Back from Iraq, Paul Evans Heads for Oregon's Capitol
Tomorrow, Paul Evans will announce that he's the Democratic candidate for State Senate district 10. That's the Marion & Polk county seat currently held by Republican Jackie Winters.
He's only 35 years old, but he's already been a Monmouth City Councilor (elected at age 18), Western Oregon University's student body president, Monmouth's Mayor (elected at age 28), an adjunct professor at Western Oregon, and served in Kuwait, Iraq, and at the Joint Air Defense Operations Center. A Major in the US Air Force, he resigned his mayorship with a month left and returned to active duty - because the Air Force had a shortage of air-battle operations specialists.
Last summer, he told the Oregonian:
"Based on my experience of 13 years in the military, and trying to be an observer of history, I have concerns about the capacity that is currently in the field," he says. "I'm not a general, but from the field, it seems like what we've got is stretched pretty thin." ... "Iraq is at a critical juncture. If we don't make it work in the next year or two, it will only get worse."
Now, says Evans, it's time for leadership in Oregon:
We're in desperate need of energy, leadership, and vision in the Capitol. That's why I am preparing to run for the Oregon State Senate. I believe my life experiences and proven record of strong leadership will make a difference in the Legislature and move our state forward.
Tomorrow night, he's kicking off his campaign in Salem. At 6 p.m. at the Grand Ballroom, Governor Barbara Roberts will introduce Paul Evans -- a Democrat for the State Senate. Details at PaulEvans2006.com.
|
January 25, 2006 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (95 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Mark Schwebke | Jan 25, 2006 8:51:08 AM
Here's one lefty in Multnomah County that says "job well done!",
the DPO and Multnomah County Dems will do all we can to help you defeat Jackie Winters...
To Alice: Don't pigeon-hole lefties in Multnomah, please, nothing in life is that simple....
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Jan 25, 2006 10:14:11 AM
jeez, Alice, we have a great candidate running for office (Paul, you are really going to have to pump up that resume) and you decide the real need is to attack people in Multnomah County? your point in this is what? most of us who oppose the war understand that many people in our democracy disagree and that many of them choose to serve. we also know that there are many in service who think the war is wrong (Pat Tillman, for a tragic example) but believe their duty is to serve nonetheless. very few of us are "holding it against" those who choose to serve (it's not 1969 anymore, not even in MultCo). i wish there was a huge wave of C.O. going around the country, but not many Americans are willing to go that route.
i guess you thought being derogatory served a useful purpose. i'd really like to know what that is. and is it more important than simply cheering Paul's decision to take on/down Jackie Winters and bring another one of the good guys to Salem?
Posted by: Varner | Jan 25, 2006 10:22:33 AM
It's worth noting that DailyKos has been doing a series on 'fighting dems'. People like Paul who have served in the armed forces and who are now running for office as Dems.
Good for Paul for serving, good for Paul for running.
Is this a contested election? Is Winters running again?
Posted by: Aaron | Jan 25, 2006 11:51:30 AM
Varner,
Sen. Winters filed 12/6.
So far no other candidates have "offically" filed. Mjr. Evans has only filed a exploratory campaign PAC--I hope that it would turn in too a "true" campaign PAC asap.
Posted by: LT | Jan 25, 2006 12:03:38 PM
Yes, it is a contested election. Jackie filed for re-election 12/6/05.
We have the potential here for a rarity--2 qualified people debating the issues.
Jackie is an local icon--people who never voted for her rallied to her defense when Zupancic called her "too old" in 2004. Zupancic lost Marion County in both primary and general--a warning that insult/negative campaigning can backfire.
This is going to be a fascinating election for those of us living in the district. Jackie is an icon, but also someone many of us have disagreed with over the years (I've known her longer than 2 decades).
We have the chance to make this about people and policy and not just about statistics like voter registration in the district. This district has not seen such a contested St. Sen. election with the potential for intelligent debate in many years--4 years ago there were equally matched candidates but some wags said Jackie got elected because the opponent sent out too many mailers with too little discussion of policy and how it affects the people of the district.
There are people old enough to remember Jackie's unsuccessful run for office in 1982 (lost a contested primary).
However, children born in 1982 or later may have a different view--those born in 1988 who turn 18 this year are eligible to register and vote.
There are young people I have met (esp. those who attended WOU) who just grin when they hear Paul's name mentioned. Have they ever even heard of Jackie? I hope there are no statistical determinists out there who claim that the grin (and obvious good will it represents) means nothing because "historically, the Independents split 50-50" or some such.
I strongly believe (having worked in state senate campaigns here over the years) that more than anything else, the question in November will be "Elect Paul, or re-elect Jackie?". Not age, or partisanship, or anything else. Both Paul and Jackie are capable of impressing an audience, so let's have a serious discussion of issues.
