I consistently find it amazing how some of the no-names who work for these elected officials get such swelled heads (I think egos are what is going on here more than anything). Smith is quickly being shown up as no more than a weasly politician on his way out the door, and all his minions are becoming unhinged as they see the vicarious lives they have led going with him.

Before folks get too smug here though. I have found Wyden's staff to be at least as obnoxious on the phone and far less willing to do discuss substantive matters --- including Wyden's cowardly failure to play a leadership role against the BOTH wars --- as these women attempted to do. I have been hung up on many times trying to just get a statement as to what Wyden's position is on several issues. Invariably, I was told flat out I would not be welcome if I came to his office to talk to someone, since no one would talk to me on the phone. I was also told there was no way he would talk to a constituent about whether he bore as much responsiblity for this mess as any other elected official who hasn't used his relatively safe seat to actually lead like Feingold and precious few others Senators have.

We can't escape the fact that in the vote Saturday, Smith is the one who broke with the position of his party. Wyden may have voted "right", but that was an easy vote for him and he has not gone the step of breaking with the "sit on our hands" position of our party.

I'd suggest these two ladies have work to do on both sides of the aisle.

Unbelievable, will someone please remind me why I twice volunteered my time,energy, and resources to electing this loser... To any and all true Republicans reading this post...
Deport Gordon Smith NOW

 http://deportgordonsmith.com/

Prior to the sellout vote on the Iraq war in 2002, Wyden visited Redmond. From his statements, it was clear he was leaning in favor of the war. He got a lot flack from Redmond constituents and probably more around the state which may explain his vote against the war.

If I recall correctly, it was in early 2001 that I was preparing to attend a conference in Washington on land mines to encourage Congress to ban use of these appalling weapons. I wrote all Oregon elected officials to arrange a meeting in Washington with them or an aide. Only de Fazio, Wu and Blumenauer gave me appointments. Pressure from the land mine organization persuaded Wyden and Smith to agree to meetings. Wyden's aide was friendly, but Smith's was clearly opposed to the ban and was hostile to my points. Other contacts with Smith's Washington office have encouraged me to conclude he has a preference for hiring arrogant, immature flunkies.

When was the last time you had any communication whatsoever from your esteemed Senators? In my case NEVER. They have the much ballyhooed franking privilege. They have my email address from emails I send them. And they occasionally capture my home address after a phone call. But they NEVER respond. The only difference I can see is that Wyden occasionally shows up in town--announced--whereas Smith always meets with a carefully screened group. They are both aloof, out of touch, and beholden to interests with whom I share little.

Gee, what a surprise, pandering Thom Hartmann and his potted-plant sidekick Heidi Tauber tried to make this an audience hook for today's show. As a liberal listener who finds Hartmann's pandering local show to be an exercise in increasing venality, it was truly amusing how Katherine Austin Fitts managed to repeatedly smacked down his pathetic attempts to pass-off stereotyped "progressive" talking points --- which Fitts nicely showed really aren't progressive or even informed --- about business and finance.

Thom stupidly set himself up by seguing into the Fitts interview from one of his gratuitous bits about Smith that he and Heidi were using as their hook for the day --- in this case using this incident as the progressive pop quiz for the day. Fitts adroitly teed off on this opportunity, to Hartmann's discomfort, that Smith wasn't really the issue or particularly distinguished in his lack of integrity. That she managed to do that so easily leads one to wonder if Hartmann really isn't as informed or as bright as he bluffs, or if his audience is so lame (apparently) that he has decided to just channel their provincial views to guests to have them slammed down. Hartmann is either so bad or so good it's hard to tell which is the case.

The fact is that Wyden and Smith are two peas-in-a-pod with regard to selling out to the financial and power interests who run this country:

36 'Democratic' Senators Vote For Credit Card/Banking Industry's Bankruptcy 'Reform' http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0316-03.htm

In true weasly NW progressive spirit that they apparently share with most of you here, all three NW "progressive" Senators spoke for and sold-out to vote for this bill. Feingold, Kennedy, and Wellstone all voted NO.

