Paul: thank you for your public service, especially for volunteering to go to Iraq. I can only hope you are far enough way from Multnomah County that the Lefties don't hold it against you.

It's worth noting that DailyKos has been doing a series on 'fighting dems'. People like Paul who have served in the armed forces and who are now running for office as Dems.

Good for Paul for serving, good for Paul for running.

Is this a contested election? Is Winters running again?

Varner,

Sen. Winters filed 12/6.

So far no other candidates have "offically" filed. Mjr. Evans has only filed a exploratory campaign PAC--I hope that it would turn in too a "true" campaign PAC asap.

Yes, it is a contested election. Jackie filed for re-election 12/6/05.

We have the potential here for a rarity--2 qualified people debating the issues.

Jackie is an local icon--people who never voted for her rallied to her defense when Zupancic called her "too old" in 2004. Zupancic lost Marion County in both primary and general--a warning that insult/negative campaigning can backfire.

This is going to be a fascinating election for those of us living in the district. Jackie is an icon, but also someone many of us have disagreed with over the years (I've known her longer than 2 decades). We have the chance to make this about people and policy and not just about statistics like voter registration in the district. This district has not seen such a contested St. Sen. election with the potential for intelligent debate in many years--4 years ago there were equally matched candidates but some wags said Jackie got elected because the opponent sent out too many mailers with too little discussion of policy and how it affects the people of the district.

There are people old enough to remember Jackie's unsuccessful run for office in 1982 (lost a contested primary). However, children born in 1982 or later may have a different view--those born in 1988 who turn 18 this year are eligible to register and vote.

There are young people I have met (esp. those who attended WOU) who just grin when they hear Paul's name mentioned. Have they ever even heard of Jackie? I hope there are no statistical determinists out there who claim that the grin (and obvious good will it represents) means nothing because "historically, the Independents split 50-50" or some such.

I strongly believe (having worked in state senate campaigns here over the years) that more than anything else, the question in November will be "Elect Paul, or re-elect Jackie?". Not age, or partisanship, or anything else. Both Paul and Jackie are capable of impressing an audience, so let's have a serious discussion of issues.

It will be a generational as well as partisan election, and I am looking forward to being deeply involved in Paul's campaign.

Paul Evans is a shining star on the horizon of Oregon politics. Setting aside partisan considerations, Paul is one of the few people I know who comes to public service with real vision, intellect, passion, and integrity. Someday he'll be governor of Oregon, U.S. Senator, or even on a national ticket. For now, we should do everything we can to make sure he gets elected.

For the record, Jackie Winters may be a nice person, but she is NOT a moderate. Jackie has been the State Capitol's top opponent of working people. She was a leading proponent of a bill to subvert the will of Oregonians by gutting the voter-approved minimum wage. She also introduced a bill to eliminate the enforcement mechanism in Oregon's wage laws, so employers can short-change their most vulnerable employees with impunity. As if that's not bad enough, the bill would have exempted her from paying her own employees (as the owner of Jackie's Ribs)!!! Spending your time in Salem bilking farm-workers and waitresses earning minimum wage, just so you can turn a bigger profit? Now that's low. It's no secret, then, that her biggest contributors in her last race included the Oregon Restaurant Association, loggers, car dealers, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Anheuser Busch and other special interests who aren't exactly looking out for the little guy.

This race should be priority number one for the Senate Democrats, for the labor movement, and for all of us Oregonians who think this state needs proactive, visionary leadership. Unfortunately, I won't be able to make it to Paul's kick-off event because I'm on the East Coast right now, but I've already sent him a check and I'll be doing everything I can to support him. Go Paul!

Is it me or does Evens look like Fred Flinstone?

I read Paul's Daily Barometer essays during his OSU days. If he has greatly improved his objectivity and fairness since those days, then he may become a viable candidate.

If y'all are feeling so warm and fuzzy about a returning Iraq War veteran, you won't mind if he's driving a big ol' gas guzzling SUV around his future Senate District, will you?

Alice, what DO you believe in--being snarky?

How would you like someone to make such cracks about one of your friends?

FYI--in 2005, Ted Ferrioli proved it is possible for Republicans to be positive and still get their point across. Maybe you didn't get the message.

Granted, all political and religious affiliations are represented in the U.S. armed services. I never suggested otherwise. No matter what their politics or motivation, we owe a debt of gratitude to our all volunteer military.

Having participated in several counter protests during the Portland anti-war demonstrations (pre invasion of Iraq), I can assure you that respect for pro-Bush veterans was piss poor. I stood next to a 60 year old Vietnam Veteran (holding an American Flag), and I was holding a pro-intervention poster. As roughly 45,000 anti-war believers paraded by, we were met with disbelief, anger, overt hostility, and verbal harassment. The most voiceferous protesters seemed incensed that a Vietnam Vet could be pro Bush or a supporter of invading Iraq. As if a veteran is obligated to share their anti-war opinions because he served in a previous "unjust war".

The best part was the twenty something doe eyed young lady with green hair who used her best sidewalk advocacy to make us understand that pacifism is the only path to peace and happiness in the world. I was handing out flyers with a nasty picture of Saddam Hussein with the caption, "Have you hugged your Dictator today?" The veteran was still carrying a piece of shrapnel in his ass. Surprisingly, neither of us were persuaded that pacifism offered any path to peace and prosperity in the middle east. To paraphrase the veteran: why don't you ask the people of South Vietnam how peaceful Uncle Ho was? Why don't you compare South Korea (or Seoul) with Saigon, and then tell me that it wasn't worth fighting both wars (Korea and Vietnam)?

To summarize: it's easy to support a Democrat who volunteered to serve in Iraq when he's running for office. But what if that hypothetical volunteer (I know nothing of Paul Evans) actually felt his service was both honorable and necessary? What if he's pro-choice, pro-worker, pro-schools, and pro-universal health care; but you disagree with his views on Iraq. Heaven forbid he might driver a Humvee.

My point is simple: does a progressive candidate have to share all your political view, or does he get to stray from the party line on foreign policy, or what kind of vehicle he's permitted to drive? Can progressives tolerate dissent, or should your candidates line up to kiss every progressive position that is shoved in their direction? Do you want a bobble-head that nods up and down in perfect meter, or will progressives allow their best and brightest to stray off the reservation of progressive dogma? That is all.

Can progressives tolerate dissent To my mind, if they can't they are not progressives.

But can Republicans tolerate those of us who ask "why was the Vietnam War worth my high school friend becoming a casualty?".

Same with Iraq--do the family and friends of the casualties have the right to express any opinion they please? There are over 2000 who died and how many permanently wounded. Is there a place in this country for hundreds or thousands of different opinions? Or do the "Support the troops and President Bush" signs mean no one who has served in Iraq or who has a friend who has served there or in any other conflict has the right to question anything President Bush has done in Iraq?
Were they just election year campaign signs, or does "support the troops" mean decent funding for veterans programs and respect for all who served there even if they say things you disagree with? If we were to search the records of all those in Congress and in the executive branch, where would we find the most support for helping veterans--among those who ask questions, or among the "Pres. Bush has been infallible in Iraq" folks? Seems to me there have been Republicans who admitted that there have been mistakes made in Iraq. Do those Republicans not "support the troops" if they say mistakes were made in planning or implementation of our time in Iraq?

As someone whose high school friend became an amputee in Vietnam and who spent a lot of years doing volunteer work with veterans, I'd say never assume all vets think alike. Someone I met in those years used to say that if there were 5 vets in a room there would be 4 factions and a moderator. That is why the Oregonian story “We Talk, They Fought” and the Mike Francis piece “From the sandbox to the bandbox” were great public services.

Never assume that any person at any protest or other political event speaks for anyone but himself or herself. By the same token, never assume that people who volunteer with veterans are always the same people who are gung ho for all military interventions. Standing on a street corner holding a sign is sometimes easier than doing unsung volunteer work with veterans. My experience with Vietnam vets is that those most helpful were those who’d had some questions about the Vietnam War.

But I think the real question Alice raises is this: Are vets individuals or are they members of some bloc to be theorized about in hypothetical situations?

She said almost as an aside But what if that hypothetical volunteer (I know nothing of Paul Evans) actually felt his service was both honorable and necessary?

Thank you Alice for admitting that you are writing out of theory and not from knowledge of the person this topic is about.

What I would like to see is the folks with the "support the troops" signs, car magnets, bumper stickers etc. actually get involved in better treatment for vets. It is about treating all veterans as people who served their country and now have the right to excellent health care. And to express any opinion they desire. (Yes, that means Chuck Hagel and John McCain and John Kerry and Jim Rassman and all the other Vietnam vets get to say what they believe, whether anyone agrees with them or not!)

