Paulie, here are a few suggestions:

(1) State openly and frequently, as you astutely did in your post, that the audience of party loyalists is actually a sub-audience, and possibly a small one at that. Then keep that in mind as you take action. Some people line up to vote for the Democratic party, but many others couldn’t care less about party affiliation, even if they use the party designation as general guidance when voting.

(2) Recognize that that “change” means very different things to different audiences. Then take multiple actions based on the various ways that change is meaningful to these various audiences. Change to me means moving away from bitter partisan competition, and toward a new place where opposing candidates and leaders can actually find some respectful agreement -- and of course some respectful disagreement -- with others. Obama took much heat for how he openly agreed with McCain in debates. I found that to be the precise change I was looking for and found in him. That alone won him my support. I’ve seen reports of some -- most likely party loyalists?? -- who are troubled by familiar names in Obama’s soon-to-be cabinet. They do not see change, from their frame of reference. I on the other hand will wait to see if the actions of new cabinet members bring change. The changing of names, in itself, is not a matter that is important to me. (Okay, I say that within limits, given names like Cheney, et. al.). Also, I see change as a departure from ideology and memorized fluff (think Palin), and a commitment to being candid and specific, even when not popular (think Obama).

(3) Recognize that that “hope” exists in different timeframes. Then take actions based on those various timeframes. As an example, the lack of equal rights for GLBTQ people today, and some recent setbacks we’ve seen, does not diminish my hope. I’ve seen real progress over the 40+ years that I’ve been involved in finding justice, and although there have been some ups and downs, the trend line is where I keep my eye. Others, however, may need to see some results in a much shorter timeframe to keep up the hope. All of us are right from our own point of view. Please keep us all in mind.

Thanks for asking!

I think you must stand out from what has been attempted in the past. The public is so jaded and disenfranchised with what has been the status quo. So just like any large venture requiring public support you must have branding and reach with your new unique message. Second I think people need to be empowered and involved. It needs to be accessible with options for different levels of involvement.Basically something for everyone. My two cents.

Statewide we experienced a blue wave of new Democratic voters, non-affiliated voters, and Republicans who supported Barack Obama.

It would be interesting to know how many people voted more against McCain and Palin than for Obama and Biden even if they went through the ritual of voting for the latter pair. Have there been any poll numbers on this?

Some which may or may not be popular but fall under the heading of "you must stand out from what has been attempted in the past. The public is so jaded and disenfranchised with what has been the status quo"----THANK YOU, Jodi.

A) Paulie is the right person to be writing this post. There are many people outside the Portland area who don't see themselves represented in the state Democratic Party. It has been that way since the state party office moved to Portland. There needs to be outreach to the rest of the state. And I think part of that outreach should be either publicly putting Future Pac on the organizational chart as long as it is in the same building with the state party, or else publicly splitting---not in the same building, neither organization appearing on the other's C & E reports. Jamie is right in saying, "Some people line up to vote for the Democratic party, but many others couldn’t care less about party affiliation".

It can be confusing to those not actively involved that there is a chain of command going from pct. people to county chairs to congressional district and statewide party meetings to the DNC, but caucus campaign arms (a phenomenon not 20 years old in current form) seem to be their own little fiefdoms. There are all those volunteers from "forgotten" state rep. campaigns---does the Democratic Party want their continued involvement, even if they ask tough questions?

B) A lot depends on this legislative session. People who see a total change from the old Minnis et al years will be more likely to support Democrats in the next election. Merkley was an excellent Speaker with a very slim margin, but what will happen this year with a new Speaker and larger majority? Will they allow power to go to their heads or show concern for ordinary folks who casually follow the legislature and are maybe concerned with only one issue? By "total change", I mean budgets openly arrived at in open Ways and Means Committee hearings openly advertised and meeting time/place seldom changed. The idea of taking legislative hearings on the road is an excellent idea. There should never again be the stories (as there were earlier this decade) like the one about the citizens who traveled from as far or farther away than where Paulie lives, sat through a long set of testimony by lobbyists who are there every day, then told "Sorry, we only have the room for 15 more minutes, but if those of you in the audience can make statements of 2 minutes or less....".

