This is outrageous.

First, what's up - Schauffie decided to declare it International Colonel Sanders Look-Alike Day? That's not what Facebook doppleganger means, dude.

Second, Democratic leadership bullies anyone who questions whether we deserve better than Mike Schaufler. This guy is a Portland Democrat (with part of his district in Happy Valley). And he spouts this BS?

"No to family wage children"?

It's not the first time. He spouts this BS all the time, on totally unrelated bills. The environmental community needs to grow a pair and kick this guy out of office. They should be helped by working folks and teachers - the unions - who should hold him accountable for being the sole Democrat voting against Measures 66 and 67 (i.e. the bills that became those measures).

He's against taxing the rich and corporations to fund family wage jobs teaching kids.

He's for pillaging the planet if it creates a job, even if you can create more jobs by creating clean energy and weatherization.

Earth to Schauffler: climate change will cost us 5-20% of our GDP. Foreign fossil fuels like LNG are a way to make sure our grandchildren have no jobs.

Democratic leadership should be embarrassed that they help keep this guy in office. The rest of us should be embarrassed that we've allowed him to stay in office.

I don't agree with his take on the issue in question, but I do understand "processed to death" and I think most people who have been inside the Capitol would, too.

Plus: a committee meeting that's interesting? Woot! Bet that woke up the committee staff but fast!

He didn't mention fishermen. Taking water from from rivers like the Columbia and the Kalamath so a handful of farmers can grow crops we don't need in places where nature didn't intend for them to be grown directly damages salmon and the people who depend on salmon and other fishing for their family wage jobs.

I guess in his world fishermen don't count.

Agricultural jobs? I don't think working in the fields is exactly a family wage job except for the poorest of families.

As far as the woods- we could do better. But at this point in time with how many millions of homes foreclosed on or abandoned- I don't think the demand for wood products is that strong even if we went out and raped the forest wholesale.

Some initiatives to improve forest health would be greatly welcome but that would take money and our country has been, is and will be too busy paying for endless wars forever, to invest the money needed to improve 'the homeland,' as they like to call it.

Yeah...I also don't understand why it's such a No-No for viable Democrats to challenge other, less than desirable, Democrats in primary elections? Look at David Wu! You can't ask any informed Democratic leaders without getting 3 to 1 response that Wu isn't deserving of his position and is extremely unpopular. I guess a million in his campaign coffers IS enough to stay in office forever...when other strong D's are too afraid to buck the party and challenge him.

...and now, this video proves the same about Schaufler...a point of fact those same informed Democratic leaders already knew about his views and lack of accomplishment.

I guess the question I have for the group is: At any level of politics, what does it take for a Democrat to unseat a less than desirable incumbent Democrat in a primary?

Thanks.

Right On!

This is how issues like LNG become so contentious: Farmers shouldn't care about LNG pipeline through their land because if it damages their crops that is OK as long as the people who built the pipeline have jobs?

The whole Klamath water debate when Bush was President was about farmers deserving water more than fish, so I agree with Posted by: The Unrepentant Liberal | Feb 5, 2010 10:13:36 AM

"You must support this so one group of people benefits" only leads to resentment--people not in the group, people on the outside who think the approach is hamhanded.

Sorry, Mike, that is not the way to solve problems.

Unrepentant Liberal, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Agriculture is what places food on your table. When you are prepared to stop consuming food, by all means, keep up your drivel. Every time "liberals" in the capitol try to steal high value farm land and the water rights that come along with the land, we are giving China and South America a greater opportunity to import low end foods that are not grown with the high level restrictions we have here in the States, particularly in Oregon.

Schaufler is right on about LNG. I'm so tired of "unrepentant" liberals bankrupting this state. I am a Democrat, but certainly not one who wants rob farmers of their land or deprive families of meaningful high wage jobs.

Schaufler is a symptom of a larger problem within the Democratic party in Oregon. Leadership views environmentalists as a "who else are you going to vote for?" kind of constituency, not unlike the national party views blacks or the gay community.

When the election cycles roll around, suddenly every D in the state is pro-environment. When we are back in legislative session, environmental issues get kicked to the curb.

At the state level, enviro's empower this behavior, hoping that next session, things will be different.

