"Our Revolution" Progressives hold a forum for the seven Democratic candidates to replace Greg Walden.
The questions asked if the candidates were pure and Bernie-consistent. All the candidates were.
 |
| Photographer Allen Hallmark gets all seven candidates in one view. |
An overflow crowd packed into two meeting rooms at the Jackson County Library on Saturday. The forum lasted a full two hours. All the Democratic candidates for Congress were there.
There are a variety of left/progressive/Democratic organizations. The 200 year old Democratic party holds the ballot access status of a Major Party, and they held two forums two weeks ago. This forum was organized by "Our Revolution", an independent group of progressives that is a continuation of the Bernie Sanders campaign. The group leader referred to themselves as "Bernie-crats", not Democrats. They oppose Trump and conservative trickle down economics, but they also condemn "neoliberalism" within the Democratic Party, i.e. an accommodation between Democrats and the corporate power.
 |
| Sign at event |
There are also large, active groups that label themselves "Indivisible", which connect via Facebook and other social media to rally, march, and advocate for progressive causes and resist Donald Trump. There is a lot of overlap of politics and membership, but the groups are separate.
The format was for a moderator to ask questions and there to be two minute responses. Typically the candidates were asked to respond to a statement of Our Revolution position. Hearing it, they were then asked if they agreed. For example, we support widely expanded access to health care, do you? Empathy and understanding of people in distress is very important, so can you tell us your experience with these people and situations? We want to reduce the power of money in elections, so what would you proposed to do about the problem?
Over the next days this blog will give a more detailed report on each candidate, but here is an overview. The most interesting things were what did not happen.
1. No comparisons. No candidate attempted to describe him or her self in comparison to the other candidates. Not only was there absolutely no criticism of one another, there was no contrasts articulated, and indeed there was no comparisons described, indeed not even gentle, complimentary distinctions drawn. Every candidate has essentially the same political positions, and all of them are Bernie-compliant, and no one disagreed about anything.
 |
| Sign at event |
2. No Hillary. I never heard the word "Hillary Clinton" uttered in two hours. There were occasional references to Bernie Sanders having succeeded with vast numbers of small dollar contributions, but no candidate addressed Bernie/Hillary disagreements and the moderator's questions never required them to do so.
3. No foreign policy. There were no questions about foreign policy, and no comments by any of the candidates about it other than general brief statement that nuclear war should be avoided.
4. No immigration controversy. I have been reminded that there was in fact a question asked regarding immigration, which corrects an earlier version of this post. One candidate made a brief criticism of Chuck Schumer having sold out DACA, but there was no explanation of an alternative, nor any memorable or specific policy positions on paths to citizenship, immigration numbers, family unification, or any of the other issues that are in current controversy.
 |
| Sign at event |
5. No race, no ethnicity, no Muslim, no me-too. One candidate made a brief mention of having a mixed race child from an earlier marriage, but aside from that there were no questions that addressed issues of diversity and identity, nor of ethnic tensions, nor police shootings, nor the revelations and response to sexual harassment.
6. No "prosecution" of Greg Walden. There was very little direct criticism of Greg Walden, the incumbent the candidates hope to replace. All the candidates oppose the repeal and replacement of the ACA and all the candidates criticized the tax bill as unjustly favoring the rich, but no one pointed a prosecutorial finger at Greg Walden and contrasted himself with Walden directly.
No one said the equivalent of: "Greg Walden was wrong to support repealing the ACA, which would throw tens of thousands of our neighbors off of a lifeline of access to healthcare. Elect me and I will do the opposite, and try to expand health care. Greg Walden is dead wrong to support tax cuts for the wealthiest. Elect me and I will do the opposite, and support tax cuts for the struggling working and middle income people."
Greg Walden was there, as a silent watermark, but always in the background, but no one stood as a direct accuser of Walden.
7. No justification for voters to re-think Walden. No one offered an explanation for why people who had been voting for Greg Walden should change their minds about their votes. There is an implied insult to people if a Democrat says that Greg Walden's tenure in office is a mistake, since, after all, they had been voting for him. No Democrat can win without having people who had voted for Walden instead, this time, vote for the Democrat. No candidate noted Walden's "promotion" into leadership. No one said Walden had changed.
8. No description of Walden as archetypal swamp dweller. No candidate looked at Walden's money raised and defined it as anything other than a huge electoral challenge. It is a given that Walden will have much more money than the Democrat. No one called it evidence of swamp-dwelling. No one attempted to change the polarity of the import of Walden's money. Instead, when it was addressed, the candidates said they hoped to even the score with "hard work" or "showing up" or Bernie-style small dollar contributions.
What did happen? Candidates continued to flesh out their unique biographies and interests.
 |
| Burnette |
Eric Burnette
He described his maritime regulatory work, and his observations of Greg Walden's un-moved truck, while observing that Democrats should have a clear message of wanting actual health care, not health care access or health care subsidies.
