Welcome to the Democratic Party; Now sit down and shut up

Pat Malach

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.
Howiitch_2
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.

Comments

  • Dave from Oregon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Admiral Naismith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

  • Henry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Her? I believe Tom Powers runs Beaver Boundary, does he not?

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Lupita Maurer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • petrichor (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    "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.

  • Tom Keffer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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

  • (Show?)

    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.....!

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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."

  • (Show?)

    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?

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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...

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 8, 2007 11:22:25 AM

    Ditto!!

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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?

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    "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.

  • (Show?)

    "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.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "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

  • (Show?)

    "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.

    <hr/>

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.....!
  • (Show?)

    Nah, no conspiracy, either. Coincidence, maybe, that now is the moment one decides to start blogging.

    By the way, talk about silencing...!

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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...

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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.

  • (Show?)

    Stephanie, I have no idea what happened there. Haven't been doing any troll-hunting lately (so our settings haven't changed). Might have been a glitch at TypePad.

    Pat, you asked if we condoned Tao's "behavior". If you're asking about the silly blog slapfight you're having with him, then the answer is no. But it's not anything worth getting all hot and bothered about.

    I'm looking forward to seeing patmalach.blogspot.com.

  • (Show?)

    Chuck, what comments about Democrats "crossed the line"?

    I think the worst thing I said is that the two parties are clanning up more than they used to and that hyper-partisanship is more of a problem than it was 30 years ago. All you need to do is look at the last several legislative sessions in Oregon to see that it's a true statement. But if there's another negative statement that you've taken issue with, feel free to repost it.

    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.

    Another untruth. I'm fine with the gun laws that we have on the books. I'm fine with the second amendment, so long as you follow the full text rather than pick out the half of it that you happen to like.

    The courts have upheld basically the only restrictions on guns that I have supported, and on the basis I have given -- military grade weapons and fully automatic weapons have been illegal for about 80 years, and the court upheld restrictions on concealable high capacity semi-automatic weapons in the 1990's.

    It's totally unclear to me why you would choose to ignore that history except that it doesn't fit with the extremist notion that you appear to hold -- that guns are a God-given right.

    I find it totally bizarre that you would concoct an opposition on my part to your gun resolution. We both know that I spoke with you about the resolution and though I disagreed with you about whether guns are a God-given right, I chose not to oppose it because you believed that it would make a difference in Eastern Oregon.

    What tools have I constructed? A statewide list of political donors, with committees they've given to and phone numbers. A statewide list of local labor unions, with contact numbers. A statewide list of veterans organizations, with phone numbers and contacts. A district-wide list of sign locations. Social networking software to help candidates turn out volunteers. I'm currently producing a series of videos for OPAN and a documentary that takes issue with the extremism that has taken hold in our political process. Additionally, I've helped to raise about $30,000 for the Democratic party, excluding my own campaign, and paid for a full-time staffer who helped run a Democratic office for about 6 months.

  • (Show?)
    Kari, this is why people get paranoid. I can't post my comment because your system thinks it might be "comment spam."

    C'mon people, take off the damn tin foil hats! I've ran into the same "comment spam" thing a number of times over the years here. Not once did I think that my voice was being silenced. Largely because as a blog owner myself I know how difficult it is to deal with spam without inhibiting participation by interested folks. Which is to say that I knew that the problem was one of software rather than personal animosity.

    More to the point, I've never been able to post a comment at Tao's blog. I don't even get a warning. It's just like I never even attempted to comment at all. But I've never once thought that it was some sort of conspiracy to silence me.

    Chuck Currie's blog is another one that I routinely got blocked to due possible "comment spam." But again, I know perfectly well that it's a software issue. I've read enough of his stuff to know that he and I agree on a great many issues, so he would have no incentive to try to block my voice. I emailed him a couple times and even that apparently never got through. So I stopped trying many months ago.

    The spammers are as savvy as those creating roadblocks to spamming. It's an ongoing battle, as every blogger who has been blogging for any length of time knows.

    It's a software thing!

  • (Show?)

