Ben Westlund, OR Treasurer

I first met Ben shortly after he changed his Party affiliation from GOP to Democratic Party. His stated reasons, and I have good reason to believe them, were that the OR GOP's intransigence, hobby horse riding, and general wankery did not reflect the needs of the State. This from a State Senator from a strongly GOP district. He started a run for Governor against Ted Kulongoski (D) and quickly withdrew and stumped for Ted. I got a chance to spend some time talking to Ben while he worked Baker Co with Ted in the Governor's race. I was impressed with both his personal integrity and his dedication to Oregon's citizenry.

Two years ago Ben ran for State Treasurer and I spent the day with him, riding him in one of our parades in the Chevy SSR with the top down, at lunch, and walking our largest park meeting and greeting constituents. There were quite a few stops with people Ben knew, he was a rancher and we have ranchers. These folks were Republicans for the most part and adamant in their support of Ben as a Democrat. Ben, his campaign staff, and I spent a long day together which gave me the opportunity to get well acquainted with him. Please understand that in my role in DPO I didn't say bad things about our Democrats, but I gave real support to those I liked and I like Ben a lot. Ben and his staff stayed in contact after his win, asking if I had ideas or concerns - and to say hello.

Not too long after Ben's win, my son died and one of the first phone calls I got was from Ben. He was genuinely distressed and spent very nearly an hour on the phone trying to make words work. Words are a politician's tools, they are his life and Ben tried really hard. Any of you who have sustained such a loss knows that words are inadequate because nothing is adequate, but the expression of caring and desire to help does help.

Ben's death last week was a personal blow to me. He was someone I liked and held in high regard, as an individual and as someone who tried to look out for his fellows. Oregon is a poorer place now with his passing and so is political life. I have saved this so that it will reach his family and friends a bit later, when the real sense of how much has been lost hits after the initial storm of grief. I know I have no words to fix anything, but I do want them to know that their loss is not only shared, but how broadly it is shared.

I am so sorry for their loss and our loss,
Thank You Ben

Oregon Online Voter Registration?

House Votes to Let Voters Register Online

Online registration plan is simple, secure and has proven successful



SALEM – The House today voted in favor of HB 2386, which would allow Oregonians to register to vote online. Online voter registration creates a new avenue to register that is simple, hassle-free and, above all, secure.



"Oregonians pay bills online, check bank accounts online, rent movies online, pay taxes online. We can change our address with the US Postal Service and DMV online. With this bill, we will move our voter registration system into the 21st century by allowing people to register to vote online,” said Representative Ben Cannon (D-Portland), who is the Chief Sponsor of the bill. "This bill takes a significant step toward a secure, hassle-free system of voter registration."



House Bill 2386 would allow eligible voters with valid Oregon Driver Licenses or ID cards to register to vote online through a secure connection on the Secretary of State website. A registrant’s signature from DMV will be used to match against the signature on the ballot. A registrant would first have to indicate under penalty of law that they are a citizen and that they are 17 years old, just like on the current form.



“Oregon needs laws that make registering to vote accessible and easy for every eligible voter,” said Secretary of State Kate Brown. “This is simple, stable and will bring more voters, especially younger voters, into the process of shaping Oregon’s future.”



HB 2386 would model Oregon’s online voter registration system on those of Washington and Arizona, where the programs have proven extremely popular. In 2003, the first year of Arizona's Online Voter Registration program, 25% of all new voter registrations were done online. In 2007, that percentage jumped to 72%. After Washington implemented online voter registration, 1,634 online applications were recorded in the first three days and 38% of all Washington voter registrations in 2008 were done online.



“The passage of this bill represents the culmination of a lot of work by folks who are passionate about access to democracy,” said Representative Jefferson Smith (D-Portland). “The passage of this bill is part of a necessary movement around voter access – democracy works better if more people do it.”

************************

I think this is a good idea. I am in favor of any legitimate means of increasing the voter pool. What do you think?

