Hmmmmmm....sounds like ol' Ben's candidacy is scaring the hell out of a lot of people in both parties. Well, the two parties (and their rabid insiders) have failed this state dismally for 15 years, so more power to Ben Westlund! Maybe now we'll have three parties in Oregon:

      The Democratic Party
      The Republican Party

and.......The Oregonian Party

Yeah, geez, feeling threatened, are we? In the article I read, he explained his reasoning for going independent pretty clearly: a centrist like him would never win a Republican primary.

Seems obvious and fair enough to me.

Anti-partisan posturing is annoying perhaps, but slavish devotion to the party, which seems like what you're throwing up in your 1000+-word rant, is more annoying by far.

T.A. opines that people like Westlund should remain in the Republican party and try to save it. But, as T.A. so aptly states in trying to think of a decent Republican in Oregon, "my god, I can only think of one." Perhaps Westlund, after having spent two terms up to his neck in the Oregon GOP, has come to realize it's not fixable. Perhaps, like me (also a registered Independent), he's realized that though he knows he isn't a Democrat, he can no longer identify with the Republican party and, therefore, has nowhere else to turn. And so he has refocused his attention, without the preconceptions of a packaged party platform, on what it is to be a common-sense Oregonian. I may be reading a lot into Westlund's decision to disassociate himself from the Republican Party, but I can say my ears have perked up and I want to hear what he has to say.

And while I understand T.A.'s annoyance at the implications that Democrats are partisans, I also understand why a former Republican would feel that way. Republicans tend to believe the oft-heard mantra (spread through talk radio, Fox News, conservative Web sites, and fellow Republicans) that Democrats play dirty, that Democrats are immoral, that Democrats want to destroy all that is good in this country, and consequently that Republicans have to play dirty occasionally or they'll lose. And they can't lose because the Republican party is the only thing holding back the forces of evil in this world. When a Republican thus brainwashed becomes disillusioned with the crap going on in their own party, what are they to do? It may well be that the Independent party is the only place where a moderate Republican can exist in this state anymore.

While I may agree with the positions a party takes on issues, the role of the party in the legislative process is one that hurts our state. Over the last few decades bills have been passed or ignored not because of they were good or bad policy but because their success or failure could potentially help that party's candidates (or hurt the other party's) in the next election cycle. One has to look no farther than the south coast airport expansion and Arnie Roblan (one of the most outstanding people in the legislature today) to see a recent example. It is too bad that NAV voters are not guaranteed a spot on the ballot like parties are. Yes they can gather signatures, but if there was an "I" spot on every ballot then I have a feeling Oregonians would be better represented.

He got his chance at the state Senate because far-right activists torpedoed the candidacy of Neil Bryant.

As one of the people who emailed all the Deschutes County Comm. asking them to appoint Ben, I have to speak in his defense. Over the years, Ben has become the anti-Bryant. Hope those of you who read this regularly know I am not far right.

I know all the things Ben has done because I have watched him closely--he defeated a friend of mine in his first election with help of that slippery Bryant (endorsed by OEA, all you union haters--one of the things I have against OEA).

I was not originally a fan of Westlund. I became one on a hot day on the way home from work when I heard him on the news (during one of those interminable special sessions) say "the reason for the budget problems is that Gov. Roberts was right about Measure 5 in everything but the timing". Having known Barbara Roberts before she became Governor Barbara Roberts, I wrote a thank you note to Westlund.

Of course that made him the opposite of the "mystery money crowd"---Doyle, Close, Kropf, etc. Is that why Minnis did not make him W & M chair the next time around ? (Maybe it was just as well since it was that next session when he was hospitalized for cancer surgery, as I recall).

There are many good people in the Democratic Party. But at a time when many of us are angry about actions at the national level (Paul Hackett was supposed to drop out of the Sen. race and run for House because he was supposed to follow orders--from the people who recruited him to run for Sen. in the first place --- are candidates human beings or chess pieces?) someone of Ben's quality is refreshing.

I will not sign the petition because I want to vote in the Ted vs. Jim primary, but I have a relative who wants to sign it. I re-registered Dem. in 2002 to vote in that Gov. primary. We consider ourselves honest people, and someone suggesting otherwise will not win my support.

I am one of those who has been registered Indep. (6 out of the last 10 years) to protest something in Oregon in 1996 very similar to what was done to Hackett.

Now if someone doesn't like that because we are all born into a party (or register in one when we turn 18, move here, etc) and we are stuck in that party for the rest of our lives or risk being called dishonest, I don't see that as a winning strategy--I thought Democrats have the right to think for themselves.

