Gordo's Fish-Fucking Ways, In Legislative Detail

Yesterday, we disinterred a TV ad Gordon Smith would probably prefer you'd forgotten about, featuring Klamath Basin farmers praising Smith for dealing with the bureaucrats and getting their water turned back on. Given the stink that's settling over the decision process to overrule the Endangered Species Act, Smith should want no part of a record where he eagerly took credit for getting the water going again, after having appealed directly to President Bush and Karl Rove for help. Alas, he hasn't had to answer many questions about that record...yet.

The supporters in the Smith ad praise him for not taking No for an answer, and certainly when not practicing his apparent evening job as a species hydrologist, Smith spent many days in Congress during the 107 Congress coming up with any number of ways to denude or subvert the intention of the Endangered Species Act, the mission of which is simply to prevent species from becoming extinct. We have not given this compendium of Smith bill activity during 2001 and 2002 the absolute fine-toothed comb treatment, but then again we haven't had to, in order to find any number of ham-handed ways he tried to lean the process in favor of the farmers and not existing law or the latest science.

For instance--remember I told you about the codicile Smith had placed in a bill in 2001, attempting to automatically elevate peer-reviewed data over that which was not? It sounds innocuous, but that was precisely the premise used by the National Academy of Sciences panel to refuse consideration of the "Hardy Phase II" flow study the original water decisions were based on. Because the study was considered a "draft," the NAS panel ruled in January 2002 that they could not accept it as the best available science. And on February 5, Smith tried to codify that very premise into not just a clause on another bill, but into its own law. (And before I leave the subject of that prior codicile, the rest of the bill also sought to bypass a mandatory Secretary of Interior review when planned actions potentially threatened critical habitat. Nice.)

Smith led the charge in compensating farmers and water distributors who lost money during the shortage, and most of the state delegation surely felt obligated to join him. Colleague Ron Wyden cosigned onto a bill to reimburse the water assessment fees and lost revenue to water providers who'd experienced shutoffs in the spring of 2001. However, even though the water was soon turned back on, everybody was also credited back for the whole year, to the tune of $5 million.

My favorite manipulation of the US Code to get money to Klamath farmers was in August 2001. Smith proposed to include under natural disaster relief status "any application of the Endangered Species Act that, in the determination of the President, causes economic hardship of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this Act.'" As in, say, giving water to fish under ESA instead of farmers. Floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and failed potato crops from rerouting the water--you know, natural disasters.

Just in general, Smith seemed to have it in for the fish. Apparently he didn't want Indian tribes messing things up for the farmers either; he proposed that if the Secretary of Interior designated a migrating fishway that utilities then had to account for, he or she then had to listen to proposed alternatives to the fishway, despite having already reached the conclusion to have the fishway in order to protect the habitat. He doesn't even want them spawning, dammit!

Heck, even as far back as 1998, Smith (and his House counterpart at the time Bob Smith) were threatening the government that they couldn't accept the idea that fish might get water when farmers don't:

"The Interior Department's latest water use plan is not the answer. We should keep working with the federal government to find a balance that recognizes the economic needs of southern Oregonians. This plan just doesn't get us there. It threatens our collaborative efforts and the Klamath Basin's agricultural community," Chairman Smith said.

"The Klamath Basin community has made significant inroads toward resolving difficult water rights problems in the region. A heavy hand from the federal government will only frustrate this progress. Water use in southern Oregon is too important to settle for what is at best a divisive issue," Senator Smith said.

But the king-daddy of them all, his 9th Symphony of legislative effort, was Amendment 899 to the House Interior appropriations bill of 2001. His speech on the floor dramatizes just where he's coming from when the contest is fish vs farmers, science vs emotion. His proposal? Ignore the decision and court rulings; go back to the way it was 10 years ago, when the fish didn't get first crack at the water, the farmers did. That's it--just turn back the clock and pretend no rulings or evaluative science had ever occurred. The amendment failed, but just barely, 52-48. Ballsy as it is, it may have been the most legislatively rational thing he tried. He recognized the ESA rulings as anathema to his goals, so he proposed simply repealing it. Honest, maybe, but we can still hold him accountable.

Some extended snippets from the Congressional Record as Smith introduced his amendment to turn back time to a simpler era, when we didn't give a shit if the fish lived or died, as long as people could grow potatoes (bless you Thomas.gov):

I am the first Senator to be elected from Oregon who comes from its rural parts--eastern Oregon--in 70 years. I represent all of my State, but I have a special passion to represent those rural parts that I have watched be devastated for too long by Federal action. I believe the Endangered Species Act is a noble act with noble purposes, but I believe it is being used by some to very ignoble ends.

My actions today are not to subvert the Endangered Species Act. This is not reform. This is an act asking that its terms be implemented in a way that will relieve genuine human suffering in a way that may prevent the violence that has already been visited upon Federal property in a contest between farmers and the Bureau of Reclamation for the essential ingredient to life in the West, and that is water.

What has happened to the community of Klamath Falls, by conservative estimates, will cost that county $200 million. I thank the Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and others, who helped me to get $20 million of relief to these people. Obviously, it is 10 percent of what is needed, even by conservative estimates.

.........

But now what we are doing is we are raising this lake 3 feet--it is a very big lake, very shallow, but it is being raised 3 feet--and cutting off all the water to farmers and fowl. It is being done to save the suckerfish, and now, while it is being saved, it is warming up. So the coho salmon that will soon be returning expecting to receive the cool waters of the Klamath will receive waters the temperature of a swimming pool. So, potentially, even the coho salmon--which is also a listed species--could be adversely affected by this biological opinion.

Well, there are two agencies of the Federal Government that are competing. One biological opinion is Fish and Wildlife with regard to the suckerfish. The other is the biological opinion of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Commerce Department that affects the coho salmon.

Both biological opinions essentially ask for 100 percent of the water which means cutting off 100 percent of the people.

The point I want to make is that would not be necessary if the Federal Government over the last 8 years would have kept its part of the bargain and done what it could to mitigate the impact to the sucker so that farmers would not be victimized.

What I do is simply reinstate the previous biological opinions that were in effect before this spring until the Federal Government can complete action on numerous recommendations of its 1993 recovery plan. Again, they were not acted upon over the last 8 years. Why? They say budgetary reasons.

I want this to be a priority. I want the budget to fix this problem. I do not want the whole budget burden thrown on the backs of rural people, but that is what was decided to be done.

.......

This is the land, the valley. I do not know whether my colleagues can see it, but this couple is overlooking the Klamath Basin--farms being developed, hay being raised, corn being raised, potatoes being raised that fill our shelves today. Look at the hopes and dreams in the faces of these people.

This is a little girl at an assembly of people at a rally a few weeks ago. Her sign says: ``Mommy says I can't eat, but fish can.''

That is what we are driving them to, and it is not right because they are being told they are of lesser value under our law than the shortnosed sucker.

This is a picture of the shortnosed sucker. It is a bottom-feeding fish. It lives in this shallow lake. It has gone through many droughts along with the farmers. It has survived, stressed, I am sure, just as humans are stressed in conditions of drought.

