Kari, maybe voting record is not enough? Maybe they think an elected official should say the words they want to hear at the time they want to hear them and care more about soundbites than details?

If so, they should have noticed in his legislative career--Kurt is not that kind of guy. He is a blunt, candid, details guy.

What Evan said.

I am quite upset about Kurt's vote on ROLL CALL 838 to reject the UN Goldstone Report on Israeli and Hamas war crimes. This did not save the federal government money - we spend billions each year to support Israeli military superiority.

But...I would not hurry to throw him over the wall. The 5th CD is not an easy win for Democrats, and Mr. Bruun's votes would likely please us less.

What no one will say.

Look at it this way - how would you like to have Greg Walden as your representative? He votes 100% of the time against my interests. The problem I have with the Blue Dogs and deficit hawks is what David Sirota has coined has "Selective Deficit Disorder". Blue Dogs vote for tax cuts for the wealthy, Wars based on lies, but when it comes to something for middle class Americans - Oh No! What about the Deficit? Right now we should be spending money for people to dig holes and then spend some more money to fill them back up again. In good times work on the deficit not during a recession/depression. Listening to Congressman Shrader on KPOJ this morning I found his responds disingenuous when questioned about his no vote on financial reform. Voted against the financial reform bill, but supports reinstatement of Glass Steagal. Uh! Say What!

Thank you Jake and Phil.

The 5th Dist. survived 10 years of Denny Smith and 2 years of Jim Bunn.

"Cycle a Republican through for one term so we can elect a better Democrat" and other such comments are an insult.

Basically, that is what happened with Bunn. The Democrat who defeated Bunn was Darlene Hooley--not always a favorite member of Congress among Blue Oregonians.

I thought the appearance on KPOJ this morning was the Kurt Schrader I voted for, the very detailed down to earth former legislator.

If people who supported him in the 2008 election thought they were supporting another Earl B. or Peter DeFazio, my sympathies, but I don't think you were listening closely.

Kurt fits the district, like it or not.

Phil, I understood what Kurt was saying---he is glad it passed because there were parts he liked, but there were parts he didn't think were strong enough.

The bill passed, and I think we elect people to look at such details. YMMV

Basically, the definition of 'wasteful spending' is any spending that you are not in favor of. If it's spending you want for your home district or constituents, it's by definition, "not wasteful and a good investment."

That's the way that goes. Like spending for military, defense budget wars and such.

"If the 15% he's not "with us" on the really big, fundamental things, then that's a problem. If we're having to coax him into voting for things that should be basic--why we elected him--then that's a problem, too."

Yep, pretty much sums up the "my way, or the highway" mentality that is so pervasive in politics. Apparently, Carla, you want a politicians that's a clone of you.

"Look at it this way - how would you like to have Greg Walden as your representative? He votes 100% of the time against my interests."

Phil, I have the perfect solution for you: Move to Multnomah County.

Hey Jason you know when it's raining in Portland, it's usually partly cloudy over here. When it's partly cloudy of your way it's bright and sunny over here. LT - the financial reform bill was far from what I would of liked, but it had enough good stuff that Americans needed and it deserved a vote from every Democrat.

You know Harry Truman once said and I paraphrase "If you give the voters a Democrat who acts like a Republican they will vote for the real thing every time". It's time all Democrats started acting like Democrats!

What all this reminds me of is a debate in the Oregon Dem state central committee in the early 1990s. The campaign committee was making a report on their discussion of what makes a good Democrat, and they listed 5 things all Democrats should support.

Among those 5 things was an issue where coastal residents were debating inland residents. Good arguments on both sides, but someone running from a coastal district would be wise to support the coastal side of the issue.

There was an active member of the state central committee (had presided over meetings of the platform convention or something like that) either running for or already elected to the legislature from the coast. Was she not a good Democrat if she didn't fit all the criteria? Or were Democrats lucky to elect a good Democrat from her district? Great argument broke out, of the sort it is good for political parties to have from time to time, rather than just conforming to unquestioned orthodoxy.

