Welcome to the Democratic Party; Now sit down and shut up
I wasn’t expecting a parade or a gift basket when I officially registered as a Democrat. All I really expected was to find a card from the county clerk in my mailbox with “Dem” printed in the “political party” category.
I got that.
But I also wasn’t expecting an admonition from a Jeff Merkley-supporting Democrat who used her website and others to state that I’m not even a member of The Party and to say that liberals who support Steve Novick – but can’t even vote for him – are hypocrites to be ignored.
But I got that, too.
So here I am, forced into the position of wanting to explain myself (and my formerly private motivations for registering the way I do) because some misguided blogger on a mission to discredit Novick supporters – and hiding behind a fake name, no less – published false statements about me.
Some of my earliest childhood memories are of going to the papermakers’ union hall in Missoula with my dad, who was at turns president, treasurer and secretary of that guild. I remember some pretty lean days when the union was on strike and at least one particularly sparse Christmas.
I also distinctly remember being one of only two kids in my entire second-grade class to vote for McGovern rather than Nixon in our teacher’s impromptu straw poll. Ours was a solidly Democratic household. At 18, I proudly registered as a Democrat. Then I switched to “non-affiliated” during my brief-yet-unremarkable journalism, eh, hmm, career.
Although I’ve (almost) always voted, and I’ve never voted for a third-party candidate or a Republican, that non-affiliated status held over until this spring when I moved and had to re-register. The excitement of being able to vote for Steve Novick in the primary and the general was just too good to pass up.
During my “independent” years, I may not have had the “D” stamped on my forehead or tattooed on my forearm, but I’ve been there with you every election.
So you can imagine the offense I felt at having a blogger hiding behind a fake name tell me my opinion shouldn’t count and imply it isn’t desired by Democrats; then use her website to state as fact that I’m not even a Democrat; and when called on that malicious error, insult my cartoons and say she’s sad I’m a member of her party. (But curiously taking time later to suggest I draw a cartoon about her).
Are my fellow Democrats, and especially the many robust Merkley supporters who frequent BlueOregon, comfortable with those tactics and behavior? Are the operators of BlueOregon, which directed me to Taoiseach’s Beaver Boundary with a “hat tip” about Summit straw poll results, and who often “front page” her posts, comfortable associating themselves with this tenuous grasp of right and wrong and Anne Coulter-like ever-present self-promotion?
Are you comfortable with a fellow Democrat who hides behind a fake name trolling dated Democratic voter rolls to “out” non-Democrats who disagree with her?
Are Democrats in general comfortable with Merkley backers using the internet to demand answers from Novick supporters to the question: “Are you now or have you ever been … a member of the Democratic Party?”
It’s mini-McCarthyism in reverse. But this time you’re accused of NOT being a member of The Party and are forced to explain yourself for the sake of a faceless accuser.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s out of line to be wholly offended when a blogger hiding behind a fake name uses deceitful strong-arm tactics to stifle dissent from her chosen Party line. Maybe it’s naïve to be disillusioned by the lack of Democratic voices stepping up to tell Taoiseach that they don’t approve of “progressives” who behave like Anne Coulter.
But I don’t think I’m wrong or naïve (at least not in this case), especially after having read so much here at BlueOregon about how necessary it is to maintain civility in this primary.
It’s easy (and sometimes fun if done right) to make hay out of the ethical lapses of your political opponents. It takes a great deal more gumption to police one of your own.
This all makes me think I was better off shacking up with a political party instead of going and getting all officially married to one. But I’m pretty stubborn. I guess the honeymoon is over.
|
November 8, 2007 |
Pat Malach | Comments (95 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Nov 8, 2007 8:20:25 AM
Why, oh why, can't Democrats save the Whoop-Ass for the Republicans?
I'm truly undecided about Merkley and Novick, and at this point I lean towards sitting out the whole thing until one of them wins the primary, and then I'll spend Summer and Fall going to the mat for our nominee. Seems to me the main difference between them are merely style not substance, and either of them would be a much better Senator than the pinatahead toejam cretin we're stuck with now.
I just hope they and their followers don't destroy each other in the meantime. Keep your eyes on Smith. Is that too much to ask?
Posted by: Pat Malach | Nov 8, 2007 8:33:11 AM
So let's see.
We're at war with an outside enemy (Smith) who must be defeated. Therefore Democrats should stifle all internal dissent and oversight and just support the troops, er, the Democrats. I mean, that's what a REAL patriot, er, Democrat who loves this country, er, party, would do.
Where have I heard that argument before?
Posted by: Henry | Nov 8, 2007 8:39:54 AM
Her? I believe Tom Powers runs Beaver Boundary, does he not?
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Nov 8, 2007 9:05:53 AM
Our fine Democratic values tend to fly out the window during primary campaigns. This is sad, but perhaps it is unavoidable. The take-no-prisoners approach of general election campaigns is replicated in primaries. This drives wedges between Democrats and drives many people out of the party. Most of the Green and Independent party members I know were once Democrats who felt marginalized by the party. I was embarrassed by the shabby treatment of the LaRouche delegation at the 2000 state Democratic presidential delegate selection convention [note: I am not and have never been a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche] when they were silenced by transforming the meeting into one of the Al Gore caucus, with pledged support of that candidate required of all attendees. The LaRouchies were, afterall, registered Democrats.
