"The Republican Party in Oregon is now officially dead."
No, those aren't my words.
They're from an analysis by The Gallatin Group, a big-time lobbying firm. Gallatin's top executive in Oregon is Dan Lavey, who has long been Gordon Smith's top strategist.
Update: Just heard on OPB that Dan Lavey made the same remarks at the Portland City Club today. Wow.
Here's the full quote on the Oregon GOP, from their "winners" and "losers" analysis:
LOSERSOregon Republicans — It's almost beside the point to observe that the Republican Party in Oregon is now officially dead. Changes in the national identity of the GOP over the past 20 years have not been kind to Oregon Republicans. Broke and leaderless and with more ideology than ideas, it's hard to see a reversal of fortunes anytime soon for the GOP.
I can't say I disagree.
And on the flip side of the coin...
WINNERSOregon Democrats — With strong support from unions and other allies, since 2002 Democrats have used two gubernatorial contests, two presidential campaigns and opposition to an onslaught of conservative Bill Sizemore-sponsored ballot measures to create a unified and effective permanent campaign organization benefitting candidates up and down the ballot.
Yup.
|
November 7, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (103 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Garrett | Nov 7, 2008 1:27:20 PM
With Kevin Mannix and Bill Sizemore in charge of the Republican party in this state is it really a surprise?
Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 7, 2008 1:29:33 PM
Interesting how it wasn't dead until his favorite client got booted...! Seriously, no major party is ever dead in any state, even NY GOP or Utah Dems. They're just headless, without direction and seeking for resurgence. Eventually--either through natural cycling or missteps by Democrats--they will revive themselves and challenge for primacy once again. (Maybe not in Utah; God's involved in that one*).
If I had to pick a descriptive, it might be "unconscious, veering towards comatose," but the machine that goes BING is still going BING on a slow but palpable basis.
*Dja ever hear that joke about God calling the Pope and saying "I've got good news and bad news. The good news is I've decided that all my children should follow just one religion, the one true religion." The Pope is understandably excited, but realizes and asks, "What's the bad news?"
"Um...I'm calling you from Salt Lake City."
Posted by: carla axtman | Nov 7, 2008 1:34:41 PM
Personally, I don't like this. I don't think its healthy for progressives/Democrats to have a weak or nonexistent foe. When this happens...we start looking for foes among ourselves, and then we get all shredded up (look to the Senate primary for a slice of that). Progressive cannibalism is the ugliest.
Our Republican friends are an essential part of the dialogue in Oregon. While I don't agree with them much politically, they live here too and their voice matters. I don't want them silenced.
I hope they are able to do a very serious and sober audit of themselves, their agendas and their lack of leadership/bench. I think we need them to come back swinging, if for no other reason than to keep us honest..and whole.
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Nov 7, 2008 1:37:07 PM
The downfall is the Republican Party both in Oregon and in the US has been a source of intense delight for me, personally.
Fear of one-party rule? Even if Democrats controlled every seat in ever Legislature and in Congress, it would not be "one-party" rule. Unlike Republicans, we do not follow lock-step on numerous issues.
Posted by: Garrett | Nov 7, 2008 1:39:47 PM
Eventually--either through natural cycling or missteps by Democrats--they will revive themselves and challenge for primacy once again. (Maybe not in Utah; God's involved in that one*).
Speaking as an ex-Utahan...Dem party is strong in Salt Lake City...it's the outskirts that make the whole state look full of wackos.
Posted by: LT | Nov 7, 2008 1:41:16 PM
"Broke and leaderless and with more ideology than ideas, it's hard to see a reversal of fortunes anytime soon for the GOP."
Wasn't there a time awhile back when the St. Senate had a resolution honoring Clay Myers while he was still alive (carried by a young Democratic legislator who considered Myers a mentor) and there were several GOP state senators who stayed off the floor because Myers wasn't their kind of Republican? Seemed juvenile at the time, and perhaps the kind of stupidity which led to their downfall.
A retired Republican legislator who is a friend of mine sent me this sentiment,
"I personally feel that the Rs will not make any significant political comebacks until party leadership at state and federal levels makes it clear that they want new members and those new members don't have to be ideologically identical."
Here is some "homework" for those who want to revive the Republican Party:
Read FIRE AT EDEN'S GATE to understand why people still admire what went on in the Tom McCall years. Study Atiyeh's years in the legislature and as Gov. and discuss why some people say the GOP won't deserve to win a Gov. election until they nominate someone of the quality of Vic Atiyeh.
