Yea Chuck!

What bothered me even more than the mean spirited tone (can the people who wrote the strongest words promise now they will work on the general election campaign unless the primary winner had been so stupid as to run ads as nasty as the AuCoin ads of 1992?) was the "conspiracy theory" tone of some of the Tester endorsement debate. An elected official has the right to endorse anyone or no one, and claiming without concrete evidence (did the people who said this even know anyone who ever met Tester) that an elected official endorsed a candidate because of an obligation to an official entity or because someone "got to" him says more about the accusers than about the freshman Senator.

Grow up people--this happens all the time in politics. Someone expected to give an endorsement decides to be neutral or endorse someone else. Or "sorry, I've been with you in the last 5 elections, but this time I..." .

Or for that matter, there were those posting here who treated Sal Peralta as subversive or turncoat or heretic for joining the Frohnmayer campaign. Having refused to choose between major party nominees a couple times (US Senate 1996, President in 1980) I understand "where he is coming from".

There is no reason I have to decide how to vote in any partisan primary before April or May of 2008. If the candidates are wise, they will have some sort of conversation with those who have posted the more incendiary remarks here and say "you're not helping".

Glad to see this as a topic, and thanks again, Chuck.

LT, You're being pretty nice to me as I've been one who has kicked ole Sal; this is why, I've been around Sal and know how he operates, I am partisan, therefore I have no use for a "Republican" in this race. If Sal didn't want the lack of funding from the Leg Caucus to get thrown at him, he should have kept his mouth shut about it. I've previously left Sal alone because 1) I'd already beaten his position & 2) his district campaign had nothing to do with HD50. Now he's taking a position that directly affects me and he's doing it while using his previous standing. So he's partisan fair game on his stuff and his candidate's stuff. If he's going to play propaganda games and troll then he's going to get called on it and I won't wear gloves doing it.

Chuck, I am with Sal on this one (hope some day I meet Sal--living in Marion County is not that far away from Yamhill). That is because I am not a lifelong Democrat. My grandfather was a Republican politician more like St. Sen. Frank Morse or US Sen. John Warner --and he was part of a movement to break a county political machine. I campaigned for Tom McCall's re-election. I was also once a Democratic National Convention delegate, a member of the Dem. State, Cong. District, and county party organization.

Does the Democratic Party want people like me? Or does admiring John Frohnmayer's book (GETTING OUT OF TOWN ALIVE is I think the title) and St. Sen. Frank Morse's work on the Public Comm. on the Legislature mean I am "not a good Democrat"? Esp. since I think nonpartisan legislature would be a good idea?

It is an open question whether I will retain my Dem. registration after the 2008 primary or go back to being NAV like I was from after the 1996 primary until there was a contested primary I wanted to vote in.

Chuck, if you enjoy being a partisan, that's fine. I was once one myself. But now I care more about issues and individual candidates, not following a party line.

I suppose this is the right thread for this comment.

I was just wondering what the rest of you Democrats think of Tao's Beaver Boundary campaign to "out" all left-leaning non-Democrats and try to marginalize them from the Merkley/Novick primary debate.

This has been an ongoing theme for her at Both Loaded Oregon and her own website. She likes to say they're hypocrites.

This is her latests attempt: I suppose to TorridJoe, Pat Malach and Galen–who are all non-Democrats–being a registered Democrat defines you as an ‘insider’.

The fact that Galen and I are both registered Democrats seemed to be of little importance to Tao.

We’ll need the votes of many, many left-leaning non-Democrats to beat Gordon Smith. So Tao's exclusionary jack-booted witchhunt and Stalin-like purge is not only wrong and thuggish, it’s exclusionary and self-defeating –- and ultimately reinforces the "my-opinion-doesn't-count-anyway" attitude that drives so many from the politics and especially the parties.

Do you really want to tell left-leaning independent voters that the Democratic party has no interest in their opinion about which Democrat they'd like to vote for in the general? Seriously? That's the unspoken result of Tao's campaign.

I guess I'd like to think my fellow Democrats also find her attitude repugnant. And like asking liberal Muslims to speak out against the extremist elements of their religion, I hope some Merkley supportin' D's will tell Tao she's out of line.

Kari, I see you've been over there ... ... ...