It will be a generational as well as partisan election, and I am looking forward to being deeply involved in Paul's campaign.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Jan 25, 2006 1:13:18 PM
Paul not only has a great resume, he is an impressive speaker and personality. Kari's comments omit that he was also a volunteer fireman and involved with his church. He fits this community very well.
In addition, while he was in the Guard he spent a year or more on homeland security issues. This will be a valuable asset in the legislature as it is clear after Katrina that we need this expertise whether for fires, earthquakes, Tsunami's or terroist attacks.
Winters started out as a moderate, but has moved to the right over time. We need to win this race. A strong showing could also help us on some of the other house races in the Salem area.
Posted by: Misha | Jan 25, 2006 2:16:25 PM
Paul Evans is a shining star on the horizon of Oregon politics. Setting aside partisan considerations, Paul is one of the few people I know who comes to public service with real vision, intellect, passion, and integrity. Someday he'll be governor of Oregon, U.S. Senator, or even on a national ticket. For now, we should do everything we can to make sure he gets elected.
For the record, Jackie Winters may be a nice person, but she is NOT a moderate. Jackie has been the State Capitol's top opponent of working people. She was a leading proponent of a bill to subvert the will of Oregonians by gutting the voter-approved minimum wage. She also introduced a bill to eliminate the enforcement mechanism in Oregon's wage laws, so employers can short-change their most vulnerable employees with impunity. As if that's not bad enough, the bill would have exempted her from paying her own employees (as the owner of Jackie's Ribs)!!! Spending your time in Salem bilking farm-workers and waitresses earning minimum wage, just so you can turn a bigger profit? Now that's low. It's no secret, then, that her biggest contributors in her last race included the Oregon Restaurant Association, loggers, car dealers, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Anheuser Busch and other special interests who aren't exactly looking out for the little guy.
This race should be priority number one for the Senate Democrats, for the labor movement, and for all of us Oregonians who think this state needs proactive, visionary leadership. Unfortunately, I won't be able to make it to Paul's kick-off event because I'm on the East Coast right now, but I've already sent him a check and I'll be doing everything I can to support him. Go Paul!
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jan 25, 2006 2:47:41 PM
This race should be priority number one for the Senate Democrats, for the labor movement, and for all of us Oregonians who think this state needs proactive, visionary leadership.
Add to that list anyone who appreciates good BBQ. Jackie's ribs - right wing politics and labor violations aside - are the real scandal of the operation. I understand Salem's not Memphis, but Jackie's finest can barely hold their own with a day old rack of Appleby's baby backs from the strip mall. Vote Evans, because among other things, ketchup is NOT BBQ sauce!!
But I digress...
Posted by: Winston Wolfe | Jan 25, 2006 4:29:50 PM
Is it me or does Evens look like Fred Flinstone?
Posted by: Marvinlee | Jan 25, 2006 4:33:44 PM
I read Paul's Daily Barometer essays during his OSU days. If he has greatly improved his objectivity and fairness since those days, then he may become a viable candidate.
Posted by: doretta | Jan 25, 2006 5:03:00 PM
Don't go ask Alice. Just another right-wing knee jerk attempt to reinforce their hackneyed and inaccurate stereotypes.
Nice touch trying to use thanking the guy for his service as a cover for the real agenda. Some people have no shame.
Paul, you've obviously made public service the center of your life. Thank you for all the ways you've served from yet another Multnomah County Democrat.
Posted by: Alice | Jan 25, 2006 5:29:00 PM
If y'all are feeling so warm and fuzzy about a returning Iraq War veteran, you won't mind if he's driving a big ol' gas guzzling SUV around his future Senate District, will you?
Posted by: LT | Jan 25, 2006 5:34:31 PM
Alice, what DO you believe in--being snarky?
How would you like someone to make such cracks about one of your friends?
FYI--in 2005, Ted Ferrioli proved it is possible for Republicans to be positive and still get their point across. Maybe you didn't get the message.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jan 25, 2006 5:49:01 PM
I get very offended when people try to suggest that Democrats don't support our troops. I live in Multnomah County and I have always been a supporter of our troops. Being against a specific military act does not make you anti-troops. That is rhetoric that the Repubs have been telling people for years. It was just another of their list of ways they've tried to divide the country.
My grandfather is a retired navy man. We had a cancer scare with him a year or so back-- he had a growth that showed up, and many of his buddies have gotten or died from cancer in the past few years. They were involved in the nuke tests out in the ocean, and the radiation has apparently been giving the guys cancer.
One of my uncles was in the Army and another was in the Army and retired from the Marines.
My husband is an Army vet.
It isn't only Republicans and their families who serve in the military. Pretty much all of us know or are related to someone who has served. We support them, want them to stay safe and make it home, want to see them get good health benefits and pay, etc.
And keep driving a SUV out of this-- let's stay on topic here.
Posted by: Alice | Jan 25, 2006 7:14:34 PM
Granted, all political and religious affiliations are represented in the U.S. armed services. I never suggested otherwise. No matter what their politics or motivation, we owe a debt of gratitude to our all volunteer military.
