I recently went and heard Jared Diamond, author of 'Collapse', speak here in Portland. He believes one of the reasons a society collapses has to do with how insulated the elite are from the society's problems. He said he sees some disturbing trends in our society that indicate the elite are becoming more insulated: Gated communities, private schools, exclusive health care, etc.

It reminded me of the 'two Americas' theme Edwards put forth during his campaign for the Dem nomination. I thought it was a honest and simple asessment of the state of our nation, one that a majority of Americans would have understood had Edwards been allowed to carry the theme into the presidential election. The Kerry campaign advisors were stupid not to pick it up. Were they worried about it coming across as class warfare? I mean for god's sake, the Republicans are the perpetrators of class warfare.

Anyway, Diamond's analysis and Edward's 'two Americas' fit perfectly together. The 'two Americas' theme needs to be picked up again by the Dem party. It's not a hot potato like the Lieberman Dems think. It's a winning issue.

I think the Edwards quote actually illustrates the exact message problem we have. I don't know that anyone campaigns saying, "I stand for division and tearing people apart."

But what does it mean? What policies? I learned nothing from that quote. Although it was pretty. As is Edwards.

Last session the house D's put out a policy book with a picture of an empty beach. It symbolized to me the almost entirely absent work on policy. An empty beach? What the hell does that mean? It could mean anything from environmental protection (It's clean!) to pro measure 37 (I own this beach and you can't come here) to pro-genocide (everyones dead and therefore can't go to the beach).

Pretty words are nice, but again, we need hard ideas. Not niceties. That's what I hope we get from Dean. That's what Dean said during his campaign. That's why some people hated him.

Actually, Edwards makes more sense to me than Pete Sorenson. I have Democratic friends who are red-in-the-face angry because the party which used to care about ordinary people's everday economic concerns (health care, good schools, some having to work multiple jobs to make ends meet) now seems more interested in people who have enough money to make large political donations.

Loved the crack about "Lieberman Dems".

"There was a time when "His parents lived in a mill town and had to borrow money to bring him home from the hospital, but he was able to get into law school and build a fortune" was considered "the American Dream".

Now there are too many who claim only people in tax brackets like the Edwards family is in now deserve attention. or "He's a trial lawyer, and they are sharks" without looking at the cases Edwards took or his specific proposals on a number of topics which I heard/read but never got much coverage.

Where was the outrage among Oregon Democrats over the Measure 28 / Measure 30 cuts? There seemed to be a defeatist attitude as if "nothing we can do about it". Is that why Dean is so popular in some quarters and unpopular in others--because he speaks out on such things?

Where is the outrage over how FuturePac mangled the Oregon House elections? Were they incompetent, not wanting a majority, beholden to unions who were more interested in rewarding Republican incumbent PERS votes than in having a Democratic House?

Plenty of blame to go around.

Edwards is not just good looking. He spreads a message of hope, although after their son died John and Elizabeth probably had enough money to just hibernate in their grief and never appear in public again.

And yes, I have worked on primaries where the action (rather than words) of some activists did stand for division. From "Yeah, your candidate sounds good, but you see, I want to win" (usually from people who lose the general election after not reaching out to those who supported their primary opponents) to out and out nastiness--nasty attack ads, trying to disrupt an opponent's rally, etc. Look at that Hindery character who funded the anti-Dean commercials in Iowa. No wonder Hindery was never taken seriously when he tried to run for DNC chair.

LT,

Ah, again we meet in this forum.

What you missed in my post was that the issues you outline in the post you just put here are not raised in the quote above. Yes, Edwards did talk about two Americas and had a tremendous message. An important message and one the party should get back to.

The quote posted at the begining of this thread however said nothing. Less than nothing. It was flowery about how we support being positive.

And when you said this, "Were they incompetent, not wanting a majority, beholden to unions who were more interested in rewarding Republican incumbent PERS votes than in having a Democratic House?"

What the hell did you mean by it? Am I to understand that you want there to be acountability, and you want high standards for families to be able to work, live on what they make and retire well, except for people who work for the government?

When you talk about the Lieberman Democrats, many of them are the same people who voted to (perhaps illegally) gut PERS.

And who funds these candidates that you support? Who pays for these races you critique?

