Hoping there are no more this year, and inspired by a state-by-state memorial layout in People magazine (shhhh), recognition for the soldiers with Oregon ties who gave their lives in service to country during 2009:
Robert Johnson, technically died Dec 20 2008, but included in the People spread. Died non-hostile, Anbar Province Iraq, from Central Point
Joshua Tillery, Beaverton, died January 26 2009, KIA Kirkuk Iraq
Matthew Lembke, Tualatin, died July 10 2009, KIA Helmland Province Afghanistan
Taylor Marks, Monmouth, died August 28 2009 KIA Rashid Iraq
David Mudge, Sutherlin, died November 28th non-hostile, United Arab Emirates
Elijah Rao, Lake Oswego, died December 5 2009, KIA Nuristan Afghanistan
Thank you. You were part of what makes Oregon great, and we will miss you.
I've not been shy around the net lately, pointing out what I think is whiny and time-wasting reaction to Gordon Smith's misleading ad on punishment for sexual offenders. The ad is technically true; Merkley did vote against the bill Smith claims he did, and the bill would have done what Smith says it would have done. The issue for Merkley is what Smith did with that information, using an emotional shortcut to sub for the facts, with the implication that Merkley doesn't care enough about rape victims.
But there are two realities here, the first being that Merkley's no stranger to attack ads that skirt the issues, stay technically true but attempt to smear his opponent by leaving out a lot of context. So for me, the sense of outrage is a little faux, considering he doesn't have qualms about doing it in a primary, much less a general election.
The second reality is that calling "low blow" makes you look defensive and weak, and allows your opponent to set the frame. If the Merkley campaign had opted to respond instead with a pivot showing just how weak Smith is when it comes to protecting women and kids, that might have been more effective.
In any case, as it has on numerous occasions so far, the DSCC is riding to the rescue with an attack ad on Smith that hits him where he's vulnerable, and on a topic getting far too little attention this election season: Iraq. Check it:
It's clear that Oregon's Democrats are getting pretty pissed at Gordon Smith's rather blatant attempts to vault over mere "moderate Republicanism" and transmit an image of something approaching a Blue Dog Democrat. His "Retired and Recalcitrant Dems for Gordon" ad not only employed the fairly misleading attempt to make Elizabeth Furse and Avel Gordly stand in for active, loyal members of the DPO, but also attempted to assert that Smith was an early leader against the war. Of course that's total and utter bullshit, and Furse was forced to retract that statement from the ad:
Furse said she was wrong when she claimed in the commercial that Smith was "one of the first to stand up to George Bush and other Republicans to end this war" in Iraq. She said she should have stated that Smith -- who supported the war for its first 31/2 years -- was one of the first Republicans to speak out against it.
"I know that he wasn't the first to oppose the war," said Furse. "He was one of the first of his party to oppose the war . . . That is what I meant."
Better, but it's still really a pantload, because while it's plausibly true to say that Smith is one of the first dozen or so Republicans to turn on the war (even as weakly as Smith does when it comes to actual votes that might end it), the gap between the ACTUAL first Republicans and Smith's conversion spans about four years.
Earl Blumenauer's had enough, and he recorded this brief video to call BS on Gordon, and set the record straight. (In the process he gives a nice shoutout to RI's Lincoln Chaffee, who really was one of the very first in his party to denounce the war, right from the beginning.)
So there's the Senate race here in Oregon, and the 5th District tussle that Democrats are nonetheless in good position to win...and that's it for major elections this year. The next big office up for grabs is Goobernor in 2010, and names bubble up on both sides--Steve Novick, for instance, on the Democratic team. I don't think the Executive is the best use of his prodiguous talents, and it's another tough office to jumpstart into, but he's built some very positive credits within the party and would draw some support in a relative vacuum of other dominant prospects (Kate Brown just a year or so into an SoS gig? Ben Westlund, ditto Treasurer? A theoretically defeated Jeff Merkley? Susan Castillo? Vicki Walker?)