I am not saying this fish has no value. I have never thought the suckerfish is very good looking, but it has a mother, and that mother, I am sure, loves this fish. I know the Native Americans in this area value this fish, and I am not suggesting in any way that we are not interested in saving this fish.

I am saying the purpose of the Endangered Species Act was not to engage in a process of rural cleansing, of throwing off their property people who had been given great promise and hope for the future. They are meeting the mailmen with foreclosure notices because the Federal Government decided it is going to breach its promise.

Torrid Goes Nationwide (Briefly) on Air America Wed

Yay. After a couple weeks of waiting and watching to see if the slightest sniff of recognition passed the noses of the regular media, we're upping the ante a little. Wednesday morning KPOJ stalwart Thom Hartmann is going to give me a little time to remind America about Cheney and Rove's meddling in Oregon's elections to protect the vulnerable Gordon Smith, how Smith was deeply involved in the temporary triumph of politics over science, and how ordinary people can help keep our representatives accountable as bloggers.

You can of course listen live to AM 620 if you're within earshot of their Portland studios, tune in to one of the affiliated stations nationwide airing Thom, or stream it live from their page. I'm scheduled for shortly after 10AM, after the news.

This is a great opportunity to reinforce Gordon Smith's national profile as a vulnerable candidate, and why he should be replaced based on examples like the Klamath fiasco. If Cheney's role in Klamath is worth an investigation, and Senators like Doc Hastings and Pete Domenici can be under scrutiny for their active roles in another scandal of political end-aroundism, why isn't Smith's prominent role in a plan that was ultimately declared illegal worth discussing at dinner tables in Des Moines?

Thanks to Thom Hartmann and his staff for giving us the opportunity to be a voice in the debate! Think of the stature your words will gain with friends and neighbors when you don't have to say "I heard on a blog about Gordon Smith that he..." and watch their noses crinkle when you say "blog"--you can say "I heard it on talk radio" instead, and they will immediately accept it as gospel. I don't care whether you listen or not; just pretend you did when you spread the word about our little faux-moderate. Enabler's too light a label for Smith; Klamath proves he's part of the rot.

Gordon Takes Credit for Carrying Their Water

Listen to what people were saying in 2002 about Gordon Smith's involvement in the Klamath water fiasco:

Some say you can't fight the federal government...they should meet Gordon Smith.

Water's our problem--and bureaucrats.

He took it straight to Bush.

He wouldn't take no for an answer.

That's Gordon. He stood up for us.

Gordon Smith carried our water.

Wow, for someone who wants to avoid scrutiny on this re-bubbling topic, those statements have to be a little inconvenient right now, don't they? The way these people tell it, when Gordon Smith found out that "bureaucrats" (read: federal biologists) wanted to give Klamath River water to fish instead of farmers, he not only got involved, he went right to the head of scientific inquiry in the US--President Bush! And somehow, though Republicans have been famous for taking whatever answer the President gives them, this time Smith wouldn't budge! He carried their water.

Could these people be any more obvious with what they're saying? Whatever it was that got the decision turned around in Washington to overrule the fish and slake the land's thirst instead, the people saying these things believe that Gordon Smith was instrumental in getting it done. Who could have put them up to say such things?

How about Gordon Smith?

Forgive the video quality, but the audio for this 2002 Smith re-election ad is crystal clear...right down to the sound of the irrigation sprinkler at the very end. Out of 30 precious seconds to the admen, almost five of them have that sound, and it's no mistake. There are only two things Gordon Smith really wanted his Klamath constituency to retain from that viewing experience: the name Gordon Smith, and chsh-chsh-chsh-chsh-chsh. It's like he's bragging to the farmers--"I got your water turned on, don't forget me this fall." Chsh chsh chsh.

Cracks of Light In The O (From Others) on Smith

We're not beating our heads against the wall yet, given that it's very early and we've only just started discussing it--but the mainstream notice of Smith's role in the Klamath fiasco has been minimal to negligent, at best. I have yet to see a single piece (link in the comments if you have) that mentions Smith's role in any way other than as passive beneficiary. That may change; we've got something to show you Monday that makes a strong visual case for portraying his direct involvement in getting the scientific conclusions overturned in favor of farm interests. And we're negotiating a chance to bring the story to a national audience outside the blogosphere, and of course if that happens we'll let you know.

OK, when I said there hasn't been a single piece that mentions Smith's active involvement, I meant a news piece instigated by reporters and/or editors. But there has in fact been a little indirect penetration on the issue, as The O allowed a regular citizen to make the case in their pages on Thursday:

Your editorial "Cheney and the Klamath salmon kill" (June 30) rightly took Vice President Dick Cheney to task for his illegal meddling in the 2002 Klamath Basin water issue. In chastising Cheney, however, you failed to even mention the direct involvement of either Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., or former Oregon politician-turned-lobbyist Bob Smith.

Were it not for the aggressive involvement of these two Oregon men, Cheney and Karl Rove would not have broken the law to supply scarce Klamath waters at the expense of endangered salmon and coastal fishery jobs.

The Oregonian too often gives Smith a pass, pointing to his occasional breaks with his Republican Party and painting him as some sort of genuine political moderate. He should not be let off the hook on the Klamath episode.

The Oregonian ought to dig a little deeper and shine the light on Oregon officials when they are playing a direct or complicit role in the Bush administration's unethical and illegal affairs.

CHRIS BECK Lake Oswego

Chris Beck, I've never met you but I think I love you. I couldn't have written it better myself. That's the rational view; also appearing in Thursday's edition was the scientific view from Steve Pederey, conservation director of Oregon Wild and an active observer during the period under scrutiny. Steve doesn't call Smith out specifically (and in fact kind of avoids it in the same way as the regular media) but he's certainly pointing at the methods Smith seems culpable for:

A Washington Post investigation uncovered Cheney's role in this tragedy, finding that he personally called natural resources managers to demand that they cut water for salmon during a drought year to favor agribusiness interests. According to the Post, Cheney wanted to reward political allies and help Republican Sen. Gordon Smith win re-election in Oregon.

That wasn't the first time politicians have sacrificed the Klamath's fish and wildlife to achieve political goals. In 2003, The Wall Street Journal found that the political motives of White House adviser Karl Rove, not science, had driven federal decisions in the Klamath. And in 2002, Oregon Rep. Greg Walden killed a $175 million restoration bill for the Klamath that would have benefited both salmon and farmers.

Today the Klamath Basin stands at a crossroads. This most recent scandal and the coming investigations into Cheney's actions are yet another example of why Congress needs to act to resolve the environmental crisis facing the Klamath. Continuing to leave the region's fish and wildlife at the mercy of politics is a recipe for disaster. It's appalling that the vice president used his influence to overturn science-based decisions that resulted in the largest fish kill in Northwest history. But it's even more appalling that five years after that fish kill little has been done to prevent a repeat.

