Thanks Paulie for reporting on this great event put on by Senator Wyden's team and the Medford School District. I have made repeated calls and e-mails to Representative walden's office locally without any concrete answers as to his plans to hold meetings during the recess.

Too bad for Walden and my hat is off to Wyden.

Did Wyden say that he would support a robust public option, with negotiated drug prices, available on day 1 and accountable to congress?

Good to see citizens getting engaged with their political process and showing some passion on an issue that means so much to America.

Good job Medford, keep up the good work!

Democracy isn't possible without an orderly equitable process. People who think they are entitled to own the microphone or disrupt meetings because they feel angry or righteous enough has nothing to do with democracy.

Great report on the antics of the voters attending this town hall.

But what about the actual questions and responses? That would be much more interesting to hear about.

I haven't met Ron Wyden. I only know him through the news, his last campaign, and a single encounter with a member of his staff.

The senator enjoys a reputation as a deal-maker with a proven ability to think somewhat out of the box over legislative proposals. He also draws votes from diverse corners of the state, and the deal-maker portion of his personality/skill set probably explains that.

In other words, I don't have any complaints against the senator, other than I disagree with him entirely about singlepayer health care and wish he would champion another cause dear to me.

So if I got to ask Santa for one of two things for Christmas:

1. Sen. Wyden becoming a lightning rod or leading voice for singlepayer, ensuring its passage in three years;

2. Sen. Wyden suddenly and successfully becoming the Democrats' needed aggresive counter-punching spirit against the wigout echo chamber, energizing the mobilization of federal and state governments (not so much Oregon, but others states for now unnamed) to use EXISTING laws to crack down on thugs and their sponsors who hide behind the hypocritical banner of pro-life or profit off those who thirst for some form of dangerous resistance to the rule of law;

It would be a difficult Christmas wish for me. God knows we need singlepayer now. Thousands are going to unnecessarily suffer and die without it even this year, much less over three years.

Still, our country does not have a good history when it comes to the use of mobs in politics. Mobs can become very dangerous in less than three years. And screw the notion that the arguments today have anything to do with 1777-87. NOTHING could be further from the truth. This is not taxation without representation or new ideas; this is a movement by the greedy against fairness.

That so many liberals are reticent to accept the need to meet this mob force with an equivalent, strong response is to me as disturbing as so many millions of Americans not WANTING to be reasoned with and desiring to be part of that angry mob.

The Southern Poverty Law Center sees a serious threat, and even the Bush White House issued a heavily redacted and re-edited report saying basically the same thing; we cannot ignore the thugs as just hostile voices anymore.

So Ron, when you're ready to back singlepayer or lead the charge to corral the militias, the corporations and foundations that fund them or promote their message, and your fellow Congressmen who haven't the backbone to follow the law, I'll be in 100% agreement with you either way.

So nice that BlueOregon has a voice from Jackson County, Oregon's next blue stronghold.

Paulie Brading:

I commend Senator Wyden for his unflinching ability to remain civil, polite and on message.

Bob T:

I've always given Ron Wyden a lot of credit for holding these meetings. When he was our 3rd US House Rep he used to come back here about one weekend each month and hold three town hall meetings -- usually two on Saturday and one on Sunday, 90 minutes each. At one meeting held at the Wood Village City Hall there were only about ten people there, about half of them opposed to him and with their sometimes rude questions. Wyden promised 90 minutes and that meant letting everyone have second and even third opportunities to ask questions, even the rude ones.

Too bad his successor to that seat rarely holds such a meeting and when he does it's controlled to some extent, or like recently, a phone-in (like a drive-by). Someone in a very safe seat should be able to face the voters the way Sen Wyden does.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bill R:

People who think they are entitled to own the microphone or disrupt meetings because they feel angry or righteous enough has nothing to do with democracy.

Bob T:

I totally agree. But I wonder where they learned this?

I recall VP Dan Quayle's c.1991 visit Portland for a $25 a plate fundraiser at the Hilton downtown. This visit made the news because while the fundraiser was being held a bunch of opponents thought they had a right to barge into the hall and were at the hotel entrance trying to push their way in until the police forced them back. That was wrong, too. So is disrupting talks on college campuses by such people as the late Jeanne Kirkpatrick, or forcing the invitations to be cancelled. Why couldn't the ignorant students just show up with a "gotcha" question, and otherwise let her speak?

