Great pep talk. But what we need most is comments like what Ted said today in the Oregonian about ballot measures. What decides the minds of ordinary voters is more specifics, how politics relates to the daily lives of voters, support for electing a Dem. legislature, etc.

And many of those legislative battles are happening outside the Portland area. As I recall, Marion County is on Tim Hibbitt's list of counties that decide statewide elections, along with Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties.

I dunno whether Kari or LT is right, but I like how Aaron Sorkin put it:

"People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

I think what he's saying is... when both major candidates offer up sand, people are going to drink sand... but it doesn't mean that they weren't thirsty.

Paulie, the guy in the beard is Rep. Mitch Greenlick, who was one of the sponsors of the Hope Initiative this year.

A Jewish compatriot went to this event to protest the Democrat's support of Israel's occupation of Palestine and Israel's attack on Lebanon. Here is what happened to him. You won't find this in their pretty pictures . . .

"I went down to the demonstration, to get my fair share of abuse."

It was round one of the Shame Campaign at 12:30 PM of 8/16/06 on 9th Avenue in Portland. Right in front of the Democrat Party of Oregon Headquarters. It was a self-proclaimed "Democratic Unity Event", and the Democrats were united, all right...against anyone who dares to question their immoral foreign policy decisions regarding Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Israel.

I am a 60-year-old 5-ft-4-inch man with a voice. Apparently this is enough to get you assaulted by Democrat goons.

While Earl Blumenauer was speechifying about how wonderful the Democrat Party is and how different they are from Republicans, I began to shout: "Shame on you for Lebanon. Shame on you for Gaza. You're complicit in war crimes." At About this moment, several thugs grabbed me by my arms and demanded that I leave. When I refused to leave, a no-neck skinhead wearing a union shirt threw me to the ground.

I called for police and no one responded. There were dozens of witnesses, all apparently Democrat regulars with shirts proclaiming their dedication to the party. None came to my aid.

I called to the assembled group, which was dutifully standing at attention, apparently waiting for more pap. I yelled that I had been assaulted and that this violence is what Democrats stand for. I refused to leave in spite of repeated demands that I leave by a now much larger group of goons. I asserted my privilege as an American citizen to stand in a street and talk.

I must admit that, while I was putting up a brave front, I was shaking in my boots. In the light of the failure of anyone at the event to object to the assault, I was anticipating further assault. This is the land of free speech that we want to bring to the rest of the world.

I believe that, because I was apparently the only dissident at the event, I was treated the way victims of American policy are always treated: if you don't follow orders, and if you are alone and defenseless, you will be attacked.

Next time, it could be you.

"Singing, 'We're gonna vent our frustration. If we don't we're gonna blow a 50-amp fuse.'"

This sounds like some Rethug troll trying to plant the idea that Democrats are authoritarian and fascistic, when just the opposite is true. If he hadn't been yelling like a lunatic about Shame on this and Shame on that, and I doubt he was even a scheduled speaker, of course he should be asked to quiet down. I don't believe for a minute this drivel about being assaulted by goons...get off it dude...that is today's GOP!!

Also you showed your colors there, kid, because only GOP twerps call it the "Democrat" Party.

The writing is very caricaturesque...no-neck skinheads and shirts declaring allegiance to the party...are you high!?!?!

Give it a rest, and don't quit your day-job!

Truth hurts, don't it. After seeing behavior of Demos towards Nader's attempt to get on the ballot, this shouldn't surprise anyone. They cannot stand dissent.

Peter-

Why don't you go start "Green Oregon"....and remember there was almost as many Republicans who signed the Nader petition as "Greens". Same with the two conventions you planned in Oregon (which you couldn’t even get 1000 people to attend)

You and all you "goons" (is that the word you use) at Portland Indy Media (where you saw this post)like to blame Democrats for everything. Well I blame you and all the Nader-ites and Green party people for every death in Iraq and every death that happened while Bush has been President. Shame on you..... Shame on all of you! Your irresponsible behavior caused thousand to die. Start pointing your righteous indignation at yourselves. And just because you hate yourself, don’t blame the Democrats.

Peter, shouting never accomplishes anything.

And I don't know what state politicians have to do with policy in Lebanon or elsewhere in the Middle East.

However, there does need to be room for dissent and geographic diversity in Democratic politics(even the 2 state reps. in the picture at the top of this post come from districts that include Portland).

Today I got an email from someone who is an active Democrat but hasn't been involved in politics very long.

It included this "You seem to me the kind of person who is willing to ask tough questions and so what if some people give you flak for it. Others will be glad you asked because they didn't have the nerve! "

To continue in the Aaron Sorkin vein, there is a great quote from an episode which might have been titled "Let Bartlett be Bartlett" (at least Leo writes that on a pad and shows it to Pres. Bartlett in one scene). That was after he made a strong remark about the staff who "showed up to fight, showed up to lead" but were getting upset and burned out because they hadn't been getting much support from the President. And when Bartlett said he had tried to get a message out, Leo said he hadn't tried hard enough and "I don't see a shortage of cameras and microphones in this building!". I have used that line on legislators who weren't speaking out on issues they claimed they cared about.

Leo in the scene after that scene is talking to the top staff (CJ, Josh, Toby, Sam) and says "I don't want you walking into walls, I want you running into them. We may lose some battles, we may even lose the White House. But we are going to raise the level of debate in this country, and let THAT be our legacy".

