High gas prices don't particularly concern me, since I don't drive and they impact me only indirectly through higher prices on goods. There are a lot of benefits to higher gas prices too, like fewer cars on the roads and increased competitiveness of local produce growers because it's now more expensive to truck produce long distances. So the argument that drilling won't reduce gas prices now doesn't hold much water with me.

What's left? The argument that drilling is bad for the environment? That's true no matter where you do the drilling. Look at the nightmare that is Nigeria today. The fact is that drilling off the U.S. coast will be much less damaging to the environment than it is in many parts of the world. On this score, I agree with Peter Maass:

"My main reasoning is that there’s no justification, other than selfishness, for tearing up the rest of the world’s habitats in our search for oil and gas while preserving our own. Taking a global view, there’s an advantage to drilling in our backyard, if drilling must be done — it will be carried out with a level of environmental care that does not exist in Africa and many other places where regulatory oversight is not as strict as here (which is not to say that American regulators are as strict as they can and should be). And maybe, by being forced to suffer some of the environmental harm and inconvenience of our dependence on oil, we’ll have yet another reason to quicken our transition toward conservation and renewable energy."

We use the oil. I'm reminded of how much we use every time I walk up the street, past the NE 47th Street house of the woman with the "Obama '08" and "War Is Not the Answer" signs in her window and the big honkin' SUV in the driveway. (There's no hypocrite like a "progressive" hypocrite!) Until we stop using so much oil, until we make meaningful changes in the way we live, there's no reason we should continue to outsource the incredible toll our thirst takes on the environment and geo-political situation.

Not one inch of the Second Congressional District touches the Pacific Ocean.

I wonder if Walden went to Oregon's Congress people who represent parts of the Oregon coast prior to his sponsorship of this bill? Well, I don't really wonder. After all they are Democrats that represent people who (oh my God!) elect Democrats - so they don't count.

Two years from now, I predict that Walden will not run for Governor, but will still run for the Second CD seat. He will at that time be the only Republicant left in Oregon in an elected office higher than a State Legislative seat. Perhaps, just perhaps, then we as a State can focus some real effort on finding a candidate to run against him and some real money - and get him out of there!

I'm spending next Saturday with Noah Lemas here in Crook County, walking the County fair, and visiting with him and introducing him to our County. While he's on the ballot against Walden, he probably doesn't have a chance this time, because its just too late to make a dent in the Republicant machine. But as of now, we have 27 months until the 2010 election.

Its time to send Walden back to the pond.

Steve--Love your last line!

Today we had family gathering that was a real "ordinary life" reality check. 4 generations: Great Grandma, Grandma, young women right around 30 years old who are both mothers of children younger than 2, and then other relatives as well--the sister and cousin of the Grandma. 2 of us took the all day train trip to Seattle (leaving Salem a little after 6:30 AM, returning on a train that left Seattle a little after 5 PM and got into Salem just before 11 because of a delay on the way back). Long day but well worth it.

This was a gathering of people from 4 states who had come to a joint birthday party for the Moms and the Grandma who all have birthdays about now. Most of the conversation was about family, work, etc.

The only political commentary came from my cousin who picked us up at the train station and took us back in the afternoon. Most relevant to this discussion was "We're driving 67 mph and barely keeping up with traffic---people here in Seattle must have still money!" He lives in rural Washington, gas is higher there than here in Salem, and he says recently people there have been driving a lot slower to save money and get better gas mileage. Conservation--what a concept!

Back in the 1980s, someone was quoting statistics on how much conservation=not having to build a new power plant.

Surely someone has done the calculations for how much mass transit, higher car gas mileage, walking, bicycling, etc. saves the equivalent of a certain number of barrels of oil. That can happen now, and it doesn't take new oil rigs, new oil leases, etc. Oil companies might not like it, but is the goal to help reduce our use of foreign oil and give people a break on gas prices, or is the goal to make the oil companies happy?

My cousin said something else which might give everyone working on a campaign pause. Maybe it is time to reflect on this philosophical question: are elections about candidates, consultants, other paid staff? Or are they about voters?

"Politicians have no idea what ordinary people are going through in this economy" is a statement all politicians should take to heart. If the campaign has lots of town halls and other conversations with voters, someone elected in that style of campaign can say "These are my priorities based on what I heard from voters". Or they can run like Walden and do politics by press release and then wonder why such one-way communication doesn't win friends and influence people.

But that would be voters EVERYWHERE, not just in districts with great R to D ratios. There have been famous national campaign managers who have said the most important poll question is how a candidate rates on "cares about people like me, understands my problems".