Congratulations Senator Jeff Merkley

From Northeast Oregon we send our congratulations to our newest Democratic Senator. We are finally done with the fake moderate Republican years of Gordon Smith. If you start with the Senator Elect's childhood story as the son of a mill worker and first college graduate in his family and move through his experience in the Dept of Defense, Habitat for Humanity, and finally as an Oregon legislator and House Speaker you have a recipe for competent Oregon style political action.

It would be easy enough to view my enthusiasm as being through the lens of partisanship, and yes I am considerably more left than Gordon Smith. But that can be set aside when taking a clear look at Jeff Merkley, rather than the quiet go-along get-along do-nothing behavior of his predecessor you can look for Merkley to take an active part, to actually legislate. I have no idea if Gordon Smith was disinterested in the law writing process or just not competent to do it, but you really have to compare Smith to Wyden and wonder, "what????"

It isn't unfair to compare Gordon Smith unfavorably to a popular and exceptional Senator. He had 12 years and most of that time with a Party majority to act in the interest of Oregonians and the nation and these interests are not mutually exclusive. If you take a real look at the mix of industries and lifestyles within Oregon you have a virtual microcosm of the US. Jeff Merkley is a different breed of politician from Gordon Smith and I am glad to have this change.

Thanks for making this run, Jeff. It was a tough race, in political terms and in personal cost. I am intimately familiar with the size of this state and the challenges involved in running and I appreciate your sacrifices on behalf of the citizens of Oregon and commend you for that. Our citizenry needs to have an appreciation for what it means to make this kind of commitment.

Lundgren for Senate

Our friend Maren Lundgren has a TV commercial out. Her site is found at Lundgren for Senate.



This is an important race for Oregon Senate and in these closing days any kind of help paying for this ad sure will help.
Contribute will get you into a secure site.



This is Maren and Chuck at Central Oregon Shooting Association and an Uberti .45 Colt SAA with bird's head grip doing instruction with a gun that requires special handling. This is an original patent revolver which means the firing pin is on the hammer and safe handling requires an empty chamber under the hammer. We had enough fun that she's offered to supply ammo for another go around if I can get out that way again.

I'm not in her Senate district so I don't get to vote for her. Since my district is uncontested for Ted Ferrioli I got to leave it blank, I did think Mickey Mouse was a quality opponent but I don't like spoiling a ballot. Given that situation I'll do what I can for a good candidate. This is the big push, so please do what you can to help out.

Sen Kate Brown and John Kroger Visit Baker City

State Sen Kate Brown - candidate for SoS and John Kroger - candidate for Atty Gen visited Baker City, OR Saturday afternoon meeting with interested citizens at Mad Matilda's owned by City Councilor Andrew Bryant. County Commission Chair Fred Warner and County Commission candidate Randy Joseph were in attendance. Kroger and Brown are center rear of picture, Warner far left foreground, Joseph next left. Several additional tables, not pictured also held attendees. This was retail politics at its finest, an intimate environment and politicians being held to account.

These are two committed individuals, the roles they seek to fill are not particularly public - when operating in good order - but are essential to the good of the citizenry. The first feature that is notable about the candidates is their energy level, this was a second stop of the day from 90 miles of mountainous driving, they were very pleasant and engaging from the outset. The second feature that strikes you is that while engaging in plain speaking these two are not ordinary intellects, they have thought deeply about what the can do in the roles they seek. Some questions were quite probing and coming from an opposition position.

