I'm calling a lawyer, Kari, cuz all of Smith's zigging and zagging you describe in this post has given me whiplash! I'm going to photoshop a pic of Gordon with a pancake on his head and use it as an icon to remind me of Mr. Smiths flip flop on the war. Wasn't it back in December when he finally came to the conclusion he could no longer support "a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day."

That was 6 months ago... $60 billion ago... over 600 dead American troops ago. Where was the promise of Smith bringing along fellow GOP "moderates"? It's too late for a hail Mary pass or even divine intervention from the Prophet to salvage Smith's butt on Iraq.

The top UK general today admitted that the Iraq debacle has broken the British military to the point that there is question if the country itself can be defended. Smith has no defense for the damage he has inflicted on our own troops.

Ironically, more troops have died in the 6 months since Gordon finally spoke out (and then retracted) than the 6 months prior (when he first realized the policy was immoral).

How's that surge workin' for ya, Sen. Smith? ... Lieberman? ... McCain? ... anyone?

IMHO, Sen. Smith has grown rather accustomed to having his cake and eating it, too. But his sagging poll numbers would suggest that people are starting to wise up to the act and becoming increasingly willing to call him on it.

Trying to summarize Wyden's position on censure of Bush in an interview on KPOJ just now (and it's hard), he seems to still be wanting to play with the political calculus that while he really, really wants to repudiate the crimes of this regime, he's afraid of pissing off his Repubublican friends (like his good friend from Pendelton). In other words, we're still waiting for GOP senators to do the right thing in Iraq, and if we do the right thing regarding Bush, we might never get enough votes in the Senate to stop funding the war.

///that last part was so sarcastic, even I missed it.

Bush's hip, meet Gordon's hip.

...meet Wyden's hip (on censure, at least) What makes us think we can change Smith's mind when our own Dems are too timid to bring Bush to justice?

On the war, Gordon can point to Hillary and on censure/impeachment he's gotten cover from Wyden.

By avoiding the principled stand, Wyden is taking all the air out of what has been an excellent series of arguments for sending Gordon Smith (fruit) packing.

Taking a step back... on a positive note. On this topic, Kari got the most important point out talking to Thom Hartmann today.

Gordon's Moroni moment on the Iraq war came supposedly 6 months before his ballyhooed speech (which he later half recanted). What took so long for him to translate the golden plates of his ambivalence on the war into the text we heard on the Senate floor last December? The 2006 midterm election. Politics, pure and simple.

We can only hope that the Oregonian editorial board is going so far overboard to give Gordon the benefit of the doubt now so that its endorsement of his opponent in the general election will carry more weight....

...we can only hope, because the alternative is that the editorial board's collective mind is that of an easily conned hayseed.

Has anyone at that newspaper, reporters or pundits, bothered to point out Smith's connection to the Klamath fish kill? That's just negligent.

If it matters to Oregonian's, it's in the Washington Post.

I'm going to photoshop a pic of Gordon with a pancake on his head and use it as an icon to remind me of Mr. Smiths flip flop

Pancake head is good, but I see Smith more as a snowflake, a lightweight piece of fluff (with perfect hair) whose direction changes with the changing winds.

I think the election can be won on won on just what is described here - Smith's consistent 'both sides now' positioning on every issue. He may be hard to beat on the actual votes he takes, or whether he is joined at the hip to Bush - because he can always point to the flipside of the flop.

This election needs to be framed not around his votes - but about him: "Greasy Gordon"

ok. Sarcasm. Humor. Cheap shot. It's all a fine line, i suppose.

Stripped of wit, my point is this. In too many issues where we would like to come down on Smith for his stance on this or that issue, he is going to be able to point at leaders across the aisle (as well as his friend, the senior Senator from Oregon) for cover.

Hartmann's feeling as expressed this morning on the radio is that the Left is so fed up, they'll vote for anybody but Smith. The danger is that for every vote the Dems get from the mushy middle by fence sitting on the issues Progressive care about most (Iraq, Immigration, Impeachment), they stand to lose votes from their grass roots base.

IMHO, Sen. Smith has grown rather accustomed to having his cake and eating it, too. But his sagging poll numbers would suggest that people are starting to wise up to the act and becoming increasingly willing to call him on it.