If someone with a "support the troops" sign thinks it is OK to question what any vet says, (esp. the way Jean Schmidt questioned Murtha’s courage on the House floor and what was said about Paul Hackett during the campaign) they have lost my support for their ideas not only this year but for years to come. I have felt that way for decades!

I DO know something of Paul Evans, having first met him almost 4 years ago. A couple years before that, a friend attending WOU had some very nice things to say about him and his work as Mayor of Monmouth.

And I think we should talk about concrete issues, not just hypotheticals like Alice suggests. This is about real issues in the Oregon State Senate. I would have supported Paul for a legislative position before he served in Iraq.

Please don’t talk theory in legislative elections—talk about what actually is going on in this state. We need high quality people in the legislature.

Agreed. I just hope he doesn't drive an SUV.

This quote by the candidate caught my eye:

Iraq is at a critical juncture. If we don't make it work in the next year or two, it will only get worse.

We know the whack job right-wingers are so lost in their twisted fantasies that they won't have a coherent answer to my following question, but I'm concerned that many of the rest who post here don't either. Since I'd like to believe average folks like me are much more interested in the reality of people sent in my name dying over there for no good purpose, we might as well give them the courtesy of trying:

What incredible and evil arrogance makes anyone believe that the U.S., and particularly the military, could "make it work" (and by that I mean that specific situation) for another country and another culture?

This has nothing to do with candidate Evans or his commendable action in serving. Realistically, we must also recognize that a large part of the motivation --- and equally commendable --- for most of the folks in the service doing the fighting, and presumably for Mr. Evans, is backing up and protecting their fellow troops. It is unfortunate, however, that this quote suggests that he may have been misguided by the propoganda.

And all you right wing whack jobs - Really supporting the troops means opposing this evil, criminal, constitution-violating administration, their illegal war in Iraq, and their terror war on the American people. To claim that "supporting the troops" means supporting this administration and/or the mission is just plain vile.

Regrettably I think this explains a lot of the rest that I read here:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6356637

Appparent problem with the blog software on the previous link. The text of the link is right, but the blog didn't make the actual link correctly apparently. One more try, if this doesn't work just type in the actual link:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6356637/

Spoken like a true demagogue, Ask.

Anybody who disagrees with your perspective on this "illegal war" is the victim of propaganda.

As I suggested at the top of this thread, there is a risk the Whacko Left may be alienated by an Iraq War veteran who is proud of his service and mission there. Even by a candidate running for state office.

While I appreciate the tenor of any discussion among progressives in which they encourage each other to accommodate divergent viewpoints, I think an erroneous assumption is being made about Evans' views.

Yes, he did volunteer for his tour of duty in Iraq. Does that equate to a "pro-war" stance? Not according to his statements in the Oregonian. He thought invasion was a mistake, because he had first-hand knowledge that containment was working. He was there, with the troops who were making containment successful. Bush sold the war by claiming that those efforts were failing. How do you think Evans and company would feel about that?

To take the opinion now that "we have to make it work" is the opinion of many thoughtful progressives who are concerned that we created a situation where terrorism could easily flourish. We broke it (more than it was already broken), to a certain extent we own the responsibility to fix it. Is it arrogance to think that we can? Maybe, but I don't think it's arrogance to think that we have to try.

Alice - like most of the whacko right, you obviously don't even know what the word demagogue means. Sadly, demagogues like you are always projecting on others.

Another Benton County Dem - I'm sorry but your argument Is it arrogance to think that we can? Maybe, but I don't think it's arrogance to think that we have to try. is essentially meaningless. To believe as you argue, you have to believe there is a chance that we can make it work, otherwise we are living a fantasy at the cost of others lives. And my first question still applies: What makes you arrogantly believe "we can possibly, I think, I hope make it work"?

Etymology: Greek dEmagOgos, from dEmos people (perhaps akin to Greek daiesthai to divide) + agOgos leading, from agein to lead -- more at TIDE, AGENT 1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power 2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times

Ask1st writes: It is unfortunate, however, that this quote suggests that he may have been misguided by the propoganda.

And all you right wing whack jobs - Really supporting the troops means opposing this evil, criminal, constitution-violating administration, their illegal war in Iraq, and their terror war on the American people.

If you really think Bush is waging a "terror war on the the American people" then you are a demagogue.

The claim within legitimate literary usage, and the criminal-in-chief's own psychotic use of the term "war on terrorism", is supported by the facts, and no amount of denial by right wing nut jobs can change that hard, cold reality. But unpatriotic right-wing whackos like you, in that you have no respect for the Constitution that this criminal administration is out to subverting as it arrogantly threatens to continue to wiretap and further terrorize Americans to hold power --- including holding any American citizen they choose without due process as they did for three years until it became obvious the courts were getting ready to assert their authority --- are never deterred by the facts.

Finally, it's also a hard, cold fact that at this point a host of Constitutional experts from across the political spectrum who are far more patriotic, in the sense they are devoted to being faithful to the Constitution, and who are far smarter than you and your right wing lunatic crowd can ever hope to be, have decisively shown that this adminstration has arrogantly admitted they have commited, and intend to continue committing, impeachable and criminally prosecutable acts.

That's not demagoguing, that's truth.

Alice never said anything about Evan's views. In fact, I explicity state that I KNOW NOTHING OF PAUL EVANS"

I move the previous question: can "progressive" anti-war sentiments be reconciled with a candidate who returned to active duty - because the Air Force had a shortage of air-battle operations specialists?

If anti-war progressives can elect a returning veteran from the Iraq War, can they tolerate a (hypothetical) candidate who drives a SUV? If the answer to either question is no, then I suggest that "progessives" are less tolerant than Wahabis.

ASK1st: you are 100% full of horse shit if you actually think Bush is "terrorizing" America. If you keep spewing that vitriol out in public you'll scare off every Roosevelt Democrat that can read. Call Bush anti-democratic, or power hungry, or (and I think this stretches the truth beyond recognition) perhaps dictatorial. You can insult his character, his intellect, his diction, and his supreme court nominees, and I'm right there with you.

But "terrorist"...do you really think Bush is a terrorist? Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist; as much as you don't like them, Bush/Cheney/Halliburton are not terrorists. If you want to claim hyperbole, that is one way to explain your choice of words. But if you keep defending the statement, you're going to lose all credibility with the grown ups in the audience.

Doretta: what are you wearing?

Just returned from the Evans kickoff meeting--a ballroom full of a variety of people it would be hard to stereotype--except that many were from Polk County and had known Paul Evans for years, while others had been involved in politics since long before Paul Evans had first been elected to city council.

It being a community event, there was lots of "haven't seen you for years!" exchanged among old friends.

Also, there were elected officials, current/ potential candidates, and folks from the Oregon Bus Project.

Debate the war all you want, but don't assume all veterans support all wars. http://hackettforcongress.com/ is the website of a veteran in another state who was almost elected to Congress and is now running for US Senate.

Sorry all you cowardly, lurking right wingers, I'm not going to play the typical childish right-wing game of distracting attention from the corruption and spiritual poverty of this administration. Since Alice clearly understands high-school English, he/she also is smart enough to know that he/she is being intellectually dishonest in that typical attack style of the right. You ought to be ashamed of yourself "Alice".

Alice would rather talk hypotheticals than actually get out there and walk or phone or give a neighborhood coffee or put up lawn signs or the other hard work of electing candidates. Can Alice name current st. senator, st. rep. and other elected officials, or is it more important to debate theory?

Debate theory all you want elsewhere, but this is a topic about a specific St. Sen. campaign. And anyone who wants to debate the theory and practice of Iraq (or who drives which vehicles) should do it elsewhere.

I had every intention to go by the Ballroom, but I was stuck at home writing an essay for class. I hope the event turned out great. Evans for Senate!

LT:

Greg McPhearson (like him), Richard Devlin (don't), and Darlene Hooley. I've walked precints for local Democrats and I made volunteer push/pull phone calls for both Democrats and Republicans in the last election cycle. 20 years ago, I rolled a joint for a Presidential candidates daughter (in another country, no less). In the last two years, I've hosted a wine/cheese party for a Democrat, and sat next to (and enjoyed the company) of Bob Packwood at a fundraising breakfast.

I've donated to two political campaigns for state/local office in the past 12 months, and I plan on giving to two more. I would gladly vote for Evans if I lived in his district. Particularly if he's proud of the progress we've made in Iraq and thinks we can leave it better than we found it.

None of which changes the reality that Ask1st is using demogoguery to defile our nation's President (love him or hate him, but don't libel him with the "terrorist" label).

That Jenny Simonis doesn't like SUV's (but we don't know if she would vote against a Democrat who drove one).

