Over at NWRepublican they have posted a letter from Senator Starr stating that he has backed-out of the event. If you read nearly 100 posts over three blogs on the topic you will find Starr got pounded by the GOP faithful.

He implies that he was lied to about the event.

But my question is what are Democrats doing hosting a tribute to Senator Starr, a radical right-winger who has made crazy, homophobic statements while in the state senate. Do we really want to celebrate that kind of career? Is that what the Democrats hold up to the community and say we support?

Starr's career has been one of extreme anti-union, anti-environment, and gay-bashing activism. He basically wants Christianity as the state church.

On the NWrepublican they state that Charles Lee is a pro-life, anti-tax Democrat. Is that they kind of person we want inside our House caucus? What is that all about?

Indeed, now that Starr has backed off attending this event, this could blow up in Lee's face. Having a $100 per plate dinner to honor a Republican who refuses to show up while denouncing his involvment is not a recipe for good fund-raising.

Meanwhile, Jeff Merkley or whoever runs the FuturePac website may want to do some quick HTML editing before Lee's party turns into a PR nightmare.

As for Lee being solidly pro-life, what would one expect from the president of a Catholic school, whose Board of Directors include Kevin Mannix and Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul DeMuniz?

• Wes

Clearly Starr and Backlund are very bitter, and not a good reflection on them personally or professionally. I would be pissed if they were Democrats, but it is funny happening to the righties. But looks as if Starr lost his nerve.

My question is why didn't this candidate Charles Lee have this event confirmed, now he looks either incompetent or unethical. In a seat that is overwhelmingly Republican, a misstep like this can be fatal. How do you explain that your honored guest didn't understand that he was coming to your fundraiser, even after the invitations went out?

Maybe I am listening too much to the rumors that Starr and Backlund aren't the brightest bulbs:maybe they are really smarter then people think and set Lee up on this.

Assuming the letter on NWRepublican is correct, there could be some major fall-out.

Starr and Backlund look like angry men trying to get even with some folks that took them out, but then caved-into like wet-paper bags under the political pressure.

Charles Lee looks like he can't run a competent campaign, or else he lied to some old men.

Republican leadership looks like a bunch of thugs that strong-arm people.

Future Pac looks like they support and endorse having disingenuous tributes to anti-union, anti-environment homophobes if it makes political points (great to know they will pander even before they get the majority) -- and o'yeah, and they don't have good management over their campaigns.

Wow, Oregon politics is really entertaining. It's like watching the Keystone Cops in color.

Jon:

I appreciate you idealism, but be real.

<h1>1 Charles Starr is crazy. He called homosexuality a "mental disorder," he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, and he has a ZERO rating with OLCV. Couldn't you guys find a Republican who was from this planet? Is it really an attempt at bipartisanship if you are just using someone's bitterness for your political advantage?</h1> <h1>2 You better tell the truth about Starr, because your candidate is going to be trashed. Right now the question is why would Senator Starr ever agree to such a fundraiser when he is one of the most right-wing members of the legislature? Furthermore, why against Kim Thatcher (who he has always supported). You better explain why Starr would agree to such an event, and then tell the truth about the fact that he is not being truthful. Right now your candidate looks sneaky.</h1> <h1>3 There is a very big difference between the Tom Delay, character assassination type of politics and legitimate issue differences. This is not a good example of trying to solve this problem. Starr's whole career is attacking people with terrible public statements, Tom Delay style. I am guessing that he agreed to do this event because he was trying to get back at somebody. Am I right? Can you say Charles "Delay" Starr?</h1>

Jon, we appreciate your work, but didn't you guys think this through? Your candidate is already branded as an anti-choice, anti-government conservative Democrat, and then you get the most right-wing member of the legislature to do a fundraiser for him? With a 14% R advantage, you still need a few Democrats to vote for him.

I know it may have sounded like a good idea, but it wasn't. This one mistake likely cost you a shot at this seat, but you guys are doing great work and have a good chance to change the state. Sorry this sounds harsh, it wasn’t meant to be. You really are doing good work.