John Kroger started off with what he feels is the center piece of his program for the OR Dept of Justice, addressing the meth problem. This comes from a position of something other than the "crime fighter crusader" garb so many adopt. Oregon's supply primarily comes from large scale dealers out of Mexico which brings associated crimes with it and needs to be addressed aggressively. Then there are the addicts, the vast majority of property crimes and child abuse crimes are tied to meth addiction and yet the current approaches do not seem to be having an effect. John believes that first time offenders should be convicted and sentenced to a treatment regime, simply warehousing them by jailing them or more commonly engaging in 'catch and release' is counter productive. Measures 57 and 61 address property crimes, he endorses the legislative referred 57 versus the Mannix 61 which is essentially prison oriented. The last Mannix crime initiative approved by voters has sucked the air out of the Oregon budgetary process without real long term successes. Kroger also understands that counties are going to hit very rough financial patch with the loss of Federal payment in lieu of taxes and that the State Police are going to have to help fill in local gaps. John was a Federal Prosecutor so he has a background in law enforcement and large organizations. John is in the enviable position of having won both Parties' primaries, the Republican with a write-in.

Kate Brown is a charming wisp of a lady, with steel for nerve and a keen wit. Her district is far from NE OR and more than one attendee was quite willing to broach the issue of urban/rural divide with her. Kate has made previous visits to Baker City, unrelated to her district electoral politics, and is far from ignorant of the area. In fact, she proposes that if elected to follow Sen Wyden's practice of holding town hall meetings in all the counties. Her primary interest in the office of Secretary of State is the State auditing function of the office. Her belief is that with the short bi-annual sessions the Legislature does not have the time or resources to make sure that the State Offices are following the law and the spirit of the law and providing good return for the taxpayer expenditures. She is also committed to raising voter participation, Oregon is high in turnout, but not first and should be with our vote by mail. Another real concern of hers is that the voter initiative process be free of fraud, which it demonstrably is not.

In a readable format I cannot do more than briefly synopsize a three hour conversation and do it any sort of justice. If you have such an opportunity, please take advantage of it - you will be rewarded. Andrew Bryant and Chuck Butcher received the official thanks of the candidates and both of us certainly thank them for coming and I add my thanks to Andrew for helping out to such an extent.

I provide for your information and opportunity to contribute, their websites:
John Kroger For Attorney General
Kate Brown For Secretary of State
I really encourage you to get acquainted with these candidates and help out their campaign finances. Both candidate are deserving of support and campaigning isn't cheap. Whether or not they seem like shoo-ins, their efforts to get acquainted with Oregon and present themselves to the citizens should be supported. Your humble host doesn't have much, but I kicked in a bit.

Oregon's Democrats have certainly been blessed with a surfeit of great candidates this year, how cool is that?

Barack Obama In Pendleton, Oregon

If you're going to go see Barack I suppose you ought to show your colors, my wife's SSR.
Opening speaker Barbara, whose last name I missed.
From twelve feet away you can get a pretty good impression of body language and expression.
I have now spent better than an hour and a half with in speaking range of the man likely to be the next President of the US. That proximity of course does not count as acquaintance but there is a wealth of information available the is not from a television screen or across an auditorium. I was invited to sit in the VIP section, I gather, due to my Democratic Party of Oregon roles. As with Pres. Clinton I wore no campaign gear, only my Grassroots Democrat pin and my DPO Gun Owners Caucus hat. Oh hell, I clapped a lot and cheered and made no pretence he isn't my candidate. Senator Obama arrived on stage shortly after 6:30 PM Pacific in Pendleton, Oregon.



Pendleton is famous for a couple things, the Pendleton Roundup if you're a rodeo fan or Pendleton Wool. The town's population is right around 14K and it sits in the northeast corner of the state, slightly south of the Columbia River on the Umatilla River and somewhat west of the Idaho border at the foot of the Umatilla Mountains, a part of the Blue Mountain Range. Not far from town is the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Wildhorse Casino and a forward looking tribal council have brought a measure of success there. Pendleton's climate is fairly mild, more strongly influenced by the Columbia River Gorge than the mountains. Blue Mountain Community College has its home there but the town is more a blue collar town than a college town. The crowd, I estimate at over 2,000 (***per AP-over 3500***), was over 90% white with Native Americans the largest minority group, ages ran the gamut, but the majority over 30 years age. The crowd was enthusiastic, in the mood for lots of clapping and cheering and standing ovations.



