Never say Never. Never say the improbable would be impossible in politics, that is the first sign of complacency which is the first nail in the coffin.

When Carter was President and the polls were so bad before the 1980 election, Democrats were consoled that the Republicans would never control the house as they could not overcome the popular vote, and a middle-class/union alliance.

Whooops!!!!

As Michelle Maklin once said, "Boo fucking hoo."

The GOP dug their own grave, we progressives just shoveled the dirt onto their coffins.

And please be sure to spit on their grave before you leave the funeral.

For all the young Americans who died in Iraq for oil.

Thanks Torrid.

When Republicans nominate someone of the quality of Vic Atiyeh (Westlund who is no longer a Republican is the closest I can see except maybe Frank Morse who may not want to run statewide), they will deserve to win statewide.

Atiyeh was a legislator and never tried to claim the Gov. as the only power center in the state capital. Atiyeh always had great manners, and was helpful in a number of unsung areas. Atiyeh had press conferences to explain his actions. Not that he was perfect, but he stood for more specific things than Saxton ever did.

To borrow the old Lloyd Bentsen line, I've met Vic Atiyeh, I went to some of his press conferences and actually learned where he stood on a variety of issues. Saxton was no Vic Atiyeh.

Reinhard needs to learn what the Mondale Democrats learned 22 years ago: the candidate who inspires the true believers might not earn the support of half the ordinary voters needed to win elections.

Annoy a Democrat today.

Finally, a modest task at which Reinhard can excell.

I nominate Frank Morse as a Republican moderate. Serious person, polite to everyone, co-sponsored bipartisan legislation in 2005 as I recall, excellent work on PCOL.

Rep. Vicki Berger is a good old-style Oregon moderate Republican.

Rep. Vicki Berger is a good old-style Oregon moderate Republican.

JB, where do you live? My guess is you don't live in Salem.

Vicki looked like a moderate when first elected. But she became a creature of her caucus to the point that when an important bill she sponsored was quietly killed she didn't say anything about it in public. She outspent a retired teacher in Polk County by something around 8 to 1 and still lost votes compared to 2004.

Norma Paulus, Mary Alice Ford, Jeannette Hamby, Mary Burrows, and Delna Jones were moderates of the variety Tom McCall would have recognized--good communication with the public, strong public stands on issues, allowing input from ordinary citizens. They made clear the specifics of issues important to them. Berger agreed with the Speaker in 2005 too often for my taste.

I guess it depends on the definiton of moderate.

What it means to be west of the rock and east of the hard place:

If the republicans nominate any “moderate” acceptable to the middle of the Oregon electorate, the far-right true believers will scream bloody murder, run Mary Mobley or Al Starrett for governor, and that’s the end of that moderate’s chances.

The Oregon Republican Party is now a wholly owned subsidiary of hard-core Christian conservatives, and it'll continue to pay the price for this for years to come.

Certainly, a contest against an incumbent is tougher than an open seat contest. Saxton may have been a moderate, but he didn't run like one. But, hey, if the Repubicans want to give up on statewide office, it's okay with me.

<h1></h1>

Saxton is a flunky of no account. Ain't happening, never was happening.

Reinhard who? I don't exactly see the percentages for a Democratic-going blog to post a liar's lying about the lies he tells himself he heard in his lair of liars.

Forget him and the paper he pisses and moans in before you buy it.

<h1></h1>

<h1></h1>

In case the style book precedent is uncertain in this regard, here, Editor & Publisher relays the pro forma. Read. Sign. Leave. Tierney Exits as 'NY Times' Columnist

By E&P Staff - Published: November 14, 2006 10:10 AM ET

NEW YORK John Tierney, the conservative/libetarian columnist for The New York Times, announced in his space today that he is leaving or losing his influential spot on the Op Ed page after a fairly short run. He said he will be writing a column and blogging for the Science section. Gail Collins is stepping down as the Times' editorial page editor and returning to Op Ed, but not until next summer. After a typically contrarian column today (behind the Times' paid wall) -- in which he said that voters in last week's election want "gridlock," not action, in the next Congress -- Tierney suddenly announced: "Whatever they do the next two years, I won’t be here to kick them around. This is my last column on the Op-Ed page. ..."

There goes the NYT Science neighborhood.

<h1></h1>

Dalto, Winters, Berger, Walden, Sowa.

None of them fall on the far-right of their party.

Nothing against JB's comments, but JB and JB Eads are different folks, as was probably obvious.

