Even if Greg Walden is found guilty of malfeasance or some other financial irregularity at the NRCC the majority of voters in the Second Congressional District will still vote him in. They might toss him out if they discovered he was a child molester or gay**, but other than that his base probably couldn't care less what crimes he commits as long as he keeps delivering for them. After all, he reneged on his oath to defend the Constitution when he went along with transferring authority to go to war to Bush. And because his constituents don't get regular statements explaining how much this war is costing them and their children, they remain in blissful ignorance.

** I don't equate child molesters with gay people, but it is safe to presume many of Walden's constituents do.

It seems that there was a failure to audit the books there for years, and it's possible that some of the money disappeared. Now, the FBI has been asked to investigate.

I hope the NRCC lost a bundle. Whatever the amount it will be a drop in the bucket compared with what their friends have lost and squandered in Iraq.

I have a higher opinion of CD 2 voters than Bill does. They were ready to vote for a Dem for congress when Wes Cooley's, um, truth-stretching came to light. The only reason that house seat stayed Republican is because Smith came out of retirement to run when Cooley stepped down. Otherwise, we'd have Congressman Mike Dugan as our Democratic representative from CD 2.

Walden's transgressions here may not rise to the same level (unless he knowingly allowed embezzlement), but it's another hole in his armor. He's not unbeatable. CD2 voters may be mostly conservative, but they're not crazy. They know when it's time to clean house.

That's why it's important to run in every district, even "safe" Republican districts. Most of the time you lose. But every now and then, a Republican self-destructs. We can only capitalize on it, though, if we have a candidate.

Is there really any likelihood of a competitive race this cycle? OR-Sen and OR-5 seem like the priorities, and Walden might even have it easy in 2010 while Dems look forward to redistricting. Am I off in my analysis?

CD 2 is not a competitve seat this cycle unless Walden self-destructs. However, CD 2 can be competitive several cycles from now (though who knows how redistricting will change things) if we run solid Democrats and run them well. Walden (and most Rs east of the Cascades) have had a pretty easy time of it. Frequently they run unopposed. And when they do have opposition, it is underfunded, undermanned and undernoticed.

Now resources are finite and there are lots of good reasons to target money and energy at the close races. But there are also good reasons to give invest some money and resources in areas where we probably won't win this time, but can slowly bring the district into play.

But James is right. CD 2 is not competitve unless Greg Walden turns into the next Larry Craig (or Duke Cunningham).

"That's why it's important to run in every district, even "safe" Republican districts. Most of the time you lose. But every now and then, a Republican self-destructs. We can only capitalize on it, though, if we have a candidate."

That is the attitude behind "show up everywhere, contest everything".

The audit committee chairman conducted no audits? Brilliant.

They were ready to vote for a Dem for congress when Wes Cooley's, um, truth-stretching came to light. The only reason that house seat stayed Republican is because Smith came out of retirement to run when Cooley stepped down.

Add "klutzes and social embarrassments" to my list of CD2 Republican outcasts.

Peter Buckley was a very credible candidate against Walden in, I believe, 2004 and he was defeated overwhelmingly. Besides Republicans being locked into the incumbent Republican candidate we can probably add DINOs.

First, I am a Second CD voter. So, Bill, really!!!

Second, we did better last time with Voisin than anyone did before, and we can do better. Given the way things are evolving, we could elect a Democrat if there wasn't the incumbent advantage, and if we had somewhat equal funding. The main obstacle is that we have media here that refuses to provide a level playing field (I recently had two press releases regarding local Democratic events ignored by all Central Oregon media.) If we had enough funds for a direct mail and some radio/TV ads, we would stand a fairly good chance with an open seat.

Third, those of us who have studied Walden's record are not surprised that as Chair of the Audit Committee, no audit was done. That is entirely consistent with Walden's record. He is for example, said to be a major advocate of Rural Health Care, but has voted for budgets that eliminate or reduce Rural Health Care programs/funding with each Bush budget. Similar with veterans services, senior services, etc. etc. He really does absolutely nothing, except write long essay's on what he says he is doing for our local print media. So, I would bet that Walden will say he actually did an audit. He will say either, "I can't discuss this due to the investigation", or "I conducted an audit of the books by meeting with the staff accountant who told me everything was fine".