Call me a radical, but I'd vote for any candidate who was working on raising the level of debate in this country. Some may not think Westlund is a "progressive" (whatever that means) but he sure has raised the level of issue debate in this state.

One reason I suspect West Wing was so popular is that people who watched it wished there were more outspoken politicians (and staff like Leo and Josh and the others behind the politicians) like what they saw on West Wing. I worry that West Wing was one example of a standard of quality in politicians, and too many of today's politicians don't want to be measured by any standard--"better than the opposition" is supposed to be all we should ask for.

Is politics about what is best for "we the people" or is it really just about Team D defeating Team R?

Or is that too thought provoking for this blog?

Which reminds me of a John Lennon line "you may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one".

Thank God that Aaron Sorkin and a TV show is as close as you are going to get to the real West Wing.

I can always tell a democrat because "West Wing" is the shining city on the hill, and the Daily Show is their primary news source.

How does that sand taste?

Kari, and others, nothing will defend what happened to Peter. You are wrong to even try. What you did was called "rationalization and justification". In social work, we call that "CRIMINAL THINKING". Carrie Moshowitz

not Peter.. the gentleman at the rally. -CM

I'll say this: If you honestly believe that Governor Kulongoski is short on specifics, you haven't been paying attention.

OK, Kari, maybe I haven't been devoting as much of my spare time to following alll the details of the Gov. campaign as you and others who make a living working in politics.

But tell me this. What I heard on the news was that Ben Westlund had a specific plan involving DMV fees to fund the State Police, and Ted only said "I will put a plan in front of the legislature next session". I mentioned this to a friend who works for Ted and he said "You're right, Ben had a more specific plan than Ted".

Maybe you know more than I know--exactly what plan will Ted put before the legislature--something involving DMV fees, or does he have a different plan? And where/when did Ted define that plan he intends to put before the legislature to fund the State Police?

Kari is completely correct about this political truth:

For most voters, they want to know that the politician is on their side, shares their values, and is fighting for their interests.

People vote from the gut for the guy they feel best represents them. And that's not a good or bad thing, it's the reality of politics in a representative democracy.

That said,

Kari also has posted what is possibly the most obnoxious comment of this thread. A comment that is all too representative of what one hears and reads 'round these parts, and amongst the kind of self-centered folks who have come dominate our party: But walking into someone else's house and pissing all over the carpet isn't going to make you very many friends.

Let's get one thing straight. This was not someone's house or even close to it. This was a public political event by my party, the party that has been my home all my life because we claim to defend human rights, social justice, and equal opportunity. How many times in the last 6 years have we vehemently criticized the other party, the party of the neo-fascist war-criminal-in-chief for gutting our democracy by staging political events, in part paid for by public funds, from which all honorable opposition has been forcefully silenced or excluded?

We have become a party of frauds. We have become a party whose leaders, except for a few notable and honorable exceptions like Jimmy Carter in recent days, have been nothing but cowards, almost totally mute about the utter evilness of the multi-front war in the Middle East being fomented by the humanity-hating right-wing here and abroad. We have become a party whose leaders and too many of our fellow party members have become eager to betray our fundamental party values for their own self-serving reasons.

If little K, Blumaneur and all the rest were true Democratic leaders and people of integrity, they would publicly apologize to that guy for how some in our party behaved wrongly. But as it appears no such apology is forthcoming, we can only conclude they are neither. Nor are the folks who would defend what happened to him.

So far in this election season the Oregon Democratic party --- my party --- and our national party have shown we have very long way to go before we will be an example of anything that re-attracts large numbers of voters looking for an honorable and hopeful political home. What a truly disgusting shame that is given the horrifying drift towards facism of our country under the corrupt leadership of the psychotic right-wing.

Blah, blah, blah, Democrat Party, blah, blah, Democrat goons, blah, blah, Democrat Party, blah, blah, "Shame on you for Lebanon. Shame on you for Gaza. You're complicit in war crimes." blah, blah, thugs, blah, blah, no-neck skinhead wearing a union shirt, blah, blah, blah, goons, blah, blah, blah.

Looks just like a Republican troll who has been living under a rock for the last five years and does not know who is in change of our disastrous foreign policy.

Joe Rowe -

The fact is, we are in Iraq because our party failed to communicate a message in 2000 that resonated the majority of the American people who actually agreed with us, and who would have rendered the votes of the sincere and malevolent Naderite fringe irrelevant, because too many of our parties representatives in the House and Senate cowardly refused to stand up to this neo-fascist war-criminal-in-chief when it came time to be counted. And standing up to the right-wing means getting out there and waging the PR war before the vote that requires folks stand on Democratic Party principles, rather than worrying almost exclusively about their own political fortunes.

Rethug Troll: that's hilarious. Thanks for that. I'll use it often to describe myself.

[off-topic comment deleted. -editor.]

As for other comments:(1) I was not "walking into someone else's house and pissing all over the carpet". I was assaulted in the middle of a public street. (2)My guess is that shouting does sometimes accomplish something, especially when discussion of what's being shouted is marginalized and censored. (3) Nader did not cost you Democrats any election; you must be the last person to hear the news: Gore and Kerry both won, and neither had the balls to do something about it.

