Oregon House Democrats choose Dave Hunt as leader, await talks with Republicans on speaker

Oregonian:

With the House evenly split between the major parties, Democrats are aiming to work out a power-sharing arrangement with the GOP.

Read the full article here. Discuss below.

Posted on Nov. 11, 2010
 comments

  • 7:38 a.m.
    Nov 11, '10
    (Show?)

    That should just about guarantee idiocy and an unbridgeable divide.

    •
      9:32 a.m.
      Nov 11, '10
      (Show?)

      Sally. Even if Dave were intransigent (which I don't believe he is) then a divide could only happen if the R's refuse to compromise or work with the D's. Like in Congress. Hope you're wrong about the R's.

      •
        9:47 a.m.
        Nov 11, '10
        (Show?)

        John: A divide could happen if the Ds refuse to compromise or work with the Rs, yes? I think it will be hard for them to give up their psychological and institutional sense of majority and meet the opposition party on equally divided turf.

        I plan to follow this legislature closely, which will mean logging onto websites every day, as my local paper covers virtually nada.

        •
          10:09 a.m.
          Nov 11, '10
          (Show?)

          Its a two-way street, Sally. And given how GOPers tend to walk in lock-step and Dems tend to not, the GOP leadership has at least as much culpability on "compromise" and "working with" the other side as do the D's.

          •
            10:58 a.m.
            Nov 11, '10
            (Show?)

            A two-way street is exactly what I suggested to Mr. Springer, is it not?

            People here seem to read through their preconceptions rather blindingly.

            I do not agree that Republicans are any more lock-step than Democrats, not a bit. I've never identified as either one.

            •
              11:03 a.m.
              Nov 11, '10
              (Show?)

              No, it's not what you suggested.

              You only identified the Democrats as needing to "compromise", not the Republicans.

              I've been watching these caucuses closely for years. The GOP are MUCH more lockstep in their voting than are the Dems. It's demonstrably factual.

              •
                11:16 a.m.
                Nov 11, '10
                (Show?)

                You have to read in context.

                John said, "a divide could only happen if the R's refuse to compromise or work with the D's."

                Sally responded, "A divide could happen if the Ds refuse to compromise or work with the Rs, yes?"

                I didn't identify Republicans as needing to "compromise because John had already done that.

                Kapiche?

                •
                  2:00 p.m.
                  Nov 11, '10
                  (Show?)

                  You are parsing words in a vacuum.

                  Given the actual history of which party marches lock-step, and intractably welded to ideology (i.e. the GOP) and the Democrats having a record of trying to meet the GOP half-way the onus for actually compromising for once is on the GOP. I am not hopeful for such a thing give that would require the GOP to break precedent and actually try and work with the Democrats for once (which over the past decade they seem constitutionally incapable of at the national level at any rate) instead of demanding compromise after compromise and still voting no (witness the Bob Dole 1994 healthcare plan alternative aka "Obamacare") at the end of the day.

  •
    7:49 a.m.
    Nov 11, '10
    (Show?)

    Governor-elect Kitzhaber has this right. If anyone is persuaded to switch sides it will create a great deal of animosity and the "losing side" will lock down.

    The legislators I have spoken with -- people on both sides of the aisle -- have expressed a great deal of optimism that people will make an honest effort to reach across the aisle in the next legislative session.

    Notwithstanding the divisions created by M66 and M67, I think that the Democrats have chosen wisely and well by re-electing Dave Hunt as their leader in the House.

    •
      7:59 a.m.
      Nov 11, '10
      (Show?)

      Dave Hunt is extremely partisan and an ardent advocate of the super-majority. His House Builders PAC put a lot of money this election season where their mouths had been.

      One can't but wonder how much deja vu all over again we're about to see.

      •
        8:14 a.m.
        Nov 11, '10
        (Show?)

        Sally, all 4 caucuses have their own pacs. The Democrats "House Builder's Pac" is no different than any other leadership pac. It existed before Dave Hunt was elected into leadership, and will likely exist long after he has retired.