If there's one example of Smith being a part of the effort to flip science on its head, here's a quote from the Klamath Herald News in April 2001 that we ran in our original story on the fish kill fiasco. It both sums up Smith's knowledge and support of Cheney's machinations, and actually explains how Cheney plans to use politics to trump science:

"Dick Cheney stopped that order from coming down," Smith said. "He ordered the biologists back to Washington" to see if there were some way to get around the conclusion that all available water must go to protect endangered suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and threatened coho salmon in the lower Klamath River.

And when Cheney and Rove got the water turned back on, they let Gale Norton and Smith take the credit...and Smith even bragged about the accomplishment later.

Will anyone ask him about this example of his ideological marriage to the Bush administration? Will you?

LO Files FOIA Requests on Smith's Involvement in Fish Kill

As of today I have filed five Freedom of Information Act requests with various agencies of the federal government, asking each for their communications received by or sent to Senator Gordon Smith between February 2001 and March 2002. The intent is to discover the extent of Smith's active role in the decisions leading to the worst adult salmon fish kill in recorded Western history.

The requests have gone to:

• The US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 (OR) and HQ separately
  (FWS was responsible for decisions regarding the suckerfish under the Endangered Species Act, and participated in the initial ruling that cut water to farmers)
  
• The National Marine Fisheries Service, part of NOAA
  (NMFS was responsible for the same decisions as above, concerning coho salmon)
  
• The Department of Interior, Secretary's Office and Inspector General's Office separately
  (Interior Secretary Gale Norton oversaw the agencies involved in making the Klamath call; her Deputy Chief of Staff was cited in the WaPo series on Cheney as the woman "handling" the issue for DOI. The Inspector General issued a short finding of no influence in 2003 in response to a request for investigation by Senator Kerry)

A total of five requests have been sent. I have asked for a rolling return of items, meaning they'll send me what they have as they find it--but I'm not holding my breath. They are supposed to respond within 20 working days as to their ability to comply; the actual time to receive anything could be months, and what we get back could be exactly nothing. But you don't find out if you don't try.

Below is an example of one of the letters:

July 3, 2007
Office of the Secretary
Sue Ellen Sloca
MS-120, SIB
1951 Constitution Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20240

Ms Sloca:
Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, I am requesting copies of all correspondence from February 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002 with U.S. Senator Gordon Smith and his staff regarding water use, endangered species protections or agricultural irrigation in the Klamath River water basin.

This request includes communications from the Senator, his Senate Washington D.C. and Oregon offices and any members of his campaign committees, as well as all officials within your office. Communications covered include, but are not limited to, mail correspondence, email, facsimiles or phone logs.

For your purposes in filling this request, please consider me under the category of “all other organizations,” as defined by the Freedom of Information Act. If there are any fees for copying or searching for the records I have requested, please inform me of the cost prior to searching or copying, and only if the total exceeds $40.

If all or any part of this request is denied, please cite the specific exemption which you believe justifies your refusal to release the information and inform me of your agency's administrative appeal procedures available to me under the law.

Please provide all information on a rolling basis if possible. I appreciate your handling of this request as quickly as possible and I look forward to hearing from you within 20 working days, as the law stipulates. I can be reached at the email address "loadedorygun@gmail.com", or by phone at (xxx) xxx-xxxx if there any questions about my request.
Sincerely,
[torridjoe--no, I did not put that down!]

Novick Threatens 200K for Quarter, and Threatens it Good

Well, they sure do count fast over at Novick Central:

Today Steve Novick for U.S. Senate announced that the campaign had raised over $190,000 in the second quarter and was adding two paid staff, Jake Weigler as campaign manager and Aviva Groner as its finance coordinator.

“It is great that so many people share our vision of how to help Gordon Smith to a well-deserved retirement,” said Novick. “The fact that over 600 of them have already contributed to our campaign is a clear signal that we are well on our way.”

Ah yes, the other news is the apparatus. Weigler did a fine job in his prior role as Deputy Communcations Director for GuvTed as the parade of bills made their way from the dome to Mahonia, and Groner is a veteran of successful campaigns.

Regardless of whether he plans to run an insurgency-style campaign or not, Novick is surrounding himself with known players in the Oregon Democratic sphere. As he attempts to transition from "friends and family money" to stranger money, the comfort level with those professionals--particularly Groner--will be important. According to Novick's release, Cliff Trow, former Corvallis State Senator and leader of the Senate Democrats from 1996 to 1999 said, “Steve's campaign is clearly gathering momentum around the state. Those of us who worked with Steve when he was chief of staff to the Democrats in the State Senate know how good he is at building a team and generating energy and excitement. That's what he did for us in 1997 and '98, and that's what he's doing now.”

There's a long way to go, and now that the 1st tier group has abdicated the race there appears to be no shortage of folks considering a run. Among speculated newcomers are Jeff Merkley and Paul Evans, adding to the four or five other potential candidates already said to be mulling and ruminating. Who actually enters will have an impact on how Steve positions himself and what kind of campaign he'll run.

Of anyone mentioned, Merkley changes the game the most by placing a traditional Democrat with the traditional resume' and strong Portland ties into the fray. As someone said elsewhere, the debates could approach Lincoln-Douglas stature. But it would also force Novick into the insurgent's role, the gadfly's gadfly. And that's not necessarily Novick's sweet spot. Steve's angle is that he arrests you with his story and the confidence in his vision and principles.

Presenting as a new kind of candidate is more difficult with Merkley in the race, because it looks like a reaction to a perceived fault--that Novick has no electoral experience and Jeff is filthy with it--and more importantly Merkely can spin it as a positive where Gordon Smith cannot. In a general against Smith Novick can use Smith's experience against him; in a primary against Merkley the job is much tougher and exposes the only serious hole in his own profile.

All that's down the road, though. Right now Steve has to feel pretty good about where he sits, still the only candidate every news story mentions because he's the only one in. He has the foundation of a solid team, has put together good base funding in 10 weeks this far out (including an impressive $100,000 in netroots contributions), and is watching Gordon Smith's pedestal shake ever so imperceptibly the last couple of weeks. It's going to be a wild year and a half, people.

TJ Talks Smith's Role in Fish Kill on KPOJ This AM

Coming round the horn of Monday at about 7:20 this morning, TJ will be talking about the very active role Senator Gordon Smith played in the Klamath Basin fiasco with Heidi and Carl at KPOJ AM 620. (Heidi and Carl didn't play any role with Smith; they're who I'll be talking to!) Listen or stream it or hear the podcast of the 7 o'clock hour later. And follow along in your LO hymnals, set to this page wherein we examine Smith's many telling moments as the crisis developed, and how they intertwine him inextricably with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Two great guys to have intertwined with you going into the next election, aren't they?

Get some sleep now; we'll wake you before the show tomorrow. Promise.

Pantry Pride: Gordon, You Suck. Thank You, Come Again!

As Gordon Smith continues trying to find the sweet spot of re-electability, tacking rightward again this week by rejecting the immigration bill in a move that some conservatives say will bring them home to him, he has found the intersection of his promises--at the corner of Marlboro Way and Joe Camel Lane.

