Feel free to delete this, as you probably will, but I came this morning to see if you guys had any interesting perspective on the ACORN fraud. There'd obviously be a half dozen stories here if this was a Republican thing.

Nope. Blue Oregon is coving for Child Prostitution, Human Trafficking, and more tax evasion in the name of political orthodoxy.

I'm really really disappointed. I keep trying to think that even people I politically disagree with are good decent people. Do you guys really have no desire to sweep the rats off of your own ship?

Off topic comment deleted--Editor

*if the left "doesn't" speak up. Apologies.

Ignore the troll. This thread is about marginalizing repuglicans. ACORN has nothing to do with us. There are absolutely no connections between the Democrat Party and ACORN, and you can't prove otherwise. Besides, those videos were likely doctored, and the senate D's should be ashamed they were cowed into cutting off funding.

The Oregon GOP will recover by simply staying quiet and waiting. The democratic supermajorities are pushing a progressive agenda too far too fast and the voters are going to react to it next year.

The GOP operatives advise the party to "Get off the fringe"? The way it's going that should be, "Get off the ledge."

Then they harken back - as they always do - to the Reagan Era. Ronald Reagan is now a semi-religious figure for them, but as with most GOP claims, the facts don't back up the spin.

 Let's be clear: Ronald Reagan was immensely popular with many Americans. Even beloved. I know Kari hates it when I mention my days as a hard-working banquet waiter for Local 9, but, yes, I worked a party featuring Ronald Reagan and crossed paths with him in the back hall of a downtown hotel. A union hotel, Kari. Remember when Democrats respected the local unions?

 Anyway, I was very opposed to Reagonomics and the general hero worship going on. I mean I'll concede, he was quite a B-movie star, but please. You could argue that the whole "trickle down" approach. led to the obscene wealth at the very  top that we see today. This is the group that went on to buy Congress, game the system on Wall Street, and brutalize the American economy - especially everyday workers.

  Yet, even as a member of the class he was in the beginning stages of crunching, I was impressed with his ability to work a crowd. He was strangely detached - in his own world - but likable. As a comedy fan, I was knocked out by his timing and ability to drop a joke.

  But now that they've deified him, the GOP is stuck. In fact, they  come off as....wait for it....soft on communism.

See, in their twisted world view, Uncle Ronnie came along and destroyed the Soviet Union. A closer look at something called "the facts", shows our old Cold War foes imploding economically before Reagan took over. Why? Because communism is a bad idea.

 At some point, we have to challenge these GOP myths. Another one is the myth of Republican brilliance at foreign policy. I've been to Beirut and you don't leave our soldiers there in a downtown building guarded by troops with no ammunition. That was the Reagan Era too.

 How does this apply now? The Republicans are in the process of trying to blame President Obama for everything - especially problems brought onto us by their most recent gift to America: One George W. Bush. Of course, it's ridiculous. How does Obama's push to help sick people, compare to the Bush Doctrine, lying us into Iraq, torture and all the rest?

  The craziest part of the whole attempt to rewrite history, is the GOP's sudden love affair with the Constitution again, after standing by while their guy wiped his ass with it for 8 years.

 While the local GOP types plot their comeback we must remain ever vigilant as they - and their national Republican counterparts - produce the next giant mountain of total B.S.

The GOP is really beginning to pay the price for hitching its wagon to right-wing media types both nationally with Limbaugh and locally with “entertainers” like malcontents Larson and Taft.

Far-right domination of talk-radio, which at first might have been an advantage, is now a huge liability for republicans. It appeals to, at most, 25% of the population, mostly in the South, and has much less appeal in center-left states like Oregon.

The only way the GOP resurrects itself in Oregon is to sever its ties to the far-right, particularly on social issues. The wingnuts will then go off and form some sort of pathetic fringe party, and rational republicans could begin to rebuild their party into something that has a chance of winning a state-wide election.

Until then, they’re dead in the water.

Many members of the GOP have already moved to the center. The reasons they may not return are twofold.

<h1>1. There is no clear foundation to follow, and no clear message to fight for. The right is divided in both philosophy and agenda.</h1> <h1>2. They love to scream about what is wrong with everything proposed by the left, but offer no other solid proposal to fix problems. They are constantly on the defensive with no clear offense. A bad way to try and win contests.</h1>

Many who have moved to the center from the right however are still very cautious. It seems like every time one moves to the center progressives will take two more big steps further to the left. Some in the middle feel as though they are being lured in for the kill.

The left is fooling itself when they claim so many have left the GOP becuase of so-called outdated conservative views and beliefs. Fact is, there is just no clear leadership or direction in the GOP party. If that were to get fixed, the middle could just as easily move the other way.

Luke may have been chastised for being off topic, but was he really? Acorn has conducted itself as a criminal organization over and over again, but where is the cry for an investigation from the left. This is the very behavior keeping the center at arm's length from the progressive agenda and ripe for a republican pickin.

Carla

On point one we very much disagree. "the premise that ACORN has conducted itself badly is false". To be polite.....this is just plain crap.

On point two we agree for the most part, because (at this time) there is no leadership and no real policy discussion going on in the GOP. The question is.. can they pull that together by the next election cycle, and will the fringe left further alienate centrists who are on the fence?

For instance, let's take your teabagger example. There is a large population of folks who do not agree with the proposed health care changes. Largely, because they do not completely understand how the changes will impact them or how it will get paid for. This administration and our Dem congress have done little to help clear up that confusion. Guess what Carla, many of those protesting are centrists. Does is help to woo them over by calling their discourse "garbage"?

Riley continues, “The way I see it and how my numbers show it, the Republicans have three options to win future campaigns: 1) Stop alienating so many conservative Republican voters, 2) Win over independent or Democrat conservative voters or 3) Revisit and redevelop the message and philosophy to back to the conservatism that Republicans were proud of, like in the Reagan era. Or try all three, but that will take hard work and leadership.” ... It appears that the best step for conservatives in the state of Oregon over the long run appears to be to move center. However, moving to the center means holding true to social value issues, free enterprise and hard work. ... in order for conservatives to get elected in the state of Oregon in 2010, they have to get to the center, they have to re-package their policies and re-invent their message to find common ground.

So Republicans need to move to the center, but that means only appealing to conservatives (to be fair, irrespective of party, but conservatives nonetheless), and not changing their positions or becoming more ideologically diverse, but only repackaging their positions in new messaging.

That is a whole big mess of fail. If the Republican Party is going to bounce back in Oregon, like nationally, they need to find more reasonable people like Frank Morse, Jackie Winters, and Jack Roberts. They need people who think that there is a role for government in society, that there is value in public institutions. They need more people like Bob Jenson and Greg Smith who are occasionally willing to stand up to the extremists and vote for sensible fiscal policies. They need people, particularly in Oregon, who do not believe we should try to make the beliefs of particular religious groups into law. They need people who embrace people of other races, religions, cultures, etc., as fellow Oregonians.

My family in Oregon used to be Republicans, in my grandmother's words, "before the Christian Coalition took over the Oregon Republican Party." The Republican Party of Oregon was once a place for people who would vote for a Charles McNary, a Julius Meier, a Mark Hatfield. Until the Republican Party can find leaders like them, and just as if not more importantly, can find voters who will vote for them, they will languish.

An important step for the Republicans would be to start acting like adults.

Talk radio was beneficial to the right in the short term, but it's started to hurt them in a big way, because people have tired of their juvenile behavior.

This problem is compounded by the fact that many bloggers on the right have followed the examples of Rush, O'Reilly, and Lars, and rely on name-calling rather than reasoned argument. For example, take a gander at NWRepublican, where calling someone a "moonbat" seems to be about as intellectual as it gets.

FYI Carla, Sen. Boquist beat you to "superminority," he had been using it all session.

Honestly, trying to be Dem-lite, and listen to the Democratic advice is what lost elections for the Republicans in 06 and 08.

Why should Republicans trust any advice coming from the Democrats?

Carla wrote:

"Joe White: Chuck Adams and Mike Riley are not Democrats. This post is about their advice to their own party. It's my view that they're trying to get ya'll to see your own best self-interest."

