Ah, thanks for that. I've been wondering where the conservatives hang out in this state.... I sparred with 'em for a bit - doing my duty, I suppose, as a Blue Oregon trooper (hmm. I just made an interesting typo - "Bleu Oregon"; have any wingnuts tried out the "francophile" smear on this site?) - but I'm happy to know where to find the conservatives.

I posted on Basic Rights' decision to go after Minnis....it's not that complicated a piece - not worth linking to anyway - and it can be summed up in a sentence: does anyone wonder whether Basic Rights' focus could help Minnis rally conservatives? I don't know the answer, but that's worth the thought. It's not always smart to play one's hand openly.

Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown (D) has a few words of criticism for BRO as well:

""It's time to move forward, but to do it carefully and thoughtfully," said Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, D-Portland, who co-sponsored Senate Bill 1000, the civil unions measure, and played a key role in getting it passed in the Senate. Basic Rights has fence-mending to do, she said.

"Some of Basic Rights Oregon's legislative tactics weren't particularly effective," said Brown, who described the personal attacks on Minnis as "deplorable." (The Oregonian, 9/11/2005)

NW Republican's criticism is certainly over-the-top, but BRO is hearing it from both sides -- even their staunchest supporters.

I can't see continuing to support BRO until they have a look at their current leadership, much as we Democrats did after losing to Bush in 2005.

does anyone wonder whether Basic Rights' focus could help Minnis rally conservatives? I don't know the answer, but that's worth the thought. It's not always smart to play one's hand openly.

Surely SB1000 is not the only bill that the House refused to consider after it passed the Senate. And Minnis's quote "I didn't interfere with the Democratic process--I said from the beginning that we would not vote on SB 1000" could start a larger discussion about whether bills which pass either chamber are entitled to be voted up or down in committee in the other chamber.

Given the number of voters who ignore the legislature, think it is a game where they are just spectators, or otherwise distrust legislative "leaders" who tell the public which topics are "allowed" to be discussed and which aren't, I don't think it is a bad thing to debate whether a presiding officer makes the decision of what bills will reach the floor and call that "the democratic process" or whether the opening words of the Oregon Constitution "we the people of the State of Oregon" are still operative.

Good point, LT. I have to confess that I didn't make my point very well. I don't think there's anything wrong with Basic Rights Oregon going after Minnis for sitting on the bill; in my mind, that's totally fair game and, given their political agenda, drawing attention to that is what a group like BRO is for. What I wanted to get at is how publicly and intensely BRO wants to go after Minnis, or they extent to which they want to be seen as leading the charge against her. Repeating my confession that I don't know much about BRO's comparative political clout, I'm merely suggesting that they might be able to operate more effectively by folding themselves within a coalition of other groups gunning for Minnis. That way, BRO can be active in unseating Minnis without giving her a social issue with which to run against them. It's more a question of where BRO can most effectively operate and the question of whether they may do more harm than good.

Personally, I think there are many, many reasons to gun for Minnis - most of them having to do with all the maximalist/take-no-prisoners-brook-no-compromise insanity of the GOP agenda (dragging the budget process behind closed doors and to no good effect spring to mind as my chief objection).

Surely this is nothing but sound and fury. I mean, how could someone take seriously that which is written so poorly.

Jeff, excellent points.

Jeff,

The media jumped on the 'Stick It To Minnis' story, which has since been all over the AP wire in Oregon and beyond. I do not believe that this was the intent -- though unfortunately how it played out. The press played MInnis off as the '#1 enemy of BRO', although BRO never made that statement. They are only a small part of a broader coalition who want to remove Minnis from office with a more fair-minded (in many ways) candidate.

The 'Stick It to Minnis' event was simply that. One event to kick-off the Basic Rights Oregon Equality PAC's 2006 campaign. I attended this event as did about 100 others. It seemed very successful and I believe they raised a good amount of money for the PAC. Minnis is not the only focus of the PAC obviously. As a PAC they have a laundry list of tasks.

I agree though -- great points you brought up.

From BRO's web site: "Can ONE person really overrule the will of the Senate, the Governor, the House and the Majority of Oregonians? Speaker of the House Karen Minnis thinks so. This legislative session, she alone stopped democracy in its tracks and blocked SB 1000 from becoming the law. Let’s make sure she regrets defending discrimination when she runs for reelection in 2006."

That seems like an BRO Enemy #1 press release right there - why the suprise that the news reported it exactly the way BRO presented it?

It's time to mend some fences, pull the community together (which is badly fractured from a lack of leadership at BRO) and get things back on track or we will be looking at a good five or ten year setback here.

I strongly support BRO's attempt to oust Minnis. In polls taken before measure 36, a majority of Oregonians may not have supported gay marriage, but they did support civil unions. I thought SB 1000 was a satisfactory comprimise, as did many other Republicans included. It took a lot of energy to get that comprimise, but when it was created, it passed the Senate with Republican support. That says something....

When it reached the House, it was said that a majority in the house would have supported the bill, but Minnis used her power as speaker to crush it. That is not comprimise. That is not democracy. That is not even reasonable. We must assume that she did this not because an overwhelming number of Oregonians were against civil unions, but because it was in her power to do so.

I am tired of hearing conservatives say that we cannot speak out against someone, when they themselves do it all the time! I am equally tired of liberals playing "nice" when their counterparts could careless. The fact is, as speaker, Minnis has a right to her personal opinion, but not to withhold legislation that a majority of Oregonians support. This type of power-play should have a cost attached to it. It should cost her her job!

I think that there are plenty of Republicans, who may not agree with me or any other liberals concerning taxes or social programs or even education, but many of these same Republicans want fair treatment for all tax paying citizens of our state. That is common ground and that is what Minnis destroyed in the last session.

<h2>I think it's obvious that Minnis was the primary obsticle to SB1000 passing. Since she has made it known she plans to run for re-election I think it's BRO's obligation to push for her defeat, as any pro-gay rights organization should do. Nothing BRO has put out or sanctioned has been in any way a personal attack on Minnis, just on her political positions. I'm sorry, but Minnis IS enemy #1 to fair legislation for the GLBT community, and sugar coating that fact would be political cowerdice. From what other position is BRO supposed to approach it from?</h2>