Alan Bates a possible challenger for Smith?
Crossposted, with some mods at DailyKos, where I spend most of my blog time and mostly lurking. The Kossacks (and others who watch congressional possibilities) were all abuzz when there was chance of a DeFazio challenge to Gordon Smith for US Senate seat coming up for Oregon in 2008...but that died an early death when Representative DeFazio made his intentions known, and a senate race was not in the cards. There are two declared Dems in the race and primary noise coming also from the GOP side.
When I last put my ear actively to the ground, the name that drifted to me was an interesting one, but also one that is not in the actual running : former R-turned-I (now-apparently-turned-D) Ben Westlund... the name dropped, but not apparently in the right statewide race (more on that some other time).
Two Dems are in and there is not yet a jelling of progressive energy behind PDX-area activist Steve Novick or business man Ty Pettit, and that means other murmurs are not yet stilled about other possibilities. One that reached me unbidden is one that def piques MY interest and may get pulses beating for some of the rest of you - State Senator Alan Bates. More on Bates and why I think he's a likely and viable entrant below the fold...
So what does Bates bring to the table? A solid background as a crafter of legislation with enough bipartisan appeal to bring people across the aisle to him. He's a veteran (Army, one tour in Vietnam). He's a respected medical doctor (Chief of Medicine at both of the major hospitals in this region). He's demonstrated an ability to win races where the registration edge does not favor a Dem.
from his bio:
He has served as chief of medicine at both RVMC and Providence Medical Center, and a board member of a group of primary care physicians. He served three terms on the Eagle Point School Board and an appointed term on the Governor’s task force on Quality in Education.
In 1989, Dr. Bates was appointed to the Health Services Commission, which was instrumental in producing and implementing the Oregon Health Plan. He was re-appointed by Governor Barbara Roberts and again by Governor John Kitzhaber, M.D. He led and chaired the commission for three years, until resigning to run for public office.
Alan Bates did a successful stint in the State Legislature before making the jump to the State Senate in '04 to complete Hannon's vacated term, he then ran for a new full term in '06. Both his wins were comfortable and ahead of the registration margin. (I might find and add these numbers in an update, or if a commenter can point me to some).
Now I am hearing some interesting noises from some of the usual suspects down in these parts (these part of which I know nothing, according to some). I know Dr Bates has an experienced team assembled around him (either in current staff and advisory roles, or in easily reconstitutable reach) that could be a campaign staff pretty easily - people with roots in Bend, on the coast, and here in the Rogue Valley.
He likely can tap organizational and funding help from other Dems in both chambers, as he was very highly regarded in the House, and after moving to the Senate, he was immediately installed in a leadership role, despite being a mid-term rookie. He is currently the Majority Whip.
BlueOregon folks could also try to drive visibility of the dKos diary up... the OR Sen race is one which should merit national visibility.
|
May 8, 2007 |
John Doty
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: John D | May 9, 2007 12:06:32 AM
Ah, Kari good to be here, for however long :) Anywho...this is the more you asked me to tell you. Make of it what you will.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 9, 2007 12:29:49 AM
While Blumenauer is still deciding, I think it's worth thinking about: Are there legislative leadership folks that should be considered plausible US Senate candidates?
In the Senate that would be:
PETER COURTNEY, President
KATE BROWN, Majority Leader
RICHARD DEVLIN, Deputy Majority Leader
ALAN BATES, Majority Whip
LAURIE MONNES ANDERSON, Majority Whip
BRAD AVAKIAN, Assistant Majority Leader
VICKI WALKER, Assistant Majority Leader
In the House that would be:
JEFF MERKLEY, Speaker
DAVE HUNT, Majority Leader
PHIL BARNHART, Majority Whip
ARNIE ROBLAN, Deputy Majority Whip
SARA GELSER, Assistant Majority Leader
PETER BUCKLEY, Assistant Majority Leader
To expand the conversation a bit, which of this crew looks like US Senate material to you?
Posted by: John D | May 9, 2007 1:06:20 AM
Let's take two OFF first: Gesler and Buckley - Sara, who lost in the primary, then was appointed to the vacancy after her orig opponent resigned, and has subsequently be re-elected, is great for the state leg, but her experience does not say US Senator to me right now. She's got young family to whom she is devote and who inspired her run (in part) and uprooting to DC seems like something far from her thoughts right now. Ditto for Peter, though he has tried for DC in the form of the US Rep seat held by Walden, I get the sense he is done with that for a time. Besides, he'll need to move into the Bates vacancy :) (yeah yeah). I see Peter serving in Salem for a while, and MAYBE going at Walden again in 8 years, if ever.
