That is unbelievable. That's the laughable Kari Chisholm defense, named in honor of the Democratic errand boy who runs the Blue Oregon Glee Club.

Sounds not entirely dissimilar to the frequent charges of manipulative bias from certain staunchly pro-Novick bloggers and commenters, no?

Duin has written quite glowingly of Novick and rather harshly of Merkley, hasn't he?

For what it's worth, T.A., I too used to really enjoy reading Duin's columns. I quit a while back when it seemed to me that his objectivity was AWOL. The Kulongoski thing is a perfect example, as you showed. Objectivity in no way requires that he give Kulongoski the benefit of the doubt. But there is a vast chasm between not giving the benefit of the doubt and the kind of slanderous assertions you quoted.

The question is: Has Duin become unhinged? Or has he become so jaded that he's settled for the lowest common denominator ala tabloid ethics? The later seems the more likely. It's what Lars Larson seems to have chosen to do too. He too once was a respected journalist.

it seemed to me that his objectivity was AWOL

Hey, I'm no apologist for the excesses of Steve Duin or any other columnist, but the last time I checked, "columnists" weren't supposed to be objective. That's kind of the point, isn't it?

not a regular, jeez, that's pathetic. adding the equal sign totally changes my words, and you know it. and just because your version of progressive isn't posted daily, we're somehow lacking? i'll match my progresivism to anyone's (it's really really big), and that doesn't always mean the Democratic Party gets it right. perhaps if you'd both hang around regularly, and not hide behind a nick, you'd get a better idea of the progressivism that is here — and you'd see it covers quite a spectrum of beliefs and attitudes.

Stephanie, columnists should at least attempt to be reasonable (not to mention avoid libel). otherwise they're just kooks. you don't have dialogues with kooks; you have chaos. you heard anyone have a dialogue with Lars? Rush? we don't have to agree with one another, but if we can't talk reasonably, we don't have much of anything.

Hot damn. I didn't even know Steve Duin had his own blog. Oops! Welcome to the blogosphere, Steve!

(TA, I've edited your post to include a link to the post in question. Took me forever find it. Someday, the O will figure out how to make a navigable website. Google still hasn't found his post.)

Steve is the same guy who wrote that "BlueOregon is an endless lap dance for the Democratic Party." Personally, I thought it was hilarious.

I'll leave most of the meta-analysis to others. Frankly, I'm bored by it. But I have two thoughts:

<h1>1. The notion that we're a "glee club", as T.A. so aptly points out, is ridiculous. Clearly, Steve hasn't been paying attention much around here. We've had a raging brawl-among-friends going for quite a few months around here.</h1> <h1>2. I don't run BlueOregon. I'm an active editor, along with Jeff and Charlie. There was a time when I did probably 75% of the content and checked in every few hours. It's been months since that's been true. These days, I do about 10% and I check in about once a day. (I really wish people would stop giving me all the credit. This is a labor of love from a large number of people.)</h1>

Personally, I've always enjoyed Duin's work. I've got much in common with his kids. I went to USC. I grew up in L.O. In elementary school, I even had the teacher who inspired the annual reading challenge. (She was Miss McBee then... don't know her married name now. She was easily my favorite.)

As to the substance? Remember: the Oregonian knew about the Goldschmidt story all the way back in 1986. That was 21 years ago.

Sure, as the Astorian noted, Steve Duin is the "moral force" of the paper - but he should turn his attention to the people who really covered this up: The Oregonian.

Duin is welcome to his crustiness. BlueOregon should buy him lunch for the mention.

Gladly! Steve, give me a call. Lunch is on me. We'll even do it at Higgins. (And maybe bring along Miss McBee!)

Kari said:

We've had a raging brawl-among-friends going for quite a few months around here.

No way. I thought we were all in 100% agreement around here.

; )

A glee club...o.k....one usually off key, forgets the words, the melody and even to sing. Sheesh.

Read Jeff Mape's blog at the big "O".

Well, to be fair, TA's photoshop job does make the Karis look fairly choral.

Duin comes off, as he has more and more often, like a man desperately trying to reassert his authority. Yet his overheated rhetoric is cringe-producing even on a blog. Duin has done a lot of interesting, important work. Throwing a hissy fit about the governor cannot be considered either.

Come on, Steve, pick up your game.

Actually it is true, Pat. But I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Ditto, Bill. "Weaker than Pendleton clam chowder" tickeled my funny bone.

" 'BlueOregon is an endless lap dance for the Democratic Party.' Personally, I thought it was hilarious."

It's funny cause it's true! Seriously, there IS a fairly strong editorial pattern of Democratic (big d) backing IMO, staying fairly tightly within the relatively narrow ideological bounds of "what's safe" and not too out there. The connections are strong, and one sees fairly quickly what happens when you don't follow the line--even among the supposedly unherded cats of the Party.

That said, Duin's kind of in left field here, I agree. It's not libel, however, unless Duin actually believes Kulongoski is NOT lying, but is saying he is. That's why libel cases are so hard to prove; the defendant has to be shown to be deliberately printing a falsehood.

tj, "editorial pattern" is kind of overstating things. that implies that some effort is being made to create a pattern, or direct writings. the guest columns are the only ones that need approval; contributors don't ask for permission to post. we post. i can write to my heart's delight on Novick or Obama, both of whom Kari opposes (or supports another candidate, might be a better way to put it).

if there is any pattern, it's the kind of unintentional pattern describe by Steve Johnson in his terrific book Emergence. this is a great look into how seemingly unconnected organisms or processes end up working together. it's actually a bit more simple here — most of us are active in the Democratic Party, so duh, we write about helping out the Democratic Party — but it's a book anyone interesetd in both natural and social processes should read.

Duin has written quite glowingly of Novick and rather harshly of Merkley, while betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of how the GOP traps work. All of which debunks Pat's claim upthread.

Please.... can we stay a little close to on-topic? Yeah, this was a meta-post on the nature of BlueOregon, but it was originally about Governor Kulongoski, the Goldschmidt Scandal, etc. It was not supposed to be another chapter in the ongoing pissing match between Merkley and Novick supporters. We have plenty of opportunities for that.

and you see how this works? Kari tries to exercise editorial influence (conduct the glee club) and i reply:

no, this was not about Kulo, it was about Steve Duin thinking we all sing the same tune. the comments prove that we're anything but a glee club. this is a typical set of comments, very illustrative of how things tend to work at BO. and ignoring the editor's pleas, also typical.

Fair enough, TA! I'm just saying that the ongoing pissing match with rehashed arguments is BOOOOOOORING. Find something new to say, people.

One way to tell extremists from people who merely have strongly held views is to examine their perception of censorship. Those that interpret criticism of their poorly reasoned screeds as a form of censorship ("editorial direction", "without allowing discordant notes", "glee club") refuse to accept that any belief system other than their own is legitimate. (Therefore, in the twisted logic of the ever more deranged radical, all opposition must be motivated by evil - greed, self-interest, hatred, what have you. It's the first step on the long road to dehumanizing your political opponents, which thankfully only a few violent extremists ever reach.)