Yes, I know who they are. And for them to try to get the party to be Dem-lite, or for them to listen to the Dems for advice is foolish, IMHO, because that's the type of strategy that was a loser in 06 and 08.

The only Republican who has been elected state wide in the past 15 years is Gordon Smith, someone who cast himself as a moderate and won by winning over NAVs and Democratic voters. The last before him was Jack Roberts, who has demonstrated on this website again and again that he doesn't follow the Republican Party orthodoxy. Greg Walden, when he was first elected to Congress, was a pretty moderate guy too. Some of the other recent statewide Republicans, Norma Paulus, Dave Frohnmayer, Vic Atiyeh, are also generally remembered as not being of the current extremist bent, but you've got to go back a couple decades to find them in Oregon political history.

Who was the last archconservative to win a statewide election in Oregon? Or to win a state legislative district in Eugene/Springfield, or in the suburbs of Portland?

Conner,

Vic Atiyeh was seen as very conservative when he won the first time. Now, the base of the party sees him as a RINO.

Luke, do you have any evidence that ACORN is guilty of fraud in OREGON? If so, what is it?

If not, this is an OREGON blog and this post is about the future of the GOP.

If Chuck Adams, (in)famous creator of some of the classic nasty Oregon political ads of the last couple decades, is saying this, maybe it is time for those who really care about the GOP to say what the party is FOR?!

Chuck Adams agrees. “I believe the future is less about partisan politics and more about giving Oregonians leadership they want and leadership they deserve. We need a coalition, a team. We need to elect Republicans, Independents and yes…even Democrats. We need to be like-minded for the future of Oregon, not for the future of our partisan agendas or our state is going to die.”

People looking for problem-solvers look at Oregon GOP elected officials and see St. Senators like Morse and Winters, a few hard working state reps like Jenson, Bruun, Garrard, Thompson and very few others on the current scene.

Call them RINO all you want, but people who are looking for Republican candidates like Tom McCall, Clay Myers, Mary Alice Ford, Nancy Ryles, Norma Paulus, Mark Hatfield Tony Van Vliet, Max Williams, Lane Shetterly Vic Backlund are not going to vote for the members of what seems to be the party of Bob Tiernan and Russ Walker.

For all the effort that goes into praising Reagan, Republicans seem to forget it was his optimism, and even sometimes pragmatism which attracted people who did not always agree with his politics. He and Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill were able to socialize at the White House as 2 old Irish guys.

Which Republicans are willing to socialize with which Democrats these days?

Anyone who doesn't understand the concept of a party which can "caucus in a phone booth" rebuilding to the point of eventually once again having a majority needs to read a good biography of Charles McNary. He was Oregon's only VP nominee and the longest serving Oregon Senator until Hatfield beat his record about a year before Hatfield retired.

How many Republicans were in the Senate after the 1932 election of FDR? Yet McNary (who served as GOP Sen. caucus leader) was someone many people admired.

Keeping with the Oregon theme, there is a wonderful McNary biography by Steve Neal, graduate of McNary High School in Keizer.

GOP has to make a decision. Are they just Grouchy Old Partisans? They can be the party of ACORN IS EVIL!, there is something wrong with Obama which everyone should realize, all good people oppose all taxes and don't specify what services should be cut without those taxes because there is always a gimmick. These folks believe insults always win the day, even though there have been famous attack ads which only convinced people to vote for the person being attacked.

I am the proud granddaughter of a Michigan Republican politician who actually stood FOR things. About as nasty as he ever got (I have his old newspaper clippings) was "The Democrats are wrong because..." always on substance. He was always specific and sometimes talking about the concerns of ordinary folks---none of this attack for attack sake nonsense.

I voted for Pres. Ford in 1976. In 1980 I voted for John B. Anderson. That means I was not a Reaganite. If Republicans don't want the votes of people like me because all true Americans were Reaganites, they will continue to lose elections. A 20 year old was born the year Reagan left office--perhaps that may be a reason why it is hard for Republicans to attract activist young people?

Luke, what you don't seem to understand is that I left the Republican Party because people like you didn't want people like me ----we looked for solutions, wanted positive campaigns, voted for the person we believed to be the most qualified for the job. No, we didn't follow party orthodoxy (of any party, which might explain the years I was registered NAV.

For many years, many political operatives said, "People may not like them, but negative campaigns work".

If Chuck Adams, of all people, is saying,

" We need to be like-minded for the future of Oregon, not for the future of our partisan agendas "

then maybe your brand of "nasty is all that matters" is finally on the endangered species list! Or so we can all hope.

I'd also add that the anger exhibited by the teabaggers is not necessarily crazy. We ALL should be angry about what's happened to this country. The problem is the reasons that the teabaggers are mad. I believe they've been basically programmed by a multi-billion dollar propaganda machine that never stops. It's truly frightening to behold. For example, we're all opposed to tyranny, but who pushed more for tyranny than the Bush administration? Their basic approach was that they could do anything they wanted and that our system of checks and balances was void in favor of an all-powerful authoritarian president.

 Meanwhile, the same machine we hear now proudly proclaiming its opposition to tyranny, was CHEERLEADING King George and Dick the Dick Cheney back then. Go figure.

I simply do not get the nonsense about less partisanship, less ideology, blah blah blah Ginger blah blah blah. I LIKE CLEAR CHOICES. And I really, really fail to understand why some people do not like clear choices. The "all parties must go for the center" schtick is certainly beloved of the inside-the-beltway punditocracy and newspaper editors everywhere, and here's why: it means that the pundits and editors get to preserve their role as opinion makers. But why do John Q. Public and people commenting here want to promote centrist mush?

Don't tell me that the only alternative to centrist mush is "extremism". The New Deal was not centrist mush; it was a clear, clean break with about 40 years of right-wing domination. Excluding the trolls, are there really Blue Oregonians who prefer centrist mush to a center-left agenda?

As far as the Republican Party goes, I really couldn't give a rat's ass about them, especially at the national level, where they've abandoned all pretense of being a "loyal opposition". They want Mr. Obama and any hints of a progressive agenda to fail, and they'll use any smears, lies and coercion at hand to achieve their goal. So fine. I want THEM to fail.

Another thing: this sort of hand-wringing about "whither the GOP?" could only appear on a blog like this, written as it is by people who are fundamentally decent individuals with an actual investment in democratic institutions. Do you actually think that during the ascendancy of Gingrich, Armey, Dubya and Rove, any Republicans were wringing their hands about how the Democratic Party could rescue itself? Of course not. They were spending their time seducing Southern Democrats to switch parties and scheming about a "permanent majority". They were doing their damnedest to smash the Democratic Party and the progressive movement.

So fuck 'em.

fbear, that's indicative of what a bad position the Republican Party is in. When Vic Atiyeh had to write an op-ed pleading with Republicans to moderate and try to take back Washington County, they've lost any hope of being even a bare plurality anytime soon in Oregon. With only a few seats at the fringes of the Portland metro area left, only a couple that reach into Salem, and many of those seats with Democratic registration advantages that elect only moderate Republicans, extremist Republicans are not a real player in state politics. They cannot be a governing party.

Jack,

The problem with the Reagan message was, whether he intended it to be specific to the time or not, it was taken as "government is always the problem (except when it's the police or the military)."

So, my Republican parents, who were avid supporters of public schools while they had children in them, became opposed to "government schools."

I also don't understand the high esteem for Reagan. We had huge deficits throughout his administration, unemployment over 10% for ten straight months, and over 9% for nineteen straight months (and not starting at the beginning of his term, but in his fourteenth month).

We also had the coining of the term "sleaze factor", due to the 29 administration officials convicted of crimes (plus numerous others who got off due to "technicalities" or preemptive pardons), selling arms to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war (about as immoral a policy as I can think of), and supporting terrorists and death squads in Central America.

It's amazing that, in retrospect, Reagan's administration is seen as a "golden age" for the G.O.P.

why should anyone believe Republicans saying they want limited government with their history of deficit spending and willingness to intrude into the personal lives of citizens (on everything from abrogating habeas corpus to politicizing Terry Sciavo). Do I want a US Senator making personal medical decisions for me via Fox News? Hell no.

