Carla,

Is there any way that you or someone else could get a more definitive reading on Smith's time in Oregon? My reading is that he has only lived in Oregon as an adult for about ten years and about fifteen in his entire life. He keeps that carefully hidden in all the bios I could find on line doing a quick search. I don't know if that would resonate with the public much, but it might help frame the "he is out of touch with Oregonians" message if this was better known. Let's face it, he grew up in Maryland and has lived there for the last decade.

And I agree with Chuck; very cute.

You say Gordon "left" Oregon to work in the Senate and that you haven't seen him work for Oregonians "as someone from our state would."

Actually, that's not what I said.

I said, "I haven't seen him working for Oregonians the way that I think someone who really loves our state would."

Reading is fundamental.

And yes, Jeff Merkley has a home in Washington D.C. that he's allowed the Lutheran Volunteer Corps to use as a group home for the mentally ill. Would you like to compare that to Gordon Smith's $4 million mansion in Maryland? Be my guest.

Frankly, my problem with Smith isn't that he lives in Maryland while he's serving in the Senate. Its that he didn't really grow up here, doesn't appear to spend that much time here, doesn't appear to talk with Oregonians in Oregon ABOUT Oregon..and doesn't much appear to give a rat's ass about us. He doesn't seem to have much interest in REPRESENTING OREGONIANS.

And yeah, that's my perspective as an Oregonian who loves this state very, very much.

Yet in my mind, a man that could run his family's business the rest of his life and make millions chose to go into public office. An option he didn't NEED or have to take...chose to do that...and REPRESENT OREGON. I would say that would be something that says alot about how he feels about his state, Carla.

The problem is he doesn't represent Oregon. On multiple occasions he has actively worked against the will of the people in Oregon.

He didn't run for the U.S. Senate to represent Oregon. It's about the power and prestige that comes from being a U.S. Senator.

He's a two-term Senator in a predomenantly blue state...so someone believed in him, so he represented SOMEONE in OREGON, maybe just not you.

Obviously he represents some people, I never said he didn't. But he doesn't represent Oregon - which means the majority of Oregonians. Time and time again he has worked against the will of the people. And I'm not just talking about how a poll shows we stand on an issue - I'm talking about actively working against items that Oregonians have overwhelmingly voted for.

Smith has been able to win past elections because he had a lot of money to spend, had a well run campaign, and was able to pull the wool over people's eyes regarding how he actually stands on the issues. That's why all of us need to be out talking to voters about Merkley and how he stands on the issues - because he definitely does a much better job of actually representing the positions of the majority of the voters in this state than Smith ever has.

And I think the town hall issue is a big one. Gordon Smith is rarely seen in state, rarely available to speak with voters, etc. About the only time you see him here doing anything is when it is election time. He may be a busy man, but he still owes it to those who are his employers (us the taxpayers) to at least occasionally hold town hall meetings, advise his staff to actually listen to his constituents, etc. Having written, called, and visited Smith's office numerous times over the past 7 years, this is an area that I give him and his office a big "F".

You can't even visit his office to drop off correspondence, speak with a staff member, etc. You are advised to mail the letter instead. I did that a few times, only to have them deny the letter was ever received. Now I only write his office using delivery confirmation.

Having worked in a Congressional office myself, I know how things are supposed to work. I know all about the security and everything - at our office you had to go through a metal detector, had to leave any cell phones and pagers behind, and were escorted upstairs by a U.S. Marshal. But you were still allowed access to the office M-F anytime between 9-5 (unless we were away at a town hall meeting, and even then you could drop a letter through the letter slot). Other Congressional offices here in Oregon work the same way - I've had no problems visiting the offices for Congressman Wu or Congressman Bluemenauer, and others had no problems with U.S. Senator Wyden or Congresswoman Hooley.

Smith and his office are completely unresponsive to the constituents. In all the visits, calls, and letters I've made, I have only one response to show - and that's out of dozens of contacts.

Frankly, my problem with Smith ... (i)ts that he didn't really grow up here ...

Not born in Oregon: David Wu, Darlene Hooley, Ron Wyden ... even Tom McCall! I could go on and on, but the number of Oregonians who weren't born here and didn't grow up here constitutes a pretty hefty portion of the state.

Obviously he represents some people, I never said he didn't. But he doesn't represent Oregon - which means the majority of Oregonians...Smith has been able to win past elections because he had a lot of money to spend, had a well run campaign, and was able to pull the wool over people's eyes regarding how he actually stands on the issues.