The opening speaker pictured above is a local waitress, a minimum wage earner who did a nice job with something outside her ordinary experience. She emphasized the struggle working people face and her belief Obama is the person to deal with it. She recently lost a grown son to an aneurysm shortly after he'd finished a letter to Sen. Obama, a large reason giving the opening was so meaningful to her. As you can see in the picture the Senator gave Barb his sole attention.



The Senator spoke for less than an hour and then took questions from the audience. The speech was one he has given before, I had watched part of the Portland Waterfront speech on CNN and recognized lines, but it was tailored to the part of the country he was in. Any references to Senator Clinton and her campaign were moderate and for the most part conciliatory, though contrasts were drawn, particularly in regard to future foreign policy - though even there the emphasis was on John McCain.



This speech consisted of 3 pieces, who Barack is and why he is running, why John McCain must not be allowed to persist in George II's policies, and what Barack Obama intends to do. He entwined the three pieces in both his speech and his answers to questions. Much of the speech was his stump speech, he is running now rather than later because of what MLK called the 'urgency of now," the idea that the country is at a historical crossroad. The economic failures of BushCo cannot be perpetuated on the workers by John McCain and the war in Iraq must be ended and Afghanistan prosecuted in a manner leading to success.

I won't replay a speech that most have heard most elements of, the questions may have been more original so I'll try to address them in the abbreviated manner available to me. Sen. Obama took about six questions and used nearly 45 minutes answering that many and two were the complimentary gimme sorts of things, ie: are you going to do more to get the "Colbert/Stewart bump" and will you come back after you're President. (yes and I'd like to) Other questions received detailed answers, much too extensive for me to cover here, I was seriously impressed by both the quality of the questions and particularly the detail and extent of the answers. There may have been a sound bite available in the answers, but the detail and range of the answers defies a simple blog post much less the MSM approach.

A question of what will you do about Cuba? The transfer of power from Fidel to his brother may offer new openings, but the simple fact is that our policy of 45 years has not resulted in a freer or more prosperous citizenry and persisting in the same actions and expecting different results is the definition of madness. The US could make opening moves by easing the travel restrictions on families from the US and on remittances but from there it would depend on Castro. This answer also broadened into the concept of talking to our adversaries to find elements of common ground to ease tensions.

A question about the recent Farm Bill and subsidies creating an atmosphere of dependence from a beef rancher. You have to be ready for a ride with this one, Barack voted (***supported-I misunderstood the thrust of the words***) for the bill but doesn't like some aspects of it but regards it as an improvement over previous ones. He disapproves of the benefits accorded agribusinesses, subsidizing the Fortune 400. He would like to see the emphasis more on catastrophic protection, natural or the bottom falling out of a market and the encouragement of a more varied food production. He believes that the epidemic of childhood obesity is linked to the Farm Bill, through food offered in schools and the food stuffs subsidized which links into health care costs and educational success. Yes, the Farm Bill gets you to health care and education and you've got enough information to do the connection work without me spending six paragraphs on it. Like I said, these were not simple sound bite answers.

A question about what he would do about the Hanford cleanup. His answer, you won't hear this from a politician very often, but I don't know the issue; and I will by the time my plane lands in Montana tonight. My estimation is that he meant that and wasn't pleased he didn't know it.

Regarding your stance on alternative energy, what about nuclear? He said some answers don't please everybody and this one may please no one. He wants to invest money to study it, in particular the waste disposal, but "some times you have to pick your poison" because nuclear energy doesn't create carbon waste. You have to know what your options involve, realistically. The same regarding coal, "we are the Saudi Arabia of coal," but it is one of our dirtiest fuels. Research is needed on cleaning it up, a role for the federal government.