The Klamath analogy is a great one, and timely. Today, Governor Kulongoski is backing a "settlement" that gives the Klamath irrigators the same primacy over water and agriculture on National Wildlife Refuges that the Bush administration sought to give them (linked to a vague promise of removing dams at some undetermined future date, after taxpayers in OR and CA come up with $450 million for Pacificorp and $1 billion for every special interest in the Klamath Basin). Kulio's stand is a little more sophisticated than Schauflers, but it is in essence based on the same thing.

If you've ever seen Schaufler at one of the Salem bars after a "hard day's work" blocking progressive policy and giving hand jobs to AGC, AOI, and developers...you wouldn't be surprised to hear this crap. Makes me wonder if he had a drink (or two) before committee. Someone taught him how to say "family wage jobs" early in his legislative career, and it's pretty much been his only accomplishment. Wish Jesse Cornett would have taken out this schmuck. Sigh.

Boy oh boy, I like this guy! Finally a common sense approach to Oregon solutions and even Chisolm posted it. I think I am having a better day..................My word!

The last time i was in a bar, the ladies told me to "Step away from the gene pool"!

http://www.BrodheadForCongress.com

Just an observation. For the most part in the capital, I've seen a lot of republican legislators and conservative lobbyists with their heads hung low this week. They look bewildered and lost. They look like they don't matter right now and and that there's not much they can do about it. And they're doing a lot of sitting around and feeling sorry for themselves right now.

Although no elections have been held since the 09 session ended (yeah, a little reshuffling, what with Walker, Carter leaving and all) the atmosphere is quite bit different than last session.

One reason is that (particularly a handful of conservative lobbyists who were heavily invested in the No Campaign) since 66/67 went down, they're on some serious shit-lists and are unable to represent their clients/interests effectively as a result.

Another reason is that the sentiment seems to be that while Democrats are facing huge problems at the national level and in other states, they're doing pretty well in Oregon and are unlikely to lose many seats in November, so these lobbyists know that they're going to be on some shit-lists for quite some time.

I've noticed one Democratic legislator (the only one?) who's body language resembles that of so many Republican legislators and lobbyists, and that's Schaufler.

Of course, Schaufler's the only D to oppose 66 and 67. So is he upset because he doesn't like how Ds are leading, or because he's he on the receiving end of some retribution? Probably some of both, but I'm really not sure.

Posted by: The Unrepentant Liberal | Feb 5, 2010 10:13:36 AM

Taking water from from rivers like the Columbia and the Kalamath so a handful of farmers can grow crops we don't need in places where nature didn't intend for them to be grown directly damages salmon and the people who depend on salmon and other fishing for their family wage jobs.

Ditto most the American Southwest and Texas vis a vis human habitation. Herd 'em up, and move 'em out!

How much would you spend to have a cricket ground on the moon? I don't see much diff building golf courses in the Mojave.

Second, Democratic leadership bullies anyone who questions whether we deserve better than Mike Schaufler. This guy is a Portland Democrat (with part of his district in Happy Valley). And he spouts this BS?

Amen. "Not being an organized party" doesn't mean that you can't be thuggish. Most Dems seem to either believe otherwise, or that the ends justify the means. Wrong on both accounts and that, more than policy issues, is why many progressives will not work with the Party.

The Klamath analogy really isn't a good one, since it involves federal environmental policy. LNG has a strong local/state component. The irrigation and forestry issues are a bit silly, though. Again, they're primarily federal issues. Still, his point is well taken about jobs and economic development in the recession. The environmental lobby has been quite successful at using federal environmental laws to limit popular resource exploitation. I don't fault them for that. I do, however, fault them for using scare tactics on LNG and nuclear power. Yes, LNG is not carbon neutral, but it does have the smallest carbon footprint of any fossil fuel. If it came down to, for instance, closing Boardman and replacing it with an LNG facility, the environmental answer would be unequivocally yes. And, for all the anti-radiation nuts out there, a coal plant releases more radiation into the environment than a nuclear one.

Yes, LNG is not carbon neutral, but it does have the smallest carbon footprint of any fossil fuel. If it came down to, for instance, closing Boardman and replacing it with an LNG facility, the environmental answer would be unequivocally yes.

