Not the only district where there might be questions: Check out District 25 where there is no serious candidate in either party.

Plenty of time yet if people are considering running for the legislature.

Jeff

Nancy Nathanson filed on Nov 29. So your tipster is dated.

HD 13 filing with the State Elections Office

Jeff,

I found your posting to be highly inaccurate and inflammatory on oh so many levels.

First you wrote:

"HD 13 is one of the most liberal districts in the state - and progressives should expect a progressive leader to emerge."

Says who? The Eugene Weekly? News Flash Jeff: Everything that anti-union, anti-planned growth and anti-women perveuyor of yellow journalism writes is inaccurate at best and is usually a downright lie, period. We mainstream liberals here in Lane County stop relying on that rag a long, long time ago.

Bet you they didn't mention that the district voted for Frohnmayer for Governor, or that Marie Bell, a right-wing Republican held the district for two terms, or that Vicki Walker almost lost the district to Republican Jeff Miller in 2000. I bet you they also failed to mention that Nathanson beat Piercy in the district by a hefty margin, and that neither Piercy nor Nathanson was endorsed by the local party.

So Jeff, did you, oh I don't know, talk to anyone who actually lives in the district who might have a historic prospective on how neo-progressives fair in elections (they don't)? Or did you leave your confines of NW Portland to actually go to north Eugene and see for yourself that your definition of "progressive" Eugene only applies to areas south of the Willamette? Did you call Rep Ackerman to find out his reasons for supporting Nancy Nathanson?

Funny I don't recall you doing any fact-checking before issuing your opinion out to the public for God and Democrats to see.

Instead, you slam a fellow Democrat and former Chair of the Democratic Party of Lane County in a very public article without so much as the courtesy of contacting her, Rep Ackerman or myself to get your facts straight.

Sticking your nose in the affairs of others you know nothing about and preaching your holier-than-thou urban political dogma onto those who do not want it nor havem a need for it. So typically Portland neo-progressive.

For the record, Nancy Nathanson is a Democrat. In the final analysis, that is all she, or any one of us who claims to be a champion of liberal causes, needs to be.

Way to go Chris! Much as I like Blue Oregon, sometimes there is a tendency to be Portland-centric and to imply that the view from Portland is the only view that counts. Is it really that tough to visit other counties (or even talk to the people who live there) before commenting?

The post says Nancy's not particularly liberal, and my personal view is that I'd like a candidate who is. Something wrong with either point? Jeff:

Are you expecting Nancy N. to be as "liberal" (what does that mean these days, anyway?) as whoever is your state rep?

The anger shown by people like Chris is simple: Many of us believe that people in Lane County should vote for candidates who represent Lane County, same with Marion or Yamhill or any other county. This is not a new problem: in 1986 there was pressure from around the state (but esp. Portland and the I-5 corridor) in the 4th District Cong. primary. One Mult. Co. State Senator went so far as to say "anyone who doesn't support Margie Hendricksen doesn't support women". I said to people on that score that my friends who actually were registered to vote in the 4th District had the right to vote for whoever they thought best qualified for the job. And Peter DeFazio won that primary.

Some of the angriest debates I have ever been a part of involved a Democrat from Portland saying that a candidate from a county not part of Metro "was a good person who should have won", and someone who lived in or had campaigned in the county in question saying "great guy, didn't match the district, someone who could win in Portland couldn't win in that district".

Someone who has lived in the county for years/ decades and has friends across the board politically is likely to be more representative of that district than someone who fits a Portlander's definition of "liberal" but is unknown in the community.

Think Mike Kopetski the NRA member who was a Marion County legislator before defeating Denny Smith and being elected to Congress (although some "liberals" didn't like his stand on gun control, he was a friend of mine who I strongly supported ). Think Peter Courtney and Betty Komp who represent rural parts of Marion County. Think veterinarian Kurt Schrader of Canby or Dr. Alan Bates of Medford. Are they "liberals"? But they won election to the legislature and I maintain they are among the top quality legislators.

This is a question which splits Democrats and progressives who might be Independents at heart or by registration. Could Kate Brown or Jeff Merkley be elected in Marion or Yamhill or Jackson County or the Douglas County which elected Dr. John Kitzhaber? Now there's a definitional question for you--is Dr. John Kitzhaber a "liberal"? Many of us thought he was a darned good Senate President before he was Governor.

I look for people who solve problems and are able to engage in dialogue with ordinary voters. It is more important to me that candidates explain their views on issues to the general public. If they get contributions from real estate developers or Oregon Restaurant Assoc. or a union or anyone else, their job is to communicate with their constituents and explain their votes.

One more thing: does a "liberal" believe in open public process? Or was the closed door budget deal of the 2005 session OK as long as "liberal" Kate Brown was in the negotiations?

I think all budgets should be debated in public and that no room should be called "the negotiation room" unless that is the room for Ways and Means openly advertised committee hearings. So does that make me a "liberal" or not?

Jeff,

You wrote:

"Chris, I'd be far more amenable to your critique of my post--a critique that I "know nothing about" district 13--when you lard it with scathing, COMPLETELY uninformed assumptions about me.'

Funny. According to the content of your post, that is exactly what you did to Nancy Nathanson, a person you do not know nor made an effort to reach out to.

I would have been far more amenable to a more rational discussion if you had shown some courtesy and asked questions of Rep Ackerman, Nancy Nathanson and myself before taking cheap shots at a candidate you know absolutely nothing about in a district you know even less of.

Unfortunately, courtesy and a refrain from name-calling is not the urban neo-progressive way, is it?

That's OK. I have a pretty good idea who put you up to doing this.

I'm glad you asked those questions, though. I don't think you'll like the answers, though. Most Portland Neo-progressives don't.

The biased piece to which you base yor opinion on all things regarding Nancy Nathanson and HD 13 from the Eugene Weekly was written by one Alan Pittman, a staff writer.

As any first year journalism student will tell you, in order to be an objective article (or even an objective analysis) both sides must present their points of view for the reader to decide. That is the responsibility of the journalist and is enforced by the publisher. Any article that does not follow this tennant is something else which, I think you already know the word for.

For those who don't, that word is Propaganda.

As everyone here in Eugene knows, the publisher of the Eugene Weekly was a staunch and very public backer of Kitty Piercy in her mayor's race. She also sits on executive boards and is a major contributor to those organizations who opposed Nathanson's candidacy for Mayor.

In her paper, Piercy and the neo-progressives who back her can do absolutely no wrong, and everyone who does not agree is branded a "conservative extremist." The dogma is inflexable. Talk about your guilt-by-association.

In the article, Pittman makes his entire case based upon a similar but much more insidious and loosely-based guilt by association. The intent of the article is to clearly portray the supporters of Nathanson as a bunch of "pro-sprawl" developers who only want to turn Eugene into another Las Vegas or Denver. In his article, they are evil and thus not something Democrats should be associated with.

What Pittman and the Eugene Weekly failed to mention (and what those of us non-neo progressive Democrats in Lane County know) is that she had the support of a diverse group of Democrats, moderate Republicans and non-partisans in her race for Mayor of Eugene, a position that is non-partisan (complements of the original progressive movement). Yes, some of the supporters were developers and timber company owners, but then again so were some of the supporters of Piercy (funny how Pittman failed to mention that).

Yes, some were also Republicans (no suprise for a non-partisan race) and a few did give to Bush, but most Republicans in Eugene are of the Frohnmayer/Burrows type, not exactly what you would identify as staunch right-wing Bush supporters.

In addition, another left out piece that you did not check up on is that the people that Pittman bashed in his one-sided propaganda piece happen to be the city founding fathers and mothers, people who were here when this town and this county was born. They sit on United Way, chair FOOD for Lane County, host fundraisers for hurricane victims (not to mention the local party auction) and are staunch backers of our public school system, community college and University. In fact, most should be Democrats because they back many of our party ideals and platform positions. Many have left the Republican Party over the occupation of Iraq and the stranglehold of the neo-conservative leaders.

Unfortunately they won't join the Democratic party for the same reason that our fringe, the urban neo-progressive, won't stop with this stupid litmus test and the claiming to be the sole judge of what and who are "real" Democrats.

So, yes, the article is wrong in that it is strictly a propaganda piece. The quote Pittman makes that Nathanson is a councillor who "has a solidly conservative and anti-environmental voting record" is, in itself a false statement of material fact because the it is not backed by the public record, a record available at City Hall or at the Eugene Public Library for anyone to see.

If you do check your facts, you will see that she is a strong supporter of parks and free space acquisition and maintanence, fought for affordable housing, and is 100% on the Democratic Party Platform and 98% on the legislative agenda (more so than almost any previous Democrat in this district).

So much for being this "big bad evil conservative."

As for how liberal District 13 is, under most criteria used District 13 sits just to the left of the middle. In Lane County, House Districts 11 and 8 (both of which reside in south Eugene) are more liberal. But just in case you don't want to believe, here are a few facts about the district:

It supported Ballot Measure 20-54 the West Eugene Parkway by an almost 2 to 1 margin and rejected Measure 20-03, the "alternatives" to the parkway by better than 3 to 1. It rejected Ballot Measure 17, lowering the minimum age to serve in the legislature to 18yrs, 31% to 69%. It rejected Ballot Measure 18, allowing taxing districts to establish a permanent tax base, 47% to 53% It crushed Ballot Measure 23, the convoluted single-payer health plan, 28% to 72%. It rejected Ballot Measure 27, requiring labeling for genetically modified food, 39% to 61% It opposed Ballot Measure 34, the Tillamook Forest logging ban, 58% to 42%. It supported Ballot Measure 37, compensation/waiver for partial takings of property, 52% to 48%

In almost every instance districts in south Eugene voted the opposite. This hardly makes HD 13 one of those "progressive" districts, at least according to your definition of "progressive." The fact that Republicans have won or held seats in the district should have also provided a clue that HD 13 is far more moderate than the voter registration indicates.

Only moderate Democrats win in both HD 13 and HD 14. Neo-progressives had two chances north of the river and failed miserably both times. That is the voting record.

It is bad enough I have to deal with local self-riteous neo-progressives sticking their heads in a race that can easily be won by the Democrat, provided the democrat fts the demographics of the district and doesn't venture to your neck of the fringe woods. We already have two house seats that we are trying to take back, and we will have one, maybe two house seats to defend here in Lane County. And that doesn't even count the Senate Seat that we are about to lose to former Mayor and GOP candidate Jim Torrey (the Senate D's caucus and local neo-progressive community are screwing the pooch on that one).