Scott: You have more confidence in the people than I have. When it comes to actually casting votes many people will stick with the devil they know rather than take a chance on the one they don't. People supporting Steve Novick or whoever ends up opposing Smith in November 2008 need to speak directly to the people and let them know that if they vote for Smith that means they don't give a damn about the Constitution or the lives and billions of dollars that have been squandered in Iraq.

As for the gap between Smith's turnaround on the war and his speech on December 7th, it was another case of political expediency - the same political expediency that caused Smith to consign our military to slaughter and maim Iraqis and to be slaughtered and maimed themselves. Class is also a factor. Smith has assigned himself to the upper classes and is indifferent to the well-being of those he has consigned to the lower classes.

As for Wyden, he has cast some good votes, but you can't count on him to do that all the time. To repeat a point I have made a couple of times in the past, Wyden was for the war until he got an earful from constituents prior to October 2002, then he decided that for him political expediency meant casting a "no" vote.

Bill-

I think Smith's situation illustrates the practical difficulties of trying to style yourself as a moderate. If you lean too far one way or the other, or if it's perceived that you are, you ultimately risk pissing everyone off, including your base. What the people decide to do with it is entirely up to them. This is why I've indicated, privately and publicly, my support for Sen. Bates' candidacy against Smith. I think it would be too easy to label Merkley or Novick as "Portland liberals," because, well, that's what they are. But in order to provide a reasonable alternative to moderates of both parties who are dissatisifed with Smith, it would really help to have a rural Democrat. Case in point: Merkley or Novick wouldn't stand a chance in Jackson County. But Bates would carry it easily, as he's very popular among members of both parties down there. That's only one county, and I'm aware of that, but it's just something to consider. And as far as Wyden goes, he's quick to remind anyone who's willing to listen that he's consistently opposed the war. Believe me, I've heard him say it dozens of times in town hall meetings and conference calls in the last few months alone...

I don' t see how the war issue will ever be used effectively against Smith. He is making it very clear that if the war is still going on next year, then he is going to position himself as the peace candidate. He is not going to let any Democrat "out-peace" him. By the time of the election, he will have over a year long string of votes and pronouncements against the war. That will satisfy most Oregonians.

Trying to use his flip-flop on the war against him will also boomerang. His simple reply will be: I pretty much voted the same way as Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and many other Democrats on all the important votes on the war - we all supported it initially, but later changed.

How do you respond to that?

Smith may be beatable next year, but not on the war issue.

Blue Oregon's new motto..."All Gordon all the time"

Blue Oregon's new motto..."All Gordon all the time"

Your hyperbole aside, i'm sure you've concocted the perfect level of Gordon Smith coverage on your own blog. Care to share the URL?

As a blue Oregonian, i am enjoying the pieces Smithh, because hey, he's a car wreck. And Schadenfreude can be fun. As the most important statewide race of '08 i'm also interested in learning as much i can about his challengers like Ty Pettit and Steve Novick, who i heard of first here.

To repeat a point I have made a couple of times in the past, Wyden was for the war until he got an earful from constituents prior to October 2002,

Source?

I listened to Wyden when he spoke to a gathering of Democrats in Redmond. He came across as being supportive of the war. His audience quickly and forcefully let him know they didn't agree. Presumably, he got similar treatment at other stops around the state. I doubt that the Democrats and progressives in Central Oregon were unique in opposing the march to war.

Trying to use his flip-flop on the war against him will also boomerang. His simple reply will be: I pretty much voted the same way as Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and many other Democrats on all the important votes on the war - we all supported it initially, but later changed.

The war on Iraq is illegal and a war crime. One of the architects of the war, Richard Perle, admitted the war was illegal. Authorities on international law have said the same thing. Gordon Smith said it was criminal. Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Schumer and 73 other senators were accessories to this war crime. That doesn't make Smith innocent. It makes those 77 senators guilty of failing to live up to their Constitutional responsibilities and being accessories to a war crime.

If the people have enough sense, which I question, they will not buy the argument about "everybody else doing it." As far as I'm concerned anyone who voted for the war should be kicked out of office. And that certainly includes Hillary, Edwards, Biden and Schumer.

If the same standards that were applied to the Nuremberg war crimes were applied to the senate, those 77 senators would be in the dock in The Hague. But luckily for them victors' justice and its attendant hypocrisy are as applicable today as it was at the end of World War II.

This is the Ninth Circuit Court's announcement of Milan Smith's nomination.

Now does this mean Bush is pay Smith for services rendered or does it mean Smith owes Bush?