Or, most importantly, that Democrats lack a coherent strategy for success in Iraq, Iran, or North Korea. If your 2008 POTUS nominee has the credentials of Carter or Dukakis on foreign affairs, you will lose. If you pick Hillary, Al Gore, or John Kerry you will lose. I'm hoping it's a John Edwards vs. Jeb Bush race. Threepeat baby! Bush Nation.

If Alice was intellectually honest, which her last statement proves you are not, and read carefully, you will find not find the "label" you claim used anywhere. Critical thinkers are well aware of the propoganda techniques of the sleazy right-wing in which they divert attention from the facts of the despicable behavior of this administration by outright lying about what was said, and then smearing the person who didn't say what is claimed. Thanks to Alice for taking the bait and providing a textbook example.

By the way, my dictionary defines "terrorize" as "to fill with terror, terrify", and "terror" as "intense fear". A fairly apt description of the political tactics we have witnessed.

Facts are stubborn things, Ask1st:

Posted by: askquestions1st | Jan 26, 2006 9:03:08 AM

This quote by the candidate caught my eye:

Iraq is at a critical juncture. If we don't make it work in the next year or two, it will only get worse.

We know the whack job right-wingers are so lost in their twisted fantasies that they won't have a coherent answer to my following question, but I'm concerned that many of the rest who post here don't either. Since I'd like to believe average folks like me are much more interested in the reality of people sent in my name dying over there for no good purpose, we might as well give them the courtesy of trying:

What incredible and evil arrogance makes anyone believe that the U.S., and particularly the military, could "make it work" (and by that I mean that specific situation) for another country and another culture?

This has nothing to do with candidate Evans or his commendable action in serving. Realistically, we must also recognize that a large part of the motivation --- and equally commendable --- for most of the folks in the service doing the fighting, and presumably for Mr. Evans, is backing up and protecting their fellow troops. It is unfortunate, however, that this quote suggests that he may have been misguided by the propoganda.

And all you right wing whack jobs - Really supporting the troops means opposing this evil, criminal, constitution-violating administration, their illegal war in Iraq, and their terror war on the American people. To claim that "supporting the troops" means supporting this administration and/or the mission is just plain vile.

Dear Alice,

'Right wing whack job' here.

It'd be nice to SEE a coherent question. I love that it is you and yours who are burying your heads in the sand, refusing to acknowledge truth, and sipping Kool Aid on your back porch.

Name a single instance of criminal violation by the Presidential administration that is not more than a liberal pipe dream. Name a single instance by the Administration on Constitutional issues that is not more than a liberal pipe dream. Tell me exactly why the war on Iraq is illegal when all of your liberal congressmen and Senators voted for it, the UN voted for it.

Before you go on blathering unsupported facts and spewing your hatred because you know liberalism is dying you might try acknowledging a few of these facts...at least let liberalism "die with dignity".

If you stand in Americas way for her policies and yet claim to support the troops implementing those policies...you are intellectually dishonest...at best.

LT writes: in 2005, Ted Ferrioli proved it is possible for Republicans to be positive and still get their point across. Maybe you didn't get the message.

LT, usually you do your research and know what you are talking about. Unfortunately, I think in this case...you must have been transfixed by Ferrioli's beaming eyes or ravishing suspenders because you drank the potion.

Ferrioli was NOT positive. Ferrioli is NOT a nice guy. You think he's being positive and nice to your face while he reaches around with a machete to stab you repeatedly.

Don’t forget the NASTY NASTY NASTY attacks that Ferrioli as head of the Republican Leadership Fund authorized against Sen. Monnes-Anderson, Sen. Verger, and Sen. Bates? NASTY, NASTY, BASELESS personal attacks. When the day is over, Ferrioli is just as sleazy and scummy as they come.

Stop drinking the potion!

JTT: Yes....but Ferrioli does smell nice!

A little cognitive complexity is all I ask here— Arrogance is invading a country over trumped up evidence and assuming you’ll be treated like some kind of hero. Arrogance is pretend-landing a fighter plane on a carrier deck and declaring, “mission accomplished.” Arrogance is going after someone’s wife because you didn’t like what the guy said about you. Arrogance is swaggering and smirking to an outraged press when they try to press you for a morsel of truthfulness. Arrogance is putting yourself above the laws of the land and the constitution you took an oath to protect and defend. Arrogance, cowardice, and, yes Virginia, criminality..

Responsibility is taking ownership for the role we’ve played in world events. As progressives we’re so very outraged by the hypocrisy of our country’s foreign policy that we can’t bear to identify with it. Me too—I’d rather not, it makes me sick. But significant damage has been done in the world in our name (and I haven’t even mentioned South America), and I think there’s only one honorable way to deal with it. Since when is doing the right thing “meaningless?”

I wasn't talking about Ferrioli during elections, but Ferrioli during session where he ran a positive campaign against the AuCoin nomination which, in the words of one friend, "allowed AuCoin to slash and burn himself".

ABD--obviously you don't like what Bush has done. Neither do I. BUT When did this shift from a topic on the State Senate district where I live to a debate about Bush?

I for one will stand up for the right of any COMBAT vets to say whatever they want about the issues of the day.

NOTE to those discussing Bush here: Bush Cheney Rove DeLay Gingrich Lott

are not combat vets. Neither are they Oregonians!

Can we please discuss the State Senate on this topic and discuss national politics elsewhere? Or are some saying the mirror image of what the GOP is saying?

There are Republicans saying Hackett and Murtha have a lot of nerve not backing up Pres. Bush. Are there people on this blog saying "back from Iraq, you're supposed to say what I tell you to say"? If so, I suggest a book to read, THE AYATOLLAH IN THE CATHEDRAL.

It is the story of one of the Iranian Hostage Crisis hostages who returned to the US and was hired by an activist group headquartered in a major cathedral someplace like New York City. But the first time he expressed an opinion that was not "the party line" of the activist group, there began to be complaints. So, in the end, he parted company with the activist group and wrote the book.

I hope we don't see the same sort of thing in 2006 elections. I think Paul Evans would be a much better state senator than Jackie Winters. Anyone here disagree with me?

Another BCDem:

You know, you clearly cannot interested in genuine cognitive complexity because at the bottom line you have not responded to the only point that matters. Simply mouthing platitudes about "responsibility is taking ownership" demonstrates a complete lack of cognitive complexity, since that doesn't mean anything in and of itself. It is easy to illustrate how many ways this criminal administration is arrogant.

Cognitive complexity in approaching this issue first and foremost means the courage to grapple with the content of this argument by far too "progressives", to find out whether it actually means anything at all, or in the real world is at least as arrogant as the other side.

So I'll ask you, and all the other posters here who are so enthused by a candidate who has repeated essentially this same platititude, for some genuine cognitive complexity:

To believe as you argue, you have to believe there is a chance that "we can make it work", otherwise we are living a fantasy at the cost of others lives. So what makes you arrogantly believe "we can possibly, I think, I hope make it work"? And specifically how? You apparently are willing to continue to send folks there to make violence to "make it work". And that is the polar opposite of "honorable" unless you can explain: How?

I would refer you to Middle East scholars like Juan Cole who have provided serious analyses of why there is no rational reason for a person of integrity and responsibility to believe we can do anything except make matters worse everyday we are there, and how virtually from the outset it has not been any different. Unless you can provide the counterargument, which I'd be very interested to hear and might even support if unlike a lot of what has been said here is rational, you're not saying anything.

And please dump pseudo-intellectual BS like "cognitive complexity".

Ask1st, In an attempt to answer your question about how to "make it work", I propose the following scheme:

1. We isolate all the pro-war, hate-filled, blood-thirsty Americans into one camp. Of course this will be an all-volunteer army full of brave people like our beloved "Alice", and, since they are so gung-ho, there should be no problem in creating this army.
2. We isolate all the pro-war, hate-filled, blood-thirsty Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, North Koreans, Canadians, etc. into either one camp or several camps (they can decide amongst themselves whether they want to have a united front against the ugly Americans or to fight the ugly Americans independently). Again, since pro-war people tend to be the loudest, and "bravest" of our species, there should be no problem in finding enough volunteers for this army.
3. We find a really huge sports arena, preferably one with cushy seats and plenty of refreshments, where the rest of the world can sit back and watch the dumb asses beat the living crap out of each other. I think it would be extra nice if weapons were prohibited, and they had to kill each other with their fists, teeth, etc.
4. One last rule, which is a twist on the Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome rule of "two men enter, one man leaves".

             <b>All men enter. No man leaves.</b>
   

While it's kind of sad, I do enjoy watching liberal's eat their young when they stray off the dogmatic reservation. That'll teach those kids what thinking on their own will get them.

If you're liberal and you know it, stomp your feet. If you're liberal and you know it, stomp your feet. If you're liberal and you know it, then you're feet will surely show it. If you're liberal and you know it, stomp your feet.