It is that shared lack of moral fiber, that makes both of these guys equally, willfully, inconsequential in opposing and stopping this war. For those who are disappointed their chance to slam Smith, maybe this story about Wyden's staff having anti-war activists who wanted to hold him to account for his failure to actually be a leader will go down just a little uncomfortably:

Eugene Civil Resistance activists arrested after sit-ins http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/336370.shtml

"So we sat down in the hallway outside of Wyden's office, read the names of the American and Iraq dead, chanted and made a lot of noise until the building manager called the cops to come arrest us. Which was the plan from the start. I must say the cops were very civil and professional about it. They told us we were under arrest, wrote citations for criminal trespass 2, a misdemeanor, and turned us loose. We all have court dates and are expecting fines, which supporters will pay for those of us who have no money. "

And buried in this story about another citizen arrested for trying to confront Smith to get him to sign the Declaration of Peace, is this little gem about Wyden:

Activist mother vows to fight on http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2006/12/24/news/community/1aaa02_peacemom.txt

"On Sept. 21, Darr and eight others were arrested at Sen. Smith’s office in Portland, after attempting to speak with Smith’s aide. The group, part of Civil Resist Portland, wants Smith to sign the Declaration of Peace, which calls for a swift withdrawal of troops from Iraq, among other things. (Oregon’s other U.S. senator, Democrat Ron Wyden, voted against the use of military force in Iraq, though HE HASN'T SIGNED THE DECLARATION.)"

Great job, ladies! I've visited both senators' offices over the years, and agree that Smith's office doesn't give you much love. I've been up to Wyden's office many times and have never been given a hard time - they always take my letters and I get a response from Wyden eventually. I call both offices at least once a week - I rarely get thru on Smith's line. At least I get a live person at Wyden's office and they're pretty good about taking my statements and asking if I want a response from Wyden. I can get pretty "in your face", but have not been hung up on. Some of my friends and I got together right after the Iraq invasion and asked for a meeting with staff at Wyden's and were given an appointment for a few days later. Wyden needs to be more vocal in his opposition to this war and be supportive of getting our troops out NOW...

OMG... Smith's office was way out of line when they called the police.

Having said that... as a staffer, I am fed up with people swinging by the office without the common courtesy to ask for an appointment or even so much as call ahead and then act like they're entitled to as much staff time (or time with the elected official) as they please.

The fact is that staffers - whether Democrat or Republican - work their asses off all day long. A lot of times, this means helping out a constituent with a pressing problem... even occasionally matters of life and death. When you have 3,400,000 people that could potentially ask you for something, you quickly learn that giving every constituent 5 minutes of your time means over 30 straight years of meeting with people.

So yes, sometimes the staff triages meetings according to importance... and frankly, hearing yet another person say "I'm opposed to the Iraq war" just may not make that list.

I've called Senator Smith's offices (DC and Portland) numerous times about his stance and maneuverings regarding the Iraq War. Except for the most recent call, I've either gotten an argument from the person I was talking to or was told that that the person did not know what Sen Smith was thinking. The latter really bothered me. You work for the guy and you don't know what his stance on this very important issue is? No wonder the general public doesn't know what Smith's real position on the war is!

"Public Relations 101, "do not tick off constituents."

Progressive "Petty Relations 101", "act outraged over evey petty thing"

Then make leaping generalizations on how this shows Republican bad-Democratic good, followed by acting impressed by each other's comments.

Test.

Why is this news? People, including a 65 year old vet, have been arrested all year long at Smith's office.

Anonymous Having said that... as a staffer, I am fed up with people swinging by the office without the common courtesy to ask for an appointment or even so much as call ahead and then act like they're entitled to as much staff time (or time with the elected official) as they please.

Appointment? We don't need no stinking appointment.

Amendments to the Constitution First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

lestatdelc: let's also not lose sight of the fact that these two old ladies were also breaking the law by refusing to leave.

How exactly? And I mean I want details. Give me the particulars from the legal codes.

Also, if you want to use this argument, you need to acknowledge that all those civil-rights activists in the South in the 50's and 60's were "breaking the law by refusing to leave" wherever they were sitting in, and so on. I'm anxious to hear your support for this claim. Personally I find it hard to get too indignant about disciplined non-violent activists of whatever persuasion refusing to leave whatever premises are being discussed.

Stop by and say hello to Gordon Smith, our future ex-senator from the great state of Oregon!

I have to agree with the anonymous staffer above. With Senator Smith's agenda chock full of weighty matters of national security, such as sucking up to campaign contributors, why would anyone expect his staff to set up an appointment for a couple nobodies trying to exercise their first amendment right to petition the government for a redress of their grievances about the Iraq war?