Think about this: Merkley was once an intern for Sen. Hatfield, who remains one of the most admired living Oregon Republicans. Hatfield was known for his good manners, his ability to stand up for what he believed in and against what he thought were stupid ideas. His manners were "gentleman of the old school" manners, and he seldom made sarcastic remarks. For most of his time, he had a sense of fair play and being in touch with ordinary Oregonians. No one doubted he had his own moral code, and playing partisan games (except for the 1990 election and very few other times) was just not part of who he was. Is it possible that we'll see more of the true Hatfield spirit from his former intern Merkley than we saw from Gordon Smith?
Here's another one--there were once wonderfully outspoken Republican legislators, incl. Nancy Ryles, Jeanette Hamby, Mary Alice Ford, Donna Zajonc, Delna Jones. They were individuals, not creatures of their caucus. Rep. Ford once said of a 31-29 GOP minority, "they allow us to disagree, and if an issue is 27-2, that is OK" or words to that effect. Perhaps that would be a wiser model for the future than what we saw under Minnis/Scott.
The legislature Norma Paulus served in during the early 1970s and the legislature those other women (and common sense men like Tony Van Vliet) served in during the 1980s had a much more open public process. Maybe it is time to return to that model?
In the long run, political games killed the GOP. To revive the party, there should be more open debate. I think it would be healthy to have a party where Frank Morse, Max Williams, and other down to earth, friendly, pragmatic Republicans didn't feel like they were being frozen out by the ideologically pure. Do the people who were active Republicans understand they drove Westlund (a man with star quality) out of the GOP? What good did that do them? Do they have a vision for the future and a plan to carry it out? Since Measure 65 failed, there needs to be a debate between and among the parties which involves the general public rather than pretending that voters are just spectators.
Posted by: Bill R. | Nov 7, 2008 1:46:22 PM
The greatest governor in the history of Oregon was Tom McCall, a Republican. He would not be welcome in the present day Oregon Republican Party. That says everything. I think America does best when it has a healthy two party system. But the Republican party is run by the worst kind of extremists and bigots, in this and most other states. Norma Paulus says there is no one in the party she can talk to. She is unwelcome, Dave Frohenmayer is unwelcome. Bill Sizemore, Lars Larson, Kevin Mannix, that's who their heroes are.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Nov 7, 2008 1:54:35 PM
And as I've said to a any one of a number of Republican co-workers and acquaintances, the secret to Democratic success is that we value competence over ideology.
Now I'll be the first to admit that there is often very little difference between two (conservative nostrums of screwing the poor aren't just odious, they're counterproductive). But still, while Democrats have a few take-no-prisoners ideologues, unlike the Republicans, we almost never let them get into office, much less take over the whole party.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Nov 7, 2008 1:54:45 PM
And speaking of brain dead, there's also Ralph Nader asking out loud whether Barack Obama is an Uncle Tom.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Nov 7, 2008 1:57:52 PM
"Bill Sizemore, Lars Larson, Kevin Mannix, that's who their heroes are"
Along with Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
I would not be suprised if Limbaugh started his "America held hostage" crap again like he did during the Clinton years.
For some reason, today's republicans have a very mean spirit about them. I have always wondered why they are that way. Karen Minnis has always been a great example of this. Maybe this blue wave will make them realize that they have to treat others, as well as each other, better.
Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 7, 2008 2:02:31 PM
"He would not be welcome in the present day Oregon Republican Party. "
According to the well-recommended-by-LT Fire at Eden's Gate, McCall wasn't really welcome in the GOP of his day, either--at least not once he began criticizing Spiro Agnew, who at one time had been an ally.
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Nov 7, 2008 2:10:53 PM
Among others, Meredith Wood Smith deserves a hearty pat on the back for her tireless work as party chair.
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Nov 7, 2008 2:15:50 PM
Clarification: Democratic party chair.
Posted by: Dave Lister | Nov 7, 2008 2:27:02 PM
"Our Republican friends are an essential part of the dialogue in Oregon. While I don't agree with them much politically, they live here too and their voice matters. I don't want them silenced."
Thank you Carla, and well put.
The two party system has been good for our nation and good for our state. That's why I was against the open primaries.
My party has passed the torch to you (or rather the torch was ripped from us) and rightly so. My party has become obsessed with people's bedrooms and their bodies, and turned its back on the Republican values that I cared about. After a total lock on Washington for six years and the White House for eight, my party screwed up, big time.
I hope someday to get my party back. The party born of the abolitionist movement, the party of Lincoln. The party of Tom McCall and Mark Hatfield. The party of Vic Atiyeh, who knew how to help business succeed in Oregon. The party that first brought environmental protection into our laws and created the EPA.
