Just three things? And here I thought post-Soviet Cuba was known fairly well for a fourth thing, a throwback to the old Mobbed-up Batista era:

Cuba Counters Prostitution With AIDS Programs By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr. Published: December 26, 2004 HAVANA - Like many prostitutes who ply their trade in the darkened bars and discos near tourist hotels here, María says she does not go out every night. But whenever money gets tight and her 12-year-old son is hungry, she puts on a red miniskirt, puts rouge on her lips and heads for El Conejito bar, a thinly disguised rendezvous point. "Most of the tourists come to look for girls, tobacco, you know, the things they cannot get in their country," she said. "They say the Cuban girls are very hot." ... The low levels of the virus in Cuba and the inexpensive price of sex compared with other places have made the island a destination for male tourists seeking women.

so if anyone on BO wants to donate a lot of money..I could really use a vacation to Cuba.

don't know how you could be paying attention and not have a strong preference at this stage.

The key point here is the "paying attention" part: many voters are not paying attention to Congressional races. A pollster who's been surveying what she called "Obama surge voters" in key Congressional districts recently said she was seeing potential drop off rates of between 33-47% [sic] - in contrast to the 10-15% she'd normally see.

Carla & Kari: is it possible to invite Erickson to provide an explanation as to why he felt it needful to lie about his trip?

Rebecca: I'll call their campaign today. But no guarantees that I'll get a response.

Rather my point is that the claim that people often make is that we should care about a politician's private morality because it gives us insight into their public morality. I disagree entirely. I don't think it tells us a damn thing.

Hmmm...

I generally don't care about a politician's personal life. Who they have sex with or their personal failings don't generally interest me.

But, when a politician pushes legislating a certain moral or economic code for the rest of us which would affect our personal lives--and then goes about living his own personal life in conflict with that, then it matters to me.

As it does to most voters, I suspect.

Good progressives are usually pretty squeamish about stereotyping people but I'll jump in:

There is a stereotypical kind of guy (yeah, usually male) that takes great pride in conspicuous consumption, loud and aggressive hostility toward "feminine" virtues like caring about anyone beyond immediate family and so forth.

Big cigars from the Commies, Brandy from the commie French, women divided into two categories, whores and virgin mothers, men divided into two categories, real and feminine. and so on.

Mostly these guys would seem insecure, fearful and pathetic, relying on group reinforcement of their version of masculinity, if they weren't mining a vein of insecurity that is prevalent throughout the electorate.

These are the guys that live their lives in fear, but publicly express it as fairly indiscriminate aggression, while accusing males not with the program of the very pathologies with which they are afflicted.

To the rest of us, they come across as hectoring bullies, trapped forever in a cycle of their own insecurity.

Lars Larson, Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, Billo, Cheney, and of course the actual second gen NeoCons like Grover, Hadley, Pipes, and the rest.

Terrified arrested adolescents all, who believe that hostility toward rational thought and measured debate, gives them permission to react rather than think.

I was raised by a guy just like this. He's still just like this.

Carla & Kari: is it possible to invite Erickson to provide an explanation as to why he felt it needful to lie about his trip? It might be interesting to dialog with the man if he were to grace the pages here with evidence of his reason?

Absolutely. I'd be happy to invite Erickson to do an interview with Carla about the trip. We'd post the full audio and a transcript.

(I'd do it myself, but since I'm a consultant to the Schrader campaign, that's probably not a good idea.)

Miles:

I trust you've seen my comments on Edwards--which is that I don't care much about who he sleeps with. As long as he's not trying to legislate the morality and economics of others while living his life outside of that, anyway. Which is pretty much what I've said about Erickson.

And since this is my post and not Kari's--I would think I'd be the one held up to that standard.

I assumed the point you were making with this post is that Erickson has shown yet another character flaw with his lavish trip to Cuba followed by his deceit about said trip.

You would assume wrongly, then.

The point I'm making is that Erickson is a law and order guy who likes to legislate morality and conservative economics as a potential reason for hiring him. Yet those rules don't apply to him, based on the way he's conducting himself. Its a "do as I say, not as I do" way of things and I think its hypocritical. The lying is stupid (people generally don't like liars--and Erickson seems to have formed a pattern of it). It was also stupid when John Edwards did it. And Clinton. And the whole host of others who've lied like that.

