Steve Duin hates our little glee club. Boo hoo.
Years ago, Steve Duin was a sports writer for The Oregonian. Like Dwight Jaynes, he apparently felt no compunction about calling an athlete "dogmeat" and other denigrating terms; not for moral flaws but for athletic failings. As much as I used to love to read the paper back in those pre-web days (I miss Sunday mornings with the ads culled, the coffee brewed, a toasted Portland Bagel Company bagel slathered with Nancy's cream cheese, and an entire Sunday paper ready to enjoy; it's not worth the money anymore), Duin's writing was too ugly, too often, for me to enjoy. (I don't bother much with Canzano for the same reason, plus the dude is so incredibly full of himself.)
Then Duin left sports and became a "columnist." He was freed to write about whatever captured his fancy, and guess what? He became a very good writer! Sports must have brought out the worst in him, like driving does with me. As a generalist, he was thoughtful, funny, persuasive, and his anger, when it came out, was usually well-directed. Not every column was Pulitzer-caliber, of course, but I enjoyed reading him much more after he left sports. As a bonus, he has, over the years, been one of the better and more thoughtful political writers in the state.
Then there's his blog. I've not read it much, so I don't know the general direction it takes. When I have read the blog, it's usually when he's writing about books, comics/graphic novels and such. I keep meaning to keep in touch with it for that reason, so I don't know how many entries like this I've missed over time:
Kulongoski is a Liar and the Oregon State Bar Couldn't Care Less
Ok, wow, that's not merely strong, isn't it close to libel? He can prove Kulo is a liar? Golly, call the Attorney General! Or does he (and the Big O) think that writing in a "blog" means you can say what you damn well please? Anyway, that aside, I'm aware of what he's talking about, the allegations that Ted's known about Neil for years and not only has done nothing about it, he's lied about his knowledge when questioned. Beyond that, like most Oregonians, I simply don't know enough to know if the accusations against Kulo are true. Steve, however, is in no doubt, that's for sure; and, as he attacks those who defend the Gov, he has this little tidbit:
That is unbelievable. That's the laughable Kari Chisholm defense, named in honor of the Democratic errand boy who runs the Blue Oregon Glee Club.
The Blue Oregon Glee Club? Holy crap, Batman. Now there are a couple of things about Kari and Blue Oregon that are undeniable. Kari is a true-blue Democrat. He defends Democrats frequently, and I know he at times has taken up arms against Lars Larsson regarding the whole Kulo-Goldschmidt affair. But hell. It's Lars! Jesus, should not any decent Democrat, Republican, indie or otherwise sentient human being be ready to stand against any damn thing Lars says? It's Lars, Steve. He opens his mouth and demons barf.
It could be, regarding this whole nasty affair, that Kulo is a liar, that Lars has accidentally gotten on the right side of the story, and that Kari is spinning and dancing. I don't know, and I don't really care. Kari's a big boy, I mean a grown-up, and he can take care of himself. But — Blue Oregon Glee Club? Steverino has gone too damn far.
The Duiner must do a lot of selective reading of BO, if he reads us at all. Yes, Kari is listed as an editor, along with Charlie Burr and Jeff Alworth. And here's how much Kari edits me, one of the more frequent contributors: Zip. Zero. Not at all. He has suggested to me a few times that I need to get to the point (I have a tendency to bury my main point under an extravagant introduction). Charlie, writing to me not as an editor but as a friend, once told me to play nice (and I told him I'd write as I saw fit). That's it, kids. I know one person who thinks Kari bans commenters he doesn't like, but given all the trolls and such that appear regularly, including people who criticize Kari for how he runs this operation, I'm not convinced.
As far as glee club goes, anyone reading this site regularly knows that's a crock of horse doody. We're anything but harmonious. I seem to recall getting bitch-slapped for suggesting not too long ago that impeachment was a bad idea — less than a year after getting bitch-slapped for suggesting that impeachment was necessary (it was a timing thing; I still want to see Bush & Cheney before the World Court). There is no editorial board to pass through here, I promise. If I want to write about Obama, or how I think Cindy Sheehan is wrong, or two quarterbacks from rural Oregon, or anything else I want — I just write it. I have never been told to change a word, to not approach a single subject. And no one has ever hesitated to tell me I'm an idiot, a right-/left-wing tool, a socialist, a complete idiot or just plain wrong.
This is anything but a glee club. Ok, we're all kind of on the same team. That's a terrible thing, I know, Steve: a bunch of Dems and other lefties getting together on a website to discuss and promote the politics we share in common. But glee club? Hell, boy, that's an insult to real glee clubs. Here at Blue Oregon, we make a less pleasant sound. We tend to squawk more than harmonize. We fight about Merkley and Novick, about the governor's race last year, about taxes, about PERS (hi mrfearless) and about any other damn thing on which we disagree. If we're a glee club, we suck.
But we're not a glee club, and we don't suck. Some of our pieces suck, and I've submitted more than a few of those. But this site is a place where anyone wanting to add positively to the dialogue about how to make Oregon better by promoting progressive (and generally, Democratic) politics, is welcome here (as are those who wish to conduct productive, civil disagreements and debates). And that may be the problem Steve Duin has with us.
We're trying to promote something positive here. He seems to be satisfied with being his own troll.
|
December 29, 2007 |
T.A. Barnhart | Comments (125 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Comments
Posted by: Stephanie V | Dec 29, 2007 10:46:37 PM
>it seemed to me that his objectivity was AWOL
Hey, I'm no apologist for the excesses of Steve Duin or any other columnist, but the last time I checked, "columnists" weren't supposed to be objective. That's kind of the point, isn't it?
Posted by: LT | Dec 29, 2007 11:11:27 PM
TA, thanks for the comment about making Oregon better. If the Bar had talked to Leonhardt for a whole day and Kulongoski for a whole day, why should we believe the result wouldn't have been something other than,
"Mr. Leonhardt and Gov. Kulongoski have differing recollections of events that occurred more than a decade ago," Mullmann wrote. "I find that both Mr. Leonhardt and Gov. Kulongoski are credible in their recollections."
Mullmann said the conflicting testimony by two equally credible witnesses "does not constitute sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that misconduct may have occurred warranting further investigation by the bar."
This is about a 1994 conversation at a social event discussing rumors about a crime 20 years previously. Even if every legal authority in Oregon were to come out and say "Lars and Leonhardt are right, Kulongoski deserves punishment for what he did or didn't do after hearing what Leonhardt told him", how would that make Oregon better?
Would there be some sort of regulation in the future that any rumor of child abuse heard in a social situation had to be reported in writing to a specified agency?
But what really bothers me about Duin and the others is that Leonhardt thought telling someone at a social event constituted telling the authorities. Seems to me the Bar would have written standards about hearsay and about "Attorneys are mandatory reporters. According to Bar guidelines, they "must report any 'reasonable suspicion' of child abuse according to Oregon law."
Is a conversation at a Christmas party alone enough to trigger "reasonable suspicion", or must there be more evidence than that?
Stephanie, are you a lawyer or do you know any lawyers? Maybe you or someone could inform us about the Bar definition of "reasonable suspicion".
Posted by: Not a regular | Dec 29, 2007 11:31:03 PM
I tend to agree with Duin's "Glee Club" comment. And T.A. helps explain why here: "But this site is a place where anyone wanting to add positively to the dialogue about how to make Oregon better by promoting progressive (and generally, Democratic) politics..."
There's the issue for me: T.A. says that "progressive generally = Democratic". I guess that may be the case when you're making comparisons to Huckabee and Bush, but this site is generally extremely light on the truly progressive politics, and pretty heavy on the Democratic party ones, especially when the two are contradictary.
Posted by: dyspeptic | Dec 29, 2007 11:36:05 PM
Duin is welcome to his crustiness. BlueOregon should buy him lunch for the mention.
On the whole, though, the Oregonian went off the crypto-Christian ya-ya deep end years ago. Duin sometimes proves he's got a pulse by offering up PITA positions, but nobody who writes for the O has any right to get huffy about another media outlet sounding like a glee club.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 29, 2007 11:44:15 PM
not a regular, jeez, that's pathetic. adding the equal sign totally changes my words, and you know it. and just because your version of progressive isn't posted daily, we're somehow lacking? i'll match my progresivism to anyone's (it's really really big), and that doesn't always mean the Democratic Party gets it right. perhaps if you'd both hang around regularly, and not hide behind a nick, you'd get a better idea of the progressivism that is here — and you'd see it covers quite a spectrum of beliefs and attitudes.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 29, 2007 11:47:28 PM
Stephanie, columnists should at least attempt to be reasonable (not to mention avoid libel). otherwise they're just kooks. you don't have dialogues with kooks; you have chaos. you heard anyone have a dialogue with Lars? Rush? we don't have to agree with one another, but if we can't talk reasonably, we don't have much of anything.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 30, 2007 12:11:49 AM
Hot damn. I didn't even know Steve Duin had his own blog. Oops! Welcome to the blogosphere, Steve!
(TA, I've edited your post to include a link to the post in question. Took me forever find it. Someday, the O will figure out how to make a navigable website. Google still hasn't found his post.)
Steve is the same guy who wrote that "BlueOregon is an endless lap dance for the Democratic Party." Personally, I thought it was hilarious.
I'll leave most of the meta-analysis to others. Frankly, I'm bored by it. But I have two thoughts:
#1. The notion that we're a "glee club", as T.A. so aptly points out, is ridiculous. Clearly, Steve hasn't been paying attention much around here. We've had a raging brawl-among-friends going for quite a few months around here.
#2. I don't run BlueOregon. I'm an active editor, along with Jeff and Charlie. There was a time when I did probably 75% of the content and checked in every few hours. It's been months since that's been true. These days, I do about 10% and I check in about once a day. (I really wish people would stop giving me all the credit. This is a labor of love from a large number of people.)
Personally, I've always enjoyed Duin's work. I've got much in common with his kids. I went to USC. I grew up in L.O. In elementary school, I even had the teacher who inspired the annual reading challenge. (She was Miss McBee then... don't know her married name now. She was easily my favorite.)
