Three cheers for being proactive with Smith, great news that national dollars and efforts are being put into the effort...but am I alone in thinking that the print ad is a pretty big turn off? I have no doubt that it will speak to D's but the messages, images and design seem way off for the target audience. Too be honest, I'm not sure that I want to give money to something that looks like it was cooked up out of state and misses the mark. But maybe that's just my take.

I just had an email exchange with an old friend who voted for Gordon Smith every time--even Jan. 1986. But he voted for Kitzhaber for Gov. and some other Democrats. Over the years he has been a pretty good barometer of the thinking of swing voters. I don't see how this ad would change his mind about anything.

How is the ad going to win over someone who emails something like "Yes, he should clarify his position. I understand it as being...... to get out of there expeditiously (implying a compromise between being responsible and quick), and that does not mean simply leave."

esp. when that person says what they'd really like to do is have a face to face chat with Gordon as they'd once had before?

If the only measure of whether DSCC should target Oregon is how many people give money to run the newspaper ad without questioning whether it would really have the desired result, then maybe they aren't as politically smart as they think.

"We know what we're doing--don't ask questions" sounds suspiciously like how we ended up with US Senator Gordon Smith in the first place.

How many people here know anyone who ever voted for Gordon? Do you think this ad would convince that person to consider a Democrat, or would that person be insulted/offended by this ad?

If Democrats in Oregon "dig down deep" and contribute the money for this ad, and the ad goes over like a lead balloon, how does that help elect a Democrat to replace Gordon? Would a paper like the East Oregonian even run such an ad?

"Sure, whatever." "OK, now you've questioned. Can we move on?"

OK, now you've been condescending. Can we move on?

As a D this is my party, too. Is talking about strategy or questioning the effectiveness of an ad campaign out of bounds? Your response is a huge disconnect to me given the conversations that have been flowing on Blue Oregon about the merits of various candidates, candidates we'd like to see, etc. Personally I don't find it a particularly productive conversation to have...but to use your analogy if we can talk about the players, why not strategy as well?

As someone deeply familiar with parts of Oregon outside of Portland the ad strikes me as counter productive and tone deaf. I'd even bet that it's marginally offensive to certain swing voters. You asked me to donate money to run it- isn't it at least a relevant question to raise? Especially when I think that running the ad might actually do more harm than good?

I am and will continue to be active- and I think many of us can (and should) continue to ask questions, be reflective and work towards victory against Smith.

I'd think that it would be a conversation that could happen here.

Yes, it's time to replace Senator Smith with a sensible moderate. However, I will give him one thing, he's now opposed to the Iraq War, although we do expect a "leader" to be out in front, not just jumping on the bandwagon.

The war is a huge issue, one of the biggest of our time, and while the resolution in the House is symbolic, it's a first step, taken not by Smith and his fellow Republicans but rather by Democrats and Americans. Once again, 'the people' know what's best for the country, and that the Iraq War is just plain wrong. I hope I didn't need to capitalize "just plain wrong" to make my point.

I don't have any problem giving the president credit for comforting and rallying the country after the 2001 terror attacks. But there is no basis, no justification for the Iraq War, at least none that outweighs the losses of more than 3,000 American lives and countless thousands of lives of Iraqi civilians. I capitalize "War" for a reason, which I've explained a click away, where I do most of my writing.

The war has gotten rid of some terrorists, but most likely caused more bad people to become terrorists. And then the cost-benefit analysis of the war also should look at the war appropriations which are through the roof!

I can't understand how Republicans who call themselves fiscal conservatives (such as Senators John McCain, Smith and too many others to mention here) could in good conscience rubber stamp the enormous military appropriations requests.

I've heard of politicians speaking out of both sides of their mouths, but this is unthinkable, a complete disaster for American leadership. So it's up to Democratic leaders in Congress to continue their strong start, which will give more Democrats opportunities to run strong races in 2008 and beyond.

Quit ya' bitchin'!

If you don't like the ad, then make your own ad and send it to the DSCC or otherwise get it published, samizdat sytle.

Just to be sure, does everyone realize that Kari is not your mother?

He is an activist progressive like the rest of us.

You don't need his permission or approval to make your own plan as to what needs to be done to win this election and just go do it. If you want to invite others along, great. But don't dump your self-important ramblings in Kari's lap or the blogosphere ether and expect him or it to "fix stuff". YOU fix it if you don't like it.

I saw Smith on KGW this morning trying to explain why he's voting against cloture to begin a vote on a bill he's co-sponsored to oppose the surge. He went rambling on about how he feels they need a full and complete debate on the issue before they begin to vote on it. Yeah sure.