Did you know it was Dorchester Republicans who first proposed legalizing abortion in Oregon in the case of rape or incest? True story. How have we strayed so far?
I was having lunch with two of my friends who are Democrats a while back and one of them looked at me and said "Dave, you're not a Republican, why are you in that party."
I guess the answer is that I value personal responsibility, fiscal conservancy, entrepreneurship and liberty.
Values that my party seems to have forgotten about lately.
Values that my party will, and must, return to.
I've been advised by many that, if I continued to have political aspirations, I must renounce my party. At the very least, become an independent, or follow Westlund's course from R to I to D.
But that's not for me. I will stay in the party and try to fix it. If for no other reason than the legacy of Abraham Lincoln deserves it.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Nov 7, 2008 3:03:42 PM
OK. So the opposition is out of ideas and energy. That makes it even more important that we actually achieve something of value with our overwhelming (and rest assured, temporary) control of government.
The election of Democrats is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Sure, gloating is fun and we'll all do it; but let's not succumb to hubris until we prove we can do better with total control than the last bunch did.
Posted by: Bill R. | Nov 7, 2008 3:06:26 PM
I truly would like to see a healthy and moderate, pragmatic Republican party emerge. But I see no signs of that. The religious right fanatics like James Dobson now control the party and any politician who wants to gain power must worship at Dobson's altar. His candidate is Sarah Palin, the end-timer know-nothing, who doesn't know that Africa is a continent and doesn't care, who shops until she drops. The Republican party doesn't want an Olympia Snowe,a Norma Paulus, or even a Chuck Hegel, but a shop-aholic religious fanatic narcissist like Sarah Palin. I foresee more splitting between the corporatists, the dominionist theocrats, and the libertarians. The Reagan coalition is dead and gone.
Posted by: Glen HD28 | Nov 7, 2008 3:55:59 PM
Satisfaction aside, Kari's opening post is just reporting the facts as presented to him by the R's.
I'm glad to say the great majority of comments are very thoughtful and pragmatic, and hopefully the goodness therein will be realised and help restore a healthy, decent opposition party. That will be good for Oregon & America.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 7, 2008 4:02:05 PM
And speaking of brain dead, there's also Ralph Nader asking out loud whether Barack Obama is an Uncle Tom.
This statement repeats the execrable interpretation of Ralph Nader's words by an odious Faux News would-be hit man. This is what Ralph Nader said as quoted on the video: "And we wish him (Obama) well. But his choice, basically, is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations."
To put his words in another way, Ralph Nader essentially said HIS CHOICE (that is Obama's CHOICE) is to do what is right or what is wrong. Why have these anti-Naderites and Faux News parrots focused on the Uncle Tom part? Why did they not instead praise Nader for wishing Obama well and equating him with Uncle Sam? Because they are programmed to reflexively and mindlessly find fault with Nader without paying attention to what he says. Just like Limpbag, O'LIElly, Coletar and that bunch.
There are many people alive today because Ralph Nader took on and beat giant corporations. What have you done that bears the remotest comparison with what Nader has done for the American people? For that matter, what has Obama done?
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Nov 7, 2008 4:03:42 PM
The Oregon GOP waged a culture war and lost. Meantime, the best and brightest within the GOP were driven off in an ideological frenzy--the punitive anti-moderate revenge ran a lot of good people out of the party. Those left behind adopted a wild-eyed approach to governance which seemed to wholly ignore actual Oregonians in favor of hardcore right-wing boilerplate.
The Dems should heed the example well, but my guess is that this is the natural process. Sort of a market selection within politics. It happened after the great epoch of liberalism, when the Maoists and radicals terrified middle America in the early/mid-70s. In the short term, we should consider those Oregonians, recognize our answers are better, and build a governing coalition that incorporates the greatest support while passing good, liberal legislation.
It's our time--let's take advantage!
Posted by: LT | Nov 7, 2008 4:08:46 PM
Dave, when are GOP officers elected for the next cycle? Has it happened yet?
If not, you should try for some kind of office in the GOP. They need you to take the party back to sanity.
"I've been advised by many that, if I continued to have political aspirations, I must renounce my party. At the very least, become an independent, or follow Westlund's course from R to I to D."
Whoever advised you, you should try to gain power within the GOP, and then failing that you can become a NAV or an I or maybe a Dem. Or run for a nonpartisan local office.
