Solid blue state in national elections--check.

Democratic Governor--check.

Two Democratic Senators--check, and (YES!) check.

Majority of US Representatives--check.

All partisan Statewide offices--check.

Both chambers of the state legislature--check.

Bad ballot measures failed--check.

I'd say we did pretty good. :-)

With Kevin Mannix and Bill Sizemore in charge of the Republican party in this state is it really a surprise?

The downfall is the Republican Party both in Oregon and in the US has been a source of intense delight for me, personally.

Fear of one-party rule? Even if Democrats controlled every seat in ever Legislature and in Congress, it would not be "one-party" rule. Unlike Republicans, we do not follow lock-step on numerous issues.

Eventually--either through natural cycling or missteps by Democrats--they will revive themselves and challenge for primacy once again. (Maybe not in Utah; God's involved in that one*).

Speaking as an ex-Utahan...Dem party is strong in Salt Lake City...it's the outskirts that make the whole state look full of wackos.

"Broke and leaderless and with more ideology than ideas, it's hard to see a reversal of fortunes anytime soon for the GOP."

Wasn't there a time awhile back when the St. Senate had a resolution honoring Clay Myers while he was still alive (carried by a young Democratic legislator who considered Myers a mentor) and there were several GOP state senators who stayed off the floor because Myers wasn't their kind of Republican? Seemed juvenile at the time, and perhaps the kind of stupidity which led to their downfall.

A retired Republican legislator who is a friend of mine sent me this sentiment,

"I personally feel that the Rs will not make any significant political comebacks until party leadership at state and federal levels makes it clear that they want new members and those new members don't have to be ideologically identical."

Here is some "homework" for those who want to revive the Republican Party: Read FIRE AT EDEN'S GATE to understand why people still admire what went on in the Tom McCall years. Study Atiyeh's years in the legislature and as Gov. and discuss why some people say the GOP won't deserve to win a Gov. election until they nominate someone of the quality of Vic Atiyeh.

Think about this: Merkley was once an intern for Sen. Hatfield, who remains one of the most admired living Oregon Republicans. Hatfield was known for his good manners, his ability to stand up for what he believed in and against what he thought were stupid ideas. His manners were "gentleman of the old school" manners, and he seldom made sarcastic remarks. For most of his time, he had a sense of fair play and being in touch with ordinary Oregonians. No one doubted he had his own moral code, and playing partisan games (except for the 1990 election and very few other times) was just not part of who he was. Is it possible that we'll see more of the true Hatfield spirit from his former intern Merkley than we saw from Gordon Smith?

Here's another one--there were once wonderfully outspoken Republican legislators, incl. Nancy Ryles, Jeanette Hamby, Mary Alice Ford, Donna Zajonc, Delna Jones. They were individuals, not creatures of their caucus. Rep. Ford once said of a 31-29 GOP minority, "they allow us to disagree, and if an issue is 27-2, that is OK" or words to that effect. Perhaps that would be a wiser model for the future than what we saw under Minnis/Scott.

The legislature Norma Paulus served in during the early 1970s and the legislature those other women (and common sense men like Tony Van Vliet) served in during the 1980s had a much more open public process. Maybe it is time to return to that model?

In the long run, political games killed the GOP. To revive the party, there should be more open debate. I think it would be healthy to have a party where Frank Morse, Max Williams, and other down to earth, friendly, pragmatic Republicans didn't feel like they were being frozen out by the ideologically pure. Do the people who were active Republicans understand they drove Westlund (a man with star quality) out of the GOP? What good did that do them? Do they have a vision for the future and a plan to carry it out? Since Measure 65 failed, there needs to be a debate between and among the parties which involves the general public rather than pretending that voters are just spectators.

The greatest governor in the history of Oregon was Tom McCall, a Republican. He would not be welcome in the present day Oregon Republican Party. That says everything. I think America does best when it has a healthy two party system. But the Republican party is run by the worst kind of extremists and bigots, in this and most other states. Norma Paulus says there is no one in the party she can talk to. She is unwelcome, Dave Frohenmayer is unwelcome. Bill Sizemore, Lars Larson, Kevin Mannix, that's who their heroes are.

And speaking of brain dead, there's also Ralph Nader asking out loud whether Barack Obama is an Uncle Tom.

"Bill Sizemore, Lars Larson, Kevin Mannix, that's who their heroes are"

Along with Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

I would not be suprised if Limbaugh started his "America held hostage" crap again like he did during the Clinton years.

For some reason, today's republicans have a very mean spirit about them. I have always wondered why they are that way. Karen Minnis has always been a great example of this. Maybe this blue wave will make them realize that they have to treat others, as well as each other, better.

Among others, Meredith Wood Smith deserves a hearty pat on the back for her tireless work as party chair.

Clarification: Democratic party chair.

"Our Republican friends are an essential part of the dialogue in Oregon. While I don't agree with them much politically, they live here too and their voice matters. I don't want them silenced."

Thank you Carla, and well put.

The two party system has been good for our nation and good for our state. That's why I was against the open primaries.

My party has passed the torch to you (or rather the torch was ripped from us) and rightly so. My party has become obsessed with people's bedrooms and their bodies, and turned its back on the Republican values that I cared about. After a total lock on Washington for six years and the White House for eight, my party screwed up, big time.

I hope someday to get my party back. The party born of the abolitionist movement, the party of Lincoln. The party of Tom McCall and Mark Hatfield. The party of Vic Atiyeh, who knew how to help business succeed in Oregon. The party that first brought environmental protection into our laws and created the EPA.