So you will forgive me if I chose to I draw the line at Portland neo-progressives meddling in the affairs of those downstate districts you know nothing about and can relate to even less.

BTW Does Ted Taylor know you used a copyrighted photo for your post?

Not to detract from anything Chris said, I'll just say that when I read Jeff's post I was sickened. How dare you! And you know what's even more disturbing? I found myself, for the first time, able to understand what the right-wing nuts are talking about when they call us liberals "elitist". For that, Jeff, I will thank you for broadening my understanding. Finally, while I don't disagree with Jeff that competition is healthy for the process, let's give those in our party who have stepped up and volunteered to serve their community and state a round of applause...rather than a elitist, presumptuous, jack-assed dismissal.

Jonathan Posner writes:

"That means in the judgment of local Eugene-based environmental leaders, 90% of the time Nathanson backed positions that sacrificed things like clean water, clean air, and livable neighborhoods, almost always at the behest of the developers and polluters."

With all due respect, Jon, you know that statement is not entirely true. Just because a person does not agree with your particular solution, 100%, does not mean that thae take the exact opposite view.

Furthermore, much like forced school testing your scorecard leaves little as to why a person voted that way on a particular proposal.

You know that becuase you and I have had this discussion regarding Rep Ackerman's low score by your organization. In the case of dealing with your organization in the Legislature, I have found that the reasons a person votes one way or another are seldom how you spin them to be.

The real reasons could be anything from it being one of many porposals, to the proposal being unconstitutional, to the proposal being a budget-buster, to the proposal having an adverse impact on working families. Unfortunately there is no line on your scorecard for any of the reasons listed, not to mention those not listed but make sense to most voters.

The fact is, Jon, environmental issues will not get any traction in the legislature next session until two things happen:

1. Stop pitting environmental issues against working families and forcing legislators to chose between the two. You will lose every time.

2. A Democrat will have to be elected Speaker of the House, becaus the single most important vote of the session is the selection of the Speaker. The rest of the votes are negotiable, but there will be no opportunity to negotiate for OLCV until a Democrat is elected.

So why would you or any organization waste an opportunity to get that done in HD 13 by forcing an unnecessary and devicive battle and daring the Republicans to take that seat? Wouldn't your resources be better spent taking HD 10, HD 14 and keeping SD 7? Wouldn't it be easier for you to reach out and, oh, I don't know, maybe talk to Nathanson face to face and work out these differences? Wouldn't that be better than wasting your rare and valuable political capitol fighting it out in a primary tht will divide the local party and fester long-opened sores of anamosity amoung non-south Eugene Democrats, an unnecessary primary that the district demographics clearly show that you cannot win?

Rush Limbaugh was quoted once as saying "The problem with you liberals is that you're always putting symbolism ahead of substance."

Which do you choose? The symbolism of the past that has led to many defeats in Lane County outside of south Eugene, or the substance of sitting at the table with all moderates and liberals, working to win back the districts that the GOP has take away from us?

The offer is out there. Your call.

Chris, you threw a lot out there, but completely ignored Nancy's anti-environmental voting record.

And most of the votes you listed on ballot measures were had 20% more liberal votes than the state as a whole (for example, 48% no on 37 is 26% more than the state average of 38% -- it's not South Eugene, but clearly, we can do better.

You wrote: For the record, Nancy Nathanson is a Democrat. In the final analysis, that is all she, or any one of us who claims to be a champion of liberal causes, needs to be.

Perhaps, for legal reasons, that's all she needs to be to run for office as a Democrat.

But for those of us who believe in protecting clean air and water, fighting sprawl, protecting working people, and more -- we think that the point of having a majority in a district is to get a strong advocate for our side, not a middling 10% on the environment apologist.

And you bring up the Frohmayer voting -- I'm curious how long ago WAS that? Ten years? And how has the district been reshaped since? And how many current district residents were district voters then?

I'm skeptical. Yes, I'll give you, it's not SE Portland, or even South Eugene. But Nathason's VOTING RECORD is not acceptable to represent the Democrats in her district. They should reject her and find someone who'll really represent their beliefs.

OK, so you posted while I was posting. List the city council votes where you think Nancy was standing up for working families instead of the environment... sigh.

The reason groups do scorecards is not to get at the underlying "reasons" people vote a certain way -- it is to show the impact of a vote. The fact is, regardless of the reasons, laws get made on votes -- not the reasons for them. You either side with clean air, or against it. Maybe you sided against it because you believe that pollution leads to jobs. But saying you didn't prioritize the environment is true.

Whoa, she's a republicrat, indeed.

From the E-Weakly

"Many of Nathanson's biggest funders are also big contributors to George Bush and right-wing politics. The Giustinas recently gave $50,000 to the Republican National Committee's efforts to re-elect George Bush and his friends. The Wildish clan recently gave $2,000 to Republicans nationally, $5,000 for the pro-parkway campaign two years ago and $2,000 to the Gang of 9's attack adds against City Council progressives.

"Demers recently gave $25,000 to national Republicans, $10,000 to Oregon Republicans, $10,000 for the West Eugene Parkway and $2,500 to the Gang of 9.

"The Gonyeas gave Bush $8,000 last year, the national Republican Party $25,000 and the Oregon Republican Party $10,000. Delta Sand and Gravel gave $5,000 to the parkway and $1,000 to the Gang of 9. Hamilton contributed $2,000 to the parkway.

"Even some of Nathanson's smaller contributors are pro-Bush activists. Jack Courtemanche gave Nathanson $100. Courtemanche is a former assistant to President Ronald Reagan and was Nancy Reagan's chief of staff. When Dick Cheney came to Eugene in 2000 for a campaign stop, Courtemanche picked him up at the airport in a motor home for a rally at Country Coach where Courtemanche was CEO, the Associated Press reported. "

Which part of this is innaccurate or a downright lie?

Jesse O,

In the 2001 session, OLCV (including the Eugene contingent), a founding and binding member of the Fair and Clean Energy Coalition, suported Oregon's Electricity Deregulation law (SB 1149), which included the California divestiture language that led to the California Energy scam.

Rep Ackerman and Congressman DeFazio were, for the longest time, the lone voices against this potentially damaging legislation that would have led to the lining of the pockets of energy traders and brokers, just like what happened in California.

OLCV and the Fair & Clean Energy Coalition fought Rep Ackerman tooth and nail against this selling out of public reglation of our utiltiies, bought out by a 3% publiic purposes charge that is supposed to go to energy alternatives and conservation.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and the California Divestiture language was removed. In California, it was not. The rest of what happened in California is history, and the long-term result is their electing the "Governator."

In the 2001 scorecard, OLCV chastized Rep Ackerman for his opposition to Deregulation.

My question to you, following your logic, is this:

Is OLCV and the Environmental community in Eugene in bed with big energy traders and polluters because they fought for Deregulation and against removing the California Divestiture language? That would be the result of their conscious vote, wouldn't it? That would also be guilt by association.

But the 2001 scorecard says that Rep Ackerman was wrong. Isn't that all you need to know? Isn't the IMPACT of that vote against Deregulation dirtier air and more money for greedy power brikers and energy traders?

When you think about it, umm, not so black and white.

I cancelled my membership to OLCV over this issue, and I will not go back to an organization nor associate myself with those who will take positions and make statements of fact without bothering to do the research.

Last session, however, Rep Ackerman did work on a number of environmental bills, trying to make tham better. The lobby from the environmental coalition did appreciate that. Did OLCV mention that in their scorecard?

I think not.

However, I do know that issues, even environmental ones, are seldom black and white. Some in the environmental community support biofuels as an cleaner and sustainable alternative fuel, others oppose it because it still pollutes. Some support stronger recycling laws, others oppose that and support laws forcing lower consumption.

No scorecard will reflect the differences in degrees and all they do is serve as a litmus test for that particular group of individuals on issues that they alone feel are important.

OLCV has their particular brand of environmentalism that they believe in. As a recreationalist (I hunt and fish), I consider myself also an environmentalist, even if I do not support the OLCV agenda.

Like I said, Nancy Nathanson has supported Parks and open spaces, affordable housing, and is 100% on the party platform. The voting record and minutes are available for you to look at for yourself, or you could simply give her a call and ask her yourself if you are so inclined. That's something more than the Eugene Weekly and Portland neo-progressives are willing to do.

By the way, what makes you think that a majority of HD 13 is "progressive?" There is no evidence, from the voting record nor the voter registration trends to support that assumption. The district may be more liberal than most (theus the term "lust to the left of center), but Walker and Ackerman could hardly be labeled as "progressive." Overwhelming support of the West Eugene Parkway (which the local so-called progressives vehemently oppose)and opposition to the alternative measure clearly show that most voters in HD 13 are moderates. Even Democrats in HD 13 overwhelmingly endorsed the Parkway.

That theory that HD 13 is "progressive" simply does not match the voting and demographic data. Are you sure you are not referring to HD 8?

It is, after all, a common and fatally flawed misconception that if you are a Democrat, you must be a "progressive." Probably explains why The White House, the Congress, the courts, and the Oregon House are in GOP hands and that the Governor and the Senate aren't exactly bastions of progressive bidding.

The fact is that most moderate and traditional liberal Democrats are about one step away from defecting, as they have for a quater century now. Meanwhile GOP numbers have remained relatively static in the same time, so that we now have reached parity.

With the Portland neo-progressive stranglehold on the party, moderate Democrats who still make up the majority of Democrats in Oregon have nowhere to go but to join the "non-partisan" ranks, which is the fastest growing segment of voters.

The bleeding of Democrats has to stop. It's that simple. If that means living up to our pledge of being an all-inclusive tolerant party and voting for moderate Dems who represent the majority, then so be it.

For those who cannot or will not live up to that pledge, I suggest you seek out another party. I hear the Pac-Greens are looking for a few good neo-progressives.

Looking at the map of HD 13, it appears to be the same district that Ron Eachus represented before he was appointed to the PUC back in the late 1980s. Aka "Hanoi Ron" because of his trip to Vietnam with Jane Fonda in 1969. It may be more conservative now than then, but I doubt the Dems need to run a Lieberman in that district to get electec.