Posted by: Jonathan Radmacher | Nov 7, 2008 4:12:42 PM
Dan said at City Club today (a great program, listen to it on OPB tonight, if you didn't make it) that some Republicans have concluded that they lost because they weren't conservative enough. Yikes.
I interned for Senator Hatfied (he was just "the" Senator). Remember that his being anti-choice was always a downside for him. If he hadn't already had a long track record as a great Senator, my suspicion is that he wouldn't have made it through the 1980s, due largely to this position. In other words, while he wouldn't have made it through Republican primaries today, I think his views on abortion would have doomed him in a general election.
Posted by: m | Nov 7, 2008 4:48:12 PM
I'd be careful patting ourselves on the back. The Ds have their share of take no prisoners, if you don't think as I do you're surely an ignorant ass, thinkers. I highly recommend reading "The Left Hand of God Taking Back Our Country From The Religious Right" by Michael Lerner. It provides some great insight as to how we've managed to alienate a good deal of the population that *should* support us as a party.
Don't fool yourself into thinking we can't be foiled by our own arrogance. The visciousness we show to our own when they don't fall into step can be very nasty. You see it all of the time here, and on other blogs and during campaigns.
We need the Rs to be healthy and ideally, not wacky so that we have incentive to reach for greatness.
We also need to understand that there ARE Republicans out there who are NOT wacky (N Paulus, for instance, and there are others like her). Rather than villify the party as a whole, we should view this as an opportunity to reach out to those Rs whose values are much closer to our own that the latest version of the R party. A little friendship, instead of name-calling and nastiness, will get us much further, and those disenfranchised Rs, instead of running for Independent status, might join our ranks.
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Nov 7, 2008 5:51:55 PM
Jeff Alworth wrote: "The Oregon GOP waged a culture war and lost"
Lost the war? Some major battles, but hardly the "war".
This week, anti-gay legislation passed in California, Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas, stripping thousands of families of legal protection, and demeaning millions of LGBT Americans as second-class citizens under the law.
In the wake of this anti-gay electoral slaughter, "Concerned Oregonians" (local mouthpiece for the wealthy Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Arizona) has already announced new plans for yet another bloody ballot measure fight in 2010, to gut the Oregon Equality and Family Fairness Acts. More information here:
http://www.justout.com/news.aspx?id=40
We LGBT folk are now Republican domestic target number one. Having lost the anti-choice issue to a growing national consensus supporting each woman's right to reproductive freedom (see South Dakota), and with fast-declining returns punching the "terrorists under the bed" button, homophobia is roaring back with a vengeance for the party which keeps its bills paid using fear and loathing. They'll back delicately away from anti-immigration stances because they've learned they need the Latino vote. But ... Blacks and Latinos supported the anti-gay California Proposition 8 by nearly 70%. So, do the math. Who's going to be Republican fear-based fund-raising target number one in the coming cycles: the LGBT community.
LGBT Oregonians turned out in strength for Obama, Merkley, and progressive candidates and causes around the state and nation. BRO Equality PAC put serious money and volunteer labor behind several campaigns, including allied campaigns not directly related to LGBT-specific issues. Oregon Stonewall Democrats held 17 fund-raising house parties for Merkley, and turned out many volunteers. Just Out took progressive stances on issues far beyond strictly LGBT concerns. And many LGBT individuals worked tirelessly alongside our union sisters and brothers, and other proud Democrats, to build Big Blue Wave Number Two. We're a core constituency of this party, standing proud alongside many others.
So, speaking as someone who found this week's results ... bittersweet ... I'll stick with a different comment above:
m wrote: "I'd be careful patting ourselves on the back."
Posted by: jrw | Nov 7, 2008 5:54:59 PM
I strongly agree with those who wish to see the return of the moderate Republicans. Our system is much healthier when we're in balance.
I suspect, in retrospect, that history will point to Ronald Reagan and the 1980 elections as the beginning of the end for the moderate wing of the Republican party. That said, many of the evangelical Christians who tiptoed into politics did so through Jimmy Carter in 1976. I was attending a Christian college at that time, and was heartily appalled by the number of people I spoke to who said "I'm voting for the Christian" rather than thinking about specific issues. Carter was really the first candidate who openly appealed to the evangelical vote in that manner--and the Republicans noted that, and followed up. The Democratic party ignored that trend, to their detriment and to our country's detriment, for far too long.
I studied the early roots of the current Dominionist political movements during the late 70s/early 80s, while I was a political science student at the U of O. Without Carter and the energy he gave to the Baptists, as well as the Bill Bright evangelical crusades ("Here's Life, America!" and so on), we wouldn't have had the energy for Falwell, Robertson and other fundamentalist political activists to draw upon to create the Moral Majority.
