Yes, but what is his position on Klingons?

Hmmm... Well, he has been adamant about staying a Republican, and has talked about changing things "from the inside".

Unless he has said explicitly that he'll vote for Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker, I think the obvious expectation is that he'll be caucusing with the Republicans.

Chris #12 --

The decision about which Democrat to nominate for Speaker will be a decision made by the House Democrats.

Electing Haugen won't change that.

Did this post get caught in a timewarp, left over from 2000 or 2002? I think Kari knows this, but there isn't the slightest chance--even if you ask leading Republicans--that the Speaker of the House will be a member of the GOP next session.

This is kind of like warning that a vote for Dennis Kucinich, despite his other favorable positions, is a vote for a really stupid idea, The Department of Peace. Well yeah, I suppose it is--but considering that a DoP has as much chance as his wife popping out of a cake for me on my next birthday, is there really any reason to gin up fear about it?

I suspect this column is really more of a David Wu Protection Plan, than any serious warning that people who vote for Haugen are putting us in danger of a Republican Speaker. A better discussion would be whether Haugen truly would be a superior choice over Wu, based on his policy positions. I'm leaning towards the answer No, but it's surely worth discussuing.

I agree with Torrid Joe. I will be posting video of my interview with Joel to the web later today, and I would encourage people to make up their own minds.

I would be shocked if Haugen will take a position on this prior to a determination about what party's name will appear next to him on the ballot.

I would encourage Kari, in the future, to take the time to research issues like this before taking positions on the radio or on this blog that may or may not be based on false assumptions.

It doesn't matter what Haugen's views on the issues are.

wth?

I mean really? Is that the rallying cry? Can I use this in other campaigns? I mean that a top Democrat political consultant has said that a vote for so-and-so is a vote for the speaker and all issues be damned?

Yeesh...

Really first of all Haugen doesn't deserve the bandwidth that you gave him. Do you seriously believe the guy has a snowball's chance in an eastern Washington summer of actually winning? Really?

I like Joel because I think his candidacy will shake things up in the GOP. As to the business about CD1 -- Joel himself has said that he didn't expect to win the primary let alone the general election. I think the kneejerk reaction of folks like Kari to gratuitously hit people like Haugen is unfortunate.

None of this has anything to do with David Wu, whom I hold in the highest respect.

As for Coyote's comment: The only reason you don't want to talk about this guy is that you disagree with any effort to reform a Republican Party unless it involves taking the party further to the right, or promotes what I assume is your goal of further dividing this country along social issues and hardened party lines.

I'm Joel's campaign manager. It seems to me that if he receives and accepts the Independent nomination, and if he should then choose to appear as an Independent on the ballot, he will likely choose to caucus with whichever group he feels is most aligned with his issue positions when he arrives in Congress. It's still very early to be making these kinds of calls.

Actually, no it isn't--I respectfully disagree.

Part of the reason I'm choosing to vote Democratic is that I have watched the Republican Party and its leadership say and do things that have consistently appalled me. From completely emasculating the power of Congress and allowing the Bush Executive Branch to run roughshod over the Constitution, the rule of law and basic human dignity to a complete lack of oversight--these people have put our nation in a precarious and unteneable position from which I'm not sure we'll recover.

So, if Mr. Haugen is going to vote for leadership and caucus with the group (the GOP) that will most certainly, if they are in power, continue these practices--he is a nonstarter for myself and for virtually everyone I know in CD-1.

So rather than backpeddle off a very legitimate and important question, how about stepping up and answer it?

The only reason you don't want to talk about this guy is that you disagree with any effort to reform a Republican Party unless it involves taking the party further to the right, or promotes what I assume is your goal of further dividing this country along social issues and hardened party lines.

Sigh... And another wannabe psychiatrist is wrong. AGAIN.

Please spare us the search into what I believe and why I do and don't do things. It only serves to further display your ignorance.

I talk about Republicans of differing stripes all the time. Gordon Smith is a prime example.

The debate over issues with regard to our party is nothing new to me or the forums in which I participate.

I have not talked about him because he is a lark. A passing fancy. How many other Republicans are running as very low tier candidates that I have not talked about? Some I may actually agree with. Shocking I know!

So it has nothing to do with his positions. He is bouncing around with regard to what party banner he is going to run under and some people are taking him seriously?

The guy may be a very nice person but he is going nowhere as a candidate and he will enjoy his one brief moment, his fifteen minutes if you will.

But come October his campaign will be an afterthought. Not because his policies are left leaning but because he is really not serious.

Let him raise a million dollars then I'll burn some bandwidth. Until then I am left questioning why I have even spent time on two comments downthread on an obscure post about his party waffling.

But the real interesting part of this post is the fact that to Kari someone's positions on the issues really don't matter.

THAT is a pretty stunning and telling statement. Did it make the Democrat party platform?

yip yip

I'm not eligible to vote for either David Wu or Joel Haugen.

However, I have to reject Kari's reasoning categorically.

That's because one upon a time, twenty years ago, voting in an election for U.S. Senate in another state, absentee, from another continent, I used that reasoning, and it led to the vote, of all I have cast, that I am most certain was wrong.

I was living in Swaziland, southern Africa in 1988, and I voted for Joe Lieberman over Lowell Weicker for Senate from Connecticut (Weicker was also heading the RSCC that year). I remain ashamed of that vote to this day.

David Wu is no Joe Lieberman. Yet the organization of the House doesn't turn on whether he's re-elected either, as has been pointed out.