BlueOregon is a website that puts few limits on what people write. Emotional reasoners are welcome to contribute. But so are those who ridicule the ridiculous, including myself. So if your bottom is hurting from the spankings you get here, don't blame the forum. Blame yourself.

T.A., I think the question is not whether you can write about Novick or Obama, but whether if you decided to back Frohnmeyer for senate and whomever the Greens nominate for president next year, and wrote about those frequently and insistently but politely, maybe with a few periodic arguments about why Ralph Nader wasn't a spoiler in 2000, that would have any consequences.

The blog is called BlueOregon. The "blue" vs. "red" methaphor goes back ultimately to representations of Dems vs. Repubs in t.v. electoral college maps for presidential elections. The focus here is mostly on partisan politics and public policy. Of the 45 regular columnists, 3 editors and 1 intern listed, 25 have had at least one post since Sept. 1. Of those, 15 have posted since Dec. 1 and few of the other 10 had more than one or two posts in Sept. & Oct.; one still-listed columnist actually was removed in November.

A pretty substantial majority of those listed and an even greater proportion of the recent posters are current or former Democratic elected officials, current or former Democratic party officials, professional or volunteer activists for the Democratic party, or professional policy or issue activists working mainly in the DP milieu.

It seems pretty bootless to deny that this is mostly a DP-oriented talk shop. I think it's only because Duin turns that into an attack and a smear that there's even an inclination to try.

There are other kinds of progressive politics in Oregon; mostly they are ignored here or are actively disdained (admittedly of course the favor is returned often enough with respect to views of the DP). That doesn't bother me terribly because I don't expect it to be much different, though at times it limits both what we discuss and how we talk about it in ways I wish it didn't.

Even when broad issues are discussed, it's usually with reference to candidate, official or party positions or electoral and government policy debates (sometimes including criticism like Lenny Dee's on DP "free trade" politics). The main exceptions that stick out in my mind recently are Leslie Carlson's posts, Karol Collymore's New Orleans reports, and further back, some posts by Jenson Hagen about schools and education.

Chris,

I agree with the thrust of your comment above. I made a very similar criticism of Loaded Orygun earlier this year, back when Carla was still writing there and it was much less partisan. Both of them can confirm that for you if you doubt me.

The thing is... taking just TJ, Carla and myself as examples, we're all three NAVs and all three long-time frequent commenters here at Blue Oregon. That the conversations here revolve around DPO-centric issues reflects, in my view, common cause rather than any kind of party loyalty. That a number of non-Democrats routinely comment here underscores that characterization, IMO.

One thing that I've long noticed here at Blue Oregon is that the "alliances" are every shifting. It's not at all uncommon for Bill Bodden and I, for example, to be in firm agreement on one thread and at polar opposites of an issue on another thread, with both threads being current. Ditto for me and Kari, me and T.A., etc. All of which underscores what T.A. said a few comments up about how we (in the collective sense) are anything but a "glee club."

To Steve Duin

I believe it was N. Bonaparte who said, "When small men attempt great enterprises, they always end by reducing them to the level of their mediocrity."

Even by my low standards, your attempts to depict the BlueOregon blog as a glee club and paint the Democratic Party as a party of mediocrity is a thin disguise for arrogance, not unlike the columnist David Brooks.

Like all tales told around campfires over the years, there comes a time when some story tellers will doctor and shade a story to exploit their listener's with a rendition far from the original story. Like a spiraling infection, the tales told about our sitting Governor will heal or result in a slow death.

Usually your's is a distintive voice. This time it is shrill.

golly, Steve does look in.

i admit, Steve Duin may never have used the term "dogment" but he, like Jaynes, was harsh on athletes for not being good athletes; and since this included college athletes, i had a lot of trouble with that kind of writing. Jaynes was far worse, but i know how glad i was when Steve stopped doing sports. as far as ignoring him, i don't even recall being challenged. i don't track relentlessly every time i comment; i try to keep involved in conversations, but life is pretty full so i do lose track. i guess one day i'll head over the library, pop in the microfiche and search. but until i can do that, i'll amend my comments to admit that my recollections of Steve's days as a sportswriter....

i didn't ignore Steve's other links; i never bothered to get involved in the comments. since i have no waying of knowing if Leonhardt is telling the truth or not — and i am not going to take Lars' word for it — this becomes one of those things i let slide. i have too much else to deal with that i can actually do something about. i got a kid scheduled to go to Afghanistan in a year, so i get a bit myopic at times. if there is real proof Ted lied, i hope it comes out. if you can bring that out without the vitriol, i'll be glad to read it.

i'm not sure what mediocrity is in Oregon, in your mind. i see the Dems making headway on repairing the damage done by the GOP's years of attack, by a near-permanent statewide recession that owes much to Bush's policies, and i see a crop of Dems rising around the state to take control of thing and work to make this a better state. people like Sara Gelser, my former rep, and Jefferson Smith, who'll be in the Leg soon, and grassroots activists all over the state (Matt Sutton in Ashland, Leah Bolger in Corvallis, Jenni Greenleaf here in Pdx, to name three) — Dems who support the party but demand we do better, who refuse to accept that the old way of doing things is going to work any more. i hope Steve and others can start seeing that the Democratic Party in Oregon is more than the Gov and a few others but thousands of activists who are responsible for taking back the House, for pushing the state to the left and who are not going to settle for anything less than real democracy.

Hey Pat,

Even the tax code is partisan - look who pays the majority of taxes. Once upon a time I too went looking for the fairy godmother of bipartisonship. Instead I found paid signature gatherers.

Believe it or not, I have found several serious folks who are in the party to which I belong. Many are centrists with a desire to improve; not smash the other party with unhinged statements or actions. It is exquisite irony that you may be searching for a magical third party to fix everything or a level of bipartanship on BlueOregon.

Back to the Duin cloumn which generated all the posts. Apparently his delicate sensibilities don't allow him to preserve even the the basic premise of journalist standards. Watch for another one of his stunning backflips that contradict his earlier writings.

Kevin,

Actually I don't disagree with anything you say. Don't know why you think I'd doubt you about L.O. either. My point was just that the agenda around here is mainly DP oriented and that's not surprising given how it's constructed. Common cause, yes, but within the framework of actions that can be taken in particular ways.

What's a little interesting to me is to wonder if a broader progressive blog could actually exist in Portland now. How many BO participants wouldn't be interested because it wouldn't be "real politics"? How many less DP-oriented progressives would be willing to do more than vent frustrations against a generic DP label, and to avoid driving others away with personal motives attacks? And conversely with DP-oriented folks regarding the motives and choices of those who do other kinds of politics?