    Just so everyone knows--Kari's not alone in his condemnation of this post. BlueOregon was never designed to be all things to all people. What it was designed to be is a reasonable place where reasonable people could discuss issues that matter to Oregonians. Pretty much THE ONLY thing that makes someone "unreasonable" is engaging in personal attacks on others (particularly using profanity or bigotry). Commenters have a far broader latitude than posters because, while this is a collective, BlueOregon does have some standards. Posting personal grudges doesn't meet them.

    There are some folks who's comments have been removed for offensive content. These commenters inevitably go nuts claiming that we're the gestapo here--and Kari takes the worst criticism. That's fine--it's part of the discussion we encourage. In fact, comments are one of the best ways to ensure transparency. If we were the gestapo we're accused of being, the dozens of threads accusing us of it wouldn't be available to read (like this one).

    But, while we have a responsibility to keep conversations open, we also have some responsibility to the community who don't want to see the comment threads become battlegrounds for flame wars. There's nothing more tedious. So sometimes we have to take action that will inevitably garner us more criticism as heavy-handed and punitive.

    All of that's fine. But when you evaluate how BlueOregon is managed, ask the question: would you prefer it to be a place where internecine wars are fought, or one where ideas are exchanged on their merit? We're aiming for the latter, and to the extent we succeed or fail, you should at least understand our intention.

    The internets are free; if our mission doesn't satisfy, you can find other sites that will--or, if you can't, you can create one.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I actually can't believe I read through all these comments, but it got kind of interesting when Kari opened a can of whoop-ass on a fellow contributor!

    Chuck Butcher writes: For Sal's particular information, what I back in regard to the NRA is their support of the 2nd. . . . Sal doesn't like the 2nd, he'd rather mangle the English language and lie about the court records. . . .

    Wait, wait, wait. I'm totally okay with a Democrat who supports gun rights from the standpoint of where we draw the line in terms of regulation -- i.e., assualt rifles, automatic weapons, concealed carry, whatever. I'll probably disagree with you, but it's a legitimate debate to have.

    But I'm totally NOT okay with anyone who believes and repeats the NRA's bullshit about the 2nd Amendment. No one who has objectively looked at the history of this issue can come away with the belief that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun. Even the NRA knows that, which is why they have steadfastly refused to bring federal 2nd Amendment rights cases in the courts, knowing that the courts would slap them down. Instead, they've spent decades trying to build a backdoor legal foundation, through state and local courts and through actions like Ashcroft's insertion of footnotes into DOJ legal opinions regarding the "guaranteed rights" of the 2nd Amendment. Once the foundation has been successfully laid, they'll file a legal case and hope that a conservative SC rules in their favor.

    So let's be clear, Chuck. Are you supporting the roll back of specific gun control legislation, or are you endorsing the corrupt legal arguments of the NRA? Supporters of the latter are no different than global warming deniers and abstinence absolutists -- i.e., people who believe whatever they want regardless of the facts.

  • (Show?)

    Pretty much THE ONLY thing that makes someone "unreasonable" is engaging in personal attacks on others (particularly using profanity or bigotry). Commenters have a far broader latitude than posters because, while this is a collective, BlueOregon does have some standards. Posting personal grudges doesn't meet them.

    You mean like this one, Jeff?

    Personal attacks? Check. Personal grudges? Check. Posted on BlueO? Check.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I, too, have experienced the spam filter's extra verification layer (a captcha test). It tends to come up when I post a short comment with a link in it, though I think it also has to do with accessing BlueO from a new IP address.

    TJ: Pat is no more silenced than you or I am.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think the worst thing I said is that the two parties are clanning up more than they used to and that hyper-partisanship is more of a problem than it was 30 years ago.

    It would probably be difficult to determine whether both parties are now colluding more than ever because, except perhaps for the Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay steamrolling, their respective oligarchies have worked together for generations to maintain their power and make the republic more of a myth than a reality. However, the difference between now and the past is that the cumulative effect of all this is that the imperial presidency has become more imperial and imperious with each succeeding presidency while Congress and the people have been increasingly more complicit. The current abetment of Bush administration abuse of the Constitution by Democrats is as bad as the Democrat alliance with Republicans to protect Ronald Reagan over the Iran-Contra crimes. The difference is the consequences now portend to be much greater especially if the Clintons or Rudy builds on what Bush and Cheney have built.

    It is easy to criticize the statement that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans by citing individual examples, but when people look at certain elements, it is understandable why some people might think they are tweedledum and tweedledee.