Lastly, Walden has always been something of a sacrificial lamb in training. He is so loyal that he sits in the back row of Congress with his rubber stamp in hand ready to hit whatever piece of paper the Republicans put in front of him. I think he will fall on his sword if asked.

How can they claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility? The Oregon and Calif. GOP are broke/in trouble, the national doesn't even bother to do audits and can't seem to restore their emails. It is to laugh.

Ever so slightly off topic, but Walden deserves all the recognition he can get. So .. I’m watching C-SPAN (again!) and Representative Heather Wilson R-NM, Phil Gingrey R-GA, and a couple of other congress-critters were presenting this passionate play-let on the house floor excoriating the Dem leadership for letting the Protect America Act (PAA) expire. It was actually pretty well orchestrated with charts and graphs and representatives taking turns reading quotes from National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey and even (although not surprisingly) Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller to illustrate how vulnerable the nation is now without the PAA. In fact, to someone who hasn’t been paying close attention, it might even have been a convincing performance. Then, what to my wondering eyes did appear? Why, there was Congressman Greg Walden R-OR rising to speak in the "people's house” about all the terrorization that will go undetected because the Democrats don’t understand the threat. He, like all the others with the exception of Representative Wilson (boy, is she scary or what???), read from his prepared script (fairly) well, but what got my attention was the emphasis he placed on how the new, improved Senate version of the PAA included even greater personal privacy provisions than the expired one. He seemed to be taking some credit for this, if not personally, then as a Republican. Representative Wilson, who was leading this little choir (a near as I could tell, Wilson and 4-5 Republicans, a House recorder, and I assume some poor Democrat sitting in as presiding officer of the House were the only ones in the chamber), also emphasized this point. It was a sorry and disgusting display of hollow patriotism supported by half-truths. The only improvement I’m aware of in the Senate version is a Ron Wyden amendment that extended some protection At one point, Walden and his friends suggested that to delay passage of the Senate's version of the new PAA (including retroactive immunity for the telecoms which = retroactive immunity for whomever directed them to participate in the eavesdropping since 2000) would very likely result in the death of American soldiers in Iraq. His transparently feigned outrage and obvious rubberstamping of the administration’s position on this issue was embarrassing. I lived in CD-2 for several years and have many friends there. It saddens me that they are represented by such a Bush-tool.

I really don't know much about [CD2], what counties and 'major' cities are there? I'd gladly pop in $50 to any qualified Dem who would oppose Walden.

The major population centers are Medford, Bend/Redmond, Grants Pass, Ashland, Klamath Falls, Hood River and Pendleton. It's pretty much the whole Eastern 2/3 of the state plus Jackson and the populated part of Josephine counties. The thinly populated high desert is monolithically Republican, but Democratic votes exist in Bend, in Jackson County and in the Columbia Gorge, which are the three sections of the district that are gaining population. The day will come when we win this seat.

Second, we did better last time with Voisin than anyone did before, and we can do better.

According to an article on Walden's re-election in today's (Bend) Bulletin Walden beat Carol Voisin 66 to 30 percent. The article also states that in this district there are 175,000 registered Republicans to 125,000 registered Democrats. That is 1.4 Republicans to one Democrat registered but Walden won by more than 2 to 1. To me that suggests Republican loyalty and Democrat apathy or Democrats voting for Walden.

I have no argument against the proposition that Democrats can do better, but I'm skeptical that they will.

While the Admiral sort of knows his geography, he makes a common mistake. There are Democrats everywhere over here.

There are Democrats in the cities, small towns, and rural side roads.

I'm a real estate appraiser - so I go into houses all over this region (I cover about 7,000 square miles) with clipboard in hand looking as apolitical as can be. And I always chitchat with people. So, I find ranchers who live in remote areas that are Democrats, I find places like Mitchell and Spray where the population is about 200 for each town with Democrats, I find Democrats on small city parcels, and large rural parcels - we are everywhere! According to the Democrat's voter file, in little old Crook Co. we have 3,451 registered Democrats, making us the second largest affliated group in the County - larger than all the students and teachers in the school system in the County, and larger than all the employees of Les Schwab, the Forest Service, and BLM combined (our largest employers). While that isn't alot, it isn't zero.

