Tiernan seems to be a person who is in the political arena simply to fight. Does he even have an agenda? Or is it his purpose in life simply to be negative? He went away once, I wish he'd go away again.

Just shows what happens when someone like Tiernan is just so bored with thier life that they need to justify thier existance with crap like this complaint.

I guess he needs something to do with his spare time.

Grasping. At. Straws.

It's all they've got left to do.

No doubt he's preparing his next complaint against all of the Republicans that proposed that the state pay people's home remodeling projects since all of them might benefit from it by doing a home remodel?

I've got no thoughts one way or another on this Tiernan guy -- from the sound of it, his accusations are probably baseless -- but after eight years of Democrats screaming bloody murder over every. single. thing. Bush and the rest of the Republican gang did, should it come as a surprise to anyone at all that the Republicans would pull the same stunts when given the opportunity?

You reap what you sow.

So, do all legislators have to declare that they pay taxes when they work on tax bills?

Conflict of interest rules are important, but at some point it can run to the absurd--do legislators have to declare a conflict when they vote on highway bills because it helps them get to and from the legislature (not to mention other employment)?

Oh, and Carla... I'd drop the "permanent minority" rhetoric if I were you. It's more than a little reminiscent of Karl Rove's "permanent majority" blather, and we both know how well that worked out.

"I'd drop the "permanent minority" rhetoric if I were you"

OK...how about 'blithering minority'...just one step below a blithering idiot.

How penetratingly insightful.

We ought to begin making book on how many more election cycles it will take until The Republicans grow weary of getting reamed, come to their senses, and jettison their far-right demagogues.

Until and unless they revert to the party of McCall and Hatfield, they're toast.

Best bet: with nitwits like Tiernan in charge -- no statewide officers for another ten years -- at least.

Hmm, IF Courtney rectified the gaff once it was brought to his attention I would think that Tiernan is over the top. However.... doesn't ANYONE think it a bit odd that just north of 17% of the entire state package was steered to WOU? I mean come on people get your heads up out of the sand. Had thie roles been reveresed I'm sure some eybrows would have been raised.

1) I'm not a Republican and never voted for a Republican. I know stereotypes make "discussion" easier for you (no thinking required!), but they really don't apply here.

2) I never said Courtney did anything wrong. In fact, I specifically said that I thought Tierney's charges were likely baseless.

3) So in Vincent's world speaking out against torture, illegal wiretaps and lying a nation into a war balances out with baseless slap lawsuit over made up shit.

You're projecting. I never excused any of those things. But if you seriously believe (and, moreover, expect me to believe) that every complaint against Bush and the Republicans over the last eight years was a serious criticism made in good faith, you're fooling yourself.

In any case, apparently I was not clear enough in my original post. Allow me to clarify:

This Tierney bloke seems to be full of it. The Republicans are acting like children.

However...

Why is anyone shocked? Unless you're absolutely convinced that the Democrats acted totally honorably over the course of the Bush Administration (and in my experience, people who can admit no wrong are usually zealots, dishonest, or both), then the notion that the Republicans might be itching for "revenge" now that the tables have turned should surprise exactly no one.

After all, "revenge" for the 2000 election is exactly what Democrats have been after all this time, isn't it?

It's distasteful, I know. But again: you reap what you sow.

5) Nobody is holding a gun to your head to read and post here.

That's true. I tend enjoy the opportunity to read and discuss things with people whom I generally disagree with. It seems that some around here are not of the same mind.

So, Vincent, let's be clear about what you are saying, "Unless you're absolutely convinced that the Democrats acted totally honorably over the course of the Bush Administration "

Are you saying specific Democrats said things as over the line about Bush as Republicans said about Clinton? If so, which Democrats, which statements?

Should Democrats not have expected subpoenas to be answered, competence above the level of "Brownie you're doing a heck of a job", NCLB to be fully funded, "support the troops" to mean oversight of veterans hospitals and not just a demand to give unquestioning support for Bush policy? Was it OK for Sen. Hagel (R-Nebraska) to question Bush policy but no Democrat should have agreed with him?

Laura Bush was an excellent First Lady and advocate for literacy. Bush policy on AIDS in Africa was excemplary. But you make it sound as if there is a quota of presidential approval (everyone not a zealot must admit at least____% of the time a president was right)?

Bush made many mistakes. So have other presidents. Is it "Bush bashing" to discuss those mistakes out loud, esp. now when Republicans are saying 2010 will be a better year because Bush will have been out of the White House for 2 years?

