Of Oregonian political figures, I would definitely relish the chance to slap Karen Minnis--whack! Right on the cheek. Nationally, it would probably be Ann Coulter. She-devil. Both women, but please trust me that there is no chauvinistic or patriarchal dominance urges behind my choices.

That's easy. Nancy "Broadband" Pelosi.

Have they really let me back on this God-foresaken sight ?

Steve Duin: Cause he's a little bitch....SLAP!

Nationally I would save my slap to hit Duin, again.

I don't want to slap anybody but I do have a question. This is a progressive site right? I have seen Ron Wyden dissed here. I have seen Former Governor Kitzhaber dissed here. I have not seen Gordon Smith dissed. I know I only check in on this site once a week or so, but still? Gordon Smith is one reason we now have Samuel Alito one the supreme court. Gordon Smith is one reason why we are in Iraq. Gordon Smith is one big reason why everything Bush wants, Bush gets. Why so little outrage at having Gordon Smith for one of our Senators? Have I just missed it by not visiting more often or is there something else going on?

Scroll down, Alvord. Gordon Smith got dissed just this morning. But, to answer your concern, I'd say that Karen Minnis and George Bush come in for a fair amount of the abuse 'round here.

Alvord, I'm with you; it's depressing to see Democrats leap with such regularity into the circular firing formation. On the other hand, if we didn't have the ability to self-criticize, we'd be no better than the GOPers. Maybe we'd have power and be in office, but we would've lost the intellectual integrity critical to being a liberabl.

Having said that, here's a nice big slapperoo for old Gordon. ///slapperoo, Gordie!///

EZ!

I'd b!tchslap Vice President Dick (Five Deferment) Cheney. Here is the LONG, updated list of wars DarkestDick refused to fight. I guess he was busy reading his wife's graphic lesbian porn novel called "Sisters".

Dark Dick's "No Spine Zone" roll call:

Vietnam Grenada Persian Gulf War Bosnia Somalia Iraq (Iran) (No. Korea) (Syria)

History is such a b!tch, like Lyn.

Jeff Bull - thanks for the pointer. I should have scrolled down but when I saw what your post was about I just started typing.

I am all for dissing Bush and Minnis. They are both more than worthy. I hope that Gordon Smith will get the attention he deserves too. We have too many red state dems cowering in fear of the gop and not enough blue state republicans cowering in fear of the dems, or better yet, being defeated.

I can't do it... unless he swings first.

Maybe I could be just verbally laying into him face to face about his valuless pursuit of power, his calculated pandering and selfishness- when he looses it, and takes a swing at me. Well, then it would be:

Chuck Schumer.

Not a slap. A punch in the face. Not any permanent damage, just a black eye or a bloody nose.

He is everything that is wrong with the Democrats.

Gordon Smith. I'd smack the taste out of that doormat's mouth.

I am sick of calling up his office and having his humanoid receptionist read Republican talking points to me. It's insulting to know that your senator thinks you're an idiot and whose staff are like "who's Jack Abramoff?" when Smith was sucking at Abramoff's teat.

I expect Senators Frist and Santorum to lie right to your face. But Smith is supposedly an "independent" Republican. I'd like to think Oregon representatives actually stand up for their constituents and for the Constitution. He's just as bad as the leadership in his party and he's a wuss.

FWIW, Smith is also the Chair of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Long Term Growth and DEBT REDUCTION. I want to ask that useless bastard how the whole debt reduction thing has been going.

If he's just going to be a Bush Administration rubberstamp, can't we just replace him with a $10 cardboard cutout bearing his likeness and save ourselves the money we're wasting on his salary?

[Editor's note: The author of this comment originally posted it under another person's name. We've removed that name in order to stop any confusion.]

Locally I'd slap the unemployed nitwits in Corvallis who protest in front of the courthouse daily.

Nationally I'd slap Hillary Clinton, for being a lesbian and not having the guts to come out about it.

I'd like to slap all the spineless members of the DLC who helped scuttle the nomination of Howard Dean, in favor of someone who "could win."

Slap someone? Really? This is just another reason why I don't get lefties. Yes, this is just a joke, and yes, nobody would take this seriously. But really, how about advancing a vision instead of wallowing in your eight year pity party?

Oh... I guess to some posters it's worthwhile to slap people for their suppressed sexual preferences (Hillary??).

If that's the case, I'd collectively slap Ken Mehlman, Karl Rove, Jeff Gannon/Guckert (male prostitute who had regular access to the White House), Rick man-on-dog Santorum, Gary Bauer (have you ever seen a photo of that guy?) and all of the rest of the closeted homosexuals in the Republican party. Frankly I don't give a crap if they all bang each other in the White House (except for the blackmail and national security implications), as they probably do, but spare me the hypocracy of their moral values lectures, will you? If they want to defend marriage so badly, why don't they outlaw divorce? HOW DUMB ARE YOU PEOPLE?