Smith's support for both the Oregon Healthy Kids plan that funded child health care by taxing cigarettes, and the federal excise tax for funding child health care (sound familiar?) was not exactly a reach, since as many as 3/4 of Oregonians are OK with it. So while surely he imagines it to be a feather in his "I'm not really all that Republican" cap, many regular Republicans agree with the plan as well. The hardcore anti-tax wing of the party is pissed, however:

Plaid Pantry Inc.'s president and CEO Chris Girard said he will no longer support the lawmaker either financially or personally, due to the senator's current stance on tobacco tax legislation.

Early in his campaign, Smith and Girard discussed the importance of the tobacco and alcohol categories to Plaid Pantries, and Smith's support of small business, according to the letter. Now, with Smith supporting a federal excise tax and state cigarette tax increase, Girard wrote that he can no longer support the senator.

That kinda reads like a Dear John letter, doesn't it? I actually have a real problem with the CEO of Pantry Pride being so shortsighted and self-interested that a vote like this regarding his business overrides anything else the guy has ever done. I could see you leaving a politician over the war, or scandal, or even being "too weak on immigration" I guess. But even after acknowledging he'll probably sell fewer cigarettes because of the tax, is he really predicating his vote for US Senate--a body of 100 serving 300 million people--on his bottom line for smokes? Seems awfully shallow.

Shallow or not, Girard doesn't just own a few stores (and really, 104 stores with about $115mil in business {pdf} is not anybody's idea of "small"), and he also happens to be head of the Oregon Neighborhood Store Association, a small player in the Salem money game but with a visible presence that serves as the Oregon face of the National Association of Convenience Stores, which IS an active national lobbying player. He may not be a small businessman, but many people who own little stores like that are. And who knows how many Girard is taking with him.

CNN very helpfully provides a PDF of the letter from Girard to Smith. Damn, he's all totally ticked off and stuff (pdf}, isn't he?

Summer of Steve! Day 4--Enviro Warrior Edition

[putting the money shot at the top--give to Steve Novick's campaign today, to show the Democratic establishment that Oregonians believe in a new, people-oriented direction for the Senate...remember, if you file taxes in Oregon you can get a $50 credit per person for your contributions in each year. It's like the first $50 is free!]

We're on Day 4 of our 6-day drive to the finish of 2Q fundraising, Steve's first quarter as a federal candidate. Here's what he has to say about why it's so important for you to give this week if you're thinking of giving:

We have forty-eight hours to prove our strength. Forty-eight hours to show that this campaign is not a long shot, but a juggernaut.

Forty-eight hours to show that we are the campaign to dislodge Gordon Smith ... who this week struck another blow against working Oregonians with his vote against the Employee Free Choice Act.

As I mentioned the other day, Saturday, June 30 is the end of our first FEC reporting period. We will be judged by how much money we have raised as of that date. We've raised a mess of money already, from over 500 of you. But we can be, we must be, even more impressive.

Some of you have already given all that you can afford, and for that, I thank you profusely. But if you think you could help a little more, or can find someone else who would - now is the time. Go to http://www.novickforsenate.com/... and start hitting buttons.

Thank you so much for everything you have done and will do. It really does matter...

Amen. And to continue our pattern of comparing and contrasting Steve with el Gordo on the issues, look no further than our story this morning on the latter's active participation in putting politics before science. There's no official comment from Steve at this time on those revelations, but his record on the environment speaks for itself:

After stops in law firms in New York and San Francisco, Steve joined the Environment Division (then known as the "Land and Natural Resources Division") of the United States Justice Department in 1987. He brought successful lawsuits against polluters for violations of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. He also served as lead counsel in the notorious Love Canal case. On that case in 1995, Steve and his team negotiated a settlement in which Occidental Chemical repaid the taxpayers $129 million in cleanup costs and interest. Announcing the settlement, Attorney General Janet Reno said: "Today we celebrate a transformation of an environmental disaster called Love Canal into a success story .... It [the settlement] stands for the principle that when people make a mess, they should pay to clean it up."

If the environment is your big issue, this race is no contest. Vote Hook!

Gordo Passive In Fish-Killing Politics? Think Again

The Klamath water controversy that flared in 2001 and 2002 and goes on to this day has become something of a national story, most vividly wrapped inside a devastatingly precise indictment of Dick Cheney's term as Vice President. Jason Leopold's story that we looked over on Monday reminded everyone of Karl Rove's intervention and subsequent airy clearing of wrongdoing by the Interior IG (fedora doff to Bill at P3, noble work). Now Darlene Hooley has asked for an investigation into Cheney's role--it has truly been a shitty week for that guy, and I hope it continues and also he suddenly can't shake the hiccups. Hah.

What did both evildoers have in common as their motivation in the Klamath case? If you said the reelection of Gordon Smith in 2002, score one on your personal chalkboard. Where, in each of these storylines of politics over science and the electoral jimmying of a Senate office, does Gordon Smith appear? If you said "only in the context of being the guy people seemed to be doing awfully nice things for, convoluted and difficult things to try to keep him in office and hold power in the about-to-be-Democratic Senate," hack into this account and start writing my columns for me.

I hope he takes it as a compliment if he finds out I'm calling him a smooth, dirty bastard, although it's more in awe than any respect. Because of course that's exactly what everybody wanted for Gordon, and it's certainly what Gordon wanted for himself--personal distance from the dirty work that is sometimes necessary to make things go, when following the law as written becomes unfruitful. It certainly is important to see if Dick and/or Rove can be busted for jiggering the evidence, but aren't we forgetting somebody? Why is there no examination of Gordon Smith's role in the greatest fish kill in recorded Western history, on his own electoral behalf?

The pieces have come out in dribs. They haven't been connected, but the evidence has been there all along of Smith's very active efforts to do whatever he could to prioritize the farmers of the lower Klamath . You have to pay for the archives of the Klamath Herald and News, but the since-departed John Bragg followed Smith's involvement from the very beginning in early 2001, as the Bush administration sauntered in after Inauguration Day and the water level crisis began. If you want to see any of the articles in their entirety I will email them to you for educational use.

On March 30 in 2001, here's how passive Gordo wasn't being about the looming situation:

Sen. Gordon Smith has asked President Bush to step into the debate over what should be done with Klamath Basin water. In a letter to Bush Thursday, Smith outlined the situation which pits the needs of irrigators against the needs of endangered species.

"I have been working for several months to try to head off the crisis that the farmers I represent are currently facing," Smith wrote. He requested Bush to make emergency funds available for farmers this summer.

"I respectfully request that your domestic policy team become involved in this issue today," he wrote.

Smith, R-Ore., told Bush that while the Klamath Basin farmers "no doubt" are suffering the effects of a severe drought, they were suffering more from the effects of the previous administration.

"Added to the natural drought is a regulatory drought that could leave them with no water for their crops. This should not happen on your watch," Smith wrote.

Note that Smith didn't actually ask Bush; he asked the "domestic policy team." Karl Rove is the head of domestic policy in the White House.

