Last time I talked to Steve he was still a libertarian. There is a big difference between libertarians and arch-conservatives.

On some things. But on a spectrum of conservative to liberal, I'd put him at arch-conservative. Which is not to say that I don't agree with some of what he preaches. But the whole Ayn Rand thing is a bit of a turnoff.

"Which is not to say that I don't agree with some of what he preaches."

Density mandates?
Tax abated condo bunkers?
Light rail?
Drug war?
Police shootings?
Zoning used to force more density?
Reducing road capacity?
More bikes on our roads?
Bureaucrat pay?
Trimet?
Light rail
streetcars
CRC?
20 minute neighborhoods?
Urban renewal?
Sense of place?
Smart growth?
New urbanism?
Banks suffer consequences of their decisions?
Bailouts?
Crony capitalism?
pro choice?
School choice?
Clackastani rebellion?

Go by streetcar!
thanks
JK

Well, as a business model, Liberal sure hasn't worked for for the paper. Maybe the change will bode well for them.

If Buckstein gets the gig, I might consider paying for what's left of that rag. If I don't leave town first, anyway.

That position doesn't have any influence on fixing the poor writing by the interns does it?

I was doing some cleaning and came across an Oregonian from 2002. It's shocking how much it's been whittled down to nothing over the years.

And Cathy was still in the comics section ...

Thought it a bit strange Sarasohn was absent at the bottom of the ed page lately. Didn't read his every word....too liberal for me, 'tho my mouth waters every time he writes about a restaurant in A&E.

Since Reinhard left, the O has lacked a something-to-the-right slant...I'll welcome Buckstein for some much needed balance and perspective.

Despite the often disparaging of Cascade Policy Institute for their blasphemy against many of the Portland hierarchy and their very Blue ways they and Buckstein have not held any demonstrated any scary beliefs or agendas.
Sound public policy has always been front and center.
Remarkably similar to another institute that leans left called Bojack.org.

One would have to go quite deep into analysis before finding much difference.

If Buckstein gets the gig that will will quickly become obvious as the editorial pages start resembling Bojack posts.

Of course the Blue establishment will be whining just as they do here on occasion as they try to put the cat back in the bag and put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

The biggest threat is to their central planning, rail mafia, Carbon Californication madness that is collapsing.
Buckstein will likely accelerate the collapse and recovery while applying the needed psycho-analysis of the afflicted
who'll be resisting the inevitable.

The Buckstein move, if true, is long over due.

25 years of public policy derangement under the Katz/Adams delirium of dysfunction was always going to collapse.

Welcome Mr. Buckstein to the happening.

David would have led to a quick and painful death.

Steve a much slower, painful death.

I vote for Steve.

RIP, Oregonian newspaper.

Jack for many of us Libertarians there is a whole world beyond Rand and Steve has probably read much of it.

If one more person describes a libertarian as a conservative, I'm going to puke. You're better than that, Jack.

Steve will bring much needed integrity to the editorial board (a key foundation that was lacking by prior editor). The O editorial board has been leaning so far left it is in a ditch. In a place where everyone thinks the same, no one is thinking. Balance is good...

In the Liberal-Conservative spectrum (the continuum is more than linear though). Libertarians are really much more to the "liberal" than "conservative". They classically were referred to as Liberal but the term was hijacked by the Social Liberals who are not far from Socialists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

None of this really matters but I agree is it annoying to have the "conservative" label constantly misused when referring to those advocating freedom and personal responsibilty.

I thought Sarasohn had died when I first read Jack's headline. Commas are your friend, Jack: I think you missed one after the word "died".

David is so reliably clockwork lefty in his views, he would suit Portland's readership better than Buckstein. The last thing the O wants to do is suggest there are alternatives to liberal political hegemony. That's the camoflage for all the developer lightrail/URA/union thievery in this town.

Green/For the Kids/Portland's Values...Yada yada and sell more newspapers.

I'm not fond of labels. I view Buckstein's history with Cascade Policy Institute as a blessing for the Oregonian.

No matter where one stands on issues (forget the labels), Cascade's research papers, positions, press releases are in most part well thought out, researched, in depth, and have substance where one who even disagrees has something to discuss besides hyperbole.

Now, won't that be a nice change for the Oregonian? And maybe Buckstein will see that opinions, biases, agendas won't creep into even the simplest news items. Maybe Joe Rose with his cuteness and agenda, and Janie Har with opinions will be throttled.

"25 years of public policy derangement under the Katz/Adams delirium of dysfunction...."