BTW I wonder if the anonymous staffer could tell us if Smith ever refused to set an appointment or return a phone call from Enron or PGE before it all blew up in the Fall of 2001? If not, well, that would confirm how we've come to expect our Senators to behave.

It's still not exactly clear why the ladies refused to leave the office. I've read their diary entry above and over at the kos, and a piece over at indymedia.

The ladies asked to see the senator or an aide. Told that Smith was in Salem, and only an aide involved with immigration issues was present in the office, they then were told that a letter request in writing was reqired to speak to the senator.

So, the ladies sat down and wrote the letter. The receptionist asked them to leave, the ladies refused, and the cops came to take them away. So why didn't they leave? They'd written their letter. The senator was gone. They were willing to talk to an aide but none supposedly involved with issues they were specifically interested in was there to talk to them.

On the ladies full length account of their experience over at kos, they talk about the impression given them by the Smith Portland office staff effectively indicating to them that neither Smith or any of his staff had any interest in talking to them and that they shouldn't entertain any notion of receiving an appointment to do so.

In other words, it seems as though the ladies refused to leave because the senator by proxy through his Portland office staff, in a decidedly questionable manner, denied them access to their elected representative. Does that sound about right? I wonder if senators have been successfully sued for that sort of thing.

From yesterday's Willamette Week:

"Next on the brigade's agenda: a protest Thursday, Feb. 22, at the office of U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) in the World Trade Center downtown."

Yeah, they just dropped by to visit with the Senator...come on guys.

"They were going to do anything they could to make sure they got arrested." Kari Chisholm

Do you really mean that? From what I've read of the ladies own account of the incident, that wasn't their intention. The fact of their being arrested was an outcome of their response to an impression they feel was given them by Smith's staff that under now circumstances would they ever be granted an interview with the senator or maybe even a staffer.

Of course, there's probably at least some things we don't know about the encounter between the ladies and Smith staffers. From the diary entry, the writer, one of the arrested ladies, seems intelligent, articulate, and reasonably moderate in disposition. But then on her own admission, though she doesn't say exactly what, she concedes she said something to the Smith staff guy that finally showed up that made him blush.

So, maybe in person at the incident, the ladies might have been a little less reasonable towards the Smith staff then they came across as being in the diary entry. I think it's stupid and disingenuous to get arrested where just cause doesn't exist. I'd like to think they weren't party to that. We'll have to see as more details unfold.

Thank you Kari and Annonymous. Sometimes people don't want to hear the answer they know they're going to get...they just want to get arrested so they can write a blog and be featured on the 11 o'clock news. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I fully support it...it's a part of our democratic process and a component of our "free" press.

Honestly, I'm torn in this one...sounds like the grannies came at a bad time (no Senator...little staff), refused to leave, and made an unfortunate situation into a worse situation...but I'm sure they got what they wanted and Smith and his office look bad.

Ah, don't you love the smell of politics...

From the information I read, the staff never took contact information from these two women. Presumably it was included in the written request but you'd think that would be the very first question that they would be asked.

When you make an appointment at any professional office, do you submit a request in writing when speaking in person to someone? If you were at your dentist's office and scheduling your next appointment, and the receptionist told you to sit down and "write out" a written request on a blank sheet of paper, would you find that odd? Isn't it more like - they take your information down, probably using their own form or checklist, they offer you some possible dates, or just type the appointment into their system while you stand there?

I'd be curious to know if anyone else has ever been asked to submit a request in writing for an appointment when they show up in Gordon Smith's office. Do they have a form for this? You'd think if this was their practice, they would have a form if for no other reason than to make things easy for themselves (to make sure they get complete information, ease of processing, good record keeping, etc.). Or do they tell everyone who shows up to sit down and write out a free-form request long-hand from scratch on a sheet of paper (?) or the back of a menu (?) or a napkin (?) or something? If they don't want people loitering in the office, they could use a better procedure.

It appears these women were simply trying to complete their request and were not even given adequte time to comply before the staffers chose the nuclear option. They were in the middle of a conversation. I mean, did these women handcuff themselves to a desk or something? Or were they supposed to break out in a flat-footed run for the elevator, waving their arms over their heads in reckless abandon?