One thing which sticks firmly in my mind are my experiences in the Oregon Legislature of 1979 and 1981. I knew Clay Myers, Norma Paulus, and many other moderate Republicans. I was a raging liberal Democrat, interning with the real Socialist, Wally Priestley. And yet--Wally always spoke kindly of his Republican colleagues, and showed them respect. And when I spoke to Clay Myers at a party, and told him I was interning with Wally, Clay spoke very highly of Wally, with a great deal of respect.
I do not think that degree of respect would happen in these days--to the very great loss of our system, our state, and our country.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 7, 2008 6:14:09 PM
This is really something. A so-called progressive web site with commentators saying how we need a Republican and a Democratic party even if there isn't much difference between the two. How about a Democratic OR a Republican party AND a Progressive party in the Nader-Kucinich mold? Then people would have a real choice.
Posted by: Roy McAvoy | Nov 7, 2008 6:39:55 PM
Before you get all full of yourselves just remember what Mark Twain once said......"Death is the starlit strip between the companionship of yesterday and the reunion of tomorrow".
Posted by: carla axtman | Nov 7, 2008 6:42:17 PM
This is really something. A so-called progressive web site with commentators saying how we need a Republican and a Democratic party even if there isn't much difference between the two.
Yeah...! Both parties support abortion rights, civil rights for gays and lesbians, fair trade, heavy investment in green energy, universal health care for all Americans...
Oh wait...
Posted by: Marucha | Nov 7, 2008 7:17:53 PM
"The Republican Party in Oregon is now officially dead."
Didn't the Repubs say something similar about the dems in 2004?
Also, a " so-called progressive website" accurately reflects the content of this site.
Posted by: David English | Nov 7, 2008 7:39:46 PM
I disagree also with the notion that they are dead. They are just essentially like a football team without players that forfeited the game. We need to be weary and realize they will come back. Maybe not next month or even next year, but they will come back.
As so many others have alluded to, it depends on who they put in leadership. Someone like Jason Atkinson would be a fresher, younger more moderate face. They need to get away from letting the Mannix-Sizemore-Minnis type people in power. Will they learn from their mistakes? Who knows, but you can count on the fact they'll be back.
Posted by: Jägermeister | Nov 7, 2008 7:39:58 PM
But they still have Greg Walden, don't they? I mean, they can still build a state-wide party around that, right?
/snark
Posted by: LT | Nov 7, 2008 7:57:04 PM
"Someone like Jason Atkinson would be a fresher, younger more moderate face. "
Assuming he has fully recovered (or enough to be active in politics), Jason Atkinson might be the wise, "as I was recovering, I had a lot of time to think" figure that Westlund was after surviving cancer. Add him to Max Williams, Frank Morse, and maybe a few outspoken former Republican legislators from the pre-Minnis days, and there might be the backbone of a new party.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Nov 7, 2008 8:15:58 PM
LOSERS:
Citizens who understand the perils of one-party rule.
Without the check of a strong opposition there is always the possibility for a nation to mirror the former Soviet Union, modern Russia, China, or any other oppressive regime you can think of.
Let’s hope Gov K in Oregon and President-elect Obama in Washington understand this and reign in the more radical elements of their party.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Posted by: rw | Nov 7, 2008 8:42:20 PM
Buckman:
It's "rein" in, as in pulling back on a horse's reins. And I agree in terms of understanding that going forward, this tide will also turn somewhat at least, and we in Oregon will NEED reputable Republicans to care about US and work for US alongside our Democrats. Balance is critical. We should seek to establish balance now that we've cleaned house.
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 7, 2008 8:58:40 PM
"I guess the answer is that I value personal responsibility, fiscal conservancy, entrepreneurship and liberty. Values that my party seems to have forgotten about lately. Values that my party will, and must, return to."
Conservatives have to recognize that our values are not the values of the Republican Party any more. As long the Christian Coalition runs the party, I can never vote for an R at the national level.
Posted by: DanOregon | Nov 8, 2008 12:02:42 AM
Like the party on the nationwide level, current leaders need to figure out if they'd rather lead a minority party or not lead a majority party. At this point, I think they are more satisfied being in control of a party, than seeing the party succeed.
This is the outgrowth of the Christian right and Club for Growth's growing influence in the party. They attend the meetings, do the grunt work, raise the money. If this is what they want, fine.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Gordon Smith run for Governor, I think he'd have an edge on just about everyone with the possible exception of DiFazio.
