TA, love your use of the phrase "cut and run".

I wonder how many in the "working family party" movement have ever been to a state central comm. movement, how many Democrats they have worked to elect, etc.

Were these people active on the ballot measure campaign to raise the min. wage, or are they just another group who comes in and tells us what they want but haven't been active before this?

I've been pretty active in DPO for awhile now and I can't seem to remember hearing any of these people speak or bring forward policies. Certainly the Democratic Party as a whole is having problems connecting with "the working people," and there are a whole bunch of reasons that have virtually nothing to do with a dedication to the military/industrial complex.

The Religious Right (for want of a better term) has captured a segment of the blue collar vote and there's not one thing to be done about the hard-core ones, short of going for a theocracy. This WFP is going to have no more luck with these folks than the Dems unless that's where they want to go.

The Democratic Party has ceded a large chunk of the blue collar vote to the Republicans by essentially insulting them. Let's take the junk verbiage out of play and say what is heard. "You children can't be trusted with firearms" "The woods is our playground, you can't work there" "Homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality" "God sucks" "College is the ONLY way" "Illegal immigrants need to be protected" "First Ammendment Porn is the only one that counts"

How much of this is actual policy and how much is simple bad response?

Firearms-holy mackerel don't bother to respond, political history says this hit is deserved at the National level and sufficiently at State. It's not gun-wacko rhetoric to state that you simply cannot pick and choose Rights and have others be safe. There is a huge difference between law abiding citizens and criminals and they know this.

Sensible resource management recognizes trade-offs in economics and conservation and finds an approach that meets both, hot environmental rhetoric may play well in certain circles but is killer with people dependent on resource developement.

Homosexuality is not the same thing as heterosexuality, equality of rights and responsibilities is another thing, altogether. If you think this is some kind of slam, whatever your sexual orientation, sit down and make a nice vivid mental picture of yourself in the other sexual orientation's sex act. If that's not what you mean to say, then be clear about what it is you mean to say. Just as soon as you say, "Gay Rights" you create a picture of a special class, whether you mean it or not. There may be Gay Discrimination, but there is no such thing as Gay Rights unless they are a special class.

God and the 1st. The 1st Ammendment is not about protecting government from religion, it's about protecting religion from the government. On that basis you become a champion of religion, not its foe. Obviously that applies to the restrictions on State sponsored religious activities, be clear.

Illegal immigration is a crushing blow to the blue collar worker, it causes severe wage depression and job loss. The employer/cheats need to be seriously slammed. Here's a great outcome of this tolerance idea, hard working Americans are crushed and illegals are exploited, lunatic healthcare costs cover people with no business being in the system, a stressed educational system gets to deal with an even larger stress. Do you really think the blue collar doesn't see this?

First Ammendment issues in front of all other Rights creates the impression that all that is cared about is some narrow issue. The ACLU has no claim on its name unless it means it and they don't, the Democratic Party can't claim that title either.

DPO is making changes and WFP is a dilution of effort and influence in order to make some politically immaterial statement. There's already a Party there, it needs to clean up its act and its image, not be assaulted by its natural allies. It pays to also remember that DPO does not control Democrat electeds, the voters do and the voters pick the candidates. People who play at things like WFP seem to assume that they'll have power over electeds, that power begins and ends with the voters. There's something to be said for a Party structure that can encourage the candidacy of folks who don't insult the Worker, but some lockstep Party organization is not going to happen, as the Republicans are finding out.

Chuck, thank you for this: I've been pretty active in DPO for awhile now and I can't seem to remember hearing any of these people speak or bring forward policies.... People who play at things like WFP seem to assume that they'll have power over electeds, that power begins and ends with the voters. There's something to be said for a Party structure that can encourage the candidacy of folks who don't insult the Worker, but some lockstep Party organization is not going to happen, as the Republicans are finding out.

It would be one thing if the WFP were disgruntled state central comm. members, people who had worked on multiple campaigns, or otherwise tried to change things from within.

But they sound to me like just another "we have this great idea, therefore it will work" group.

If they want to support candidates to their liking, they should try to get "fusion voting" of the sort where in NY someone could be the candidate of both the Dem. and Liberal lines or GOP and Conservative lines (and thus not be spoilers)--they should work on ballot measure or legislative language, not collect signatures for a new party.

When there is a quality candidate who I might agree with on some issues and disagree with on others, I will support that candidate and not worry about litmus tests (had an interesting conversation with someone recently about how I have supported candidates who I disagreed with on guns in one case and abortion in another because they were quality politicians full of good works).

If someone cares about working families they will be outspoken about the min. wage, whether State Employment's iMatch Skills actually works for most Oregonians, issues like health care and whether the Oregon House GOP treatment of tax breaks and kicker is really "pro-working family". That doesn't require a new party, just hard work.

Well, this is another example of someone first defining me (and others) and once having defined me, pigeon-holing me, and telling me how I'll act, think, and what I'll believe.

Barbara Dudley just hasn't done her homework. The Democratic Party can be thought of as either BHD or AHD. (Before/After Howard Dean) Much of what she writes about might be true about 2 BHD, but we are now close to being 1 AHD. This last year, AHD, the Democratic Party raised a record $51 million for an non-election year after a loss in the Presidential campaign. Most of it came in small donations. A lot of those came in on the days that the National media was saying that HD had made politically incorrect statements.

The DLC/McAuliffe wing of the party is clearly history, way BHD.

What the likes of Barbara Dudley don't understand is that the Democratic Party has become vertically integrated under HD. The grass roots are talking, being listened to, and actions have been and are being taken based upon that grass roots input. Witness there are now four DNC paid field organizers on the ground in Oregon. Many more across the Country in other States. Witness that across Oregon the County Democratic Central Committees are much more active than ever before. My little Crook County CC has twice as many active people than 2 years ago, and where we never had a treasury before, we are sitting on over $700. That might not seem like much to you, but that is the growing fund that will get our foot in the door to pay for events, campaign signs, etc. in the future. We have gone from near nothing to being active, and ready for the future - and its not just Crook Co. The entire eastern side of Oregon is like this.

