When you flip flop like this sooner or later the D's won't work with you, Chris, and neither will the R's. If I needed help on a campaign today, you'd be the last person that I'd trust.

Chris,

Your post makes no sense. What you seem to be saying is: You agree with the Dems on policy matters, but you have been working for Mannix because you think he's a nice guy and a principled person. What? What kind of preference-ordering is that? For all I know, Pinochet and Castro are nice guys and principled policymakers, but they're also maniacal dictators!

Secondly, if you don't like Ted but you also disagree with Mannix's policy positions, then how about just casting a protest vote in the General Election? (Which, I might add, is a long way off.) How about going to work for Ron Saxton, who is a much more palatable candidate than Mannix? Or how about getting involved with another Democrat's campaign, like Pete Sorenson or Vicki Walker? Or how about just going to work in another race entirely -- like for Wu, Hooley, or for a progressive ballot measure?

The bottom line is: It is a completely false dichotomy to say that because you don't like Ted, your only other choice is to go door-knocking for Kevin Mannix!!!

Finally, as for the point that Mannix is a more decisive, principled leader than Kulongoski -- that is just ridiculous. I once heard someone say, "Kevin Mannix would be a Red-Communist-Chinaman if he thought it would get him elected." I mean, seriously, this guy has been a Democrat AND a Republican; he has been on every side of every issue (you should look into his position on defending Oregon's assisted suicide law when he ran for AG); and he is the slimiest political operative in the state.

Chris, your post is completely absurd.

Having volunteered for several Democratic campaigns last year and being friends with the campaign staff for several, I first encountered Chris Nicholson.

He tried to secure internships with Bill Bradbury, Hardy Myers, and Earl Blumenauer. Soon after his interviews with them he told them he was not interested and then tried to get other people to run against them in the primaries.

Then he went to work for their Republican opponents in the 2004 elections. This at the same time he says he was “donating large chunks of my earnings to people like Democracy for America, John Kerry, the DNC”

Now he's working with Mannix and the College Republicans. It is one thing to listen to different ideas and opinions, but to be working for both sides at the same time seems wrong.

And with this latest post, I have no idea what the heck he is trying to say. But he put himself out there for hire/volunteer work. My advice to anyone (Dem, Rep, or Indpt.) would be stay far away…..

Chris, you're suffering from "celebrity awe." You've personally met someone you see on the news regularly, and you've been star struck. It happens. I think I gurgled when I met Gary Hart. I actually managed to say something when I met Doug Wilder.... about sports. ACK! Then when I went to work in radio back east, I got a "You're awesome" out to Melissa Ethridge, and a "You're funny" out to Richard Belzer. Not much better.

This trend continued when I moved to SoCal. I just stared and looked stupid at Brent Spiner in a Virgin Records, and Jimmy Smits in a Brentwood grocery store. Same thing again Meg Ryan and Dennis Quaid walked into the same grocery story a couple of weeks later.

Regular people meeting famous people often causes regular people to act stupid. That's fine. It's forgivable. Now get over it. Politicians are paid to make you like them. If the experience of meeting powerful politicians wasn't a powerful tool to sway people, politicians wouldn't go out meeting people as much as they do. Politicians fill their schedules with public appearances because public appearances work.

Now that you have had this phenomenon explained to you, you need to wipe the awe-struck expression off your face and get back to work.... and next time, if you want to meet nice people, go to a pub.

Chris,

You assume that:

1. taxes you send to the government will go to something worthwhile

2. public health care will be quality health care

These are 2 HUGE assumptions. Personally, I converted from liberal to libertarian when I realized that the 1st assumption here was a joke. I'd rather control my money, and send it to a private charity of my choice. Money in the hands of the federal government is money squandered away on special interest (an unfortunate reality that liberals don't seem to accept).

Chris: "Money in the hands of the federal government is money squandered away on special interest"

Yeah, special interests like disabled people like my mom (Multiple Sclerosis) and me (brain trauma from random act of violence) who worked our asses off and then had life collapse on them.

The last I saw, the official plank of the Libertarian Party platform toward disabled issues could be paraphrased as "Screw disabled people."

afs,

You have only reinforced my point. There are people who need charity, and it is better for me to help them through private non-profit organizations. I would like to help disabled people as much as anyone. Unfortunately, for every dollar I sent to DC, probably only 1% of it goes to such causes.