As for the rest, I really don't know the upstate crowd much at all and I was never really dialed into them during my stint as a candidate - Merkley was the only one I had any contact of note with, and again, I get the sense that he doesn't balance his family with politics in such a way as to allow himself to be put in DC and away from East Portland/Salem at this point in his kids' lives. There is a lot of good that needs to be done here now that we have Dem policy priorities on the front burner, and I don't see many of our state leg folks making the jump, BUT Bates seems like he is one who could be convinced. And I think the move is one he is better positioned for than most. He has connections to Deschuttes county, he has obviously a good base down here, and folks in the Willamette valley will be open to him on the strength of what I would expect would be a solid set of endorsements from the northern tier legislators.
I think a sense of finance potential is very key to his decision right now. I don't know where the Novick or Pettit efforts stand vis a vis funding, but I expect Bates is in a better Cash on Hand position alreadhy, carrying over funds from his previous races.
But will donors flock? will small $$$s come from the extended reach of the netroots? it would seem like they will for the general, since Smith has a huge target on him at the DSCC level of looking at things - this is considered one of the most vulnerable seats nationwide... and not content to allow a moderate R to cling to a seat in a state that is blueish=purple, they Oregon GOP seems intent on losing every state-wide race they can, by nominating folks who can't pull swing votes... thus the primary challenge looing for Gordo. Wheee.
Ah whaddo I know?
Posted by: John D | May 9, 2007 1:08:55 AM
bah, that one is full o typos. I am sure you all made it through with self-filtered verb/tense adjustments and whatever else I clobbered
Posted by: Dickey47 | May 9, 2007 7:56:41 AM
I would take Gelser off now but not down the road after her kids are older. Hopefully they (Barbara Ross?) are starting to groom her now. She would be wonderful and I want a SMART, WOMAN representative as a federal level senator.
Walker is also nice choice. Rob Kremer even had some praises for her (see his blog).
Posted by: DepressingRealityCheck | May 9, 2007 8:17:30 AM
Sometimes a reality check is a depressingly sobering thing.
Courtney, Gelser, Walker, Merkley, Brown? Not exactly of a list of Feingold --- my idea of a real Democrat --- stature candidates.
Bates is not a progressive and he legislates like he is in the pocket of corporate insurance interests.
Blumenauer is a poster child for how our party, and Portland Democrats-in-name-only, have gone way off the rails into la-la land.
I think the question really needs to be, why, in what should be this time of opportunity, we in this state and our party have failed to actually bring along smart, tough leaders, that actually speak for longstanding Democratic values, and who actually speak to the base?
Right now, although he may not want it after this, I'm becoming more and more interested in Novick if he just can distinguish himself as something other than a typical Oregon Democrat of the last decade, and more like Wayne Morse.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 9, 2007 8:43:48 AM
Three years ago, Barack Obama was serving in the Illinois state legislature. There are worse places to look.
Posted by: Sadie | May 9, 2007 8:56:08 AM
Senator Brad Avakian is well liked by all in his district... even my Republican neighbors love him. It is always easy to find volunteers willing to help him out on a campaign. I can see him easily moving on to D.C. at some point.
Posted by: Jon Isaacs | May 9, 2007 10:20:02 AM
At some point we have to start getting real here. Sen. Bates will be a HUGE long shot. Even more of a long shot than Steve Novick becase my guess is that Steve's personal network is much deeper and he has stronger relationships with key Oregon donors. We have someone working hard already, lets not have the Democratic primary turn into a fight between a bunch of long shots.
We either need a candidate to get in (very soon) with immediate viability -
Blumenauer, Merkley, R. Edwards, Westlund
or we need to give Steve Novick the shot.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 9, 2007 11:04:03 AM
I'm intrigued by the possibility of Jeff Merkley running for higher office. As much as I'd like to see a 10 or 12 year run at Speaker, since he's great in that role, I think he's exactly the kind of thinker/fighter/leader that would make both a great candidate AND a great Senator/Governor. He's a committed progressive that understands how to lead.
Posted by: LT | May 9, 2007 11:22:08 AM
"Hopefully they (Barbara Ross?) are starting to groom her now. "
Before putting too much faith in Barbara Ross, talk to people who recall her run for Congress. As I recall, it was less well organized than Ruth McFarland or Darlene Hooley when they ran.
