Perhaps the old adage about not making a silk purse out of a sow's ear applies.

Re-branding is doomed to fail. Republicans are becoming less competitive in Oregon because of what they believe, not how they sell their policies. Right now, the Republican coalition (which was not terrible popular in Oregon) is cracking up. The Democratic Party went through a similar trauma with the end of the New Deal coalition in the late ‘60’s. When the Democratic coalition broke up, the party was not particularly competitive nationally until the 90’s, and it took some work to even get that far (Hart’s “New Ideas,” the Duke’s proto-DLC competent management, and finally Clinton’s New Democrat/Third Way). Oregon’s GOP is now faced with two choices: wait for the national party to find a new (viable) identity or break with the national party and field their own “New Republicans.” An example of the later could be adopting pro-environment policies, accepting that Oregon is majority pro-choice, fielding actual anti-war candidates, and being against torture (the fact that one party is pro-torture is indicative of what is wrong with that party).

Believe it or not, there are worthwhile individual Republicans. The example familiar to most people would be the work Frank Morse did on the Legislative Comm. One need not agree with everything he has ever said or done to admire the tenacity with which he pushed for even mundane ideas like fixing the pipes in the capitol wings because the water was not fit to drink.

There are other local Republicans whose friends admire the work they have done in the community, their problem solving attitude, etc. I know a "mixed marriage" where one spouse is active in the county Democratic Party and the wife once worked for someone running for state rep. this year. Never count out "well, if our neighbor knows him...." as a way to win supporters for a legislative candidate.

Statewide the GOP will never win until they admit to themselves what some Republican staffers have been saying for years, that Independent/NAV voters are the fastest growing group, esp. below a certain age. Also, to admit that the reason Atiyeh was the last GOP governor elected in the 20th century might have something to do with factors like mistakes made by the GOP campaign or remarks like "it has been years since a GOP statewide candidate made any sense".

As I recall, there was a Memorial on the floor of the Senate to the ailing Clay Myers back some sessions ago (during the 5 special sessions?) and there were Republicans who stayed off the floor during the vote because Clay Myers was too moderate for their taste but they didn't want a recorded vote against a Memorial for a Republican. That is the sort of political game which turns people off!

I dunno. How about if they rebranded themselves to dress up as cowboys or clowns? That might work.

Or Pirates. Pirates are cool. The arr-arr rum and parrots kind that is, not the Enron kind. They already did that one.

I feel like this needs to be said to every Democratic Activist reading this post:

"Great, kid. Don't get cocky."

Gag me. The DLC is bad enough.

They'd better tread very, very carefully, or go the way of the DLC, who for at least some period of time lost its not-for-profit status by being too oriented toward the democratic party.

http://www.correntewire.com/dlc_loses_tax_exempt_status

Oh, the O.L.C.! Well, I wish it the same success as the D.L.C.(Democratic Leadership Council) which presided over the loss of the Democratic Majority in Congress with all its great ideas and innovation, and produced such political greats as Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. Let's hear a big round of applause!

The moderate brand of pragmatic Republicanism used to be what Oregon was noted for and produced such greats as Tom McCall. At one time this Rockefeller Republicanism was thought to be the wave of the future. Then along came Goldwater (Hillary's great leader in 1968), then Reagan and all that was gone. The extremists purged all the pragmatists and moderates until not long ago the last gasp could be heard when Norma Paulus noted "there's no one left in the Republican Party I can talk to." As long as the base of the party are extremist fundamentalists there's no hope for them.

I'm w/ Han. Posts on B.O. have gotten a little too confident lately. Only five years ago (and a few months), we had a pretty bad election cycle in OR where we lost 3 State House seats, almost elected a Gov. Mannix, and handily lost a U.S. Senate race. Bonus kudos to SDLF for picking up a seat and creating a 15-15 tie in the Senate.

We have a lot of work to do this year. Sizemore ballot measures, a razor thin 31-29 majority to defend and expand, another run at Gordo, and the very distinct possibility of a Clinton/McCain race at the top of the ticket which may complicate things.

We're not "shooting womp rats in Beggar's Canyon back home" quite yet.

I am not going to defend the DLC (which is almost a parody of Washington “consensus” centrism). However, if the OLC is in the original spirit of the DLC, it is actually going to help the GOP (is that enough letters thrown around?). The DLC was born in the wake of ’84, when Republicans had two 49 state wins in four elections. Originally, the idea was to tame the extremes of the Democratic Party and open it up to moderate policies that would sell in the swing states. The problem with the DLC is that it confused moderation (finding the relatively stable middle ground of the electorate) with centrism (splitting the difference between the parties, which just drifts right as the Republicans drift right) and that by the ‘90’s, the Democrats had successfully moved back into the moderate center.

