It might help Smith if he used humans in his office instead of talking points reading robo-staff.

Try calling his office sometime to get his stance on [insert your favorite issue here]. Unless you're talking about the war, in which case, his position is apparently "stay the course" (whatever that actually means), his staff usually don't know what his stance is on issues. They almost inevitably say "the Senator hasn't taken a position on that issue yet". It's almost like Smith is hiding out and hoping that he can stay under the radar until it's finally time to vote at which point he furtively bends over and takes one up the behind for the Administration.

He's a fence sitting thumb twiddler who lacks the courage to take bold stances. He also sits on the Senate Finance Committee's subcommittee on Long Term Growth and DEBT REDUCTION (!). If he was working in the private sector and presided over a continuous explosion in our long term debt, he would have been fired 4 or 5 years ago. But nope... there he is, sucking Jack Abramoff's teat and hiding behind the Administration's skirt. He's not investigating corruption, war profiteering, warantless wiretapping, torture or anything of significance. He has willingly relegated himself and his branch of government to irrelevance.

His approval rating should be 0% and his disapproval rating should be 100%.

The sooner he is gone the better.

Mike S -

I don't support Smith in any way, shape, or form. But in fairness to him, I find the inexcusable non-responsiveness of his office bordering on cluelessness to be quite in line with the rest of the NW Senators.

Wyden's office staff is the same and worse in my experience. As is Patty Murray's and Maria Cantwell's when you call them about issues of general NW interest. Only Feinstein's office staff is even worse than those three amongst all the Senate Democrats. In fact, I have found the staff in Wyden's local and DC offices to be downright condescending and rude if you ask questions.

I suspect it is because they feel embarrassed they don't have any information to provide in response to the simplest of substantive questions. But I can't tell if it is because Wyden is too fearful, too incompetent, or too arrogant to care to provide his staff with the kind of info needed to have an intelligent discussion with Democratic constituents who want to know about his actual position on a key issue on which he will be voting but has remained characteristically silent.

At the bottom line it don't think the reason matters, all that matters is that the way he runs his office that results in this kind of constituent communication sends exactly the wrong message to those we need to win back to put this country back on track.

If people want to get rid of Gordon Smith they need to get the political leadership in the state firmly on board. The last time a incumbent with loads of seniority got into real trouble it was Democrats like Elizabeth Furse and Earl Blumenauer who jumped in to defense Mark Hatfield in 1990. The arguments about the value of seniority need to be duked out early. There needs to be a firm committment from the Democratic elected officials to stand firmly behind the party's candidate. That means Ron Wyden saying that he doesn't see losing Smith's seniority as a problem. In fact, having a partner who is pulling in the same direction would make them both more effective. Likewise Hooley, DeFazio, Wu and Blumenauer talking up the advantage of having a stronger delegation even if it means less seniority for a few eyars.

mike s., the only way republicans have survived this long is by misrepresenting themselves on the issues, or in the case of a slightly more honest guy like smith, just refusing to talk about them. he'd reduce himself to an even tinier sliver of the portland vote if he were forced to explain why he's voted with george bush so often, including on writing religious discrimination into the constitution.

Thank you Ross!

The last time a incumbent with loads of seniority got into real trouble it was Democrats like Elizabeth Furse and Earl Blumenauer who jumped in to defense Mark Hatfield in 1990. The arguments about the value of seniority need to be duked out early.

For those of you not around in 1990, there was a mailer in favor of Hatfield's re-election titled DEMOCRATS FOR HATFIELD. Lots of famous names. Got sent to a few people who were supporting the DEMOCRATIC nominee in that race, and got saved. 2 years later, people whose names were on that list were reminded what they did.

Gordon ain't Mark. He just wants people to think he is.

But 2 things need to happen. First there needs to be an agreement that there won't be a "Democrats for Smith" operation unless by some fluke the Dem. nominee is to the right of Karen Minnis (see Sumner vs. Day for state sen. 1982--Sumner was truly to the right of moderate Republicans, although he was the Dem. nominee). Second, candidates (like the ones in the 2nd cong. district primary this year) who agree in advance that the real opponent is Smith, not each other.

If those things don't happen, a highly qualified candidate (Kitzhaber,Earl B., DeFazio, etc. ) could run and not be successful.

And don't count on the DSCC--look at some of the stupid stuff they have done in recent years. Did they support now Sen. Salazar (D-Colorado) in 2004? Or did Salazar win on his own?

The way to defeat a US Senate incumbent is the way Congressional incumbents have been defeated in the past: 1) Strong candidate who actually goes out and talks with voters 2) United effort by Democrats 3) Candidate who runs doesn't change from the person we have known all these years (why Ron was smart in Jan. '96 to go 100% positive--people were saying "I'd be glad to vote for the Ron I've known all these years, but a nasty campaigner isn't that guy")

SHAME on Smith for voting against the minimum wage increase. We need to make sure people remember this vote.

Anyone want to take bets on his net neutrality stance, while we're at it?

Rumor has it that Smith is not only going to face a Democrat, but a prominent former Republican running as an Independent....

Over at the Gordon Smith 2008 topic, someone said this: "As for the 2nd CD, we haven't come close since 1980, even though Kupillas outspent Cooley in '94" Personally, I think Carol Voisin has a chance this year. We'll find out in November.

As I recall, Sue Kupillas was one of the Democrats for Hatfield. And outspending the opponent may not be that big a deal if there was a segment of Democrats who remembered Sue K. wasn't there for the Dem. US Senate nominee in 1990. I recall friends who lived in that district saying they saw no reason to help her given how she treated the 1990 US Senate nominee. There are those who say "money is all that matters and only professionals know how the game is played". But if Kupillas had more money and lost that obviously wasn't true in her case.

I'm with Torrid Joe. Given the Paul Hackett travesty, don't expect me to give DSCC the benefit of the doubt. DSCC has been playing games for a long time (as did DCCC in some cases going back decades). If they win the majority, they deserve praise. But in a free country no caucus leader of any party is entitled to the benefit of the doubt no matter what. Too often they play favorites.

Yes, people need to be keeping track of Gordon's voting record, and yes it needs to be a good candidate. But there also needs to be an understanding that Oregonians are the ones who vote (DSCC in 1996 seemed to forget that--Bruggere was their boy, how dare anyone question him.)

But first, we need to win 2006 elections.

Because you stand behind ratings as the reason to vote out Gordon Smith OR-R, then let's all work hard and stand behind any/all candidates who want Maria Cantwell WA-D out of office.

Cantwell ratings are even lower than Smith.

The sooner (bad rated) senators are gone the better.

We need the best representation we can get on behalf of Oregon and Washington.

The Big Red Whale my be Smith, but Kids...you aren't going to kill him.

And if you're not careful he might just kill you.

Visit http://www.oraflcio.unions-america.com/legislative/u.s._congress_voting.htm to see Smith's voting record on a wide range of issues. His lifetime COPE score is 21 percent but it was 0 percent in four individual years.

I called Gordon Smith's office on his decision to vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment. His staffer told me I do have the right to marry...just not someone of the same sex. What a bizarre argument, to tell a gay man to go find a woman to marry. I think he's gone off the deep end in so many ways. But how about an anti-Gordon campaign that goes something like this: "Gordon Smith Wants Gay Men to Marry Your Daughters!" Heh.

<h2>lol, keith.</h2>