The comment by anonymous is a lie. I was grabbed after shouting the exact words reported above. Then I was physically moved; people held me while I shouted that they had no right to put their hands on me. When I offered resistance to being moved, I was lifted off my feet and thrown onto the ground. There are witnesses who agreed to testify for me should I decide to take legal action. Up until now I thought that I would not do that, but this lying needs to be answered. Clearly anonymous has some reason for lying. I hope there are videos or photos of the incident, because they will corroborate my story. Please: anyone who has video or other evidence contact me at [email protected]

Interesting debate. Anyone who believes shouting accomplishes any goal should recall what happened when Ron Wyden shared a stage with Al Gore in Jan. 1996. Someone tried to create a scene, and Ron's supporters around that person moved to shout that person down, turned their backs on the shouter, put up signs or whatever to keep the person from being seen (don't recall all the details 10 years later) and Ron had a great response from the stage: Oregonians have turned their backs on negative campaigning. TV cameras caught it all.

Shouting never wins over anyone--the LET RALPH DEBATE Nadershouters trying to drown out Tipper Gore at the state capitol only hurt Ralph's reputation to the point of some people teasing their friends "how can you support Nader?--you are a person of good manners".

I appreciate what Ask Q. 1st has said and have told a couple of friends to check out this interesting debate on the value of dissent. But dissent must be civil--shouting seldom wins friends and influences people. That lesson is as old as the Aesop's fable of the wind and the sun and how persuasion is better than coercion.

On Iraq-

Every Democrat from Oregon voteed against the war! But do you hear that from these Rethug Trolls.."No!"

Every Democrat from Oregon still speaks out against the war (but for our troops!). Do you hear that from Rethug Tolls..."No!"

These are self-absorbed people who don't even go after the people causing the problem. Have they ever protested Sen. Smith and Rep. Walden who actually voted for the war and continue to do so..."No!"

Are they showing up at Saxton events to see whether he has "blood on his hands"...."No!"

Good on the Wyden, DeFazio, Blumenauer, Wu ,and Hooley. And good on Gov. Ted for opposing the war.

And shame on Rethug Troll and his allies for once again getting it wrong and blaming the wrong people.

[off-topic comment deleted. -editor.]

This is why some of us are so mad.

Funny how some try to "destroy" potential allies such as us lefties so that they can be "right" (in more ways than one!)

Here are some of the things that make us so mad at Democrats:

[off-topic comment deleted. -editor.]

[off-topic comment deleted. -editor.]

[off-topic comment, plus copyrighted material, deleted. -editor.]

This is just ridiculous, that some delusional slanderous troll can totally hijack a thread here with this off-topic bilge! Anyone remember the MultCo Coordinated Campaign kick-off?

Rethug Troll, I am shocked that you 1)think you technique could be at all successful, and 2)that you think protesting those who are most sympathetic to your global causes is a good idea. Do you think Ron Saxton is going to save Lebanon? That's who you are helping here.

Of course, Joe Rowe may be on to something speculating that you are a GOP operative trying to snag the camera at a Democratic party unity event. I guess it isnt ironic that the two greatest criticisms of this event on this page have come from a screamer and a green party operative.

Kari -

We have to be fair about what Kulongoski has actually done: He has primarily spoken out in that triangulating way against how the war has been poorly planned and executed, and not against the war itself. Sadly, there is an enormous difference between those two positions.

Just as sadly, on the whole I really don't see that NW Democratic elected officials starting with Kulongoski and Gregoire have been any more principled than the D.C. based leadership. That is particularly distressing because in many ways the constituency here is more progressive than the center of gravity of the national party.

All -

I also think it is important at this point to make a distinction between support for the sovereign rights of the people of any national entity, and support for malignantly nationalistic, aggressively militaristic, anti-egalitarian elements in any national entity. I want to distinguish my argument from certain others offered here that appear to not make that distinction. I would further argue that the true failure of our Democratic leadership lies in not making precisely that principled distinction and in not standing up against those anti-egalitarian forces here and abroad.

Peter and I were engaged in making an argument for why Democrats need to change their ways on Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine and the general hegemony of the party foreign policy line over its recent history. That you have chosen to delete the bulk of our comments amounts to censorship at best, and to the concealment of criminality at worst. Your assault on me at your event has now been outdone by your attacks on my credibility. I came here to engage you in a serious discussion of serious issues, but I see now that, like Bush, you are interested only in achieving your share of power in the US duopoly.

1. If we want serious debate on issues, please schedule a syposium or event at the Portland Public Library. Odds are against any serious debate happening in the comment section of a blog. a blog seems to be a quick way to get information out, and another type of media for our consumption.

2. I hate it when folks try to take over an event like that. I also hate it when that person is treated roughly. Basically both sides are contributing to the problem with a healthy political dialogue. a) the person who shows up and yells is acting like an asshole, b) the person who shoves them is acting like an asshole. (final note, I don't know how you change foreign policy by attacking the minority party. Especially the elements of the minority party who are nowhere near the committees that formulate it).

3. If Dan E. (Dan Estes Bush's campaign manager in the 2000 election?) thinks that we are sad for holding up the West Wing and Daily Show are examples of us being a sorry lot, he is way off. Perhaps the saddest part of this is that we have to turn to faux-news and fictional white houses because our country is so far off on the wrong direction that we can't take it any more.