As to the substance? Remember: the Oregonian knew about the Goldschmidt story all the way back in 1986. That was 21 years ago.
Sure, as the Astorian noted, Steve Duin is the "moral force" of the paper - but he should turn his attention to the people who really covered this up: The Oregonian.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 30, 2007 12:29:10 AM
Duin is welcome to his crustiness. BlueOregon should buy him lunch for the mention.
Gladly! Steve, give me a call. Lunch is on me. We'll even do it at Higgins. (And maybe bring along Miss McBee!)
Posted by: LT | Dec 30, 2007 12:53:26 AM
Kari, thanks to the WW link.
WW has learned that the paper's first solid information about Goldschmidt's secret came 18 years ago, in 1986. At that time, Jack Ohman, the paper's nationally syndicated editorial cartoonist, heard a tip from a friend.
For those of you who don't recall 1986 politics, Portland's own Neil barely defeated Salem's own Norma (Paulus). Didn't the Statesman Journal endorse Neil over Norma? Would they have done that if they had known? Would Neil have been Transportation Secretary under Carter or even a candidate for statewide office if anyone had known? (Anyone remember who Neil's 1986 primary opponent was and what ended that person's political career?)
The whole Leonhardt et al "I told you Ted, at that Christmas party 10 years ago" thing strikes me as juvenile or naive, or gotcha (or some combination).
As if some people need to grow up and realize there are folks just barely scraping by, folks with no health insurance just hoping they don't get sick or in an accident, folks thrilled to land a job which pays $10 an hour. And then a columnist, a speech writer, and a talk show host want them to believe nothing is more important than something talked about privately at a Portland Christmas party for the well connected? Enough to make some hard working people want to scream "go out and get a real job"---Duin and Leonhardt and Lars probably wouldn't last a day in retail, or in physically or emotionally demanding jobs which are more essential but less glamorous than politics or news.
Why doesn't Duin or anyone else mention that had it been public knowledge, Norma would have become Oregon's first woman Governor instead of Barbara Roberts?
Which is why this whole story smacks of "let's get Ted and Bernie" and all about Portland social and political circles, rather than about the rest of the state.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Dec 30, 2007 2:37:20 AM
Kari said:
We've had a raging brawl-among-friends going for quite a few months around here.
No way. I thought we were all in 100% agreement around here.
; )
Posted by: paulie | Dec 30, 2007 9:21:53 AM
A glee club...o.k....one usually off key, forgets the words, the melody and even to sing. Sheesh.
Read Jeff Mape's blog at the big "O".
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Dec 30, 2007 10:07:00 AM
Well, to be fair, TA's photoshop job does make the Karis look fairly choral.
Duin comes off, as he has more and more often, like a man desperately trying to reassert his authority. Yet his overheated rhetoric is cringe-producing even on a blog. Duin has done a lot of interesting, important work. Throwing a hissy fit about the governor cannot be considered either.
Come on, Steve, pick up your game.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 30, 2007 10:20:26 AM
Glee Club? If by glee club we mean everyone singing from the same sheet of music, then the charge appears to be partly true and partly not.
The lead articles essentially follow the same basic "Democratic" score without allowing discordant notes. But the comments that follow from the audience more often than not show a strong competition between opinions and opinionated people. On the first point, I submitted a piece in support of Ralph Nader. No way, apparently, is anyone with anything good to say about Ralph Nader to be allowed to take the lead on a "Democratic" site. I will, however, concede that is the editors' privilege and accept their judgment without hostility.
I suppose I could copy my article from my file and paste it here, but that would change the subject and thus be a violation of unspoken etiquette. Also, I wouldn't have time to respond to the diatribes that would follow, and I'm still imbued with the Christmas spirit and have all those sales ads in today's (Sunday's) paper to work through.
As for Steve Duin, he was my favorite columnist in the Oregonian, not that I agreed with him 100%, when I used to subscribe to the "O" and I'm indebted to him and the chance encounter with his column that introduced me to Steve Novick.
And, I agree with Stephanie's comment above about opinion columnists not being objective.
As for Kulongoski I'm more prepared to accept Steve Duin's opinion and word than Kulongoski's. On anything!!
Posted by: admiralnaismith | Dec 30, 2007 10:28:42 AM
Heh. Whenever I thought about Gov. Ted during over the last five years, it was along the lines of "weaker than Pendleton clam chowder".
I might have to rethink that. If the Republicans are willing to go into full character assassination mode on him, maybe he's doing things right after all.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 30, 2007 11:10:54 AM
"Duin has written quite glowingly of Novick and rather harshly of Merkley, hasn't he?"
Actually, that's not true at all.
He's had very little to say publicly about the primary. The most I've heard him say was that he was "uncomfortable" with how quickly the Novick campaign was dismissed by the party establishment.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 30, 2007 11:23:10 AM
Heh. Whenever I thought about Gov. Ted during over the last five years, it was along the lines of "weaker than Pendleton clam chowder".
I might have to rethink that. If the Republicans are willing to go into full character assassination mode on him, maybe he's doing things right after all.
Admiral: I like your metaphor - "weaker than Pendleton clam chowder".
As for the Republicans going after Kulongoski, however, I think two gangs or Mafia families fighting over turf might be more appropriate comparisons.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 30, 2007 11:26:07 AM
Actually it is true, Pat. But I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 30, 2007 11:27:39 AM
Ditto, Bill. "Weaker than Pendleton clam chowder" tickeled my funny bone.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 30, 2007 11:35:04 AM
"Actually it is true, Pat. But I'm not going to do your homework for you."
No, you'd be doing your own homework by actually backing up your as-yet-unproven assertion that "Duin has written quite glowingly of Novick and rather harshly of Merkley."
I simply called your bluff. Since you won't show your cards, I'll consider it a fold.
Once again, Kev, you're a day late and dollar short with your argument. I figured a self-proclaimed well-known blogger such as yourself could cover his bases with an actual fact. But you know what they say about assuming things.
Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 30, 2007 11:45:43 AM
" 'BlueOregon is an endless lap dance for the Democratic Party.' Personally, I thought it was hilarious."
It's funny cause it's true! Seriously, there IS a fairly strong editorial pattern of Democratic (big d) backing IMO, staying fairly tightly within the relatively narrow ideological bounds of "what's safe" and not too out there. The connections are strong, and one sees fairly quickly what happens when you don't follow the line--even among the supposedly unherded cats of the Party.
That said, Duin's kind of in left field here, I agree. It's not libel, however, unless Duin actually believes Kulongoski is NOT lying, but is saying he is. That's why libel cases are so hard to prove; the defendant has to be shown to be deliberately printing a falsehood.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 30, 2007 12:03:40 PM
tj, "editorial pattern" is kind of overstating things. that implies that some effort is being made to create a pattern, or direct writings. the guest columns are the only ones that need approval; contributors don't ask for permission to post. we post. i can write to my heart's delight on Novick or Obama, both of whom Kari opposes (or supports another candidate, might be a better way to put it).
if there is any pattern, it's the kind of unintentional pattern describe by Steve Johnson in his terrific book Emergence. this is a great look into how seemingly unconnected organisms or processes end up working together. it's actually a bit more simple here — most of us are active in the Democratic Party, so duh, we write about helping out the Democratic Party — but it's a book anyone interesetd in both natural and social processes should read.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 30, 2007 12:16:08 PM
Duin has written quite glowingly of Novick and rather harshly of Merkley, while betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of how the GOP traps work. All of which debunks Pat's claim upthread.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 30, 2007 12:37:42 PM
Kevin: Thanks for the links above where I found this - The question we should be asking of the primary candidates, Walker said, is this: Which one of you has ever taken a personal risk and gone to the mat for people? "In a close race, I'm going to look for someone who puts themselves out there, in front of God and everyone, for truth and justice," Walker said. "That may sound like a fairy tale. I didn't get elected to have a title but to sometimes put myself out there to get run over for the right things."
In a way, it sums up why I'm for Steve Novick and others willing to fight for something worthwhile instead of selling their souls or integrity to get elected.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 30, 2007 12:38:03 PM
From Kevin's links above:
"Given the support of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the hasty endorsements by Kulongoski and former Gov. Barbara Roberts, Merkley clearly is the establishment candidate."
"...the DSCC's decision to spend $93,000 on Jeff Merkley's fledgling U.S. Senate campaign is further evidence that the party's chief fundraising committee wants to pick the Democrat candidate before Oregon voters do."
"...Novick would never have voted for that 2003 resolution; that Merkley did suggests he brings a different level of anger and activism to this campaign."
"...Yet the candidates' campaigns, Blumenauer said, "will only be 10-12 percent of the media activity. All the rest will be everybody defining you and beating you up, and doing the same to your opponent. Once this race gets up onto the radar screen, you'll see swift-boating like you've never seen before. It's going to be a wild time."
That's what you call "rather harsh," Kevin? I fear for your genteel sensibilities when Gordon Smith fires up his arsenal for the general election. You better go hide in a cave next summer and fall, lest you risk a severe case of the vapors.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 30, 2007 12:45:00 PM
"staying fairly tightly within the relatively narrow ideological bounds of "what's safe" and not too out there. The connections are strong, and one sees fairly quickly what happens when you don't follow the line--even among the supposedly unherded cats of the Party."
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 30, 2007 12:52:34 PM
Please.... can we stay a little close to on-topic? Yeah, this was a meta-post on the nature of BlueOregon, but it was originally about Governor Kulongoski, the Goldschmidt Scandal, etc. It was not supposed to be another chapter in the ongoing pissing match between Merkley and Novick supporters. We have plenty of opportunities for that.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 30, 2007 1:03:17 PM
and you see how this works? Kari tries to exercise editorial influence (conduct the glee club) and i reply:
no, this was not about Kulo, it was about Steve Duin thinking we all sing the same tune. the comments prove that we're anything but a glee club. this is a typical set of comments, very illustrative of how things tend to work at BO. and ignoring the editor's pleas, also typical.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 30, 2007 1:06:43 PM
Fair enough, TA! I'm just saying that the ongoing pissing match with rehashed arguments is BOOOOOOORING. Find something new to say, people.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 30, 2007 1:10:02 PM
Have A Happy New Year!