        I have no doubt that some folks have their axes to grind. My view is that it is past time to set aside partisan differences and encourage our legislators to work together to help right the ship of state.

        YMMV.

        •
          8:44 a.m.
          Nov 11, '10
          (Show?)

          I don't have an axe to grind. But I did see the work of the House Builders PAC in my district this year and it was ugly. That is how I learned it is operated by Peter Buckley and Dave Hunt.

          There are two Ashland Democrats in the Oregon Legislature. One is respectable and the other is Peter Buckley. So on that basis I am extremely skeptical of the selection of Hunt for this position, even more than I am of Kithaber's willingness to take on Oregon's frightening budget problems and the interest groups vested in them.

          •
            2:05 p.m.
            Nov 11, '10
            (Show?)
            I don't have an axe to grind.

            Sell it to someone else. So far in your short time commenting here at BO all you seem to do is set-up then slay your Democrat "super-majority" partisan boogeyman to slay.

            •
              3:31 p.m.
              Nov 11, '10
              (Show?)

              I doubt I've ever used the term "Democrat super-majority."


              • 3:39 p.m.
                Nov 11, '10
                (Show?)

                Sell it to someone else. Here are your words in just a couple comments up-thread slagging off Sen. Dave Hunt:

                Dave Hunt is extremely partisan and an ardent advocate of the super-majority.

                and

                I think it will be hard for them to give up their psychological and institutional sense of majority and meet the opposition party on equally divided turf.

                Let me guess, you are going to try and claim you never wrote the three words "Democrat super-majority" in that exact sequence so it doesn't count?

                •
                  3:53 p.m.
                  Nov 11, '10
                  (Show?)

                  I apologize; I had obviously forgotten that. I learned about all these things only relatively recently in the process of finding out who was screwing so mightily -- and with so much money and media -- with our elections in Southern Oregon. That's how I learned of the Future PAC House Builders operated by Dave Hunt and Peter Buckley, who wanted to keep it. In fact it was exactly that issue that led me here, to counter posts being made FOR their little puppet Lynn Howe (who lost as mightily as she was funded, by the way).

                  •
                    4:05 p.m.
                    Nov 11, '10
                    (Show?)

                    So you are suggesting the the GOPs blandly named Oregon Victory Political Action Committee wasn't trying to screw so mightily with our elections in the Portland metro area?

                    Or does "screwing so mightily" only occur when it happens in southern Oregon when the Democrats field and support a candidate?

                    •
                      4:37 p.m.
                      Nov 11, '10
                      (Show?)

                      I don't know anything about that. I'm a bit territorial and protective of my home area. I wrote about the campaign I referenced at length.

                      •
                        5:19 p.m.
                        Nov 11, '10
                        (Show?)
                        I'm a bit territorial and protective of my home area.

                        And of the subsidies my home area pays to support your home area it seems.

                        •
                          6:21 p.m.
                          Nov 11, '10
                          (Show?)

                          I want to respond "WTF?"

                          What are you insinuating here? What are you even talking about? To my knowledge Oregon sends more money to the Feds than the Feds send back (owing to our paucity of military contracting).

                          It seems you are suggesting -- if this were true, and I don't know that it is or where is it based -- that somehow you are superior to me on that basis. That's kind of a reach.

                          What does this have to do with the price of tea in China or this discussion, anyway?

                          Seriously.

                          •
                            8:04 a.m.
                            Nov 12, '10
                            (Show?)

                            I am specifically talking about WITHIN Oregon. Where my taxes both at the state and federal level are subsidizing "your part" of Oregon.

                            As an FYI I am glad to do it, because that is the part of Oregon most distressed economically (both historically and at present) and I believe government should be doing the work to make people's lives better regardless of what corner of the state they live in. I also believe that we all do better when we all do better, which seems to be an anathema to GOP philosophy.

                            •
                              8:27 a.m.
                              Nov 12, '10
                              (Show?)