We talk of a "big tent", but often behave like we're managing a stockyard.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Nov 8, 2007 9:08:48 AM
This is pretty sanctimonious. You got in an argument with some guy on a blog and you post a front page post on Blue Oregon about it? And you somehow conflate this to "welcome to the Democratic Party now shut up"? Since when does some guy on a blog speak for the Dem party? Jeez, take a chill pill.
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Nov 8, 2007 9:15:41 AM
I would recommend the three-part BBC series "The Power of Nightmares" to every Democrat, independent, Independent, RINO, etc.
It chronicles the rise of Islamism and Jihadism, juxtaposing that rise with the neo-conservative movement and how they created faceless enemies in "terror" and "the left" to take control of the GOP and push their agenda. Richard Perle, Irving Kristol, and other neo-con thinkers are interviewed extensively. It's a very enlightening series.
Posted by: Lupita Maurer | Nov 8, 2007 9:17:53 AM
Dear Pat:
A blogger does not speak for all of us in the Democratic Party. We welcome different opinions. Some of us just need to learn some manners. Usually this gets fixed over a beer or a glass of wine. Support whoever you want, and enjoy it.
Cheers!
Lupita Maurer
Washington County Democratic Party, Chair.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 8, 2007 9:27:00 AM
Would someone care to define what the Democratic Party is? From my observations it is like most congresses of people - a mixture of very good and very bad people with the majority somewhere in between. Some people insist there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, but that is like saying you can "trust the wisdom of the people." Categorical statements that are true some times but don't hold up all the time.
I'm in the process of re-reading Walter Karp's book "Liberty Under Siege" which supports and rejects the no-difference label. There were, obviously, big differences between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, but when it came to the Democrats in the Senate and the House there wouldn't have been much difference between them and Republicans if the latter had been in the majority. The Democrats undermined Carter and supported Reagan.
In today's Congress who are representative of the Democratic Party? Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich or Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein and Steny Hoyer?
I believe it would help this debate and others that follow if people abandoned labels to make a point and stuck to issues and principles.
Disclaimer: I'm a Novick support and like Pat Malach I'll re-register as a Democrat to vote for Novick in the primary, then I'll re-register as a NAV and vote for the best person in the general election.
Posted by: petrichor | Nov 8, 2007 9:48:08 AM
going through voter rolls to reveal the registration info of a commenter on your blog is truly abhorrent, vindictive behavior. doubly so if that blogger shields themselfs from the same treatment by using a pseudonym. but this has very little to do with the democratic party... it's just the actions of one insensitive blogger, who may or may not belong to the party apparatus (or a campaign). even if they do it is irrelevant; the party is all of us and what we make of it. i think most of us are making it a nicer place to be than the beaver boundary blogger.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 8, 2007 9:48:37 AM
Hmmm... Well, these kinds of silly blog wars are all too common in the blogosphere.
Disagreement is fine, but sometimes it gets personal. And sometimes, people just can't seem to let it go.
I don't have any idea who did what to whom, when, and on what blog. And I'm not sure I care.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Posted by: Jamias Vu | Nov 8, 2007 9:48:55 AM
"Since when does some guy on a blog speak for the Dem party?"
Indeed. Even the petty sniping seen too much by both the Merkley and Novick supporters on Blue Oregon has been comparatively calm and well-mannered compared to most of the Internet, which is a free speech zone for anyone who can master a few basic skills. I understand what it's liked to vilified in the press, Pat, but I think you're extrapolation of "Beaver Boundary" = "Democratic Party" is a stretch.
That said, I'd encourage you to stay in an organized party (or create one). Collective action and coherent, consistent and sustainable approaches to shaping policy are helped by organizations--such as political parties--that create forums for collective action and debate, as well as a collective identity. Politics is about the "poli," and in the absence of party coalitions, the alternative is mostly cults of personality, e.g. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader. That, and it's also true that the point of view of promoted by the most organized "side" usually prevails. Pulling together a short-term coalition to support a single candidate is unlikely to ever create real change in the face of practiced, organized opposition.
"We are many; they are few," but we need to be organized lest their phalanxes to route us from the field.
Posted by: Tom Keffer | Nov 8, 2007 9:58:00 AM
One of the strengths of the Internet is its great democratizing appeal --- everyone gets a voice. One of its great weaknesses is its easy to use that voice in cheap ways.
Get used to it. It's worth growing a thick skin and just shrugging it off.
-tk
Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 8, 2007 10:28:02 AM
Tom Powers? That name sounds familiar in Salem circles. Izzat the same Tom Powers who is the LA for Mitch Greenlick? You know--Mitch Greenlick, the guy who called Novick all kinds of personally insulting names on Blue O a couple of weeks ago?
Is THAT who BB is? Reallllly.....!
Posted by: LT | Nov 8, 2007 10:33:40 AM
Bill asked the operative question.
Either the Democratic Party welcomes all who register (haven't looked this time, but when I was involved in re-writing presidential delegate selection rules 2 decades ago there was a section titled AN OPEN PARTY which had been there since the unpleasantness about the Miss. delelgates in the 1960s (Google Fannie Lou Hamer and you may find the story).
OR it is everyone who claims to be the party because of a campaign they are working on, even if they don't get involved in the organized party (led by DNC Chair Dean, Oregon State Party Chair Smith, county chairs, etc.).