So, Chris, I missed a few threads along the way. Are you Ms. Nathanson's campaign manager? Otherwise, why do you protest so much?

motorhomesmotorhomesmotorhomes!:

I think I pointed that out earlier, but in case you missed it, let me recap:

Pittman did not interview Nathanson for the article. Pittman slanted the article to conform with the wishes of his publisher. Pittman made assumptions about the motivations of those who gave without confirmation or rebuttal. Pittman made assumptions about Nathanson's motives without the right to rebuttal (an important tennant of journalism and absolutely necessary for unbiased and accurate reporting).

I gotta tell you, Republicans have become very good at this kind of smear propaganda, and members of the so-called "progressive" community have been howling and screaming at the top of their lungs for years about this outrage. Fortunately, mainstream journalists are just begining to report on this kind of yellow journalism portrayed by the Bush White House and Fox News.

What really blows me away is how brazen the Eugene Weekly does this, and how the very same "progressive" community silently allows this to go on without so much as a peep. A silence, I suspect, bought by the dollars of the publisher.

Jeff,

You wrote:

"I did not demonize Nathanson. I said she was not liberal--a fact agreed upon by every commenter here."*

• Except LT, JTT and, of course, myself.

So Jeff, why don't you let everyone here in on who it was that "tipped" you about the propaganda piece in the Weekly? I personally think that person has a particular political axe to grind and used you as a conduit to put that propaganda piece out there. Too bad that person is too much a coward to come forth.

The fact that you put up a post that reprinted that propaganda piece (again, no journalism ethics of neutrality and right to respond were used in the making of that article)and added your own commentary as fact (again, without checking the facts) does make it a "cheap shot." I expect such cheap shots from Republicans (did you graduate from the Chuck Adams School of mudslinging, by chance?). I do not expect that kind of cheap shot from NW Portland urban neo-progressives who should know better.

I swear to God, this running the DPO out of Portland is going to be the death of the party yet. You urban neo-progressives have been a failure for this party since 1990. You cannot connect with rank-and file Democrats and liberals downstate, and the only races we seem to win downstate (outside the neo-progressive districts) are the ones in which you and your ilk are booted out of.

Thank God the local Dems are figuring that one out. Only the fringe neo-progressive left still doesn't get it.

Make no mistake, Jeff and all you neo-progressives: If you insist on putting your symbolic differences ahead of the substance of winning this district with virtually no GOP opposition, not only will Nathanson win, but I will make damn sure that every Democrat and real liberal in the state knows that it was you neo-progressives who forced a strong Republican to run in HD 13 and thus cost us SD 7 and the re-taking of HD 10 and HD 14. Nobody will take you or your ilk seriously ever again.

I suggest that you and whoever you are fronting for stick to meddling in the affairs of metro politics and obsessing over Speaker Minnins and leave the real downstate campaigns to those of us who live here, know what the hell we are doing, and have the chops to get Democrats elected.

Gil,

You wrote:

"why do you protest so much?"

Because like most blue-collar Democrats I am sick and tired of certain members of the progressive elite telling this third-generation labor Democrat how much I am not a "real" Democrat. I am also tired of them trashing fellow Democrats simply because they do not measure up to their narrow-minded elitist political dogma or fail to pass narrow litmus tests that have little, if any, to do with our party platform or agenda.

Everyone I talk to on the fringe left says Nathanson votes against the party, yet I cannot find one part of the party platform or legislative agenda to back up the neo-progressive claim, nor can they point any out. The reason for that is simple: The city council in Eugene is non-partisan, as it is on the board of commissioner and all 11 other cities in Lane County. And while most of those cities have Democratic majorities, only Eugene, Westfir and the Board of Commissioners have Democratic majorities.

Neo-progressives have no care for forwarding Democratic values. If they did, the Councils in Springfield, Oakridge and three others would have Democratic/liberal majorities. But they do not.

Neo-progressives have only their fringe dogma to advance. That is why they attack moderate Democrats with regurgitated propaganda pieces rather than going after Republicans in solidly Democratic districts. Better to kick the shit out of one of your own than have to do real battle in Democratic districts where the distrust of the neo-progressive lock on the party is so high that they keep voting in Republicans instead.

They would rather post public blogs about people they know nothing about, reprinting biased and out-of-context propaganda pieces written and published by those with an axe to grind and claim the so-called "moral authority" of knowing what a "real" Democrat is rather than, oh, I don't know, actually practicing the tennants of the party, reach out with their concerns and discuss them like the civilized Democrats we pledged to be when we signed up.

We preach being the party of tolerance and inclusion, but the neo-progressive sect practices neither. We talk about uniting the party under one common goal, yet the neo-progressive sect only knows name-calling and division.

If the neo-progressive sect does not stop with the attacks on fellow Dems and liberals who may not agree 100% with their fringe dogma, then I would suggest that they leave the party and go join one more suited to their narrow-minded philosophy. I'm sure that the return of the 26% of the Dems that left the party in the last quater-century would more than make up for the 2-3% that we would lose by the neo-progressive absence.

That can't be such a bad thing, can it?

Any district that John Kerry can win with 63.4% (21,848-12,591) over GWB can elect a progressive or even a "neo-progressive" candidate - and certainly would qualify as one or Oregon's more liberal legislative districts. I know nothing about Nathanson, other than the abysmal LCV rating, and the fact that Republicans favored her over Kitty Piercy.

However, when Jack Roberts says that no Democrat more liberal than Nathanson can win this seat, that flies in the face of the presidential results.

Oh, what is a "neo-liberal" anyway and why is it used repeatedly as an insult by Chris Matson?

It is a great honor to have been coupled with Chris here, even though we have known each other for years and those who know us know we haven't exactly agreed on everything.

But I have been an activist for decades and can remember when the party was healthier--when the party office was in Salem. As I wrote in an email to a friend who is now active in State Central Comm., I don't think the party ever recovered from the move to Portland.

Jeff, I did not say Kitzhaber was a "misunderstood rural Dem", I asked a definitional question: does he fit your definition of "liberal" or not?

I was the author of an opinion piece which appeared in several county newsletters in the mid-1980s. It asked the question of defining a "real Democrat". Does that mean someone who agrees with the "in crowd" position on ballot measures or other hot topics of the time? Or is it someone who shows up and does the phone banking, putting out mailings, going door to door, doing strategy, putting on events, and all the other "foot soldier" work which is not glamorous but is often effective?

When I have money to contribute, I generally contribute directly to candidates unless there is some rare event like a fundraiser at someone's home which sounds interesting. I agree with what Chris says about organizational scorecards. More importantly, I agree with what he said about deregulation. I saw Peter DeFazio (who I have known since before he was a Congressman) speak on deregulation.

I am really tired of groups of any stripe who say "we have endorsed this piece of legislation, so you should too". I don't care who the group is, I still think everyone, from citizens to elected officials have the right to read the wording of legislation and decide whether they agree with it or not.

In the end, it is about getting more votes than the opponent. And the Lieberman crack was totally out of line.

Jesse O, this is the sort of vague soundbite we have come to expect from Republicans "But for those of us who believe in protecting clean air and water, fighting sprawl, protecting working people, and more ".

Do you or your group claim that you alone and no one else decide what protects clean air and water, fights sprawl, protects working people? Do the working people get to decide what protects them, or is it your job to tell them because they couldn't possibly figure that out for themselves?

I wish Jeff A. and Jesse O. would tell us which House districts they live in and exactly what they have done on House campaigns in their own districts in recent years.

LT,

I don't disagree with what you said about scorecards, which is why it isn't worth quibbling over a 70 vs 85 score. But 10% tends to show a trend - and is a LCV score I would expect from conservative Republicans. I admit I know nothing of the Lane County votes that were considered, but the developer money also tells a story.

However, when Jack Roberts says that no Democrat more liberal than Nathanson can win this seat, that flies in the face of the presidential results. Tim, did everyone you know vote straight ticket last year?

I know people who voted Bush/ Hooley up here in Marion County, and a relative of mine voted yes voted for Bush and against Measure 36. But how can that be when people on this blog claim that any Democrat should get as many votes as Kerry got?

Tim, don't know where you live, but where I live many people refer to their legislators by first names ("I voted for Jackie over Bryan because.." sort of thing) and it generally has less to do with party than some here seem to realize.

It was 9 years ago that I first heard Dan Lavey use the phrase "fastest growing party is no party at all". I was part of that "fastest growing party" for 6 out of the last 10 years, although I have also been a Dem. national convention delegate and member of the Dem. State Central Comm. One of my favorite people these days (who I said should look up this topic) is someone who has worked on Republican campaigns in the past but has also known some Democrats for years and who has at least as jaundiced a view of the party system in this state as I do.

I humbly submit that the only reason for me to remain a Democrat after the primary is to help out people like Chris---people like Tim, Jeff, Jesse O are of the sort who drove me away from party politics about 15 years ago. And when I gave my resignation speech from a 5th District Committee, the people at the meeting said "we've always appreciated your hard work, even when we disagreed with you". Did they really expect me to show up and do volunteer work all the while being told I was wrong on all the issues I cared about?

Well, as the old Saturday Night Live routine goes, "Hear me now and believe me later". If people are going to harp on the "proper/ correct" nominee for a district they don't live in, they shouldn't complain when that district goes Republican, or when the voters in their wisdom choose a candidate the outsiders don't like (of either party). You are of the sort we knew well when I was on the State Central Comm. and working on all those Dem. campaigns--by golly you have all the answers, you just never show up to do the actual work.

I think the voters of District 13 should nominate the candidates of District 13, just as with any district. And the people who don't like it should all go work on the Brading campaign along with the folks from the House caucus, and leave the downstate races to the people who actually live in the districts.

TimC,

You cannot judge a district's political leaniings by one election result. Look at the overall voting record. Look what kind of Democrat has represented that district in the past. Look which Republicans carried the district.

Have we not learned the lessons of House District 14? Have we not learned the lessions of House District 21? Have we not learned the continued and neverending lessons of House District 49? Democratic districts all occupied by Republicans.

Neo-progressives simply do not get it. Fortunately those of us who are not of the neo-progressive sect do, that is if we can keep the neo-progressives from screwing things up.

A Neo-progressive (not neo-liberal) is the fringe left's version of a neo-conservative. They claim to be progressive, but in reality they are a fringe orthodox sect of the liberal movement, highly intolerant of liberals who do not follow their beliefs emphatically.