I wonder, before Barbara Dudley formed her opinion and voiced it, who did she go to for sources? The Washington DC beltway crowd? Anyone rural? Anyone like me?

Oh, but there is no "me" because Barbara Dudley has decided who I am, what I'll join, and how I'll act.

TA,

Thanks for your post and the thoughtful discussion. As an SEIU staff person I also thank you for the kind words about our organizing.

That said I'd like to say a few words in defense of the WFP folks. First, Barbara Dudley has a long and impressive resume of working to support progressive issues. Others could likely give her full resume, but Barbara is past head of Greenpeace, has worked on the sanctuary movement, and is currently an active supporter of current union organizing drives, including supporting workers at Providence Hospitals who are seeking to form a union.

While Barbara has not been a member of the state central commitee, she still has the credentials to speak about what's going on in the party. Impuning her credentials is a cheap shot and misinformed.

Also on the OPB story today was Tim Nesbitt. Anyone want to go after Tim on his work in Oregon politics, support for labor or anything else? Didn't think so.

As for where the D's are on labor issues. I have to say they are not all there, and many are not reliable.

I believe a good number of Portland Dems are great on social issues, but not so good on the wealth redistribution stuff.

Oh, because here on Blueoregon sometimes people go after folks credentials: I've been working in Oregon politics and as a Union organizer since 1998. And I've never attended a DPO meeting.

Dissention in the ranks! A few observations:

• DPO has been very responsive to labor issues. The same cannot be said for DNC or many D elected officials.

• It's all about campaign contributions.

• It might make more sense to establish fusion voting before establishing another party that siphons votes from D candidates.

• Howard Dean may be taking DNC back to the people. We shall see.

• Personal attacks on people like Tim Nesbitt, Barbara Dudley, and Ralph Nader do no one on our side any good. One can, of course, disagree with them.

C'mon, T.A. It's silly to accuse the Working Family Party of fomenting division on the Left in an election year. What do you think we have now? Unity? Look around. We have a pronounced progressive - conservative (DLC) schism within the party.

Consider these realities:

Our only Democratic President in the last twenty-five years was a DLC moderate. Before that we elected a social conservative - Jimmy Carter. The leading candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, is a pro-war, DLC creation. Most of the Senate leadership is both pro-war and pro-business. For progressives, like me, the party is in sad shape. And deeply divided.

I'm no social conservative, but I am pro-labor. I welcome the challenge of the WFP. Maybe it'll shake things up. That's what third parties are supposed to do.

And fusion voting just may be a good idea.

Fusion voting may or may not be a good idea, that remains to be seen. Tom is right that there should be fusion voting (and others are right in wanting to know more details) before there is a new party.

A party needs officers, bylaws, a treasury, regular meetings and other logistics--why start this year rather than last year or next year? Why not sell the idea to people before starting collecting signatures? People who have never been to major party state central comm. meetings (or even the state meetings of third parties) may not realize the logistics involved.

That said I'd like to say a few words in defense of the WFP folks. First, Barbara Dudley has a long and impressive resume of working to support progressive issues. Others could likely give her full resume, but Barbara is past head of Greenpeace, has worked on the sanctuary movement, and is currently an active supporter of current union organizing drives, including supporting workers at Providence Hospitals who are seeking to form a union. While Barbara has not been a member of the state central commitee, she still has the credentials to speak about what's going on in the party. Impuning her credentials is a cheap shot and misinformed.

For those who think Barbara was insulted, what is wrong with knowing a person's background? Many activists have either met Tim Nesbitt or know the name. I just don't think "Barbara Dudley is a good person and never having heard of her before should not prevent you from supporting her idea" is the way to sell a major change in the political climate. And asking about the background of the sponsor of an idea should not be considered an insult.

What are the restrictions on petitioning for a new party? If someone registered to a major party signs the petition, can they still vote in a major party primary? (By law, and independent candidate trying to get on the ballot can only collect signatures from those registered outside major parties or those who do not plan to vote in the primary.)

And if people want WFP to be taken seriously, they will answer Steve B's questions.

Just as people are allowed to register Republican without joining Freedom Works or Right to Life, people are allowed to register as Democrats without having a union card. Major parties are coalitions of groups.

I think anyone seriously backing WFP will seriously address TA's questions and second, the idea of the WFP standing separate with the same candidate is that its only labor/working issues that matter to the WFP; on choice and other "social" issues, there is either ambivalence or even opposition (working class Catholics, for example). so when 4% of a candidate's votes come from WFP -- and given that we have secret ballots, i'm a little unclear on this -- how does the candidate handle his role? once or twice a year, while voting faithfully for unions s/he'll vote against choice, or for civil unions, or what? does the new representative sit in his/her office and think, "golly 4% of my constituents don't give a damn about anything but labor issues"?

the same way a good sales person would address the concerns of a potential customer who asks "well what if I buy this and it doesn't do what I expect it to do?".

I distrust those who propose to "shake things up". What needs shaking up is the smugness Republican House majority. How is saying "I don't see how WFP wins elections which displace Oregon House Republican incumbents" some kind of insult to the sponsors of WFP? Explain how and why.

Chuck Butcher wrote:

God and the 1st. The 1st Ammendment is not about protecting government from religion, it's about protecting religion from the government. On that basis you become a champion of religion, not its foe. Obviously that applies to the restrictions on State sponsored religious activities, be clear.

Forgive my denseness, but I'm afraid this statement is anything but clear or internally consistent. Are you arguing for or against the proposition that the Founders clearly intended that religion not be the basis on which affairs of state are conducted?

Thomas Jefferson, during his years in France, saw what happens when there is a state church.