I suppose the counter argument is that Smith has won two statewide elections to the Senate. It's possible that he has simply fooled a majority of the voting public both times, but I tend to be quite skeptical of those who claim the public are fools or foolish.

I realize this is the long hot summer and people are bored. I'm waiting for the real Merkley campaign to start, because if all he's got is million dollar golf clubs and claims over who is more Oregonian, then it won't be much of a contest.

Smith is a very tough opponent. Let's see your game.

Paul, it's not about who was born here. Smith was born here after all.

But there's an interesting parallel between Smith's inability to represent the interests of this state, and his life's history of not actually living here.

He grew up in Bethesda, Maryland. Went to Walt Whitman HS in Bethesda. And he lives in Bethesda now.

And he does goofy shit like saying he supports Oregon's voter-approved minimum wage while voting for a federal law that has zero effect - except to CUT Oregon's voter-approved minimum wage for tipped workers.

Pretty simple, really.

p.s. Personal to Paul:

I realize this is the long hot summer and people are bored. I'm waiting for the real Merkley campaign to start...

Get out of the heat, and take the kids to the beach. You might even run into a U.S. Senate candidate with a "real" campaign.

Not born in Oregon: David Wu, Darlene Hooley, Ron Wyden ... even Tom McCall! I could go on and on, but the number of Oregonians who weren't born here and didn't grow up here constitutes a pretty hefty portion of the state.

Gordon Smith was born here. I note that in my piece. I also note that I was not born here. But not growing up here AND not spending much of your adult life here AND apparently not spending much time in the state as its U.S. Senate representative is highly problematic, in my opinion.

"he went back to Maryland when he was elected to the U.S. Senate."

That doesnt mean he left Oregon? Really?

In a vacuum, no. But in the context of having not grown up here, having spent very little of his adult life here, not being here very much even while representing us as our Senator...then yeah, it looks to me like Gordon Smith has "left Oregon".

Steve Duin (if this is really you), based on what I've been reading in your columns for the last ten months on the U.S. Senate race, that's the pot calling the kettle black, dude.

And I'm curious...why is not governing like you "love Oregon", an argument beneath me? Why is questioning Smith's commitment to our state something not worth asking?

Or better..why aren't you using your resources to ask it?

Right now, candidate Jeff is running all over the state hitting the small towns with town hall meetings. At every one of these retail stops, he meets a few more folks that rarely get involved in politics.

Case in point:

When he came to Sandy VFW, about half the crowd might be what you'd call The Usual Suspects that participate in local politics and/or the party organization. For them it was a chance to cement support. The other half of the crowd were people that I'd never met, and a group of these folks were clustered around Jeff after the meeting asking policy questions and getting to know him. These folks will talk up his positives to their friends, people that we in the local org may have a hard time reaching.

I'm pretty sick of Blue Oregon commenters who apparently are unfamiliar with The Google or seem to have some other reason for griping that the cmapaign is doing nothing, when in fact the campaign is out there every week engaging the actual grassroots of our state.

<hr/>

As for Gordon, I've never seen him in person anywhere, much less in the Sandy VFW Hall........I'm a native Oregonian, and I don't give a damn where any candidate's from in terms of geography. Smith, however, is from the state of detachment, a very large state that shows up on no electoral map, but is easily identified by the behavior of its residents.....

So let me make sure I get this straight: If Jeff Merkley becomes the next Senator of Oregon, you will expect and anticipate that he will consistenly be in the state, making appearances at town hall meetings, instead of representing Oregonians in DC and making his precense felt.

Senator Wyden does it. In fact, Wyden holds a public town hall meeting in each of Oregon's counties every year. I would expect Merkley to be in Oregon and make his presence felt, just as Wyden does. Wyden has shown that its very possible to represent us in D.C. and manage to stay in touch with the residents of the state.

You do realize that Merkley has a home in DC because he bought it as a run-down mess in one of the worst areas of town, fixed it up while working as a Presidential Fellow?

I'm curious..why are you trying to give parity with Merkley and Smith in terms of "wealth", when its very obvious there is none?

If you don't have a problem with Smith being wealthy and insulated from every day Oregonians..then fine. But trying to pretend that Merkley is exactly the same is seriously dishonest.

am merely pointing out that I too can position Merkley's personal wealth in a way that would make it seem extravagant, without looking at the whole picture...much in the same way that the Merkley campaign has done by pointing out the golf clubs (which are antiques, BTW) and the putting green (in the wrong house).