I am old enough to have known the old guys of the original progressive movement, the ones that gave us civil service and the council-manager form of government, among other innovative and lasting ideas. They believed that government was the tool used to bring business, individuals and communities together to make society better. Think Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

The movement pretty much died out during the Great Depression and was not used (except by Republicans opposed to the conservative movement) until the liberal elite allowed Reagan to make "liberal" a bad name. Rather than unite with their labor and rural bretheren and fight, they ran and cloked themselves in the label "progressive."

The founders of the real progressive movement are spinning in their graves over how the neo-progressive has bastardized their name and their movement. For example, neo-progressives support measures that inject non-partisan councils into the personnel affairs of city government and usurping the duties of the city manager, something the original progressives would have found horrifying because they remember Tamminy Hall in NY and the Daily machine in Chicago.

It is disingenuous of those who do not believe in the values of the original progressive movement nor practice them would insist on calling themselves "progressives" and look down on those who don't. I find it hypocritical that those who label and fellow Democrats in public without reaching out to them first would insist on labelling themselves a name that conveys Community, Equality and opportunity.

As I am a fan of "truith-in-labeling," I feel that it is my obligation to point out the obvious, thus the term "neo-progressive."

I hope that answers your question. For more, read up on the original progressive movement. Books are available at your local library or online for your purchase.

Thank you

Gil,

Sorry but you did make one mistake in your assumption:

"Looking at the map of HD 13, it appears to be the same district that Ron Eachus represented before he was appointed to the PUC back in the late 1980s."

Actually Eachus represented former House District 39, most of which now comprises House District 14. Debi Farr, a Republican, holds that seat, as did her husband the previous session. Rep Ackerman was the last Democrat to win in HD 14 when it was HD 39.

So how does a district that has a 3.5% Democratic edge and a better than 52% Democratic performance continue to elect Republicans to the House and support the Republican Senatorial candiate?

Ask yourself why the neo-progressives keep losing outside of south Eugene.

Wait for it.....

I agree with Chris. And the one book I would suggest above all others is Rendezvous with Destiny, which begins after the Civil War and gives the intellectual and political history leading up to FDR.

Also, Richard Hofstadter put together a wonderful thin volume (less than 200 pages) of original source documents (court decisions, speeches, etc. with explanations of the context) titled The Progressive Movement 1900-1915

I bought that book at Powells in 1992 and it has been one of my prized possessions ever since.

Teddy Roosevelt is quoted as saying "A great democracy must be progressive or it will cease to be great or a democracy".

Along those lines, I don't think Tim, Jeff, Jesse O have been the sort of "progressives" on this topic that TR would appreciate. Sounds like machine politics, not the progressive movement, for people who don't live in a district to say who should be nominated.

(But if you want to worry about a district, worry about flake vs flake in Dist. 25.)

I didn't like TR's militarism, but he cared more for the ordinary voter than many in either party.

Sounds like machine politics, not the progressive movement, for people who don't live in a district to say who should be nominated.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand this thinking. The voters will decide who the candidate will be, but there is nothing wrong in wanting a candidate in other districts that share OUR values.

Do you give money to candidates outside your own home district? If so, how dare you! - you are interfering in those districts' say in who should be elected.

My view is that the fate of our state, of our children's education, of our environment, of our economy, is too important to NOT get involved in races outside our own home districts. Perhaps Nathanson is the best fit for District 13. The voters in that district will decide. But there is nothing wrong with Jeff Alworth wanting a more "progressive" candidate than he believes Nathanson to be.

TimC

The point is that Alworth and all the rest of the neo-progressives don't know what kind of candidate Nathanson would be becuase they have never bothered to reach out to her and have already pre-judged her based upon a propaganda piece handed to them under shady circumstances and written by a writer and publisher with a clearly biased political axe to grind.

This is the typical Portland neo-progressive hypocracy that those of us downstate find repulsive and totally unacceptable.

Neo-progressives are not real Democrats! Never have been, never will be. They have no clue.

Chris,

Do you mean neo-progressive or ultra-liberal(or uber-liberal)?

Neo-progressive means a new believe in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action.

Ultra-liberal means going beyond the limits that are associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.

I here and see progressive and liberal interchanged like pop and soda when in fact each of those words have huge difference of meaning. The right-wing noise machine has merged the two words meaning together to demonized all "lefties" and they have been winning the war on this simple tactic.

True there is a faction within Portland/Metro, that has been a dominating force in the DPO and state level agenda making; that are truly ultra-liberal and but not neo-progressive, because they think incremental progress, on various issues; is not good because of not getting the job done all at once.

This is the "quagmire" that "lefty"-movement has been getting itself in for a very long time at all levels. The neo-cons have been exploiting this fractional tense of these groups; in the framing of the issues over 20 years and then each of these groups then point fingers to blame each other and then nothing gets done.

I'd like to comment upon just a couple of points here -

Environmental voting records - When someone is voting in an official capacity, they sometimes cannot vote exactly what they personally believe. I for one was on the Crook Co. Planning Commission for a couple years, and voted according to my intrepretation of State law, whether I agreed with State law or not. I voted for rock quarries and subdivisions because they met the legal criteria for those land uses according to State law and local ordinance. It doesn't mean I supported those activities - especially the rock quarries. Sometimes elected officials vote more like they were in a judicial role than to express a political position - because they have to. All land use votes are subject to appeal to State Boards, and those appeals cost the local jurisdictions money - sometimes a lot of money. Following the law, it seems to me, is always the best course.

Second point - the outsiders looking in. I'm afraid I have to agree that the Portland based look at the world is mostly wrong, if not in the factual context, in the intrepretation of what those facts mean on the ground outside of Portland.

Last April, I heard in a large conference room a researcher state that the analysis of the votes in Nov. 2004 showed, "surprising pockets of Democratic voters in locations not thought to support Democrats in rural Oregon". I went to the presenter at the end of the hour, and told her it was politically incorrect to be surprised by my existance.

The problem here is definitions and on the ground knowledge of what is locally liberal or conservative. I'm a fairly liberal guy, and I advocate the near total elimination of one tree species - Junipers. Over in Portland that would make me a crazy conservative. Over here, I'm in the main stream. There are facts and figures to support what I believe, and its all about returning the country side to a more balanced/natural habitat and increasing stream flows.

So, when Jeff out of Portland writes whatever - and yes we know he sometimes visits rural bars and knows what some of the local folks think when inebriated - he is bound to not understand how things play on the ground. Sure, you can look at voting data and make all kinds of intrepretations. But until you validate information from key people on the ground, you don't necessarily know what it means.

For example - over here in Central Oregon, we are labeled by people in Portland as being anti-tax. Hmmm. The evidence is that majorities here voted against the State measures to increase the income tax that came out twice in the last few years. It would seem they are right, but they aren't. The issue as it plays here is local control. The Portland area carried Measure 5, the property tax limitation measure that moved school funding to the general fund and put a cap on local property tax income back in 1990. The rest of the State was a solid majority against it - as we would lose local control of funding for our schools. In this community, since 1990, we have voted twice to spend bond money - once to build a new High School and once to build a new library - hardly anti-tax actions. So, when you know the local history, and know the local intrepretation of the facts, you reach a different conclusion. We aren't anti-tax, we are for local control. The narrowly reviewed facts of two ballot measures lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Those of us in rural and "down-state" Oregon are used to this, and furthermore we are used to the denial that this happens from the people in Portland.

Kari, I live in Salem, and I presume you live in or near Portland. Would you like the residents of District 13 to tell you who should be nominated in your district? Or is it that people from the Portland area view themselves as better able to decide who should be legislators than the rest of the state? If so, that would be in keeping with the old joke about whether to have meetings in Salem or in Portland---"the freeway is the same length no matter which way you drive, but some Portlanders want people to believe that driving to a meeting in Salem is a longer drive than people in Salem driving to Portland". That joke goes back to the days I was on the Dem. state central comm. in the 1980s. This is not a new concern for many of us.

As I recall, when Kitty P. was in the legislature she was a strong personality who some people liked and others didn't. People in Salem who pay any attention at all to the legislative session develop a sense of who is a strong personality, a hard worker, willing to talk to ordinary folks, etc.

Maybe the OCLV thing was put together by "local volunteers" but were they all residents of Dist. 13 or were they residents of other parts of Eugene? Not everyone in Salem agrees with everyone else in Salem, just as not all members of the Marion County Central Comm. agree on everything. We have been really divided over the years by primaries and sometimes by measures.

I think the point of this whole topic is very simple: Do the registered voters of District 13 have the right to form their own individual opinions of Eugene Weekly and Kitty Piercy? If I lived in Dist. 13, I can assure you I would have vocal opinions about both, esp. since the 2 women ran against each other for Mayor and presumably Eugene Weekly did some coverage which residents would decide for themselves if they agreed with or not.

I would be very loudly saying I {supported/opposed }Kitty Piercy because of the following reasons...........and therefore my opinion of her views on a state rep. candidate were............

I will ask my question again: Would the following bloggers please let us know which Oregon House district they live in? Kari Jeff A Jonathan P motorhomes Jesse O Tim C

If Gil lived down there, he would have known that the boundaries of the old Ron Eachus district are not the same as the boundaries of the current District 13. Actually Eachus represented former House District 39, most of which now comprises House District 14. Debi Farr, a Republican, holds that seat, as did her husband the previous session. Rep Ackerman was the last Democrat to win in HD 14 when it was HD 39.

I live in District 20 but could walk a few blocks and be in District 19. But I have no idea about districts in Portland, Eugene, or Bend and what they look like on the ground.

Charlie, are you one of those who say group opinion is more important than indiv. opinion when you say "Were viewed as important by a range of conservation groups."? I can recall the 1996 US Senate primary when a major group (was it OCLV? ) decided to endorse Tom Bruggere the unknown over people with known environmental records and activism and there was some crack, "Tom got the endorsement because of the green in his wallet, not the green in his record". Some people refused to even talk to anyone in that group ever again. So does that make me a friend of polluters that I remember that?

The reason that Indep/NAV is "the fastest growing party" is that people who thought they had a right to indiv. opinion and are tired of being told to "pick a group and give unquestioning support to that group", and so decide one group they need not belong to (except to vote in primaries) is a political party.

Kari et. al. Two things: First, I hope someone can get in here and fix the italics.

Second, your founding mission has succeeded.

"What is BlueOregon? BlueOregon is a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip".