Posted by: Dan Meek | Nov 8, 2008 12:46:13 AM
I have not read all the comments above, but rumors of the death of the R Party in Oregon are wildly exaggerated.
The R candidates for statewide state office (Alley and Dancer) were novices and were significantly outspent but came within 5-6% of winning. Alley was outspent by about $800,000 Westlund to $700,000 Alley. Dancer was outspent by about $1.1 million Brown to $700,000 Dancer. The Rs held their 12 seats in the Oregon Senate. They lost only 5 or 6 seats in the Oregon House.
They did not increase their power, but they are not at all dead. And, as long as no limits on political contributions in Oregon races are enforced (despite being enacted by Oregon voters in 2006), their electoral prospects can and probably will be improved by infusion of additional funds from business interests.
Posted by: Lee Coleman | Nov 8, 2008 6:46:53 AM
The Oregon GOP is NOT dead, officially or any other way. Watch to see what happens at its reorganizing meeting in January. Watch to see what happens this month at its county central committee reorg meetings. The extremists will always overwhelm the "good" guys because they care and they show up!
LT wrote: "Assuming he has fully recovered (or enough to be active in politics), Jason Atkinson might be the wise, "as I was recovering, I had a lot of time to think" figure that Westlund was after surviving cancer. Add him to Max Williams, Frank Morse, and maybe a few outspoken former Republican legislators from the pre-Minnis days, and there might be the backbone of a new party."
Well I know Dan Lavey and Max Williams very well and know the true nature of Jason Atkinson. Dan is the man who found Gordon Smith and is a pragmatic right winger who will say anything to mislead both Rs and Ds and get his candidates elected. Max is a very nice man but fixed in his ideology by the Mormon Church. Jason Atkinson is identical in ideology to both Charles and Bruce Starr -- in other words, he's like his father -- a captive of religious extremism. None of them are what I would call "good" Republicans.
Having originated and led Mainstream Republicans until 2004, and having used that role to attempt ridding ORGOP of its religious fundamentalists (the American taliban), I can say with considerable certainty that the GOP in general and ORGOP in particular is beyond hope for change. Republicans are hopeless captives of the American taliban. I learned this the hard way when Solomon Yue, the ORGOP national committe man, told me that a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution was necessary to energize the party's core -- the aforementioned American taliban.
Posted by: Lee Coleman | Nov 8, 2008 7:02:39 AM
Leo Schuman wrote: "This week, anti-gay legislation passed in California, Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas, stripping thousands of families of legal protection, and demeaning millions of LGBT Americans as second-class citizens under the law."
True enough but it's a direct result of American taliban action. The fact that it controls the GOP explains both the GOP and its power and willingness to discriminate against gays and lesbians with its opposition to equality under law.
The definition of marriage (DOMA) movement about which Leo writes, is sponsored by the American taliban. It can be defeated.
Clearly the best strategy for now in all of the DOMA states is to move their legislatures to remove the term "marriage" from all relevant statutes and substitute the term "family partnerships." A statutory provision would be left to allow religious organizations to use the term "marriage" to describe family partnerships for their own purposes. Such a course of action would be an end run around all those discriminatory amendments brought about at great expense by the reactionary cabal.
I can just see it now. The religious wingnuts would have hemorrhages and if we're lucky some would die of apoplexy. All of their very expensive initiatives would go for naught -- become dead letter law. The best part would be that there's no grounds for appeals to the courts.
The lead political issue here is what to do about minority community members who suffer great fear of homosexuality. This is the immediate task. In this arena, there is a raging argument between those who think that black and hispanic voters hate homosexuality and homosexuals on the one hand and those who think that religion is the key problem that must be overcome with appropriate outreach. I don't go with the homo-hater theory; the problem is religion and its influence on the culture. The religious communities did not hesitate to lie prodigiously to the minority communities and the only remedy is the light of truth about equality as the promise of America and a propaganda campaign to teach that religious precepts are inclusive by their very nature.
Last but not least, buying prejudice ought to be illegal. Religious organizations that sponsor campaigns inspired by their religious beliefs simply must be held to two standards: (1) political activity leads to loss of tax exemption, and (2) liability for outright lies as well as deliberately misleading statements in support of ballot measures designed to perpetuate their religious beliefs. Religion has to return to being a social service rather than a political platform.
