U.S. Senate race: Smith's record defies easy labels

by Charles Pope, The Oregonian

But Smith is running for the U.S. Senate, not coach, and voters basing their decision in November on Smith's record and accomplishments will confront a complicated terrain of mixed signals, victories large but mainly small, ambiguous acts and outright contradictions.
 

Smith voted to invade Iraq, but three years later the famously reserved senator called the war "criminal" in a speech memorable both for its content and his rare display of emotion.

He's repeatedly voted in favor of huge spending bills to finance the war. Yet in 2007, Smith co-sponsored an amendment written by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island that would have required bringing most troops out of Iraq within nine months. The measure failed on a 47-47 vote when only two other Republicans joined Smith.

Smith has been among the most supportive members in the Senate, regardless of party, on extending civil protections to gays. But he also sponsored a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Smith's Democratic opponent, Jeff Merkley, speaker of the Oregon House, has hammered the Republican incumbent for months as a reliable proxy for the Bush administration. In ads and on the stump, Merkley says that Smith votes with Bush more than 90 percent of the time.

Yet an analysis of key votes in 2007 by the Beltway-focused National Journal shows Smith in the middle. On a scale of 100, he earned a composite conservative score of 52.8 and a liberal composite score of 47.2. Those scores make him the 46th most conservative among the Senate's 100 members and the 51st most liberal.

Smith is a reliable and orthodox conservative on taxes and spending, but more liberal on social issues. He voted with Democrats, for example, to break a filibuster blocking consideration of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that would require paying women wages equal to men for similar work. The effort failed. Yet last year, he voted against raising the minimum wage.

In June, he voted with his party to kill immigration reform that would have fortified the borders and provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. He also joined a majority of Republicans in voting to confirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

"Somebody made the observation that this place is made up of noisemakers and deal makers," he says. "I don't make a lot of noise, and I'm in a lot of compromises that result in deals being done."

Smith goes about his job quietly. For those outside Oregon, he is known more for his impeccable clothes and pondering approach than for singular legislative achievements.

Even his friends say Smith can be too reserved. In a chamber dominated by big egos and big voices, Smith is easy to overlook. He simply goes about his work without demanding attention.

Those who have worked closely with Smith and his office describe him as capable and smart, but note he is rarely one of the first senators in the room when strategy is devised.

Smith says he's comfortable with his approach. He works easily and often with Democrats. He partnered with Massachusetts Sens. Edward Kennedy on hate crime legislation and John Kerry on an initiative to provide $11 billion in government bonds to help first-time homebuyers get a mortgage.

In today's Senate, however, full-blown solutions are rarely achieved. The hate crimes bill died after President Bush threatened a veto. The mortgage effort was signed into law, but the economic collapse dried up the credit market, overpowering the law's potential benefits.

In the ossified Senate, it's a good day when Smith is part of a hearing that gets noticed, such as one earlier this year on the transition to digital television or one on problems with Medicare's toll-free help line.

Democrats, who are working to defeat Smith, say he's more conservative than he appears and is a reliable Republican vote until an election approaches.

"If you're a voter you have to look at the entirety of his record," says Merkley spokeswoman Julie Edwards. "He is reliably on the Republican side on the big battles."

"When there is clearly a strong need for a moderate" on a close and contentious issue, Smith isn't involved, she says, noting that he was not a member of the bipartisan "Gang of 14" in 2005 that stopped gridlock by promising not to filibuster judicial nominees.

For example, federal timber payments to rural counties, considered crucial to the financial viability of those communities, expired when Republicans controlled the Senate, the House and the White House. Even though Smith says preserving the program is a high priority and rural voters are one of his core constituencies, no bill got out of committee to extend the payments until Democrats regained control of Congress.

Both Republicans and Democrats who know Smith well say he might have been able to move county payments if he had swung his elbows.

Asked how he measures success, Smith offers two metrics, one direct, the other more subtle.

"One is, you have a bill signed into law. The other is, you see a policy changed because of the influence you've wielded."

Smith says his highly publicized defection on the war in Iraq shifted national policy.

And he is proud of his work in 2001 to ensure that scarce water continued flowing to farmers in the Klamath Basin.

With a big push from Vice President Dick Cheney, water was diverted from the Klamath River to farm irrigation, saving the farmers. Then, 77,000 salmon died. Researchers and environmentalists say the fish kill was caused by diverting the water.

Smith denies the connection and makes no apology.

"Government isn't about perfect; it's about what's possible," he says. "And what I've found impossible was government policy that cut Klamath farmers off from 100 percent of their water. In my view, such a policy is extreme and wrong, and I will always oppose such policies."

"While we start on different sides of the aisle," he says, "we cover both sides of Oregon interests, and that is especially true when it comes to appropriations."

Smith works with Wyden to bring federal money to Oregon, maximizing their influence even though it means sharing credit on important victories like funding for Portland's light rail.

"We appeal for them jointly, we win them together, and we announce them together," Smith says.

As a Republican in a chamber run by Democrats, Smith focuses on shaping the debate on topics he sees as important -- health care, seniors, natural resources and tax policy.

"It's a messy process," says Donald Ritchie, assistant Senate historian. "It's complex, and most people don't pay attention to it, and they only see the end result."

Smith, for example, has sponsored 255 bills since 1997. Only 15 have been signed into law, a seemingly dismal success rate of 6 percent. Yet in the plodding Senate, that record puts him among the high achievers. (For those who must know, the 94th percentile.)

There are major successes: the 2004 bill that cut the tax rate on foreign profits of U.S. companies from 35 percent to 5.25 percent; and Smith's work to make crimes against gays federal hate crimes. But for every one of those, there are plenty of others like this year's bill calling for "greater dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the government of China regarding rights for the people of Tibet."

Some, such as the "Do-Not-Text Act of 2008" and a resolution expressing "the importance of friendship and cooperation between the United States and Turkey," remain stalled.

Smith says his value to Oregon is that he puts the state's interests first and is willing to work with Democrats -- or anybody else -- to get results.

Yet over the years, Smith has cast votes that required him to oppose himself.

He initially voted against drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge only to vote for a budget bill in 2005 that allowed it. He switched positions on increasing mileage requirements for automakers, first opposing an increase, then supporting it.

Smith and analysts who closely follow the Senate say those votes and positions make perfect sense in an institution where there are few clear, bright lines.

Often, a provision that forces a lawmaker to contradict an earlier position is included in a larger bill that, on balance, is important and consistent with other views.

Such contradictions and disconnects are a fact of life in the Senate, historian Ritchie says. "Every time you cast a vote you are narrowing your base rather than broadening it.

"That's true from Henry Clay to Hillary Clinton, they've all had that same problem in that you can't really duck hot-button issues. ... In the Senate, you've got to take a stand."

-- Charles Pope; charles.pope@newhouse.com