Posted by: Big Barton | May 9, 2007 12:05:24 PM
Although he seems determined to run for Attorney General, I think Greg Macpherson would be the best candidate for Senate out of the legislature.
Posted by: Mark McCorn | May 9, 2007 12:20:46 PM
"give Steve Novick the shot"?
Do you really think the DSCC will get behind Novick?"
Posted by: pedro | May 9, 2007 12:31:51 PM
drc,
how do you see blumenauer as "a poster child for how our party, and Portland Democrats-in-name-only have gone way off the rails into la-la land"
blumenaur, a dino? that's an odd thought to me.
Posted by: Andrew Simon | May 9, 2007 12:37:32 PM
I'm one of Senator Avakian's constituents and I can vouch for his popularity and aptitude.
Posted by: Grant Schott | May 9, 2007 1:48:35 PM
I think Bates would make a good candidate, coming from a swing district and having won tough races. Jackson Co. is growing and can no longer taken for granted by R's. State legislators should be taken seriously. Just look at Smith Kitzhaber, and Packwood, and State Sen. Kulongoski ran a strong race against Packwood in '80.
I would take Merkely, Brown, Walker, and Barnhardt off the list because they are automatically branded as PDX or Eugene liberals and would have trouble appealing to the swing voters in places like Clackamas/Washington COs. Courtney would be good, although he is in his mid 60s, probably too old to be looking at a new career.
This is trivial, but LT mentioned Barbara Ross. In response, I used to work for Barbara, and would call her the hardest working Democratic operative in Corvallis and won who has helped elect many candidates and pass (or defeat) local measures. Denny Smith had won three times by '86 and no one wanted to challenge him, so Barbara stepped up at the last minute and lost. She told me she hated being a candidate.
Posted by: Eric Berg | May 9, 2007 1:50:15 PM
Jeff's comment regarding Barack Obama having served in the Illinois state senate and Kari's list of the Oregon legislative leadership prompts me to post something I've been thinking about for some time:
When Obama announced he was going to run in the 2004 Democratic primary for the US senate, he wasn't the first or even second choice of most the Democratic establishment the Blue Illinois-types, if you will. Obama took on an incumbant Democratic US Representative in the 2000 primary and lost. As far as I know, Obama didn't hold a leadership postition in his caucus. I doubt Obama and his supporters could have cared less about anyone in the DSCC.
I bring this up because, in the end, in the words of the late, great Paul Wellstone, who himself lost a race for statewide office a few years before running for the US Senate, a race no one gave him a chance of winning (remember, he was outspent something like eight to one by an incumbant Republican):
"The future will belong to those who have passion and are willing to work hard to make our country better."
I'm most likely going to volunteer and vote for someone who really wants to beat Smith to be the next US Senator from Oregon than some generic Democratic office-holder who's only running because he or she has a pledge of funds from the DSCC.
Posted by: paulie | May 9, 2007 2:02:46 PM
Did John Doty post his thoughts to see which way the wind is blowing? What does he really know about Bates considering a run against Gordon Smith?
Posted by: paulie | May 9, 2007 2:03:57 PM
Did John Doty post his thoughts to see which way the wind is blowing? What does he really know about Bates considering a run against Gordon Smith?
Posted by: John D | May 9, 2007 3:52:48 PM
Testing the wind? nah... I tend to post here when I actually get something that minght be of interest to the BOr community, and given how busy things are, I doubt you guys want to know about No Medford HS's production of Antigone... BUT, I also sit on a non-profit board and that position cross-pollinates me with some other folks who are connected via the classic 'six degrees' theory - and, as such, I do get an occasional muttering - it is always a better level of reliable than (say) Drudge, but I ain't doing Bradlee-esque three confirmation reportage. I'll bet that if you ask Dr Bates directly, he'll deny that it's something he's going to think about until the session ends... that tends to be the answer you get from legislative types pondering higher office. But I bet he and his staff also won't issue a denial. (not that I have tried).
But I also think there is serious consideration happening and I have no reason to doubt it, given the directions it is coming to me from. And that being the case, I find it a: interesting and b: am curious who else does :)
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 9, 2007 3:56:31 PM
Posted by: DepressingRealityCheck | May 9, 2007 8:17:30 AMBlumenauer is a poster child for how our party, and Portland Democrats-in-name-only, have gone way off the rails into la-la land.
Bluemenauer is a DINO?
BWAHAHAHA... ok, I should thank you for letting me know I can assuredly not take anything you post seriously from this point forward.