On the Republican side, from an outsider's view the favored son of the GOP grassroots (such as it is) is state Senator Jason Atkinson, perhaps most notably a sartorial example under the dome, but also one with a fair bit of foreign policy/trade experience--rare for someone in the state Legislature. If you're a fan of his relatively orthodox conservtive "New Republican*" policy stances, combined with that diplomatic experience and positions of authority/dues paying in the Leg at a relatively young age, and you can imagine why state Republicans--seeking a standardbearer to steer them past the political graves of Wayne Scott, Karen Minnis, Ron Saxton and Kevin Mannix--are eager to see what kind of statewide appeal Atkinson might have.
{where that hope dives off the rails for many of us, below}
*New Republican is to Republicanism as New Country is to Country Music. Think Hatfield and Johnny Cash vs George Bush and Shania Twain.
It's another depressing week for progressives who keep hoping that the new boss will bring us substantially better than the old boss, at least Congressionally speaking. The House has made its way to summer recess by cleaning up bills that apparently just HAD to get done, lest we die in a terrorist attack by holding telecom companies and the Bush administration to account, or suffer the fate of withdrawing troops from Iraq without a crushing victory won.
The upshot is that you and I have less privacy, the Bush administration and phone companies will get more in order to cover their wrongdoing (and also top Democrats, if merely in their longtime knowledge and thus complicity in the scheme). and another blank check of your grandkids' money will be cut for the war, no strings attached.
It makes me wanna puke, the paucity of leadership we're seeing in Congress. Nancy Pelosi let FISA hit the floor and go forward. Steny Hoyer compromised with himself and presented it to the White House, secretly. And was there even a peep about quietly floating another bigtime chunk of credit for this hopeless, destructive, counterproductive war? No.
There are pockets of sanity, surely. A majority voted against the FISA compromise, but many inexplicablhy voted for it--enough to carry the bill with almost every Republican. A more solid majority voted againt the war bill, nine more than last time if I heard correctly--as if that's some kind of grand consolation. But still 80 Democrats evaluated this unpopular, disaster of a war effort and said, "Yeah, sign me up for another 165B, baby!"
This is a shame we all bear as Americans, but as Oregonians we have to feel pretty lucky, and proud. On both bills, all four Democratic Representatives voted No. Earl Blumenauer, Darlene Hooley, Peter DeFazio and (even, some might say) David Wu formed a solid coalition of Oregonians FOR privacy and accountablity, and AGAINST warrantless spying on citizens and wasteful warmongering. Forget Walden; for many states there are Democrats voting for this garbage, shadowboxing imaginary pitfalls for their re-election.
Staff for both Earl and David were kind enough to send me the Congressmen's statements on FISA, which I'm happy to relate to you here. Read their words carefully, because I think it won't be too long before history realizes how sad and pathetic these times were for justice and the Constitution, and takes note of those who stood against it, doing the duty they had sworn an oath to uphold. When "history takes note," to anthropomorphize, it will recognize our Democratic delegation on these issues, and recognize them favorably.
So. Wu first, on FISA:
This so-called ‘compromise’ legislation does not strike a middle ground. We leave the door open for the attorney general and the director of national intelligence to abuse their authority and snoop on any American anytime anywhere, under the guise of ‘incidentally’ collected information. This is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
It is the legitimate role of government to protect Americans from both foreign aggression and the domestic abuse of authority. In compromising with Republicans, we have compromised the privacy of every American.
And the always-eloquent Blumenauer, first on FISA and then the war supplemental:
I have heard some say that the enemies of America take on many forms. To them I say: let us be sure one of those forms is not our own government. I cannot vote for a bill that expands the government’s spying power. Nor can I vote to give backdoor immunity to telecommunications firms. These firms directly assisted the Bush administration in warrantless spying tactics. I am dismayed that we could not pass legislation that does more to protect the rights of American citizens. I continue to believe that the intelligence community does not need to violate the rights of Americans in order to protect them. I demand, and Americans deserve, protection of their basic civil rights.
and the war, keeping a promise not to fund without timelines for withdrawal:
Thankfully, this is the last supplemental funding bill that will be considered under the Bush administration. I have opposed the Iraq war from the start and remain committed to opposing all legislation that does not set a firm deadline for bringing our troops home. I continue to believe that the best way to honor those whose lives have been lost in this tragic war is to end it as quickly and responsibly.
