The poll numbers seem as if they may not bode well for Smith, but it would help to take a look at the linked survey results and cross-reference them against the recent election returns.

For instance, Daniel Akaka and Maria Cantwell wind up pretty far down on the list, but their election wins were never really in doubt (called immediately after the polls closed, if I recall correctly).

Every Republican who lost his Senate race was firmly in the bottom 20% of the Senator approval poll (with Santorum, DeWine, and Burns coming in dead last).

Who knows? Maybe Smith really is at risk. But it would be tough to make that argument when confronted with an approval rating that, while not especially impressive, puts him in the clear by 2006 election standards.

So go find a hell of a candidate to run against Smith!

i dont think there is any question that smith is very vunerable in 08 ... hell, i thought he could have been beat the last time out if we had ran a better candidate. the days of smith wearing a "moderate" tag are long over ... his voting record belies any pretense to that claim. furthermore, i believe the big five counties are trending democrat more and more each year. this is especially true for estacadia and washington counties... my population and party idenntifiaction alone ... smith would be in trouble.

What ever one may think of Smith's bona fides as a "moderate," consider this: In a Democratic-controlled Senate, he'll need to take very few "leadership" votes that run counter to his moderate persona. In a Republican-controlled Senate, he has had to play games with votes in committee and on amendments, knowing that he usually had to be there for the final vote for leadership or the President's position.

Bottom line: in two years, I think he'll look more moderate than he does now.

Smith is vulnerable. If Westlund was willing to go true Democrat I would be for it and he would have my vote. If he runs as an I he just plays spoiler though.

Who's Gordon Smith? I've barely seen him in the state in the past two years. He seems to prefer going to Iraq than talking with his constituents. That will probably change in about a year, when Smith will start to spend big bucks and parachute back for a few months.

Smith certainly deserves to be vulnerable, but his opponent will have to get serious. Last time around, I was flabbergasted that Bradbury didn't tar Smith with Enron. After all, Smith was #3 among senators in receiving Enron largesse.

Smith is not Vulnerable...

Smith just happens to sit in a Blue State.

Smith will not be vulnerable until two things happen:

First--Convince Oregonians to replace his butt!

While you might not agree most of Oregon thinks he's a Moderate and the first rule of politics is perception is reality. So if you can change Oregon's Political reality you have a shot. No small accomplishment.

Second--Once people think they need a change you must provide a credible alterative.

Thus the discussion you are having right now. But I would argue Oregon Progressive (for the last 4 years) have been putting the cart before the horse. We should be thinking of ways to show he is a right wing wacko rather than who we run against him. You can get a sock puppet elected if people hate the incumbent enough. Gordo is at 50% right now...that is a great place to start...how do we get it to 40%?

Oregon is full of Democratic Candidates more qualified and dynamic then a sock puppet. Whoever the candidate is will be great. But right now…Oregon progressives have to work to get Gordo’s approval rating around 40% before we can start using the "V" word.

Kari,

Why you gotta be a hater fool?

I was just point out if you want to get rid of Gordo your efforts better be on attacking Gordo, not who can beat him in a General Election.

P.S. The Ducks Suck!

Defeating Smith depends on what the people see the Dems doing with their congressional majority over the next 2 years. A popular Dem presidential candidate in 2008 will help. If Hillary (Bomb the Brown People) Clinton is the Dem candidate, I might just vote for Gordon Smith myself. I hate Republicans, but I hate war more!

So, BlueNote, let me make sure I have your logic right: if the Democratic nominee in one race is someone who voted for the war and has since been critical of the policy, you'll vote for someon in a different race who voted for the war and has since supported the war, all because you hate war. Is that about right? How logical!!

Kari

I just saw Vickie Walker defeat George Bush in Lane County.

Kari,

While the 2008 Dem presidential nominee will not be personally running against Gordon Smith, the pres nom's campaign will set the tone that our challenger to Smith will be operating in. If the candidate is inspiring and universally loved (John Edwards), things will be easier for our guy than if the pres nominee is polarizing and uninspiring (HC).

IMHumbleO, anyway...