This whole debate about whether the residents of a district are allowed to choose their legislators or whether there are people in Portland or wherever who think they could do a better job of choosing their legislators for them has been the topic of private discussions --dialogue, small groups-- for quite some time, and Jeff deserves the thanks of those who have been discussing this privately but wanted it publicly aired.

Now it has been, and I can email friends who never quite understood the debate and tell them to read this topic.

Dear Can't,

I don't know you. I know Chris. Where do you live--Lane County or elsewhere?

I also know voters will decide for themselves what is "poor form" unless you can tell us where you got your referee vest which entitles you to such a judgement.

And as for "Plus, the way this democracy thing works is that voters get to decide which candidate best represents their values and positions. If voters in HD 13 want a candidate who voted against the environment 90% of the time, they've found the perfect match. If voters want a candidate more interested in protecting clean air and water, then they'll shop around. "

What you are saying is that "this democracy thing" does not entitle people to look at the OLCV scorecard and say "agree with them on this bill and disagree with them on that one".

Your 90% figure is based on OLCV scorecard alone, as I understand it. I have never agreed 100% with OLCV. Does that make me anti-environment?

All groups face this situation sooner or later. I was at a meeting in 1991 and a friend let me read his copy of the DLC platform he had picked up at an event. I agreed with 1/3, disagreed with 1/3, had a lot of questions about 1/3.

Later, in discussions about DLC, I was able to recite those 1/3 positions and say "But the thing about DLC is that they don't want people who look at their ideas that closely. They want people who agree with DLC 100% and never ask questions."

Here is my question to those who say "OCLV scorecard said it, I believe it, that settles it":

Is it more important to find intelligent people to run in districts like Dist. 25 which do not now have even one really intelligent person running? Or is it more important to say "Nathanson disagrees with OCLV and therefore must not be elected to the legislature"?

If that is the position of OCLV, then the next time my friend who is active in local OCLV calls about an event, I will tell him to read this topic and ask if that is the way he views things (knowing him, I doubt he is that closed-minded).

Kari Chisholm: "I do think, however, that it's a useful thing to line up the folks who support and oppose a candidate to evaluate them. ...

Is there anything inaccurate here? Is there reason we shouldn't judge folks based on who is supporting them?"

Yes, there is. All political candidates seek endorsements and money. Most of them say "the money doesn't buy my vote," and I'm sure they are sincere. Let's say you could devise a one-dimensional scale running from 100% "blue" to 100% "red" representing candidates' political positions. If Candidate A is 90% Blue and B is 80% Blue, where is all the Red money going to go? To B, of course, since from the Red standpoint, even 80% isn't as bad as 90%.

There isn't any such monolithic criterion in local government, but somehow the perception of one persists.

For the record, in last year's nonpartisan Mayoral election Nathanson had a very long - and public - list of supporters and donors who are Democrats, including current and former elected officials (city councils, county commissions, school districts), and community activists. Plus many Republicans and independents.

Her opponent also had a spectrum of support including cash from business interests.

Let's consider the whole picture.

Dear Jeff, Thank you for telling me what district you live in. Perhaps you can tell your new state senator how many of us were unhappy with her backroom dealings in the 2005 session.

If we are going to deal with labels like "most liberal" district, then a decision has to be made.

Either liberals agree with what the original progressives thought was a big deal: open public process, meetings where budgets etc. are decided out in the open where the public can watch.

OR, since Kate Brown's district is reputed to be "the most liberal" district, does that mean that "liberals" liked the back room deals Sen. Majority Leader Kate Brown was involved in?

I believe in open public process. That makes me a progressive (which I believe originally meant open public process like primaries nominating rather than state party conventions, direct election of US Senators, etc.). Where do "liberals" stand on open public process?

And where do "liberals" stand on "don't ask a politician where they stand on issues, trust only organizational score cards"?

Suzanne, The reason Chris is the only person posting here I know well is that I talked with him often when he worked for Ackerman. Does it bother anyone here that I formed my opinions about Chris through conversations with Chris over the years, and not through a study of Ackerman's voting record?

Someone said recently that they don't ever want to support someone from Lane County in a statewide primary for anything because "In Lane County it is personal, and decades from now there will be Lane County Democrats in the old folks home still debating political campaigns of the past". Sounds like what is going on here.

It doesn't matter to me who anyone's campaign manager is--the more relevant information is that Jeff now lives in Kate Brown's district but we don't know which district(s) the others posting comments live in.

Given someone who is actively a campaign manager posting without telling us that and someone else saying "accept what this organizational scorecard says and don't ask questions of the actual candidate" I will take the campaign manager who is posting without telling us that any day of the week.

Someone used the phrase "voters should shop around". Did they mean "Don't nominate the person who once ran for mayor, look for a person without that much experience"? Is that really the way to win a legislative seat? If OCLV has another candidate in mind, they should post that name here. How do we know that the potential candidate/ campaign manager is not posting here without identifying themselves? Or is that OK as long as Nathanson is trashed?

I never met Nathanson. But if Eugene is anything like Salem, many voters would never have heard about organizational scorecards, but might very well be saying "I formed a strong opinion about Kitty and Nancy in the mayor's race, and that will decide my vote for state rep."

Charlie said Ultimately, the goal is to get the endorsement of 50% +1 voters in any district.

That is the nub of the question. If there are more than 50% of the voters in Dist. 13 who have a positive or open mind on Nathanson due to their own personal experience of the mayor's race, and only 25% of the voters of Dist. 13 who are even aware of the OCLV scorecard (even in a place like Eugene there are bound to be families like my relatives and neighbors who have a tough time naming their state legislators and city council members because their lives are so hectic and that is not top priority information in their minds) then it would seem that the best way to have a Democrat representing District 13 in 2007 would be to have the voters of Dist. 13 nominate someone who could win more than 50% of the vote in the Nov. 2006 election.

But if there are those who post comments here (but don't live in Lane County) who feel so strongly that the nominee for Dist. 13 should be someone the OLCV should rate highly, then they should talk to actual Lane County public figures (Piercy, Sorenson, the folks at Eugene Weekly, etc.) and settle on their own candidate, and then spend all their spare time actually in Dist. 13 campaigning for that person. The gas stations would love to sell the gas for folks in places like Portland to drive down there (or you might find a way to carpool or take mass transit of some sort). The businesses of Lane County would probably enjoy having people patronize restaurants etc. while these folks are down in Lane County campaigning.

But as I have said in other contexts on this blog, make it about actually doing the work yourself. Don't tell the residents of another county who should be representing them. If you don't need to campaign for a Democrat in your district, go help the Brading campaign (a lot closer to Portland) or involve yourself in one of the districts which does not yet have a candidate of the quality of a former candidate for mayor.

But be careful that your posts here on this topic don't take on the flavor of "the most important thing is to depose Queen Karen, but the second most important is to make sure someone like Nathanson who doesn't score well with OLCV doesn't get elected".

That is ideological purity. If you would rather have the residents of Dist. 13 angry with you because outsiders are telling them who to nominate, fine. But this "anyone but Nathanson" refrain is sounding from here more like personal pique than anything else.

What possible relevance to one's own politics does where you live have? The guy across the street was a W voter--

Jeff, thank you for making my point for me.

Who is the guy across the street (and I am sure there are homes of active Democrats in Dist. 13 who have a W voter across the street) going to vote for in November?

A)Will it be the Repub. nominee because the guy always votes straight Republican ticket? B)Will it be the person who promises to score well on the OLCV scorecard by promising to vote the OLCV party line rather than reading the bills and deciding what is best for the citizens of Dist. 13? C) Will it be Nathanson because the guy who voted for W also met Nathanson during the mayor's campaign and was impressed?

My point is that you probably don't know the answer without talking to that guy across the street. If it is C) should Nathanson not be the nominee because the concerns of bloggers in Portland and groups which produce scorecards are more important than the chance that a split ticket voter might vote to send a Democrat to the Oregon House ? Is that such a radical notion?

And about this, Jeff: "--perhaps you ought to blame back room deals on him, since he fits the criteria. " perhaps you should talk to your state senator and ask what she meant when she did that joint appearance with Wayne Scott at Portland City Club and said "when we were in the negotiation room...".

Let me be clear. In my life I have voted and campaigned for Democrats, Republicans, and those of no major party. If I am given the choice of a person who campaigns on the 2005 budget process being an example for the future, and someone who says "the negotiation room" should be whichever public meeting room holds Ways and Means hearings, I will vote for the person who wants public Ways and Means hearings to hash out the budget. That is going to be a big issue for me in the 2006 elections. Call me a subversive or whatever you want, but I will be asking my candidate for state senator where he stands on that issue.

The whole business of a behind the scenes budget being done and then bills passed through committee without being read or debated "because they were part of the deal" was discussed at the The Process Committee of the Public Commission on the Oregon Legislature meeting on December 6.

Maybe there are those who say that a nomination in Eugene has nothing to do with a commission talking about reforming the legislature. You would have the right to say that. I have the right to say the more I hear from her detractors, the more I think we need Nathanson because there have been too many "go along to get along" legislators and not enough independent thinkers. If Nathanson has made this many people this angry, maybe she is just what the legislature needs to get people to speak for themselves.

So I see that the overnight comments have digressed from the main topic, so I'll try to put it back into perspective.

I have been hired by Nancy Nathanson to run her campaign through the primary. My job, as any good seasoned Democratic campaign manager well knows, is to get her elected.

I am also a third-generation labor Democrat, born and raised in Springfield. My father worked in a mill and my mother cleaned houses. I shop at Safeway, Albertsons and Fred Meyer because they are Union Shops. I prefer beer over wine, steak over tofu, and Gateway over scum-sucking Dell. I drive a fast car and I love to ski, hunt and fish. I own guns.

Oh, and I have been involved in winning political campaigns for over two decades and I currently hold a 19-4 winning record.

I was hired by Nathanson because I am the best when it comes to winning campaigns in Lane County outside of neo-progressive south Eugene (I even won one in south Eugene for that matter). I especially know how to win in north and west Eugene, both candidates and ballot measures, better than anyone else. My record with Ackerman and the West Eugene Parkway clearly show that.

Part of my job is to defend her against this kind of propaganda attack crap that the fringe left spews out. I do so willingly because it is my nature to defend any and all Democrats who are viciously attacked by the neo-progressive and fringe left, something you in the neo-progressive community have become very good at (almost as good as the neo-cons). Unlike the hellfire and brimstone preachings of the neo-progressive and fringe left, I happen to believe that the party is big tent and that any Dem is a good Dem. No stupid litmus tests here.

