have profited immensely) and hicks (who have fallen further into poverty, idiots) put this prick Gordon Smith into power." -
Me neither. Of course, people talk a lot of shit in Oregon, but never seem to follow it up with action.
- "Come on, Steve Novick?? He's never been elected to any public office,.. "-
That's exactly why I would vote for him. Have you heard some of the shit coming out of politicians' mouths? Like Ted Stevens? Experience makes you more corrupt, not smart. Of course, being a lawyer doesn't exactly instill confidence either.
{ "Capital gains" largely means money made buying and selling stock. }
No it doesn't.
-capital gains tax noun a tax levied on profit from the sale of property or of an investment.
-A capital gains tax (abbreviated: CGT) is a tax charged on capital gains, the profit realized on the sale of an asset that was purchased at a lower price.
It also can apply to inheritance; whether big or small. And it works on a big bell curve. The Billionaires pay the least. The middle and low-middle class pay the most. People like to paint Capital Gains as an evil break for the rich. The fact is, if you ever had a relative die and leave you something, your a victim of capital gains. It should be the same tax for everyone, or just abolished. The money has already been taxed in one lifetime. Why does it get to be taxed again in another?
FYI: Gordon "Dickhead" Smith has voted and initiated bills for The Broadcast Flag numerous times. With the EFF and people off BoingBoing barely able to get it defeated each time. He is in bed with the MPAA big time. One of his aides just went to the MPAA's lobbying firm after working with GS.
Get rid of this fuck. This guy doesn't deserve a job representing anyone.
... as if he does. Just his own interests.
Plus, who's gonna fuck with a guy with a hook arm? He could get all Ahab on your ass in an instant. A shot of rum and shoot a harpoon into Smith's ass.
... I'd pay to see that...
Thank you Steve! The myth of Gordon Smith badly needed debunking. I wish you WOULD run. Just because Gordon Smith was nice to Matthew Shepard's mother, that doesn't make him a moderate.
Novick and his already campaign staff: Just please stop. Being a democrat myself I know we have a shot against Gordon in 2008. Sending Novick as our leading candidate is suicide. I can tell by Novick's most recent response that he is actually serious. You are comparing yourself to Ron Wyden?? He was in Congress for years before running for US Senate. Oregon Senate budget proposal was crafted by the BUDGET OFFICE not you, come on. Two years in the legislature... come on, stop it. I have many friends who can say the same thing.
Listen Novick: We all want to win the next round in '08. If you think you can do it, run. But I don't you can do it. Why? Two words: No Experience.
I'd like to thank Steve Novick for responding to my and other's comments in a very reasoned manner, considering our emotions can get raised by these issues. Thanks for clarifying your position on income taxes, although I'm not always in the same boat regarding taxes, I do find that I struggle with how capital gains (income from investments) is handled in the tax system. It's just nicer to put it in proper prospective.
Truthfully, I wasn't as upset at Steve's views, which I would expect from the Democratic side of the aisle, and agree with some of them. I was more uptight about the forum used for the views in the first place. A Republican trying to write an article about a Senator he or she was planning on opposing would be equally suspect in my opinion, and I wish that WW wouldn't use their main column as a partisan forum. I hope that my comments were taken in that light.
Don't you think everyone is being a little hard on Gordon Smith? There's nothing wrong with the man that being tarred and feathered wouldn't cure.
Seriously, Oregon needs to shed this bozo. He's not even a good chameleon. "Unreconstructed" is the word that comes to mind.
And who are the Dems fielding to unseat him in '08? I'd back the right (strong,smart, savvy) candidate regardless of party, even ring doorbells to get rid of Smith... it's just kind of a shame to have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
IMHO, Steve would make a good candidate for the office that Smith is occupying. If he runs, he can count on my support, based on his insightful article.
What's this bullshit about'fiscally conservative'? How is running an enormous deficit year after year 'fiscally conservative'? What these clowns mean is: give me no-bid, cost-plus government contracts and subsidies, and make someone else pay for it.