Something seems to be missing from this photograph, chosen to illustrate "Democratic Unity".

Are all the people of color, and the rest of the women, on the other side of the stage?

I called myself "Rethug Troll" because that's what I was called, not because I'm a coward, although, I must admit, I was very frightened at your "unity" event. I'm not a Green or a Republican. I believe that I'm the one who's been slandered, and, because of the hostility shown to dissent here, I intend to prove it.

I may be a nutcase, but I am not a liar. I'll see you in court.

Harry- (Troll)

Who are you going to sue?

Are you suing bloggers? I'm confused.

What were you doing at a Democratic Unity event when you are not a Democrat? (And while you are not a Green Party member another perosn in your household is.)

You said you might be a nutcase.....good choice of words.

If the Democratic Party is the party of unity, TJ, it needs to return to inclusiveness. And that means making sure everyone feels welcome and has a seat at the table... and a place on the stage, in the photograph. If we value unity, we need to show it, every time. And while it may hurt to call it out when we don't, if nobody does we will continue to lose those who feel excluded. Far from "unproductive" - I think being the party of choice for women and minorities is part of the core value the Democratic Party needs to aim for.

Far from "unproductive" - I think being the party of choice for women and minorities is part of the core value the Democratic Party needs to aim for.

And that includes not only people in pictures, it includes listening to all points of view. It means supporting candidates who may not have the money and connections to launch a "professional" campaign with a full time campaign manager but are well known in the community. It means listening to that politician who doesn't go along with the group (on issues, on the topic of open caucuses or that there were too many closed door meetings last session, on whether a statewide campaign is reaching out to the counties or just telling counties in the rest of the state the Portland point of view) and it means looking at those districts where the number of voters registered outside a major party is larger than the victory margin of the incumbent last session.

How many people who comment here have a social circle that is only activist Democrats? How many have friends of not only a different skin color but maybe of a different political persuasion?

20 years ago, Jim Hill was elected to the Oregon Senate and Rocky Barilla to the Oregon House in the seat vacated by Hill. Those districts were Democratic districts then but have been since occupied by Republicans with business/ community connections. Jim and Rocky did not win those districts by making a calculation of the R to D ratio, they did it by old fashioned grass roots campaigning. And whatever you may think you know about "what voters want", it is time to listen to actual voters in the actual districts instead of deciding in Portland what goes on in the rest of the state.

This is not a new topic ( I seem to recall Steve Bucknum and others discussing it here earlier)--rural voters don't think like Portlanders, people on the coast or in the Willamette Valley or in Southern Oregon or Central Oregon or E. Oregon don't all think alike. And there is no such thing as "the women's vote", as anyone would know if they'd ever witnessed a debate among women politicians and women voters.

I am actively supporting Paul Evans for State Senate and Connie Garcia for State Rep. That to me is higher priority than any statewide race--time for this area to have legislators who actually represent voters here and not just their caucus.

Joe wrote to Mr. Troll "What were you doing at a Democratic Unity event when you are not a Democrat? (And while you are not a Green Party member another perosn in your household is.)"

Does this mean you looked up his address and personal information? Isn't that kind of creepy? Especially given the invictive hurled at both of us by many on this list.

Is this conversation a waste of everyone's time? Yup. ~ Kari

I don't see how that could be, since nobody is forced to read it.

TJ, I appreciate your ongoing thoughts and agree that honest discussion between mutually respectful people is good. There's not much point to this site if everybody reading it agrees with everyone else all the time. My comment wasn't a hair-trigger response, though. I saw the photo when the article was first posted, and waited 24 hours before deciding it was my responsibility to comment. If it had been on any other blog, I probably would have let it go. But this is Blue Oregon, a place for progressives. The article was posted by Kari, who is a website PR professional - if he isn't thinking about what message an image projects, he should be. Show me, don't tell me - the title says "Democratic Unity", the photo didn't say that to me. If you disagree or think it's unimportant, that's your choice.

My point is, if we want the Democratic Party to be the party of unity, bringing all kinds of folks together, we should be working towards that goal in small ways as well as in the big picture. LT apparently understood; if others do too, good.

Peter wrote: "Does this mean you looked up his address and personal information? Isn't that kind of creepy? Especially given the invictive hurled at both of us by many on this list."

TorridJoe would not do such a thing, especially after he was so badly burned by Bojack (being exposed by name as IT worker in the Fire Dept, massively posting online during working hours).

Joe, say it ain't so? Joe?

Harry (but not Kershner.)

This was many comments ago, but I'd like to briefly respond to LT's comment on Ted's alleged lack of specifics for 24/7 trooper coverage.

Since the Governor took office, he has proposed specific funding packages each session to the Legislature for trooper coverage -- which have been killed in the Republican controlled House. From the Oregonian article on Westlund's plan: Kulongoski tried to raise the gas tax to help the state police in 2003, but the proposal was rejected by the Legislature. In 2005, lawmakers rebuffed his plan to dedicate a share of lottery money to the agency. The governor said earlier this week that he'd bring a plan to the 2007 Legislature to guarantee 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week patrols on highways as well as more money for criminal investigations and the state crime lab.