Uh..okay. You can "position" it any way that gets you through the day--but that doesn't change the basic facts: Smith is very wealthy. Smith doesn't govern as if he cares about Oregon, his roots here seem pretty shallow and he doesn't appear to be here very much.

You seem to be suggesting that due to his wealth, and due to his lack of appearances in Oregon, he shouldnt be Senator...and that he isnt a true Oregonian.

I'm suggesting that his wealth has contributed to him being out of touch with every day Oregonians. Coupled with his lack of being in Oregon both as a youth and as an adult--and looking at the way he votes is MIA in the state--I find it highly problematic. And yes, I'm suggesting that its possible that Smith isn't really an Oregonian. He's lived much more of his life outside the state than in.

Now I grant in my piece that Smith may love Oregon and be as much of an Oregonian as I am. If so, then demonstrations of that are welcome. I'd love to see it. I've been back in the state since Smith first ran for office and won..and I haven't seen it from him.

...I just think there are much larger issues than whether Gordon has a 4 million dollar house. Just like I could care less how many homes Merkley owns, or whether he could afford to put his kids through private school.

Actually, you make my point for me here. I don't see Smith's passion and commitment to Oregon. In fact, I see nothing resembling it whatsoever.

In my post, I try to figure out why I don't see it...is it the fact that he wasn't raised here? Is it the fact that he spends so little time here? Is it the fact that he's insulated by wealth and prestige? What's going on with Gordon Smith that makes him so indifferent to the lives and problems of Oregonians?

No one said that our U.S. Senator has to be in the state every single day - obviously he would need to be in DC for the votes, important committee meetings, etc.

However, there are lengths of time where Congress isn't in session. When I worked for U.S. Congressman Lampson, his rule was that he spent all breaks in the district (except for a short vacation with his family) and worked hard to be in district every weekend. During that time, I think he only missed maybe 3 weekends, and that was when the session went into the weekend.

It's important to be in the state listening to voters, seeing what is going on in the state, holding town hall meetings, etc. And Gordon Smith just isn't doing that - which has put him out-of-touch with Oregonians.

Jenni,

Western state senators and members of congress have always spent far less time in their state then, say, Senator Joe Biden, who still commutes home to Delaware nightly.

Yes it is important to listen to your state. There are many ways to do this. You can travel home. You can read the local papers. You can take phone calls and read constituent mail. And then there is your local office which does a lot of this work.

I don't know whether Gordon Smith does or does not travel home more or less frequently than other Western state senators. I haven't seen anything other than a few anecdotal comments that are highly problematic.

Kari,

Just reacting to what I'm seeing here, which seems to focus almost uniformly on what I consider to be utterly marginal personal issues that bear very little relationship to the real issues of being a Senator. Let's cut to the heart of the matter here--Jenni and Carla have said multiple times that Gordon Smith does not represent Oregonians well.

I want you to point me to one, specific, policy or issue that has been cited in this thread that demonstrates this claim. I just re-read the thread and there are none. Not one! Just a bunch of statements about how often he travels home of where he grew up and therefore he must not "represent" Oregon.

I'm sorry but I'm calling B.S. on that one. I hope we're not at a point where someone's birthplace and upbringing is the way we determine their ability to be an effective leader, because if we are, we're in a shitload of trouble with our presidential nominee.

Let me correct that--the one issue that has been cited above--Death with Dignity--is one on which Smith has a very good record!

I support Jeff Merkley but I don't work for his campaign, and any advice I'd give to him or his campaign is going to be objective. My objective analysis is that million dollar golf clubs and arguments about who is the better Oregonian are not strategies that are going to win this election. Another objective observer--Jeff Mapes--seems to agree with me.

By any objective measure, Merkley's did not do as well in the primary as he should have. I still say the Merkley campaign has a lot of work to do and Smith is going to be a very difficult opponent.

Paul G:

I realize that it's much easier for those who live near DC to commute home. The member of Congress I was talking about was from Texas - not as far as Oregon, but it still meant a costly plane flight every single weekend. And based on how often Wyden, Blumenauer, Wu, Hooley, and DeFazio are in the state, I'd say that Smith is well behind them. It's a rarity to see Smith at any event that isn't a fundraiser or something for his campaign.