To remind you, the feds just spend over $200 billion to disable people in Iraq. Over the same period of time, they have spend even more money on other crap.

The Libertarian Party does not want to "screw disabled people." Just the opposite is true. We recongize that the federal income tax is not the best way to help disabled people.

Chris:

Are you sure that you donated to John Kerry?

A quick www.opensecrets.org search shows that you donated $500 to the DNC about a week before the election, but nothing to Kerry or any other federal candidate, ever.

Chris... I can't tell whether you are ignorant, a liar, or some combination of both.

My mom and I would be starving in a cardboard box under a freeway overpass with no access to health care waiting around for charity from selfish bastards like you to do something. When libertarians like you say "charity," we know exactly what you mean. When a libertarian or a neo-con sais "charity," that means means someone OTHER THAN YOU will help. When a bunch of greedy people all say "someone other than me" will help, nobody gets helped. Just like what is happening to homeless people right now. It's not your problem.... until you are the one life collapses in on. Not many disabled libertarians, are there? Why? They all ran like hell to re-register as Democrats the minute they get sick.

And don't blame me for the billions spent on Iraq. I didn't support that mess. Anyone online before the Iraq invasion had the information at their disposal to know the Iraq WoMD claims were rubbish. I was one of the one who tried to get that info out and failed.

One last point. You know where the "Libertarian" model of government leads? Somalia. No services. No infrastructure. The warlord with the most AK-47s wins. You can keep that lifestyle, thanks.

I appreciate all your comments, and I just wanted to clear up a few things:

I can understand that some of you may be fairly angry or disappointed in me after working for the Republicans in California, and volunteering for them up here for two months.

But that's what this post is about. I'm done. I've decided that personal judgments about candidates need to take a back seat to political ideology. To put it the same way Willie Smith put it to me when I was meeting him about one of those positions:

You work for the party you agree with 80% and 80% of the time.

I'm not a very ideological person; I hold my beliefs, but I tend to want to work for people whose goal I believe it is to make positive change. Now I know from reading comments on BlueOregon almost everyone on here is very opposed to Kevin Mannix as a person, let alone a political individual. And maybe because I don't have the passionate hatred of the Republican party, that means you just write me off.

I've decided that even though I don't hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, I can't work for people of that party because as Willie told me and I didn't listen, You gotta work for the people you agree with 80%, and 80% of the time. The Republican party's long term goals are not my long term goals, and I don't think they should be this country's long term goals. I refuse to say anything negative about Kevin Mannix as a person, because in all my interactions with him, he has been a totally good person. I will say however that his change, while I think he is trying to do the right thing, both does not go far enough in the right direction, and very often moves in the wrong direction.

I admit that I made the wrong decision in terms of my long term future, in deciding to want to work for him. I am not going to spend the rest of my life being a Republican operative, because I worked for a few Republicans and now no Democrats will trust me. It is too important to me to be working in the long term for the Ideas I believe in. One or two good jobs are not as important as that.

I want to start over. I will say right now, in print, that I am done even considering helping Republicans. I'm a dissatisfied Democrat, in that I want better leaders in the Democratic party, and better politicians, but that does not mean the right way to get involved is to go work for the other side.

I admit I screwed up with Joe and Willie. They are great guys who were nothing but nice to me, and I crapped on their help. I'm still in college and I would hope that I get the same ability to have a questioning period for my political choices, just like I did when I was coming out 6 years ago.

If the only people Democrats accept are those who blindly follow based on faith, rather than struggling with such an important decision, then I think that's at least a little bit sad.

I know now exactly why I'm a Democrat, and now I know exactly why that means I can't and I shouldn't be working for other partisan candidates.

2004 was my first try in partisan politics. These last two months were my second. I've jumped off the ship and I'm not going back. Shouldn't the Democratic Party be willing to accept those individuals who've had to think about it?

I understand the fact that Nick probably won't trust me any time soon. That's unfortunate. I really am just trying to do the right thing, and I think most of you would agree, the right thing isn't always the easy thing to see.