This is simply wrong. LNG's own folks admit LNG has much higher (30%) carbon footprint than domestic gas - not all gas is equal! Given we have to cut carbon by 80%, taking on anything higher than domestic gas is irresponsible - LNG mortgages our future so Texas energy companies profit.

And yes, I'm for nukes.

What I'm not for is letting Schaufler get away with his rants. It's unprofessional behavior, and no one else is allowed to do it on a regular basis the way he is allowed to. He should lose his chairmanship. More importantly, we can't let him get away with his votes against the environment and against Measures 66 and 67.

I do not agree with everything Rep. Mike Schaufler is saying in this video, but I have nothing but respect for his frustration at the plight of the average working man and woman. Oregon people are suffering and one day they will tire of this suffering and will vote for the here and now and not what should be or could be in our futures.

We have to start applying some energy toward results for the average working class man and woman that like us want a sustainable future in Oregon but understand they will not live in Oregon long enough to enjoy it if they are not employed or under employed. What we all want for ourselves in Oregon will not come cheap and we need Oregon working so we can count on the tax revenues to pay for it.

We will have to revisit some issues and put more creative thought in to creating jobs and working with the Job Creators and Union Leaders to get Oregon working again. Nothing is more important to our futures than to lower our unemployment rate down to a sustainbel lever and make sure most of these new jobs offer a living wage of at least $19.50 per hour. Close to a dollar more than the average living wage in America.

I have walked over thousands of foreclosed homes in Rep. Mike Schaufler's district. Spoken to hundreds of the people he represents and the number one reason his people are losing their homes is due to lack of employment or under employment.

Keep in mind that today is Friday and that means Oregon spent at least another 60 Million plus in unemployment benifits. This equates to a loss of 300 to 400 million dollars in salry not hitting Oregons ecconomy this week. We can not expect people to support the democratic party if the rank and file leadership does not start showing results on the JOB front.

It's black or white, eh? Representative Schaufler talks like a conservative. Perhaps he should switch parties.

Observer : Just an observation. For the most part in the capital, I've seen a lot of republican legislators and conservative lobbyists with their heads hung low this week. They look bewildered and lost. They look like they don't matter right now and and that there's not much they can do about it. And they're doing a lot of sitting around and feeling sorry for themselves right now.

Which is why this would be the perfect time to go after the corporate kicker. Leave the personal version alone, and put the redirection of the corporate kicker into a reserve fund on the ballot.

Let's see AOI and the COC respond to that.

The Democrats have plenty of room for honest differences of opinion. That's both their strength and their weakness.

"If we don't have room for honest differences of opinion, we won't be the inclusive party that we like to claim we are. "

Thank you, Wayne! I totally agree.

I was active in the 1980s when some people who did a lot of volunteer work had the "gall" not to accept everything that unions (or any other group) believed in.

Finally some started asking (verbally, and in columns in what were then print county Dem. newsletters) who was a better Democrat----the folks who showed up to do the volunteer work (canvass, mailing parties, phone bank, staffing a fair booth, behind the scenes work --decorating, refreshments, etc.---for social party events, etc.)---or the folks who agreed with 'what good Democrats believe' but were never around to do the important but unglamorous volunteer work.

I worry that may be happening now. There are rumors that the reason some legislators don't want the kicker done this month is that they want to try and bring business groups on board. Hmmm --people who wasted a lot of money on a failed ballot measure campaign should have veto power over a discussion of kicker reform because......?

Worse was what a very earnest young man said to me today. Nice young man working for a Portland legislator saying that kicker reform couldn't be discussed now because the supermajority was created when Democrats won swing districts and if they cast a controversial vote, they might not win re-election. "We must take care of the swing districts", the young man said. Who is "we"--Portland Democrats who think they understand the rest of the state better than the people who live in those districts?

OK, I live in a swing district in the Willamette Valley. I respect someone who says something else is a higher priority than kicker reform (annual sessions, for instance). But do what a friend has called "urban progressives" really think that if no one even talks about the kicker, everyone who has worked on recent campaigns will work for those silent members this year without any discussion of the kicker? Sounds like hubris to me. And as a Democratic LA I knew years ago used to say, hubris is followed by nemesis. Given the choice of volunteering on a Gov. or federal campaign, a ballot measure, a city or county campaign, or a legislative campaign, no one is required to choose the legislative campaign in their local area. After all, the definition of volunteer is "a person who performs a service willingly and without pay".

