Defazio seems to have a greater cross over appeal to Rs and independents than Walden does the other direction. Since Ds are in the majority, Defazio seems to have the advantage whether he waits or not. What I like about Defazio is that he has been vetted time and time again as a candidate.

Mr. Defazio actually has a Bill in Congress to authorise E-Verfiy for years AND to make it's use by Employers mandatory.

He actually understands the #1 magnet for Illegal aliens to come here is Jobs, our jobs.

Good for him.

Re Dave Porter's post and gas tax issue:

DeFazio has called for taxing barrels of oil as they arrive at the refinery -- see Jeff Mapes 3/23 blog post on DeFazio and transportation. DeFazio calls for this not as a way for changing our energy policies, but as a means to funding an enormous transportation bill.

DeFazio has editorialized against Governor Kulongoski's cap-and-trade bill in Salem, likening the Governor and other Dems efforts to "deregulation" and comparing their efforts to the Enron and Wall Street fiascos. I'd prefer to hear how DeFazio plans to solve some problems -- but he hasn't offered any realistic solutions to our dependence on foreign oil and carbon emissions.

More troublesome -- DeFazio supported the LNG plan for Coos Bay -- which is a vestige of the flawed Bush-Cheney energy policy. Importing a fossil fuel on ships that Jeff Merkley termed "floating bombs" is not the way to deal with major long term issues that go to the livibility and future of Oregon.

I'm a yellow dog Democrat but I'm not in DeFazio's district so I don't keep up with him as I do others. I do know he voted against the stimulus bill and then gave a really lame excuse, got into a fight with TSA security ala Vitter, and wrote the 'no Mexican trucks in the USA' bill that will cost hundreds of Oregon jobs. He comes off to me as sort of a jerk, so I would say he's no slam dunk for governor.

Had a conversation this afternoon with someone I have known for years who is about my age.

One of the things we talked about was how political labels don't mean much anymore except to the intellectually lazy and those who want to curtail debate because they want the power of saying they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Perhaps the dividing line is those who are pro-debate

(example: Sen. Kent Conrad was an earlier supporter of Obama, but he has the right to question language in any legislation and say why he disagrees with the president on any proposal)

and reserve the right to ask clarifying and logistical questions. There are many ideas which may sound good and create a bandwagon effect among a certain group of people, but those people brush off logistical or clarifying questions. Regardless of the idea, I trust such people less than those who raise such questions and say things like "I voted against that bill because I was bothered by Section 5" sort of thing, so that anyone who cares can read section 5 and find out if they agree with it or not.

I've known Peter DeFazio since before he was elected to Congress. Yes, he is acerbic. He is also a breath of fresh air.

Any Oregonian (esp. an elected offical representing Eugene) has the right to ask WWWMD--What would Wayne Morse Do? I don't believe he would be the conformist some people want Peter DeFazio to turn into.

Was Vitter a member of the Transportation Committee when he tried to get through a gate differently than anyone else?

Is pulling people out of a line of those already screened an ongoing practice at all airports which had been done for years on end? Or, as the Transportation official told Cong. DeFazio, is it an old process once ended but recently brought back as a pilot project?

Anyone who has worked in retail/customer service knows an employee can be disciplined or worse if a customer just doesn't like the tone of their voice. Where in the enabling legislation for TSA does it say that doesn't apply to their screeners? Could it be low pay leads to less than stellar performance by screeners?

Congress doesn't control this country any more, NAFTA does (as DeFazio warned before the legislation was passed) and Mexican drivers aren't required to abide by the same regulations as American holders of CDL licenses? Then why have the CDL in this country?

I've been registered in both major parties and NAV in my lifetime--partly because I refused to support some Dem. nominees. If Kitzhaber were to run for Gov. again, it would take a lot for anyone to convince me to vote for a candidate other than Kitzhaber.

But I wish more politicians were as outspoken as DeFazio--not only on what they believe, but the details of why they take a position.

Thanks, Roger That.