Do you tough Republicans like the fact that the Republican leadership lies right to your face? You belong in the bend-over-and-take-it-up-the-ass hall-of-fame. Maybe you're in the closet, too?

And the Iraq war cheerleaders who don't actually enlist to go fight deserve contempt and ample slaps. if I can lure them out of their mommy's basement, I'll stomp on their bag of cheetos and tweak their flabby man-breasts.

Hillary seems like an unlikely lesbian, not that it's anybody's business. It's hard enough to believe that an intelligent, independent, straight woman would put up with her husband's shenanigans. But why keep him around if she doesn't love him? Keeping up appearances would hardly matter to New Yorkers.

She's a U.S. Senator now, she doesn't need him anymore. And he's as much a political liability as an asset.

I'd slap Erik Sten for putting Voter Owned Elections on the same ballot as a badly needed City Income Tax. What we're they thinking?

Maybe Hillary just loves Bill. Has anyone ever thought of that? Not that Hillary and Bill's relationship is really any of my (or anyone's) business, but I was always surprised with the level of antipathy she and Bill aroused. You'd think conservatives would appreciate her stand-by-your-man-no-matter-what demeanor and the fact that they kept their marriage together unlike, say, Newt Gingrich, or Ronald Reagan.

Hillary is sort of like a smart though constantly triangulating, non-robotic version of Laura Bush.

Laura Bush's life must be tough. I mean, her husband is the most inarticulate, disengaged, corrupt, lying, freedom destroying, budget busting President ever. And he's a coward, to boot! I wonder if he sits around and tells her blatant lies like he tells them to us? As he's pretending to be a rancher in Crawford, I wonder if she tells him privately that he should go talk to Cindy Sheehan? I wonder if he then wets himself and hides behind her apron and, once he's built up the courage, scampers off to a Jack Abramoff-sponsored fundraiser? Or makes discrete phone calls to his male prostitute boyfriend, Jeff Gannon/Guckert...

So many mysteries about our "President". On second thought, of course I'd slap Bush.

PTA Dad: that would make you a Domestic Violence perp. Worse yet, there would be no more loving from PTA Mom. The ol' living room couch gets smaller and smaller with each passing night.

Are you saying that Sten and his money cleaning crew didn't anticipate their money grab would be referred to the voters? I assume they knew there was a 50/50 chance the voters would demand a vote on Voter Owned Elections. The Multnomah County I-Tax was dying a sunset death from the word go: the Fab Five knew they might have to put their fingers in the dike for the past two years, they knew a Charter Vote was going to be necessary in 2005 or 2006.

They really should have shown more foresight.

I'm voting for Ginny: Erik's had 12 years to do something, and he's done NOTHING but lapdog duty for Katz and Potter.

I'm voting against VOE: because we can't afford it. Not now.

I'm voting for the 0.95% income tax: because our kids shouldn't have to pay for the legislature's mistakes.

I'd slap Grover Norquist - until my hand hurt too much to slap anymore. He's facilitating the criminal element that has ruined the Republican party and taken advantage of the trust of a lot of good, honest, hard-working Americans, and that is now busy taking down this country faster than we can even react to.

Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson also deserve some good slapping around, taking advantage of all those good, innocent Bible believers out there and using them to achieve their evil purposes. It's utterly shameful.

Daddio:

The problem is the lack of strategic planning. If the City of Portland wanted to contribute to Portland Public Schools, they might have thought twice about all the property tax abatements and condo farm subsidies they've been doling out to developers and OHSU.

A 4 year "temporary" band-aid is hardly a solution, but it's all we've got if we don't want class size to go through the roof.

Given the current political climate, the City Income Tax is less likely to pass in May. Why? The Tram, millions for Voter Owned Elections and PGE takeover fees, water and sewer rates, and lousy streets. You don't think that having VOE and a new Income Tax on the same ballot is a problem?

I've been talking to my neighbors, and most of them are afraid Portland will make this a "progressive" income tax like California. To paraphrase my best friend: if they're so worried about our kids, how come the public restrooms in the parks are locked or filthy. How come Pioneer Courthouse Square and the Bus Mall are full of drug addicts? How come you never see a cop walking around downtown (instead of driving).

All valid points, but our kids still need a decent education. DON'T PUNISH OUR KIDS FOR PORTLAND'S MISTAKES.

it's such a target-rich environment.. who to slap??!! Can i make a slapping machine and just line ALL the pols up for a good face-burner? That would be most satisfying.

[Editor's note: The author of this comment originally posted it under another person's name. We've removed that name in order to stop any confusion.]