Did you know it was Dorchester Republicans who first proposed legalizing abortion in Oregon in the case of rape or incest? True story. How have we strayed so far?

I was having lunch with two of my friends who are Democrats a while back and one of them looked at me and said "Dave, you're not a Republican, why are you in that party."

I guess the answer is that I value personal responsibility, fiscal conservancy, entrepreneurship and liberty.

Values that my party seems to have forgotten about lately. Values that my party will, and must, return to.

I've been advised by many that, if I continued to have political aspirations, I must renounce my party. At the very least, become an independent, or follow Westlund's course from R to I to D.

But that's not for me. I will stay in the party and try to fix it. If for no other reason than the legacy of Abraham Lincoln deserves it.

I truly would like to see a healthy and moderate, pragmatic Republican party emerge. But I see no signs of that. The religious right fanatics like James Dobson now control the party and any politician who wants to gain power must worship at Dobson's altar. His candidate is Sarah Palin, the end-timer know-nothing, who doesn't know that Africa is a continent and doesn't care, who shops until she drops. The Republican party doesn't want an Olympia Snowe,a Norma Paulus, or even a Chuck Hegel, but a shop-aholic religious fanatic narcissist like Sarah Palin. I foresee more splitting between the corporatists, the dominionist theocrats, and the libertarians. The Reagan coalition is dead and gone.

And speaking of brain dead, there's also Ralph Nader asking out loud whether Barack Obama is an Uncle Tom.

This statement repeats the execrable interpretation of Ralph Nader's words by an odious Faux News would-be hit man. This is what Ralph Nader said as quoted on the video: "And we wish him (Obama) well. But his choice, basically, is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations."

To put his words in another way, Ralph Nader essentially said HIS CHOICE (that is Obama's CHOICE) is to do what is right or what is wrong. Why have these anti-Naderites and Faux News parrots focused on the Uncle Tom part? Why did they not instead praise Nader for wishing Obama well and equating him with Uncle Sam? Because they are programmed to reflexively and mindlessly find fault with Nader without paying attention to what he says. Just like Limpbag, O'LIElly, Coletar and that bunch.

There are many people alive today because Ralph Nader took on and beat giant corporations. What have you done that bears the remotest comparison with what Nader has done for the American people? For that matter, what has Obama done?

Dave, when are GOP officers elected for the next cycle? Has it happened yet? If not, you should try for some kind of office in the GOP. They need you to take the party back to sanity.

"I've been advised by many that, if I continued to have political aspirations, I must renounce my party. At the very least, become an independent, or follow Westlund's course from R to I to D."

Whoever advised you, you should try to gain power within the GOP, and then failing that you can become a NAV or an I or maybe a Dem. Or run for a nonpartisan local office.

Dan said at City Club today (a great program, listen to it on OPB tonight, if you didn't make it) that some Republicans have concluded that they lost because they weren't conservative enough. Yikes.

I interned for Senator Hatfied (he was just "the" Senator). Remember that his being anti-choice was always a downside for him. If he hadn't already had a long track record as a great Senator, my suspicion is that he wouldn't have made it through the 1980s, due largely to this position. In other words, while he wouldn't have made it through Republican primaries today, I think his views on abortion would have doomed him in a general election.

I'd be careful patting ourselves on the back. The Ds have their share of take no prisoners, if you don't think as I do you're surely an ignorant ass, thinkers. I highly recommend reading "The Left Hand of God Taking Back Our Country From The Religious Right" by Michael Lerner. It provides some great insight as to how we've managed to alienate a good deal of the population that should support us as a party.

Don't fool yourself into thinking we can't be foiled by our own arrogance. The visciousness we show to our own when they don't fall into step can be very nasty. You see it all of the time here, and on other blogs and during campaigns.

We need the Rs to be healthy and ideally, not wacky so that we have incentive to reach for greatness.

We also need to understand that there ARE Republicans out there who are NOT wacky (N Paulus, for instance, and there are others like her). Rather than villify the party as a whole, we should view this as an opportunity to reach out to those Rs whose values are much closer to our own that the latest version of the R party. A little friendship, instead of name-calling and nastiness, will get us much further, and those disenfranchised Rs, instead of running for Independent status, might join our ranks.

I strongly agree with those who wish to see the return of the moderate Republicans. Our system is much healthier when we're in balance.

I suspect, in retrospect, that history will point to Ronald Reagan and the 1980 elections as the beginning of the end for the moderate wing of the Republican party. That said, many of the evangelical Christians who tiptoed into politics did so through Jimmy Carter in 1976. I was attending a Christian college at that time, and was heartily appalled by the number of people I spoke to who said "I'm voting for the Christian" rather than thinking about specific issues. Carter was really the first candidate who openly appealed to the evangelical vote in that manner--and the Republicans noted that, and followed up. The Democratic party ignored that trend, to their detriment and to our country's detriment, for far too long.

I studied the early roots of the current Dominionist political movements during the late 70s/early 80s, while I was a political science student at the U of O. Without Carter and the energy he gave to the Baptists, as well as the Bill Bright evangelical crusades ("Here's Life, America!" and so on), we wouldn't have had the energy for Falwell, Robertson and other fundamentalist political activists to draw upon to create the Moral Majority.

One thing which sticks firmly in my mind are my experiences in the Oregon Legislature of 1979 and 1981. I knew Clay Myers, Norma Paulus, and many other moderate Republicans. I was a raging liberal Democrat, interning with the real Socialist, Wally Priestley. And yet--Wally always spoke kindly of his Republican colleagues, and showed them respect. And when I spoke to Clay Myers at a party, and told him I was interning with Wally, Clay spoke very highly of Wally, with a great deal of respect.