Having participated in several counter protests during the Portland anti-war demonstrations (pre invasion of Iraq), I can assure you that respect for pro-Bush veterans was piss poor. I stood next to a 60 year old Vietnam Veteran (holding an American Flag), and I was holding a pro-intervention poster. As roughly 45,000 anti-war believers paraded by, we were met with disbelief, anger, overt hostility, and verbal harassment. The most voiceferous protesters seemed incensed that a Vietnam Vet could be pro Bush or a supporter of invading Iraq. As if a veteran is obligated to share their anti-war opinions because he served in a previous "unjust war".
The best part was the twenty something doe eyed young lady with green hair who used her best sidewalk advocacy to make us understand that pacifism is the only path to peace and happiness in the world. I was handing out flyers with a nasty picture of Saddam Hussein with the caption, "Have you hugged your Dictator today?" The veteran was still carrying a piece of shrapnel in his ass. Surprisingly, neither of us were persuaded that pacifism offered any path to peace and prosperity in the middle east. To paraphrase the veteran: why don't you ask the people of South Vietnam how peaceful Uncle Ho was? Why don't you compare South Korea (or Seoul) with Saigon, and then tell me that it wasn't worth fighting both wars (Korea and Vietnam)?
To summarize: it's easy to support a Democrat who volunteered to serve in Iraq when he's running for office. But what if that hypothetical volunteer (I know nothing of Paul Evans) actually felt his service was both honorable and necessary? What if he's pro-choice, pro-worker, pro-schools, and pro-universal health care; but you disagree with his views on Iraq. Heaven forbid he might driver a Humvee.
My point is simple: does a progressive candidate have to share all your political view, or does he get to stray from the party line on foreign policy, or what kind of vehicle he's permitted to drive? Can progressives tolerate dissent, or should your candidates line up to kiss every progressive position that is shoved in their direction? Do you want a bobble-head that nods up and down in perfect meter, or will progressives allow their best and brightest to stray off the reservation of progressive dogma? That is all.
Posted by: LT | Jan 25, 2006 8:12:10 PM
Can progressives tolerate dissent
To my mind, if they can't they are not progressives.
But can Republicans tolerate those of us who ask "why was the Vietnam War worth my high school friend becoming a casualty?".
Same with Iraq--do the family and friends of the casualties have the right to express any opinion they please? There are over 2000 who died and how many permanently wounded. Is there a place in this country for hundreds or thousands of different opinions? Or do the "Support the troops and President Bush" signs mean no one who has served in Iraq or who has a friend who has served there or in any other conflict has the right to question anything President Bush has done in Iraq?
Were they just election year campaign signs, or does "support the troops" mean decent funding for veterans programs and respect for all who served there even if they say things you disagree with? If we were to search the records of all those in Congress and in the executive branch, where would we find the most support for helping veterans--among those who ask questions, or among the "Pres. Bush has been infallible in Iraq" folks? Seems to me there have been Republicans who admitted that there have been mistakes made in Iraq. Do those Republicans not "support the troops" if they say mistakes were made in planning or implementation of our time in Iraq?
As someone whose high school friend became an amputee in Vietnam and who spent a lot of years doing volunteer work with veterans, I'd say never assume all vets think alike. Someone I met in those years used to say that if there were 5 vets in a room there would be 4 factions and a moderator. That is why the Oregonian story “We Talk, They Fought” and the Mike Francis piece “From the sandbox to the bandbox” were great public services.
Never assume that any person at any protest or other political event speaks for anyone but himself or herself. By the same token, never assume that people who volunteer with veterans are always the same people who are gung ho for all military interventions. Standing on a street corner holding a sign is sometimes easier than doing unsung volunteer work with veterans. My experience with Vietnam vets is that those most helpful were those who’d had some questions about the Vietnam War.
But I think the real question Alice raises is this: Are vets individuals or are they members of some bloc to be theorized about in hypothetical situations?
She said almost as an aside
But what if that hypothetical volunteer (I know nothing of Paul Evans) actually felt his service was both honorable and necessary?
Thank you Alice for admitting that you are writing out of theory and not from knowledge of the person this topic is about.
What I would like to see is the folks with the "support the troops" signs, car magnets, bumper stickers etc. actually get involved in better treatment for vets. It is about treating all veterans as people who served their country and now have the right to excellent health care.
And to express any opinion they desire. (Yes, that means Chuck Hagel and John McCain and John Kerry and Jim Rassman and all the other Vietnam vets get to say what they believe, whether anyone agrees with them or not!)
If someone with a "support the troops" sign thinks it is OK to question what any vet says, (esp. the way Jean Schmidt questioned Murtha’s courage on the House floor and what was said about Paul Hackett during the campaign) they have lost my support for their ideas not only this year but for years to come. I have felt that way for decades!