Otherwise, I think our chances of beating Smith rest upon finding the right challenger or alternative to Smith. While that pans out, we can start tar and feathering him with his voting record, right? Let's see how he votes on the uber-popular pieces of legislation that Dems will bring before the Senate in 2007, perhaps those votes can be used against him.

Though Smith has successfully painted himself a moderate on the environment, HE IS NOT A MODERATE.

On the 2 'crux' votes this session for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Smith voted FOR drilling.

On the most direct Senate vote this past session on global warming, he voted AGAINST mandatory controls on global warming pollution - even though the resolution got several other Republican votes.

This needs to be driven home for the next 2 years - he is not a moderate on the environment when it matters.

Another discussion I'm glad to see happening early! (I hope I just tagged that italic right, my very first attempt at HTML on the fly - be gentle with me, Im a blogosphere noobie). 10 years ago when the DLC came down from on high and gave us candidate/political newbie Tom Bruggere for Senate, and I went and saw him speak - rather ineffectively - I thought, God help us, we are going to get Gordon Smith. (In defense of Mr. Bruggere, a relative who knows him says he is a nice and very intellegent man).

In 2002, God probably couldn't have defeated any R associated with Mr. President-In-A-Time-Of-War, and Bill Bradbury certainly didn't get any significant support from a national D party still reeling from the twin blows of 36 days of evil in Florida' 2000 and the Twin Towers. (Closest I ever came to drinking, lol...not that I actually drink at all.)

But now? We could have run a cow against Smith in the great blue tidal wave of '06 and might have won, perhaps, on the strength of the coattails effect. It must have broke the hearts of the good folk of New Hampshire to vote against their nice, friendly, moderate, pro-environment Sen. Lincoln Chaffee, R, but the en masse electorate wanted to spank George, Karl, Dick, Rummy and co, but good. Made me wish we had a presidential candidate running to get swept up in the reverse coat-tails.

So...2008? The GOPs probably aren't going to be caught quite as flat-footed and pedophile-laden next time round, but a savvy and well-thought out candidate and a campaign that starts, oh, about last Wednesday, the 8th of November, could win it for us.

Which leads me to a story...I grew up on Army bases in Germany, an army brat of one. (Fortunately in the late 70's in my formative teenage years the lefties and future greens were rampaging in the streets of the cities, and I was swept up in the wave of radical glee). I once met someone who worked in a Dental Detachment (small unit). The Medical Corps in the Army was known as the place where one could pretend one wasn't in the army now, not behind the plow... the joke was one a year, they took the doctors out to the rifle range, carefully hid for an hour, then took the rifles away and sent them back to their hospitals/MASH units/etc. for another year.

The Senate race...Im getting to my point!

You see, there's no place that more succesfully illustrates the Peter Principle than the Army (in a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their "level of incompetence" and get stuck there). This enlisted person from this particular Dental Detachment said that their Commanding Officer was a particularly managerially inept and overriding donkey's ass (well, probably an elephant's) who beguiled the rest of the unit, where the good folk were just trying to do their job and survive their enlistment with sanity intact.

They hit upon a brilliant tactic to rid themselves of this petty chieftan. They made sure the top brass heard high praise about their C.O. and arranged for him to get promoted! You see, in the Army, when you get promoted, you also get transferred to a new unit as a matter of policy! Hence...they got the annoyance promoted up and OUT!

Now to Oregon...I will admit he probably got a bum rap this last election and quietly done more for us than we give him credit (and I certainly volunteered/doorhung in the rain for his campaign, upon parsing the biggest need during crunchtime, falln'06), but...Ted Kulongoski for Senate?

(Is there driftboat fishing around D.C.? Can we talk John Kitzhaber into it? As Stephen Colbert might say, "nation, you should be so lucky...")

Just my two...er, two-hundred...cents.

Don St.Clair, the GreenDogDemocrat

While Gordon Smith's reelect is hovering around 50%, this means that he is vulnerable but at the same time not an easy target. I'd like to make a couple of remarks: in states where the incumbent is not representitive of the partisan leanings, they can be beaten with a reelect above 50%, Daschle and Indiana's 04 Democratic Governor are examples of this. Also reelect numbers tend to go down once the campaign starts, someone mentioned that all of the Democrats with under-50 reelects got by, this is true but this was caused by a combination of the national environment and factors particular to the race (DUI's anyone?). This means that while Gordon is vulnerable, the extent of this vulnerability depends on the national political climate. Some possible contenders from the state leg: Rick Metsger (expressed interest in challanging Kul) and Alan Bates both jump out. Both outperform the DPI in their districts and represent a good chunk of swing area.