I think I'd slap the poster named "mike" above, hopefully to relieve some of his pent up aggression. I would not slap Bill Clinton, because while most of his soul only cares for his own appearance and well-being, I do believe part of him cares for our nation. His lesbian "wife" on the other hand, cares nothing about herself and her her image.

If I could thank anyone, it would be our president, who continues to do as he believes even in the face of cowardly criticisms and half truths. I'm thankful to have a visionary as president, someone who's brave enough to call for - and attempt to deliver - freedom to every soul on the planet (even the unborn). Most democrats don't think poor muslim girls who are banned from education are not worth fighting for. They don't think our unborn children are worth being given a chance at life. All they care about is getting home in time to watch the Bachelor or whatever mindless drivel makes them feel whole.

Roy, it's just downright tragic that you actually believe the BS these crooks are feeding you. I hope you wake up someday.

I would have to say that I would not be able to just slap this person once but maybee several dozen times, and the lucky winner is Karen Minnis!

God I love to hate that women she is so bad for oregon.

Becky, you have done a fantastic job of countering Roy's points. The insightful way that you were able to effectively analyze and logically deconstruct his mistaken ideas has given us all great insight into your vast comprehension of...

WAIT- NO YOU DIDN'T! YOU JUST SPEWED OUT A BUNCH OF CRAP.

For a minute I was thinking, yeah, it is tragic, but she's going to help him out by explaining where he is wrong... I mean if you go to his webpage you can clearly see that he has issues, and maybe you could help him with some of your insight... but no, your use of “tragic” was mocking, and then you just went on to mock him... Like I am mocking you now; but at least I made an attempt to illustrate, through sarcasm and contrast, exactly what it is that you wrote, and why, I have an issue with.

OH, AND I WOULD LIKE TO KICK EVERY DIEBOLD VOTING MACHINE EMPLOYEE AND POLITICIAN THAT SUPPORTS THE ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES RIGHT IN THE NARDS

PC -

First, I couldn't care less if you mock me or if you think what I wrote is crap. Believe me, I've been through much worse than you can throw at me.

As for Roy, why should I try to educate him in this forum when so much material is already out there and available if he wishes to learn the truth? Nobody did that work for me - I educated myself because I wanted to know the truth. I would suggest Roy (and you) read David Brock's "Blinded by the Right" and Al Franken's "Lies and Lying Liars" for a start, and perhaps "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", but there are many other books that would open the eyes of someone who wants to know the truth. But I doubt that someone like Roy, who is so enamored of Bush, can bring himself to read something from another perspective. He'll do what all fundamentalists do - dismiss the truth as some very tricky evil lie because it contradicts his pet beliefs. I've worked on the inside with some of the crooks on the right, so I'm not speaking from biased ignorance. I know what these people are writing is true.

Besides, PC, how can anyone who is remotely aware of reality take someone seriously who writes so fawningly of George Bush? "I'm thankful to have a visionary as president, someone who's brave enough to call for - and attempt to deliver - freedom to every soul on the planet (even the unborn)." I almost gagged when I read it. I ask you, what is Bush's vision, really? In what way is this draft-dodging alcoholic drug abuser "brave"? His body language says weanie all over it. And his quest for "freedom to every soul on the planet" is only further increasing death and oppression and slavery across the planet. But I guess you'd have to be well-read to know that, and I won't do your homework for you. Roy writes, "Most democrats don't think poor muslim girls who are banned from education are not worth fighting for." Hello? What world is this guy living in? Every conservative I know who supports this war disrespectfully calls Muslims "towel heads" and wants Muslims wiped off the face of the earth so they'll quit terrorizing the rest of us. And since when was the purpose of this war to free little Muslim girls? Give me a freaking break. It's about controlling the middle east. Roy also writes, "They don't think our unborn children are worth being given a chance at life." What has Bush done to save the unborn? What has any Republican actually done to save the unborn? All that issue is good for is to rally the right-wing troops and raise money for campaigns. We have a Republican majority in Congress and yet partial birth abortion is still legal. Explain that to me. Finally, Roy writes of Democrats, "All they care about is getting home in time to watch the Bachelor or whatever mindless drivel makes them feel whole." I certainly have never observed this trait in Democrats any more than I've observed it in Republicans. Roy's bias is readily apparent. He is the one who has thrown out the crap. Let him defend his crap.

Alvord-

I've dissed Gordon Smith in this forum. I believe that I said something along the lines of "let's run that litle bitch out of office," but I'm pretty sure that's not a verbatim quote.

So, OK, I'd bitch-slap that bitch Gordon Smith for just being a sniveling Republican ritch-boy bastard, who's occupying an entire seat in the United States Senate to no good end.

Then, I'd slap W. for being an organic farmer and yet still being a Republican and, you know, for everything else he'd done. Yes, that's right -- apparently, his farm in Crawford is organic.