"DeFazio has editorialized against Governor Kulongoski's cap-and-trade bill in Salem, likening the Governor and other Dems efforts to "deregulation" and comparing their efforts to the Enron and Wall Street fiascos. "

One reason I respect DeFazio is because of the time he came to the Oregon State Capitol and explained the hazards of electricity deregulation in a more intelligent way than anyone else I have heard on the subject.

Looks like Walden isn't too happy about the article in the Oregonian and the comments by the Oregon Republican Party Chair Bob Tiernan, with Walden saying that his true feelings would not be appropriate for print. Despite not having any power, they still manage to fight amongst themselves.

The full story from Politico:

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) isn’t happy. First of all, he has laryngitis, or something close to it.

Secondly, The Oregonian today had a story quoting Oregon Republican Party Chair Bob Tiernan as saying that Walden is the real leader of the NRCC: “Greg is really sinking his teeth in,” Tiernan was quoted as saying, also adding that NRCC Chair, Rep. Pete Sessions, is merely a “figurehead.”

This minor transgression has proved irksome to Walden who serves with Sessions closely at the NRCC as the Deputy Chair of the committee.

“I’m pretty upset by this,” Walden told us today. “It’s about as opposite of the truth as you can have. I have no idea where the State Party Chairman came to the notion that Pete is a figurehead – nothing is further from the truth,” he said firmly (but politely).

He had placed calls both into Tiernan, who he’s known since serving in the Oregon Legislature together – who was away all day at a conference serving as a guest speaker – and the reporter. As for Sessions, Walden had not spoken to his pal but was due to see him in a half hour for a candidate meeting and then again at the big NRCC dinner tonight.

“Pete and I go back to the very beginning around here, our boys are best friends, I would never call him a figurehead at home or here,” Walden offered, also adding that the two spend a ton of time together – “we’re meeting together late in the night and in the early morning, I was with him at 7:30a.m.” In short, “it’s a fabrication of misstatement,” Walden rebuffed.

Ah, and then he said: “If I fully express my feelings right now, it wouldn’t be printable.”

Tiernan for his part, laughed off the quote. “It was an accurate quote from a long conversation I had, I did say it but it was taken out of context,” he told us today. He and Walden “have a healthy respect for each other,” he also said. It just so happens, Tiernan is on the transition team for the RNC, and he’s due in D.C. tomorrow actually. “What I hear in the hallways is that Greg is doing a great job, it has nothing to do if Sessions is doing a great job. I don’t know Pete Sessions – I’ve never even met him.” But, in the end, this whole shebang “was a compliment taken out of context….I wouldn’t have thought that the comment was going to upset somebody on our side.” Adding, “I’m sorry my compliment hurt somebody, they’re just compliments, holy smokes folks!”

“The ship is sinking come on guys!” he also said with gusto and a healthy sense of humor.

(As for the RNC Tiernan says, “I’m a business person. I run major businesses and I turn them around. and we’re doing at the RNC exactly what we should do. You hire the best, you don’t hire the people based on who you know. And we’re going to put bonus systems in, and use basic business principles.”)

The one good thing about DeFazio as Governor is that he wouldn't be in a position to spout and pass Smoot-Hawleyish nonsense such as the recent ban on Mexican trucks that snuck into the budget bill and will now cost Oregonians hundreds of millions in retaliatory protectionist measures. Thanks, Pete! And that's even after a recent inspector general's report showed that an admittedly small sample of Mexican trucks plying US roads had actually better safety records than US trucks!

On the other hand, if DeFazio is stupid enough to stick by his Smoot-Hawleyish economic illiteracy, who knows what kind of damage his flawed mind could do in Salem?

I'd vote for either Allen Alley or Greg Walden over DeFazio, that's how bad he is. He'd be my pick only against Jason Atkinson. But what a choice that would be - PU!

Shameless plug: See the poll at the Washco Dems website. It was posted on Monday before the article in the Oregonian was published.

<h2>I do not know why you are promoting DeFazio or Walden as candidates. Neither have indicated they would be in that campaign, regardless of what Mapes the Hack says. It would not benefit Oregon for EITHER to be replaced by someone who would be a very junior representative and have influence from an Oregonian perspective.</h2>