I think Ted Kulongoski would be a great candidate, though a lot would depend on what he does in his second term. But in general he came off very well in this election. He may not seem like the sexiest candidate, but he's competent and common-sense and a good guy and I was proud to have put energy into his campaign. (I was for Hill in the spring, by the way.)

Dare I say, he's got a kind of Truman-esque quality.

If Ted thought about getting into that race, I'd back him versus just about anybody else I can think of --perhaps excepting Blumenauer.

John

Smith should be very vulnerable given his unwavering support of the Bush administration. On the Military Commissions Act, he of course says he voted to retain habeus corpus for "aliens" before he voted to take it away. Who does THAT remind you of???

But a run against Smith needs to be considered in the context of the state's overall representation. Voters know that Wyden and Smith cover different bases for the state, which is why some voters have clearly voted for both of our senators despite the political differences between the two. If you want to take out Smith, you can't do it with a Wyden clone; you have to put up somebody with big creds in rural issues who can take the state without taking Multnomah County.

What a good idea DA Josh Marquis would be to replace Gordon Smith! Kudos to The Hotline for recognizing that he has support in rural areas AND is a centrist - the very definition of Democrats who won nation-wide. He has the political savvy to beat Smith, and I hope that the Democratic Party recognizes this reasonable, viable potential candidate and backs him wholeheartedly.

Smith IS vulnerable because he is not really a moderate.

His support of Lott shows that.

We need to pick someone like Marquis, a law and order Democrat like the ones who won in Missouri, Virginia, and Montana. The only subject he's not tru blue on is criminal justice and for that matter most blues aren't blue on that subject!

The simple fact is he voted yes on the military commissions act. That is the same act that allows us to torture prisoners. If anything is going to come back to bite him in the ass it's that. I can already see the attack add. "Smith good for torture bad for Oregon" I'll agree he never has been anything even resembling a moderate. He tows the neo-con line every chance he gets. It's even worse considering he's one of these big business Republicans. I will say this though. At least Smith Frozen Foods was forced to start treating it's employees better after he was elected. It was starting to make him look bad.

First, the fact that the Washington chattering class has this race on their radar is a positive thing for whoever ends up challenging Smith. These can be self-fulfilling prophecies, and there’s no way to take this seat without a substantial investment by the DSCC and many of the funders who took a pass in 02.

Jeremy is certainly right that Smith’s numbers can be illusory – note Ted’s similar ratings a year ago (or Clinton’s in early ’96) – but here’s a key difference: Smith’s numbers right now probably represent a high point, whereas the Governor and Clinton had a compelling story that really hadn’t gotten out when their numbers looked similar. Smith’s story has – ad nauseam.

And here’s a difference in how statewide races are covered now: Smith is less likely to allowed a free pass to campaign as Tom McCall in Portland and Tom Delay in the rest of the state like he did in 2002. I don’t think he gets away with that again.

There’s not a doubt in my mind that Westlund would make an excellent Senator, but my gut reaction (admittedly, kinda thinking out loud here) is that he’d not be the strongest candidate to take on Smith. Campaigns against incumbents are inevitably referendums on the incumbent, but the challenger’s issues and profile help define the race.

The two areas of Westlund’s greatest strength -- putting aside partisan politics and having the courage to fundamentally restructure Oregon’s tax structure -- would likely lead to a campaign largely fought on Smith terrain. Smith’s ongoing partnership with Wyden make him uniquely immune from Westlund’s core message of ending partisanship, and – although the kicker’s terrible public policy – Smith could ask for no better gift than having the election become a referendum on taxes. The war, special interest anti-environment votes, extra-chromosome social issues… those are far more profitable areas of attack.

