Oregon Blog Updates

Yesterday, I attended and live-blogged the joint-meeting of the Clackamas and Washington County Commissioners. The meeting was held for the purposes of appointing a short-term replacement for retiring GOP Rep. Jerry Krummel out of House District 26. I've had some time to digest the process and proceedings in the almost 24 hours since it went down.

Honestly, this is one of those incidents that can really jade a person to politics, if they aren't already. Under the law, the Precinct Committee is supposed to nominate at least three but not more than five individuals who intend to serve as a State Representative. It was absolutely clear from the outset of the meeting that this was not a process to choose someone. The choice had been made well in advance to appoint Matt Wingard. We were all there just to make sure nobody could later contest the process because they hadn't actually gone through the motion of looking like the rules were being followed.

I don't know how much taxpayer money it cost to bring all of these Commissioners together in a public building--but every cent of it was a complete and total waste, in my opinion. This thing was a total sham.

Besides Wingard, two of his very ardent supporters showed up to pretend they were interested in the job--gotta cover asses, don'tcha know. The first on the pretend chopping block was Scott Haynes, a staffer from Wingard's campaign who had an email sent on his behalf last Thursday, effectively trying to drop out of the process:

Apparently someone told Scott that if he didn't at least show up and pretend to give a shit, they'd have to bail on the meeting and start all over, jeopardizing Wingard's ability to claim incumbency during the campaign.

The other pretender to the throne was Ivonne Pflaum, whose statement of interest in the position was essentially a letter of recommendation for Wingard.

During the voting, I was pleased to see that two of the Commissioners (Strader and Schouten) from Washington County (where I live) decided that the whole thing was BS and abstained. Strader was especially strong on this yesterday--articulating that she was appalled at the ridiculous party antics that had happened with the process. So at least I didn't walk away completely disgusted with EVERYBODY...just most of them.

Washington County Commissioner Andy Duyck was a cypher throughout the question and answer period. He didn't ask a single question of anyone. Duyck did manage in the end to almost call the whole thing a sham...but just couldn't quite get past his devotion to the Republican Party (Duyck is running against incumbent Democrat Rep. David Edwards for the seat in House District 30) to actually abstain, it seems. That's an interesting bellweather for Duyck's potential legislative positionings--not much on active participation and not so much on the buck the caucus thing.

This is the first (and maybe the last) time I've attended one of these appointment meetings. It seems like it would be more efficient to cut out the middle man and burn our tax money on Wingard's front porch.

The DSCC's IE team has started airing another ad in the Senate race - responding to Gordon Smith's furniture ads by noting his own fiscal incompetence, and Jeff Merkley's strong record:

Discuss.

I haven't been more than a foot away from my cell phone since Barack Obama emailed and said that's how he would announce his vice presidential nominee. You know that email he sends every once and a while and you allow your brain to believe - if only for a split second - that Obama actually sent it and it is just for you? Every beep or vibration, I lunge for the phone hoping I'll know first, with all the other millions of Obama voters. "Obama wants me to be first and I'm going to get the text," I tell myself as I dig through my purse for the beeping phone. Or, "I want to yell it down the hall first!" That's what I told my friend today at work.

The more Obama makes us wait, the more our minds wander to who this mystery guest will be at our presidential party. I have no proof of this in any way, but here's my guess: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. I know, she's not my favorite person. The Senator from New York did a fine job wiping away any last vestiges of innocence I had about the political process. She said interesting things that will have many people looking at her sideways for a while yet. But here is my reasoning. For the most part, Clinton's been out of the spotlight and we've been able to slowly forget the last frustrating months of the primary. Bill Clinton is speaking before the VP nominee at the convention. That's a strange place for a pretty popular and most recent democratic president. President Clinton should be opening, closing or right before Obama, not before the VP. So does that mean it might be his wife? She's not on anyone's short list so if she's selected, Obama and Clinton would dominate the news cycle no matter who John McCain nominated. Not even young upstart Bobby Jindal could distract from that announcement. The excitement, speculation and curiosity would control the news for weeks - and that would just be about Bill Clinton.

It's a little out of left field to be sure, but Senator Clinton is ferocious. That ferocity is what Obama is missing in his "taking the high ground" campaign. There is nothing wrong with the high road, but if he's not going to get in the dirt, someone has to and she would do it. And I mean that as a compliment. There is also the idea of healing America's reputation around the world. One step forward is electing a person of color to reflect our ever-growing face of culture and acceptance. That step would have been taken had Clinton had the nomination. Adding the double whammy would continue to raise the consciousness level here and abroad. There are so many reasons and I'm sure there will be good and bad ones in the comments.

Hell has frozen over; I'm advocating for Hillary Clinton. I hope it happens too because sometimes it's fun to be wrong.

Well, the Washington top-two primary is over - and the results are in.

Here in Oregon, as we look ahead to the fight over Ballot Measure 65 - which would create a top-two primary of our own - let's examine one of the key arguments of its opponents.

There are plenty of arguments marshalled by opponents of M65, some of which are very good arguments, but here's one that appears to have fallen flat on its face.

The argument goes something like this: In a top-two primary, situations would arise in which districts that are usually closely divided between the Democrats and Republicans could wind up with a general election featuring two candidates from the same party - effectively wiping out the other party's "right" to contest a close seat in the November election. Presumably, that situation could arise with four (or more) candidates tightly bunched together -- say Donnie Democrat 26%, Lucy Liberal 25%, Ralph Republican 24%, Connie Conservative 23%. And while the Democrats combined for only 51% of the vote, they would get 100% of the spots in the general election (acing out the GOP.)

But here's the thing: In Washington's inaugural top-two primary, across 124 separate legislative races, that didn't happen a single time. In fact, in every single swing district, the top two candidates were one Democrat and one Republican.

Here's the run-down:

• 24 districts were contested by only one candidate.

• 70 districts had two candidates - and in all of them, both candidates will move forward to the general election. 67 districts featured candidates of opposing parties. In 3 districts, it was two candidates of the same party.

• 18 districts had three candidates - and the top two move forward. In 15 cases, the top two included a Democrat and a Republican. In one case, it was a three-way Democratic primary.

  In only two cases, the top two candidates were Democrats, while the Republican lost -- the "disenfranchisement" situation. In one of those cases, the Democrats combined for 83%. In the other, the Democrats combined for 82%. In other words, these are safe Democratic districts with a sure-loser Republican.

• Seven districts had four candidates. In 6 cases, the top two included a Democrat and a Republican. In just one case, the top two candidates were Democrats (and the two losers were both Republicans.) Again, it was a safe Democratic district - with the Dems combining for 74%.

• Three districts had five candidates. In two cases, the top two included a Democrat and a Republican. In the third, it was a five-way Republican primary with no Democrats at all.

• Two districts had seven candidates. In both cases, the top two included a Democrat and a Republican. Interestingly, in one of them, the leading candidate was a Democrat with 32.46% of the vote - while six Republicans split the remaining 67.54% of the vote. This appears to be the only instance where one party would have been able, mathematically, to ace out a candidate from the other party by consolidating their efforts behind two chosen candidates.

Beyond the Lege races: All nine congressional races had the top Democrat and the top Republican advance. In all eight partisan statewide offices, the top Democrat and the top Republican advanced.

So... while there may be other reasons to oppose M65 - and acknowledging Gronke's concerns about samples-of-one - so far, it doesn't appear that the Top Two primary would tend to cause a raft of disenfranchised partisans in swing districts.

I remain undecided.

Weird stuff happened in my world last week. I contemplated sharing, not sharing, not caring and maintaining a stiff upper lip. That is until I came across this post on the Obamas' New Yorker cover. Reading this article - and in particular the quote above - convinced me to seek the opinion of the inhabitants of planet Blue Oregon.