Given that he's made good on his promise to seek stable funding for troopers every session -- only to be rebuffed in the House -- it makes more sense for Ted to work with leaders of both parties to craft language and a funding package that realistically has a chance of passing. It would have been pretty easy for Ted to take one of many funding proposals off the shelf, and send it out before press time, but by thoughtfully spending time listening to other Legislators, he opened himself up to attack.

Senator Westlund's plan -- while I may agree with its purpose and goal -- would have required a Constitutional Amendment for passage. In my view, that's not likely to be viable, but I do hope they can work together on one that is.

JBE, that sounds very intelligent: it makes more sense for Ted to work with leaders of both parties to craft language and a funding package that realistically has a chance of passing.

I'd feel better about it if it were Ted saying "I will work with leaders of both parties in the next session, whoever they may be".

Election results are not a foregone conclusion. Given the 7 House races decided by 3 digit margins last time (825, 703, 414, etc.) it is not a foregone conclusion that the next legislative session will be controlled by the people or same party majorities as last time--the Senate is more likely to remain in Dem. hands than the House to remain in GOP hands.

Not only that, but the 2005 session was more secretive than any in recent memory and there might be some people who question whether this means open public hearings or the sort of closed door budget meetings we saw last year: "work with leaders of both parties to craft language and a funding package that realistically has a chance of passing".

If you think Ted was wonderful last year, by all means spend all your time campaigning for him.

But in a democracy, citizens have the right to debate issues and question both incumbents and challengers. And it was a friend of mine who works for Ted who agreed with me that Ted should have been more specific.

There may have been lots of holes in Westlund's plan. It may have been unworkable. But it was a stated alternative openly discussed with the public. Have you got a problem with that?

Maybe Democrats joined Republicans in deciding that the public doesn't need to know what goes on in budget negotiations because getting an agreement "that will pass" is always more important than open public debate? Did every 2005 closed door agreement slide through both chambers like a hot knife through butter, or did some members question the wisdom of some of the items decided?

What if there are legislators next year who raise a stink about being excluded from budget negotiations if next year is like last year? Or leadership in one or both chambers who refuse to do business secretly?

The Oregon Caucus will be 2 very experienced members next session: Sens. Gordly and Westlund. They will have open caucus meetings. And as Sen. Westlund said on KPOJ this morning, it was his experience that even in a Senate with a majority and minority party, that 16th vote was sometimes hard to get.

"Work with leaders of both parties to craft language and a funding package " might run afoul of open meeting laws, not to mention Article IV of the Oregon Constitution if that language and funding package are not openly discussed in public with changes allowed in committee: Section 14. Deliberations to be open; rules to implement requirement. The deliberations of each house, of committees of each house or joint committees and of committees of the whole, shall be open.

If someone was not troubled by all the closed door decisions made in the 2005 session, that's fine. But any citizen has the right to say too much was done privately, and to communicate that when discussing any candidate, incl. legislative candidates and the governor.

Late comer to this - (I work during the week)

An observation - The unity event was great. Wish it had happened someplace other than Portland, like Pendleton or Medford. I don't care who got cropped out of the picture - I'm glad to see Democrats standing up and speaking out - anywhere anytime.

Another observation - this thread was hijacked by someone interested in the conflict in Israel / Lebanon. There are only 5 Democrats from Oregon that even remotely have any say about that conflict - our elected members of Congress/Senate. I mean remotely, because they are not asked for consent or consultation, and rarely get to do or say anything about our policies about such areas of the world. The Federal Administration, ruled with an iron hand by Republicans, has set the policy / non-policy for our response / participation in that conflict. In short, Oregon Democrats haven't had a voice regarding anything connected to that area of conflict for a long time. If you have an issue with our Federal policies, go to the Republican rallies.

And frankly, this is why we should focus more energy on the campaign of Carol Voisin for Congress in the Second Congressional District. The Second CD is Oregon's only district with a Republican, and Greg Walden has not done Oregon or his district any favors with his voting record. Carol Voisin is an ethical alternative to the deceptive Republican rubber stamp that sums up Greg Walden.

So, Harry - please find a Walden event (if you can, I think he's hiding) to scream at. At least you'd be screaming at the right people.

There may be other such events planned in other parts of the state, I don't know

Jenni, it was fine to hold the Mult. Co. event in Mult. Co., but as you will notice it didn't say Mult. Co. opening in the post--one had to go to Ted for Gov. or read Kari's comment for that.

I hope you realize that those of us who don't live in Mult. Co. would like to see more campaigning outside Mult. Co.

And Steve is right about Carol Voisin. The only way to change Congress is to change who is in the majority. Yelling at Oregon Democrats because of something they can't control (Bush foreign policy) would be like someone yelling at Ted Ferrioli (Sen. Minority Leader) or Jeff Merkley (House Minority Leader). The majority party is responsible for the actions of the majority party and the minority party doesn't have a say about what the majority party does.

I don't understand the logic of LT's seeming assertion that the Gov. was somehow responsible for the refusal to openly debate in the Legislature. That doesn't sound very intelligent.

Whether one thinks that Ted was wonderful last year or not, I wouldn't prejudge what he and a Dem-majority Legislature could accomplish next year. Are you willing to sabotage that possibility for what could not happen for your favorite?

are not asked for consent or consultation, and rarely get to do or say anything about our policies about such areas of the world. The Federal Administration, ruled with an iron hand by Republicans, has set the policy / non-policy for our response / participation in that conflict. Oregon Democrats haven't had a voice regarding anything connected to that area of conflict for a long time.