My tendency is to think it would be hard to make something broader fly, that people would get sucked into just attacking one another. Which is a pity, and also increasingly a practical problem, with respect to the occupation war in Iraq in particular.

Around here anti-war folks are frustrated by the inability to get traction within the party for more aggressive action, but tend look down on protest politics as ineffective and unrealistic, or at any rate don't talk about them. When I go to an organizing meeting for an anti-occupation war day on March 15 (commemorating 5 years of aggression, useless carnage, and failure to really support vets and military families) including but not restricted to a rally and march, people there are frustrated about the inability to get traction with protest politics, but tend to look down on working in or with the DP as ineffective and unrealistic.

On another thread someone mentioned a MultCo Dem GLBTQ caucus and suggested other caucuses might be valuable. Maybe an peace/anti-war caucus would have utility? Though I guess that doesn't speak to NAV folks with mainly electoral orientations.

The list of third party candidates is a long one from Strom Thurmond, Douglas McArthur, George Wallace, Eldgrige Cleaver, Jesse Jackson, Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. Some hold Ralph Nader responsible for giving the election to George W. Bush by tilting voters in Florida and New Hampshire away from Al Gore.

Third parties can bring about change, some for the good and some for the not so good. In the end all politics is partisan, thats why they call it politics.

Before this thread get's high jacked away from the orignal post about Duin's column (I'm guilty) there is a peace caucus recently formed by the DPO. Back to Duin.

Nice! I don't see a whole lot of "progress" there, just the same old dismissive, partisan tactics of search and destroy.

I see some of that too, Pat. In fact I've seen you do it here and elsewhere. I also see shades of it in Duin's diatribe. Which is why I made the initial comment that I did.

Guess what? Nobody likes to be lectured by a hypocrit.

That said, it would be a mistake for the casual reader to assume that I see every single Novick supporter in that light. Nothing could be further from the truth. Charlie Burr and Bill Bodden have both held to a much higher standard than I, in my own admittedly biased opinion, have. I had a very nice, very friendly email exchange a while back with another Novick supporter whose name escapes me at the moment. Undoubtedly there are untold others who have likewise taken the high road at every turn.

On another thread someone mentioned a MultCo Dem GLBTQ caucus and suggested other caucuses might be valuable. Maybe an peace/anti-war caucus would have utility? Though I guess that doesn't speak to NAV folks with mainly electoral orientations.

In Oregon, no. But it seems to me that if the DPO were to be more open to NAVs like the Dems in California are, then perhaps NAVs could more effectively work with Dems in such caucuses to effect meaningful change in Oregon. Maybe not... I dunno. I don't see why not but I could be overlooking something too.

What's a little interesting to me is to wonder if a broader progressive blog could actually exist in Portland now.

Yes, yes, yes! That would be fantastic. We need a FireDogLake to BlueOregon's DailyKos approach. Bring it on! that would be fantastic...

(Which isn't to say that everything on BlueOregon is like everything on Kos. Just that we're both more party-oriented, and more focused on elections than ideology or policy.)

Steve, I guess I mind the "apologist" tag less than the idea that there should BE a tag. We have had dozens of writers here at BlueOregon expressing divergent views for the 2 and a half years the site has existed.

Speaking as a fairly strong critic of the Democratic Party over the past five years I've been blogging, you have to put things in context. With rare exceptions, the only progressive game in town is the Dems. I want progressive change, and while I'm happy to criticize the Dems when they go limp, I haven't seen that locally. Ted ran an uninspired first term as governor, and we killed him on the site for it. But legislative Dems have done a pretty sound job. So who exactly should we be cheering?

I think you maybe still hold the frame of the MSM on this one. We have never seen it as our job to offer neutral, objective commentary. We are partisans and we want change. When gross corruption charges are leveled at Dems, we discuss it here (see the Betsy Johnson debate), unlike conservative blogs who eschew all criticism. But it's not our intention to be a watchdog--that's the Oregonian's job. We are unpaid bloggers who advocate for the things we think are good.

I found your post "unhinged" because it follows a series of similar pieces, doesn't add much to the narrative (aside from your own anger), and drags in random shots at BlueOregon and others for complicity. It cheapens your argument in my mind.

On the other hand, I give you big props for stopping by, answering the criticism and joining the discussion. That is very nice bloggy behavior, and I appreciate it.

We have had dozens of writers here at BlueOregon expressing divergent views for the 2 and a half years the site has existed.

That's three and a half years, actually. July 17, 2004.

What's a little interesting to me is to wonder if a broader progressive blog could actually exist in Portland now.

We sort of have one now over at Blog for Oregon, we just don't get enough contributors over there yet. But we've definitely been more than just the Democratic Party, as we've had stuff on the Working Families Party, have actively supported candidates not generally supported by the Party (Pete Sorenson, for example), etc.

The goal of the blog is to be a broader progressive blog, and it's completely open for posting.

Chris Lowe wrote... When I go to an organizing meeting for an anti-occupation war day ... people there are frustrated about the inability to get traction with protest politics, but tend to look down on working in or with the DP as ineffective and unrealistic.

ARGH!!!! That's got to be one of the most frustrating things I've ever heard on this blog yet.

One of the most effective and realistic things you can do right now to end the war is to volunteer and donate to the Jeff Merkley and/or Steve Novick campaigns for U.S. Senate.

Who do you think can end the war? The U.S. Senate can. Gordon Smith is an obstacle to ending the war. Eject him (and just a few others like him in other states) and we'll bring this war to a close.

Folks who usually complain about how "ineffective" it is to work within the party are usually ones who want change to happen before an election. Sorry, folks. Change happens after elections. Win the election, and you'll effect change.

When Bill Clinton won in 1992, we got family and medical leave on his very first day - though Chris Dodd had been working on it for five years. When the Democrats took control in the Oregon House, we got a raft of progressive legislation.

Want progressive change? There is nothing that is more effective than electing progressive leaders to office. That's how it works.

Kari:

Only thing I have to add is that you'll also never change or help better the party by standing on the outside complaining. Getting involved in the party, becoming a voting member, etc. is how you change things.

Kari,

I don't exactly disagree with you, or Jenni. If you look at what I wrote, I was expressing frustration at the situation "over there" too.

Likewise one of the reasons I've gotten involved with the MoveOn PDX council is that they/we are both involved with PDX Peace (the coalition that is organizing the March 15 events) and engage with elected officials (I was part of a delegation of about 40 people who spent an hour with a staffer at David Wu's office a couple of weeks ago, & there were similar groups who went to Reps. Blumenauer and Hooley's offices). Due to organizational tax status MoveOn is restricted in what kind of direct organizational involvement it can have with the DP as a party or with specific campaigns.

but ...