Last week, I believe I had three instances of the so-called "hipster racism." I will only talk about one since it is pretty reflective of the other two. I was at a hip bar in the hip section of North Portland. I was sitting with some people new people and a couple old friends. The new people were all dressed in old-school Wranglers and tight graphic tees that made references to certain - allegedly funny - things. While I was amazed at how similarly they all looked in the hipster style, I immediately felt out of place in my loose-fitting blouse and pants. That was OK, I rolled with it. I'd wear my ironic t-shirt next time.

During our cocktails, one of the people referred to a Black person as a Negro. I immediately said something, making it clear that it was not OK to use that word. I got blank stares, a "you are too sensitive," and then they returned to conversation. Now, I was never excluded throughout the evening and shared some laughs with these guys. As soon as the word "Negro" was uttered I felt very separate and different, and not just because my shirt didn't have writing on it. What intrigued me more was that no one else - save my friend who is a member of the GLBT community - understood or defended what I said.

Now, I know people are going to comment and say this was an anomaly, but something similar happened another two times last week! What in hipsters' names is going on in this town? Just because "Swingtown" and "Mad Men" are hits doesn't mean we keep the lingo during the commercial break, people. Has anyone else heard throwback racist terms lately under the guise of coolness?

Thursday's mega-fundraiser with Gordon Smith and Arnold Schwarzenegger ($25,000 top ticket) has been canceled.

From Jeff Mapes:

"The governor's first priority is getting a budget negotiated for the state of California," said Soderlund, explaining that he isn't going out of state until it gets resolved. California has been without a state budget since the end of June.

Smith spokeswoman Lindsay Gilbride said the Portland fund-raiser has been tentatively rescheduled for Sept. 19.

Discuss.

Okay...so there's no WiFi at the Wilsonville City Hall. Bummer. So here's what I did.

I went ahead and blogged the whole thing in Word. Its cut and paste below. Any of my own comments are in parenthesis. Everything else is a paraphrase of what the individuals said during the hearing and vote. I wish I was a good enough typist to get everything verbatim..but alas.

I do have some thoughts and comments..but damn..I've got to get to a meeting here really shortly. So I'll post this here for now in the jump. Feel free to digest what you can and I'll try to have some commentary up late tonight or early tomorrow.

And for those that want a cut to the chase..Wingard was appointed to the seat. But it was hella interesting...

1:50PM:

(It’s about 10 minutes until the meeting is supposed to start. Steve Buckstein from Cascade Policy Institute just introduced himself to me [“Your post this morning reminded me to come to this”—heh] Matt Wingard walked in a few minutes ago with what I’m guessing are some folks from his staff. He received some waves from a few of the folks in the crowd—seems like the attendees might be pretty friendly to him.)

(The County Commissioners require at least 3 candidates apply for the Oregon House position to be appointed, under the rules.)

(I’ve picked up some paperwork from the back table which I’m presuming is meant to introduce the 3 candidates to those in attendance. Interestingly the two candidates outside of Wingard: Scott Haynes and Ivonne Pflaum both seem to be pretty tight with Wingard. Pflaum endorses Wingard in a letter attached to her information. Haynes is currently a part time staffer for Wingard’s House campaign.)

(2:07: Tom Brian welcomes the crowd and asks for calls roll. All commissioners a present and accounted for. Brian tells us why we’re all here… to appoint a legislator…and Brian says that the SOS has set him up to chair the meeting. Brian is now laying down the rules and how everything is going to go down.

Motion to adopt procedures..seconded and voted. Here….we go!)

Starting with candidates in alphabetical order. First is Haynes.

Scott Haynes: First got started with politics out of high school with Bush/Cheney. In 2005 was an intern for Krummel. Has done other things too. Wants to learn about the process, that’s why he signed up. Met Wingard in 2005—wants to support him and looking for others to support him as well.

Questions for Haynes from Commish:

Kennemer: Wants to amend procedure to have commentary from all after all the candidates have given their testimony.

Strader wants to keep process as is because that’s how Wa Co commishes prepared.

Rogers question: Is the guy sitting behind you in the second row your dad?
Haynes: Yes he is.

Strader: The Central Cmte put forth your name and we received an email saying you would have no documentation put your name. Now you say you support Wingard. So why are you doing this?

Haynes: I’m doing it because I want to see the process. I’ll be happy to serve if you appoint me.

Strader: Economic and transportation development question

Haynes: I would like to see more roads. We need to allocate funds better than we are doing now. We can raise revenue in ways other than gas taxes. We can spend the money we get from our taxes in a way different than we are doing now. I don’t think we should put a bike lane on I-205 to alleviate traffic. We should make the state more driver-friendly than it is now.

Rogers: Are there revenue generating things you would support?

H: I think there is a way to support roads without raising taxes.

Str: There’s a movement in the chambers to preempt local government on funding issues:

H: Local government should stay local. I’ve lived in rural counties. They should have power over themselves.

Schouten: What do you see to be the most critical issue facing local governments at the county level—what would you do in Salem to address it?

H: Education reform and transportation. I’m fresh out of high school (2004-Sherwood). A low percentage of my class graduated.

S: Of course at the county level we don’t do education. Funding. So what would you do at the county level?

H: Transportation

Schrader: Where do you prioritize issues of human services?

H: My sister worked for DHS and a battered women’s shelter, I’ve heard a lot of bad stories. The only way she got a raise was because someone left the shelter money in their estate. There are some needs for reform. Not every case is a textbook case—they can’t always go by the book.

Kennemer: What’s your position on preempting local government in Salem? (Didn’t this one get asked?)

H: Local should stay local

Petersen: County timber payments. It’s a mess. We are trying to figure out how to provide services—specifically for transportation and emergency services. How would you deal with that in the leg?
H: I would work to get something done. I’m not exactly sure how, but it’s been a focal point here in Oregon for many, many years. I’m just not sure exactly how to go about it.

Strader: What are the top 3 issues of HD 26 constituents? If you were appointed—the needs of the caucus are different from the needs of your constituents? How do you balance?

H: Transportation, Housing/Land Use laws (especially in Wa. County). Not sure how I would strike that balance. I guess I’d just try to work through it. I’d like to throw education in there.

Schouten: So you are willing to serve, but you are working part time for Mr. Wingard as well?
H: Yes I will serve. Yes I do work for Wingard.

Petersen: You haven’t finished your undergrad? Will you take time off to finish?

H: I’m a junior at PSU. Trying to finish Poli-Sci and business.

Brian: Next is Ivonne Pflaum

Ivonne: I’m Ivonne Pflaum, I live in Sherwood. I work for Novella Systems in Tualatin. At night—elected delegate to the Oregon Republican Party State Precinct Cmte, City of Sherwood Finance Cmte. Interested in public service when I became a citizen in July 2001. My involvement in this process is to support Matt Wingard. I’ve been working to support him for nearly a year. He has what I would look for in my State rep. It would be a great honor for me to be appointed to this seat and would do everything I could to do a good job…but I think Wingard is the guy.

Schouten: You sent a letter of rec for Wingard. Could you address the saying in your letter?

P:It’s a philosophy of life. As you go along in life and make decisions and mistakes, whoever says they don’t..will eventually slip.

Petersen: A problem solving question first: Transportation needs out-of-the-box, creative thinking…..how do you problem solve the gap between revenue and the needs of infrastructure for transportation?

P: I’d like to first understand why the costs are so high. For problem solving, I like to look at all sides and then bring people together from all sides to solve. We need to look at the box, too. Do we always raise taxes to raise revenue? Are there new and innovative ways to get that revenue?

Strader: I’ve never seen two candidates come forth to present for the third candidate..so I want to know why you came forth.

P: I support Matt Wingard because he’s qualified and has experience. But I have a great interest in public service. I’m preparing to run for the U.S. Senate at some point..so going through this process will help me learn all I can. That’s my motivation.

Schrader: Economic development: District 26 has a diversity of economic issues. Lots of jobs in some places, not so much vitality in others. How will you help local governments help communities be economically viable?

