The Accountability Project

Oregon: Tobacco Taxes for Children's Health Insurance

2007-02-27T14:35:00.000-08:00

Jekyll and Hyde: Gordon Smith’s positions on everything from county payments to health care to Iraq flip 180 degrees when it’s time for him to face the voters in Oregon. Even so, the audacity of some of the things that come out of his mouth continues to surprise.

Here’s a whopper:

"It is rare that I even consider a proposal that raises taxes," Smith said at a news conference Tuesday. "However ... I have and will vote to support an increase in the tobacco tax if I believe the cause is just."

(Last week, Smith made headlines by publicly backing a proposal by Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski to increase state tobacco taxes to fund the Healthy Kids plan. Courageous? Maybe. Or maybe he listens to his pollster…)

Today, he held a news conference in DC to declare his support for an increase in federal tobacco taxes to fund children’s health insurance. He may have seen the light and changed his mind, but he hasn’t been a supporter of that proposal in the past. In fact, he’s been an opponent.

You don’t get much more spot-on than this proposal by Ted Kennedy:

To increase the excise tax on cigarettes by 43 cents per pack and increase the tax on other tobacco products by a proportionate amount, and direct $12 billion of the resulting revenues be applied to the children's health initiative.

(It would have fully funded the Children’s Health Insurance Program.)

Gordon Smith: Nay.

It’s hard to fathom what vote Smith is citing to say he’s supported increasing federal tobacco taxes in the past. Maybe he’s trying to disingenuously claim he supported the idea of ‘tobacco taxes for children’s health insurance’ because it was included in the final budget bill that Smith and 84 other Senators voted for later that year. If so, that’s pathetic and borders on dishonest.

Why? How about his own logic on ANWR? Smith has repeatedly argued that his vote for oil drilling in Alaska essentially “doesn’t count” because it’s included in a larger omnibus budget bill. "But I voted against it in stand-alone legislation..." "But I supported the Cantwell Amendment..." That's Smith’s whole mantra everytime someone tries to call him out for supporting ANWR in a pivotal budget vote.

At the federal level, Gordon Smith is against raising tobacco taxes to fund children’s health insurance. That may have changed today, rhetorically, but he cannot claim to have supported it in the past.

As an aside, Smith has become one of the foremost advocates in Congress for preventive mental health services over the last few years. Ironically, the only other time from his tenure there appears to be a vote in the US Senate on tobacco tax increases was this vote:

“To provide for increased resources for medical research, disease control, wellness, tobacco cessation and preventative health efforts including substance abuse and mental health services, establishing a fund for this purpose, offset by an increase in the cigarette tax”

Gordon Smith: Nay.

Oregon: What's Driving Gordon Smith?

2007-02-27T10:07:00.000-08:00

Gordon Smith blocks the debate over Iraq in the US Senate. He refuses to speak out on proposals to hold Bush accountable for changing course in Iraq. (Ron Wyden and the House D's were able to take a position, what's the problem here Senator?) The Oregonian: "he's been here, there, everywhere on the war, on a Senate resolution opposing President Bush's troop escalation, even on the question of debating the issue in the Senate."

Um...here's an explanation: the '06 election and the writing on the wall. Pure politics, plain and simple.

Pro-McCain '08 Means Pro-Escalation in Iraq

2007-02-26T19:04:00.000-08:00

Over at Senate2008Guru's blog is a nice piece on an important point regarding the vulnerable '08 Senate Republicans trying to distance themselves from Bush/Iraq. Namely, there is no way these GOP Senators can support John McCain for President and also lay claim to the anti-escalation position:

Iraq is the number one issue for many voters and will be front-and-center in the 2008 election. Given that these candidates are campaigning to be Commander-in-Chief, their position on this issue is of paramount importance.

As such, I'd argue that a person, much less a U.S. Senator up for re-election in 2008, cannot reconcile being pro-McCain while claiming to be anti-escalation.

Therefore, it is contradictory of Senators who claim to oppose Bush's escalation in Iraq to endorse McCain for President as Susan Collins and John Warner have. It will be interesting to see how the issue impacts their potential re-election bids; and it will be interesting to see how John Sununu, Gordon Smith, and Norm Coleman approach the 2008 Presidential race.

As Guru notes, Collins and Warner have both already made explicit endorsements. As for the other 3, at least two are pretty much in the McCain camp for sure.

Over at Blue Hampshire, they've been keeping close tabs on the McCain-Sununu relationship. Looks like McCain has even floated Sununu as a possible VP. Remember, Junior stayed neutral in 2000 even though Sununu Sr. backed GWB.