Posted by: Frank Dufay | May 10, 2007 5:19:57 AM
but I ain't doing Bradlee-esque three confirmation reportage. I'll bet that if you ask Dr Bates directly, he'll deny that it's something he's going to think about until the session ends...
Jeesh...it isn't time to play coy and decide whether you're going to the prom or not. Is someone going to take on Smith or not?
Oh, wait...Steve Novick is.
Good grief. To be or not to be is not the question. To take Smith on is...and I'm getting tired of some folks shuffling their feet and staring at their shoes. Can we at least acknowledge Steve Novick is leading the charge here?
Posted by: DepressingRealityCheck | May 10, 2007 7:59:32 AM
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 09, 2007 at 03:56 PMPosted by: DepressingRealityCheck | May 9, 2007 8:17:30 AM Blumenauer is a poster child for how our party, and Portland Democrats-in-name-only, have gone way off the rails into la-la land.Bluemenauer is a DINO?BWAHAHAHA... ok, I should thank you for letting me know I can assuredly not take anything you post seriously from this point forward.
First on a technical note, which matters because your comment in part rests on a typical thing we see here of misrepresenting what was written, you'll note the use of punctuation means my comment reads:
1) Blumenauer is a poster child for how our party (has) gone way off the rails into la-la land.
2) Portland Democrats-in-name-only have gone way off the rails into la-la land.
Beyond that, your comment then dishonestly conflates the fact that the label DINO has come to take a specific meaning as essentially sympathizing with the right-wing, with the general concept of a Democrat-in-name-only as someone who calls themselves a Democrat but who espouses beliefs anywhere across the political spectrum. In this case, the strange provincial elitism, which decidely are not mainstream progressive working-class Democratic values, of the la-la land of the 3rd district. Which is why we are all best served if Earl just keeps his job representing the 3rd.
Posted by: Blaine Palmer | May 11, 2007 10:53:22 AM
The fact is, Steve Novick is in. He's doing a great job outlining how far from ordinary Oregonians Smith is and what a progressive Senator would look like. All the folks mentioned are great legislators, but Novick is the most dynamic speaker. He can frame an issue in plain spoken language, and wrap it in the moral context that fires people up. He made everyone in the state listen to the argument against overpayment to lottery retailers and see it as business people making a quick buck vs better schools for our kids.
The more people who read, hear and see Steve Novick, the more they're going to be swept up. By this time next year, there will be a wave carrying Steve Novick, and at that point the DSCC will realize they've got a winner.
Posted by: Treehugger | May 17, 2007 5:25:15 PM
I for one am very unexcited about a Bates campaign. First, there's simply no way he could beat Smith. We need a much stronger, viable candidate to unseat Smith. and 2. in spite of Bates' excellent work on social issues, his environmental record of late is abysmal. He's been touting turning federal BLM forests in Oregon over to the Oregon Department of Forestry (Can you say CLEARCUTS GALORE) as a solution to the budget crisis and he has also been supportive of efforts to kill more cougars by circumventing back a ban on the deplorable practice of hound hunting. Considering his environmental record of late, I don't think he could bring the necessary green vote in the primary.
Earl would be great, but he's backing down from his earlier testing of the waters.
Posted by: independent liberal | Jun 24, 2007 8:50:30 PM
As someone who has known Bates personally, I feel the need to speak up for him and to let those of you who are doubters know that he is the real deal. Dr. Bates is competent, well-regarded, and unbiased. Those who have interacted with him face-to-face know that he is a person of exceptional integrity and intelligence.
Bates has indeed done brave work on social issues. He did most of the heavy-lifting for and was the driving force behind SB 329, which creates a roadmap for comprehensive health reform in Oregon and which drew praise from both sides of the aisle. As for his recent environmental record, upon closer examination it proves far less disturbing than one might suppose. The Cougar-hunting bill, for example, did NOT pave the way for more hunting OR change the number of cougars taken under the management program. It just clarified the authority of ODFW to appoint licensed hunters as agents in dealing with problem cougars. I'm an environmentalist, and I'm not sure we should be hunting cougars at all, but I think it's important we look at the facts instead of exaggerating.
For my part, I think Bates is the strongest potential democratic candidate mentioned thus far. It will be difficult for anyone to beat Smith, now that all of the big name Ds have bowed out, but with his Southern Oregon roots, solidly liberal voting record, and impeccable reputation, Bates stands a reasonable chance of giving Gordon a run for his money. The main problem is that no one in Portland has heard of him yet...