Vincent, please list the things you think Pres. George W. Bush did right instead of demanding we should give him credit for unspecified good deeds lest we be mistaken for zealots.

What is your opinion of the commentary of John Dean, the books by Jane Mayer, Frank Rich, Isikoff & Corn on the Bush years? Have you even read them? Are they all zealots if you don't think they say enough good things about Bush?

And exactly how does all that excuse Tiernan saying when elected OR GOP chair that he had learned lessons after his political defeat, but now he is reverting to type?

Is it revenge to say "Looks like Tiernan is just same old same old"? Should those who disagreed with Rep. Tiernan not have cheered when the candidate who defeated him said to a reporter on election night, "I think the voters in this district finally decided they wanted a state legislator with good manners"?

Sounds like you are trying to stir up trouble---questioning Tiernan is "revenge for 2000"? I'll bet you don't even know what years Tiernan served in the legislature and what major ballot measure he co-sponsored.

But are you seriously trying to say that Dems own as much of these issues as the GOP

I'm saying that the GOP is acting in a manner that's 100% consistent with what we've come to expect from the "loyal opposition" over the last eight years.

"Itching for revenge" in the midst of an extremely serious economic crisis is frivolous, irresponsible and frankly negligent.

Some could say precisely the same thing about Democrats opposing the troop surge in Iraq.

In any case, since you brought up the economy, I'll take the opportunity to note that, much like the USA PATRIOT Act, this stimulus package is a truly massive piece of legislation that virtually no one has read, that everyone is being told is absolutely critical to pass immediately.

Nonsense.

If the "stimulus" (nee "bailout") is truly so important, then surely it can wait a few weeks until legislators have had a chance to read it, debate it, and modify it, wouldn't you agree?

Still, it's fascinating to observe people who, over nearly the entirety of the Bush years loudly proclaimed that just because they didn't toe the Administration's line didn't mean they weren't patriotic now lining up to tell everyone who doesn't do what President Obama wants "irresponsible," "negligent," and, in some cases, even "traitorous." (Note, too, the basically uninformed "Herbert Hoover" pablum that I believe I recently scolded you for, Carla.)

There's one word for that: hubris.

Which "loyal opposition", specifically?

Okay, just "opposition", then.

How were those who sincerely opposed the surge (and still do, because it had little or nothing to do with bringing about stability in Iraq) "itching for revenge" by speaking out?

There's nothing wrong with that in principle, of course -- one believes what one believes -- but my point was merely that many could (and did) accuse Democrats of acting recklessly in a time of war and risking defeat.

It's basically the exact same accusation you're making against opponents of the bailout.

The question I'm raising is that if it's okay for the anti-war contingent to have stuck to their principles (or at least their politics) in opposing the Surge, why is it an outrage when Republicans and other opponents of the bailout choose to stick to their principles (or politics)?

Why is one more excusable than the other?

No one has read? Based on what?

Based on the fact that the bill is 647 pages. Unless I'm to believe that every member of Congress who's voted on this thing is a superhuman reader, I have a hard time believing that everyone's had the time to thoroughly read, digest, and understand what they're voting for.

Remember, the bill passed the House on January 29th. It almost certainly was not introduced before January 21st or 22nd. 7 or 8 days is not, I believe, sufficient time for a lawmaker to come to grips with a law of this magnitude.

And why is it not critical to pass it?

Why? Just because Obama says it is? Just because Congressional Democrats say it is? Just because some economists say it is? I can point to as many people who say the thing is a massive waste of money and is likely to do nothing except pass a trillion or so of debt down to future generations.

The fact is that there's no agreement that this is a good idea and the American public has less than 40% approval ratings for the whole plan.

The very fact that this sweeping legislation is so unpopular and so contentious seems to me like a pretty good reason for Congress to take a breath and discuss it before signing it into law, and that's to say nothing of allowing lawmakers and the public figure out exactly what it will entail.

For those businesses that can't get loans or people losing their homes..can they wait? For those whose unemployment is running out and they can't find a job, are those few weeks too much to ask? You tell me.

This is a purely emotional appeal, right along the lines of "Won't someone please think of the children???" Again, we're being told that we have to pass this now now now!!!! and anyone who has objections to this railroading is being painted as heartless and unconcerned with the plight of the unfortunate.