I have stated repeatedly that as a political junkie of many years standing I am not given to fandom regarding politicians. I recognize that these people have thrived in a flawed system, some have thrived sufficiently to be realistic candidates for President, but I came away impressed. I was not impressed by rhetorical flourishes, I was impressed by the depth of thought and the range of it. I was impressed by the ability to naturally interconnect seemingly disparate items into a coherent chain of thought. I am pleased by the impetus to change the way business is done in DC, to drag health care negotiations with Congress onto CSPAN where you can see what we're doing and who won't and why, but the hope of unity is trumped by how he thinks.

I am satisfied that my vote for Obama was well placed and tonight I am happier with it than previously. Thank you Senator for coming to Eastern Oregon, I hope our hospitality made the trip worthwhile. I'm tired, it has been a long day, 100 miles each way, home after midnight, and now this post - goodnight - or good morning...

Vicki Walker, SoS

I've personally known Vicki Walker for several years even though our districts are quite distant from each other. Her reputation as a tireless advocate for governmental responsibility to its citizens is deserved. She has maintained that position whether it was politic or not. I personally know that she will take serious criticism and listen and think about it. This character trait is of great benefit to constituents of a strong natured official, it is in fact, indispensable. No one can reach the level of the candidates for this office with out strong natures, but Vicki's dedication to principles is remarkable and indisputable even in this strong field.

I can state quite factually that Vicki will stand by her commitments even when they are inconvenient and involve an actual political sacrifice. Baker County Democrats put together a Dancing With The Blues event to give all the state wide candidates access to our area's voters before the Primary season kicked into high gear. Vicki agreed to attend shortly after the invitation was extended. Not too far before the event Lane Co, her home county, scheduled their annual dinner for the same date. As a political calculation, that dinner was much more important than our event and considerably more local to her scheduled events. Despite those considerations Vicki appeared at the Baker Co event and it did involve serious sacrifice on her part. Vicki's standing is such that a quite conservative Republican Baker City official is solidly in her camp, despite virtually no congruence with Vicki's Democratic Party stands. The matter for him was her dedication to the good of Oregonian communities and their benefit from that.

We're all familiar with the exaggeration of politician's campaign presentation. I'm going to clip a piece of her webpage and note that I find it quite accurate.

Your vote is your voice. For nearly 10 years Oregonians have been able to count on me to defend their right to be heard in Salem.

As your State Senator, I have courageously and consistently stood up to powerful interests, shining a bright light on waste, fraud and abuse in our state government.

Any campaign needs dollars to run, endorsements help drive the garnering of money, and though this isn't a large forum I'm tossing this out to do what I can to help a candidate I have great respect for. You can contribute here or from a link on the sideboard. You will find very detailed positions on her site as well as the same contribution link. I encourage my readers to step up and help Vicki out, with money and support.

***Update***
Any of my regulars know KISS is real tough to impress:

While I haven't the bucks to send I do have almost 20 votes lined up for her. With luck I might add some more.
What you have written about Vicki is true. She's a smart and dedicated gal, and tough when needed.
Vicki is what I call a people's politician

Senate Endorsements

I've been encouraged from a couple quarters to make endorsement in the Merkely/Novick race and I will at this time make this endorsement, we've got two real good guys running and it's time to start taking their measure. They need some bucks to make their play so getting some of that out there would be a good idea. I've done some bit for the campaigns and I'm still looking and kicking tires. It is embarassing that it was easier to pick a Presidential candidate, who is now gone and I've moved on, than it is to pick a Senatorial Candidate. It certainly isn't that one race is more important or more on my mind, it is that the choice was clearer.

That says a lot about the caliber of men we have running, these guys each make such a great candidate in their own specific ways without disqualifying policy statements that a political junky like me is stuck. I'll point out what I see as each one's most distinct advantage with the qualification that neither is a deal maker for me. I expect to see each grow into the role as time passes.

Jef Merkley has a good organization, they're good at what they're doing and have significant backing. This is a real plus for a campaign, boy do I know what a plus. Some serious hitters in the current political scene are on board and the machinery seem well oiled.