It is sort of an existential insult frequently stated by urban Democrats that rural Democrats don't exist - and it is just plain wrong!

Bill wrote his last comment while I was responding to the Admiral.

Yes Bill, Voisin got about 30%, compared to 22% before.

But Bill, Voisin spent less than $20,000 and Walden more than $1 million.

What your voter registation figures do not take into account is the non-affliated registered voters. The Republicans do not have a majority of registered voters, they have about 45%. Non-affliated are 20% in my County. In an open seat, and with closer to even funding - a Democratic message has appeal here. Just like everywhere else, people are fed up with the Republican nonsense. We had economic realities hit home prior to it being felt in the urban areas, with our gas prices, food prices, etc. going up here first due to transportation costs. We have had a health care crisis going on for years that keeps getting worse. We have soldiers in Iraq being permanently damaged, and some coming home dead.

Bill - your skeptical position is part of the problem. Based upon sterotype, bias, and prejudice; rural Oregon continues to be written off by arrogant urbanites. Why did Voisin "only" get to 30% - better question is why did Voisin only get $10,000 of support from the institutions of the Democratic Party to help her run a race in a 60,000 square mile area? She did show up, with enough money for gas, and she had a limited number of lawn signs, but in terms of TV and radio - Walden's million was telling. Even Defasio and Wu would lose if they only had $20,000 to spend against a Republican with a million.

Yes Bill, Voisin got about 30%, compared to 22% before.

But Bill, Voisin spent less than $20,000 and Walden more than $1 million.

Reverse those statements: Democrats and independents only gave $20K to Voisin's campaign while Republicans and independents built up Walden's million-dollar fund. So it follows that Voisin didn't have a chance. I supported one of the Democrats running against Voisin. From what he told me the turnouts for their forums around the district attracted very little attention.

I would be delighted to see Walden get kicked out, but he knows how to take care of his base and they don't care if that means screwing others. For example, taking care of the farmers in the Klamath Basin and shafting the fishermen along the Klamath River and the southern Oregon coast.

Bill - your skeptical position is part of the problem.

I'm skeptical because of the numbers. Facts, that is. Not urban/rural bias as you might prefer to believe. I happen to know a couple who vote for Walden. They are very nice people, but Walden took care of them, and they feel a fixed loyalty to him and don't pay attention to other matters that we would consider negatives - like Walden's vote for the Iraq war. I'm sure they are not the only nice people who vote for Walden. I know other nice people in this district. I don't know how they vote, but from their conversations I would give odds they vote for Walden.

Bill:

Also, your statistics might be off. You quote an article about present voting registrations, and then compare that to a 2006 election. While I have no exact numbers, I had thought that it was pretty clear that Democrats were inching up in Deschutes Co. Does anyone have that at their fingertips?

I think that if Walden is found to have done some seriously stupid and or illegal actions in relation to this matter and if Democrats can field a quality candidate to make this a competitive race then I think by using the fund raising capacity of the blogesphere that the money gap could be narrowed.

As things stand now it is probably Walden's seat for as long as he wants it but it would be very hard to run a campaign from prison. So, we'll just have to see what develops. A democratic victory in CD2 is an uphill battle, but not impossible.

As things stand now it is probably Walden's seat for as long as he wants it but it would be very hard to run a campaign from prison. So, we'll just have to see what develops. A democratic victory in CD2 is an uphill battle, but not impossible.

If he goes to prison, it won't be until after the election. If the case against him looks strong and he is likely to wind up in the slammer, then I would be inclined to believe the party will replace him with someone who will likely win the district. If the case isn't strong then he will stay put and most voters will very likely give him a pass on the grounds he is innocent until proven guilty - and because the probably also owe him one.

Also, your statistics might be off. You quote an article about present voting registrations, and then compare that to a 2006 election. While I have no exact numbers, I had thought that it was pretty clear that Democrats were inching up in Deschutes Co. Does anyone have that at their fingertips?

There probably is some difference between the 2006 and 2008 figures, but I doubt that much. Democrats (and probably independents likely to vote Democrat) are increasing in number in Deschutes County and there is some optimism that Judy Stieger will beat incumbent Chuck Burley.

Bill writes, "There probably is some difference between the 2006 and 2008 figures, but I doubt that much."