Again, LT, you are foggy in the head. Caught up in the imagery but short on how that relates to actual policy and the workings of elections. You support good things, oppose bad things and want everyone to support the democrat just because they are a democrat at the same time you criticise a democrat for not being a strong democrat whatever that may mean!

Mushy, mushy, mushy, mushy.

Rorovitz, I'm the one who brought up the Lieberman Dems in my post that you claim was 'flowery' and 'said nothing.'

I'm assuming those who have heard or read Jared Diamond knew what I was writing about in my post: The possible 'collapse' of American society due to the elite who are becoming more insulated from the rest of society. The thought of America 'collapsing' simply due to an insulated elite is utterly fascinating, and one that most would not consider.

Edwards' 'two Americas' speech may seem flowery and nice, but in reality it's about the survival of our society, something every person living in America should be concerned about, even the wealthiest, who, according to Diamond, are becoming less aware of the problems in society due to their insulation.

I'm sorry you find this theme 'flowery' and absent of information.

If you were from the South, you would get it, Rorovitz. Some Democrats in the region are urging the party to backtrack in hope of getting the vote of the guy with the Confederate flag on his pickup. John Edwards is saying no to that. And, I think he is right. It is highly unlikely that dedicated anti-progressives are going to come back to the Democratic Party. And, the party risks alienating voters it already has if it pursues them. The Dems should pursue moderates, but on their own terms. BTW, the South and North Carolinians in neo-Confederate forums I model loathe Edwards. They get his egalitarian message.

My elevator pitch:

Progressives should believe in the following things: Work. Work that is rewarded with a living wage, affordable health insurance that covers you when you get sick. We also believe in making retirement possible, affordable housing in neighborhoods that are safe, with paved streets. We believe in people having the time and energy left at the end of the day to be with their family and play with their kids.

We believe in having schools that are safe and clean with staff who have the time to work closely with those kids so they realise their full potential, understand the world they live in and so they can decide how and where they will spend their lives.

We also believe in not killing people, being fair, and the old testament idea of reapportioning wealth so the weakest among us can also lead happy lives.

Ok, so that's a little long, but I think that's what we should believe.

The thing Mac Diva gets wrong is that my family is from the south, and what Howard meant by "confederate flags in the back of pickups" is that we need our economics to speak to low wage workers who are getting ripped off by the back-slapping corporate cronyism of the Bushies, the Wal-Marts, the Liebermans and the "New Democrats".

You miss the point of the economic message, even while you praise Edwards for getting it right.

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding.

And when you said this, "Were they incompetent, not wanting a majority, beholden to unions who were more interested in rewarding Republican incumbent PERS votes than in having a Democratic House?"

What the hell did you mean by it? Am I to understand that you want there to be acountability, and you want high standards for families to be able to work, live on what they make and retire well, except for people who work for the government? <<

I was not talking about all public employees. I was talking about a concrete number of individuals who were involved with the FuturePac campaign for the House Democrats. From conversations and emails I know of 4 or more House Democratic campaigns which were mismanaged (using any basic definition of that word) by FuturePac/ House Democrats.

Some people have discussed one of those elsewhere on this blog--why on earth didn't the House Democrats target Doyle for defeat in 2004?

There are several other stories out there incl. one where a campaign manager was removed/forced out and that Democratic candidate lost. There are stories of incumbents telling FuturePac they wanted no part of the caucus campaign effort. There is considerable scuttlebutt that unions wanted to retain certain Republicans in office because they liked their voting records or something. I know from personal conversation with a union lobbyist gave me a "we had our reasons" response to why on earth they endorsed Billy Dalto.

I am not saying there is absolute proof about such things since word of mouth inherently has some possibility of inaccuracy. But would these stories spread if they were 100% untrue?

I think the time has come to return to the old days where each legislative campaign was organized locally rather than centrally run by/for a caucus operation.

This was in an end-of-the-year email from a friend talking about his experiences with the Bus Project.

...work with the local campaigns, use their strategy, and listen to the local leaders.
Classic example: Alan Bates. When the Portland-central-command was trying to dictate, we were following local orders. When central command was hesitating with their support, we were going full bore. And we helped make the difference. There are some lessons that I think folks could learn... <<

Once again, I wasn't talking about message so much as mechanics. We should stand for accountable campaigns as much as an economic or other message.

I've wondered for some time what progressives stand for. Rorovitz says, """"Progressives should believe in Work that is rewarded with a living wage, affordable health insurance that covers you when you get sick."""""""