Yes, I could have worked for Saxton. But I don't like Saxton. I think he's not nearly as well educated on the issues as he should be to become governor. I've met with Vicki Walker about the very thing you described, but she's not a decared candidate, and I've also met with Pete Sorenson, who I very much like as a person and a local politician, but I simply didn't come away thinking he had the experience neccessary to be governor. I wanted to do something cool with computers in politics, and Mannix had something cool for me to do. I realized however, just as I did on my last campaign, that issues are actually more important than the people pushing them. That even though I think Ted Kulongoski could do a much better job (and I'm not the only Democrat who feels that way) that that doesn't mean I should go work for the Republicans.

And in response to the comment about burning bridges: neither the Mannix campaign people or the Oregon College Republican people are mad at me about this. They all understood that I had come to the conclusion that I just couldn't be supporting an ideology I didn't believe in.

Also, just for clarification, I never interviewed with the Myers campaign (though a guy I know from school was running it), and I never tried to get Democratic challengers into the primary (that I can remember). I actually ended up help my 18 year old friend who the previous day had been a Democrat, file as the Republican nominee for Attorney General, since up until 4 PM there was no Republican candidate. She withdrew 2 days later because it was all kind of meant as a joke, but I most certainly never tried to help a Democrat run against the AG, SoS, or Treasurer.

In terms of Donations:

200 to John Kerry back in I think it was either May, June, or July of 2004 (was done through John Kerry.com)

150 to the DCCC that somehow got split with DFA (it was a DCCC and DFA fundraiser in the bay area), September 2004.

Either 25 or 50 (I can't remember the exact amount, I did it cause she sent me mail) to Barbara Boxer, in June or July 2004.

500 to the DNC in October 2004 when Terry McAuliffe came into town while I was volunteering for the Progressive Democrat in Iowa.

1000 to the Progressive Democrat I volunteered for in Iowa.

(and while you may not count this it was fun: 500 for lawnsigns making fun of an Iowa Republican House candidate; (he was running a campaign that made him look like a Democrat, and he had these nice yellow "Schickel for Assembly" signs, so I got 100 lawn signs printed up that said "Schickel is NOT a Democrat, in the same Black on Yellow style. (I still have a copy of a picture next to one, and anyone who wants to see it can email me)

So yea, I did at least give money.

Oh, I forgot the best part about the Schickel story:

All Schickel's signs had "Paid for by Bill Schickel for Assembly" or something along those lines, on the bottom. I wanted to put something there too, so I created the Iowa Political Organization "People Against Deceptive Republicans", and put "Paid for by People Against Deceptive Republicans" on the bottom of the sign. Do a google search for it and you'll find the PDF online through Iowa's reporting site (they do a great job).

For those who are lazy, here's the link: http://iecdb.iowa.gov/reports/ind_exp/people_against_deceptive_republicans_10_25_04.pdf (and it turns out it was $452.65 cents for the signs, so a little less than 500)

The thing that bothered me about Pete was that while his heart was in the right place, his quest seems a bit quixotic. He stands strong on his principles and knows why he's running, but he lacks gravitas and depth. I've been staring at the keyboard for the last 5 minutes trying to find a better definition of what I mean than just that phrase, but I can't think of anything that fits better.

A good example, from the Why I'm running page. Pete doesn't get into actual solutions until the last paragraph, and the whole time talks about taxes: "We – you and I – can begin to turn this around by closing major tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy that shift tax responsibility for education from them to us. Hard as it is to believe, many corporations pay only $10 in annual state tax. In 2005-07, the 40 available tax credits will reduce corporation tax revenue by roughly $64 million, millions that are being made up in more program cuts and increased tuition fees. The wealthy receive luxury tax deductions for their second and third homes and for their pleasure boats; the pleasure boats alone will cost Oregon over $27 million in lost revenue. These lost millions add up to lost education for the children, teens and adults in our state.