Also many religious people have pointed out that when government gets involved with religion, it can regulate religion.

Think of the "conservatives" who might chuckle at the IRS going after a church where an anti-war sermon was preached in 2004 (radical concept since Jesus has been called the Prince of Peace). How would they like it if a future IRS started to investigate James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson?

Chuck makes sense to me.

Don't forget the text of the 1st Ammendment is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances".

Most of the posters here except LT seem to not have an understanding of the long history up to this day of "third" (and fourth, fifth, and sixth) parties in NY and to a lesser extent in New England. The populist tradition in those states is very different than that west of the Mississippi. Indeed, by Western state standards it may not even be recognized as populist since it generally takes the form of third parties which actually are viable in state elections but usually do not advance national candidates (Sanders from VT is an unusual case).

At this point, no one has advanced an argument grounded in historical fact as to how the WFP would hurt Democratic prospects at the polls in Oregon. In fact, as a few have argued, the East Coast experience suggests the WFP could actually help those prospects by significantly increasing political awareness and additional organized opposition to Republican policies.

I'm not a proponent of the WFP, but would welcome some truly informed and substantive political discussion in Oregon in the run up to the fall off-term elections. If the WFP does the real work of forming an actual party and sparking substantive political discussion so that activists, party functionaries, and political commentators who think they own political culture in Oregon have to work to keep up, more power to 'em. Representative government is never harmed by informed participation, only uninformed or no participation.

LT wrote:

Chuck makes sense to me

So in a word "for" or "against", as I originally asked is Chuck

arguing for or against the proposition that the Founders clearly intended that religion not be the basis on which affairs of state are conducted?

He actually seems to be arguing "against", while you are arguing "for". Since his point was both clarity and appealing to a bigger slice of the electorate, (who recent polls suggest are "against"), it would seem that he has failed to argue a clear position here.

Interesting discussion here. Frankly, it sounds like many of the folks have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and are just spewing venom because they like to spew venom. I thought we progressives were supposed to be the ones interested in being open-minded and learning FACTS about an issue before forming a strong opinion one way or the other, and before spouting off on something we know very little about.

As it so happens, I saw a presentation by Barbara Dudley on this very issue just recently and I was very impressed. She and her credentials are also very impressive (ONE of which was having been the Chair of the National Lawyers Guild for awhile). She discussed how fusion voting was legal in Oregon until the turn of the 20th century when the Repubs. did away with it because it helped the Dems. The Working Families Party (often called by some other name in various places) and fusion voting have been in use in New York for a long time.

Paraphrasing Ms. Dudley, the Working Families Party is not a 3rd "spoiler" party or something that would split up the Dems. as has been the accusation by others here. First, the WFP emphasizes issues that affect working people directly -- economic issues such as minimum wage, trade agreements, and pension benefits, health care, etc. -- and not social issues such as pro-choice vs. pro-life. They don't believe that the gov't has any business meddling with what people do in the bedroom or with whom, or with other similar social issues. Their focus is on issues that affect people directly in their daily lives and their standard of living. They also develop actual policies for their issues rather than just dealing in rhetoric and general concepts that sound good, as the mainstream candidates do.

Used in conjunction with fusion voting, the WFP would adopt a candidate from one of the mainstream parties -- a progressive candidate -- who endorsed the WFP platform. So, if the Dem. candidate, Jane, endorsed the WFP platform, the WFP would select Jane as their candidate, too, and Jane would be the candidate listed under both the Dem. and the WF Parties on the ballot. Since the WFP is typically 5-12% of the voters, their block of votes would substantially help Jane in the election, especially in swing districts. Jane would also know what percentage of her votes came from the WFP and she would therefore be beholden to them and their platform. Since the WFP also develops actual policies on issues, Jane would actually have a real policy in hand rather than just an idea and rhetoric.

As we all know, the Dems. under the DLC has stabbed working families in the back with things like NAFTA and CAFTA and just simply being spineless on a number of important issues. The WFP and fusion voting is one way of getting real, progressive policies implemented and reducing the greatly diluted effect on policy that the spineless, corporate-owned DLC has on the Dem. Party. It is a way of forcing progressive candidates to be progressive about issues that directly affect working families.

Furthermore, since probably the majority of registered voters are registered as independents or unaffiliated, I seriously doubt that a WFP would draw voters away from the Dem. Party. More likely, a lot of unaffiliated voters -- and maybe even working Repubs. -- would finally find a party that reflected their viewpoints. Who knows, maybe it would even increase voter registration and election participation! But, I suppose, T.A., you'd probably find something to complain about with that.

Oh, and BTW, Howard Dean is supportive of this concept.

With all due respect, Howard Dean is not registered to vote in Oregon, and I would like to know what positions the National Lawyer's Guild has taken on purely Oregon issues like Vote By Mail.

The question is not whether Barbara Dudley is a talented woman who can put on a great presentation. The point is whether she is willing to make the presentation in the more rural counties and answer questions which might begin with "Having never heard of you before, I would like to hear what you know about...".

A smart person who really wants to sell and idea would arrange face to face meetings outside the Portland area. If the meeting was in Linn or Benton County, a smart person would make it a point to personally invite TA to the presentation and answer any questions afterwards. That sort of hard work is often rewarded.

But "I have this great resume, I am circulating these petitions and you are supposed to like what I say without asking questions" does not strike me as a great way to sell an idea.

Even if the WFP promised that if only we would accept their proposals without question we would have a progressive legislature and governor in 2007, I would fall back on the old proverb Reagan used: trust but verify.

Just because someone is so impressed by a presentation they go on a blog and tell everyone to support it doesn't mean we are required to do so. The definition of a skeptic is a person who says "show me the evidence if you want me to believe you". Oregonians are allowed to be skeptical of ideas we are just learning about, and people we hadn't heard of even several weeks ago.