Doesn't everyone? We have a most successful system and society which rewards hard work and acheivement. One in which opportunity is abundant. You need to clarify your message. Are you talking about government guarantees and entitlements?

""""""""We also believe in making retirement possible,"""""""""""""

Who doesn't? Start saving and refrom SS. It isn't insurance.It is a ponzie scheme. There is no SS reserve fund like every real insurance company has heavliy invested. It's the only way they work.

""""" affordable housing in neighborhoods that are safe, with paved streets. """"""

You better talk to your leaders. They think "smart growth" is the answer when it is only wasteful and detrimental to low cost housing.

"""""We believe in people having the time and energy left at the end of the day to be with their family and play with their kids.""""""

Boy you are singing my song now. I sure wish I would of had more of it. That's a tough one?

""""We believe in having schools that are safe and clean with staff who have the time to work closely with those kids so they realise their full potential, understand the world they live in and so they can decide how and where they will spend their lives."""

Forget about that one. With CIM/CAM and other wastefull failures continually undermining our classrooms while the teachers union, COSA and OSBA and ODE work on more deception and meddling we won't be seeing any improvement. And by the way Oregon is not "tops in SAT scores". That's the education lie of the year after year after year. We're 25th and slipping.

"""""We also believe in not killing people, being fair, and the old testament idea of reapportioning wealth so the weakest among us can also lead happy lives. """"""

How about being killed? Or stopping yourself from being killed. Don't you mean redistribution? That's one of the things everyone knows progressives love.

Tim says,

""""The current reform package is designed to kill social security."""""

There are many specifics to work out as you well know. Yet you are eager to determine that whatever Bush ultimately proposes it will be a deliberate effort to kill SS? Why would Bush and republicans want to do something so politically suicidal? Because they are mean and you are nice?

I hear democrats calling for "tweaking" SS which is code for raise the tax. Their fix for everything.

I hear democrats refer to SS as "insurance." That truly is pathetic. It's structure is nothing like any insurance. There is no SS reserve fund, invested and returning a profit like every real insurance. Perhaps this will help Tim. Are you a public employee? How do you think PERS works? It has huge multibillion dollar reserve fund heavily invested in the market. How about federal employees? Same. How about every insurance system and retirement system. Bush's SS reform will make SS MORE resemble insurance, not less. It won't require old ladies to become stock speculators as more of the left demagoguery spews.

Just as you did not, I do not hear democrats answer simple and central questions. Instead you drag out some rhetoric about me borrowing Rush phrases and no opportunities in America because of Bush.

Now that's a fine message.
America is a failure. All of the wonderful opportunities during the Clinton years are gone because of Bush. That reminds me of the homeless population which all but vanished during Clinton. Now because of mean corporate, neocon Bushies all is lost.

That's great. Make sure Dean leans heavily on that card in the run up to 2008.

"""""Pass along my negadittos to Rush, because you seem to repeat his lines fairly often."""""

I rarely listen to Rush so he must be brainwashing me telepathically.

"""""" Redistribution is a hack term..."""""""

Huh? Well, do you have a different word for the government collecting from some and handing it over to others? How about re-handing over?

"""""""progresives believe in real opportunity and a fair tax system that"""""

I can just imagine what you would call real opportunity and fair taxation here in Oregon. Get rid of M5, get rid of the kicker, bring back M30 raise other taxes and opportunities will flourish?

"""""" genuinely allows real people to pull themselves up and live the American dream.""""""

And what is preventing real people from doing that now?

"""""" Republicans like to scour the country to find one or two case examples to prop up as evidence of success, while their policies leave millions behind.""""""""

Love it! There are these Republicans in your mind are out there scouring for examples. How does the result or act of "leaving people behind" work? Greedy neo-cons wallowing in their pile of money they stole from poor real people? Quite the message there. Horrible America with no opportunities, a terrible economy, and we need more democrats in office. For what? To do for the country what they have done for Oregon? Oh ya that's it. Oregon is the model for the country.

Tim, You are drifting, it is you putting words in my mouth, you won't answer any questions and it is you "who purposefully misrepresent and distorts""... And you are not particularly good at it.

Your said, """"""""The current reform package is designed to kill social security""""""""""

Now that was special. No distortion there.

