Why isn't he criticised for not putting his thoughts out before the election, which could have swayed another few seats?

Because of loyalty to party? That loyalty goes above and beyond American foreign policy debacles and apparently the lives of American soldiers.

Because of partisan attacks? If he said these things before the midterms, the only attacks he would be receiving would be from the nutjobs on the right. See current Gerald Ford commentary over at powerline, etc. This would have further hurt the pugs.

We should not be so quick to applaud these former cheerleaders, apologists, or backbenchers for now seemingly changing their stripes. They are opportunists and morally corrupt. They are poll watchers just as the pathetic Dems have been.

Smith's opposition in 2008 should point this out. Hopefully Shrum or Brazille will not be involved....

Ah Kevin-

Insert dittohead comment here.

A more charitable reading might be that, well, the prospect of facing re-election . . . focuses the mind in regards to these pressing issues.

But no, not too cynical.

Too cynical?

Kevin, once again you're being hypocritical. When Democrats changed their minds after the 2004 election and started repeating the talking point Iraq was in a civil war and was a disaster, did you attack them for saying those things for political gain? Nope, I didn't think so. But when Republicans start criticizing the Iraq war after the 2006 election, you immediately start questioning their motives. How hypocritical of you.

Al

The frozen peas king of Pendleton, the biggest mud-flinger to ever seek office in the great state of Oregon. If he is taking a stand, there is an ulterior motive. I don't know what it is, but I would bet my last dollar it was there.

Too cynical?

Hell no. I have zero patience with this. He woke up and another 10 were dead. Well, he may be sincere, he may be telling the truth... or not.

I don’t care. He’s been wrong for too long. We do not owe him a job. Nobody has behaved as though they owe me a job. If I performed as poorly as these Republicans who have enabled the President, I would expect to be fired. Fire him. He can find other work.

It’s easy to forget how horrible they have been for so long. Fire them.

Ah Al-

Listening to dittoheads on the AM: $0.00

Reading dittohead's inanity in blog comments while at work: $0.00

Reading a dittohead's mind and making of them your "straight man" bitch: priceless

Wait a minute! He was originally elected in 1996...So he is up for reelection in 2008, and Oregon is the most liberal state in the union, anti-war sentiment runs high, even out on the high desert these days, and the Willamette Valley is arguably the most liberal enclave in the country. I know Eugene is the least religious city in the nation (with amazingl low violent crime for a bunch of hethens) so there is his motive...Continued employment in a hostile political climate.

Good one, Muddy Mo. (*waving*)

either way, he's exploitable.

I think the criticism of self interest due to pending re-election concerns is fair; but for what its worth, I give a lot more credit to Gordon Smith than Conyn, Coleman or Sununu. If you watched Smith's speech, it sure seemed emotional, heartfelt and genuine; even if it should have come sooner. It had the feeling of being raw and out in front, not pedestrian cover your ass, below the radar, throwaway diatribe like the others. It is my understanding that he hand wrote his speech himself on a piece of notepaper that morning. Loudmouth Bush saps Cornyn and Coleman certainly have no credibility whatsoever.

And all of them, coincidentally, are Senate Republicans who are up for re-election in 2008. Too cynical?

I don't see a big problem with public opinion influencing politicians views per se.

In the case of Mitt Romney--for example--abandoning a more tolerant view of homosexual rights in order to improve his prospects in the Republican primaries, the public as a whole is in position to judge the character of his shift.

The same is true for Senator Smith. Except that Smith's character does not appear to be as vulnerable to ridicule as Romney's.

Not everything is done for underhanded reasons. I was opposed to this Administrations ludicrous approach to Iraq all along. I am glad for any converts. Just remember, this fiasco was caused by bad policy, not poor execution of good policy.

This from little ole jim was so dead on--let's hear it again:

He’s been wrong for too long. We do not owe him a job. Nobody has behaved as though they owe me a job. If I performed as poorly as these Republicans who have enabled the President, I would expect to be fired. Fire him. He can find other work.

It’s easy to forget how horrible they have been for so long. Fire them.

I too value every convert, but I know this one. I was in Oregon during the Brugerre/Smith race for Hatfields old seat, and that was the nastiest senate contest I had ever witnessed (and held that dubious honor until this year, when Talent went negative against McCaskill).

That is why I can't rush headlong to embrace his new-found disgust with war after the cheerleading he did prior. And by the way, going over the top is par for the course for Smith. He does everything for maximum effect.