The Republican Party embraced the axiom that "government is the enemy" and when in power, it governed accordingly. The Party today has no real leadership, it has surfers tring to catch whichever populist wave comes along. They all kowtow to Rush and Hannnity, and now the teabaggers. To paraphrase Del! Tha Funky Homosapiens, that must really hurt their knees...

Hello Connor Allen:

Julius Meier was an Independent, not a Republican. His former law partner George Joseph was a Republican. Joseph's seemingly mysterious death came shortly after he won the Republican nomination for Governor and when the Republican Party nominated a Portland hotel magnet who Joseph's followers felt betrayed Joseph's progressive platform, especially on the power issue, Meier stepped in and was handily elected as an Independent.

More from the vault:

My old buddy Chuck Adams must be running a trial test on his 2010 themes (maybe for Greg Walden) because I can hardly believe he could utter the word Democrat in a sentence that did not include radical tree hugging commie pervert...

However, the truth be known Chuck Adams used to work in the Legislature for a Democrat and a woman none the less- Peg Jolin- she was always feisty and personified the type of voter on which GOP consultants prey on for cross-overs until she landed in the legislative cash sand trap, an easy lure for the short-sighted who become legends in their own minds.

The way the Republican Party could easily re-emerge has little to do with what they do or don't do- but the old swinging pendulum and the great tides of history. One such event that is somewhat forseeable and slightly foreshadowed is the bastardization of the Democratic Party as the leaders (opportunists to some) drag the party so far in the center that it ceases to represent the cause, if you will, and the true believers move to the left and out of the party.

Under the current skies the Democrats will have fair sailing and the GOP will be like the ship looking for any port in a storm with limited successes and possibly regaining the House sometime in the next decade.

But the enemy of security is alway complacency and like our old friend said: When life looks like easy street there is danger at your door.

I don't expect to see the party in any way walking back from the edge of the abyss. They can't and they will not simply because they don't want to. They want to jump over the edge. They desperately need to jump and to follow the other lemmings.

To walk back from the edge is to disavow their beliefs; beliefs that are becoming more outlandish and unhinged by the day.

The party is headed at full speed out into Mad Max tribal fantasy crazy-land. It's them vs we who live in the real world and it won't end well for them.

Having a Black Man as President just causes some people to go insane and lose their minds.

John Silvertooth-

I'm aware of that episode in Oregon history, I was referring to Republican voters who voted for Meier, not the party of Meier himself. He was elected by progressives of both parties who did not appreciate the conservatives nominated by the two parties.

Back then the Republican Party of Oregon had a lot of progressive and moderate members, like people in my family, and that's why they won so many victories, and their lack of progressives and moderates today is why they lack any recent significant victories.

"...the true believers move to the left and out of the party."

Oh and I should say as well:

"Or worse yet, attack from within and divide the party. Oh where is Emily Ashworth now that we need her?"

Boy you can tell when you start commenting on your own posts you should get off line and go weed the garden. Maybe I'll log on under another name and explain how brilliant I am-

Jack,

To a certain extent, you've been part of the problem.

I've seen you comment on some of the COBRA blogs, yet I've never seen you call them on the childishness that pervades them. When those on the left call them on it, they just ban them. I don't think they'd to that to you, and they may even listen to you when you tell them that their behavior is counterproductive.

What do y'all think motivates this turnabout?

Perhaps he's smart enough to realize that it's not working anymore.

"The democratic supermajorities are pushing a progressive agenda too far too fast and the voters are going to react to it next year."

Meaning -- No one likes having stuff shoved down their throats, whether or not that stuff happens to be 'a good idea'.

I said: "My old buddy Chuck Adams must be running a trial test on his 2010 themes (maybe for Greg Walden) because I can hardly believe he could utter the word Democrat in a sentence that did not include radical tree hugging commie pervert..."

Oh you know I forgot "baby killers"- how could I forget baby killers- I don't know...

These pronouncements are not random- Isn't it odd how it sounds so much like Kitzahber's 'we need new ways to work with each other' blah blah? The polls must show this is the winning soundbite.

If it's not Walden you can bet Chuck's got another bull in the chute- I'd start watching for positioning by a GOP to jump into the race for Greg's seat- a Smith is always good in that seat- Actually I'd say this is just about a sure bet reading those bedtime stories again- of course I've been wrong before like when I though Grattan Kerans was pregnant.

Connor Allen: Well I'd say pretty much agree with you but the main reason the Republican won in those days was that there weren't any Democrats to speak of. Usually the decisive race was in the GOP primary where the progressives usually rural based fought it out with the business types in Portland. I don't think a progressive or moderate would save the GOP today because the conservatives would splinter.

Nationally, the GOP is doing everything to marginalize the real opposition that is represented by Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and others. Friday, the Florida GOP kicked libertarians, aka the Republican Liberty Caucus (including office holders), out of the GOP. As for Oregon, the LAST thing this state needs os for the GOP to join with the Dems in any partnership. The Dems own this state, let them take the blame (or credit) for it's fate.

Its all moot anyway because the only solution is secession. Americans arent ready for it yet, but they'll come to see the light.

Chris Lowe,

There were two recessions. The Carter recession of 1980 had a real GDP decline of 0.2%, and unemployment of 7.1%. The Reagan recession of 1982, after real GDP increase of 2.5% in1981, saw real GDP fall 1.9%, with unemployment of 9.7% (and 9.6% the following year, even though real GDP increased 4.5%).

The Reagan recession was far more severe than the Carter recession. Luckily for Reagan, though, the worst of it was done by the time he was up for re-election, while Carter's hit as he was up for re-election.

The Republican 12 Step Program to Recovery

Stop supporting the biggest environmental plunderers in the world Stop fighting to ensure that the bloodsucking insurance companies stay in business Stop reasoning with your Bible Stop discriminating against women, non-heterosexuals, and non-whites. Support public education Support social safety net programs which reduce poverty, crime, and improve the economy. Stop treating other animal species like cogs in a machine. Stop listening to assholes like Beck, Rush, and O'Reilly. Stop electing and nominating morons like GWB and Sarah Palin. End your war on intellectualism Stop trying to interfere with women's most personal healthcare decisions Basically dump your whole moral foundation for something that which includes empathy.

It's not rocket science. Good luck.

Jack,

On which blog did you post your comment? I'd love to read it.

Some of them attack you as a RINO, some don't. You seem to be respected on Resistance Is Futile! Of course, that blog isn't all that active these days.

Perhaps I just miss it when Republicans call the COBRA bloggers on their juvenile behavior. I don't see it happen often. Kudos to those who do.

If I follow Chris Lowe's argument, it's that the Democrats, including Mr. Obama, are failing to present a coherent "alternative" program while continuing baleful on-going stuff like the wars and pandering to Wall Street. I have to agree, and I have to wonder WTF will ever induce the Democrats to get their act together. Unfotunately the modern Democratic Party is so severely compromised by its corporatist element...and the diffuse nature of our non-parliamentary party system, along with the radically un-democratic nature of the US Senate, means that "party discipline" is damn near a contradiction in terms.

The GOP was on the mat in January, and they're getting up because the Democrats are again trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

At the state level (we can save the national level for another discussion), both parties have failed us.

Over the last 20 years, state expenditures have grown at a rate that our current tax system and economy cannot sustain. The last legislature, faced with the reality of planned expenditures significantly greater than projected tax revenue, decided that the right answer was to increase personal income tax rates to be the highest in the country on upper-earners, to increase corporate tax rates to among the highest in the country, and to add a new gross receipts tax. This approach will, if it survives the referendum effort, be detrimental to economic activity in the state. I hope (and expect) that it will not survive the referendum effort.

So, in January, the state will be faced with a very big problem--a large budget shortfall--caused by unsustainable growth in spending, an unwillingness or inability to make hard decisions on priorities on spending, and a tax structure that is as bad as it can get from the point of view of disincentive to economic activity and risk and that cannot provide the level of revenue the spending side requires. We have a chance at that point to "get it right" (or at least do a better job than we have), by making changes on spending, developing a consensus on priorities (and funding the things that are priorities adequately), and revising the tax structure to one more condusive to growth and less subject to wild swings (we have 49 other states to use as models here). This will require discipline, consensus and compromise, and an understanding on the part of the decision-makers of both the intricacies of the state budget, and the realities of business and taxation.