Without hesitation, I voted to fund vital domestic items. These include an expansion of ‘GI Bill’ education benefits, an extension of unemployment benefits, and the protection of Medicaid from harmful cuts. The bill we passed will also helps Iraqi refugees, four million of whom have been displaced by this tragic war.
I hold our Reps to a high standard. I fault Blumenauer for being too easy on trade, and for disclaiming the need for impeachment. Those aren't minor flaws IMO, either. But I don't think there's mendacity or something crooked afoot, so I accept the difference and maintain a high opinion of him overall. Wu I'm even less psyched about at times, but he too has been reliable on some of the most important issues of our time when others have not, and he is in a much purpler district than Earl for sure. And the more Darlene Hooley stays around, the more I'll miss her now that she's become so damned progressive! It seems like about a year or two ago, she snapped out of a go-along kind of mentality and made her break with the charade. She's been a rock for the progressive caucus ever since.
So yes, I'm hard on them. But I never lose sight of the fact that for their suggested faults, as a state delegation they are nearly unmatched for the way they have firmly aligned Oregon against the madness of the last eight years. That's a lot to be proud of. The people WE sent to represent US, did not get the wool pulled over their eyes--or if they did they pulled it right back up pretty quickly, cursing their good faith in those who should have earned their skepticism. If you've voted for them in the past, give yourself a pat on the back--good choice.
You know, the primary is sort of an inconveniently supreme event right now, which pushes a lot of important information to the back burner. But as someone who admittedly rides his Congressional delegation hard on the war (rhetorically anyway), the four Democratic House members from Oregon once again established themselves as a reliably united bloc for some of the most progressive stances in the body.
There are many more Democrats in a lot of states, but the men and woman from the four D districts of Oregon have walked the walk the last year or two when it comes to Iraq. The capitualtion bills on continuting funding with flimsy deadlines for withdrawal were not done with Oregon votes, almost across the board.
Congressman Blumenauer earns a 100% score from me on the war, and so his press releases always seem to be written like majority opinions in a court case, speaking for all four:
“I have opposed this war from the beginning and have held firm to my pledge not to fund the war, unless for withdrawal,” said Congressman Blumenauer. “Today’s vote set hard deadlines for starting the withdrawal. It also provides veterans with education benefits that they’ve more than earned for their sacrifices to our nation. Oregon’s 41st Combat Brigade Team has served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan since September 11, and is scheduled to deploy again next year. The least the federal government can do is provide them with access to a good education. Though this bill faces a veto from the president, it sends a clear message that this new Congress will not write blank checks to fund the president’s mismanaged war.”
Congressman Blumenauer has opposed the Iraq war from the start. In January, 2007 he introduced his own legislation, “The New Direction for Iraq Act of 2007,” which would require the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, initiate a new diplomatic offensive to stabilize Iraq and increase aggressive efforts at oversight and accountability. In September of 2007, he pledged to vote “No” on any more requests for funding for Iraq, except that which is necessary to withdraw U.S. troops. Congressman Blumenauer has also signed the Oregon Declaration of Peace, affirming his long-standing commitment to ending the war.
Sometimes we forget how good we really have it. Most of the people who represent us spoke loudest against it when so few did, continued to speak as the mission wasn't accomplished, and became a core bloc of a more aggressive anti-war coalition. Wayne Morse is remembered for Tonkin Gulf, and it will be remembered who said No to the second Iraq War. They'll look mighty smart to historians, won't they? Oregon was one of the first states to be on that weasel bastard from the start, the record will show.
With all their committment and follow through however, we're still in the war. I know many folks have legitimate and serious beefs with each of the House members, and just having been a member of that body that sent our best to war is to require responsibility and accountability. So this is not Let Oregon Lawmakers Off the Hook Day, but credit where it's due. It looked for a time that this might sneak through and we'd be stuck paying Bush's bills into Obama's term, which is BS for BO. But apparently it didn't pass, and that only moves the debate to the left a little more.