If Democrats are so powerless then why did Earl Blumenauer introduce a bill calling for troop withdrawl from Iraq? Why did Ron Wyden give a floor speech asking for a vote on the president's stated plan to remain in Iraq through 2009? Vanity? I would hope they did these things to try to take a stand but the "we're not in power, leave us alone" refrain is too common to be confident in that analysis.

I know a lot of disaffected Democrats (or at least folks who tend to vote Democrat). What they are looking for is leadership in the face of the storm, a clear and strong moral voice. Strategizing and calculating are not enough, we need courage too.

truffula claims some of his best friends are disaffected D's! How magnanimous... not so his regurgitation of the R's talking points on 'leadership'. Spare us the no-brainer cowboy leadership through the tempest of their own manufacture! That courage leads away from the real quality of life issues to phony moralizing non-issues.

I don't understand the logic of LT's seeming assertion that the Gov. was somehow responsible for the refusal to openly debate in the Legislature. That doesn't sound very intelligent.

Ed, I think you miss my point. Yes, I expected Ted to talk with the public more in 2005, but my real question was this: Ben Westlund proposed a specific plan (having to do with DMV fees) for funding the state police. Ted said "I will put a plan in front of the legislature".

What is wrong with Ted as a candidate saying "my plan for state police funding is..."?

Or are we just supposed to take it on faith that he will do the right thing because he is not Saxton?

Back when John Kitzhaber and Barbara Roberts ran for Governor, they could discuss such specific issues. Why doesn't Ted? Or is it heresy even to ask?

And Jenni, "put together an event"? Actually, we have several in the area (including the one with Chuck Lee paying tribute to his old friend Vic Backlund who was defeated by the Republican we hope Lee defeats in November). But they are more humble events usually than a stage with a current governor, a former governor, and several other elected officials. The rest of the state is not like Mult. Co. We don't have lots of Dem. elected officials locally--we have lots of Republicans and NAV living here. And I haven't seen many visits by famous politicians.

And with regard to this: Their staff is so busy that they don't have the time to put together an event like this. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't show up if they were invited, do you think all candidates in other counties have full time staffs? Do you know how many people working on campaigns have the time/ connections/ expertise to put on an event with the "star power" in the picture? Have you actually looked at the schedule of the Gov. (or other major candidate) and KNOW there is room in there for local events in areas where there isn't as much in the way of population or of registered Democrats? Just what is your experience with campaigns outside the Portland area?

There is more to Oregon than Multnomah County, but it is an easy place to campaign because of all the population and activist Democrats. But to win statewide, one must campaign in counties with a lower number of Democrats.

[off-topic comments on the politics of the Middle East deleted. -editor.]

I second paulie's comments about Jenni -- and everyone who's working hard to elect progressives around the state.

Briefly, LT, in my comments on Aug 18, 2006 8:31:30 PM, 1) I didn't assume that the Rs would still control the House -- I hope they don't. But even with Merkley as Speaker, Ted's still going to work with Rs when it's in the best interest of the state 2) I understand you have strong feelings about open caucuses, but you need to understand that as Governor, Ted doesn't have a caucus. 3) Not only were my comments not about caucuses, I don't know why you feel the need to frame your arguments as "I have the right to say ....." Of course you have the right. But as usual, it's something of a red herring here. 4) You wrote about Westlund's plan "Do you have a problem with that?".... again, I clearly stated that I agreed with his goal, but had doubts about how he gets there (Constitutional Amendment). Just my opinion. The bigger picture here, of course, is that Westlund -- who I agree with something like 80% of the time -- is out of the race so I don't know how valuable the comparison is anyway.

Ok, I guess that wasn't so brief. But it was less than 500 words, which is a good goal no matter what you're talking about or what position you take.

To get away from the Israel/Lebanon conflict, open caucuses, and the gender diversity from the picture posted for a moment, has anyone checked out the video? Having a steady stream of video clip is a pretty good development for Ted's site, IMO, and props to the folks putting these together.

To the poor guy who claims he got the shit kicked out of him:

Here's the deal, if you want to go through the effort of putting together an event with 100 people and media and such, you get to say anything you want. You lazy talktivists who do nothing but show up to others events, destroying their hard work makes your message meaningless to us. If we wanted to hear you, we'd come to your event and put you on the stage. What you are doing is trying to shoplift the crowd and media that someone else worked so hard to build. And I think you lie.

Amanda Fritz:

You know, I am getting really tired of hearing comments like yours. Should I just stay at home and not fight the fight because I am a white guy? Would you rather us fill the stage and audience with paid women and persons of color (like the R's do) instead of having it full of people that are going to work their asses off to make a difference in the lives of all, not just white men?

Peter:

Voter registration data is PUBLIC RECORD.

Jenni & LT:

For goodness' sake, you both could have completed a short book with the total number of words on this post, simmer down!

All:

You f'ing people! Stop talking; start doing.

Smalls, out

[off-topic comments on the politics of the Middle East deleted. -editor.]

I been a lurker on this site thru the whole disgusting rethug troll/Peter shit. I agree with J.Smalls - "To the poor guy who claims he got the shit kicked out of him:Here's the deal, if you want to go through the effort of putting together an event with 100 people and media and such, you get to say anything you want."

