Gordon Smith really needs to be defeated in 2008. I like Blumenauer (he is my congressman) and I think he would make a good Senator. I wonder what his chances would be in a race against Smith? It appears that the political landscape nationally has changed a lot due to the incompetence of Bush and the poor performance of the Republican-lead congress. 2008 might be the year a good challenger could beat Smith.

Unless he changed his position when I wasn't looking, Smith is against net neutrality. While this isn't a barnburner issue (yet), this is the type of thing that can cause a guy to lose his "sane Republican" cred. This needs to be trumpeted in swing areas such as Portland suburbs and the Willamette Valley so that inattentive moderates think twice before filling the pencil dots next to Smith's name.

That's half the issue - the other half is having a credible opponent. Blumenauer definitely fills that bill. So would De Fazio, but he's loathe to give up his House seniority and frankly I'd also like to see him stay put.

Unless someone changed how the US Senate actually works when I wasn't looking - seniority rules the roost. Smith and Wyden are both highly respected Senators (on both sides of the aisle) in Washington and their clout is growing. Having one Republican and one Democrat works to Oregon's advantage (particularly when the Republican is a thoughtful conservative).

States and voters are ill-advised in my opinion to trade out incumbent Senators unless they are ineffective, corrupt or total imbeciles.

The senate race in 2008 always make me think of Kitz. He has toyed with us on 2 prior races and bowed out. I would like to see John run against Senator Smith in 08 because I think he can win, and because we would not have to give up one of our Dem. house seats (and I agree that seniority is valuable). I don't know Kitz although we do BS at the store in Neskowin once in a while. Does anybody know if he has an exploratory committee?

I'd have to disagree that Smith is a "thoughtful conservative" or that his clout is growing.

In DC he is known as something of a lightweight. What major Gordon Smith-spearheaded legislation can he point to?

The only thing thoughtful about his positions is that he thinks very hard about issues where he can take stands that appear moderate without angering the Republican leadership. His flip-flop on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a great example. He was against drilling until his vote really mattered, then when party leaders asked for it he gave them his vote to open it to oil development.

Earl doesn't have a great deal of state-wide name recognition... yet. This appears to be an effort to fix that.

Gordon Smith has clout because he has seniority and he is a Republican in a Republican town. He really hasn't delivered very well for Oregon given his party is in power. Hatfield and Packwood both did far better even when the Senate was being run by Democrats.

If the Democrats take control of the Senate, Smith becomes a liability for the state. Unlike Hatfield and Packwood, he isn't willing to stand up to his party leadership. He wasn't able to get them to deliver anything for Oregon in exchange for his support when they were in control, he sure isn't going to get them to help him deliver anything with the Democrats in control.

Earl could be very formidable statewide, especially if Hatfield were to return the favor and endorse him against Smith. That said, the rumour is Earl would rather be living in Oregon (who wouldn't) and getting elected to a state office would allow him to do that. So he may be building statewide recognition without any firm plans. Getting elected to the Senate just cements him more firmly in DC.

Concerning statements above about G. Smith's "respectability." No, he is not and should not be respected:

Smith voted to confirm Alberto "Abu Ghraib" Gonzalez as U.S. Attorney General. This was done after everyone knew Gonzalez's role in creating the Bush administration's pro-torture policy (remember Al's note about the Geneva Convention being "quaint"?) Smith, therefore, voted to agree with Bush that the U.S.A. should be a country that tortures prisoners. With this vote, Smith and many other blindly loyal Bush supporters, showed he was unfit and unwilling to protect this country's values and legal traditions. He has got to go.

Run, Earl, run!

I love the role of Devil's advocate (since my day job is to be the advocate for "The Man"). So if Hillary loses in 2008 - which my lovely wife refuses to accept as a possibility - are we Oregonians better off with a milktoast G Smith continuing as our Senator, or with our newly elected Senator Kitz, or Earl, or ???.

Just wondering.

if Hillary loses in 2008

You mean, when Hillary loses the primary for 2008 nomination, right?

Liberal: “Pssst, Hey Dude!”

Progressive: “Yeah well, you interrupted my C-Span.”