Shucks, I wouldn't worry about them GOPers. After all, they got that (chuckle) Conservative Majority project (barely suppressed snicker) to keep them warm on the cold nights to come.

But calling Ben Westlund the least trustworthy Republican in Oregon? Heh. What they meant was smartest Republican in Oregon.

It is satisfying to see the GOP engage in the circular firing squad that was up to now the exclusive province of us liberals. Does a body good.

Well, actually I agree. It would be a HUGE mistake for Greg Waldon to run for governor. Not gonna happen. The GOP in Oregon is in shables and will require several years of rebuilding to find itself.

In the meantime we need to hope that the winners (by default) Oregon democrats don't flush the state down into the sewer.

A pro-choice candidate can't win the Repub primary. So Greg Walden isn't going anywhere.

Is Larry Huss any relation to Walter Huss who took over the Repub. party in the 1970s briefly.

But calling Ben Westlund the least trustworthy Republican in Oregon? Heh. What they meant was smartest Republican in Oregon.

Q: What do you call the smartest Republican in Oregon?

A: A newly registered Democrat.

Wow. It sure is fun to watch the other side tear itself to pieces.

That's also the attitude of many Republicans watching the Democratic presidential gladiatorial contest.

What I have noticed is how many talented elected officials on both sides have chosen to run for local office instead of the legislature. Frankly, I don't blame them as that is where things get done and they also get much higher name id and are much better known in their respective communities.

I am a amateur radio operator. So is Mr. Walden. I want to support the guy on that basis, but I can't support the right wing.

Doesn't the idea of a one-party state scare you?

The idea of the KKK running the legislature (and the state?) early in Charles McNary's Sen. career bothered me, but the idea of returning to the days when there are serious adults in charge instead of the bullying Minnis/Scott types doesn't bother me at all. We need to go back to the days when legislative decisions were made in open hearings, not behind closed doors.

And with the high NAV rate (it will be interesting to see what those numbers are at the end of the year, now that there won't be a primary until 2010) I still think a statement made in 1996 is true at some level, "the fastest growing party is no party at all".

A lot has been said on BO on how to attract those who registered to vote in the presidential primary but may have undervoted in many other races.

Paulie has some good ideas, but here is one Walden should be challenged on: What is he doing to help homeowners in Jackson County (incl. those who found better jobs elsewhere but still can't sell their homes in Medford area or elsewhere in Jackson County) who can't even get straight answers from their lenders?

From what I hear, if people contact the lender to try to restructure (how much does it cost a bank to foreclose? wouldn't it make sense to work with the people who have been paying on time but recently the payment has become too tough for them to pay?) sometimes they get a different answer every time they call. Is that the sort of thing the local Congressman should look into?

Isn't that an argument for more government regulation of lending institutions? "Free Market" probably doesn't sound as appealing to such folks in rural Oregon as it does to those ideologues in DC.

Now, whether the bloggers in the title of this topic see it that way would be something else. But didn't FDR build at least some of his name by this sort of intelligent government regulation?

As some of you know, over here in Crook Co. we really took on Greg Walden last election cycle, going so far as to establish on our website his voting record on key issues that show him to be working against the Second Congressional District and our State in his zeal to be a true Republican (e.g. Bush supporter). In our research we found that the true picture of Walden is that he rides the back bench in Congress. His Congressional District is thought to be secure by the Republicans, so they don't give him anything. In the context of Washington DC, Walden is powerless, pointless, and irrelevant.

So, it was incredibly ironic, and very desperate, so see Walden held out as the "hope of Oregon Republicans" -

"Responsibility for the resurrection of Oregon’s Republicans rests with all of these groups. It starts with those who provide the financial support for Oregon’s Republicans. It is incumbent upon them to begin this process by finding a leader who will undertake this difficult task, and to provide him the means by which to exercise the discipline necessary to complete the task. The task will be Herculean.

My suggestion is that rather than encourage Greg Walden to undertake a difficult and risky campaign for governor that he be encouraged to remain in Congress and undertake the difficult task of repairing and re-uniting Oregon’s Republicans. The resurrection of the Republican Party can be done. But unless is begins soon, it will a generation or more before the opportunity presents itself again."

If Walden is their leader, then this back bench spineless, do nothing, and say nothing (as he acts in Washington DC), will have to undergo a personality implant. He is just not capable of the kind of leadership that works to unite factions. The only thing he is good at is telling our Congressional District one thing, and doing the opposite in Washington DC. He is even afraid to make public appearances in the District!

If Walden is the last hope of the Republicans in Oregon, then they have no hope at all.

A one party state? Gimme a break. We're talking about Democrats here! About Greg Walden, caution is his middle name, he's not about to try anything that the result may (will) not be certain victory. I don't think you will ever meet a more cautious (i.e. less assertive) politician. He takes the "go along to get along" way of politics to new levels.