Michael Byrne
 |
| Byrne |
He remained humorous and self effacing, an active volunteer in his community, defining himself as qualified by his similarity to working class people, people he understands well by having lived among them for the simple reason that he is genuinely one of them.
Jim Crary
 |
| Crary |
He offered his educational and career biography then brought his description of multiple problems back to the corrupting effect of campaign money on our politics, the problem that drives the unjust and foolish policy choices made in this country.
Raz Mason
 |
| Mason |
She said that good politics grew out of having a good personal mental space and urged the audience to be calm, confident, to shed our anxieties, and to feel the chair under our bottoms and the floor under our feet and know that we are grounded and therefore prepared to make positive and lasting change in America's politics.
 |
| McLeod-Skinner |
Jamie McLeod-Skinner
She spoke of her professionalism, her commitment to integrity in public service, her direct history doing good work here and abroad, and her genuine roots in the lives of the people of the District, which is why she shows up, listens, and wins votes.
Jennifer Neahring
 |
| Neahring, from Facebook |
Tim White
 |
| White |
9 comments:
Interesting that you should emphasize the difference between those crazy socialist Bernie-crats and the main stream Dems as a “Major Party.” You date the later going back 200 years presumably to Andrew Jackson. Take a look at Wikipedia and tell me who this sounds like:
“Jacksonians feared the concentration of economic and political power. They believed that government intervention in the economy benefited special-interest groups and created corporate monopolies that favored the rich. They sought to restore the independence of the individual—the artisan and the ordinary farmer—by ending federal support of banks and corporations and restricting the use of paper currency, which they distrusted. Their definition of the proper role of government tended to be negative, and Jackson's political power was largely expressed in negative acts. He exercised the veto more than all previous presidents combined. Jackson and his supporters also opposed reform as a movement. Reformers eager to turn their programs into legislation called for a more active government. But Democrats tended to oppose programs like educational reform mid the establishment of a public education system. They believed, for instance, that public schools restricted individual liberty by interfering with parental responsibility and undermined freedom of religion by replacing church schools. Nor did Jackson share reformers' humanitarian concerns. He had no sympathy for American Indians, initiating the removal of the Cherokees along the Trail of Tears.”
I most certainly did NOT say "crazy socialist Bernie-crats". I wonder why you would attribute that to me. Are you secretly wishing I said that, or thought that. Please, please don't seek out an insult so you can resent me for what you imagine I think and said when I said something different.
Democrats are institutional. They have Major Party status. That means they have ballot access as a major party. Progressive voters could support the Green Party candidates or Libertarians or anyone they choose. I am delighted that Our Revolution treated Democrats with respect and gave them this forum.
I have no sympathy for early Democratic Party. They were the party of racists, and stayed that way until the big transformation between 1964 and 1980 when the south and the racists went Republican and there was a big switch. So, again, please, don't interpret the word "institutional" to mean that I worship Democrats. I am one, but in 1864 and 1868 the Republicans were the good guys. FDR made common cause with the Democratic racists in the south in the 1930s, keeping domestic workers from being eligible for Social Security. Democrats have a weird, mixed past.
Today I am a Democrat. "Anonymous", you are free to help or hurt Democrats all you wish today--it is a free country and you have every right to think and write your conscience, including here on this blog. But please don't attribute the word "crazy Bernie-crats" to me. YOU said them. I did not and don't think of them that way. If you think they are crazy, well, it is your right. But I would say you are wrong, they aren't crazy, in my opinion.
Why no direct criticism of each other among the Democratic contenders? The Democratic primary is reallly a toss up at this point and these candidates are wisely focusing on building their canadicy up by showcasing their life experiences and understanding of the district rather than tearing down their opponents backgrounds. This slate of candidates seem to sincerely focused on pushing out Walden and don't want to sabatoge each other's campaigns. Any of the candidates could have tried to disparage one or two of their opponents as being in line with the democratic elite with this audience--but no one went there because they know Greg Walden's eventual opponent will need strong support of activists in the room for an effective grassroots campaign. On top of that, as Eric Burnette said, this slate of candidates have gotten to know each other and truly respect and like each other.
Jeanne, I am not surprised they are all so polite with one another. They all agree. All of them could be elected in Portland.
I do not cite that as criticism, exactly, but it is interesting to me. The politics of the District are different from Portland—or Ashland. I think a progressive inclusionist multicultural agenda is just great, but I observe that people in the District voted overwhelmingly for a Trump, which is something to consider.
Candidates need not and should not be nasty. But the closest thing to disagreement was Byrnn saying he was a working man and not apologizing for it, And not turning to Dr. Neahring and saying, “not that there is snything wrong with being a physician”. They did not even dare compare each other.
Again, I don’t judge this harshly, but it seems a bit hesitant to me, not even trying to articulate what makes each unique, other than biography.