If you're liberal and you know it, shout at Hillary...

Oooh....Yoko,

So surreal, so edgy.
I especially like how you created the image of liberals as a sort of hybrid wolf/native-american/grade-school-teacher. And the whole shouting at Hillary thing....very "out there". A very challenging work of art. Keep up the good work!

Really, askquestions1st, your willingness to resort to ad hominum argument is disappointing.

I was addressing your own attack on Evans' statement about Iraq:

"What incredible and evil arrogance makes anyone believe that the U.S., and particularly the military, could "make it work" (and by that I mean that specific situation) for another country and another culture?"

by pointing out that yes indeed, he can be a progressive and at the same time not think we ought to bomb the hell out of a country and then go home.

I think you made another erroneous assumption about those of us whose conscience prevents that position. That is, we don't defend and never took the position of Bush's Crusaders for Democracy--that we can go in and make it better for anyone on earth by bringing Enlightenment, Truth, Justice, and the American way. Yep, that's Bush-style arrogance at its worst.

Let me make my point simpler, since you don't like complexity: We made it worse. We need to make it better.

Ask and the others, let me make it simple for you.

Campaigns for Congress can deal with the actions of the Bush Administration. Campaigns for state legislature deal with legislative issues. (something lost on Zupancic when he made Jackie's legislative voting record an issue in his Congressional campaign).

I have known Paul and Jackie for close to 30 years total --Jackie longer than Paul. I see Dist. 10 as a race between Paul and Jackie, not a contest of ideologies.

Yes, the way I see it, the St. Sen. Dist. 10 race is between Paul and Jackie. You may like both of them or neither of them.

But I would like someone I have known and admired for years elected to the state senate, and if bloggers don't like it they can ignore the Sen. Dist. 10 race or they can ask Jackie Winters for her views on Iraq.

Let me say this as clearly as I can. Some of my friends were Vietnam vets and now we have returning Iraq vets. Some may not like every word they say. I stand for returned vets voicing their own opinions--they saw things first hand, I didn't. People who didn't see things first hand don't have the same perspective.

If that attitude means I am neither liberal nor progressive, then fine--I believe labels short circuit thought.

But telling me I have no right to opinions others disagree with has not changed my vote in the past and will not in the future.

Paul is a friend I am proud to support, and if you don't like that attitude then you don't want my support for your causes. Deal with it.

LT- re: Ferrioli

A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.

JTT and all the others:

Do you care what happens to Oregonians or are you just interested in theory and potshots?

Just read this story about whether a teacher in Stayton got all the benefits (such as keeping his job and his PERS) specified in federal law about those deployed. http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060127/NEWS/601270331/1001

Sounds to me like a real world problem that those who think beyond "the Iraq war is wrong and how dare anyone speak in more detail than that" would want to make sure doesn't happen in the future. But of course that would involve being more concerned with the treatment of veterans than with scoring political points.

Maybe there are those who think it is more important to badmouth opponents than to solve problems--thus the potshots at Ferrioli. It happens that I agreed with St.Sen. Ed Fadeley but considered him rude and polarizing. Apparently JTT would have me say that Fadeley was infallible and how dare I say a nice thing about Ferrioli since his politics are not what I agree with. How is that different than the Swifties?

If people want to say their side is always right and the "other side" should never be credited with something as simple as carrying on polite conversation with a person not of their partisan registration, they can do it without me.

Sorry folks, I want no part of that. Maybe that is why I have friends across the political spectrum and would rather solve problems than blame political opponents.

If some here don't like that attitude, not my problem.

Another Benton, And the way we make it better? See God Bless America! post Jan 27, 2006 2:22:01 PM

LT - let me make it simple for you. Campaigns for any office are about who has the critical thinking and leadership skills to do the job. In this case, a candidate has put himself forward for office. No one questions his right to voice an opinion, or his service. But a critical and aggressive examination of vague statements put forward by him and his supporters in furtherance of his candidacy is the right and duty of every American who takes their citizenship duties seriously. It is regrettable if you can't cope with that reality.

And to "Another BC Dem": As a factual matter, there was no "ad hominem" argumentation in anything posted. But interestingly enough, a false accusation of "ad hominem" argument, being directed at the person rather than at the substance of the argument, is in fact a textbook example of the fallacy of ad hominem argument (particularly if done with a superior condescending tone). I renew the substantive question to you, and anyone else here, that I posed to the candidate and to your statement We made it worse. We need to make it better. In simple expository terms please have the intellectual honesty and present your substantive argument: HOW? (And I don't dislike complexity, just the sophmoric use of superficial complexity to hide the lack of a substantive argument.)

Ask, If you live in District 10, you have every right to campaign for Jackie. If you don't, you will be voting on different state senate candidates than the ones in District 10.

Are you saying I have no right to an opinion you disagree with when you say "Campaigns for any office are about who has the critical thinking and leadership skills to do the job"?

Should I tell you (assuming you live in a diff. St. Sen. district) that the candidate you favor does not have "the critical thinking and leadership skills to do the job"?

I think (as has happened on other topics, notably about whether we are all supposed to obey the OCLV scorecard and the question of if anyone in House District 13 has the right to support Nathanson if certain bloggers say Nathanson is an unacceptable candidate) there are some bossy people on this blog who can't handle the idea that others might not agree with their pronouncements on candidates.

Each voter has the right to choose which candidates to support. Period. And if some bloggers don't like that choice, tough luck.

I believe it was Will Rogers who said, "I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."

He is giggling in his grave right about now.

Is anyone else's screen showing every comment after Alice's at 8:56 AM in all italics?

It's my fault, Jeremiah: I forgot to close my italicized quote of Ask1st. Let's see if this will fix it.

The next post on the thread should be in plain text.

To "God Bless America" (with apologies to MasterCard):

Saddam's war with Iran. 1.5 million dead and wounded. Saddam's Gas attack on Halabja. 5,000 dead civilians. Saddams invaion of Kuwait. 6,000 killed or tortured, thousands raped. Saddam's payments to suicide bombers: $35 million.

Listening to an anonymous coward whine about "blood-thirsty Americans"...

P R I C E L E S S

Those who viewed Saddam Hussein as a volatile and dangerous threat to stability in the middle east are not all "pro-war, hate-filled, blood-thirsty Americans". Even with no WMD's, and despite the expense of American and civilian lives, the removal of Saddam Hussein was necessary and long overdue. Those of you who are functioning as Saddam's apologists (sure, he was an evil dude, but there are lots of evil dudes) should be ashamed of yourselves. Ditto for those who have the audacity to call the President of the United States a terrorist, simply because he had the courage to stand up to the butcher, and remove him from power. I don't know how you sleep at night.

WBAII -

We have now successfully completed the demonstration of what is really wrong with the whacked out right-wing that is destroying this country: You obviously have cognitive and reading disabilities.

There was a factual recitation and analysis of the actions and tactics of this adminstration. But nowhere in what was written will you find any words substantially equivalent to labelling "the Shrub is a ..." using the emotionally loaded label you use, and you know that you lying, slandering scum.

To critical thinkers, there is a world of difference in what was said and what your lie about labelling. And avoidance of that label was intentional on my part. First, because this intellectually dishonest adminstration and their pathetically misguided supporters like you use that label for tactical purposes as the ultimate dehumanizing epithet. It allows you to gain power over susceptible listeners by striking extreme fear in them of the person you are labelling. Second, because not even the U.N. (at the insistence of the U.S.) has defined the term. Of course, this absence of definition doesn't stop the administration and others from using it in written and verbal statements in the U.N. to gain emotional and political advantage. And finally, because I knew that sad and unthinking creatures that you are, you would follow the playbook to letter of jumping to claim that was what was said. We've seen it done time after time in the last five years, including recently when the right wing screaming banshees did it to John Kerry over precisely this label.

You are the one who reflexively jumped to label, after the actions of this administration (and even dictionary definitions) were laid out to you I might point out, because in your limited cognitive development you apparently are only capable of dealing in a world that you can label and categorize as "good" or "bad", "friend" or "enemy", "like" or "hate". Pretty much just as children do in earlier stages of their cognitive development. You followed the psycho right-wing script of trying to smear opponents who stand up to you, starting with an outright lying about what was actually said and than going on to slander your opponent, instead of dealing with the facts you know you can't counter.

I'll end this with some additional facts and figures for you that I presume have been noted previously somewhere on this blog: We know that this administration has adamently refused to count civilian deaths, and at least early on obstructed the civilian Iraqi authority from counting civilian deaths. However, experts in this field using proven analysis method,s verified by statistics on civilian deaths that have been counted, tell us that due to all causes that can be directly traced to the war --- and for which uniformly law in the civilized world holds us responsible --- civilian deaths far in excess of 100000. This includes deaths attributable to direct military attacks, destruction of the infrastructure, and lack of security. Which means you and yours are fully supportive of killing more people, outside of the Iraq-Iran war, than those you are claiming you are out to avenge. And with regard to the Iraq-Iran war, you can't run and hide from the fact that we were on Hussein's side, supplied him with material including the chemical weapons, and aggressively encouraged him to fight that war.