Then, I'd slap Gordon Smith again.

Then, I'd slap W. again.

I'd be hesitated to go after the rest of the GOP, but as the Gay Old Party, I think they'd probably like it. ;-)

cheers, ~Garlynn

[Editor's note: The author of this comment originally posted it under another person's name. We've removed that name in order to stop any confusion.]

Hi Becky,

Thanks for spelling out your thoughts.

First, I find it funny that you have "educated yourself" to the level of Supreme Intelligence. Your intellegence is so vast, you know that anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid or subject to mind control. Nobody could actually have an honest disagreement with you, nor could they actually know more about a particular subject than you. You are the sole possessor of Suprreme Intellegence. After all - you read an Al Franken book! That takes lots of brains!

You asked what is Bush's vision. Obviously, you haven't been listening to him for the past several years. GWB understands that freedom is a right that every human - not just Americans - should enjoy. We have eliminated two dictatorships in the past 5 years, and while there's a lot of work to do the future is certainly brighter than the past in those countries. I appreciate that you disagree with using military force, but it's really the only way. I suppose you would have been against the Revolutionary War because it only gave us death rather than independance, and you'd have been against the Civil War because it only killed soldiers rather than freeing the slaves or against WWII because so many people died and we were never able to beat the Nazis or the imperial Japanese that were bent on taking over the world. None of that was worth it, was it?

You say your conservative acquaintences want all muslims wiped off the face of the Earth. Well, I'm glad those folks don't live in my neighborhood - I've never met anyone like that. What I do know is it's a tragedy to prevent someone from education simply because of gender. And the fact that we're doing something about it is great. If GWB weren't President, we would be doing nothing.

You say GWB has done nothing for unborn children. Well, beyond providing the moral leadership that our nation has been lacking (statistics show that abortions, teen pregnancies and drug use is down since 2001) he's appointed two new Supreme Court justices that will hopefully overturn legalized infant genocide.

And let's not even mention our roaring economy - profits are up and the market is booming.

So this produced good fun so far, I see - though I wonder about the guy way up top who writes that this shows a "pity-party" for the Dems. Politics is anger, man. In my experience, half of all votes are cast in anger. The squabble between PTA Mom & Dad was just fascinating; though I do feel a bit like the child of divorcees for kicking it off...

As to the Roy and Becky exchange, fascinating stuff. But it was Roy who lured me back. Specifically, this passage:

"You say GWB has done nothing for unborn children. Well, beyond providing the moral leadership that our nation has been lacking (statistics show that abortions, teen pregnancies and drug use is down since 2001)..."

In last night's speech, even GWB went back to the mid-1990s with all those trends suggesting we owe them, in part, to the "moral leadership" of, yes, Bill Clinton. C'mon, Roy. Even W was big enough to push back that time-line.

Second, on that "roaring economy," the roaring is considerably louder at the top of the heap; check the poverty levels and what's happened with real wages (LINK for where I'm getting that). The market doesn't define the economy.

And, Becky, never reference Al Franken when arguing with conservatives...or David Brock for that matter. It produces a busy tone.

Watch out, Roy. Your bias is showing.

i'd give hillary a (platonic) hug.

then i'd slap karl rove 'til he jiggled, in some other world where violence was a great solution.

roy, you repeat what bush fed ya pretty well, even changing it to better suit the republican story. good boy. i don't love the blame-the-poor aspect of what i'm about to say, but is it possible that abortion, drug use and teen pregnancy might be down because of (drum roll) abortion? just like crime. unplanned families are families in jeapordy.

but if it's moral leadership that reduces all those things, how come ronnie reagan and gerald ford didn't do it? are they immoral?

just sayin'.

Becky,

I really feel motivated to respond to your comment.

We are all human beings, and we are all flawed.

Just because you find a person with a flaw, doesn’t mean that all people like them are flawed in the same way, or to the same degree… and that individual flaw doesn’t necessarily corrupt the person as a whole.

I read your page on here about what you went through with your church and with Sizemore. It sounds like you have gone through some very difficult experiences. But you really can’t throw the baby out with the bath water… I mean you can, but you will never be happy if you do.

Just because one encounters a black man that is dishonest, and a thief, doesn’t mean all black men are thieves.

Just because one encounters a few power mongering hypocrites at church, that attempt to stop the followers from using the hearts and minds that God gave us- well they are wrong, but it does not mean that all Christians, or all churches are that way.

Just because one encounters a corrupt conservative, doesn’t mean that all conservatives are corrupt.

Just because someone is a recovering alcoholic, doesn’t mean he can’t be brave. In fact staying sober for an alcoholic is brave in itself.

I would say that the days after 9-11, when Dubya went up on that pile of rubble with the bullhorn and put his arm around the fireman he was brave. I would say that when he went to the World Series and threw a strike for the 1st pitch- he was brave.

