And the piece about Gordon's little ethics problem was on page A7 the day before. How convenient.

We can't cry about it until we get a candidate. Any names?

Then let us find out where Earl, Darlene, David, Peter, and Ron and have them disclouse that information and critize them for that too.

Like the saying goes: "Those that live in a glass house should not throw stones."

Yes, today's piece in the O is a fluffy; but Gordon is a mix-bag moderate/conservative Republican. He fights for the little people on strange topics like: Medicaid, farm subsidies, utilities bills; but screws them over on: gay rights, federal handcuffing of the min. wage laws and the enviromental issues.

Yes, I know we are in the minority in both Houses at the federal level--but who is the megaphone for us here in Oregon on all these topics...very silent is Earl, Darlene, David, Peter and Ron.....very silent.

That too me that is worse than a person that has a public record of absolute convictions too their idealogies that is opposite of mine.

Aaron- I could not agree with you more. There's a saying in Russia, "It is better to die like a man then live like a chicken." Our reps are running around like frightened fowl.

However, there is nothing more dangerous to me then thoughtless people painted into corners by their convictions/faith. It is how the Neo-Cons "convinced" the Christo-fascists that Bush was in their corner. Once they were told God wanted them to vote for Dubya, they could not vote any other way.

Aaron-

What the hell are you talking about?

The Oregon delegation has been pretty outspoken on issues like Bush’s scheme to privatize Social Security, to Tom Delay’s ethics problems, to the administration failings in Iraq.

Turn on C-SPAN and you’ll see Peter and Earl close to every day speaking (and in some cases yelling) about the direction this country is going in. The bankruptcy bill…the estate tax….the rising deficits…

I’ve been to town hall meetings that Darlene and Earl have done and their pretty outspoken. I don’t see anyone running scared…do you have specific issues where you think they’re not speaking out.

Phyllis is absolutely right.

Darlene Hooley has been Congress's top attack-dog on the Administration's willingness to send our troops to Iraq without the body-armor they need to stay safe, and she has been a leading critic of the Administration's treatment of veterans.

Plus, I just heard on the radio this morning that she is circulating a petition in Congress to overrule the Republican leadership and force and up-or-down vote on the issue of Medicare negotiating prescription drug prices.

And where were Aaron and Gregor during the Terri Schiavo debacle? Earl Blumenauer was on just about every single cable news show yelling about people's right to die with dignity. (Not to mention the fact that Ron Wyden was the primary engine behind scaling-down the bill passed by Congress, so Oregon's Death-With-Dignity law would not be affected.)

And if Peter DeFazio were yelling about the evils of this Administration any more, his head might explode!

This is what Aaron calls "very silent"?!?!?!

For some bizarre reason, Oregon's liberal activists love to hate our elected officials. We're our own worst enemy.

I think I will take a lesson on this, Phyllis. Maybe, just maybe, the media is not showcasing the efforts of the Dems to maintain the programs under attack. Maybe we ought to laugh everytime someone says liberal media. They are the ones we don't see doing very much.

"Sniping" ... not just for eBay end-of-auctions anymore.

For the record, and to be true to this thread, I don't think that all of our legislators have been silent at all.

But then, I'm less concerned with what they are saying than I am how they are voting. David Wu is off my X-mas card list ... probably forever now (bankruptcy vote, and Thursday's, "Real ID" Bill).

As a bit of an aside, it is my current belief, developed through casual observation, not science, that generally speaking, Republicans are sheep whereas Dems are independent thinkers.

Toss in a dash of Oregonian demographic and the mix can be a distraction. Whereas over on the dark-side, they seem perfectly happy to goose-step in unison.

So my theory becomes: any half-wit can lead the Republican assembly line, whereas it's a real trick to assemble Dems into a team that can actually win. Therefore, when we find such a unique character, they tend to be bigger gems than the "me-too(s)" the dark-side produces.

Cheers & Beers! --DA BloggerRadio.com

P.S. I think that your system clock is off just a bit (6-hours +/-)

Is raising the federal minimum wage a good thing for liberals to argue for? From what I've read recently, it's a real cost/benefit thing. But we could get most of the benefits of it, without all the costs, but instead focusing on expanding the EITC.

It's really tough because in real terms, we're on the low side but not extraordinarily low (see my graph here), but the real problem has been the cost of housing compared to inflation, and the increasing split in the wealth gap. It seems like arguing for a minimum wage raise to make up for that is the wrong way to go, because it would just be transferring the gap-caused hurt to our businesses. Doesn't do much, though, to actually resolve the gaps.

Y'all are pretty frustrated by my ignorance, but I just learned a whole lot from your feedback and I am grateful. It is encouraging they are making a commotion, even if it seldom makes the front page, or the usual TV news outlets.