If you take nothing else from this particular piece, and all the shitty little ways Gordon Smith interjected his personal and political gain into the supposedly scientific decision about who gets the water, continue to ask Smith this question until you get an answer:

Why is a US Senator asking the head of executive domestic policy to intervene in a matter handled normally by science agencies and in dispute by the courts? In other words, what business was it of Rove's, and for that matter what about Smith? Was that a proper thing to do?

That was just the beginning of Smith's attempts to reverse the conclusion that water levels had to be raised, costing farmers water. Just 10 days later, Smith stood in a banquet room of the Klamath Shilo Inn after the decision to protect the fish came down, and said "I am here to be your whipping post"--and whipped he was, by about 700 angry farmers telling him they wanted the law changed.

Smith was sympathetic, but "wasted no time in telling the small group he was seeking ideas to take back to Washington, D.C." (700 is small??) And he tried to spin the crowd. According the Herald, despite the angry mood of the crowd at Dick Cheney's decision to follow the law (at first), Smith was clearly in the loop on exactly the same thing a Cheney aide heard the VP say (as we learned today from WaPo:

Another person told Smith he was upset to hear that the decision had received the approval of Vice President Dick Cheney. "I thought Cheney was on our side," the man said.

But Smith said the decision, bitter as it was, constituted a victory of sorts.

At the end of March the outlook was no water for anyone in the Basin, he explained.

"Dick Cheney stopped that order from coming down," Smith said. "He ordered the biologists back to Washington" to see if there were some way to get around the conclusion that all available water must go to protect endangered suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and threatened coho salmon in the lower Klamath River.

Sources told the Herald and News that more than 80 biologists from federal agencies and tribes attended a whirlwind of meetings last week in Washington to review the science behind the biological opinions.

"There wasn't a single scientist who would back the administration in court," Smith said. [you bet those are my emphs!]

I'm sure Smith intended to mean that no scientist concluded the initial findings were defensible. But of course the reality is that he was being literal--none would back the administration in court because they were there NOT to back the administration, in order to justify the administration's reversal. That they could make Gordon Smith look like the hero of the farmers, getting Dick Cheney to force those damn Washington scientists to redo their math and put irrigation first, was likely just a sweet bonus to Cheney, but it surely mattered all the world to electoral nerd Karl Rove.

How else did Gordon Smith work his own magic? How about telling an outright fib to distort the debate and color public opinion? From the May 8th, 2001 Herald:

When U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith came to Klamath Falls to offer his support to farmers April 7, he expressed puzzlement about the suckers that dwell in Upper Klamath Lake.

He didn't know, Smith told a crowd of 600 or more gathered to hear him at the Shilo Inn, how government could consider endangered a fish it had once tried to extinguish by means of poison.

Smith misspoke, and another Klamath Basin "rural myth'' was perpetuated.

There is no evidence that anyone ever tried to eliminate Lost River or shortnose suckers from Upper Klamath Lake, said Roger Smith, Klamath district biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Chris Matthews, a spokesman for Sen. Smith, said he did not know what was the basis for the senator's comment.

Notice this is the same gathering at the Shilo as in the previous story a month earlier, and the 30 days caused 100 attendees to vanish from the event! I love our media.

What else did Smith do? How about introducing a law for which he was the sole sponsor, making it easier to delist species from the endangered and threatened lists, giving more powers to states, and removing the requirement of the Secretary to evaluate regulations which would adversely affect habitat? And here's yet another sentinel from Smith that suggests he knew exactly where Cheney and Rove were headed:

(1) BEST SCIENTIFIC AND COMMERCIAL DATA AVAILABLE- Where this Act requires the Secretary to use the best scientific and commercial data available, the Secretary, when evaluating comparable data, shall give greater weight to scientific or commercial data that is empirical or has been field-tested or peer-reviewed.'.

In the NAS decision that reversed the initial finding and literally opened the floodgates, the central contention was that the so called "Hardy Phase II" reports that informed much of the scientific reccomendation was only a draft and had not been fully reviewed. How amazing is that kind of foresight, to put such a clause right at the top of your bill? Fascinating.

The initial thoughts of calling in the "God Squad," as laid out in the WaPo series and an idea that was later rejected, is noted at the time by the Herald on May 18 featuring that OTHER Republican:

The God Squad, formally known as the Endangered Species Committee, could be convened under a provision of the 1973 Endangered Species Act. The law contains a provision allowing a special panel to declare an exemption to the law's requirement that threatened or endangered species be protected before all other considerations.

"We have been contacted by several of our constituents who have posed legitimate questions about this statutory exemption under the ESA," Walden, R-Ore., and Herger, R-Calif., wrote in a joint letter sent to Norton Thursday.

Convening the God Squad might allow the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation an exemption to its operations plan that requires all available water stored in Upper Klamath Lake to be held to protect habitat for endangered suckers or sent downstream to protect habitat for coho salmon, Walden and Herger said.

Then in August Smith helped shepherd through a bill providing $20 million in direct relief to any farmer who suffered a decline in irrigation supply. As WaPo detailed, even more was coming, and Smith pushed for those as well (although it should be said that much of the Oregon delegation at the time was in favor of subsidies to the farmers).

That's just the stuff that happened in public. How did Smith become so canny at knowing what the next steps in the Cheney strategy were, before they were even implemented? He sure seems like an active listener, y'know?

More to come.

Another Challenger for Gordo?

Chris Rizo at the Ashland Daily Tidings has the scoop:

Jefferson Public Radio talk-show host Jeff Golden of Ashland is considering a run for U.S. Senate.

While insiders said he is interested in the Democratic contest, Golden downplayed the speculation Monday, saying "it's too early" and "no firm decision has been made" on whether he will run.

A member of Golden's inner circle, who insisted on anonymity, said Golden's campaign announcement would unlikely come before September, if at all.

Paulie Brading, chair of the Jackson County Democratic Central Committee, said Monday that she has heard of Golden's political aspirations "from a variety of people," including Golden.

The Democratic National Senatorial Committee, she said, has done extensive polling in the state in hopes of finding a candidate to unseat Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, the GOP's only West Coast senator.

Golden, 57, an author and host of JPR's weekday radio show "The Jefferson Exchange," was a Jackson County commissioner from 1987 through 1990.

He was the target of an unsuccessful recall attempt spearheaded by logging interests in 1989, and was married to former longtime Ashland Mayor Cathy Shaw, now an A-list Democratic strategist in Southern Oregon.

Golden left the county executive board in 1990 to run for state Senate, narrowly losing to fourth-term Republican incumbent Lenn Hannon of Ashland.

Soon after, he took a job as chief of staff for then-state Senate President Bill Bradbury, D-Bandon. Bradbury is now secretary of state, Oregon's chief elections officer.

The more the merrier! I know little to nothing about Golden, but every new voice talking about why Gordo needs to be replaced is fine with us.

If you have stories/news about Golden and/or his potential run, share it with us in comments...

Update, 6/28 3pm--
Chris has more today on Golden, including an assessment of his chances by none other than Alan Bates--who appears to have company in the "Dem candidate from Southern Oregon" sweepstakes, and doesn't seem to like it much.