P: I work in the semi-conductor industry and I get a pretty good salary. But I work a lot with my church and I can see the different depressed areas of Sherwood and Tualatin. There are communities where the living spaces are run down and people don’t take care of what they have. A lot of those neighborhoods are minority. I think that the economic side is tied to who is living where. Illegal immigration and that aspect has something to do with the economic prosperity of people. If we have illegal aliens that are working illegally they are being taken advantage of and it makes it very difficult for those that are legal to move up. In the legislature, I would work really hard to learn about the impacts and go from there.

Schouten: What would you consider to be the principle issue at the local/county level that you would like to address?

P: The rules that the counties have in regard to schools and education outside the UGB. There’s a rule that 75% of the people in the school need to be from within a certain radius of the school. It makes it very difficult for parents to have a choice. Parents should have the opportunity to take their children to the place they think they’ll learn best.

Strader: Where do you stand on preemption?

P: county commissioners are elected officials, right? (waits for response). They are elected to do what the people say..and you are the best authority for what needs to be done in that county.

Strader: top 3 issues…and how do you balance with caucus?

P: Transportation, Education, Understanding where the money goes. I’m not that familiar with the caucus. I was not aware that there would be conflict with constituents…but I would try to lean with my constituents and try to sort it out.

Kennemer: Strader asked my question

Petersen: Economic development: Education and HHS are the biggest expenditures in the budget and have been cut and cut and cut. A lot of what you see with your church are the people following through the cracks because of that. How do these programs and services fit into your priorities as a legislator?

P: That’s difficult. But you know, we have a budget. When I go through those neighborhoods I see those children and I care too about seniors, they get a bad deal sometimes. The illegal immigration issue is a direct contributor to this problem. There may be some people who are getting services who aren’t eligible because of their illegal status. Those that qualify—we should look at what the situation is and try to work with each family. I don’t know how you lump it all together. That’s part of the problem with government..trying to take care of everybody. I care about children legal or illegal…there’s a huge aspect to this. We can’t be heartless. Communication, I guess.

Schrader: You’ve mentioned illegal immigration…how can the legislature address this?

P: I’ve mentioned this a lot because I’m preparing to run for U.S. Senate. At the state level we can work with SOS to try and distinguish what the rules are…and how we will deal with those already in the system. It’s a national problem but it needs to go down to the local level, too.

Brian: Next, Matt Wingard

W: Good afternoon. My name is Matt Wingard. I’m here to ask that you appoint me to the seat Krummel is vacating. Krummel is a great legislator and the reason we have a rainy day fund and a sex-offender web site. I’ve learned a lot from him. I’ve never been a better public legislator who is a better listener. Now he is in Reno.

Oregon loses a lot of good people, and it’s a shame. Our state has lost over 13k jobs in the last year and our state is consistently one of the highest in the nation for unemployment. We need a culture of “yes” in Oregon government. Clack, Develop commish has shown me that private and public partnerships can be great.

Oregonians start paying the highest income rate at $7100. We need low in come tax release. Oregon is a beautiful state with wonderful natural resources. Oregonians are the best natural resource and we need to set them free.

Our public schools are falling in national rankings as we spend $10k per student. Many schools not held accountable. I’m a charter school guy..they are new and innovative. They are held accountable. Good ones thrive, low performing ones close. Thousands of these children and families are happy. HD 26 has outstanding public schools but I’m working to bring charter schools to low income areas of our state. Teachers who work in charter schools tell me they are most rewarding job

I’m not running to make government bigger. I want it more open, more responsive and more humble. One size does not fit all. We’re at the mercy of Multnomah County. Their views on land use and transportation are being foisted on everyone else. We need to find our own solutions to public policy problems.

Brian: Questions from commishes

Schouten: Sorry we’ve been mispronouncing your name.

One of your backers says we have to say no to the entitlements and free handouts—do you agree or disagree with that statement?

W: I don’t think its healthy to development an entitlement mentality.

Sch: do you want to elaborate?

W: When we provide services it should be a hand up, not a hand out. One of the big complaints about welfare was the lack of incentive to move out. Its costly—and its not healthy for the person involved to feel dependent over time.

Petersen: You serve on the transportation subcommittee on the econ development commission…and you probably know about the gap. Where do you stand on increasing revenue? In terms of what you’ve heard from the Governor and the session..what will you support? Is preemption one of them?

W: the voters have lost faith with the government. The gas tax disconnects people from where the money goes because of the long process. User fees exist other places and something to consider over time. The state has increased transportation funding by 90%. 18% increase in the previous session. Voters don’t know where that money goes. I have pledged not to raise taxes and will take that to Salem.

I think counties should generate revenue in the ways they can..fees, etc. Voters in Washington County have seen a list of what they would be getting from their money. That’s the kind of thing that interests me. The local government is providing a list of precisely what the voters are being asked to be for. When it goes to Salem you never know where its going to end up. Using these kinds of programs to list items for voters so they can actually see it..connects them to it. That’s how we rebuild that trust over time.

Brian: If a transportation revenue package is proposed and was project specific and identified where it would go..would you be open to that type of proposal in the legislature?

W: I’d be much more interested in a referral. I’m suspect about creating that kind of list in Salem…and I’d decide whether or not the district was getting a net benefit out of it. That’s why I like these proposals to come out of the county instead.

Strader: I think its interesting..your state government comments. Really, we don’t have a Packwood and Hatfield who used to bring home federal dollars—

W: so we should elect more Republicans?

Str—No…actually, you’re going against their policy, which is to build infrastructure. You’re putting that pressure on local governments..I’m curious how you base your philosophy with theirs? Why are you not for Oregonians? How do you deal with bridges and gridlock?

W: I think the money that feds used to put into infrastructure isn’t likely to return. We do get appropriations from feds that I think aren’t okay. But that money is gone. But we need locally generated revenue. I think that’s why we need a list at the local level to show voters what the money they generate pays.

This is why school levies tend to be more successful. People can see what they’re getting in their local area—its too disconnected.
We should be project specific.

Str: You would then agree..if there was a detailed project list..you would support it?

W: It would depend on the list.

Petersen: You said that the state increased funding over the last 10 years…actually, we have not increased the fed or state gas tax, the reg fee nominally increased..but most of it bonded. We have bonded almost all the available dollars we have. So if we’ve bonded every available $ and are starving the rest of the system for the rest of the projects..how are we going to move forward?

W: Its time to start thinking outside the box. We’re not expanding the right of ways because we don’t have the funds. It might be an opportunity to provide a private company to come in and build, and charge a toll section, an expressway that people could opt in to. No tax increase or fee, thinking outside the box.

Rogers: I’m the only person on the panel actually in your district. The biggest concern I have..I really want to know about your leadership qualities. In government we’re hear to propose to our constituents certain investments in infrastructure and programs. You’d be on the board of directors for the state of Oregon. We are as such as our county commishes. Sometimes we have to propose things that might not be to our liking—but we must do what’s best for our commissioners: We don’t have tolling, we don’t have right away and we are short the tax revenue for transportation. The same for water. Urbanization and livability issues. I’m going to hit you hard because you need to be prepared. We’re in the same party…but I think these are people issues and we can’t have trite answers—we must propose. We can’t just say “no”. What are you going to do?

W: I think that on any contentious issue, we’ll have disagreements. The idea is to sit down and hash out a way to move forward. In a legislature of 90 people it can be hard. I certainly represent one viewpoint of 90. At the end of the day ,that’s how problems get solved and are worked out. Its difficult for me to answer a question on a package that doesn’t exist yet.

R: You said that you have pledged to raise taxes. Taxes are a fee—and you said that you only believe in a referral at the local level. But how do you deal with state roads and interstates?

W: I agree…the state past a $40 billion total budget. There’s got to be money in there for this. It’s a matter of prioritization. Ask hard questions about how the money is being spent. could it be better spent somewhere else? That can sometimes make people angry and it can get contentious. The fall back is often that we should just raise more revenue. My preference is to prove to the voters that the money they’re sending us that we are wise stewards of it before we raise more revenue.