Next time, if you're assigning motives to my postings, you might ask me rather than assuming. It could save you time and trouble--unless you like that sort of thing.

Then don't read my posts, Miles. If you're so offended at what you think my motives are (rather than taking the time to ask me), why waste your time and energy?

Erickson is a law and order guy. Obtaining a license to go to Cuba under false pretenses (saying he's going on a mission to help the underprivleged when he's actually going on an expensive pleasure trip) is a violation of the spirit and as I understand it, the letter of the law, if someone cares to prosecute.

Erickson is also a guy who gives the Republican lip service to the capitalist economy, supported by GOP tax policy. Yet he goes to Cuba and dumps cash into the Communist system with his lavish vacation.

The real shame here is that you have appear to have an expectation that we should all see things from your perspective and believe things based on your point of view. You seem to be completely gobsmacked by the notion that some of us come to the table with our own ideas of things.

I really don't care who Erickson has sex with or what he lies about in regard to his personal life...until or unless those actions run contrary to the public policy he tries to shove down my throat.

I'm not interested in having a saint as a public servant. I'm interested in having a person who is progressive and effective as a public servant.

And you haven't established that hypocrisy with this post about his trip to Cuba, except for some vague argument that Erickson is a capitalist. I'm actually trying to help you by suggesting that Erickson's trip was still wrong even if it isn't directly related to his public policy. You refuse to accept that because it means you would also have to criticize Democrats for similar morally dubious behavior, but you won't go there. You prefer to be inconsistently partisan.

You're clearly determined to see what you wish, Miles. And you may even believe you're trying to "help" in your own way. But in your zeal to try to cut through your version of partisanship--you've gone rather blind.

I have quite clearly articulated why I believe Erickson is a hypocrite on this is issue, and why it translates to his stance on public policy issues. You've twisted yourself up into a knot trying to pin me down on some issue of your contrived morality. I don't believe the same way you do--and trying to push me or bully me into it won't work. In fact, its more likely to cause me to push back harder.

That's a weak attack. People don't respond to blogs if they aren't interested in discussion. Of course I think I'm right and you're wrong; you believe the opposite. Why are you so thin-skinned on this issue?

You certainly are presumptive, aren't you? You come to the table on the premise that you're interested in "discussion", but you aren't. You're interested in forcing your points of view..and damn whoever doesn't buy into it. You comment as if you find it offensive that I don't accept your version of morality as universal and all encompassing. Yet at the suggestion that your offense would be lessened if you choose to read elsewhere, your back goes up and you go on the defensive. The mirror you're attempting to hold in my direction might be best reserved for your own self-study.

Because internal criticism is the only way to make the movement stronger. You're not doing progressives any favors by inconsistently applying your criteria to Democrats and Republicans. Seriously, Erickson going to Cuba is a bigger deal than Edwards betraying his wife, his kids, and his supporters? Or Clinton fucking up his entire 2nd term and giving us Bush, jr.? You're smarter than that, and so are your readers.

You're making presumptions again, Miles. I have made no commentary that I'm aware of comparing the gravity of Edwards/Clinton/Erickson and their various personal/public foibles.

I write what I find interesting to me, a point which I've made before. I'll continue to write what's interesting to me. If it doesn't match up to your hierarchy, then start your own blog and write what gets you through the day.

You are apparently under rather large delusion that I give a shit if your morality and mine match. They don't..and frankly it doesn't matter to me if they do.

Other people have written the Clinton and Edwards stuff to death..so I don't find it especially interesting to regurgitate the what's already been said. I have no problem taking a Democrat on who isn't doing what I think is right--when it isn't boringly repetitive or a rehash.

Seriously, Erickson going to Cuba is a bigger deal than Edwards betraying his wife, his kids, and his supporters?

While I think that's an interesting question, it's based on the assumption that a blog should only have one post. Or perhaps, each post should be successively a "bigger deal" than all previous posts.

Weird.

Can we please get off the meta conversation - blogging about blogging - and get back to the subject of the congressional race, Mike Erickson, and whether his trip to Cuba violates the spirit or the letter of the law?

Thank you.

With respect to Edwards, you and Carla (and many others) argued vigorously that private and public morality are separate and distinct, with the former having no bearing on the latter. Yet within days, you're both criticizing Erickson's private morality with regards to the Cuba trip.