I DO know something of Paul Evans, having first met him almost 4 years ago. A couple years before that, a friend attending WOU had some very nice things to say about him and his work as Mayor of Monmouth.
And I think we should talk about concrete issues, not just hypotheticals like Alice suggests. This is about real issues in the Oregon State Senate. I would have supported Paul for a legislative position before he served in Iraq.
Please don’t talk theory in legislative elections—talk about what actually is going on in this state. We need high quality people in the legislature.
Posted by: askquestions1st | Jan 26, 2006 9:03:08 AM
This quote by the candidate caught my eye:
Iraq is at a critical juncture. If we don't make it work in the next year or two, it will only get worse.
We know the whack job right-wingers are so lost in their twisted fantasies that they won't have a coherent answer to my following question, but I'm concerned that many of the rest who post here don't either. Since I'd like to believe average folks like me are much more interested in the reality of people sent in my name dying over there for no good purpose, we might as well give them the courtesy of trying:
What incredible and evil arrogance makes anyone believe that the U.S., and particularly the military, could "make it work" (and by that I mean that specific situation) for another country and another culture?
This has nothing to do with candidate Evans or his commendable action in serving. Realistically, we must also recognize that a large part of the motivation --- and equally commendable --- for most of the folks in the service doing the fighting, and presumably for Mr. Evans, is backing up and protecting their fellow troops. It is unfortunate, however, that this quote suggests that he may have been misguided by the propoganda.
And all you right wing whack jobs - Really supporting the troops means opposing this evil, criminal, constitution-violating administration, their illegal war in Iraq, and their terror war on the American people. To claim that "supporting the troops" means supporting this administration and/or the mission is just plain vile.
Regrettably I think this explains a lot of the rest that I read here:
Posted by: askquestions1st | Jan 26, 2006 9:06:17 AM
Appparent problem with the blog software on the previous link. The text of the link is right, but the blog didn't make the actual link correctly apparently. One more try, if this doesn't work just type in the actual link:
Posted by: Alice | Jan 26, 2006 9:13:32 AM
Spoken like a true demagogue, Ask.
Anybody who disagrees with your perspective on this "illegal war" is the victim of propaganda.
As I suggested at the top of this thread, there is a risk the Whacko Left may be alienated by an Iraq War veteran who is proud of his service and mission there. Even by a candidate running for state office.
Posted by: doretta | Jan 26, 2006 10:05:02 AM
Keep proving what clueless one-note people you right wingers really are, Alice.
It only goes to point out what we all know. Every party has wacko extremists. Wacko extremists are welcome in the Democratic Party, but are only one of many welcome voices. The Republican Party, on the other hand, has been controlled by wacko extremists for many years.
I suppose it's understandable that Alice might wonder if Democrats can tolerate ideological differences. She, after all, hangs out with Republicans--where that's been out of the question for a long, long time.
Posted by: Another Benton Dem | Jan 26, 2006 10:20:23 AM
While I appreciate the tenor of any discussion among progressives in which they encourage each other to accommodate divergent viewpoints, I think an erroneous assumption is being made about Evans' views.
Yes, he did volunteer for his tour of duty in Iraq. Does that equate to a "pro-war" stance? Not according to his statements in the Oregonian. He thought invasion was a mistake, because he had first-hand knowledge that containment was working. He was there, with the troops who were making containment successful. Bush sold the war by claiming that those efforts were failing. How do you think Evans and company would feel about that?
To take the opinion now that "we have to make it work" is the opinion of many thoughtful progressives who are concerned that we created a situation where terrorism could easily flourish. We broke it (more than it was already broken), to a certain extent we own the responsibility to fix it. Is it arrogance to think that we can? Maybe, but I don't think it's arrogance to think that we have to try.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 26, 2006 1:03:00 PM
Definitely a mistake to think that anyone who served is automatically pro-war. In fact, it may just be the opposite.
Remember, Bush was the first Republican candidate to get less than 60% of the military-families vote.
Posted by: askquestions1st | Jan 26, 2006 6:36:11 PM
Alice - like most of the whacko right, you obviously don't even know what the word demagogue means. Sadly, demagogues like you are always projecting on others.
Another Benton County Dem - I'm sorry but your argument Is it arrogance to think that we can? Maybe, but I don't think it's arrogance to think that we have to try. is essentially meaningless. To believe as you argue, you have to believe there is a chance that we can make it work, otherwise we are living a fantasy at the cost of others lives. And my first question still applies: What makes you arrogantly believe "we can possibly, I think, I hope make it work"?
Posted by: Alice | Jan 26, 2006 6:59:13 PM
Etymology: Greek dEmagOgos, from dEmos people (perhaps akin to Greek daiesthai to divide) + agOgos leading, from agein to lead -- more at TIDE, AGENT
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times
Ask1st writes:
It is unfortunate, however, that this quote suggests that he may have been misguided by the propoganda.
And all you right wing whack jobs - Really supporting the troops means opposing this evil, criminal, constitution-violating administration, their illegal war in Iraq, and their terror war on the American people.