The strongest challenger – Pete DeFazio – is probably taking a pass again, so in the spirit of at least throwing out an alternative, let me nominate Blue Oregon’s Randy Leonard for the most interesting candidate who doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s radar. Smith’s formula isn’t rocket science -- supermajorities in rural areas, cut your losses in Multnomah and take the burbs – and I think there’s no way Smith gets 40% in Portland (like he did in ’02) against Randy. Plus Randy’s a Portland guy who’d be more at home drinking a beer at the Let ‘er Buck Saloon in Pendleton than Smith ever would, and to the best of my knowledge, he's never owned a $250,000 pair of golf clubs. Voters trust firefighters, organized labor loves the guy, and his work on biofuels gives him a legitimate opening to peel off some rural voters.

But I’m posting here on Thanksgiving, so my comments may not, uh, be exactly in synch with everyday Oregon voters… Happy Turkey Day to all, btw.

I fail to understand why the Democratic Party of Oregon isn't having a vigil on the door step of former Gov. John Kitzhaber's home until he relents to be the next Democratic Candidate for the US Senate!!!

Why is this not a swell in the Oregon voters conscience?? The man has national credentials that are unmatched in the most vital national issue facing America, Health Care!!

I say Oregon is the western progressive leader and should stand up alone if needed and show the way, and John Kitzhaber is the leader to do it, whether he's on board yet or not!!!

Kick Butt,and Take Names. The champ is not suppose to act as though it was a mistake he's champ, he is the champ and the contender should have to take what is his!! Attitude, Attitude, Man!!!

I think Westlund could do more than play the spoiler. He could win. Unless enough Dems are more interested in voting party line than in unseating Smith that is. In which case he still wouldn't be a spoiler 'cause Dems would have once again circled the trusty ol' firing squad.

Kitzhaber could win it if he wanted it badly enough. He's the only name floated that I think could beat Smith while dealing with a Westlund candidacy.

Edwards would lose... badly, IMHO. Nice guy with a decent record. But he's boring as hell as a candidate. Not what you want for a serious effort to unseat Smith given the fact that, as someone already noted, Smith has two years in which to polish up his "moderate" image.

Defazio could win it too. But he's already off the table. And I doubt he could do it if Westlund made a serious run at it.

All the other names floated might do well. But I wouldn't bet money on any of them.

I honestly think that it comes down to Westlund and Kitzhaber as the most likely to realistically unseat Smith.

Full disclosure: I've never voted against Smith. Although I intend to in '08.

A Republican cannot win statewide without winning Clackamas County, so let's run someone who can win there. State Senator Kurt Schrader, State Senator Rick Metsger, and House Majority Leader Dave Hunt seem like good options. All are moderates with statewide appeal, and all of them have proven they can win in Clackamas.

I would on principle stand vigorously against any Republican on the federal ballot to be sure!!!

The Republicans have committed unforgivable sins of violating their oath of office to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution & Bill of Rights of the United States of America! They have squandered American prestige, and honor dispite the world standing up in unison to be our ally on 9/12/01!!

The Republicans have raided our treasure to award their political allies, and used government for a power grab to the extent they feel licensed to spy on our citizens without warrants or any oversight.

The Republican has abandoned their sworn responsiblity to America of Oversight and as a consequence we are but a shadow of a democracy with blind idiots at the helm in the White House.

The Republicans need another 40-50year time out, and sending a Republican to Washington just makes things worse, and does nothing to restore democracy!!!!!!!!!

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

I think Westlund could do more than play the spoiler.....

This post and thread were about a Smith/Westlund race, not Westlund running in addition to a Democratic nominee.

Casting a net

Disclosure, my first impluse is Bill Bradbury--smart, effective, sexy as hell, receiving increasing national notice with election issues

Then some names that haven't been mentioned so far: Paul Evans his website Thom Hartman his website Delores Pigsley no website, but here's some basic info regarding the current Chairman of the Confererated Tribes of Siletz

Although I haven't taken the time to read all the posts in their entirety, I haven't seen much mention of John Kitzhaber except for the intro.

He is clearly the best candidate for the job! I talked to him about this on a recent outing and being the stoic person he is, didn't give any indication as to what his future holds other than healthcare. What a true leader to take this on!

When he first left the office of Governor (Governer if you're Saxton) he seriously considered running for Smith's seat but someone big advised against it. With the Senate in R control, it would have been a fruitless and frustrating experience. Now that this has changed and maybe more momentum may swing in the way of blue, he may reconsider. John stated after the last election, his office was flooded with calls on this matter.