There should also be rules about members leaving committee hearings while citizens testify. Yes, there is the emergency phone message brought in by staff, and that is fine. But to see a committee member out in the hallway talking to a reporter or a lobbyist during public testimony does not give a good impression.

Oh, one more. There have been incidents in recent years where candidates seemed to think voters were secondary. Ted K. not appearing in front of Democratic audiences during the primary in venues where he had to answer questions the other primary candidates were answering is one example. Legislators who had no time to talk to ordinary folks during the session, but went out of their way to do so during campaigns, does tend to be noticed. That may or may not work.

An old friend of mine lived near a winery and was sometimes a server for special events like political fundraisers. She judged candidates she saw by how they treated the servers at the event. If they spoke to those folks as potential voters, she would tell her friends she was impressed by the candidate, and would consider voting for that person. If she or others were treated like "the help" it wouldn't matter whether she agreed with the candidate or not, that was a lost vote.

The quality of county chairs is very important. But even the best ones can't do the job forever--life changes, job changes, etc. Treating the folks out in the counties like they matter, and listening to their concerns, is the most important way to keep a party alive.

I have been thinking lately about how the Republicans now live through what the Democrats lived through after Mondale lost in 1984. We had lots of debates over issues, but all believed in the grass roots tradition and the worth of ideas and experience. It was in many ways a great time to be part of a party.

A future candidate could have the world's best ads, a lot of experience, and avid supporters. But I have known people who refused to vote for a candidate because of something that bothered them--the server being treated like "the help" was only one example. An incompetent member of a campaign, someone insulting a voter, or something in the candidate's past which is not addressed ("he/she lost me when...."). I knew someone who had grown up in a Republican family and voted mostly Republican until a candidate hired someone she'd worked with and always considered a shady character. "Anyone who would hire someone like that is either a crook or a poor judge of character, and that person is not getting my vote!" She voted for the Democrat in that election. She voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008.

Those are the folks who decide elections, not consultants who know all the latest forms of ads and other technology. When Democrats forget to be the party of the people and are just the party of the insiders, they lose.

Sal - good for you. Seems like a lot of folks during the election left me with the impression that in politics people are ALL alike - win at any costs, us and them. I prefer and wished for a more purist concern for essentials of active, functioning Democracy.

I would like it if NOBODY were gerrymandered in our state, but, rather, that we somehow managed to strike a paragon of orthodoxy in the best sense: right-thinking that served a pure ideal.

Invite Merkley and Obama volunteers to become the party. Invite them to apply to become precinct captains or staff to candidates and campaigns, offer your counsel if they would like to run for something, etc. The message of "this is your party" seemed to inspire a lot of Dean volunteers to participate.

James X is right on. Let's explicitly invite the Obama (and Merkley) volunteers to join the party aparatus. They've shown they can work hard, work smart, and work well.

Can Obama move away from the following Campaign promises...

-Windfall Profit Tax on Big Oil?
Yes he can!

-Move away from immdediate withdraw of troops in Iraq? Yes he can!

-Increase taxes on those earning more than $250,000? Yes he can!

-Raise capital gains tax to 25% or higher? Yes he can!

-Bring in fresh faces to the administration? Yes he can!

I'be been pleasantly suprised how quickly Obama has thrown the hard left socialist wing under the bus and moved to the center. We Democrats don't have to act like socialists to be progressive. Obama is proving himself a capable politician by using the hard left for votes, then moving to the center to govern.

Yes he can!

I'm a senior at Louis and Clark, from Nebraska, and I have tried to become active in local Democrat party activities on many occasions. I tried to bring friends along too, and it was no different.

Every meeting I went to was the same. They were about very different topics, but all had the exact same format. First you see a movie. Then a problem is presented. Then it's opened up to discussion. Then the presenter suggests the solutions, more discussion, and sign-up sheets are passed around.

It's not a bad format taken at face value and the issues were good ones, like electronic voting, etc. There were a number of recurring problems that kept me from going back anymore, and none of the friends that I took along have stuck with it. About 1/2 have become very anti-Democratic as a result.