I don't feel one bit sorry for the Republicans or Conservatives of Oregon or the nation for that matter. The unbridled arrogance that they displayed and desperate tactics to retain a hold on power were unprecidented.

Even before the polls closed, the Saxton campaign was setting up a "transition" team. As the numbers rolled in, they discounted them. An hour after this, Saxton was conceeding. He lost by an even greater number than I could have imagined and it was delicious.

The fact is, Conservatives are out-of-touch with Oregonians and Americans. They have moved so far to the right and become drunk with power that they no longer serve anyone's interests but their own.

Now, they sit angrily in the corner, drunk, in denial licking their wounds. They were all too happy to dance "on our graves" in 2000, 02 and 04.

My solution to Conservatives? How about moving to Canada?

Is a "moderate" Republican merely someone not of the far right, or is does it mean an intelligent, outspoken problem solver in the tradition of Clay Myers, Tom McCall, Norma Paulus, Donna Zajonc, Jeanette Hamby, Mary Alice Ford, Nancy Ryles? Those were all high quality folks in Oregon politics of the mid-late 20th century.

If "moderate" only means "not right wing" then why doesn't Rep. Dallum (almost defeated by Gilbertson) fit in that category? I don't recall his being an active right winger.

It seems to me that a true moderate would have spoken out about the excesses of Minnis/Scott / Richardson last session.

I think I would classify someone as moderate if they are willing to listen to both sides of the argument and respectfully reach across the aisle to work on a solution that is best for all the people. I kind of like moderates. The problem is they all just get their asses kicked out of their own party. Look what happened to Lieberman. 80% of the time Dems agree with the guy. Lincoln Chaffee in the Repub side. He wasn't right wing enough for his own party and he almost lost his own primary. I hate to say it but if the Democrats don't learn how to accept someone like Joe Lieberman (even with his flaws) this majority we have is going to be gone faster than the time we had to celebrate it. We're going to look like the partisan pukes we just worked our tails off to kick out if we don't learn to be a big tent party. We have to accept some conservative principles and the conservative Democrats need to accept some liberal principles.

Congratulations, Democrats have won a big victory. In Oregon and nationally. First, Oregon politics and national politics are not one and the same. National politics were dictated by a disasterous war(in it's execution[incompetent] and in its conception[conditions may have been that no matter how it was carried out, victory would elude the U.S.). Incompetence in general(Katrina), and corruption.

This does not lead to a repudiation of conservative priciples in general on the national level.

Oregon was affected by the national blue wave(revulsion of the war and President Bush was higher in this state than nationally), but it does go deeper here, particularly in Portland. Conservative principles have less support in Oregon. Yes, Oregon is blue and getting bluer.

Oregon Republicans will have to truly expand their "tent".

Oregon voters still want a good "bang for the buck" in regards to their tax dollars, to get more services for the money they are taxed. Is there a vision of Oregon that doesn't envision more government and higher taxes as far as the eye can see, yes.

I agree that vision must be specific, much like a photograph, not an abstract canvas by an impressionist painter. Generalities will not get votes for a Republican state-wide candidate in sufficient numbers to win.

Voters want specifics on any candidate's vision of Oregon. Ron Saxton was hurt by national politics, but may not have won anyway in better political conditions(for Republicans) because he failed to articulate a detailed vision of Oregon and State government under his administration.

This is a pro-choice state. Republicans must accept that reality. Republicans must reclaim the center(yes, they had the center at one point,ie McCall, Hatfield, Packwood, Atiyeh, Jack Roberts, maybe Gordon Smith)

Yes, they can recover, by allowing more "running room" for candidates in areas where "running room" is required to be competitive: Portland, Eugene, inner Wash. Co., inner Clack. Co., Corvallis, areas along the coast.

A tall order, next to impossible? Necessity, otherwise known as political survival is a great focuser of the political mind. Time will tell, as sands in an hour glass, because time is running out.

The election of Trent Lott to senate leadership is an indication that race is going to be a central issue of Republican hopes in 2008. I think that may very well work in to Oregon Republican's advantage. Obviously immigration will be one issue where they will subtly play the race card. I would not be surprised to see the tribes as targets as well. They will be trying to inject race into every issue they can.

I work with almost exclusively religious right Republicans. Guess what Dave Rheinhards of the world? These folks figured out that they were being played for fools. You have lost that base, and I don't think you will ever have it as strong as it was.