Steve Novick has an edge when it comes to rhetoric. He's sharp, witty, and appropriately abrasive when called for and able to lay out a personable reasoned discourse when called for. It is never of any doubt that you're in the presence of a fighter and an opponent better come well armed. That fighter aspect properly gets less play in regard to Merkley, but a Gordon Smith will get no quarter.

If you take these minor reccommendations as criticism of the other candidate, back the train up. I'm talking about what seem the most outstanding advantage of each as of now. Jeff Merkley is an excellent speaker, particularly in the presentation of a personable concerned individual. Steve Novick's organization is not crippled, it has in fact been quite successful.

I have minor policy quibbles with each, neither has managed to create an advantage with me in that respect. If I have a major problem, it is with both and it is that neither proposes that it is required to make illegal hiring sincerely unattractive for employers to indulge in. There is quite frankly no matter more important in blue collar employment than having your wages gutted and hiring opportunities slashed by the presence of people with no legal business in the market. Health care falls off the radar when the problem is having a job or meeting very modest bills because you are in competition with illegal labor. In the face of ruinous fines and jail time and real enforcement the practice will stop and we will gain control of the labor market and be able to set reasonable immigration policies to fill vacant employment slots. I really have no idea why Democrats can't seem to get that one, but they don't and the Republicans just play closet racists.

Gordon Smith needs to go back to Pendleton and play with frozen peas, I'm sure he'll get to wear his nice clothes. Meanwhile we Democrats need to back our guys and sort them out. Giving them financial support and time to show what they've got will result in being able to make a decision superior to eenie, meenie, minee, moe; caught a Gordo by the toe. There are contribution buttons on the sideboard, use one or both.

Oregon Domestic Partnership - A Go

US District Judge Michael Mosman stunned Oregon's gay community when he put the State's Domestic Partnership law on hold prior to its effective date. He has now tossed the plaintiffs' arguments and allowed it to go forward, effective Friday afternoon. The quickness of the ruling came as a surprise to many. While Mosman stated that there were issues in the suit that the SoS should find troubling and address, he noted that there is no Constitutional right to have a signature verified.

This won't lay the issue to rest. Sadly. Proponents of the ban on gay marriage stated repeatedly the they were only against marriage, not civil unions. That may have been true of some spokespersons, but evidently not exactly everybody. How about a reality check of the nonsense.

Marriage in State terms, is a civil contract. It is not in the least religious. The State magnanimously allows religious people to conduct services and finalize the agreement, but the State holds absolutely no interest in the Godly sanctimony of marriage. Their only interest is in the civil contract that subjects the parties to certain responsibilities and grants certain privileges in binding form - civil form. This is entirely an issue between the State and the involved parties, God doesn't get any play whatever, is totally ignored, is flatly pointless and irrelevant. All of the Godly part is entirely the responsibility of the parties involved in joining in contract.

There is, of course, the unfortunate similarity in the names of the institution in both civil and religious ceremonies. Marriage. Churches and religious adherents mean one thing and the State means something quite different by the same term. I've had friends suggest that all State marriages should be called civil unions to get the State out of the God business and end confusion. I object, there are plenty of words in the English language with two meanings and the State has never been in the God end of this. We don't need new words, we need a citizenry that knows its head from a hole in the ground, how about it? I am so tired of treating symptoms instead of the ailment.

Now this blog has continuously taken the same stand in this regard, as a commentary and as a political campaign site :
The same privileges and responsibilities are due to all law abiding Oregonians, and in fact all US citizens of the same description. Any failure of the government to do so, or to in fact deny such is unconscionable. It is institutionalized discrimination of the worst sort. I do not propose to interfere with anyone's religious freedom, or their ability to speak rudely or think stupidly, but I cannot support taking any of that into the arena of civil contracts. It is, flatly, none of your damn business.