The democrats will get first crack at this, since they will control the legislature and governorship when these decisions will be made. If they do not do a better job at it than they did last session, I think a republican party that campaigned at the state level on 1) a sustainable level of overall state spending, and discipline in priorities to ensure adequate funding of the most important priorities, and no funding of the least important priorities, and 2) a tax structure that is in the mainstream of other states and designed to promote economic activity and growth, would, I believe, have a good chance at electoral success.

And if neither of the parties can get this done, I suspect that in 5 years, we will see some different alignments and new parties emerging--out of the wreckage of the state's finances that is otherwise almost inevitable.

Bob Wiggins

Chris Lowe, that's pretty close! Actually my mantra goes, "US, get the hell out of my country!" :)

I want to be the first to help Old Ducker set up a microstate somewhere in, oh, central Oregon. Call your state Ronpauliana. Of course, if you're actually hoping to be distinct from the wingnuts, you're going to have to figure out how to deal with all the people whose think libertarianism does--or should--mean regulating women's wombs and inculcating Fundamentalist Christianity in the schools. Also, good luck negotiating with the remainder of Oregon for water supply.

Chris, unemployment didn't go over 7% until May of 1980, when it jumped from 6.9% to 7.5% in one month. And that's seasonally adjusted.

It peaked at 7.8% in July of 1980, then stayed between 7.2% until 7.5% from September, 1980 through August of 1981. Coincidentally, that's when Reagan's tax cut bill was passed. The unemployment rate then increased each of the next eleven months: 7.6%, 7.9%, 8.3%, 8.5%, 8.6%, 8.9%, 9.0%, 9.3%, 9.4%, 9.6%, 9.8%.

It stayed at 9.8% for one more month, then continued it's steady rise: 10.1%, 10.4%, then topped out at 10.8% in November and December of 1982.

You can get these numbers at: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Roy--I believe I see where the disagreement is:

"On point one we very much disagree. "the premise that ACORN has conducted itself badly is false". To be polite.....this is just plain crap. "

Are you saying that every member of ACORN in the country has conducted themselves badly?

Or that when a few people from ACORN did bad things (and were turned in by the organization itself, as I recall) anyone who had ever been associated with them should have said "Shame on you!" and made them a pariah?

No Republican has ever acted badly? Posted signs in minority neighborhoods saying ELECTION DAY HAS BEEN CHANGED TO WEDNESDAY, or phone jamming (wasn't there a court case in NH about that?) or using the picture of Osama in 2002 to attack a triple combat amputee for being "unpatriotic" because as a Democrat he didn't vote the way Bush told him to vote? I could go on.....

There is an interesting ad on TV these days, "thank a Republican" for all sorts of good things which have been done (most of them while Gerald Ford was still alive).

Republicans have to make a choice. They can be a solution-oriented party ("Here is our proposal and we will be glad to take your questions...").

Or they can be an attack party: ACORN is evil, taxes are evil, "the left" (whatever that means in the 21st century) is evil.

There are a lot of us who would like 2 INTELLIGENT political parties. But even if you got every political activist to stand up and say ACORN IS A BAD GROUP AND SHOULD BE OUTLAWED, what does that solve?

Does it help fight hunger? How does it find jobs for unemployed people? Does it fix crumbling infrastructure? Does it solve cost containment problems in the health care system?

Roy, if you want to continue to tell us what is bad, go right ahead. And solution oriented people like me will continue to support those who have proposals to solve problems, rather than people who think attacks are the answer to everything.

Kari---about this: "I'm absolutely fascinated that Chuck Adams is the one preaching an end to slash-and-burn politics -- given that he's one of its finest practitioners"

Ever heard the phrase "like Nixon going to China"?

Nixon built his career on destroying any "pinko" public figure--someone with even a whiff of being a "commie". When actor Melvyn Douglas died, it was reported that he never forgave Nixon for destroying his wife's political career. Nixon went after her (with literature printed on pink paper, no less) and said he should be elected because she had commie sympathies. That sort of politics was the forerunner of what Lee Atwater, Chuck Adams, Karl Rove, the Swifies et al later turned into the industry of attack advertising.

The pendulum swings, and any form of politics or advertising can become annoying at best and offensive at worst. At the point something becomes "a real turnoff", people will reject it. No matter how many true believers it may have.

Anon, "voters are going to react to it next year"?

To do that, they must have candidates people will vote for. Frank Morse and Jackie Winters are veteran Republican elected officials that folks who are not ideologues might at least look at to see if they can support what they are proposing. As Jack was saying, Jack Kemp and Barry Goldwater were gentlement of the old school---good manners, common sense, you were not the enemy if you disagreed with them, you were an opponent with different ideas.

There are folks across the political spectrum who are big fans of Max Williams (and were big fans of Ben Westlund as a Republican and as an independent). But if you expect the ordinary folks who may have voted Republican earlier in their lives but voted for at least one Dem. in either 2006 or 2008 to vote straight Republican in 2010, IMHO you are dreaming.

Partisans don't want to admit how many ordinary folks vote for the person, not the party.

I'd rather the party await the majority's evil to consume itself than for it to become Dem-lite.

I would love to see a resurgence of the Republican Party as it used to be in Oregon. But when the party is now in the clenches of the most willfully ignorant bunch of extremists I've seen in my lifetime, there's no hope. My father, a life-long moderate Republican and politician, along the lines of a Mark Hatfield, or Dave Frohenmayer got out of his sick bed two weeks before he died to change his party registration to Democratic. He was so disgusted with the hate mongering extremism of the Republicans he couldn't stand the idea of being a Republican on his own death bed.

Bill R, out of our own once Republican family there may be one person of my immediate family who still might be registered Republican---and that would be the one who voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama 2008.

If they want to be an ideological pure "base" party centered in the deep south, that's fine. But they will have to change to win in states like Oregon.

Jack, you are just explaining the dangers of an ideologial purity campaign. In the mid-late 1980s (when Democrats struggled to deal with the crushing Mondale defeat--for some he had been the perfect candidate), there were enforcers of ideological purity. Problem was, these folks had basically supported Mondale in a primary where he got less than 40% of the vote, so did they really understand the composition of the party at that time?

These enforcers weren't usually the folks who did the frontline party work--state fair booth, logistics for party meetings incl. in some cases things as basic as newsletters in the days before desktop publishing, name tags and refreshments. But by golly they were the "true" Democrats.

One county newsletter editor got tired of being told he wasn't a "real" Democrat because he had the nerve to think for himself, and quit with a blazing editorial in the last newsletter he did. Some were told that they were some kind of subversives because they sided with actual elected legislators over a vote in state central comm. on in issue being debated in the legislature.

"Not a real Democrat, am I? OK you can find someone to work the shift at the state fair booth I have worked for so many years"---esp. the year the party state fair booth was flying a banner for one side of a ballot measure not everyone agreed with.

At one point, a "purist" county chair delegated the newsletter to a newcomer along with all responsibility. So he didn't see the newsletter until it landed in his mailbox. And hit the roof because of a guest opinion.

Someone active in both county and state party efforts had gotten angry because state always made sure there was a quorum before voting and county was sloppy about that. Rising to ask for a quorum before a vote on a resolution the chair wanted passed, this person was called all sorts of names---and began to wonder if party involvement was a worthwhile use of time.

Out of this came a guest opinion saying the party had to choose---not everyone who showed up to do the frontline work was going to agree on every issue. What was more important--agreement on all issues or showing up to do the volunteer work? That decision needed to be made one way or the other.

That guest opinion got passed around from county to county and published in multiple newsletters.

I believe this story shows that Republicans now are going through what Democrats went through then.

If all Republicans believe that attacks, social issue and anti-tax orthodoxy, and "young attractive" candidates more along the lines of Jason Atkinson than Max Williams are going to bring them back into majority in 2010, I believe they will be in for a shock. How many Democratic Senators were elected in Nov. 1996? That was the year that the DSCC had a grand plan where a bunch of millionaires as Senate candidates were going to win them majority. Turned out that the ones who won primaries lost the general election.