You think the Iraqi people feel just a bit terrorized by actions for which we are directly and legally responsible? By your argument here you've already demonstrated that apparently you don't really care. And don't even start with the deceit that this adminstration is trying to correct historical failures. Their actions as occupiers including attacks on Fallujah and several other cities, a pattern of torture, and now we learn apparently hostage-taking Documents Show Army Seized Wives As Tactic (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_leveraging_wives), disproves that.

And one last thing, labelling folks as apologists for Hussein is just another example of the slander and smear tactic. As with the labelling, no one made that argument here. And not that you would know the difference, but someone making that argument would not be an apologist since it does not offer an excuse for the despicable acts you reference. You, however, did volunteer a sweeping direct defense, in part based on slander and smear, for the misdeeds of this adminstration. An administration which, if there is a God in heaven, will in the not too distant future being yielding up numerous officials right up to the top who will have to stand before U.S. and international bars of justice.

And for the benefit of those who maintain as I do that this thread is supposed to be about candidate Evans, this brings me back to my original question for "progressives" and candidates who offer the claim that we can and must "make it work" as evidence of their vision and leadership potential: In view of the reality of these facts, HOW?

LT-

You are free to say whatever you want to. However, I would hope that you would abstain in the future from impugning my motives. Am I more interested in real Oregonians or theory and potshots? I’m more interested in telling the truth to real Oregonians, and asking you to stop fawning over a “nice, polite” Ferrioli that doesn’t exist. As someone very wise once said (paraphrasing): the true character of a gentleman is best exhibited not during the good times, but during the worst times. Now, I will be happy to rethink my opinion of Ferrioli and the Senate Republican leadership when I see them run a positive campaign through an election cycle. But I’m not going to wait for that to happen.

And in the future, please don’t group me with others who disagree with you and characterize me as “just like the Swifties”. Perhaps you should take your own advice and attempt in the future to have a polite conversation with those who aren’t of your “partisan registration” or way of thinking.

Posted by: askquestions1st | Jan 26, 2006 9:03:08 AM

this evil, criminal, constitution-violating administration, their illegal war in Iraq, and their terror war on the American people..

Ask1st: you are in full denial. You wrote it, and now your pretending you didn't accuse the "administration" of "terror war on the American people." It's got nothing to do with reading comprehension or the right wing's cognitive ability. If President Bush is waging a terror war on the American people" then he's a terrorist, right? A yes or no will suffice.

You can take it back if you want to, and say you were caught up in the moment and don't really believe Bush is a Terrorist. No matter how much equivocating you do, I'll still believe it represents your most deeply held opinion, no matter how offensive it is to see it in print.

Many "progressives" believe Bush is a bigger threat to world peace and harmony than Saddam Hussein. The rest of us think they're crazy (at best); or guilty of treason (at worse). But everybody is entitled to an opinion, no matter how ill considered or reckless.

Y'all need to cancel your subscriptions to Mother Jones and the New York Times, and start doing some critical analysis of your anti-American world views. Maybe try the Wall Street Journal opinion page for some fresh thinking. I especially like Daniel Henninger.

But don't deny you didn't write it: because you did write it.

Posted by: askquestions1st | Jan 26, 2006 8:16:14 PM

The claim within legitimate literary usage, and the criminal-in-chief's own psychotic use of the term "war on terrorism", is supported by the facts, and no amount of denial by right wing nut jobs can change that hard, cold reality. But unpatriotic right-wing whackos like you, in that you have no respect for the Constitution that this criminal administration is out to subverting as it arrogantly threatens to continue to wiretap and further terrorize Americans to hold power --- including holding any American citizen they choose without due process as they did for three years until it became obvious the courts were getting ready to assert their authority --- are never deterred by the facts.

Yo momma!

That post before this one is not by me although the name on it is the same.

Alice, I'm not in denial. What I wrote is describing actions with a label whose usage is correct. You attached a label to a person. You are too ignorant to know the difference.

Apparently Alice believes our patriotism is based on what periodicals we read?

Y'all need to cancel your subscriptions to Mother Jones and the New York Times, and start doing some critical analysis of your anti-American world views. Maybe try the Wall Street Journal opinion page for some fresh thinking. I especially like Daniel Henninger.

If I ever found out who Alice supported in an election, I would not support that person. As a trained librarian I believe in the freedom to read--to read anything, whether I agree with it or not.

Apparently Alice thinks she should decide what we read---and how dare anyone say Bush isn't the greatest president we ever had.

That doesn't describe a free society, where those as diverse as Sen. Hagel and Sen. Kerry are allowed to question the wisdom of the president or any other politician.

Askquestions1st wrote (@Jan 26, 2006 9:03:08 AM)

this evil, criminal, constitution-violating administration, their illegal war in Iraq, and their terror war on the American people.

But you didn't call Bush a terrorist? Yeah right. What part of "terror war on the American people" is not terrorism?

It's like that commercial for online poker ("bad poker face?" is the tagline) where a guy's wife is holding onto a pair of leopard print thong panties she just discovered, and the husband says, "they're my sisters!" Uh-huh.

And by the way: Alice demonstrates yet another example of the smear tactic is all that intellectually dishonest right wingers with the comment: "start doing some critical analysis of your anti-American world views". Apparently this is what happens to those who read the Wall Street Journal opinion page.

Read whatever you want LT...I was being sarcastic, not suggesting (or believing for one second) that any of you might be willing to challenge your deeply held hatred of the Bush Administration. Clearly, y'all thrive on thinking your much more democratic and concerned with human rights and civil liberties than that dumb ol' George Bush.

If you crawl out of the lefty-caves you've been dwelling in, you might learn that many of your friends and neighbors don't believe Bush is a terrorist, or a dictator, or a criminal, or an idiot. If you simply talk amongst yourselves, you might convince yourselves this kind of Bush bashing is mainstream thinking. It's not.

If you crawl out of the lefty-caves you've been dwelling in, you might learn that many of your friends and neighbors don't believe Bush is a terrorist, or a dictator, or a criminal, or an idiot

Alice, YOU need to realize that not all Democrats are nasty people and not all Republicans say "Yes, Pres. Bush, you are such a great hero you have never made any mistakes".

Or, Alice, do you claim that Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) is a "lefty"? I'm a big Hagel fan. He talks common sense and he doesn't go in for the name calling such as those like Alice use.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050620/20hagel.htm

6/20/05 By Kevin Whitelaw In an interview late last week with U.S. News Senior Writer Kevin Whitelaw, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska blasted the Bush administration's performance in the Iraq operation, using some of his strongest language yet [Hit by friendly fire </usnews> (6/27/05)].

"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," he said. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is, we're losing in Iraq."

LT: Just because I think AskQuestions1st is a lying sack of shit doesn't mean I have any deeply held stereotypes of anybody based on their politics. I am friends with as many Democrats as Republicans. I do find the whacko-left is less tolerant than the whacko-right, at least over beers or blogs. The Republicans I know are generally more laid back and tolerant than most of the posters at B.O.

I like Chuck Hagel and John McCain, BECAUSE OF THEIR penchant for criticizing their own (not despite). That should not imply I agree with all their criticism. I do wonder if Hagel is in danger of becoming a T.V. hound (like Joe Biden).

I am watching Joe Scarborough talk about his new book ("Rome wasn't burnt in a day") on C-Span, and he thinks either McCain or Giuliani will be the next Republican nominee. Mainly because of their strong leadership skills, and their willingness to stand up for "what's right" no matter who may be alienated.

I conceed that our execution of the 2nd phase of the Iraq War was ill conceived and understaffed. But that doesn't mean the invasion of Iraq is without merit, or was unnecessary. Similarly, I applaud all those who serve in the military, even if their relatives (think Cindy Sheehan) are exploiting the notoriety of having lost a child in the war. Think how her condemnation of the war will impact the parents of dead and wounded soldiers who are proud of their children's service, and believe in the necessity of the mission their children died for.

If I were inviting friends to my house for dinner, there would likely be more Democrats at the table than Republicans. My lady friends are predominately Democrats. If I were selecting a "dream team" for the City or Multonomah County commission, they would be evenly divided. I am done voting for Democratic Governors and Congressional candidates. I've been to that dance before. On the national stage, I believe the Democrats have forgotten the old refrain, "You've got to dance with them that brung ya." The Republicans are simply more reliable on the issues that matter most.