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Dec 30, 2007 1:16:00 PM
One way to tell extremists from people who merely have strongly held views is to examine their perception of censorship. Those that interpret criticism of their poorly reasoned screeds as a form of censorship ("editorial direction", "without allowing discordant notes", "glee club") refuse to accept that any belief system other than their own is legitimate. (Therefore, in the twisted logic of the ever more deranged radical, all opposition must be motivated by evil - greed, self-interest, hatred, what have you. It's the first step on the long road to dehumanizing your political opponents, which thankfully only a few violent extremists ever reach.)
BlueOregon is a website that puts few limits on what people write. Emotional reasoners are welcome to contribute. But so are those who ridicule the ridiculous, including myself. So if your bottom is hurting from the spankings you get here, don't blame the forum. Blame yourself.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 30, 2007 1:38:03 PM
T.A., I think the question is not whether you can write about Novick or Obama, but whether if you decided to back Frohnmeyer for senate and whomever the Greens nominate for president next year, and wrote about those frequently and insistently but politely, maybe with a few periodic arguments about why Ralph Nader wasn't a spoiler in 2000, that would have any consequences.
The blog is called BlueOregon. The "blue" vs. "red" methaphor goes back ultimately to representations of Dems vs. Repubs in t.v. electoral college maps for presidential elections. The focus here is mostly on partisan politics and public policy. Of the 45 regular columnists, 3 editors and 1 intern listed, 25 have had at least one post since Sept. 1. Of those, 15 have posted since Dec. 1 and few of the other 10 had more than one or two posts in Sept. & Oct.; one still-listed columnist actually was removed in November.
A pretty substantial majority of those listed and an even greater proportion of the recent posters are current or former Democratic elected officials, current or former Democratic party officials, professional or volunteer activists for the Democratic party, or professional policy or issue activists working mainly in the DP milieu.
It seems pretty bootless to deny that this is mostly a DP-oriented talk shop. I think it's only because Duin turns that into an attack and a smear that there's even an inclination to try.
There are other kinds of progressive politics in Oregon; mostly they are ignored here or are actively disdained (admittedly of course the favor is returned often enough with respect to views of the DP). That doesn't bother me terribly because I don't expect it to be much different, though at times it limits both what we discuss and how we talk about it in ways I wish it didn't.
Even when broad issues are discussed, it's usually with reference to candidate, official or party positions or electoral and government policy debates (sometimes including criticism like Lenny Dee's on DP "free trade" politics). The main exceptions that stick out in my mind recently are Leslie Carlson's posts, Karol Collymore's New Orleans reports, and further back, some posts by Jenson Hagen about schools and education.
Posted by: BHamm | Dec 30, 2007 1:46:17 PM
I couldn't agree more, Kari.
However, I've been noticing how Kamberg is always the first comment on every post here, and it's always a way to fit the Novick-Merkley square peg into a variety of round holes. Give it a rest, brother. Are you being paid by the Merkley campaign to bring up the primary in every thread?
Duin's a cad. And a liar. And that's okay to say, because this is a blog, which is opinion, in the eyes of IP law. Plus, he's a public figure, so it's "newsworthy."
Posted by: Steve Duin | Dec 30, 2007 2:03:52 PM
A couple thoughts:
(1) T.A. is, once again, as careless with his use of quote marks as he is in the reading of my blog post. As I left The Oregonian sports staff 19 years ago, I am sincerely grateful that T.A. or anyone else remembers anything I wrote between 1980 and 1988, but I challenge T.A. to quote any piece in which I called an athlete "dogmeat" for his "athletic failings" or any other reason. I've challenged T.A. on this issue before and he's ignored me.
(2) There are several instances in which I believe the governor is lying, and I documented one of them in a November column. I provide a link in the blog post. T.A. ignored that, too.
(3) Jeff Alworth suggests in comments on my blog that my argument comes across as "unhinged." It's never helpful when the tone of a column or post overwhelms the point I'm trying to make, so Jeff, I appreciate the criticism. But I'm angry. I'm angry that the Bar didn't even bother to interview the governor or Fred Leonhardt before reaching conclusions about their credibility. I have long maintained that it is almost impossible not to be persuaded by Leonhardt's story if you take the time to listen to him. I wonder how many people who dismiss his allegations on BlueOregon have taken the time to do that.
(4) The Glee Club metaphor was not meant to suggest everyone on Blue Oregon sings in harmony, but that the blog is, all too often, a chorus of apologists for the Democratic Party. The blog and its commentators are at their best when they passionately challenge progressives and liberals to great work, not when they listlessly shrug off the party's ongoing tradition of mediocrity in Oregon.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 30, 2007 2:04:06 PM
Chris,
I agree with the thrust of your comment above. I made a very similar criticism of Loaded Orygun earlier this year, back when Carla was still writing there and it was much less partisan. Both of them can confirm that for you if you doubt me.
The thing is... taking just TJ, Carla and myself as examples, we're all three NAVs and all three long-time frequent commenters here at Blue Oregon. That the conversations here revolve around DPO-centric issues reflects, in my view, common cause rather than any kind of party loyalty. That a number of non-Democrats routinely comment here underscores that characterization, IMO.
One thing that I've long noticed here at Blue Oregon is that the "alliances" are every shifting. It's not at all uncommon for Bill Bodden and I, for example, to be in firm agreement on one thread and at polar opposites of an issue on another thread, with both threads being current. Ditto for me and Kari, me and T.A., etc. All of which underscores what T.A. said a few comments up about how we (in the collective sense) are anything but a "glee club."
Posted by: anon | Dec 30, 2007 2:08:29 PM
Will someone please address the following obvious questions which Steve Duin neglected to ask:
1) Why did Leonhardt later seek employment as Kulongoski's speechwriter if he was so outraged by their alleged conversation at a cocktail party eight years prior?
2) Why did Duin not report on the well-known attempt by Leonhardt in October of 2006 to publish at the Oregonian (and other Oregon publications) an op-ed recycling his oft-published accustations against Kulongodki? Leonhardt's op-ed was rejected throughout Oregon because it was recognized as 1) old news and 2) the culmination of Leonhardt's personal vendetta against Kulongoski. The piece in question was finally "printed" by a far-left website in the waning days of the campaign.
Posted by: paulie | Dec 30, 2007 3:08:27 PM
To Steve Duin
I believe it was N. Bonaparte who said,
"When small men attempt great enterprises, they always end by reducing them to the level of their mediocrity."
Even by my low standards, your attempts to depict the BlueOregon blog as a glee club and paint the Democratic Party as a party of mediocrity is a thin disguise for arrogance, not unlike the columnist David Brooks.
Like all tales told around campfires over the years, there comes a time when some story tellers will doctor and shade a story to exploit their listener's with a rendition far from the original story. Like a spiraling infection, the tales told about our sitting Governor will heal or result in a slow death.
Usually your's is a distintive voice. This time it is shrill.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 30, 2007 3:13:52 PM
golly, Steve does look in.
i admit, Steve Duin may never have used the term "dogment" but he, like Jaynes, was harsh on athletes for not being good athletes; and since this included college athletes, i had a lot of trouble with that kind of writing. Jaynes was far worse, but i know how glad i was when Steve stopped doing sports. as far as ignoring him, i don't even recall being challenged. i don't track relentlessly every time i comment; i try to keep involved in conversations, but life is pretty full so i do lose track. i guess one day i'll head over the library, pop in the microfiche and search. but until i can do that, i'll amend my comments to admit that my recollections of Steve's days as a sportswriter....
i didn't ignore Steve's other links; i never bothered to get involved in the comments. since i have no waying of knowing if Leonhardt is telling the truth or not — and i am not going to take Lars' word for it — this becomes one of those things i let slide. i have too much else to deal with that i can actually do something about. i got a kid scheduled to go to Afghanistan in a year, so i get a bit myopic at times. if there is real proof Ted lied, i hope it comes out. if you can bring that out without the vitriol, i'll be glad to read it.
i'm not sure what mediocrity is in Oregon, in your mind. i see the Dems making headway on repairing the damage done by the GOP's years of attack, by a near-permanent statewide recession that owes much to Bush's policies, and i see a crop of Dems rising around the state to take control of thing and work to make this a better state. people like Sara Gelser, my former rep, and Jefferson Smith, who'll be in the Leg soon, and grassroots activists all over the state (Matt Sutton in Ashland, Leah Bolger in Corvallis, Jenni Greenleaf here in Pdx, to name three) — Dems who support the party but demand we do better, who refuse to accept that the old way of doing things is going to work any more. i hope Steve and others can start seeing that the Democratic Party in Oregon is more than the Gov and a few others but thousands of activists who are responsible for taking back the House, for pushing the state to the left and who are not going to settle for anything less than real democracy.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 30, 2007 3:30:40 PM
I hope everyone read Chris Lowe's comment above.
It's a realistic critique because it puts the proper amount of emphasis on the issues and perspectives found on the front-page posts rather than on the level of freedom in the far-less-prominent comment sections:
"It seems pretty bootless to deny that this is mostly a DP-oriented talk shop...That doesn't bother me terribly because I don't expect it to be much different, though at times it limits both what we discuss and how we talk about it ..."
As to the specific of this post, I think it's part and parcel with T.A.'s attempts to tear down anyone who disagrees with his sacred cows.
Well-known liberal Paul Krugman challenges Obama's health care talking points, and suddenly "progressive" T.A. is challenging Krugman and indeed all of liberalism with the tired old GOP culture-of-victimhood talking point.
Now Duin ribs BlueOregon, another of Barnrat's sacred Cows, and suddenly he's to be thrown under the bus with a few personal attacks thrown in for good measure.
Nice! I don't see a whole lot of "progress" there, just the same old dismissive, partisan tactics of search and destroy.
