Sorry, Paulie.

You're heart's in the right place on this, and your characterization of Walden is right on the money but the way you've stated- and in several instances mis-stated- your case is gonna bring a barrage of criticism and, unfortunately, a lot of it is gonna be deserved.

The problem with putting the blame on Walden in articles such as this is that people don't get the whole picture so that the chances of resolving the problem are reduced. My contempt for Walden is close to unlimited, but let's not forget the majority of voters in his district who vote him in every time. He takes care of them and that is all they care or know about. They couldn't care less for or are ignorant about the children who will go without health insurance even if, in some cases, they are at risk of life-threatening diseases. Walden and Smith certainly didn't give a damn about the people (and their children) who were dependent for their livelihood on fish stocks in the Klamath River when they got together with Cheney and diverted plenty of water to the farmers in the Klamath Basin and not enough to the river.

Back in 1969 the alternative minimum tax was created to make certain that wealthy people could not escape paying taxes through loop holes or deductions.

Back in the Reagan Administration taxes were being stacked in favor of the rich and being stuck to the middle and lower economic classes with the complicity of Tip O'Neil, Dan Rostenkowski and other Democrats. Reference: "Liberty Under Seige" by Walter Karp, Chapters 15 and 16. Nancy Pelosi shows some of the operating style of O'Neill and I wouldn't be surprised if she and her lieutenants prove to be as hypocritical as their predecessors were in the 1980s.

The Blackstone Group and the Carlyle Group have already spent millions and it appears they have already snarred (sic) Sen. Chuck Schulmer(sic).

Given Schumer's and Hillary's records, especially their pro-war votes, I believe it is safe to say that they were willingly snared a long time ago. More than likely they went looking for those snares and stuck their heads in without being asked.

The above are reasons why I support Steve Novick to replace Gordon Smith. I have much more hope of him than anyone else doing what's right for the people and not what Chuck Schumer or the DLC might want to make their rich patrons richer and the poor poorer.

It's quite simple. Greg Walden voted for a tax increase on middle class Oregonians.

End of story.

one of the posters claims walden takes care of the people in his district and that is all they care about ... excuse me ... how does voting against a sane tax policy plus additional health care for the middle class and poor equate to taking care of "his" people unless, of course, his people are all millionaires.

walden maybe slightly less odious then smith but don't let that fool you ... he is a goose stepping warrior of the right wing who could care less about the working poor and the lower middle class.

My contempt for Walden is close to unlimited, but let's not forget the majority of voters in his district who vote him in every time. He takes care of them and that is all they care or know about. They couldn't care less for or are ignorant about the children who will go without health insurance even if, in some cases, they are at risk of life-threatening diseases.

Seems to me, when it's their own children and their own taxes, they'll care all right.

East Oregon may be "different" from the other four districts, but it's not so different that it don't have any children, or any citizens suddenly getting hit with the AMT right when gas and health insurance prices have clobbered their wallets.

And Walden may not be changing, but his district is. Between the new voters coming to Jackson County, Deschutes County, and the Columbia gorge, the area is no longer monolithically Republican. And the more Smith and Walden act like old fossils with contempt for the needs of the people, the more likely that even the 2nd CD will consider a Democrat.

Paulie is right in pointing out Walden's definitive support of the Bush administration's disastrous policies. Walden listens to those who support him with campaign contributions, the lobbyists and corporations. When it comes to the ordinary citizen who lives from pay check to pay check, Walden could care less. He simply fails to listen to his constituency and their needs. In support of this, I learned in 2006 that at least 50% of the people at public events didn't even know who their representative was. I was frequently asked "who are you running against?". Walden continues in office because the citizens of the second district have not stood up to demand change. We have the right to be represented in decisions that are effecting our lives. We have lost that right with Walden because he doesn't care about the middle class or the working poor. Just look at his voting record. This MUST change in 2008. Carol Voisin

Agreed, Paulie, you and others here on BLueOregon are the ones out of step/out of touch w/most Oregonians. The M50 vote should show you that Walden understands as do most Oreognians that you don't fund a rapidly rising cost on a dminishing funding base such as tobacco taxes.

The AMT does need to be repealed, why attack Walden now when BOTH dems and repubs have consistintly avoided actually abolishing the tax outright for the past 20 years? Walden listens to his constituency and serves our part of Oregon quite well. Perhaps you would be more comfortable up in Multnomah w/your like thinking friends. The rest of Oregon thinks and acts differently. It isn't about progressive 'blues' against conservative 'reds'; it is about shrinking government to the size it should be.

And Walden may not be changing, but his district is. Between the new voters coming to Jackson County, Deschutes County,...

This is a valid point, but the change is slow. The Republicans are locked into whoever runs on the party ticket regardless of how that candidate votes as long as he takes an anti-tax position. If the Second Coming took place in Walden's district and Jesus Christ ran against Walden on a platform of health care for all and a living wage for all who work, Republicans would turn Him down for being a socialist or communist.

The other problem is that registered Democrats in Walden's and other districts are divided with progressives within the Democratic party struggling for change and conservatives preferring to go along with the entrenched oligarchy that believes impeachment should be kept off the table so that Bush and Cheney should not be held accountable for their crimes. After all, we don't want a squabble, do we? I understand a recent battle occurred in Deschutes County with the progressives managing to win. There is hope there for a more progressive future but lots of struggle ahead with the progressives having to fight not only the Republicans but the Democratic Establishment. This probably means the votes in the Democratic primary will be split in Deschutes County with the progressives voting for Steve Novick and the others voting for Merkley.

There is one experienced democrat who, I believe lives in the appropriate district to challenge Walden -- I wonder would Les be willing to give it another shot?

I know he's not Jesus but seriously Les Aucoin has the experience to hit the ground sprinting. He has a broad base of support, even in Walden's district and he could steal Waldens thunder on appropiate management of timber harvest. A huge, defining issue in So. Or.

So AuCoin could "steal Waldens thunder on appropiate management of timber harvest"?

That must be why in the 1992 US Senate primary (where forests were an issue) in the 2nd District Les only carried Malheur and Harney counties.

And how many people in the 2nd Cong. District thought he should replace Chris Heffernan on the Forestry Board? For what reasons?

If Les ran he could probably raise money easily, but does he really have the kind of support among long time Democrats that they would be willing to be part of his campaign (instead of, say, presidential, US Senate, statewide or legislative campaigns)?

And would he have the popularity to compensate for plays on his name which have been used previously like "Toss AuCoin" and "why settle for Les"?

If Les ran he could probably raise money easily, but does he really have the kind of support among long time Democrats that they would be willing to be part of his campaign (instead of, say, presidential, US Senate, statewide or legislative campaigns)?

The problem is probably not a lack of support from Democrats and progressives but of countering the apathy that afflicts so many in the 2nd District, despite the fact that those who are most apathetic are most likely to be the victims of Walden/Republican policies.

<h2>Most areas of the 2nd district (according to registration figures by legislative district) have over 5,000 voters registered outside major parties. Esp. in rural areas, getting people to talk to their friends about why they support a candidate can be the key to victory. Does the former Congressman who hasn't held elective office for roughly a decade and a half have an appeal to those folks? Where does he stand on veterans issues, on the current farm bill, on water issues, on issues of concern to people who are so different than the people he represented in Congress?</h2>