If you really think Bush is waging a "terror war on the the American people" then you are a demagogue.
Posted by: askquestions1st | Jan 26, 2006 8:16:14 PM
The claim within legitimate literary usage, and the criminal-in-chief's own psychotic use of the term "war on terrorism", is supported by the facts, and no amount of denial by right wing nut jobs can change that hard, cold reality. But unpatriotic right-wing whackos like you, in that you have no respect for the Constitution that this criminal administration is out to subverting as it arrogantly threatens to continue to wiretap and further terrorize Americans to hold power --- including holding any American citizen they choose without due process as they did for three years until it became obvious the courts were getting ready to assert their authority --- are never deterred by the facts.
Finally, it's also a hard, cold fact that at this point a host of Constitutional experts from across the political spectrum who are far more patriotic, in the sense they are devoted to being faithful to the Constitution, and who are far smarter than you and your right wing lunatic crowd can ever hope to be, have decisively shown that this adminstration has arrogantly admitted they have commited, and intend to continue committing, impeachable and criminally prosecutable acts.
That's not demagoguing, that's truth.
Posted by: doretta | Jan 26, 2006 8:58:41 PM
While I appreciate the tenor of any discussion among progressives in which they encourage each other to accommodate divergent viewpoints, I think an erroneous assumption is being made about Evans' views.
I think there is only one person in the discussion making the assumption you mention. It being erroneous hardly makes it stand out from everything else Alice has said.
Posted by: Alice | Jan 26, 2006 9:23:57 PM
Alice never said anything about Evan's views. In fact, I explicity state that I KNOW NOTHING OF PAUL EVANS"
I move the previous question: can "progressive" anti-war sentiments be reconciled with a candidate who returned to active duty - because the Air Force had a shortage of air-battle operations specialists?
If anti-war progressives can elect a returning veteran from the Iraq War, can they tolerate a (hypothetical) candidate who drives a SUV? If the answer to either question is no, then I suggest that "progessives" are less tolerant than Wahabis.
ASK1st: you are 100% full of horse shit if you actually think Bush is "terrorizing" America. If you keep spewing that vitriol out in public you'll scare off every Roosevelt Democrat that can read. Call Bush anti-democratic, or power hungry, or (and I think this stretches the truth beyond recognition) perhaps dictatorial. You can insult his character, his intellect, his diction, and his supreme court nominees, and I'm right there with you.
But "terrorist"...do you really think Bush is a terrorist? Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist; as much as you don't like them, Bush/Cheney/Halliburton are not terrorists. If you want to claim hyperbole, that is one way to explain your choice of words. But if you keep defending the statement, you're going to lose all credibility with the grown ups in the audience.
Doretta: what are you wearing?
Posted by: LT | Jan 26, 2006 9:24:53 PM
Just returned from the Evans kickoff meeting--a ballroom full of a variety of people it would be hard to stereotype--except that many were from Polk County and had known Paul Evans for years, while others had been involved in politics since long before Paul Evans had first been elected to city council.
It being a community event, there was lots of "haven't seen you for years!" exchanged among old friends.
Also, there were elected officials, current/ potential candidates, and folks from the Oregon Bus Project.
Debate the war all you want, but don't assume all veterans support all wars.
http://hackettforcongress.com/ is the website of a veteran in another state who was almost elected to Congress and is now running for US Senate.
Posted by: askquestions1st | Jan 26, 2006 11:07:44 PM
Sorry all you cowardly, lurking right wingers, I'm not going to play the typical childish right-wing game of distracting attention from the corruption and spiritual poverty of this administration. Since Alice clearly understands high-school English, he/she also is smart enough to know that he/she is being intellectually dishonest in that typical attack style of the right. You ought to be ashamed of yourself "Alice".
Posted by: LT | Jan 26, 2006 11:35:33 PM
Alice would rather talk hypotheticals than actually get out there and walk or phone or give a neighborhood coffee or put up lawn signs or the other hard work of electing candidates. Can Alice name current st. senator, st. rep. and other elected officials, or is it more important to debate theory?
Debate theory all you want elsewhere, but this is a topic about a specific St. Sen. campaign. And anyone who wants to debate the theory and practice of Iraq (or who drives which vehicles) should do it elsewhere.
Posted by: Jeremiah L | Jan 27, 2006 12:53:23 AM
I had every intention to go by the Ballroom, but I was stuck at home writing an essay for class. I hope the event turned out great.
Evans for Senate!
Posted by: Alice | Jan 27, 2006 1:09:22 AM
LT:
Greg McPhearson (like him), Richard Devlin (don't), and Darlene Hooley. I've walked precints for local Democrats and I made volunteer push/pull phone calls for both Democrats and Republicans in the last election cycle. 20 years ago, I rolled a joint for a Presidential candidates daughter (in another country, no less). In the last two years, I've hosted a wine/cheese party for a Democrat, and sat next to (and enjoyed the company) of Bob Packwood at a fundraising breakfast.