There are some very real problems posed by the inaction on the war, or failure to find effective action, on the part of the Democratic Congressional leadership following the last election, that I can predict to undermine the persuasiveness of "change happens after elections" argument. I understand that what that means is that we need more change. But in this case I also believe that the low approval polls on Congress reflect a large degree of alienation among non-party-activist Democratic voters that actually put the "outside critics" closer to a significant chunk of the party base than the leadership is. (Many party activists too, of course).

and ...

Jenni, with due respect, I have to take what you say with a grain of salt in part because another line of discussion that pops up here from time to time is (quite understandable from a social psychology and organizational point of view) complaints by long-haul activists about people who haven't paid their dues popping up suddenly and wanting to change things they don't even really understand tout de suite.

Again, both those feelings, and the points you & Kari make, & related feelings that he expresses & you concur with I think, are quite understandable. But there is a tension between them, one that might be hard to navigate at any time. And right now they come into another tension with the felt urgency for something to change & quickly among people focused specifically on the war. And that specific anti-war focus also is likely in source of tension with multi-issue & multi-electoral level orientations by party-focused folks.

Up to now I've been thinking about this more or less in isolation, & need to find allies in both organizations, along with more information & advice. It is good to learn that an anti-war caucus has been formed in Multnomah County. On the peace movement side I have a couple of ideas of people to approach, & a guess that the senate campaign might be the best point at which to encourage engagement.

This is long and off-topic to boot, so I'll stop. Thanks for the advice & what I will take up as encouragement.

That's three and a half years, actually. July 17, 2004.

Me maths have never been so good.

Of course it's always best to learn a bit about the organization and how things work before you come in and want to change everything. Not only does it work best for getting people to work with you, but you also learn what channels you need to go through, what the rules are, how to change the rules, etc.

But that doesn't mean you can't change things. We've seen a considerable amount of change in the Party just since I moved here in 2000. But that doesn't mean things are perfect - we're all still looking for ways to improve things. But working on the inside to make change always works better than sitting on the outside. As many times as I've gotten frustrated with the Party, I've only left once and that was when the frustration of things was causing a medical condition to worsen quickly. A week after surgery I was back at meetings and a few days later I'd signed up to be a PCP again.

Often times getting involved in the committees and caucuses can be a great way to start enacting change.

If more people who were frustrated with things would come to the Party and work with us, I think we could do a lot of good. But it's going to take all of us working together, even when we disagree on some things.

Folks who usually complain about how "ineffective" it is to work within the party are usually ones who want change to happen before an election. Sorry, folks. Change happens after elections. Win the election, and you'll effect change.

That's a good point, Kari. But how many elections have been won without the votes of those outside the party? And if Democrats and Republicans alike weren't keenly aware that both have to have the votes of nonmembers in order to win much of anything then how do we explain 2005's HB 2614? Nobody believes the fiction that the motivation was concern for the integrity of minor party nomination processes.

If party leaders, for example, want war and you don't, what do you do? Stick around and surrender your belief that war is wrong?

No. I work within the Party to change that. And at the same time, I work to make sure that we elect candidates that have the same beliefs as I do.

There are plenty of ways of showing the Party that you're capable of not voting for them. But I honestly don't think switching to NAV really tells the Party much. All they see is that a certain percentage of people have switched party, for reasons unknown. Maybe some campaigns have money and time to spare to go out and talk to voters who have switched parties to find out why. But most campaigns and party organizations are so strapped for resources that they wouldn't be able to do any kind of organized effort to do this. Although I think it would be a worthwhile effort, and maybe it's something local volunteers could do when they see a voter in their assigned area switches parties.

The fact is that the parties are going to listen the most to the people within the party. Those who are registered with their party, voting with their party, volunteering for their party and its candidates, giving money to its party and its candidates, etc.

That's why it will always be easier to enact change within a party from the inside than it will be from the outside.

I've been involved in the Democratic Party since the age of 14, which is pretty amazing for a kid whose parents didn't vote and lived in a town where political involvement of any kind was never encouraged, had no part in our school, etc. There was no organization or person going around talking to kids about getting involved, giving them a way to get involved, or anything. I stumbled upon the Party by accident and have been there ever since. Even when I get extremely frustrated with the Party and disagree strongly with its leaders, I stay because I know I have a louder voice and a better chance of changing things inside than I do from the outside. After all, on the outside I don't even have a vote on who is going to be making the decisions within the Party.

I really enjoy Chris Lowe's thoughtful comments here. He's a champ at bringing us back to a more discussable set of points.

Chris, I have heard the same kinds of frustration from people in the broader "action" community--places like Jobs With Justice, Street Roots, the peace action folks--who don't seem to mix in well with the more electorally based blog discussions in Oregon. I don't mean to shill for my space (especially since I just did it in the Civil Unions thread), but one of the reasons we set up Loaded Orygun as a community site, was to allow more voices to have a platform for letting us know about their efforts and events. Success has been mixed so far, because admittedly my focus is roughly the same as BlueO's: electoral politics. Where I do dabble, it's often in cultural areas as opposed to activities of movement progressives.

If Chris or anyone else is connected in those communities, I would encourage them to keep trying to reach out to the wonks like us; together we can be much stronger. And of course my offer is a standing and open one: sign up at LO, and start writing about what's important to you. And bring your friends to support those efforts, to have your important issues heard.

Oh, and:

"back when Carla was still writing there and it was much less partisan."

Ha! You mean, "back when they weren't disfavoring my guy." Ask Gordon Smith if Carla and I were "much less partisan" back then. LO has ALWAYS maintained an independent, subjectively progressive voice. We take sides, essentially the meaning of the word "partisan." So just because you don't like who's currently getting the benefit of our having chosen a side, doesn't make us any more partisan than before.

Ha! You mean, "back when they weren't disfavoring my guy." Ask Gordon Smith if Carla and I were "much less partisan" back then. LO has ALWAYS maintained an independent, subjectively progressive voice. We take sides, essentially the meaning of the word "partisan." So just because you don't like who's currently getting the benefit of our having chosen a side, doesn't make us any more partisan than before.

Yes, LO has been partisan from the outset. But I take Kevin's meaning to be that LO has changed from an investigative ethos to an advocacy ethos since my departure. At least that's my take within the context of what Kevin is saying.

That's my perception too, Carla. And I agree with it.

When you were there, LO told me things I didn't know. Now it just another site that hosts intraparty rants, and not particularly insightful ones at that.

Oh, and insofar as the efficacy of "street action" groups are concerned, while one in a dozen know how to do it right (Ben Fain comes to mind), more typically they're counterproductive, because they act like bullies.

I know some people here are so wrapped up in their own world that they'll disagree, so let's put the shoe on the other foot. There are plenty of anti-abortion protesters out there. They make scenes. They talk about murder with even more fervor and righteousness than the most ardent anti-war protesters. So when is the last time you've even heard about them, much less heard someone being persuaded by the picture of a fetus shoved in their face?