Posted by: Cedwyn | Nov 8, 2008 7:30:49 AM
well, i guess we'll all just have to suffer (ha!) while the republicans sort themselves. it's not going to be easy and it will take a while. we are witnessing nothing less than a full-bore party realignment. think of it as an adjustment to the dems losing the south over civil rights. the dynamics of the party changed dramatically and that's what the GOP is going through right now.
i don't know what will come out of it. i don't know that the GOP can put its wingnut fundie genie back in the bottle. i certainly don't see them catching the writing on the wall (that they are a regional sideshow party widely derided by just about everybody) inside of two election cycles.
so maybe, maybe by 2016, we'll start to see them coming out of their wilderness again. but i think the GOP civil war has only just begun and it will be much, much worse than the one the dems went through. all we had to do was fight corporatism. compared to wresting the party's ideology from theocratic whackadoos, that was a cakewalk.
"You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 8, 2008 8:05:57 AM
Speaking as a former Oregon Republican and long-time Oregon Non-Affiliated Voter who registered Democrat for the first time in my life this past Spring... the role that George W. Bush played in all this simply cannot be overstated. Largely in how his election and re-election emboldened and empowered NeoCons and TheoCons in the party.
Posted by: RW | Nov 8, 2008 8:39:48 AM
Cedwyn - thankfully, I do not think anyone here has made the boneheaded statement that blacks and hispanics hate gays. That's stupid, not merely silly. I'ts more complex than that. And add native americans to this, in the same complex way. Some have specific, functional roles for gay community members, or, rather, they DID, and a very long time ago, not recently; and some do not, all in caps. Another odd thread I stumbled onto in indian country was intense xenophobia on the part of natives aimed at "mexicans". That one was unexpected. Again: not generic - it came attached to specific demographics.
But if we do not talk about this in specific, we will continue to treat ALL of these "groups" as objectified iconic masses.
Have to say in my secret life I could agree with you about loss of tax free status for activist religionists AND their organizations. This might muzzle the mutts. But it would also drive it down in secret again. Rather than having the truth of their crawling vitriol paraded on the TV for those too lazy to keep up a healthy line of inquiry into that which is outside their life and their family's ... it would be forgotten and go underground again. Still like that too! Heh. But kinda dangerous.
THAT is what Bush and Reagan tapped into: these sullen bullies so angry about not having a voice. They consider themselves veritable Jeremiahs I guess, and this has been a reign of Jeremiads these long eight years at least!
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 8, 2008 10:32:09 AM
Bill B: This is really something. A so-called progressive web site with commentators saying how we need a Republican and a Democratic party even if there isn't much difference between the two.
Carla A: Yeah...! Both parties support abortion rights, civil rights for gays and lesbians, fair trade, heavy investment in green energy, universal health care for all Americans...
Oh wait...
Carla: Note that I said “...there isn't much difference between the two.” That allows for some difference, but not much.
I presume from your short list of issues you see Democrats supporting them and Republicans not. Before we consider issues let's define the parties. The Republican party as a whole is more disciplined and inclined, but not always, to vote more as a block. The Democratic party is made up of factions and often is split on issues. That's a difference. So when we talk about the parties and issues below, let's use “Party Leadership” to define each party's position because the leadership essentially decides which direction the party will take and what a majority of its members will support. In the case of Democrats party leadership now, obviously, includes Obama, Biden and Rahm Emanuel at the top.
Issues:
The right for gays and lesbians to marry partners of their own gender.
Ralph Nader: Supports
Human Rights Groups: Support
Democratic Party Leadership: Oppose
Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats
Single-Payer Universal Health Care
Ralph Nader: Supports
Human Rights Groups: Support
Democratic Party Leadership: Support versions written by insurance corporations
Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats
United States Constitution
Ralph Nader: Supports
ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights: Support
Democratic Party Leadership: Use it when it suits them politically. Ignore it when politically expedient.
Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats
Bloated budget for the military-industrial complex
Ralph Nader: Opposes
Democratic Party Leadership: Supports
Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats
AIPAC-Likud Party policies of oppression and human rights abuses in the Palestine Territories
Ralph Nader: Opposes
Human Rights Groups: Oppose
Democratic Party Leadership: Support
Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats
Sanctions on Iraq that degraded the Iraqi infrastructure and led to the deaths of an estimated half million Iraqi children. Democratic secretary of state Madeline Albright said, “We (Clinton Administration and party leadership) thought the price was worth it.”
Ralph Nader: Opposed
Human Rights Groups: Opposed
Democratic Party Leadership: Supported
Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats
Patriot Act, FISA bill, NAFTA, send more American troops into Afghanistan debacle
Ralph Nader: Opposes
Human Rights Groups: Oppose
Democratic Party Leadership: Supports
Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats
Initial bailout package for Wall Street concocted by Bush's consiglieri, Paulson, Bernanke and Cox. Hearings rigged by committees led by Senator Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Frank (D-MA) to take only testimony from Bush's trio and exclude opposing opinions.