Grow up, Karla. There's no Santa Claus, no Tooth Fairy. Everything you want -- highways, schools, police and fire protection, army/navy/airforce -- doesn't fall from the sky. You've got to pay for it, just like you have to pay for butter and eggs at the grocery store.
This smokescreen that Democrats are for taxes and spending while Republicans are for small government and lower taxes is a lie. We have the biggest, most intrusive government today that has ever existed anywhere on Earth, and Bush, with the help of Republicans like Smith, is making it bigger every day, ringing up an ever-larger bill that someone someday will have to pay. But if you think that big corporations and the mega-wealthy will ever pay for the enormous subsidies this government gives them, you're living in a fantasy world.
Get real and grow up, Karla.
Bush, Smith, and the rest of the Republicans who cut taxes for rich people are the most fiscally and cynically irresponsible government we've ever had.
In Iraq, they're literally throwing money out the window and you, your children, your grandchildren, and their children, are the ones who pay for it. That's 'fiscally conservative'? Bullshit.
All joking and differences of opinion aside, Karla's comment concerns me. Karla, can you give us an example of a lie or untruth generated, spread, or confirmed by Steve Novick? I have always known him to support his conclusions with sound facts supported by reponsible research. I am sure his collegues and opponents would say the same.
Echoing another poster's comment, it is hard to believe that you have chosen to back Gordon Smith before a contender (even from your own party!) has been identified. That appears to be quite contrary to being "Independent."
Perhaps this is insignificant, but I should point out the somewhat unfortunate title of this article, especially for a potential candidate.
My mind can't help but make a subconscious link between "If I Ran" and "Iran." All things considered, it's really only a linguistic gaffe, and only the foulest of opponents can question Mr. Novick's national preference on such grounds, but campaign literature is delicate stuff.
Just some advice for the possible campaign literature to come.
"Imagine, a spokesman for the Oregon Department of Education who testified at a Senate hearing that people home school so they can hide the fact that they are drug dealers." That's Steve. Oh, by the way, these hearings are recorded so you can check the record yourself. It's easy to feel sorry for Steve. It would be easier if he were not the hack of choice for every left wing, anti rights organization in the state. This is "journalism?" Steve has every reason to be angry at the world. It's sad he's chosen to spend most of his time lashing out at anyone who believes in personal responsibility.
I really appreciate Novick's article.
For a long time I have planned on writing lots of letters-to-the-editors explaining why Oregonians shouldn't re-elect Gordon Smith, so I intend to save this article for "talking points" as we get nearer to the election.
Like most of the public, I have a short memory. But I do remember that Smith has been a faithful "Bushnoser", voting almost 100% with the President on issues.
I was shocked that a respondent named Karla would call Novick a liar. I think she needs to clarify and be specific as to what she thinks he lied about, or apologize.
I'l reserve judgment as to whom I would vote for. I feel Novick would be a good Senator, but we have Eastern Oregon, name familiarity AND MONEY to deal with.
Thanks, Steve, for the article.
Mary Margaret
I have known Steve Novick since we met at Harvard Law School in 1981. It didn't take long before I realized what an inspiring statesman he could be. Novick was universally beloved in our law school class. He is funny, outspoken, thoroughly honest, and passionately devoted to working for the public interest. If Oregon sent him to Washington, he would fight for the middle class, the environment, civil liberties, and a sane approach to the war on terror. Just as importantly, he wouldn't consult the Gallop Poll before casting a vote.
I've seen a couple of comments here that refer to Novick as a "socialist" or "a liar." Novick is neither. He is progressive with integrity who recognizes the importance of free markets and the need to grow the economy. Please, Oregonians, don't build strawmen to attack Novick. He's the real deal. He deserves better. And so does the state of Oregon.
Novick's argument to expose Smith's record as a way to defeat him in '08 is fragile. Most voters form opinions by watching and listening to corporate owned media which is nothing but staged events for marketing a candidate. As KISS says in his comments: it's about soundbites. Most voters do not take the time to study a candidate's public records for themselves or read Willamette week or view non commercial news sites. And because most voters are cynical of what a candidate says anyway, they tend to vote on how a candidate looks and speaks and acts and whether they like the candidates buzz words and catchphrases. Today, Smith would be vulnerable to losing to a familiar democratic name. But between now and 2008, Smith will cover his soundbite bases with the voters and surveying public opinion will accomodate their wishes with modified rhetoric. Unless, unless--Novick starts now with a campaign--matches Smith's millions in campaign funds and relentlessly puts his face and ideas in the voting public eye. A daunting task.