The Oregon Lottery is to maximize revenue for public services, including schools, while giving the contractors – taverns and other businesses who house the machines – a "reasonable rate of return". Last year contractors got a whopping 32%. ECONorthwest, a respected economics firm hired by the Lottery, recently determined that 15% is a reasonable rate. Instead, the Lottery lowered the rate minimally to 28.8%, with no explanation on why its own commissioned study was ignored. That amounts to potentially millions of dollars not going into public education in Oregon – millions of dollars that should be going into a bright future for all of Oregon." I agree that taxes are an important issue, but what you do with the money is more important than just having the money. Primary education, secondary education, higher education, healthcare, good jobs, equal rights (that, fortunately, doesn't take as much money). Funding of life-saving medical research (stem cells), funding of better and bigger homeless shelters and programs working to end homelessness. More money for free clinics and Sexual health, condoms, birth control, the morning after pill, and money for safe and low cost abortions for low income individuals.

And while I've emailed this post to Kari (with a few minor modifications from the version below), I think this writing articulates where I am now in terms of challenging the governor: As is probably clear from my earlier posts, I'm not a big fan of Ted Kulongoski. His lack of an aggressive leadership style is disappointing to me.

So yea, to anyone from Ted's campaign who's reading this, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to stop going after Ted, and give you guys the opportunity to show me how my party's best chance to keep the Governor's office is going to stand up for the progressive things I believe in. If you want to know what those are, see my earlier post explaining why I couldn't work for Kevin Mannix. I want Ted to be the kind of candidate that stands for those strong progressive ideals. And I don't think that should be out of the question for a Democrat from Oregon.

While he's not everything we could hope for, Democrats need to rally behind Kulongoski because it's the politically smart thing to do. Kulongoski's poll numbers, especially among Ds, means he needs the chance to articulate a vision for Oregon, and show a strong positive message. Also, if there ends up being a clear Republican field, both the Dems and the Rs will be going after Ted. A bloody primary is just what the Republicans want, and if Democrats are smart, we won't give it to them. We have only to fault ourselves if we lose because we didn't play the game well.

Typical Reed kid's "look at me look at me" hokum. He doesn't support K because he is "weakass"; doesn't support Sorenson because he lacks "depth"... so his answer? Support Mannix! Great logic kid.

Yes. And i've recognized that was dumb. Don't people get to make mistakes? I was not the first person to say that when it comes to standing up for school funding and Gay marriage, and eradicating poverty, Kulongoski isn't as strong as I'd like. I really really like to work in politics. It's enormously fun, and when i'm doing it with good people, the rush beats out even good chocolate. I really wanted to get involved, but I couldn't stomach working for someone who was in my party but not espousing my ideals. On Gay Marriage, there's no difference between Kulongoski and Mannix, and I believe in Gay Marriage, not civil unions. There are multitudes of Ds on here who've critisized Kulongoski for his work on school funding, and I feel the same way.

However, as I said in my last comment, I'm going to suck it up. Ted is the best advocate for a Democratic voice in the Governor's office, and while he might not say all the things I want him to, and his lack of certain positions outright bothers me, he's the smart choice for Democrats. That's the conclusion I've come to.

Chris Nicholson: You know what? Some politicians aren't as gifted as Bill Clinton was. And some of the ones that aren't as gifted are Democrats. Some politicians don't have the same mind for policy. Some don't connect with voters as well. Some could have better advisors. However, the one thing that defines Democrats as a whole is they do want to do something for those who aren't lucky enough to share much of the abundance this society is blessed with. The Republicans do not. The Republicans support the predators in society and the rights of predators to feed on the weak.

It's a cut and dried line in the sand. You either line up on the side that is trying to make the world a little better place for everyone, or you line up for those who want to make the world better for themselves. You accept that some of those that are trying to help are flawed human beings and you soldier on and do the good work of making this world a little better place than it was when we came into it.

Is the filing deadline next March, or are we all supposed to believe that anyone who has not declared by Sept. 2005 is not running for Governor?

One thing a friend and I agree on (there are other things we don't agree on) is that Oregonians should not be required to choose between Mannix, Saxton, Kulongoski, Sorenson as if the nominations will close in a number of weeks and those will be the only names on the ballot.

I don't buy that. I think Filing Day is in March, 2006. I talked to someone yesterday who said decisions would be made on his decision whether to run for legislature (or anything else) in the Oct./Nov. time frame.

So, can we enjoy the nice weather in August without being told that the 4 Gov. candidates Mannix, Saxton, Kulongoski, Sorenson are all we have to choose from so we'd better decide before school starts which side we are on?