1. The GOP covered up for the worst kind of perverts and pedophiles

2. The GOP had 12 years, unnopposed to make their Christian nation. They made their only pro life vote apply to one person- Terry Schiavo-and she didn't know to care

3. Newsflash- Jesus wasn't rich

4. Oregonians do not and will not hate Mexicans, no matter what you call them or say about them

5. They are sick of you scaring them, after a while fear mongering starts to sound like a threat

6. GLBTs will always be here, they are our friends and our family members.

The GOP in this incarnation ran both houses, and the same problems are still here, some even worse. To paraphrase Grover Norquist- I don't want to end the GOP, I just want to make it small enough to drown in the bathtub.

GOP needs to get a platform as opposed to fear mongering about Gays, Guns and God and hate. I like checks and balances, and bipartisanship. Please build a party on what is good for the people and not for your fat cat buddies and maybe you'll do better next time.

Lets see you put that plank in your platform.

ps From a pro gun pro life democrat

A moderate Republican is one who can easily be confused with a DLC Democrat.

I hate to say it but if the Democrats don't learn how to accept someone like Joe Lieberman (even with his flaws) this majority we have is going to be gone faster than the time we had to celebrate it.

Lieberman's problem was hubris. Had he just campaigned on "my Iraq views are my own and you have a right to your opinion" then talked about the rest of his record, he might have won the primary. But in a free country voters have the right to vote for a primary challenger--don't give me that nonsense that some candidates have no right to run.

Lieberman been in politics long enough to know that any sentence can be taken out of context and played over and over, and he sounded like he was saying "question Pres. Bush and you put the country in danger". He now says he was quoted out of context. Why wasn't he saying that in March--because he thought he could win if he were just stubborn enough?

I've supported plenty of candidates I didn't agree with on every issue (most recently Chuck Lee) but I'll turn NAV before I'll belong to a party which supports any politician that says "we'll tell you who you are allowed to question, who you are supposed to admire, and what offends you"---and I think that Lieberman was trying to have it both ways. Had he made that speech about every person having the right to their own views on Iraq a month earlier he might have won the primary.

But if that last sentence makes me some kind of subversive because it was the duty of every registered Democrat to support Lieberman, I'll become NAV rather than belong to a party which tells me what to think.

<h1></h1>

A question for gifted people who get their political insights through a personality's embodiment of a party: If McCall was a moderate Republican then, who in the GOP today, or where in the GOP today, is a rightist who champions the state public beach law, or the bottle bill, or state land use laws (was that S.1000 ?), that McCall championed.

Seems to me even lefty Democrats today would not 'risk their personal career' to even mention, nevermind advocate any one of those really rather straightforward no-brainer debates and enactments -- public beaches, container deposits, or uniform state land planning.

That is to say, lefty Dem's today are right of centrist McCall.

Which illustrates my inability to understand what a party is, or its positions are, or its issues are, by having the answer in terms of some named personality, who is it, 'the party IS him or her,' or 'she or he IS the party.' (Relating to Liebermann, Pelosi, Lott, Saxton, comments.)

And (sorta) touches a second thought o' the day:

There are two ways to look at, and form one's understanding of, politics, (or 'statecraft'): In a theory, or In a person.

Hint: Whichever eye the massmedia says to look at it in, use your other eye if you want to see the truth of some news item.

<h1></h1>

I used Lieberman as an example. He's a perfect example because it really shows something. The people of CT wanted him to remain their representative. Lamont had no chance of winning that race until he threw in millions of his own money and saw a cash infusion from moveon. I know...I got the e-mail asking for money. What you saw was the power of the blogosphere. I have never said I wouldn't have preferred Lamont over Lieberman but I accept Lieberman's views. He's the perfect example of what this country has moved to. My point is this. If Dem's want to remain in the majority and advance any sort of progressive agenda they're going to have to court the Lieberman types. In fact I think the AP just ran a story all about the Blue Dog Democrats. Please read up on them because they hold about 40 seats on the Dem side in the house and we have to have them to get anything passed. Like it or not we need to work with people like Lieberman and quit trying to kick them out of our party.

There is no such thing as "Lieberman types"---I am unaware of any Blue Dogs who said publicly "questioning the president or his policies is endangering the country" or whatever it was Lieberman said.

I am glad there are lots of Blue Dogs, but let's get one thing clear. Either we live in a free country where all have the right to question the wisdom of ANY elected official, or else we live in a society where elected officials have the right to tell us who to believe, what we find admirable, what we find offensive.

<h2>Lieberman has to prove we live in a free country before I support him. I've registered NAV previously after being told all good Democrats supported a particular politician. And I would do it again before I'd say "yes, Joe, you're right--you alone get to decide if questioning President Bush was done honestly or for "partisan political gain".</h2>