So strange to hear Republicans rant about being "fiscally conservative" and not "fiscally responsible." They no longer have a claim on either. Go Steve!
Let me tell you why, I, a devote Democratic Party member, will more than likely vote for Gordon Smith. As a constituent, each time I have written to Smith's and Wyden's offices about an issue, Gordon's office responds with a letter or action within two weeks. Wyden's office replies in six to eight weeks if at all. Also, I moved to Oregon a year ago just out of the Army with many Veteran's Administration related problems. Smith's offices put me in contact with an aid to help me within two weeks. Three months later, Wyden's office finally contacted me offering me assistance. Sorry, but, Gordon appears at least in my mind to care a heck of a lot more about his constituents in Oregon than does Wyden and other Democratic Party members; so, he will be getting my vote for a long time to come. Action not party affiliation gets you reelection.
Wow, Chuck. You put your finger on it. That's why I left the Dems, among other reasons. I sent Peter Defazio a letter detailing my concerns with his use of the English language in his flyers, back in September of 2001, just before the 9/11 attack. The same day, I also sent a letter of commendation to Les Schwab Tires for an employee who spotted a bubble on my left rear. Only Les Schwab responded on 9/11, though he must have been somewhat preoccupied, like the rest of us, with what was happening in NYC. (You know, Wal-Mart promised to send my mom $50 compensation for her fall/injury/arrest/detention in their Salem store, a default I will never forget or forgive, and I also never heard back from Pete. Even Kevin Mannix (R)took the time to reply when I asked him why I couldn't get chiropractic treatment anymore for my construction-related injury.
I agree that the courtesy of a prompt reply, let alone action on behalf of one's constituency, is a powerful persuader for us Joe Voters. This may mean, however, that Gordon Smith is only better organized than Ron Wyden and Pete d.F., and that Gordon hires more competent staff.
If I were you, I would also be inclined to vote for the senator who responded and acted. But I can't overlook Smith's dismal voting record in office, so far. To me, he seems very out of touch with the average Oregonian. Whereas Ron and Pete represent my causes and hopes and Greenish ideals, even though Pete shrugs off his responsibility to respond to a letter -- yes, no, fuck off, good-bye, or "in the barrel on Tuesday" -- and to test your point, I'm writing Gordon Smith a letter today. Let's see if I hear back with responses that address my concern(s), or just a form letter from a flack. Weirdly enough, I'm hovering on the verge of joining the pirates of the arrghRepublican Party, if only to subvert from within and pull them away from the Dark Side.
Good luck with your VA dealings, and the very best of luck in civilian life. Call me silly, but I've always felt that veterans should be able to cast 1.5 or even two votes. You people don't get paid shit, have to wallow in depleted uranium dust in war zones, risk injury/dismemberment/death as a daily possibility in a normal work environment, and are forgotten as soon as you muster out.
Recently I interviewed three vets returned from Iraq. They looked to me to be in their early thirties, and I was glad to see that my government was sending men with some life experience into combat. But when I asked, none of them turned out to be older than 23.
Chuck, if you wrote a letter to Gordon Smith, giving him your views on the war in Iraq, its possible outcome, its rationale and reasons, it would carry far more weight than mine. And you'd probably get a reply.
Allesandro, you are the idiot. This state DOES suck right now, and it has nothing to do with Smith. I would blame Oregon's short comings on the fact that this God damn state keeps electing Sleepy Ted. At least we are going to have plenty of bike lanes for all the people that don't pay for our roads. Thanks to Ted and his cabinet, Oregon is a laughing stock around the nation. Don't even get me started on how he has fallen asleep on immigration. You liberals make me sick to be apart of this state, and yes I would leave if my wife wasn't stationed in Salem.