If the abovementioned Senator is Frank Morse, then sorry, I don't agree with everything he stands for but do agree with some of it. I agree with some things he did (bringing civility to the process, some of what he has said at the Legislative Comm. and didn't he co-sponsor something with Westlund and/ or some Democrats?).

I met Ben Westlund back when he was a state rep. I like him--a straight shooter of the Courtney variety who we have too few of in politics.

If that makes me dishonest because I am not a "my party right or wrong" partisan, then fine--but don't expect me to support someone who says I must give unquestioning obedience to one party and question all the members of the other party. Fond as I am of Howard Dean, if that "choosing a side" business is rampant in Oregon, I could very easily re-register Indep. after the primary just as I did 10 years ago and for the same basic reason. As I said back then, "the I in Independent stands for I think for myself, thank you very much".

Now if someone has a problem with that, fine--just don't expect my political support for someone who tells me not to think for myself.

My couple of interactions with Ben indicate a fine man, with a devotion to finding the right things for Oregon, such as supporting the Hope for Oregon Families initiative and the Oregon Apollo initiative. He fervently supports some good ideas that most of Blue Oregon probably supports too. I'm sure we differ on a number of stands as well, but he comes about his positions honorably. I suppose his stands may not fit a particular party, especially not the Republican Party these days.

Ben makes me proud to be an Oregonian, whether I vote for him or not.

I myself am a fervent Democrat, who will almost never vote even for a moderate Republican while they are party-driven by right-wing nuts who are ruining this country and demand party fealty above the common good. But I like to think I am fair and tolerant, which makes me not so proud to have T.A. defending the Democratic Party this way, constructing insulting and false definitions of Ben's supporters, as for example unable to distinguish between candidates, is bizarre and unworthy. It probably isn't even good politics given how many non-affiliated voters there are.

My reading of "partisanship" is people who put party before principle and before the common good, who will not work with the other party to craft compromises and incorporate elements from their concerns. Those are the kinds of people T.A. says he doesn't like (anti-Katz-Kitz) ... but that's what I believe Ben is also referring to. I don't think he's saying belonging to a party is necessarily bad, but putting party above all else and being unwilling to work with others is bad. .... and I think there is a lot more of that in Republican Party than the Democratic.

Thank you Wm. N!

I didn't understand the whole Kitz-Katz bit, but then I wonder if TA was around Democratic politics in 1985. That was when some in the State (also district and local) Central Comm. passed a resolution showing disgust with something working its way through the legislature with some Democrats (incl. Sen. President Kitzhaber and Speaker Katz) supporting the legislation. I was one of the 19 who voted against the resolution, among other reasons because I thought legislators were responsible to their constituents first and the Central Comm. second. And later, someone got on cable access TV and said anyone who supported that particular legislation and a resulting ballot measure was "not a real Democrat". As I recall, a Democratic legislator called the state party office and said "well, if I am not a real Democrat according to some activist on cable TV, then there is no reason for me to write any more checks to the Democratic Party" and the state chair had to convince the legislator that there had been no party involvement in the cable access show, whatever might have been said there.

THAT is the sort of partisanship I see Westlund decrying, along with more recent examples like what Scott did to Roblan, Scott getting the ORA's capital gains bill passed in the House (while the capital gains tax cut which actually paid for itself languished in committee), not to mention what was done in recent years to those who didn't tow the party line (the Cheryl Walker story, the Jan Lee story, Thatcher v. Backlund, Zupancic v. Winters, etc. )

Let's be very clear. I once was active in the State, District and County Democratic parties at a time when policy was argued, solutions were proposed, institutional memory ("yes that worked in X instance, but not in Y instance because of these factors...") was valued, primary campaigns were vibrant, volunteers were allowed to think for themselves and not have a consultant or an ideologue tell them that independent thought was somehow subversive. People tried to say only "real" Democrats were of value, but there was pushback incl. articles in Democratic publications.

Interestingly, one such article (on extra pages of the local newsletter funded by a local donor after a big fight about whether issues were discussed enough) had a title something like "I am a radical centrist". It was by someone who had been active in Young Democrats, supported Hart over Mondale in 1984 (when some said "real Democrats supported Mondale", who got less than 30% of the vote) and was an independent thinker on other issues as well.

That was a great experience being involved in such a lively group, making lasting friends, and getting into issue debates.

TA's Democrats sound different, and not like any group I'd want to belong to.