Posted by: progressive mom | Jun 29, 2007 10:48:03 PM
A clarification on HB 2971 (the volunteer hound hunting bill): It has nothing to do with problem cougars, as the former poster asserts. Problem cougars are already completely accounted for within existing law; make no mistake, this was a deliberate (and avowed, acc. to a legislator on the Env./Nat.Res. committee who told me as much) sop to Bates to be able to get some conservative credibility toward a run against Smith. Rather, it allows hound hunters to kill *random*, *non-problem-causing* cougars who happen to be in (or near, since ODFW can't stay within its own boundaries) certain targeted areas as part of a supposed "study" the ODFW came up with to justify giving a huge gift back through a side door to the OHA, after their attempt to repeal Meas. 18 fell so dramatically short. The science behind this "plan" would be laughable to the world's knowledgeable professional cougar/wildlife management community (see _Cougar Management Guidelines_ for proper policy on cougars, acc. to the 13 best experts in the world) if it didn't sign death warrants for hundreds of the very cougars who are precisely *not* causing the problems.
No one other than the OHA gains from letting hounds loose again; not other wildlife, who are often killed by the hounds in their frenzy; not livestock, who are killed in greater numbers by hounds every year than by cougars; not cougars, who will die unnecessary deaths that could be possibly disastrous to their sustained presence in Oregon, as there is no way effectively to count their population to begin with; not the environment, which *needs* a healthy population of its keystone species in order to prevent a trophic cascade of negative environmental events (see the recent OSU study), and certainly not the Oregonian *humans* who are supposedly being kept safer. The biggest irony is that by killing the adult, non-problem-causing cougars who know enough to stay in the forest rather than come out to the towns, ODFW makes it *more* possible that ignorant dispersing males will venture into settled and newly-settled areas and cause the scares to schoolchildren and families that the OHA love to point to. There is clearly acknowledged, good science available by which to plan Oregonian cougar policy, but almost *nothing* in the Cougar Management "Plan" resembles any of it. Putting the OHA and the ODFW in charge of the management of cougars is like putting the Oil Industry in charge of national energy policy. Talk about the foxes being handed the keys to the henhouse.
All that *definite* damage and loss exchanged for a *possible* run against Smith. Congratulations, Dems. I'm nothing if not progressive/left, but I've now heard of Bates, and he has already lost my vote precisely because of this dissembling, dishonest calculation on the backs of cougars, the environment, and the health and safety of all Oregonians.
Posted by: cougarfan | Jun 30, 2007 11:25:41 AM
There will be many wildlife advocates in the state who will campaign against Bates for enabling the state to wage war against cougars and bears. First, he supported legislation that will resurrect the barbaric practice of chasing cougars with a pack of hounds. That bill, signed into law by Governor Kulongoski this week, has enraged many who care deeply about Oregon's wildlife. And it essentially overturned Measure 18 that banned the practice in 1994. Second, he has stood idly by while federal and state officials savagely kill bears who peel bark from trees on corporate timberland. Each spring federal and state agents set leg snares for the bears. Often cubs are with their moms who struggle for up to 3 days in the snares. The federal and state agents then shoot the entire family in the head, then dump their bodies in a wildlife refuge pit on the Oregon coast. See the Daily Astorian piece at http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=398&ArticleID=43101&TM=64734.61 Bates will never survive the political beating he will take from wildlife supporters. We will ensure he goes down in flames.
Posted by: ashlandaddy | Jun 30, 2007 11:34:07 AM
Bates, as well as Avakian, is political toast. Both recently supported a bill that returns Oregon to the dark ages. That legislation, HB 2971, reinstated hound hunting of cougars in the state. In 1994, voters supported a measure to ban the reprehensible hunting method because they found it so cruel. But "progressive" Democrats like Bates and Avakian slapped Oregonians in the face by overturning the ban. Now trophy hunters will once again be able to use hounds to corner, tree, and shoot cougars at point blank range. As a result, as many as 2,000 cougars may be slaughtered by trophy hunters with hounds over the next few years. Both Bates and Avakian have abandoned progressives with this vote. They are in bed with trophy hunters. What they don't realize is just how angry the masses are at them. You can not call yourself a progressive and support these lawmakers. They are worse than the Republicans because they present themselves as liberal and then enact legislation like HB 2971. Shame on them.