It seems like insead of looking for a candidate or group that really holds the same ideals, be it a small organization, caucus, local official, or someone that doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. You instead picked went for someone that is a really horrible person just because they are running for a high profile position that could advance your career quickly. If you are a true progressive than you would know that the ideals and beliefs always come first. The quickest route for personal glory and advancement always comes last. It may not be the easiest or the funnest but it sure beats out selling your soul to the devil just for a political career that may or may not happen.

Well Chris I'll give you "guts" points. You must have known you were going to get the same treatment as Dick Morris. I, too, used to be a college Republican and worked out of then Majority Leader Greg Walden's office. That experience caused me to realize I was in the wrong party as well and I switched shortly thereafter. I don't know you so you could be a total liar or sincere. I do know that a famous republican once used the phrase "trust but verify" in reference to the changing Soviet Union. In that spirit, I would invite you to contact me and I would be happy to provide you with some opportunities to prove your new found convictions.

Marshall and afs, Ideals and beliefs do come first. But yea, I made a choice because I wanted to do interesting work, rather than just stuff envelopes. I recognized that was a bad choice and so I quit.

afs is exactly right, and it was not an easy pill for me to swallow: "You accept that some of those that are trying to help are flawed human beings and you soldier on and do the good work of making this world a little better place than it was when we came into it." I'm not one to follow someone based on blind faith, but instead prefer to have a strong understanding of what I'm doing it for. I realize that Democrats have flaws, and it has been difficult for me to see that a not so great D candidate is better than even a great R candidate.

On the other hand, isnt this going a little far: "The Republicans support the predators in society and the rights of predators to feed on the weak." You're practically saying that 50% of this country is evil. That's about as unfair as the Republicans saying that Democrats believe in communism and the complete annihilation of economic freedom, or that we want to kill children. And while some do say those things, I don't think the average Republican would call the average Democrat a baby killer or a communist.

Democrats are capitalists too, it's just that we believe in using the system to create economic prosperity for all, not just those in the top 5% percent. Let's be more articulate than that, and use real life examples to show how our current system promotes inequality and we as Democrats believe in correcting it. Lets talk about bright kids growing up with uneducated parents in bad neighborhoods, who can't get the good teachers they need to really challenge them to learn. Lets talk about hardworking Oregonians who get laid off from their jobs because businesses are leaving the state, and then get sick and have no healthcare.

These are the stories that will resonate with average voters in this state. Statistics are important, and as a math guy I love a good number, but a real example is always more powerful. Lets meet those bright kids going to bad schools because their parents can't afford better ones, lets engage with those driven Oregon workers who can't get the medicine they need.

Lets talk about Real Oregonians, and why their examples show we need Real Change.

On a related note to Democratic success: I was reading somewhere today (and for the life of me I can't find it in my cache), that Republicans have been faultering in the polls because people are dissatisfied with their leadership, but the gains democrats could be making with those dissatisfied voters are currently being wiped out by the Democrats' positions on social issues, because of how important those social issues are to voters. (It was an article or something that was written recently; If anyone else read something like this please post it).

Now, I'm not saying we need to take lax positions on social issues, far from it. I want the Democrats to be out front standing up for progressive social values. We just need to contextualize the discussion: talk less about specific policies and more about broad concepts. Bush never uses the phrase anti-abortion, or even pro-life, but instead talks about a culture of life.

We need to put our support for choice and equality in terms of a broad concept that appeals to people. I'm just not sure exactly what that is (fairness equality, and good public policy all come to mind). I think equal rights and health rights are common sense issues. We shouldn't be afraid to say that abortion protects health and has a positive impact on society. We shouldn't give up the concepts of "freedom" and "liberty"; they apply just as much to our core values.

Abortion is about providing freedom to women to choose what kind of lives they want to lead. It provides a healthy and safe way of dealing with a very difficult situation that our mothers, our sisters, and even our daughters all may face.

Equal rights for gays and lesbians is about providing everyone with the same liberty to choose their partner and lead a happy life. Everyone adult should have the same right to share their life in a loving relationship with another adult, and all those relationships should be given the same rights. There is something fundamentally different between two elderly sisters living together, and two lesbians starting a family together, but there is nothing different between those lesbians and a heterosexual couple wanting to do the same thing. Being in love is different than just having a loving relationship. Democrats understand that.