There are a few conservatives I know that call Muslims “towel heads”, and there are liberals that I know that call Dubya “Shrub”, “Commander-in-theif”, and so on. There are short sighted, unthinking people on both sides of the political spectrum.

When I was 20 years old, I was a communist. But events I was exposed to, and people that argued issues with me, changed my beliefs. It takes teams to make the world a better place, and people change teams sometimes. The team that has the best ideas, and communicates those ideas best, has a much better chance of prevailing. That’s why I voted for Dubya in the last election- I was honestly on the fence, but cynicism, hatred, and anger and were all that the left could communicate.

PC - I appreciate your comments. But I want you to know that Sizemore isn't the only conservative political figure I worked with or saw in action. I'm not judging the whole party based on his actions alone. That would indeed be ridiculous. In fact, we had many local and national partners in crime. We had well-connected financially powerful partners in crime. And all of these partners are still active in politics, still conducting business in the same way they did before. The comments I received from numerous local Republican and conservative leaders and activists after I testified about the crimes in which we were involved confirmed that not merely was the activity tolerated, but that the good of the party was of greater importance than the good of the people and of our democratic process.

It might surprise you, seeing that I enjoy this particular blog so much, to know that I probably would return to the Republican party if it still stood for what it once stood for. And though the grassroots Republicans believe it still does, I strongly believe the grassroots no longer control the party. The books I've read about the systemic corruption of the current Republican machine ring true. I know Grover Norquist laundered money for years for Sizemore. Norquist is still a big player in the GOP. When I hear he is laundering money for a lot of Republicans and conservative groups, I believe it. The MO is the same. I know the strategy these people use to set up groups through which they can move corporate money and create false grassroots fronts because I’ve participated in that activity and I recognize it when I see it. Again, it’s the same MO. And it is not in the interests of the people. I’ve educated myself on the leadership and funding web in the movement. I watch who benefits and who doesn’t. I’m interested in what happens to those who won’t play along. It isn’t pretty. But a Republican who refuses to read Franken, Brock, or anyone else just because Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the lying noise machine said they are lying is making a big mistake. I felt a huge kinship with Brock when I read his book – again, it rang true. Franken’s book also rang true.

I am not someone who throws people with flaws out of my life. In fact, I find flaws endearing. We're all flawed, including me - just ask my loyal Republican husband! But some things go beyond flaws and become downright manipulative and evil, intentionally stepping on others to get what you want. That is the spirit that has taken over the Republican Party and the conservative movement. It no longer has anything to do with the philosophy that good everyday conservatives believe it does. They are being used. And I think if the Democrats aren't careful, these same interests are going take their party over because they don't care about ideology. They only care about money and power. They succeed because they recruit people who are easily manipulated, blindly idealistic, or corruptible to carry out their agenda. I believe that completely even though I wish it was not so.

I urge you to set aside your resistance to reading something written by a “leftie.” You can't save your philosophy or your party unless you know the truth about what has happened to it (though I’m convinced that it’s already too late). I also urge you to set aside any preconceived ideas and blind trust that the facts and figures, statistics, and other information spoon fed to the grassroots by these people through think tanks, talk shows, and the press can be trusted. It can’t. Keep an eye on www.mediamatters.com and see for yourself. If you're willing to look for the truth, you’ll soon realize that you can’t trust Fox News. You can’t trust Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, or Ann Coulter. And you can’t trust George Bush. Saying that doesn’t mean you can trust anything a Democrat says, either. But surely you have the ability to read both sides, to do a little research, and to judge for yourself what passes the smell test.

Incidentally, I just refused to vote for President the last time around. I couldn't stomach either one of them.

Becky, Thank you for your post. Things will not change until individuals in "critical mass" numbers come to the conclusions you state.

Blue, which county do you live in?

All in politics are fallible, but if there are any in your county who care about grass roots, you can all get together and run as pct. people (pretty easy--I was once elected as a write in because so few votes are needed). Pct. people vote for local officers (chair, sec., treas, etc. ) and also choose the members of the state and district central committees. And those members elect the leadership. People who understand the rules for all of this are the backbone of grass roots efforts.

The first DPO state central comm. meeting I went to over 20 years ago was reorganization, and I saw the incumbent chair/vice chair defeated. Knowing the system as I do, I realize that if there enough people willing to put in the hours and go to the meetings, change can happen (look at the creation of the Rural Caucus recently).

The process is open, but it requires people with the time and patience and resources (gas money, carpool, etc.) to attend meetings and particpate in the process. I lasted about 4 years until my work schedule changed (and having been told at the county level that I was subversive because I asked for a quorum when the county chair wanted to slam through a resolution I disagreed with helped the process of my leaving along considerably).