Where can I jump in with... [off-topic comment deleted. -editor.]

Jon:

What you are not understanding is that this was never a bipartisan event, it was a crass opportunistic political event.

Everybody looking at Starr and Backlund just saw sour grapes. They knew your event wasn’t a tribute to Starr and Backlund, but a political stunt to promote Mr. Lee.

We all (D, Rs, et. al.) see traitors…not non-partisan statesmen. It is a good attempt at a political stunt by FuturePac, but as some noble attempt to be above partisanship, it was not. Don’t believe your own press release.

Starr and Backlund turned their backs on his own party because they are bitter, nobody can respect these two men’s motivations.

You had to try to take advantage of the situation, that’s is politics. But when you work with snakes, sometimes you get bitten. These two politicians are snakes, so nobody likes the situation.

Take this as a life lesson, there are very few traitors in history you can trust and few that are respected. Keep up the good work and don’t let this get you down.

Interesting story, Jon, but from what I hear the House Dem's fearless leader told Mr. Lee in no uncertain terms he would see no support from the caucus because of his pro-life stance. So much for a big tent and your much-flaunted "tolerance"...

The Other Shoe is not "off-base" he is a freaking idiot. The FuturePAC leadeship and staff are the best run caucus elect/reelect effort ever seen in this state. I have been intimately involved in Oregon politics for over 30 years and nothing compares to Isaacs and his staff. They are exquisitely qualified to bring victory to House Democrats. So unless you really know what you are talking about Other Shoe....put a sock in it!

Jon:

But this was not "genuine bipartisanship." Neither Starr nor Backlund would give FuturePAC the time of day had they won. They lost and they are lashing out, this was sour grapes -- pique.

I don't mind a conservative Democrat as our candidate, and I don't agree with some of the statements above. My problem is with Mr. Starr. He is one of the founders of the OCA, this very session he said some inflammatory bigoted statements on the Senate floor, and he has a terrible record in everyway. On this one individual (not all Republicans) we should reject his style, his record, his bigotry, yet you were going have a tribute for him. Are we going to have tributes for Mr. Mabon and Mr. Sizemore while we are at it?

It just smacks of the worst type of politics, using their bitterness to our advantage, while paying "tribute" to careers that we should all celebrate are over.

Jon Isaacs - thanks for the sound post above. It's great to hear about individual races here. It's how I keep track of what's going on this election cycle. Much appreciated - your work, and news about candidates.

Hey knee jerks who can barely find newberg on a map - do the math. Chuck Lee can't win without peeling off conservatives.
And Kim Thatcher is to the right of George W. Bush. This is, as best, a long shot race. What do you care if some long shot candidate in a right wing Republican district has this event? Don't you have enough to be morally indignant about? Hasn't someone criticized Erik Sten somewhere this week for you to go reactionary on? There are some places where your dream liberal will never, EVER, be competitive. It's a long shot seat where you'll never live that probably won't be in play. But if it somehow gets in play, this sort of oddball effort probably helps - it can't hurt. Not every race is a test of liberal purity - and btw I am pulling for Ned Lamont. The next time most of you extreme liberals are smart enough to pick a battle will be the first. When was the last time the D's controlled the house? Thanks to folks like those who blog here, probably will be a lot longer.

Wow Tuck...you took that a little personal. This discussion is about the motivation of Backlund and Starr (go back and read the original post). Sour grapes.

But is the way to get our people elected is to embrace a founder of the Oregon Citizen's Alliance? Win at all cost, praise bigots and give tributes for homophobes?

If you were in the South would you justify a tribute for David Duke (you could sure pull a bunch of R voters with that move), How far will you go to win?

This discussion was pretty civilized, and then you come over the top and attack all liberals, could you be a relative of Backlund or Starr? Do you want good Democrat money to be spent in a 14% R seat where even the Democrats are righties just so you can make a point? You are seeking revenge for a loss, but we have to weigh if it is worth spending our resources on a lost cause. And celebrating bigots is nothing I would be proud of.