There, now it's out there for God and all to see. But then, most of you in the Portland neo-progressive community already knew that, didn't you? If not, then you really are an arrogant and unknowing lot.

So what will you do now? Attack the messinger and disregard the message? Aparently neo-progressives are hard-wired, much like the propaganda piece in the Eugene Weekly, for guilt by association only. That is something the neo-cons have been good at for years. You learned from your masters well.

So go ahead neo-progs. Attack me for the sole reason that I am her campaign manager and ignore the rest. You've been attacking and alienating rank-and-file Democrats for years now. Why should this be any different?

Now I know why most post anonymously.

All you do is alienate yourself further from rank-and-file Democrats and former Dems who are now registered non-partisan. You need them to win, and without them you comprise no more than two or thre percent of the voting public. But still you attack, attack, attack. Always symbolism over substance. Always loss over win. Always scratching your heads after election day wondering why you failed to win Democratic districts like 10, 14, 21 and 49, not to mention majorities in democratic towns and counties downstate.

Nathanson is a battle-tested Democratic candidate in the district. She beat Kitty Piercy, the candidate backed by both the neo-progressives and the local OLCV, by better than 10%.

Republicans, disgusted with having to choose between two democrats and a couple unknown lefties, skipped this race in noticible numbers. Democrats, fortunately, did not.

It is true that Nathanson took developer and timber money for the non-partisan mayorial campaign. I made that point previously and there is no denying that. OLCV and the Weekly are both run by people in the neo-progressive south side of Eugene and already and very publically anti-Nathanson (they made no attempt to hide their despise well before the election geared up). Taking a page from the right-wing GOP playbook, they demonized Nathanson in a series of selected votes and propaganda pieces that only told part of the story. Fine. Problem is that they dressed it up as the complete story and sold it to the public as "all there is to know."

No mention about her votes to add acres of wetlands, supporting more open spaces, preserving the ridgeline trail, adding erosion control responsibilities for property owners, waterway identification and protection, etc.

Nor did the Weekly, in their article that Alworth uses as his bible, identify any specific Democratic platform point that she voted against, either consistently or occasionally. This point I find is especially relavent to the lack of credibility of the Weekly article, in that the entire point of the article was to portray Nathanson in kahoots with Republicans and Republican ideals.

Lets see, 100% on the party platform and over 95% on the legislative agenda. Hmmm, hardly sound like the mean 'ol evil "conservative" that Pittman and the Weekly made her out to be in their propaganda piece.

As for Jonathan Posner and your comments about Electricity Deregulation in 2001. I stand by what happened, as it happened. Rep Ackerman was attacked for his position in opposition to Deregulation by your organization. The fact that you are defending the environmental community's position in support of Deregulation and the California divestiture language in it says it all.

Probably explains why most otherwise environmentally-minded Democrats want nothing to do with your neo-progressive dominated agenda, and why you have become irrelavent in most political campaigns.

So, near as I can tell, the only people in Oregon who seem to be belly-aching over Nathanson are Portland and south Eugene neo-progs, the OLCV, and the Weekly. Sorry, I repeated myself. Same difference. Meanwhile, these very same extremists have done absolutely nothing to prevent Republican Jim Torrey from taking Senate District 7.

Like I said, the only thing neo-progs want to do is kick the shit out of other Democrats. They know they couldn't beat a Republican if their lives dependeded on it. I think the voting record outside of neo-progressive communities is crystal clear on that one.

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Neo-progressive dogma has been a problem for far too long now. You divide the party with your extreme absolutism and your jihad-like vicious attacks of labor, rural, business and centrist Democrats. It is a holy war with you, a 'Crusade" against the heresy that is Democracy and an open party. You reject Community, Equality and Opportunity and substitute it with Conformity, Absolute Obedience and Sacrifice of diversity.

The rank-and-file members of the party will not support your extremist dogma, as evidenced in the voting record. Leave. You are no longer welcome.

This whole discussion (debate) can even be taken to the national level. It is the fault of the lefty liberals, neo-progs, et al that our party has lost power.

It seems to me that our party is becoming more and more associated with the folks that live in Boston, NY, Portland, Seattle, SF, etc. I have news for you, folks in the South, the Midwest, the Mountain West--places where we should win-- don't like being talked down to.

Jeff's thoughts on Nancy Nathanson are exhibit A on why their darlings of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc will probably blow a great chance in 2008. People in middle America don't want yuppie, Volvo driving urban liberals insinuating that middle America doesn't know what is best for them.

Dem from HD14

Kari says: "54 comments - and no one has yet posited that Nancy Nathanson is a progressive, liberal, pro-labor, or pro-environment candidate."

Of course she is progressive, liberal, pro-labor and pro-environment! Eugene is a blue town in a blue state in the 21st Century! Many members of the Chamber of Commerce here are quite "liberal" and strongly support education and government services.

Nancy was often labeled a "moderate" in the context of the council as a whole being about as "progressive" as you can get. This whole labeling thing is really silly, and I'm disappointed that so much energy is being wasted on it here. How can you boil 18 years of public service plus a previous decade of Democratic party leadership into a set of labels? How could you possibly attach any credibility to a 2-paragraph quote that does so, especially given the extreme bias of the reporter and publisher?

Kari writes:

"54 comments - and no one has yet posited that Nancy Nathanson is a progressive, liberal, pro-labor, or pro-environment candidate."

Kari, she is a Democrat. Furthermore, she is a Democrat that fits this moderate district.

Really, what the hell more do you need? A litmus test? No wonder we keep losing in the House.

Is 100% on the party platform and better than 95% on the legislative agenda not enough for you? Is being the former chair of the local Democrati Party not enough for you? Is the prospect of another GOP Speaker not enough for you? Is party unity and diversity not enough for you? Are you so repulsed by and open and Democratic party that you need your dogma massaged?

For most of us Democrats, being a Democrat with a 100% acceptance of the party platform puts them a little to the left of most of the rank-and-file.

Aparently that is not enough for you and the neo-progressive left.

Too damn bad. Because Nathanson is a moderate Democrat. She supports liberal causes. She is pro-labor (and unlike most neo-progs she's pro-union), pro-public education, pro-environment, pro-planning, pro-choice, and pro-good government. She also supports moderate causes. She is pro-business (especially local home-grown businesses), pro planned growth (you got to put the 1000/yr or so immigrants to central Lane Co somewhere), pro-rural, pro-public safety, pro-government accountability, and she believes in bi-partisan solutions which makes her a moderate by most standards (and a bain to neo-progressives and their dogma).

So Kari, you have a problem with a Democrat being any of the above? Or do you still believe a Democrat has to be neo-progressive to be a "real" Democrat?

So why have you, or any one of your neo-prog buddies, not asked questions of Nathanson relating to legislation or state-wide issues? Why only focus on her contributions during a rather nasty non-partisan mayorial race that had no involvement by the Democratic Party. Why not ask questions about her Democratic party background, her voting record on issues important to all Democrats, or her views on statewide and legislative issues.

Because that is not the neo-progressive way, is it Kari? No, not at all.

I shouldn't have to be defending my or anybody elses Democratic values to you or any neo-progressive drone who insists on putting symbolic dogma over real substantive legislative issues. Not to you or anyone else.

I believe in a diverse and open Democratic Party where moderates, liberals and yes, even so-called progressives sit together as equal partners and work to get Democrats elected and solve some of the problems plaguing our communities. You do not.

It realy boils down to that, doesn't it.

You may be scoring points with your friends on the fringe left, but you only make the entire neo-progressive movement look foolish and inept.

So there you have it. According to the blogs it is only Portland and south Eugene neo-progressives who are attacking Nancy Nathanson. Those defending her happen to come from areas outside of neo-progressive enclaves in Portland and south Eugene.

No suprise there. As I said, you neo-progs just don't get it. And you never will.

Attacking moderate Democrats with sloppy propaganda about issues and races that have absolutely no bearing on the party platform or legislative agenda. Yeah, great way to unify the party and beat the GOP in '06 and '08. Brilliant strategy there, neo-progs.

Ol' Chuck and the GOP boys are laughing their asses off on that one cause they know that in a Blue city, a blue district and a blue state, Republicans don't win...it is Democrats who lose.

Why am I arguing with a bunch of neo-prog losers who are politically impotent and legislatively irrelavent? Good question. Unlike you neo-progs, I have bigger GOP fish to fry.

I am so done with you and your empty pompous arrogance. You and your sect mean nothing to me or any good Democrat who puts substance ahead of symbolism (that would be the rank-and-file).

Good-bye neo-progs. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

For the record, I live in Yamhill County and don't know which legislative district I'm in, but I'm sure it's 60% Republican. I also drive a Volvo (240 wagon) which is the best car ever made. What do you folks have against Volvos? I also have an old Ford Ranger pickup.

Steve wrote: Second point - the outsiders looking in. I'm afraid I have to agree that the Portland based look at the world is mostly wrong, if not in the factual context, in the intrepretation of what those facts mean on the ground outside of Portland.

So, Steve, have rural Democrats also adopted "faith-based," um, reality of their Republican counterparts?

Having lived in both the city and the country (and, a long time ago, in North Eugene), it seems people in Portland get it right more often than those in most other places.

Gil, is your state rep Donna Nelson or Kim Thatcher? Do you really think someone from Portland can choose a Democratic nominee for your district better than the local residents? There are those who say Frank Nelson was a great Linfield professor, and a great Common Cause chair but he lost the House race precisely because he would have been more fitted to a Portland area House district than to running against Donna Nelson. Like her or not, as long as more than half the voters of the district thinks she fits the district, she will keep getting re-elected.

I have nothing against Volvos. A tall friend had one that lasted forever.

Jenni, Much as I admire all your comments and all your hard work, with all due respect this comment explains why those of us "downstate" don't trust the folks from the Portland area.

You say "getting 10% on the scorecard " means someone is not pro-enviornment. My problem with that is that life is lived outside of organizational scorecards for most folks. Your comment on the scorecard implies that every person who cares about Democratic elections would take the time to look at all the bills and say "YUP! I agree with their position on all of them, and anyone who disagrees doesn't want my vote."

In the decades I have worked on campaigns, I have seen exactly the opposite. I have seen "I am voting for Vicki instead of Lloyd because.." based on the person, not issues scorecards.