Otherwise, these trolls and santemanius cowrds should expect to get the shit kicked out of them. Why should Democrats care any less about security than Republicans? And I also congrtulate Joe Rowe for tracking down that troll's address. I think we should go over there and yell at him and his Green household that cost us the last two elections. When our Democrats support Israel, they support freedom, democracy and the American way, and anyone who disagrees should go live in Lebanon. love it or leave it, that's what I say. I agree with Kari that this guy pissed all over our carpet, and now we should piss on his. I also wonder about this askquestions1st person. Haven't we asked enough questions? Let's find out where askquestions1st and Peter live and post a warning to them, too.

notchomsky:

Thanks for getting my back, let me partially get yours: I'll say let's go over to his house and yell at him from the sidewalk where we can legally be (Kari, you in?). Pissing on his carpet, however, will have to wait until late at night when we are drunk and less worried about the fact that will very likely end us up in jail. Oh wait, don't care enough about this guy to bother (I do care however, because we're all good people except when we lie like I beleive he did).

If I am posting this, how can I be out helping someone win today?

Cheerio,

I hope 'notchomsky' recognized his own sarcasm in indicting those making the classical mistake of getting into a pissing contest with critics. I'm not immune, but I try to maintain civil discourse. Still, having a public meeting obligates us to maintain order; no one wants to attend a riot! It didn't sound to me as if the response to the heckler at the Kick-off got out of hand.

It wasn't funny threatening posters, even those with whom I disagee, such as askquestions1st (party of frauds, indeed!), who actually bring something to debate.

Let's see if this makes it past the editor:

Come on, folks. It's within the tradition of political protest to disrupt events, whether campaign speeches, government events, city traffic. It's also within this tradition for campaign people to remove the protester from the site. That's the way it works. Sure, the two parties will be pissed at each other. That's politics.

truffula claims some of his best friends are disaffected D's! How magnanimous...

Magnanimous? Not really, just true.

not so his regurgitation of the R's talking points on 'leadership'

Huh? The R's lead the way in lack of leadership and in corruption. I'm as partisan a voter as they come and believe it or not, spent some volunteer time doing gotv for Kerry in 2004 and "media watching." He was not my choice in the primary but I sure wanted him to win. I'm not a party activist but I am an issue activist. I donate to campaigns when I can. I'm a union member and a member of the religious left. Whether you like it or not, I am part of the Democratic Party's base and I find it very frustrating when the party to which I've been loyal all of my life pretty much takes a pass on what I see as one of the leading moral and national security issues of the time.

Democratic Party candidates will nearly always get my vote because we do have more values and priorities in common than not. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to hope for more, though judging by some of the comments in this thread, others think differently.

I read this post and started into the thread because I actually cared to know what was said at the unity event. I've been talking with friends about Kulongoski and why he should be reelected and am thus interested in such events. I wasn't really prepared for what I found (but do think that Tom Civiletti summed it up pretty well).

The search for "leadership in the face of the storm, a clear and strong moral voice" is what led the Republican Party down the path to corruption and the concept of the unitary presidency. It would not take the Justice League riding into town to institute government which was strong and moral enough to put the moralizing goons in the 'R' column to shame. It is not advisable to try to outdo them at their own game, nor is it morally justifiable.

Hey you guys are doing a good job threatening the rethug troll/Kershner, who had the nerve to interrupt an important speech with that "shame on you for Lebanon" crap. You've threatened him about knowing his address; about coming to his house; and about drunkenly pissing on his carpet. Well done, and it's in the spirit of our party!

This whole stuff about democracy is too complicated for me, and I'm glad to see you feel the same way about it. I haven't felt this much in common with a group since my days in Mississippi.

That guy Ed Bickford is losing me with that stuff about "morally justifiable", though. Hell, to me you look at it the same way Bush looks at it, but it's Democrats doing it, so it's good. Just like when Clinton killed all those Iraqis with the sanctions. That was good because it was our guy doing it.

I love J Smalls.

And J. Smalls love you too, shy reader!

J Smalls--no one says it better!

notchomsky-I'm about to start calling you "Rethug 2"

Snakes on a Plan y'all!

So Kari, learning why folks like Harry are mad enough to come bother a Democratic event is not worth figuring out and those disaffected greens or whatever the h#ll they are is just not worth your time.

Nor would you be able to figure out how you'll bring them back to the "party" if at all possible.

Nor should you ask yourselves, why does Kulongoski think supporting a foreign lobby group an "article of faith?" Especially if it upsets some progressives so much?

Is that the gist?

Anyone who comes to a meeting to scream at the speakers has given up any pretence of engaging in dialog. I don't believe that Oregon Democrats have comported themselves in a way that justifies taking that attitude. It's nothing but an attempt to paint Dems as unwilling to engage in debate, and it's disingenuous.

Yes, we can't engage in debate because they've made an attempt to paint Dems as unwilling to engage in debate.

You can't engage in debate if you have no respect for the process. You disqualify yourself. The Coordinated Campaign Kick-off was, as the title of this post pointed out, a show of Democratic solidarity. I don't think anyone's pique at that qualifies them to disrupt it.