Here's what happened every time, that wasn't exactly inspiring. First, it becomes obvious fast that this is not a grass roots organizing meeting to develop ideas, but to develop manpower. The ideas have already been decided on. All the debate is a sham and actually becomes condescending. The part that was a particularly big turn-off was the way the presenter would always try to reinforce the ideas that were in line with what he planned to say later, summing it all up at the end with phrases like "well I can tell you get it because you said xyz...", dismissing every idea that wasn't in line with what had been decided before the meeting.

I understand the need for organization, and that isn't a bad way to recruit manpower. The problem is that these meetings are always sold as open debate and let's come up with a solution. Sometimes people come up with better ideas. Rather than be honest, they try to dismiss the idea with trite comments, revise history toward whatever end, and basically say and do anything for the moment that will get your name on that sign-up sheet. After working to get out the vote among under 21s in 2004, which was an unqualified failure, I was horrified to hear the presenter say, during the electronic voting presentation, "you know why those young people didn't vote? Because they were smart. They knew that their vote didn't count. Now if you help us with this electronic voting reform by signing up...". The very same guy (now high up there in the local party) had spoken on voter turn out 2 years ago preaching "there is no good reason for young people not to vote". Hey, Lieberman isn't alone. The only loyalty I ever saw was to every word that comes from the national committee. Actually, in that light Liebs ain't so bad!

The core that stayed with it are members of aligned organizations, like Episcopalians Against the War, or whatever. They come in to sell an idea, without debate, with their sign-up sheets and the two reciprocate. Bottom line, if you're thinking, I would like to help in solving xyz, your help had better consist of donating time and energy toward what the local Democratic party has decided they want to do about the issue. Have an idea? You seem to have to rise to the top of the party. You had better not stop short of DNC, though. From what I've seen the agenda that they try to force feed us isn't original with the Oregon people.

This is the only "grass roots" organizing I have ever seen in Oregon. I can truly say it left me feeling worse than before I tried to help. If this is what people see when they start out, Hope and Change will be dead before the hour is up. They are very effective presentations.

I know I'm probably really biased somehow. I have noticed Jenni post here many times and have seen her at most of these meetings in an official capacity. Maybe she can explain what I'm missing.

How about what Bradbury did in his obvious politically-motivated redistricting plan years ago?

Press Release from Jack Robert's 2001 Gubernatorial run says it all:

Oregon labor commissioner and Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Roberts today sent a letter to Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, labeling his proposed redistricting plan "crassly partisan and divisive" and claiming that it "declares war on rural Oregon." Roberts calls upon Bradbury to withdraw his plan and follow the example of his predecessor, Phil Keisling, who Roberts says "approached his task as an Oregonian rather than as a Democrat."

In his letter, Roberts establishes that Bradbury’s redistricting plan throws portions of rural and suburban areas into districts dominated by urban majorities in cities such as Portland, Salem and Eugene. "As a result," Roberts says, "the influence of rural voters and their communities will be substantially weakened at a time when those voters and communities have never been more vulnerable."

Roberts points out that if Bradbury had used this same redistricting method in Deschutes County, Democratic advantage would be lost because the number of Democrats is smaller in the inner-city area. So instead, the Bradbury plan places Bend in a district all by itself, surrounded by Republican rural areas like a donut.

In his letter to Bradbury, Roberts tells the Secretary of State "you have done more than shift the political balance of the legislature. You have undermined one of the most basic principles of representative government: that our elected representatives speak for the common interests of their constituents. By creating districts in which there are few common interests, substantial portions of the electorate are in effect disenfranchised. Under your plan, it is invariably the rural and suburban voters whose interests are subordinated to those of city residents."

I don't need to point out the House and Senate Districts around Multnomah County that obviously favor Democrats. Just look at the map and you'll see the districts that contain more of densely populated liberal and urban areas in Portland, that then stretch into more conservative suburban areas - where the population is less dense. The advantage goes to...(drum role please)...Democrats! Hmmm...

Specific Eastern Oregon example:

Rep. George Gilman (Medford), and Sen. Doug Whitsett (Klamath Falls), have parts of Central Oregon in their district - like Crook County.

