I totally understand the need to provide a patina of bipartisanship, but it strikes me as a big mistake for the American Progress / Century Foundation event to feature Gordon Smith as a speaker. When someone like Chuck Hagel plays this role you say to yourself "he's from Nebraska, you've got to take what you can get." But Smith's from Oregon, he's got an eminently winnable seat. The last thing progressives need to be doing is helping him bolster his moderate credentials ("we need more leaders like Gordon Smith," says the woman from CAP who's introducing him).
« Linker on Rorty | Main | Avoiding the Issue »
Gordon Smith
12 Jun 2007 10:59 am
Comments (8)
Did you at least stand up and say "No we don't. We don't need any more Bush enablers"? Who runs CAP anyway? Isn't that the Podesta outfit? Why should Dems trust Clinton or his cronies on much? They really are trying to destroy the Democratic party. I am convinced now.
The problem with bipartisanship is that the truth does not lie in the middle; we're right and they're wrong.
Matt, you're smoking too much D.C. hookah if you calling Smith's seat winnable at this point. None of the many viable potential contenders have shown serious interest in running. The House reps are too busy having fun being in power to chance a run.
Oregon isn't quite as liberal as you (and the Reedie above) think it is, and it's certainly not a Democratic stronghold. In large chunks of the state, coming from Portland is more of a black mark against the candidate than party affliation. Steve Novick has an uphill battle just to break even against Gordon Smith. Good luck!
Andrew while you are right in that Oregon is not a democratic stronghold, you are ignoring that a significant chunk of the population that are democrats are the types that are fed up with business as usual. Smith is going to lose a lot of support simply because of the R after his name and its association with the president.
Oregon is a very divided state, one in which democrats have been coming out ahead in squeekers. Combined with the weakness of the Republican party it is by no means odd to call Smith's seat winnable. That does not mean it will be won, it jsut means there is a significant chance it can be.
Smith obvioulsy thinks he seat is in danger, witness his new found voicing of his anti-war thoughts.
Hey, folks, Oregon elected Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood. Aside from Mr. Packwood's annoying wandering hands, they were good moderate Republicans. We have a tradition of electing the man, not the party, and Gordon Smith has done a good job for us as Senator, not to mention his get-us-out-of-Iraq speech last December and his vote for the immigration bill. The reason no one wants to run against him is that his seat is not eminently winnable. I suspect Oregon will have Wyden and Smith in the Senate for the foreseeable future.
Matt - With his Democratic colleague Ron Wyden saying similar things does it really matter what American Progress / Century Foundation is doing?
Roberta - While Smith has done "a good job" on someb things - see the rural counties funding and his attempts at the Mt Hood wilderness purchase - I don't think too many will include his views on Iraq in that light -too little, too late and after the tea leaves of the 2006 election.
DeFazio could very likely beat him - if he could be persuaded to run. And we certainly don't need more lies about a full-on conservative like Smith being positioned as moderate by anybody.
Don N.
Comments closed June 26, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Excellent point here. Having just graduated from Reed College, I can attest that many Oregon progressives are working hard to defeat Sen. Smith in '08, emphasizing his longstanding support for the conservative GOP agenda. It doesn't help their cause when organizations in Washington paint Smith as a moderate!
Posted by Reid F. Capalino | June 12, 2007 11:39 AM