I select my friendships and relationships on the basis of character, I have good friends who are gay and I have good friends who are homophobic and most who don't give a damn. I happen to be among the latter, I don't give a damn. My good friends who are gay, happen to be gay in my mind, they are not defined by that. That may disappoint them, because it is fairly central to their being, but I just don't care. I am entirely heterosexual, I don't have questions or doubts about it, so it just isn't an issue with me. It is, in fact, so basic as to be of no meaning whatever. It does not define me, I simply am that. My eyes are hazel, if yours are not, I simply don't care, mine are still hazel and I'm also not impressed that yours are also.

I do what I can to oppose stupidity and meanness, it seems to be a never ending battle. I'm glad for gays that they've gotten their civil unions, but it is thin gruel in the battle. Make no mistake, the battle isn't about gays, it is about our government acting in a proper manner. If you want to be ignorant and mean, that is your business, but I can't abide it in government.

Regarding Democratic Party of Oregon and Guns

It's time to run this again:

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-008

A RESOLUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON

WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has long been dedicated to the preservation of civil liberties; and

WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has long been dedicated to the preservation of freedom and social justice.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. To recognize and support the right to keep and bear arms in Article 1 Section 27 of the Oregon State Constitution and the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America as an individual right not granted by the government, but rather guaranteed by the government.

Section 2. In recognition of the tremendous personal responsibility engendered by the right to keep and bear arms, the Democratic Party of Oregon further advocates severe penalties and their enforcement for criminal use or misuse of the right.

ADOPTED by the Democratic Party of Oregon on 16th day of July, 2005.
Resolution submitted by Charles H Butcher III, Baker County.

Platform and Resolutions Committee recommends adoption.

Date approved
7/16/05
Resolution sponsor(s)
Chuck Butcher

If you want to try and make the Republicans look better on the issue, you'd better have them re-write their mess. Yes, there are Democrats that don't like this; but to take measure this passed with 73% vote. The DPO also has The Gun Owners Caucus with Blue Steel Democrats as its unofficial Blog and a page on DPO's website and it is one of the best attended and most active Party caucuses. We (I'm a charter member, not an officer) aren't quiet and some candidates carry R08-2005 in their pockets when they campaign.

Oregon Secretary of State - Non-partisan ?

An Oregonian editorial advocates changing the office of Secretary of State from a partisan competition to a non-partisan office. They reference the Florida fiasco with SoS Kathryn Harris in the 2000 Presidential election. I've read the editorial several times looking for a justification that goes beyond an appearance of partisanship involved in the current system. They do mention a 1962 and 2006 look at the idea, in '63 the legislature decided against and so far nothing on the '06. The Oregonian notes that the '62 Constitutional Revision Commission likened the office to judges who run as non-partisans.

As Hans Linde, the retired Supreme Court justice who served on the commission, wrote: ". . . inviting a suspicion of partiality needlessly undermines confidence in any office when objectivity and impartiality are the essence of its functions."

The Oregonian concludes, "It's time to strip the trappings of partisanship from the secretary of state's office. "

The Oregonian says the current SoS Bill Bradbury vigorously opposes the idea and even somehow agrees and disagrees with him:

Bradbury is right that calling a candidate nonpartisan doesn't change his personal preferences, and in fact, may conceal them from voters. But he's wrong to insist that voters are better served by an avowed partisan than by a professional manager.

Um. What? The Oregonian says "professional manager" right behind "avowed partisan" making some kind of inference that "avowed partisan" equals 'political hack,' and the trappings of being defined "professional" somehow negates "partisanship." They change a couple words and that somehow changes the people who serve? By their reasoning only a person who has never registered with a Party would qualify - registration as a Party member is a declaration of partisanship. I'm pretty sure they're not advocating that only people who don't care to belong to a Party are qualified, if that is what they mean then they are advocating a Constitutional bar to freedom to associate.

I've already noted that SoS Bill Bradbury opposes the idea, Politicker OR asked the current candidates what they thought. Avakian and Brown didn't have anything for the article, Metzger approves of the idea, spokesperson Stacy Dycus,

“If the Secretary of State endorses a candidate, and then something happens so it’s a tight election, then it is difficult for the secretary of State to maintain the appearance of neutrality, even if all the rules have been followed.”