    If you have ten minutes to watch some worthwhile television, check this interview with Republican Ron Paul on impeachment. Hint. He's for it. Like Dennis Kucinich but not Nancy Pelosi.

    As for the Democrats cynical ploy to gain more points for the 2008 election through things getting worse in Iraq, that means the war in Iraq will end later rather than sooner. How many more people, American and Iraqi, will die and be maimed during that extension? With the war in Iraq dragging on this ploy by the Democrats may backfire on them if the people conclude there is no difference between them and the Republicans. The people are not so dumb as to fail to notice the Democrats have done nothing towards bringing this war to an end, the reason many of them were elected, since they got their majority a year ago.

  • (Show?)

    Colin -

    There's a HUGE difference between some silly blogger slapfight, and a guest column submitted by two state legislators criticizing one US Senate candidate and defending another.

    You may not like the latter, but you can't argue that it isn't news.

  • (Show?)

    Kari,

    News maybe, but still doesn't live up to the "standards" articulated by Mr. Alworth. I don't know if BlueO was the only "media outlet" that the Greenlick/Nolan letter was submitted to, but it was the only one that printed it. Seems like standards "differ" when someone's dog is in the fight.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    i'm sorry to see pat being banned as a contributor here.

    i'm really sorry to see the problematic behaviour of taoiseach towards pat being dismissed as "an internet tiff" or "an internecine war".

    that completely misrepresents the situation, IMHO.

    i, as a registered democrat, have a real problem with the behaviour taoiseach has engaged in on his/her blog. specifically, the searching of voter rolls to "out" people for not being registered democrats.

    that's a load of crap, it's not what i want my party to look like, and i would like to see other democrats denouncing this behaviour.

    i would like to see the editors of blueoregon denounce it as well. since beaver boundary is so frequently linked by this blog, it behooves them to take a stand on it, and not dismiss it as petty or trifling or beneath their notice.

    pat's point is a valid one - this is not the way we want our party to behave, or members of our party to behave on behalf of the party as a whole.

    DEMONIZING NAV'S IS NO WAY FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO GET VOTES!

    i capitalized that statement because it is at the crux of the whole kerfluffle. and it needs to be addressed - not ignored or dismissed. and blueoregon has too much influence in the progressive blogosphere to feign indifference.

  • (Show?)
    DEMONIZING NAV'S IS NO WAY FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO GET VOTES!

    As a long-time and very passionate NAV I strongly disagree that this is the crux of the whole kerfluffle in any way. Heck, I've got a website and associated blog devoted solely to political Independents.

    The crux, IMO, is that Pat would like to silence Tao or damage his credibility. Not because of the NAV thing but because Tao is a vocal Merkley supporter.

  • (Show?)

    Colin... No, standards differ when we're talking about legislators attacking and defending Senate candidates. That's not boring. One blogger slapping around another blogger is boring.

    I also want to remind you that this isn't just about this one post. It's about Pat's inability to use his judgment on what's appropriate here at BlueOregon and what's not.

    Trishka -- No one has been banned. Pat continues to be welcome to comment, and he's welcome to submit guest columns. We have a MUCH higher standard for who gets unfettered, unmoderated, unedited access to BlueOregon's front page. It's that high standard, I believe, that makes BlueOregon one of the highest trafficked local lefty blogs in the nation.

  • (Show?)
    I, too, have experienced the spam filter's extra verification layer (a captcha test). It tends to come up when I post a short comment with a link in it, though I think it also has to do with accessing BlueO from a new IP address.

    My comment contained no links and I was not offered the "captcha" check. Just told that I could not post because it might be comment spam - I pasted the whole message above.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    so, kari, are you not prepared to denounce taoiseach's behaviour then?

    and as such, giving tacit approval?

  • (Show?)

    "TJ: Pat is no more silenced than you or I am."

    He's at the same level we are now, but given that he used to have posting access and now does not, that's being silenced.

  • (Show?)

    Colin, Kari pretty much captured what I would have said, but I'll sign off on his analysis.

    Stephanie--this happens from time to time. Sometimes it happens to me when I'm commenting ON MY OWN POST, which really ticks me off. That's the problem with third-party software. I wouldn't suspect darker motives, though--Typepad is behind that stuff.