I agree with ole jim. In the end, it doesn't matter that much how cynical this stand may be: right is right, and if repubs want to run on the side of being human beings with a conscience, I don't think we should be ipso facto against that.

Where are thethirdpaul and our other Oregonians? What say you?

Too cynical? About the motives of politicians? Republican politicians?

I can't wait for your observations about used cars salesmen.

Cynical.

But on the other hand, they've seen the writing on the wall - lockstep doesn't save when you're walking with someone who is wrong.

So Bush should have violated U.S. law and U.N. sanctions, abandoned the no-fly zones and let Saddam kill the rest of the Kurds?
Is he challenging the legality of the mission to oust Iraq from Kuwait? That was the legal basis of everything that follows.

What say you?

What are you internalizing there? The only person who says that is...is...

Norman lives inside me, Pale.

I can't help it--with all his faults, he compels me.

We must consult with Cardinal McGonackle and ask him to perform an exorcism. Hopefully, the diocese will help us out...

Sorry--couldn't hear you because my head was on backwards for a moment. Excuse me while I expel this can of Campbell's Split Pea.

A politician changing his stance on an issue in deference to public opinion before an upcoming election is democracy in action. It's a good thing.

You know, a gentleman holds a lady's hair back while she sprays the room with horrorshow pea soup in a 360-degree arc...

*Sigh. I miss Norman. He popped in yesterday but he only called me hormonal once, and he only called Shorstop Short Drop once or twice. The old goat just wasn't himself, it didn't seem. I do hope he isn't failing.

Ah, Kevin.

Senator Gordon's behavior doesn't surprise me; look at what state he's from. At best, he sounds like a RINO, just like others of his ilk.

The fact as the matter is that things are improving in Iraq. We need look no farther than the article you linked to in your previous post. Several of the servicemen and women interviewed for the article stated that things were getting better. This, in an article clearly skewed to make this sound like they are going horribly wrong in Iraq.

Sorry, you guys have nothing.

Why do the wingnuts believe that Kevin wrote this post?

Oregon is blue and getting bluer. Smith is the only Republican to hold state-wide office for quite some time now. He sees the handwriting on the wall. This is pure politics.

OTOH, Oregon Dems will still need to find a candidate. And that could bhe a problem. Kitzhaber seems like the natural choice, but he doesn't want the job. DeFazio is possible, but not likely. Bluemanuer is the most likely, but is not that well known.

The task is to force these guys to vote. We have to prevent them from doing the Lieberman shuffle--of saying vague "let's get the boys home" things to confuse voters about their positions.

There are 21 senators up in 08, and every single one of them is at risk because of the war. Given the president's commitment to still have a very large military presence until his term is over, these 21 senators are the most important participants in the political process regarding the war.

This is their war, too. They backed the president to the hilt, conducted no oversight, rubberstamped every budget request (even allowing them all to be "supplemental"). It's not going to be easy to back away without doing something concrete--like override a presidential veto.

Escalation is a disaster for them, because it will just makes things worse. But can they possibly vote against a resolution expressing opposition to escalation? Can they possibly vote against a resolution seeking a timetable?

Make 'em sweat.

Beware wolves in sheeps clothing.

Ah fake egbert

just nAh't that funny anymore.

I have often wondered what the new 'Bush is not a god' direction on the right will do to Dennis Millers career.

I never really cared for him, he seemed to be something of a whichever way the windblows kind of guy.

I would love to jump in and say that Senator Gordon Smith was motivated purely by the coming election. However, I do feel that having so many Oregon and Southwest Washington troops serving in the Middle East, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, from Oregon National Guard and Army Reserve units must have weighed on him. He has tried to pass off the deaths of so many by telling the parents that he hoped, some day, they would come to realize that Bush was right. Many have fired back at him - There was a letter to the Oregonian following his Senate speech, where the parents of a recently killed soldier strongly chastised him because he had not spoken out sooner and had given them that Bush line.

However, in Oregon, he is well funded. As a Mormon, he was against assisted suicide. He has followed the will of the people, though. I don't believe he joined with Brownback to overturn it. He has played a more moderate game in regards to the environment and was given backing by gay leaders in his last election. By staying more moderate, he has not alienated as many of the Western Oregonians as a far right type would. A Brownback would wither here. If he continues this veer from the right, while many will view it as calculated, memories over two years have a habit of fading.