If you folks who say anyone who wants to get rid of Smith had darned well better campaign for the Democrat OR ELSE they alone will be responsible for 6 more years of Gordon really want the support of people who might be attracted to Frohnmayer, I would suggest 2 things:

1) A civil, intelligent primary between Steve and Jeff. No, Steve, no matter how many times you mention it, I will not support you in May just because you don't like how Jeff voted on a 2003 resolution. At least he has a voting record. Jeff, what current specific US Senate legislation do you support/oppose--Steve has mentioned a particular bill here.

2) Respect Frohnmayer and his ideas. If you Merkley and Novick folks don't want the votes of anyone who read and admired Frohnmayer's book, say so now and we'll get involved in a primary other than yours. And would it really hurt either candidate to say "I agree with Frohnmayer on X and disagree on Y because....". Or do you believe that admitting Frohnmayer even writes well will cause him to get enough votes to be a "spoiler"? Is it possible that someone who is not from Portland might actually be appealing ? Is that what bothers you?

We have Gordon Smith in the US Senate because after the 1996 primary the nominee did not reach out to those who had worked for other candidates in the primary. The nominee publicly ran ads saying "I fought a war. I founded a company. I am not Gordon Smith", and no good Democrat was supposed to ask any questions about issues. Behind the scenes there was peer pressure for everyone to pledge allegiance to the Dem nominee who owed them no explanation of his views on issues (2 staffers yelled at me because I had to gall to walk up to Bruggere at an advertised campaign stop and ask why he opposed a bill Wyden co-sponsored) but by golly we all owed him our every waking hour to campaign for him because the campaign (and the DSCC) said so.

"Don't engage in issue debates, just vote for whoever the Dem nominee is because we want to get rid of Gordon Smith"---is that going to be the door to door message?

I will vote for the person I believe has the best ideas. If anyone doesn't like that, and you can't mobilize your chosen candidate to talk about issues, write guest opinions, create a buzz among people who saw them speak, that is not my problem.

The fact that Galen and I are both registered Democrats seemed to be of little importance to Tao.

Whoops! I confused "colin" with "galen," but my point still stands. Tao guessed right with galen. But why is she making guesses as to a voter's affiliation, and then publishing them as fact? Unless she's trolling the voter rolls as part of her purge? And that's even scarier, because that would indicate there's a real effort being put into it.

Democrats like Merkley and Tester

Democrats like Merkley and Tester fall for GOP traps.

still think there are reasons why Novick will be a stronger candidate vs. Smith, but the blather EBT posts on his anti "establishment" jihad are not much more than flaming bag of dog-poop left on the doorstep.

Well, I know one thing for sure, Mitch, if someone dumps a flaming bag of dog poop on your doorstep, you certainly don't try and stamp it out.

Moreover, I think you're right, there are few things more damaging to a political party than engaging in a back-scratching circle jerk and ignoring outside voices. Witness George W. Bush!

so do we file this one under "the more things change, the more they stay the same", or "we have met the enemy and he is us"?

I wonder how many people in threads like this realize that the things they are arguing about so heatedly have barely even shown up on the radar of most people, let alone activists. I'm fairly active and I don't know anything about something or other to do with Jon Tester, Frohnmeyer's campaign, or some purge being initiated by Beaver Boundary.

I've been involved in these kind of fights before and I've learned that they often leave outside observers just scratching their heads going, "what the f*ck are these people yelling about?"

"I think you are mistaking clear-eyed honest assessment of our election realities and the system there in for dismissing ideas and those bringing them forward out of hand. If we had IRV or fusion voting I would be 100% open to actually contemplating a third party candidate who may espouse positions I agree with. But that is not the realities of our election system in the here and now and or which the 2008 Senatorial election will operate under."

Are the "realities of our election system" that anyone who even suggests that other people read Frohnmayer's book about his NEA experience is promoting Gordon's re-election because we should all be concentrating on only Jeff vs. Steve?

One of the realities of our election system is the idea that nonpartisan/ non-political groups (neighborhood association, church fellowship, Rotary, Grange, hobby clubs, etc) are all going to jump on the IRV bandwagon because someone says it is a good idea are somewhere between slim and none. Go out in the real world and try to explain that system to people who aren't political junkies (the person with 3 jobs, or their own business, or challenging work and family responsibilities, for instance) then come back here and tell us how many ordinary folks were receptive to IRV and how long it took to explain how it would work.