You said """"Actually Steve, you'll notice if you actually read my post I did not (a) compare Social Security to insurance, (b) mention PERS, (c) mention measures 5, 30 or anything else you'd like to dredge up""""

Presicely, I am asking you to. But apparently you don't want to clarify anything, answer any question or address the rhetoric coming from your fellow democrats.

"""How dare I"""" ?????

Palleeeze! Take a calm down pill fella.

"""""This is the greatest country in the history of civilization - the great experiment of our founding fathers is alive an well, despite the nonsensical accusations you toss about like a wiffle ball."""""

It wasn't I who cast opportunities as so lacking that

"""Republicans like to scour the country to find one or two case examples to prop up as evidence of success, while their policies leave millions behind.""""

You were in such a tizzy, racing through my post, you conveniently didn't read it or respond.

I'm hardly surprised though and certainly wouldn't reply with "HOW DARE YOU". What kind of attitude comes up with that?

You make no more sense than if I suggested reform which converts all public employees retirement systems to SS.

"""""People like you, who place obviously silly rhetoric in the mouths of those they disagree with as a crutch for their inability to respond to cogent arguments."""""

What cogent arguement? """Bush wants to kill SS""?or """Redistribution is a hack term"""

If you want "dialogue" simply respond to my points.

What is "real opportunity" and how are "millions of Americans left behind"? You go from "millons left behind" to this is the "greatest country in the world", and don't offer any cogent clarification. What is hindering those millions?

Fantastic! We've gotten to specifics. I couldn't be happier. It is about issues and the reality of positions.

My one rebuttal for Steve is about living wages. He says everyone supports living wages. There is a defenition that exists for what comprises a living wage, and the Oregon Republicans, and their friends in the Oregon Restaurant Association oppose even COLA's for the minimum wage. Clearly they oppose a living wage. And they oppose efforts to require employers to offer heatlh insurance, and they oppose efforts to protect and gain pensions.

Oh wait, I said I'd stick to one issue. But Steve is soooo off base.

"We believe in freedom and liberty, and we're for low taxes, less government, traditional values, and a strong national defense."

Freedom and liberty. Each are very powerful one word ideals.

Low taxes, less government, traditional values. Two word phrases that are clear and concise.

Strong national defense. Three words, very clear and concise.

I have yet to see any Democratic / Progressive elevator pitch that contains similarly powerful one, two, and three word concepts and ideals that measure up to the Republicans'.

All the pitches mentioned above are relatively long sentences that prescribe specific policy goals rather than ideological ideals.

Republicans have core principals and values, and their policies flow from them.

Democrats have policies that they hold on to, and then try to patch together principals and values that fit these policies, usually unsuccessfully.

That is why Democrats end up defining themselves by what they are against rather than what they are for.

It's a lot easier to get more people to agree to be against something than it is to get people to agree to be for something.

Rorovitz and Tim,

Ever heard of entry level jobs? That's where you don't get much when you start so you work hard to move on to something better.

Why don't you spit out want you I suggest you really want? Everyone working under public employee conditions with permanent employment, automatic pay increases for seat time, impossible and nonsustainable compensation packages, and widespread public dependency and entitlement.

Tim, Sending me to some random news story or lefty web site which quotes an "anonymous" senior White House official, LA Times commentary or Lefty Paul Krugman with his left half only opinion back up nothing and do not answer my questions.

If you choose to continue punting vs answering the several direct points I asked you about then it is you who come ill-equipped to dialogue.

If you could simply cut/ paste my earlier post and reply to it's central points our conversation could build and move forward.

Do you think Oregon is a model for the nation.

Rorovitz said:

The thing Mac Diva gets wrong is that my family is from the south, and what Howard meant by "confederate flags in the back of pickups" is that we need our economics to speak to low wage workers who are getting ripped off by the back-slapping corporate cronyism of the Bushies, the Wal-Marts, the Liebermans and the "New Democrats".

I am not opposed to attracting voters who are more conservative than I am to the Democratic Party. But, I think it important that we not compromise what the party stands for to attract them. The Dems could get back some of those alienated voters in the South by encouraging Zell Miller types. However, at the same time, it risks alienating loyal voters it already has and becoming GOP-lite. Those voters need to be attracted because the Dems actually represent their interests better than the Republicans, not through compromise. The challenge is convincng them they are not really Republicans.