I get there are people here who believe Kurt Schrader should come out in favor of legislation they favor on a timeline they approve, who don't like all of Kurt's vote explanations, and don't like that he joined the Blue Dogs.

But what did you think of Darlene Hooley? 5th Dist. voters chose her over Bunn, then kept re-electing her. Seems to me there were some people here really angry at Cong. Hooley for some votes. She and Kurt are both former Clackamas County legislators. Both are more soft spoken/mild mannered than some Democrats (esp. in the Portland area) may like. But she got things done.

Denny Smith controlled the 5th Dist. for a decade. Of all the folks who ran against him, many Blue Oregonians might have liked Ruth McFarland. But she didn't get elected.

Mike Kopetski took on Denny, lost a recount to him in 1988, defeated him in 1990. He was an NRA member, but that was OK with most people who liked his views on many other issues. He served until he decided not to run for re-election. Then we got Jim Bunn for a term before Darlene defeated him.

I understand people are angry. But please understand there are those of us who don't think joining the Blue Dogs is necessarily a sin. What could happen goes along with what Kari said, "Kurt Schrader seems to me to be an excellent representative of OR-5. The most progressive Blue Dog? Sounds about right."

Could it be possible that the Blue Dogs might turn in a different direction? Or that in the vast geographic expanse of the 5th Dist. (how many counties? how much of it rural/small town?) there might be 5th Dist. constituents who a) never heard of the Blue Dogs but like what they see from Kurt b) like the Blue Dogs and thus like his joining?

Did I agree with Kopetski or Hooley on everything they ever did? No. But that didn't mean I attacked them. I had known both before they ran for Congress, and they never gave nasty surprises regarding the sort of people I knew them to be.

That said, I want to suggest a wonderful 74 page book everyone should read. It is very well written and was a fun book to read. The title is RESET by Kurt Andersen. His view is that the financial crisis of 2008 showed a need to hit the reset button on all sorts of things incl. politics and economics.

Thanks for the link, Kari.

Does anyone here realize how great it is to have Democrats elected from Utah and Idaho? Any surprise they joined Blue Dogs?

But what really is interesting is Adam Schiff and Loretta Sanchez both joined. Anyone remember that their districts were like before they were elected? Schiff was one of the first Democrats to defeat a right winger who had been a House Impeachment Manager for the Clinton impeachment.

The character Loretta Sanchez defeated had been a S. California right winger from way back. Forget his name, but really obnoxious--cheers when she won. Ever see her question people in congressional hearings? We could use more of that.

Feel free to boot Cong Schraeder from the House.

JLS, who did you have in mind to replace him?

Or do you even live in the 5th Dist.?

Pete, the smartest thing you have said in a long time is this:

"it's not everybody else's job to see things the same way."

As a friend and I were discussing today, there are times when Democrats and especially those who are independents (in thought and / or registered outside a major party) fit the old line about putting 5 such people around a table and discovering there are 4 factions and a moderator.

That line originally applied to something else, but I believe it is true in this case.

Ya know, it isn't just about the votes. It's about the votes relative to the votes of the other members of the body, as well. For example, it makes little sense politically for an elected official to vote opposite of public opinion on an issue that is guaranteed to pass or fail regardless of one's vote; their vote won't matter one way or the other. When they vote according to public opinion in their district, they can display that vote as the political asset it is, regardless of their actual intent when casting the vote. I have to wonder if Schrader is attempting some political legwork prior to re-election (a la the Tom Delay tactic outlined in Howard Dean's books) to increase the chances for a couple of years of job security. And what chance is this: that would mean increased job security for Kari. Amazing the coincidence.

Maybe Les can author one of those "context" posts outlining the circumstances...still nothing can be done to expose the dark underside of BO that is Kari's income statement. Revenue sources, buddy: who are you selling out? (And to preempt the petty BS excuse that "this blog can't pay it's bills", that ain't the income statement we're talking about.)