But then, maybe he doesn't want people like me who have been registered in both major parties (or no party) and campaigned for Tom McCall, Bob Straub, and a number of other Democrats, 3rd party (Anderson for President, Thompson for Senate) and no party (such as school board) candidates.

It is not my experience that Ben sees no difference between Karen Minnis and Frank Shields, but then I actually know the guy. As I recall, he was thrilled to become a Senator and escape Queen Karen.

westlund's independenter-than-thou rhetoric rings hollow with me, too. i wish i knew how to find state congressional voting records, so we could see just how "centrist" this bill-o'reilly-independent really is.

certainly, i can understand being disgusted enough by the republican party to finally leave. but that's not what he's doing. he's realized that a republican sure as hell won't win portland's votes, and we can't let those evil democrats have it, so he'll pretend he isn't republican for a while. i'd like proof.

Doubt that skeptics would believe proof on a blog (actually the definition of a skeptic is someone who believes after seeing proof; and a cynic is someone shown proof and still does not believe).

But here's a shot: http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3202/6960/ is a hoot! Willamette Week gets some interesting answers from all sorts of folks.

And some other goodies via Google, going back before 2005:

http://www.olaweb.org/hotline/vol7/olahot7-5.shtml

The newly announced co-chairs of Ways and Means, Senator Lenn Hannon (R-Ashland) and Rep. Ben Westlund (R-Redmond), get along with the Governor and have endorsed his budget. Both also acknowledge that there are not a lot of good political choices if they have to make cuts in the budget.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/greenlick/mitchmessage/mm7_6_03.htm

In the meantime, Speaker Minnis is going to change the House rules tomorrow to allow budgets bills to move through any House Committee, rather than processing them through the Joint Ways and Means Committee as the current rules require......The problem with processing budget bills without buy-in of the Senate side of Ways and Means is that most of the budget votes will become party line votes........The next most important news is that hearings began last week on tax reform in the Revenue Committee of the House. Since it is now clear that any of the budget numbers being discussed will need more revenue, it's hard to believe it took six months of a session for the Speaker to allow these hearings to take place. Three moderate Republicans, Max Williams, Lane Shetterly, and Ben Westlund, are using these hearings to push for the addition of a sales tax to Oregon's tax structure.

Jami --

Bill O'Reilly is, in fact, registered as a Republican. He calls himself an independent, but doesn't actually walk the walk. That's the difference between Westlund and folks like him.

You can get legislative voting histories on the State Legislative Website going back to the 90's.

<h1></h1>

Fairly much 'dittoes' to what's been said. Sorry, T.A. I do feel your same pains, Westlund has had a hand in things of no pride and much shame and injury. On the other hand ... Maybe some can go from compassionate conservative to compassionate. Lose the con. So far, but in a mixed-signal way, it still is mostly lip service but, he says he's lost the con. And stripping that stinking 'R' off his neck and grinding it under his boot heels is not a small symbolism that maybe he has, repudiated his apprenticeship. (Ya' know, there's a decades-old John Barth novel, Giles Goat-Boy, moralizing "to pass, you must flunk the examiner," which perhaps Westlund applied.) Redemption is possible.

I also, (as Betsy and LT), am eager to hear more, and moreso in the style of today jilting Liars at his altar of 'Get,' showing Liars cannot 'get' Westlund. I hope it was not some schedule scramble. I hope it was a deliberate lie in Liars face, Westlund agreeing to appear and when Liars lap-lackey called to 'get' it, a first-day-on-the-job staffer laughed in Liars face and said it was a blackball all along just to mock Liars once, for selfish spite, but from now on Liars is not even worth torturing for pleasure, don't call Sen.Ben, he'll call you. As if.

But if Westlund shows up in Liars KXL Klan airwaves tomorrow, or any day really, then I close ranks with you solidly, T.A. I'm watching, waiting, listening.

If Westlund helped campaign for select Democrats of a Linn-Benton sort, would something like that soften your scarring? It isn't like Kulongoski has been a world-beater to landslide acclaim, and, you know, there might be a little more insight in that. He's a 'disappointment' for the high-hopers, as was Gov.Kitz, as was Paulus and Roberts and Atiyeh in the low eyes of high hopes for them. And maybe the pattern shows something in the nature of the office, Governor, is paralyzing; that the seat is 80 / 20 figurehead, not a force. In which case, would something like that soften your self-inflicted feudiness in conceding even an enemy to sit in the seat that don't matter, that can't enact anything? So he's elected -- so?