How much sense does this make when Sen. Ted Ferrioli is less than two-hours away in John Day (which is basically Crook County's backyard), and has his pulse on the issues in the area? And the parts of Deschutes and Crook Counties that are in House 55, should either be added to 54 or 59.

I don't care if a lawmaker is red or blue. The point is they should represent an area that geographically makes sense - and one where the issues/needs are similar. Even though Crook County (a very conservative county) retained conservative lawmakers, that's not the point. There's absolutely nothing that makes sense about the bootleg shape of Senate District 28, or a Klamath/Lake County lawmaker serving Central Oregon.

Sal, I completely agree with the following:

"The last thing Oregon needs is the DPO trying to do to Republicans in Oregon what Republicans tried to do to Democrats in Texas."

The problem is...it's already happened to Republicans in Oregon.

Jason, Bradbury's redistricting was so "partisan" that it took most of the decade for Democrats to win majority in the House. And then the Dems won the majority through a combination of quality candidates and incumbent stupidity. http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/08/wayne_scott_mus.html

After reading what Merkley said about being the last member of his freshman class, I looked up what happened to the House members of 1999. Turns out that when Merkley finished his last E Board meeting, he became the last 1999 state rep. to leave. There will be no one in the 2009 session who served in the 1999 session. Some were defeated, some retired, some left for other jobs (elective or appointed).

That 1999 session was a good group of folks.

There are those of us whose friends lost elections in 2008, but that is the way the Oreo disintegrates.

Republicans who want a comeback in the House and Senate and statewide offices need to have more optimistic candidates who are civil to voters, seen by voters as showing common sense, have a vision for the future and a plan to carry it out.

I live in a district which has been traditionally Republican but 2 of my friends have been elected here as Democrats. They did it by winning more votes than the other candidate, not by complaining about redistricting.

Guys, I am counting the days until Bradbury is no longer a scapegoat.

Maybe in 2011 the legislature can do all their redistricting hearings in public, publish their proposed maps online and in print so the general public can debate them. Then maybe the LEGISLATURE can decide redistricting and we won't have another decade where angry people say it is all the fault of the Sec. of State that they don't like the lines that were drawn.

Response to Posted by: AimeeG | Dec 8, 2008 7:47:55 AM

When I was a pct person, I attended local DEMOCRATIC meetings monthly. The format was not as you mention, but then I don't live in Mult. Co.

One thing every college student / budding activist should learn is the correct names of the political parties.

The party whose first president was A. Lincoln is the Republican party, aka GOP.

Obama's party is the DemocratIC party, aka Dems or Ds.

Decades ago there were GOP types who decided they could "stick it" to Democrats by dropping the last 2 letters and say things like "the idiots in the Democrat party".

Those who started it are no longer rising stars or active politicians--it has been decades ago now.

Such usage (some joke about the members of the "Republic" party using the "Democrat Party" as an insult) is just seen as sloppy or partisan.

McCain is a Republican. He was the Republican nominee. Obama is a Democrat. So is Joe Biden. The Democratic ticket of Obama-Biden was victorious in November.

Can Obama move away from the following Campaign promises...

Liberals Voice Concerns About Obaman

He's filled his administration is filled with extremely intelligent, competent, people, ...

The Best and the Brightest Led America Off a Cliff

We don't know Obama's results. I'm just making a list of everyone that's decided he's done well or sold us out already so I don't listen to what they have to say after the fact!

Back to actual performance and what people can judge if they get hepped up about the local Democratic party politics... Do you maintain that the Governor has done a good job? Is he what Dems mean by hope and change? If not, why not? Pointing to a non-record in Washington when you have an incumbent in Oregon doesn't exactly illustrate that the values are core ones.

I don't think anyone is going to seriously debate Obama's performance. The chatter will be among those that have already made up their mind, and those that haven't will vote with their feet. If it's more of the same anyone that cares won't give the Democratic party another thought. If it's more of the same a lot of the new Obama voters are going to be supporting an alternative party governor in 2010 or Ron Saxton. You're not contemplating the spectre of a Saxton freed by the death of the old stooges around him. Yeah, Gordon Smith might run. As if...