Did any of you hear Jeff Kropf call Ed Schultz today? Perfect example of how someone who obviously supports Democrats (used his show during the election to do so, and gives voice to Democrats who might not otherwise get as much airtime)can take on a Republican and win.

Some Republicans count on polarizing and starting arguments to distract from discussing issues. They don't expect answers of only a few words.

Kropf was saying some N. Dakota St. Sen was saying the big guy from Fargo was really a Republican in Democratic clothing. Ed said "So which issues did he say I was on the Republican side of?"

First one: Kropf: "He says you are pro-life". Schultz: "Yes, so is Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Next issue".

Kropf sounded as startled as I have heard anyone recently sound on radio.

When it comes to statements like "I am not opposed to attracting voters who are more conservative than I am to the Democratic Party. But, I think it important that we not compromise what the party stands for to attract them. ", I think Schultz handled it the right way.

To be truly "pro-choice" means that any Democrat has the right to agree with Sen. Clinton, Sen. Reid, any other Senator, or no Senator at all on the issue of abortion. I don't think that statement compromises "what the party stands for", speaking as someone who has attended more than one Oregon Democratic Platform Convention and known people who served on the Democratic national platform committee.

Good example, LT.

I have talked to some Republicans who voted for Kerry. They crossed over because of disagreeing with the GOP on issues, particularly the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It was also important to them that they not be castigated for having been Republicans, so I think it important to give folks some space as LT is saying above.

There is campaign politics and there is real politics. If we are talking real politics then I think it must be admitted that to be consistent with basic Democratic values, support for capitalism demands support for wealth redistribution. Without the latter, the former produces life that is nasty, brutish, and short for most people, a thoroughly unDemocratic outcome. So I am for no more pussyfooting. Wealth redistribution is good, moral, sensible, and necessary.

If Democrats cannot produce a workable frame in support of that viewpoint - now I'm talking campaign politics - Democrats will lose consistently. We cannot retreat to mumbling whenever someone suggests that progressive taxation is immoral.

Caucus intervention can be positive or negative. I don't think any candidate minds money or information.

It is naive to think that campaign managers respond only to the candidate and campaign steering committee. Managers are trained in a centralized effort and feel considerable pressure from caucuses and major funders, as they are sources of future employment.

A good consultant is useful in developing language. A candidate who has talked with 10,000+ voters knows the district's issues better than any pollster and should control the campaign message. That is very difficult in a caucus system where the candidate is considered a door knocking, money raising automaton.

There will be a very different campaign funding system in place before I run for the legislature again.

I think Tom C. speaks for more people than the Future Pac folks would like to admit.

A good consultant is useful in developing language. A candidate who has talked with 10,000+ voters knows the district's issues better than any pollster and should control the campaign message. That is very difficult in a caucus system where the candidate is considered a door knocking, money raising automaton.

There will be a very different campaign funding system in place before I run for the legislature again.

Posted by: Tom Civiletti | February 9, 2005 11:54 AM <<

I also don't think it is a new problem.

I have a friend who is so burned out on politics that she now works in a bank and refuses to discuss politics with friends--even hotly contested elections. This is someone who was involved in politics before she could vote as I recall.

One of the "last straws" was what happened the year she managed a state senate campaign. It was for a colorful former legislator who had also run for higher office, and about whom there was a whole genre of stories about this person being a colorful character.

My friend called me up after she and her candidate had gone to some event for managers and candidates (mid-1990s as I recall). She was so angry that I had to hold the phone several inches from my ear. Someone at the meeting held by the caucus had informed my friend and her candidate that fundraising was more important than contact with voters because name familiarity was the name of the game. This person tried to tell my friend and her candidate that no matter how long she had been in politics, all candidates started out with ZERO name familiarity and had to raise money based on that.

As Tom Potter showed, having the most money is not always the answer to winning elections. Otherwise, Francesconi would have been elected mayor in the primary.

Before my friend dropped out of politics, she said the last straw was realizing the truth about "the 5% and the 95%. By the 5% she meant candidates, campaign managers, longtime volunteers, staffers for groups like caucuses and parties, people whose lives have a component of politics that is year round/longstanding. She and I could have never been involved in politics from that day forward and still have been "5% " in our outlook due to long life experience.

By the 95% she meant those like my sister, her daughters, their husbands, and probably most of the people who attended their weddings. They may know the names of their elected officials ("Yes, Kurt Schrader lives right down the street from us" said one of my niece's inlaws) or they may not.