Democrats began winning major Senate seats when the candidates were individuals well known in their states, not recruited according to some grand scheme. Think Sen. Tester and Sen. Salazar. Think Sen. Jim Webb (or Cong. Sestak). Independent thinking men with military careers don't exactly fit the stereotype of Democrats any more than most people expected Dem. senators from Rocky Mountain states.

When Republicans start thinking outside the box they have put themselves in the last few decades, they will deserve to be competitive.

Jeff Mapes had a link to a column about this, which I think is a lesson to both parties.

A friend of mine used to say "Hubris is followed by nemesis". Arrogance in the long run is not a good strategy, however appealing or successful it may be in the short run.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/opinion/15brooks.html?_r=1&hp

As The Times of London pointed out on the day of victory, fascism had stood for grandiosity, pomposity, boasting and zeal. The allied propaganda mills had also produced their fair share of polemical excess. By 1945, everybody was sick of that. There was a mass hunger for a public style that was understated, self-abnegating, modest and spare.

Republicans for years have claimed they were the only people with "values".

Well, I've got news, folks. Many of us were raised with the values of humility, hard work, courtesy towards others. Any party forgetting this because they alone determine "American values" is, in the end, going to have their head handed to them. Especially if voters come to admire the people running in a party other than the "values" party.

In response to Joshua Welch and "The Republican 12 Step Program to Recovery"

Stop supporting the biggest environmental plunderers in the world

Big oil? Oil at all? Coal? Timber? Nuclear? Hydropower? Fertilizer? Insecticide? Carbon Dioxide? They are all enemies of the left at one time or another. It’s easy to say that the Repubs have no options when discussing healthcare (even though it’s not true), but what options to these things do the environmentalists have? No cars, no electricity, no farming, no wood, no breathing? Seems like trying to fix the problems is the way to go, doesn’t it? Shouldn’t we look at the least of all the evils? Stop being idealist? If we label all options as bad, then there is no choice, is there?

Stop fighting to ensure that the bloodsucking insurance companies stay in business

Contrast a bloodsucking insurance company with a bloodsucking federal government. Profit to stockholders and pay to execs vs. “profits” (taxes) used for things (pork) that are close to the party-in-power’s heart? I can send a message to insurance companies by changing to another one, but the feds have no competition, do they?

Stop reasoning with your Bible

Dismiss the argument by labeling the arguer. Bibles don’t really affect reason. They do affect values, but they aren’t the only holders of values and advice on how to live those values. Unless you want to say that only Bible people are against murder. I don’t say that. The left and the right have values. Almost all are identical, some are different. But the dismissal of a Bible person is pretty strange for a “tolerant” liberal, isn’t it?

Stop discriminating against women, non-heterosexuals, and non-whites.

The idea that opposing Obama is “racist” is unfounded. How do you criticize the man’s policies and not be labeled racist? I see it every day and it has no basis, destroys the credibility of the accuser and adds nothing. If you recall, there was a large number of Repubs, including me, who would have loved to see Colin Powell run for President. And a large number of Dems as well. It’s not the skin, it’s the values and policies. And he is a true moderate. Telling people they are racist when they aren’t is a very bad idea. And the only “discrimination” of non-heterosexuals seems to be resistance of law changes to move toward the homosexual agenda. And it does exist. A white, hetero person has the exact same rights as the non-white, homosexual. And we will, as a country, with my support, imprison anyone who takes away rights due to race , sexual preference or gender. Just the truth, not the emotion.

Support public education.

What does that mean? Is that a suggestion that we cannot improve it with better fiscal oversight, and fixing problems with something other than money? If “support” equals “fund”, then the “tax and spend” moniker applied to the left is pretty accurate, isn’t it?

Support social safety net programs which reduce poverty, crime, and improve the economy.

But only if they are administered by the government? Again, if the Repubs fund these programs, but not through the government, are they not still supporting them?

Stop treating other animal species like cogs in a machine.

So Repubs eat meat, eggs and cheese and Dems don’t? Really??

Stop listening to assholes like Beck, Rush, and O'Reilly.

Name-calling must make the Dems better, I guess. One thing I notice often on this site is that some, just some, of the contributors and posters refrain from name-calling and actually argue with facts and respectful give and take. Others may argue fairly well, but can’t stop name-calling anyway (like Carla, frankly) and there are others who offer little value, but can label and name-call with a vengeance. Answer the questions of the other side, don’t pick something out of context and dismiss the rest because of it, and try being intellectually honest. And stop name-calling.

Stop electing and nominating morons like GWB and Sarah Palin.

Morons. More names. Because you don’t agree with them, they are stupid, or moronic? Remember the intelligence tests (non-partisan) that GWB and John Kerry took when in the military? Argue the policy, not the intelligence.

End your war on intellectualism

Define your terms here. Seems like a talking point.

Stop trying to interfere with women's most personal healthcare decisions

Kinda depends on the age of women, doesn’t it? I’m so tired of the right saying that those who favor abortion want to kill babies. And so tired of the left calling abortion the right of the mother. No one wants to kill babies and no one wants to take rights away from mothers. The question is really “when is a person a person?”. But it’s not really fair to say that a girl baby, who can survive outside the womb, isn’t a woman with personal healthcare decision rights as well, isn’t it? These decisions are still in question, obviously, but simplifying them isn’t helpful.

Basically dump your whole moral foundation for something that which includes empathy.

Includes “empathy”, but is not exclusively “empathy”, correct? So you think that Repubs have no empathy? Can you find me one? I know you can’t. Unless you label one based upon some stretch of a single issue or comment and then dismiss them. (see “name-calling” above).

It's not rocket science. Good luck.

Remember our president saying we needed to eliminate the partisan politics? I agree with many here that we are likely closer than we think, but this kind of attack is pretty divisive, isn’t it? I could do the same about Dems, but I don’t want to appeal to those conservatives who would like it, and it won’t get us anywhere. As I’ve said before, being united if only I agree with everything you say is as unpalatable for me as it would be for you, right?

My undergraduate degree was political science, and I recall that the author of one a text book we were using on political parties stated that political parties only existed on the national level every four years for a presidential campaign. I suspect that was more true in former times when we were much more of a pluralistic society than we are now where local and regional issues and ideological orientation held more sway. We are now in the days of the ditto-heads where the word "Rino" and "Dino" are so easily used to target divergent points of view. Still a political party remains, and will always be a coalition. The political party with the broadest coalition to unite around a central platform and principle of governance will be the most successful. At present the Dem. party has an opportunity to broaden its appeal, precisely because the GOP has become so narrow and so ideologically extremist.

I would like to know where Gordon Smith's staffers are now? I presume they are all back in DC, but I must say that he had some talented members of his staff that could bring a lot of experience and expertise to center-right politics here in Oregon. If Republicans are ever going to have success, its going to be by taking slice out of the middle...As an independent I agree with Chuck Adams and Riley's approach. However I am not sure who I will vote for in 2010....

Thanks, Jack.

Interesting response it received.

But, again, have you pointed out to Ted that his constant refrain of "Moonbat" is counterproductive? That his deleting of contrary points of view makes him look cowardly?

Here are a few questions to my Republican countrymen?

1. Why are you against a social safety net, yet for the biggest welfare system in the country AKA the US Military?

Fighting for freedom? They must mean the freedoms they signed away for a guaranteed tax payer paid for wage, food, housing, and medical benefits. Last I checked, no city or inch of our land was being invaded by a foreign entity and has not been since Pearl Harbor. So what freedoms are you fighting?

1. Does your concept of welfare include no bid contracts and subsidies to defense companies?

2. Why do you hold different standards for your own (prime example being Sarah Palin and her messed up family), yet expect and laugh at Democrats who have messed up families just like Sarah Palin?

3. Do you think that small town America is the real America?

Last time I checked the census statistics, the majority of US citizens were living in Urban and Metropolitan areas. If the majority is urban and suburban, then the values and policies they support is the mainstream. That would make the values and policies of those living in rural areas on the fringe of the mainstream.