Kari: please explain why comments about Democratic Party policy are off-topic while threatening statements, love letters, and talk about tv shows is on-topic. Furthermore, you say, On-topic: Discussion of the event. Off-topic: Ranting about the Middle East, Ralph Nader, or anything else that has nothing to do with event. 'Nuff said." But I've noticed that you only deleted Peter and Harry's comments, and not the rants about the Middle East & Ralph Nader by those whose position agrees with yours. The hypocrisy is a bit much, and doesn't speak well for us Democrats.

Pardon the presumption, but the editor's job is crowd control, not political correctness monitor. The posts in question (which I saw) degenerated into irrational, long-winded rants about wide-ranging grievances, filled with invective. They did not rise to the level of civil discourse. The editorial staff here keeps a light touch on editorial cutting. Why would you have trouble with that?

So irrational short-winded rants are okay? I'd just like to view the comments for myself so I can judge for myself if they're really irrational or filled with invective. Has anyone saved the comments somewhere? I'm sorry for my ignorance. I don't know how these things work.

The remedy for your frustration is start your own blog, since you so badly want editorial control.

To demionhesse and others who might be interested in what exactly was said by Peter & Harry: I've received a copy of the original comments and am willing to send them to those who want them. It appears to me that "irrational" is a rather harsh way to describe them. Harry's comments are angry and, because of that, they are more difficult to read for me. Peter's are very reasonable and to the point and should be read by Dems who are true progressives.

Demionhesse was correct about others' rants on Nader and the Middle East being left uncensored while Peter's and Harry's comments were deleted:

Aug 17, 2006 4:43:25 PM: Well I blame you and all the Nader-ites and Green party people for every death in Iraq and every death that happened while Bush has been President. Shame on you..... Shame on all of you! Your irresponsible behavior caused thousand to die. Start pointing your righteous indignation at yourselves. And just because you hate yourself, don’t blame the Democrats.

Aug 17, 2006 9:05:05 PM: who would have rendered the votes of the sincere and malevolent Naderite fringe irrelevant

Aug 17, 2006 9:52:21 PM: Shouting never wins over anyone--the LET RALPH DEBATE Nadershouters trying to drown out Tipper Gore at the state capitol only hurt Ralph's reputation to the point of some people teasing their friends "how can you support Nader?--you are a person of good manners".

Aug 17, 2006 9:59:50 PM: On Iraq-

Every Democrat from Oregon voteed against the war! But do you hear that from these Rethug Trolls.."No!"

Every Democrat from Oregon still speaks out against the war (but for our troops!). Do you hear that from Rethug Tolls..."No!"

These are self-absorbed people who don't even go after the people causing the problem.

Aug 18, 2006 11:07:55 AM: Least appealing is your sanctimonious self-righteous attitude, which is, of course, what turns a lot of people off to the Green Party in general and Nader in particular.

Aug 18, 2006 11:05:48 PM: this thread was hijacked by someone interested in the conflict in Israel / Lebanon. There are only 5 Democrats from Oregon that even remotely have any say about that conflict - our elected members of Congress/Senate. I mean remotely, because they are not asked for consent or consultation, and rarely get to do or say anything about our policies about such areas of the world.

Wow I have never seen a post with so many comments on blueoregon, to bad it was so popular becasue of a claim of assualt at a democratic event.

As far as "shouting doesn't work" goes, sometimes voting doesn't work either.

Politics starts as local: state legislatures become members of congress, governors, god help us, become presidents. So when Kulongoski makes such outrageous statements of support for AIPAC, he is leaving the arena of state politics and entering the arena of foreign policy and international law and human rights. Kulongoski has shown his total support for a regime that is quickly becoming Apartheid and he has done so while representing the state of Oregon as our governor.

Those of us who oppose Israel's illegal policies are appalled at the level of U.S. support for those policies at all levels of government by both major political parties. If our voice of conscience cannot be heard through our vote or our activities from within the standard political process, then we have no choice but to figure out other means to make our voice heard, in the tradition of all great civil rights movements in our history. This includes making the political costs of continuing immoral and misguided policies higher and higher.

By the way, 2008 will be the 40th anniversary of the Chicago 1968 Democratic convention.

By the way, 2008 will be the 40th anniversary of the Chicago 1968 Democratic convention.

Some of us who voted that year for the first time still remember that year. Had Humphrey only taken a stand away from LBJ and in favor of open debate on the Vietnam War earlier in 1968, he might have won--it was that close. Changing just a few votes on every college campus (forget the numbers, but it was very close) could have changed the outcome and thus changed history.

That is why I lectured my nieces and all their friends in 2000 "Decide for yourself how you vote for President, but have a concrete reason--a reason you won't be sorry for 20 or 30 years from now". I can recall 1968 college students feeling very dispirited about whether their vote really mattered after the death of RFK and the defeat of Eugene McCarthy. In my high school class (only 229--small high school) there was one member who became a disabled veteran in 1968, but neither candidate for President seemed to care about people like us.

THAT is why I get upset when campaigns do dumb things. That is why I stand up for the right of dissent (was a McCarthy supporter myself--got to see him at an airport in Calif. in our college town right after he won the Oregon primary).

If the campaign for any office is so uninspiring that many develop the attitude of "yeah, I'll vote, but I'm not thrilled by the choices", it doesn't really matter if one candidate has all the money needed, lots of volunteers, famous consultants, and endorsements up the yazoo.