And LT: I could give a shit about your lawyer father or your accountant mother or anything in between. SHUT UP. I'd rather watch grass grow than read any of your long winded, good old days posts. Seriously. SHUT UP. None of that has anything to do with TODAY's politics, and although history tends to repeat itself, your personal blatherings have nothing to do with that happening on a regional or national level, and if you think it does...SHUT UP. You sound like you're a bit senile; please retire yourself as your principle purpose seems to be clouding the communication lines on liberal oregon blogs. WE CAN'T GET THE MESSAGE IF YOU DON'T STOP POSTING.

Oh, come on Pat. Why does the US have an FCC? Because Americans aren't capable of what you describe. You know how much we could save, right there, by telling people to "switch the channel/station"? (BTW, another Obama disappointment. I sooo wanted to see Jesse Jackson running the FCC).

No, we are in the tradition of Christian soldiers, ferreting out the heretic and placing him in the stocks for public ridicule. It's why this is the greatest country on earth.

Besides, I think it's Rob Kremer and his unending LT vendetta, again! And they talk about a woman scorned...

Kari, you and I have disagreed in the past but you are right about this: "Forsyth wrote: Or are you going to really stick to the idea that the only thing that matters is the vote cast?

Yes, I really am. That, along with things like what legislation they craft and co-sponsor."

People remember that Wayne Morse cast one of the 2 votes against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and how our Oregon delegation voted on the Iraq War resolution.

Do you folks who are as angry as Carla remember how long before the Iraq War resolution vote the Oregon members publicly declared their votes? Or didn't that matter as much as the timeline in 2009?

I've been thinking lately about the debates over whether 2009 produced "change we can believe in".

Guess that depends on the person--if there are 50 diff. opinions among a group of 50 people, that is what makes this a free country.

What I notice is the open public debate. The whole Republican sound machine acted against any Democrat who even wanted to ask questions or hold hearings. Now we have open public debates on all sorts of things. Chris Shays et al on the commission doing the oversight of Iraq and Afghanistan spending is the sort of Truman Comm. many Democrats and some Republicans called for over the last 8 years.

I annoyed some people (perhaps startled others) over the past several years when asked where I stood on some controversy and I said I was pro-debate. Democracy does not require people accepting anyone's views as the revealed truth.

It has been said that sometimes the best ideas come when there is a clash of competing ideas and out of it comes some new and better idea.

I've heard a bit about something by freshmen senators to attack the cost problem. That might be such an idea.

Krugman says to pass the bill, Dean says to kill it. Both people I respect. I would reject anyone telling me I have to choose one side or the other and accept it without question. Dean and Krugman are some of the most intelligent people in public life today. I see no downside to such a debate.

If that means John or Carla doesn't see me as "pure" enough, tough luck. Decades ago, I worked on a presidential campaign with a bunch of other people who didn't agree on everything, just agreed on the candidate. We beat an establishment candidate in the primary --and that candidate's supporters generally agreed on most issues.

When asked what our people believed on an issue, the response was that each of us was an "independent cuss" and enjoyed debating issues--agreed on some, disagreed on others.

What I think is going on here is the same thing:

Kari sees the vote as important.

Carla and John almost seem to think the vote was secondary to "pleasing the base" by announcing the vote on their timeline(if I am wrong about that, I'm sure they will let me know!).

When Ron Wyden does his every county every year town hall meetings, do you suppose he hears the same thing in coastal counties, in Marion and Clackamas counties, in Portland, in Benton County?

If those various areas of the state have residents with different points of view, should a Congressman take those into account? Or do activists have the right to say what those voters believe without actually going to those town hall meetings and interacting with the actual voters?

I have no problem with and generally support intelligent fiscal conservatives. We are going to have to wrestle with how to trim spending and reduce the deficit over the next few years.

These spending cuts will, of course, not come out of tax cuts for the richest Americans, the Pentagon budget, or massive giveaways to exploitative and parasitic corporations. They will come out of the hides of working class Americans. There is something incredibly perverse about a system which puts personal profit over human need and sees (for example) health care as a line item on a budget rather than a social necessity.

The character Loretta Sanchez defeated had been a S. California right winger from way back. Forget his name, but really obnoxious

Robert (B-1 Bob) Dornan