I have seen candidates who were locally popular return contributions to organizations which said acceptance of their money meant acceptance of every word of their platform. I have been at the State Central Comm. when someone from the campaign comm. said they had come up with 5 criteria for support from Democrats, and one took sides in a coastal vs. inland debate. The campaign comm. wanted Democrats to back the inland side. What--they didn't want to win coastal seats if it meant being untrue to the inland side of that debate?

The campaigns I have worked on (mostly in Marion County) would have welcomed what you chastise in Chris: Chris-- If I was a candidate and you were my campaign manager, you'd be fired. What a way to turn Dems against you and lose contributions. Actually any campaign staffer who did that would be fired.

What Dems would be turned against a campaign where the campaign manager spoke his mind? The "agree with us or else, but let someone else do the grunt work of campaigning" types that drove many of us out of party politics because we were tired of our hard work being criticized because what really mattered was total agreement?

Did I ever tell you about the time (before desktop publishing) when I got a call from the county Dem. newsletter editor? Here he was, putting together the newsletter, taking it to the printers, writing his check to the printers to pick it up (only later being re-imbursed) and putting out the mailing in his livingroom with the help of his family. And one day someone said to him "Sure we admire your hard work, but you really are on the wrong side of that ballot measure and if you were a real Democrat you would be on the other side". He said "That does it!". He wrote his farewell message and took the newsletter to be printed. Then he picked up the newsletter, called me to ask I finish the process (which I heartily agreed to do) and gave me the newsletters, labels, etc. to do the bulk mailing. This was someone who had once run to be county vice chair, but he wasn't a "real Democrat" if he didn't agree with someone else on a ballot measure? Democrats aren't the party of independent thought but as closed minded as Republicans? In the newsletter was where I read his farewell message, and it sounded a lot like Chris. I think the guy did the right thing. Now, someone else might have a different view, but if I were running for office, I would want someone like Chris, not a "yes man".

Now I don't know about you, but I have a hard time remembering if I EVER worked on any campaign where "we will withdraw our contributions if your campaign manager is too outspoken" was an issue. Today I ran into an old friend in the grocery store who, 15 years ago, was a successful campaign manager. His candidate won. He said he thought in Oregon a close friend of the candidate (as he was) could very well turn out to be more successful than someone who had graduated first in their class from professional campaign manager school.

Maybe that is the difference between Portland area and downstate campaigns. We like our campaign managers to have brains and think for themselves. And often we remember them years later, as in "Steve and Gil were both model campaign managers, as well as local people who knew the candidate's family and friends". (Those 2 helped us elect a Democrat in a Republican district.)

Chris wrote, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Neo-progressive dogma has been a problem for far too long now. You divide the party with your extreme absolutism and your jihad-like vicious attacks of labor, rural, business and centrist Democrats. It is a holy war with you, a 'Crusade" against the heresy that is Democracy and an open party. You reject Community, Equality and Opportunity and substitute it with Conformity, Absolute Obedience and Sacrifice of diversity."

Damn thats good! I look forward to hearing more from you in the future!

Gil writes, "Steve wrote: Second point - the outsiders looking in. I'm afraid I have to agree that the Portland based look at the world is mostly wrong, if not in the factual context, in the intrepretation of what those facts mean on the ground outside of Portland.

So, Steve, have rural Democrats also adopted "faith-based," um, reality of their Republican counterparts?"

You know Gil, that verges on the absurd if not silly. You seem to say that there are either facts or faith. I would say back to you that there is human nature. Facts have meaning in a context, and if you don't get that, I don't know what else to tell you.

And just by the way, do you really think that one rural Democrat speaks for all rural Democrats? If you do, and your statement implies this, then we are hopelessly at a cross roads. Please find one urban Democrat to quote "THE" urban perspective for me - lets see if that flys.

Coming at this from another side of the same issue - bias and bigotry happen when you characterize the differences you have with another as them being strange or odd, and at the same time you don't look back at yourself. I remember an encounter I had at the Warm Springs reservation a number of years ago when I was much younger. A tribal elder and I were sitting at a table waiting for a meeting to begin, to talk about tribal culture so that the treatment staff at a regional alcohol and drug treatment facility would be more in tune with the world view of our clients from Warm Springs. She leaned over to me and asked, "We will tell you about our culture, but please, could you sum up your culture for me?" Wow, isn't that an interesting question! It is surprisingly more difficult than you would think. From the inside of a group/society/culture it is difficult to see what others looking in at you see. And as I learned later from these elders, it is also difficult to understand why those on the outside just don't "get it" when something is obvious and a shared understanding by members of the group/society/culture.

So, Gil, you pose a facts versus faith perspective on rural people. Could I turn that around on you and say that urban people must only believe in facts and not trust their own feelings and perceptions? Since you are at this time the urban person, and you have stepped out to represent all urban people, I ask you, "don't you urban people believe in anything?" -- Careful now, do you speak for all urban people?

Minnis and Scott have been in the Oregon House for how many terms now? Nathanson has never been in the Oregon House as I recall.

But yet we have this comparison from someone who is upset by the strong language used by the campaign manager for the only filed Dist. 13 candidate:

Once someone points out that this candidate has a worse environmental record than even Minnis and Scott, voters aren't going to be too happy.

Perhaps if people would admit that someone who never served in the Oregon House couldn't possibly have voted on the bills Minnis and Scott voted on (and told their caucus they had also better vote on, or else), there wouldn't be the need for strong language from someone who is tired of being told that people who live outside his county have the right to tell people in his county who their nominee should/ should not be.

I have a question for all you folks who believe so strongly in the OLCV scorecard:

What kind of score did St. Rep. Larry Wells have?

It was awhile back (the member from District 30 was forced out by term limits or he might still be there). When he was representing a rural district incl. part of the Santiam Canyon, the member from the district higher up Hwy. 22 was trying to get a mine started (copper mine, as I recall) and people downhill from the proposed mine really worried about pollution. It was so intense that someone supporting the mine physically threatened someone from local government in a community downstream from the proposed mine who worried out loud about pollution.

Wells gave a great speech on the House floor opposing the mine and talking about the fishing stream on his property which he did not want polluted.

The question is, what was his OLCV score for that session? (Sorry, forget offhand which one that was--mid 1990s as I recall.)

My point is this: many here locally still regard Larry Wells as a hero. Whether he had a 90% score from OLCV, or a 15% score from OLCV, or something in between, many of us are glad to have known him. We are glad he was in the House that session, and many said "whatever issues we disagree with Larry on, he is a great guy and great on water issues".

For all those of you who have made statements like, "10% on the scorecard means bad for the environment"

or similar remarks, ask yourself this question:

Do you need to look up the scorecard for that session to know if Larry Wells was valiant in fighting the pollution the proposed mine could have caused? Is this about actually protecting the environment? Or is this about satisfying a lobbying group?

Actually, we DID address Chris' voting record argument. While the voters may not have voted more than 50% for or against one of the measures he listed, they voted significantly MORE liberal on almost all of those measures than the rest of the state.

For example, Measure 27 went down 29-71% statewide. In the district, it only went down 39-61%. Same with measure 37, which passed statewide 61-39%, but only in the district by 52-48%.

As far as Nathanson's voting record: check out her votes at OLCV's website.

She voted against the Planning Commission's recommended 3500 acre invetory of key natural resources, and supported the Developer's option of 1100 acres.

She voted to remove protections of wetlands in the path of the West Eugene Parkway, a wetlands plan that had been developed over a decade.

She voted against funding the Toxics Right to Know Program.

She voted to move funding away from a variety of transportation programs, and instead to the sprawl-inducing West Eugene Parkway.

And she voted against charging sprawling areas for more of their true infrastructure costs.

She also voted against having adequate stormwater fees to protect water quality.

Etc. Etc.

To her credit: Oh, she got one vote right -- to uphold a 2001 decision for streem corridor funding.

That's her record. That's why developers support her, and local, HD 13 environmentalists do not.

Nancy may be a nice person, Portland Democrats may be out of touch with the rest of the state, reporters may do sloppy jobs, the district may not be as liberal as some people think, people like me may not be from the district, and so forth.

But in the end... Forget the rest of the sniping -- voters should look at her record, and see if they agree with what she's done. If so, great -- elect her. If not, find someone else.

Jesse O, I looked up my own state senator on the OLCV scores. Because she was out for surgery, she missed some of the votes. Her votes were mixed on "land use" incl. how she voted on the various versions of Measure 37 legislation.

I have known my state senator for decades, and never have I based my voting decision solely on her score on OLCV or any other scorecard. I base my vote on the person, not the scorecard. For that, some would call me "not an environmentalist" because the OLCV folks posting here seem to have the definition of "enviornmentalist" as "uses no other source of information than OLCV scorecard".

Today I got an email from a former state rep. I know. He said "it's interesting how personal relationships often enter the politcal picture."

Believe it or not, there are those of us who base our votes and our support on those personal relationships as being more multi-dimensional than organizational scorecards. If groups like OLCV don't want our support because their scorecard should be our only source of information, that is their loss. This debate certainly doesn't sound like OLCV seeking support. It sounds like "agree with us or else" which is the same mentality as Minnis/ Richardson / Scott--only the issues are different.

I know Marc Abrams, I know his record. I don't know you.

So when I read on the more recent topic Marc posting:

"I’ve known Nancy for almost a quarter of a century. When she was Chair of the Lane County Democratic Party in the early 1980s, I was her Vice Chair. I’m proud to call her a friend, and I’m certain I can call her a liberal."

I believe him.

Jesse, if it is your goal to convince people that nothing else matters than the OLCV score, so be it. Just don't ask for my support because I am just inches away from being an Independent, and I look for common sense people to be in the legislature, not people who vow they will get 100% on some organizational scorecard because that is so much more important than listening to actual constituents.

I think interest groups of all sorts are trying to drown out the voices of ordinary constituents. If you think that makes me some sort of subversive, that is not my problem.

I'm not trying to convince people that nothing matters other than OLCV's score. Throw it out -- ignore the 10%. Scorecards are, I agree, imprecise and can't paint the whole picture. But they're a summary for those who don't want to take the time to review all the votes.

So if you ignore the scorecard's number, look at the votes. Look at the issues that Nancy voted on, and how she voted.

And then defend her decisions on their merits. Do you think that only 1100 acres of natural areas are significant in Eugene? Do you think we shouldn't charge sprawl for its transportation costs? and so forth.