Actual persuasion is significantly less flashy. It involves, first, actually showing up on someone's doorstep, presenting facts, a new idea or two, and a light send off. It's also less of an ego trip, you can't display any cheap juvenile alienation, and there's no real opportunity to act all holier(greener/progressiver/etc)-than-thou, as is often found in these forums.

Which is why it's such hard work. And why so few actually do it.

I appreciate the substantial food for thought offered by Bill and LT in different ways, and Jenni & TJ for drawing attention to the opportunities in their blog-building efforts as well as TJ's kind words. Regarding changes at LO, if I try to step back from the more personal aspects which I don't understand in any case, it strikes me that on both sides of the split between Carla & TJ there is a loss to quality (or in Carla's case, maybe existence? which certainly is also a loss of quality) of blogging caused by competing campaign engagements, and in a somewhat different way that we see that on BO as well, more at the level of declining signal to noise ratio, as we used to say. That may be something to reflect on as we work through and get through this electoral cycle -- I haven't been around here long enough to know if this apparent competition of blog functions is something new or a pattern seen in previous cycles.

Steve, I want to tread carefully in addressing what you say. Let me begin by apologizing for some overblown things I said about you a while ago. Possibly they didn't bother you too much, but even if not, I owe you the apology anyway. But I also have another motive: I am genuinely interested in learning what I can from you and in having decent communication with you, yet my previous gratuitous comments would give you reason to doubt that and might pose other obstacles.

When you talked about street politics up above, you divided them into "doing it right" not otherwise defined, and "counterproductive" bullying and thuggishness. My own recent experiences suggest an intermediate category which would be simply "not very effective" for stated purposes, along which lines there is considerable internal self-criticism and seeking after better strategies and tactics in the anti-war/peace coalition.

Actually my perception is that this would me the most characteristic description of what I've been involved with in Portland. Apart from some confrontational posturing by a smallish category of so-called "Black Bloc" anarchists on the fringes of some marches, it is very hard for me to think of anything remotely comparable to the kind of anti-abortion protests which you describe (& with which I have had direct experience in "clinic defense" work, though quite some time ago now).

Perhaps for now I will stop by asking you if you'd agree that this intermediate category exists, if you think I underestimate the degree of bullying tactics, and even if I do, if you think the actively counterproductive really outweighs the simply or largely ineffective.

it strikes me that on both sides of the split between Carla & TJ there is a loss to quality (or in Carla's case, maybe existence? which certainly is also a loss of quality) of blogging caused by competing campaign engagements

Or the real explanation, which is, there isn't a "split". TJ/Mark and I haven't had any sort of dramatic fight that ended in his custody of LO. I made a conscious choice to go to work for a campaign. That's just me, choosing to do something that isn't blogging at Loaded Orygun. If I choose, I can go back to freelance blogging there or somewhere else.

I wanted to make a different kind of impact on Oregon politics. I love blogging (and I miss it every day), but two campaigns made me offers (Novick and Merkley) to go to work for them. I talked with both and made the decision that was right for me and what I believe in my heart is right for Oregon. I'm very happy with my decision.

It's a chance for me to stretch myself in an entirely new direction--which I'm grateful for. In the end, I hope to have helped make Oregon (and our country) a better place. Color me Pollyana.

I'm humbled and appreciative of those who miss my blogging efforts. But what I'm doing right now is potentially much more impactful (if not as visible now) for the state I love. At least that's how I see it.

I'm not competing with Mark for anything. Nor he with me, that I know of. I'm not fighting with him about Novick or Merkley or anything having to do with the Senate race.

I apologize for dragging this thread completely off-topic, but it bugs the hell out of me that there's some perception of animus between Mark and me because I work for Merkley and he advocates for Novick. I've never grudged Mark his support of Novick.

It's my understanding that he wishes me the best in my efforts as I do him.

I read pretty much every blog in Oregon on a daily basis, and I perceive no declining "signal to noise ratio". What I do see is some serious lack of perspective on the part of some who post and comment on blogs.

to respond to my fine friend Carla, from the beginning we have dedicated ourselvesnto advocacy journalism. If there is less journalism now than this summer, that's a reflection in large part of the fact that there are fewer people dedicated to the task. I regret that other short term goals (the Rebooting Democracy conference and Novick campaign have been taking up my attention.

Stay tuned though; I got back my FOIA request on Gordo and the Klamath fish kill this week..

carla responded before I did; let me echo that there is no personal animosity between us. I will admit our conversations are somewhat trained these days, but we know who we are and what we're doing. Those should suggest our relationship is fractured, or that we don't support each others efforts, should check with us first.

If you and your party leaders can't comprehend the message there, you need get in touch with reality and get new party leaders.

When you look at an entire county and see that 1.8% of the people in it changed parties in the last month, you don't know why. It could be a variety of reasons. Maybe they're mad over Iraq. Or over the lack of support for gay marriage. Or over Iran. Or .... If you had 1,000 people leave the party, there could be 500 different reasons. Without going through and talking to all those people, you don't know for sure - especially if those 1,000 people were only voted and didn't contact their party, try to get involved, express their opinions to the party, etc. That's what I was talking about. Many people who have talked about "leaving the party" are doing so from the position of being a Democratic voter and that's it. They hadn't been involved in their party, hadn't attended meetings, expressed their views to the leaders, etc.

But when you have people who have been involved in the party, who have come forward and expressed their views, and they leave - that's a whole different story. If the party is paying attention (typically the local or state party since those are the two you're going to have direct interaction with), they should notice that you've left and know at least some of the reason why you've left. I know in working with the Multnomah County Dems PCP lists in the past as a district leader and in other positions that we knew at least part of the reason why people had changed registration since they'd typically expressed those views at meetings, in e-mails, over the phone, in a letter, etc.

But that's why I was recommending getting involved in the Party - if all you ever do is vote Dem and you get mad at the Dems and switch to NAV, no one ever knows why. The Party never knew you were unhappy, and you never tried to make things change within the Party. But if you get involved, let them know your position, try to change things, and then leave because basically there's a brick wall that isn't going to change, then the Party knows you left. And they have a good idea why you left.

Jenni: If you have a problem why Paul Motta and other Democrats in Deschutes County are thinking about leaving the party, let me know, and I'll explain it to you.

I know there has been something happening out in Deschutes County, but I don't know the details. I definitely don't have a problem with anyone thinking about leaving the Party who has been actively involved and has tried to better the Party. If they do leave, people within the Party should definitely know why it happened.

I just get frustrated with people when they talk about "leaving the party" when all they've actually done is be a Dem voter. Often times it is because they're frustrated with elected officials or their perception of what the Party is doing or stands for. What I wish they would do is get involved in the Party first. Come to some meetings, learn how things work, and then try to enact change. Help find new and better candidates to run. Work on their campaigns. Chances are there are a number of people already working within the Party who agree with you. And working together, you have a chance to make improvements and get better policies passed.