Christopher Nicholson: It's you tossing that "evil" word into this discussion, not me. The fact that someone is selfish generally indicates they are a Republican (and vice versa). The fact that someone may be selfish doesn't necessarily make someone "evil" or preclude the possibility that a person is otherwise a good person. They may never lift a hand towards another person; never raise their voice in anger; may never even consider touching another person's property... but when it comes to their stuff, it's theirs, and keep your hands off their stuff. They ain't sharin' it. Well... that makes a person a flawed human being... a quality a whole bunch of us share.

That said... when dealing with questions of public policy regarding how we are all going to live as a community, humanity's most basic quandary is scarcity of resources. How do we divy up what we all want but can't all have? Nobody is being "communist" if they point out that having too many resources get hoarded in too few places is real bad for everyone in the society... including those doing the hoarding. Republicans have a real blind spot for this fact. People have a right to be rich, but they don't have the right to be so rich that it screws up the entire economic system. That's the problem the GOP doesn't get. They've allowed so much hoarding by so few people that the capitalist system which you claim to support is so broken, that it's almost not capitalism anymore. The alliance between the neo-cons and multi-national corporations has basically brought back the old mercantilist system of the ultra-elites and the modern equivalent of the old crown trading companies, the multi-national corporation. Multi-national corporations have been allowed to get so big, small business cannot compete with them.

What happened the last time in history this situation happened? The American Revolution! Most of what ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British Royal Trading Companies. Adam Smith was a social liberal who wrote "The Wealth of Nations" as attack on the system of royal trading companies. Capitalism is based on a multitude of small independent businesses. The invisible hand of capitalism requires no business be allowed to become large enough to dictate terms to the market.

Are you getting it yet? The Democrats ARE the capitalists. It's the GOP that's anti-capitalist. The Republicans are trying bring back the East India Trading Company-style mega-corporations with themselves taking the role of the ultra-elites in charge of them.

I agree. However, instead of just opposing what the Republicans are doing in terms of tax cuts for the wealthy, Democrats should stand up for small businesses. Why not provide matching funds for healthcare for employees of small businesses (say 50 employees or less). That promotes competition while at the same time promoting healthcare. We could pay for it by raising business taxes on larger corporations (say 1000 employees or more). It makes fundamental sense to me that government should be helping small businesses to succeed.

Chris N: Every other industrialized nation has already figure out that private health care systems do not work. Private health care costs a minumum of twice as much per unit of patient care as single payer, government sponsored health care systems. Further continued attempts to make private health care work will be just as useless. Every possible combination has already been tried, and failed as miserably as our current health care mess.

The reason this is going to pass in the next decade is business is finally waking up to the fact that thay can no longer afford private health care plans for employees. You want to help business? Pull ALL the burden of providing health care to employee off the backs of businesses, and cut the total cost of health care in this country in half. That's a proposal that everyone understands is workable.

Republicans and tax cuts... Did you know Goldwater supported a 90% top tax rate? Eisenhower had a 90% top tax. Nixon never remotely suggested lowering the 70% top tax rate he inherited.

The rich need to pay their fair share. The rich get rich and stay rich because they and their money are kept safe by the US military and local police. They use the infrastructure provided and maintained by the US government to get their capital from one place to another, and are able to further enrich themselves because they can get a highly trained American workforce to labor for them. The rich need to pay their fair share of the cost toward maintainance of the US economic infrastructure. They need to pay for the education and certain basic minimum needs of the population that will provide the wealthy the employees that labor every day to enrich their bank accounts of the ultra-rich.

Chris -

The one thing, above all others, in your post(s) I find odd is that you say Kevin Mannix is a nice person - that has not been my experience.

While I haven't had the opportunity over the years to visit Salem very often to observe the Legislature at work, I did some back when I was a director of a residential youth treatment facility. I was witness to Kevin Mannix, who was if memory serves correct then a Democrat, being a complete and total ass. Frequently in hearings about funding levels for social services, clients of social service agencies will testify about their needs and how various agencies have helped them. Generally these are vulnerable people who have taken great emotional risk to come to that sort of forum to express themselves. So, when a Legislator is rude, uncaring, walks out, etc., it gets noticed. I noticed. Have never liked Mannix since then.