I would like to see my representative, Earl Blumenhauer, run against him. However, it will take a war chest and will not be an easy fight.

Here is a link to a post that lists all of the senators in Class II, complete with links to contact them.

For a counterpoint, see Democrat Ed Koch's article, Why President Bush is a Hero
. Excerpt:

The President does what he believes to be in the best interest of the United States. He sticks with his beliefs, no matter how intense the criticism and invective that are directed against him every day.

The enormous defeat President Bush suffered with the loss of both Houses of Congress has not caused him to retreat from his position that the U.S. alone now stands between a radical Islamic takeover of many of the world’s governments in the next 30 or more years. If that takeover occurs, we will suffer an enslavement that will threaten our personal freedoms and take much of the world back into the Dark Ages....

These dreamers naively believe that if we feed the wolves what they demand, they will go away. But that won’t happen. Appeasement never works.

I'm also in Oregon. I know the man well. Gordon Smith does NOTHING without political calculation. He is aiming for 2008.

The man voted with Bush 95% of the time. Occasionally, if the votes were already solid Repub, Karl Rove would let him vote against type.

That said, Smith is capital R. F him.
--

PS: Smith said prior to the election that... " Democrats are nothis constituents. Democrats are socialists."

Ed Koch believes that Islamo Airlines offers special two way fares - A traveller first flys to Mecca, spends a few days and then boards another 747 for a one way flight to New York.

He must use mirrors to inspect under his bed at night.

Ed is a 9/11 Republican ala Ron Silver.

"The enormous defeat President Bush suffered with the loss of both Houses of Congress has not caused him to retreat from his position that the U.S. alone now stands between a radical Islamic takeover of many of the world’s governments in the next 30 or more years. If that takeover occurs, we will suffer an enslavement that will threaten our personal freedoms and take much of the world back into the Dark Ages...."

You've got to be kidding.

Jay in Oregon,

Thanks for that Post Script - We cancelled the Oregonian the day after they endorsed the Pub candidate for Guv - So, I missed that comment.

He has proven that one can be red in the east, but win as purple in the west - We need a solid blue to beat him in the west - You made good points about the calculations - This is why he has been able to pass himself off as purple in the western part of the state.

Chris: "Hopefully Shrum or Brazille will not be involved ..."

Those political advisors who can, do. Those who can't, become pundits. Either way, it's heads they win, tails we lose.

Questioning his motives?

Why is it that Democrats hate winning so much? When you've beaten an opponent into submission and he totally caves and crosses over to your side--welcome him!

Even if he is a shmoe.

He said he had decided not to speak out before the midterm elections, both out of political loyalty and a fear

In other words, I'm happy to support a horrible policy that is killing American service personel for absolutely no reason because it is politically beneficial to me.

Unfortunately, this prick is one of my senators. One whom I have repeatedly called and written and participated in events to get him to act. But only when it benefits him he speaks up.

Sorry Senator Smith, you've got a long ways to go before you gain any credibitliy on this issue.

thethirdPaul: "I would like to see my representative, Earl Blumenhauer, run against [Sen. Smith]."

With a name like that, his supporters would need at least an 18-inch bumper sticker.

QiaB - it's that this is a schmoe we know, and he is a vile, contemptible schmoe to boot.

Poor ex-liberal -- reduced to quoting a closeted, bitter old queen.

Of course, I'll cut you some slack this time, but only because your party's closeted, bitter old queen, Mark Foley, is still locked away in rehab and is unavailable for comment.

And, of course, he's also no longer in the closet.

What do Republicans do with "pricks" like this? They have them keynote national conventions.

Instead of questioning his motives, anti-war types should be pointing and hollering, "See? Even this guy knows Bush is wrong!" And they should hop to it before the escalation is peddled to the public.

Back in November, BlueOregon highlighted the key role played by Oregon's Gordon Smith in restoring Trent Lott to the Republican leadership in the Senate. Now, the December 18th issue of the New Republic offers the rich backstory on Smith's indispensable help in resurrecting the disgraced Lott at the expense of the milquetoast Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander:

"But then, Oregon Senator Gordon Smith rose to give a nominating speech for Lott. Smith's address was deeply emotional: He described Lott's honorable character and talked about the possibility of redemption. He even quoted from Mark Antony's funeral oration in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. The room fell silent; Lott wept. When the doors opened, Lott had been elected minority whip by a single vote."