I do not think that degree of respect would happen in these days--to the very great loss of our system, our state, and our country.

This is really something. A so-called progressive web site with commentators saying how we need a Republican and a Democratic party even if there isn't much difference between the two. How about a Democratic OR a Republican party AND a Progressive party in the Nader-Kucinich mold? Then people would have a real choice.

Before you get all full of yourselves just remember what Mark Twain once said......"Death is the starlit strip between the companionship of yesterday and the reunion of tomorrow".

"The Republican Party in Oregon is now officially dead."

Didn't the Repubs say something similar about the dems in 2004?

Also, a " so-called progressive website" accurately reflects the content of this site.

But they still have Greg Walden, don't they? I mean, they can still build a state-wide party around that, right?

/snark

"Someone like Jason Atkinson would be a fresher, younger more moderate face. "

Assuming he has fully recovered (or enough to be active in politics), Jason Atkinson might be the wise, "as I was recovering, I had a lot of time to think" figure that Westlund was after surviving cancer. Add him to Max Williams, Frank Morse, and maybe a few outspoken former Republican legislators from the pre-Minnis days, and there might be the backbone of a new party.

LOSERS: Citizens who understand the perils of one-party rule.

Without the check of a strong opposition there is always the possibility for a nation to mirror the former Soviet Union, modern Russia, China, or any other oppressive regime you can think of.

Let’s hope Gov K in Oregon and President-elect Obama in Washington understand this and reign in the more radical elements of their party.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Buckman:

It's "rein" in, as in pulling back on a horse's reins. And I agree in terms of understanding that going forward, this tide will also turn somewhat at least, and we in Oregon will NEED reputable Republicans to care about US and work for US alongside our Democrats. Balance is critical. We should seek to establish balance now that we've cleaned house.

"I guess the answer is that I value personal responsibility, fiscal conservancy, entrepreneurship and liberty. Values that my party seems to have forgotten about lately. Values that my party will, and must, return to."

Conservatives have to recognize that our values are not the values of the Republican Party any more. As long the Christian Coalition runs the party, I can never vote for an R at the national level.

Like the party on the nationwide level, current leaders need to figure out if they'd rather lead a minority party or not lead a majority party. At this point, I think they are more satisfied being in control of a party, than seeing the party succeed. This is the outgrowth of the Christian right and Club for Growth's growing influence in the party. They attend the meetings, do the grunt work, raise the money. If this is what they want, fine. I wouldn't be surprised to see Gordon Smith run for Governor, I think he'd have an edge on just about everyone with the possible exception of DiFazio.

well, i guess we'll all just have to suffer (ha!) while the republicans sort themselves. it's not going to be easy and it will take a while. we are witnessing nothing less than a full-bore party realignment. think of it as an adjustment to the dems losing the south over civil rights. the dynamics of the party changed dramatically and that's what the GOP is going through right now.

i don't know what will come out of it. i don't know that the GOP can put its wingnut fundie genie back in the bottle. i certainly don't see them catching the writing on the wall (that they are a regional sideshow party widely derided by just about everybody) inside of two election cycles.

so maybe, maybe by 2016, we'll start to see them coming out of their wilderness again. but i think the GOP civil war has only just begun and it will be much, much worse than the one the dems went through. all we had to do was fight corporatism. compared to wresting the party's ideology from theocratic whackadoos, that was a cakewalk.

"You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift

Cedwyn - thankfully, I do not think anyone here has made the boneheaded statement that blacks and hispanics hate gays. That's stupid, not merely silly. I'ts more complex than that. And add native americans to this, in the same complex way. Some have specific, functional roles for gay community members, or, rather, they DID, and a very long time ago, not recently; and some do not, all in caps. Another odd thread I stumbled onto in indian country was intense xenophobia on the part of natives aimed at "mexicans". That one was unexpected. Again: not generic - it came attached to specific demographics.

But if we do not talk about this in specific, we will continue to treat ALL of these "groups" as objectified iconic masses.

Have to say in my secret life I could agree with you about loss of tax free status for activist religionists AND their organizations. This might muzzle the mutts. But it would also drive it down in secret again. Rather than having the truth of their crawling vitriol paraded on the TV for those too lazy to keep up a healthy line of inquiry into that which is outside their life and their family's ... it would be forgotten and go underground again. Still like that too! Heh. But kinda dangerous.

THAT is what Bush and Reagan tapped into: these sullen bullies so angry about not having a voice. They consider themselves veritable Jeremiahs I guess, and this has been a reign of Jeremiads these long eight years at least!

Bill B: This is really something. A so-called progressive web site with commentators saying how we need a Republican and a Democratic party even if there isn't much difference between the two.

Carla A: Yeah...! Both parties support abortion rights, civil rights for gays and lesbians, fair trade, heavy investment in green energy, universal health care for all Americans... Oh wait...

Carla: Note that I said “...there isn't much difference between the two.” That allows for some difference, but not much.

I presume from your short list of issues you see Democrats supporting them and Republicans not. Before we consider issues let's define the parties. The Republican party as a whole is more disciplined and inclined, but not always, to vote more as a block. The Democratic party is made up of factions and often is split on issues. That's a difference. So when we talk about the parties and issues below, let's use “Party Leadership” to define each party's position because the leadership essentially decides which direction the party will take and what a majority of its members will support. In the case of Democrats party leadership now, obviously, includes Obama, Biden and Rahm Emanuel at the top.

Issues:

The right for gays and lesbians to marry partners of their own gender.