Bloggers are not "the party"--- they are bloggers. People who say "agree with us or you are not a true party member" only drive out those who refuse to be told how to think. (The current GOP is in trouble because they drove out people who still admire Tom McCall, and the 49 result showed that even Republican counties had substantial support for an idea Tom McCall would have liked. )
There are people who are/have been active in the Democratic Party who think the word "liberal" should have been left in the 20th century because to them it meant Hubert Humphrey, a great man who wouldn't recognize 21st century politics.
So if I ever heard this comment in person,
"But I also wasn’t expecting an admonition from a Jeff Merkley-supporting Democrat who used her website and others to state that I’m not even a member of The Party and to say that liberals who support Steve Novick – but can’t even vote for him – are hypocrites to be ignored.",
to use old fashioned slang,
I would "give that person what for!".
There was an article printed in some county Dem. newsletters (originally appeared in one county, then it got shared) just about 2 decades ago, asking "who is the true Democrat?". There were people who had knocked themselves out working for Democratic campaigns and in party organizations(from local to state), but they dared to disagree with what some considered party orthodoxy. Did the Democratic Party want people like that, or only people who took orders?
There were others who had the "correct beliefs" on certain things but couldn't be bothered to show up to do the actual volunteer work. Which type was more valuable to the Democratic Party? My guess is the person quoted above as insulting all of our intelligence as well as insulting a person is in the 2nd group.
I was the volunteer coordinator for the local branch of a presidential campaign, had been working on Dem. campaigns for many years--incl. helping a supposedly "impossible" candidate become the first Democrat elected state rep. here since single member districts were created (there was no caucus campaign arm back then--every candidate ran individually and some think that was a better system), a member of State Central Comm., as well as being active at the cong. district, standing committee and county levels.
But because I did not support a particular primary candidate, did not agree with a resolution passed by state central comm. (25-19 vote is a pretty close margin for an expression of "what all Democrats believe"), etc. I was "not a real Democrat"? And people wonder why I register for Democratic primaries but reserve the right to be registered NAV in between primaries?
There are fundamental disagreements between Democrats and always have been. Will Rogers said "I belong to no organized political party, I am a Democrat". Others have said the GOP is the "just repeat the talking points" party, while Democrats are likely to openly argue about the talking points.
My guess is that if you found those of us old fossils who were enthusiastic supporters of either Eugene McCarthy or Bobby Kennedy, you'd find that there was a fundamental difference of political leaning. I do know that Gary Hart got 59% in the 1984 Democratic Presidential Primary although the bulk (maybe 90%) of the Democratic establishment supported Mondale. There was a strong correlation between Hart people supporting Lonsdale in 1992 and Mondale people supporting AuCoin (mavericks vs. establishment?).
This has been a subject of conversation for a very long time, whether the state party officers understand it or not. There are very inspired county chairs and county organizations--Washington County appears to be one, Polk County is another. Polk Dems are thrilled by the Measure 49 result. I got this email from one of their leaders:
As of midnight on election night, Measure 49 had passed resoundingly with 62% of the vote statewide. Voter turn-out was just over 50%. This is, of course, FANTASTIC NEWS!!!
Now take a look at Polk County on M49:
65% Yes / 35% No. Proportion of registered voters who voted: over 61%!
http://www.co.polk.or.us/tempimages/EL45.HTM
THIS IS SIMPLY MIND-BOGGLING!!!!! Little ol' rural conservative Polk County? ... passing Measure 49 by greater margins than statewide? How could this be??
But can the US Senate candidates inspire that sort of enthusiasm? Or are there people who were previously involved in Democratic politics (not to mention young people who have just started voting ) who have no idea Jeff and Steve even exist?
A very wise friend said of a hotly contested multi-candidate campaign decades ago where 2 of the candidates went after each other hammer and tongs, "when they act like that, you know they know they are losing". Those 2 candidates ended up coming in 2nd and 3rd.
Legally, the Democratic Party is the pct. people who elect the county officers and representatives to the state and cong. district where those officers are elected.
Anyone working on a campaign who tries to say otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about and is likely to inspire responses like
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Nov 8, 2007 8:20:25 AM
Why, oh why, can't Democrats save the Whoop-Ass for the Republicans?
I'm truly undecided about Merkley and Novick, and at this point I lean towards sitting out the whole thing until one of them wins the primary,
<<
And if such an obnoxious person who claims to speak for Democrats (but if the past is any guide can't be bothered to attend county meetings of the Democratic Party) doesn't understand they are hurting their chosen candidate (and perhaps driving some to look at Frohnmayer if that is the way Democratic campaigners behave) that is their problem. It is not the problem of someone who is registered to the party which at its best allows people to think and allows the diversity fromestablishment types like Steny Hoyer to Russ Feingold, Peter DeFazio, John Edwards, Barak Obama, Bill Richardson, etc.
Posted by: colin maloney | Nov 8, 2007 10:44:49 AM
I'm thinking seriously about changing by "Party Affiliation" back to Green after the primary. The motivating factor is less about the Senate Primary that we're having than about the performance of the Dems in Congress. Their continued (and seeming never ending) capitulation to Bush makes me embarrassed to be part of the same party.
I registered as a Democrat for the first time in 2004 to try to work "within the party," and have been involved with some campaigns for some great people (who happened to be Democrats). Somehow, having decent people locally and throughout the state who are Democrats seem to change the behavior of "The Party" at its level of "leadership."
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Nov 8, 2007 10:56:49 AM
I don't get it, Pat. How does the opinion of some individual campaign-partisan come to represent the entire "Democratic Party" in your mind, and lead you to write a slam-piece against all of us working within it?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 8, 2007 11:22:25 AM
the alternative is mostly cults of personality, e.g. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader.