Summer of Steve--On Employee Free Choice, The Difference is Clear

[putting the money shot at the top--give to Steve Novick's campaign today, to show the Democratic establishment that Oregonians believe in a new, people-oriented direction for the Senate...remember, if you file taxes in Oregon you can get a $50 credit per person for your contributions in each year. It's like the first $50 is free!]


It's Day Two of Summer of Steve Week! The last week of a federal fundraising quarter is always a frenzy for candidates; you're trying to raise as much money as humanly possible before the filing period deadline in order to impress other potential backers that you're not just a candidate--you're a movement! Steve's definitely got a movement going on, and we're part of it. We believe most Oregonians are sick to death of politicians who arrive in DC and immediately don their Protective Bubble of Political Caution(tm), and are hungry for a Democrat in particular who elucidates his or her positions without apology, actually proud instead of seemingly guilty to be holding them.

Speaking of positions Steve is proud of, there's an excellent example in the news today--the Employee Free Choice Act. The essential goal of the legislation is to greatly simplify the process by which willing employees may form a union and assert their rights to collective bargaining. In addition, it places strong penalties on companies who seek to deny or unduly pressure employees not to join. Basically, once a majority of affected employees sign a card authorizing their participation, they're all set.

Why is this important? In an exclusive comment sent to LO after the bill failed a cloture vote this morning in the Senate, Steve himself explains:

It's no accident that we had a fairer economy, with a much smaller gap between the rich and the rest of us, in the 1950's and '60's: More workers were represented by unions, which negotiated a fairer share of the pie for workers. But in the past thirty years, unionization has declined and - no coincidence - inequality has increased. The richest 1% of Americans used to get 10% of total national income; now they get 20%.

One major explanation for declining union density is that employers have taken advantage of the fact that if you illegally fire someone for attempting to organize, all you get is a slap on the wrist - so they fire and threaten people. And they take advantage of a cumbersome election process that increases their ability to threaten workers. EFCA would level the playing field, imposing real penalties on employers who break the law. Based on my experience enforcing environmental laws, I know that enforcement and penalties matter. EFCA would also simply the process of choosing a union. It's simple: A stronger labor movement means a stronger, fairer America.

There you have it. In a world where Steve Novick represents us in the Senate, he'd be a solid vote for Oregon's workers, their right to organize and to receive fair treatment in the labor marketplace. How about the guy sitting in DC now? From The Hill last Wednesday:

Smith opposes the Employee Free Choice Act, which would establish a federal right for a card check unionization process. Smith told The Hill, "It's a payback to labor for their [Democrats] support. It's not something supported by the American people."

I'd call bullshit on that last statement especially, and so would Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. See for yourself:

For the record, every Democratic candidate for President except Mike Gravel backed the bill, with Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Obama, and Kucinich all co-sponsoring it. Smith (and Walden) were the only members of the Oregon delegation to vote against it.

On issues like standing up for the people who awake each day and trudge off to work to put food on their families(!), there's just no comparison between Gordo and Steve Novick. Can you help put a shine on Steve's 2nd Quarter fundraising statement, by giving what you can to his campaign? Anything helps, honestly--just please do it by Friday so it counts in this quarter. Some people still don't believe Steve can overcome the obstacles and win. His whole life proves that wrong; now's your chance to offer a little proof of your own.

Rove, Smith and the Salmon--the Deeper Story

[Warning: wonky detail threat is orange for this post...]

Astute readers, or those who read most threads at Blue Oregon (and they are most often the same people) recall the new outbreak of stories about Karl Rove's potentially criminal--certainly greasy--influence on Gordon Smith's 2002 reelection. BlueO tips to the Truthout.org piece by Jason Leopold (a source I am not fully comfortable with) which uses the recently released deposition by Rove aide Susan Ralston {pdf} before Waxman's House Oversight Committee, to paint a larger picture of Rove repeatedly holding meetings in "target states" at federal agency offices to talk about how the political scene needed to be managed to support the President.

That's some crazy shit in it's own right; the White House is trying to weasel out by claiming no directives were given, but they were riding a razor's edge on the Hatch Act by holding partisan political policy meetings on federal property. So it's no wonder Leopold doesn't get sidetracked by the Klamath mention in Ralston's deposition. However for us there are key moments in her testimony that have direct impact on why Smith is running for reelection next fall, rather than sitting at home freezing peas. So the entire deposition is worth reading, and since we trudged over to Waxman's virtual office and rummaged through their files until we found it, you can read it too by following the link above.

It has been known for a fairly long time that Rove held a Powerpoint presentation in Klamath before the 2002 elections, and discussed the fact that Gordon Smith was running in Oregon and the farmers had always been staunch Smith voters (wink, wink). The scene as Rove set it:

On Jan. 5, Mr. Rove accompanied the president to an appearance in Portland with Mr. Smith. The president signaled his desire to accommodate agricultural interests, saying "We'll do everything we can to make sure water is available for those who farm."

The next day, Mr. Rove made sure that commitment didn't fall through the cracks. He visited the 50 Interior managers attending a department retreat at a Fish and Wildlife Service conference center in Shepherdstown, W.Va. In a PowerPoint presentation Mr. Rove also uses when soliciting Republican donors, he brought up the Klamath and made clear that the administration was siding with agricultural interests.

His remarks weren't entirely welcome -- especially by officials grappling with the competing arguments made by environmentalists, who wanted river levels high to protect endangered salmon, and Indian tribes, who depend on the salmon for their livelihoods. Neil McCaleb, then an assistant Interior secretary, recalls the "chilling effect" of Mr. Rove's remarks. Wayne Smith, then with the department's Bureau of Indian Affairs, says Mr. Rove reminded the managers of the need to "support our base." Both men since have left the department.

Senator Kerry got so far as to ask the Inspector General to investigate, and as perhaps you might expect he found no undue influence by Rove--and validated the science used to make the decision to divert water to irrigation. That kind of killed the story, obviously. But how well did the IG's office do their job? Under questioning by Waxman's committee, even with her bureaucratically convenient hazy memory she recalled that Klamath and Smith were a popular topic of conversation:

In 2002, were you familiar with a dispute in Oregon over whether or not to divert water from the Klamath Rìver Basin to nearby farms?
A: I recall that.
What was Mr. Rove's involvement in that dìspute?
A: You know, I do not remember the exact details, but there were djscussions with Barry Jackson, and I guess it would have been Ken Plehlman at the time for the 0ffice of Politìcal Affairs, but as a policy matter, they did discuss it.
Barry Jackson, Ken Mehlman and Mr. Rove discussed this issue?
A: Correct.
Was anyone else involved?
A: Well, as I recall, this subject did come up frequently in our directors meetings. We had a directors' meeting every day, pretty much every day.
What is a "directors' meeting" ?
A: It would be, the participants would have been Karl, myself , Israet Hernandez, each of the directors of the four offices that he managed, and sometimes those directors would bring a deputy, and thjs meetìng was held in his office.
In Karl Rove's office?
A: Correct. And we met almost every day.
For how long was the subject of the "Klamath River Basin water diversion" issue a topìc of these directors' meetings?
A: Oh, I can't say specifically, but it was definìtely mentioned on multiple occasions.