Bill, you made my point. What is the basis of your "doubting"? You clearly indicate that it is not "facts", so what else is it? Bias.

In fact, here in Crook Co., we are seeing a dramatic rise (about 40% increase) in the numbers of 18 to 28 year old registrations in the Democratic Party. Frankly, as someone with access to the Democrats Voter File, I was startled by that increase when I first came across it. But on the ground, I am now hearing from younger folks (mainly second hand by way of my 27 year old son) that many young people consider the Republicans corrupt beyond redemption. The Republicans have no where to go but down around here, and the Democrats have every opportunity to go up.

And Bill, you claim that Walden's million was the result of support by Republicans and Independents - well - guess again. His support was out of area corporate support. He is an oil/gas Congressman, bought and paid for.

Changing subject just a little:

In the Second CD, we had a crooked Congressman who was forced out of office not that long ago by the name of Wes Cooley. When Wes was found out lying about his background (he claimed to have been in the Korean War when in fact he was never there), former Congressman Bob Smith stepped in for another term to save the day, and then Greg Walden took it on. If Walden turns out to be crooked or stupid, that will be basically two in a row (not counting the brief return of Smith from retirement).

It seems to me that if in fact Walden proves to the District that the last two new members of Congress provided by the Republican Party were crooked/stupid, that the Democrats have something to run on - like honesty and competence.

But, again, what we have here in the Second CD is an institutional write off by the Democratic institutions.

In fact, here in Crook Co., we are seeing a dramatic rise (about 40% increase) in the numbers of 18 to 28 year old registrations in the Democratic Party. Frankly, as someone with access to the Democrats Voter File, I was startled by that increase when I first came across it.

If that change holds district wide - beyond Crook County which has seen above-average growth for the district - then I'll be more than happy to be proved wrong. On the other hand, I have engaged local Republicans in debates who, in response to my arguments said words to the effect of, "I don't care. I'm still voting Republican." I recently checked the Democrats for Smith web site and found the mayor of Redmond on the list. I would bet he will also vote for Walden or his replacement, if any.

Bill writes, "There probably is some difference between the 2006 and 2008 figures, but I doubt that much."

Bill, you made my point. What is the basis of your "doubting"? You clearly indicate that it is not "facts", so what else is it? Bias.

Why do you have a problem with my speculating when I make it clear that I am speculating on this point? But I submit that was reasonable speculation based on historical data which show a long-term pattern of Republican predominance in the 2nd CD. If you think my doubts are unreasonable, dig out the facts and prove me wrong.

You also talk as if people are saying there are no Democrats in the 2nd CD. I must have skimmed over them. I quoted a newspaper article that said there were 125,000 registered Democrats in this district.

I'll concede I was probably being overly cynical when I said some Republicans would still vote for Walden if he were in jail or charged with a crime, but I wouldn't put it past some farmers in the Klamath Basin who weren't impressed by the law during their water crisis. And when it comes to crime, what crime could Walden have committed that would have been worse than betraying his oath to defend the Constitution and being complicit in this illegal and disastrous war on Iraq. However, I suppose some people would understand it is wrong to commit some financial crime while it is beyond their comprehension to understand a crime against humanity.

As for my skepticism about beating Walden, it seems there are many Democrats as skeptical as I am, including the leaders in the DPO, when there is no candidate announced to run against Walden. If Carol Voisin only had $20K in campaign funds, that looks like she didn't get much, if any, help from the DPO.

However, as I have said in the past, the Democratic Party should field a candidate every election to at least remind the people of the 2nd CD that such a party still exists and it considers this district part of Oregon.

I am not sure how recent these numbers are but what I found for registration in the 2nd CD are Dem: 126,074 32% Rep: 175,057 44% N.A.:85,458 21%. Personally I think that a strong candiadate for the 2nd CD will need state legislative experiance which means we need to find and support good canidates for state represenative and state senator.

Mbraymen's numbers are as close to correct as I can find.

I was reflecting on Bill Bodden's comments today while driving to and from appointments. Numbers, numbers, numbers ...; facts, facts, facts.

You know, so what!