Ralph Nader: Supports Human Rights Groups: Support Democratic Party Leadership: Oppose Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats

Single-Payer Universal Health Care

Ralph Nader: Supports Human Rights Groups: Support Democratic Party Leadership: Support versions written by insurance corporations Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats

United States Constitution

Ralph Nader: Supports ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights: Support Democratic Party Leadership: Use it when it suits them politically. Ignore it when politically expedient. Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats

Bloated budget for the military-industrial complex

Ralph Nader: Opposes Democratic Party Leadership: Supports Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats

AIPAC-Likud Party policies of oppression and human rights abuses in the Palestine Territories

Ralph Nader: Opposes Human Rights Groups: Oppose Democratic Party Leadership: Support Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats

Sanctions on Iraq that degraded the Iraqi infrastructure and led to the deaths of an estimated half million Iraqi children. Democratic secretary of state Madeline Albright said, “We (Clinton Administration and party leadership) thought the price was worth it.”

Ralph Nader: Opposed Human Rights Groups: Opposed Democratic Party Leadership: Supported Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats

Patriot Act, FISA bill, NAFTA, send more American troops into Afghanistan debacle

Ralph Nader: Opposes Human Rights Groups: Oppose Democratic Party Leadership: Supports Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats

Initial bailout package for Wall Street concocted by Bush's consiglieri, Paulson, Bernanke and Cox. Hearings rigged by committees led by Senator Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Frank (D-MA) to take only testimony from Bush's trio and exclude opposing opinions.

Ralph Nader: Opposed Independent Economists: Opposed Democratic Party Leadership: Supported initially but some backed off after hostile reactions from the public. Supported revised version after the committees put lipstick on this pig. Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats

And ... well, you get the idea. Now on which of those issues do you agree with the party leadership?

So, whatever complexity it is which leads one historically disenfranchised community to vote overwhelmingly to strip another of its rights needs sorting out.

I would like to think any Democrat would reject the quintessentially Republican notion that basic equality can be stripped away by a vote.

I haven't checked lately, but what kind of support does the Democratic Black Congressional Caucus give to the oppressed Palestinians? If any?

I don't want to sound ungrateful or greedy but the Democratic leadership in Oregon could have done a much better job with contesting Walden's congressional seat. This is especially true with the Obama tidal wave. Needless to say somebody other than a skateboarder or snowboarder would have been a more worthy challenger for Walden. If you were to ask 9 out of 10 voters in Deschutes or Jackson Counties (where for the most part all the voters in Walden's congressional district live) who Walden's opponent was, they couldn't tell you. The votes that this mystery man got were simply a matter of people extending their good feeling about Obama and the Democratic label. Wake up and smell the coffee please. The demographics are rapidly changing east of the Cascades and conceding political offices to republicans over here in way outdated to say the least.

Leo: while I agree with you and regard "equal" and "rights" as you apparently do viz GLBT, I just have to say again that this is not perceived as a "right" that appends to sexual/erotic choice, which is how the groups in question do view our complexity of psychosexual adjustment.

I will take a risk and use the word "they" even as I know catholic activist grannies who worked for Obama and show more willingness than nearly every poster up here to stretch their minds to accomodate abortion and the whys of its existence even as they truly in their hearts cannot support it; and fundamentalist holy spirit women who do NOT attend churches blah blah blah... I know all kinds of complex people who fit this mold and break this mold!!!

The singularly anti-gay voters do NOT accept our complexity of possible human relating as anything but a choice, nor do they regard it as anything but who f***s whom. I use that term advisedly, as non-mainstream/hetero eros is not in any way regarded as sanct or complex or genuine - it is regarded with a perverted fascination - horror has a heavy erotic component to it as we all know...

I've met many a person who were not churchgoers who abhored GLBT as a thought, actively. And yet, I can only see resonances of a doctrine that indeed was inculcated into the power and norming strictures of this nation via church structures. You need not be actively religious to be effectuating doctrines that were enforced via church in times before, slipping on up your family line as attitudes and mores.

Viz BBodden:

Ok, let ME take off the gloves on this and do me a favor - do not lambast me if I am wrong. Just say, "Nope, that's not what is lurking in my psyche" or, if other than Bill, just please offer what YOU think is lurking around. I keep feeling I hear an embed, an unspoken in Bills posts.

I am listening on the run here, so I hope I'm tracking at least one thread of unspoken current in this conversation.

I believe I'm hearing Bill keep saying that the Blacks are in power now (or came out in their numbers this time) and overwhelmingly are now voting as inequalitists with bias and lack of concern for the plight of others who are suffering longterm oppression.

[if it weren't for the fact that native americans just are not being legislated FOR these days in any way many of us have been able to notice, he'd possibly trot out an example of an overwhelming black vote against the beleaugured and COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN NATIONS all over this damned country... or will he next accuse blacks as a totemic aggregate for NOT speaking to the continued impoverishment of indigenous, and the continued ACTIVE erosion of their land-based rights?]

Please let me point out that I expressed months ago that EVERYONE was feeling anxious about this election for an unspoken reason, on all of the MANY sides of the colour/culture divides -- if one group that has suffered oppression "gets in", will they then not just concentrate too much on righting the wrongs that are especially interesting to them? And even in some cases "taking it out on" tokens for those current and past who have done harm? And for the oppressed group, finally empowered, the terrible fear that it WILL be taken from them as quickly as possible by any number of means.

Well, get real kids, this IS a concern that has lurked around. And I feel possibly Bodden is voicing that even if he is attempting to be oblique about it.

I heard only ONE NPR interview that went there. And I was so damned grateful. I am looking at all of these things. And not very courageously. But I see them there.