Were you aware that the Interior Department's inspector general investigated the White House's involvement in the Interìor Department's decision about Klamath River water levels?
A: I do not remember that.

It kept coming up at Karl Rove's daily meetings of all the office heads and their deputies. Somehow, this did not raise the suspicion of the Inspector General--why it kept coming up in a political policy office what civil service agencies were doing in the Klamath Basin--for as Ralston notes, she can't even recall the investigation in the first place. How would the top aide to Karl Rove not remember whether there was an investigation? Come on, now--unless it was so feeble it could legitimately be forgotten.

Maybe it was--it's unclear whether White House emails were examined by the IG, but according to Ralston they certainly never asked to see any of the emails Rove sent via RNC servers, which now appear to be where all the skeletons were buried. Again, from the deposition:

Beyond Mr. Fitzgerald's requests, were there other requests from other investigators for Mr. Rove's e-mails?
A: There may have been, but the only other major investigation that I recall specifically was related to Enron.
Do you know when that would have been?
A: I believe that was in 2001 sometime.
And you think in 2001- that Mr. Rove searched his e-mails to respond to a request from investigators relating to Enron?
A: He or I searched.
And that search included a search of political e-mails sent over the political account?
A: Correct.
Were other White House officials aware that Mr. Rove in 2001- was providing e-mails from his political accounts to investigators who were looking at Enron?
A: I believe so, because all of the documents that we collected were then turned over to the White House Counsel's Office.

No wonder the IG didn't find anything to nail Rove with on the river diversion; either their office was ignorant of the fact that he was conducting most of his White House business over RNC email systems--or they knew and opted not to pry. And beyond the unexamined emails, there doesn't appear to have been much of any serious investigating going on, given that Ralston can't even remember there being one.

So let's be clear on what we have:

• Karl Rove taking great interest in water policy in Oregon, coincidentally at the same time Gordon Smith was running for reelection
  
• Karl Rove meeting on federal property to make clear that the administration sided with the farmers.
  
• Karl Rove meeting with the farmers to make clear the administration sided with them.
  
• Two federal agencies which cited their best available evidence (the appropriate standard for decisionmaking in this case) had their findings overruled on the basis of inconclusivity (which is NOT the appropriate standard), with the excuse that an important report used in the original findings was only a draft report and could not be considered definitive--even though the overruling report was itself an interim set of conclusions.
  
• A federal judge rejecting the Bush administration's plan for allocating water in the basin, which favored farmers. One of the principal biologists working on the plan claims his drafted opinions were twice rejected by the Bureau of Reclamation, which created the plan, in favor of those which afforded farmers more water.
  
• When Rep. Greg Walden discovered water might be restricted to farmers, his first call went to Karl Rove. The plan was dropped.
• An investigation was done into the possible influence of the White House--but the prime target's top aide can't even remember that there was one, and no pertinent emails outside of White House channels were ever reviewed.
  

Something stinks, and it isn't old salmon.

[postscript--for further reading on this highly complex subject, you might try some of these sources...]

For info on the Endangered Species Act and how it applies to salmon in the Klamath Basin, this online book is rich with detailed information.

For the House Democrats' perspective on how dirty this all is, this is a good source.

For California state officials' endorsement and opinion on the "Hardy Phase II" report, which was the primary document suggested the need for higher water flows protecting the salmon, read this pdf. To see opposing views on it from the farmers, this doc is appropriate.

More documentation on the efficacy of reducing water flows is here; this report attempts to show that revenue from recreation well exceeds the potential for revenue from farming if water is diverted. Neither this report nor the Hardy study were ever allowed to go past draft form, House Democrats allege.

And for a rich trove of timelined links on both sides of the issue, here's a resource page from a UO professor on watershed science and policy.

The O's Curious Choice of Federal Rep to Fellate on Stem Cells

Seen The O's op-ed this morning supporting stem cell research? On point, there's certainly nothing to argue with:

This week, some of those scientists in other nations may have been secretly gratified, in fact, when President Bush again vetoed an expansion of U.S. funding for such research. That reaction to the veto may sound callous, but those scientists are only human. Bush's veto all but guarantees that other nations will continue to have an edge in the global race for cures.

Bush's decision in 2001 to drastically limit federal funding for U.S. research held back our own scientists, and, in effect, handicapped the global race in favor of other nations. Private foundations, companies and states are trying to fill the gap, but if they do, it will be unprecedented. Always before, it has taken federal financing to unlock a medical breakthrough.

The O's editors deserve credit for taking the smart position on stem cell research, especially in pointing out the economic disadvantage it puts the US in to block that research. But let's be real here; this is not going out on any kind of political limb to criticize the veto. And it's curious that they made no mention of the House GOP blocking similar legislation at the state level just yesterday.

What's even more curious, however, is the way The O chose to represent the concept that Oregon and its (federal) lawmakers are more in step with the electorate on this issue than the administration. They could have picked the entire group of our Representatives and Senators, because for the first time in recent memory that I can recall, ALL SEVEN of them voted against the President's wishes, Democrats and Republicans alike.

So who did they pick to celebrate as Oregon's champion of stem cells? One guess:

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., agrees that this is the best use for them. He differentiates such cells from a human life, which he believes begins with "Mom."

As Smith sees it, "If those embryos remain in a petri dish for a thousand years, they will remain cells only, the dust of the Earth. No mother is present, no life has been created."

As Sen. Smith said recently, "We cannot have tomorrow's miracles if we tie scientists' hands with yesterday's rules."

Un-fucking-believable. Not one mention of ANY of the other six legislators who back the research. No, they just happened to select the one guy who desperately needs to appear in step with his constituency, and out of step with Bush's. Hey there Stickel and Co.--I think there's a dab of semen still clinging to your collective chins. Was it good for you?

Smith Takes Another Poll Hit--Time for More Anti-War Posturing

These days Gordon Smith resembles nothing so much as a crab in a slowly warming pot--clearly getting uncomfortable, but with no good ideas on how to get himself out of the situation. And today's news brings word that the water temperature is rising.

First, a splash of background. As you may have seen via BlueO yesterday, over the weekend Smith enlisted the help of columnist George Will to re-burnish his moderate bona fides, with another attempt to make it seem like Smith is against the war. Will updated Smith's desperate meme on ABC's Sunday talk by declaring him the vanguard leader of disaffected Republicans:

George Stephanopoulus: Senator Smith told you that he believes he has, what?, about a dozen Republicans who will then join him in calling for a timetable for withdrawal?

George Will:
Well, that's what he said. That they will be where he is. And that is where he is.

The Republicans are scheduled, frankly, the way they talk, to panic in September. As in a way, they ought to. They're looking at another election on Iraq, and they'll be picking up the Republican Party in pieces with tweezers.