Posted by: AnonMe | Dec 30, 2007 3:52:59 PM
Didn't the Oregonian also know about the Karen Minnis story (her brother-in-law who harassed/attacked a teenage waitress who worked at the Minnis' restaurant, and Karen played some role in getting the waitress to keep quiet after the fact)?
Where was Steve Duin's moral outrage then?
Where was the Oregonian then? A careful search of public records revealed that story. Are we to believe that the well-connected O did not know anything about it until it was broken in a campaign ad last year?
Please. Don't look now Steve - your partisanship guised as moral indignation is showing. How stupid do you think we are?
Has Steve Duin ever written even one word about the Minnis waitress scandal? Did Lars Larsen ever speak of it? No? Shocker.
Sickening.
Posted by: Grant Schott | Dec 30, 2007 4:08:10 PM
I'm sure many people knew of the rumor (although I'm guessing more knew of the rumor than specifics), including Goldschmidt's clients, but continued to do business with him. I'm more upset that, Goldschmidt, Oregon's Ken Ley who would do anything to help a corporation who paid him $$$$, continued to have such influence over Democrats. His dealings with Aaron Jones, the Texas firm bidding on PGE,etc... wasn’t just rumor, it was well know.
I would add that The Oregonian apparently had heard the rumors (or details) of the statutory rape twenty years ago, but didn't pursue it and allowed Neil to retreat to confess to an "affair" before the WW abuse story broke, so why is The O. now giving Ted K. such grief?
Posted by: LT | Dec 30, 2007 4:17:53 PM
A couple of things.
As a former fan of Duin (his "When you try to nail down Bob Packwood, you will find he is greasing the handle of your hammer " is a classic), I find this episode somehow sad. He seems to believe that if only people actually listened to Leonhardt, read the affadavit, (and read Steve Duin's blog?) they would come away saying "You're right, Leonhardt should be believed without question. Kulongoski is scum."
Oregonians have been known over the years for their independence. But all of a sudden we are all supposed to be robots proclaiming Leonhardt is truthful and Kulongoski is scum because a few people tell us that is what we are supposed to say? Sounds like people who have the soul of a dictator or an ayatollah and are uncomfortable with independent thought and tough questions.
In the 40 years I have been voting (and before that watching politics as a political grandchild), I have been skeptical of anyone who says "You heard that person, therefore you believe everything that person said".
Actually, I have been known to fact check close friends---but on this we should believe Duin and Leonhardt and never ask any questions??
I like Paulie's comment and anon's questions. Does that make me some kind of subversive Kulongoski booster because I dare to think for myself?
With regard to Duin's posting here, if I knew Leonhardt's total employment history I might give him some credibility. Why didn't he report to the proper authorities during regular business hours---was politics more important than reporting what he says he knew about a crime?
The affadavit seems a bit thin to me having read it twice. And I would really like someone to inform us all if conversation at a social event meets the Bar standards for the need to report suspected abuse. It would seem to me the Bar would have specific regulations and procedures for that, and either conversation at a social event meets their criteria or it doesn't.
It sounds like Duin is saying we should believe him because he tells us to.
I'm writing as one person who has argued to (or almost to) the point of no longer speaking to close friends over a political issue. Tough when that happens, but a decision needs to be made about the friendship vs. the political point. At that point it is an individual decision. Is Duin saying that in this instance there should not be individual thought because Duin believes Leonhardt therefore we are all obligated to do the same?
Duin is not someone I know, but he is asking to be believed because he believes Leonhardt.
Sorry Steve, but unless there is more information than has been provided so far, I will not swear Leonhardt is a hero and Kulongoski is scum. Seems like a tip of the iceberg, more than meets the eye situation.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 30, 2007 4:36:35 PM
In this discussion a point that has been overlooked but is worthy of comment is the title: "Steve Duin hates our little glee club. Boo hoo." That strikes me as an exaggeration that has put a flame under some people's bucket of bile. Duin may have negative regards for Blue Oregon, but I'm confident that "hate" in this case is hyperbole.
Posted by: paulie | Dec 30, 2007 4:38:56 PM
Hey Pat,
Even the tax code is partisan - look who pays the majority of taxes. Once upon a time I too went looking for the fairy godmother of bipartisonship. Instead I found paid signature gatherers.
Believe it or not, I have found several serious folks who are in the party to which I belong. Many are centrists with a desire to improve; not smash the other party with unhinged statements or actions. It is exquisite irony that you may be searching for a magical third party to fix everything or a level of bipartanship on BlueOregon.
Back to the Duin cloumn which generated all the posts. Apparently his delicate sensibilities don't allow him to preserve even the the basic premise of journalist standards. Watch for another one of his stunning backflips that contradict his earlier writings.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 30, 2007 5:06:36 PM
It is exquisite irony that you may be searching for a magical third party to fix everything...
You can't blame someone for hoping for a "magical third party" when the two major parties have proved themselves to be so abysmal. The Bush Administration and the Republicans got us into this disastrous war and half of the Democratic Party worked as enablers. The people gave the Democrats a majority in the House to bring the war to an end, but Nancy Pelosi is dominated by the pro-war faction among the House Democrats on this issue. Civil rights are being eroded and many Democrats have been complicit. The Patriot Act was voted on without anyone reading it, and in the Senate only Russ Feingold voted against it. Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman knew about CIA waterboarding and did nothing. Who said there is no bi-partisanship in Congress? If the Republicans are calling the shots and the Democrats are enabling them, is that not bi-partisanship?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 30, 2007 5:21:07 PM
Kevin,
Actually I don't disagree with anything you say. Don't know why you think I'd doubt you about L.O. either. My point was just that the agenda around here is mainly DP oriented and that's not surprising given how it's constructed. Common cause, yes, but within the framework of actions that can be taken in particular ways.
What's a little interesting to me is to wonder if a broader progressive blog could actually exist in Portland now. How many BO participants wouldn't be interested because it wouldn't be "real politics"? How many less DP-oriented progressives would be willing to do more than vent frustrations against a generic DP label, and to avoid driving others away with personal motives attacks? And conversely with DP-oriented folks regarding the motives and choices of those who do other kinds of politics?
My tendency is to think it would be hard to make something broader fly, that people would get sucked into just attacking one another. Which is a pity, and also increasingly a practical problem, with respect to the occupation war in Iraq in particular.
Around here anti-war folks are frustrated by the inability to get traction within the party for more aggressive action, but tend look down on protest politics as ineffective and unrealistic, or at any rate don't talk about them. When I go to an organizing meeting for an anti-occupation war day on March 15 (commemorating 5 years of aggression, useless carnage, and failure to really support vets and military families) including but not restricted to a rally and march, people there are frustrated about the inability to get traction with protest politics, but tend to look down on working in or with the DP as ineffective and unrealistic.
On another thread someone mentioned a MultCo Dem GLBTQ caucus and suggested other caucuses might be valuable. Maybe an peace/anti-war caucus would have utility? Though I guess that doesn't speak to NAV folks with mainly electoral orientations.
Posted by: paulie | Dec 30, 2007 5:34:59 PM
The list of third party candidates is a long one from Strom Thurmond, Douglas McArthur, George Wallace, Eldgrige Cleaver, Jesse Jackson, Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. Some hold Ralph Nader responsible for giving the election to George W. Bush by tilting voters in Florida and New Hampshire away from Al Gore.
Third parties can bring about change, some for the good and some for the not so good. In the end all politics is partisan, thats why they call it politics.
Posted by: paulie | Dec 30, 2007 5:39:29 PM
Before this thread get's high jacked away from the orignal post about Duin's column (I'm guilty) there is a peace caucus recently formed by the DPO. Back to Duin.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 30, 2007 5:51:09 PM
Nice! I don't see a whole lot of "progress" there, just the same old dismissive, partisan tactics of search and destroy.
I see some of that too, Pat. In fact I've seen you do it here and elsewhere. I also see shades of it in Duin's diatribe. Which is why I made the initial comment that I did.
Guess what? Nobody likes to be lectured by a hypocrit.
That said, it would be a mistake for the casual reader to assume that I see every single Novick supporter in that light. Nothing could be further from the truth. Charlie Burr and Bill Bodden have both held to a much higher standard than I, in my own admittedly biased opinion, have. I had a very nice, very friendly email exchange a while back with another Novick supporter whose name escapes me at the moment. Undoubtedly there are untold others who have likewise taken the high road at every turn.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 30, 2007 5:57:29 PM
On another thread someone mentioned a MultCo Dem GLBTQ caucus and suggested other caucuses might be valuable. Maybe an peace/anti-war caucus would have utility? Though I guess that doesn't speak to NAV folks with mainly electoral orientations.
In Oregon, no. But it seems to me that if the DPO were to be more open to NAVs like the Dems in California are, then perhaps NAVs could more effectively work with Dems in such caucuses to effect meaningful change in Oregon. Maybe not... I dunno. I don't see why not but I could be overlooking something too.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 30, 2007 6:06:49 PM
What's a little interesting to me is to wonder if a broader progressive blog could actually exist in Portland now.
Yes, yes, yes! That would be fantastic. We need a FireDogLake to BlueOregon's DailyKos approach. Bring it on! that would be fantastic...
(Which isn't to say that everything on BlueOregon is like everything on Kos. Just that we're both more party-oriented, and more focused on elections than ideology or policy.)
Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 30, 2007 6:27:37 PM
"I see some of that too, Pat. In fact I've seen you do it here and elsewhere."
WhhoooaaahoooohooKay Hotshot.
I made a specific case for why I feel that way about many of T.A.'s recent posts.
What you do, kevin, is make assertions without actually providing evidence. I may be harsh when I call people's B.S., but at least I take the time to make my case for why I feel that way. There's at least a minimum of integrity in that.
You skip that part, kev buddy, because either you lack the capacity to understand the difference, or you lack the sincerity to care.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Dec 30, 2007 6:53:44 PM
Steve, I guess I mind the "apologist" tag less than the idea that there should BE a tag. We have had dozens of writers here at BlueOregon expressing divergent views for the 2 and a half years the site has existed.
