Encouraging

Now that the Republicans no longer have a complete stranglehold on our gov't... some of these cowards are able to speak out. The amount of coddling the Republicans receive daily by the 'press' is alarming (again shown in this piece).

Just as with Bush, the time for 'listening' and for speaking out has long passed. Only until these fakers are literally forced to play nice do they make some weak conciliatory moves. And the pundits have the gall to continually call the Democrats partisan? Please.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!

Gordon Smith is going to be the most prolific spending Senator to loose in '08 against a much less financed Democratic Candidate!!

I doubt any Democrat will need to spend evan half as much to win the seat. The biggest contest will be who get's to run. They don't beleive it yet, but by this time next year Gordon Smith is going to sound alot like a Retiring Senator from Oregon.

The lid will be coming off the sewer that has been Republican leadership in the Congress, and it will be uggggggggggly and poor Gordon will be fast running out of "um, uh's" when the election comes into focus!

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

P.S. : for real progressive debate go to "blueoregon.com" !!

Reminiscent of Lieberman...

When he dropped the big one on Clinton. The big difference is, Lieberman did it in front of his collegues, not in a nearly empty chamber for the sole purpose of 'going on the record'.

Joe's rejection of Clinton then triggered a defection of other Democratic senators. One by one they jumped ship following Joe's lead.

I'm wondering what would have happened if Smith did this in the presence of his fellow Republicans, if he would have had the guts to do it.

I think it would have been pretty ugly.

That's the danger

of sticking with the Party Line- when one finally has to come clean, it involves either admitting lying (in case your party retains power) or publicly displaying your stupidity in how slowly you've realized the truth.

Why

do we attack and belittle politicians when they come around to a more sensible position. They are still only politicians. IMHO we should accept the new voices joining in our chorus and move on. I believe a "thank you senator" followed by support and encouragement for him to share his new religion with his old colleagues would be nuch more fruitfull.

I hear ya...

I believe a person, even a Republican politician, can have a genuine change of heart.

I've seen this described elsewhere as "a rat jumping off a sinking ship."

I'm not ready to condemn Smith for his change in position. I think the chips are still falling.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!

Hey RockyMountainJoe;

I'm wondering if the air up there is the problem(TABOR), or is it the homophobia of the local anti-gay evangelicals that overlook 6 yrs of playing coy and voting our civil liberties to the wind, marching in lock step with a pair of draft dodging liars to a war thats left our nation's reputation in the pale, our taxdollars pillaged, and our military on it's last leg?

Gordon has never been a moderate, or evan a conservative, he has voted strictly the Neo-Con mantra, now he would like everybody to forgive, forget, oh and by the way could I have your vote!!!

I called his office many, many times and along with a majority of Oregonians were left out in the cold!!! Vote for Gordon is a vote for the corporate interest, and it's that simple, a Senator for rent!

I stand with and for Ron Wyden, the Honorable Senator from Oregon.

I agree with your motto Dan 100%,

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!

I am not advocating reelecting the guy. I have absolutely no knowledge of his voting record. I have met with Senator Allard's staff where I was met with smiles, coffee and a deaf ear. I've had Musgrave respond to my emails countless times with mindless drivel. I understand the frustration.

All I'm saying is if he wants to champion a more common sense line, let him have his say. Don't shut him up yet. He obviously has some support in your state or he wouldn't be in office. So let him 'lead' his supporters to a more reasoned awareness. They will listen to him when they would never even hear what we have to say. Then when he reverts back to his old insanity, that is the time to protest.

Oh yeah the air up here is crisp and clean. Maybe that's why we elected a democrat for governer and increased the control of both state houses. Red state my eye!!

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!

Hey RockyMountainJoe;

The point is his support has been staunch Republicans, fueled by his ties to the Mormon Church, and a deception that he's is moderate. He speaks slow, and has a sweet long smile on his face, along with his book about his son's terrible suicide, he has managed to portray himself to be something he certainly is not, moderate.