Bob Tiernan Portland

@ Bob Tiernan

Your example of the Quayle incident is a bit of ancient history but the point is well taken. Done by right or left it is inexcusable.

However, I think these people are getting their messages and instructions from the likes of Glen Beck, (who says "surround them" and the dog whistle politics of the GOP political leaders who cheer the rampages and and threats of violence that are happening at Town Halls from right wingers, even the intimidation with guns,threats on the president's life, carrying assault rifles,- GOP leaders who call these people patriots.

"So is disrupting talks on college campuses by such people as the late Jeanne Kirkpatrick"

A couple decades ago, I knew someone who was a college student when Kirkpatrick came to speak. Intensely disliking her views, but considering manners to be as important as protest, a group of college students were in the audience. When she began to speak, they just stood up and faced the other way.

Like the Republicans at a Tipper Gore speech in 2000 who just held up signs rather than yelling like the Nadershouters.

Perhaps out of all of this we can have a debate about basic manners. When strong 2nd Amendment people who are famous public speakers speak out and say that bringing a gun to a Presidential or Congressional town hall only makes the whole movement look bad, it is time to hit the reset button.

Or, as the SJ editorial page editor said as moderator for the Kurt Schrader town hall, "is this really the way your parents raised you to behave?".

For all the reputation of the 1960s, I knew a college student who was clean shaven, clean cut, wore a suit with a flag pin, and got close enough to a politician to have an actual conversation.

Flash forward to the 1990s and a sweet little old couple dressed in knit clothes spoke to their powerful legislator (member of leadership) and she said, "Thank you for saying we can call you and ask questions. Would it be OK to call you at home some night?". SURE! he said.

One night she calls, with a much sharper voice saying, "OK, here are my issues: 1, 2, ..."

Does anyone believe the ragtag demonstrators (then or now) have more effect than the quiet voiced strongly worded question?

OK, I will try and address LT's question seriously.

As someone who was a long time member of SDS, but who declined to join Weatherman (and is still conflicted about those choices), I think you are drawing a false equivalence.

Let me ask you: is there NO political speech ever that should be interrupted?

I will not rip open the scab of Vietnam here, except to say that millions died. Millions. Died. And, as we saw, not well.

Now, we can argue over whether that was for a doctrine that turned out to be mistaken (the domino theory), for empire, for lies, for containment gone bad, for the Democrats not wanting to be seen as weak in the wake of the 1950s Red Scare . . . there are almost as many theories as authors.

But it raises the question: if you could have interrupted LBJ lying about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, if you could have interrupted McNamara's lying sufficiently to penetrate the public consciousness, if you could have disrupted Kissinger's "peace is at hand" narrative before the Christmas bombing, and thereby save some considerable fraction of those MILLIONS of lives (and perhaps take some of those more than fifty thousand American names of that monument), then wouldn't you be morally justified in trying to do that?

And isn't that case morally distinguishable from trying to interrupt a town hall meeting in order to stop America from providing health care to its poor?

I think that these cases are morally distinguishable. I think that there are other morally distinguishable cases. I think that these are not mere personal opinion, in spite of an Oprah-culture which canonizes everyone's feelings.

So: when someone says: it is equally wrong when this tactic is used by the left or the right, I am not willing to concede this point. I would like a little historical context.

Joe Hill, you make an interesting argument, but it's all about after-the-fact "discoveries"....or maybe not. Food for thought in any case.

What do you do when being polite means you cede the ground to (possibly armed) lunatics?

Am I supposed to actively defend the civil liberties of those whose very goal is to deny me my civil liberties?

There is a fundamental difference between a town hall meeting and a speech/fundraiser. One is participatory democracy and the other is a opportunity to lie for money.