I even took it as encouraging that he didn't go all the way to 'D', saying to me a pox on both their parties. And I didn't understand the dismissal of Nader on that score; seems to me Nader had it exactly right. I strain to see a moral difference between the corrupt one who criminally defrauds the ballot counts and steals election, and the complicit one who knows the fraud, 'takes the fall,' and concedes to allow the crime. Nader's name on the ballot or not, had less than zero affect on the illegitimate election, where the false count totals do not draw the measure of we, the people alive -- Nader didn't 'split' any close tally since the tallies all were frauds. As much by the defrauder party of the first part as by the defraudee party of the second part, just as Nader says. Where his very presence on the ballot contrasts with either and both frauds in comparison. Westlund's candidacy evokes similar undertones in what's been the catty reactions to it so far from the duopoly partisans.

I add a secondary allowance, though maybe of primary personal importance, which suspends distrust of Westlund in the respect that we're homies, we were raised in 'Bend' and are bent in parallel, he's me, I'm him, same flowers and flaws, we peeps, and I feel his understanding. I feel somewhat the same with Lundquist, the mintpoke pride of Prineville. Terrebonne, whatever. That doesn't do much for the feelings of 'un-centered' Oregonians, I realize. (That's a joke attempt. This is explaining it. There goes the humor.)

Finally, T.A., you and I diverge in our priorities. It seems your strongest investment in the Party pays tribute to organizational power to effect issues and positions on issues into laws and practices. I hardly consider any issue, or none matter for who I support, except one. You're devoted to one party? I'm devoted to one 'issue.' More like a cause. Impeachment. And imprisonment. I don't even want to discuss health care, jobs, schools, civil unions, ANY ! OF IT !, before first things first. The clear and present danger. The nationalixtic war criminals in office, and the infected fascism they have fostered, must be brought to justice, and the officeholders replaced with decency and legitimacy before any enacted 'issue' can even obtain.

What does it matter what health care (pick your issue) Dem's or whoever can legislate, before the liability that tyrants can corrupt it and craven-power dictate pervert it? And everything ignore it?

Some (respectable) voice to Liars said today, 'the first thing we have to do is restore trust in government, for both sides, the D's and the R's.' And I thought to myself, I and we 'leftists,' (as I see my ilk), have kept and never lost 'trust' in government -- it's the Democrats and Republicans we don't trust in.

<h1></h1>

As I see it, the chief purpose of a political party is to help a person when they sit down to vote and know nothing of the individuals running. Even as I think there's some truth in what Stacey Dycus noted in Westlund's announcement - about funding, support, etc. - I still believe that political parties contact most voters on the level I'm talking about.

After that, I don't have much use for the parties. Until recently, I've been a life-long registered Democrat, mainly because what I perceived as an accordance in "big picture" values. I'm not sure what changed, me or the party, but something did. When I look at the dueling, Big Two I see organizations chiefly devoted to preserving their separate sacred cows and a near-total unwillingness to consider alternate, or atraditional approaches to major issues, or to believe that what they've always thought about "Issue A" isn't the one, true path.

Anyway, that's why Westlund's candidacy appeals to me (LINK).

Anyone who supported the bill to make independent candidacies more difficult in Oregon is, to my mind, guilty of excessively partisan thinking. That was low-down dirty pool that served no public good; it only served strictly partisan interests.

I'll be supporting Westlund's candidacy, and that of any independent, before I support anyone who helped (or failed to veto) that odious bill.

if your local party is not able to do that, maybe bailing on it is a good idea. or maybe you need to find a way to promote your beliefs within your local party. i can't tell you to do that, but abandoning the party that has the best chance of any group to make this state a better place is not a great option, in my view. if you want a democratic Oregon, democratize your local Dems. it can be done and is happening all over the country

TA, glad things are working out in Benton County. But there are those of us who HAVE been active at the county, district, and state level who were told in various ways we thought too independently and while our hard work as volunteers was valued that didn't mean our ideas should be given any credence when "we've always done it that way" was the majority point of view. There is only so much beating one's head against a brick wall that most people can stand, and at some point they declare they have a better use of their spare time than to be told their ideas don't really matter because the powers that be have better ideas. Remember the title of Howard Dean's book is "You Have the Power". The sentiment is "if you want leadership, look in the mirror" NOT "if you want leadership, the only way to develop it is to do so inside your local party". Dean is a better party chair than McAuliffe for those of us who believe a political party is about more than raising money and staging political conventions every 4 years.