We have endured two terms, that have included his support of a Neo-Con Single Party takeover of our Democracy. He is part of the Neo-Con atrosities as much as any Republican in the party thats not in the White House and was proud of it until the War went south.

That he has come in our of the "acid rain" only means he accepts it's raining and it's acid; the problem is he should have stood up years ago before the rain when we begged and pleaded with him to be moderate. He would placate, and stall until the last second before a vote, and the same result would be inevitable, Neo-Con!

Gordon's support is a given as his Red territory is blueing on him as we speak, and he's in to deep to dig out now, I say let his record bury him.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

P.S. ; I would like to see Bill Bradbury take another run at him, our innovative, and honest Sec.of State in Oregon.

Two reasonable points

Joe makes a fair point that we shouldn't immediately shout someone like Smith down when they speak out against the war, even if they held a different position previously. Such criticism amounts to a fallacious response. It also doesn't serve the purpose of those who oppose the war.

On the other hand, when Smith provides a questionable account of his conversion, it's reasonable to challenge him. (This issue is also relevant when comparing him to other candidates, e.g., in a future re-election bid.) Given some of Smith's statements mentioned above, I take this MMFA item in that context.

I'm not sure

if some of that criticism was directed at me.

If so, I wasn't saying that a person should be condemned for changing their minds as time passes. Not at all, that's what thinking people do (though it's called "flip-flopping" by those with more "resolve").

My point was that if a person's change of opinion happens conveniently timed enough to warrant some scrutiny, they should get that scrutiny.

Otherwise we only encourage the already rampant (across the political spectrum) practice of "which way's the wind blowing" politics.

Actually...

I was distinguishing attacking the substance of what Smith has said recently regarding the war vs. questioning his sincerity. I believe Joe was pointing out that it's possible to attack the messenger to the point of attacking the message. For example, if Smith had simply pointed out that the war is a mess, to respond with criticism of the timing of his epiphany would be fallacious and damaging to the cause of those who oppose the war.

However, my second point was that Smith did more than point out the war is a mess. He also made comments regarding his epiphany, e.g., that he "woke up" one morning and "simply hit the end of the rope." (Yeah...sure.) On that point, this MMFA item is perfectly warranted.

My comments weren't intended as a personal indictment. I was just trying to clarify the debate. I guess I failed the first time around. I hope my second attempt makes more sense.

Do we then say no Republican

can have an epiphiny (except Jim Jeffords and possibly David Brock)?

I don't believe I said that

But the circumstances of Smith's epiphany seem suspect to me.

hmmm

This thread seems to have gone down the road of how to analyze and judge the shift in the senator's epiphany, given his history, etc.

My intent wasn't at all about whether to judge him harshly, or cut him any slack. (Although, I think that's where MM stepped off.)

My intention was simply to suggest that perhaps we could get more mileage out of the situation by not getting in the way of his sharing his new religion (but only while he remains on track), to an audience that would never consider hearing the truth about Iraq from any of us.

I could care less about his motivation, I don't trust any politician's motive. In a nutshell, they all only have one motive, power.

I think we need to focus on the bigger task of educating the masses, again, not the main purpose of MM, I know.

Not a new road

This thread seems to have gone down the road of how to analyze and judge the shift in the senator's epiphany, given his history, etc.

This road wasn't a diversion. That was the point of the MMFA item. I understand your point and agree that's it's a fair one. However, it's actually the tangent.

Hey, Dan

was the fact he is so conservative that Wyden made no public appearances against him in his last election cycle? I thought they made a big scene out of being an almost perfect team for Oregon.

Missing the point...

You're missing the point of MM's article (unless you're just bringing up a new topic.) The point that MM is making (from my reading) is that Smith may have already changed his mind before the election. If that's the case, then voters were essentially lied to when they went to the ballot. (What else is new?)

So the question that wasn't asked was Was Smith one of the Senators that approached Biden before the elections to say he was going to "flip flop?"