Most of the righties I know can say something outrageous, and quickly laugh it off (especially if they knew it was better left unsaid)...Sexist joke, rude waiter, aggressive panhandler. They move on to the next topic, without much hand wringing.

By contrast, the Hamas wing of the Democratic Party has no room for self deprecation or comedic relief. BUSH IS A LYING TERRORIST WHO BARELY GRADUATED FROM YALE AND HIS DADDY HIRED BIN LADEN AND THEY ALL ARE GETTING RICH OFF THIS WAR BECAUSE OF HALLIBURTON AND I CAN'T BELIEVE TO TOLD A JOKE ABOUT A LESBIAN DO YOU KNOW HOW THAT WOULD MAKE YOU FEEL IF YOUR DAUGHTER WAS...Stop, please. Calm down, chill out.....Let's back up a few paragraphs: what did Bush lie about? And you can see the veins in their neck start to pound again.

Ironically, Ask1st still has told us whether or not he believes President Bush is a terrorist. Yes or No?

Happy Sunday to you all! Peace, rest, and wake up late!

Similarly, I applaud all those who serve in the military, Alice, given that comment, am I to assume you support Paul Evans for State Senate?

This is not about "the Democrats" but about a specific candidate in a specific election.

It sounds from your last comment like you live in a county to the north of Marion and Polk counties--Multnomah, maybe?

Whatever you think of other blogs, on this one we prefer people to stay on topic.

This topic is not for what you think about Ask 1st, it is about the state senate district I live in.

I live in Multnomah County and I only know him based on what I've read here, and in the newspaper. I would support Evans (despite not being able to vote for him) with a contribution if he has leadership skills and is not beholden to the teachers union or the knee-jerk left.

The solution to our "education crisis" will be difficult to achieve without cost containment on employee pensions and healthcare expenses.

I think it is unlikely Evans can defeat an entrenched incumbent unless Sen. Winters has been doing a lousy job of keeping in touch with her constituents. I'm not voting for any incumbents this year, except for Greg Macpherson (McPherson?), who had the cojones to address PERS reform.

And I remain interested in Ask1st simply because he spent so much ink telling me he didn't say Bush is a Terrorist. In point of fact, he did say Bush was waging "a terror war on the American people..."

I am amazed that kind of hyperbole can go unchallenged in any thoughtful forum. Why am I the only one that's pissed off with this kind of rhetoric?

I do find the whacko-left is less tolerant than the whacko-right, at least over beers or blogs.

Try this test. Go over to Free Republic and say the following:

If you crawl out of the righty-caves you've been dwelling in, you might learn that many of your friends and neighbors who oppose the war aren't supporters of Saddam, Hamas, Bin Laden. Unfortunately, the fascist wing of the Republican party has no room for anything other than dishonest discourse masquerading as patriotism.

My guess is that you'll be banned from commenting in less than 15 minutes depending on how long it takes the moderator to catch up with you.

The fact that you are still posting here after insulting most of the people who disagree with you is proof-positive that left-wing blogs are a great deal more tolerant than folks on the right.

I insulted "Askquestions1st" after he called the President of the United States and terrorist and then suggested that I somehow misinterpreted or "smeared" his comments. A false accuasation of "Terrorism" leveled against the President of the United States would normally go unchallenged on B/O, but for me to do so constitutes an insult?

To wit:

Askquestions1st wrote (@Jan 26, 2006 9:03:08 AM)

this evil, criminal, constitution-violating administration, their illegal war in Iraq, and their terror war on the American people.

He then tried to blame me for his indiscreet use of the "T-wrold"

If Alice was intellectually honest, which her last statement proves you are not, and read carefully, you will find not find the "label" you claim used anywhere. Critical thinkers are well aware of the propoganda techniques of the sleazy right-wing in which they divert attention from the facts of the despicable behavior of this administration by outright lying about what was said, and then smearing the person who didn't say what is claimed. Thanks to Alice for taking the bait and providing a textbook example.

And by the way: Alice demonstrates yet another example of the smear tactic is all that intellectually dishonest right wingers with the comment: "start doing some critical analysis of your anti-American world views". Apparently this is what happens to those who read the Wall Street Journal opinion page.

A false accuasation of "Terrorism" leveled against the President of the United States would normally go unchallenged on B/O, but for me to do so constitutes an insult?

I believe that what he said was that Bush is waging a terror war on the American people. There is obviously some hyperbole in that remark. On the other hand, I don't believe that it's going too far to say that the administration uses fear of attack as a propaganda tool to retain power, frequently engages in very dishonest forms of demagoguery that appeal to fear when Democratic Senators have challenged portions of the PATRIOT Act, or when anyone has challenged Bush's insistance on using wiretaps without judicial oversight, etc. Additionally, fear of administrative reprisals have silenced many in the Washington Press Corps from challenging various administration positions over the years; and the administration, in my view, manipulated the use of yellow-orange terror alerts during the 2004 election.

In any case, if you believe that you are doing anything to promote your argument, or yourself as a rational and reasonable person in contrast with "the shrill left", by using expressions such as "crawl out of your lefty caves" then, respectfully, I'd like to suggest that you need to spend more time studying the art of persuasion.

On the other hand, given that you obviously disagree with most of the people on this list, and the fact that you have resorted to childish name-calling and incindiary rhetoric couple with wide-eyed amazement when you provoke a hostile response, perhaps, as I've suspected all along, what you are really doing is trolling Blue Oregon in a juvenile search for attention. And, in such a case, the proper response from the community is to ignore you until you go away -- which is what I intend to do going forward.

Happy Sunday. I will remember to include you in my prayers.

Propagandizing or fear mongering are very different than terrorism.

Notably, it's only "childish name-calling and incendiary rhetoric" when you disagree with the comments. Askquestions1st has the all the persuasive capability of a 8th grade bully, but he's left unchallenged in this venue.

You can ignore me all you want. Don't ignore anti-American libel or hate speech unsupported by logic or reason.

We still haven't heard from Ask1st on the simple query: is Bush a Terrorist? Yes or no.

Blue Godzilla:

You can't offer somebody the Pepsi Challenge and then pour Coke into both glasses. You complained to the moderator and had me banned.

What does IBZT stand for? Guess what this means YCKMSA!

Alice, Your complaints about Ask 1st would be more credible if you would say whether you are angry at what Ask said only because it is about Bush, or if you object generally to such criticisms of sitting presidents.

Many here who supported Clinton had to live thru 8 years of attacks that were a lot worse. That Bush supporters have thin skins but didn't speak out against some of the most outrageous attacks (for instance, 3 special prosecutors and other investigations proved Vince Foster committed suicide and was not murdered, no matter what the right wing media says) makes phrases like "dish it out but can't take it" come to mind.

But I still don't understand why comments on a sitting president belong on a topic about the state sen. district where I live.

LT: surely you don't believe the "attacks" on President Clinton were "worse" than calling him a Terrorist? If so, I must infer that you hold philanderers in very low esteem. Very low.

This discussion has everything to do with a "local" senate race. Paul Evans volunteered to serve his country. He volunteered to serve his country in a time of need ("because the Air Force had a shortage of air-battle operations specialists") and likely knew his service would lead to the death of enemy combatants. As you may be aware, war is the leading cause of death on most battlefields. The United States (thanks to the brave men and women of the armed forces) won the first phase of that war, and they are winning the second phase.

A significant number of Iraqi soldiers, and many civilians, died in this war. While I do not celebrate their deaths, I am gratified they suffered greater casualties than the Americans: their destruction on the battlefield allowed a quick victory, thereby saving American lives.

I place the blame for the deaths of combatants and civilians squarely at the feet of Saddam Hussein, who made a decision to square off with United States despite having his figurative head handed to him on a plate in Operation Desert Storm. He should have known better. Notably, he was given a final 48 hour warning to leave the country: he decided to stay. Bad decision.

I believe we owe our respect and gratitude to Paul Evans, and every U.S. soldier like him. I believe that most Oregonians (at least those to the right of Earl Blumenauer) would express respect and gratitude to all our returning veterans. That said, I doubt that many Oregonians to the left of Rep. Blumenauer would express their respect and gratitude to veterans of the Iraq War. Why? Because they see those veterans as pawns in an unjust war ("cogs in the machine"), designed to prop up the military industrial complex or pander to Israel, or boost the role of American oil and pipeline interests in the region. All of which is, in my opinion, hooey!

Yet the radical left believes this is an "illegal" war in which Americans routinely engage in torture and other violations of the Geneva Convention. It's a war for oil, or Halliburton, or the friends of shrub, or Daddy's pipeline, or whatever garbage they can come up with. If that is the lens on your world view camera, it's hard to give the returning veterans a big "Attaboy" and a sincere expression of respect and gratitude. While I assume these expressions of anti-american vitriol and disrespect of our President are confined to the radical fringe, they have a voice and a volume here at Blue Oregon that seems disproportionately large when compared to their actual representation in Oregon.