There is a lot of time and effort involved in true grass roots politics. And the process is helped when people in either party gain the kind of inside knowledge Becky has.

I grew up the grandchild of an anti-machine Republican of the 1930s, so I know that even back in the days before there were primaries (statewide nominees then chosen at county convention) when a bunch of WWI vets got together and challenged the county machine, they succeeded. They did it by a close margin (county sent 2 sets of delegates to the state convention and let the credentials committee figure it out)but they did succeed (in the clippings I inherited is a small editorial from a smalltown newspaper thanking them for breaking the county party in their county which included a major city).

Talk to the folks who elected Jenny Greenleaf as the new DNC member, or the folks who founded the Rural Caucus. Look at what Marion County has done --they are now meeting in a larger meeting space and are more organized and have larger meetings than they've had in years.

It can be done, it just takes work. Howard Dean said something in his book along the lines of "if you are looking for leadership, look in the mirror".

The Democratic Party is generally pretty hostile toward grassroots energy whipping the electeds on policy issues (at least other Democrats), and this contributes to a political environment in Salem and in DC where corporations and a handful of well-funded, but narrow, special interests hold the field when it comes to actual policy, and where, all-too-often, money speaks with a louder voice than activism. Oftentimes, my sense is that the some folks see the DPO's role is to blunt grassroots activism on policy.

Blue, With all due respect, I think you might get farther talking to legislators as individuals (state rep. X and state sen. Y, or even their first name if you know them that well--I know my state legislators well enough to call them by first name along with some other legislators).

Also, where did "the electeds" come from? Is that the new hip language?

I have only heard young staffer types use that term. If I were a legislator (or for that matter a staffer) and someone trying to convince me on ANY policy called any legislators "the electeds", I would shut my ears.

Better to say "I hope the good senator supports us on SB 111" or "please join us in defeating the AuCoin nomination" than language like "the electeds".

Sometimes it is about manners, courtesy, etc.

But that doesn't change the fact that some elected officials on both sides of the aisle, all-too-often are more concerned with personal power than they are with the public interest.

I totally agree with you.

But I hope you can talk to your friends about banishing the term "the electeds" from their vocabulary. The first time I ever heard it used was a staffer from the House Dem. office who sounded offended that someone would ask who his supervisor was--rather than giving a name, he said "the electeds".

There is a lot of legislation to be angry about--whenever anyone talks about the OEA being powerful, I ask how the ORA got their capital gains tax cut passed instead of the one left in committee which would have paid for itself.

My only message was that it is important to talk about individual legislation and indiv. legislators, not make cracks about "the electeds".

I also agree with my former state legislator that if the Legislative Comm. tries to raise salaries without addressing things like accountability of members and campaign finance reform they won't be taken seriously.

I'll have to look up SB 408--not sure which one that is.

But every session has those stories--in 1983 the funding was stripped out of a bill to help veterans (may have been the Agent Orange bill) to get it popped out of Ways and Means (no funding, the chair couldn't sit on it) and passed the last day of the session. The vets and others behind it thought it better to take chances on it being funded by the E Board but at least they got it passed and made Oregon the 2nd state in the country to pass such legislation.

Hey Blue,

I haven't spent time in County DPO meetings other than my own, but I have participated in programs put on by other counties and met a whole lot of SCC Delegates, Caucuses, and DPO Officers. No organization is perfect, they tend to be made up of people, and even farther than that, people who give enough of a damn to work at something as confusing as Democratic politics.

You feel like DPO's mission is to protect Democratic politicians, well, it IS DPO's mission to help "D"s get elected and hopefully stand for some of what DPO members stand for. It IS DPO's mission to make a statement about what DPO stands for. Now that "D" is not conferred by DPO, somebody is just willing to put it after their name on an election form, but those folks tend to be representative of Democrats in a large sense. Stop and think for a minute about who DPO is, this is the activist portion of the Democrat electorate, not the average Democrat voter.

No, I do not take the stand that the DPO's job is to take bitchslaps at elected Democrats, the composition of this Party is way too messy to start that, there's going to be a good sized chunk of Democrats who agree with that "whatever" vote or policy. Think I'm just some appeaser? Well check this out, if you stand for "gun control" you are a tool of the elites and a traitor to the powerless and the left and an enemy of Civil LIberties. There ya go. Now, are there some Democrats you want me to name? That you want me to "go after"? That it would help DPO's cause for me to slap them around? How much of DPO's membership would that policy alienate? Now if you think DPO is a spineless dictatorial organization I suggest that you read Resolution 08-2005 and consider what it took to get there.

If you want DPO and DNC to be better, more powerful organizations and to have more influence with candidates, I suggest you invest your time and money in working with them and pushing them in directions that improve them rather than just idly swiping at them. I can promise you that all of that will be gladly received. I can also promise you that you have neither enough money or time to fill the void, but we all can try.