Speaking as a fairly strong critic of the Democratic Party over the past five years I've been blogging, you have to put things in context. With rare exceptions, the only progressive game in town is the Dems. I want progressive change, and while I'm happy to criticize the Dems when they go limp, I haven't seen that locally. Ted ran an uninspired first term as governor, and we killed him on the site for it. But legislative Dems have done a pretty sound job. So who exactly should we be cheering?
I think you maybe still hold the frame of the MSM on this one. We have never seen it as our job to offer neutral, objective commentary. We are partisans and we want change. When gross corruption charges are leveled at Dems, we discuss it here (see the Betsy Johnson debate), unlike conservative blogs who eschew all criticism. But it's not our intention to be a watchdog--that's the Oregonian's job. We are unpaid bloggers who advocate for the things we think are good.
I found your post "unhinged" because it follows a series of similar pieces, doesn't add much to the narrative (aside from your own anger), and drags in random shots at BlueOregon and others for complicity. It cheapens your argument in my mind.
On the other hand, I give you big props for stopping by, answering the criticism and joining the discussion. That is very nice bloggy behavior, and I appreciate it.
Posted by: Gregory | Dec 30, 2007 6:58:41 PM
Just to be silly and get to stay on topic:
A glee club. a men's chorus. Why couldn't you all gather together and try to sing? it might sound rocky at first, but once going it might sound good. you could carol the Oregonian next year for good measure...
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 30, 2007 6:59:49 PM
But it seems to me that if the DPO were to be more open to NAVs like the Dems in California are, then perhaps NAVs could more effectively work with Dems in such caucuses to effect meaningful change in Oregon.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility of NAVs working with Dems, but I sincerely doubt the party oligarchs would accept anything less than Republican-style bi-partisanship; that is, you agree with us. To repeat the quote I cited earlier by Lawrence O'Donnell who was the Democratic Chief of Staff of the United States Senate Committee on Finance from 1993 through 1995. In 1992, he was Chief of Staff of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:
"If you want to pull the party--the major party that is closest to the way you're thinking--to what you're thinking, YOU MUST, YOU MUST show them that you're capable of not voting for them. If you don't show them you're capable of not voting for them, they don't have to listen to you. I promise you that. I worked within the Democratic Party. I didn't listen, or have to listen, to anything on the left while I was working in the Democratic Party, because the left had nowhere to go." (Caps represent O'Donnell's emphasis, where he raised his voice.)
Posted by: LT | Dec 30, 2007 8:43:00 PM
Thanks, Bill, for quoting Lawrence O'Donnell. There is a lot more debate among Democrats of various stripes (always has been) than the propaganda of "Democrats believe.....". Will Rogers was right in saying "I belong to no organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
I was NAV from the day after the 1996 primary until deciding I wanted to vote in the 2002 primary.
The jury is still out on whether I will stay Dem or register NAV in late May/early June of 2008, why I advocate for some of the PCOL ideas like nonpartisan legislature and open primary. The only thing all NAV have in common was stated (before Oregon had an Indep. party) as "The I in Independent means I think for myself, thank you very much".
Duin said, "blog is, all too often, a chorus of apologists for the Democratic Party.". Apparently he believes all Democrats think alike, which means he wasn't paying attention to this blog during the 2006 primary--I recall strong support here for Sorenson, for Jim Hill. Lots of questioning why the re-election campaign often consisted of things like that first campaign manager who told an audience which had just listened to Jim Hill answer every question asked with the bland "the governor is doing what Oregonians want done".
But that wasn't a subject of Duin's outrage, nor was the anger at Ted's "I'm running against 2 Republicans" which belittled Westlund supporters. In 2006, it seemed very few in the political/journalistic establishment had any time by those of us outraged over the AuCoin and Bryant nominations. Gov. had the right to make the nominations. Saxton had to be defeated. Period. End of discussion.
Now Steve wants everyone who was angry about those things to be equally/more angry about what Leonhardt said at a Christmas party and then had a fit of pique because Kulongoski's reaction wasn't the reaction Leonhardt wanted. Sounds more like a spoiled child than a mature adult.
Speaking of mature adult reactions to this question, I want to single out the following excellent comments.
First of all, Steve Duin, do you really think military families should be only concerned about things you tell them to be outraged about, or do they have the right to have other concerns? I say RIGHT ON! to this from TA:
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 30, 2007 3:13:52 PM
i didn't ignore Steve's other links; i never bothered to get involved in the comments. since i have no waying of knowing if Leonhardt is telling the truth or not — and i am not going to take Lars' word for it — this becomes one of those things i let slide. i have too much else to deal with that i can actually do something about. i got a kid scheduled to go to Afghanistan in a year, so i get a bit myopic at times. if there is real proof Ted lied, i hope it comes out. if you can bring that out without the vitriol, i'll be glad to read it.
I was also really impressed by these 2 comments:
Posted by: AnonMe | Dec 30, 2007 3:52:59 PM
Posted by: Grant Schott | Dec 30, 2007 4:08:10 PM
If Steve thinks we are mediocre because we have concerns other than Steve Duin wants us to have, I have a song to dedicate to him as the year comes to a close. Great Eagles song: GET OVER IT
May we all have a serious, intelligent, prosperous, safe, successful 2008.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 30, 2007 9:20:10 PM
We have had dozens of writers here at BlueOregon expressing divergent views for the 2 and a half years the site has existed.
That's three and a half years, actually. July 17, 2004.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Dec 30, 2007 10:43:03 PM
What's a little interesting to me is to wonder if a broader progressive blog could actually exist in Portland now.
We sort of have one now over at Blog for Oregon, we just don't get enough contributors over there yet. But we've definitely been more than just the Democratic Party, as we've had stuff on the Working Families Party, have actively supported candidates not generally supported by the Party (Pete Sorenson, for example), etc.
The goal of the blog is to be a broader progressive blog, and it's completely open for posting.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 31, 2007 12:49:07 AM
Chris Lowe wrote... When I go to an organizing meeting for an anti-occupation war day ... people there are frustrated about the inability to get traction with protest politics, but tend to look down on working in or with the DP as ineffective and unrealistic.
ARGH!!!! That's got to be one of the most frustrating things I've ever heard on this blog yet.
One of the most effective and realistic things you can do right now to end the war is to volunteer and donate to the Jeff Merkley and/or Steve Novick campaigns for U.S. Senate.
Who do you think can end the war? The U.S. Senate can. Gordon Smith is an obstacle to ending the war. Eject him (and just a few others like him in other states) and we'll bring this war to a close.
Folks who usually complain about how "ineffective" it is to work within the party are usually ones who want change to happen before an election. Sorry, folks. Change happens after elections. Win the election, and you'll effect change.
When Bill Clinton won in 1992, we got family and medical leave on his very first day - though Chris Dodd had been working on it for five years. When the Democrats took control in the Oregon House, we got a raft of progressive legislation.
Want progressive change? There is nothing that is more effective than electing progressive leaders to office. That's how it works.
Posted by: dyspeptic | Dec 31, 2007 1:02:24 AM
Guys! Guys! Enough with the, "Is so!" -- "Is not!" "Did so!" -- "Did not!"
Sheesh. Give your reader credit for having got your argument one of the first three times you posted it.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Dec 31, 2007 1:19:33 AM
Kari:
Only thing I have to add is that you'll also never change or help better the party by standing on the outside complaining. Getting involved in the party, becoming a voting member, etc. is how you change things.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 31, 2007 8:50:05 AM
Kari,
I don't exactly disagree with you, or Jenni. If you look at what I wrote, I was expressing frustration at the situation "over there" too.
Likewise one of the reasons I've gotten involved with the MoveOn PDX council is that they/we are both involved with PDX Peace (the coalition that is organizing the March 15 events) and engage with elected officials (I was part of a delegation of about 40 people who spent an hour with a staffer at David Wu's office a couple of weeks ago, & there were similar groups who went to Reps. Blumenauer and Hooley's offices). Due to organizational tax status MoveOn is restricted in what kind of direct organizational involvement it can have with the DP as a party or with specific campaigns.
but ...
There are some very real problems posed by the inaction on the war, or failure to find effective action, on the part of the Democratic Congressional leadership following the last election, that I can predict to undermine the persuasiveness of "change happens after elections" argument. I understand that what that means is that we need more change. But in this case I also believe that the low approval polls on Congress reflect a large degree of alienation among non-party-activist Democratic voters that actually put the "outside critics" closer to a significant chunk of the party base than the leadership is. (Many party activists too, of course).
and ...
Jenni, with due respect, I have to take what you say with a grain of salt in part because another line of discussion that pops up here from time to time is (quite understandable from a social psychology and organizational point of view) complaints by long-haul activists about people who haven't paid their dues popping up suddenly and wanting to change things they don't even really understand tout de suite.
Again, both those feelings, and the points you & Kari make, & related feelings that he expresses & you concur with I think, are quite understandable. But there is a tension between them, one that might be hard to navigate at any time. And right now they come into another tension with the felt urgency for something to change & quickly among people focused specifically on the war. And that specific anti-war focus also is likely in source of tension with multi-issue & multi-electoral level orientations by party-focused folks.
Up to now I've been thinking about this more or less in isolation, & need to find allies in both organizations, along with more information & advice. It is good to learn that an anti-war caucus has been formed in Multnomah County. On the peace movement side I have a couple of ideas of people to approach, & a guess that the senate campaign might be the best point at which to encourage engagement.
This is long and off-topic to boot, so I'll stop. Thanks for the advice & what I will take up as encouragement.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Dec 31, 2007 9:51:56 AM
That's three and a half years, actually. July 17, 2004.
Me maths have never been so good.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Dec 31, 2007 10:08:45 AM
Of course it's always best to learn a bit about the organization and how things work before you come in and want to change everything. Not only does it work best for getting people to work with you, but you also learn what channels you need to go through, what the rules are, how to change the rules, etc.