There are people who relish vote by mail because of time restraints ( can do ballot line at a sitting). How would you propose to redo the ballots / the vote counting to make sure IRV doesn't cause the kind of problems we have seen in previous elections? Does any local jurisdiction anywhere in the country currently use it? With what results? If a district has only 2 candidates, why is IRV a good idea?

I would like to hear Jeff, Steve, John (and Gordon although he probably doesn't want to be that specific) on NCLB, the proposals from the Dole-Shalala Comm. on Wounded Warriors, the Webb bill to require at least the same months home as deployed, the Wyden Fair Flat Tax, and any number of other issues. Of course, that might require study and hard work rather than just chatter on a blog.

I don't think telling people that unless we have IRV we are not even supposed to listen to Frohnmayer's ideas unless he makes a Westlund no-spoiler pledge is going to motivate people not currently registered Dem. to register Dem. and vote in the primary.

Paulie said something in her recent post about going off line and actually working. I'd love to hear/read the insiders here give a positive pitch for their candidate--what they would actually say at the doorstep. I hope it is more intelligent than "Novick, because Tester should have endorsed him" or "Merkley, because the Speaker really understands Oregon".

We have had major elections in this state where actual serious issues were discussed. If Steve and Jeff and their supporters can't do that this year, it is not Frohnmayer's fault.

We the people deserve more than "if you want to get rid of Gordon, your only choice is between Jeff and Steve and if you think so far they are both shallow and game playing, you don't really want to get rid of Gordon".

LT, have you read any of the policy position papers that steve novick has posted on his website? i'm curious, because when i read your posts i get the impression that you haven't. maybe i'm wrong, though.

trishka, Just went to the website and remembered I had read the issues earlier. Not only that, I'd emailed Steve asking about veterans issues, and he said to look under prioritized defense spending. And sure enough, it is the last line:

Prioritized Defense Spending

....And, of course, we shouldn't be skimping on health care for wounded soldiers and veterans.

Steve may be the greatest guy in the world. But take it from one of the many people who helped lobby veterans issues in the Oregon legislature in the early 1980s and worked on the presidential campaign of the author of JUDICIAL REVIEW OF VETERANS CLAIMS legislation--too many Democrats just give veterans issues lip service.

For those of you who have been around politics at least 20 years, Judicial Review passed in early 1988 as a part of the larger bill to create a Veterans cabinet department. Some months later, in their first joint appearance as VP nominees, Lloyd Bentsen (WWII vet) and Danny Boy Quayle (Indiana National Guard) faced an annual veterans convention. A question from the floor asked each to explain their vote on that bill, which some vets saw as the most important vets legislation of their adult lives. Danny called his no vote a "youthful indescretion" and Bentsen reminded him how many months earlier the vote had taken place. Some thought after that day Danny deserved every Quayle joke ever told.

Today on the front page of the Metro section, there is an article about problems in Portland with vets health care.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1191813917293850.xml&coll=7

VA waiting room full -- of frustration Health care - The Portland medical center is expanding its surgical ward to increase capacity by 50 percent Monday, October 08, 2007 MARK LARABEE

..... experience epitomizes the frustration military veterans in Portland often feel as they wait months for routine, but necessary, surgical procedures. A slow but steady increase in requests for such care has exacerbated the problem.

In an effort to reverse the trend, the VA Medical Center is in the midst of an $8 million expansion of its surgical ward that, when completed in January, will increase capacity by 50 percent.

The agency's policy states that patients, including those in need of a surgical consultation, should be seen within 30 days of their request. In Portland, hospital officials are well aware they aren't meeting the mandate even though it's a top priority, said Bernie Deazley, executive assistant to the hospital's chief of staff.

While veterans with urgent needs or emergencies are seen immediately, the wait for those needing elective surgeries in Portland is often up to five months, Deazley said.

<<<

I would really like to know if Jeff or Steve or John has looked into this situation, or if they just want to talk about generalities. Has anyone talked to the head of the VA in Portland, know which county mentions veterans on their home page, talked with anyone on the Gov. staff about veterans issues, know about the red tape veterans sometimes face when seeking medical or educational or job hunting benefits?

Have the met the wonderful staff of Cong. Hooley's office? When a friend who is a former drill instructor was visiting Salem (having heard there was a helpful educational program here, only to get the runaround all morning before we went to Darlene's office in the afternoon and talked to people who really knew something), that office was the most helpful.