So what will it be B/O regulars: welcome the conquering hero home, with a heartfelt thank you? Or pretend like you don't care what "air operations battle specialists" get paid to do for a living.

You know where I stand.

Welcome Home Major Evans! We thank you for your service and for helping the men and women of the U.S.A.F. deliver their bombs on time and on target. I believe that the United States demonstrated greater regard for the sanctity of non-combatant lives than has ever been witnessed in the history of warfare. That was possible (in large part) to the U.S.A.F. which brought an unprecedented level of professionalism and clarity to their daunting task. Technology is only part of the equation: men and women who labored to fight the cleanest war possible are the other part.

Alice, Are you saying that all Oregonians are members of a group with group-think about the Iraq war to the extent they would not welcome home friends and loved ones who served overseas? You've never met any of us who corresponded with friends serving in Vietnam while questioning the war in our private conversations at home. Apparently you can't understand such an attitude, or are some sort of rank partisan.

Do you go to deployment and welcome home cerermonies, or is this all just rhetoric? Do you think the members of Congress who fight for better funding of veterans programs, armed vehicles and body armor are somehow suspect if they are not gung ho supporters of all of Bush's Iraq policies?

I believe that most Oregonians (at least those to the right of Earl Blumenauer) would express respect and gratitude to all our returning veterans. That said, I doubt that many Oregonians to the left of Rep. Blumenauer would express their respect and gratitude to veterans of the Iraq War. Why? Because they see those veterans as pawns in an unjust war ("cogs in the machine"), designed to prop up the military industrial complex or pander to Israel, or boost the role of American oil and pipeline interests in the region. All of which is, in my opinion, hooey!

You have the right to call anyone else's views hooey, but no right to make sarcastic remarks about people who "see veterans as pawns in an unjust war" unless you have talked to the individuals and they have told you that is what they believe. Overgeneralizing the views of people one has never met is a major problem in politics and on blogs.

Alice, why the crack about Earl? He and I were delegates in 1984 to the Democratic nomination--on behalf of the author of the Judicial Review of Veterans Claims legislation. Apparently you believe that isn't enough--we must publicly say what you expect us to say?

And are you saying that not a single thing went right in Clinton's 2 terms--that because of his personal life we should discount everything good he did? People who were employed in those years who lost their jobs in the 21st century are supposed to say the economy was good inspite (not because) of what Clinton did and layoffs in the 21st century were not Bush's fault?

And that we are not allowed to question anything the Bush has done with regard to Iraq (even though there are Republicans including Bush who admit mistakes have been made over the years) lest we be called the "radical left" who don't welcome home veterans?

Google "Bush admits mistakes in Iraq" and you will find responses number in six digits. For instance: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051219/POLITICS/512190361 covering the speech last month where he talked about the difference between honest critics and defeatists.

You seem to be saying there are no honest critics of Bush and that anyone who says nice things about Clinton is making judgements about a philanderer. Sorry, I don't see things that narrowly.

Sounds like a partisan to me.

A majority of Americans believe that Bush misled the people to lead the country to war against Iraq. And, yes, I happen to believe that we would not be over there if Iraq was not sitting on a quarter of the world's oil reserves. Does that make me part of the radical left? Possibly. But it doesn't change the fact that this administration turns a blind eye to torture and terror and dictatorship and the rest of it when the people involved play ball with our government.

Ask yourself, who is a bigger threat to American security, Saddam, or the military strongman in Pakistan whose leading nuclear scientist transferred nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea?

Was Saddam a bigger threat to American security than members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia who helped fund some of the terrorists who knocked down the twin towers?

Was Saddam a bigger threat than the members of the Bin Laden family who Bush has been doing business with for the last 30 years?

I don't know the answer to all of those questions. What I do know is that the U.S. troops who are doing most of the fighting and killing and dying in Iraq are bearing a burden that the rest of this country isn't sharing.

Armchair patriots like yourself sicken me. You can wax sanctimonious about supporting the troops and turn a blind eye when the administration that lied to send them to war cuts veterans medical benefits, tried to cut combat pay for troops in Iraq after Bush declared "mission accomplished", all the while working to undermine the freedoms that our troops believe they are fighting for in the first place.

Do I support our troops? Hell yes. End the stop loss programs. Fully fund the VA. And get these kids back from this reckless, ill-conceived, and immoral war Iraq and dedicate the resources we need to win the war in Afghanistan, cut the head off of Al Qaeda, and rebuild that country.

And whether you like it or not, that opinion is the majority belief in this country -- which is a minor miracle given the fog of war and propaganda that the administration has exposed the American people to since 9-11.

Three Questions:

Is President Bush a terrorist?

Has the United States of America done more to promote freedom and democracy than any other country on Earth?

Would the Cold War have ended without Ronald Reagan's hardline stance against the U.S.S.R?

There is a right answer, and a wrong one, to each of those questions. You will still be an American if you pick the wrong answer: a patriot would get all three right.

I've got something else I'm going to say:

When Bill Clinton, whose administration stopped the millenium bomb plot and stopped a conspiracy to blow up more than a dozen planes over international waters, tried to do something about Al Qaeda by killing Osama bin Laden, hypocrites like yourself were playing dittohead while Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and a hundred other traitors just like them were using the people's airwaves to chant "Wag the Dog" in a vain attempt to tear Clinton down.

You didn't understand the threat then, and you clearly don't understand it now.

9-11 happened for one reason and one reason only. The Bush administration failed to heed the warnings of the Clinton administration. Condoleeza Rice flat out told her predecessor at the NSA that she didn't believe that global terrorism would be the #1 responsibility of her job. George Bush failed to take Bin Laden seriously when given briefings on the fact that Bin Laden was determined to attack this country. And then his administration decided to compound their failure to protect this country by manipulating the American people into supporting a war that had zero relationship to 9-11 because the most influential advisors on his staff had been pushing for it since 1997.

So instead of destroying Al Qaeda, and killing Osama Bin Laden like he promosed to do, he has mired more than 150,000 American troops in Iraq, resulting in more than 2,000 dead Americans, more than 25,000 wounded American soldiers, and somewhere between 20,000 and 150,000 dead Iraqi's -- a number that we'll never really know because "they don't do body counts".

Well as far as I'm concerned, you and people of your ilk -- those who profess patriotism but whose idea of it is to line up like sheep when "your" President starts beating the drum for war -- are the real traitors in this country.

The people who have questioned everything, demanding answers and accountability from this administration from the time before the first drop of American blood was spilled in Iraq, and who will not stop until every last American soldier is back from this reckless and unjustified war are the Patriots.

You are all about beating the drum from the war, but you don't know a goddamned thing about the cost of war. And until you understand the cost, all of your incessant prattle is nothing more than the bleating of a hypocrite, a coward, and a traitor to everything that this country stands for.

Ironic name, isn't it, Support The Troops:

It is impossible to say if 9/11 would have happened on Clinton's watch. It is mere fantasy to suggest otherwise. My opinion is that it would have happened no matter who was sitting in the White House.

It is fantasy to suggest Bill Clinton had anything to do with the thwarting of the "Millenium Bomb Plot". Rather than sounding like a Clintonista, give full credit to the alert Border Patrol agent, who noticed Mr. Ahmed Ressam's "nervous demeanor" as he was driving off the ferry.

I believe the "blame" for 9/11 is more complex than is suggested by the above ranting. You may find the below link of interest.

click here for the 9/11 commission report

Thank you, Support!

Chuck Hagel was just on This Week with George S. saying he did not like Karl Rove's speech where any Democrat questioning Bush had a pre-9/11 mindset.

Hagel said that in order to bring the country together, national security could not be used in political context.

But perhaps those like Alice and Rove don't want the country brought together, they just want the power to scare those who don't fit their ideas and want to ask questions.

I'm with Hagel and Support.

If you would like to ban National Security as a subject of partisan debate, may we assume that it will apply equally to proponents and opponents of the Bush Administration? Even Nancy Pelosi and Ted "Che Guevara" Kennedy?

This is my final request (to Askquestions1st or any of his aliases):

Is President Bush a Terrorist? Yes or No.

Alice, How about this question: Do views on President Bush determine how involved residents of Marion and Polk counties will be involved in the State District 10 campaign? Yes or no?

Whatever you think about Ask, you should stop putting federal politics on a legislative topic.

Unless you are just trying to get reactions out of people.

Yes: absolutely. George Bush has everything to do with District 10, and I'm sure many district voters will agree. Why? Because Major Evans is proud of his military service (as well he should be), and may even feature it in a "fighting democrats" campaign strategy (as well he should, if he chooses to do so). It has everything to do with politics because Lefty Oregon (little Lebanon) is on the front lines of misinformation, eco-terror, and Bush hating blogs.