But that doesn't mean you can't change things. We've seen a considerable amount of change in the Party just since I moved here in 2000. But that doesn't mean things are perfect - we're all still looking for ways to improve things. But working on the inside to make change always works better than sitting on the outside. As many times as I've gotten frustrated with the Party, I've only left once and that was when the frustration of things was causing a medical condition to worsen quickly. A week after surgery I was back at meetings and a few days later I'd signed up to be a PCP again.
Often times getting involved in the committees and caucuses can be a great way to start enacting change.
If more people who were frustrated with things would come to the Party and work with us, I think we could do a lot of good. But it's going to take all of us working together, even when we disagree on some things.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 31, 2007 10:13:37 AM
Who do you think can end the war? The U.S. Senate can. Gordon Smith is an obstacle to ending the war. Eject him (and just a few others like him in other states) and we'll bring this war to a close.
It will also require getting rid of some Democratic senators, like those who voted for the war in the first place, continued funding of the war, tolerance of torture and citizen surveillance, the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, the Military Commissions Act, and some of Bush's more odious nominees.
Folks who usually complain about how "ineffective" it is to work within the party are usually ones who want change to happen before an election. Sorry, folks. Change happens after elections. Win the election, and you'll effect change.
Kari and Jenni: I would be interested in your opinion of Democrat Lawrence O'Donnell's comment above. The AFL-CIO and African-American organizations were loyal donors to the Democratic Party for decades (because "they had nowhere else to go") but nevertheless kept getting stiffed for the most part. Like NAFTA and black movements having to take to the streets to get Kennedy and Johnson to put their pens where their mouths were even when Democrats were in the majority. And, I believe it is safe to say that many NAVs and Independents are former Democratic and Republican party members because they found the oligarchs at the local, state and national levels did what they wanted and didn't care about the rank and file.
If party leaders, for example, want war and you don't, what do you do? Stick around and surrender your belief that war is wrong?
As for wanting change to happen before the election, sometimes that is necessary for changes to happen after the election. If Democrats want change to happen after 2008, it would appear changing the candidates now holding seats by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer would be essential.
Win the election, and you'll effect change.
But after 2006 what? Not on the war, not much on civil rights and none on impeachment.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 31, 2007 10:23:26 AM
Folks who usually complain about how "ineffective" it is to work within the party are usually ones who want change to happen before an election. Sorry, folks. Change happens after elections. Win the election, and you'll effect change.
That's a good point, Kari. But how many elections have been won without the votes of those outside the party? And if Democrats and Republicans alike weren't keenly aware that both have to have the votes of nonmembers in order to win much of anything then how do we explain 2005's HB 2614? Nobody believes the fiction that the motivation was concern for the integrity of minor party nomination processes.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Dec 31, 2007 10:43:11 AM
If party leaders, for example, want war and you don't, what do you do? Stick around and surrender your belief that war is wrong?
No. I work within the Party to change that. And at the same time, I work to make sure that we elect candidates that have the same beliefs as I do.
There are plenty of ways of showing the Party that you're capable of not voting for them. But I honestly don't think switching to NAV really tells the Party much. All they see is that a certain percentage of people have switched party, for reasons unknown. Maybe some campaigns have money and time to spare to go out and talk to voters who have switched parties to find out why. But most campaigns and party organizations are so strapped for resources that they wouldn't be able to do any kind of organized effort to do this. Although I think it would be a worthwhile effort, and maybe it's something local volunteers could do when they see a voter in their assigned area switches parties.
The fact is that the parties are going to listen the most to the people within the party. Those who are registered with their party, voting with their party, volunteering for their party and its candidates, giving money to its party and its candidates, etc.
That's why it will always be easier to enact change within a party from the inside than it will be from the outside.
I've been involved in the Democratic Party since the age of 14, which is pretty amazing for a kid whose parents didn't vote and lived in a town where political involvement of any kind was never encouraged, had no part in our school, etc. There was no organization or person going around talking to kids about getting involved, giving them a way to get involved, or anything. I stumbled upon the Party by accident and have been there ever since. Even when I get extremely frustrated with the Party and disagree strongly with its leaders, I stay because I know I have a louder voice and a better chance of changing things inside than I do from the outside. After all, on the outside I don't even have a vote on who is going to be making the decisions within the Party.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 31, 2007 11:49:40 AM
But I honestly don't think switching to NAV really tells the Party much. All they see is that a certain percentage of people have switched party, for reasons unknown. Maybe some campaigns have money and time to spare to go out and talk to voters who have switched parties to find out why.
Jenni: Do you really believe that people dropping out of the party doesn't tell the party officials much? If so, the party officials must be thoroughly obtuse and lacking in perception. Let's take a local or state level meeting and, to choose one from many examples, the topic of discussion is the war on Iraq. The party officials are saying they have to go along with the Bush Administration and cite some of the usual lame Democratic excuses. Among the rank-and-file members in the meeting there is an anti-war contingent voicing strong opposition, but the party leaders control the meeting and basically cut the dissenters out of the debate. The dissenters then get up in a group, tell the oligarchs to go to hell and walk out and head for their county clerk's office to re-register as NAVs, or Greens or something else. If you and your party leaders can't comprehend the message there, you need get in touch with reality and get new party leaders.
Posted by: LT | Dec 31, 2007 1:53:55 PM
Bill, you are right on! But I think it is deeper than that. There were those of us 20 years ago discussing why people dropped out of active party membership and activities. Sometimes it is longer work hours or family concerns (getting married, having an ill family member, etc.) or sometimes it becomes "been there, done that, did what I hoped to accomplish to the extent possible and now it is time to do something else".
Think, for instance, of an old friend who was active for years to the point of holding more than one party office but hit a point a decade and a half ago of "this is no longer worth the time and resources" --including attending out of town meetings--and joined a chamber music group instead. Especially those of us over 50 hit a point where we re-evaluate how we are using our spare time and energies.
And about this by Chris:
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 31, 2007 8:50:05 AM
Jenni, with due respect, I have to take what you say with a grain of salt in part because another line of discussion that pops up here from time to time is (quite understandable from a social psychology and organizational point of view) complaints by long-haul activists about people who haven't paid their dues popping up suddenly and wanting to change things they don't even really understand tout de suite.
My guess is that I would qualify as a "long haul activist" because I remember a time before Earl B., David Wu, and Darlene Hooley were in Congress. Of course, I live in a downstate county where politics tend to be different than in the Portland area.
I was a 1984 Democratic National Convention delegate and then a member of State Central Comm. in the late 1980s. I was actively involved in re-writing delegate selection rules for 1988 including discussing the workings of the Faireness Comm. with Oregon's member of the Commission.
But by the mid-1990s, I no longer recognized the Democratic Party I had been involved with in the 1980s. The "money is all that mattered and only professionals know how the game is played" crowd tried to say institutional memory wasn't really that important and that volunteers should just shut up and take orders from the "professionals" who were mostly young people earning a living in politics.
A bunch of us decided if our experience wasn't wanted we would just drop out. It wasn't until the Bus Project and Howard Dean's campaign that volunteer work began to be highly regarded again.
A word of caution to all who are angry about the war and consider walking out and re-registering in another party.
1) That would mean you couldn't vote for your choice between Novick and Merkley--perhaps better to wait until late May of next year to change registration?
2) Historically, how effective have walkouts been? I just answered an email from a nonpolitical friend asking
"if you have a moment, is there a short explanation as to why the Iowa caucus (where did that word come from anyway?) are in Iowa, and why it is so important if not just because the first votes influence the outcome?"
So I wrote him back a history of the Iowa caucus and why Democrats have such complex delegate selection rules which go back to the days when civil rights was tearing the Democratic Party apart. Which led me to reading some websites about the 1948 Democratic convention.
Anyone who read or commented on the topic about Gordon Smith's varying comments on Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond should be aware that Thurmond became the Dixiecrat candidate for president in 1948 because the Dixiecrats walked out on Humphrey's speech in favor of a civil rights platform plank.
That walkout started the process of turning the South Republican for a generation, but did it really change the actions of the Democratic Party?
My point is this: it is possible to make a statement by quitting party activities and concentrating on campaigns and issues, without changing party registration before a primary.
What good did the Naderites do by leaving the Democratic Party in 2000? Why was Democrats for Hatfield a good idea in 1990? If you care whether Novick or Merkley wins the nomination, by all means keep your Democratic registration until after the primary. And be aware that whatever else you think of Barry Goldwater, he was correct in saying "You catch more flies with honey than by hitting them over the head".
Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 31, 2007 3:10:56 PM
I really enjoy Chris Lowe's thoughtful comments here. He's a champ at bringing us back to a more discussable set of points.
Chris, I have heard the same kinds of frustration from people in the broader "action" community--places like Jobs With Justice, Street Roots, the peace action folks--who don't seem to mix in well with the more electorally based blog discussions in Oregon. I don't mean to shill for my space (especially since I just did it in the Civil Unions thread), but one of the reasons we set up Loaded Orygun as a community site, was to allow more voices to have a platform for letting us know about their efforts and events. Success has been mixed so far, because admittedly my focus is roughly the same as BlueO's: electoral politics. Where I do dabble, it's often in cultural areas as opposed to activities of movement progressives.
If Chris or anyone else is connected in those communities, I would encourage them to keep trying to reach out to the wonks like us; together we can be much stronger. And of course my offer is a standing and open one: sign up at LO, and start writing about what's important to you. And bring your friends to support those efforts, to have your important issues heard.
Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 31, 2007 3:15:19 PM
Oh, and:
"back when Carla was still writing there and it was much less partisan."
Ha! You mean, "back when they weren't disfavoring my guy." Ask Gordon Smith if Carla and I were "much less partisan" back then. LO has ALWAYS maintained an independent, subjectively progressive voice. We take sides, essentially the meaning of the word "partisan." So just because you don't like who's currently getting the benefit of our having chosen a side, doesn't make us any more partisan than before.