As a Republican who is sickened by Smith and what he pretends to represent, I and countless thousands of other Republicans are willing to join your cause. However we will not stand and fight for Earl, Kate, Westlund or any other far-left wing D. Your cause is just don't take advantage of the situtation, be pragmatic. While I will donate my time, energy and resources, I cannot and will not ever donate my financial resources to the Democrat Party.

As an aside I agree with the first comment that the DNC's mail piece caters far to much to the typical D voter. They need to focus on the Indepenent and Conserative Republican demographics.

Nate W Portland, OR

As a Republican who is sickened by Smith and what he pretends to represent, I and countless thousands of other Republicans are willing to join your cause. However we will not stand and fight for Earl, Kate, Westlund or any other far-left wing D. Your cause is just don't take advantage of the situtation, be pragmatic. While I will donate my time, energy and resources, I cannot and will not ever donate my financial resources to the Democrat Party.

As an aside I agree with the first comment that the DNC's mail piece caters far to much to the typical D voter. They need to focus on the Indepenent and Conserative Republican demographics.

Nate W Portland, OR

please execuse the repetitive post.

Nate

Have you noticed that every other post on here for the last month or so has been non-stop attacks on Smith? I was never much of a fan, but the constant Smith bashing I see here may just be enough to give him my vote. You don't even have any viable candidates to oppose him (Jefferson Smith doesn't seem very interested, and neither does anybody else). Is there a point to all of this, aside from that fact that Oregon Democrats are more power hungry than ever (despite having the governor's mansion, the state House, state Senate, Congress and the federal Senate)?

Relevant comment from another thread: Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 12, 2007 11:22:37 PM

Kari for President in 2012, but first Kari for US Senate in 08. (My comment)

<h2>Take your meds, please. (Kari's reply)</h2>

Okay, the jibe about going for President was just that, but I think that going for Smith is not a bad idea start.

Here is the idea: Have somebody go up against Smith as a proxy. As a start. Just for now. Yes, the proxy is just that, a placeholder. The placeholder can step up and start the ball rolling, then bail out when the bigger name D enters into the picture.

Who is a good place holder? Well, Kari, Jefferson, Steve or somebody else like that.

Thank you Hawthorne.

And Former Salem Staffer, I was never much of a fan, but the constant Smith bashing I see here may just be enough to give him my vote. You don't even have any viable candidates to oppose him

was just my point.

Even if every Oregon Democrat pledged $10, how does that make swing voters oppose Smith more than a year before the primary?And how do we know that such support would make Oregon a top DSCC target in 2008 if they don't like our choice of candidate? Or are we just supposed to have faith in them?

I HAVE done something, even if it isn't online or an actual organization. I have engaged in conversation with a friend who is a swing voter but always votes for Gordon Smith. I know this friend voted for Kitzhaber for Gov. in 1994 not because of any ads but because (at my urging) he went to see Kitzhaber speak at Rotary and was really impressed (but was not impressed with Denny Smith---"just another slick politician"). As the old saying goes, you can't fight something with nothing. Asking someone like that "will you support Gordon in 2008?" now doesn't seem very productive. Better if people make up their own minds. And how do we know that swing voters would see this ad and say "that's it, I'm voting for whoever runs against Smith"? How many people here actually know any swing voters?

There were debates last year (not here, but in other conversations) about BO sometimes being a little club where contrary opinions were not welcomed.
Every "watercooler" (aka workplace or other gathering--whether or not the gathering place has a watercooler) that I have engaged in face to face involves a free and open debate. NOT "you're supposed to agree that...."

Yes, Gordon does not represent us. Yes he and Warner and Hagel and Snowe and all the other Republicans look stupid after voting with their party leadership----Susan Collins and Norm Coleman look smart for bucking their party leadership.

If there was overwhelming support for this ad from Oregonians, wouldn't it give the DSCC the idea that the candidate doesn't matter as much as attacking Gordon Smith? Santorum was beaten by Casey, Burns by Tester, Allen by Webb, not by "we don't like this guy in there now".

Have people forgotten that "I fought a war. I founded a company. I'm not Gordon Smith" was the slogan of the guy Gordon beat 11 years ago to get into the Senate in the first place?

Thanks for making this push happen.

Go Smythbusters!