Do any of the candidates know the problems of vets in Portland vs. those in the Mid Willamette Valley vs. those in S.Oregon or E. of the Cascades? Seems to me there was a legislator working on a facility for veterans E. of the Cascades--who was that?

Are such concrete issues really important to the campaigns for US Senate? Or is it all about "read what is on our website and if it isn't specific enough it is only Oct. 2007, look at the pictures of our campaign and where we have visited, but don't ask about details of the discussions we had in those places".

Why would anyone want to be involved in uninspiring campaigns which are all about "getting rid of Gordon" while arguing about endorsements and other such inside baseball?

Ron Wyden has been a leader in veterans issues going way back to when he was a House member (the above-mentioned former drill instructor is my source for that). I knew young people in Jan. 1996 who thought he waited too long to go 100% positive for their taste and wondered if they should even vote in that election. A 3rd party candidate who was allowed in a debate and sounded really down to earth appealed to some of those folks and their elders. One young person I knew back then even said "you always say you oppose negative campaigns, so why do you have a Wyden sticker on your car?". When I said he was an old friend back to the mid-1980s, the response was "well, if he is a friend, that is different!".

Do you want the support of such people for your candidate? Or only the people who are impressed by surface stuff like endorsements? You can't afford to blow each other up, but surface campaigning which inspires no one isn't much help either.

TJ, there are races that are far enough gone that the RNC won't spend money on them, I don't think they believe they can afford to lose Smith. Now I certainly could be wrong, but my case still stands, the winner will need the loser's people in the D primary.

The Senate candidate will need to make a decent showing in all CDs, a win in, say, the 2nd doesn't guarantee anything; but getting blown away means those votes have to get made up somewhere else and that can be tough against an incumbent faux moderate.

As for Sal and partisanship, I've voted for "the other" party for my reasons, but I AM a Democrat for very good reasons. I am not a "republican" in any sense of the word, Frohnmayer is. If you like his version of politics, knock yourself out, but preaching it to a left Democrat and calling him out for not buying is plain stupid. While I may be an odd left Democrat and while I may not find Frohnmayer offensive like I find Smith, his politics have no resonance with me. Why would they?

I'm partisan enough to stick in the Party and try to make the changes I see needed, and sometimes in the face of people like Sal, win at it. No, Sal, if it had failed, I wouldn't have taken my marbles and run off, I'd have figured it needed more and better work and gone at it again. And again.

I don't discount Sal because of Frohnmayer, I discount Sal because of Sal. Frohnmayer's vanity campaign is really of little interest to me or - dare I say it - the Democratic Party. Look, the guy is a Republican, one who got tired of the theocratic, etc of the Republican Party as it stands, that has nothing to do with being a Democrat or standing for what Democrats stand for. (at least in Oregon) He'll suck more voters from Smith than either Primary candidate as winner. The people who will vote for him are Republicans and R leaning NAVs, the ones finally worn out by BushCo. The Democratic candidates 'could' make asses of themselves or their supporters could and alienate voters, but that is what it would take for Frohnmayer to hurt them. Sal's laid it out for you, he's a Republican, maybe an older style one, but so what? I bet we really need another "compassionate conservative." No, he's not George II, he's what he pretended to be.

Jeff and Steve do need to put on The Jeff Show and The Steve Show, I don't want to know who backs this one or that one; I want to know WHY I should want this one or that one. Real clear strong language.

BTW, I don't take Sal's word on Civil Liberties as worth spit, he'll mangle language and make up history to make something mean what he wants it to, especially in regard to taking from you. I'll say it again, if it's a problem, fix it; but don't lie about it. Sound like BushCo to you? Think very carefully about a person who will play games with Civil Liberties when they tell you something. No Sal, your words and your arguments don't go away just because you decided to play shill for a little r Republican.

Do you really want to tell left-leaning independent voters that the Democratic party has no interest in their opinion about which Democrat they'd like to vote for in the general? Seriously? Because that's the unspoken result of Tao's campaign.

I guess I'd like to think my fellow Democrats also find her attitude repugnant. And like asking liberal Muslims to speak out against the extremist elements of their religion, I hope some Merkley supportin' D's will tell Taoiseach she's out of line.

Except for Mitch's response, the silence here is deafening. Another profile-in-courage moment for the "in crowd."