Let's get back on topic and ignore the compulsive need by some to miss the entire point. Thanx. I'm grateful for your thoughts on the next moves we can make together.

One point is that if you just all sing from the same hymn book you are at risk of continuing to exclude others with whom you may disagree on some points but have common ground on others. AimeeG's post is in line with this. I have known others like Aimee who have attended local party (Democratic and Republican) meetings and learned quickly that the party leaders expected them to toe the party line and not rock the boat or be a nuisance with thoughts not on the leaders' personal agendas. Some of these people are now independens/NAVs. If the Democratic party ignores the independents/NAVs who voted for Democratic candidates this last election, these same voters could just as easily vote Republican next election.

Steve-

I did not make the previous post. Any time I do post on here, I use my full name, like I'm doing now.

You owe me an apology, you piece of crap.

Ignoring Bill's attention whoring for a moment, ...

If all you can do is attack the person and not the points made by that person your credibility will remain close to zilch among those of us who give some thought to the issues.

Steve-

I appreciate your willingness to admit your error, and apologize to you in turn.

Amen Bill. If Dems don't listen to that now, they're going to wonder why so many people are listening to Pavel Goberman against Ron Wyden in 2010. The one thing he does right is none of the things that are mentioned on this post that the Dems do wrong.

Wonder if he needs a speech writer? I may have found my niche!

Dear Bill:

"quid pro quo, starling...."

Give it, get it/put up, shut up.

Posted by: Steve Maurer | Dec 8, 2008 3:26:06 PM

Steve, thank you. Especially important on your list are

Come next year, it would be wise to start debating (face to face, not just on blogs) what goes on in the legislature.

And don't make the 1985 mistake of the party passing a resolution declaring certain legislators are "not real Democrats" simply over disagreements on legislation. 6) We have to remember why we won: by being non-scary. Leading voters is a lot like leading a our party's mascot, the donkey: you get a lot further with a continuous gentle pull than a bunch of sharp tugs.

In 1985 there was a legislative referral which some party activists didn't agree with but it was supported by very well known legislators (and in one case the home county of a legislative leader stood up for their guy and disavowed the actions of the state party).

A good research project for someone once the statistics are finalized: 1) margin of victory for every state rep. 2) number of non-party (NAV+Other) voters in each district 3) how many state reps won by a margin larger than 2)

As I recall, there were 36 Democrats elected when all the votes were counted. If the answer to 3) is less than 6, this election will be historic for another reason. For quite a few election cycles in recent years, the answer to 3) was a large enough number to determine who won the majority.

If the same is still true, the answer to your 6) is to encourage intelligent debate over legislation in a way which contrasts with the "explain it all for you" pontificating of the Minnis/Scott et al Republicans.

That would really impress people who like to think for themselves but are seeking concrete information on these issues.

Threadjack: verb, transitive. The act of posting a point, interpretation or conclusion which contradicts the Democratic National Committee.

The question was, "how can we move this HOPE and CHANGE forward". Bill is saying, I believe, let's make sure there is hope and change before leveraging it for the next election. Did I miss the other candidates that came up with the hope and change advertising? That's Obama, no? If I'm asked to debate Churchill's post war policy and I say, "he didn't visit Australia on his world tour because he thought 'those people are of low breeding'", is that an ad hominem attack? The question was about Churchill! An ad hominem attack is bringing up the person instread of the issues. Doesn't apply when the person is the issue.

It's a valuable exchange, though. AimeeG had some good points, though it might be hard to imagine if you've never attended a meet-up group or something like it. Your "debate" is an excellent example of what I think she was describing. What was the last issue you differed from the Party platform on?

Are you going to answer questions like I asked, "Do you maintain that the Governor has done a good job? Is he what Dems mean by hope and change? If not, why not?", or keep trying to leverage what you haven't delivered yet? You have perfectly answered the topic question, though. There are a lot of bright, enthusiastic, new voters in Washington County that I cannot imagine putting up for one minute with this kind of non-discussion, Steve. How do you respect someone that seems to be mindless, parroting the national position, because the Party must win, period, but is making the Party's chance of success less likely?

