« Paul Harvey Shocks and Appalls | Main | PSU Student Observes Misrepresentation by Petitioners »

May 03, 2007

Sizemore Goes Gunning for Smith

Bill Sizemore is apparently moving forward with his challenge to Gordon Smith, if his latest editorial is any indication. NW Republican titles the piece "The Case Against Gordon Smith," but Sizemore titled it, "Is Sen. Gordon Smith a Globalist? Why do people vote for chameleons?" After reading through the op-ed, I think Ted Piccolo did a better job of titling it. Not that it really matters, because the piece is nothing but a laundry list of right-wing complaints about the moderate votes of a moderate senator in a state that likes moderates.

Sizemore begins by charging Smith with being a Republican who "is not a conservative." To back this up, he looks at Smith's scorecard from the American Conservative Union, which gave Smith a lifetime score of 74.5% and a 2005 score of just 58%. That's very interesting to me and explains why the Democrats I've actually spoken to about Smith say they think he's doing a pretty good job, working well with Ron Wyden, and gaining a level of seniority that benefits Oregon. Many actually say they think he could be the next Mark Hatfield. I don't personally like Smith, but I am intrigued that what I'm hearing in face-to-face conversations doesn't match what I'm reading in the liberal blogosphere. That said, I really have to wonder why Sizemore thinks a true conservative could win in this state. Oregonians seem to be very fond of moderates.

Sizemore doesn't like Smith's approach to social issues. He takes Smith to task for his support of hate crimes legislation, and his real problem with it seems to be that Smith is working with gay and lesbian groups – giving them something that they want. He also criticizes Smith for his support of embryonic stem cell research. He argues that "adult stem cell research has proven to be far more valuable and useful than research using stem cells from human embryos." What he is not pointing out is something you can even find on the White House website: "Although scientists believe that some adult stem cells from one tissue can develop into cells of another tissue, no adult stem cell has been shown in culture to be pluripotent. ... To date, adult stem cell research, which is federally-funded, has resulted in the development of a variety of therapeutic treatments for diseases. Although embryonic stem cell research has not yet produced similar results, many scientists believe embryonic stem cell research holds promise over time because of the capacity of embryonic stem cells to develop into any tissue in the human body." Sizemore could at least tell the whole right-wing version of the story, but he is so far to the right he does not want to acknowledge any valuable use for embryonic stem cell research at all.

Sizemore is also making an issue with Smith over his support for light rail. He accuses Smith of "twisting arms, wielding threats and offering political bribes to fellow Republicans for votes" in favor of light rail back when he was in the Oregon Legislature. The reason, says Sizemore, was that Smith had his eyes fixed on becoming a U.S. Senator and he "knew that a Republican cannot win statewide in Oregon, unless he garners at least 33 or 34 percent of the vote in vote-rich Multnomah County where the City of Portland is located." Aha! Sizemore does realize that a conservative Republican cannot win in Oregon. So why would he be trying to push Smith out in the Primary and get a conservative Republican to run against a Democrat in November?

Sizemore, who, when running for Governor, gave a speech to an environmental group saying he thought 1000 Friends of Oregon had done a good thing for the state by bringing environmental issues to people's attention, and claimed to be an environmentalist himself, derides Smith for voting against drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Perhaps he didn't realize that Smith was a consistent supporter of ANWR drilling and only voted against it at the end, when he could be assured it wouldn't pass anyway, because he wanted to strengthen his "moderate" credentials. Sizemore further shows his lack of knowledge by tying ANWR drilling to the price of gasoline, despite the reality that ANWR contains so little oil it will barely make a dent in our dependency on oil from the Middle East.

And speaking of the Middle East, Sizemore also berates Smith for his vote to join "Democrats to set a time table for withdrawal from Iraq" and for daring to call our presence there "criminal," which really was one of the most meaningful statements Smith has ever made, in my opinion. At this point, I have no more patience for anyone who continues to defend this war, and Sizemore's rationale is so uninformed and smacks so much of the cowboy mentality that it makes me sick.

Al Qaeda’s highest priority in all the world is to defeat the United States in Iraq and send us home with our tails between our legs. An American defeat in Iraq would inspire them to export terror to American cities, schools, shopping malls, and sports arenas. Volunteer suicide bombers would line up for “service,” gloating over the weakness of American resolve.

His admission that we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place is at attempt to look reasonable, but he offers absolutely no ideas about how to "fix it" – in fact, nobody seems to have any idea how we can fix what we have broken. We are right now spinning our wheels in the mud, digging the holes under our wheels deeper and deeper and splattering mud all over the place. I guess Sizemore would have us continue to press the gas peddle to the floor until we think of something better to do. Pulling out would give us a chance to look at the situation, clean off the mud, and find a better way through the swamp.

Other issues on which Sizemore disagrees with Smith include Smith's support of the Healthy Kids Plan, which would have funded health insurance for poor kids using an 85 cent per pack cigarette tax (Sizemore ignorantly equates this with "government health care"); Smith's opposition to building a fence along the Mexican border and support for helping illegals become legal (because they'll likely vote Democratic); and his failure to reform Social Security (read: privatize it). Interestingly, that last one is a pet issue for Sizemore's sugar daddy, Dick Wendt.

Running down Sizemore's list of reasons to vote against Gordon Smith makes it pretty clear why Gordon Smith has had a fairly secure seat in the Senate. In fact, I think Smith's biggest problem is that he has been working so hard to be a moderate that he forgot about the fact that he has to run in a primary election and will have ungrateful, ignorant wing-nuts coming after him. I don't care one way or the other whether Gordon Smith is elected come next November. But I sure as hell would never vote for a right winger like Bill Sizemore, even if I didn't know a thing about his past.

Posted by Becky at May 3, 2007 10:40 AM