I don't actually know what it would take to convince him to run but anyone that knows the intellegence of John Kitzhaber, knows that HE knows best. I really think if John throws his hat in, he's a sure thing. I don't think Dems would have a better choice- no matter who else was running!

Rule #1 -- you can't beat somebody with nobody. Those urging an anti-Smith effort without a candidate are not building our democracy or putting trust in the voter piggy bank. The establishment Dems in this State are too eager to show that they, too, can play hardball,-- see the losing Rob Brading race. In so doing, they tear down voter belief that things actually work, that it is worth engaging.
Rule #2 -- Voters in this State do not see State Government accomplishing things. Thus, the candidacies of Kitzhaber and Kulongoski, both of whom have SO FAR accomplished very little (not of course if you believe Ted K's ads, but they were hardly credible), will NOT excite voters. Perhaps, with control of the Governor's office and both houses of the legislature, for the first time in a long time, that will change. But only time will tell. Neither of the Governor Ks were willing to lay out a program in their campaigns that they would fight for and take through the legislature. Like the rest of the establishment OREGON Dems, they have both been concerned first and foremost about winning, not governing. Neither has sought to have a major impact on the make-up of the legislature during their second runs for the office. I am of the strong belief that Bush and the Congressional Democrats handed Teddy the K his election on a silver platter, and I loved his remarks on election night, "Hope and Opportunity", and in the Oregonian interview the following Sunday. But it seems backward to be saying what your dreams are AFTER you are elected.
3) I would love it if Blumenauer or DeFazio would run, but I think we would see another late and traditional race from either of them, one dependent on raising a lot of money, not one that depends on grass roots organizing or truly engaging Oregonians. DeFazio doesn't like to raise money in the first place (who blames him), which is why he didn't run against Smith the second time, and ran against Wyden in the primary the first time, and lost. I think Blumenauer would have the best chance of winning, if he would announce soon and try to build a statewide organization. His recent speeches show vision and greatness to me. I just think he is going to be occupied by what he can do in the majority in Congress for the first time in 12 years. And perhaps that is as it should be. So I don't see him running, and if he does, he will get in too late. Perhaps Governor in 2010? Earl is not beloved, anyway. He is respected.
Personally, I think Bradbury had his chance, and I was a big supporter, but disappointed in his support of the Iraq War in the Oregonian during the campaign, and turning his campaign over to an "expert" from Washington D.C. who didn't know Oregon, then failing to build a real grass roots effort and watching the D.C. Dems fail to come through, as they promised, with millions of dollars. There are people out there holding statewide office, such as Randall and Castillo, and in the legislature, and elsewhere in Oregon political life, who could beat Smith if they had the smarts and guts and organizing intuition. But they better not figure they can come in late and spend a lot of money and not organize and not take the fight to the doorsteps in the swing districts. They will lose to the crafty chameleon Smith with the kind of campaign the establishment Democrats have run lately, such as in Tom Bruggere's race. Wyden beat him by organizing, not by overwhelming Smith with money, and Wyden's organization came out of his long-time bent in that direction (see his 1980 campaign against incumbent Bob Duncan).
I think 2008 will be a great year again for Democrats in this State, because people here are so sick of Bush, and will die for the Presidency again.
But the candidate against Smith needs to assume an 18-month full-time effort, and that he or she will be badly outspent, and will not have the press support they would like.
I knew there must be a reason why the establishment Democrats fought so hard against campaign finance reform here -- they want to keep people like Gordon Smith in office, yuk, yuk. What do I mean by Establishment Dems? I am talking about the unions, teachers, trial lawyers, and their poltical consultants and pollsters, and about those few wealthy businessmen and professionals giving large sums to the Democratic races. God Bless them all. We would be nowhere without them. But they need to be more concerned about accomplishment for the Good of the State, more concenred about the Public Interest, more concerned about making our democracy work in a way that has real accomplishments and builds trust, and less concerned about their individual and organizational power and maintaining that power and (sometimes) their jobs or consulting income, and thereby promoting the status quo.

<hr/>