Dead on Kari.

Excellent point, Kari. I will be most surprised if his voting pattern changes in January.

Using Chafee as your benchmark moderate Republican renders your entire premise bogus. Specter would be a good example of a centrist, but Chafee, Snow, Collins and Jeffords tend to lean left of center.

Like it or not, Gordon Smith is the epidemy of a moderate Republican. That doesnt make him terribly popular among liberal progressives or social conservatives, but it does place him near the center.

Joe: To you, Gordon Smith may be a 'moderate' compared to other more 'conservative' republicans, but the rest of us who have observed his voting record wonder, "What exactly has he done in the Senate that qualifies him as any else but a radical hard right wing conservative republican?" He's kept quiet, kept his head down and voted the party line time after time and hoped the folks back home didn't notice. I guess that makes him a 'moderate' to you, but it certainly doesn't to the rest of us.

If by "the rest of us" you mean most liberal progressive Democrats, then I'm sure you're right. I consider him a moderate Republican based upon his actual voting record, not emotional partisanship. Smith fits the "Moderate Republican" bill pretty well in my book. That's neither praise nor criticism, just how it is. Of course he's going to vote with his party more often than not as do most Democrats, but he does not toe a hard-right line.

In a (my) perfect political world, Wyden would do well with a few lessons in classical liberalism and Smith could take a step or two to the left. Realistically speaking, I'm moderately satisfied with the combo we have now, but then I like balance. I also appreciate bi-partisan efforts and pragmatism. Call me crazy, just don't call me a Republican.

Excellent post. My wife and I saw the re-run last night and had exactly the same reaction.

from the radio clip i heard, it was no laughing matter when stewart asked chafee if the other republicans threw food at the four lonely folks at the moderate republican table.

also conspicuously absent from the moderate lunch table was john mccain. but i guess he's not moderate, just "maverick."

This blog has been full of invective for Gordon Smith lately, which I guess is not surprising, since this is Blue Oregon, not Red Oregon.

Instead of labeling Gordon Smith, let's just look at his record. He's certainly Conservative, but not anywhere near as conservative as Coburn or the unlamented soon to be former Senator Santorum. Whether he really is less conservative than these folks in his heart, or he trims his sails solely for his electorate, is really irrelevant - he is obvdiously in some way trying to tailor his voting record to his constituency.

As for his recent Iraq statements, instead of attacking him how about "better late than never?"

I just close with a thought for those viewing this blog - it obviously makes more political sense for a Democrat to paint Gordon Smith as an extreme conservative Republican for the 2008 election, whether the facts back this up or not.

As for his recent Iraq statements, instead of attacking him how about "better late than never?"

Wes Clark Jr. had this to say about Senators like Smith. From The Young Turks. He was talking about the Junior Senator from Illinois but it fits Smith to a T.

And Barack Obama is one of those f'ing guys who's been in the Senate for two years and could have come out and said, "The President is committing war crimes." 'Cause that's what President Bush has done. As could Gordon Smith.

P.S. He really didn't say f'ing.

"Oh Joe... it sure is nice to have the rightie point of view 'round here."

No problem, though I wouldnt consider my persepective to be particularly right wing. Your stereotypical conservative certainly wouldnt, so I reckon that puts me somewhere in between.

"I was a Republican until they lost their minds!"

Charles Barkley Former NBA All-Star

While were on the topic of voting records, issue positions, special interest group ratings and attempting to label political stances, the following sites are worth a look.

www.ontheissues.org

vote-smart.org

OnTheIssues defines Gordon Smith as Moderate Libertarian. Chafee? Libertarian-Leaning Liberal. Draw your own conclusions of course, but it's kind of fun.

"He is the #1 example of Karl Rove's "catch and release" policy - wherein Republicans from blue states get to vote against the Republican leadership, but only when it won't affect the outcome."

John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience has a whole chapter devoted to this topic (including plenty of examples).

Clearly, when Joe12Pack says Smith is a "Moderate Republican", he means that Smith is in the middle of the Republican pack. I'll agree with that.

However, when the rest of us use the term "Moderate Republican", we mean someone near the center of the political spectrum, where the Republicans are on the right, the far right, and the extreme right, and the Democrats are mostly on the left and in the middle. From that perspective, Smith is pretty far to the right.

Pretty cool Joe. That ones bookmark worthy.

"I agree with the conception of Smith as a faux-moderate, but that's only because the entire field has shifted to the right over the last 25 years."

I was about to take you to task on the above comment until I performed some simple arithmetic. I then concluded it was a fairly accurate statement and was reminded what an old fart I'm becoming.

Chafee, Snow, Collins and Jeffords tend to lean left of center. I recall Vic Atiyeh once saying he never changed his views. However, when he was elected he was considered a conservative Republican but when he left office he was considered a moderate.