Well said!!

Libertarians are conservatives.

In the left-right political continuum that is the modern coin of the realm in the West, the key determining factor of political ideology (explicitly stated or not) is whether and to what extent public policy should foster equality of opportunity, i.e., what (if anything) government should do to ameliorate socio-economic disadvantages inherent in such immutable (or semi-immutable) factors as race, ethnicity, sex, gender status, disability, religion, childhood experience, and the economic class of one's birth in order to create a more level "playing field." Libertarians, as Rand Paul has demonstrated, often have trouble embracing even the most rudimentary legislation toward this end (in his case, it was the Civil Rights Act of 1964). The positions libertarians often take that are contrary to more "traditional" conservative stances on issues not directly related to this core determinant (drug legalization, foreign intervention, etc.), while often important in themselves, are tangential for this purpose.

I have known Steve for a many years. He is fair and honest to a fault! He's not afraid of opposing views. I think he will finally open the dialogue between all sides and let reason prevail. As a bonus, he's active online with CPI so he understands the importance of meshing offline with online information for building readership. The O would be lucky to find another who has his integrity!

Let me be the 1st to congratulate Steve in what is an inevitable choice for the O.

Congratulations Steve!

Chris M.

It is now after noon.

Where is Steve's denial?

Thanks
JK

Hey, Mike: *hands Mike a bucket* Did you know Libertarians and Conservatives are the same?

Now you can just dump that bucket in your yard debris bin and thank me for helping you lose a pound or two...

TacoDave: Did you know Libertarians and Conservatives are the same?
Now you can just dump that bucket in your yard debris bin and thank me for helping you lose a pound or two...
JK: Pretty arrogant. Especially for someone who DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

Libertarians tend to be financially conservative. Including no money for bailouts for anyone. Especially corporations.

Libertarians tend to be socially liberal. Including stop the drug war, government has no place telling you how to live, equal rights for all including women, gays and various other permutations (all means ALL.)

Thanks
JK

The word from Buckstein and Cascade is "No comment".

Hmmm? If it were a farce that wouldn't be their reply.

Commas are your friend, Jack: I think you missed one after the word "died".

No, one wouldn't put a comma in front of a parenthetical. The comma after the parenthetical is in the right place.

If there were a comma before the word "died," it would say that Sarasohn is dead.

Here is a nice description of Libertarians from http://libertarian.jimeyer.org/ :

Liberals tend to believe that government should have limted authority over your private life and behavior. Liberals expect more government authority over peoples' wealth and earnings and more regulation of businesses.

Conservatives tend to expect more government authority over morality and more regulation of your behavior. Conservatives prefer limited government authority over peoples' financial matters and prefer less regulation of businesses.

Authoritarians prefer government with a significant control of your personal and economic matters and over businesses.
Though they disagree on specifics: authoritarians, conservatives, and liberals all expect government to "protect" people by forcing consenting adults to avoid risky, dangerous and foolish behavior that does not harm or endanger others.

Libertarians believe that government's role is to preserve personal and economic freedom -- including those of "minorties" -- and that government-provided "protection" should only include defense against foreign enemies, holding people who cause harm accountable, and providing for general order.

There is much more at the source listed above, including a chart of the above.

Are you really a Libertarian? Take the test at:
http://nolan.jimeyer.org/nolan_example.php

Thanks
JK

Semi-cynic wrote:
"In the left-right political continuum that is the modern coin of the realm in the West, the key determining factor of political ideology (explicitly stated or not) is whether and to what extent public policy should foster equality of opportunity"

Wrong on one very key word. Libertarians want equality of opportunity. Liberals want equality of results.

Eric Lukens from Bend just named to job- false rumor.

I have no doubt that libertarians believe, as an ideal, in equality of opportunity. But like I said, they tend to oppose government action to foster it, having by and large convinced themselves that such equality already exists. This puts them squarely on the political right of the (admittedly imperfect) modern ideological continuum.

I don't know what "equality of results" even means. Neither, I'll wager, do you.

semi-cynic I don't know what "equality of results" even means. Neither, I'll wager, do you.
JK: Try this:
1. Equal opportunity - everyone gets equal opportunity in school. (Admittedly hard to do with current system that protects crappy schools from competition.)

2. Equal results - government forces employers to hire, at equal wages, the guys that dropped out of school because studying interfered with their partying.

Thanks
JK

And who has ever supported, or even suggested #2? Absolutely no one.

"Equality of results" is a silly right-wing canard that has no relation to anything in the real world.