Bill, as a Democrat living in Redmond at your current location since 1995 (isn't the Internet wonderful!), you have been in Central Oregon long enough to variously feel angry, upset, resigned, depressed, etc. etc. over the seeming Republican domination of the area. They own the media. I have been present to see how biased the Bulletin and the Central Oregonian are in how they treat candidates, what they publish and don't, and so on. I too can feel these various feelings.

But I have hope. I don't believe for one minute that by sitting back looking at numbers that sort of describe what is at the moment, we have done anything to make our world any better. What it takes is an effort to meet people, communicate with and to people, and put ourselves out there as agents of change. In that context, the context of being the force of change, the numbers have no meaning.

We can change Central and Eastern Oregon. In one election cycle, we improved 8% in the Congressional race against a candidate who outspent us more than 50 to 1. At this rate it will take three more election cycles to get to the point where we can win.

You can look at that two ways:

Three election cycles is too much, and it isn't worth it, and people really never change, and people really don't learn new things, and life is hopeless.

Or, people do change, we can be agents of change, there is hope, we can make progress as a region, as a people, and we can overcome the poisonous rule of the far-right fringe that has ruled nationally for awhile.

Bill, you have lived where you are now in Redmond for 13 years, or another way to look at that is that you are facing the 7th Congressional election since you moved into that house. If we worked to improve each election cycle by just a few points, 7 more election cycles would need three percent more going into the Democrat's side each election to reach the 50% +1 vote margin needed to win - half of our actual improvement in one election cycle in which we were outspent 50 to 1. Imagine a an election cycle where we were only outspent 25 to 1, and then one where we were only outspent 10 to 1, and finally one where we were close to even.

Progress happens in steps.

So, when I said earlier that your attitude was part of the problem, this is what I meant.

Steve, thank you for your comment:

What it takes is an effort to meet people, communicate with and to people, and put ourselves out there as agents of change. In that context, the context of being the force of change, the numbers have no meaning.

I have lived in the same house for decades and twice (2 diff. levels of government) have been thrilled to have been part of a campaign where we were told "you can't possibly expect a Democrat to be elected in that district!" but we won anyway. In both cases it wasn't an overnight success---the candidate lost in a recount one year and won convincingly the next election year. For those who say it is impossible, I say "O ye of little faith!".

It does take faith and hope. It helps to personally know the candidate because lots of people haven't met someone who knows a candidate from before when the campaign started and that is quite impressive---esp. knowing the candidate well enough to tell a strength of character story about the candidate.

Greg Walden was once the bright young man--but that has been some time ago now, before he decided his future was linked to the likes of DeLay. And then DeLay fell from power.

Maybe we were lucky to win those elections in the years before computer spreadsheets were available to everyone, so no one was telling us that with such an R to D ratio we didn't have a chance.

Steve:

You have somehow managed to interpret my position as surrender to Walden in the 2nd CD despite the fact that I said I actively supported a candidate in 2006 and my comment above that in the past I had recommended that Democrats still run against Walden to remind the people in his district that there are Democrats offering a choice. I also supported Peter Buckley in his run even though the consensus among local supporters was that he wouldn't win.

My point above was to define what people will be up against if they oppose Walden - Republicans who will vote for a Republican unless there are very exceptional circumstances, Democrats who will vote for the Republican instead of the Democratic candidate, and ranchers and farmers among his base whom he has taken care of and will show their appreciation by voting for him.

I understand Peter Buckley made a very good impression around the district when he ran. Unfortunately, after that election people were left to forget about Peter and the good impression he made. The DPO should have followed up with some program to maintain and improve on the gains achieved through that campaign but, no, they just let them die so that in subsequent campaigns the candidates had to start again from square one.

In your research on my profile you got one thing wrong. I'm not a Democrat. I think independently and am non-affiliated, but I tend to vote Democrat. I was prepared to hold my nose and vote for Gore in 2000 but found his campaign so contemptuous and contemptible I voted for Nader. I also voted for Kerry but only because Bush was so much worse. Among the reasons I'm not a Democrat is the hostility and intolerance of some, but not all, Democrats for opinions they don't agree with.

Bill, the hostility and intolerance of some Democrats is nothing new--I was a State Central Comm. member a little over 2 decades ago, and there was a resolution voted on by SCC where some well known legislators (present at the meeting or not) were on the side of the argument which ended up in a 25-19 minority when the vote on the resolution was taken. We who voted in the minority called ourselves the "infamous 19"---too many people adopted the idea that REAL Democrats all supported the majority vote.