Were it one decision I thought were bad, fine. Even two, three, or four. But nine different decisions? Sheesh. That's too many for me.

It seems to me there should be more attention to "common ground friendships". Those are the sort of friendships where people don't agree on everything, but are friends with someone anyway. I have friendships with Republicans--does that make me a bad person, or someone with a wider point of view?

Are votes all that matter, or is there more to being an elected official? Think about the issues that might confront the next legislature: health care, school funding, tax reform. After the polarization of the Minnis years, can the legislature actually work together to get anything done?

How are those questions answered by a comment like this? And then defend her decisions on their merits. Do you think that only 1100 acres of natural areas are significant in Eugene? Do you think we shouldn't charge sprawl for its transportation costs? and so forth.

Are there no other issues before the legislature? Is it not important to know if someone could work on a bipartisan basis to update either the tax code or deal with the mental health system in this state? How does someone's position on a Eugene issue determine what kind of legislator they would be?

Awhile back, a social scientist named Benj. Barber spoke to the Portland City Club. He talked about the founders of this country supporting education in the responsibilities of citizenship. He said modern America is full of people easily capable of saying "this is what I want" but not capable of saying "this is what the community needs".

Our local paper literally hated our former mayor, but they endorsed him when he ran for state rep. How could that be? Is it possible that they realized legislative issues are different than local issues?

If people want to damage the reputation of Nathanson for votes on a local matter, they may convince some people "this person should never hold public office because of votes cast in the past".

But in the process, they may lose support for their own efforts, as in "Oh, yeah, those people at OLCV who say their scorecard is the only thing that matters and anyone who votes against their agenda has no redeeming features. If they are going to act like that kind of bully, I am not going to believe what they say in the future unless someone else I trust says the same thing".

It is like someone saying that because they don't like Barbra Streisand's politics they shouldn't watch the My Name is Barbra special on TV.

I think it is all very narrow minded. I think the voters of Dist.13 have the right to say either "I voted for Nathanson for mayor and will vote for her for state rep" OR "OLCV scorecard makes my decision for me" OR Just moved into town, new voter, and will meet the candidates and decide for myself who I vote for.

It may be (don't know as I don't live there) that there is more nuance to the votes cast than meets the eye from outside the area.

There is a quote from Wayne Morse which I have on the wall "I will exercise an independence of judgement based on the evidence of each issue" (the quote is longer, just don't want to type the whole thing).

I admire people like that, and the enemies Nathanson has made suggest maybe she is in that tradition. It will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out.

Just out of curiosity, I checked out the OLCV environmental scorecard for the Eugene City Council for 2002-2003. Ten Eugene councilors were ranked. Three councilors received 100 percent from the OLCV, but the other seven received 0, 0, 0, 0, 10, 10, and 50 percent! As I recall, only two of the ten councilors have been/are Republicans, but only three are apparently ”pure.” The other six either voted with Nancy Nathanson or were not in office for the cited votes. Except for the West Eugene Parkway, it’s nearly impossible to tell what votes are being referred to. As to the suggestion that the OLCV doesn’t cherry-pick its votes, what nonsense! Nancy participated in dozens of council votes that could have demonstrated her pro-worker, pro-water, pro-balance point of view, but the local OLCV people apparently chose not to consider those votes under its very vague and very broad categories, such as “water quality” and “stopping sprawl,” all of which could be a matter of interpretation. There’s a lot more nuance in Nancy’s votes than the scorecard suggests, and I think that’s demonstrated by other councilors’ scorecards. My conclusion: OLCV should stop bothering, or it should be specific about the votes in question used to create the scorecard. It’s not a useful analytical tool at all, but as we’ve seen through this posting, it’s very useful weapon for the ignorant.

The Eugene Weekly is a biased rag that could make the editor of the Pravda blush. Alan Pittman is not a real journalist. Journalists are objective and seek the facts. Alan seeks the facts that buttress the position the Weekly has already decided to endorse. The Weekly is an embarrassment to journalism and to progressives everywhere. I wouldn’t insult my bird by putting the Weekly in its cage floor.

Oh, and by the way, I’m a Democrat who lives in Nancy’s district and was formerly a constituent, and I’m just fine with her environmental views, because they’re balanced and nuanced. Maybe Jesse O thinks protecting 1,100 potential acres of nature in someone’s back yard in the south hills is really important, but I’m not sure I do, and I’d like to remind him (even several members of our own council and the mayor doesn’t seem to remember) that a majority of Eugene voters supported the West Eugene Parkway. Nancy didn’t choose to substitute her judgment for theirs, since they spoke through two votes as well as a decided vote against looking into other alternatives.

Of course Nancy is progressive, a liberal, pro-labor, and pro-environment. She gave thousands of volunteer hours to the community of Eugene as a Planning Commissioner and City Councilor. Because she compromised with those who did not share her views to reach common ground while she served on the council, she angered those on the left who are believe their positions are so pure and holy that to compromise is a sin as opposed to being the heart of politics. Her reward for her years for hard work should have been the mayoralty. Instead, disgruntled supporters of a left-wing agenda that did not have majority council or community support recruited Kitty Piercy to run against her. Now Kitty Piercy is maintaining that a vote for her was a vote against the West Eugene Parkway! So much for being the mayor of all Eugene.

I think Chris should run himself! We need more people like Chris in the party, telling it like it is.

Except for the West Eugene Parkway, it’s nearly impossible to tell what votes are being referred to.

Not sure what you're saying: the votes have exact dates.

The categories make them understandable to the general public, but no one's saying you can't just go look it up. You've got the date. You've got the vote count.

The City of Eugene's website seems to be acting up right now... but theoretically they've got minutes posted and all that.

Using the helpful "how scorecards were created" link, I found this:

HOW THE 2005 SCORECARD VOTES WERE CHOSEN

Experts from Oregon’s environmental organizations nominated votes to include in the Scorecard.

A volunteer committee reviewed these nominations to identify votes that:

(1) Presented a clear choice about whether or not to protect the environment,

(2) Reflected a cross-section of the environmental issues addressed during the session, and

(3) Were viewed as important by a range of conservation groups.

The Scorecard is designed to provide voters with the information to separate true stewards of Oregon’s environment from those who just talk about it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nowhere in there does it say anything about using local government scorecards to evaluate local elected officials running for legislature.

More importantly, it implies that the only people with the right to decide if a particular vote was good for the environment were the OLCV volunteer committee.

What that tells me is that if there were a gathering of environmentalists (a Sierra Club meeting, a hiking club meeting or hike (or are such groups not concerned about the environment if they are not an OLCV affiliated group?) or just a bunch of people at a wedding, picnic, or other gathering who have concerns about clearcutting or other environmental issues but never held office in an organized environmental group) and they get into an argument over legislation, that argument doesn't represent "environmental opinion" unless the debate is about a bill listed on the OLCV scorecard. Is that true--that individuals have no right to decide what is or is not good for the environment because only OLCV can make that decision? Makes me wonder if they supported Lonsdale or AuCoin in the 1992 Senate primary. Only one of those candidates cared about clearcutting.

Like any other group (incl. unions who have exercised a lot of influence in Democratic campaigns), there comes a point when individual voters have the right to stand up and say "NO! I will not let that group make my decisions for me. I will make my own decisions, thank you very much, and if it requires me to register Indep. right after the primaries in order to be able to think for myself, so be it!".

We the people have the right to choose which candidate to support whether any lobbying group likes that candidate or not! And if there are lobbying groups who have a problem with that, tough luck! Just don't try asking for my support if I have to give up my right to think for myself!

My goodness, this dialogue is still going! As long as it is, and the OLCV scorecard keeps getting play, I'd like to clarify why it was so unfair. As one involved in Nancy's campaign, I am intimately familiar with the issue.

Nancy is a strong environmentalist who worked hard over 18 years of public service in Eugene to protect wetlands and increase funding for parks and open spaces, while safeguarding shrinking budgetary resources. In responding to the OLCV questionnaire two years ago, she agreed with over 90% of the OLCV positions on a variety of issues. Some activists (like EW's Alan Pittman) chose to ignore that broad base of agreement and focused instead on a carefully selected group of votes on the Council, many of which involved trade-offs of environmental concerns vs. budgetary limitations, and others were just a matter of how far the activists could push their agenda. (It's fine to push your agenda; that's what activists are for. But let's keep it honest and not try to punish those who are trying their best to balance your issues against so many others competing for resources.)

There are excellent pro-environment reasons for each of Nancy's votes, which are far too detailed to list here, but could be made available upon request to anyone truly interested in the facts, rather than in rekindling the political embers that the protagonists of two years ago and their supporters have long ago extinguished. So please let's get past that phony 10% figure and instead work on getting Nancy and others who are environmentally conscious elected to statewide and national office before it's too late!

Please see Jim Edmundson's response to Marc Abrams' post for an excellent summary of the current situation. These two state party officers backed different candidates in 2004, but are agreed that Nancy is an excellent choice for HD13.

Greg McPherson's post about old tires is quite interesting. I just looked up Rep. Brown. He has a 13% score. People here trashing Nathanson say she has a 10% score and thus does not belong in public office.

Exactly what did she do to harm the whole state (don't talk just about Eugene issues in a state rep. campaign if you are saying they are supposed to care about the whole state) which makes her deserve a score 3 points below the state rep. who killed the tire bill Rep. Macpherson is talking about in today's post?

And will the gung ho OLCV people support Jean Cowan's campaign for Brown's state rep. seat? Or is this just about enforcing ideological purity on a Eugene candidate?

There are excellent pro-environment reasons for each of Nancy's votes, which are far too detailed to list here, but could be made available upon request to anyone truly interested in the facts,

Consider this a request for these reasons to be posted here. I am truly interested in the facts, and am eager to hear Nancy's pro-environment reasons on votes I saw as being votes that remove wetlands, subsidize sprawl, and not protect natural areas.

Issues. Let's talk about the votes -- not OLCV's process, or the scorecard, but the actual votes that create or stop actual laws and budget decisions from going into effect. That's what the voters deserve.

Eagerly awaiting the arguments.

As a neophyte to this site and blogging in general, I'm not sure how best to proceed. There are already 88 comments on this post, and you're asking for a discussion about quite a few issues that have a lot of context and nuance to them. That's why this scorecard (and vote scorecarding in general) is so controversial.

<h2>Could we take this offline and have an email discussion about the best way to get the information to those who are most interested? I don't know how to email you.</h2>