Some Nader supporters may be that way because of a personality cult, but many others support him most of the time because of his fundamental integrity and intelligence. People in this latter group don't agree 100% (this is personality cult-like) with Nader. Many who voted for him in 2000 strongly opposed him in 2004 when they were in an anybody-but-Bush mode and mistakenly saw Kerry as the one who could replace Bush. I disagree with Nader on the Death With Dignity Act, but am with him all the way on his work exposing unethical conduct in Washington and takeover of Congress and the White House by Corporate Amerika.
That said, I'd encourage you to stay in an organized party (or create one).
Create another and you'll be labeled a spoiler. If we are to get the major political parties out of their moral and ethical dungeons and stop the national decline before its threatening fall, we need two groups of people. One inside the parties to try to reverse their moral and ethical declines and a second to say outside the parties what the oligarchies running both parties in such base and corrupt ways wouldn't tolerate but needs to be said. In effect, the latter group would support the former.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 8, 2007 11:27:43 AM
Is THAT who BB is?
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, TJ. You can parse the differences as much as you like but the bottom line is that you didn't appreciate Jack Bog outting you. Seems mighty hypocritical for you to turn around and participate in trying to out someone else. But then again it would fit the pattern of doing whatever you think will somehow be a partisan advantage for Novick.
Glass houses, TJ...
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Nov 8, 2007 12:00:11 PM
One good thing that has come of this is that now someone can be held accountable for the way Tom has been treating people on his blog.
It's one thing to rely on anonymity so that you can say sensitive, but informative things, that could get one into trouble -- a la deepthroat. It's another thing entirely to do so in order to trash people without consequence.
Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 8, 2007 12:43:59 PM
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, TJ. You can parse the differences as much as you like but the bottom line is that you didn't appreciate Jack Bog outting you. Seems mighty hypocritical for you to turn around and participate in trying to out someone else. But then again it would fit the pattern of doing whatever you think will somehow be a partisan advantage for Novick.Glass houses, TJ...
Of course, Jack never "outed" me; it was not a hidden secret but simply an undeclared truth. My personal email includes both my name and my handle, for heaven's sake! If you remember, I shrugged it off at the time as an attempt to intimidate me that failed. Being "exposed" was no crisis. What I DID object to was the silly way in which it was used as an intimidation/silencing tool, in response to his having been called out on the facts of one issue or another.
This did not appear to be any kind of attempt to expose or silence someone, other than to clarify who was being referred to--since Pat Malach referred to the proprietor of BB as a "she"--and attempt to resolve it. Henry threw out the name and it seemed familiar.
But given the way you've misapprehended much of the conversation about Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley these past few months--claiming that Novick smears Merkley with GOP talking points, etc.--I'm not surprised you leap to conclusions of malice.
My name was used in an attempt to bully me. I don't see any such attempt here--and since I made clear at the time that I made no claims to the sacredness of my anonymity (only pseudonymity), I also fail to see support for the charge of hypocrisy. Nice try, though.
You might ask yourself why you're not upset that this particular blogger apparently used public voter rolls to "out" Pat's political affiliation, though--THAT sure seems like a hypocritical act, in such a vein.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Nov 8, 2007 12:49:12 PM
It's pretty clear that Pat Malach was not referring to the Democratic Party of Oregon [though I was in my comment about the LaRouchies].
She wrote about someone active in a Democratic primary campaign and about behavior that is common in Democratic primary campaigns; that is, using any tactic available to discredit opponents and their supporters. All of us as Democrats are responsible for upholding the values of the party. All of us are responsible for making voters feel welcome to join the Democratic Party. Though we sometimes come down on different sides of issues and sometimes support different candidates, we should realize the importance of party registration and even more so, political activism by Democrats.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Nov 8, 2007 1:08:39 PM
Pat, anyone who blogs regularly is going to write some stupid stuff now and then. i know i've gone hyperbolic at times, and i've fallen short of my personal pledge to be respectful of others. i've even been wrong, although i try to avoid actual facts whenever possible (little bastards will just make your life miserable).
and the more emotional something is, the more likely we are to stray across the line into bullshittery. which makes the use of "tao" in a blog nick kind of ironic.
and while i agree with you that one Dem attacking another for pushing Republican talking points -- and who is less likely to do that than Steve Novick? what a ridiculous accusation -- i'd give you my late mother's advice: Consider the source. or that Jesus guy: You'll know a tree by its fruit.
or even F. Gump: Stupid is as stupid does.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 8, 2007 1:29:48 PM
What I DID object to was the silly way in which it was used as an intimidation/silencing tool, in response to his having been called out on the facts of one issue or another.
Well sure. And nobody believes that you or Pat might possibly be interested in silencing Tao. Oh nooooo....
(rolls eyes)
Who exactly do either of you think you're fooling?
Posted by: James X. | Nov 8, 2007 1:41:50 PM
I basically agree with Peter Bray and Kari here, there was no need to front-page a personal tiff. Also, T.A., I believe "taoiseach" refers to the Irish prime minister's title. And it's pronounced "tea-shuck." You're welcome.
And Henry, I don't know if you're right, but it's poor form to casually out anonymous bloggers. A Google search finds no record of a Tom Powers associated with Beaver Boundary or the Taoiseach alias.