I've accounted only one of a number of big city experiences I had as a young girl trying to survive big cities alone and with no backup. I did experience urban assaults that involved racial epithets upon me, just walking down the street trying to get home after a wee-hours cookie factory or cocktail shift. I experienced gender-based crime too. I had a hard time undoing the bias that built itself in as a result of living through these with no guidance and no concept base to help me understand what I was a subject to.

The fears are real. Not always unfounded. I believe we must acknowledge that we are only human, and acknowledge these fears exist. AND give them respect: for as we are only all humans, they are not foolishly unfounded. We must face them now. Denying we have them or they exist will only complicate our path to failure.

Some native friends are weighing in with their complexities. This election was not theirs, still. For they went unnoticed, unmentioned. ANd yet they voted in their numbers too, for a good man. And hold onto the belief that a good MAN will do his job for us all who are his people. But you can bet there are fears and anxieties of all kinds out there related to issues attached to our history.

Bill, could you please be plain in what you are saying? As Malcolm X used to say, "Make it plain". I just keep thinking I'm hearing you say that you feel a tidal wave of unscrutinized bias has just been unleashed. But you seem to have other embeds in that commentary. And I surely want to understand ALL that you mean. If you are concerned in the ways I spoke of, it's the conversation that needs to happen next.

ps.. about the activist grannies who spent all their waking hours campaigning for Obama -- what I meant was they do not accept abortion, but THEY did the work of streatching to understand why it exists, and learn a NEW WAY of viewing how to lessen the number of abortions that happen. They still are against what abortion does to girls, women, babies, the men too. But they no longer allow horror-based eroticization of the debate as part of their world view, and they do not objectify the choosers -they are working in new and progressive ways to compassionately offer choices and chances that might make it so abortion won't even be a choice someone has to make! Reminds me of the reconciling methodist church we attended when I was working AIDS - it was a tiny little church filled with grannies who all decided that was god's business about the orientation - there were people who were shivering in the cold b/c of something that was none of their business. So grannies who'd been in the church for fifty, sixty YEARS made the choice to become a reconciling congregation - welcoming of GLBT and very active for the economically distressed. It was a poor little congregation in North Portland with awful orange carpeting and NO fancy buildings. All of our capital was in the humans and the prayer.

Those grannies. WOw.

So I'm a rigid person, I have it from trusted authorities. But I know so many who have not been: I aspire to unbind my unbendingness. This brings change and mystery to the world.

Leo: one thing I was just now thinking, though -- it requires the voices on the edges to force the conversation down in the fat middle. I worked with Act Up in Oklahoma, while running a test site and a needle exchange among other things.

It was required to have clear "margins" so as to define the middle. In so having them, it was possible to REdefine the middle, pushing for expansion of progressive possibilities. Anti GLBT of course see that as erosion of orthodoxy, not a positive expansion....

If Bill could tidy up the non sequiturs, he and his sort could be valuable in ensuring that the equality agenda does not go on the sliders just because we've made one landmark breakthrough in electing our first truly mixed-culture Pres. We cannot afford to coast now! The conversation has to get more and more dialed in.

But I AM a bit concerned about the seeming unspokens in Bill's non sequitur postings. Power and advantage are hard to manage, no matter who you are. Those who perceive themselves "losing it" are fearful of those they perceive of "gaining it". And it's not going to be an error-free transition we endure as a nation. Strident gadflys who just want to buzz and sting may make the rest of folks look more-rational. But they will possibly at least drive the important purpose of keeping conversation percolating, and NOT letting a victor's narrative rob objectivity from the next phase.

Leo:

I hear you. You are heard.

Your mind is mine in this wise. Your concerns mine, as well. Oklahoma was a dangerous place for me to live. IT's not WHY I returned back here, but the ability to breathe and be for my son's growing identity options was critical, and, finally, I do see it should have been a choice I made for ME.

Am waiting for permission to post comment from my Dakota/Nakota compatriot who monitored vote with me. He has representative things to express that are from the indigenous perspective... bittersweet for all too many.

We just elected a president born when I was in high school. Forgive me if I believe that many of the views ascribed to Republicans as a party might just refer to a particular older age group instead. There are jokes being told about how the Democratic voters are moving from college housing to apartment and maybe owning a home, while Republican voters are moving from a home to an assisted living facility. Or that people should look at the census figures, then at pictures from the 2008 conventions, and see which convention pictures better reflect current census trends.

And Carla, I think it is about individuals, not parties. The smartest thing Kerry did in the last 10 years may well have been his choice for 2004 Keynote Speaker. Obama ran a better managed campaign than either Kerry or Gore.

This year, Merkley ran a great campaign and Gordon learned that all that snide attitude he and his office had towards people who disagreed with him finally backfired.

If Jeff Merkley has the same constitutent service, the same excellent public speaking ability, connection to Oregon, "this is what I believe is right and wrong" instead of allowing the caucus to think for him, the same "yes, he is my president, but I disagree with his policy/ legislation on..." that Hatfield had under Republican presidents, it may turn out that the young man who once interned for Mark Hatfield may build a better Senate career than the "I remember every day that I hold Mark Hatfield's seat" but then voted pro-war and had that snide attitude that Gordon had too often. It may well be that Merkley goes down in history as not only having some views of Wayne Morse (not a life long Democrat, don't forget) but also more of the Hatfield spirit than we had from Gordon.

Even if we accept his silly idea that we should exclusively consider the "party leadership" as defined by the occupants of the White House (and not the Senate or House), even if we accept that idea, it's most certainly NOT true that Obama's health care policy is exactly the same as McCain's or Bush's.