  • (Show?)

    so, kari, are you not prepared to denounce taoiseach's behaviour then?

    and as such, giving tacit approval?

    WTF???

    Is this supposed to be the Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution? Should we all gather in a circle and demand self-criticism for the harboring of anti-revolutionary tendencies or some such pantload?

    Kari is not responsible for comments or content on another blog.

    Kari is one of a group of people who are responsible for the content of this blog, Blue Oregon. That's it as far as I'm concerned.

    I really hate rhubarb pie and if Kari likes rhubarb pie, it is not an indicator of questionable ethics. It's just......uninteresting.

  • LemmingCrats Suck (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Where's Tao? How come he can't come to answer the accusations? Let me guess: he doesn't read this blog?

    Did he misuse DPO resources? Is he concealing information about himself and/or his position that needs to be disclosed? Silence like this seems to be typical of people associated with the Merkley campaign.

    Hide behind that name, Tao. It's what you do best.

  • (Show?)

    Is he concealing information about himself and/or his position that needs to be disclosed?

    This from someone using the alias "LemmingCrats Suck"

  • David McDonald (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "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."

    Actually TJ, I sent you a story for posting on LO back on 2/8/07. I asked you to post it or at least get back to me. It was about Ron Chinn's comments regarding students with disabilities. Never heard word one from you. Guess that's not censorship... must have been the sexually lewd racial epithets I included, huh?

  • LemmingCrats Suck (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This from someone using the alias "LemmingCrats Suck"

    Why don't you tell me why I have any responsibility to disclose my real name? It's called a "pseudonym". Ask Tao about it. But unlike Tao, I'm not an LA operating a blog. I'm a voter. Certainly a scholar like yourself can distinguish between the two.

    And since you took the time to respond, I suppose you're okay with misusing DPO resources? You certainly went out of your way to avoid the topic. Cherry-picking this and ignoring that...That's a great example you're setting.

    And where's Tao??? No answer, no respect.

  • (Show?)

    Back when Beaver Boundary started, there seemed to be consensus that Taoiseach was female. Is there any evidence about the new suggestion?

    I wonder if it means anything that T has chosen a handle making self "prime minister" in reference to a parliamentary system. Such a system of course involves a kind of programmatic party discipline generally not typical of U.S. parties, though the RP has come closer in recent years, & esp. not the DP.

    I'm not sure I understand the objection to requiring delegates to vote for the victor of a primary at the convention, at least in some set number of rounds of voting or until released by a candidate. Or if DPO splits its convention votes proportionally in conventions, what would be wrong with requiring the same delegates for specific candidates. Should those selecting convention delegates be allowed to overturn the results of a primary? If so, why have one?

    LaRouchites are well-known as dishonest entryists and personality cultists. If they weren't willing to restrict choice of delegates to the candidate nominated by the primary (or the distribution of votes among candidates if that's how it works), clearly they were in entryist mode. It does not sound as if they were excluded, but excluded themselves by unwillingness to abide by primary results.

    The worldview of LaRouche and his organization, as reflected in their newspaper, is a bizarre if on certain levels fascinating crypto-fascist fantasy, in which among other things the Queen of England figures as the head of an international illegal drug promotion conspiracy. Making it difficult for them to foist those unrepresentive views on the DPO is justified and proper, as it would be in the case of say David Duke-ites.

  • (Show?)

    Personally, I don't see how Tao has any "responsibility" to disclose his or her identity (I also don't see where anyone has actually shown any evidence behind the supposed "outing", tao could very well be Ireland's head of government for all I know). When you go to Beaver Boundary, you know that the writer is more or less anonymous. If you think that makes Tao's opinion less valid, DON'T READ IT. It's that simple. Tao can write whatever he/she wants and let the pieces fall where they may, it's your job to evaluate whether or not it's worthwhile to read. People have reasons why they don't want to display their full identity on the internet, and that's just fine. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about it when you yourself use a psuedonym.

    As for misusing dpo resources, my understanding is that voter registration information is public record. Anyone can look up that I am a registered democrat, and then they can use that information for whatever they want. Personally, I don't have a problem with that, I'm proud of my involvement in the democratic party. And I've yet to see evidence that Tao used the van.

  • (Show?)