The fact that no Republican has been elected Gov. here since Atiyeh might indicate that the Republican spectrum might put someone like Atkinson or Saxton (or Gordon Smith) in the middle of the pack, but among all Oregonians the middle might be Ben Westlund, or the legislators who served on the Legislative Comm. and engaged in serious debate publicly on a variety of issues. Or those legislators who come up with concrete solutions to problems rather than worrying about ideology.

As a native of Michigan, I voted for Gerald Ford for President in 1976, having campaigned for Tom McCall's re-election earlier.

As the granddaughter of a Republican statewide elected official, I know that before the Reagan era there were lots of intelligent debates among people of both parties on the details of actual proposals rather than just throwing slogans back and forth. I think it was someone in the Reagan Administration who was caught listing "those liberal programs we don't need" and they included many which were really Nixon era like EPA.

I left the GOP for good about the time Reagan came along. Besides campaigning for Tom McCall's re-election, I admired many of the true moderate Republicans in Oregon history. But they were "leftists " if Sen. Snowe (the correct spelling), Collins, Jeffords, Chaffee are "left of center".

Time to ditch the 20th century left/right labels unless you are willing to explain what labels fit Sens.-elect Tester and Webb, the farmer and the former Navy Secretary. Moderate is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps it is time to use other labels or none at all.

When the impression of ideological divide and opposition is so great, moderation is going to seem like a pretty small place. Of course, that won't keep either side from claiming his portion.

Less talk, more ideas.

Gosh, I sure am glad about this thread. First of all, I didn't know what to think about Gordon Smith and have been flailing around for a label to pin on him. I need labels because I can't think for myself and need someone else to tell me how to think. In fact, I'm going to be the charter member of the pregressive version of Dittoheads. Also, the other really cool thing about this thread is that it will undoubtedly greatly influence the Oregonian's next endorsement.

What's next? The liberal/conservative dichotomy on the really key issue of the day: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Great point about the geography.

Let's not get too extispicious, especially when it comes to lunches and labels?

Gordo has been as conservative as he could get awaywith his entire career -- a right-winger without conviction. Most of the posts to the contrary are molls and trolls trying to muddle the issue to weaen the energy against throwing that bum out.

Gosh, I sure am glad about this thread. ... I need labels because I can't think for myself and need someone else to tell me how to think.

A good point, Lin. Semantic arguments about labels are tiresome. However, the meaning behind Lincoln Chafee's labels is something that ought to concern us all when we vote for our representatives in the Senate and House.

John: Why is it so antithetical to the process to say, this is crazy, we're not just supposed to rubber stamp this guy even though he's in our party -- why can't we stand up, or why can't we work with people we think are reasonable people on the other side? ...

Lincoln: That's what has frustrated me more than anything during the time I've been there, some of these senators who have been there since the 70s, 80's ... they all lined up right behind him.

John: But for everything!

Lincoln: For everything. ... I stood up and said no.

The rest of the party followed Bush on every issue of consequence, the Iraq war, tax cuts, etc. And even some democrats, too, as Chafee pointed out (I assume one of them rhymes with "eeberman"). So if these labels mean anything at all, to Mr Chafee or anyone, they mean this: moderate republicans have had the will, at least in the 109th congress, to stand up and say no. Gordon's not one of them, at least according to Chafee.

John: I always assumed that there was something going on behind the scenes that was far more complex, that I wasn't quite understanding, but the idea that you've been there, and you're saying "Yeah, I don't know what's wrong with these guys either," really, I have to tell you, I'm a little shaken up right now.

I consider myself a moderate. Which means that in the past decade I have almost always voted for the Democratic candidate. But I've voted three times now for Gordon Smith.

According to many posters here, I've been duped.

Gordon Smith is certainly no Mark Hatfield, or even Bob Packwood (politically speaking, that is). But I for one, as a moderate, think the Democrats in this state need a check - toherwise, based upon some of the comments here, they will tend to go off the left deep end because they think they can get away with it.

When it comes to Democrats, about the only possible opponent of Gordon Smith that would be sure to get my vote at this time is John Kitzhaber. I would not vote for DeFazio or Wu agsinst Gordo, because their "know-nothing" views on free trade issues put them beyond my pale. I would seriously consider voting for Blumenauer agzinst Gordo, and Ben Westlund would be an interesting consideration too.

If I am at all typical, either the Democrats are going to have to come up with an exceptional candidate, or Gordon Smith is going to have to abandon his moderate leanings, whether real or fake, pretty thoroughly, for the Democrats to take that Senate seat in 2008.

