Bombing by pro-Americans = a patriotic statement Bombing by anyone else = terrorism.

What a thoughtless thing to say with two dead police officers, their suffering families and an ongoing criminal investigation.

Was Tim McVeigh pro American? That was a major right wing terrorist attack if I'm not mistaken.

If Turnidge is a guilty party in this crime, I hope he is punished to the fullest extent of the law.

I agree that the man who runs the Republican Party in Oregon should apologize... for his despicable comments... praising the patriotism of the two scumbag terrorists.

Vance Day should be ashamed of himself!

Oh, he's a Republican. They ran outta shame right after invading Iraq illegally.

And throwing Mayfield in the dungeon.

If they'd bombed a women's clinic, Vance Day would probably nominate them for the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Kari,

I think you've completely exaggerated the quote. You're the one who implied that Democrats are bombers or terrorists, not Vance.

I agree, the "pro-American" comment seems out of place, and it probably is politically motivated to a point. But I don't think you need to go that far out on the limb and suggest that Vance is calling liberals terrorists.

Now it seems like you're just fishing for anything to ridicule Republicans.

If they are found guilty, does that mean that Vance Day "pals around with terrorists?"

You know they've lost it when they start aping the negative parts of their own rhetoric. Don't they love to say that we "need to get over that 1960s mentality"? What data would you have to be looking at to think the left is more likely to use violence? Nothing since 1975, that's for sure.

Vince, get over your 60s mentality. Bombers today are much more likely to be conservative. And at the height of the left's violence, I don't remember non-violent and faith based groups soliciting for funds to help the perpetrators. I was chatting with an Arkie just Sunday whose pastor has a collection on the semi-sly for Rudolph.

Vance Day---pallin' around with terrorists! What would Sarah say?

Classic CIA black op. Needed funds to pay the stooge that will conduct the nuclear false flag attack against Little Beirut on January 15.

That's how we did it in '63, only we used an S&L, which you bailed out!

This would have been an excellent opportunity for Day to keep his trap shut. Once you put yourself into the position of wearing a mantle like "Chair" some of your options decrease. The "pro-American" is one of the traps of buying into rhetoric completely, it becomes lazy speech. That in itself may say something about the (R) apparatus.

I'm with Chuck; I'm rather surprised that Day said anything at all. This sounds like it was a response to a question from a reporter (who did enough homework to see a connection between Day and the Turnidges).

I'm betting that Day is regretting his turn of phrases now, and thinking, "Wow, I just should have said that I was horrified by the bombing." That Day expresses doubt that Turnidge is involved actually locks Day into a position of quasi personal support for Turnidge. What will Day then say if Turnidge confesses or is found guilty?

What is most troubling is neither the awkward statement nor the comparisons that may be drawn between it and Republican rhetoric. What bothers most is that Day's focus was immediately on the the individual and not on the horrendous impact this act had on the victims, their families and the community at large.

Day seems more impacted by the apparent incongruity between the man he thought he knew and the alleged suspect in the bombing.

While I admit that I am unfamiliar with the context of the quote, this is a telling reminder of why many on the right still insist that Bush and those of his ilk are great men. They simply cannot reconcile their star-studded, flag draped images with reality, and live in a shroud of denial.

In his comments, Day was perhaps a bit too candid. Sounds like he may not know his friend as well as he thought he did. So much of campaign rhetoric is just fabricated BS designed to derail the opponents public support, but this statement from Day doesn't seem to be that kind of deviousness. He just sounds to be a little too naive for the position he holds.

This was a tragic occurrence, but read the O article; experts seem to think the officers that chose to handle the packages/bombs, didn't use appropriate procedure in disposing of the bombs. Too bad for whoever is proven to be responsible for the bombs. The charge could have been something less than murder if proper procedure had been used. I wonder if the bombers factored this into their plans.

After all the hue and cry about how rotten it was to even mention Bill Ayers, I'm rather shocked to see this post go up. Far be it from me to mention the reek of hypocrisy, but...

Jack,

I would have no problem with "My friends couldn't possibly have done that. Period."

My problem is that an officer of the "Obama is palling around with terrorists" party would say this guy was "very pro-American".

Esp. since he seems to think that the Oregonians who voted Obama/Merkley aren't good people and are not in touch with "hard working Oregonians".

Language matters, Jack, and I suspect I've done more "hard work" (standing on a sales floor all day, for instance)than Vance Day unless you can tell me he doesn't sit in an office to earn a living.

It sounds like he he believes that he alone decides who is a "person with values"---if the general public had that attitude, the GOP would have done better in the last election.

If you know Vance Day, you might want to have a private conversation with him. For all the popularity of Reagan, there are still Californians who tell stories about the smart remark Reagan made which they found insulting.

The name of a former Marion County Democratic chair became an adjective used to describe arrogant, bullying, obnoxious behavior--and he only served one term as chair.