At town hall meetings there is a process in place to assure some form of equality for differing points of views and all the members of the public should know this coming in. Up until this latest round of dog and pony shows, what was the average attendance? Last Wyden event I attended in Portland, there was about 35 people. Most everyone got an opportunity to ask a question. Now thanks to the fear mongering of the knuckle dragging right wing, added and abetted by the media whores, we have the current circuses masquerading democracy. Did these same media whores pay any attention to the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators that were opposed to the invasion of Iraq? No. Did they protest the ban on showing the returning coffins at Dover AFB? No. "Free speech zones"? Arrested for wearing a T-shirt? Illegal wiretapping? Torture and murder at Bagram Airbase? Tons of explosives missing from Iraq bunkers? Where's that 8-9 billion in cash? The list goes on and on as does the killing.

The problem is not the opposing views of the public at town hall meetings, it is the whoring out of the media to the all mighty dollar. War gets ratings. Death panels and death books are great sound bites and gin up phony outrage that of course has to be covered.

When politicians and their lackeys refuse to listen to the people, then we have no choice than to exercise our First Amendment rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Disrupting a lying politician at a speech/fundraiser is not only a right, it is an obligation since the "Fourth Estate" refuses to expose their lies.

Joe Hill, the moment you start making decisions about which speech is no longer 'free'; which speech is morally reprehensible enough that you are honor bound to interupt it, you have taken awat one of the very bastions of our country.

Shouting down McNamara or LBJ because you personally don't like the message has no moral underpinning. There can be no moralistic litmus test that states I can tolerate this speech, but it is OK to shout down that other speech.

That is why out country put up with your type in the 60's; we allowed KKK marches in Skokie in the 70's and numerous other outlandish free speech events over the past several decades.

Joe I may not like or agree with your speech. I may ABHOR your speech; but as an American I uphold your very right to make that speech. How could you try to decided who should be heard and who silenced?

"In other words, I don't have any complaints against the senator, other than I disagree with him entirely about singlepayer health care and wish he would champion another cause dear to me."

Add to that, in the opinion of those of us who seek justice and human rights in Palestine, Wyden's position on the Israel-Palestine issue is a serious problem that will mean no resolution but the complete takeover and eventual ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Israeli right.

Wyden is a mixed bag having taken some good positions and some not so good. He was leaning to vote for the war on Iraq, but he seems to have been persuaded to vote against it by what he heard at "town hall" meetings prior to the vote.

His positions on health care and Israel-Palestine mean many people will be looking for an alternative in 2010.

"His positions on health care and Israel-Palestine mean many people will be looking for an alternative in 2010."

I will say it before and I will say it again. Everyone has the right to that opinion. As do the people who have a huge resevoir of good will for Ron and will support him unless there is something THEY believe requires a new Senator.

The people "looking for an alternative" should stop saying that on blogs and start looking. I know from experience that the crucial time in a challenger for statewide office campaign is between now and the end of the year.

Senator Wyden was visibly tempted to allow the woman to speak but his staff of volunteers quietly let him know through hand signals that his compassion was probably misplaced.

Whoa! You mean to tell us our senior senator has handlers who have him trained like a show dog to respond to constituents that only they approve of?! What else do they do, tell him how to vote on legislation critical to Oregon voters?

And by the way, it’s not “compassionate” to answer an Oregonian’s question when they take the time to show up at one of your town hall meetings, it’s called “doing the job you were hired for”. Arrogant behavior like this from elected officials is one more argument for term limits in the US Senate.

Sounds like it’s time to turn the soil in Washington once again when Wyden comes up for re-election.

So Wyden said nothing about the public option. How long will he continue to dance around this issue? Saying you're "open" to something is not same as "supporting." The question, which we asked him at KBOO is this: Do you support a Co-op or a public option? Will you vote for a bill with a co-op? Will you vote for a bill without a public option? And you guessed it: He evaded the question by saying he's been clear. As someone who's followed his position very closely, he's been anything but clear. Call his office now and urge his unequivocal support. A health plan co-op is not the answer.

"And by the way, it’s not “compassionate” to answer an Oregonian’s question when they take the time to show up at one of your town hall meetings, it’s called “doing the job you were hired for”. Arrogant behavior like this from elected officials is one more argument for term limits in the US Senate."