I don't agree with Mike S. saying anyone who doesn't support LNG doesn't support jobs. That's like saying that if a man and a woman are running against each other in the primary anyone who thinks the male candidate is better suited for the job "doesn't support women". (Actual quote from a legislator regarding a mid-1980s primary.)

Here's a radical idea---admit that voters think for themselves. I thought there were times in the 2009 session when Mike S. was right on when he was outspoken.

There was a time in previous decades when Democrats didn't have this inside game and were willing to discuss issues openly. One reason that former Gov. Barbara Roberts (and late Gov. Tom McCall) are held in such high esteem is that if you asked them a question, they would give you a straight answer!

Are some legislators afraid if there is open public debate they won't like the result?

Enough already with saying pleasing the lobby is more important than actual dialogue with voters.

I was asked recently if I would consider changing my registration after the primary. I said if there was a precipitating event, I might re-register NAV until March of 2012--no primaries between now and then.

If this nonsense of Democratic leadership thinking behind the scenes meetings with the lobby are more important than dialogue with voters continues, I might just re-register after the May primary.

Building trade union workers are hurting for jobs and want whatever temporary wages that would come from building LNG terminals and gas pipelines. It's understandable that they would put their income first. Schaufler generally does whatever those unions want, even when it means supporting stupid business projects with governmental process streamlining.

That is NOT good for the state as a whole, nor even good for union workers in the long term. It is obviously silly to claim that anything that produces jobs should be supported by government. Yet, it is from this extreme position that Schaufler insists that views other than his are invalid. This is a level of arrogant stupidity that I believe has no place in the Democratic Party.

There have been a lot of good points expressed in this thread. However I have not seen the issues of Jobs addressed.

How are we going to get people in Oregon back to work? If Rep. Schaufler's direction is not the right one for us to take. What can we do? What should we do? I am open to any good ideas.

Fred Stewart asked "How are we going to get people in Oregon back to work? If Rep. Schaufler's direction is not the right one for us to take. What can we do? What should we do? I am open to any good ideas."

That's off topic.

Wow! I new this guy sucked 50% of the time but this tripe is shameful. Mike is a simpleton who needs to change his registration from D to R so that he no longer gets to fool voters in his district. Who's running against him in the primary?

This isn't about disagreement on issues, or a litmus test, or a big tent.

This is about this: Yet, it is from this extreme position that Schaufler insists that views other than his are invalid. This is a level of arrogant stupidity that I believe has no place in the Democratic Party.

Schaufler calls people names, claims that because we want to protect our planet (and our economy) that we're against family wage jobs. That's personal disparagement and unprofessional and rude. It's as if someone got up and said, "Those who advocate for LNG want to destroy our planet simply for short-term personal profit." In short, it is probably against various rules of decorum and it does nothing to further the discussion. It has no place in our legislature.

And yes, our party should be inclusive. But this guy is simply so wrong on so many issues, and he acts like a child, and represents an area that should have a relatively progressive Democrat. He's a corporate stooge. We deserve better.

Well I haven't seen any comments on the benefits for the county if the LNG facility was built...The company would give the Port of Astoria two of the biggest tugs on the river to be used by them any time they weren't needed to escort the LNG tankers to the Knappa site,( about twice a week) Knappa would get a new fire station, there would be a helicopter pad at the site and also emergency equipment there, 8 million in taxes each year, about 65 full time jobs at the site and they would even paint the storage tanks camo so they would blend in.As for tearing up the forest, it would be a hundred foot wide path. As for safety, the LNG tanker was the ship that hit the Rock of Gibraltor and nothing happened.Art galleries will not support Astoria..Real jobs are needed...

@Barone Correct me if I am wrong. But even if we had a go on Monday for a new LNG plant. We are years away from realizing it or the jobs it would create. If that is the case, why would it be a good move for Oregon now?

I am comparing what Rep. Schaufler said to other ideas such as the state working with small and medium sized businesses to develope opprotunities for jobs that we can realize over the next 12 and 24 months. An LNG plant amung other things seems to be a venture that would take to long when investments of that level in other areas would benifit the average working man and woman in Oregon sooner.