What exactly did this staffer say to the police that caused six officers to show up and make arrests? ("Hello, 9-1-1? Some people are here in the office and they won't leave..." "How long have they been there?" "About 10 minutes..." "When did you ask them to leave?" "About 30 seconds ago." "Are they acting in a menacing manner?.." "Not really." "Do they have any weapons?" "No, but they each have hot lattes, or possibly cappucinos, I can't tell, and one is eating a muffin." "How many are there?" "Muffins?" "No, perps!" "Two perps." "Approximate age?" "Sixties, seventies." "Male or female?" "Two women." "Height, weight." "Both about 5' 2", 110 pounds." "Are they being disruptive?" "No, they are writing out a request for an appointment." "I see - two polite, petite, mature ladies with coffee and snacks who have recently arrived and are asking for an appointment. We'll send six officers immediately!") I'm surpised they didn't send a S.W.A.T. team! No, I don't know if they had Starbucks, but come on, call the cops?

Did Smith's staffer ask that they be arrested, or that they be escorted out?

Is Smith's office pressing charges? Is he concerned this has a chilling effect on those who want to come to the office to speak to staff?

If the staff feels so threatened by everyday interaction with constituents, and it's such a nuisance to deal with "all of the drop ins", then maybe they should just close the office. Then there will be no more questions about appointment/no appointment, asked to leave, right to visit, "he said/she said", whatever. Just close the office to the public. Done. Problem solved.

Bottom line - I would like some assurance that these women weren't asked to leave (paving the way to call the cops) simply because the subject matter of their question irritated staff.

Kari, so far, I haven't drawn a final conclusion one way or another about the ladies conduct related to this incident. Until some additional details come to light, it seems wise not to. Mostly, I think this incident is worth carefully thinking through before deciding. A little more about who these ladies are, what their experience and position in activisim has been, and others opinion of their conduct in the office and otherwise might be helpful.

I haven't checked since about 4pm yesterday, but someone at indymedia wrote a piece about the ladies, aparrently interviewing them to some extent. That was fine, except this person claims the ladies said they would not leave until they received assurance that Smith would agree to defund the war:

"They were told that there was no one in the office that could talk to them. They wanted to express their hope that the Senator would vote in a manner consistent with his statements about the war and therefore vote to defund the Iraq war. When they said they would not leave until receiving assurance that Senator Smith would agree to de-fund the war, they were arrested." author: defundthewar.com

[email protected]

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/354509.shtml

If that's accurate account of what of what transpired in the office between ladies and Smith staffers, it suggests a little less benign intent than the one the ladies themselves implied in the diary entry. It's a bit much to make such an ultimatum and expect that rather dramatic measures not be taken to remove persons making them from anyone's premises.

I'm not sure yet which account is the more accurate, but if the latter is, maybe the ladies did intend to get arrested.

What amazes me is that the Senators people didn't see this coming. Do they actually believe that confronting little old ladies is beneficial to their brand? This event is typical if GOP brinksmanship. An aid should have offered them a cup of tea and a sharp pencil and assisted the grannies in filling out the request form. This would have totally defused the situation and rendered the event moot. But NO. The thing that is scary about Oregon is that for state this size, the place is loaded with morons.

When you get to this point in debating a conflict in most cases you can find some way to place blame on both sides, but (and probably because I'm biased against Smith and his staff) I'm curious about the remark made by the LOL that caused one of Smith's staffers to blush. Did that make him emotional and cause him to ignore any (if any) better judgment he might have had? I have a hunch that if there had been some grown-up with an understanding of the basics of courtesy and respect for others among Smith's staff to show more mature judgment this otherwise minor event would never have been heard of. Again, you get what you pay for.

The most important thing I learned in Political Science 101 lo these many years ago was how a senator or congressman stays elected even if he is of the opposite party of most of his constituents. And it's by having a staff that's very quick and responsive to the needs and concerns of said constituents, whether it's some legal dispute or something like this.

Smith is coming up on a difficult election. As the one in power, it's his responsibility to make sure his staff is responsive to the needs of his constituents. That's pretty much the bottom line, whatever the "he said-she said" details.

These women should be glad that they were taken seriously enough that they were treated just as all potentially dangerous people who refuse to leave a Senator's office after their business is finished are treated. I am not a supporter of Smith or his policies (or even his staff, having worked on the Hill with them). However, his staff was right to follow the procedures that have been clearly established.