Some of us have seen "great ideas " poorly implemented. Saying we want to see more of the details and are not required to trust someone just because they have a great national resume is perfectly valid in most areas of life. To say asking questions insults B. Dudley isn't going to win us over. How long has Dudley lived in Oregon? Or is even asking that question considered an insult by some of the WFP true believers?

At the federal level, the Democratic Party has rather harshly repudiated the concerns of non-billionaires. Numerous Democratic defectors cast their votes in favor of NAFTA, the Bankruptcy Bill, tax cuts for the super-rich, budget cuts to social programs, military budget increases, and so on. This has been so pronounced that people are literally trying to analyze voting blocs within the Democratic Party to figure out who is "taking turns" betraying the constituency ("stochastic betrayal," according to some). Even beyond that, union-busting and offshoring have continued at breakneck pace with little or no signs of Democratic Party objections or countervailing effort.

At best, I find claims that the DLC has "lost the battle" to be highly disingenuous. Frankly, with the exception of the Black Caucus, minus a few bad apples, and a rather isolated handful of Representatives and maybe one or two Senators, the Democrats in the federal government are near-indistinguishable from Republicans on numerous high-profile issues and especially economic issues, though broader cross-sections (i.e. issues of lesser importance) show some distinctions. The general stance of the Democrats in the federal government is as far right as the Republicans on economic and civil liberties issues markedly since Clinton (asset forfeiture, erosion of habeas corpus, NAFTA, welfare "reform") but also beforehand (FISA, FEMA, extraordinary rendition began under Carter, etc.), on par with the Republicans on foreign policy since time immemorial (post-WWII military interventions, coups d'etat, beating up on Haiti, US-sponsored death squads be they KLA or Contras, "colored revolutions," etc. have been nonstop with no apparent party lines in tactics or frequency), and even active aiders and abettors of Reagan's devastating economic policies.

Even more interesting is the way the majority of Democratic Congressmen run for the hills when not actively repudiating the few "leftists" in the party that have somehow managed to survive K street purges and corporate campaign finance fiascoes. Even Murtha's not-proposed withdrawal had prominent Democrats running for the hills and shouting disavowals to the four winds. Predictably, only McKinney backed the Republican-sponsored proposal for complete withdrawal. Contrary to various claims of the withdrawal proposal being disingenuous, the ploy worked: the Democrats' base can now rest assured that jingoistic neocolonialism and military conquest is the DNC party line, just like the RNC's. Perhaps the RNC will devise a ploy to have the Democrats sleepwalk into adopting some analogue of "Gott mit uns" into their platform analogous to how the RNC has next. It had already worked for Jim Crow twice before Murtha's withdrawal, since no Democrats in the Senate bothered to back Boxer's challenge to the 2004 Presidential election and even Boxer's challenge was only to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities." Of course, in 2000 not one Senator bothered doing even that little.

Democrats, please get your house in order. A distinctive party identity and ideology is essential to motivating voters, and more important yet, coordinated action. To date, compromising with Republicans has only achieved one thing: getting Democrats and their constituents compromised. "Republican Lites" and/or DINO's are a deadly serious problem, and dismissiveness will not suffice as an answer, now or ever. That's why the need for Greens, Working Family Parties, and others exist: Democrats are not adequately representing their constituencies, and they need to start doing so. Frankly, the only reason the Democratic Party still exists is that it's near-impossible to dislodge an entrenched party duopoly in a first-past-the-post electoral system, and a large fraction of Democratic voters only vote for Democrats because of the futility of attempting to elect anything better than the "lesser evil."

This discussion is really important, let's keep it going no matter what "side" you're on. There is a lot to learn here.

Incidentally, I am a former student of Ms. Dudley's graduate level Advocacy and Political Participation class at PSU and she is a professor of very high caliber. Keep her in your sights, she will knock your socks off.

From Barbara Dudley: I'm pleased to see that the recent press on the incipient Working Families Party in Oregon has sparked so much discussion and debate. I want to assure you that it is not an idea that materialized in one day or is the brain child of one woman. To the contrary, for over two years many people have been engaged in discussions about the possibility of creating a Working Families Party in Oregon and legalizing fusion voting. These conversations have become more serious in the past few months, and have included many organizations, not only unions, but also a number of community organizations. A list of the organizations involved to date in the discussion can be found at our brand new (and very basic) website www.oregonwfp.org. On that website you will also find a list of steering committee members which will give you a picture of the breadth of interest and involvement in this Party.

I also urge you to visit the www.workingfamiliesparty.org website to learn more about fusion voting, because fusion voting is a critical piece of the equation. We definitely do not want to take votes away from progressive Democrats; to the contrary we want to build a new constituency for progressive economic issues. Fusion voting allows a party to have its own identity and its own ballot line, but to nominate a candidate who might also be a candidate on another party line. So a progressive Democrat (or a progressive Republican, for that matter) could, if he or she supported the Working Families Party issues, be on the ballot twice. The votes would be tallied separately, but added together for the candidate's total. Such a system is the American version of proportional representation, allowing for true coalition politics, with the coalition forming before the election rather than after, as happens in Europe and elsewhere.

So what are the issues the Working Families Party would stand for? We intend to focus on issues like protecting the minimum wage, implementing a living wage, adequate funding for public schools, fair taxation with an emphasis on things like eliminating the corporate kicker, building a strong local economy, based on sustainable energy, resource management and farming practices, while resisting outsourcing and the "free trade" race to the bottom.

And yes, we want the Working Families Party to reach throughout Oregon, East, Central, Southern, coastal as well as the Willamette Valley. And we intend to address issues important to family famers and rural working families. (I urge you all to read the article in Wednesday's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/dining/04well.html) which speaks volumes about how rural and urban Oregon can find common values around simple economic issues.)

In response to those who invited me to come meet with them in various parts of the state, I hope you are serious, because I would be happy to do that. In the meantime, I hope you will visit the website and continue the dialogue. Nothing could be better for Oregon politics.