    Trishka... I don't have any idea if either Tao or Pat should be "denounced" for their silly comment slapfight on a half-dozen other blogs. I stopped reading that silliness a long time ago.

    As best as I understand it, Tao looked up Pat's voter registration (which you can get by picking up the phone and calling County Elections - no "DPO resources" required) and then made some comments. And then Pat made some more comments. Blah blah blah.

    I'm so past giving a shit about this idiotic and childish pillowfight. Who cares?

    And that's my point. Nobody else cares. Which is why it didn't belong on this blog.

    Do I support anonymous blogging? No, I don't. In fact, the only other time we've booted a contributor from BlueOregon, it was because "she" refused to use her real name.

    We have high expectations here, and Pat failed to meet them. I'm sorry this had to play out in public, but that's that.

    I'll recap, from two years ago:

    * BlueOregon is about open discussion and debate. Our goal is to be a place for progressives to gather, though the occasional conservative is certainly welcome. Even you, Lars. (Of course, we're still waiting for someone to launch RedOregon!) * The idea of "progressive" is a loose one. We are certainly interested, as we said at launch, in having a wide range of voices - from urban sophisticates to gun-truck-and-dog Democrats; from radical vegetarian leftists to cranky government skeptics. We want to reflect the full diversity of Oregon progressivism - socio-economically, geographically, ideologically, ethnically, and beyond. * We are explicitly NOT about shutting down debate or discussion. We're NOT about "the party line." It is legitimate to disagree. It is legitimate for our commenters to disagree with our contributors. We will NOT delete, censor, or edit comments because we disagree with their content. * Of course, we will delete comment spam (porn, mortgages, offshore gambling, etc.) immediately and without notice. * Site admins (not contributors) may edit comments that are wildly off-topic. In those cases, we'll delete only the off-topic portions, but leave an editorial note that it happened. Site admins may edit comments that contain copyrighted material that is cut-and-pasted whole. When possible, we'll drop in a link instead and we'll always leave an editorial note that it happened. We will not delete comments without some kind of notice. * We expect that everyone who posts and comments on BlueOregon to be respectful of the commons. As a free (as in beer) resource, it's important that everyone who participates doesn't over-participate - excluding other voices either through quantity or tone of posts. That kind of over-participation can result in a tragedy of the commons - and this resource will no longer be free (as in speech). * We also expect that everyone who posts and comments on BlueOregon be respectful of each other. There's just no reason to get into name-calling and ad hominem personal attacks. Oregon's a small place, and you never know when you might meet someone in person. * Finally, effective Monday, none of contributors will continue to post anonymously. With access comes responsibility, and writing over a real name ensures that our writers are accountable for their words. Our commenters may still post over whatever screen name they'd like. We only ask that you use the same one consistently - so that readers may follow your thoughts from comment to comment. * Our responsibility as publishers is to manage this resource for everyone's benefit. We make editorial decisions almost every day - not to censor or restrict ideas, but to maintain quality. Just as a newspaper makes choices about which editorials appear and which don't and which columnists are hired and which are not, we'll do the same when selecting our regular contributors and guest columns. We will continue to seek to have diverse and interesting progressive voices. * If these guidelines are too much for anyone hanging out here at BlueOregon, I recommend launching your own blog. It's easy and it's free (as in beer). We recommend Blogger.com and Typepad.com. You can be publishing all you want in about five minutes.
  • (Show?)

    Nick is right. All you have to do to verify someone's registration is to call the county elections department where they live. Tell the clerk the name, and they'll look it up. On the spot. It's real easy.

    Users of The VAN (or VoteBuilder as it is called now that the DNC sponsors it) in Oregon usually get their access from the DPO. We require that people sign an agreement stating that they will use it appropriately. (For example, you can't sell the numbers to your local telemarketer.) Now, that doesn't really stop people from looking up other people, and I'm not sure that would fall under "misuse."