LT, I am a life long Democrat, there have been times I was a pretty disgusted one and I vote the candidate not the (x). But I'm also somewhat to the right of a good sized chunk of my forebearers, yes, right. My grandfather was shot in the Flint strikes and carried the bullet to his grave, my grandmother fed the Reuther brothers and housed many a "subversive" union meeting, so my left credentials go back a ways. The founders of the AFL, the CIO, and the UAW all knew them well and most of them paid a pretty big price for being who they were.

That's one reason I study history, closely and with a wary eye to government approved versions. That's one reason people like Sal can't beat me in arguements around historical facts, I find out what the people of the time said, I find out what court decisions said, not what the propagandists say. 99/100 people have no idea what actually happened in history, and it's there for anybody with time and interest.

Except for Mitch's response, the silence here is deafening. Another profile-in-courage moment for the "in crowd."

Pat, you can imagine i didn't want to dignify his remarks with a further response, so pardon me for not giving you kudos for this true gem: "if someone dumps a flaming bag of dog poop on your doorstep, you certainly don't try and stamp it out."

It made me think of you-know-what and how you-know-who stepped right in it. But it also goes to the more general issue of this blog and its ability to tolerate voices contrary to those of it's most prolific contributors...

It made me think of you-know-what and how you-know-who stepped right in it

Shshshshsh ... be vewwwy vewwwy quiet. We'ew hunting wabbits.

Chuck, that is very interesting. As someone who was born in Detroit and has a friend locally who was born in Flint and is very sympathetic to Michael Moore as a guy from the old home town, I found your remarks very interesting.

Your grandparents and my grandparents would have had nothing in common. One of my grandfathers was what would now be called personnel manager or HR for a company which supplied the auto industry. The other was in the same lodge with Henry Ford and once his lawyer in a labor dispute. As someone growing up in the Detroit area in the 1950s, very conscious of the news and a reader of history starting in elementary school, I was well aware of the UAW, the Reuther brothers, the Battle of the Overpass. Sometimes we would drive past the AFL-CIO building. The auto industry was a big deal in Detroit.

But fast-forward to 2000. Michael, my friend born in Flint, had gotten disgusted by the Democratic Party by that time and had become a Green. He and I had been very active in Lonsdale campaigns of the 1990s but it became apparent there were Democrats who didn't like people like us who thought for themselves and sometimes organized events with bigger crowds than attended some local Democratic party events.

From 1996-2002, I was registered NAV even though I had once been active on many Democratic campaigns over the decades and been on State Central Comm. and a 1984 Dem. National Convention delegate (one of the great experiences of my life).

My point is about what JFK called the free marketplace of ideas. Coke and Pepsi don't have a monopoly on non-alcoholic drinks. If someone wants to drink root beer, or tea/coffee, or Jones soda, or ginger ale, or flavored water, no amount of "you are supposed to choose between Coke and Pepsi" is going to change their minds.

And so it is with political parties--more elections are decided by NAV/ 3rd party than many partisans want to admit. If Democrats make their candidates more appealing than any others, they will attract voters. If someone were to read John Frohnmayer's book and say something like "I admire how he fought for the NEA but I disagree with what he says on his website about...", that would be one thing.

But what got me involved in this debate was the attitude of some people here that anyone even saying "Hey! I really enjoyed reading Frohnmayer's book on his experiences fighting for the NEA" was helping Gordon Smith win re-election.

Let me be very clear. I really liked Frohnmayer's book. If the supporters of Steve and Jeff can't accept that someone would say anything nice in 2007 about a US Senate candidate not named Merkley or Novick, how on earth are they going to win general election votes from Oregonians who read and liked Frohnmayer's book?

The "salute and follow orders--don't ask any questions or you might cause the re-election of the enemy" strategy stifles debate. I've never seen it win elections. I believe in open, honest debate. If that means I am not a loyal partisan, then I am not a loyal partisan and should register NAV right after the primary next year. Is that what you loyal Democrats want?

LT, you did not read anything I said that stifles debate or is aimed at shutting it down. I stated that I have no use for a US Senator who is a little r Republican, I disagree with his ideas about government - mostly. Sal is a different deal, I've watched him in action and read his words. I trust what he has to say as much as I trust BushCo.

I do not trust someone simply because they have a D after their name. I've made my feelings regarding Hillary plain enough. If I have to chose the least bad, I will, but I will also be sincerely unhappy about it. In 2000 I was furious with Democrats and used my vote as punishment, it was a meaningless mistake, but I've regretted it since, sufficiently that I'm willing to take the least bad of a bad lot. But it sucks.