I suspect most bloggers are in the 5%. Elections are won by the 95%. Someone who attended a social event (dinner, party, etc) wearing a candidate button on their warm outer coat but not otherwise involved in politics is, to my mind, more powerful than those who make a living as campaign consultants.

I think Dean understands that better than most and will make a good DNC chair. That doesn't fit into neat "liberal vs. conservative" cubbyholes.

But I'll bet it wins elections.

I don't mind a caucus which says "we are here for the members, but they should make their own campaign decisions because they know their districts best". Like the old battle of whether the State Party Platform should be a general set of principles, or be the wishes of urban Democrats and if it made life difficult for rural candidates, tough luck.

But I have heard the story from too many sources not to believe a)the current Future Pac operation had a template and woe be the candidate who said "my district doesn't fit that template" or even worse the Democratic challenger up against a union endorsed Republican incumbent. I believe (seeing no evidence to the contrary) that Future Pac chose backing the union over backing the Democratic challenger. If fundraising were done locally that would be less of a problem. I think the DNC is living up (for the first time in over a decade) to doing the job it is supposed to do--supporting Democratic candidates across the country. Maybe Terry McAuliffe needed to be in there to get the finances and technology in order. But I think there should be more local control of House races and less "the caucus way of running House elections".

Get ahold of that Oregonian expose from 1996 (first Sunday in November as I recall) which was about the problem of "central control". From what I hear, that is still a problem in both House and Senate. But Senate finally got majority. My sense of Future Pac is "give us another decade to prove our template works across Oregon" and I don't think they deserve that. They had a decade to show they could win a majority. They failed to win a majority. Something new needs to be tried--as new as DNC member Jenny Greenleaf and Dean as DNC chair.

But then I recall the 1986 election where someone declared for state rep. and the House Majority Leader got a favored candidate to run against that person. The original candidate won. As a full fledged nominee and then member of the Oregon House, that member deserved to be treated like any other member. But I don't think that member owed allegiance to the caucus beyond vote for Speaker. I think Future Pac would be angry if there was a nominee they didn't like or against their chosen candidate. They should be part of the Democratic party, not their own little fiefdom responsible to no one except the incumbent members. If I had money to contribute to House candidates, I would say "spend this yourself and make sure none of it goes to Future Pac". I believe the Future Pac books should be audited by an outside auditor.

My suspicion of Future Pac is "we recruit you and then you are supposed to follow orders if we think your race is winnable. And if we don't think you can win you don't deserve any support".

Why is that a valid strategy?

If your candidate (like mine) felt that they didn't need to do the thousands of hours of work for the 18 months preceding the election, they can't legitimately blame futurePAC for their failure to win. << Pat, are you saying that people who knocked themselves out with little or no help from the caucus (Grisham comes to mind) were lazy or they would have won? Are you saying any campaign for 2006 which hasn't started soon enough to be in a July 4, 2005 local parade (legislature may still be in session if they don't get their act together) should forget about running in 2006 because all successful campaigns are during an 18 month window? Have you chosen your 2006 legislative candidates? By your logic, you have just a few months to do that.

Charlie Burr has a paragraph which encapsulates what bothers some of us who remember the days when there was a Democratic House majority with campaigns more locally than centrally organized.

If candidate X really loves consultant Y, then he or she should be able to go with them, if for no other reason than a candidate's trust in his/her team is really important. The opposing argument to this is that in doing so, you would decrease your ability to get a discounted rate or any advantage from economies of scale with some of the vendors.<<

Yeah, it was "economies of scale from some of the vendors", not neighborhood coffees with more than 40 people attending, which really elected Democratic majorities in the House, wasn't it?

Do all campaigns cost the same amount of money no matter where in the state they take place? Does every candidate start with 0 name recognition no matter what they have done before? Or is that just the cookie cutter template at central HQ which some have complained about for years?

And some wonder why ordinary people throw up their hands and say "until legislative campaigns are about volunteers and voters, not just those who make a living on politics, why should I bother?".

Maybe if someone from outside Multnomah County ran the caucus we would see a different attitude.

Concept is one thing, execution is another. If all the campaigns were not centrally run, maybe locals could decide who is worthy. And maybe if giving was done directly to candidates, the resources might not be as limited. Or are all good Democrats supposed to tithe to Future Pac?

