As someone who was part of the debates decades ago which led to the short platform, I support having a Platform general enough that all running can agree with it.

In a previous decade, there was an issue which divided coastal residents and the rest of the state, and a sharp debate about whether the party should take a stand one way or the other. To my mind, the goal is to elect as many candidates as possible. Using that example, if a party really wants to elect legislators from the coast and the rest of the state, a platform should not take a stand on such a geographic issue.

A friend of mine (rural Oregonian on the National Platform Comm. 2 presidential elections in a row) said he thought the platform should be short enough to be printed as a one page ad in rural newspapers with the caption "Want to know what Oregon Democrats believe? Here is the Democratic Platform".

Even in the 21st century there are voters, esp. in rural areas who have no computer, no Internet access at home, or only a dialup connection. A platform convention which produces both documents can provide a forum for those interested in debating issues. I say this as someone who once carried a resolution into the state platform.

The platform could use some better definitions, let's clear this up a little.....

1) Oregon Democrats: Our Responsibilities and Rights as Individuals and Family Members

* Shelter, Food, Health Care, and a Living Wage: Securing the Basic Necessities of Life THEREBY removing any incentive to work hard and support yourself.
* Human Rights: Guaranteeing Equal Rights for All People WHICH means gay marriage and illegal aliens.

2) Oregon Democrats: Our Responsibilities and Rights as Members of a Community * Public Education: Taking Responsibility to Prepare the Next Generation, WE KNOW THE REPUBLICANS DIDNT... * Revenue Policy: Paying a Fair Share and Endowing Future Generations WITH A HUGE PERS BILL.

3) Oregon Democrats: Our Responsibilities and Rights as Workers and Business People * Business and Economic Development: Creating a Sustainable Economy that Enriches Everyone THAT WORKS FOR GOVERNMENT. * Forest, Field and Range: Supporting Oregon’s Small Farmers, Ranchers and Foresters as They Provide from the Land AND WE DONT MEAN MEASURE 37. * Labor: Ensuring that Hard Work Is Rewarded and Includes Retirement Security REGARDLESS OF YOUR PERFORMANCE.

4) Oregon Democrats: Our Responsibilities and Rights as Active Citizens.......we therefore condemn the accelerating secrecy practiced by the federal government. THIS IS JUST BS. SO MAKE ALL STATE AND LOCAL DEPARTMENTS BUDGETS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET.

* Election Reform: Opposing Privatization of The Vote and Guaranteeing Transparent Elections that Reflect the Will of the People MEANING AN END TO THE INITIATIVE PROCESS.
* Public Safety, Justice, and Civil Liberties: Preserving Our Personal Freedoms, While Ensuring our Safety
* Government Reform: Demanding Honesty, Integrity and Competence in Government  LIKE 43% OF THE NEW CIG TAX FOR THE CHILDREN ACTUALLY GETS TO THE CHILDREN

5) Oregon Democrats: Our Responsibilities and Rights as Global Citizens

* Ecology and Natural Resources: Providing for Our Needs, While Preserving the Earth MEANING TED LIKE KYOTO.
* Energy and Transportation: Practicing Conservation While Tapping Human Ingenuity to Fuel the Future MEANING TRACKING DEVICES ON YOUR CAR AND TOLL ROADS
* Foreign Policy and National Security: Engaging the World through the Strength of Diplomacy, Justice, and the Rule of Law MEANING WE WANT TO HAVE A SAY IN INTERNATIONAL ISSUES, BUT WONT RUN FOR NATIONAL OFFICES THAT HAVE THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

As a member of the Platform and Resolutions Committee I'd like to thank the candidates for their kind words. We worked real hard on that document. To answer Jenni, of necessity some things were lumped together, we tried to keep them coherent and consistent. It was a steady battle to keep the document size down, many topics were deserving of their own sections and expansions, but if we had followed that course it would have blown up again.

The DPO is a group of activists and every activist has some one issue they feel most strongly about, so we tried to be inclusive without either nailing candidates' feet to the ground or having a 20 page platform, or ... We knew we were doing some compromising, we tried to do it with a consensus rather than arbitrarily. We tried to build a document that was useful for more than occupying space on a shelf somewhere.

I'm proud of the work the committee did, on the Platform and also on Resolutions and the minute I knew Jill Thorn was interested in Vice-Chair I gave my whole hearted backing.

Jenni:

I'll make a donation to the DPO for you. I encourage everyone to join me.

I like the short platform. The long platform presents three problems: 1) it's so long no one actually reads it. 2) it provides a lot of fodder for Lars Larson and his ilk. 3) by enumerating detailed positions in one area, it implies that the lack of enumeration in another area means we don't support any specific policies in that area.

It's fruitful to compare our platform to the Republican platform. Our platform is two pages (or thereabouts). Their platform is incredibly long and inexplicably concerned with sex, homosexuality, and sexual diseases (maybe Philip Roth wrote it).

In other words, their platform is silly. It reads like it was cobbled together by a large committee of sexually repressed paranoiacs who couldn't agree on a verb tense, much less a coherent policy.

It would have been funny if Saxton had run on this platform. "The problem with public education in this state, " he could have said, "is the public schools are prescribing drugs and performing abortions on our children wihtout our consent. Well, that and they promote homosexuality too much. As your governor I will direct the schools to stop prescribing and administering drugs and surgeries, and to cut back on instruction in gay sex techniques and positions."

Both parties are filling with a bunch of bumbling idiots! The GOP is overly concerned with things that don't matter and the DNC wants to radically increase the size and scope of the already incompetant and extremely wasteful government. I want a new party. Something that's actually progressive and gets things done - this stupid asinine quibbling over things of no substance has gotten ridiculous!

I am deeply disturbed when party leaders use the term "branding" to describe what should be a process of participatory democracy. When I think of branding, I think of Coca Cola, the ultimate brand, which promises happiness and fulfillment but is in reality just flavored sugar water, empty calories. Is this what we ant the Democratic Party to become, flavored sugar-water on which voters can project their desire, empty and vapid? We have been indoctrinated over the last thirty years by market forces determined to transform us from citizens into consumers. Think of the ad for Walmart that seriously intones that the two thousand some-odd dollars the big-box giant allegedly saves individuals "buys a lot of freedom." To actively work to "brand" the democratic process is, I suppose, the last step in this process. "Branding" the Democrats is the buzz term du jour, replacing the flap-doodle over Lakoff's "frames" from a few years ago. I can't imagine "branding" exercises will be any more successful than "framing" was, outside of a handful of consultants and pitchmen who sell the concept to candidates and campaign managers. What works, I mean truly engages people, energizes them and motivates them? Neighbor to neighbor, door to door. Old school Saul Alinsky organizing. Ask people what gives meaning to their lives, their hopes, their obstacles. Leave "branding" to the Coke executives and the Republican corporate plutocrats. Please.

"And you are basing this absurd assertion on what precisely?"

Take Tri-Met and Amtrak as two "for instances". What companies could still survive, offer depolorable service, and still stay in business?