You did catch that part where I said that breaking the law is a different matter than sex between consenting adults, right?

You do understand that Erickson, if he did what the Oregonian says he did, broke the law. A pretty serious federal law. Right?

Echo what Rulial said.

Well this argument between Miles and Carla has become most interesting. Personally, I see merit, and flaws, in both positions.

For Miles, I think his general observation that BlueOregon doesn't pay as much attention to Democratic sex scandals as it does to Republican malfeasance is obviously true. But he hasn't elucidated why this is so terrible. It isn't as if, say, the Edwards affair has been exactly ignored by the media. So who cares what the source is? All that should be important is the truth. (Occasionally, I find a nugget of underreported truth on right wing websites - I may disagree with their analysis, but it doesn't mean their facts are necessarily always wrong.)

Insofar as his contention that Carla and Kari are being inconsistent in their application of morality, I would say this hasn't been tested. Let me remind you: John Edwards is not running for office. People who request the privilege of representing America should be held to higher moral standards, but when they return to private life, these standards are relaxed. And I'd say this is generally understood on BlueOregon - which is why, for instance, you don't see a lot of bashing of Newt Gingrich anymore. Is he on his fifth or sixth wife? I've lost count, and really don't care.

Insofar as Carla is concerned, I will say that her argument that Erickson is being "hypocritical" doesn't hold much sway with me. It seems quite the opposite. This episode has shown several things: 1) Erickson is a liar. 2) Erickson is willing to pretend he cares about helping widows and orphans living in poverty, but he doesn't. 3) Erickson is really only interested in his own personal pleasure. 4) Erickson doesn't want to forthrightly challenge a stupid, inconsistent, public policy, because it might interfere in his own political ambitions. And 5) Erickson clearly believes that the law shouldn't apply to his kind of people, rich guys; rules apply to everyone else.

In short: he's a Republican. Through and through. The epitome of the modern Republican party. No false advertising here.

All that's missing is an embezzlement scandal or a bribery charge, but I can't even call him hypocritically clean, because he hasn't gotten into office yet.

I'd have titled this whole original article as such: Erickson - Acts like a Republican (yawn).

Insofar as Carla is concerned, I will say that her argument that Erickson is being "hypocritical" doesn't hold much sway with me. It seems quite the opposite. This episode has shown several things: 1) Erickson is a liar. 2) Erickson is willing to pretend he cares about helping widows and orphans living in poverty, but he doesn't. 3) Erickson is really only interested in his own personal pleasure. 4) Erickson doesn't want to forthrightly challenge a stupid, inconsistent, public policy, because it might interfere in his own political ambitions. And 5) Erickson clearly believes that the law shouldn't apply to his kind of people, rich guys; rules apply to everyone else.

Actually Steve--#5 pretty much hits my point dead square on.

Miles, I would think you'd have expected there to be a lack of accountability for Democrats from Kari and Carla by now. Promoting Democrats is pretty much what they're all about--with the corollary that any attack on a Republican is a good one if it helps a Democrat, and anything good a Republican might do can't be acknowledged, lest it negatively affect the scorecard. It reached heights of absurdity when Kari warned us not to consider supporting Joel Haugen in OR-1 because we'd be voting for "Republican leadership"--despite the fact that Haugen has little chance of beating Wu to begin with, and that even if he won the chances of it leading to bolstered GOP strength in the House are nil.

Similarly, in OR-5 I'm a lot less concerned about Erickson's latest pathetic moral quagmire, than I am about the seat moving to the right with moderate D Kurt Schrader taking over. If Schrader can't win that race in the current political environment, something's very wrong, so the attention to Erickson seems more like an opportunity to bash with glee the dumbass Republican, than an honest look at the race or its issues.

And I think that's what Miles is getting at. The whole exercise of political commentary at BlueO with regards to candidates seems to have devolved to disingenuously puffing up Democrats who should be more closely monitored for progressive intent (I'm talking to you, Mr. Pro Drug War Senate Candidate), and whipping up another batch of smirky schadenfreude about the latest idiocy from one of our woeful state Republicans. The short term for that is indeed "partisan hackery," and as long as the ties between the DPO and BlueO remain as tight as they are, I don't see anything but continuance in the same vein ahead.