Now, that's just funny! So, if people jump ahead of you in line to get into a sold-out movie, it would be OK to let them in at your expense? after all, showing movies is "the job they're hired for", and the line-jumpers cared enough to show up.

Republicans seem to think rules don't apply to them, but they want everyone else to play by rules. I'll bet if Wyden had not done the ticket-question lottery format, and only called on people he liked, you would have had a lot to say about that.

Republicans also talk a big talk about "personal responsibility", but they themselves act as if they're entitled to any privilege under the sun.

Nice post, but could you please tell us what he actually, you know, SAID at the event? Will he support single payer/public option or not?

I am encouraged to find that Senator Wyden is employing organizational tactics to level the playing field in the Town Hall democratic process. That, however, does not change the fact that he is "listening but not hearing."

The support for Single Payer or even Public Option (which should be HR676 with the non competition clause removed) is overwhelming (59% to 76%) and the numerous postcards and emails and phone calls he is getting attest to that. I know this because I have organized petition, emailing, phone calling, and postcard writing campaigns in Marion County and have talked to other OFA hosts around the State.

Yet he sticks to his "plan" which is a recipe for disaster; its' complexity will lead to its' failure. This is why I have told him that I will work for his "replacement" in 2010. It's time to find that replacement, and begin the necessary support.

Democracy for America is asking Wyden to make a commitment now on where he stands on health care.

"I will say it before and I will say it again. Everyone has the right to that opinion. ("His positions on health care and Israel-Palestine mean many people will be looking for an alternative in 2010.") As do the people who have a huge resevoir of good will for Ron and will support him unless there is something THEY believe requires a new Senator."

I don't know of anyone conforming to a generally-accepted interpretation of "progressive" (see below) who would agree with Wyden on Israel-Palestine or a health care program stacked for the benefit of his campaign donors from the insurance-medical-pharmaceutical complex. Or "have a reservoir of goodwill" for Wyden.

Suggested definition of a progressive: Someone who believes that ALL people have a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and justice.

ThinkProgress is reporting that Sen. Bennett, (R), from Utah, who is the co-sponsor of Wyden's HAA bill, was attending a fundraiser with Karl Rove and made the following statement: "The #1 assignment in 2009 is to kill Obamacare." I concur with several other posters, when is Sen. Wyden going to come out in support of a strong public option? Sen. Bennett also said that HAA is an alternative for when the Democratic proposals fail....is this Sen. Wyden's view as well?

.......Steve Novick to run against Sen. Wyden in 2010.

BOHICA:

There is a fundamental difference between a town hall meeting and a speech/fundraiser. One is participatory democracy and the other is a opportunity to lie for money.

Bob T:

Wrong. Both provide opportunities to lie. And what's wrong with fundraisers? Obama supporters had them, as did Nader supporters, and McCain supporters and so on. Who are you to say that no politicians should meet with only supporters?

BOHICA:

When politicians and their lackeys refuse to listen to the people, then we have no choice than to exercise our First Amendment rights.

<i>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; <b>or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</i></b>

Disrupting a lying politician at a speech/fundraiser is not only a right, it is an obligation since the "Fourth Estate" refuses to expose their lies.

Bob T:

Absolute rubbish. For that event those people had as much business trying to ram their way into that private dinner to disprupt it than I have in driving my car into the Oval Office to get President Obama's attention.

There were many other ways to communicate thoughts to then-VP Dan Quayle, and without having to buy a $25 dinner. For example, I just sent health-care-related letters to both Wyden and Merkley. I wouldn't even think of trying to batter my way into a meeting room where one of the other might be, at any time, or disrupting a town hall meeting beyond asking my own question when it's my time.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bill Bodden:

Add to that, in the opinion of those of us who seek justice and human rights in Palestine, Wyden's position on the Israel-Palestine issue is a serious problem that will mean no resolution but the complete takeover and eventual ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Israeli right.

Bob T:

Which Palestinians are you talking about? The Mulsims ones? The Christians? The Jews?

Maybe Wyden doesn't share your opinion of that conflict because what you describe is total bullshit. If that's what the Israelis have wanted to do, they'd never use rubber bullets, and wouldn't from time to time release scores or hundreds of well-fed Muslim prisoners in exchange deals even for a single dead Israeli.