TJ: Oregon Democratic bloggers are involved with Oregon Democratic politics? Outrageous.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 8, 2007 2:46:15 PM
Well sure. And nobody believes that you or Pat might possibly be interested in silencing Tao. Oh nooooo....
I haven't seen any sign that taoiseach could ever be so easily silenced. But if taoiseach really is Mitch Greenlick's LA, then that presents a lot of ethical issues of the kind Kari is so scrupulous to avoid by his ubiquitous disclaimers.
I mean, people here tease him about the disclaimers and even mock them from time to time, but he does that for a reason: so anyone reading his words, even if that person has never been to BlueO before and knows none of the backstory of anyone writing here, Kari's cards are on the table. Likewise when Jake comments here, he outs himself every time. When Jenni or Carla comments here, each is extremely scrupulous about making her disclosures.
That's how you earn trust and respect.
If taoiseach were a whistleblower, we'd be having a different conversation. But so far he seems merely to be a bully who was interested in the benefits of anonymity to avoid the consequences of the way he likes to bash people.
I certainly don't expect that his voice will be silenced. But now he will have to own that voice, and take responsibility for what it says.
Posted by: Jenny | Nov 8, 2007 2:50:27 PM
Not that anyone will read this far down in the comments, but...
The Democratic Party of Oregon is bending over so far backwards that we're bending forwards in terms of staying neutral on primaries.
Please don't conflate a blogger with the Party.
Who is the Party? You are. It's the old saying "Politics belongs to those who show up."
Politics is really, really hard work. I know it's the hardest thing I've ever done. It's a lot easier to sit around and complain. It's especially hard to take complaints from people who want to tell the Democratic Party how to run things, but don't register as Democrats and don't participate.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 8, 2007 3:01:34 PM
It's especially hard to take complaints from people who want to tell the Democratic Party how to run things, but don't register as Democrats and don't participate.
Our money goes to pay for your primary elections. Don't wanna hear my opinion? Stop spending my money. It's that simple.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Nov 8, 2007 3:03:11 PM
Pat Malach,
I'll step up with my bona fides first, Precinct 4 Committeeman, Baker Co Democrats Vice-chair, DPO SCC Delegate, registered Dem since 1971. I personally welcome you to the Democratic Party and state unequivocably that you are not only welcome but a valued member of the Party. So, the link to my site also makes me a blogger, once again, welcome.
The Democratic Party is the sum of what its members are. The candidates are what they are with a self-imposed (D) not a Party issued (D). We have our say during the Primaries about who gets to represent us and in the offical stances of state wide DPO and nationally DNC which is not the same thing as controling candidates. The Party will respond to membership concerns and eventually that will begin to be reflected in candidates, but it is the long haul outlook and requires membership and membership that gives a rat's patoot. That kind of means keeping the registration...
I have good reasons to be furious (as you probably do) with some of our elected Democrats. I do what I can and then I do what I can within the Party mechanisms. This is the problem with NAV, it requires the Party to guess and then complains that it guesses wrong. It is an, "I want you to do what I want," but at the same time is an, "I won't play with you until you do," Catch 22.
Welcome anyhow, stick around and make a difference,
Chuck
I'v had a dust up with Sal Peralta, we opposed each other in DPO and I never took a swipe at him, I just beat him, once he decided Democrats were crap and Indies were the stuff, I went after him, he's no more different than a Republican on attack, in that regard. Democrats really don't have too much problem sorting things out in house, despite Sal's BS.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 8, 2007 3:07:28 PM
I haven't seen any sign that taoiseach could ever be so easily silenced.
Did you ever see any sign that TJ could ever be so easily silenced?
Did the lack of any such sign mean that Jack wasn't interested in silencing TJ? Torrid clearly doesn't believe so.
What's yer point here?
Posted by: LT | Nov 8, 2007 3:13:09 PM
Right on, Tom!
" All of us as Democrats are responsible for upholding the values of the party. All of us are responsible for making voters feel welcome to join the Democratic Party. Though we sometimes come down on different sides of issues and sometimes support different candidates, we should realize the importance of party registration and even more so, political activism by Democrats."
And for TJ and Stephanie,
We hear you about Greenlick and the whole debate about whether mentioning the 2003 resolution was connected to GOP talking points.
But is that the way you are going to get Steve nominated?
Yesterday I was talking to someone who was previously (in another decade) active in Democratic politics, but didn't know there were 2 US Senate candidates named Jeff and Steve. How does Steve's campaign get the word out to people whose lives have taken a turn away from direct involvement in the Democratic Party they used to be actively involved in?
You folks need to make a choice. You can continue to make blog remarks like
"But given the way you've misapprehended much of the conversation about Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley these past few months--claiming that Novick smears Merkley with GOP talking points, etc.--I'm not surprised you leap to conclusions of malice. "
and "if taoiseach really is Mitch Greenlick's LA..."
But how are you going to gain the support of people who at the moment don't know anything about either Jeff or Steve?
I have a Republican friend who knows Jeff from way back when he was first a legislator. My friend sent me a fwd of an organizational fundraising appeal for a Republican presidential candidate. I sent him an organizational fundraising appeal for Jeff Merkley and said the 2 emails had in common that they were generalized, not very inspired, and appeared to be consultant-written.
THERE ARE THOSE OF US HERE WHO HAVE NOT CHOSEN A CANDIDATE YET! Partly that is because infighting and generalities are no reason to choose between candidates.
Those of you who do support a candidate need to concentrate on getting the word out to the general public about why your candidate will make a good US Senator.