Except that the folks who did the foot soldier work (volunteer organizing, working tables at fairs and other events, canvassing and other activities year in and year out, doing everything from phoning to lining up refreshments for an event, etc.) were an independent lot and didn't think that for their time and trouble they deserved to be told what to think. In a period of several years, most/all of the "infamous 19" left the State Central Comm. and in many cases found outlets for their time and energy which did not include party politics.

With regard to:

DPO should have followed up with some program to maintain and improve on the gains achieved through that campaign but, no, they just let them die so that in subsequent campaigns the candidates had to start again from square one.

that is a congenital problem which some of us (incl. outside the 2nd CD) have been worried about for years--but such pleas fall on deaf ears.

Steve:

If you go through my comments above you will note that they are mostly highly critical of many of the people who vote for the Republican candidate regardless of the issues. I can understand why some people might misinterpret my remarks as throwing in the towel, but that wasn't my intention and my comment about still running a Democratic candidate, even with no chance of winning, supports that claim.

LT: I appreciate your comments above.

Biil and all,

I did quite a bit of research into the 2nd CD race in 2006. Prior to the official kickoff of the campaign season, Walden already had $900,000 in the bank. So he basically didn't spend any of the revenue he made in the last cycle and has that level of funding available again this cycle. For a Democratic candidate to even consider him/herself to be viable, that candidate would have to locate at least $1.6 Million to overcome Walden's incumbent and cash-generating abilities. As we saw in 2006, Voisin was simply not a viable candidate. What we need is either a miracle or a wealthy Democrat to ever hope to take the 2nd CD.

<hr/>

Peter Buckley's well respected run for 2nd CD was in 2002. Peter sits in the Oregon House today as the representative from Ashland and environs and is building an extensive record of hard work and good politics. At some point, though apparently not this cycle, he'll be a viable candidate for Walden's seat.

<hr/>

In 2006 Deschutes County had ~33,000 registerd GOP and ~22,000 registered Democrats. Both figures have risen since then, but the much hoped for turnover toward the Democratic side isn't happening. Lots of the population growth in this county is well-heeled retirees who tend GOP.

<hr/>

Finally, does this Walden story have legs? A quick scan of Google News indicates that of the 54 listed articles on Rep. Greg Walden, only two mention the audit flap. Blue Oregon and a New York paper. We can put this story to bed, kids. It never happened for 99.99% of voters in the district....

I think it's very important that we find someone to run against Walden. This is just one more nail in his coffin in my book. According to the National DAV list Walden voted against vets 100% percent of the time and now we see that he can't even run an audit committee properly. Isn't it time to send him home and get a Democrat in 2nd CD? You all have to admit that things were a whale of a lot better when we had a Dem as our rep than it ever has been since we got Republicans in as our rep.

And this from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031302841.html?hpid=topnews

NRCC Treasurer Accused of Campaign Fraud Ward Transferred Funds to Personal Accounts, Officials Say

The former treasurer for the National Republican Congressional Committee transferred as much as $1 million in committee funds into his personal and business accounts, officials announced today, describing a scheme that could prove to be one of the largest campaign frauds in recent history.

.......... Now seriously, folks, do you really think the 2 candidates filed in the 2nd Cong. District are doomed to failure because of money and voter registration numbers? That every registered Dem. is OK with the above story? Wasn't Walden the bright young man who rescued the GOP from Wes Cooley? Is no one who voted for Greg in the past disappointed in him and looking to vote for someone else? O, ye of little faith!

If you live in the 2nd Cong. District, you can volunteer. Anyone who can afford it can contribute money.

But the most important thing has little to do with either--it is being positive that maybe this year will be better.

It was widely assumed after Watergate that the folks in the rural states (Plains states, etc. ) supported Nixon because they lived in rural states. Tip O'Neil made a promise to any Member of Congress of either party that if they would support impeachment, he would go home with them and give a speech in their district for them. In the book HOW THE GOOD GUYS FINALLY WON (a great book!) Tip goes to Wyoming with the one Member of Congress to speak to a civic group. Most of the speech is off-the-cuff, then he says impeachment is such an important topic he will read the impeachment section from his notes. As he is speaking on impeachment, he is seeing heads nodding and thinks, "This has been over for 6 months but those of us in DC just didn't know it!".