Any public figure (incl. a party chair) needs to choose words carefully lest the rhetoric reflect on the whole party.

My problem is that an officer of the "Obama is palling around with terrorists" party would say this guy was "very pro-American".

Is there any evidence that this Vance fellow ever engaged in that sort of rhetoric? If not, I'd be wary of falling into the very same "guilt by association" trap that you're lambasting Republicans for.

To clarify, I mean "palling around with terrorists" rhetoric.

Either Vance Day is confused, or the bank bombers took a wrong turn. Pro-American bombs are only supposed to be dropped on wedding parties in Afghanistan.

How insightful.

Sargent...I'm not attempting to in any way excuse what the bomber did...more so, in a grimly facetious way, I was attempting to speculate what the thinking of the bombers might be.

'Oh, we'll just tuck the bombs behind the bush and call 'em right up to tell them it's there. In no time at all, the professional bomb disposal team will be there and safely disarm the bomb. When they do, it'll make a huge explosion and people will be very impressed'.

They might have thought they could pull this stunt and either somehow avoid arrest or get off with a fairly light charge. Generally, I'd imagine that people wanting to scare people but not actually wanting to harm someone, wouldn't actually arm the bomb. We'll have to stay tuned to find out what these nut-cases were up to.

When I first heard about this, my first thought was some far “righty” with maybe a beef against the bank for doing business w/supposedly illegally immigrants. I really think the rhetoric from the right is being ratcheted to the level of this type of action. If this plays out like I think it may, it will be no different then that guy who walked into that UU church in Kentucky and shot up some liberals. Or Tim M. and his Ryder truck full of fertilizer.

Or you could just admit that you honestly have no idea why these guys did this and that you're basically filling in the blanks with your own prejudices and stereotypes.

Just sayin', like.

ssssstttttrrrrrreeeeettttttcccccchhhhhh

In that story Carla linked to her other Vance Day post, he is quoted this way:

"Vance Day: “Every single time the Democrats have had control of both houses and the Governorship, they run the ship of state off the cliff when it comes to taxes and spending. If Oregonians really want change, I think that the Democrats are going to give them a good reason to do that in this election cycle.”

No, Vance Day is not Sarah Palin.

But given the attitude of some Republicans in recent years that every Democrat was individually and collectively liable for the words of anyone connected to the Democratic Party, I'm only saying that either party officials only speaks for themselves--not the entire party membership, or else party officials should be careful of their rhetoric.

As I said above, had Day said "I can't believe my friend did this" and gone no further, I would have no problem with his statement.

I agree with LT. As chair of the Republican Party, everything Vance Day says to a reporter will be perceived as being on behalf of the party. He should have been more careful with his words. But he hasn't been a very good chair in most respects. This is certainly not the worst thing he's done.

Two words: William Ayers.

You gotta be shitting me that you would actually post this kind of crap. It really marginalizes BO and shows that without a post every 15 minutes you dig up crap and take things so far out of context.

As far as the comparison to Bill Ayers, he was a convicted piece of crap and BHO knew full well while hanging out with him. Day was a family friend prior to the unfortunate incident last week and from the group that constantly downplays crime you folk s are awfully quick to accuse, and convict in your own minds, someone who has not even stood trial. Nothing about this incident is good and the convicted needs to be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

Blue Oregon: Once again making stretching crap up to allow progressives to feel good about themselves

Short memories, people. Are you forgetting the Republican support for the Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidian extremists?

Memo to "progressive?": Last week's "unfortunate incident" was a well-thought out act of multiple murder... a vicious attack... of domestic white power, Christian conservative terrorism... here in sleepy ol' Portland.

It's McVeigh and the Nichols Brothers, Part Two.

How is Little Timmy these days, anyway?

Oh yes, President Clinton pulled the switch on the dude.

Sid Leader,

So, if we work within Kari's guidelines of linking things on an un-defendable scale, how can YOU condone what Ayers did?

So he didn’t get convicted so it must be OK as long as you have a good political reason? Had it been a (insert ethnic minority here) who did it, would you be defending the perpetrator as someone just trying to make a statement? To throw in the it was white power means that you have already made up your mind that they did it to hurt a minority while all you “progressives” would defend to the death someone who did it to get back at the white man.

This asinine level of thinking would be expected from anyone who actually believes in the crap you link yourself to at move-on

Progressive?

OK, political violence is always wrong. No anti-war protester should have had anything to do with violence. Shelly Shannon and the others guilty of abortion clinic violence are in the same category (although a Republican legislator once defended Shannon publicly, and John McCain once appeared at an event with that legislator).

But the question remains-should someone who was in elementary school when violence happened refuse to serve on a board funded by Republicans as an adult because of the cloudy past of one of the members? Should that person be shunned forever? The guilt-by-association nonsense didn't help Republicans in November, did it?