So Barbara, thank you for posting here. But what is your specific objective for the next several months? Is it putting fusion voting on the ballot as a ballot measure? Is it trying to interest legislative candidates in fusion voting legislation? Is it collecting signatures for a new party?

This is not an academic exercise. Those of us involved in campaigns which are already going on or about to start need to know your specific goals.

And to everyone else who supports WFP:

Thank you TA for these wise words---

we do not have a form of elections conducive to 3rd parties in this country. gimmicks like fusion voting (and Howard has given us permission to disagree with him on things, by the way; funny how that works for those who believe in and practice democarcy) will not change that. it's not a good expenditure of energy or resources. Barbara Dudley may be a fine person who gives a good presentation, but that doesn't mean i have to think what she's proposing is either smart or productive. i don't. the WFP and fusion voting are bad ideas and i truly hope they don't start to suck up the time and energy needed to get rid of Karen Minnis, win the House and begin to fix the many things that are wrong in this country -- including those many issues for which the WFP has admitted explicitly they have no concern.

Barbara Dudley may be the greatest person on the face of the earth, and may give an astounding presentation which wows all who attend. But that isn't the point. The point is having a 2007 common sense Oregon House which won't inflict insults and stunts on us like we saw in 2005.

Lest we forget: http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/05/representative_.html

Anything which enhances the goal of making sure Minnis, Scott and Richardson never hold majority leadership positions again is a good thing. Anything which could draw energy away from that effort to change the majority leadership is not good. Period. If WFP does not like that attitude, explain to us why your concrete goals will give us a more intelligent House majority in Nov. 2006. Don't tell us WFP is a great idea, so we shouldn't ask specific questions, and then expect us to give WFP our enthusiastic support.

For those of you not around in Oregon politics 10 years ago, this "we have a great idea, therefore it will work" attitude was tried with the US Senate election back then. DSCC had chosen "Kerrey Millionaires" (after the DSCC chair, Sen. Kerrey of Neb.) and we were supposed to back them without asking issue questions. Bob Kerrey had made a fortune in business after becoming a Congressional Medal of Honor Vietnam vet, so why wouldn't other wealthy business people get elected to the US Senate?

Except anyone who had ever worked on a campaign would have known that against a charismatic St. Sen. President with a voting record, a total newcomer would be an uphill battle. Esp. one running on "I fought a war, I founded a company, I am not Gordon Smith" who was unwilling to discuss issues in detail. Esp. after outspending his nearest opponent in the primary 10-1 and then claiming he hadn't bought the primary. This sort of thing either encouraged people not to vote in the general election (one activist friend called it a choice between "the slick one or the chinless one") or to vote 3rd party. Anyone talked to Sen. Bruggere lately?

Gordon Smith was elected because of the people who said "Gee, Gordon is truth in labeling--we may not like it but we know where he stands. Bruggere, on the other hand, wants us to trust that for the next 6 years we will like how he votes and will take on faith that he will vote the right way". The margin of Smith's victory over Bruggere was smaller than the number of 3rd party votes.

It is the responsibility of the WFP folks to explain to us exactly what they are doing in the next several months which will not distract from the effort to elect a common sense Oregon House.

It is NOT the responsibility of activists to say "Gee, all these people are so impressed with the WFP presentations they saw that I should give up some of my free time I intended to use on a local legislative campaign and go see one of these presentations myself".

Persuasion involves giving people the information they ask for.

It hysterical and irresponsible to blame the Democrats for things done under this Republican hegemony, run away from the struggle, pick up a bullhorn and shout back "Democrats, please get your house in order."

The R's really go for that 'house in strict order' stuff, but who wants to live in that straightjacket?

Let's be realistic in assessing the failures of the D's to be effective protectors of the working class. They have often gone too far in accommodating the designs of the R's rich corporate masters, and that is why the DLC faction is doomed to the dustbin. However, in the real world the machinery of democracy requires the oil of compromise, and it is NOT the Democrats who have forgotten that. Compromise that preserves the best interests of your own constituency is scarcely betrayal and is certainly better than partisan gridlock.

Most representatives know better than to let themselves be portrayed as ideologues who can't display common sense. That's why "Predictably, only McKinney backed the Republican-sponsored proposal for complete withdrawal [from Iraq]."

The most telling line of the rant from 'wli' is this:

"That's why the need for Greens, Working Family Parties, and others exist: Democrats are not adequately representing their constituencies, and they need to start doing so."

They perceive the problem, so far so good, but the solution is to dismantle the power base which you are complaining is ineffective? That is hysterical and irresponsible.

I know 'fusion voting' as Instant Run-off Voting, and I reject it as inherently dishonest, and would likely repudiate any candidate endorsing it.

It entails allowing my party's candidates to effectively make deals with other parties to get votes from people who want to make a protest vote with a clear conscience, but without the courage to get involved with the party to whom they give their effective vote. The WFP website encourages this kind of gutless faux-involvement explicitly: "Think of it as a 'protest vote that counts.'"

I know 'fusion voting' as Instant Run-off Voting, and I reject it as inherently dishonest, and would likely repudiate any candidate endorsing it.

On the contrary, fusion voting is NOT like IRV. Fusion voting, as Barbara Dudley pointed out above, is essentially the formation of a coalition of groups before the election. This is in contrast to the European system that forms a coalition AFTER an election. What's wrong with forming coalitions? The percentage of Americans who actually vote in an election is so low, in large part because they feel disenfranchised because neither mainstream party reflects their viewpoint. Why are so many of you against getting more people involved in our democracy?

As to the argument of people focusing attention on fusion voting and the WFP vs. supporting candidates, that argument simply makes no sense. That's like saying people shouldn't focus their attention on any environmental issues, health care issues, election reform, school funding, etc., etc. because everyone should be focusing all of their attention on getting progressive candidates elected. How can we improve the situation in this country unless different people take on different issues?