R: Today on our board we had to double our traffic impact fee. All of the businesses came in with support—and we have raised every dollar we can. But its sometimes is taxes. And I think you need to understand…even if you touch the $40 billion, we’re not going to solve these problems. You need to be very, very open. And if you tell us know without giving us the opportunity without making our case, its just “no” for saying “no”

W: There are a lot of “yeses” given out in Salem. But I want you to know that my door is always open and when we get into these issues I’ll be working hard to wrap my mind around these issues to solve them.

Schrader: Performance based budgeting and accountability are institutionalized in our state government. But there’s another piece. Tax reform. There was a package that would have lowered income taxes. Would you support tax reform?

W: I think it’s a widely shared opinion. I think that the idea that we would dramatically change the tax system without Oregonians saying something…any kind of transition to a sales tax….will end up be referred to the people..who have voted them down repeatedly. But I’m concerned about spending time on something that I can’t see would actually pass. You have to pick and choose where you spend you spend your time and energy in the legislature. I understand what a sales tax would do in the economy vs. income tax. But I don’t see that there’s an opening in the public to make that transformation.

Kennemer: How do you feel about state preemption of local control?

W: I’m not an expert on this issue. Secondly, I think it depends specifically what we’re talking about. But in general, I’d like to see devolution of state control over local issues so that in general, the idea of preemption is not something I support. I think people at the local level can make decisions for themselves without mandates from Salem (this comment is in regard to education).

Now we’re taking a short break…..

3:30: reconvene

Brian: Legal counsel Dan Olsen please comment on the procedure and make sure we’re doing all the legal procedures correctly.

(Oleson explains the rules and procedures under the law—votes are generally taken verbally, highest number of votes is person appointed)

(Brian talks about the importance of having a consistent and transparent process—commissioners declare what they want to say and their vote)

Alphabetically:

Kennemer: My appreciation for this meeting and process. I wish to thank the three applicants too. Its important to step forward and serve. After listening to the three candidates and their responses. Mr. Wingard is the most knowledgeable and prepared for this. I give my vote to Mr. Wingard.

Schrader: I want to commend all 3 for being here. And commend Matt for work on Economic Development Commission. I’m going to be a maverick here today. I think its important to honor the other folks. I was very impressed with Ivonne and I’d like to give her a vote. Great resume, work experience and not afraid to bring up a touchy subject: illegal immigration. I thought it was a very brave thing to do. I’m going to cast a vote for Ivonne and thank Scott, and hope he continues with his political career.

Petersen: I do appreciate all 3 participants coming forward. I would like to cast my vote for Ivonne. She is an engineer like me. I think there’s a campaign going on right now and we’ll see how that results..and I think having an interim person who wants to move on with her political career. I think there’s still some issues that needing vetting in the public process. I think there should be an interim person while the political process transpires.

Duyck: I’d like to talk about an issue I think we’re ignoring. We’ve got two candidates who’ve strongly endorsed the third. The law says we have to have three candidates..the law says we have to do this. We need to keep in mind that the person we appoint can’t serve past September except for the one candidate who might win the election in November. These opinions won’t mean a lot because there isn’t a session during the time period they serve. I’m not going to call this a sham..but it seems obvious to me that there’s a candidate who is qualified and can serve afterward. I’m casting my vote for Matt.

Rogers: I’m casting my vote for Matt as well. When we come knocking on your door, show some leadership.

Schouten: I want to thank all of the presenters. I was impressed by the good will and the desire to learn and advance understanding. I think that Ms Pflaum and Mr. Haynes, I’m not comfortable voting for them, they need more seasoning. As for Mr. Wingard, I’m just not comfortable with the policies and politics, frankly. His views on public policy aren’t as useful to the betterment of our local government. So I’m going to abstain.

Strader: I’m going to take a little more time. I’m not afraid to be the maverick. I’m partisan to Washington Co first. My colleagues know that. Its not about party affiliation. I’m a stickler on preemption. When there was an appointment process with a senate seat that was held by a Democrat, I didn’t like party politics that was in play…and I don’t like it here. When I see two candidates forward emails to this commission saying that they will not give information. So why be here in the process? One of the most challenging and rewarding things is public service and the constituents of this district deserve A LOT. It’s a sad day for me that the party has taken control of this. I’m very concerned about the public policies that Matt holds. I’m not sure it truly represents the district. And then there are some prior issues as a single mom that concern me, and I cannot in good faith support any of the three candidates. I will be abstaining.

Brian: I was in the leg for 10 years and was involved in campaigns around the state. Although some of us might not prefer a loaded deck, it happens in both parties. When the central cmtes vote for a person, State law requires a procedure..and you have to find some names. In the past we’ve had very active and qualified people—its been a legal process here. Its conformed with the law. I’m sure that Matt Wingard and I disagree on quite a few things. But that’s what makes a horserace, we’ll get in and argue this should he be elected. But today we are making a four month appointment and later someone will be elected.

If its Mr. Wingard we’ll be knocking on your door.

I do think there are a lot of things, we ran out of time for me to talk, people have come in before to say they were going to reallocate money. and its just not that easy. Every line item has a constituency. But when you hear all of the details, its hard to move big money. And for trans, that’s big money. Locally, we’ve done a good job with property tax. I empathize with folks on that. I hope to be on a fixed income someday and I’m wary of property tax. If you could get locally voted gas tax, there’s drawbacks for that too. The law won’t square with that and we’re leaving truckers out. It raises some real issues. It’s a very complicated matter..but I hope we can continue to discuss this if you (Wingard) end up there in January. I’ve been involved in recruiting companies to Washington county. The provision of infrastructure is a key item to business and it’s a serious matter for economic development.

I will cast my vote for Matt Wingard. By doing the simple math, that would make Matt…

Clerk: Wingard has the most votes.

Brian: Based on this meeting and the following of the legal procedures, Matt Wingard is appointed.

This man deserves no respect.

Of all the sickening performances John McCain has given this campaign, the most nauseating for me was his appearance at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church last Monday Saturday. While alluding to his earlier adultery indirectly (he spoke about the “failure” of his first marriage), his megachurch presence seemed unable to inspire him either to even mention Jesus Christ (his own putative savior) or to adhere more strictly to God’s commandments by, say, telling the truth or not stealing.

The stealing part’s has been written about more widely, as commentators have discovered that McCain’s story about a Vietnamese prison guard drawing a cross in the dirt may well have been lifted from the late Alexander Solzenitsyn. But the lying part hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves – except now in a remarkable post over at Mother Jones.

The height of McCain’s dishonesty came right off the bat, as Rick Warren asked, “who are the three wisest people that you know that you would rely on heavily in an administration?” McCain’s reply: “I think [U.S. Rep. from Georgia] John Lewis. John Lewis was at the Edmund Pettis Bridge, had his skull fractured, continued to serve, continues to have the most optimistic outlook about America.” Now, McCain actually put in a campaign appearance at the fabled bridge (the site of Bloody Sunday in 1965), but as the MoJo piece notes, he “has not established a relationship with the Georgia Democrat in the 22 years they have served in Congress together….Lewis was not told about McCain's speech in Selma in advance, nor was he invited to attend.”

Or, in Lewis’ own tart response, "Sen. McCain and I are colleagues in the US Congress, not confidantes. He does not consult me. And I do not consult him." What’s more, as many have noted, McCain was a staunch opponent of civil rights legislation – even trying to block recognition of the King holiday as late as 1987, more than 20 years after Lewis’ heroic act.

I’m sorry, but someone willing to distort his relationship to a truly heroic figure like John Lewis in order to steal the moral mantle of a movement he sought to undermine deserves only contempt.

I am not sure if this posting is more about the top-two primary in Washington or if it is about the Oregonian, which has displayed a series of examples of poorly researched journalism and an inability to separate the editorial page from the news page.