Perhaps he treats you different when you are giving him labor or money.

Nice?

Chris-

No worries from me. Shoot me an e-mail, I'd be happy to talk with you.

I'm not going to wade into the other issues. We all do things we later regret (maybe me more than others). So I hope we can leave Chris alone and move forward!

Willie

First of all, Kevin Mannix can charm an audience if he wants to, just as he often lets his sarcastic side out.

We also need to understand what it was about Paul Hackett which won him 4 rural Ohio counties.

Which is what I wrote Dan Balz after his article about a study of rural focus groups. I think a focus group of 20 reflects 20 individual attitudes, not the attitude of everyone in the demographics of the focus group members.

Chris said On a related note to Democratic success: I was reading somewhere today (and for the life of me I can't find it in my cache), that Republicans have been faultering in the polls because people are dissatisfied with their leadership, but the gains democrats could be making with those dissatisfied voters are currently being wiped out by the Democrats' positions on social issues, because of how important those social issues are to voters. (It was an article or something that was written recently; If anyone else read something like this please post it).

I wrote Dan Balz in that abovementioned email that I didn't think even the great Stan Greenberg was 100% right about everything, and thus I wasn't sure that everyone running as a Democrat would win simply by running on a script written by someone like Stan Greenberg. The URL for the story is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/09/AR2005080901334.html

I don't think everyone in a group (political party or otherwise) is identical. I know a lot of people who voted for Bush and Hooley. Republicans and Democrats need to think about how to attract those voters.

Sarcasm and bullying backfire. Positive action and rhetoric impress people. I recall running into Kevin Mannix just days after he lost for Gov., and saying to him that had the tone of his campaign been the same as the tone of his concession speech, he might have won. He looked really startled.

I think Jeff Alworth has it about right. I have some Republican friends who have interests similar to mine in some areas. As I recently wrote one of them, "If you and I, with our diverse interests, ever found a candidate for Gov. we could both support, that candidate would probably win".

LT: Thanks for posting that. It was driving me crazy trying to remember where I'd seen it. From what I've heard about Kevin's campaign in 2002 (I was a junior in High School in CA at the time) I think your critique is spot on. I also think he's learned from 2002. I don't believe that any of the individuals i've even heard rumored as considering running are the kind of candidate that fits this bill: "If you and I, with our diverse interests, ever found a candidate for Gov. we could both support, that candidate would probably win," but I do think Democrats can reach out to moderate voters with a positive message and without compromising our principles. Paul Hackett is a great example, and if Tim Ryan (whom I love to death), does not run against DeWine, I hope Hackett does. For those of you who don't know much about Ryan or who don't read Kos and MyDD on a regular basis, here's one reason I like him. Here's another (its a google cache page because 2020 Democrats doesn't seem to still have it on their site)

And in reply to Professor Gronke: Blogs should be a conversation. I was not trying to defend myself, but simply answer good faith questions and participate in the dialog. However, I do think there are cases where a commenter on a blog post might want to limit his comment to only the person he was replying to, or only certain people. It would be pretty cool if you could leave notes on blogs (or even on websites) for others.

Folks, I don't agree with many things that Chris has done, and I don't agree with some of the things he is still saying, but the minute you shut yourselves off to him you are no better than Karen Minnis shutting herself off to a vote on gay rights or Taxpayers United shutting themselves off to the idea of increased taxes to help Oregon's under-privileged. Come on: be Democrats. Don't insult. If you have a problem, discuss--respectfully--and try to come to some sort of understanding. I know that all of you are not guilt of this, but this would have been a much more beneficial discussion to follow if it was about Chris's issues with Democratic leadership. On Sorenson: my chief worry with Sorenson is that he strikes me as an absolutist on many things. For all of Kulongoski's faults, he is someone who can sit down with both sides and find the common ground. You may not have agreed with his compromise on SB1037, but he saw the need for clarificationof Measure 37, he saw that compromising on transferability was the only way it was going to move out of the House, and he decided that transferability could be reattacked at a later date. I like that, although I'm sure many of you don't. Those of you who know something about Sorenson, anything you say that could cast him a bipartisan light would be greatly appreciated. On Mannix: Kevin Mannix runs the high school I graduated from last year, so I have had a lot of person interaction with him. I find him to be nice on the surface, but his niceness has always struck me as very phoney, a means to an end. I would echo the sentiments that he is constantly in a state of campaigning, and that electing him would be agreat detriment to this great state.