I suspect that the OLC is not about reevaluating what is wrong with Republican ideology, and is instead just interested in trying to get the camps of the base to sit down, pledge allegiance to RR and get back to putting a Bush in the White House - George P. in 2024!

The R's will be a credible challenge when they get back to their roots - small government and fiscal conservatism. The progressives are thankfully ascendant in Oregon politics, but the conservative populists who liked Measure 5, Measure 11 and Measure 37 are still out there and will have their day in the sun once more. Still, I think there will be a substantial post-Bush hangover, and thus time to get things done. There are lots of good, decent people out there who vote Republican and are appalled at what's become of the party. While I disagree with those folks on a number of issues, they are at least responsible and can be respected.

Some time back I gave a talk to a GOP county meeting, and told them my Libertarian-Republican take on Gay Marriage was simple - privatize marriage, let government handle the legal and property rights issues through contract law, and let churches take back "the sacrament of marriage". Let's make marriage "none of the government's business". And a majority of the white-haired, rock-ribbed GOP base nodded thoughtfully.

I think there's a real opportunity to get the GOP away from the brand identity of "gay-hating" -- which I think is a necessary prerequisite for any GOP resurgence in Oregon.

Meanwhile I'll just keep supporting the Log Cabin Republicans...

I agree with A. Rab. Branding is not the Republicans' problem. They have about the best branding possible, given the positions of Republican constituencies. How could possibly formulate better branding for a party that supports knee-capping government, letting corporations run hog wild, and running the nation according to the dictates of a many thousand years old religious text that was always meant as allegory?

Either they need to change their views, or they need to jettison part of their coalition. Huckabee is heading in one direction, Ron Paul in another. If one of them continues to be a successful organizer, he may inherit the mantle of Barry Goldwater. Romney peddles a tuned down version of the current corporate/fundamentalist orthodoxy, while McCain pretends to be moderate and principled. Giuliani remembers 9/11 - at least the parts of it that make Americans fear Moslems. None of the last three offer any ideas for repositioning for the party.

The Republicans deserve their current status, which is declining and shows no signs of a turnaround.

But before T.A. and the Blue Oregon crowd consign them to permanent oblivion, remember what the party was like in the 1970's and 1980's. While it was able to elect statewide candidates (mainly because they were more mainstream), it was a permanent, dispirited minority in both houses of the State Legislature.

However, by 1990 it made a turn to the right, which resulted in losses in statewide races, but the ability to energize local voters to elect Republican majorities in the State Legislature. Even today, the Republicans are not far from retaking control of the legislature with a few wins. I hope it doesn't happen, but don't crow too loudly just yet.

This moment in history has the feeling to me that we are at the end of a political cycle for the republican party and conservatives. Much like the great liberal coalition of FDR finally fell apart in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan, the republican party of today seems exhausted, confused, lacking a clear identity, engaged in insider backstabbing and inter-party warfare. The circular firing squad has formed.

The various interest groups that banded together in their opposition to 'liberal Democrats,' have had their bonds disintegrated by their party actually being in charge of government for the past 27 years. The Conservative experiment in government has been tried and it has failed miserably. The republican coalition is now just a collection of contradictory self interest groups.

What do conservatives and republicans stand for these days? Small government. No. Personal freedom, no. Balanced budget, no. Personal responsibility, no. High moral and ethical standards, no.

Rampant lawbreaking, yes. Government spying on all of us, yes. Control of government by large corporations, yes. Huge budget deficit, yes. Job losses, yes. Endless war, yes. Radical Christian take-over of government, yes. Increased personal debt, yes. Declining wages, yes. Declining home prices, yes. Declining stock market, yes. Recession, yes.

In short, they don't have a good product to sell anymore or a mythic, phony figure like Ronald Reagan to lead them to the electoral promise land. So the blame game has begun. "Our group," is 'pure', it's 'your' fault we are going to lose because you are not 'pure' enough in your devotion to our God-figure, Ronald $$$ Reagan.

This is going to be good, pass the popcorn, please.

I feel like this needs to be said to every Democratic Activist reading this post:

"Great, kid. Don't get cocky."

Since the 2006 elections and the Democratic majority the minimum wage was finally raised but impeachment is still off the table as far as Nancy Pelosi is concerned and the war on Iraq continues with Democrats losing practically every contest against the "inept" Bush. Congress has an approval rating down in the low teens. Now this. There are good Democrats and bad ones. There are bad Republicans and good ones. What we need to forget is the "D" and "R" labels and choose the good people.

I think "compassionate conservative" is a great brand. They just need to get a handle on compassion. Meantime, we Dems must get a handle on fiscal conservatism.