The idea that Steve Novick should "work his way up" to running for Senate, that he hasn't enough experience or somehow hasn't paid his dues, is a red herring.
Novick arguably has a lot more experience in government than some nationally prominent and successful politicians. For example, Ronald Reagan was an actor, a union president and a spokesman for a multinational corporation before he decided he could be governor. And what exactly was the prior experience of California's current governor?
Unlike being a surgeon or an aircraft mechanic, representing your state's interest in the Senate isn't something that requires a lot of hands-on training. It requires the ability to distill and articulate the various interests of the state's population. Novick does that remarkably well.
I have no party affiliation but I suppose I lean more toward the Dems these days. Mr. Novick seems both knowledgeable and persuasive to me and I like his explanations, especially since he highlights most of truly egregious things Smith has done. If he ran for office I'd be voting for him rather than be voting for anybody but Smith.
To the other comments regarding responses from elected officials. I've written more letters to my elected representatives in the past 6 years than I can count. I usually send a variant of any letter to all three, senators Wyden and Smith and representative Defazio. Wyden and Defazio answer almost all of them. I've gotten exactly one response from Smith in 6 years, about why he felt Ashcroft should override the decision of a patient and his/her physician that Oregonians voted to allow. Maybe he knows I never voted for him? ;-)
In my web site www.getenergized.com/vote.html is a statement that the media is making and destroying presidents and politicians. And as we see, I was and I'm right: Willamette Week, but not the People chose Steve Novack, a Democratic activist to run against G. Smith. The WWeek and Henry Stern know that I'm an official Candidate for US Senator in 2008 against moron G. Smith, but said no one word about me. How low this newspaper is.
Novick was a caucus administrator for Oregon's Senate Democrats (State Senator Deckert and I have an evidence that other Senators are violating, ignoring and criminal contemting our Constitution and are not convicted yet criminal, and Novick also is responsible for it), policy adviser for now-former Multnomah County Chair Woman Diane Lynn, which did discrimination in hiring, and Novick, as adviser is responsible for her crime) and Novick is Democratic Activist, and is responsible for Washington County Democratic and Oregon Democratic Party in the Primary, 2006 Election did discrimination against me as official Candidate for US Representative 1st Congressional District against D. Wu. These so named Democrats did everything to block me election. On my many demands to organize debate with D. Wu - they refused to do it. What a parasites in Democratic Party. And Novick also is responsible for it.
Pavel Goberman - Candidate for US Senator in 2008
Ironic how certain folks think name calling is a substitute for reason. What's the point? If Novick is a "liar", then tell us the lies. Send us the links.
Gordon Smith wants to please everyone so he'll say anything necessary to do that. Then you look at his disgusting voting record which bears no resemblance to what he says or the wishes of Oregonians.
If the mere accumulated mass of one's governmental experience were any measure of a candidate's quality as a public servant then GW Bush would be right up there. But he's the worst excuse for a president in the history of this country. So I hope you run against Smith, Steve.
Typical Republican:
Name-calling without any factual basis.
Asserts you can't trust a Democrat to be fiscally conservative while ignoring the 6-year record of a Republican administration and Congress.
Refuses to let facts get in the way of beliefs.
Bottom line: wants a "free lunch." No wonder the country is going to hell in the proverbial handbasket!
As we see now, till today (03/17/08) Steve Novick accepted big money from many states. And who are the "donors"? - lawyers, big corporations, and etc. How he will pay back to "contributors"? And who endorsed Novick? The Oregon State Bar, and organize mafia of lawyers, which supports, cover ups the crimes of state and US judges. If Novick will be elected, same judicial tyranny will continue. State and nation do not need laywers in government.
Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley are misleading people, making them fool: talking about health care for all, but not about health insurance for all.
Pavel Goberman - Candidate for US Senator
Problem is that Steve is also an accomplished liar, as opposed to mere mealy mouth. He has no future as a face in Oregon politics. I'm an Independent that didn't vote for Gordo last time, but will this time. He's shown enough of Oregon's independent progressive streak and we can't trust a Democrat to be fiscally conservative when we certainly need it. KW