1. Do you support Free Trade?

Personally, I think that Free Trade has done nothing for the US worker except lower their wages and give their children the great opportunity of low wage service job if they choose not to go to college or the military. As evidence, I can point to those "computer" jobs that were hot in the 1990s being outsourced to India, the Philippines, and other would be "third world" nations. Likewise, I blame NAFTA and following trade agreements for Levi Jeans making their last jean in the US in 1999 and the great exodus of US manufacturing to Taiwan, Mexico and China.

If you support free trade, then persuade me otherwise because not being a trust fund baby, I have not seen the benefits of it at all. Benefits being an increase in the real wages (wage adjusted for inflation) of the majority of Americans.

1. Would you support a policy that levied a tariff equal to 20% of the market value of a product if a US company decided to manufacture it overseas?

The problem for the G.O.P. is that they've gotten to the point that they not only tolerate juvenile behavior, they seem to hold it in esteem--just look at the respect Rush Limbaugh commands in the party.

The party sold its soul to the Devil in the mid-90s in order to get into power. It worked for quite awhile, partly thanks to a little power-play with the Supreme Court and 19 hijackers, but eventually it wore thin, but now there doesn't seem to be much else in the party playbook.

One important step for Republicans is to tell children like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Lars Larson, and their minions (like the COBRA bloggers) that they are hurting their party and hurting the country.

The Republican 12 Step Program to Recovery

OK, let's see how I measure up.

Stop supporting the biggest environmental plunderers in the world

No problem. That is why I don't buy anything made in Japan, Russia, India or China.

Stop fighting to ensure that the bloodsucking insurance companies stay in business

So, no homeowners or car insurance? Sounds pretty extreme. I like having homeowners insurance. Plus I have an umbrella policy so a trial lawyer doesn't bankrupt my family if someone falls off their skateboard on my sidewalk.

Stop reasoning with your Bible

OK, I don't. Doesn't this Joshua guy put any periods on the end of his sentences?

Stop discriminating against women, non-heterosexuals, and non-whites.

Hmm, The national Republican Chair is non-white. OK, now I need some proof of what he is saying. Not only didn't he use periods in the first lines, he didn't substantiate with proof or facts now. At least he started using periods.

Support public education

I do, but not with a blank check. How about a system that has competition but with a 'public option' for education?

Support social safety net programs which reduce poverty, crime, and improve the economy.

More supposition and opinion. Unsubstantiated.

Stop treating other animal species like cogs in a machine.

I have no idea what this means. But if it makes him feel any better I will always value all of my dog's lives more than his.

Stop listening to assholes like Beck, Rush, and O'Reilly.

Now this is judgmental and just plain name-calling. Haven't I seen all over this post that only Republicans devolve into name calling? Plus when someone can't make their point without profanity, I can't take them seriously as an intellectual. That may also be judgmental, but at least I am exhibiting a higher level of class and taste in my judgment.

Stop electing and nominating morons like GWB and Sarah Palin.

ibid.

End your war on intellectualism

And he would recognize intellectualism in someone who he disagreed with? It doesn't sound like it. See I can accept that intelligent people may disagree. People who are less intellectual think that people who disagree with them are idiots.

Stop trying to interfere with women's most personal healthcare decisions

What like pap smears, or colonoscopies? Oh wait, there was no period on his sentence again. Maybe he wasn't finished.

Basically dump your whole moral foundation for something that which includes empathy.

I've stopped listening. Maybe there are some intelligent posts to read?

The thing that will do in the Democrats is the same thing that did in the Republicans. They will mistake an election result for a mandate and try to take the country somewhere it doesn't want to go. Like socialized medicine. Like quadrupling our electric bills with a cap (tax) and trade bill. Like putting your cronies ahead of the people, with R's it was big business, with D's it is the unions, enviro-extremists and trial lawyers. The best the GOP can do right now is try to limit the damage that the far-left extremists will do. Extremists like all of these 'Czars' the President is shacked up with.

Why am I in this handbasket and where are we going?

The Republican 12 Step Program to Recovery

OK, let's see how I measure up.

Stop supporting the biggest environmental plunderers in the world

No problem. That is why I don't buy anything made in Japan, Russia, India or China.

Stop fighting to ensure that the bloodsucking insurance companies stay in business

So, no homeowners or car insurance? Sounds pretty extreme. I like having homeowners insurance. Plus I have an umbrella policy so a trial lawyer doesn't bankrupt my family if someone falls off their skateboard on my sidewalk.

Stop reasoning with your Bible

OK, I don't. Doesn't this Joshua guy put any periods on the end of his sentences?

Stop discriminating against women, non-heterosexuals, and non-whites.

Hmm, The national Republican Chair is non-white. OK, now I need some proof of what he is saying. Not only didn't he use periods in the first lines, he didn't substantiate with proof or facts now. At least he started using periods.

Support public education

I do, but not with a blank check. How about a system that has competition but with a 'public option' for education?

Support social safety net programs which reduce poverty, crime, and improve the economy.

More supposition and opinion. Unsubstantiated.

Stop treating other animal species like cogs in a machine.

I have no idea what this means. But if it makes him feel any better I will always value all of my dog's lives more than his.

Stop listening to assholes like Beck, Rush, and O'Reilly.

Now this is judgmental and just plain name-calling. Haven't I seen all over this post that only Republicans devolve into name calling? Plus when someone can't make their point without profanity, I can't take them seriously as an intellectual. That may also be judgmental, but at least I am exhibiting a higher level of class and taste in my judgment.

Stop electing and nominating morons like GWB and Sarah Palin.

ibid.

End your war on intellectualism

And he would recognize intellectualism in someone who he disagreed with? It doesn't sound like it. See I can accept that intelligent people may disagree. People who are less intellectual think that people who disagree with them are idiots.

Stop trying to interfere with women's most personal healthcare decisions

What like pap smears, or colonoscopies? Oh wait, there was no period on his sentence again. Maybe he wasn't finished.

Basically dump your whole moral foundation for something that which includes empathy.

I've stopped listening. Maybe there are some intelligent posts to read?

The thing that will do in the Democrats is the same thing that did in the Republicans. They will mistake an election result for a mandate and try to take the country somewhere it doesn't want to go. Like socialized medicine. Like quadrupling our electric bills with a cap (tax) and trade bill. Like putting your cronies ahead of the people, with R's it was big business, with D's it is the unions, enviro-extremists and trial lawyers. The best the GOP can do right now is try to limit the damage that the far-left extremists will do. Extremists like all of these 'Czars' the President is shacked up with.

Why am I in this handbasket and where are we going?

Sorry about the double post. I had a page load error and apparantly refreshing the page posted it twice.

I would be interested in Jack Robert's prescription for a resurgent and vital Republican Party. (Jack is a contributor here and is someone whose brand of Republicanism, in my view, holds real hope for a rationally based party.)

How can the power in your party be wrested from the grasp of those who deny science and the value of intellectual pursuits, who define what most Americans consider a humane and rational safety net as "communism" or "radical socialism," who preach exclusion or active persecution of those who are different, and who display open hostility and contempt for ethnic minorities?

RyanLeo wrote:

"Last I checked, no city or inch of our land was being invaded by a foreign entity and has not been since Pearl Harbor."

9/11 doesn't count because it wasn't officially sponsored by a government? (It probably was, but they were smart enough not to announce it to the world.)

The attack on the USS Cole doesn't count because it was in a foreign harbor?

The bombing of our embassies in Africa... oh yeah they were in Africa.

Well, I guess youre right.

As long as terrorists avoid telling us they are sponsored and funded by any foreign government, or they just be sure to hit US targets overseas, then we've nothing to worry about, right?

Dave Porter wrote:

"I don't think Republican enthusiam for the immigration issue (they're against it in all forms) is diminishing"

Been waiting for this:

Latino Lawmaker Rips Obama for Making It Harder for Illegals to Buy Private Insurance

Jack, if you are serious about rebuilding the Republican Party, the first thing you might want to do is talk to Dan Lavey. Why does he think Gordon Smith, who won in 1996, lost in 2008? Strong challenger? The Jan. 1996 "we're all real tired of career politicians" coming home to roost? Perception that he was out of touch? Not appearing in public as often as he one did? (No, speaking to an invitation-only group in Oregon did not mean the same thing as a public town hall style meeting, no matter how his staff tried to spin that.) What about comments like the one made by my friend who voted for Gordon Smith both in January and November of 1996 that he "could see a possible reason to look at the challenger if he began to wonder if Smith 2008 was the same guy people like him voted for in 1996"?