I tend to think labels short circuit thought. I was a John Anderson for President supporter in 1980. I campaigned for Tom McCall's re-election. I voted for Ron Wyden in Jan. 1996 and 3rd party in the fall because I disagreed strongly with some of St. Sen. Pres. G. Smith's legislative actions, but Tom Bruggere's campaign expected total unquestioning support once the primary election was over. I strongly supported Chuck Lee and a number of other Democrats for the legislature this year. I supported Hill over Kulongoski in the primary and think Ben Westlund is the best thing which happened to politics in a long time.

I consider myself independent--meaning that if "all good/real party members" are supposed to agree with the entire platform, I'll just register NAV and think for myself, thank you very much. Gordon never showed he wanted my vote--but in 1996 he at least had a voting record and could answer issue questions.

There need to be more people in both parties who act as Lincoln Chaffee acted more often than most:

Lincoln: That's what has frustrated me more than anything during the time I've been there, some of these senators who have been there since the 70s, 80's ... they all lined up right behind him. John: But for everything! Lincoln: For everything. ... I stood up and said no.

But does that make me moderate? How about my preference for intelligent debate (which we've seen on the topic about Wyden's health care proposal)?

Urban Planning Overlord: If you believe that people who post here are representative of all active Oregon Democrats who did any phoning, door to door canvassing, or other volunteer work in 2006, you need to get out more.

"they will tend to go off the left deep end because they think they can get away with it." HUH?

Exactly what actions are "left deep end", and how many people that you know personally would agree with your definition?

Which Democrats elected in 2006 (or almost elected--look at how close Gilbertson came to dumping Dallum in Oregon House Dist. 59) fit into that mode, or are you just reacting to the statements of individuals?

As a former county chair has posted elsewhere, the official statements of Oregon Democrats are those passed as resolutions by the State Central Comm. or included in the platform voted on at a convention. Anything else represents statements of individuals. Are you really saying every Republican is responsible for anything said by any other Republican and the same for Democrats? Or is there specific language you object to?

Be careful of sounding like you are using a broadbrush stereotype. Many of us live in legislative districts where the member was elected by a smaller number of votes than the number of non-affiliated/3rd party votes in the district. Even if every Dem. voted straight party ticket and everyone registered with the GOP did the same, those independent voters who don't join parties would decide many elections.

Here's some research I compiled from the AFL-CIO that should convince any reasonable person that Gordon Smith is, and always has been, a conservative.

The AFL-CIO Congressional Voting Record (COPE) represent a wide range of issues important to working people and their families.

Here are some of the congressional votes where Smith has been WRONG:

1997 Balancing the federal budget (S.J. Res. 1); Tax cuts for the wealthy (H.R. 2015); Fast Track trade legislation (Smith voted to kill filibuster).

1998 Shoring up Medicare's financial future (S.C.R. 86); The freedom to choose a union (S. 1981); Boosting the minimum wage to $6.15 an hour by Jan. 1, 2000 (S. 1301).

1999 Class size reduction program centering on the hiring of 100,000 new teachers over six years (S. 280); A bipartisan bill that called for the reduction in steel imports, established tougher import monitoring and imposed limits that returned foreign steel imports to 1997 levels (H.R. 975); A Patients' Bill of Rights that ensured that treatment decisions would be made by doctors and not insurance companies and provided comprehensive patient protections (S. 1344); A tax cut that give 76 percent of tax cut benefits to the wealthiest 20 percent of taxpayers (S. 1429 was vetoed by President Clinton.); Increasing the minimum wage by $1 an hour over two years, to $5.65 an hour beginning Jan. 1, 2000, and $6.15 an hour beginning Jan. 1, 2001 (S. 625).

2000 Smith once again opposed Patients' Bill of Rights legislation (S. 2549); An amendment to the Labor/Health and Human Services/Education appropriations bill that would authorize a universal, voluntary and affordable prescription drug benefit in the Medicare program for seniors and the disabled (H.R. 4577); A bill that would have used $105 billion of the non-Social Security surpluses over the next 10 years to repeal the estate tax. It would have benefited just the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers (H.R. 8); Legislation that gave the People's Republic of China permanent normal trade relations status (H.R. 4444).

2001 John Ashcroft approval to be U.S. Attorney General; The Senate overturned the ergonomics standard. It was the first time in OSHA’s 30-year history that Congress nullified one of its safety standards (S.J. Res. 6); An amendment to the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution conference report that included $311 billion over 10 years for a Medicare prescription drug benefit (H. Con. Res. 83); The fiscal year 2002 budget resolution called for spending $1.65 trillion of projected budget surpluses in fiscal years 2001–2011 to pay for tax cuts that primarily would benefit the wealthy (H. Con. Res. 83); An amendment to authorize $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2002 to help states and local school districts repair their most dilapidated public school buildings (S. 1);

2002 An attempt to make permanent the temporary repeal of the federal estate, gift and generation skipping taxes that were part of the Bush administration’s massive millionaire tax cut (H.R. 8).