I strongly suggest people at least try to be open-minded and check out the websites Barbara Dudley mentioned above and educate yourselves on the issues. Ignorance and close-mindedness never helps anything, at least not for progressive causes.

And as to the expressed opinions re Howard Dean's support of fusion voting and the WFP being irrelevant, the reason he supports if is because it would help the progressive cause. It's also something that's being pursued in several other states, not just Oregon.

Your 'coalition groups' are only necessary if you split up the liberal bloc into splinter groups first and try to salvage an effective constituency once the damage is done. No thanks.

Rabble Rouser--I copied the url from B. Dudley's comment and visited the website. It has links to candidates endorsed in New York. It has a link to a Sept. article in THE NATION.

The name of this blog is BLUE OREGON. Many who post here are concerned about Oregon elections.

There is a wonderful commercial for PACE Picante Sauce which features cowboys eating out on the range and makes fun of competition salsa which was not made in the SW but in an urban area. The same holds true for people trying to interest Oregonians in an idea which really comes from out of state and is more national than local in scope.

Cracks like this are not going to win people over to the WFP cause I strongly suggest people at least try to be open-minded and check out the websites Barbara Dudley mentioned above and educate yourselves on the issues. Ignorance and close-mindedness never helps anything, at least not for progressive causes.. They have an "agree with us or you are a bad person" attitude which does not persuade anyone to embrace a new idea put forth by people they don't know.

Steve B. is not an academic, but an actual working person. He has some very clear concerns. He and I are part of the grass roots tradition of the Democrats who are suspicious when strangers talk about ideas we are supposed to like because they are popular, and how dare we ask such inconvenient questions of total strangers.

Instead of B. Dudley saying And yes, we want the Working Families Party to reach throughout Oregon, East, Central, Southern, coastal as well as the Willamette Valley. And we intend to address issues important to family famers and rural working families. (I urge you all to read the article in Wednesday's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/dining/04well.html) which speaks volumes about how rural and urban Oregon can find common values around simple economic issues.) ,

someone as sharp as she is reputed to be would know how the concerns of Crook County, Deschutes County, Harney County, Linn County, and Clatsop County differ from urban concerns and tell us of proposed solutions. There is already a group of actual rural Oregonians--Rural Caucus of the Democratic Party--which does that.

Has Barbara Dudley even heard of them? Or would the existance of such a group blunt the appeal of a national WFP trying to win converts in Oregon?

Someone in touch with Oregon grass roots people and the realities of everyday life would know a) not everyone is registered with the NY Times b) hard to know why a NY Times article with the words "dining" and "well" in the title would apply to rural Oregon counties.

Now if it were Tom Harkin in the Des Moines Register talking about family farms, that would be different. You see, I met Tom Harkin once at a national convention. I trust what he says. I am not required to trust a total stranger just because bloggers say so. I agree with Ed B. and telling me to visit a website and implicitly trust a total stranger won't change my mind.

t.a. bamhart, I agree that on a local level Democrats are doing the right thing. Unfortunately, national policy dominates the economic sphere, and even determines per-capita government expenditure (which one may notice is heavily biased in favor of sparsely-populated states). While you didn't come out with a clear statement regarding national politics, I would say that regardless of frustration or the like it is an arena so crucial it must not be given up on.

Ed Bickford, "Republican hegemony" is not carte blanche to vote against the constituents' interests. And who said I was running away from anything? Or that there was a struggle? When I criticized the voting patterns, it was in instances where Democratic defectors were crucial to passing the relevant bills.

As far as the "house in strict order" goes, I am not suggesting that the Democrats should strive for ideological conformity in the same fashion as the Republicans, and I never said "strict." What I want from "getting the house in order" is principled voting that doesn't routinely outrage the Democratic Party's constituents (like the Bankruptcy Bill). Explaining the Democratic votes in favor of peonage and debt bondage in the US will be a difficult task for anyone to do without indicting the proponents of such for hypocrisy and flagrant reaction.

As far as compromise and "partisan gridlock" go, I would say that partisan gridlock would be vastly superior to allowing bills to pass such as have been passing with Democratic Party support. The notion that compromising has been serving the best interests of the constituency is entirely unsupported by the evidence. Peonage, police state laws on par with the Reichstagbrandverordnung, regressive taxation esp. where capital gains tax rates are involved, wealth condensation tactics so blatant that the drive for a palace economy is unmistakable, and the like do not serve constituents' interests even when adopted "only halfway."

"Ideologues who can't display common sense" is hogwash. Acting according to principle is far from a lack of common sense. It is the essence of common sense. Furthermore, recognizing that the domestic economic assistance is being diverted to the military for contrived threats, military conquest, and aggressive wealth condensation (e.g. redirecting low-income taxpayers' taxes to the CEOs of defense contractors) is very much common sense. It doesn't take an "ideologue" or "firebrand" to simply vote for what constituents want, and constituents do indeed want out of these ridiculous wars.

As far as my "most telling line" goes, it tells very little. The out-of-context quote misses the immediate follow-up of mine, which describes such efforts as futile and even goes on to say that most of the voters still go to the Democrats despite the erection of those parties. While I don't consider it necessarily a dismantling of the power base, I do recognize third parties as generally highly ineffective, and in various instances, counterproductive. I consider the question of whether fusion voting avoids the danger of vote splitting in first-past-the-post systems to be still open, and I consider fusion voting essentially an experiment. Personally, I'd advise the formation of caucuses and sub-organizations within the Democratic Party, such as the Black Caucus, Progressive Caucus, and the like (even the DLC is one, however despised), as opposed to third parties, on the general principle of risk avoidance. Progressive analogues of conservative organizations such as the Council for National Policy, the various thinktanks, and the like would also be more productive than third parties, and some already exist in various forms (PAC's, 527's, etc. etc.).