Believe me, the Party does plenty of things I don't agree with. Most recently, our county party voted to hold the county party's re-org in January, which is when we'll be voting on our officers. But I shouldn't say we, because I don't get to vote. Why? Because I moved since I was elected a PCP in 2006. And since I didn't move to an adjacent precinct, that makes me ineligible to vote in re-org meetings until after our next election of PCPs - which won't happen until the 2008 primary. So my vote as a PCP on our officers has been taken away. And so has the vote of any other PCP who moved beyond the adjacent precinct or has become a PCP after the 2006 primary. Yes, that makes me frustrated with the party. But I'll continue to work with the Party to try to make sure this doesn't happen again.

Bill:

Not necessarily. I know people who have "switched" parties because they only registered that way because it was the way their parents registered. Once they moved out of their parents' house and went out in the real world, they established their own views on things and realized they were actually more Dem or Repub leaning than they thought.

Even if we assume that 90% of them left because they were unhappy with their party, that still tells us very little. It could be that they're extremely pro life and they leave because the Party continues to be pro choice. Or maybe they leave because they don't like the party's support of homosexuals (yes, I've run into some of these). Or maybe they left because they're unhappy that nothing has yet to be done about Iraq.

Knowing in general that these people might have been unhappy with the Party still doesn't tell us what to do. And with the Party's limited resources, the chances we'll be able to go out and ask all those people why is slim.

I'd love to see us be able to do that. Then we can use the data collected to show elected officials and party members that (hypothetical numbers...) 90% of those who are leaving the Party are doing so because of Iraq and that something absolutely has to be done. Or that 85% of people left because they didn't like the direction the county party was going. Then we know what to fix and we have the data to back up the need for those fixes.

Bill, The quote you respond to was LT's not mine. LT, I don't think Jenni disagrees with you about active people who "leave" (change reg.?) or just become simply voters -- as I read it she's saying be active because you can influence people and even if you stop that role people will notice and there will be conversations about why. She and Bill are debating about registration changes among not otherwise active voters I think.

Carla, didn't mean to imply any criticism of your choice, & glad to know that the superficial blog debates over the primary don't reflect anything deeper. Also I'm glad of your assessment of the overall state of Oregon blogging & also see that even regarding BO my comment applies really to the comments & not to the primary posts. But in the comments there has been a lot of staticky noise, less recently maybe (?).

Right there, you have a clear example of the difference between Mult. County and the rest of the state. There are enough Democrats there to have "district leaders" while most counties count themselves fortunate if they have even half the pct. positions filled.

Actually, we have DL positions available for every full district district per the bylaws (with partial districts being lumped together by size), but there's no guarantee there are enough people to have the position filled. Many districts have no leader.

I don't think we have yet to hit half our positions filled in the county. I know people think that because this is Multnomah County that we must have almost all our positions filled. In actuality, we tend to be in the 300-500 range out of our 1,608 positions. Half? I'd love to see us at 800 PCPs.

In the district in which I was the leader, the most we ever had "filled" was I believe about 10 out of the 128 we were allotted. Out of that, only a handful were actually active in any way, shape, or form.

And yes, I have heard of conversation. That's something we've been trying to get people to do through the neighborhood program. But having worked as a field director where it was my job to get people out talking to voters and neighbors, I can tell you that getting people to go out and have that conversation isn't easy. Out of all our volunteers, I think only a dozen or so (if even that) actually went out and did that in 2006.

Serious networking requires deep organization to disseminate information, through personal contact at the neighborhood level (hard to do when your neighbor's driveway is 3/4 mile long) building phone banks, holding events that appeal to arm chair Dems enough to get them off the couch or away from the computer screen...and many appearances by a variety of candidates..the list goes on. We have 45 volunteer phone callers for the Super Tuesday Party is just one example of a stategy for continued connections with fellow Dems. Kari is correct, along with countless other commenters, that working from the inside gets things moving, not throwing water balloons at the organization charged with assisting candidates, progressive ballot measures and the like.

Our leadership focus is always about recruiting a bench of replacements for the next set of volunteers to take the leadership to a higher place than the last set of leaders. Volunteer organizations, by their very nature, lack institutional memory because the players revolve out the door. Sticky problem. Columnist Duin would do well to get out and meet the Dem County leaders who recently spent a grueling and useful weekend in a retreat. He might just learn the times are changing and for the better. The mutual respect shared between 36 county Chairs and recognition that each county has specific needs mixed with pragmatic goals should help Democrats win across the state.

The pyrimid has been turned upside down with the leaders on the bottom, working their hardest to assist all of those volunteers above them. I do believe here among the grassroots our hard work will make change possible.

Nancy Pelosi told the rabble in her party that impeachment was off the table despite a majority in favor of it. The party oligarchs in Washington are still pro-war and have done nothing but go along with Bush and Cheney on this and other illegal issues.

While the end result is no different, I don't believe that the oligarchs are necessarily pro-war. The problem is that they're too driven by perceived wind shifts in public sentiments. Not that that's any better of an excuse, but I think we ought to at least portray it accurately so as to avoid tilting at windmills.

Carla, didn't mean to imply any criticism of your choice, & glad to know that the superficial blog debates over the primary don't reflect anything deeper.

Honestly Chris, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't comment very much on blogs, especially relative to most who comment in the Oregonsphere.

This is what's so exasperating to me. It's as if some sort of Carla/Mark/Merkley/Novick feud is being created out of whole cloth. I don't have a problem with Mark supporting Novick. I don't recall having written otherwise anywhere.

I think that there are some who comment and publish on blogs in this state about the U.S. Senate in Oregon that race suffer from a fundamental lack of perspective. There are a number of reasons for this--and honestly it would just start more sniping to outline them so there is no point.

Alright..sorry again for hijacking this thread with stuff outside the topic. Back to your regularly scheduled Duin bashing. :)

To Bill

The Democratic National Party Field Reps, there are four in Oregon, do feel the pressure from the national level..ala' the 50 state strategy....Governor Dean's grassroots strategy (grassroots instead of top down, as in previous organizational models). At the state DPO level, the officers and Ex. Director have made a careful decision to turn the previous organizational structure on its head by listening, changing direction and implementing ideas from the county organizations. I know because the fiesty, fiesty group I assist with is always inventing new approaches and sends critical comments (respectfully) to them. The current crop of leaders return calls and can say without even a shrug, "You're right." In addition, they actually make a point of visiting every county.

As far as I can tell the DPO is and Dr. Dean does, have a distinct disconnect with the Democratic Senate and House leaders by choice or purpose, I'm not certain. Governor Dean is about electing Democrats at the local grassroots level.Senate and House leaders back in the beltway are attempting to conduct business in a still wildly hostile atmosphere.