Directly on point: whether someone breaks the law by going to Cuba and spending money on cigars and tequila, carries a lot less weight with me than whether the person is such a scumbag that they try to dress up an obvious party junket by claiming it was a humanitarian mission. I might vote for someone who simply violated the embargo (if they had other merits to consider)--but not someone who did so and then tried to pretend it was about sick children. That's morally craptastic.

And by God, so is cheating on your wife. It DOES matter, to me anyway.

Miles, I would think you'd have expected there to be a lack of accountability for Democrats from Kari and Carla by now.

We both know that you're full of shit on this one, Mark.

You might want to consider climbing down from your self-imposed pedestal, btw. You've done your fair share of equivocating.

And no, I'm not going to rehash the primary.

Ooops..messed up the first link there:

http://loadedorygun.blogspot.com/2007/05/betsy-johnson-fs-up.html

That you have to go back more than a year, to a different blog, helps make Miles' point I think. He was referring to BlueO activity, I believe, and so was I, insofar as I was discussing you and Kari together.

I don't know what the primary comment is supposed to mean--given that the drug war plan came out in the general--but relying on the tired crutch that criticism should be dismissed as sour grapes also makes Miles' point. Merkley advocating a greater fed presence can't be talked about negatively, because it might hurt the team. It has to be rejected as "rehashing a primary," somehow. I certainly don't want the GOP candidate to win, but that doesn't automatically make the Dem sacrosanct. With you guys, it sure seems to.

That you have to go back more than a year, to a different blog, helps make Miles' point I think. He was referring to BlueO activity, I believe, and so was I, insofar as I was discussing you and Kari together.

Please...we both know that's lame. I was working on a campaign from August 07 to May 08 and couldn't blog outside of an advocacy role for the campaign, and I've been blogging here for just barely two months. We both know your premise is ridiculous.

Erickson deserves to be held accountable because of his hypocrisy on the public policy vs his lifestyle. Its a very worthwhile story and frankly, helps tell the story of the larger narrative of the GOP, in my opinion.

In terms of the primary--I said I'm not going to rehash it and I'm not, so there's no sense in bullet-pointing the specifics. You did plenty of equivocating and excuse making--refusing the standard of accountability you say you hold for Dems. The moral high ground shifted sands for you long ago.

I've always written about what interests me--not what I'm told I should or must do. You never had a problem when I did that at LO because it benefitted you. But now that it doesn't, you've decided differently because you're apparently trying to set yourself up as the arbiter of what's good and appropriate and progressive. What the rest of us believe is..well...apparently just pandering and just not quite good enough.

C'est la vie.

TurgidJoe: "I certainly don't want the GOP candidate to win, but that doesn't automatically make the Dem sacrosanct. With you guys, it sure seems to."

The voting is still several months away. You claim that you don't want the GOP candidate to win but you clearly also want to take shots at the Dem candidate.

Either

A) you are politically ignorant

Or

B)you want the Constitution Party candidate David Brownlow to win.

Or

C)the dregs in your cup are so low that you just can't help but spread your own brand of angry bitterness as widely as possible by denigrating every possible choice facing Oregon.

Because

D) Oregonians only have the 3 choices.

The above all applies as much to Miles as it does to BitterJoe.

For Miles, I think his general observation that BlueOregon doesn't pay as much attention to Democratic sex scandals as it does to Republican malfeasance is obviously true.

No, it's not. There were three separate posts about John Edwards.

Now, people are free to disagree with my judgment about that situation, but let's not pretend that there wasn't coverage here.

Not only that, but once again: BlueOregon is not Kari. Kari is not BlueOregon. We have over 30 writers here. We each write about what we find interesting and when we have something meaningful to say. This is NOT a newspaper of record. We don't cover everything. We are not obligated to have an opinion about everything one of our (anonymous) readers thinks we should have an opinion about.

Now, can we PLEASE actually talk about the substance -- rather than imagining what my motives (or Carla's motives) are?

Feel free to disagree mightily. You'll notice that we welcome lots of opposing viewpoints here. But it's really quite boring to keep speculating about motivations of individual bloggers. Who cares?

Argue the merits of the argument.

Carla's reply will take a little more effort and reference, but Kevin makes it easy by descending into namecalling, then offering exactly the sentiment Miles and I are trying to point out: if I am not overtly gushing about how great the Democratic candidate is, I must therefore be for the Republican--or worse...because to look more honestly at the Democrat could serve to damage his prospects for victory. The category E), "Just because the Democratic nominee when viewed honestly is a generic politician with weasel tendencies, doesn't mean he's not a damn sight better choice than the incumbent generic politician with weasel tendencies"--never occurs to Kevin.