Dan Lavey has more sense than many current Republicans. I believe he was the person I first heard say that the fastest growing party is no party at all---back in 1996. That is sure true now--aren't there some counties with 30% of the voters not registered in any party?

A few of suggestions:

There are those of us who grew up Republican who would like to see a 2nd intelligent party. Dump that "it is the turn of Republicans to win..." nonsense--who believed that about "Democrats turn"?

Start debating (just among friends, and then they do it among friends, and eventually it spreads to people active in politics) how to attract voters who don't agree with the party platform or the straight party votes by the Oregon House and Sen. R caucuses. Maybe there were some issues there that anyone from McCall to someone like Shetterly or former state rep. Larry Wells might have voted differently on? Do any of your friends understand why many in Marion County were sad term limits ended the political career of Rep. Wells? Regardless of his voting record on some issues, he was well liked and a good vote on some important local issues.

Look at the few issues where some Republicans crossed party lines (Jenson, Garrard, Bruun, for example). Maybe it is time to talk among Republicans how those votes might be more popular than the caucus position?

Is there no one in Newberg who might challenge Rep. Thatcher in the primary? I heard from a Republican staffer that she was not overly popular and respected even in her caucus. Maybe someone who admires Vic Atiyeh, someone who works for a nonprofit or owns a business, someone who is tired of Freedomworks being the face of the GOP?

History lesson--what legislative district did Atiyeh represent? Did it follow the arc of many districts which went from moderate R to right wing and then as young people started becoming 25 or older did it trend more to the young moderate Democrats? If so, maybe being the anti-tax, anti-gay, anti-abortion party is not the way to win over those voters?

What is it about someone like Max Williams that people across the spectrum admire? Nice guy, easy to talk with? Willing to stand up for what he believes even if it isn't party orthodoxy? Solution-oriented and hard working rather than just attack oriented?

Vic Atiyeh said when he was elected Gov. he was considered a conservative, when he left office he was considered a moderate. That was a generation ago--someone born the year he left office is 22 years old. Maybe it is time to start thinking about engaging those folks in dialogue that does not involve telling them what to believe? People that age have never seen the reasonable party of McCall, Myers, Atiyeh and the others. Are there any Republicans like yourself who are willing to try intelligent discussion of issues?

To begin with, isn't it time to ditch "the voters have spoken" if talking to young people? Someone now old enough to vote may have been in high school or middle school when Measure 30 was voted on, and a lot younger when the supermajority measures, some of the anti-crime measures, and Measure 5 were voted on.

This isn't rocket science, it is just plain common sense. Is it possible for any Republicans to respect thsoe who disagree with them?

And what about campaign reform? Do Republicans support what the Public Comm. on the Legislature said about everything from election reforms to campaign finance reforms?

How about reading the report at http://landru.leg.state.or.us/pcol

and doing a basic "here are the reasons this is a good idea, these are the reasons it might be a bad idea" discussion on each of those election-related proposals?

Or, as some worry, has intellectual rigor gone out the window because everyone labeled a RINO has given up on the party and either dropped their participation or dropped their party label altogether and re-registered NAV?

The ideas are out there, but they require questioning the orthodoxy of Reaganism, anti-tax, social issue attack dog recent behavior.

Say what you will about Chuck Adams (and I've said plenty), some of us have been waiting decades to hear any powerful Republican politician or staffer say,

"I believe the future is less about partisan politics and more about giving Oregonians leadership they want and leadership they deserve."

I realize that is as unorthodox as the Democrats roughly a quarter century ago saying Mondale was a great man in many ways but not the future of the party. I am sure there are Republicans yelling at the top of their lungs about heresy the way Democrats did at people who said Mondale was not the future of the party.

Question for the GOP is, "Do we want to solve problems and lead the state into a good future, or do we want to retain strict obedience to an orthodoxy which has marginalized the party?".

Jack, in private conversations with your friends, you can debate that question. If you want to change the face of the party, political parties in Oregon are remarkably open to the people who show up. If there are, say, 50 people at an party meeting and you show up with 25 friends (or only 5-10 friends who ask a lot of questions), it is fascinating to see the result of the clash between the people asking questions and the people demanding orthdoxy. I know--I've been there.

It is going on 30 years since the Reaganite Republicans let it be known they didn't want the McCall Republicans anywhere near them---they thought too much and asked to many questions. So Jack, how many people under 30 do you know who are active, unquestioning partisans?

Versus the number who may have worked on Republican campaigns but think for themselves, thank you very much?

Whatever I may think of Michael Steele, that visit he made to that group of college kids in DC which was shown on CSPAN is the sort of thing Republicans will need to do to have a future.

I love all the hand wringing from some of the very folks who lead the Republican Party of Oregon into the abyss. Adams did more to hurt the state GOP than most...and is more responsible for hyperpartisanship than most. Riley produces crappy polls for Republicans, telling them what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. And don't for a second think that Tiernan wants a GOP that has a bigger tent, one that is more closely aligned with the voters of Oregon. Otherwise they wouldnt be going after Greg Smith and Bob Jenson. Let them eat their own.

Bad news ... Rob Cornilles is a moderate Republican aiming to take on Wu ... who cares that he's LDS, Wu is doomed:

http://oregonteaparty.com/post/182649072/time-management-integrity-and-the-race-to-oppose-wu

I like the status-quo. The Republicans are reduced to a hard-core kernel, many if not most of whom believe that the party is not conservative enough, and are unwilling to compromise their "principles" by allowing perceived moderates into the club. These people are entitled to their party, and I celebrate their enfranchisement, but I also praise God (or whomever) that these folks will not have elected power anytime soon.

Joe White,

Terrorism is older than the United States of America. Considering that terrorism is specifically a type of asymmetrical warfare carried out specifically to instill fear and accomplish a political agenda, it has been seen in many cases:

1. The Boston Tea Party in 1773 was an attempt to cower the British Government over what the colonist perceived as an unfair tax on tea due to colonists having no representation in the British legislature.

2. Jewish Irgun prior to World War 2 using terrorism against the British and Palestinians in order to guarantee the "right of every Jew to enter Palestine."

3. The 1905 Russian Revolution

4. Iran Hostage Crisis

and many more

Terrorism is a form of asymmetrical warfare used by those without the means to conduct war on a level playing field (aka symmetrical warfare). Outside of homegrown terrorism that becomes embraced by a large portion of the populace (i.e. the American Revolutionary War and the 1917 Russian Revolution), terrorism instigated by foreigners has never amounted anymore than a senseless act of violence.

WID----time will tell who is the nominee against Wu (primary is not until next May, with filing deadline next March).

Your candidate has just biography on his website so far.

How would he answer issue questions?

For instance, "Many Republicans say malpractice reform is crucial to bringing down medical costs. But they also talk about the success of the malpractice reforms in Texas. A recent study on medical costs found that being a patient in McAllen Texas is more expensive than in El Paso. If reforming malpractice is such a big part of cost control, why the difference in cost in the 2 different cities in Texas? Could it be there are factors other than malpractice in the question of medical costs?"

A truly moderate Republican is able to discuss issues the way Atiyeh, McCall, Pres. Ford and others were able to discuss issues. A slick website is not the same thing.

And with all the discussion of Newberg on the site, how long has this guy lived in the 1st. Cong. District? Maybe he should have stayed in Newberg and run in the primary against Kim Thatcher. Being elected to Congress without holding another office first (legislature, county comm. etc.) is the rule, not the exception.

Yeah this is perfect. Carla the far left fringe partisan attack-dog schticking to us on what Republicans are and what they should do.

I know counltess conservative Republicans at every level and have never met any of Carla's version. And the suggestion that Republicans have been fringing out is laughable. The left wing march to the left and more left does not equate to the Republican's standing ground as moving to the right.

But Carla explains it just like they want it protrayed.