If Haugen were elected, would that end up enhancing the power of the Blue Dog Democrats to obstruct progressive measures? If Wu is re-elected, will he be any kind of force for improved Democratic leadership? I don't know in either case.

End of the day: the view Kari enunciated is wrong, if treated as a principle rather than a situational choice. IMO and in my (sorry) experience.

What Joel said is that he is not going to leave the Republican Party, nor give up the Republican nomination. His web site states clearly that if he is given the Independent nomination, he will have a decision to make about how he will appear on the ballot.

This is analagous to John Kroger winning both the Republican and Democratic nominations for AG, but choosing to appear on the ballot as a Democrat.

Of course issues matter. The folks who think I said otherwise are delusional.

But let's try a little mind-puzzle to see where folks stand.

Two candidates. One is a pro-choice Republican. The other is a pro-life Democrat.

You're a voter. The only issue that matters to you is protecting the right-to-choose.

For whom do you vote?

Keep in mind that the pro-choice Republican will vote to put a pro-life leadership in charge of the House. The pro-life Democrat will vote to put a pro-choice leadership in charge the House.

For whom do you vote?

I know that there are plenty of folks who will stare obsessively at the tree -- but I'm inclined to step back and look at the forest.

If I'm a pro-choice voter, it's in my interest to help ensure that the House is controlled by a pro-choice leadership -- even if that means electing a single pro-life member.

And even more than that: If I'm a pro-choice voter who cares also about the broader progressive agenda, then the decision is a no-brainer. I want a progressive leadership that will move a progressive agenda, not a conservative leadership that will move a conservative agenda.

Now, here's the caveat: If Joel Haugen says he's going to caucus with the Democrats, and vote for Nancy Pelosi (or whoever the Democratic Caucus's choice is) for Speaker, well, then I think we have an interesting conversation.

But as long as he's committed to voting for a Republican Speaker, well, then he's just perpetuating a right-wing agenda.

(And yes, Sal, I know that's an assumption. But he is the Republican nominee. Until we hear him say otherwise, I think it's a fair assumption.)

I recommend reading Markos Moulitsas' Crashing The Gate, pages 41-44.

Oh, and one more thing.

Regarding the notion that it's possible to "throw away" a congressional seat because "the control of the House isn't up for grabs"... well, that's just ridiculous.

Always vote as if every single seat will decide the majority.

Otherwise, you're just thinking like a Ralph Nader voter in Florida, circa 2000. "It won't matter. Gore's got it in the bag!"

And yes, Sal, I know that's an assumption. But he is the Republican nominee. Until we hear him say otherwise, I think it's a fair assumption.

Well, Kari, I have no personal knowledge one way or the other. Neither do you. But I suspect that Joel would not be an endorser of Merkley and Obama, and a member of vets for Kerry, and advocating for a progressive agenda in some very hostile territory if he was hell bent on protecting the status quo in the GOP.

I think that TorridJoe has this nailed.

I think what he's after is to send a message to Republican voters -- and 70 percent of those voters appear to agree with him in CD1 -- that many of these issues are not partisan issues just because a handful of party insiders and special interests want them to be.

I'd encourage people to visit his web site and make up their own minds as to what he's about.

Kari,

Actually it's more like being a Nader voter in Oregon in '96, as I was -- Clinton did have it in the bag, in this cycle, as far as who organizes the House. If Haugen got elected and caucused with the Rs, the Ds would still organize the House.

But neither analogy is useful about the actual votes in the Congress, where one vote can often matter in situations of relatively close division, which the Blue Dogs often make the case even when the nominal party division is not so close.

If it were this year, and I were facing a choice between a pro-choice and generally moderate R and an anti-choice D, I might well go for the R because organizing the House isn't at stake. It just isn't. But I'm not sure choice issues are either, in the House. Give me the same proposition in the Senate and it gets more complicated on both sides (the organizing and the choice vote weight).

Sorry, you just are unpersuasive that this is a serious concern this year.

Once again -- Joe Lieberman. (Did you see he's the Chuck Hagel counterpart for McCain, btw?)

Actually it's more like being a Nader voter in Oregon in '96, as I was -- Clinton did have it in the bag, in this cycle, as far as who organizes the House. If Haugen got elected and caucused with the Rs, the Ds would still organize the House.

While this is very likely to be the outcome of this cycle--I still will not vote for someone who votes for GOP leadership or caucuses with them. Not now. Their leadership have proved themselves inept and corrupt--and completely disinterested in the best interest of this nation.

I think anything that might encourage them (including flipping a House seat that would have voted for the Democratic leadership) to stay on their current path should be squelched.

I think is a very relevant campaign issue (I live in this district and will be looking for public events to meet and listen to Mr. Haugen) and am hoping that this relevant question will be answered.

Interesting, Carla. Hadn't thought of it that way. If I were in Wu's district it might well tip the balance for me, if I were seriously considering voting for Haugen -- not sure if I would be anyway. Still, that's a different kind of argument than Kari was making.

Here's the link to my video, which will be aired next week on Yamhill County Community Media -- Wayne's World!!

Oregon Independent interview w/Haugen

Well, if you follow your own logic personally, Mr. Malach, as your vote or opinion is unlikely to tip the balance in any issue, you really shouldn't say or do anything.

Not, of course, that I expect you bless us all with that outcome. Instead I'm sure you'll continue to inflict your childish attack screeds on us all.

My friend Steiny wrote: "I consider myself to be a "Good Democrat", but it has become very difficult to continue supporting David Wu"

Double ditto here.

Lee Ancient hippie (you'd never know it from looking)