I will continue to take shots at the media because it is NOT liberal and it fails to be objective most of the time. While it is true that I could go surfing for more accurate information, the general public ought to have better information at their fingertips without having to dig into the Web. I may not read the paper or magazines as much as some of you, but I have the right to render my own thoughts regardless of how you may score them.

I don't know. I'd expect a Dem to do what Hooley is doing regarding body armor, etc. But she voted to make the estate tax cut permanent, she co-sponsored the bankruptcy bill, and I believe she is also co-sponsoring the sequel to the bankruptcy bill that makes predatory lending even easier, when there's a perfectly good democratic alternative she could be supporting instead. I don't think being pissed off at her is an example of arbitrary "love to hate" liberal whining.

First of all, the Bankruptcy Bill isn't all that our friends at Air America and Move-on.org have made it out to be. People earning less than the average wage in their state aren't even affected by the new law, and there are explicit protections for people who have incurred debt from medical expenses and military service. Even Earl Blumenauer supported the bill the first time Congress voted on it.

(To read Hooley's own defense of her vote, go here: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050501/OPINION/505010312&SearchID=73207249133932

But it's about time we all just got comfortable with the idea that Oregon's Fifth Congressional District has a Republican registration edge, and we're lucky Hooley has been able to hang on to it.

Hooley has been able to win reelection over and over again because she is a moderate. She is a good match for her district -- even if she's not such a perfect match for her liberal base. So she's inevitably going to disappoint the left every now and then. And more power to her for it.

But that doesn't mean she's not on the front-lines vocally criticizing the Administration. On the contrary, she is. As I said above, she hasn't just been a meek voice in the crowd, she has been the leading Democrat in Congress criticizing the Administration on the issue of body armor for our troops, fairness to our National Guardsmen, and benefits for our veterans. And now she is leading the charge on the Medicare prescription drugs issue.

The bottom line is: We have a lot to be grateful for in Darlene Hooley.

Here's some more information on the bankruptcy bill's sequel. The Center For Responsible Lending has a comparison (pdf) of the Ney bill (which Hooley cosponsors) and the Democratic bill. The Democratic bill has 37 cosponsors, all Democratic, and the Ney bill has 30 cosponsors, 18 Republican. That information comes from a recent diary from North Carolina rep Brad Miller over at daily kos.

The entire premise of the first bankruptcy bill was bad. The profit margins of the financial industry was climbing along with bankruptcy rate, which was climbing faster than the fraud rate. Plus, the rest of us don't pay for other people defaulting on their credit card debt - the credit card companies already have that figured into their profit margin, which, as I said, has been climbing. So the question of who this bill actually protected becomes illustrative of the problem. Finally, Hooley being in a Republican district is pretty irrelevant to the bankruptcy vote. There weren't exactly hordes of Republican consumers asking for the passage of the bill.

Tunesmith-

You wrote, "Plus, the rest of us don't pay for other people defaulting on their credit card debt - the credit card companies already have that figured into their profit margin, which, as I said, has been climbing."

So, are we to believe that the credit card companies do not write off the bad debt? I suspect they adjust their income by the loss and therefore reduce there taxes. It would seen that there is a cost to the tax base by the defaulted debts. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that is how it works. And it has to effect their bottom line.

It seems likely that their profit margins are such that they can absorb the loss as they would any other business expense but now they wish to create more profit by strangling those who overextended. I believe the over-extended have their share in the issue, but I do not feel that the credit card companies can be without fault for extending credit to a high risk.

Recently my identity was stolen and the man obtained a cell phone account despite the fact that he signed my name three different ways. The cell phone gets a write off for being stupid? There's something wrong with that scenario, but what auditor can gleen this info from their books? And why do the disclaimers about my not being the person to whom the phone was sold request the disclaimer NOT go the to the Feds?

Just trolling some thoughts here.

To Charlie's comments about the media: I read the Oregonian every day, the Washington Post online, the NYT online, CNN & MSNBC. I don't have cable and I usually don't dig too deeply in google for lack of time. Ok, and I should admit that I read the drudgereport.

I don't think I've seen any coverage of actions of the Oregon congretional delegation but for Wyden's efforts on protecting the death w/ dignity law and Hooley on the armor issue.

I'm not sure I'd call it a conservative bias as much as a 'really crappy coverage of congress and the legislature' bias.

Charlie-

No worries. I discovered right away that you gotta have tough skin if you want to put your thoughts out there. First couple posts here and I was being called a socialist and next thing I knew V. I. Lenin was chirping in with a very unusual German accent in response to my missives.

Cheers and Beers.

ah...i think it should be SOBs. not SOB's.