sorry to go off-topic, but I just called Gordon Smith's office to see why he voted against the Employee Free Choice Act.

I was told that he feels the EFCA would create a situation where workers could be peer-pressured into joining a union, because they have to fill out a card and that might not be done in private.

I was told that the current system allows a secret ballot and under the new bill, because you fill out a card to indicate that you want to join a union, it "might not be private".

Who is an expert on the EFCA? Who can respond as to whether or not this is a bona fide reason to vote against?

That you Sargent. Great info.

LoadedOrygun also has a great post up about today's vote, which includes a response from Steve Novick.

Head on over:

link

"On issues like standing up for the people who awake each day and trudge off to work to put food on their families(!), there's just no comparison between Gordo and Steve Novick."

is a quote from LO.

But honestly, what do either Gordon or Steve know about working in retail or construction or something else where one must deal with work conditions other than sitting in an air conditioned office? How many such people has either Gordon or Steve spoken with about their concerns--or is there a list somewhere of "issues important to working people", written by a political consultant or someone else who works in politics?

I currently work in retail, and took a young friend from work to hear Novick speak. My friend's reaction was along the lines of "he's OK..." --not exactly a ringing endorsement. But then, Novick's target audience was obviously people who have been involved in Democratic politics for years, not someone new to politics. Call it heresy, but perhaps that sort of effort is what Novick needs as much as money--feedback on his speaking engagements. I thought he did better in the Q & A than in the speech.

And it is early---why should we all give to Steve now before we see if anyone else is running and how he does in primary debates if that happens?

I just had an email exchange with a Republican friend about the "Jim Gilbert and naysayers" topic, in which my friend said Gilbert may be right.

Now I will turn that idea the other way around: Why is the Democratic Party of Oregon (rather than individual candidates of whatever persuasion who strike a chord with individual voters) the party which understands everyday people, incl. people who live downstate, people who work in retail, people who wonder how Wayne Scott, Kevin Cameron, Sal Esquivel, or Jackie Winters got re-elected?

"Not Republicans " is not a sufficient answer to why DPO should be supported now that the fastest growing party is no party at all. Those who admire Sen. Gordly and Sen. Frank Morse are up for grabs politically and are not likely to support any party unless it works on appealing to people like them.

There are those who believe that a rating on the poll question: "Cares about people like me, understands my problems"

can determine elections.

There seems to be a growing divide between the people who spend much of their life on politics and those who don't. And the latter group decides more elections than the former, just by sheer numbers.