There was nothing "very pro-American" about the violent anti-war demonstrators, or the abortion clinic bombers and shooters, or anyone else using violence. Whoever set the bombs in Woodburn (call the the X bombers if you wish) are not pro-American, they are bank bombers.

It was that phrase "pro-American" that got Vance Day in trouble, and saying that no one in Chicago should ever have associated with Ayers because of what he did years ago but was never convicted of by a court does not change the fact that a party chair must be careful of rhetoric.

I knew a Democratic county party chair once who made insulting remarks to the supporters of a certain presidential candidate, and only served one term as chair. That was long before anyone had heard of Wm. Ayers. I think the same standard applies to Vance Day. If his friend is found innoncent, that is one thing. But what if his friend is indicted? Or don't you think a grand jury looks at evidence if a locally famous citizen says that the accused is "pro-American?

Quit trying to bring a Chicago figure into a Marion County situation.

The long-time friends of the fat, dumb, ugly Father-Son NAZI bombers in Woodburn say the son is..."not very bright... a dumb man."

But that Nazi Iron Cross tattoo on his tanned right bicep is so cute!

The brothers down in the jail are gonna love that one, Josh, baby.

Ow!

Meanwhile Chris Vance, a former GOP chair in Washington state, has presented a thoughtful case on Crosscut for reviving the Republican Party in the Northwest by recapturing educated, suburban voters.

He points out that gov candidate Dino Rossi was unable to shake the GOP's image as incompetent ala Bush/Palin -- and Vance Day.

Re: "...political violence is always wrong"

So the American Revolutionary War was wrong? The Warsaw revolt? The wars of the indigenous peoples against the invaders of their country? The French underground? The insurgencies of the Vietnamese people against the invaders from France and the US?

The fact is that we slaughtered millions in Indochina and Bill Ayers killed NO ONE, yet the DP and RP elites want to continue to attack Ayers and anyone else of the time who attacked buildings.

You are hypocrites. You are complicit in the murder of millions in Iraq, you have done nothing except support candidates who promise more of the same, and you still dare to place yourselves morally above those who would choose tactics different from yours.

Ward Churchill (Pacifism as Pathology) is not the only one who believes that your attitude is pathological. Future generations will marvel at the ideological discipline demonstrated by Democrats, who have consistently favored INCREASING militarism and military spending, even at a time when our economy and our ecology are collapsing, and then have criticized others for their non-pacifistic tendencies.

Nice job, Harry, take one line from one person posting here (LT) and turn it into yet another opportunity to pat yourself on the back and denounce everyone else. LT's explicit examples had to do only with domestic political violence, but you managed to turn this into a tirade about wars of conquest.

For purposes of clarification, I doubt you will find many authentic pacifists among people posting here. Tell me if you find anyone on Blue Oregon who would disagree with your example of the Warsaw Uprising as a legitimate use of force. I'm not holding my breath.

As for Ward Churchill, I could care less what he may have said about the 9/11 attacks and chickens coming home to roost. Just looking at the cover of his book, with Churchill swaggering around with a gun slung over his shoulder, says it all: he's the mouthpiece of all those guys who were born too late to go build Communism in post-revolutionary Russia, too late to fight Fascism in Spain, and who now get their vicarious thrills watching "anarchist" punks dressed in black and smashing windows.

...your example of the Warsaw Uprising as a legitimate use of force...I doubt you will find many authentic pacifists among people posting here

Maybe I don't get "authentic pacifism", but the moral imperatives of pacifism are about one's own behavior and the character of the movement, no? Even when Ghandi was aghast over his followers using violence, it was because it was done in the name of the Congress party, not that it wasn't legitimate. With the exception of some 60s radicals telling ghetto residents how lucky they were for their poverty (which was an abomination!), I think it's pretty rare to see an ascetic point of view put across as a moral imperative for the masses.

Besides, how can you say "you have to be a pacifist"? What's the threat? The part about "pathology" is over the top though. Part of the trend that says that everything you think is an issue for society and you'd better be doing something you think everyone else should. One's own ascetic discipline is not relevant to society unless it negatively influences your interpersonal relationships. And just why would anarchist punks like that care? So what if I might let them waste me. Are they bored? Seems they would want to be rid of the pathology.

I should leave this. I've never been able to make heads or tails of arguments about what everyone should do when the proponents don't have their own house in order.

<h2>It concerns me that Vance Day stated that he knew Bruce Turnidge for several years, long enough to state he knew him to be strong, pro-American, and against violence of any kind. A rancher/private property rights attorney, who had known him from 1999 to 2006, when he was in Nevada, described him as being a little bit on the radical side, anti-government, anti-establishment and resenting authority. I realize it may have been a political statement of the worst kind, but I'm wondering how close the Turnidge brothers were to the Republican party. Where does Pat Turnidge fit in there and was he hooked up with Mannix?</h2>