  • (Show?)

    sweet jesus, i lost track of all the pissing matches going on in here. unbelievable. it even includes temporary Democrats telling committed Democrats how to run their party. sheesh.

    i agree with Kari: blogger-on-blogger is boring. masturbatory, in fact. (not to imply that masturbation is, by nature, boring or anything.) bloggers attacking bloggers is rarely worth reading because there is rarely substance. i think this post started out with a valid point -- thought police kind of thing -- but i had no idea it was really blogger-on-blogger action (with no indication at all that either was a hot babe). but then the comments -- oy.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I can't say you took the words out of my mouth or off my keyboard, T.A., but I agree with the thrust of your comment. Many of the earlier comments were worthy of consideration, but this thread went down the tube in a hurry. I believe part of the problem, at least in some cases, is the use of pseudonyms. If some people weren't hiding behind these noms de keyboard they might weigh their words more carefully and show some hesitancy about using offensive language.

  • (Show?)

    I have to chime in with my opinion in general. The pissing matches on BO have been getting worse and worse on BO for the last few months and it's clear to me that neither Kari or his assistant want to address the problem of what is general called "flame wars". In fact, Kari has encouraged it by allowing his assistant to post a thread calling Measure 50 opponents "trolls" which I found very offensive. They also failed to condone (and in fact Nick participated in it as well) harsh language and nasty comments about anyone who dare oppose Measure 50.

    Well I'm done too. This is my last post. I've commented on BO for several years and even written some guest columns. I'll be removing myself from the Lefty Blogs as well since that is essentially run by Kari as well.

    But who the FUCK really cares anyway?

  • (Show?)

    David, one more time: That post never said that Measure 50 opponents were "trolls". Rather, it was a post directed at the large number of comments were were getting from VIRGINIA and NORTH CAROLINA. Yes, we were - in fact - getting hit with tobacco company trolls.

    The pissing matches have been getting worse. Just like in spring 2006. It's primary season. I can't wait for it to get over.

    And finally, and it's a somewhat-semantic but somewhat-meaningful note... Nick is not my 'assistant'. He's a BlueOregon Fellow, an intern if you will.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I have a hunch some Democrats of the my-party-right-or-wrong stripe might have been happy to see the subject changed after their party was taking some hits that were difficult for them to respond to.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    All I can say, Kari, is that I spoke from the heart.

    I think you could learn from that. Had you just said that my cartoons suck and you don't want to publish them anymore, I could have respected that. Had you said that I pissed you off with my rebuttal to your comment, and that you decided to use the biggest club you have and hit me with it, I could have respected that. If you had said I'm an ingrate who bites the hand that feeds him, I would have respected that.

    But to say that post had somehow crossed some imaginary ethical line and therefore violated my double-secret probation is simply laughable on its face and reflects a distance between the truth and your characterization.

    How may comments so far? 81. Comments from the chair of Washco Dems, at least one former state legislator and former candidates for the legislature, the Precinct 4 Committeeman, Baker Co Democrats Vice-chair, DPO SCC Delegate, and several BlueOregon contributors.

    I think that says bundles about whether or not there's interest in this post.

    Moreover, you've linked twice now to the karen Minnis meat-grinder cartoon in order to further smear me. If you remember that episode, I immediately stepped forward, removed the cartoon and took full and complete responsibility for it.

    During that episode you seemed to be of two minds. For public view, you raked me over the coals. In private, you told me "no worries" and confessed that you probably would have left the 'toon up because you're stubborn.

    So to throw that in my face now when it serves your purpose is quite a far freakin' way from fair.

    So again, there's a bit of distance between the truth and your charcterization.

    As best as I understand it, Tao looked up Pat's voter registration (which you can get by picking up the phone and calling County Elections - no "DPO resources" required) and then made some comments. And then Pat made some more comments.

    One more time kari

    Tao claimed that I was "not even a Democrat."

    I was forced to correct that error (an error made in service of a malicious purpose) and said indeed I am a Democrat.

    At which point Tao insulted me and said my party membership made her sad.

    I asked Democrats and BlueOregon, which linked me to that site, where this started condones that behavior. A question you still haven't answered.

    You want to blow it off as a spat because that serves your purpose. But again, there's some distance between the truth and your charaterization.

    Moreover, there most certainly were not half-a-dozen blogs involved. Not even close. So again, there's some distance between the truth and your charcterization.

    One more thing. You never pleaded with me to write a pro-Novick piece. You asked me once, in an e-mail to at least two other people. So again, there's some distance between the truth and your charcterization.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Whoops, forgot my last point.

    If you follow this thread, Kari, you'll notice your first comment simply attempted to dismiss this post with the "spat" spin. You made no mention of me losing my posting privileges. That didn't happen until after I responded to you in the comments section.