You're obviously good at what you do. You have a position of responsibility. All that translates into the fact that people will not draw an ad hominem conclusion, they will decide that this is how the Party works. And they would be right. Reread the posts. People want to help, but they don't want what you've been selling. You can get rid of preconceived notions and start having conversations with the people you're trying to attract, or you can continue to be the big fish in the little pond. All that tail swishing isn't impressive; it only make a big noise because it's a small pond.

No, that isn't an ad hominem attack, either. "You look like you want to wear a goatee. Have you ever worn one? Anyone with a goatee is a jerk". That would be an ad hominem attack. And specious reasoning, but that's hardly a error in this day and age...

As Markos Moulitsas often points out, one particular odious mainstream media meme is the idea that Democrats should accept instruction on how to run our party from people who are fundamentally interested in damaging it.

The following is not intended as a response to Maurer who insists on being Maurer but to other visitors who may have an open mind and are not locked into conventional wisdom or some kind of group think:

The quote above reminds me of a core element of David Halberstam's book, "The Reckoning," in which he told of W. Edwards Deming trying to interest the Big Three automakers in Detroit and other major corporations in the United States in his ideas on management. The corporate executives didn't want to hear anything of what he proposed, so Deming went to Japan where manufacturers, not only automobile manufacturers Toyota, Datsun now Nissan, Honda and others embraced his ideas but so, too, did Matsushita (Panasonic), Sony and others. And the rest is history. Surely, it won't be necessary to relate the relative successes and failures of the various Japanese and American automobile builders. On the other hand, when it comes to electronics everyone is familiar with Sony and Panasonic, but how many recall Zenith, Emerson and other big American brand names whose names I and others forgot a long time ago?

Deming became a revered person in Japan for his enormous contribution to that country's rise as an economic power. Each year a Deming prize is offered to an industry in Japan that had the intelligence to implement Deming's system known as "Total Quality Management." The Deming prize in Japan is on a par with, or above, a Nobel prize.

If this thread is representative of Democratic thinking then consider two possibilities: One is change in the party where appropriate; the other is irrelevancy.

Go Zara GO

More chnage you can believe in...from this morning's news:

This stuff on on CNN, FOX, Wall Street Journal, you name it:

From Todays WSJ Online Edition:

"In exchange for the Illinois seat, federal agents say Mr. Blagojevich is heard seeking a number of arrangements, including a salary for himself at an organization affiliated with labor unions, a cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself, cash or campaign funds, and placing his wife Patti on paid corporate boards.

a Dec. 4 wiretapped conversation, Mr. Blagojevich allegedly told an adviser he would "get some [money] upfront, maybe" from one candidate for the Senate seat.

In other conversations, FBI agents say the governor, his aide and others tried to use the governor's position to withhold state assistance to the Tribune Co. to induce the firing of a Chicago Tribune editorial board member critical of the governor."

Truly amazing labor unions would be involved. Ya, do away with the secret ballot.

Thanks for the clarification Steve.

My point about speech writing for PG was that your characterization would be a good fit for my writing style. The comment about psych nurses volunteering that he's unwell mentally is disturbing. I have a Ph.D in psychology and would not make that kind of assessment based on interaction in a non-clinical setting.

Jimmy Carter proved that a good man is usually a poor President. It has not been demonstrated that a social pariah is not an excellent one. I'm a pure rationalist. It's ideas and execution. I will maintain still that he has done better with much less to date. If what you say is true, that is a real indictment, no?

Steven, you are right!

"Platforms are written by the people who show up to write them. "

As someone who once carried a resolution into the state platform, I know the process.

And it was hilarious that the year I carried a resolution, there was a group of insiders who thought they could do the same thing without the hard work. They showed up on Friday night, talked to the "right" people, and thought the fix was in. They couldn't be bothered to stay for the whole platform convention. Platforms are voted on by the people in the room. The people in the room when the final votes were cast didn't really care for whatever it was the insiders were wanted. Their resolution suffered the fate of being "left on the cutting room floor" and not being included in the platform.