Bless especially the who-cares-I'm-retiring Hooley who has nonetheless stayed true to the opposition path, and we'll get that withdrawal going right quick in January. So don't forget to thank your Congressperson for standing united against money for this damn war, that isn't dedicated to us LEAVING.
Does everyone know what the Friday dump is? It started in Presidential administrations during the development of the TV age for covering politics. It was discovered that like anyone, journalists hate hanging around doing real work late on a Friday, so their most fervent hope on the White House beat is that they will "close the lid" and declare the newshole from them finished for the day. Scribes scatter, the real nefarious shit starts happening in the Oval Office, and we settle in for Bill Maher and a beer.
Taking advantage of this propensity to ignore potential news on a Friday, administrations learned to release bad news they had to put out, on Friday afternoon. It was hoped that everyone would look at the large "dump" of paper on their desks and say "nope, that's a Monday story." Monday would come and it would be time for Monday's news, not Friday's. So whatever was in that dump, gets passed over or given the short shrift in the news cycle. Bad news goes out, and dies there.
Needless to say, this technique has filtered down, and perhaps always existed informally anyway. But you rarely see candidates rather than incumbents do it. Maybe because Merkley has electoral experience, he knows the rules of the game already and is keen to play it. But last weekend Merkley clearly tried a Friday dump--but he also mixed in a diversionary attack on Steve Novick, as insurance to drive the cycle even farther away from his own release.
On this day in 1967, I was preparing to take the written and road tests for my first driver’s license. Several members of the Senior Class at The Dalles High School, including a few of my friends, were enlisting for military service in hopes of finding a better assignment than they would as draftees as the war in Vietnam raged.
There had been a demonstration that year in my school, which included a student walk out and sit in, but it wasn’t about issues of war and peace. A student publication had been banned from campus, and its editors suspended from school, for including articles critical of the Principal and school board policies.
That incident served to radicalize a few of us, but most of us remained more concerned about the upcoming Junior-Senior prom than napalm being dropped on innocent villagers in a little country in southeast asia.
But, also on that day, on the other side of the country, Martin Luther King climbed into the pulpit of Riverside Church in New York City and addressed the assembled members of Clergy and Laity Concerned. To this day, I am grateful that my Sophomore English Teacher recognized the speech entitled, "Beyond Vietnam -- Breaking Silence," as one which would have lasting historical significance, and ran off copies of the New York Times transcript of it for us to study and discuss in class.
I remember being handed the white pages with purple ink, reeking of alcohol-based duplicating fluid, as the prelude to a pivotal moment in my life. King’s message enlightened and inspired me, as it did so many Americans, and evoked anger, resentment and hatred in many others, just as had so much of his life's work for peace and justice. But it was, indeed, time to break the silence... the silence within ourselves as much as the silence of our lips.
Next week, General David Petraeus will travel to Capitol Hill and make his report to Congress on the war in Iraq. If, as expected, he announces a pause in the withdrawal in troops from Iraq, our Congress must say "no" for the sake of our military and of our servicemembers.
We can not pause the withdrawal of our troops because we are seeing, everyday, the absolute devastation our wars, with frequent, long, often extended deployments, are having on our men and women in uniform.
How can we constantly churn our troops like this? How can we consciously compound the wounds of war? We are sending men and women back for fourth and fifth tours of duty when the Department of Defense, by its own estimation, says that with each additional tour, troops are 60% more likely to develop severe post-combat mental health issues.
(Happy anniversary, Jeff! - promoted by torridjoe)
(cross-posted at dailykos.com)
Part of what makes "better Democrats" actually better is that they avoid Republican traps, trickery and nonsense.
Five years ago today, March 21, 2003, Oregon US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley was faced with just such a trap as a member of the state House. On that occasion he cast a vote some might call craven, others simply stupid. Others, more charitably, might just say it was a mistake.
In any case, like Hillary Clinton, he still doesn't realize it.
Five years ago the Oregon House of Representatives passed the now-notorious HR2, setting forth the rationale for the Iraq war and then validating it. All but five Democrats in the chamber, including Jeff Merkley, voted Yes.
An analysis of the resolution, and the vote, below the jump, along with the full text of the resolution itself.