With his own political future at stake in 2008, Smith may yet come to regret hitching his wagon to the neo-Confederate Lott...

For the details, see:
"Gordon Smith and the Resurrection of Trent Lott."

However, that hairpiece is heinous, I must say.

ex-liberal: "Appeasement never works."

Neither does your ignorance.

Walter E. Wallis: Is he challenging the legality of the mission to oust Iraq from Kuwait? That was the legal basis of everything that follows.

Kuwait!? Talk about grasping at straws...

No, he's not challenging the "legality of the mission to oust Iraq from Kuwait". If you listened to his speech you'd realize that what he's challenging a horrible screwed up policy and strategy that has used any number of excuses and (at least in retrospect) false pretenses.

And no, it wasn't the "legal basis of everything that follows"; that was a minor footnote. The primary "legal basis" as promulgated by the administration, and as articulated in the UN charter, was the purported imminent danger to the United States of America, and our right to defend ourselves against such. That was the primary basis for preemptive action.

Donald from Hawaii: Poor ex-liberal -- reduced to quoting a closeted, bitter old queen.

One reason I'm uncomfortable having moved to conservatism is that the Republican party includes more homophobes. Donald's post makes me feel better. The Republicans don't have all of them.

Steve, you may, or may not, be a little cynical about John Cornyn.

Texas is a red state, tis true, but Cornyn doesn't have the affability of Head Cheerleader, otherwise known as Kay Bailey Hutchison.

That said, Cornyn would still be the favorite in 2008, but backing off the war could help.

OTOH, we do have a number of military bases in Tejas, so Big John is prolly going to be doing some straddling on this issue.

I live in Oregon and have since 1984, so I know a bit about the landscape here. Smith is not stupid. He knows that Iraq will still be an open, sucking chest wound in 2008 and his vote authorizing this castrophuck (tm Jon Stewart) will be hung around his neck by one of the following Dem heavyweights running for his job:

Earl Blumenauer (current US House rep)
John Kitzhaber (former 2-term governor)
Peter DeFazio (current US House rep)
Ted Kulongski (current Governor)

There could be others. Gordo is the only Republican senator from a west coast state and the DSCC will be gunning for him in 2008. Whomever wins the Dem primary will be rolling in DSCC cash and ready to hang Gordo's Bush-loving, rubber stamp voting record around his neck.

The majority of this state's populace is sick of sending our National Guard troops to Iraq and watching them come back dead or dismembered. Iraq is a stupendous problem for Gordo.

When I lived in the Valley (is there another one besided the Willamette?) joining the Guard was just what was done after highschool; because Oregon catches fire and the Guard is a huge part of the contingent that battles wildfires. It was just a given. And this ain't what those kids had in mind.

It's impossible to be too cynical.

These dreamers naively believe that if we feed the wolves what they demand, they will go away. But that won’t happen. Appeasement never works.

I agree. And that's why the Republican party must be destroyed.

Indeed, ex-lib, your Ed Koch excerpt is a frightening example of group-think gone mad, and a stern warning againts appeasing Republicans. Thank you!

and Oregon is the most liberal state in the union

Umm, not by a long shot anymore. I recall when we were a progressive example to both CA and WA, but the tables have been turned. Both southern and eastern OR are very conservative these days. Dems can win but it's never a sure thing.

Coos Bay as lad, Eugene as adult, via the world.

Been in oregon for several decades. Smith is an opportunistic ass.
He's smart enough to tell the truth when he needs to, but he's no Morse.

Probably need Kitzhaber to take him out for sure. I Knew Kitzhaber's mother in the LWV and wish we didn't have to sacrifice him to the effort.

I haven't lived in Oregon for several years, adn when I visit, I vist the valley. I knew that the high desert was conservative in the libertarian mold, but had no idea that in the decade i've been away it had changed so. Good to know, and thanks for the update.

BTW: Even though I've been away for a decade, I still drink 3 quad-shots a day. Which might explain why I am still awake and working on next semesters syllabus at 4:00 am...

I'm late to the party, but to toss in my two cents worth: The fact that any Republicans continue to support Bush on this godawful war indicates that Reagan's 11th Commandment ("Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican") is still operative.

Let's face it, folks - Republicans are lemmings. There are very few free thinkers (maybe Tancredo), but most will follow the leader over the cliff. Democrats are much more independent, which is both their greatest strength and their greatest political weakness...

too naive more like it since one cannot be too cynical when it comes to assessing the motivations of a politician up for re-election. Words of advice: the waitress is only flirting with you cause she wants a big tip.