    I pissed you off, and you told me to get lost. It's your website, fair enough. There's nothing to be ashamed of.

    And that's a dead-on 100% accurate characterization. And I think it goes to motivation, your honor.

  • (Show?)

    Had you just said that my cartoons suck and you don't want to publish them anymore, I could have respected that.

    Actually, I didn't think they sucked. I kind of liked them. They didn't all rock my world, but I found several to be quite funny. But I was already getting so much negative feedback - via email, on the phone, in person - that I had planned to start paying closer attention.

    And then, you dropped this stupid post.

    How may comments so far? 81. ... I think that says bundles about whether or not there's interest in this post.

    Ha. Now you are being funny. Don't mistake comment volume for interest level or agreement. Some 90% of our readers have never commented.

    During that episode you seemed to be of two minds. For public view, you raked me over the coals.

    What?! I did no such thing. Check the record. Here and here.

    One more time kari. Tao claimed that I was "not even a Democrat." I was forced to correct that error (an error made in service of a malicious purpose) and said indeed I am a Democrat. At which point Tao insulted me and said my party membership made her sad.

    Do you even see how this is just some idiotic slapfight? Read it again. He said, she said, he said, she said... NO ONE CARES if some blogger mischaracterized your party registration! Who gives a damn? It's between the two of you.

    If you follow this thread, Kari, you'll notice your first comment simply attempted to dismiss this post with the "spat" spin. You made no mention of me losing my posting privileges. That didn't happen until after I responded to you in the comments section.

    That's right, Pat. I tried to tone it down, dismiss it with the dismissiveness it deserved, and try and avoid yet another stupid comment war. But instead, failing to see how stupid this all is, you elevated the argument, and engaged in yet another personal attack. And another, and another, and another.

    Start your own blog. Have fun. I'm done here.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Some 90% of our readers have never commented

    So what's that average for other posts?

    I'll bet the vast majority of readers don't comment on 90% of the posts on BlueOregon In fact, I think you boasted about that after one of your reader surveys.

    I'm sure you have those numbers.

    But once again, I defended you. I'm done.

    I can see why deleting that Minnis/Grinder post was a mistake now, because I believe your comment in that original thread started out with, "Well, Pat, we say contributors reserve the right to embarrass themselves, and boy howdy, ya sure have."

    Then you told the Oregonian reporter you were thinking about revoking my posting privileges.

    Some defense, Kari.

    You had to play it that way for the public to distabnce yourself and the party's website form the cartoon because it was right before the election.

    In private, you told me "no worries" and confessed that you probably would have left the 'toon up because you're stubborn.

    I don't get a lot of phone calls at home from Oregonian reporters, so I remember that episode pretty clearly.

    ... NO ONE CARES if some blogger mischaracterized your party registration!

    Said I wasn't a Democrat and the opinions of Democrats don"t matter in a primary election.

    I am a Democrat.

    yet another personal attack. And another, and another, and another.

    Stating my case for why I think your memory has gotten convenient foggy is not a personal attack. Although you're free to take it personally.

    You have a dark side, mon frer, and it ain't so honest.

    Now go try and get some sleep. You're havin' a baby.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Said I wasn't a Democrat and the opinions of Democrats don"t matter in a primary election.

    should have been

    Said I wasn't a Democrat and the opinions of non-Democrats don"t matter in a primary election.

    I am a Democrat. I went to Beaver boundary for that "welcome to the party" salute following a link on BlueO's front page.

  • (Show?)

    The 90% number was a site-wide number. So we're on the same page there.

    Then you told the Oregonian reporter you were thinking about revoking my posting privileges.

    Yeah, and then I didn't, did I? Ugh.

    G'night.

  • (Show?)

    I went to Beaver boundary for that "welcome to the party" salute following a link on BlueO's front page.

    One last thing: You keep repeating that line as if it matters somehow. Just because we link to a particular post or article somewhere doesn't mean that we agree with everything that writer has ever written or will write either on their blog or somewhere else.