Trumpeting what Speaker Jeff Merkley apparently is calling his own "major policy rollout" on Iraq--as written by someone else and only 8 months into his campaign for Senate--Kari Chisholm yesterday noted Merkley's endorsement of a Responsible Plan for Iraq, the policy initiative spearheaded by WA House candidate Darcy Burner to just go ahead and get started on ending the war.
Despite a) Steve Novick's endorsement of the same plan having come some hours earlier and mentioned both at DailyKos and MyDD (the latter by about 10AM); b) the plan being formally released just a day before; and c) the plan largely echoing Novick's own statements on how to handle the conflict, made months --in comments to his piece Chisholm referred to Novick as a "johnny come lately" who rushed something out in order to pre-empt Merkley and steal his thunder. I know for a fact that's not true, although certainly Merkley has done plenty of it himseilf--but that doesn't ever seem to stop Kari.
It did get around some, but as somewhat of a prominent info arm for Steve's campaign, I was remiss in not putting something here at LO (although apparently this blog and you the reader don't matter to much of the Merkley crowd, so maybe Kari still would have missed it). So here's the link to Novick's endorsement, and a little of what he had to say:
“I am proud to throw my support behind this new effort to build a progressive consensus on ending the war in Iraq in a way that will help that nation rebuild, while reversing the damage the war has done here at home,” said Novick. “Many of the ideas contained in the plan are not new and, indeed, I and others have been advocating for them over the past months. But with this clear set of objectives, I believe that Darcy Burner, Major General Eaton and others are laying the foundation for a coalition that I believe can bring our troops home with honor.”
The Plan, announced yesterday, identifies two key strategic concerns raised by the conflict in Iraq – how to bring the American military engagement in Iraq to a responsible end and how to prevent a repeat of the mistakes made in the lead up to the war and its execution. In particular, the Plan emphasizes that there are no military solutions to address the underlying diplomatic, political and economic challenges faced in Iraq. Rather, the problem must be addressed through a host of non-military and diplomatic steps to engage the region in the reconstruction effort and address the ongoing humanitarian crisis taking place in Iraq and on its borders.
“All of the ideas included in this plan are eminently feasible. It is simply a matter of the political will to chart a new direction on Iraq and for this nation. I am proud to stand with these progressive candidates and leaders from across the nation to offer voters a clear choice in this election on Iraq and on the future of this country,” said Novick. “Here in Oregon, the contrast couldn’t be clearer with Gordon Smith supporting John McCain and his plan to stay in Iraq through the end of this century. Voters know that the path we are on cannot bring success and that it is time for change. This Plan will only help to underscore that contrast.”
In its recent editorial titled “Voters must remember the wars”, The Oregonian reminded its readers of the ongoing loss of life, the human suffering and the multi--trillion–dollar expense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and called for Senators McClain, Obama and Clinton to discuss Iraq at every campaign stop.
In what previous American war did the people and politicians need reminding?
In previous wars, even the noncombatants pulled at the oars, saving every reusable scrap of metal, paper, cardboard and glass for the war effort. People planted victory gardens, and they bought war bonds to help pay for the cost of the war.
At home, Americans lived behind blackout curtains and rationed fuel. They saved bits of wire and string, and volunteered their service in countless ways.
But that was a different America.
In today’s America, less than 1% of the nation carries the entire load of the war, and much of the debt will be paid by future generations. People cannot be bothered to save anything, nor to reduce their consumption of fuel, not even on Memorial Day, an opportunity to at least symbolize shared sacrifice.
In today’s America, consumerism reigns, and we call it freedom.
In Oregon, we unashamedly underfund our schools, relying on the sale of lottery tickets instead of enacting revenue reform, and we use a lottery to offer health care to the poor.
The nation is stressed over the economy and the coming recession, and yet few describe it as a war economy.
The sad fact is that the nation mostly accepts the current rate of loss in Iraq and Afghanistan, so long as it’s the same people that make the sacrifices, over and over, to the nth tour. The nation will not consider expanding the pool, even if it would lead to an end to the war.
We Oregonians are about to send another 3,200 soldiers off to the war, some to die, some to survive with ruined lives, many to suffer the manifold consequences of sacrifice, even to the mental health of their own children, and yet we need reminding that there is a war.