Jack, Norma lost in part because those who had known her as an excellent state rep. and then Sec. of State didn't recognize the candidate for Gov.---not the first or last politician to fall for the idea that if consultants remade them, their old friends would follow like sheep. History shows the reverse is true (in either party)---"gee, I'd gladly vote for my old friend, but I don't recognize this person".

Dave made some mistakes (from misquoting his opponent's legislative record and being found out to the infamous brick through the plate glass window ad and "she's a Democrat, therefore she doesn't know the value of a dollar") People who had supported him for AG refused to support him for Gov. He came from a famous family, his opponent had raised kids on a bookkeeper's salary, but because Dave was R he "knew the value of a dollar" better than any D? Frequent response I heard to that was "Yeah, right, tell me another one".

A Republican friend who is active in current politics was being asked to endorse a Gov. candidate in 2006 and responded, "You show me a candidate with a vision for the future and a plan to carry it out, and I'll endorse that person". To the best of my knowledge, he never endorsed one.

Truth is, Norma and Dave were quality candidates who made mistakes in their campaigns. The ones since had a specific target audience which did not include independent minded voters or voters who said "OK, all taxes are evil? Then tell us in great detail exactly what you would cut to avoid raising taxes, and how you plan to win the votes for those cuts". Kim Thatcher's "we must have spending discipline but don't ask for details because we must have spending discipline" attitude just infuriates people. She may not speak for the party, but she is an elected official with an R after her name. Unless other Republicans denounce that attitude, it is the public position of a Republican elected official.

For too long, the perception has been (with exceptions like Frank Morse and former Republican Ben Westlund) that Republicans would rather play games than solve problems or (gasp!) listen to ordinary Oregonians. As much as I disagree with Ted Ferrioli on so many issues, he has been more open to discussion with an ordinary person than most in Republican leadership.

There are very real problems in this state which would not be fixed even if every Oregonian were to say in unison "abortion, gay marriage, and taxes are evil". I'm talking about crumbling infrastructure (including old school buildings, old roads, old bridges); rural counties with financial problems and people who can't sell their homes if they move away for better jobs; the way we budget in this state; unemployment/underemployment; whether we want our children and grandchildren to believe that the kicker and the double majority are really in the interest of ordinary 21st century Oregonians.

The kids who were born the year Measure 5 passed are now 18. The kids who saw the 5/47 cuts to schools have now been out of school long enough to have been paying income tax on any job they have. Therefore, they are "the taxpayers" even if they were not old enough to vote on 5/47. So, the idea that "the taxpayers" wanted 5 and 47 is outdated at the very least.

And then, of course, there is the issue of Measure 49. Look at the counties where it passed by more than 55% (didn't Kari do some maps here right after that election?). As I recall, counties like Marion and Polk which often go Republican went strongly YES on Measure 49. Would candidates on any level in such areas who preach the OIA point of view win? Or just sound like "well, the voters have spoken on tax measures when we liked the result, but they didn't really mean it on 49?"

I was a Tom McCall Republican. About the time McCall died, the Republican party started telling people like me, "we don't want your kind'. Now, decades later, the result could be described by one of Winston Churchill's WWII books: REAPING THE WHIRLWIND.

More importantly, who is speaking to those under 35 from the GOP point of view the way groups like the Oregon Bus Project speak to young people? Only people under 40 can address that problem, not people old enough to have been voting for Norma or Dave.

Does the Republican party want to continue debating all the issues of the 1990s? Or might they be wise to do town hall meetings open to all in a community and actually LISTEN to what ordinary voters are saying in 2008?

Jack, your friend Larry can do his part to start the constructive dialog by dropping the GOP's nasty and childish mis-use of the Democratic Party's name. It's the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.

With all due respect to the Honorable Jack Roberts, a bigger sanctimonious, arrogant, self aggrandizing, pompous, won’t-listen-to-anyone-under-60, good-for-nothing douche bag than Larry Huss you cannot find. The fact that anyone ever paid this windbag a dime in Republican circles for his “services” is beyond me. Stop helping, Huss, seriously.

Right on Lee!

Huss and the other members of the Republic party don't seem to realize they just sound childish.

What Dem is challenging Walden this year? And, what can we do to get that person elected?

This whole conversation is moot if he is no longer representing Oregon when the 2009 legislature begins.

Democtats have as much chance of winning district 2 as the Republicans do of winning 3.

Never mind who the GOP is running for Governor. Who will the Democrats run and I can only hope it's someone better then the incumbent

This point: "having your picture taken with an public official is often times more important than doing the right thing" fits Greg Walden to a T. This guy could never do what was right if it hit him up side the head with a brick.

I hope a pray the Republican party in Oregon can do better than his type or others like him such as Gordon Anderson! Greg Walden; WWJD?

<h2>Walden for Gov? I almost feel bad for Jason Atkinson since he wants it so badly.</h2>