I am trying to describe fairly what I think I am observing. Other observers may see something different. If so, please comment.
Peter Sage
I have to disagree with you on your 5th point above regarding what "didn't happen". Jim Crary's comment about his bi-racial child were in response to the following question: "The regressive populism of Donald Trump played on some white people’s economic insecurity by directing their anger toward immigrants and people of color. Black, brown and indigenous people in our communities suffer not only from physical violence but from a political and legal system that intentionally disenfranchises them. Although African Americans and Latinos make up a quarter of the US population, they make up 57 percent of all prisoners. What will you do to advance racial justice?" I think that question encompassed the subject of racial justice well...
Regarding points 6 and 8 above, if there was anyone in the room who wasn't crystal clear on where they themselves as well as the candidates stood regarding the awfulness of Greg Walden I would be VERY surprised. It appears to me the organizers wanted to delve more deeply into the values of the candidates in an attempt to see some more diversification amongst the candidates than to spend time discussing the future opponent. We ALL know about Greg Walden.
Thank you, "anonymous # 2". OK, I did not recall that question, other than Crary's comment about his son and his comment that the issue was close to his own experience.. Possibly you remember in some detail the answers that emerged from that question. I simply do not recall any candidate making a clear statement regarding a policy on amnesty, path to citizenship, waiting periods, exclusion criteria, etc. Surely there was some kind of response. I will cite the fact that I don't remember it as either a sign of my escalating dementia or that the answers were so general or uncontroversial as to have not created a clear fixed point in that minefield of controversy. I will revise the blog post slightly.
/Thank you for your thoughts, Peter, Jeanne and the other commenters. I left the Forum yesterday feeling uneasy, and I think the reason why is that I still haven't a clue as to which of the these Candidates I think can beat Walden, much less be effective in a Congress so totally disfunctional.
Early this morning, it occurred to me that none of these folks really answered a question, with any specific suggestions for solutions or as to what real steps they could offer to solve some of the problems we are facing, and they bent over so far backward being nice to each other, which is commendable that I almost expected somebody to say something along the lines of "I'm withdrawing, I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings by defeating them".
I'm not casting stones, I think they are all fine people, but pragmatically, I don't see anyone of them appealing to the residents of the East Side counties enough to beat Walden. This is the third time I've seen them, and each time they get better, but in my opinion, it's time to start telling us HOW they will do a better job of representing District 2 than the current congressman, and move beyond platitudes and generalizations.
I think that at least two o of the candidates talked specifically about how they would win the district. Tim White gave a pretty persuasive explanation that for Eastern Oregons it's about jobs, jobs, jobs saying he wants to run on economics and jobs. Jamie McLeod-Skinner gave specifics about how she plans to win by going for a strong win in the populated areas of the districts and peeling off votes in Eastern outback. Jamie explained that the progressive pockets in the district have more in common with rural Eastern voters than we realize and plans to run on Oregon values--and steering away from Democrat vs. Republican standard arguments. Her strategy is going out to areas and talking to voters about the pressing issues in their communities such as water issues in Burns--thus persuading voters why they need better representation in Congress. Jim Crary didn't get a chance to talk about strategy beyond not taking corporate money, but my impression was his plan is to build and expand on the connections he has made since his last campaign. Michael Bryne's approach seemed to be to try to win over rural voters as running as one of them as he says something like "I am District 2', but his plan doesn't seem to be flushed out beyond running on his roots and personality. I left the forum not having a clear idea of if Neahring, Burnette and Mason have a strategy and if so, what it is.
Having seven candidates makes it difficult to get down to the nitty gritty.
It would be helpful to have maybe a series of forums with just two or three candidates to draw distinctions both on the issues and their strategies for winning the district.
[Comment from Thad Guyer, who is having trouble posting from Vietnam:]
The Resistance is not coming to rural Oregon.
Based on your UpClose report and reader comments, I guess running against the racist, misogynist, homophobe, xenophobic immigrant hating, emoluments loving, deplorables enabling Donald Trump is politically impractical in rural Oregon. This is the on-the-ground reality in Congressional districts across the country. "The Resistance" increasingly appears to be a fictional media, activist and entertainment franchise. No serious Democratic candidate outside a deep blue district would dare "run against" Trump.
Our candidates won't be going into Walden country with a message that Trump must be stopped at all costs before he blowsup the world, puts Russians in your polling booths, deports your immigrant neighbors, takes away your pot, and puts on a gala military parade.
Our candidates will spare us all the talk, except in safe private spaces, about Walden being a Trump accomplice in tearing down liberal American values, destroying the truth telling press, and establishing a Mussolini autocracy. The Resistance is fun to watch as it plays out on Hollywood red carpets and in painted faces in mass marches, but in the real electoral world outside big blue cities, it is a farce.
Our candidates would actually like to get elected.
BY: THAD GUYER
Post a Comment