The biggest cynic was ol' Joementum himself, who waited until after the election to call for more troops.

Cynical? Not really, just rats abandoning a sinking ship.

Ultimately, Smith represents Oregon.

While the far right Republicans and the Bush White House were in control of the Senate and the House, Smith's power would have been stripped if he had come forward with such statements.

With the loss of power by the Republicans, Smith no longer has the risk of losing power by such statements and actually stands to gain power with the Democrats in control.

Add to that the fact he represents a moderate electorate in Oregon, it was a wise move and probably properly timed.

Having lost a son to suicide, I am sure the loss of other young people by families in the nation was disturbing for him.

No doubt it helps his re-election, and it may have been a factor, but it probably was not the sole factor and probably not the moving factor. Sometimes good policy has its benefits, but we cannot impute that those benefits were the sole basis of policy.

So Quaker wants me to, essentially, embrace Sen. Smith's position as it is the politically smart thing to do.

Hmm, lets see after hours of prodding, many many phone calls, plea's for reason, meetings or simply at the very least acknowledgement of our position, we were continually treated as pariah's and lunatics. I had friends arrested for simply trying to get a meeting with Sen. Smith (nothing aggressive, just refusing to move until he agreed to speak with us). Hung up on, laughed at, insulted in form letters, scorned and passively promoted as "traitors," and now that Smith is making a politicaly smart and self-serving move, I am supposed to brush it all off?

Politically smart thing to do? Maybe, but sorry, I am railing on him for making a self-serving political move, last thing I'm going to do is the same. Let him acknowledge my efforts, let him apologize to his constituents for his behavior, then I will consider coming to the table to break bread.

Politics is ugly, maybe I should give him a big-'ol bear hug for to make some progress, but how is this process going to change if there is no accountability? Accountability in the sense of having consequences for past actions, not simply saying "I was wrong" and being forgiven and moving on.

This isn't a grudge match, this is about people being accountable for their actions.

Is being complicit and holding your tongue "criminal"? I believe that is called an "accessory", that is was done for political reasons is worse

I don't think it's too cynical.

And a good response to these fellows would be "Hey, thanks for coming out in support of our views--it's the right thing to do, and we appreciate your honesty and support. We're sure you understand the impact of your taking so long to come to this point, and we know you won't mind if we replace you with a democrat in the next election. But best of luck from then on."

Ed Koch is the Democrat the same way Lieberman is a Democrat. The substance of his argument is that if we leave Iraq, there might be a bloodbath in Iraq, and the Saudis might cut their price of oil in half - which um, is good for us, right? And he frames the argument as a neo-domino theory - which was proven to be a fallacy in Southeast Asia, right? But he concludes that if the Iraqi gov. doesn't accede to our demands, we should leave. His words: "Goodbye. You're on your own." So we should stay, because world domination by evil hangs in the balance, but we should also leave if necessary? He says so many conflicting things that it's hard to follow his logic, and hard to take what he says seriously.

And I agree with Quaker in a Basement - the flock is turning against the shepherd - we should welcome another vote for sanity.

here's smith's final speech of 2006.

Not cynical enough, Steve. Norm Coleman is self-interest personified. As St.Paul mayor, Coleman switched parties when he saw his personal advancement blocked by people with more credentials and experience. After backing Bush in 2000, Coleman was personally selected by Rove to run a doomed campaign against hugely popular Paul Wellstoone in 2002. Trailing in the polls, Coleman hitched his star 100% to a negative attack ad campaign of the RNC, and was the beneficiary of Wellstone's death a week before the election.

Coleman was immediately named chair of the Senate Special Committee on Investigations where he has refused to investigate anything much, except Kofi Annan. Voting against ANWAR drilling was his only concession to a possibly liberal position, but he had recently let it be known that he didn't much care to repeat that mistake. Democrat Amy Klobuchar just won the open Minnesota Senate seat by a 20% margin. Is Coleman's switch from unwavering support of everything Bush to expressing doubts about Iraq all about 2008? Of course, but rather than helping him, it only adds to his reputation as a slimy character who temporarily occupies a Senate seat that belongs to a Democrat. He's toast.

Coleman, Sununu, and Smith know if there are still troops in Iraq on election day 2008 they will lose.
There will be an endless stream of blue state Republicans entreating their constituents that they were always secretly against this war.