I stay active in the Ds to try to ensure that there is an actual difference rather than some amorphous middle mess or least of bad. Do I succeed? I make little dents here and there, but regardless - I know I made the effort. Like I said, I don't walk away, I go re-calculate and then re-engage.

That is partisan, very partisan. It doesn't mean close mindedness and it isn't an insult, it is a dedication to the best of an ideology and advancing it. Republicans make it an insult, well, the dictionary doesn't, unless you like the second definition, I prefer the first for general usage.

If you read my comments here or my blog you will see that I take some very vocal stands that are contrary to "progressive" stances. Well, they're wrong and I'm not. ;-) They happen to enjoy wide D support, so? They're still wrong. Frohnmayer gets a few things right, but he has this huge problem, his informing ideology is Republican and he gets stuck right there. He actually knows who gets screwed in this economy, but then he's stuck. His ideology won't go where the answers lie.

Now I could have caused Sal some heartburn in his Nelson run, I left him alone. As a D he was a net gain over Nelson, it wasn't my HD, I had my own work that was positive to do, and where I had him nailed he wasn't a sufficient threat to react to. So he, at least to an extent, benefited from the partisanship he's gigging me for now, and he knows it. John Frohnmayer is not a net gain to my cause and neither is his shill. Jeff or Steve are, and that's not the D lable that's talking. I may agree with some of Ron Paul's ideas, but I don't want him for President.

As for tao, the entire idea is just silly, TJ is a thoughtful writer (usually) and useful to his position, who cares if he's NAV. Does Sal turn Frohnmayer into a Democrat??

Please don't mistake robust argument with an interest in shutting down debate. In fact, it's just the opposite.

I agree, Kari, and I've never experienced any censorship on BlueOregon. And I don't have a problem with non-neutral blogs that others seem to. But sometimes it seems you sure have to put up with a lot of "robustness" if you say something unpopular. :)

And the lack of any volunteers to step up and say that "yeah, maybe it's kind of just a bit wrong, not to mention slimy and ethics-free, to start making stuff up about political opponents in an attempt to disqualify their opinion, and then when they call you on it, insult them and tell them you're sad you're in the same Party."

I didn't realize it would be so hard to find a taker among all those "robust" Merkley supporters to simply acknowledge that the above ACTUAL BEHAVIOR by of one of their brethren was wrong.

Call me naive.

Chuck, I think I know where the disagreement is, and it is experience and philosophy. I tried to "re-calculate and then re-engage" multiple times over the decades but then I got to the "last straw" stage, not once but many times.

And my other problem with your statement is that I don't believe most people have an "informing ideology". They may have a political philosophy, or they may not. They may be looking for the person who proposes solutions, or as one friend says, "have a vision for the future and a plan to carry it out". That statement was made by a former legislative staffer who said he wouldn't endorse a candidate for Gov. unless he saw the vision and plan. What's his "informing ideology"?

My favorite swing voter (it was news to me when he said it would be valid to vote out Gordon if one came to the conclusion "this is not the guy we used to know, the former state senator we originally elected, this is someone we no longer recognize or agree with") has voted for Bush/Hooley in 2004, for Kitzhaber, for Gordon Smith, for a local legislative candidate running as a Dem. because someone he knew had watched the young man grow up and that was all he needed to know.

In recent emails, he has said things (responding to my emails of detailed answers to his questions) like

"Again, excellent and far more helpful than political doubletalk. Of course, you still need to make a decision as to whether or not this person will actually DO what she or he states."

and

"I finally got around to opening this email after you responded with significant time and energy. Thanks! I think it did answer my question. There are many views and angles on the subjects. As usual, some great details which make deciding on these issues more dificult. "

What is the "informing ideology" of such a person? Is it possible that there are pragmatic voters who would rather hear issues explained and how problems will be solved rather than who is to blame?

Thanks for stepping up, Chris. I appreciate it.

As for my choice of strong verbs and adjectives, Stalinism, fascism or even McCarthyism have to start somewhere, and certainly the "seeds" of those movements germinate when loyalty to The Party itself becomes more important than loyalty to the ideas and values that The Party represents.

The same is true of misguided nationalism that disguises itself as Patriotism, which we've all seen on display in over-abundance the past seven years.

I chose those words carefully, but you may be right.