Kari: You and others have been careless in reading what I wrote and responded in favor of trying to make a point from that careless reading.

I didn't say, as you allege, "... his silly idea that we should exclusively consider the "party leadership" as defined by the occupants of the White House (and not the Senate or House),..." I said, "In the case of Democrats party leadership now, obviously, includes Obama, Biden and Rahm Emanuel at the top." Note, I said "includes" the White House - nothing about exclusive as you erroneously allege. Nor did I say Obama's health care plan is EXACTLY the same as McCain's. The most obvious thing is they were different. What they do have in common is approval by insurance corporations. Considering how much they donated to these campaigns I guess it is fair enough that they get something for their millions of dollars. "Fair enough" if you overlook the legal bribery factory.

... nattering nabobs of naderism...

I would provide you with a link to Alexander Cockburn's article on your future "progressive" chief of staff in the White House and Cockburn's interview with Ralph Nader, but since all of you Blue Oregon "progressives" are blinkered by the Democratic party label I won't waste my time with that effort. Hint: It's at Counterpunch.org - a real progressive web site.

You lost me when you defined the parties based on just your notion of "leadership" and then went on to generalize "human rights groups" and "Nader".

Carla: I gave readers credit for having enough intelligence to be aware of human rights groups opposed to Israeli abuses. Was that credit misplaced in your case or was that the best you could do to defend the indefensible? If you do need some help in this regard, try Human Rights Watch and Jewish Voice for Peace for starters.

The vast majority of rank and file Republicans that I know support very few or none of these things, Bill.

Are any of your Republican friends in the party leadership?

That's irrelevant, Bill. Palestinians were not born expecting the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution to apply to them. I was, along with 21 million or so other LGBT Americans.

If you look at it from that narrow angle then you have a limited point. But if you look at Palestinians as people having an equal right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and justice for all then my point is perfectly relevant.

Bill B:

Get off of Nader. Put a fork in him.

Nader ... Uncle Tom.

OK, sure, he said he didn't want Obama to be an Uncle Tom. But then FOX NEWS calls him on the obvious racial overtones, and he acts like an idiot (huh, racial overtones, to "Uncle Tom" ... it's just a book).

He helped Bush to power in 2000, and he's clearly gone soft in the head. He should have retired when his legacy would be Pinto and seatbelts. Now he's just Bush2000 and Uncle Tom.

Get off of Nader. Put a fork in him.

I've made the same points I made above before on other threads without reference to Ralph Nader. In this case, I wanted to show the difference between him and the Democratic and Republican parties at the national level. The constant theme (or my ideology as Carla might have it) is that all people have a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and justice. Or, is that too quaint an idea for you?

As for the points I made above, no one has been able to refute them without distorting what I said. Here are a couple that you Democrats didn't dare touch:

The United States Constitution: I said Nader, the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights support it but the leaders in the Democratic and Republican parties in Washington use it when it is in their political interests and ignore it when it is politically expedient to do so. Do you agree with those who support the Constitution or the politicians who have no problem trashing it to get us into a war or spy on the American people?

Sanctions on Iraq that cost an estimated half million Iraqi children their lives: Nader and human rights organizations (do I need to give you a list, Carla?) opposed this. (Lawyers versed in international law were also in opposition. Google for "iraq sanctions international law") The Clinton Administration played a major role in maintaining those sanctions and the leadership in the House and Senate supported them. Do you think Nader and other bleeding-heart "liberals" were wrong and the people denying the Iraqis essential materials for their health were right? Or, are crimes against humanity another quaint idea?

Get off Democratic propaganda. Put a fork in that.

Hey Bill, old Friend: I'm still waiting for my answers. And I tried to be polite about it.

Please explain the racial undertones I perceive.

We all have them, and at some point all of the self-righteous "nuh -uhhhh! not ME!" stuff will have to go by the wayside and every last black, hispanic, native, northern european and other-white son or daughter of us is going to have to stop lying to ourselves. Taking a look at where we have it. And then recognizing we are part of that gene pool too.

It's our way forward. And me, I really want to know if you are aware of your intonations - and whether you mean them as they sound?

Rebecca: Please feel free to lay the blame on me, but I found your commentaries difficult to get through. With regard to the racial undertones, I presume you are referring to the "Uncle Tom" issue and Ralph Nader.

This is what Ralph Nader said as quoted on the Fox video: "And we wish him (Obama) well. But his choice, basically, is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations."

This is what Nader said on his interview with Alexander Cockburn on CounterPunch: "Nader: On Fox I said that as the first African American president we wish him well. The question is, will he be Uncle Sam for the people or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations which are driving America into the ground. Fox cut it off after “corporations”. Significant difference.

Nader has been too active in civil and other rights issues to be a racist so I would suggest you look at some other factor to explain his use of the Uncle Tom metaphor. I would further suggest it was a candid warning of the risk that Obama will face (a favor to Obama if you will) if he is seen as an agent of the corporations driving America into the ground. If Obama is perceived as such an agent the inevitable unemployed will use the Uncle Tom metaphor in a much more hostile manner and perhaps set race relations back considerably.

Nope - I am referring to your insistent badgering about Blacks voting choices, lack of support to Palestine etc...

ps bb - thanks for respectful tone. Appreciate that. I wld suggest something - ask what someone means if you don't understand it! Unless, of course one doesn't give a shit about what that irrelevant person thinks....

Hi Kari - is that Uncle Tom reference correct? I think your description or Nader's is more like a kindler, gentler little brother to Simon Legree....... without the sexual perversities of miscegenation in its most nightmarish aspects.