His offices also aren't helpful - they don't respond to calls or letters and visits to the office are rarely allowed. I used to be a receptionist and then a constituent services rep in a Congressional office - I know how things should work. And his office seems to only listen to those who agree with them.

As to specific issues or policies, Kari already brought up one - minimum wage.

Some others:

• Death with dignity • the war in Iraq • drilling in the Arctic • medical marijuana

Let me correct that--the one issue that has been cited above--Death with Dignity--is one on which Smith has a very good record!

Actually if you're going to cite that, you should cite the other two: the bottle bill and the environment (via McCall). On that, Smith has a consistently horrible record. I invite you to consult the League of Conservation voters scorecard on that. But the fact that by all ancedotal evidence I can find so far, there is a dearth of visits to constituents to Oregon by Smith.

I have in fact called the Senate office (as I noted in my piece) to ask about the scheduling of public town hall meetings in the last year. That was two days ago and I have yet to hear back. But I'll try again.

And you're still missing my larger point: Smith doesn't govern like he cares about this state. The problems with him have been well documented elsewhere, but the fact that he hasn't managed to bring fellow Republicans along with county timber payments is a HUGE problem, especially when they had the majority.

The fact that he says he supported The Healthy Kids bill here in Oregon (and used it as a photo op with Kulongoski) yet refused to lobby Republicans in the Oregon legislature on it shows me that he doesn't govern like he loves Oregon.

The fact that he says he supports A Responsible Plan to End The War in Iraq (and claims that he could have written it and is a close advisor to the civilians who worked on it) yet won't actually sign on to it shows me he doesn't govern like he loves Oregon.

Smith's record on Death with Dignity is not that great...

http://tinyurl.com/5f6kqq

http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/15/bayer.html

This link here shows he only changed his mind on death with dignity after the Supreme Court upheld it:

http://www.dwd.org/voices/opinion/oregonian2.01.22.06.asp

Ive got your answer Carla: he isnt as progessive/liberal as you. Thats why it seems like he doesnt connect with you.

No, he isn't. But his voting record (until the last year) isn't very moderate, either. His 90% voting record with Bush/Cheney is well out-of-step with Oregonians in general.

Im sure there are a number of people that look at Smith and the way he votes as very much in line with their thinking as an Oregonian. They just may not be as progressive as you.

There may be "a number". And I don't claim to speak for them. I speak for me--as an Oregonian.

So saying that a two-term Senator is not in line with what his state wants seems to be a bit silly...aligning it with the fact that he is wealthy (like almost all other public officials who serve as Senators) is assenine...saying its because he isnt a true Oregonian is just taking a cheapshot to someone who has devoted a great deal of time to public office.

I think your post is trying to paint Smith as this outsider who doesnt understand Oregonians, but your reasoning isnt solid.

Pretty much everything you've thrown at me for "reasoning" has been rebutted, so I find your comment rather shallow, frankly. I think Smith is an outsider that has totally lost touch with the state that I love. Perhaps he loves it too--but I don't see it in the way he governs.

Has Smith clearly lost touch with Oregonians when it comes to policies? You certainly could make that argument...would spending more time in the state be more beneficial? Absolutely! Does either have anything to do with his wealth or his roots? I dont think so.

Then we disagree. I think when one allows themselves to be insulated away from their constituents, for whatever reason, they become out-of-touch. That's what Smith has done, from my perspective. You've not cited any evidence to the contrary..just disagreed. I await your evidence.

He has a different approach. One could argue that a Senator who spends too much time in his state with his constituents loses pull in DC...obviously there is a balance...but at the end of the day, I dont see where you draw the parity of wealth, where you grow up with the inability to lead or speak for your state. Which is what I am trying to say. Yet the Merkley campaign wants to keep harping on the fact that he is rich, and he spends time in DC and lives in Bethesda...ok, and that makes him different from current Ds and Rs serving in the Senate how?

One could argue that a Senator who spends a lot of time in the state would lose pull in D.C., but it would be a tough sell for Smith. Congress.org ranks Smith as the 50th most powerful U.S. Senator in the nation. So if he's not in Oregon...and he's supposed to be in D.C. earning cred (as you infer), then what the hell is going on?