As I said above, such stereotypes make "discussion" a more or less paint-by-numbers affair, but they completely obscure the fact that there are a lot of people in this country (over 50%) who are opposed to the stimulus plan, and most of them (myself included) are not rich, greedy corporate tycoons or scions of wealth.

Ironic, given how wrong you are on it.

Interesting that you choose use that characterization, especially since I don't recall you taking the time to refute the argument that I made. Your simple assertion that I am "wrong" is, I am sorry to say, not quite enough to convince me of that fact, especially since I presented evidence that directly contradicted the assertions you were making.

You do have a tendency to run right to the extremes, don't you?

I'm not sure what you mean. I feel as if I've been quite civil and reasonable in all of my posts at this site.

Or do you disagree with my characterization of Democrats as having spent the last eight years loudly defending their honor against scurrilous accusations of being unpatriotic? I didn't think that was a particularly controversial assertion.

On the other hand, if you're referring to my examples, "irresponsible" and "negligent" are your words, and the "traitor" link was something that came up in my RSS feed last week and seemed more or less germane to the point I was making.

Carla, Nice use of the words "prickery" and "dickish". That's just perfect! GG

Unless you're absolutely convinced that the Democrats acted totally honorably over the course of the Bush Administration (and in my experience, people who can admit no wrong are usually zealots, dishonest, or both), then the notion that the Republicans might be itching for "revenge" now that the tables have turned should surprise exactly no one.

It's not "revenge"; it's just Republicans being Republicans. Having nothing positive of their own to offer -- nothing but the same stale, old, tired, discredited ideas they've been pushing for 40 years -- all they can do is tear down, oppose and obstruct. They did it to Clinton for eight long years and they're doing it to Obama now. And Tiernan is doing it on the state level.

I'm sorry that I cant' take the time at the moment to respond in full (I'll try to answer you later in the day), but I wanted to at least show where I'm getting my "most people are against the bailout" figures:

This Rasmussen poll shows that only 37% of those polled were in favor.

This one seems it indicate that 72% of respondents think the bill is either "likely" or "very likely" to make things worse.

Alright, I've got to dash.

Good to see that Vincent is wasting his time here and not building up the grassroots at the University of Oregon. Continuing with all this pointless, high-minded existential debate will not prolong the fact that your party has a soul to find.

Are Republicans the party of "limited government, deregulation and a laissez faire approach to business?"

Are Republicans still unwilling to compromise on abortion, taxes, the environment and other social issues?

If you answer affirmative to both, then you are sticking on the same path that Republicans have been pushing ever since Reagan and before.

Vincent, I hate to break it to you, but you have more important inter-party issues to deal with right now. Continuing to bicker with the majority party wasts time better spent finding what the Republican party stands for after Bush, Greenspan, and greedy, wannabe "Gordon Gekko motherfuckers" on Wallstreet took the "limited government, deregulation and laissez faire" to the extreme and ran with it until it caused the dire situation we are in right now.

Good luck finding your party.

I am not finished. Republicans piss me off with their blatant, unapologetic hypocrisy.

Republicans say, "We are for capitalism without government intervention."

What about the military industrial complex where defense companies get government contracts without competing for them?

Republicans say, "Obama is a hypocrite because he is not allowing competitive bidding in the infrastructure stimulus?"

Halliburton anyone? Have we forgotten how they were given Afghanistan, Iraq and Katrina? I wonder if Halliburton receiving those contracts is a conflict of interest due to President Cheney serving as the CEO prior to taking the VP seat?

Republicans say, "We are in this mess because Fannie and Freddie Mac were giving home loans to people who couldn't afford to make the monthly payment?"

Who created the derivatives to make those home loans possible in the first place? Who created that ponzi scheme where debt was constantly restructured and sold?

Wall motherfucking Street is who did that. The same greedy, wannabe Gordon Gekko types who regularly deride Government regulation as "socialism" are those who created the derivatives.

Republicans say, "Democrats are the party of big government!"

Really, can you honestly say that while any partially-informed observer knows that Republicans under GW Bush have bankrupted the US Treasury for defense spending?

Republicans say, "Tax cuts will get us out of this mess!"

Tax cuts along with the Fed cutting interest rates like a drunken Irishman during Alan Failspann's tenure is the reason why prices on essential goods have inflated so much since 2000 along with contributing to banks not taking any personal responsibility for investments they never should have made in the first place.