I've donated to two political campaigns for state/local office in the past 12 months, and I plan on giving to two more. I would gladly vote for Evans if I lived in his district. Particularly if he's proud of the progress we've made in Iraq and thinks we can leave it better than we found it.
None of which changes the reality that Ask1st is using demogoguery to defile our nation's President (love him or hate him, but don't libel him with the "terrorist" label).
That Jenny Simonis doesn't like SUV's (but we don't know if she would vote against a Democrat who drove one).
Or, most importantly, that Democrats lack a coherent strategy for success in Iraq, Iran, or North Korea. If your 2008 POTUS nominee has the credentials of Carter or Dukakis on foreign affairs, you will lose. If you pick Hillary, Al Gore, or John Kerry you will lose. I'm hoping it's a John Edwards vs. Jeb Bush race. Threepeat baby! Bush Nation.
Posted by: doretta | Jan 27, 2006 8:49:37 AM
DEMOCRATS "lack a coherent strategy for success in Iraq, Iran and North Korea"?
I don't think the term "coherent strategy" means what you think it means.
You like George W. Bush for his credentials on foreign affairs?
Hopeless.
Posted by: askquestions1st | Jan 27, 2006 8:51:50 AM
If Alice was intellectually honest, which her last statement proves you are not, and read carefully, you will find not find the "label" you claim used anywhere. Critical thinkers are well aware of the propoganda techniques of the sleazy right-wing in which they divert attention from the facts of the despicable behavior of this administration by outright lying about what was said, and then smearing the person who didn't say what is claimed. Thanks to Alice for taking the bait and providing a textbook example.
By the way, my dictionary defines "terrorize" as "to fill with terror, terrify", and "terror" as "intense fear". A fairly apt description of the political tactics we have witnessed.
Posted by: Alice | Jan 27, 2006 8:56:15 AM
Facts are stubborn things, Ask1st:
Posted by: askquestions1st | Jan 26, 2006 9:03:08 AM
This quote by the candidate caught my eye:
Iraq is at a critical juncture. If we don't make it work in the next year or two, it will only get worse.
We know the whack job right-wingers are so lost in their twisted fantasies that they won't have a coherent answer to my following question, but I'm concerned that many of the rest who post here don't either. Since I'd like to believe average folks like me are much more interested in the reality of people sent in my name dying over there for no good purpose, we might as well give them the courtesy of trying:
What incredible and evil arrogance makes anyone believe that the U.S., and particularly the military, could "make it work" (and by that I mean that specific situation) for another country and another culture?
This has nothing to do with candidate Evans or his commendable action in serving. Realistically, we must also recognize that a large part of the motivation --- and equally commendable --- for most of the folks in the service doing the fighting, and presumably for Mr. Evans, is backing up and protecting their fellow troops. It is unfortunate, however, that this quote suggests that he may have been misguided by the propoganda.
And all you right wing whack jobs - Really supporting the troops means opposing this evil, criminal, constitution-violating administration, their illegal war in Iraq, and their terror war on the American people. To claim that "supporting the troops" means supporting this administration and/or the mission is just plain vile.
Posted by: Bill | Jan 27, 2006 10:10:06 AM
Dear Alice,
'Right wing whack job' here.
It'd be nice to SEE a coherent question.
I love that it is you and yours who are burying your heads in the sand, refusing to acknowledge truth, and sipping Kool Aid on your back porch.
Name a single instance of criminal violation by the Presidential administration that is not more than a liberal pipe dream.
Name a single instance by the Administration on Constitutional issues that is not more than a liberal pipe dream.
Tell me exactly why the war on Iraq is illegal when all of your liberal congressmen and Senators voted for it, the UN voted for it.
Before you go on blathering unsupported facts and spewing your hatred because you know liberalism is dying you might try acknowledging a few of these facts...at least let liberalism "die with dignity".
If you stand in Americas way for her policies and yet claim to support the troops implementing those policies...you are intellectually dishonest...at best.
Posted by: JTT | Jan 27, 2006 11:13:40 AM
LT writes: in 2005, Ted Ferrioli proved it is possible for Republicans to be positive and still get their point across. Maybe you didn't get the message.
LT, usually you do your research and know what you are talking about. Unfortunately, I think in this case...you must have been transfixed by Ferrioli's beaming eyes or ravishing suspenders because you drank the potion.
Ferrioli was NOT positive. Ferrioli is NOT a nice guy. You think he's being positive and nice to your face while he reaches around with a machete to stab you repeatedly.
Don’t forget the NASTY NASTY NASTY attacks that Ferrioli as head of the Republican Leadership Fund authorized against Sen. Monnes-Anderson, Sen. Verger, and Sen. Bates? NASTY, NASTY, BASELESS personal attacks. When the day is over, Ferrioli is just as sleazy and scummy as they come.