The only problem is that in the House (state and national) probably the most important vote is Speaker of the House. And this vote tends to fall down party lines. And that vote decides how the rest of the session will go - for good or bad.

If all voters voted for the good guys (admittedly not ever likely to happen) then we wouldn't have to worry about who became speaker. He or she would be a good person. But we can at least make a start and choose quality over brand name and perhaps if not all voters vote for the good guys then maybe eventually at least a majority will. Wouldn't that be an improvement over the current mess and those that preceded it?

I don't know how you can possibly form a 501c3 charity to promote a single party and be in compliance with IRS rules?

Seems like outright abuse of not-for-profit, charitable status.

Anyone from the A.G.'s watching.......?

As mentioned by several other writers, Democrats should not get over confident. There is much hard electoral work to be done. I think however, the tide of opinion is turning in their favor and it's not quite the uphill slog it was when the republicans were ascending in popularity instead of descending. In some circles it was actually kind of trendy to be a republican for a while. I don't sense any of that kind of enthusiasm now.

The republicans have pretty much lemming-like ran the party over a right-wing cliff for the time being. The only way to capture a majority of the voters is to head back leftward and that ain't gonna happen in the short term.

Pass the popcorn. It's gonna be a great show.

I'm a Democrat. To paraphrase Kari, I'm moderate, but I'm partisan as Hell. That being said, I think Oregon and the whole United States would be much better off if the Republican party moved back toward the sane center. We're all in this together. We need as many good leaders with good ideas as we can find. It's terrible that Ben Westlund couldn't find a home in the GOP just because he's not a bigot.

Sure it's fun on election night to watch the GOP implode, but ultimately, it's a waste of talent, brains and passion. I don't think the GOP needs to just reinvent their brand; they need to reinvent their ideology. Maybe the OLC is the first step.

" I think Oregon and the whole United States would be much better off if the Republican party moved back toward the sane center".

That will happen if enough Republicans are fed up. Nothing that happens from now on can change the fact that in both parties the Iowa Caucus winners were not only the youngest candidate but the most optimistic.

Huckabee is hated by the Club for Growth, Rush Limbaugh, et al. But who represents "Republicans"? GOP is soul searching and fighting about the future of the party like Democrats did after Mondale lost. With any luck, the 2 parties will both realize that a vision for the future and a plan to carry it out ( common sense, courtesy and problem solving over ideology) is the only way to prevent the folks who don't register with major parties from gaining a third or more of the registered voters in this state and country.

Now is the time for greatest risk for Democrats. When overconfidence could yield underwork. When overeagerness could lead to abondoning policies that are best for majorities and instead narrow the message just to the base. When "rewarding friends" could yield Dem-leaning-Jack-Abramoff situations (R's aren't the only folks who get Tribal money).

The great risk is that we become too focused on interest groups and lobby entitites (as important as they might be) that drive a lot of Democratic energy, and lose sight of the public interest, figuring how we are stronger together than we are apart, and connecting with non-political-addicts.

Forgive the triteness, but only eternal vigilance will advance the public interest win out over time.

Bill, I haven't seen many "good" Republicans for whom I could vote in Oregon in recent years.

Chris: I wasn't thinking of any place or persons in particular when I was referring to the existence of good Republicans. My point was more abstract and national. In addition to the Republican T.A. mentioned above we <u>might</u> consider Jeff Flake of Arizona. Before someone jumps all over me on this, I'll admit I don't know that much about him, but of the limited amount I have seen of him my observations are mostly good. (Rabid Dems: Note the "limited amount" and "mostly.") Lincoln Chafee was a pretty decent Republican that I could have lived with, but I do so far prefer his replacement, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. Then, as you mentioned in a recent thread, there was Republican Lowell Weicker who was defeated by the then alleged Democrat, Joseph Lieberman.

Jenni: As a devoted Democrat, do you believe that we are better off with Lieberman than Weicker?

I have a different admonition for Democrats: build your confidence, the confidence to act from Democratic values. Govern as though the working class is worthy of supporting. Govern as though sustainability is a necessity, instead of a buzzword. Govern as though the Bill of Rights remains in effect. Govern as though international cooperation is a valuable tool for, rather than a hindrance to American interests.

Stop selling out to big campaign contributors. Try representing the voters. They may notice and reward you.

I have a different admonition for Democrats: build your confidence, the confidence to act from Democratic values.

And here's one for all Americans and the politicians they help elect. Quit making recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance an act of national hypocrisy. There's much to be said for the Pledge, if only people were sincere when they recite the words.

we might consider Jeff Flake of Arizona. Before someone jumps all over me on this, I'll admit I don't know that much about him, but of the limited amount I have seen of him my observations are mostly good. (Rabid Dems: Note the "limited amount" and "mostly.")