Lastly, lets not forget that Phil Gramm whose Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 allowed investment banks to buy up retail banks and insurance services. Lets take a good look at how allowing banks to buy up each other only contributed to the creation of the fancy derivatives that turned undesirable home loans from a first time buyer with no credit history into an adjustable rate mortgage that could be repackaged and resold so many times that no one really knows who owns the mortgage.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but I blame Republicans and their hands off the economy philosophy first, Alan Greenspan promoting inflation second, Gramm-Leach-Bliley third, Wallstreet creating fancy derivatives fourth, and US homeowners viewing their house as a piggy bank last.

In closing, continue to bring up questions about Democrats at the expense of re-building the Republican party. We take fun in this debate.

Vincent, I hate to break it to you, but you have more important inter-party issues to deal with right now.

Congrats on your err... devastating broadside against the GOP, but I really think you're delivering to the wrong person. I've got very little interest in the fortunes of the Republican Party, as I stated explicitly upthread.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that either you're functionally illiterate and couldn't understand what I meant when I wrote "I'm not a Republican and never voted for a Republican", or you've fallen into the trap of believing that anyone who doesn't toe the Democratic line is a Republican and therefore unworthy of engaging.

You said that the GOP was "itching for revenge". I'm asking how that is the same as having a sincere belief on an issue? ... Cuz its rather apparent that the GOP aren't sticking to principle or politic. You called it "itching for revenge". So its clear that even you see that this is about payback--and not much else. The difference between acting out of revenge and out of sincere principled beliefs is vast. I expect you understand as much.

I think two separate questions have accidentally been conflated here. I think that Tierney's antics are partisan troublemaking motivated by "revenge".

Stonewalling on the bailout is probably a mixture of honest small-government free-market sentiment and run of the mill Beltway politics. That is to say, the same as Democratic opposition to the war/surge.

Let's be clear: we began by talking about Tierney, here. Remember, that's who my initial comments about "revenge" were directed toward. All this business about the bailout and the surge came much later.

That's why they have legislative staffs. Staffers read through the bills, highlighting issues of importance, areas of concern, etc. They then meet and discuss/inform on the legislation.

So you concede that these lawmakers haven't, in fact, read the legislation and have instead focused on a few select passages that are either particularly sticky or include some pork for the folks back home?

That's like saying someone can intelligently discuss War and Peace after reading a few highlighted selections.

When someone brings such a dishonest and unflinchingly myopic set of arguments into a discussion...there's really no reason.

That sounds like a dodge.

Why are people around here so afraid to actually engage? Either it's "you're not worth talking to" or "you're a hypocrite Republican" or "you're dishonest" or what have you.

I mean, if you want an intellectually sterile echo chamber where everyone aside from a couple of foul-mouthed trolls just says "Hear hear!" to every pronouncement about how awful and discredited fiscal conservatism is, I'm more than willing to stop posting entirely.

I referred to the actions of Republicans in those words.

Then why did you bother addressing them to me? I think I've been rather clear that I'm not a Republican and cannot be held answerable for anything they say or do.

Somewhere upthread, in a typically mis-directed philippic directed toward me about how wretched and hypocritical Republicans are, someone said that the GOP has a lot of "soul searching" to do. Judging by the imperious attitude that a lot of the posters around here adopt toward people they have political disagreements with, I'd say that the GOP aren't the only ones.

What's the problem here? Democrats have shown themselves again and again to be corrupt with graft and greed. They can't pay taxes, yet they expect us to do so. If Bob Tiernan is trying to clean up the folks in Salem, more power to him, Democrat or Republican.

What's the problem here? Democrats have shown themselves again and again to be corrupt with graft and greed. They can't pay taxes, yet they expect us to do so. If Bob Tiernan is trying to clean up the folks in Salem, more power to him, Democrat or Republican.

The first part of this bullshit has the same lack of intellectual integrity associated with bigots who cite a few flawed individuals and try to use them to smear the rest of whatever group they might belong to while they ignore the sins of their own tribe.

The second part about BT trying to clean up "the folks in Salem" is also hogwash. He is just trying to score points against a Democrat. What is BT's record of trying to "clean up" Republicans?

BT is like most Republicans who will attack not only Democrats but any opposition that gets in their way while ignoring greater sins in their own party. Impeach Clinton because of his juvenile indiscretion with an intern and lying about it, but it is okay for Bush and Cheney to start an illegal war based on lies that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and will eventually cost the United States two to three trillion dollars.

Now it is long past time for the Democrats to quit diving for the mat whenever Republicans go on the offensive.

For the record, I'm a Naderite with little to no use for either major party.