I'm just bored to death of all the Smith talk at this point. There are any number of things that could be discussed here, instead of the usual, "We don't like Gordon Smith" rants. It's getting old, that's all. I will say, though, that as a resident of one of the 18 O&C counties, that Smith is representing us as best he can right now. Gov. Kulongoski, on the other hand, hasn't lifted a finger to try and remedy the situation. I spoke with one of my county commissioners the other day, and he said that Kulongoski's representative assigned to Southern Oregon was literally completely clueless as to the severity of the situation. But, of course, he paid Kari to design his website, so he's beyond criticism here... It's also worth noting that Smith and Wyden have worked very well together over the years. Their relationship is indicative of the kind of bipartisanship we really need in this country. My father, a staunch conservative since the days of Jimmy Carter, actually votes for Wyden because of that. I think Wyden is about the only Democrat he votes for... But just count the posts currently displayed on the home page. About half of them are exactly like this one, with nothing new to add to the mix. So you don't like Gordon Smith? Until you present a reasonable alternative, you should talk about something more relevant.

Kari,

Just gave my $10.00 (not much, but it's tight at the moment) to the dscc. Never have before, because I think they're a bunch of asshats. I give my money to media matters, move on, DFA and, now, the Democratic Party because of Dean. But you're right, this is too important to let slide. I want them to know we want Smith gone! The time to start the campaign is now, not when we get our "dream candidate" (mines John Kitzhaber, how do we convince him?). Also, I'd like to complain that less than half your posts bash Smith. If your really serious, you'll have to step it up!

Thanks

TJ, I appreciate you posting that. When I was working in the Governor's office last year -- and I'm in no way speaking for him here -- we were very concerned about this issue and worked hard behind the scenes to win passage of full-funding, including directing our federal lobbyist to make this a priority of her work. Having an anonymous poster pass on this pot-shot from an anonymous Jackson southern Oregon County Commissioner is frustrating, because it's just flatly inaccurate.

Independents need to get involved in getting rid of Smith to let swing voters know this is more than a Democratic/Republican issue. Letters to the editors of state papers - mainstream and alternative - can get a lot of attention. Web sites such as BlueOregon can help with building an archive of Smith's history in the Senate.

I must admit that I've been feeling the itch caused by the lack of an official candidate thus far, but come on now people. I think you've missed the goal of the post entirely. It says it right there, "As the DSCC decides which states to prioritize, let's show 'em that progressive grassroots Oregonians are ready to dig deep and join the fight." It's a call to action. Enough said.

There is no doubt in my mind that this ad softens Smith up for '08. It is a mechanism to inform people on Smith's failures as a leader concerning the Iraq War. Considering the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, I would say this will definitely resonate with voters.

I think the most interesting part of the poll is at the end. "BASED ON 835 ADULTS WHO ARE BOTHERED BY THE LACK OF SENATE DEBATE ON THE IRAQ WAR," 51 percent blame Republicans.

And you're seriously going to try to tell me this ad won't resonate with voters?

There was a cartoon in the Eugene Register-Guard yesterday and the Redmond Spokesman today showing a couple walking past the window of a book store. In the window was a display of "Gordon Smith's Kama Sutra." The man in the couple says, "I've heard it describes more than a hundred positions on Iraq." This alludes to Smith's style of tailoring his comments for his audience. His latest position on Iraq is at considerable variance with his speech of December 7th. The unfortunate thing for people who care about this country and for any potential opponent running against Smith in 2008 is that a large number of voters will be persuaded by his wealth and good looks and be blind to the fact they are looking at another empty suit.

<h2>More nonsense from Smith in a January 26, 2007 letter: "When the Senate voted in October 2002 to send American troops to Iraq, we rallied as a nation to remove a tyrant who was a chief financier of terrorism and a threat to our national security." If I recall correctly we went into Iraq to get rid of WMDs. Removing the tyrant came as an alternate excuse after the non-existent WMDs were proven as such. Chief financier of terrorism? The only evidence cited in this area were alleged payments to families of bombers from Palestine who committed suicide missions in Israel. That was probably a drop in the proverbial bucket compared with bin Laden's budget for 9/11. A threat to our national security? Rep. John Larson (D-CT) during the debate (Feb. 15) in the House on Bush's escalation quoted Robert Jordan, US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Bush's personal lawyer who got him off the hook on the Harken scandal, as saying before the invasion that invading Iraq would create the perfect storm and referring to Saddam Hussein as a toothless tiger. If our military could put Iraq's out of business in less than three weeks it is hard to see the threat to our national security. We might have had a problem if Iraq switched to the Euro for oil purchases, but that surely didn't justify an invasion and was never cited as such.</h2>