good post, Jon, and good to have Wyden's positives highlighted. i have enjoyed the chance to talk to him in town halls here in Corvallis, but he's done this since his time in the House. this is s.o.p. for Wyden.

the part that drives some of us nuts, though, is not whether he's out there pushing hard enough for the party but his occassional stands on issues that drive us frikkin nuts. his screw-up on habeas corpus was just dumb: trusting the Rs to play straight with him was a level of naivete he should be beyond. back in the 80s, he supported the goddamn Trident submarine program! and even though it made sense in many ways to partner up with Gordo, it's hard for those of us not working in the Senate to stomach.

he may not want to, but he really does need to help defeat Smith. this will be the #1 race in Oregon in 2008, and we Oregon Dems have to do our part to secure the Senate for our party -- and Wyden has to help with that. if he doesn't, it just undermines all the good he does. that's neither fair nor smart, but it's the reality of things.

he may not want to, but he really does need to help defeat Smith.

I strongly disagree. Not only does he not need to overtly help defeat Smith, but I would argue that, as Jon argues in his excellent post, Wyden most helps defeat Smith by simply continuing to do what he does. Plus, I would argue that by taking a partisan side on Smith's re-election Wyden might actually harm his own cause.

Think back to 2004 and all the howling on the Left when Republican Senators forsook (sp?) Senate tradition and went hard after Daschle. If Wyden were to do the same thing then that would simply be fuel for those who argue that Dems and GOPers really aren't all that different.

Mind you, I'm an Indie. I don't have a horse in the Dem/GOP race nor do I want to. I'm just calling this the way I see it from my perspective. And I'll add that I am somewhat partial to the criticism that Dems/GOP are more similar than different. What I judge a candidate mostly on is actions and choices. Partisans can issue all the talking points they want and I'm going to largely ignore it because it's just biased rhetoric.

Now, I don't have any stats to back this up with but... I suspect that the key to defeating Smith in the General Election is convincing Independents that he's not the best choice. Democrats are largely going to vote against him regardless. And Republicans are largely going to vote for him regardless.

I just wanted to point out that Wyden has shown he can work hard to beat Smith already at least once: because he ran against him to get his own seat in the Senate.

Of course, in 2008, if he's going to help or not is going to be largely dependent on whether there's actually someone running against Smith.

BTW: I'd just like to point out that Wyden was one of the majority of Democrats on the Senate Intelligence committee who voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002.

Here's the fundamental problem with Wyden overtly "going after" Smith:

Out of every six years, Smith is "in cycle" for two years and Wyden for two years. If the two of them spent four years out of every six actively bashing the crap outta each other, nothing would ever get done for Oregon.

We partisans spend our time thinking about the partisan and ideological fights happening in Congress. But a lot of that US Senators do is totally apolitical and nonpartisan -- like getting a local bridge built, dealing with low-tier regional federal appointments, etc.

If the two Senators (and by extension, their staffs) spent four of every six years hating each other, refusing to talk or work with each other, all that "invisible" stuff wouldn't happen.

Ron Wyden's doing a great job doing what he does. Where do statewide candidates come from? The legislature. By helping build a majority in the legislature (and, btw, he gave over $100,000 to candidates in Oregon) he helps us win statewide in Oregon -- including the US Senate.

[Full disclosure: I manage Wyden's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.]

I'm not going to ask that Wyden personally attack Smith or even actively campaign against him. However, I must insist that he not go out of his way to assist Smith in getting re-elected or in creating his faux-moderate image.

I must admit my one attempt to communicate my concerns about an issue with Sen Wyden was disappointing in the extreme. His reply (yes, he gets credit for replying, unlike Smith) showed a complete lack of comprehension of the issue and brought into question whether or not he had even read the bulk of my not-overlong e-mail. He concluded by implying (unintentionally, I believe) that I was a child molester. Since then, I have not been Wyden's biggest fan.

While I generally approve of much of his work, particularly his recent health care proposal, Wyden is still someone I'm strongly ambivalent about. I think the next two years will prove very constructive in helping me form an opinion about what Wyden's really all about. If he can resist the urge to help Smith with his re-election and votes consistently in the interest of his constituents, the country, and his party, I'll come around. The Senate is so closely divided, we can't have anyone selling the party out (as Wyden did on habeas corpus), especially since his seat is not particularly at risk.

That was cute, Mr. Rankin. Best you can do is something from 11 years ago?