On the train on the way up I had a conversation with a man who knows Ben Cannon but doesn't live in his district. What he wanted to know from me (once he realized I knew something about politics) was whether I was optimistic that politics has room for ordinary people to get involved--or if it is all just consultants and others telling people what to think.

There have been discussions here over the years about various candidates whose fundraising wasn't up to Portland consultant standards, whether a candidate was trying hard enough, whether a campaign is serious. Seems like some think that is more important than issues discussed or candidate-voter interaction. It was a political earthquake when Bud Clark was elected Portland mayor. Anyone who doesn't think that can happen at the legislative level hasn't been around very long/ has little faith in voters (or thinks without asking them, people can know where they stand on issues, if they see individuals or just "those politicians", etc.).

Folks, someone can run a technically proficient campaign (Novick sure did in the opinion of many) but if ordinary folks like my cousin or the man on the train don't find it relevant to their lives, why would they bother to vote for that candidate?

As I recall, Tim Walz, Adm. Sestak, Jim Webb and others were not considered likely winners exactly 2 years ago today. But they all won Congressional elections. Maybe rather than trying to fit all campaigns into a "this is what good campaigns do" box built by people who make a living in politics but don't spend much time around average voters outside their own community, it is time to go back to the old days where people ran locally, interacted with voters, and didn't let outsiders tell them how campaigns should be run.

Seems to me that is the only way that the Waldens of this world get sent back to their home pond.

Where is the infrastructure to allow a serious campaign? High quality people have run in that district in the past, but who outside of the district gave them help? Or were they treated as sacrificial lambs (aside from the coverage of Chuck and the others here when they had that great primary debate across the district)?

The 5th District elected a Democrat to Congress after 10 years of trying, incl. the DCCC saying "doesn't have a chance" to a candidate who went on to lose in a recount--and win the next time.

"Serious" campaigns do not magically appear. Money raising is not the only thing. Someone must help a candidate get a start--organizing, setting up a volunteer operation, learning how to raise federal money (diff. than state money), publicize themselves, etc.

This is why some of us have been screaming about the nonsense of the whole "R to D ratio" nonsense. There have been Democrats elected to the legislature from central and eastern Oregon, just not recently. The close Gilbertson race should have been a wakeup call that living in a "red" congressional or legislative district does not equal "no chance, why bother". Had there been a state legislator from E. of the mountains, this would have been a good year for that person to run for Congress.

Steve has it right. I'm spending next Saturday with Noah Lemas here in Crook County, walking the County fair, and visiting with him and introducing him to our County. While he's on the ballot against Walden, he probably doesn't have a chance this time, because its just too late to make a dent in the Republicant machine. But as of now, we have 27 months until the 2010 election.

If you don't like Lemas, find someone else. But how many people here have expertise at the federal level? Would anyone on the crack Novick campaign team be willing to help out? If you don't like Walden, contribute something concrete to a 2008-2010 2nd CD effort starting with people who have federal fundraising expertise, people who know Portland area tactics won't work in rural Oregon, people who can do PR, etc.

Or you can just complain.

It took us a lot of years to turn the 5th District Dem. We didn't do it by wishing we had a candidate. We did it by supporting candidates, by monitoring (and showing up at the town halls of) the incumbent, talking about it with friends. Then we had some luck: the incumbent did something incredibly stupid and Duin did a satirical column with a dynamite headline. Some of his friends did something really sneaky and it looked that way, making them look bad. One ad went so far over the line that ordinary folks said "that's it, anyone who would run an ad like that..."

It starts with a firm foundation of people more willing to pitch in and do something than to just wish it would happen.

YES!!!!!!!!! Good for Greg. Drill here, drill NOW!, pay less. Let those Bastards in OPEC drown in their oil. Build Nukes, solar and wind farms. Leave our dams alone. If I'm going to be driving electric in the not too distant future, I'll need cheap electricity. I'm sooo sick and tired of having my economic future depend on what some foreigner decides he will allow me to use. It's our country, let's provide for ourselves. Screw them, Hooray for us. To quote Dennis Miller, "But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

A summary of Walden's position is that he refuses to allow modification in flawed leases which are producing billions of dollars in revenues for the oil companies while hoping for royalties seven to ten years in the future. He also opposes closing the speculative loop-hole that is adding as much as fifty percent to the cost of a barrel. This is the Republican policy and his loyalty is more important than his oath or his constituents.

<hr/>