Posted by: carla | Dec 31, 2007 3:23:28 PM
Ha! You mean, "back when they weren't disfavoring my guy." Ask Gordon Smith if Carla and I were "much less partisan" back then. LO has ALWAYS maintained an independent, subjectively progressive voice. We take sides, essentially the meaning of the word "partisan." So just because you don't like who's currently getting the benefit of our having chosen a side, doesn't make us any more partisan than before.
Yes, LO has been partisan from the outset. But I take Kevin's meaning to be that LO has changed from an investigative ethos to an advocacy ethos since my departure. At least that's my take within the context of what Kevin is saying.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Dec 31, 2007 4:34:28 PM
That's my perception too, Carla. And I agree with it.
When you were there, LO told me things I didn't know. Now it just another site that hosts intraparty rants, and not particularly insightful ones at that.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Dec 31, 2007 4:47:03 PM
Oh, and insofar as the efficacy of "street action" groups are concerned, while one in a dozen know how to do it right (Ben Fain comes to mind), more typically they're counterproductive, because they act like bullies.
I know some people here are so wrapped up in their own world that they'll disagree, so let's put the shoe on the other foot. There are plenty of anti-abortion protesters out there. They make scenes. They talk about murder with even more fervor and righteousness than the most ardent anti-war protesters. So when is the last time you've even heard about them, much less heard someone being persuaded by the picture of a fetus shoved in their face?
Actual persuasion is significantly less flashy. It involves, first, actually showing up on someone's doorstep, presenting facts, a new idea or two, and a light send off. It's also less of an ego trip, you can't display any cheap juvenile alienation, and there's no real opportunity to act all holier(greener/progressiver/etc)-than-thou, as is often found in these forums.
Which is why it's such hard work. And why so few actually do it.
Posted by: myranda | Dec 31, 2007 5:32:42 PM
Fred Leonhardt (and Steve Duin, his defender) should explain why Leonhardt didn't jump up and shout when Kitzhaber appointed Goldschmidt to a board or two.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 31, 2007 7:57:29 PM
I appreciate the substantial food for thought offered by Bill and LT in different ways, and Jenni & TJ for drawing attention to the opportunities in their blog-building efforts as well as TJ's kind words. Regarding changes at LO, if I try to step back from the more personal aspects which I don't understand in any case, it strikes me that on both sides of the split between Carla & TJ there is a loss to quality (or in Carla's case, maybe existence? which certainly is also a loss of quality) of blogging caused by competing campaign engagements, and in a somewhat different way that we see that on BO as well, more at the level of declining signal to noise ratio, as we used to say. That may be something to reflect on as we work through and get through this electoral cycle -- I haven't been around here long enough to know if this apparent competition of blog functions is something new or a pattern seen in previous cycles.
Steve, I want to tread carefully in addressing what you say. Let me begin by apologizing for some overblown things I said about you a while ago. Possibly they didn't bother you too much, but even if not, I owe you the apology anyway. But I also have another motive: I am genuinely interested in learning what I can from you and in having decent communication with you, yet my previous gratuitous comments would give you reason to doubt that and might pose other obstacles.
When you talked about street politics up above, you divided them into "doing it right" not otherwise defined, and "counterproductive" bullying and thuggishness. My own recent experiences suggest an intermediate category which would be simply "not very effective" for stated purposes, along which lines there is considerable internal self-criticism and seeking after better strategies and tactics in the anti-war/peace coalition.
Actually my perception is that this would me the most characteristic description of what I've been involved with in Portland. Apart from some confrontational posturing by a smallish category of so-called "Black Bloc" anarchists on the fringes of some marches, it is very hard for me to think of anything remotely comparable to the kind of anti-abortion protests which you describe (& with which I have had direct experience in "clinic defense" work, though quite some time ago now).
Perhaps for now I will stop by asking you if you'd agree that this intermediate category exists, if you think I underestimate the degree of bullying tactics, and even if I do, if you think the actively counterproductive really outweighs the simply or largely ineffective.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 31, 2007 8:35:08 PM
LT: There were those of us 20 years ago discussing why people dropped out of active party membership and activities.
and
Think, for instance, of an old friend who was active for years to the point of holding more than one party office but hit a point a decade and a half ago of "this is no longer worth the time and resources"
Now as Yogi B. would say, "It's deja vu all over again."
Jenni: If you have a problem why Paul Motta and other Democrats in Deschutes County are thinking about leaving the party, let me know, and I'll explain it to you.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 31, 2007 9:03:34 PM
A word of caution to all who are angry about the war and consider walking out and re-registering in another party.
1) That would mean you couldn't vote for your choice between Novick and Merkley--perhaps better to wait until late May of next year to change registration?
On the other hand, Chris, they can do what many of us who are NAVs will do before the Oregon primary - register again as Democrats to vote for Steve Novick then return to NAV status after the primary.
Posted by: carla | Dec 31, 2007 9:22:22 PM
it strikes me that on both sides of the split between Carla & TJ there is a loss to quality (or in Carla's case, maybe existence? which certainly is also a loss of quality) of blogging caused by competing campaign engagements
Or the real explanation, which is, there isn't a "split". TJ/Mark and I haven't had any sort of dramatic fight that ended in his custody of LO. I made a conscious choice to go to work for a campaign. That's just me, choosing to do something that isn't blogging at Loaded Orygun. If I choose, I can go back to freelance blogging there or somewhere else.
I wanted to make a different kind of impact on Oregon politics. I love blogging (and I miss it every day), but two campaigns made me offers (Novick and Merkley) to go to work for them. I talked with both and made the decision that was right for me and what I believe in my heart is right for Oregon. I'm very happy with my decision.
It's a chance for me to stretch myself in an entirely new direction--which I'm grateful for. In the end, I hope to have helped make Oregon (and our country) a better place. Color me Pollyana.
I'm humbled and appreciative of those who miss my blogging efforts. But what I'm doing right now is potentially much more impactful (if not as visible now) for the state I love. At least that's how I see it.
I'm not competing with Mark for anything. Nor he with me, that I know of. I'm not fighting with him about Novick or Merkley or anything having to do with the Senate race.
I apologize for dragging this thread completely off-topic, but it bugs the hell out of me that there's some perception of animus between Mark and me because I work for Merkley and he advocates for Novick. I've never grudged Mark his support of Novick.
It's my understanding that he wishes me the best in my efforts as I do him.
I read pretty much every blog in Oregon on a daily basis, and I perceive no declining "signal to noise ratio". What I do see is some serious lack of perspective on the part of some who post and comment on blogs.
Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 31, 2007 9:29:55 PM
to respond to my fine friend Carla, from the beginning we have dedicated ourselvesnto advocacy journalism. If there is less journalism now than this summer, that's a reflection in large part of the fact that there are fewer people dedicated to the task. I regret that other short term goals (the Rebooting Democracy conference and Novick campaign have been taking up my attention.
Stay tuned though; I got back my FOIA request on Gordo and the Klamath fish kill this week..
Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 31, 2007 9:37:39 PM
carla responded before I did; let me echo that there is no personal animosity between us. I will admit our conversations are somewhat trained these days, but we know who we are and what we're doing. Those should suggest our relationship is fractured, or that we don't support each others efforts, should check with us first.
Posted by: LT | Dec 31, 2007 9:47:11 PM
Good for you, Carla!
"I wanted to make a different kind of impact on Oregon politics. I love blogging (and I miss it every day), but two campaigns made me offers (Novick and Merkley) to go to work for them. I talked with both and made the decision that was right for me and what I believe in my heart is right for Oregon. I'm very happy with my decision."
A quarter of a century ago, we had a multi-candidate Congressional primary in this district. One candidate was a very colorful legislator who I decided early on I didn't want to support. 2 other candidates were probably closer to each other than TJ and Carla--they had mutual friends, had worked on a Wayne Morse campaign together, among other things, and were young men about the same age.
It was tough deciding between them, and I went to events for both of them before making a decision which sounds much like Carla's decision. It was a decision I never regretted. The one I didn't campaign for eventually won more than one election and I was thrilled. The one I did campaign for never won an election and went on to other things in his life (which ended too soon--he died of cancer at the age of 55).
That is one reason I am not actively involved in a US Senate campaign ---can't get as excited about either one to the level I was in that Congressional campaign, although I am leaning towards one candidate.
People here who do overheated rhetoric about anything need to remember that Carla is wise in saying,
I apologize for dragging this thread completely off-topic, but it bugs the hell out of me that there's some perception of animus between Mark and me because I work for Merkley and he advocates for Novick. I've never grudged Mark his support of Novick.
It's my understanding that he wishes me the best in my efforts as I do him. ..............What I do see is some serious lack of perspective on the part of some who post and comment on blogs.
A glee club, by definition, has a goal---whether it is to perform for audiences or win a singing competition if it is a singing group, or whether it is a political victory in the general election.
Just a reminder: Gordon Smith is in office because right after the 1996 primary there were people on the Bruggere campaign implying that anyone who backed someone who lost the primary owed the nominee not only spare time but unquestioning allegiance. So there were people who dropped out of the process or backed 3rd party candidates. Bullying can backfire bigtime in politics.
The big wide world is celebrating New Year's Eve tonight. Don't make the mistake of thinking all good people support any candidate, or that automatic allegiance is owed any nominee. That has been tried and it doesn't work.
Unlike a glee club, no one in politics can be forced to support a particular cause or nominee. They can opt to leave politics, to stay undecided until just before they vote, or whatever they choose. Bullying and other harsh rhetoric won't ever change that.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Dec 31, 2007 10:06:14 PM
If you and your party leaders can't comprehend the message there, you need get in touch with reality and get new party leaders.
When you look at an entire county and see that 1.8% of the people in it changed parties in the last month, you don't know why. It could be a variety of reasons. Maybe they're mad over Iraq. Or over the lack of support for gay marriage. Or over Iran. Or .... If you had 1,000 people leave the party, there could be 500 different reasons. Without going through and talking to all those people, you don't know for sure - especially if those 1,000 people were only voted and didn't contact their party, try to get involved, express their opinions to the party, etc. That's what I was talking about. Many people who have talked about "leaving the party" are doing so from the position of being a Democratic voter and that's it. They hadn't been involved in their party, hadn't attended meetings, expressed their views to the leaders, etc.