BTW, I was a strong supporter of the "shorter more readable platform" idea 20 years ago when some rural Democrats wanted a platform short enough that it could be printed as a full page ad in small town newspapers with the headline "Don't believe what others say about the Democratic platform, read it for yourself!".

One more thing: this was a state party resolution, not part of the platform, but to some I was one of 19 members of the State Central Comm. who were "not real Democrats".

A proposed ballot measure was being discussed in the 1985 session of legislature. Some activists got a resolution passed basically saying anyone who disagreed with them (incl. legislators and a future Governor) were "not real Democrats". The resolution passed, 25-19. The 19 of us were informed we were "not real Democrats". Fine--by 1991 only one of us was still a member of the State Central Comm.---many of us had found different ways to spend our spare time. We still campaigned for Democrats, but were not a part of the party structure.

Anyone who thinks Democrats don't argue among themselves doesn't know what real gatherings of Democrats are like.

First, it becomes obvious fast that this is not a grass roots organizing meeting to develop ideas, but to develop manpower.

AimeeG: That, apparently, is also what this thread is about. It's like selling tickets for a cruise and re-arranging the deck chairs without checking the reliability of the crew or where the navigator is charting his course to.

Maybe she can explain what I'm missing.

What you are missing is a valid response to your very worthwhile post. This is probably another example of people just hearing what they want to hear despite requests for input.

You might also be missing on some political history, so let me suggest something to you that relieved much of my former ignorance about politics. You will have an advantage over me getting this education earlier in life than I. Read Walter Karp and I. F. "Izzy" Stone, two of the 20th Century's greatest political reporters. Most of what they wrote then is valid today. If you read Karp's "Politics of War" on how the United States got into the Spanish-American War and the First World War you will find you can almost change the names and dates and have a history of how we got into the Iraq War and are likely to get into an Afghanistan quagmire. Google both writers' names and you will get some very good material on line. Neither had any party affiliation, a status I would endorse. Your local library may also have some of their books. Or, go to Harpers.org and look for Walter Karp and the retrospective of his work. If you can afford it, buy it for your own Christmas present. It will very likely prove to be the best you ever received.

Anyhow, with the Dems, if you want to change policy or move any sort of idea, just walk into the room at a County committee meeting and start screaming at the top of your lungs. You may not be heard, but you will feel comfortable that your behavior mirrors the rest of us.....

Is the reception that behavior gets on BO an indicator? Believe it or not, all screaming is not about venting!

Not a criticism, I love your posts! Hope that's not an indictment.

My cat fetches, catches frisbees (drink coasters), shakes hands, mimes playing ball, and a number of other normally canine behaviors. People's that see her usually ask how I was able to "teach her tricks, like a dog". I have to explain that I teach her nothing. I demonstrate something that I think is neat, setup a situation that she didn't think of, and if she likes it, she does it. It starts with our common way of thinking, trust, and a desire to associate. I don't have to give her any more reinforcement than "good girl" because she's doing something that she likes and thinks is her own idea. Maybe a positive way of thinking about the cat herding metaphor.

I agree with the gender comment. I only do it that way because I am the world's worst cat herder.

Steve M, you said,

"Unions were "involved" with Blagojevich much in the same way that banks are "involved" in bank robberies."

You might be right. You might also be dead wrong. Time will tell more forcefully than your windbag declarations.

Front page of today's WSJ points out that SEIU is currently working with the Feds on any possible involvement in this. I wonder why the Governor thought they might (SEIU) be willing to compensate him? Hmmm?

Posted by: Steve Maurer | Dec 9, 2008 1:59:08 PM

To be clear, Zarathustra, no one is claiming to be Pavel's clinician or offering any sort of formal diagnosis, and I never asserted otherwise.

Perhaps a point of linguistic pickiness on my part, but the terms you used weren't common language terms but clinical ones, so I took it that way. If it was to be purely an informal, personal assessment, I think that common language adjectives would have communicated that better, like "creepy, or weird-ass", not "Borderline Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder".

I like for common language and technical language to be separate. You can argue that Islam was OK until it's formal language Arabic became a common language. Same for Latin. Worked OK until lawyers started using it as a vernacular...