Here comes PurpleOregon...

Check it out! Now there's a blog called "PurpleOregon"... Apparently, they're including Republicans, Democrats, and Independents as contributors.

PurpleOregon says that they are "a place where Oregonians can talk politics and policy without being colored by partisan politics."

They're two posts in, so it's hard to know where they're headed. First post was coverage of Reagan-era speechwriter Peggy Noonan's column about the fading strength of political parties. Second post attacks the process that AFSCME used to endorse Governor Kulongoski.

Is PurpleOregon really purple? Or is it really just another shade of red? Time will tell...

Check it out. Discuss.

Comments

  • Aaron B. Hockley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Who cares what they call themselves? Intelligent, open-minded folks should be able to read a blog without have a prejudice as to the politics of the writer. I usually vote Republican, but I read this blog... why? Because I find it interesting to see liberal viewpoints on things. It makes me question my views, and, on occasion, might alter my opinion on something. Go read PurpleOregon, consider whatever gets presented, and don't worry too much about the "color".

  • (Show?)

    Agreed, Aaron. Always happy to have folks like you reading and commenting at BlueOregon.

    (Not so much the guys who are just looking for a left/right fistfight, though...)

  • (Show?)

    It would be nice if PurpleOregon were as transparent about who's behind it as BlueOregon.

  • (Show?)

    What's that about imitation and flattery?

    I welcome a non-affiliated politics blog, much as I welcome any blog devoted to serious discussion of public policy, politics, and their cultural context. PurpleOregon's desire to discuss policy "on their own merits" is welcomed--and, I would think, expected of any serious political blog.

    Coupla red flags, though. Chuck caught one:

    It would be nice if PurpleOregon were as transparent about who's behind it as BlueOregon..

    Isn't transparency the first condition for honest discussion? Moreover, I question the assumption of the blog: "a place where Oregonians can talk politics and policy without being colored by partisan politics." Politics, by their nature, are partisan--there are real differences between libertarians and social conservatives. Trying to remove a "partisan" nature leaves us with what? I'm reminded of 2004, when swing voters, who couldn't distinguish between Bush and Kerry, held the country's future in the balance. Not being colored by partisan politics is not recognizing the reality of politics.

    As for the other goals, I suspect good liberals and conservatives hold them too: discussing policy on its merit, judging candidates on their merit, eschewing blind party faith.

    I'm left wondering what exactly to expect from this unnamed group. Based on the first two posts--a coy condemnation of the Democratic Party dressed up as a critique of the major parties (the Peggy Noonan quote at the head was a tip-off), and an assault on AFSCME--this looks a lot more like RedOregon dressed up in shades of Purple.

  • (Show?)

    Isn't transparency the first condition for honest discussion?

    I guess that depends on what you mean by "transparency".

    I have been very careful to keep my real life information confidential and out of the blogopshere. I do so for various reasons, not the least of which due to threats made against my children in the past by some who didn't like what I had to say.

    Its the only way I feel comfortable enough to write my opinions in an uninhibited manner.

    That's not to say that I'm anonymous. Far from it. Anyone who reads the blogs where I write or comment can find me. And I am happy to give a modicum of disclosure about my private affiliations (to the point that my personal identity remains confidential).

    I recognize that this might lower my cred with some and I can live with that. My family means more to me than political credibility. But I think that you have to be careful not to kill the messenger ("you" meaning not in the personal to Jeff Alworth, but the general "you") and not address the messages.

    I have my own skepticism about this new blog..mostly from what I've read on the sidebars. But I'm reserving judgement for the most part until I see a few more of their posts.

  • (Show?)

    I have my own skepticism about this new blog..mostly from what I've read on the sidebars. But I'm reserving judgement for the most part until I see a few more of their posts.

    Yeah, me too, but let me say this. The more, the merrier. Even if they wind up annoying the crap outta me 90% of the time, that's OK by me. I want Oregon to have a rich and vibrant blog culture -- no matter what ideologies (or lack thereof) people have.

    Let's hear what ya got.

  • TKrueg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I like coming to Blue Oregon, but commenting is like preaching to the choir. Sure there are details we all disagree with, but I feel it's my obligation as a citizen to have a dialogue with conservatives... their views have often been shaped by a lack of liberal 'confrontation', so their arguments can be startlingly perspective-lacking. It's like treading on virgin soil...

    I wish there was a central, political site for Oregon for people to either slug it out, or have rational dialogue. Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.

  • Darrell Fuller (unverified)
    (Show?)

    From Jeff:

    "Isn't transparency the first condition for honest discussion?"

    Simple answer: No, I hope not. If this is the gold standard, then let's all get together and burn our copies of the Federalist Papers.

    Anonymous whistle blowers are all dishonest?

    Caucus meetings are all bad? All party central committee meetings should be open?

    Anonymous speech, I would suggest, is vital to ensuring all topics are discussed and all points of view considered. With that in mind, anonymous speakers have the RESPONSIBILITY to do something besides just spewing character attacks and talking points.

    Just a thought...

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let's differentiate the roles of a commenter and an editor of a blog. The editor has the ability to influence the slant of the work published in a way a commenter cannot. A commenter has much less responsiblity and can remain nameless as a consequence; I agree they still have the responsibility maintain an honest discourse.

    Strange example to be citing the Federalist Papers as your example of open discussion by anonymous authors, as they were arguably a successful public relations campaign by the authors of the new Constitution.

  • (Show?)

    they begin by holding up Peggy Noonan as a voice of wisdom? how is that non-partisan? i've not seen any indication she's recanted the words she used to put in the Gipper's mouth. she was one of the early architects of the nastiness that has become the lifeblood of the national GOP; i'm not sure turning to her for inspiration is a great idea when you're trying to counter partisan politics.

    i'm sorry so many people are uncomfortable with the fact that out of 300 million Americans, we have some strong differences of opinion. the problem is not parties; bust up American politics into a hundred parties, and you'll discover that we find new ways to divide and polarize ourselves. when people accept that others disagree with them, devoutly, and decide that they can live with that, then we can move past our current barriers. the parties only give a contemporary option for divisiveness. make us all purple, and we'll hate each other over whose hue is richer, brighter and purplest.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Darrell, about this:

    Caucus meetings are all bad? All party central committee meetings should be open?

    First of all, if the proof is in the pudding, long secretive sessions sure don't sell me on the idea that closed caucuses are of value to ordinary Oregonians. And there is always the possibility that if Westlund is not elected Gov. there could be an interesting split in the Senate. Sens. Westlund and Gordly will not be attending partisan caucuses next session, and have mentioned starting an Oregon Caucus open to the public. So what if there are 14 Repub. St. Sen. elected, 14 Dem. St. Sen, and the 2 members of the Oregon Caucus?

    I happen to believe in open meetings laws. Last session we had a "package" budget that apparently only a select few were allowed to negotiate. Why was that good?

    And as far as party central comm. meetings, why should they be secret? Delegate selection and election of officers should have stringent security to guard the legitimacy of the election, but for normal business, what does either party have to hide?

  • Publius (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>Looks like a Ben Westlund public relations project.</h2>
elsewhere

connect with blueoregon