Jack,

The problem with Ted isn't that he calls people moonbats, it's that it's about all he has in his arsenal. He seems incapable of a real discussion. He also has an extremely thin skin.

You'll have to ask Kari whether Ted is banned from BlueOregon.

The thing is, you can't tell what Ted has deleted because, well, they've been deleted. You'd really have to watch the blog carefully to actually see the comments before they're deleted to know what Ted is deleting. You can't really judge from Ted's comments about the deletions.

Part of the problem with the G.O.P. is that they love to dish it out, but they don't seem to be able to take it.

In 1988, I heard numerous comments at the G.O.P. national convention about the "dukakied" Democrats. Then, Lloyd Bentsen makes a joke about quail season, and the Republicans go ballistic.

fbear, You heave Ted figured out as well as Carla does Republicans. And both as well as you have global warming figured out.

Rick:

Your not really embracing the program.

Paul G, not that it matters (since I don't speak for the GOP or anyone other than myself), but I would support a sales tax as part of an overall plan that reduced income tax rates, promoted broad-based economic growth (not the targeted-to-one-business-at-a-time stuff the state has been doing since the '80s) and seriously controlled growth in state spending, based on what has worked in other states, and so would a lot of other people. If either party can rally around an intelligent overhaul of taxes and spending and then explain why it makes sense, I think the party (and the state) would have a chance. Bob Wiggins

Yo Joe White--AARGH!! HELLLLPPPPPP!!! There are folks with brown skin coming and they want to buy health insurance!!!!! HELLLLPPPPPP!! If we don't stop them now, the next thing we'll see is people eating burritos in public! HELLLPPPPP!!!!!

In case anyone has forgotten, here is the American Politics 101 primer.

The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats:

Republicans in Power: GOP demands that Democrats capitulate to GOP legislative agenda. Democrats politely agree in return for the chance to write "bipartisan" op-ed pieces.

Democrats in Power: GOP demands that Democrats abandon their own legislative agenda. Democrats politely agree in return for the chance to write "bipartisan" op-ed pieces.

JDW, given the opposition to the Baucus health care plan, I don't think the 2nd necessarily holds true.

jdw wrote:

"Yo Joe White--AARGH!! HELLLLPPPPPP!!! There are folks with brown skin coming and they want to buy health insurance!!!!! HELLLLPPPPPP!! If we don't stop them now, the next thing we'll see is people eating burritos in public! HELLLPPPPP!!!!!"

Actually you have me mixed up with Obama.

The article says Obama is wanting to prevent illegals from purchasing private health insurance.

I think if they want to pay for something, that's a very good thing.

Why does Obama not want illegals to have to pay? Because he wants to give it to them for free.

Obama is a stealth single payer advocate.

I am against illegals accessing the envisioned 'free' system of universal care (single payer).

Obama plans to, among other things, give US drivers licenses to illegals.

This will make it much easier for them to access 'free' government goodies like welfare and the proposed health care giveaway.

"but at least I am exhibiting a higher level of class and taste in my judgment.:"

A Republican espousing class and taste in judgement.........now that's funny.

Joshua Welch wrote:

"Your not really embracing the program. "

yeah Rick, you're not buying into the strawman thing JW has got going.

what's with you man?

get with his program.

And you wont even respond with some name calling of your own.

dude youre bumming him out.

Nice job with the bullshit about "illegals", Joe White. You've outed yourself, promoting the usual GOP bogeyman. When does your talk radio show premiere?

Jow White, you wrote, "Honestly, trying to be Dem-lite, and listen to the Democratic advice is what lost elections for the Republicans in 06 and 08."

No, the GOP lost in 06 and 08 because, for decades, they promised that if we just gave them power, they would usher in a new era of responsible government. Instead, they proceeded to do the exact opposite. They became drunk on their own power, spent money like it was nothing (the GOP only hates big government spending when they're not the ones doing it), started an ill-advised elective war (with Democratic help and complicity), became embroiled in scandal after scandal, and trashed the Constitution.

THAT'S why the GOP is no longer in power, friend. They over-played their hand in a big, big way.

Dave wrote:

'drunk on power'

'spent money like it was nothing'

Like I said, Dem-lite.

No, Joe, it's the Modern Republican Way, starting with the record deficits of the Reagan Era, along with the 29 Reagan administration officials convicted of crimes while in office.

fbear wrote:

"starting with the record deficits of the Reagan Era"

The Reagan tax cuts resulted in big increases of revenue to the Treasury. That's a fact. If you check out the tax receipts for 1975-1990, you'll see what I mean.

Reagan cut a deal with the Democratic congress to couple those tax cuts with cuts in discretionary spending. of course Congress never honored that end of the deal, and instead chose to try to paint Reagan as a free spender as a result of their own profligacy.

Reagan's policy brought in the money. Congress spent it and more.

That's what it boils down to.

Joe, that's absolutely false.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

In constant dollars, tax revenues increased 25.6% from 1976 to 1980, but decreased 1.1% from 1980 to 1984.

Perhaps you should look stop taking your information from Rush and Lars--they lie to you.

Joe has just demonstrated why the G.O.P. is on the edge--their world view is based on accepting falsehoods.

As Stephen Colbert has so aptly put it, reality has a liberal bias.

fbear,

you crack me up.

first of all, you cherry pick to include part of Carter's term in your assessment of Reagan.

then you don't go all the way to the end of Reagans tenure, but cut it short just after the brief recession that resulted from the adjustments to the economy that were necessary to get things going after the Carter debacle.

Maybe you didn't like the way Reagan handled the economy after Carter.

But, 49 out of 50 states voted to re-elect him after seeing him in action for 4 years, though.

So, deal with it, 'k?

first of all, you cherry pick to include part of Carter's term in your assessment of Reagan.

No, I included all of Carter's term.

then you don't go all the way to the end of Reagans tenure, but cut it short just after the brief recession

No, I include all of Reagan's first term. Remember, Carter only had four years. Apples to apples, Carter's term to Reagan's first term, Carter looks better.

The "brief recession" was actually the deepest since the Depression, and included the highest unemployment rates since the Depression. Interestingly, unemployment started to skyrocket the month after the "Reagan tax cuts" were passed.

Yes, tax receipts went up in Reagan's second term, but it didn't make up for the drop in receipts in his first term.

Tax receipts also dropped in Bush's first term, after the tax cuts of his first year.

If you compare Carter's last year to Reagan's fourth year, they're actually very similar. The difference is that Carter's last year was a dramatic worsening from the previous three years, whereas Reagan's fourth year was a little better than the dismal two years that preceded it.

What with Obama doing a really good job of beating Republicans at their own game and the liberal bloggers trying to smear anyone that opposes him as a Glenn Beck apologist, I suspect that the Republicans will do really well in 2010.

Especially the fascistic birther types. My prediction is that the big story of November 2010 is going to be just how many new Michelle Bachman's and Joe Wilson's there are.

Joe, why is it that when Republicans spend lots of money, why do people like you say, "Gee, those Republicans are acting like Democrats!"?

Are you really so divorced from facts and reality, that you are unaware that Republicans are EVERY BIT as likely to spend a lot of money as Democrats? Your comment MIGHT (and that's a big "might") have made sense 75 years ago. But the modern Republican Party is just as big a supporter of big government spending as any Democrat. The only difference is then when YOUR guys are doing the big government spending, you don't throw "tea parties" about it. Nah, you excuse and rationalize it away.

But GOP apologists like you are just too ashamed to admit this. Like a good partisan, you're trying to pull the "Our shit don't stink" approach. But guess what, Joe. Republican shit stinks just as much as Democratic shit. Perhaps even more, since Republicans are always the ones going around proclaiming how financially responsible they are. But you guys never want to acknowledge inconvenient facts, such as the fact that of the top 3 "big government spending" presidents in US history, 2 of those 3 have been Republicans. (Reagan and Bush)

But keep on believing whatever it is you want to believe, Joe. It is this same attitude you have, that has reduced the GOP into a bumbling, credibility-lacking minority party.

And in that regard, maybe I should thank you. After all, people like you are doing far more damage to your own party than any Democrat could ever hope to do. Good work!