The Constitution is a living document that is open to interpretation and I'm positive it has never been interpreted as guaranteeing anyone the right to meet their Senator at whatever time they choose. When you call a Senator's office and are in contact with a real person, its most likely an intern. He or she has been instructed on what to tell constituents who ask about specific issues. Often, a Senator has not chosen a stance and an intern is not allowed to simply make something up to please you. You may be thinking 'Then why can't I talk to someone higher up?' Because they are busy working on policy and other activities that are meant to directly benefit you.

In response to Michelle's post: You have just demonstrated that you are completely ignorant about the procedures followed strictly by all Hill staffers. The staffer in question did not "call 911". She called a specific phone extension and said only one phrase. A pre-determined number of police officers were immediately dispatched with no questions about how old anyone was or if they were threatening or not. So I'll answer your questions for you: No.

Kari-- "Reasonable appointment requests should be responded to in a timely manner with a complete and polite response." (ie. more than likely a polite rejection)

So if I get this straight, people have a right to petition a Senator and request an appointment, but there is to be absolutely no expectation that the Senator will answer the petition or grant an appointment? Now I can understand that there may be some unusual circumstance, such as threats to personal security, that would legitmately casue a Senator to reject a request. Otherwise, s/he should have the common decency to engage in some sort of communications with the person. As far as I'm concerned, the issue here is that Smith is hiding from his constituents. From what I can see, he would rather vacation in Iraq than talk to people opposed to the war.

Let's get this straight... The "right to petition" contained in the First Amendment is a good and deliberate bypass around the doctrine of sovereign immunity. It's got nothing to do with requesting meetings.

And while it may be good policy to engage as many constituents as possible, I really can't fault Smith for not taking this one.

Consider the other side of the coin:

In 2005, our office in Salem took in a crazy munber of calls from people opposed to SB 1000 (civil unions). All day long, people were calling in with the anti-gay talking points, so when someone called in and asked, "I want to talk to [official] and ask [him/her] why they're going against God's word and siding with sodomites!"

I would say a variation of "Ooh, I'm sorry, the [Representative/Senator] isn't in right now, but I'd be glad to pass that question along if we could get a phone number to reach you back at."

Was that simply because we didn't agree with that person? No. It was because the boss has already talked to a handful of those people and another conversation wasn't going to add anything to the discussion. But my boss' time was gladly spent talking to other constituents about issues and ideas that were actually constructive (and that led to some great legislation).

Because they are busy working on policy and other activities that are meant to directly benefit you.

When Serena said "benefit you" she was either recycling a myth or thought she was addressing campaign donors.

What do you do?

In response to Kari's question from his scenario above, an effective step without drama is to engage unwelcome visitors in a debate in which you only ask questions in a courteous manner and preferably questions that put them on a spot that could push them into admitting they are in the wrong. If they become so inclined, give them a little time to think about it. Unfortunately, too often when people are in a confrontation with others they adopt Vince Lombardi's mantra about winning being the only thing and assume belligerence is the only way to win. I suggest Senator Smith send his young staffers to a course on negotiating and cut back on hiring so many young and immature staffers who happen to be like-minded ideologues.

So Kari, How do you propose to get Senator Smith to talk to voters? (Campaign ads talking at voters don't count.)

How do you propose to get Senator Smith to talk to voters?

A better question would be, "How do you get a majority of voters to talk to Smith and tell him to take a hike in 2008?"

I saw a very non-threatening older guy escorted off a Tri-Met bus the other day as a "security risk" because he questioned if the driver knew the route (politely).

War on Drugs->Homeland Security->Any deviation from the mean is a threat... Of course that can't happen here. Only works with an ignorant, cynical, uneducated population. Funny how the opposite is a pretty good description of the people being escorted away!

Figuring out why the likes of Gordon Smith acts as he does is like doing psychoanalysis to describe the conceptual system utilized by a kid pulling the wings off of insects. Most people want to get ahead. Most that can't want to hurt you, anything, instead. Most the rest just eat, sleep and krap. The Great do all three. Government involves concepts like consent and establishment and precedent.

I don't call an abusive situation a family just because the individuals are married and I don't call Washington government just because I pay it taxes. Timothy Leary was right. It most closely resembles/operates like the mob. I don't remember joining, I don't know what they do for me, but they tell me I'm a part of it, and if I don't let them do what they want they're going to hurt me bad. And what they're going to do for me actually comes down to how much I pay them this month.