Please include a daytime phone number and address for verification. We cannot print letters, even e-mail letters, without verification.

We're interested in the comments of all our on-line readers, but we can only publish letters from residents within our Southern Oregon and Northern California circulation area. Sorry, we cannot publish poetry.

Writers are limited to one letter every 30 days.

Address your letters of 250 word or less (150 words for thank you or election letters) to:

Letters to the editor
Box 1108
Medford, OR 97501

Fax (541) 776-4376.

Or send your letter e-mail to:

When Wes Cooley ran for Congress in 1994, he signed a term limit campaign pledge promising to serve no more than six years. But within two months of taking office, he wavered on that pledge, supporting instead a limit of 12 consecutive years with no lifetime cap.

"I didn't realize before I came here how important seniority is," he said in March of 1995. "The guys who really crack the nut around here hold the (committee chairman's) gavel. And to get the gavel, you have to have seniority."

Page forward to 1998. Cooley is again a candidate for 2nd Congressional District seat in Congress and has again signed the six-year term limit pledge. Does he really believe in it? Obviously not. Then why did he sign it? That answer, too, is obvious: to keep the out-of-state (and memory-impaired) lobbyists off his back.

Frontrunner Greg Walden has felt the wrath of Americans for Limited Terms, a Wisconsin-based lobbying group which says it will pay for $100,000 in anti-Walden ads in the 2nd Congressional District campaign. Walden is the only Republican in the 2nd District campaign who has not signed the term limit pledge.

WALDEN RIGHTFULLY ARGUES that self-imposed term limits are self-defeating and that rural states, in particular, lose clout if their representatives do not acquire seniority. Consider current 2nd District Rep. Bob Smith, who has been elected seven times. A three-term limit would have kept him from the chairmanship of the House Agriculture Committee.

The Term Limits group is frustrated because their idea is not law. But instead of focusing on changing the law, they turn their frustration into a vendetta against any politician who dares to speak other than their party line.

We find it distasteful when any lobbying group from outside the state tries to influence the vote of Oregonians. They are interested in their cause and not in what's best for Oregon.

Once upon a time, the fortunes of the Portland Trail Blazers captivated the entire state. No longer, it seems. We watch with modest interest as they follow their usual course of making the NBA playoffs and exiting after the first round. But when they lose, we shrug, flick off the TV and move on to other pursuits.

Some of this is surely due to their lack of success in the playoffs. So, too, is it in part due to the absurd amount of money professional basketball players are paid and the lack of civility society receives in exchange.

But there's more to it. The Blazers have changed and so have we. The Portland roster, like many NBA rosters, seems to go through a wholesale rewrite about every two years. (We'd like to cheer for that tall fellow who just made the three-pointer, but his name escapes us.)

And then there's the changing nature of the state. While watching the first Trail Blazer-Laker playoff game Sunday during a lunch break at Mount Ashland, we were a bit shocked to hear people rooting for the Lakers. Maybe they were visitors from the south, but given the number of California transplants who now call Oregon home, we can't assume that's the case.

ROOTING FOR A Blazer opponent in the glory days of the '70s might have proven hazardous to your health. Not now.