But I dare anyone who believes this:

But progressives are always going to have to make tough decisions about their limited resources- the concept of targeting races is totally valid.<<

to defend a system where Grisham wasn't targeted (Doyle looked strong on paper and no one bothered to ask residents of Marion county because spreadsheets never lie?)and what happened in the campaigns of Steigler, Cowan, Gilbert, Howells and others.

And don't give me "they must not have raised X dollars (C & Es say that EVERY candidate who raised X dollars won?)and knocked on X doors unless you know, for instance, the actual number of doors that Cowan, for instance, knocked on.

I have no faith in centrally controlled campaigns, being the granddaughter of an anti-machine politician.

Hooray for John D.! There are many of us who agree with you, whether they post on Blue Oregon or not! Loved this: |>>From my perspective, the Democratic Party in Oregon has suffered from cliquishness for at least as long as the Republicans have maintained control of one or both houses of the Legislature.

There are too many unwritten rules from on high about who should serve, who should contribute ideas, or who should enjoy the full weight of the Party apparatus at their backs (as opposed to ON their backs), and I cannot even begin to tell you all how widespread and intense that sensation is once you get outside Metro.

I do not know what Democrats stand for. I voted for John Kerry because I did not like Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and lack of integrity. I did admire his ability to run a smart campaign. I do admire the way he says what he thinks bluntly. I think the Democrats could learn from this. I think the Democrats campaign and speak and respond to political attacks like wimps, weakly, defending themselves, when the attack itself is indefensible.

I do not believe Democrats are more tolerant than Republicans, as a group. I do believe they think they are.

For very specific reasons, rooted in experience, I do not believe the Democrats create programs for the poor that are even mildly successful and that are in many instances brutally abusive.

So, I do not know what Democrats believe in.

Check out my specific experiences on my blogsite. I was in the mental health system for almost two decades. I live in state created poverty. I was badly abused on many psyche wards and particularly at Oregon State Hospital which I hope they bulldoze. I left the mental health system after getting my neck ruptured when I was beaten on a psyche ward by staff at another hospital. The mental health system is designed to drug people up, shut them up and stuff them away in low income "projects". I left the mental health system and did fine on my own, without nine or ten psyche drugs a day and without living in some converted high rise hotel full of drugs, alcohol and crime. I have been homeless. I still suffer from the spinal cord injury I incurred in that beating. I have a metal neck plate as a result. I got no justice. I have labels and cannot find employment. I live in constant fear of homelessness. I've seen quite a lot and experienced quite a lot. I have been debating tonight the latest Oregon State Hospital story, about thousands of cremated remains found in the basement of that "hospital" in old desintegrating jars. Senator Courtney wants a proper resting place found at last for the remains out of respect for the dead. I agree. I have been thinking I would like to go to a memorial but I worry some state administrators might be there, some who did nothing to stop the abuse I took at that "hospital" and I could not endure it.

I am upper middle aged. I was recruited into the mental health system when very young in a five minute subjective interview. I was labeled eagerly over the years by shrinks and caseworkers, all county or state paid. I was abused and put down and shut down and patronized. I was bamboozled, in about the worst way one can be. I don't know what I'm going to do now.

I want to add this. I have often called liberals "blind do-gooders". By this I mean they blindly create or vote for programs that sound good but do not faithfully judiciously monitor those programs to see that they are run humanely and prudently. Nor do they humanely clean up the mess these programs sometimes make of human life.

I still yearn for justice for the crimes committed against me while I was in the mental health system. These were state and county employees for the most part. The managers were by and large liberals. I knew some of them rather well.

When I see liberals campaigning for measures that would fund the mental health system, I take it personally, as if they are wanting funds for beating and abusing people, as taxpayers funded the abuse I took.

Currently, I am a person of no political party.

<h2>I understand that most taxpayers do not want to support those who cannot support themselves. I have suffered immense guilt over decades accepting SSI. I know taxpayers and I've never wanted to be a burden to them or any family in Oregon. I can claim with merit that it was not my fault that I was "drafted" into the mental health system so many many years ago and that I trusted the wrong people. They were people I should have been able to trust. Now I'm free, at last, from their control. But I still live in poverty and lack a job that pays enough so I can support myself. I want to die completely independent of the system. I want completely free of HUD and SSI. I struggle to find a way to fulfill my dream.</h2>