Oregonian article on the incoming Democratic state legislature

[0rganism]

Legislative Democrats not exactly team unity
Salem reality - New members come from across the state and hold views across the spectrum
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
MICHELLE COLE

It's been 16 years since Democrats simultaneously controlled the Oregon House, Senate and governor's office. But for those who think Portland liberals will rule the day, here's a reality check: Oregon Democrats don't all think -- or vote -- alike.

That means there will be plenty of debate when the 2007 Legislature begins Monday about civil unions for gays and lesbians, tax and spending proposals, environmental protections and other issues. Ranging in age from 30 to 76, Democratic legislators represent both urban centers and small coastal towns. Some are Oregon natives, others East Coast transplants. Many were raised in Republican families, and a few were even once Republicans themselves. They represent a variety of faiths and life experiences -- from the high-tech entrepreneur to the single mother who worked her way through graduate school.

Sure, there's Rep. Jackie Dingfelder, a Democrat from Northeast Portland, who bleeds green for the environment. She has a 100 percent positive rating from the Oregon League of Conservation Voters and, next session, a key chairmanship of the House Energy and Environment Committee. Dingfelder wants Oregon to lead on renewable energy standards and biofuels production, and she wants to make sure the Department of Environmental Quality has enough money to regulate air and water pollution. With Democrats in charge, Dingfelder now has the power to help make that happen.

But there's also Sen. Betsy Johnson, a Democrat from Scappoose who says she often finds herself on the other side of her Democratic colleagues on environmental issues...

more: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1167706534109670.xml&coll=7&thispage=1

-----

My take: mixed bag, not quite a hit-job, although I had the sense that someone in the editorial board was trying to spin in that direction. The good news is threefold: (1) it's coverage, and Dems do need coverage at every level; (2) it paints the Democrats as "diverse" and capable of representing a wide spectrum of viewpoints, not monolithic tax&spenders or fanatical regulators; (3) the issues where Dems are suggested to be likely to unify (improved schools & broader health care access) are solid winners. Bad news: "Portland liberals" are still treated as radioactive by the corporate media, and Democrats generally come off as disorganized rabble (which could play to our advantage, in some cases).

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. why do they always equate 'fiscal conservative' with tax cuts??!

"Edwards counts himself among the "fiscal conservatives" in the Democratic caucus -- a critical swing group that could team with Republicans to block tax increases or pass tax cuts."

[0rganism]

2. Unfortunately, it's a common misconception

I think it stems from the Reagan administration's myopic (ab)use of the "supply-side economics" trilogy proposed by Stockman. Of the three central tenets (lowered tax rates, limited government spending, tighter indexing of fiat currency to gold) only a lower top marginal tax rate was actually implemented. Lip service was paid to the idea of decreased spending, and we know how that turned out. Renewed adherence to a gold standard wasn't even on the table, AFAIK; by the '80s we'd already gone too far down the path of monetarism for a rigid quantitative link between metals and currency to be a matter for practical policymaking.

So, we ended up with a new notion of fiscal conservativism derived from Reaganomics and measured by two things: support for lowering taxes and public decrying of "wasteful" (insert other adjectives as desired) government spending, where only the first has any bearing on actual policy.

As such, this new concept of "fiscal conservativism" does not describe a coherent economic platform, even in theory, and you will never see any of the corporate media truffles point this out. The media profit cart is nearly completely hitched to the owners' "lower taxes" horse, never mind that the "decreased spending" horse is running wild and the "gold standard" horse died back in the '30s.

[Greyhound]

3. Yep, and I also cannot think of one really terrible idea that this country

has adopted, or had imposed on it, that didn't come from the republicans.

[0rganism]

4. I don't think you can fairly blame Republicans for slavery...

or Jim Crow laws, or the Volstead act/18th amendment. They're also in the clear for anything prior to 1854.

[Greyhound]

5. Not as a party per se, but it is always the people that are, today, republics

that are behind the evil. They used to be Democrats, Whigs before that, and loyalists before that. The name and affiliation changes, but the ideas remain, that being that the system exists to be manipulated by them, for their benefit, to the exclusion and detriment of the majority.