Chris, absolutely the intermediate category - neither counterproductive (nor particularly effectual) advocacy groups - you describe exists. I've expounded at length about them in posts before (probably too much, actually).

I only focused on the extremes because that's what yet another BlueOregon thread has become sidetracked onto: a "discussion" of sorts between effective progressive activists (like Carla), and people like Bill, who aren't Democrats at all, but are rather frustrated European style Socialists (a word I merely use merely as a description, not an insult) and are, largely by their own admission, more interested in expressing their political alienation and presumed moral superiority than actually doing anything constructive to pull American society in the progressive direction.

But rather than focus on the negative, which I've probably done too much of, let's talk about positives. Specifically, what makes an advocacy organizations effective? How do you leverage the efforts of a small group of people to affect a change in views in a larger community? Who is Ben Fain, and why is he so good?

The answer to that last question is simple: in the Bus Project, Ben is the guy who drives the Bus. Literally. He also organized the Peace vigil in Washington County. The vigil is organized, regularly scheduled, local, persistent, non-disruptive, and civil - all things which garner positive media attention.

Here is a link to some photos of the demonstration. Do you notice something about the signs? I do. Only a few are deliberately confrontational. The majority express themselves in a positive manner: "Peace", "Stand for Peace", "Thanks Lt. Watada", "No War in Iran", "What Noble cause?".

This is extremely important because you never persuade anybody by figuratively (or literally) flipping the bird. Again, it can be hard to ask for a vote from someone who you feel deep in your heart has betrayed you (or the country), but people who do are influential.

Further, it's held in a place where there still is some chance of undecideds actually seeing it. And that's who you're trying to influence, right? I'm not sure banging a drum and streaming slogans is ever effective, but if you're doing it in downtown Portland, it'll never be.

Finally, the vigil is inclusive. Ben does not see other organizations as competitors for the same group of committed activists. It's not a zero sum game. He reaches out, and this brings in more people.

Now obviously, there are limits to any sort of single advocacy campaign. All our Democratic Congressmen and Senators voted against the war from the start, so you're starting from just about perfect, which is damned hard to improve. It'd be better in Missouri. But even in Oregon, it helps our representatives feel that they made the right choice, which will affect their votes in the future. Call it sorely needed calcium for Democratic spines.

Thanks for your thoughful response Steve. Just fyi one of the purposes of the MoveOn PDX visits to Reps. Blumenauer, Hooley & Wu that I mentioned up thread was exactly to thank them for good stuff they've done, even while encouraging them to keep looking for ways to worry at the Republican obstructionism.

Where does the Washington County vigil happen? I don't recognize the location but I don't know the county well. There actually has been a similar vigil in Portland for 5 years, but they don't get coverage, perhaps because downtown by the Federal Building = not very visible. Some of the PDX Peace and Vancouver for Peace people who are discontented with marching in a circle through downtown in a little tunnel between police barricades every 6 months are thinking about similar things in more visible places, not downtown & maybe more than once a week.

Similar to the vigil you mention, I mean. Grammar, it's a wonderful thing.

...people like Bill, who aren't Democrats at all, but are rather frustrated European style Socialists (a word I merely use merely as a description, not an insult) and are, largely by their own admission, more interested in expressing their political alienation and presumed moral superiority...

I'm struck by how much that comment sounds like this quote from Bill Kristol in about Iraq in 2002:

Reading the Scowcroft/New York Times "arguments" against war, one is struck by how laughably weak they are. European international-law wishfulness and full-blown Pat Buchanan isolationism are the two intellectually honest alternatives to the Bush Doctrine. Scowcroft and the Times wish to embrace neither, so they pretend instead to be terribly "concerned" with the administration's alleged failure to "make the case."

Of course, back in the days before he was Dan Quayle's brain, Kristol was a titular Democrat. And he still seems very concerned about the health of his old party, don't you think?

Was Bill Kristol ever a Democrat? Irving was, I suppose, at some point in his trajectory, & I guess of the younger generation Elliot Abrams may have worked for Scoop Jackson if I remember rightly (which I may not do). Is Bill old enough to be part of the crew who went over with Jeanne Kirkpatrick? Or did he hang around with Al Shanker who never switched? Off topic, sorry, but I'm curious.

Chris, like a number of the prominent neo-cons, Bill Kristol worked on the staff of Senator (and Democratic presidential primary candidate) Scoop Jackson.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

William Kristol Like other neoconservatives Frank Gaffney Jr. and Elliott Abrams, Kristol worked for hawkish Democratic Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson. But by 1976, he became a Republican.

Norman Podhoretz Podhoretz advocated liberal political views earlier in life, but broke ranks in the early 1970s. He became part of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority founded in 1973 by Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson and other intervention-oriented Democrats.

Norman Podhoretz Podhoretz advocated liberal political views earlier in life, but broke ranks in the early 1970s. He became part of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority founded in 1973 by Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson and other intervention-oriented Democrats.

Aside from Kristol, Abrams, and Gaffney, of course, there were Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.

http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5516

Many neoconservatives who supported Jackson's presidential bids gravitated to Ronald Reagan and the Republican party after Jackson's defeats. Among these were Richard Perle, a longtime Jackson staffer who worked under Dorothy Fosdick, Jackson's top foreign policy adviser, and Paul Wolfowitz, another member of the Jackson circle, both of whom went on to play prominent roles developing Middle East policy in the George W. Bush administration.

Sorry for repeating NoPod's name there. Don't type it three times in a row, whatever you do.

Oh, and, of course, the man once dubbed "the stupidest fucking guy on the planet " by General Tommy Franks: Doug Feith. He worked for Jackson.

Mind you, they were all much younger then.

jrw:

And you're exactly the type of person I wasn't talking about. You've been involved. You tried to change things. I wish you'd stay around and help those of us who are still fighting for change, but I can understand that you can only beat your head against the wall so many times (and take so many insults) before you've had it and have to leave. I completely understand that.

And when someone like you leaves, especially if you let it be known that you're leaving and don't just walk away quietly, people notice.

LT:

I never said anything like this:

But comments implying all good people show up for meetings won't get me to a meeting unless there is a reason (like a candidate speaking, for instance).

I haven't been to a central committee meeting in a year. To be honest, there is very little action in them and they're often times at the same day/time as meetings in my community. When given the choice of attending a meeting of the "choir" and a meeting in my community where I can do something, I pick the meeting in my community.

I get frustrated with CC meetings. Even when there is a good one, you never hear about it. If you're lucky enough to grab a copy of the minutes (often times a month later), you can sort of find out what happened. I don't know how many times we've asked for some kind of report afterwards that could go on the web site, in the newsletter, etc. Something that goes over important things, like upcoming rallies, announcements, and other such things that people need to know about now. Not everyone can make the CC meetings, afterall. Some have to work, some have kids with no childcare, etc.

And please stop making assumptions about me with comments like this: There are more people like jrw than anyone like yourself who hasn't been around forever just can't understand.