As to Obama fans touting wholistically? I"ve not seen any of that. None of it. Only the crows picking at his weaknesses, but no Obama fans talking about his failings.

I suppose that was a thing of timing? It is my great hope that is so. We must learn not to tear him down but also we must not spin mythos. That will not help him or us either.

Looking forward to learning if scholarship will now apply to Obama, now that the election is safely won.

Oregon's Moderate Republican, the original maverick, has been dead for decades.

Moderates have been perniciously frozen out, sneered at as RINOs (Republican In Name Only), snubbed at their clubby Dorchester Conference.

At long last, gangrene took out the self-annointed Oregon GOP -- and King Reinhard is history.

Maybe moderates will be able to start over -- stiff-arm the one-dimensional backers and pretenders who poisoned the throne. The GOP is DEAD. LONG LIVE the GOP.

Bill, please provide a source for your allegation that insurance corporations donated millions of dollars to Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

How about this? Check and compare. A source I have linked to on several occasions but apparently you and others ignored. There are other sources, but I don't have time to post them nor would typepad let me link them all.

If you really want to check the Oregon GOP's pulse, you'll have to watch the moneybags for evidence that they're ready to back "moderates" -- is the ultra-right of the GOP tired of throwing money away?

Ask Richard Wendt and Jeld-wen Development, SDS Lumber Co., Eugene's Aaron Jones, Davidson Industries, Stimson Lumber, Oregon Realtors, etc.

PS: AS I told a friend earlier today I'm going to take a break from BlueOregon. Although I have had my differences with some of the regulars I believe it is a great political site and wish it continued success.

No, Kari, I meant this, is that reference the correct useage of Uncle Tom. Uncle Tom as a character may not be the correct application as pinned to Obama. So I will try to get a look at that.

Kari, your answer is typically and reliably that the person is stupid and was not watching. Just as Bill's will be "you are unreadable". And BIll never really did say whether he sees his underlying racial nastiness percolating up by proxy. He is resistantly going on and on about the failings of the Black electorate; well, he was until his ego told him to switch fast before he gets piled on for his hidden racial bias.

Seems like I found me a stand in for my family of origin, a place where in "you are stupid" is THE insult, not something moronic like "you are ugly/mean/etc...".

SO back to you, Kari - I am sure I'm just plain inattentive or stupid. I watched attacks on Obama from people you identify as "not us", and heated defense of Obama that brooked no criticisms or discussion beyond "Obama is good." I saw distinct factions of posters, and core Obama supporters were often upset about critiques.

Ah, yes, maybe you talked about healthcare. I did not see a huge amount of commentary up here looking at aspects of Obama that were lies, shadings or politics.

But clearly I just am an inattentive troll! Gawd I'm so relieved! Heheheh.

There is a lot more to discuss about that candidate than his healthcare thought product, and I experienced a lot of silences.

Bill Bodden speaks for me.

You did a good job, Bill, and I hope I'm not too late to wish you a pleasant break from arguing with all these Uncle Toms on BO.

That you right-of-center ideologues fail to acknowledge the importance of the fact that Obama's transition economic advisory team is composed entirely of current or former government officials, bureaucrats and corporate types is beneath contempt.

There is not a single representative of the labor movement, not a single labor economist, not a single representative of progressive economic watchdog groups, not a single representative of consumers. What does that tell you, Kari? Wasn't it you who rightly said that you can't be a progressive if you're not pro-labor?

Another thing, Kari: your claims about Obama's campaign donors are nothing but Rovian misrepresentations.

From "Obama's Money Cartel":

"Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists? Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms, he’s not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists? That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying."

From "The Obama Bubble Agenda":

"...when its non-registered law partners, the people who own this business and profit from its lobbying operations, give to the Obama campaign, the contribution is classified as coming from a law firm, not a lobbyist...Senator Obama’s premise and credibility of not taking money from federal lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists. But is that dealing honestly with the American people?"

From "Big Business Is Making Sure It Wins the Presidency":

"The truth is that the campaigns of both Barack Obama and John McCain are being inundated with cash from more or less exactly the same gorgons of the corporate scene...Overall, Obama is flat-out kicking McCain's ass when it comes to Wall Street contributions, raking in nearly $9 million from securities and investment executives, compared to $6.2 million for McCain. Obama has received more contributions from Goldman Sachs than from any other employer -- more than $627,000 at this writing -- not to mention $398,021 from JP Morgan Chase, $353,922 from Lehman Brothers and $291,388 from Morgan Stanley. Even among hedge-fund executives, who have an unequivocal interest in electing McCain, Obama is whipping the Republican, collecting $500,000 more than McCain."

From "Welcome to Donkeyland!":

"While the Obama campaign has had unprecedented success with raising small donations through the Internet, it is also getting a friendly reception from big business interests...the Democrats’ financial base is centered in the finance, real estate and insurance industries and blue-chip corporate law firms...To date, Obama has raised $112 million in donations of $1,000 or more, thanks in large part to the efforts of more than 500 bundlers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 and up."

There is a difference between D's and R's: They disagree on if abortion is a matter of killing babies, but they agree on bombing foreign babies every chance they get.

Yeah, I guess Bill Bodden has signed off from Blue Oregon, but I couldn't help but be struck forcefully by his point-by-point listing of positions allegedly held by Nader vs. Democratic Party vs. GOP: Am I the only one who notices that Bodden contrasts political parties with an individual? Look, folks, Nader has had some good ideas over the years, and we all(!) benefited from his consumer/environmental activism, but when Bodden, or Kershner, or any other "Naderite" starts contrasting a person with a political party, it is not incorrect to say that we are dealing with a cult of personality.