As far as candidates (who may or may not run) I have said for some time that my "fantasy baseball" matchup is Westlund vs. Schrader: both have budget background, both can easily converse with ordinary citizens, both are nice people not known to sarcasm, both can answer questions in a Q & A forum. The Republican friend mentioned above knows Ben. A Democratic friend said of the matchup "Westlund without any thought as the true Democrat in the race". It makes for some interesting discussions.

As far as 1037 is concerned, I would think that the 20mph speed limit fiasco would have taught legislators that if they make big changes in haste they may repent in leisure. My Republican state senator voted against 1037 B. My Republican state rep. voted against 1037 D. In my visits to the capitol, I'm not sure I talked to 5 people who knew what was in 1037D. I think the legislature avoided the Measure 50 mistake--the double majority is still with us because after Measure 47 passed, the legislature made it a goal to send a revision out to the voters, but they weren't very careful about how they wrote it.

Was transferability in the original measure? If so, people should say so. If not, the proponents of Measure 37 were trying to do an end run and were stopped. If it wasn't in the measure, then it is phony to say "the voters have spoken" on transferability.

There is a borderline between trying to solve a problem and giving up a bit to do it, on the one hand, and giving away the store on the other hand. I have heard it described as consensus vs. consensomania, or in terms of a movie production. A director once said of such decisions "I'll be glad to discuss using blue lights vs. using green lights, but when it comes to a request to change the plot, there I draw the line. "

As far as Those of you who know something about Sorenson, anything you say that could cast him a bipartisan light would be greatly appreciated. I used to admire Pete Sorenson, and as I recall had some email exchanges with him. But if anyone wants to search the Blue Oregon posts, I think he was a topic awhile back. And something said on that or some other topic really bothered me. I don't remember what.

So I will say what I say to all candidates wanting my support: It is the job of the candidate to impress the voter who then is willing to tell friends that "this is a good candidate because...". It is NOT the job of a voter to be impressed by any particular candidate. And if someone supports candidate A because they watched them grow up, or heard them say something intelligent, or because Candidate B said or did something which really bothered them, those are all valid reasons for making a voting decisions.

Chris:

I've never met a tax increase I didn't vote for, and I think big government means that we're doing the kinds of things we should be doing.

Sounds a lot like Mannix before his "conversion" from D to R. Maybe you should be working for him.

afs:

The last I saw, the official plank of the Libertarian Party platform toward disabled issues could be paraphrased as "Screw disabled people."

So long as they are consenting adults, I'm not sure why government should stand in the way of a little handi-capable lovin'.

Seriously Chris, take about three or four years off from politics. Read, live and reflect. Sample divergent political philosophies before you waste any more time or money with politicians.

Read Karl Marx, read Ayn Rand, read John Rawls, read Thomas Jefferson. If you decide to come back to politics with a little more life experience under your belt, you'll be much better off for it.

There are a lot of pompous fools in both parties, don't be one of those wankers who carries their water just so you get to hang around "important people".

This is the most bizzare blog I have read on this site. The author is basically a schizophrenic who enjoys listening to himself (evidenced by the fact that half the posts are from him - I've never seen that). The posters are attacking him for changing his mind and whether or not he actually contributed money to whatever. And LT is talking about his/her fantasy baseball picks. Wow. Why doesn't Chris complete this surreal life and run for governor himself:

All that's missing is Brigitte Nielsen and Flavor Flav.

I worked for Kevin for five years. Like Chris, I think Ted has not inspired Oregonians. As for the rest, think what you may about Kevin, I can personally attest he was one of the best employers I ever had. The guy really cares about people and his community. He just does not brag about his volunteer/charitable work like some others. I think he would be the best governor Oregon has seen in a long time. Regardless of your politics, you have to admire his intellect and campaign skills. I think the Democrats have shown what they can (cannot) do for our state. Now let's see if the Republicans can improve upon the status quo.