                              So you are saying that Multnomah County subsidizes Jackson County? I really don't know what you are talking about.

                              I do know that Multnomah County grabbed the federal dollars intended for counties (including this one) with high unemployment levels earlier this year.

                              Jackson Co. was well-funded for decades on timber revenues. Now it begs for "Secure Rural Schools" federal money. Most of our land mass is federally owned timberlands that aren't subject to property tax or other revenue producing activity.

                              Continuing lockdown of timber harvests is solely a political issue. The forests have more board feet of lumber on them since 1937. Jackson County govt. is currently solvent owing to reserves and careful administration. Maybe someday political forces will yield to sustainable timber harvests. It's a great resource, currently poorly managed and used.

                              •
                                10:41 a.m.
                                Nov 12, '10
                                (Show?)
                                So you are saying that Multnomah County subsidizes Jackson County?

                                Yep. And the dollars numbers back up that claim. It is simply fact. Not just in the apportionment of state dollars, but my federal taxes dollars come back to Oregon disproportionately to Jackson county than it does to Mulntomah county.

                                Again, not that I mind given that Jackson county (and many other rural counties) are what skews the overall state unemployment rate to below the national average. I want to do what I can to help Jackson county as well as the other more economically challenged areas of the state to succeed.

                  •
                    4:17 p.m.
                    Nov 11, '10
                    (Show?)

                    In other words, you DO have an axe to grind.

                    That sure didn't take long to unravel. Thanks for playing!

                    •
                      4:35 p.m.
                      Nov 11, '10
                      (Show?)

                      I said in that very post, "But I did see the work of the House Builders PAC in my district this year and it was ugly." I've been very upfront about what my biases are here.


          • 4:12 p.m.
            Nov 11, '10
            (Show?)

            My guess is that you heard that from Sal Esquivel or someone associated with his campaign. Frankly, none of it is true. Buckley definitely helped Lynn Howe during this election, but my sense is that he spends basically every waking moment dealing with budget issues and has passed off virtually all political responsibilities since being appointed Co-Chair on Ways and Means.

            I take exception to your remarks about Peter Buckley. He is one of the most honorable and dedicated public servants I have met. He is a good man who deserves better than half-assed invective for his service.

            •
              4:39 p.m.
              Nov 11, '10
              (Show?)

              No, I read it in the ORESTAR filings.

              We disagree about what kind of man and representative Peter Buckley is.

              By the end of it all I could feel sorry for Lynn Howe being set up -- but she's a big girl and she did it to herself. I said many times and places, her campaign was filthy.

              •
                5:17 p.m.
                Nov 11, '10
                (Show?)
                We disagree about what kind of man and representative Peter Buckley is.

                Color me shocked.

              •
                6:38 p.m.
                Nov 11, '10
                (Show?)

                I see. You know him personally, do you? Have you worked with him in a professional capacity? Ever sat down and talked with him about trying to cut budgets while protecting vital services? Stopped by his office at the capitol at 6:30 in the morning? Gone by the same office at 8 pm on the same day to see him still working after everyone else in the building had gone home?

                Based on this thread, my guess is that someone could write volumes about how little you know about most of these legislators, Buckley in particular.

                It was wrong for Howe to criticize Esquivel for supporting the transportation bill since the Democrats asked for his support. And it was wrong for several of FuturePac's candidates to lie about their opponents supporting a sales tax.

                Nevertheless, if you want to blame someone for Lynn Howe running a negative campaign, blame the candidate. If the buck doesn't stop with them, then they have no business running for public office.


                • 7:48 p.m.
                  Nov 11, '10
                  (Show?)

                  We can agree that Lynn Howe had no business running for public office, and I appreciate your comments on a couple of the particulars.

                  I did and do blame her virulently.

                  As to your earlier stipulations, would I be wrong to fathom that you have ever criticized, even despised, public figures that you did not know personally for their public actions in their public capacity? I honestly cannot withhold criticism of public officials whether or not I know them.

connect with blueoregon