The quality of the chair at any level makes all the difference. As I recall, a friend of mine was living in Corvallis in 1992 when the Benton County chair got involved in one side of a primary--which did not win on election night. Such things have happened other places and other times--being involved in a party is not the be all and end all of politics. I thought the purpose of politics was to elect good people.

A Republican friend (yes, I do have friends I don't always agree with politically) tells me he just laughed when someone from the Mannix campaign called and asked him to help organize his county. "Mannix as GOP state chair ran the party into the ground to the point there basically is no Republican party in this county" was his response.

I HAVE worked inside more than one political organization to effect change. In some cases, there was positive change that happened, and in some cases my friends and I were greated with open sarcasm and hostility.

I was not born into the Democratic Party. I startled relatives when I registered Dem. in 1968 to vote for Eugene McCarthy in the California primary as a college student--that shows my age. After moving to Oregon I campaigned for Tom McCall but by the time he died the Republican party had made it very clear "we don't want your kind". I was involved in the Straub campaign and am proud to have known that family.

I have been an active Democrat and helped elect lots of good Democrats incl. a couple newcomers some decades ago who went on to bigger and better things--named Jim Hill and Peter Courtney.

But I have also been told over the years that "real Democrats" don't think as I do (btw, there were those who said Courtney and Kitzhaber were "not real Democrats" back in the 1980s--wonder whatever happened to those people who could bash others better than they could do volunteer work or get their own people elected). Have also been told that I supported the "wrong" legislation or ballot measure or the "wrong" primary candidate--how dare I support a friend or a person I admired when the establishment wanted someone else!

And in one case, a Democrat I campaigned for one year claimed the right to tell me who to vote for in the primary 2 years later (no, I didn't but voted for my friend instead and wished I could also have supported my other friend running in that multi-candidate primary). That is not making the state a better place, that is about arrogance, hubris, and power politics.

I am a "common ground" person who has friends in both major parties, no party, 3rd party. I judge the individual, not the party.

And I don't think that what the Beltway Democrats did to Paul Hackett (or in some cases in recent years the similar things done by legislative caucuses) exemplifies "best chance of any group to make this state a better place" even if the Benton County Democrats are able to make their county the best place to live on the face of the earth.

I reject the idea that Ben W. only recently discovered Salem to be a partisan place. But then I knew him when he was bucking Karen Minnis back in the days he was still a House member. He was saying things that the hardliners in his party considered subversive, and my sympathy for him was as "been there done that". But how many of you were following that back then? Back when Ben W. and Max Williams and some other brave Republicans admitted that tax cuts do not solve everything and it was time to get off the "taxes are evil" bandwagon and start discussing new revenue sources for Oregon?

And how many of you were questioning years ago why the Democratic Party (or the House caucus as its own little fiefdom) was unable to elect a House majority but was telling us that they and only they had the magic formula and how dare any of us question their target or other decisions and their general approach?!

Back before Howard Dean started talking about revolutionary ideas like "show up everywhere and contest every election". Sorry, partisans who think the Democrats are the answer to everything, but I am not a "my party right or wrong" type. I want good people in office, and I want open public debates. We didn't get those in the 2005 session. We had some members of both parties who thought the only answer was closed door budget negotiations.

I'd like to see those decisions to exclude public debate over the budget be debated in public. And if it takes a former Republican former Ways and Means chair to do that, so be it.

Many would consider Tom McCall to be Oregon's greatest goveror, in great part because he was an independent Republican who had many Democratic allies. McCall also had a winning personality and was a politican who seemed to actually like other people and wanted to bring people together. Considering his philosphy and his personality, Ben Westlund clearly is a Tom McCall Republican. I was at an SEIU rally in Salem last year and saw that Westlund was the only Republican who signed a pledge to support the right of workers to unionize. That combined with Ben's support for civil unions, health care, and other progressive issues makes it hard for this Democrat to say anything bad about him. Let's face it: Salem has become too partisan. Ben Westlund is trying to offer a solution and I admire him for it.

TA Barnhart's rant is either amusing, pathetic, or both. First, he picks word definitions that put a negative connotation on what are demoted as a neutral words. This is the same tactic used by the fringe right. At the edges, both left and right are indistinguishable in tactics and agendas.

Second, the definitions of 'progressive' that I find on the Web all relate to favoring change. Isn't change by Ben Westlund exactly what Mr. Barnhart is complaining about? Sen. Westland is taking an active role in promoting change in Oregon politics. All those with a vested interest in the status quo -- regardless of political party affiliation -- are really conservatives, not progressives. Remember: change is inevitable ... except from a vending machine.

<hr/>