If tons of people can go out in the bitter cold to see Obama in Boise, then it is possible for a Democrat to win in the 2nd District. But it will take a number of things--not the least of which is an end to the self-defeating rhetoric that says no one could possibly win there. Not that long ago, no Democrat could possibly win federal office in Colorado, Montana, Virginia, etc.

Great news about the heated-up Republican audit scandal. I really hope we can field a candidate that can bring Walden down. Regarding Wasco County, as part of CD2, people may not realize that there were actually more Democratic voters than Republican in the last election (5020 to 4567), nearly 40% to 36% (and 21% unaffiliated). One particularly irritating thing about Walden is that up until just a few years ago he owned the local The Dalles station which (still) sprews out Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly, etc. all day long. He was the only Congressperson who also was a radio station owner and it was and is the worst kind of right-wing propaganda broadcaster.

Walden is vulnerable. During the last election the DCCC decided not to fund Carol against Walden. Rahm Emanuel decided who got funded and you will notice on there site http://dccc.org/page/content/races They have no one for Oregon. Rahm took credit for the Dems taking the house back, but my impression is that they could have won more seats running on a more progressive message. I have lived in CD2 for over 30 years. Some folks do not realize that this district elected a Dem (Al Ulman) 13 times. He was chairman of the House Ways and Means. But then came the Reagan years and the general distrust of incumbents in CD2. Also cd2 had Salem in it in those days. Anyway with 4 terms Walden can be exploited as an incumbent and especially by a Independent. Someone with Libertarian fiscal/government views and progressive social views can win in this district. Carol was the first strong candidate against Walden, but being recently from Calif and no funding from the party kept her from gaining any traction. If the party does not come up with a candidate, maybe I will run as a member of the independent party of Oregon.

Dan, that is only part of the story.

"I have lived in CD2 for over 30 years. Some folks do not realize that this district elected a Dem (Al Ulman) 13 times. He was chairman of the House Ways and Means. But then came the Reagan years and the general distrust of incumbents in CD2. Also cd2 had Salem in it in those days."

Ol Al U. represented rural Oregon better than places like Salem and other urban areas---and as W & M chair lost touch with the home folks. There were actually debates (at least in Salem) about whether to vote for Al in the 1980 primary, or a local resident who was a stalwart of the local Dems and ran for many things in his lifetime. It was "Shall we vote for Al because there will be a new district in 1982 anyway?" or "Shall we vote for Steve A. and teach Ullman a lesson?".

Steve A. got something like 45% of the primary vote, the Republicans looked at that result and opened the floodgates for funding Denny Smith----who won because there was a 3rd party candidate in 1980. It took a decade, but when Denny decided to run in the newly created 5th District, there was a mobilized group of local citizens who spent many hours attending Denny's town hall meetings, organizing, taking part in primaries, supporting whoever was running.

BTW, the DCCC in 1988 was run by a Congressman from Ark. who chose to believe a poll run by a DCCC pollster rather than a poll run by an Oregonian (Mark Nelson, as I recall) and thus "Kopetski can't win" was the decision of DCCC in 1988. After the recount, there was an apology letter from DCCC. Some of us have never trusted any caucus "deciding" on winnable races since then. And Kopetski was one of maybe 5 challengers to defeat an incumbent in 1982. When that Dem. Cong. from Arkansas lost in the 1994 Republican sweep of cong. districts, not a lot of people I knew were terribly sympathetic about that Ark. loss.

We have resided in D2 for more than 50 years. We knew Greg's Father when he was manager of three radio stations, was in the Oregon House and after he retired. We have known Greg Walden since he was a little shaver around 6 years old. He does not have a dishonest bone in his body. If there were no audits done, there was a reason for it. Either he didn't get the cooperation of the party or was blocked.

We are working diligently every day to get him reelected. There has been such a jumbled mess in all the Oregon districts since the Dems took over and redrew the lines to benefit their party that people are sick and tired of them.

<h2>They gloat over taking back the US House & Senate but less was accomplished this past four years than anyone would have anticipated. If the Rep's don't take at least one of them back, it will be business as usual in spite of which idiot gets to be president.</h2>