To refer to the President of the United States as a Terrorist, (or merely suggest that he's engaged in a terror war on the American people) speaks volumes about Blue Oregon and its readership.

It should make every candidate for Oregon political office take pause and question whether they will bow down before the altar of lefty political correctness. The Portland City Council has their own Office of Global Warming, and frequently issues masturbatory statements on Foreign Policy. I didn't hear the left complaining when Portland (a local district) withdrew their officers from the Federal JTTF? It's "thoughtful" dissent when you agree with local politics going national, but "not relevant" when you disagree?

It should make a returning Iraq War veteran think twice about who he would accept an endorsement or contribution from, given the seriousness of what's at stake. That's not who wins Distric 10.

Who serves in the Oregon Senate is small potatoes compared to the damage that will be done to our national security if the lefty fringe is able to persuade Bin Laden that he's driven a wedge between the citizens of the United States and their government.

If Bin Laden read the above comments, it would warm his heart to see that not one of you had the courage to say that no, George Bush is not a terrorist. Bunch of schmucks.

Alice, at various points you have said

1) In fact, I explicity state that I KNOW NOTHING OF PAUL EVANS

2) In the last two years, I've hosted a wine/cheese party for a Democrat, and sat next to (and enjoyed the company) of Bob Packwood at a fundraising breakfast.

3) That "a patriot" would give the appropriate answer to Would the Cold War have ended without Ronald Reagan's hardline stance against the U.S.S.R?

(As I said recently in an email debate with a Republican friend, I think Pope John Paul, Lech Walesa, Alexander Dubcek, Vaclav Havel, and many E. Europeans whose names we will never know, had as much of a role in the end of the USSR as Reagan. I also believe that the USSR was rotting from the inside for years and modern technology hastened the rot--esp. computers. If that makes me "not a patriot" because I don't think the glorious Reagan did it all by himself, so be it.)

Where is the evidence for this statement? 4) Many "progressives" believe Bush is a bigger threat to world peace and harmony than Saddam Hussein.

How many progressives have you actually spoken with? Or did your observance at counter demonstrations constitute your entire set of data? Does Ask First speak for all progressives, and do you speak for all Bush supporters? Sez who? What about people who care about education funding or public safety or other legislative issues--are you telling them they have no right to consider something important if you don't?

And this one makes no sense at all: 5)Who serves in the Oregon Senate is small potatoes compared to the damage that will be done to our national security if the lefty fringe is able to persuade Bin Laden that he's driven a wedge between the citizens of the United States and their government.

Oh, so Sen. Hagel had no right to say that he disagrees with the Bush administration on anything because that would be evidence that Bin Laden has driven a wedge between the citizens of the United States and their government?

Oregon went for Kerry--is that a sign that there is a wedge between citizens and "the government" because to support "the government" is never to question Bush's wisdom overseas?

Is it also subversive to remind people how many years it has been since Bush said "Osama, dead or alive" because that's not important anymore?

Alice, if you think legislative elections don't matter, get yourself involved in a Congressional election. Spend your energy on something else than directing vituperation at those on a blog who don't see things your way.

But please don't spend anymore time saying this country is going to hell in a handbasket if each and every citizen doesn't see the world from your point of view.

I don't believe the country is going to hell in a handbasket. I believe the Democrats are on the verge of losing the 2008 elections before they have even fielded a candidate. Just rewards, I say.

I was not referring to Hagel's dissent, but to all the cowardly lefties on this thread, not one of whom had the balls to say that President Bush is not a terrorist.

Schmucks.

Alice, if someone says Bush is not a terrorist, just down in the bottom of the pack with regards to presidents in that person's lifetime (having made many mistakes), is that person really causing the Democrats to lose in 2008? Isn't that sort of rhetoric called hype?

If you truly believe you know the result of the 2008 election without even knowing who is running in both parties, you must really have a crystal ball. Or else just be a hopeless ideologue who would rather complain than get involved in 2006 elections.

Is everyone who disagrees with you a "lefty"? Do you know what all combat vets are thinking without asking them?

Perhaps you should leave Blue Oregon and investigate sites more in tune with what you have said here.

For instance: Retired General Wes Clark
http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=taxonomy/term/9

Iraq vet Paul Hackett http://hackettforcongress.com/

Or this organization of Iraq and Afghanistan vets http://www.iava.org/index2.html

Or course, it is possible those vets don't agree with you. Does that make them "lefty"?

Or do they all have the right to express their own opinion and you are just angry that some "lefty" would post on Blue Oregon and say things you don't approve of? Who appointed you the guardian of who fits what political label? Did you ever serve in the military? Or are you just trying to make trouble?

You've made my point, LT:

I kept asking for anybody to say "Bush is not a Terrorist" but they failed to do so.

Lots of posters are willing to explain how President Bush has maligned democracy or shredded the constitution, or destroyed our global credibility, but nobody was willing to say...O.K. you're right, "President Bush is not a Terrorist"

Least of all the guy who made the allegation in the first place, Askquestions1st. You are all living in another world. If you are representative of more than 2% of Democratic voters then you are so screwed it doesn't matter who the candidate is: they'll be draggin you guys along for the ride like iron anvils at a swim meet. And you'll just be glad you're going swimming.

As stated above for the reasons above: SCHMUCKS!

Alice, just what did you expect to gain with your last comment? Askquestions1st. You are all living in another world. If you are representative of more than 2% of Democratic voters then you are so screwed it doesn't matter who the candidate is: they'll be draggin you guys along for the ride like iron anvils at a swim meet. And you'll just be glad you're going swimming. As stated above for the reasons above: SCHMUCKS!

You hate anyone saying Bush is a terrorist--how do you feel about those who compare his warrentless wiretapping to Nixon or who say his Administration is corrupt? Blogs are anonymous, but that doesn't make it OK to slam another person and make such remarks as you have.

I DID NOT make your point for you--your point is that you have the right to insult Ask 1st, and I don't believe that you do.

Your vituperation implies you perhaps never got over the experience of Having participated in several counter protests during the Portland anti-war demonstrations (pre invasion of Iraq), I can assure you that respect for pro-Bush veterans was piss poor.

Are you implying that the people on either side of that demonstation were representative of anyone other than themselves? I don't subscribe to the "sides" theory where people are members of a bloc and the action of any member represents every member. I believe people are capable of thinking and acting for themselves.

I have no idea who Ask 1st is and have sometimes disagreed. But if I ever meet that person, I will say "regardless of what Alice said on Blue Oregon, you had the right to post what you believe, and if I ever find out who Alice is I'll make sure never to support campaigns Alice supports because that sort of nastiness just hurts the political process".

Alice, I suggest you do some research.

1) How many campaigns using the sort of language against the opposition you used towards Ask 1st actually won their elections? How well did such campaigns do retaining public support after the election? (Note: Les AuCoin was that nasty in 1992 in a primary he won by a 300 vote recount and went on to lose the general election. In 2005, his nomination for State Forestry Board was defeated by a widespread coalition ranging from Republicans to Democrats to Greens. Some said the factors in building up such a large coalition included support for the person whose term was expiring who they thought deserved another term, and also people who never forgave AuCoin for his nasty campaign and for being at one time or another on multiple sides of forestry issues.).

2) Do the names Gen. Shinseki and Economic Advisor Larry Lindsay strike a familiar note? They made predictions about the troops and financing needed for the Iraq war and shortly thereafter they no longer held the positions they held when they made the statements. But many consider the statements accurate and the way they left their jobs questionable at best. Look up their predictions and anything else you can find about them and see what you think. (Unless you believe Bush is infallible and you don't want evidence to the contrary.)

3) One way Harry Truman became famous was to hold oversight hearings on WWII war profiteering (using words about profiteering you wouldn't want anyone to use about Bush). He did that when FDR was President and Democrats controlled the House and Senate. Why can't Republicans hold similar hearings? Because they are afraid of what they would discover?

Then pay close attention to the US Senate hearings on warrantless wiretapping in upcoming weeks. Sen. Hagel said on TV yesterday that there will be both Judiciary Comm. hearings and Intelligence Comm. hearings.

Finally, don't ever say I made the point of someone who uses the sort of vitriol you used in your most recent comments.

I believe in people who can say strong things in a soft voice, not people who say the sort of things you have said.

I can't respect someone who would make insults anonymously (as on a blog) rather than putting that energy into going out and campaigning for a candidate they support. I try to be a positive person, which is why I so like a particular chapter of the Bible: I Corinthians 13.

Look it up sometime. You might discover there are true Christian values which have nothing to do with politicians of recent years campaigning on a "values agenda" which only polarizes.