By the way, the Israelis left pefectly good, modern greenhouse systems in Gaza for growing food - then the Muslims smashed them. Can't have those "Jewish cooties" around.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bob Tiernan: I called Wyden's office today to ask him a question in light of Netanyahu's recent statement, which was: "Jerusalem is not a settlement. Our position is that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of the Jewish people."

So I'll ask you the same question as I asked Wyden's staffer: What, according to UN resolutions signed by Israel itself, is supposed to be the status of East Jerusalem?

Bob T:

"Which Palestinians are you talking about? The Mulsims ones? The Christians? The Jews?"

Bill B:

I'm talking about the majority of Palestinians who want to live in peace and give their families a decent life but who have been living in a virtual concentration camp for years. I'm also talking about the innocents, including children and infants, who were slaughtered and maimed during Israel's pre-Obama-inauguration massacre.

Bob T:

"Maybe Wyden doesn't share your opinion of that conflict because what you describe is total bullshit. If that's what the Israelis have wanted to do, they'd never use rubber bullets, and wouldn't from time to time release scores or hundreds of well-fed Muslim prisoners in exchange deals even for a single dead Israeli."

Bill B:

Wyde - and you - appear to not share the views of major human rights organizations and courageous Israeli voices such as those of Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy and Amira Hass who have protested the appalling conditions and abuses of human rights Palestinians have been forced to endure for years through illegal Israeli actions. I have no more use for the Hamas militants than you presumably have, but they are a minority among Palestinians with too much power. (Same goes for Fatah.)

Your one-sided, cherry-picking argument about Israel releasing so many Palestinian prisoners for "one dead Israeli" ignores the slaughter and,in some cases, alleged cold-blooded murder of around 1,400 Palestinians in 22 days to avenge a dozen or so Israelis killed by Hamas rockets over a ten-year period. The civilized world was offended when German troops practiced similar 100-to-one revenge in Belgium in August 1914 and again in places such as Lidice in Czechoslovakia during World War II. Why shouldn't civilized people be similarly offended in 2009 when others use the same tactic?

Bob T:

"If that's what the Israelis have wanted to do, they'd never use rubber bullets,..."

Bill B:

And that is just what they did during this recent Gaza massacre. They left the rubber bullets at home and pulled out the rockets, the bombs, the missile-carrying helicopters - and illegal white phosphorous. And, as if that wasn't enough, the Israel military denied entry of humanitarian supplies, including food and medicine, to Gaza after it was shattered.

To borrow from your terminology, your defense of Wyden and Israel's right wing is worse than bullshit. Do you also agree with the opinions of Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's Foreign Minister?

Wyden's recent public hearing in Medford was a staged joke. He took nine questions in a row from ill-informed right-wing fanatics, one of whom posted a picture of Obama as Hitler! Then, he took one question from a public plan advocate and called it quits. But it was clear to everyone present that the room was nearly evenly split.

Was this random chance or a cynical manipulation? The probability of drawing 9 black balls in a row from a bowl of 200 black and white balls is: 50 x .50 x .49 x .49 x .48 x .48 x .47 x .47 x .46 = 0.00140529723 So, the probability of that happening entirely randomly was only 1 in a 1,000!

The 100 percent sure thing is that the minute this random selection of questioners pulled up a public plan advocate, Wyden called it a day.

Others tell me that he declined to meet in person with a group of small businessmen, doctors, nurses and other public plan advocates in June, even though they traveled 3,000 miles to Washington, for just that purpose. But he's found time to speak publicly out-of-state to Medicaid HMOs and other industry advocates. Who is he working for??

Get the feeling that this guy really doesn't want to hear informed questions from the progressive wing of his own party? That he'd prefer to leave the impression of near unanimous opposition to the public plan?

Why is he stubbornly sticking to a plan that has never–NOT ONCE–gotten a hearing even within his own committee? A plan that even the President has called "too radical" to pass? A plan that champions the insurance industry over the public interest by forcing Oregon residents to buy insurance from private insurers only?