Posted by: marion | Jun 30, 2007 11:43:49 AM
If you want to learn more about the bear and cougar issues that the previous posters highlight go to www.bigwildlife.com
That organization has done a good job of revealing the truth about both issues. The hounding bill that Bates, Avakian, and Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown supported has NOTHING to do with dealing with the very rare incidents of conflicts with these magnificent cats. It has to do with bending over backwards to accommodate trophy hunters still fuming over the hounding ban voters approved in 1994. The new hounding law, along with the state's Cougar Management Plan, does not target an individual cougar with a history of causing problems. Instead, they allow trophy hunters with hounds to indiscriminately kill a target NUMBER of cougars in a specified zone. That means as many as 2,000 cougars, most with no history of creating any conflicts, will be killed.
Bates will not get my vote and I will actively campaign against him. So will many other wildlife lovers. By supporting the hounding bill he has shown his true stripes. He cares more about trophy hunters than the vast majority of Oregonians who care deeply about wildlife.
Posted by: marion | Jun 30, 2007 11:46:43 AM
Oops. Made a mistake. Go to: www.bigwildlife.org
Sorry about getting the webpage addy wrong. And be sure to check out the hounding video they have online. It will turn your stomach and help you understand why so many people are angy with Bates.
Again, that is www.bigwildlife.org
Posted by: manaze | Jul 1, 2007 10:53:18 AM
With all due respect, Independent Liberal is just plain wrong about the cougar hounding bill. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife launch its Cougar Management Plan this year. That plan calls for slaughtering as many as 2,000 cougars across the state. But the ODFW lacked the resources to fully carry out the plan. The agency needed some free help and viola, Senator Bates and the rest of the "liberal" Dems gave them the hounding bill. Now, the ODFW will have the help they will need to implement this disastrous cougar "management" plan. Senator Bates said he didn't like the plan. Yet he ushered through a bill that enables the ODFW to implement the very plan Bates says he dislikes. Go figure.
The cougar plan and the hounding bill do not target individual trouble making cougars. It will permit trophy hunters with hounds to kill a specified number of cougars in a particular zone. That means that cougars completely innocent of wrong doing will be killed.
Bates will be "hounded" by this issue wherever he goes. His vote for the hounding bill will doom his campaign. Already, wildlife protection organizations are gearing up for a summer to educate his district about his role in undercutting Measure 18, the ban on hounding. Those groups will be writing letters to the editor, opeds, doing media, and even going door to door to alert his supporters that Bates has sold out the interests of wildlife and those who love Oregon's natural wonders to a few, vocal trophy hunters who want to chase big cats with radio collared dogs.
Bates will not get my vote and I can assure you he won't get any support for true blue environmentalists. You simply can not call yourself a liberal and vote for Bates. Pure and simple. If you support him you might as well vote for a conservative Republican. You'll get the same anti-environment lawmaker. Bates has turned his back on the environment. He should join the GOP where he would fit in much better.
Posted by: madashell | Jul 3, 2007 12:17:52 AM
Bates and Avakian don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a US Senate seat. Why? Because environmentalists across Oregon will work hard to defeat them. Bates and Avakian are well liked by Republicans because they act like Republicans when it comes to the environment. They recently supported legislation to reinstate hound hunting of cougars, sat quietly while one of the most anti-environmental Democratic governors in the US steadily wage battle after battle against our state's wildlife, and did nothing as Governor Kulongoski plotted to kill nearly half of Oregon's cougars. The "progressive" Dems like Avakian, Bates, and the disgraceful Kulongoski are not liberals at all. They are as right-wing as any good ole boy Republican when it comes to wildlife protection. Not one environmentalist I know would ever vote for any of these guys again. In fact, there are rumors stirring across the state that Bates, Avakian, and Kulongoski are going to get hammered by protests for their actions against the environment. With "progressives" like Bates, Avakian, and Kulongoski, who needs conservatives.
Kulongoski is especially disappointing. Thank God his term as Governor is coming to an end. Wildlife will breath easier when he is out of the Governor's mansion. Perhaps after he leaves the Governorship he will go work for the Oregon Hunters Association -- and organization he has cozied up to over the years. The trophy hunters in Oregon own Bates, Avakian, and Kulongoski.
Posted by: JTT | Jul 16, 2007 10:38:54 PM
You people give progressives a bad name. First of all, you totally and COMPLETELY distort the content of the policy. M18 specifically allowed an exemption for agents of the county, STATE, and federal government. ODFW had the authority to use agents but due to a technicality they didn't have the ability to appoint agents. If the Sierra Club and Big Wildlife really think this is a problem (and not just a cheap fundraising trick), then gather the signatures from your masses and repeal the exemption for government agents. If you believe that the public is with you, then quit spitting venom and put your words to action.