Is it the view of Jeff's campaign that if they get enough endorsements and send out enough emails it will make up for the weak Issues section of their website?
Is it the position of Steve's supporters (surely Steve himself is too smart for this) that they don't want the support of anyone who is friends with or has campaigned for Mitch Greenlick because he had the gall to write a post here critical of Steve and defending Jeff?
Grow up folks, and grow a thick skin. Talk to Steve about putting a distinct category under ISSUES on his website talking about veterans and not just a line under prioritized defense spending. Talk to your neighbors and people you associate with in other ways about why Steve is a great candidate.
I just don't see how "Novick for Senate because Greenlick insulted our guy" is going to win a contested primary.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 8, 2007 3:13:16 PM
Who is the Party? You are. It's the old saying "Politics belongs to those who show up."
That's a nice but trite theory; however, people who have turned up and had a difference of opinion with the party leadership and been made aware that contrary opinions were not welcome won't buy it. It's a good bet that many registered Democrats contacted Chuck Schumer and DiFi before their sellout to the Bush White House over Mukasey. What good did that do?
To make another reference to Walter Karp's "Liberty Under Siege" there was a time during the Reagan administration when the Democrats picked up many seats to give them a large majority and the new members were quickly put in their places by the bonhommous Tip O'Neill and other party leaders which meant they didn't do what they were elected to do; that is, oppose the unfair taxes created by Reagan in collusion with Democrats. Kind of like Nancy Pelosi and company doing nothing to end the war in Iraq and keeping impeachment off the table.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 8, 2007 3:57:34 PM
LT, believe it or not, not everything in my life is about whether or not Steve Novick gets nominated or elected. I'm guessing that Steve and Jake already know that, but perhaps it's best if I state it for the record. In my mind, the primary election campaign is just the wallpaper behind the ethical issue that is being presented.
Whenever anyone comments anonymously or pseudonymously about his or her employer in a public forum (other than to provide basic factual information like an address or a phone number), that's a problem. You saw me commend Kari and Carla (and Jake and Jenni) for their consistent adherence to the ethical standard. The CEO of Whole Foods got in trouble with the SEC doing the same thing, and damaged his company's brand image. It's not just about taoiseach - if he is Tom Powers, it's also about Mitch Greenlick's reputation, which Tom Powers owes a duty to protect. And as angry as I am with Mitch about that bogus "smear" column he published here, the principle is more important. There's no way Mitch could have condoned some of the stuff taoiseach has said, just as the Whole Foods board of directors and PR organization had no idea the CEO was sock-puppeting on Yahoo Finance message boards. You just have to know where to draw the line.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Nov 8, 2007 5:25:27 PM
I'v had a dust up with Sal Peralta, we opposed each other in DPO and I never took a swipe at him, I just beat him, once he decided Democrats were crap and Indies were the stuff
With all due respect, Chuck, you are a liar and a fool.
Anyone who remembers your little gun vote in Medford knows that I didn't say a word in opposition of the measure, and you and I both know that I agreed not to oppose the measure in hopes that it would help breathe some life into the Democratic Party east of the Cascades.
If I'd wanted to kill your efforts to shill for the NRA, I would have emailed other DPO delegates.
This business about me thinking that the "Democrats are crap" is a load of crap. I have always been an advocate for the rights of 3rd parties. I will continue to do so regardless of party affiliation.
I'll continue to push for greater comity, and I'll treat people with generally the level of respect they treat me with.
But the fact that I'll support a person whom I regard as the best candidate in a given race, or the fact that I think it's good to work with Republicans who are willing to cooperate is not an indictment of the Democratic Party.
I put people ahead of partisanship, and I value solving problems more than I value the hyper-partisanship that we've been getting from the legislature. You don't. I get it.
But I'll say this: If you want to organize to win in Eastern Oregon, you are going to need to reach out to a whole lot of Republicans, since they outnumber Democrats by about 2-1. Klanning up with like-minded folks as you are doing, Chuck, is going to result in a lifetime of being on the wrong end of 35-65 majorities as most voters in this state, and in your district, don't share your prejudices.
It certainly isn't doing the Democratic Party any good.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Nov 8, 2007 6:59:31 PM
How does the opinion of some individual campaign-partisan come to represent the entire "Democratic Party" ...
It doesn't. I simply asked how other Democrats felt about that behavior.
"these kinds of silly blog wars are all too common in the blogosphere. Disagreement is fine, but sometimes it gets personal. And sometimes, people just can't seem to let it go.
If you can't understand why Tao's behavior was wholly offensive to me and why I wanted to get it off my chest, I think you may be a little too close to party politics. Maybe it's time to step away from the abyss for some perspective.
I don't have any idea who did what to whom, when, and on what blog.
I thought I laid it out pretty simply, Kari.
And I'm not sure I care.
obviously.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
...and that regulary scheduled programming would be Kari Chisolm tiptoeing out the backdoor without looking seriously at what kind of behavior he condoes and what he doesn't.
Nice dismissive touch, Kari. I guess you're too important to care. But , weren't you the one lecturing TJ at loaded Oreygun about how it takes more courage to police ethical behavior amongst your own partisans? Yep, pretty sure that was you.
Posted by: LT | Nov 8, 2007 7:02:14 PM
Sorry, Chuck, I am with Sal on this one. But then you probably wouldn't like me anyway if you knew my grandfather was a Republican elected official, I campaigned for Tom McCall's re-election, and twice in my life (John B. Anderson for President in 1980, Brent Thompson for US Senate in 1996) I actively campaigned for 3rd party candidates.