2003 An amendment to reduce Bush's proposed $726 billion in tax cuts aimed primarily at the wealthy to $350 billion and allocate $120 billion toward a new Social Security reserve account, with the remainder going toward deficit reduction (S. Con. Res. 23); Unemployment Insurance Benefits extension amendment that extended the expiring TEUC program for another six months, with an additional 13 weeks of benefits for workers who exhaust their federal benefits (S. 1054); An amendment to the FY 2004 U.S. Department of Defense authorization bill that weakened Buy American requirements (S. 1050).

2004 Bush's budget that permanently locked in multitrillion-dollar tax breaks that mostly benefit the nation’s wealthiest (S. Con. Res. 95); An amendment to slow the export of U.S jobs overseas by U.S. corporations. It would have required U.S. multinational companies to pay federal taxes on income from foreign factories when goods are shipped back into the United States (S. 1637).

2005 An amendment to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in three steps over 26 months (S. 256); An amendment that would have disqualified as many as 10 million workers at companies with less than $1 million in annual revenues from the minimum wage, overtime pay and equal pay protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It would have lowered the minimum wage for many tipped employees and allowed 90 percent of businesses to avoid penalties for first-time violations, including willful violations, of information collection requirements, including reporting on hazardous chemicals and pension fund management (S .256); An amendment to the Senate budget resolution that would have expressed the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt (S. Con. Res. 18); CAFTA, modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), cut tariffs among the United States, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua (S. 1307); An amendment that would have protected seniors from steep increases in their Medicare Part B premiums (S. 1932); $60 billion tax cut bill, with more than three-quarters of the benefits going to families with $100,000 or more in annual income. Paid for in part by huge cuts in vital working family programs (S. 2020).

Here are Smith's COPE numbers:

2005: 31% Right Votes (4 Right, 9 Wrong) and 21% lifetime; 2004: 33% Right Votes (4 Right, 8 Wrong) and 20% lifetime; 2003: 0% Right Votes (0 Right, 12 Wrong) and 18% lifetime; 2002: 0% Right Votes (0 Right, 12 Wrong) and 18% lifetime; 2001: 38% Right Votes (5 Right, 8 Wrong) and 21% lifetime; 2000: 0% Right Votes (0 Right, 8 Wrong) and 3% lifetime; 1999: 11% Right Votes (1 Right, 8 Wrong) and 4% lifetime; 1998: 0% Right Votes (0 Right, 8 Wrong) and 0% lifetime; 1997: 0% Right Votes (0 Right, 7 Wrong) and 0% lifetime;

Note: His "Right Votes" climbed in 2001. Did it have anything to do with his 2002 re-election race? In 2002, there were few highly controversial bills and of course public opinion favored Republicans due to 9/11.

didn't his Democratic opponent and Rhode Island Democrats hold him accountable, however indirectly, for what Senate Republicans had done and said?

I think you are talking about the Millicent Fenwick problem. Wonderful woman Senator. Inspiration to many. But always voted with Republicans when it came to organization. Lots of soul searching by lots of people but I think it was during the Reagan years when even people who admired her didn't want to see GOP control of the Senate any longer so they ended up voting for Lautenberg. I'm sure that was a gut wrenching vote then and this year for Lincoln Chaffee for lots of people.

But that's not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was more along the lines of Newt Gingrich's "Susan Smith killed her children because of Democratic social programs" or conversely if someone had tried to say every Republican condoned child abuse because of Mark Foley, or reckless driving because Janklow of S. Dakota killed someone by running a stop sign at high speed.

What we need is to admit that there are individuals in both or no party who can have a dramatic effect on elections. Dallum only beat Gilbertson in HD 59 by a couple hundred votes. How many of those voters were strong partisans and how many register outside major parties?

It is folly in this day and age to imply that either major party is a single celled organism and all members think/ act/ talk alike. If we could just have more open intelligent public debate of the sort that went on when Tom McCall, Vic Atiyeh, Nancy Ryles, Clay Myers, Mary Alice Ford and others were active in politics, this state would be in much better shape, not matter what the label of the person who comes up with a great idea to solve a problem.

<h2>As best as I can recollect, Smith's claim to moderation hangs on his willingness to criticize the crucification of a gay man on barbed wire fencing and the murder by pickup truck of an Afro-American man. I bet he opposes genocide as well, er, ah, in principle anyway. A tinge of humanity seems to be sufficient these days to make a Republican look moderate.</h2>