Blue, if you're short of projects, email me, I can fix that. Yep, I post in the open.

For those who, like me, did not recognize SB 408, Steve Duin had a thumbnail description in his column on Walker and others who have considered running for Gov.:

"Sen. Rick Metsger, D-Welches, who teamed with Walker on landmark Senate Bill 408 -- which stopped utilities from collecting state and federal taxes that never reached the proper taxing authority -- is anxious to see Walker return to the Senate. "

Interesting comment blue, somehow FP is the "which one is not like the others" in combination with ROP, DFA and Bus which are truly grass roots.

Ask the OVRC whether the DPO leadership (read: Neel, Jim) were hostile or helpful to their efforts to make voting rights an issue over the course of the last year

From what I have read here, OVRC (Voter Rights Coalition?) is not something I would necessarily support. Must I support the Voter Rights Coalition to be a good Democrat? Or are the Democrats the party which allows policy debates rather than enforcing straight party line voting in a time when many elections are decided by those not registered with a party?

AND, about this: To "whip" an elected representative is to enforce party positions on votes. Are you saying that the party organization has no role in shaping policy, or in holding represenatives that we help elect accountable on their votes? Why have a platform then?

Why indeed, unless it is a general statement short enough to publish in a full page newspaper ad with the headline "If you truly want to know what Democrats believe, look no farther than our platform." That idea goes back to 1988 and someone from Douglas County who had been a member of the National Platform Committee.

Speaking of Douglas County, in 1985 the State Central Comm. passed a resolution supposedly about "what good Democrats believe" but it only passed by a 6 vote margin, 25-19. Were the 19 voting members of the State Central Comm. "not real Democrats"? That is certainly what we were told! At their next meeting, Douglas County Democrats took that as a snub to their favorite son, Sen.Pres. Kitzhaber, and disavowed the St.Cent. Comm. resolution. If the goal was to push those of us in the "infamous 19" out of the St. Central Comm., it succeeded. In 1991 when I went to a St. Central Comm. meeting to be "eyes and ears" for some friends who could not attend, I noticed only one of the 19 of us was still there--someone from Douglas County.

whether the DPO leadership (read: Neel, Jim) were hostile or helpful If you do not like the leadership of the DPO, take a hint from the election of Jenny Greenleaf for DNC member. Add to your list of projects the election of State Central Comm. delegates who want a change at the top, and find someone willing to be DPO chair. This is the year that leadership will be voted on at DPO Reorganization.

Long ago, in a galaxy far far away, I was in a carload of people who drove up to Clackamas County to some sort of house party to hear Congressman Ron Wyden speak. Very intelligent young man (who had been active in Young Democrats) said on the way home that of course not everyone in the state was going to agree on the platform. And if obedience to the platform was required the Democrats would be a minority party because there were places in the state where a majority of the voters did not agree with every single plank in the platform. So, what do you want--legislative majority or ideological purity?

Seems to me that is the philosophical debate. Do you want county chairs and legislative candidates to reflect the area they come from, or must they always vote straight party line? Notice that Oregonian editorial today about independents being shut out of the system. Blue, it sounds like maybe you are suggesting the "side" approach to politics--that everyone must choose a "side" and then give unquestioning obedience to that "side" as if there is no independent thought allowed.

Seems like we saw the natural extension of that attitude in the 2005 House. I think Oregon --and Democrats--prosper when 18 state senators, for example, are allowed 18 points of view and no one is told they MUST support the party line.

Just last night a friend and I were talking about that concept and the AuCoin nomination. Don't try to tell me that bipartisan coalitions are impossible--that coalition stretched from the Sen. Republican leader to a Green posting on Counterpunch. Since one senator had told the caucus office "sorry, I can't be one of the 16 votes to confirm", it was AuCoin's responsibility to go to all other 17 Dem. senators and ASK for their vote. That he wrote a nasty email misspelling the name of at least one of those senators showed he was unfit for a state board. That Kulongoski made such tin-ear appointments as AuCoin and Bryant is a reason to support someone with more common sense (Hill, Westlund, perhaps) unless Ted makes clear he understands some people were angry.

But if a "real Democrat" must unquestioningly support the entire platform and the incumbent governor, maybe I should join the Independents after the primary. I reject the "whip" notion that there should be straight party line votes--- except maybe for organization. The Sen. Majority Leader and the House Speaker were too enamored of closed door meetings in 2005 and it is time to let the sunshine in.

role for the party to play as an outlet for putting pressure on elected Representatives to be more responsive to the grassroots base of the party.

To the extent you mean something like this: House Democratic Leadership Team on the road to Central, Eastern, and S. Oregon http://oregonhousedemocrats.blogs.com/blog/2005/11/house_democrati.html

that's great.