I weigh in on this discussion as one of the members of the Steering Committee of the Oregon Working Families Party (WFP).

It is an unfortunate truth that many in the labor movement have recognized that Democratic party politicians in Oregon are much like elected Democratic party politicians in the rest of the United States. Almost all will proclaim their great friendship with organized labor (and other social movements) but do not consistently support the core values and goals of organized labor. I am not referring to supporting labor in this or that policy initiative, but in core values central to the labor movement. A prime example is the right to organize. As many, but not all, readers of Blue Oregon know, the United States (including Oregon) is not in compliance with basic international human rights standards on the right of workers to organize unions. As Human Rights Watch has noted "(w)orkers' basic rights are routinely violated in the United States because U.S. labor law is so feebly enforced and so filled with loopholes" (see http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/uslabor/). Why is this important to the readers of Blue Oregon and relevant to this discussion? Beyond concern for human rights, if the labor movement diminishes to the point of irrelevance (that is a summary of the long term trend in our membership level) the most organized and resourced grassroots support for progressive politics will diminish to the point of irrelevance. It is my experience (after spending 12 of the last 15 years involved in the labor movement in Oregon - both in Portland and Eugene) that most, but not all, democratic politicians are not committed to the right to organize in ways that are tangible for achieving this internationally recognized human right in Oregon. They don’t understand the issue and don’t place high value on it. Working within the Democratic Party to influence the party platform and elect politicians that will support core labor movement values has not worked. I know from personal experience that many of the most “progressive” Democratic Party politicians in Oregon are as bad on this issue as the most conservative Republican. For the labor movement, we are in a crisis and doing more of the same, just harder, is not a viable option. There are other examples, but the right to organize is the fundamental concern of the labor movement and should be for all Oregonians who value the possibility of a progressive future for our state. If you wonder about that statement, imagine for a moment Oregon electoral politics without the labor movement’s mobilization during election season (no phone banks, no contributions, no precinct walks, no voter turnout).

How would forming a WFP in Oregon help? Because using fusion voting along with a party focused on the core economic concerns of the majority of Oregonians shows great promise in moving the actual votes and other tangible actions of Democratic (and Republican as well) party politicians on core issues. That is the experience in New York and was the experience in Oregon back when fusion was legal. Clearly a precursor to using the WFP concept is returning fusion voting to Oregon. Fusion voting is a serious and realistic alternative to the current two party system that takes into account all the relevant realities of the American and Oregon political systems that reinforce two party domination. It doesn’t set up a system of a third party as a spoiler party (e.g. the Pacific Green Party), but rather allows for candidates to be cross-endorsed on multiple party lines. Committing to the core values of the WFP would lead to a tangible benefit for candidates. Politicians could be held accountable to such commitments. Forming a WFP in Oregon without fusion voting would not be a realistic strategy. But forming a WFP with fusion voting is a realistic strategy to return Oregon politics to its populist and progressive roots. Working within the Democratic Party to influence the party platform and elect politicians with little or know interest in our core concerns has shown itself repeatedly not to be in our interest.

That is why we are exploring the idea of fusion voting and an Oregon Working Families Party (WFP). Not necessarily to elect WFP members to office, but rather to influence who is elected and what commitments they have made in order to be elected. We are pursuing this idea because we value and want to reclaim what once made Oregon special. I invite Blue Oregon readers to investigate this concept, watch what we do and support us creating this tool that will be used to return Oregon to its progressive and populist roots.

Here's the problem:

1) Oregon is not New York, and until the folks at WFP realize that, they are not likely to impress activists who have spent years if not decades trying to elect Democrats because it is hard to influence policy if not in positions of power. Is everyone happy with the actions of every Democratic elected offical? No, but that's the breaks in a democratic system.

2)Those of us who have worked on campaigns know the nitty gritty is in phone banks, door to door, events (neighborhood coffees, fundraisers, debates, etc) and not in vague themes or discussions of concepts, creating tools, returning Oregon to its roots, etc. If you folks at WFP want to prove you are anywhere near the quality of political organizations like the Oregon Bus Project, you will have to do better than this: How would forming a WFP in Oregon help? Because using fusion voting along with a party focused on the core economic concerns of the majority of Oregonians shows great promise in moving the actual votes and other tangible actions of Democratic (and Republican as well) party politicians on core issues.

Give us some details: a list of "core economic concerns of the majority of Oregonians" a bullet point list of how fusion voting (assuming you could get it passed--as a ballot measure? as legislation?) would accomplish your goals and the concrete steps you plan to implement the ideas in the paragraph above *specifically what you mean by "moving the actual votes and other tangible actions of Democratic (and Republican as well) party politicians on core issues". For instance, the top 3 core issues of WFP are__and the actions WFP plans to take to support those 3 core issues in 2006 include_.

It is all grand theory until you start discussing details--details which pertain to Oregon whether or not they worked in NY.

I don't think some of you folks realize that one appeal of Dean as DNC chair is that he realizes the importance of grass roots activism. Too many of us have lived through more than a decade of out of state consultants saying to Oregon activists "well, that worked in my last state, why wouldn't it work here?".

Every time someone from WFP talks about the great things that happen in NY, alarm bells go off in the minds of people who are still angry about such out of state staffers saying volunteers don't know anything, all they do is live in the district and vote, while the consultants are "professional".

That was the Terry McAuliffe mindset. If WFP wants to win support in Oregon, they can start by realizing that we activists were here long before anyone ever heard of WFP. And that "we have this great idea, therefore it will work" makes many of us say "been there done that".

WFP may think they have the greatest ideas in the world which would put all currently unemployed and underemployed Oregonians to work at living wages in full time jobs. But "believe it when I see it" and "proof is in the pudding" are signs of healthy skepticism.