I believe what JFK said in his Inaugural, that civility is not a sign of weakness and sincerity is subject to proof.
A Republican staffer said to me the other day, "then why didn't your party debate that, after all they were in control of the legislature". I told him to watch what he said because the jury was still out on whether I would remain a Democrat after the primary.
I like what Howard Dean is doing as DNC chair. That is a point in favor of staying a Democrat. Comments like yours (and the others who say anyone who looks at a US Senate candidate whose name is neither Jeff nor Steve) is a point in favor of registering NAV after the primary.
Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 8, 2007 7:05:55 PM
"Is it the position of Steve's supporters (surely Steve himself is too smart for this) that they don't want the support of anyone who is friends with or has campaigned for Mitch Greenlick because he had the gall to write a post here critical of Steve and defending Jeff?"
I wish I knew what factory you were fabricating these suppositons in, LT. I'd seek to have it shut down. You sure did a lot of extrapolating on this one. Also, I find this question curious: "But how are you going to gain the support of people who at the moment don't know anything about either Jeff or Steve?" Do you REALLY think that the sum total of my support for the Novick campaign involves engaging people in BlueO?
JamesX:
"TJ: Oregon Democratic bloggers are involved with Oregon Democratic politics? Outrageous."
I don't think I expressed any outrage. I was just reading a blog comment when I recognized a name. And I found the connection interesting, given that both Greenlick and taoiseach, whoever he/she is seem to have some issues with unfounded charges.
Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 8, 2007 7:13:58 PM
"Well sure. And nobody believes that you or Pat might possibly be interested in silencing Tao. Oh nooooo....
(rolls eyes)"
Kevin: as long as you've been reading LO, have I ever tried to silence anyone?? Since January 06, I believe Carla and I banned one person, and censored comments of one other. In the first case they were being sexually lewd to Carla; in the other they were using strong racial epithets with no context. Hardly the profile of someone interested in squelching dissent.
One thing C and I were always in agreement on, was that we'd have a much easier (and more fun) time taking people head on and exposing their bullshit, than trying to squelch or suppress them. I see no reason to change attitudes towards taoiseach, who is no racist or perv-creep that I can tell, but who isn't that much less transparent, either.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Nov 8, 2007 7:19:19 PM
"You're a much better blogger when you're posting your own independent views, calling 'em like you see 'em, giving props when people do the right thing (even if you're on the other side), and slamming 'em when they do the wrong thing (even when they're your friends.)
"I want the old TJ back."
by: karichisholm @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 10:27:04 AM PST @ loaded orygun
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Nov 8, 2007 7:37:21 PM
"Is it the position of Steve's supporters (surely Steve himself is too smart for this) that they don't want the support of anyone who is friends with or has campaigned for Mitch Greenlick because he had the gall to write a post here critical of Steve and defending Jeff?"
That's pretty funny. I've helped put together canvasses that included Greenlick's district, bundled and handed out lit with him on it, etc. And I'm a Novick supporter. I know many people who have gone out and walked his precincts and canvassed for him who are undecided, and I'd be happy to have them as Novick supporters. I was just extremely disappointed in how Greenlick and others have handled this particular issue. It was more than being critical of Steve. "Backbiting," "opportunist," and claiming Novick is using GOP Talking points is beyond being "critical." The last time I saw "critical" comments like that towards candidates in a contested partisan primary, it ended with a Democratic Party in shambles... and with Bush as governor.
- - - - -
One thing I think we (PCPs, volunteers of the party, etc.) forget is that we're the face of the Party. When we bully people, trash people, etc., it does indeed reflect poorly on the Party.
But one of my biggest concerns is whether or not someone is using their VAN access to look up and trash supporters of another candidate.
Disclaimer: While I do work on the Novick for U.S. Senate web site, I speak only for myself and not the campaign.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 9, 2007 12:08:41 AM
Pat, I'm putting my editor hat on - and making this very clear:
You're engaged in some kind of personal tit-for-tag with another blogger. It's a personal fight that no one else cares about. I've tried to track it in the various comments on various blogs, and frankly, I've gotten entirely bored with it. It clearly doesn't interest anyone but the people involved.
Now, if you want to engage in a silly blog war on your own blog, fine. Expend all the pixels you want.
But this is BlueOregon. Here's our mission statement:
It'll be progressive; it'll be smart; it'll be funny; it'll be compelling; it'll be provocative; it'll be unpredictable. It'll be political, but not narrowly so. It'll be a free-ranging social and cultural critique. It'll be by Oregonians and for Oregonians, but not always about Oregon. Above all else, BlueOregon will not be boring.
Your post was none of the above. Except boring.
The stupid comment wars are boring enough in the comments without elevating them to the main posts.
[That would be] Kari Chisholm tiptoeing out the backdoor without looking seriously at what kind of behavior he condones and what he doesn't.
I don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about when you say we've "condoned" here. We've certainly never linked to the stupid comment wars you're engaged in. We've linked, pretty regularly, to Beaver Boundary for a simple reason: It's progressive, smart, funny, compelling, provocative, and yes, unpredictable. It's also not boring.
Nice dismissive touch, Kari. I guess you're too important to care. But, weren't you the one lecturing TJ at loaded Oreygun about how it takes more courage to police ethical behavior amongst your own partisans? Yep, pretty sure that was you.
Yup, that was me. And here goes.