But when you have people who have been involved in the party, who have come forward and expressed their views, and they leave - that's a whole different story. If the party is paying attention (typically the local or state party since those are the two you're going to have direct interaction with), they should notice that you've left and know at least some of the reason why you've left. I know in working with the Multnomah County Dems PCP lists in the past as a district leader and in other positions that we knew at least part of the reason why people had changed registration since they'd typically expressed those views at meetings, in e-mails, over the phone, in a letter, etc.
But that's why I was recommending getting involved in the Party - if all you ever do is vote Dem and you get mad at the Dems and switch to NAV, no one ever knows why. The Party never knew you were unhappy, and you never tried to make things change within the Party. But if you get involved, let them know your position, try to change things, and then leave because basically there's a brick wall that isn't going to change, then the Party knows you left. And they have a good idea why you left.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Dec 31, 2007 10:28:36 PM
Jenni: If you have a problem why Paul Motta and other Democrats in Deschutes County are thinking about leaving the party, let me know, and I'll explain it to you.
I know there has been something happening out in Deschutes County, but I don't know the details. I definitely don't have a problem with anyone thinking about leaving the Party who has been actively involved and has tried to better the Party. If they do leave, people within the Party should definitely know why it happened.
I just get frustrated with people when they talk about "leaving the party" when all they've actually done is be a Dem voter. Often times it is because they're frustrated with elected officials or their perception of what the Party is doing or stands for. What I wish they would do is get involved in the Party first. Come to some meetings, learn how things work, and then try to enact change. Help find new and better candidates to run. Work on their campaigns. Chances are there are a number of people already working within the Party who agree with you. And working together, you have a chance to make improvements and get better policies passed.
Believe me, the Party does plenty of things I don't agree with. Most recently, our county party voted to hold the county party's re-org in January, which is when we'll be voting on our officers. But I shouldn't say we, because I don't get to vote. Why? Because I moved since I was elected a PCP in 2006. And since I didn't move to an adjacent precinct, that makes me ineligible to vote in re-org meetings until after our next election of PCPs - which won't happen until the 2008 primary. So my vote as a PCP on our officers has been taken away. And so has the vote of any other PCP who moved beyond the adjacent precinct or has become a PCP after the 2006 primary. Yes, that makes me frustrated with the party. But I'll continue to work with the Party to try to make sure this doesn't happen again.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 31, 2007 10:31:21 PM
If you had 1,000 people leave the party, there could be 500 different reasons.
For the sake of debate I'll go along with your point - 500 reasons. To strengthen your case, let's say there could be a thousand different reasons. But regardless of the number of reasons they all have a common denominator - dissatisfaction with the party's policies and agendas beyond their level of tolerance or compromise.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Dec 31, 2007 10:49:07 PM
Bill:
Not necessarily. I know people who have "switched" parties because they only registered that way because it was the way their parents registered. Once they moved out of their parents' house and went out in the real world, they established their own views on things and realized they were actually more Dem or Repub leaning than they thought.
Even if we assume that 90% of them left because they were unhappy with their party, that still tells us very little. It could be that they're extremely pro life and they leave because the Party continues to be pro choice. Or maybe they leave because they don't like the party's support of homosexuals (yes, I've run into some of these). Or maybe they left because they're unhappy that nothing has yet to be done about Iraq.
Knowing in general that these people might have been unhappy with the Party still doesn't tell us what to do. And with the Party's limited resources, the chances we'll be able to go out and ask all those people why is slim.
I'd love to see us be able to do that. Then we can use the data collected to show elected officials and party members that (hypothetical numbers...) 90% of those who are leaving the Party are doing so because of Iraq and that something absolutely has to be done. Or that 85% of people left because they didn't like the direction the county party was going. Then we know what to fix and we have the data to back up the need for those fixes.
Posted by: LT | Jan 1, 2008 12:56:37 AM
Jenni has 2 different remarks worthy of comment.
"know in working with the Multnomah County Dems PCP lists in the past as a district leader ".
Right there, you have a clear example of the difference between Mult. County and the rest of the state. There are enough Democrats there to have "district leaders" while most counties count themselves fortunate if they have even half the pct. positions filled. (No, I don't like the fashion of calling them PCP--I'm old enough to remember an illegal dangerous drug by that name aka Angel Dust). Until there is dialogue (at State Central Comm. meetings if nowhere else) between those in big cities and those who live in "red" or "purple" counties with lots of rural area, the Portland area folks will never know what it is like in the rest of the state. Or why the staffers from places like FP infuriated long time activists with nonsense like "lousy R to D ratio" and other language implying people shouldnt' bother if they don't live in a district with Dem. registration. No wonder people tune out party politics!
"And with the Party's limited resources, the chances we'll be able to go out and ask all those people why is slim. "
Ever heard of conversation?
When I left active participation in the Democratic party at all levels, people knew why I was leaving. I made it very clear: time demands, being told hard work wasn't enough I was supposed to agree with...., being told I had supported the "wrong" candidate in a primary, etc.
It should not take "party resources" to engage in conversation with people. But stereotyping such as "I just get frustrated with people when they talk about "leaving the party" when all they've actually done is be a Dem voter" does no good.
I am afraid that the old Democratic Party where people actually held conversations and got to know each other has vanished because somehow anything that easy wasn't "professional" or whatever.
But realize there are a lot more time constraints on people now than there may have been 20 years ago. And "you're only a voter, you should get involved" is not going to cause someone who says they spend their spare time doing laundry because they are so busy most of the time to spend some of that time going to party meetings.
Next time anyone of you is at a party meeting or a campaign event, imagine how it would look to someone who hadn't been to one before. Would they likely consider it a worthwhile use of their time?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jan 1, 2008 1:16:38 AM
Bill, The quote you respond to was LT's not mine. LT, I don't think Jenni disagrees with you about active people who "leave" (change reg.?) or just become simply voters -- as I read it she's saying be active because you can influence people and even if you stop that role people will notice and there will be conversations about why. She and Bill are debating about registration changes among not otherwise active voters I think.
Carla, didn't mean to imply any criticism of your choice, & glad to know that the superficial blog debates over the primary don't reflect anything deeper. Also I'm glad of your assessment of the overall state of Oregon blogging & also see that even regarding BO my comment applies really to the comments & not to the primary posts. But in the comments there has been a lot of staticky noise, less recently maybe (?).
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jan 1, 2008 3:35:10 AM
Right there, you have a clear example of the difference between Mult. County and the rest of the state. There are enough Democrats there to have "district leaders" while most counties count themselves fortunate if they have even half the pct. positions filled.
Actually, we have DL positions available for every full district district per the bylaws (with partial districts being lumped together by size), but there's no guarantee there are enough people to have the position filled. Many districts have no leader.
I don't think we have yet to hit half our positions filled in the county. I know people think that because this is Multnomah County that we must have almost all our positions filled. In actuality, we tend to be in the 300-500 range out of our 1,608 positions. Half? I'd love to see us at 800 PCPs.
In the district in which I was the leader, the most we ever had "filled" was I believe about 10 out of the 128 we were allotted. Out of that, only a handful were actually active in any way, shape, or form.
And yes, I have heard of conversation. That's something we've been trying to get people to do through the neighborhood program. But having worked as a field director where it was my job to get people out talking to voters and neighbors, I can tell you that getting people to go out and have that conversation isn't easy. Out of all our volunteers, I think only a dozen or so (if even that) actually went out and did that in 2006.
Posted by: paulie | Jan 1, 2008 8:20:49 AM
Serious networking requires deep organization to disseminate information, through personal contact at the neighborhood level (hard to do when your neighbor's driveway is 3/4 mile long) building phone banks, holding events that appeal to arm chair Dems enough to get them off the couch or away from the computer screen...and many appearances by a variety of candidates..the list goes on. We have 45 volunteer phone callers for the Super Tuesday Party is just one example of a stategy for continued connections with fellow Dems. Kari is correct, along with countless other commenters, that working from the inside gets things moving, not throwing water balloons at the organization charged with assisting candidates, progressive ballot measures and the like.
Our leadership focus is always about recruiting a bench of replacements for the next set of volunteers to take the leadership to a higher place than the last set of leaders. Volunteer organizations, by their very nature, lack institutional memory because the players revolve out the door. Sticky problem.
Columnist Duin would do well to get out and meet the Dem County leaders who recently spent a grueling and useful weekend in a retreat. He might just learn the times are changing and for the better. The mutual respect shared between 36 county Chairs and recognition that each county has specific needs mixed with pragmatic goals should help Democrats win across the state.
The pyrimid has been turned upside down with the leaders on the bottom, working their hardest to assist all of those volunteers above them. I do believe here among the grassroots our hard work will make change possible.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jan 1, 2008 9:50:59 AM
"And with the Party's limited resources, the chances we'll be able to go out and ask all those people why is slim. "
Ever heard of conversation?
Or reading comments by dissatisfied voters on blogs, in letters to newspapers or other comments in public media? That's all free except for taking a little time out to listen and read.
... ask all those people ...
When national pollsters want to assess public opinion, they don't "ask all t
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 29, 2007 10:15:43 PM
Sounds not entirely dissimilar to the frequent charges of manipulative bias from certain staunchly pro-Novick bloggers and commenters, no?
Duin has written quite glowingly of Novick and rather harshly of Merkley, hasn't he?
For what it's worth, T.A., I too used to really enjoy reading Duin's columns. I quit a while back when it seemed to me that his objectivity was AWOL. The Kulongoski thing is a perfect example, as you showed. Objectivity in no way requires that he give Kulongoski the benefit of the doubt. But there is a vast chasm between not giving the benefit of the doubt and the kind of slanderous assertions you quoted.
The question is: Has Duin become unhinged? Or has he become so jaded that he's settled for the lowest common denominator ala tabloid ethics? The later seems the more likely. It's what Lars Larson seems to have chosen to do too. He too once was a respected journalist.