If I'm the one who's bitter, why is it Kevin who continues to sputter out the childish personal attacks?

Please...we both know that's lame. I was working on a campaign from August 07 to May 08 and couldn't blog outside of an advocacy role for the campaign, and I've been blogging here for just barely two months. We both know your premise is ridiculous.

What does that have to do with Miles' analysis, which apparently concentrated on just that period you discuss? It sure looked to me like he was commenting on your time in defense of Merkley during the primary, and then the time in which you have been a contributor? My premise--that your rebuttal was to bring up posts from a blog and time Miles was not referring to--seems pretty sound. And really, given that things appeared to change for you about the time you decided that Novick--while being as good as it got ideologically--was neither viable as a candidate or as a way for you to build a career in politics, I think the putting the dividing line there is fairly apt.

The angle of "public service hypocrisy" was poorly laid out in the article, if at all. I have to agree with Miles there. The question he was asking was why Erickson's moral failings matter, but Edwards' do not. And then confronted with the idea that Erickson's moral failings don't matter to you either, he wondered why it wouldn't.

Without "bullet pointing the specifics," you neatly avoid having to explain the charge you're making, providing any basis for such a slur. What was done wrong that I had to make an excuse for or equivocate? I, like many Novick supporters, was clear and direct about disagreements with him as a candidate. We didn't try to pretend he believed one thing while he said another. I think for anyone associated with the Merkley campaign to assert that OTHERS have lost the high ground, shows just how out of touch they might be with reality. The sleaze against Democrats all came from one side in that race, and it definitely wasn't Novick's.

To say I "never had a problem" with some of the things you wrote or how you wrote them while at LO would be inaccurate. Given that we agreed ahead of time that we each would be free to write essentially as we wished, to raise any issues after that would have violated that agreement in my view. We did not critique each others work openly, and I think that was appropriate. No such agreement is necessary now, and I think after months of personal animus being laid out by you against me publicly, it seems clear you didn't wish to have one anyway.

if I am not overtly gushing about how great the Democratic candidate is...

You honestly don't see the light years of distance and difference between "overtly gushing about" and your oft-repeated "weasel tendencies" denigration of Merkley? During a race where there are only the 3 choices?

I can't imagine how bitterly frustrating it must be to live in your world where everything is apparently either jet black or blindingly white and nothing - absolutely nothing - exists inbetween.

kevin, I'm not the one who reduced the entire race into three exclusive options. The gray area is exactly where I live right now--pledged to vote for a candidate superior to others in the race, but nonetheless far down the list of optimal choices. The black/white position would be yours, clearly--absent total fealty to Merkley, one must be a purity troll or a republican.

The irony of all this is that I actually think criticism of Erickson, and Wingard, and others for their moral failings is okay.

Frankly, I'll believe it <s>when</s> if I see evidence of it.

But you have to turn that spotlight around sometimes, which you steadfastly refuse to do, and you twist yourself into knots explaining why you shouldn't have to.

That's utter bullshit, Miles. I just haven't criticized Dems where, when and precisely how YOU petulantly demand it be done.

I am criticizing your specifically stated beliefs.

That's perfectly fair game. What I don't appreciate is when you (and many others) imagine what my motivations are.

Argue what I write, don't fantasize about what's happening in my head while I write it.

I write plenty of stuff that's worth arguing about. There's no point in trying to "understand my motivations" or any other such psychobabble nonsense.

If what I say is right on, then it's right on. If what I is dead wrong, then it's dead wrong. There's just no point in trying to psychoanalyze my reasons for writing it.

Putting the president on the couch to understand his motivations is interesting, he's the president. I'm just a yahoo with a blog.

What does that have to do with Miles' analysis, which apparently concentrated on just that period you discuss? It sure looked to me like he was commenting on your time in defense of Merkley during the primary, and then the time in which you have been a contributor?

You mean like when I recently gave shit to Bill Bradbury for not taking the forgery of the ballot signature gathering of Tim Trickey, Bill Sizemore and Kevin Mannix seriously?

This entire thing is bullshit and we both know it.