Stop drinking the potion!
Posted by: Winston Wolfe | Jan 27, 2006 11:55:31 AM
JTT: Yes....but Ferrioli does smell nice!
Posted by: Another Benton Dem | Jan 27, 2006 12:25:00 PM
A little cognitive complexity is all I ask here—
Arrogance is invading a country over trumped up evidence and assuming you’ll be treated like some kind of hero.
Arrogance is pretend-landing a fighter plane on a carrier deck and declaring, “mission accomplished.”
Arrogance is going after someone’s wife because you didn’t like what the guy said about you.
Arrogance is swaggering and smirking to an outraged press when they try to press you for a morsel of truthfulness.
Arrogance is putting yourself above the laws of the land and the constitution you took an oath to protect and defend.
Arrogance, cowardice, and, yes Virginia, criminality..
Responsibility is taking ownership for the role we’ve played in world events. As progressives we’re so very outraged by the hypocrisy of our country’s foreign policy that we can’t bear to identify with it. Me too—I’d rather not, it makes me sick. But significant damage has been done in the world in our name (and I haven’t even mentioned South America), and I think there’s only one honorable way to deal with it. Since when is doing the right thing “meaningless?”
Posted by: LT | Jan 27, 2006 12:50:38 PM
I wasn't talking about Ferrioli during elections, but Ferrioli during session where he ran a positive campaign against the AuCoin nomination which, in the words of one friend, "allowed AuCoin to slash and burn himself".
ABD--obviously you don't like what Bush has done. Neither do I.
BUT
When did this shift from a topic on the State Senate district where I live to a debate about Bush?
I for one will stand up for the right of any COMBAT vets to say whatever they want about the issues of the day.
NOTE to those discussing Bush here:
Bush
Cheney
Rove
DeLay
Gingrich
Lott
are not combat vets. Neither are they Oregonians!
Can we please discuss the State Senate on this topic and discuss national politics elsewhere?
Or are some saying the mirror image of what the GOP is saying?
There are Republicans saying Hackett and Murtha have a lot of nerve not backing up Pres. Bush.
Are there people on this blog saying "back from Iraq, you're supposed to say what I tell you to say"? If so, I suggest a book to read,
THE AYATOLLAH IN THE CATHEDRAL.
It is the story of one of the Iranian Hostage Crisis hostages who returned to the US and was hired by an activist group headquartered in a major cathedral someplace like New York City.
But the first time he expressed an opinion that was not "the party line" of the activist group, there began to be complaints.
So, in the end, he parted company with the activist group and wrote the book.
I hope we don't see the same sort of thing in 2006 elections. I think Paul Evans would be a much better state senator than Jackie Winters. Anyone here disagree with me?
Posted by: askquestions1st | Jan 27, 2006 1:09:35 PM
Another BCDem:
You know, you clearly cannot interested in genuine cognitive complexity because at the bottom line you have not responded to the only point that matters. Simply mouthing platitudes about "responsibility is taking ownership" demonstrates a complete lack of cognitive complexity, since that doesn't mean anything in and of itself. It is easy to illustrate how many ways this criminal administration is arrogant.
Cognitive complexity in approaching this issue first and foremost means the courage to grapple with the content of this argument by far too "progressives", to find out whether it actually means anything at all, or in the real world is at least as arrogant as the other side.
So I'll ask you, and all the other posters here who are so enthused by a candidate who has repeated essentially this same platititude, for some genuine cognitive complexity:
To believe as you argue, you have to believe there is a chance that "we can make it work", otherwise we are living a fantasy at the cost of others lives. So what makes you arrogantly believe "we can possibly, I think, I hope make it work"? And specifically how? You apparently are willing to continue to send folks there to make violence to "make it work". And that is the polar opposite of "honorable" unless you can explain: How?
I would refer you to Middle East scholars like Juan Cole who have provided serious analyses of why there is no rational reason for a person of integrity and responsibility to believe we can do anything except make matters worse everyday we are there, and how virtually from the outset it has not been any different. Unless you can provide the counterargument, which I'd be very interested to hear and might even support if unlike a lot of what has been said here is rational, you're not saying anything.
And please dump pseudo-intellectual BS like "cognitive complexity".
Posted by: God Bless America! | Jan 27, 2006 2:22:01 PM
Ask1st,
In an attempt to answer your question about how to "make it work", I propose the following scheme:
1. We isolate all the pro-war, hate-filled, blood-thirsty Americans into one camp. Of course this will be an all-volunteer army full of brave people like our beloved "Alice", and, since they are so gung-ho, there should be no problem in creating this army.
2. We isolate all the pro-war, hate-filled, blood-thirsty Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, North Koreans, Canadians, etc. into either one camp or several camps (they can decide amongst themselves whether they want to have a united front against the ugly Americans or to fight the ugly Americans independently). Again, since pro-war people tend to be the loudest, and "bravest" of our species, there should be no problem in finding enough volunteers for this army.