Pat, I've had many emails from many people asking me to remove you as a contributor here at BlueOregon. Why? Because your cartoons are rarely funny. But I've defended you. Again and again. "They're getting better," I'd say. "The last one was OK, right?", I'd say.
Well I'm done. We've had 4179 posts here at BlueOregon. And never, not once, has one of our contributors used our front page space to personally go after another blogger.
We're building a movement here. It's bigger than any one person, any one blogger, or even any one candidate. But not for you, Pat. For you, it's all about you, isn't it?
Well, you're done here. I'm removing your access as a regular contributor.
I'm sure some folks will see this as silencing a pro-Novick voice on BlueOregon. But that's not the case. After all, despite my pleading, you've never posted a pro-Novick column.
No, this is the last straw. We nearly pulled your access after the offensive children-in-a-meat-grinder cartoon incident. But once again, I defended you. I'm done.
Pat, I'll encourage you to get your own blog and build your own audience.
Posted by: James X. | Nov 9, 2007 1:05:22 AM
TJ, I was inexact with my mockery. Instead of "Outrageous!" I should have written, "I smell a conspiracy!"
Tom Powers? [...] The same Tom Powers who is the LA for Mitch Greenlick? You know--Mitch Greenlick, the guy who called Novick all kinds of personally insulting names on Blue O a couple of weeks ago? Is THAT who BB is? Reallllly.....!
Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 9, 2007 1:41:02 AM
Nah, no conspiracy, either. Coincidence, maybe, that now is the moment one decides to start blogging.
By the way, talk about silencing...!
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Nov 9, 2007 2:15:11 AM
I have always voted for the candidate who best represented my viewpoint - generally a Democrat, and I'd give a rat's patoot about Sal backing Frohnmeyer other than his comments about the Democratic Party. That was the line he stepped over with me. If he thinks Dave is the best candidate - good for him, back him. But to state that he's the best because the Democrats 'suck' (words to that effect) set me against his campaign shilling.
For Sal's particular information, what I back in regard to the NRA is their support of the 2nd, their educational programs, and their competitive shooting. Their red Red BS just irritates me. Sal doesn't like the 2nd, he'd rather mangle the English language and lie about the court records when the proper course is to amend the offending document. They can't make that one, so they try to back door it. I called him on his junk, nicely - once - and rather than retract, he continued with historically inacurate BS, so I whacked him and he doesn't like it.
No Sal, I don't think a Democrat as usual can win in E OR, my campaign wasn't that, either. The Democratic Primary voters also didn't think I had what it takes so they sent the candidate they sent and I worked hard and contributed more than I probably could afford after a campaign of my own. I have exactly dead 0% responsibility for that campaign and the 65/35 split and you know it. You've run that BS before, also, and been told. You mangle history and facts and even very recent history and then call me a liar and fool. You're a child who took his marbles and went home when the game didn't go your way. Too bad, we'll cry you a river and your 10% candidate. I stay, I work, I stand up, and I don't play BS, there's an obvious difference between who we are.
I'll remind you that I publicly covered your back when someone accused you of something untrue during your campaign - because I knew it to be untrue, not because you had Party affiliation. I'm kicking you around now, not because of Party affiliation, but because you're wrong and your statements are inaccurate and you actually know they are, from experience. Too bad your character is such that you play it this way, that District could benefit from a good Democratic Rep, all you've proved is you ain't it.
As for my little 2nd thing, DPO has given Democratic candidates a useful campaign tool, and you? That thing also gave birth to the DPO Gun Owners Caucus, another useful campaign tool, and you? Oh, I remember, the Democrats are stuck in the mud and tools of the staus quo so you'll lead the Indy pseudo Republican to VICTORY!!!
Uh huh...
Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 9, 2007 7:25:47 AM
testing
Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 9, 2007 7:26:28 AM
This is why I was testing:
An error occurred...
Your comment has not been posted because we think it might be comment spam. If you believe you have received this message in error, please contact the author of this weblog.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 9, 2007 7:31:35 AM
Kari, this is why people get paranoid. I can't post my comment because your system thinks it might be "comment spam."
This was what happened the first time, five minutes ago, before I posted the "test" post above.
My unposted comment contains no links at all, and only standard HTML formatting.
Wonder what's going on.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Nov 9, 2007 7:43:23 AM
48 people took the time to post on this thread, Kari.
So, clearly it mattered to somebody.
I simply asked if BlueOregon, which led mt to Taiseach's website where this began, condones that behavior.
You still haven't answered that question.
Completely bankrupt, Kari. Completely.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 9, 2007 8:05:58 AM
Kevin: as long as you've been reading LO, have I ever tried to silence anyone??
TJ, there's a first time for everything. Past behavior is in no way a guarantee of future behavior. You know this to be true.
One thing C and I were always in agreement on, was that we'd have a much easier (and more fun) time taking people head on and exposing their bullshit, than trying to squelch or suppress them.
This is more of your patented bait & switch tactics. Taking Tao head on and exposing what you saw as his bullshit in NO WAY required you to go along with outting his identity.
By your own definition you are an "ass" for having cooperated with outting a blogger who wanted to maintain a pseudonym.
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: Dave from Oregon | Nov 8, 2007 8:02:44 AM
How do you think the "movement conservatives" took control of their party in the 80's? It was not by sitting down and shutting up. This is our party as much as anyone else's.
As you have probably noticed, politics are rough and tumble. Welcome to the fray.