The Oregonian editorial does not go far enough. Every political candidate for every political office must speak to the issue of the war in Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq, and at every campaign stop.
It’s not simply the economy, stupid. It’s the war economy.
This is pretty good, and the Novick campaign lays out the whole set of relevant quotations fairly well themselves with just Novick's own statements about them--so I'm gonna reprint it verbatim. Whether you're a Friend of Jeff or a Hooker for Steve, everybody should make the point to semi-interested voters that Smith is pulling a fast one on Iraq, again (Novick's comments in bold italics):
Gordon Smith yesterday attempted to rewrite his political record in an attempt to appeal to disaffected Republicans by misrepresenting his stand on the Bush troop surge in Iraq.
Speaking at what was billed as a campaign kickoff in Seaside, Oregon, the Associated Press reports,
"Smith said the drop-off in violence after the U.S. increased its troop presence in Iraq earlier this year, a move he said he supported, had helped to smooth the waters between himself and the Republican base." [AP 3/1/08, emphasis added]
In fact, as the Associated Press reported at the time, Smith endorsed a resolution opposing Bush's proposed troop surge in 2007:
Oregon's two senators said Thursday they will support a bipartisan resolution that refutes President Bush's plan to increase U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Republican Sen. Gordon Smith and Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden said they would co-sponsor a measure advanced by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and a group of lawmakers from both parties. It says the Senate "disagrees with the 'plan' to augment our forces by 21,500," and urges the president instead to consider all options and alternatives. [AP, 2/1/07]
"It's no surprise Gordon Smith would try to fool voters by misrepresenting his position in Iraq - he's hopped around on the issue so much in the last year it is hard to keep track of his latest version of events," said Steve Novick, a Democratic candidate challenging Smith in the upcoming election.
"But at some point you have to wonder when people will stop believing anything he says. People are sick to death of being pandered to. Democrats need a candidate who can offer a strong contrast to a professional politician like Smith and has unambiguously opposed this war from the beginning."
In early February of 2007, Gordon Smith was still riding high in Oregon on the heels of his self-described "conversion" on Iraq. I won't bother rehashing the sudden appearance on the Senate floor in late 2006, in which he referred to the invasion of Iraq as "absurd, possibly criminal", or the subsequent national attention. The January SUSA poll of Smith's job approval had him at a 2-year high of 58%.
But on that same graph, the passage of February shows the bounce had well passed--perhaps with the realization that Smith had no intention of fighting with Democrats (such as they did) to bring troops home--but really just wanted to adjust his public position to better align with his Oregon constituency. Since then he has vacillated between 48% and 52%, a level generally lower than his ratings going back a bit before the 2006 elections. Hmmmm...those were some interesting elections, those 2006ers.
Somebody else who remembered that election was a Youtube uploader known only as Accountability Project, with one video and one subscriber. He or she or they released it one year ago this week, getting 2,700 views. It's a smart, engaging mashup that seeks to explain Gordon Smith's sudden change of heart. Watch it:
What happens when you deploy troops who have seen high intensity combat time and time again with inadequate dwell time between tours? You see skyrocketing mental health issues.
After months of investigative work, talking to our troops and veterans, we released a report on the situation at Fort Drum in Watertown, New York. Since 9/11, the 2nd Brigade Combat Team has been deployed for more than forty months, more than any other brigade in the Army, and we are seeing what is nothing short of a cry for help from the men and women on the base; a cry we will answer for the Guard and Reserve troops here in Oregon.
A cry for help that is also coming from the leadership on the base. In a New York Times article today about our report, Major General Michael Oates, commander of the 10th Mountain Division, says: "We recognize that there is stress on our force and their families from this conflict, but until recently, we have not fully appreciated the extent of some of the mental stresses and injuries or how to best identify them." Please read the rest of the article here.
What is happening at Fort Drum -- with Soldiers still on active duty suffering from PTSD, with Soldiers and their families in need of counseling, with Soldiers literally dying while still on duty -- is going to happen all around America unless we begin to address some of the basic issues of this war. As our report explains, DoD itself has stated that the likelihood of troops having mental health problems increases by 60% with every tour of duty. So, in short, through ourdeployment policies, we are consciously compounding the wounds of war.