Dear Mr.tired of your rants. Question. When I look at the produce and meat section of my local supermarket, I see food grown and shipped in from places all over the world. Is there something grown in the Klamath Valley or along the Columbia River that is so precious and unique that we have to kill a economically valuable self perpetuating food source; salmon, just so we can grow alfalfa, or more potatoes.

It's a question of what is more important to the greatest number of people; subsidizing farm crops that are redundant, or providing enough water to give salmon the best chance of survival.

I just think it's a larger economic benefit for the entire region to give the water to the salmon than the farmers.

I come from a family of farmers and I try my best to consume food either grown in my back yard or from my local farm stand or from my county or this wonderful state whenever possible.

I support local agriculture. But I support local fishermen too.

The man has a valid point of view, although becoming a conduit for California natural gas and raping old growth are not my preferred employment mechanisms, we can argue about the details.

Dems need to get on the side of job job jobs and so the counter arguments are green green green.

While the rant and the target may be off base, the core issue- growing family wage jobs in Oregon- is valid and urgent. That being said, he has no problem selling out the vast majority of his constituents on issues ( education, health care,public safety, services) that directly impact the working poor. Its not good for any district, or any party, when elected officials are allowed to rule with cynicism and disregard. The guy is ripe for a primary and there are some promising grassroots activists in his district. Why is he considered such a powerhouse? Money? The guy acts like a sullen bully and everyone just takes it.

Schaufler knows the things he's ranting about aren't true, he knows the world isn't so black and white. He's just pissed because he's not as politically relevant right now as he's been.

And he can't change his party to R because of his strong labor views. Not that changing to an R would help him at all.

He's just going to have to live with this. It's a question of how he deals with it... and whether his behavior proves destructive to his own cause or not.

"He's just pissed because he's not as politically relevant right now as he's been.

And he can't change his party to R because of his strong labor views. Not that changing to an R would help him at all.

He's just going to have to live with this. It's a question of how he deals with it... and whether his behavior proves destructive to his own cause or not."

Perhaps he is living in the wrong decade.

Sounds like a strong argument for a primary challenge. Then if he won he could say he beat the primary challenge, and if he lost, there would be a diff. choice for voters in the district.

Lest some legislators forget, they have their jobs so long as the voters in their district want them there. Treat a legislative seat as an entitlement, and you are asking for voters to replace you.

Not Steve: Why are assuming that I'm trying to read his mind?

And anyway, it's plain for anyone to see. He's had plenty of nuanced positions when it's come to the environment/jobs. Take the Metolius for example.

He's clearly no environmental champion. But he hasn't even come close to living up to the black and white standards he raced through in his diatribe with his own voting record. He has to know that.

Like I said, he's just pissed right now. If he stays pissed, he's gonna be in trouble politically. But like him or not, if MIke gets back to being good ol' Mike, he's gonna be just fine.

Mike simply represents this position: "GIVE ME CAMPAIGN HANDOUTS and I will DO OR SAY ANYTHING". The LNG industry OWNS HIM. I saw him sleaze in last session to push HB 3058 in the late evening, basement "we hope nobody notices" hearing chaired by the notorious Rep. Bias Greed (also owned by the LNG industry).

These guys are jokes - there are no real jobs connected to LNG - it is all about profit for private speculators (hello, NW NASTY - how is your new out of state venture, Gill Ranch storage in Fresno, CALIFORNIA, coming? That is where the "NEED" is - for the shareholders to get richer because California uses 60% of the natural gas needed in the West - and Oregon uses only 4%. California already said "throw the bums out to the LNG pushers!).

The Oregonian profiled Rep Mike and his "ways" with campaign handouts recently - not a pretty picture!

Hey "Mr Money for drinks and hotel rooms" Mike - it isn't really about jobs, is it? It is all about protecting that big flow of fossil fuel lobby money that keeps you "FUELED"!

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM NOW! Blue or Red - they all stink as long as it is ONLY ABOUT FILLING THEIR POCKETS WITH "CAMPAIGN" FUNDS!!

After 40 years as a Dem it only took one session trying to "participate" in hearings to make me understand why people are registered INDEPENDENTS!