And the first time he is photographed in a box seat at a Nats game, or seen golfing at Congressional when he could be in Oregon, will you claim he has lost touch? I wont, because I dont think that arguing about what he does on his free time, where he lives or what he is driving is indicative of Merkley's stance when it comes to the issues. And thats what this post suggests...A more interesting post would be to compare the in-state visits that Smith has made with what other Senators on both sides of the aisle. Clearly his approach is different that Wyden, but as a two-term Senator, you could argue that its not neccesary the wrong approach.

Okay, I'll bite. Show me (with evidence and sources, please) exactly how Smith is a fabulous Senator for Oregon, representing us in the best way he possibly can. I don't care what other Senators from other states are doing so in fact that's not an interesting comparison. I care about Oregon..so show me.

Just because Smith has served two terms doesn't make him a good Senator. It doesn't make him decent. It makes him a good campaigner..which is very much NOT the same thing.

That's the rub. Ive never claimed he was a "fabulous" Senator, ive never claimed he was a moderate. I've never claimed anything about Smith, other than the fact that he is a two-term Senator for this state (which shows a majority of Oregonians have connected with him), and that the assumption you make in this post is ill-conceived and there are a number of more legitimate arguments to make than this petty one

Here's the other rub: I'm not with the Merkley campaign. And I not only think that working for Oregon as it's Senator is relevant..the discussion about whether or not a Senator is actually doing that job as if he loves our state is the fundamental question about whether or not he should be reelected.

Smith is out of touch with his constituents...he may indeed be the wrong fit for Oregonians as a result of the current climate in our country....but it has nothing to do with his wealth or the time he has spent in this state.

Yes--actually it does--especially if he hasn't spent time in Oregon. There is no way to be in-touch with the consituency of the state if you spend no time here. The fact that you think this is appropriate for a representative is telling, to say the least.

Yet your argument is about "home" and "wealth" and connecting to Oregonians (nevermind that, again, he is a two term Senator).

Again..being a two-term Senator proves Smith is a good campaigner. But says nothing about his job as Senator. If you can show me 8-10 great things he's done for Oregon in the last twelve years as our Senator..then you'd have something. But so far, you continue to come up short.

But if you really want the numbers, ill look them up for you (with sources)...send me an email (you can access it since you are an editor) and I will get you the stats...if you commit to posting them.

Just post them here. I'm good with reading it in public. :)

(The comical thing is that you are the one that took issue with his lack of visits to Oregon, yet you yourself didnt look to see how Smith's lack of visits compare to other senators

As I said, I dont' care about Senators outside of Oregon. I care about the ones who are here, representing us. If you find that comical--then c'est la vie. Talking down to me and using an elitist slant to vainly knock down my beliefs might make you feel better, but it doesn't exactly buffet your argument.

so do you really care how often he visits, or are you just whining and is this another BO attack job?....if he voted the way you wanted, would you still be angry that he didnt visit much, would he be more of an "Oregonian"?)

I genuinely care how much he's here and how dedicated he is to serving the state that I love. I get pretty pissed off at David Wu's votes sometimes (and have written about it before), but he has the courtesy to show up to my district and let me hear his beefs. And he's responsive when I contact him. That's a damn sight better than anything I've ever seen from Smith.

So...I await your post here with 8-10 things Smith has done that demonstrates he's governing for Oregon. (That's less than one per year of his two terms, fyi).

As we've already said numerous times, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden is in the state quite a bit. He holds town hall meetings in all of the state's counties. He is regularly here listening to his constituents.

Compare that to Smith - besides coming to Gresham to do a "tour" of downtown Gresham (which I disagree with our mayor on - I still feel it was for campaign reasons), I can't think of a time recently where Smith has been here for something other than a fundraiser.

But time and time again you ignore the specifics we give, and instead say "well he's been elected twice." That doesn't mean he is a good U.S. Senator. It only means he runs a good campaign. Tom DeLay was elected more times than that - did that make him a good Congressman? George Bush was elected twice as governor, selected/elected twice as president - does that make him a good President? Heck no - only about 30% of the country feels he is doing a good job. But he ran a better campaign than Kerry.

Ah, so smart ass comments are relegated to just you? ("reading is fundamental"). Just as long as we are clear.

Get over yourself. You don't get to pretend to quote me and take out large chunks of what I wrote and not get corrected. You don't get to make elitist, dubious and remarks that talk down to me and not get called on it. So if we weren't clear before, yeah--we're clear now.

Well, he must have done something right in the first term, if he was re-elected for a second, by your calculations.