3. We find a really huge sports arena, preferably one with cushy seats and plenty of refreshments, where the rest of the world can sit back and watch the dumb asses beat the living crap out of each other. I think it would be extra nice if weapons were prohibited, and they had to kill each other with their fists, teeth, etc.
4. One last rule, which is a twist on the Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome rule of "two men enter, one man leaves".
All men enter. No man leaves.
Posted by: Yoko OhNo | Jan 27, 2006 2:43:11 PM
While it's kind of sad, I do enjoy watching liberal's eat their young when they stray off the dogmatic reservation. That'll teach those kids what thinking on their own will get them.
If you're liberal and you know it, stomp your feet.
If you're liberal and you know it, stomp your feet.
If you're liberal and you know it, then you're feet will
surely show it.
If you're liberal and you know it, stomp your feet.
If you're liberal and you know it, shout at Hillary...
Posted by: art critic | Jan 27, 2006 3:09:54 PM
Oooh....Yoko,
So surreal, so edgy.
I especially like how you created the image of liberals as a sort of hybrid wolf/native-american/grade-school-teacher.
And the whole shouting at Hillary thing....very "out there".
A very challenging work of art.
Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Another Benton Dem | Jan 27, 2006 3:19:39 PM
Really, askquestions1st, your willingness to resort to ad hominum argument is disappointing.
I was addressing your own attack on Evans' statement about Iraq:
"What incredible and evil arrogance makes anyone believe that the U.S., and particularly the military, could "make it work" (and by that I mean that specific situation) for another country and another culture?"
by pointing out that yes indeed, he can be a progressive and at the same time not think we ought to bomb the hell out of a country and then go home.
I think you made another erroneous assumption about those of us whose conscience prevents that position. That is, we don't defend and never took the position of Bush's Crusaders for Democracy--that we can go in and make it better for anyone on earth by bringing Enlightenment, Truth, Justice, and the American way. Yep, that's Bush-style arrogance at its worst.
Let me make my point simpler, since you don't like complexity:
We made it worse. We need to make it better.
Posted by: LT | Jan 27, 2006 3:28:49 PM
Ask and the others, let me make it simple for you.
Campaigns for Congress can deal with the actions of the Bush Administration.
Campaigns for state legislature deal with legislative issues.
(something lost on Zupancic when he made Jackie's legislative voting record an issue in his Congressional campaign).
I have known Paul and Jackie for close to 30 years total --Jackie longer than Paul. I see Dist. 10 as a race between Paul and Jackie, not a contest of ideologies.
Yes, the way I see it, the St. Sen. Dist. 10 race is between Paul and Jackie. You may like both of them or neither of them.
But I would like someone I have known and admired for years elected to the state senate, and if bloggers don't like it they can ignore the Sen. Dist. 10 race or they can ask Jackie Winters for her views on Iraq.
Let me say this as clearly as I can. Some of my friends were Vietnam vets and now we have returning Iraq vets. Some may not like every word they say. I stand for returned vets voicing their own opinions--they saw things first hand, I didn't. People who didn't see things first hand don't have the same perspective.
If that attitude means I am neither liberal nor progressive, then fine--I believe labels short circuit thought.
But telling me I have no right to opinions others disagree with has not changed my vote in the past and will not in the future.
Paul is a friend I am proud to support, and if you don't like that attitude then you don't want my support for your causes. Deal with it.
Posted by: JTT | Jan 27, 2006 3:46:07 PM
LT- re: Ferrioli
A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.
Posted by: LT | Jan 27, 2006 4:11:08 PM
JTT and all the others:
Do you care what happens to Oregonians or are you just interested in theory and potshots?
Just read this story about whether a teacher in Stayton got all the benefits (such as keeping his job and his PERS) specified in federal law about those deployed.
http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060127/NEWS/601270331/1001
Sounds to me like a real world problem that those who think beyond "the Iraq war is wrong and how dare anyone speak in more detail than that" would want to make sure doesn't happen in the future. But of course that would involve being more concerned with the treatment of veterans than with scoring political points.
Maybe there are those who think it is more important to badmouth opponents than to solve problems--thus the potshots at Ferrioli. It happens that I agreed with St.Sen. Ed Fadeley but considered him rude and polarizing. Apparently JTT would have me say that Fadeley was infallible and how dare I say a nice thing about Ferrioli since his politics are not what I agree with. How is that different than the Swifties?
If people want to say their side is always right and the "other side" should never be credited with something as simple as carrying on polite conversation with a person not of their partisan registration, they can do it without me.
Sorry folks, I want no part of that. Maybe that is why I have friends across the political spectrum and would rather solve problems than blame political opponents.
If some here don't like that attitude, not my problem.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Alice | Jan 25, 2006 6:20:39 AM
Paul: thank you for your public service, especially for volunteering to go to Iraq. I can only hope you are far enough way from Multnomah County that the Lefties don't hold it against you.