Ron loves to champion Blue Cross by pulling out his card and wishing he could give us all the same. Is he the last Senator in America who doesn't know that BCBS was throwing women with paid up premiums off their plan when they came down with breast cancer, citing bogus "pre-existing conditions"?

Ron, if you're still listening to anyone other than your Republican pals, stop with the free Blue Cross ads already! Do you seriously think they'd dare kick a senator off their health plan? We'll never get the same BC coverage you have––no matter what you write into bills that no one marks up. That's why we want the choice of a public plan.

Wyden is an AIPAC stooge.

Hamas is the legally-elected majority of the government of Palestine (West Bank & Gaza).

Hamas' position is that it would enter into a decades-long truce ("hudna") with Israel, provided Israel would abide by international law (which means releasing control of the areas gained in the '67 war).

And, it was Israel that broke the truce, last November 4th, although Israel blamed the breakage on Hamas and shortly thereafter launched Operation Cast Lead.

Sorry for anyone who must continue to deceive him or herself in the face of the facts. At least Wyden has a reason (all the money he gets from "pro-Israel groups").

Wyden is a huge disappointment in health care reform. The Democratic Party has become dependent on big money from big donors, who are also funding the GOP. Obamas campaign showed that We The People, when we think we have a champion for our interests, will donate tons of money. You don't have to be a corporate concubine to get funding. Defending the profiteering of Private Insurance also defends the notion that profit should come ahead of the very health and lives of people. So many other nations don't have this problem. They found various non profit ways of delivering health care. But.. We Just Can't. Sometimes it's so embarrassing to be an American. And Wyden's valentine to health insurance profiteers is pretty embarrassing. Medicare option for all. Fix the payment difference, Part D, and we all pay just 3% tax to fund it. Add the stock transfer tax. Restore tax rates to pre-Reagan levels. Remove the Social Security tax cap. These measures would assure health care and Social Security for all. Of course higher paying jobs, and a restoration of American prosperity through manufacturing would help too. But Clintons NAFTA took care of that. The Korporocracy Reigns Supreme. These Donkeys have trunks, folks.. I'd support Novick or John Frohnmayer for Senator because they might do these things. One thing's for sure.. Wyden had his chance, he hasn't, and he won't.

Bill B:

I'm talking about the majority of Palestinians who want to live in peace and give their families a decent life but who have been living in a virtual concentration camp for years. I'm also talking about the innocents, including children and infants, who were slaughtered and maimed during Israel's pre-Obama-inauguration massacre.

Bob T:

Okay, that's enough. I thought I was going to hear from someone with even a little objectivity. We'll have to get back to this when it's the actual topic to discuss, but I must tell you that the real enemies of Palestinian Muslims you speak of above are their own kind who wish to kill every Jew who exists. Reasonable Muslims in the area have been pawns of those creeps since the creation of Israel.

By the way, that group that Rachel Corey was in -- did they ever send anyone to stand in the doorway of an Israeli ice cream parlor with a sign telling Palestinian Muslim backpack bombers to "Stay out"? I didn't think so.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bob T:

"By the way, that group that Rachel Corey was in -- did they ever send anyone to stand in the doorway of an Israeli ice cream parlor with a sign telling Palestinian Muslim backpack bombers to "Stay out"? I didn't think so."

Bill B:

Your reasoning on this point is just as absurd as the rest of your arguments. I presume you are talking about Rachel Corrie - and not Corey - who stood in front of the bulldozer. She was in a position to do that because she knew about the approaching bulldozer. She was not in a position to do anything about a suicide bomber whose actions were planned in secret, so secret that vigilant Israeli intelligence agents didn't know about them. But, it would be a pretty safe bet that if she had known she would have tried to stop such action.

In your usual cherry-picking modus operandum you have conveniently ignored my reference to the children who were slaughtered and maimed by the Israeli war machine in Gaza. What's your position on that? Same as Timothy McVeigh's? They were collateral damage?

And how about the opinions of Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's incumbent racist foreign minister? Do you agree with him and them?

<h2>This is relevant to this thread which is about Wyden who goes along with Israel's right wing.</h2>