And no new political movement wins over vast numbers of supporters in an election year by saying "we are the good guys, you shouldn't be skeptical". Show us in Oregon terms what you have previously done in Oregon as individuals, and what you support and oppose (what are the WFP views of min. wage, PERS reform, making public that Speaker Minnis paid her top staff too high salaries while saying Oregon couldn't afford any programs to help ordinary Oregonians but could afford tax cuts for the well off, etc.).

It is hard to understand what WFP plans for Oregon when the website Dudley quoted talks more about NY and national publicity than anything else. When you have the specifics, let us know.

But don't invite us to "investigate this concept" and then wonder why we expect specific answers.

Paul, Which Oregon campaigns have you worked on which make you convinced that time spent on WFP issues in 2006 is more important than time spent in working to elect Democratic legislators to the Oregon legislature?

Or is that too parochial a question because "let's not close our eyes to possible lessons from NY (or any other state for that matter)."?

You still have not enumerated things that 2006 Oregon Democratic activists could learn from NY.

One lesson from a successful NY campaign that all could learn from is the way Hillary Clinton began her Senate campaign while still serving as First Lady at the end of the Clinton presidency. As I recall, she went on an upstate listening tour before she actually started campaigning.

Perhaps WFP should go on a listening tour of counties outside the Portland area and talk to actual working families (if they have the spare time and are willing to go to a meeting). Ask what issues are most important to them.

Then WFP could say "after talking to working families in Oregon, we have discovered that the top 3 issues are..."

But of course, that is a dialogue about specifics, and I doubt calling those who ask specific questions parochial or telling them "let's not close our eyes to possible lessons from NY (or any other state for that matter)." will win you many converts.

Or is that too much work when it is so easy to go on a blog and tell people WFP is a great idea and we should support it without asking questions?

But I doubt

Not sure what happened to that last sentence.

This is the season of campaigns getting up and running (just got an invitation to a campaign kickoff at the end of this month).

My point is this: activists don't treat new parties as an academic exercise they could learn from. And experienced volunteers know that campaigns can be labor intensive and spare time can be scarce.

If WFP was at the Rebooting Democracy conference over the weekend, what was the response?

If it was favorable, (or if it wasn't) tell us what people said about WFP. But let's have some real world specifics. By definition working families are not academics. There is a difference between studying new parties and actually recruiting members, choosing bylaws and officers, etc.

If you think there are lessons to be learned from NY, tell us where we can read the bylaws of NY WFP. Do you believe those could be transfered to OR WFP without rewriting? If not, which would you rewrite? NY already has the various lines on the ballot and sometimes a candidate will get the nomination on more than one line. Has that always existed? Did it only become part of NY politics after the Tammany Hall machine died? Did it become part of NY politics by initiative, by legislation being passed, or by some other method?

If you think Oregonians could "learn lessons" from WFP in NY, what are the 3 most important lessons?

If you can't answer those questions, don't act like Karen Minnis getting angry because people asked questions about her school funding plan. Find the answers and post them here rather than telling us we should take WFP on faith lest we be called "parochial".

To that end, in my capacity as an ROP board member, I'll be attending a meeting with these folks this week along with our executive director Marcy Westerling, to explore possible synergies.

Pat, I really respect ROP. I met some folks from that group once when they visited the Capitol here in Salem on a day I was there. The point is that ROP earned my respect when I met them--it wasn't a matter of someone going on a blog and saying that all good people should respect ROP and not ask questions.

If you go to a meeting with WFP and post your reactions here on Blue Oregon, I will respect whatever you say.

What I object to is being told that as a progressive I should take WFP on faith and not ask any questions about their actions in Oregon.

I think of myself as an Independent leaning Democrat with the right to ask clarifying questions about what any new group or campaign plans to do in Oregon. If asking such questions means I am not "progressive" then, fine--I am not progressive. And if being "progressive" means I have to take people I have never met on faith rather than wanting to know more about them, so be it. I was never big on labels, anyway.

LT,

You continue to confuse my attempt to correct misperceptions about fusion voting with advocacy for the WFP. I have never advocated for WFP.

Along with some other posters (as well columnists in the Nation, the Oregon Voters Rights Coalition, the Center for Voting Rights, , I support fusion voting. As a Democrat, I don't it will hurt the Democratic Party in Oregon and may help. As an academic, I support it because it allows voters the ability to express their preferences more sincerely, and reduces the pressure for strategic or sophisticated voting. It is a minor movement toward a fairer election system in this country, but it's better than what we have right now.

You ask what lessons we can learn from fusion voting in NY. t.a. writes <it> we do not have a form of elections conducive to 3rd parties in this country. ... fusion voting (and Howard has given us permission to disagree with him on things, by the way; funny how that works for those who believe in and practice democarcy) will not change that. </it>

This is demonstrably false. Fusion voting is not a "gimmick". It has a long historical lineage, and was used in most states before the 20th Century. It continues to be allowed in 10 states and is most actively used in NY.

Fusion voting is clearly more conducive to the growth and maintainance of third parties than our current system. Historically, fusion voting systems coexisted with systems with greater than two parties. NY currently has four or five active political parties. And simple logic tells you that allowing a voter to express a preference for additional parties without having to worry about the "wasted vote" problem is conducive to third party growth.

Perhaps, unlike you, I want to include a free, fair, and vital election system as part of my repertoire of progressive principles. I think fusion voting gets us closer to that than where we are right now.

I respect your commitment to party activism, even though you have been very dismissive of anyone you label as "academic". You've made swipes at NY Times readers, intellectuals, and academics, I'm not sure to what end.

Asking questions is not bashing. In the course of this debate, supporters of WFP said they realize that Oregon is not NY.

But saying skepticism of the "I don't have enough information yet to support this group" is "bashing" helps no one.

I remember the days of Democrats controlling both chambers of the legislature. That meant the ability to make things better without feeling like they were hitting their heads against a brick wall.

If WFP is shown to do the same thing, fine.

But don't tell me that being skeptical of strangers and vague out of state ideas is "bashing".