Sounds exciting, now a good step would be for rural Oregon "progressives" or whatever they might or might not be called to develop a list of needs, program and strategy. As an urban Oregonian who pays quite a bit of attention, I don't know what rural Oregonians, progressive or otherwise, want. There's a lot of mixed messages.

Anon -

What you hear as "mixed messages" is what we call diversity.

Oregon's rural communities have a lot of differences. The coastal areas can't be lumped in with the Umatilla County wheat fields. The Central Oregon high desert can't be lumped in with the Umpqua River valley.

There are commonalities. Rural communities want an equal seat at the table when decisions are made. Rural people need access to health care. Rural people need the resources allocated for public education (and so does urban Oregon!!). Rural communities want an equal piece of the action for economic development, road funds, social services, etc. etc.

But what each part of our vast State needs will of course vary. So, Anon, if you are looking for a laundry list of specific "all rural" legislative agenda items - it isn't going to happen. Its more about process and inclusion.

Hi Steve,

Sorry you couldn't make it, it was really a great time. I know that we had a number of Lane delagates from rural areas of our County that worked hard to make sure that the interests of all Oregonians were represented in our platform. I think that we will win if we can work together to make sure that core values are the basis for our message and our platform. The core values of Democrats, whether rural or urban are the same although we may differ on certain issues. The bottom line is that all of us who are active in the party have a common goal which is to get Democrats elected.

Val

Anon:As an urban Oregonian who pays quite a bit of attention, I don't know what rural Oregonians, progressive or otherwise, want.

Well, perhaps they don't want rural Oregon to become a smaller fraction of the total Oregon population, thus allowing urban Oregon to see the rest of the state as a playground. Current policies mean that urban areas are sucking most newcomers to urban areas. The people who have some understanding of or concern for rural Oregonians will thus become a larger and larger portion of the population.

Bob Tiernan

The urban parts of the Oregon Democratic Party often call themselves "progressive". In the past I have sometimes wondered what "progress" they were talking about.

The "progress" they were talking about is not progress at all, but rather a style of public leadership generally recognized as gov't-by-monumental boondoggle. Such a style, as taught at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, is not easily practiced outside an Urban Growth Boundary because rural folks have a stronger sense of community values and thus a lower tolerance for government dysfunction.

There is one other important factor that hobbles such rural "progressive-ness". Most rural areas lack a local dominant daily cheerleader for unlimited, undisciplined dysfunctional government such Portland's "The Oregonian". Disclaimer: The O is actually owned and operated by an East Cost style & glitz publishing empire that is, naturally, mostly concerned with creating a "Potemkin Village" image of progress.

Now,now Ramon - This is a happy place. We are celebrating rural inclusion. There was no "boondoggle" in the Oregon Democratic Platform, and I'm sure that there is no class at any school of government entitled, "How to do government by boondoggle".

As for lacking "cheerleaders", I guess you missed that the Rural Organizing Project (Oregon's home grown national model) has been around for 15 years or so, and that the Democratic Party now has a rural caucus.

Please be unpleasant elsewhere.

(Unpleasant defined - obnoxious talk unsupported by anything remotely like a fact, or if a "fact" is presented, it isn't really a fact but a combination of opinion and fact in a comtaminated form. e.g. opinion taken to the level of meanness.)

Ramon: Disclaimer: The O is actually owned and operated by an East Cost style & glitz publishing empire that is, naturally, mostly concerned with creating a "Potemkin Village" image of progress.

Does that include micromanagement of high density; light rail over more buses and bus routes; tram projects for a very few; convention center as "local economy booster" etc, all things that can make Portland look good from 10,000 feet? Why is the Big Zero any different from people like Sten and Serena Walsh, I mean Cruz-Walsh?

Are some people catching on?

Bob Tiernan

A question for Bob: Why are you talking about Portland on a rural topic?

Monumental waste of public funds is a natural result of a culture of politics-worship underpinned by an electoral system that deliberately hobbles anyone who dares challenge an incumbent. The "Progressive Era of Big Gov't" agenda here is long-fulfilled. No college course is actually necessary to create Boondoggleville, although instruction is widely available.

There are other well-organized cheerleaders for dysfunctional government besides The O but none that buys ink in such bulk. However, the whole exercise still amounts putting lipstick on a pig and that story is, to mix metaphors, rotting on the vine.

The key to ending dysfunctional government lies in limiting its power to act recklessly. This requires restoring the balance of power away from politicians and toward the electorate. The power-elite may not trust the voters (except to reelect incumbents), but voters trust politicians even less.

To Progressives, is there is any acceptable limitation on gov't power that goes beyond simple punishment for those with whom Progs disagree? Our gov't was founded on the concept that the People delegate carefully specified government authority through a document called a "Constitution"; thus government's legal power to act is limited by the terms of the "contract". This system was meant to promote a free society by insuring maximal liberty. Though imperfect and subject to forces of deterioration, it has worked pretty well.

Many folks at the time, both rural and urban, opposed this radical notion. These "Monocrats" were the intellectual ancestors of today's Progressives.

Torridjoe writes, "how will rural Democrats, many of whom live in the 2nd district, be working to support Carol Voisin this fall?"

We have an aggressive campaign going into action with lots of grassroots activity. - We have a district where the Democratic candidate has won only about 30% for several cycles. We are going to come very close to 50%. Don't know if we can help Carol Voison win, but we will be close.

How - well, why should I tell Greg Walden? All Second CD Democrats, it's a good time to find your local (and active!) County Democratic Party. We are about to define how grassroots is done.

The key to ending dysfunctional government lies in limiting its power to act recklessly.

One of the more fiscally responsible veteran legislators complained during the multiple special sessions that "all the pennies have been taken out of the piggy bank" because the legislative majority took money out of special funds rather than having to confront paying for government spending by raising taxes. If they really believed in a "cut it all" philosophy, why couldn't they muster the votes to cut spending drastically rather than gimmicks? (Yes, I thought Measure 28 was a gimmick--they should have balanced the budget while in the building for the 5th special session.)

I happen to think that private budget hearings (rather than public Joint Ways and Means hearings), borrowing and giving tax breaks to all sorts of people/groups without discussion of how those tax breaks are paid for is "reckless".

And I think rural voters should have the right to decide whether specific legislative actions are what they want without being told by outsiders what they are supposed to want.

But then, I don't consider myself a member of a group and answerable to whatever that group says. I vote as an individual for individual candidates. I don't see how labels solve problems.

LT: Why are you talking about Portland on a rural topic?

I wanted to know what someone else meant by a "Potemkin Village immage of progress" as seen by the Oregonian (and why that might be different from that subsidized and micromanaged by people like Sten and Cruz et al.)

Bob Tiernan

"...The key to ending dysfunctional government lies in limiting its power to act recklessly..."

One could easily apply that ideal to the individual. And I'm not sure I trust anyone who wants to control me.

We all need a gov't that provides for the general welfare. This welfare might be considered a 'right of citizenship'. An advanced society will insist on a level of scrutiny that responsibly answers, "How and why are the $ are spent?". We being part of this gov't as voters or simply someone who has a right of free speech also has a responsibility to lay out our argument in terms that we all can understand. We want to focus on what is right rather than who is right. Respect is required by all parties towards each other.

<h2>An equally appropriate concern is that we want to address the reasons for dysfunctionality because limited resources should motivate our elected leaders to win points by being efficient.</h2>