    We link to particular posts because we think they might be interesting for our readers. End of story.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is my fourth comment, and as the representative of about 5% of the comments so far, I'll say the actual substance of the disagreement between Pat and Taoiseach doesn't interest me. And it seems like the bulk of the rest of the comments are about whether this is worth posting about, whether this is productive or childish, whether Taoiseach has been outed, whether pseudonyms are ok, whether Pat should continue as a contributor, etc. It's mostly not about the substance of the disagreement. And Kari didn't hit Pat with the biggest club he had, as it was put. That would be banning him. Pat's just one of the rest of us now.

  • (Show?)

    "Actually TJ, I sent you a story for posting on LO back on 2/8/07. I asked you to post it or at least get back to me. It was about Ron Chinn's comments regarding students with disabilities. Never heard word one from you. Guess that's not censorship..."

    You guess right. That's called editorial control. Only the government can truly censor anything.

  • (Show?)

    Comments like this make it clear that even regular readers of BlueOregon don't really understand how little control any single person--Kari included--exercise here:

    The pissing matches on BO have been getting worse and worse on BO for the last few months and it's clear to me that neither Kari or his assistant want to address the problem of what is general called "flame wars".

    Nick is the opposite of an assistant. With almost no input, and nothing like what you'd call "oversight," Nick manages to keep a huge amount of information flowing through the site. It has been enormously relieving to me, and I suspect Kari too, to have someone who can carry the load. Slag Kari and me all you want (well, especially Kari), but give Nick his props--he's doing yeoman's work here.

  • (Show?)

    I'd like to add one other thing to this mix. In both the initial spat that provoked Malach's post and many of the comments here and on other blogs, people characterize what another person's motivation is. They can therefore come to conclusions like:

    You have a dark side, mon frer, and it ain't so honest.

    I don't know very many people who write in the comments. I'm by nature a recluse, so I fail to get out to events where I'd get to meet a lot of folks. So I have little insight into the (mis?)-characterizations flying around. However, I do know Kari, and as a co-editor of BlueOregon, I am in contact with him about the site. That's why when I read these kinds of comments, they seem so plainly laughable to me.

    It's easier to compose a pretty story that fits available facts when you have precious little facts available. We can make up stories about other people that seem convincing enough to fool ourselves and other readers. It is the basis of most flame wars.

    There are times when right-wing trolls try to mess with our conversation, but for the most part, we're all on the same team. It would be an interesting exercise, rather than assuming someone is a dark liar, that the person is a valued friend. We tell ourselves different stories about our friends than our enemies and arrange those data points differently. Or even to assume we don't know what the person's motivation is--which, of course, is the truth.

    Just a thought.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You may be right

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pat, I think Jeff is right.

    I have known more people who were active Democrats to drop out or no longer be on speaking terms with someone after being told they were "not a real Democrat" or after a spat following a hotly contested primary than I have a Democrat and a Republican not speaking to each other due to an election.

    It is good to accept that even a candidate one might not support could have valid arguments. I am truly undecided about US Senate, but I have told a few people that I respect the way Novick did that page about veterans issues and all candidates should give the issue serious consideration.

    One more thing--overzealous supporters can ruin a candidate's chances. In one case I asked a question to a candidate's face and the supporters with him yelled at me (the candidated did nothing). In another case, I asked an incumbent about his voting record and when he tried to fudge, nearby supporters tried to peer pressure me out of asking any followup questions. In still another case, a person who had only minimal volunteer connection to a campaign sent me a "ha ha we won, you lost" card after a contested primary where I had been friends with all the candidates prior to the primary. I showed the card to the winning candidate (who I admire to this day) and I have never seen him so angry!

    Needless to say, I admire that 3rd candidate (the only one of the group to win the general election, by the way) and have been telling the stories of the first 2 for years under the heading "stupid campaign stunts".

    A word to the wise which has been said in a lot more poetic ways but I will say it very blandly. If you assume something about a person you have never met, be careful. You might end up being reminded about what happens when the word assume is split into syllables.

  • SuperWonk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jesus Christ this is boring. Who gives a s**t? About any of this? Honestly? No one outside of a small handful of political bloggers has the faintest idea of what any of you are talking about. And even fewer care.

    A fellow Democrat disagreed with your choice of a U.S. Senate primary candidate. Boo hoo.

    <h2>Let's get down to real issues that the average person wants to read about on Blue Oregon. Not crappy cartoons or boring blog wars.</h2>

connect with blueoregon