Gordon Smith

Jeff Merkley

There was a point, about 36 minutes into the debate between Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith and Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley, when the debate threatened to become an actual debate.

They had got into a question about tax policy, and they were into sluggo mode, as Merkley warned that “Gordon Smith wants to give away the bank to the wealthiest and most powerful, and Smith countered that “You’re gonna have to prepare yourself for a bait and switch” on Merkley’s part (tlking about not rising taxes and then voting for them).

Then, as the topic morphed into the national debate and the bailout, Merkley asked – directly of Smith – “Do you understand that our children are going to have to pay” for the debt being amassed?

It was a direct comment, candidate to candidate, something the rules didn’t contemplate, but no one objected when Smith replied back – directly – “So what would you have me do, Jeff?” The alternatives, he warned, could be economically devastating.

Then – again, rules be damned – Merkley directly shot back: Smith should say no, “the next time that powerful international corporations” want tax cuts: That money should be used for health care and other needs of working people. In the meantime, “This economy has been run into the ground.”

It went on from there.

It was a surface exchange, and it didn’t occupy even two minutes of the debate, but it was riveting: Two intelligent candidates putting forth their ideas on a subject of critical importance and usefully skewering, where they could, their opponent’s take. It was high drama, and an hour’s worth of such exchanges would have been educational as well as wonderfully enlightening about which candidate had more on the ball.

For the most part, we got – and this is the structural part – something less useful, the “press conference” debate format, which envisioned no interaction between the candidates and only short, canned answers to questions.

[NOTE As of about 90 minutes post-debate, the Oregonian's on-line poll - self-selecting - had Smith winning the debate, 54%-40%.]

But enough hard feelings have developed in this race, so many negative TV spots and so many shots back and forth and from scattered sources, that the candidates often seemed right on the edge of busting through those rules. Both of them were tense and stiff at the debate’s opening; close to halfway through, Smith seemed to ease up and talk more colloquially, and soon after Merkley did too. Maybe the tension eventually needed some release.

The first question was about those negative ads, to which Smith said, “I’ll take mine down if you take yours down, Jeff.” Merkley had no reply (then; later, he said his campaign had no negative spots on air at present, though that still allows for third party ads). Smith had a batch of words for the ads aimed at him – “defamatory, deceitful, deceptive, dishonest . . .” Merkley basically said at another point that Smith started it.

Both fired lots of shots, but if anything it was the incumbent senator who fired more of them (his closing statement was heavy on the attack, while Merkley made only a brief swipe). Smith said that “You have a choice to believe what he says or believe what he’s done. Jeff Merkley has not missed a chance to snub rural Oregon. . . . He says one thing, but frankly, the way he’s acted in Salem, he’ll raise taxes . . . (in a reply on energy) You can twist it any way you want to, Jeff . . .” When both were asked to name three things about their opponent’s voting record that they liked, Merkley reeled off three from Smith’s; Smith only said that Merkley seemed to have a nice family.

But not to misrepresent: Merkley was on the attack too. You’d have to count the number of time he said “George Bush and Gordon Smith” (or the other way around) – did anyone have a drinking game going on that one? (“The meltdown on Wall Street is a natural consequence of Gordon Smith’s and George Bush’s deregulation . . .”) He said that “When the oil companies said jump, Gordon Smith jumped.” Merkley shot back, after Smith’s reference to a 2003 Iraq resolution in the Oregon legislature, “Gordon, is there no depth to which you will not go to misconstrue my record? . . . You’ve called me a coward, you’ve called me a hypocrite on television.” (This last, after questions about Smith’s food processing business in the Pendleton area, Merkley’s sharp jab on immigration and pollution, and Smith’s retort to that that he would happily contrast his business record with that of Merkley’s as a Portland-area landlord.)

Those Oregonians irritated about negative campaigning would have had a hard time basing on a decision on this debate. Both came across intelligently, and there were no obvious blowaway gaffes. At a guess, Merkley may have fared a little better in that, as the challenger, he stood across from the incumbent, gave as good as he got, and was clearly involved in an exchange directly across from his opponent – never the spot an incumbent would prefer to be in.

But the sharpness of the battle just reinforces, too, how close this thing is. They say debates don’t much matter in the final results, but in a contest so close, and a debate so hard fought, can you rule it out?