Fair disclosure: I have expressed my opinion about the top-two ballot initiative a number of times on this blog.  I believe that the "solution" does not fit the problem, that the proponents arguments distort both the present and the past, and they vastly overstate the positives while minimizing or ignoring the negatives.  Whatever my personal opinion, I mainly want Oregonians to be accurately informed about this initiative.

(long academic prose to follow...)

In comes the Oregonian, on the record as supporting the initiative. Are yesterday's story and today's today's editorial an example of the O just being lazy or willfully misrepresenting the record?  I'll let the readers here decide.

Here is the factual claim: in an August 18 story, Edward Walsh wrote: Higher voter turnout is one of the benefits that advocates predict will flow from the elimination of partisan primaries. One of those advocates, Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, has predicted a 46 percent turnout, which would be the highest since 1972. 

That would be an especially strong showing because the August primary lacks the excitement usually associated with a presidential election year. Washington Democrats and Republicans cast their votes for president in primaries and caucuses in February. There also is no U.S. Senate election in Washington this year, and the hottest race almost certainly will be between incumbent Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire and Republican Dino Rossi, a November rematch of the close 2004 contest.

The O followed up with an editorial the next day, writing: Don't be deceived by appearances, however. The Gregoire-Rossi duel has a ton of beneath-the-surface drama, and a lot of voters know it. That's why Secretary of State Sam Reed is predicting a 46 percent turnout, just shy of the record for a non-presidential primary in Washington.

Reed based that prediction in part on the all-mail voting in 37 of 39 counties, an unprecedented high level for Washington. A bigger factor, however, is voter interest in the gubernatorial contest and in the state's new top-two primary system. It lets voters choose whoever they prefer across party lines in each race, with the two candidates winning the most votes, regardless of party, winning places on the November ballot for statewide partisan offices.

That gives far more sizzle to the gubernatorial contest than it would otherwise have. It means Gregoire and Rossi are competing head to head Tuesday for the votes of Democrats, Republicans, independents and members of minority parties.

As we've remarked before, Oregonians in particular should pay close attention to how Tuesday's drama plays out for our neighbor to the north. That's because Washington's top-two format closely mirrors a revamped primary system proposed on Oregon's Nov. 4 ballot.

Democratic and Republican party leaders and those of most minor parties oppose the top-two approach, but voters in Washington appear to love it. They approved it overwhelmingly at the ballot box, and they're expected to vote Tuesday in numbers not seen since the uproar over the Vietnam War.

Oregonians and the people of Washington don't always see eye to eye, but Tuesday's heavy voter turnout on the north side of the Columbia River appears to bode well for primary election reformers on the south side.

Sigh.  Where do I start?

1. In the first O story, Reed claimed turnout would be 46%, "just shy of the record."  The implication in the editorial is that excitement over the top two primary is causing this boost. 
   
   FACT: Washington state turnout in 2004 was 45.14%. It took me about 10 seconds to find this out.  Turnout in Washington state primaries has exceeded 40% 14 out of 25 times since 1960, and exceeded 45% five times. (I've posted a graphic of turnout in WA with the 46% line drawn in.) 
2. From the story: "Reed based that prediction in part on the all-mail voting in 37 of 39 counties, an unprecedented high level for Washington."
   
   FACT: As worded this is accurate, but imcomplete.  "Unprecedented" is a bit strong.  4 counties used VBM in 2004, 27 in 2005, 34 in 2006 (September and November), and 36 used it in 2007.  King and Pierce remain holdouts.  These numbers are available at the SoS website in WA.
   
   But let's combine the logic of points (1) and (2).  If predictions are correct, turnout in WA will go up an astounding 1% compared to the 2004 contest AND AT THE SAME TIME they have 31 more counties using voting by mail.   
3. From the editorial: "That gives far more sizzle to the gubernatorial contest than it would otherwise have. It means Gregoire and Rossi are competing head to head Tuesday for the votes of Democrats, Republicans, independents and members of minority parties.""
   
   This repeats uncritically a claim made by the proponents of the top two, that candidates in a top two will be more moderate because they are forced to appeal to more voters. 
   
   But think for just a moment candidate strategy in a top two.  It is analogous to the early rounds of Olympic competitions.  Why do you think the athletes let up at the end?  It's because they know they'll go on to the next round.
   
   The same logic applies here: the strategy is NOT to appeal to "all" the voters, but just enough voters so you go onto round two.  Given the polling results in Washington, both Rossi and Gregoire are certain to move on, so there is almost zero incentive to appeal anywhere beyond your base.
   
   (This is a critical element in evaluating the top two.  In a three candidate race, about 30% of the vote will allow you to move on.  With four candidates, about 23-25% will work, and so on.)
4. The story and editorial both urge Oregonians to look to the example of ONE election in Washington to determine whether a top two system increases or decreases turnout.
   
   Sorry O, but statistics 101 tells us that you can learn almost nothing from a single case.  You just got an F in that class. 

This afternoon at 2PM, the County Commishes from Washington and Clackamas counties will gather at the Wilsonville City Hall to determine who will replace retiring GOP Rep Jerry Krummel.

As I understand it, the law requires that Krummel's replacement be of the same party, so a GOPer will have that seat.

From what I'm hearing, this proceeding is gonna be a barn-burner. Mostly because the GOP has decided to nominate Matt Wingard. As you may or may not know, Wingard pled guilty in 2001 to misdemeanor child abuse.

Live-blogging this may be tricky--I'm still not sure what the wi-fi set up is at the City Hall. Not to mention that publishing pieces on Blue Oregon can be time-consuming under the best of circumstances due to technical stuff. But I'm going to take a whack at it, regardless.

If it doesn't work, I'll document the proceeding and publish it here later today.

If you're in the Wilsonville area around 2PM today and want to watch the proceedings, they take place at Wilsonville City Hall. If you can get there early, it might be a good idea. It could be kinda crazy.

The Crook County Fair closed over a week ago now, but I have just now had time to organize my thoughts and reflections. In 2004 the Crook County Democrats ran a booth at the fair, and this year the Obama volunteers ran a booth, on which we also put the Crook Co. Democrats banner. The contrasts between this same event, 4 years apart, are striking.

First to note, the weather. In 2004 it was blazing hot, with the temperature at near 100 degrees all four days. This time, the weather was mostly cooler. But of most interest were the thunderstorms on Thursday, the first full day of the fair. A line of thunderstorms came through, with a mighty wind. The Republicant booth was across the lawn about 75 feet away, and their tent was completely blown over and destroyed by the wind. They took it down, left three campaign signs for a local County Commission candidate, and never came back. While the Democrats on site got a little wet, our tent held up just fine.

Now, if the religious right can claim they can move hurricanes, can’t we as Democrats claim that God spoke at the Crook County Fair? …. And blew the Republicants away.

Second to note, the children. In 2004, three girls aged around 12, opened a path between the Democrats booth and the Republicant booth. They would go get talking points from the Republicants, come over to our booth, and ask their questions. We actually had some fun with these kids, but it was clear that they were from R families. At the 2004 fair, we had a lot of people passing by express opposition to the war in Iraq, some expressed the view that Democrats wanted to take their guns away, and some made snide ugly comments. Actually, there was very little support for the Democrats other than concern about Iraq. At the booth we had voter registration materials, and registered one voter during the four days of the fair.

But this year, we had children visiting all the time. An entire roll of Obama stickers was used up by children that wanted to wear them, put them on school notebooks, etc. I had the opportunity to walk through the 4-H rabbit exhibit again this year. Several girls around age 11 were "on duty" and approached me to ask if I wanted to pet a rabbit. As we talked I asked, "if you were old enough to vote, who would you vote for in the presidential race?" They all said, "Obama!" They were very excited about him, but didn’t seem to have any specifics.

And back at the booth this year, during one 20-minute period while I visited with the folks running the booth, we registered three new voters – two Democrats and one non-affiliated. A very large number of bumper stickers went out, some Obama lawn signs, etc.