Your lips to God's ears, George--be sure to tell him this part, from your column:

“Smith has endorsed John McCain's presidential campaign. But the core of McCain's campaign is the puzzling doctrine that if we do not win in Iraq ‘they will follow us home.’ The global threat of terrorism cannot be defeated in Iraq, so, will terrorists not ‘follow us home’ only if U.S. forces continue to engage them in Iraq — where Gen. David Petraeus says there can be no military solution to that nation's afflictions? If so, that implies a need for endless engagement in Iraq, which is not a politically possible option.”

So Will is puzzled, too--and here he doesn't even mention the fact that Smith's most recent vote to fully fund the war was right in line with McCain doctrine. The folks at DPO didn't miss it, though:

“I remember the last time Gordon Smith pulled this stunt,” DPO Executive Director Trent Lutz said. “Last December, after telling as many reporters as he could find that he opposed the war, Senator Smith retreated to the senate chamber and continued voting for the conflict. By consistently voting for the war while telling the public he opposes it, he has lost all credibility with Oregonians. Who is going to believe him now?”

Good question--and the answer appears to be "not as many as before."

This month's Survey USA Senate tracking poll data is out, and the news continues to worsen for Oregon's junior Senator. Last month we did an extensive analysis of the numbers, showing you that Smith had fallen under 50% approval for the first time in a while at 48%, just shy of his 2-year low. However, the gap between approve and disapprove remained steady, at plus-9 or plus-10 for several months in a row.

For May the effect reversed itself--this time the approval number held fairly steady at 47%, but disapprovals jumped six points in a month (from 39% in May) to slash the gap to just two points, at 47-45. When you consider that he was at a healthy plus-28 just six months ago (58/30 in January), that is a tremendous overall drop. Also note that the net approval since January is -11, but the disapproval is +15, meaning that some folks who previously hadn't made up their minds are beginning to reach some conclusions--and they are not good for Gordo. (The "not sure" category has fluctuated back and forth a number of times, so the shift away from that choice may not be permanent).

We told you last time that much of the drop for Smith came from Republicans and non-affiliated voters. This time the GOP has taken Gordo back into the fold a bit, jumping their approval from 55% to 60%--but the news is worse for Smith among Democrats and NAVs. For surveyed Dems, opinions did a symmetrical flip: approval was down five points to 42; disapproval up five to 50, with a net approval loss of 10 points for the Senator. This shift has to be enormously soothing to the DPO and potential Democratic candidates, because in January Smith's approval stood at a whopping 62% among Dems. The 20-point cratering suggests that if they were initially fooled by Smith's pandering on the war, they've gotten over it.

Results among independents show a continued pattern of fluctuation from month to month...and it's another down month for Smith. His approvals within this group are essentially the same (46% down from 47%), but the disapprovals are up to 46% as well, six points more than last month and taken almost entirely from last month's "not sure" pile. Given the general national concordance between Dems and NAV's on the subject of the war, it may be no surprise that both groups saw a surge of decisiveness that trended towards the negative when evaluating Smith.

The other apparent driver for these numbers is the drop among people from places outside the Portland Metro area. As with Dems and NAVs, the recent movement is not so much a fall in approval as a spike in disapproval, fed by hardening opinions. Non-Portlanders went from 40% disapproval last month to 47%, an unusually large surge. Respondents beyond Portland have cut 11 points from his approvals just since March, added 14 points to his disapprovals--and have turned a plus-24 net approval into June's negative-1.

This may be the most troubling bleed of all for Gordo; as we said last time, if he can't figure out a way to motivate voters who aren't from the Big Three counties (Multno, WashCo, ClackaCo) he is severely cooked. And what this iteration of the SUSA survey set shows us is that his Extreme Congressional Makeover has not ended up helping his numbers long-term...and if these latest stats in the month after his vote to fully fund the war until September are any indication, the persistence with which Smith is trying to claim anti-war ground while voting the opposite way might just be starting to annoy some people. The DPO sees the hypocrisy pretty clearly:

“Gordon Smith has voted more than 20 times to authorize and fund the Iraq War and launched two media campaigns to convince Oregonians he opposes it. It does not matter how many reporters he talks to nor how slick his quotes are, he can’t hide his voting record in support of the Iraq War.”

Lose Cruise: Unpopular Sen Raises $ For Our Vulnerable One

Thank goodness that while Gordo works very hard to burnish his moderate image among Oregonians, ultimately he can't escape the fact that he's a member of the Bush-enabling crew who have put us in this handbasket the last six years. So while he's personally richer than 90 of his colleagues, there's no sense in putting that money into his re-election race if someone else will do it for him--and apparently it doesn't really matter who that someone is. From the increasingly on-the-ball DPO:

Voting to continue funding the Iraq War last month was not enough of a slap in the face to Oregonians for U.S. Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR).

Now he’s bringing in a fellow Bush loyalist and ardent Iraq War supporter to bolster his campaign coffers.

United States Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will raise campaign funds for Smith on a cruise tomorrow evening on the Willamette River.

“Rather than using their seats of power to resolve Iraq and end this war, senators Smith and McConnell continue to support President Bush and continue to fund the Iraq War,” DPO Chair Meredith Wood Smith said. “Before they board that boat on Saturday, Smith and McConnell should apologize for continuing to fund this war and pledge to stop funding this conflict.”

McConnell’s blind support for President Bush and the Iraq War mirror Smith’s record.

Both Smith and McConnell vote with President Bush at least 90 percent of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly.

And McConnell – unlike Smith - is honest about it.

While Smith publicly claims to oppose the war, but then votes for it, McConnell votes for the war and is open about his unrelenting commitment to staying in Iraq. [emph mine]

If you aren't a total politics junkie like we are, you might not know that McConnell is starting to struggle in his home state of Kentucky. Oregon's own John Singer at national blog MyDD has the scoop:

...McConnell is in much worse of a position than many might imagine a Republican from a state seemingly trending towards the GOP might be. To get an idea of this, just take a look at the skewed polling McConnell commissioned to make people believe he is in a stronger position than he is actually in. Safe incumbents just don't do this type of thing. What's more, not only does McConnell have troubles broadly within the Kentucky electorate, he also potentially faces a primary challenge, indicating a possibly underwhelming level of support from within his own party.

So regardless of whether Kentucky Democrats settle on Stumbo -- or businessman Charlie Owen, former congressional candidate Andrew Horne (both of whom Gerth mentions in his article) or someone else -- the Democrats have a real shot at defeating Mitch McConnell this cycle. And at the least, there is a clear opportunity for giving McConnell a good enough scare that he has to curtail his obstructionism and stay at home in his state rather than travel and raise money for other candidates.

Well, apparently he's not TOO scared just yet; the Willamette stands to get a little sludgier this weekend. But the mere fact that he's coming means that a) the NRSC likely thinks he needs to; and b) look who Gordo is turning to, in order to fill his campaign chest. If Bush came to raise money for him, people would understandably be turned off. Mitch McConnell is THE paramount defender of the President's policies for his Senate caucus, and is essentially the #3 man in the party. Isn't having one of the President's prime proxies come to town almost as bad as the real deal?