This is unacceptable to us. Veterans for America's Wounded Warrior Outreach Program will continue to address these problems from the bottom up.
We are going to go to as many bases as we can afford to go to, see what is happening on those bases and see how we can help. If you can help us, we would greatly appreciate it.
We are going to continue our Wounded Warrior Registry Outreach -- if you or someone you know needs help getting help with PTSD or TBI, please click here.
And above all, we are going to continue to serve and help those that serve and have served us with the same level of dedication and courage they have shown. Click here to learn more about what we are doing.
These videos are from Thursday; today seems like a good day to celebrate mass protests of conscience, and also to spread the word that folks are ready to tell an alternate story about Gordon Smith than the one he likes to present to media and the voters. They were where he was in Medford last week, a feat in itself considering how close to his chest the daily schedule resides. They managed to make enough of a show to have two of the networks cover their acts of civil disobedience, and we embed them here in that spirit. The weight of moral conscience can be brought to bear on the forces of hatred and inequality in this society; being visible in adding to that weight is what Dr. King's peaceful protests were all about. Here's to mass effort. First, KOBI:
Our semi-official campaign headquarters will be open on Saturday, January 19 from four to six p.m. All are invited.
We are located in beautiful Parkrose neighborhood at a table in Tupelo Joe's, our premiere neighborhood barbecue house, where the music is live even when it's not.
There is no smoking, minors are welcome, the staff is friendly, the room is warm, open and accessible.
Here is the link:
"http://www.tupelojoes.com/"
My Tupelo Joe's office hours will vary from week to week, but will be posted here:
The Democrats plan to take a three-step approach to completing the deal. House leaders are considering an initial allotment of about $30 billion, ostensibly for the war in Afghanistan and some other military needs, which all sides in the deal recognize could be shifted to fund the Iraq war.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) then would allow Republicans to increase that amount to avert a filibuster of the spending bill in the Senate. The goal of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is $70 billion for the war, more than the $50 billion short-term funding that House Democrats initially proposed but far less than the $196 billion Bush has sought.
The Senate-passed bill would then go to the House for final approval.
Good GOD--are we really going to go through this again so soon? I was told by the Democrats not to expect another capitulation on the war until February! They caught me totally unprepared.
Thankfully, in a left-handed way we may yet be spared, so that we might be more properly disappointed a little further down the line. House Appropriations Chair David Obey is threatening to scrap the bill, but seemingly as much out of frustration with the White House for STILL threatening a veto as any idea that the bill, y'know, sells out our soldiers and their families on the twin altars of fear and pork.
The Tigard-based 41st Brigade Combat Team is on alert for duty in Iraq
Thursday, November 29, 2007
A 3,500-member Oregon Army National Guard unit has been put on alert that it will be sent overseas in 2009, laying the groundwork for the largest single deployment of the state's troops since World War II.
The 41st Brigade Combat Team, an Army light infantry brigade headquartered in Tigard but with units spread across the state, is in line for a likely combat tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, Brig. Gen. Mike Caldwell said.
"This will be the big one," said the Oregon Guard's second in command.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
On the Republican side, from an outsider's view the favored son of the GOP grassroots (such as it is) is state Senator Jason Atkinson, perhaps most notably a sartorial example under the dome, but also one with a fair bit of foreign policy/trade experience--rare for someone in the state Legislature. If you're a fan of his relatively orthodox conservtive "New Republican*" policy stances, combined with that diplomatic experience and positions of authority/dues paying in the Leg at a relatively young age, and you can imagine why state Republicans--seeking a standardbearer to steer them past the political graves of Wayne Scott, Karen Minnis, Ron Saxton and Kevin Mannix--are eager to see what kind of statewide appeal Atkinson might have.
On this day in 1967, I was preparing to take the written and road tests for my first driver’s license. Several members of the Senior Class at The Dalles High School, including a few of my friends, were enlisting for military service in hopes of finding a better assignment than they would as draftees as the war in Vietnam raged.