Frankly, here in little old Crook County at the geographic and spiritual center of Oregon, 2004 and 2008 are night and day different in terms of the Democrats Fair experience. But of most importance, it seemed that nearly every child there, the group that will be new voters in 8 years, were solidly supporting the Democrats and Obama.

• It's Election Day! OK, OK... only in Washington State. But it's of interest to those of us in Oregon because they're using the Top Two primary system - which will be coming to Oregon in 2009 and beyond, if the sponsors of Measure 65 have their way. From the Register-Guard: Both Washington’s new voting system and the one Oregonians will consider in November give all voters the same ballot, regardless of their party affiliation. The two top vote-getters will move on to the general election, even if they both happen to be Republicans, Democrats or one of each.

• Gordon Smith continues to weasel and waffle. This time, it's on off-shore oil drilling. John McCain says he wants to lift the offshore oil drilling moratorium - but let states opt-out. Smith would like us to believe he disagrees with McCain. But Gordon says he wants to lift the offshore oil drilling moratorium - but only for states that want to opt in.

  I don't think there's even a little difference between Smith's and McCain's position on offshore oil drilling. Either way, we're lifting the moratorium - and moving the drill/no-drill decision to the states. And once again, Gordon Smith is in bed with the oil companies - and right in line with his good buddy John McCain.

• Gordon Smith puts Mike Erickson on the short bus.

• I was going to ask, "Is this really the kind of guy we want in the Oregon Legislature?" But, you know, compared to Matt Lindland, the Rev. Dr. Chef Tony Marino doesn't seem so bad... At least he's only biting veggies, not ears:

In the presidential race, will Oregon be a swing state? Or will Barack Obama soar to victory? In 2004, John Kerry won by 4% (about 76,000 votes). In 2000, Al Gore won by less than 1% (about 7000 votes).

On a conference call with media and bloggers yesterday, Senator Ron Wyden and Obama's Oregon campaign manager Rob Hill outlined the strategy for victory. These are my notes - all comments are paraphrased.

Senator Wyden led the way and talked about the campaign message.

Wyden: There are three reasons Senator Obama is going to win in Oregon.

#1. Unprecedented numbers of Republicans saying Senator Obama is their kind of leader. He has a strong focus on change vs. more of the same, which is what we'll get with Senator McCain.

#2. Obama's life story is a lot like those of many regular Oregonians - single parents and grandparents, raising kids on food stamps, struggling to overcome steep odds.

#3. If the candidate has a significant grassroots advantage, they're going to do very well. No question there is a lot more excitement about Obama than McCain. Unprecedented grassroots mobilization, the size and scope of which our state has never seen before.

Rob Hill then detailed the infrastructure in place.

Hill: The organizing plan is based on neighbor-to-neighbor outreach teams. 150 neighborhood action teams; running their own canvasses and phone banks. Teams are fully trained on all the tools - technology, message, media monitoring, etc. 44 teams in place (with 550+ trained team members), plus over 400 self-organized teams through Oregon.BarackObama.com. Over 5000 people have participated in events organized through website SINCE the primary. Nine offices around the state. There are 700,000 unregistered-but-eligible voters in Oregon.

At that point, they jumped into questions from the media. On the jump...

Brad Cain, AP: Expect to see Barack Obama in Oregon this fall?

Rob Hill: Too early to talk about the post-convention schedule.

Jeff Mapes, Oregonian: Of the 700,000+ eligible but unregistered voters, what's realistic?

RH: Remains to be seen. In the primary, we registered 30,000 new voters in one month. Organically, around 50,000 or so new registrants on top of that. So, we're expecting strong results.

Mapes: How does the voter registration effort vary from 2004?

RH: In 2004, a lot of voter reg happened through outside groups, 527s. The excitement that Obama creates out there allows us to focus on base vote outreach. We can take a much larger share than we even attempted in 2004.

Ron Wyden: I've been especially pleased in Senator Obama's interest in Oregon. Co-sponsor of county payments, vote-by-mail, willing to allow state involvement on the LNG issue.

Chris Lehman, OPB: How do you make sure all these grassroots people stay on message?

Hill: We keep in touch through the website, doing the training on the message components. Ask them to talk about their own reasons for supporting Obama.

Harry Esteve, Oregonian: How will it affect the Senate race?

Wyden: This will be a huge help for our candidates up and down the ballot. Our candidates are committed to Senator Obama's vision - health care, less foreign oil, resolve crisis in Iraq. Those positions are very much in line with Speaker Merkley, and our new registered voters will come out and support Senator Obama's vision. I'm an enthusiastic supporter of Speaker Merkley. He shares my views and Senator Obama's key positions. We need to bring about change in America. I'll be campaigning aggressively for Speaker Merkley and when we elect Barack Obama President of the United States, and we need the votes to carry out his program, I don't want us to be frustrated in carrying out the program. Merkley will be a great vote to carry that out.

Phil Wright, East Oregonian: Your effort is well-organized, well-funded. How does that go hand-in-hand with grassroots? How much is the campaign spending in Oregon on organization?

Hill: Our major expenses are organizational in nature. Nine offices, dozens of staff, 70 organizing fellows. We're working to empower the grassroots level. Not a lot of mail, consultants, paid phones. But it's too early to determine what the overall expenditures will be.

James Sinks, Bend Bulletin: Is the Oregon strategy different than the battleground states? Will you change anything if the polling changes?

Hill: Oregon is a battleground state and we intend to win. So our strategy is the same. These things will get closer. We won't panic if it happens. Won't take anything for granted. We will run a strong outreach and communications program.

Sink: Yes, but what's different in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania?

Hill: Strategy is very similar. Registering voters is the key right now.

Mapes: Why do you think Obama is doing better in Oregon than many other states? Do you have any advice here locally for how Obama should tailor his message?

Wyden: We were one of the first to say we're not going to go along any longer with this slash and burn politics. Oregon rejected the Bush administration politics very early on. Senator Obama is a huge breath of fresh air. I'm just really amazed at the number of former Republicans who are going to support Obama as a force for change. He zeroed in on some of these issues that people ask about at town hall meetings. Senator Obama made it clear he'll spend the time to get into the nuts and bolts of the issues that Oregonians care about. I am convinced that as soon as Senator Obama gets as well-known as he is in Oregon, he'll see the same success elsewhere.

Thank you everyone.

Are you one of the one out of four taxpayers (22 percent) who will get something from Measure 59? What will you get?

If you have income of at least $405,000, you are in the richest 1 percent of Oregon taxpayers and as a group you will average $15,000 in tax savings from Measure 59. You and the others in the top income class with incomes averaging $1 million will reap almost half (49 percent) of the tax savings created by Measure 59.

If, on the other hand, you are a middle-income taxpayer — with income in the $30,600 to $50,000 range (averaging $39,600) — as a group Measure 59 will give you $2 on average.

Middle-income taxpayers will get one-tenth of one percent of the savings.

Households with annual incomes exceeding $83,200 would receive 97 percent of the tax break, leaving just 3 percent of the break to be divided by those with incomes under $83,200.

Measure 59 would cut at least 9 percent of General Fund revenues each biennium.

That's equivalent to the total funding that Oregon’s public universities will receive from the state in the current biennium or to cutting the salaries of all Oregon K-12 public school teachers by 70 percent.

Want to know how it is a backhanded way of lowering tax rates for the wealthy?

Find out the answer, and more about Measure 59, by reading the latest report from the Oregon Center for Public Policy, No Gain, Just Pain (HTM of executive summary) or No Gain, Just Pain (PDF-full report).

Discuss.

Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy.   You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org

The urinal in the tree? Unusual, even for a Bus trip. 4,000 doors and 1,000 voter IDs? Just business as usual for the most progressive organization in Oregon politics.