Take a look at today's news about the giant explosion of the new "Kleen" natural gas power plant - that was nice CLEAN destruction! Run those big 36", high pressure, filled with odorless explosive gas pipelines through Happy Valley Mike - I'm sure happy mansion land would enjoy that "clean" energy running through YOUR neighborhoods! Let those OUT OF STATE CREWS tear up your neck of the woods, Mike. We are busy farming, growing timber, and protecting natural resources where I live!

NO LNG/ NO PIPELINES / NO SB1020! GET THE FOREIGN FOSSIL FUEL MONEY OUT OF MIKE'S POCKETS! Better yet - get LNG "handout" Mike and Bias Greed and Brad Wittless out of the legislature this fall. Let's elect people who work for Oregonians for a change!

One problem with Shaufler's comments on LNG and family wage jobs is that the development of LNG and related pipelines in Oregon would actually damage existing jobs and economies in our state. With literally hundreds of local farms, orchards and nursery operations impacted by the 600 miles of new pipelines proposed to deliver LNG-sourced gas to California, the development of these terminals and pipelines would result in the loss of family wage jobs in Oregon. And this is just the tip of the LNG economic iceberg. LNG development would damage fishing and tourism industry on the Columbia River, would force forestland owners to cut timber in an unfriendly timber market, would take crops out of rotation for a whole year during construction of the pipelines, would mow down hundreds of thousands of dollars of investments in Oregon vineyards and would irrevocably damage small organic farm operations in the Willamette Valley. All of these existing economies (fishing, forestry, farming, wine-making and tourism) provide family wage jobs for Oregonians. It sounds like Schaufler is saying that creating temporary jobs for pipe-fitters and construction workers is more important than protecting the permanent jobs of farmers, fishermen and vintners. The job creation touted by LNG advocates really represents the destruction of existing economies in Oregon and the loss of family wage jobs provided by those industries.

I can't believe he is a Democrat. Is he really saying that it is O.K. for private indivuals to come onto my property and cleacut a 120 ft. wide swath of prime farmland because they want to? They don't care a rat's ...... about family wage jobs. Just remember people, this is not about public utilities and this is not about the public good. This is about greed.These are private companies!!! I am pro-union and pro family wage jobs with good benefits. But not at the expense of our farms, forests, rivers and streams. It is not either or, it is not black and white.

He is a complete jackass, he needs to be voted out of office and told that he is a jackass. It's hard to give much thought to jackasses- I mean really, stop him from wielding any power and influencing decisions, which I doubt he's good at- because like I said- he's a complete jackass- Jackass...

Custom essay writing service should come folow your best topic related to this topic in essays performing. Moreover, you could be a good tutor in this deal.

Posted by: arconame01 | Feb 9, 2010 4:18:39 AM

Custom essay writing service should come folow your best topic related to this topic in essays performing. Moreover, you could be a good tutor in this deal.

Is part of ads. being major fodder for tea leaf reading simply a property of newsprint? Why are the O's ads. to be debated ad nauseam, but BO's letting ads get posted, promoting things like plagiarism, is simply to be ignored. By my estimate, it would take less than five minutes a day to delete the spam. You definitely take FAR more time than that policing comments. It'll be interesting to see if the peeps buy Jesse's "not my blog" line during the campaign. The situation, the management is so much like the current Council's practices, I can't see how it won't be.

What are we China? This jobs vs environment is a total repub. red herring. You don't have efficient sustainable energy, you run out of good jobs, manufacturing or otherwise, you over-harvest resources, guess what? they disappear.

We need good education, efficient sustainable energy, and health reform. Not somebody taking the R's 19th century thinking as gospel.

Didn't we have a solid D offer to run against him only to get slapped back by the future pac folks?

There is no demonstrated need for this pipeline currently. The current terminal in Baja California is running at less than 20% capacity. There is also an LNG terminal in the Midwest that is also running far below capacity. Why are we pandering to potential corporate greed rather than looking at the long view in deciding what is best for people versus corporations.

Yes, jobs are important, but the long-term benefit for mankind is more important. At present the ONLY benefit for constructing the LNG pipeline in Oregon is heavy construction jobs. There does, however, exist a potentially overwhelmingly negative environmental impact. If California really needs LNG, then the terminal should be built in California. However, the citizens of California had determined that such a terminal is environmentally unacceptable.

<h2>I must conclude that there is not justification for the LNG pipeline at this time. The short-term economic gain in jobs does not justify the long-term environmental risk.</h2>