You must be using some sort of "new math" to determine my calculations. I've directly said that claiming Smith is a good Senator because he's been reelected only proves he's a good campaigner. It does nothing to prove he's a good Senator. Still waiting on your proof of that...you sure write a lot of words without actually answering anything, btw.

Again, I never claimed he was good...I never claimed he was bad....I just responded to your reasoning for him not being an "Oregonian" and how being wealthy hurts his ability to be a good Senator for the state. Im not the one who started this argument, sweetheart...I never claimed he was a great senator, I just merely pointed out that it has nothing to do with his wealth or his residence at different times of his life.

I'm not your "sweetheart", asshat.

You've said I'm wrong about Smith not being Senator who governs Oregon like he loves this State. I've cited my reasons why...you've said I'm wrong. I await your proof/evidence as to why I'm wrong. Just typing that I'm wrong over and over and over again is an interesting use of pixels and maybe even a fun waste of time for you..but not especially powerful in making your argument. So again...proof?

Again, I dont disagree with your assertion that Smith is not the right Senator for this state, in this environment. I actually thought Novick was a better fit, but Merkley will do. And ive given you plenty of examples why wealth or residence are not immediate indicators of a Senator's A)love for the state or B)ability to do right by their constituents (which is all ive argued with you).

Actually, you've given me no reasons. I've asked a few times and you've typed a lot of words..but none have actually contained proof or evidence that I'm wrong. So please...by all means...post them.

ABSOLUTELY. But to tie it to his personal wealth and whether he lived here long enough is completely irrelevant.

Go back and read my post. Please cite the part where I tied Smith not governing like he loves Oregon to his personal wealth. Later in comments..I did agree that Smith's wealth can be a contributing factor to being out-of-touch. But that has nothing to do with this post. So by all means...show me where it says so in the piece I wrote that you're commenting to.

My issue, Carla (all sniping aside), is that the arguments you posted are the same many other constituents have when it comes to their Senators. You could replace Smith with a number of different names, both Ds and Rs, and receive both positive and negative responses from constituents.

And in what way does this absolve Smith of not being in the state and being out-of-touch with his constituents? In what way does this absolve him of not governing like he loves Oregon? Please enlighten.

The point is that a large number of Senators manage their office in the same way, both to success and failure.

Again..for the third or fourth time..I don't care how other Senators manage their office. I care how the two from Oregon manage their office. That argument simply doesn't wash with me.

Yet the Merkley campaign insists on making this about wealth and elitism...which hides the truth and doesnt allow the voters to truly see his record and his stances...and ultimately, Merkley will lose if he spends more time talking about homes and wealth than Smith's character.

(and I am not implying that you work for Merkley, though you were at one point the Netroots Coordinator for the Merkley campaign)

How does any of that absolve Smith from being out-of-touch with Oregon and Oregonians...and not governing as if he loves Oregon? And since I'm in no way representing the Merkley campaign with this post or any other since I left the campaign...what's the point? This is MY opinion and MY evidence.

You seem to be fixated on Smith's wealth. Yet in my post..the closest I come to discussing Smith's wealth is to note that he has a nice house in Oregon and a nice house in Maryland. The wealth hobby horse is yours, not mine.

Jenni

Thanks for the issue postings. There are important issues. I don't think it characterizes Smith's full record. His full record shows that he votes as one of the most centrist Republican Senators (http://voteview.ucsd.edu/sen110.htm).

On visits home, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Comparisons to house members simply aren't valid--House members are up for reelection every two years and are expected to keep in much closer contact with their constituents.

The comparison to Wyden is much better, obviously.

But the bigger problem is that I disagree with the underlying assumption of your postings--that the frequency of visits home is some sort of barometer of the quality of a Senator's job performance. That's really quite superficial, isn't it?

Doesn't this imply the precise sort of thing that you're criticizing Smith for--that good visuals, good pork barreling, and good town meetings are the way to be a good Senator? Is that really what you expect out of a Senator?

What if--just to pick one example--Smith decided that the timber payments bill was bad public policy, even if it was good for Oregon counties? What would you have him do, vote his conscience or vote for the short term economic interests of Oregon?

Hey Oregonians - you know that Death with Dignity is safe and gives people the choice of making their own end-of-life decisions without government interference.

Now, can you help convince your neighbors to the north?

Check these out:

http://www.theolympian.com/adamwilson/story/496991.html

http://www.washblog.com/story/2008/7/3/191910/1131

<h2>http://www.horsesass.org/?p=5133</h2>