The Bus Project does at least one overnight trip each election season. Two years ago, it was Newport and Coos Bay, walking for Jean Cowan on Saturday and Arne Roblan on Sunday. This year the destination was Bend, House District 54, and both days for challenger Judy Stiegler. For those of us who ride the bus to these events, there’s a lot of fun involved — including inner tubes on the Deschutes in the dark — but for Judy and her campaign it’s a large injection of volunteer power.

It may be, in fact, just what turns this race.

Bend in 2008 is a whole new country. It’s not Bend 2004: the Democrats now have a slight edge in registration, but more importantly, the issues that seem to be driving voter preferences and choices are not any different than what we find in uber-blue Portland: the economy, health care, the environment, Iraq.

Coming back from Bend, Henry Kraemer, Bus Trips Manager, spoke of the common goals and beliefs he sees as the Bus visits different parts of the state: “Talking to everybody, this trip has shown me how much every part of the state wants to move forward. Our hope for progress is really uniting the state. I think we’re really going somewhere.” Politicorps Fellow Jacob White, like me, learned something new: “I thought there was a divide between Portland liberals and everyone else. But the more you talk to people, the more you find they share in common.”

Even, gasp, in Bend, Oregon.

Here’s what I found in the two different neighborhoods I walked this past weekend: Tibetan prayer flags and 1-in-6 voters having moved since the last election. The prayer flags were noticed by other Bus people: from tiny strings at the front door to large displays in their living rooms or on their patio, there seem to be a lot of people in Bend with a view of the world much in variance with liberal Oregon’s preconceptions — which, I confess, I share(d). I was surprised at what I found, at any rate. But the number of people in transition was a surprise only until I stopped to recall that the state’s economy has not come close to recovering from the 90s recession and is unlikely to do so anytime soon.

In the meantime, voters in Bend deserve a representative who’ll give them her all: the incumbent, Chuck Burley, was absent-without-leave from Salem over 20% of the time last session (and check his campaign website: nothing there past November 2006). Fortunately Judy Stiegler, who lost to Burley in 2004 by only 500 votes, is back to finish the job. And that’s why the Bus went to Bend: to help Judy win the House District 54 seat. And in doing so, we accomplished the usual Bus magic:

over 4,000 doors (that’s a serious lit drop if nothing else)
over 1,000 voter IDs

As I wrote previously in BlueOregon, that’s a month or more of walking and knocking for a candidate, even one with the energy and commitment of Judy Stiegler. She’s an exceptional candidate, and we not only learned more about her — especially at the door, talking to the folks who know and support her — but discovered the energy that Central Oregon has for change, for working to make the whole state progressive.

Defeating an incumbent, however, takes more than having a superior candidate or a lot of “support.” Incumbents are defeated by mounting a stronger, more effective campaign. And in Oregon House elections, the #1 means of being stronger and more effective is to talk to voters, face-to-face. That’s what the Bus does so well and why it’s the biggest jolt of power any campaign can hope for. In Bend this weekend, 41 volunteers from Portland, Gresham and even Sandy joined a dozen Deschutes County volunteers to get the name and message of Judy Stiegler out to people who have not been paying attention to politics in the geeky way we do at BO and the Bus. In another month, with the kids back in school and the Olympics in the rear view, the Presidential campaign will be in full-throttle mode (and would this be a good time to mention that Bend seems to digging Obama, and who would have figured that four long, sad years ago?) and more people will begin to think about November. As Steve Novick reminded us in Gresham recently, at some point, they’ll connect the name of Judy Stiegler with the smiling, enthusiastic face at their door on that hot summer afternoon. They’ll remember that some stranger thought so highly of Judy that they gave an afternoon just to come to their door. And when they think these thoughts, they will realize that they want to give their vote to Judy. They’ll tell their spouse, their friends….

Ah, were it so simple. But it starts there: the face at the door, smiling and enthusiastic. “I’m a volunteer with the Judy Stiegler campaign.” And over the coming months, more smiling, enthusiastic volunteers will come to those doors, or perhaps the candidate herself. The goal is to get face-time with the voters, to personalize this vote and overcome both the negative ads and the power of incumbency. That’s why we got on the Bus to go to Bend — ok, it’s also a ton of fun. But the fun means so much more because we know we are doing real democracy just by showing up, walking and knocking, smiling and sharing what we believe to be true: “You gotta vote for Judy.”

But that was then; the Bus rolls on. On Sunday, August 24, we’re going back to Clackamas County to walk for Brent Barton. September 13, it’s a “Women in Leadership Day” trip to Sandy for Suzanne Van Orman. We’ll be back in East County and Clackamas in September, and who knows where else before this year’s journey rolls to a close on November 4th. (If you’re in the Lane County area, you have your own Bus. Get on it.)

In politics, one of the most common and trite memes is "the future." It’s also one of the most vital truths: We do this stuff for the future. And sometimes the future does its own damn work. Brittany Bonnet summed it up perfectly: “I can’t vote — I turn 18 two days after the election — so my preference isn’t going to be counted. But I can get 50-60 people to vote. And so many people my age don’t vote, I want to deal with people who do care.”

Brittany cares, and the Bus gives her a chance to prove it. That’s why I ride: I care. My kid is scheduled to go to Iraq next year; you’re damn right I care. Riding the Bus lets me do something real. Call Henry (503.233.3018) and tell him you care, too, and you want on the Bus. There’s always room.

(Oh, yea: the urinal in a tree. A half-sized urinal. Bolted 20 feet up where a willow got topped. I gotta start carrying a digital camera.)

Willamette Week is reporting today that Gordon Smith's company, Smith's Frozen Foods, is once again in violation of Oregon's environmental regulations:

Nonetheless, the incident is considered a serious "Class 1" violation, meaning it "can harm aquatic life, contaminate drinking waters, and impair recreational, commercial and agricultural uses of water." Because the case is still open, the violation has not yet resulted in any fine.

Discuss.

By Misha Isaak of Portland, Oregon. Misha was campaign manager for Attorney General Hardy Myers in 2004. He and his partner are among the 2,200 couples to have registered as domestic partners in Oregon.

Coverage of legal issues by Oregon media outlets has been driving me nuts. It’s bad enough that the media’s political reporting is obsessed with identifying winners and losers. This news-as-horserace approach has also dominated reporting on court decisions.

Last week’s decision in Lemons v. Bradbury by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that rejected a challenge to Oregon’s domestic partnership law provided yet another opportunity for reporters to discuss who won and who lost, rather than what the Court actually decided.

A 600-word article about the ruling that appeared in Friday’s Oregonian included just 100 words -- a meager four sentences -- addressing the basis of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The article’s remaining 500 words rehashed the underlying horserace: the history of gay rights in Oregon and the reactions of the winners and losers.

The Oregonian was not alone in its shoddy coverage of the court decision. The 400-word Associated Press article that appeared in the Statesman Journal included just 81 words about the basis of the court’s decision. (Compare that with the whopping 63 words that the article dedicated to discussing the out-of-state source of funding for the plaintiffs’ legal team.)

Coverage on local blogs was even worse, some exclusively reporting on the victory for gay-rights advocates and the defeat of gay-rights opponents.

This results-based reporting is not only incomplete; it’s misleading. Despite what the news coverage suggested, last week’s decision was not about gay rights. In fact, the 16-page Ninth Circuit opinion mentioned Oregon’s domestic partnership law only twice, and only in its summary of the case’s background facts.

(JustOut’s liveblog about the Ninth Circuit oral argument last month misguidedly bemoaned, “OK, so we’re almost 35 minutes into the arguments and there’s not been a word said yet about the impact this case has on LGBT Oregonians.” Ugh.)

The case was about how the law should view petition-signing. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that certain rights, such as the right to vote, are so “fundamental” that the government must provide a highly persuasive justification before it can burden those rights. For example, it is unconstitutional to require property ownership as a qualification to vote, because that requirement significantly burdens the fundamental right to vote without a persuasive justification.