Actually, I know that. When I left in 2005, I almost became one myself. But once my health issue was fixed, I just couldn't stay away - even though it meant I regularly had to beat my head against the wall. If there were more people like me, we would be changing things instead of just talking about changing things.

And comments to people like me talking about how I haven't "been around forever" is a reason why people my age and younger don't want to get involved (and it's something you throw out every time we have a conversation on the Party). I may not have been around "forever" by your standards, but I've been around the Party for more than half my life - 16 years. That's still a heck of a long time. And in my time I've worked in simple volunteer roles, leadership volunteer roles, and professional roles, so I have seen the Party for a variety of sides. Blowing people off because they haven't "been around forever" will just continue the trend of the difficulty in getting those under the age of 35 involved in the Party. Many have become involved in progressive politics, but not the Party.

The group of us right now that is under 35 are quickly approaching that age. Starting last month a chunk of that group started turning 30. I'll be the next one, with my birthday on Sunday. Who is going to replace us?

I don't think the big, dramatic "I'm leaving and here's why" is particularly helpful, anyway. It's not helpful to the party and it's not helpful for the person.

I don't think it's good either. As long as it was known why you were leaving, that's what matters.

I just know that some people just disappear. No warning they were unhappy, no nothing. You don't know if they were unhappy or if they just found something better to do. When I was a DL I tried to stay in contact with my PCPs, but there were some that just would never pick up the phone, return a call, etc. I never knew why they left (or in some cases never got involved).

I found within darrelplant's childish attempt to smear me as a neocon a rather outstanding irony. When Bill Kristol states that Scrocroft's pro-Bush anti-war arguments were "exceedingly weak", I am forced to agree. When he further states that European insistence on adhering to international law as being intellectually honest, I must also completely agree.

About the only thing I disagree with Kristol in that passage is his idea that obeying international law is "wishfulness". I'd say it's a form of strength, because the strong know that just laws lead to justice.

But darrelplant's actions are proving my point rather well. He doesn't attempt to refute my perception that he and others are "more interested in expressing their political alienation and presumed moral superiority than actually doing anything constructive to pull American society in the progressive direction". Instead he makes a strained comparison to Bill Kristol in a crude emotional appeal to tribalism, and adds a not unsubtle charge of "treason" (to the progressive cause) in.

Heckuva job, darrel'y. Heckuva job.

Steve, I didn't say you were a neocon. I said you comment sounded like Bill Kristol's. If you find yourself agreeing with him, that's on you.

Of course, considering how often you stoop to red-baiting (and then laughably turn around and deride "tribalism") it wouldn't particularly surprise me if you were.

I doubt that any evidence in the world would be able to refute a "perception" which has no basis in reality in the first place. It would be like arguing with a committed neo-con that there were no Iraqi WMD. If a "perception" is unfounded in the first place, there's no way to disprove it.

So you deny that you called him a NeoCon and then proceed to infer even more strongly that he might be a NeoCon?

While strictly speaking it's true that you didn't call him a NeoCon in so many words, if there was any doubt as to whether Steve had read between the lines correctly they were put to rest by your reply.

Kevin, I said the remark he made sounded like Bill Kristol. Kristol happens to be an ex-Democrat who is a neocon, but I could just as easily have picked a quote from a Kalnsman complaining about black people, someone in the John Birch Society or some a loony from the militia crowd, or even some nutjob leftist spouting off about Jews and a 9/11 conspiracy. They all use the same basic rhetoric.

It's the style that I was comparing to Kristol's, which I'd just read on a different site. If I'd just read something by Bill O'Reilly freaking on secular progressives I might have used that instead. It's not my fault that Steve chose to add in that he agreed with Kristol's arguments, but if it quacks like a duck, as they say...

Does that put it to rest?

Christian Science Monitor's "Are You A Neoconservative" quiz:

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neoconQuiz.html

Regrettably, the scoring mechanism is broken.

I have to admit, too, that I find it a bit humorous that Kevin can get himself worked up in someone else's defense when he thinks they get called a neocon but has no apparent problem with the internal contradiction of this:

...people like Bill, who aren't Democrats at all, but are rather frustrated European style Socialists (a word I merely use merely as a description, not an insult) and are, largely by their own admission, more interested in expressing their political alienation and presumed moral superiority...

Seriously, Kevin, you believe that line about it not being intended as an insult? With its outright label of un-American? Surrounded by words like "frustrated", "European style", and "presumed moral superiority"? Can you remember a time when the commenter referred to socilists in positive or even a neutral light? Instead of Bill Kristol, perhaps I should have just dusted off our junior senator:

"It's not John Kerry's fault that he looks French," Smith told reporters on the conference call arranged by the Bush campaign. "But it is his fault that he wants to pursue policies that have us act like the French. He advocates all kinds of additional socialism at home, appeasement abroad, and what that means is weakness for the future."

Gordon Smith's no neocon. Comparing someone's words to his doesn't mean I'm calling them a Republican, calling them a neo-con, calling them a Mormon, or saying that it's Gordon Smith posting here at Blue Oregon. But if they spout the same kind of moronic BS, it really doesn't matter what their political affiliation is. They're still idiots.

In fact, when the same commenter called me a socialist troll back in August, Gordon Smith was the example I used.

http://www.darrelplant.com/blog_item.php?ItemRef=777

Arch-conservative Richard Viguerie on Mike Huckabee's win in Iowa: "Mike Huckabee is a Christian socialist. He is a good man, but with a Big Government heart. He is the most liberal of all the Republican presidential candidates on economic issues."

I'm sure he meant no insult either!

Hey darrel, I didn't even mention you. I noted that some progressives found it easier to be sanctimonious than work to pull us in a progressive direction, and you immediately jumped in to say how my observation reminded you of the Worst People in Your World.

Feeling the sting of conscience much?

I didn't say you had mentioned me, Steve. All I did was point out how much your remarks sounded like those of kooks like Bill Kristol, Gordon Smith, and Bill O'Reilly, in that they're always ready to jump to label people "un-American".

And no, I don't care what people who are divorced from reality think about me.

LT,

I live in Portland. So sue me. Should I make up a sock puppet and pretend I live somewhere else?

Whenever you or anyone else writes something about things happening in other parts of Oregon I read with interest & often learn a lot.

As a Portlander who supports a 36 county strategy for the DP Oregon, it would be more useful for me to know what Portland-based folks could do / support to further that aim than to listen to false accusations that I don't care about anywhere else. It just ain't so. It's also not true that I don't listen or that I'm not supportive when people bring up rural / valley / southern / eastern O. issues -- though I also note that for purposes of some generalizations you in Salem (=W. Valley) might just as well live in Portland :->.

<h2>But I can't make the PDX metro area shrink, I can't make people from other places write here, and I won't change where I live because it has to do with being near my child.</h2>