There's really no need to go on with your "Uncle Tom" nonsense, Mr. Kershner: I mean, it's not as though there's anyone at Blue Oregon whom you haven't already repeatedly insulted, or any bridges that you've left unburnt. But have fun trying to reignite the ashes anyway.

News flash: I just learned that there is someone whom Kerner has NOT YET INSULTED. Mr. Kershner, please direct yourself to Dr. Seymour Greenblatt of Lake Oswego, a well-known supporter not only of Barack Obama but also of AIPAC and the Israeli Likud party.

I guess the answer is that I value personal responsibility, fiscal conservancy, entrepreneurship and liberty.

Republicans are so smug when they lay claim on personal responsibility, etc. As a progressive, I embrace all of the above. The difference, I think, is that progressives are better at walking our talk on these issues, while Republicans don't back them up with actions; i.e. they love their own personal liberty, but are obsessed with restricting it in others.

Read "Red Sex, Blue Sex" at the New Yorker web site. It shows there's a huge difference between conservative ideals and conservative actions with regard to sex and divorce. (The short story: The most religious girls in high school are also -- surprise -- the most sexually active.)

I find this disconnect to be true with other "conservative values" as well. Entrepreneurship is great and they'll use every government program available to benefit their own business, but they resent it when they need to pay the taxes that replenish services and programs for others.

Whatever. Good thing they aren't writing the rules for awhile.

I don't know who you are, Sargent, and since you are one of those courageous anonymous posters I guess I never will.

I didn't say that those values were exclusively Republican. I said they were the values that used to be held by Republicans, before the party was hijacked by the religious right crowd, and those who are more concerned about other people's bodies and bedrooms than in doing the right thing for the country.

As far as entrepreneurship is concerned, I co-founded a small technology firm in 1985 and 23 years later we are still in business. And we have never utilized any government grant or assistance of any kind. And belive me, we do pay plenty of taxes.

Bill, Harry, Kari, All:

It is worth listening to men talk: some of you will feel your hearts move to a truth that goes beyond picayune bruisings applied by efforts of the mind.

http://www.youtube.com/user/pipehomemail

Mr. Walls said, "...it's not as though there's anyone at Blue Oregon whom you haven't already repeatedly insulted, or any bridges that you've left unburnt."

A good job is a complete job.

Your assumption that 90% of Americans support zionism ignores the fact that most Americans support "even-handedness" on the Palestine/Israel question. It also ignores the fact that our well funded and highly efficient public relations/propaganda machine, including the DP, has consistently disinformed about the reality of US-Israel crimes. The unmitigated hatred expressed for Nader is part of this racist animus.

Torrid Joe,

I thought the criticism had to do with direct government grants or loans. We have never taken them. All the other things you are talking about are things that are supported by taxpayers, including us.

I guess as a public employee who spends most of his work time posting on blogs on the public dime you are free to cricize...

but you are a thief, and I am not.

Or maybe you were at lunch at 1:27 PM today.

By the way, Mark Bunster. I have e mailed mayor Potter, Commissioner Fish and Chief Sprando about your internet activities on the taxpayers dime. I will continue to do so until some action is taken.

It's pretty easy for someone like you, who has never created a job or signed a paycheck, and who lives off the taxpayers, to criticize business people. But someday, if people like me decide not to play any more, you will be out of a job.

And also, Torrid, posting under your pseudonym, you are a chicken shit.

Kari: that Jesus - Sins remark was trashy. As you are fond of telling Bill BOddin, you are better than this.

I pity Nader and the Naderites.

Ralph Nader for the past 3 election cycles could have been a force for good, husbanding his influence in support of issues and causes we hold dear. His technical know-how may still prove valuable if he can ever leave off ego-driven and Republican financed personal aggrandizement campaigns.

Instead he bleated the cryptic-Republican, "they are both the same line," gave us Bush 2000 per Florida and disipaited opposition to the current administration by forcing the Pelosis to hold their right flanks.

The over-simplification and nuance-free equation of Dems and Reps overlooks the powerful Green Dog Democrat movement and plays into the Sizemoresque Simplifactions invoking a general mood of cynicism.

Wait until we see the Kennedy Act offering the Medicare for all option, the Green Collar Revolution, rapid disengagement in Iraq and limiting objectives and steady disengagement in Afghanistan before we judge the Dems by old standards.

The Dem Leadership Council types do not have enough votes to lock step with Republicans in the House and barely have enough votes to slow things in the Senate. Times are a'changin'

As for the Oregon Republicans- their death knell was the defeat of Sizemore measures by increasing margins. Initiatives are the last organizing tool of that now bleached white-wing party, They will continue to pester us with shrill, homophobic and police state twaddle. Now we have stolen the march on out organizing them on that front.

Mark my words, the snake handlers will take over and marginalize Oregon and National Republicans for the better part of a generation.

R.I.P. and good riddance!

Fireslayer: Gore, Kerry and Obama could have been forces for good during the past three election cycles if they had run progressive campaigns.

When Dems bring about single-payer, non-pay-or-die health insurance, a non-corporate "green collar revolution", and rapid and total military and corporate withdrawal from the Middle East (as well as from our other 800 or so bases around the world), I'll rejoin the DP. Until then, I'll await the sight of flying lipsticked pigs.

Here is your help from President Elect Obama. http://www.koinlocal6.com/content/news/topstories/story.aspx?content_id=c3b3faf0-c475-4bc3-a081-645440ef2acc This should help you with your mortgage.

<hr/>