In this case, opponents of Oregon’s legislature-passed domestic partnership law sought to gather enough signatures to put the law to a statewide popular vote, but the Secretary of State, using a statistical sampling method, determined that they had not collected enough valid signatures. The plaintiffs were individuals who apparently had signed the petition but whose signatures nonetheless were thrown-out because they did not match signatures on their voter-registration cards.

The Court ruled that the Secretary of State’s system for checking signatures does burden a fundamental right (something the defendants, who supported the domestic partnership law, disputed). However, the burden is a fairly minor one, the Court held, especially when weighed against the state’s interest in efficiently counting signatures. (In fact, one footnote in the opinion observed that Oregon’s signature-review process actually counts many more invalid signatures than excludes valid signatures.) On this basis, the Court held that the state’s system of checking signatures is constitutionally permissible.

The infamous Bush v. Gore also reared its ugly head in this opinion. That case halted Florida’s recount of votes in the 2000 presidential election because the lack of uniform rules for which ballots to count (hanging chads, pregnant chads, etc.) denied “equal protection” to voters. Plaintiffs here argued that the process of rejecting signatures similarly lacks uniformity.

To this argument, the Ninth Circuit panel said, “Even were Bush [v. Gore] applicable to more than the one election to which the [Supreme] Court appears to have limited it, Oregon’s standard for verifying referendum signatures would be sufficiently uniform and specific to ensure equal treatment of voters. The Secretary [of State] uniformly instructs county elections officials to verify referendum signatures by determining whether each petition signature matches the signature on the signer’s voter registration card.”

OK… I’ve managed to summarize the court’s opinion in under 375 words. And although my summary is far from comprehensive, I’ve provided substantially more information about the news event that occurred last Thursday than the Oregonian, the Associated Press, and the blog posts I’ve read on the subject.

One particularly wrongheaded stakeholder quoted in the AP article insisted, “This case was never necessarily about the signature verification process, it was about overturning the domestic partnership law, and that was a very real threat.” While this view may accurately explain why gay rights advocates chose to participate in this litigation, it does nothing to help news-readers understand what occurred last Thursday -- what the Court actually decided.

Results-obsessed news coverage of court decisions leads readers to believe that judges are nothing more than robed super-legislators who arbitrarily inflict their personal policy opinions on the public. But for the judges who issued last Thursday’s ruling, this case was about the signature verification process, not the fate of Oregon’s domestic partnership law. News outlets mislead their readers when they report otherwise.

With the Olympics completing its first week and headed into the second, many Americans are fondly waxing patriotic over the enormous athletic feats of such athletes as Michael Phelps, Nastia Lukin, Shawn Johnson, etc. The drama (highlighted by ever-hyper color commentators such as Rowdy Gaines and Tim Daggett), has been a constant on my TV ever since the games got underway.

So when I found out that Oregon's own GOP state house candidate Matt Lindland had been a part of the Greco-Roman Olympic Team at the 2000 games in Sydney, I was intrigued. Politics AND the Olympics! How could I go wrong?

As it turns out, I couldn't.

During the Olympic trials in Dallas,Texas, Lindland wrestled Keith Sieracki in a 167 1/2-pound qualifying match. During the match, it appears that Lindland bit down on Sieracki's ear. From the New York Times:

Yikes.

The incident in question happens to be on YouTube (natch). So as Bob Costas himself might say, let's go to the videotape!

Mike Tyson has nothing on this guy.

Lindland eventually lost the match by a 2-1 decision. But Lindland complained that he'd been tripped (apparently biting the ear wasn't enough cheating for Lindland to win) so a rematch was ordered. Linland prevailed. But the US Olympic Committee didn't want to make the roster change.

So being the good Repubican that he is, Lindland sued, all the way to the United States Supreme Court:

Lindland eventually did compete in the Sydney Olympic games, winning the Greco-Roman wrestling silver medal in the in the 69-76 kg weight after losing a decisive match to Mourat Kardanov of Russia.

Maybe instead of keeping those earmuffs for myself, I should loan them to Suzanne Van Orman. Given Lindland's history, she might need them more than I do.

Oh..and toss some money Suzanne's way, while you're thinking about it.

The Bend Bulletin reports (subscription only) that Central Oregon Republicans are upset with Gordon Smith:

Last week, Smith declined to serve in the largely symbolic position of honorary co-chairman for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, despite the fact Smith has been a longtime supporter of McCain’s presidential bid.

Earlier this summer, Smith announced he would not attend the Republican National Convention, and — most upsetting to local Republicans — Smith has run television ads touting his work with current Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama and former nominee John Kerry.

“They really don’t like seeing the ads advocating that he’s working with John Kerry or with Obama,” said Jackie Ehlers, vice chairwoman of the Deschutes County Republicans. ...

Scott Waters, a Bend resident active in the local Republican Party, said he’d like both Smith and McCain to focus more on conservative issues, especially reducing illegal immigration. But he still thinks he will vote for them.

“I probably will, but somehow they need to get the message that we conservatives aren’t just going to vote for them because they’re a Republican,” Waters said.

Nancy Lecklider, a board member of the Deschutes County Republicans, agreed.

“Smith is the only Republican senator on the West Coast, so we need to be sure to keep him,” Lecklider said. “As you can imagine (after) some of the things that he said, there are a lot of Republicans who ... are going to hold their nose and vote for him.”

Discuss.

Gordon Smith needs and wants to be seen as a moderate Republican in Oregon. He shifts positions with feints to the left and then to the right. In the process his stands on positions are finally being seen by voters as pure mush. With so much pandering, Smith certainly seems panicked. Smith's own ambivalence makes it hard to tell if he's running for himself or the Republican Party. Even though Smith votes 9 out of 10 times with the Bush administration he claims he's not a conservative. Even though he's been ranked as the 5th highest recipient of lobby contributions he somehow manages to drag out a position to try to pass himself off as something other than a Bush enabling incumbent. It should be clear to all Oregonians that Smith is a pro-Bush politician.

The attack needs to be on Smith's unpopular votes. The list of his votes includes Smith's own words, "I voted for toppling a chief terrorist and tyrant to rid him of weapons of mass destruction." Ilegal wiretaps, torture, minimum wage, health care, tax cuts to the Medicare Rx plan, and his strong feelings against Roe v. Wade effectively communicate Gordon Smith's shortcomings. Smith is first and foremost a pro-Bush politician. This senate campaign is first and foremost about Gordon Smith. We all need to aggressively criticize Smith's record.

The Oregonian has been slow to realize that there has been a dying off of moderate Republicans. Oregonian reporters of a "certain age" yearn for the days of Hatfield, Packwood and McCall. In their yearning they are quick to work with Gordon Smith to help him "sell" his eposodic moderation during his campaigns. Gordon Smith endorsed John McCain. Gordon Smith was the Chair of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. Gordon Smith has voted in lockstep with the Bush administration since he took office in 1996. The United States of America is in trouble due to the incompentency of Bush.

Gordon Smith learned his "style" of detached formalism while attending a prep school in Maryland. He's up against a quality candidate who's background is very different. Merkley is an Oregon rural and working class guy who pulled himself up by the bootstraps. We are about to elect the second Democratic president in 28 years. Democrats and non-affilated voters are going to swarm to the polls. Sloppy Gordon Smith actually coupled his image with Barack Obama in hopes of swaying voters to vote for him. Yeah, that'll work.

Desperate Gordon Smith, newly coined, the"Sofa Senator" by none other than the Oregonian, is running a boat load of deceptive ads about furniture built by Oregon inmates destined to be used for 25 to 30 years in the Oregon legislature. Wonder if Gordon remembers his one term as president of the Oregon Senate in 1995 when he lavishly decorated his senate office and kicked the senate secretary out of the space to make room for some of the most gorgeous furniture ever seen. Sure, he paid for the furniture but the question is, if the furniture wasn't up to Gordon's standards then, why is he making replacing old ugly furniture an issue now? Desperate? Remember the meaning of integrity Mr. Smith?

It's time to fire the incumbent and hire the new guy!