Second of all, you attack Democrats who have been stallwarts of good progressive policy for the environment (not to mention civil rights, health care, etc). No better than Republicans? Please. Would we have a renewable energy standard in Oregon if Republicans were in charge? No. Would we have an updated bottle bill if Republicans were in charge? Would we have a biofuels package to encourage the production and consumption of clean biofuels in Oregon if Republicans were in power? No. Would we have adopted California's clean cars standard in Oregon if Republicans were in power? Hell no.
We just had over 16+ years of Republicans control of the Legislature and have begun to turn Oregon back around and enact sound progressive policy. If you really want to turn the House and Senate back to the Rs next session, by all means, keep spreading your Rovian lies without actually checking your facts, fracture the Democratic base and raise as much money as you can to put up the most "green" Green party member that you can. I'm sure that will work wonders.
Posted by: LT | Jul 17, 2007 12:19:17 AM
You tell 'em JTT.
Comments like this are why people hate politics.
"Bates and Avakian don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a US Senate seat. Why? Because environmentalists across Oregon will work hard to defeat them. Bates and Avakian are well liked by Republicans because they act like Republicans when it comes to the environment. "
Too many times activists assume to speak for all people of a certain persuasion.
My favorite history prof used to say that anytime a public figure said "the American people", one should substitute "people like us". My guess is that is valid with most labels. Whatever happened to individuals thinking for themselves?
Really frosts me when activists assume to speak for all of us, or assume to know where someone stands without asking them.
One time I remember in particular involved someone who would end up defeating a Republican incumbent, someone who had been active in Democratic politics for well over a decade. The man had grown up in the same part of Oregon Gordon Smith comes from. When asked about his views on gun rights, he'd say something like "Hey, all red blooded boys in my high school would hunt".
What really frosted me was that at an event for a different candidate, someone started complaining the person mentioned in the above paragraph was "wrong on guns". Since I thought the way it was said was insulting a friend of long standing, I said "did you ever ask him to his face about this, or are you just assuming you know where he stands". No, they just assumed...............
This was a person most Blue Oregonians would agree with somewhere between 90% and 95% of the time but the questioners were willing to throw that all away because he was "wrong on guns"? And Democrats wonder why they lose elections?
Much as I don't like the Casey family attitude on abortion, I'm so glad he defeated Santorum.
That is basically the issue here: ideological purity or winning elections.
Somehow I doubt that every environmentalist in Oregon agrees with madashell. And the history of environmental endorsements is spotty at best. Just like every other organizational endorsement, they don't guarantee voting blocs in the 21st century--and are often made by a small group.
If someone doesn't like Avakian or Bates, don't vote for them. But as I have often said to people I disagree with who launch attacks, why not state the affirmative?
Of course, "repeal the exemption for government agents" or mentioning the bill number of the bill madashell is so angry about aren't nearly as much fun as name calling, are they?
There are people worried about health care and many other issues. But those issues don't matter? To claim that any randomly chosen environmentalist will agree with madashell is a stretch.
Posted by: raul | Jul 20, 2007 7:17:54 PM
You can't call yourself a progressive and support the likes of Avakian and Bates. Progressives care deeply about the environment, including protecting wildlife. Bates, Avakian, and Kulongoski are no better than Republicans (actually worse!) when it comes to Oregon's wildlife. They are worse because the public erroneously assumes Oregon's wildlife is in good hands because Democrats are in control. So they don't pay attention as Bates and company strip our state's wildlife of protection.
When Bates, Kulio, and Avakian pushed the hound hunting bill through they unearthed a well of outrage. Now, we are fighting mad and we will do everything to bring down these "progressives" who have launched a brutal and inhumane attack on cougars. Mark my words, Bates will NEVER be elected to the U.S. Senate because we will hound him every step of the way on his campaign. Kulio, Avakian, and Bates underestimated the wildlife protection movement. We will NOT let them forget their misguided decision to bring back the barbaric practice of hounding cougars. We will make sure Bates and Avakian are political toast.
We may not speak for you, JTT and LT, because you are not progressives. You are middle of the road, perhaps even conservative, bluedog Dems. The real progressives will run Avakian and Bates out of politics and replace them with compassionate liberals who care about wildlife.
Posted by: cindy | Jul 20, 2007 7:21:20 PM
If you think Bates, the Gov, and Avakian are such liberals I encourage you to watch this hound hunting video on youtube. If you can stomach it. Then come back to this board and praise these lawmakers who reinstated this horrendous practice.
