DeFazio? Any Democrat who can consistently win the Fourth District probably could win the state.

I'm with djk, DeFazio could take the seat for us.

And replacing Smith should be a priority - not only does he caucus with the republicans, but he would have voted to eliminate the filibuster. He's more of a right-wing partisan than he likes to show for left-leaning Oregon, he supports the bare minimum of positions he can to keep his job. Oregon can do better, and DeFazio would be an excellent senator.

I'll throw former Gov. Kitzhaber's name into the discussion. I know he walked away from this match-up before, but maybe he could be recruited now. He's still one of the most intersting figures in Oregon politics.

Gordon Smith has not been "forced to get off the fence and oppose the President's plan" on Social Security. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Smith hasn't said one meaningful word on the topic, and his voting record (the only thing that matters here) has him supporting privatization on more than one occassion. Smith would assuredly vote with Bush on this, but rues the day he may have to cast that vote (as nearly 70% of Oregonians oppose the plan.)

Let's be clear -- Gordon Smith supports private accounts for Social Security that would undermine and unravel the program's guaranteed benefits. The VERY LAST thing we need to do as progressives intent on holding Gordon Smith accountable for his non-statements on issues is pretend they're something they're not.

Kitzhaber or DeFazio.

Good suggestions on possible candidates!

In the last few weeks before he was re-elected, I remember a conversation with someone who said "Yeah, Gordon will probably get re-elected because he has buried his opponent in money and negativity, but I have lost all respect for him".

The ideal candidate would really want the job (Kitzhaber would have to want to move to DC, and if so he would be a great candidate because he knows so much about Gordon Smith and his record); could fight back when attacked (just imagine DeFazio doing that); could talk about positive alternatives and not just attack Republicans; would have enthusiastic support from Democrats but be able to appeal to swing voters and maybe even some Republicans.

Democrats have to learn to offer positive alternatives and not just be the anti-Republican party. There are lessons in how Wyden won in January of 1996, and the fact those lessons were not followed in the regular 1996 election is the reason we have a Senator Gordon Smith. A DSCC choice who outspent the next nearest opponent 10-1 and the next nearest 100-1(both men who had been active candidates previously and had both intelligent ideas and lots of friends and supporters) was not a won primary as far as some of us were concerned, but a BOUGHT primary. And the press was complicit in the DSCC strategy saying "And in Oregon the candidate is..." before the primary.

There is a wonderful Washington Post column today saying Democrats need to offer more solutions. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2 005081801645.html?nav=pq

It begins " Though the Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the White House, they seem to be suffering from political and intellectual exhaustion. They are better at slash-and-burn campaigning than governing.

So where are the Democrats amid this GOP disarray? Frankly, they are nowhere. They are failing utterly in the role of an opposition party, which is to provide a coherent alternative account of how the nation might solve its problems."

And it ends this way (yes, I sent an email saying not all who blog are angry) America doesn't need more of the angry, embittered shouting matches that take place on talk radio and in the blogosphere. It needs a real opposition party that will lay out new strategies: How to withdraw from Iraq without creating even more instability? How to engage a world that mistrusts and often hates America? How to rebuild global institutions and contain Islamic extremism? How to put the U.S. economy back into balance? A Democratic Party that could begin to answer these questions would deserve a chance to govern.

Something to think about.

Don't forget that support versus whom one actually votes for are not the same thing. Living here in the "rest of Oregon," Smith is often perceived as not conservative enough. Meanwhile, part of DeFazio's big re-election numbers are from the benefits of incumbency. In other words if Smith's opposition is rather liberal, a number of those who don't necessarily approve of Smith's job performance will vote for him. Of course here in the "rest of Oregon," that's not a lot of votes.

The other thing is that groups like Human Rights Coalition need to stop endorsing Republican candidates, as they did with Gordon Smith. They think just because Smith is "friendly" to the gay rights community that they should endorse him.

Smith stood on the Senate floor last summer and supported a constitutional amendment that would discriminate against gays by forbidding them to marry. Do they think that Smith would vote against a Bush SCOTUS nominee who would come in the form of a Scalia (if you don't know Scalia's views on homosexuality, read his dissenting opinion from the Lawrence vs. Texas 2003 decision.)

When I spoke with an HRC representative after they had endorsed Smith, he said they wanted to have some clout on the Republican side of the aisle. I said, you'd have a lot more clout if you had a progressive Dem fighting for you, helping nominate judges who believe in equal and civil rights.

I'm tired of special interest groups who focus only on their cause without looking at the bigger picture, because when HRC endorsed Smith, Smith wore the endorsement like a gold medal for urban voters, but hid it in rural Oregon.

Groups like HRC and NARAL need to get a grip. They do more harm to progressive/grassroots movement politics, than good.

Smith is beatable. According to the above post, his approval numbers right now are higher in Portland (54%) than the rest of the state (49%). Those numbers will be different in 2008, but higher or lower? Who knows? Will he have progressive cover (endorsements from Elizabeth Furse or HRC) next time around? Maybe not. Will the national Democratic party decide the race is unwinnable and sit it out again? Hopefully not.

DeFazio may have the advantage of incumbency, but he couldn't have fended off multiple Republican challengers in the Fourth District without knowing how to talk to suburbanites, farmers, timber workers, and other stereotypically "red" constituents.

We have other Democrats who have won statewide office more than once. Hardy Myers and Bill Bradbury both spring to mind. I wouldn't write off either of them as challengers.

Yes, Bradbury got his butt kicked by Smith last time around, but there were circumstances. (1) He got a really late start, waiting until the last minute for Kitzhaber to make up his mind. (2) As a consequence, he was underfunded -- I think Smith outspent him about 4 to 1. (3) In 2002, Republicans picked up seats across the country riding on Bush's bogus "hero of 9/11" coattails -- an effect most likely unavailable in 2008.

Hardy Myers beat Kevin Mannix (the man who almost won the governor's race in 2002). Beating challenger "right wing whacko" Mannix doesn't necessarily mean you could beat incumbent "sober moderate" Smith, but I wouldn't count Myers out. He does have the chops to beat a well-funded opponent with high name recognition.

That doesn't reflect our voting electorate in Oregon.

Wayne, I wonder where you get the voting numbers--exit polls? The last registration I saw had Democrats maybe 3% above Republicans and those who register outside a major party as about 1/4.

Seems to me the goal should be to get those folks to vote. I recall a parking lot conversation in Jan. 1996 with a young co-worker who thought both Wyden and Smith had been too negative-- "what do you want that nasty guy's bumper sticker on your car for?". When I told him I'd known Ron since 1984, he said "well, if he is a friend I can see why you'd have his bumper sticker", but he wasn't sure it was worth returning his ballot since he wasn't thrilled about any of the choices.

Try as statisticians might, there is no way they can measure sentiments like that unless he was one of the people polled and questions got him to open up about his attitude.

Kitzhaber, all the way. He'd demolish Smith.

I had a chance to talk to him about this topic point blank several months ago, and he expressed some interest in the idea. And it's well known that he didn't run last time for family reasons, but his son is and will be significantly older in 2008.

I think the problem for Smith is that he is too liberal for the Republicans who voted him in. I sure hope he's not beatable.