Tuck:

This is one of the most Repbulican seats in the state. There is only one way to win this seat, run as a Republican. So when you say: "The next time most of you extreme liberals are smart enough to pick a battle will be the first." I must say that you picking Newberg, St. Paul, and Keizer (wow found it on a map) doesn't help your argument. These are the most Repbulican and the most conservative Republican towns in all of Oregon.

I think it is great to help a candidate to help draw the money from the Repbulicans to defend Thatcher, that is ok. But to hold tributes to these two specific politicians only hurts our cause statewide.

Partisan cross-pollination is nothing new in Oregon. Remember when most the unions and Democratic officeholders abandoned Demo nominee Harry Lonsdale to support Mark Hatfield for US Senate. Lonsdale is now referred to by labor mouthpiece Our Oregon as "one part-time Oregon/California donor."

I have been accused numerous times on these pages of supporting unions reflexively and unconditionally. It may be worth something, then, when notice that Our Oregon and AFL-CIO head Tom Chamberlain are misleading Oregonians about Lonsdale personally and the two campaign finance reform initiatives that have recently qualified for the ballot. Labor often complains of being disrespected by Democrats. It seems labor is quite capable of treating Democrats with equal disrespect.

Thanks, Tom

In 1991, I was at a Dem. State Central Comm. meeting and happened to sit in the same row as Harry Lonsdale. One of the leading members of the body sat in the same row. When he gave his speech, he said something like "I have always supported unions, but unions should support Democrats". When he sat down, the man who had just given the speech said "that line was for you, Harry".

I was very proud to be an active Lonsdale supporter in 1992 and 1996 (voted for him in 1990 on the basis of one excellent speech and one excellent ad) and recall the "Democrats for Hatfield" mailer being passed around. It had been mailed to a Democrat actually supporting Lonsdale (who earned the same vote % in 1990 as Wayne Morse did the year he ran against Hatfield, as I recall). Iknow what Tom says is accurate.

It is possible to question whether the limits are too low on the campaign finance reform measure (in a geographically large district, how much time which could be spent talking to voters might have to be spent dialing for dollars just to get the gas money [esp. if gas is around $3 a gallon] in order to travel the district?) and still believe in the concept of campaign finance reform.

[Off-topic comment deleted. -editor.]

Kari:

Fun to read, guys. Charles Lee visited my National Night Out party in Keizer last night. He will make this race interesting.

Didn't the Democrat National Committee refuse to let Gov. Casey speak at a National Convention because he was pro-life? Might be an even better comparison than you thought.

"This is one of the most Republican seats in the state. There is only one way to win this seat, run as a Republican."

Remember Harry Truman's maxim that when voters have a choice between a real Republican or a Democrat posing as a Republican, they will choose a real Republican every time.

Another good maxim to remember in this case is when you lie with dogs, you get up with fleas.

I wouldn't be counting too heavily on Mr. Lee helping us gain control of the OR House.

Proud Liberal, one of 2 things is true: a) you tried unsuccessfully to recruit someone else to run in Dist. 25 b) it is OK with you if Kim Thatcher is re-elected.

Which one is it? Or are you just one of those ideologically pure Democrats who live in a county where there are lots of other Democrats so you needn't speak to anyone who isn't of your party?

Democrats will take control of the House when they win elections in counties where there are lots of Republicans.

It is disappointing to see comments questioning the motivation for Charles Starr and Vic Backlund not supporting the GOP nominee.

Although I have not supported the campaigns of these two men, I do know that they are honorable people who have been caught in the web of the modern Republican party to turn on office holders who are not in lockstep with the party 100% of the time.

Dennis -- I mean Mr. Backlund,

If you had not been beaten like an ugly school child by your own party, both you and Mr. Starr would be loyal Republicans today. You wouldn't be helping us, that is for sure. Instead, you have changed your entire political perspectives because of your losses, because it hurt your egos. Everyone can see it.

Thanks for the helping our candidate, but don't expect loyalty from us. Describing yourself as honorable is a joke. We didn't like how you voted in Salem, and we don't trust you either.