Fortunately, I had a number of caveats in the above statement. Through a later thread related to Congressional votes I learned that Flake voted 95 times out of 117 with Bush in 2007. So that's the end of Flake for me.

Part of the Oregon Repub downfall in this decade was caused by their awful treatment of Lynn Lundquist in the late 1990s and their catastrophic choice of Snodgrass over Lundquist in the 2000 SOS race. They all but handed the SOS election to the Dem candidate, who proceeded to Brad"bury" them when he redrew the boundaries of the legislative districts. That's what happens when you opt for dogma over practicality.

Lundquist was a thoughtful moderate, and look at the price he paid. No wonder the middle ground is unoccupied. Both parties have relatively rigid agendae at this point. To run, candidates have to choose a side and buy the whole program on one side or the other. It may be a while before we see real moderates on either side, but the Dems do somewhat better given the views of the electorate.

The futility of this "branding" exercise was (inadvertently?) demonstrated in the printed edition of the Oregonian, by the juxtaposition of Mapes'article about this "rebranding" group right next to an article about the keynote speaker at Dorchester being.....Bill Kristol.

Dear "Oregon Leadership Council": Try this - stop being nasty, bigoted, smear-mongering pricks.

But let's face facts. Most purity trolls who rant on Blue Oregon (and have practically taken over the Democratic Underground) never lift a finger when it comes to doing real work. For them, that's always somebody else's job.

And for those of us who actually do work, manning tables, canvassing, phone banking, holding house parties, fund raising, recruiting candidates, signature gathering, doing budgets, attending rallies, going to meetings, making significant contributions, this gets a little old. And so I call out, and often mock, their puerile, hypocritical, whining.

And until they sign up to do the same sort of stuff my wife and I do on a nearly daily basis, they - like all those GOP chickenhawks in favor of a war they refuse to fight themselves - can just shut up.

Steve, I appreciate your sentiments. This was a problem in the Democratic Party 20 years ago. People who did all the work but voted the "wrong" way in State Central Comm. on a resolution, supported the "wrong" side of a ballot measure, or a "wrong" candidate in a primary were not "real Democrats" because only the ideologically pure were "real Democrats". That is the sort of thing which convinces hard working people that their spare time and energy might better be spent with family, or a local musical group, or something other than partisan politics.

purity trolls! i love the term. people who'd rather sit around with their thumbs up their asses and lose elections so they can drop their principles in their pipes and smoke 'em.

Steve and LT,

I think you guys nailed what I was trying to get at earlier. LT's example of Democratic fights in the '80's sort of illustrates what I was getting at - that after the New Deal coalition fell apart in the late '60's, it took a long time for the party to find its center again, and that process could get ugly i.e. Carter vs. Kennedy, Mondale vs. Hart, Clinton vs. Brown, etc. (being born in the 1980's, I lack this type of anecdote or the clarity of first hand experience).

The Republicans are now entering the end of the Nixon-Reagan coalition. The reason I doubt the OLC will make a difference is that it says they are interested in rebranding the GOP's policies while getting the parts of the Republican coalition to play nice. However, if the Republican coalition is really breaking apart, that is doomed to fail. What the Republicans need are new ideas, not just new ads.

Does that mean Democrats can sit back and relax? No, even during the last period of Republican dominance Democrats won the White House three times (plus the whole Gore thing), controlled the House for 26 of 36 years, and controlled the Senate for about half the time. Plus, local elections will often follow their own local logic. This does mean that if Republicans want to stop their decline at a national level, they need to do more then pretend their brand is in crises and acknowledge that it is a whole new market.

I am part of that growing NAV coalition here in Oregon (as well as throughout the west) that finds both established parties increasingly nonrelavant. A strong and prospering democratic party NEEDS a strong and vibrant republican party.

The party over the demise of the statewide republicans will be short lived as it will give rise to complacency and laziness amongst the power elite w/in the state democratic party.

We, the NAV are the future and both organized parties ignore us at their peril.

My right wing friend relies on Newt Gingrich to guide her through the upsetting White House debacle and to maintain her Republican self-definition. Gingrich tells his online group "Bush has disappointed us".

With the same flourish of the cape and a step to the side, the OLC round table will disavow federal failures, because state powers/venues/issues and federal powers/venues/issues are not identical, the failed policies were not committed by the state party or its voters, and not relevant to its future direction, whatever it may be.

<h2>The smartest thing OLC will do is to absolve individual Oregon Republican voters for their responsibility for crimes against humanity in Iraq. Get ready.</h2>