As for Oregon, Gordon Smith is a member of McCain's inner circle and has already declared his support:

The election may give more power to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a likely presidential candidate who Smith said is in the "common-sense center of the American electorate." That's good news for Smith, who has been among a small group of senators in a "kitchen Cabinet" advising McCain for the past two years. "We certainly are working to advance his electoral prospects on the national stage," Smith said. (Oregonian, 11/9/06)

Coleman's horse isn't clear, though if I had to bet, I'd guess he's on McCain. He's lumped in with that McCain-Sununu-Smith group that delivered Trent Lott back into the leadership.

Whomever Coleman backs, it's a safe bet he'll bring to the table that famous winning smile of his.

Gordon Smith: The Great Conflator

2007-02-22T02:29:00.000-08:00

What is the greatest sin committed by Bush 'the Decider' in leading the

United States

into the debacle that is the current war in

Iraq

? For many, it's Bush and 'the Misleaders' conflation of the September 11th tragedy with a supposed "imminent threat" posed by Saddam Hussein – done to manipulate public opinion and justify attacking

Iraq

And while Rove and the Bush Administration's activities in the context of the November 2002 mid-term elections have been well-documented, the active hyping/conflation of the Iraq "threat" with 9/11 that was done by Republican candidates is an important, yet overlooked component of evaluating the motives of Republicans now distancing themselves from Bush and a failed strategy in Iraq.

The great conflator of 9/11 and

Iraq

during the 2002 campaign? A case could be made that it's a certain vulnerable west coast Republican:

Gordon Smith (R-OR)

Consider the following:

Gordon Smith, Oregonian, 9/25/2002:

"all terrorist roads pass through Baghdad"

Oregonian, 9/23/2002:

He said the underlying Bush doctrine calling for pre-emptive use of military force "is the issue that gives me the most heartburn" as the [Iraq] debate approaches. "But 9/11 is the antacid for that heartburn," Smith said. "That recalculates everyone's computer on national defense."

Lest one think those quotes are lacking context or somehow less wildly irresponsible than they actually are, let's hear the Senator in his own, unedited words:

Gordon Smith op-ed, Oregonian, 9/22/2002:

This is the burden of being the world's lone great power. It rests on the president, on Congress, but more importantly, it rests on the people of the

United States

. The American people, 3,000 of whom died Sept. 11, 2001, are Saddam's targets. We are targets because ours is a nation that is the beacon of liberty in the world. I believe in peace and diplomacy. These values guide my service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But if the heavy weight of proof calls for acting now to prevent the loss of more American lives, then it is not our duty simply to contribute to an international coalition. It is our obligation to lead it. That obligation became all the more clear when last year's terrorist attacks ushered in an era when threats are more tangible, where civilians are at risk, and where deterrence no longer works.

Gordon Smith, US Senate Floor speech, 10/12/2002:

I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein presents an imminent threat to

America

, our freedom and our way of life. The proof lies in Baghdad. Over the last decade we have collected a considerable body of evidence that Hussein is amassing weapons of mass destruction, weapons that he has already used on his own people.

It is only with a heavy heart that any of us can reach the solemn conclusion that our young men and women may have to risk their lives in defense of our Nation. But the heavy weight of proof moves us now to prevent the loss of more American lives. …

This burden rests on the President, on the Congress, but more importantly, it rests on the people of the

United States

. For it is the American people, 3,000 of whom died on September 11, 2001, who are Saddam's targets.

Of course, Senator Smith doesn't want to talk about the misleading fear-mongering he engaged in during the 2002 campaign. He won't discuss how he got it so wrong, and why he blindly followed President Bush for so long. Whether he made a mistake or regrets his vote. According to Smith: "That's all history."

The Oregonian suggested recently that Smith's constant flip-flopping on

Iraq

has left him with some serious explaining to do: "This is a real challenge, writing about U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith's views on the war in

Iraq

. Because he's been here, there, everywhere on the war, on a Senate resolution opposing President Bush's troop escalation, even on the question of debating the issue in the Senate. ... At the next opportunity, Gordon Smith needs to explain himself on

Iraq

."

There's an understatement.

Minnesota: Norm Coleman Is A Big Fat Idiot

2007-02-14T13:43:00.000-08:00

Looks like Franken is ready to rumble... 2000 candidate Mike Ciresi said earlier this week he's exploring the option as well.

Accountability 2008

2007-02-12T16:02:00.000-08:00

The 2008 US Senate playing field may allow Democrats to expand on the narrow majority won in the monumental 2006 elections. As Democrats attempt to build an expanded, lasting majority, we'll attempt to hone in on the records of vulnerable GOP Senators -- many of whom will spend their time between now and November 2008 trying to run from those records and their past support for Bush and the Republican leadership.

***Disclaimer: The Accountability Project blog is not affiliated with any candidate, candidate's committee, party organization or political committee.***