Ralph Nader: Opposed
Independent Economists: Opposed
Democratic Party Leadership: Supported initially but some backed off after hostile reactions from the public. Supported revised version after the committees put lipstick on this pig.
Republican Party Leadership: Same as Democrats
And ... well, you get the idea. Now on which of those issues do you agree with the party leadership?
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Nov 8, 2008 10:36:31 AM
rebecca whetstine wrote: "thankfully, I do not think anyone here has made the boneheaded statement that blacks and hispanics hate gays. That's stupid, not merely silly. I'ts more complex than that."
Yes, understanding that equal means equal is surprisingly complex sometimes. Regardless, there's a problem here. The Black community in California, which turned out heavily in this election, voted 2 to 1 in favor of stripping equal rights from LGBT relationships.
So, whatever complexity it is which leads one historically disenfranchised community to vote overwhelmingly to strip another of its rights needs sorting out.
I would like to think any Democrat would reject the quintessentially Republican notion that basic equality can be stripped away by a vote. If guaranteeing basic equality isn't why we have a constitution, then what's the point of having one at all?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 8, 2008 11:10:35 AM
So, whatever complexity it is which leads one historically disenfranchised community to vote overwhelmingly to strip another of its rights needs sorting out.
I would like to think any Democrat would reject the quintessentially Republican notion that basic equality can be stripped away by a vote.
I haven't checked lately, but what kind of support does the Democratic Black Congressional Caucus give to the oppressed Palestinians? If any?
Posted by: ewoc | Nov 8, 2008 11:17:25 AM
Dave,
While Richard Nixon DID sign legislation creating the EPA (as well as other important environmental legislation in the 70s), he was responding to an overwhelming tide of progressive bills from a heavily Democratic Congress; he was riding the wave, rather than leading the charge. But at least he recognized that the environmental movement had very strong public support.
While I appreciate your nod to a more pragmatic Republican Party that most of us wish would return, R's were not responsible for quite as much good stuff as you seem to believe.
Posted by: nochickenhawk | Nov 8, 2008 11:47:44 AM
I don't want to sound ungrateful or greedy but the Democratic leadership in Oregon could have done a much better job with contesting Walden's congressional seat. This is especially true with the Obama tidal wave. Needless to say somebody other than a skateboarder or snowboarder would have been a more worthy challenger for Walden. If you were to ask 9 out of 10 voters in Deschutes or Jackson Counties (where for the most part all the voters in Walden's congressional district live) who Walden's opponent was, they couldn't tell you. The votes that this mystery man got were simply a matter of people extending their good feeling about Obama and the Democratic label. Wake up and smell the coffee please. The demographics are rapidly changing east of the Cascades and conceding political offices to republicans over here in way outdated to say the least.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Nov 8, 2008 12:00:41 PM
Lost the war? Some major battles, but hardly the "war".
Leo, I don't disagree with this. The culture wars will continue to inflict casualties on the forces of good. I was distraught to see these measures pass.
However, my point was slightly different. I think that as a strategy for winning elections, the culture warrior model is spent. I don't believe it will work anymore to deride you opponents as immoral or terroristic or godless.
But in specific battles, they will still score painful victories.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 8, 2008 12:01:17 PM
NCH --
Democracy is run by those who show up. Why didn't you run? Why didn't you recruit someone to run? Why are you waiting around for "the Democratic leadership"?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 8, 2008 12:07:19 PM
As for Bill Bodden's comments: The problem with Bill and the other nattering nabobs of naderism is that they reduce fairly complex gradations on issues down to simplistic slogans.
For example, on health care, he says Democrats "support versions written by insurance corporations" and then declares that the Republicans are "same as Democrats" -- but the truth, the obvious truth, is that there's a vast difference between two.
Even if we accept his silly idea that we should exclusively consider the "party leadership" as defined by the occupants of the White House (and not the Senate or House), even if we accept that idea, it's most certainly NOT true that Obama's health care policy is exactly the same as McCain's or Bush's.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Nov 7, 2008 1:23:19 PM
Solid blue state in national elections--check.
Democratic Governor--check.
Two Democratic Senators--check, and (YES!) check.
Majority of US Representatives--check.
All partisan Statewide offices--check.
Both chambers of the state legislature--check.
Bad ballot measures failed--check.
I'd say we did pretty good. :-)