But the question arises about what exactly "be more responsive to the grassroots base of the party" means.

If there are, for instance, urban/ rural or inland/ coastal, or other debates among the folks across the state who are the grassroots activists doing the grunt work of campaigns and local parties, what does the "grassroots base" really want?

Recently at a campaign kickoff, I saw my all time favorite (now retired) history professor--the candidate was a former student.

One thing this prof always said which I consider very wise has to do with such generalities as "the grass roots base".

He said "When a politician uses the phrase "the American people", substitute the phrase "people like us" to get the true meaning of the sentence.

I have just seen too many internal debates among Oregonians (in the legislature, or on campaigns, or at state or district or county meetings) to believe the "grassroots base" of the Democratic Party agrees on much other than that it is time for regime change and Karen Minnis / Wayne Scott should never again be in positions of leadership.

Now whether "the grassroots base" agrees on how to accomplish the goal of a new majority in the House, I have my doubts.

And sometimes I wonder if the neighbors / non-political friends of "the base" (in other words, the voters needed to support anything on the ballot if it is to succeed) have any clue about the issues that "the base" finds so compelling, or if they have things in their lives (like work and family) which they consider more important.

On the Republican Side:

Karen Minnis and Kevin Mannix (need I say more?) Kulongoski (oh, wait, is he a Dem?) Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, Pat Robertson, Chuck Hagel and all the other electronic voting machine gurus who have ruined our elections integrity (definitely want to kick those guys in the nards, as somebody already said).

On the Democratic Side:

Al Gore (for throwing the 2000 election) John Kerry (for throwing the 2004 election) Bill Clinton (for creating the conservative backlash, plus he'd probably like it, beg for more and let me tie him up) Oh, wait, did I actually write that?

LT & Blue I'm glad I could stir things up a little, this kind of debate creates a certain amount of thought that goes beyond the kneejerk reaction.

But I do want to emphasize something I said, it's a fallacy to identify the activist portion of the Party with the general Democratic electorate - I especially include myself in not being average - so Platforms and big statements pushing elected Democrats are risky propositions.

Thank you Chuck. But I do want to emphasize something I said, it's a fallacy to identify the activist portion of the Party with the general Democratic electorate - I especially include myself in not being average - so Platforms and big statements pushing elected Democrats are risky propositions.

Anyone who believes every registered Democrat knows where to find a copy of the Democratic Platform, much less reads it, is in for a shock. In some cases, people vote for the individual (The Bush/ Hooley voter who is a staunch Republican but likes Hooley's treatment of veterans, or the Hatfield Republican who supports someone known for years who is running as a Democrat, for instance).

It is a grand theory that platforms move voters in the 21st century. I just don't believe in it and have not seen such evidence among the people I know.

Not to mention the times that a particular candidate shows such folly that even a person who normally votes straight ticket (small margin of the voting public would be my guess) will vote for the opponent.

Most people are more interested in down to earth issues (state of local schools, price of gas, work and family incl. if someone moves away due to a promotion, number of state troopers on the freeway, etc.).

Do we believe that big donors will stay silent about their interests just because it may be incongruent with interests/needs/wants of the rest of the public?

First of all it is a whopping assumption that "the rest of the public" agree on much of anything. One might think they will all root for Seahawks tomorrow (NW team) but why would someone raised in Penn. root that way?

My point is that no one really knows what "the public" thinks--polls are not that infallible.

And if, for instance, there is sentiment among a certain group or in a particular district for a particular issue (obvious examples: fishing and coastal issues in Lincoln County, hunting in a rural county, the number of state troopers among those who drive a lot --like salespeople who drive I-5 frequently) then every member of the Democratic state central committee (or ORGOP) could be unanimous on the opposite side of an issue but that wouldn't necessarily get their people elected.

I just think it is a lot more complex than what Blue said. Maybe that is because I know examples like, for instance, a rural Republican who might still be in office were it not for term limits because a) he was as good as (if not better than) any Democrat on clean water given his concerns about fishing streams in his area b) constituent service: he would gladly speak to high school students who visited even if they were just a small group in the capitol for the afternoon, and was otherwise known as a place to turn.

Even in this day and age, not everything is about money. It is also about attitude and behavior of elected officials (10 more letters than "electeds").

A number of comments on this blog are incorrectly attributed to my name. I neither wrote them nor share their view. The person posting is quite evidently the same Corvallis Republican who was banned from the Letters to the Editor page at Covallis Community Pages after writing he thought that gay people should get a bullet, was in fact threatened with prosecution for electronic stalking, and this is simply another attempt to libel the pages. I fully expect you to erase all these sad comments.

<h2>I do understand. It's treading very close to identity theft. But as far as I can see, the Republican Party has come to mean little more than organized crime.</h2>