Go to: http://bigwildlife.weebly.com/cougars.html
Then scroll down and click on the video. If you have any compassion in your heart you will understand why so many of us are outrage with these so-called progressives.
Posted by: JTT | Jul 20, 2007 10:36:52 PM
wow...I've been called many things before, but a bluedog Democrat...that's a first. Why do I sense that you're ideologues--no better than Bush, Rove & Co. calling Dems "unpatriotic" and "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" when they dare to question.
I still see the irrational vitriol, but you didn't answer my questions, just levied more attacks, so I'll copy and paste in case you didn't read it the first time. M18 specifically allowed an exemption for agents of the county, STATE, and federal government. ODFW had the authority to use agents but due to a technicality they didn't have the ability to appoint agents. HB2971 simply corrects that technical issue. Agents aren't allowed to keep an animal killed in the course of their work...so I'm not sure how this could be an end run around the voters.
How does this "bring back the practice of hounding"? How is this a repeal of M18? If the voters passed the exemption in M18, how does this subvert the will of the voters? Why is it that OLCV didn't oppose it...are you going to come after them now too (because they must not be environmentalists)? Is it possible that the Sierra Club is having a difficult time coping with the fact that they wrote M18 with this exemption and now regret it because it may be used?
And yes "Cindy", I will praise Avakian, Bates, Brown and the Gov for actually having a brain in their head and using it on this one...rather than listening to political zombies like you. Are you taking your talking points directly from Spencer and Sally?
Posted by: arealprogressive | Jul 21, 2007 9:58:21 AM
JTT-
I'll answer your question. You are wrong about both Measure 18 and HB 2971. While it is true that Measure 18 had an exemption for agents and hounds, that exemption was only intended to permit the killing of an individual, problem cougar. HB 29781 doesn't, as you put it, simply correct some technical glitch in Measure 18. HB 2971 allows the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to deputize agents to carry out the agency's Cougar Management Plan. That plan does NOT target individual cougars with a history of conflict. Instead, that plan calls for indiscriminate killing of cougars in targetted zones. As many as 2,000 cougars will be killed under the plan. HB 2971 gives the ODFW the staff to now fully implement this odious plan.
In other words, JTT, Measure 18's exemption was only intended to allow for the removal of the very rare cougar who causes trouble. HB 2971, on the other hand, permits the wholesale killing of cougars, many of whom have NO history of conflicts with humans or domestic livestock. So you are completely wrong about the new hounding law.
I have no idea if you are bluedog Dem. But you do sound like a mouthpiece for Bates and company. You fail to appreciate the real and intense outrage the hounding bill has wrought. People are rightfully angry at the Governor, Bates, Avakian, and even former Senate leader, Kate Brown (who also supported this disastrous bill).
Bates, Avakian, and especially the Governor are a disgrace. While the Gov is pulling little publicity stunts like living off foodstamps, his wildlife agency is slaughtering our state's wildlife. Am I outraged? You bet and I join all those here who are committed to showing Bates the door and ending his political career.
Posted by: grrrlpowr | Jul 23, 2007 5:40:14 PM
JTT and LT, HB 2971 should never have been signed into law. First, it was unnecessary. As the previous poster indicated, Measure 18 already allowed for controlling cougars that cause trouble. HB 2971 has little to do with managing those few cougars that are involved in conflicts. Instead, the law the anti-wildlife Governor signed allows slob trophy hunters to kill up to 2,000 cougars as outlined in the state's Cougar Management Plan. Before either of you criticize those of us who are outraged by the Governor's and Bates' action, I suggest you do your homework by reading both HB 2971 and the cougar plan. Then you will realize that both violate the intent and spirit of Measure 18. Yes, Oregonians wanted the exemption to deal with the occasional misbehaving cougar. But they NEVER supported the idea of using hound hunters to slaughter over 40 percent of the state's cougars.
I, along with many others, are willing to organize against Bates, Avakian, and the Governor. I hope we cripple them politically. The Governor has a horrible record when it comes to wildlife. And Bates is no better.
Posted by: imagreenie | Jul 27, 2007 1:03:36 AM
Impeach Kulongoski for his crimes against nature. And while we're at it, run Bates and Avakian out of office for betraying Oregon's wildlife and Oregon's voters. If Kulongoski is the best we progressives can do, we are hopeless. Kulongoski is anti-wildlife, anti-environment, and anti-progressive. And as others have stated here, Bates will never, ever be a U.S. Senator because so many true progressives will work to defeat him.
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.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 8, 2007 11:45:52 PM
It's been two years, John. Welcome Back!