Walker doesn't agree,

“You can dress up a pig any way you want, and it’s still a pig, so it’s not the nature of the office being partisan or non-partisan, but the nature of the individual.”[...] “I’ve been a Democrat all my life, because I believe in their views, and I can’t just turn that off, but it doesn’t mean I can’t behave in such a way that one would expect from an elected official who presides over state elections.”

Let's go back to the Oregonian which portrays Sen Gordon Smith (OR-R) as a moderate Republican (something Democrats scoff at) and see what else is there.

Meanwhile, incumbent Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, who once ran against Republican Gordon Smith for the U.S. Senate, gave a speech at a Democratic Party event last month in which he criticized Smith's "far right-wing agenda" and called on other Democrats to "work the next 13 months to ensure that Oregonians hear about the real Gordon Smith." Last week, he insisted again to The Oregonian that Smith and every other candidate on the ballot in Oregon next year will get a fair election and pointed out that he had pledged not to serve in any candidate's campaign nor help raise money for candidates.

OK, "gave a speech" and then "insisted again" links the two events in the readers mind and rather than a nice neutral 'Bradbury stated' we get the defensive "insisted again" as though there was some question about Bradbury somewhere other than in the Oregonian's mind. Readers of any newspaper would do well to remember how their neutrality works when they are advocating it. I've already stated my view on that topic, (to save you time) it's nonsense.

Vicki Walker, in her usual no-nonsense way, nailed the point. I'll expand a little, I don't want an SoS who is disconnected from the political process, whether or not you like the (R) or (D) they are the dominate forces in Oregon politics. The NAVs don't nominate candidates and the others have proven to be ineffectual, who ever effectually runs for SoS is very likely to have either an (R) or a (D) after their names on voter registration. The fact that it does not appear on the ballot has not one thing to do with the person. Considering the political outcomes of so many of the SoS decisions, I'd really like to know just exactly what their political agenda is.

I'm a Democrat, the current SoS is a Democrat, and most likely the next SoS will be a Democrat, so you might think I have a Democratic agenda in scoffing at the idea, not so. I want Oregonians to know just exactly who they're voting for. Now just about anybody who pays any attention at all to politics would have known Bradbury was a Democrat when they voted even if it weren't in the ballot, and it would be pretty difficult to not notice that whatever Democrat is nominated that they (currently) are all Democratic Oregon Senators; so what is it that the Oregonian is stumping for? Quite simply, a ballot appearance of non-partisanship, unless they propose to ban any with political activity in their past. The citizens of Oregon deserve better, but that isn't the Oregonian's agenda.

A couple things ought to occur to readers, there is every chance that the Smith election will be a brawl and there is a good chance that re-districting is headed to Oregon. Now if I had an idea that what Democrats like isn't what I liked I might like to have an Editorial position giving me ammunition to take pot-shots at whatever an "avowed" Democrat did. The Oregonian is no friend to Democratic politics, their endorsement for Governor ought to make that pretty clear. I don't know if Metzger thought this all the way through or if he's also a fan of appearances, I'm not going debate his statement with him, he's free to comment here, but he's flat out wrong.

The Kathryn Harris debacle had not one thing to do with her political registration on the ballot, it had everything to do with her/their idea of the political process. There is some chance that Florida voters will have gotten the idea that SoS politics count, and maybe next time they see that (R) they'll remember being the butt of a bad joke. Not likely, but they're not Oregon. The Oregonian did not point out any bad outcome of the partisanship of Oregonian SoS, they have not one Oregon fact to back their assertions. I assert that the Oregonian's Editorial is an act of partisanship under the guise of responsibility, the very thing they condemn.

***if the Oregonian doesn't like that, they're free to use the Comments button, also***

Kevin Mannix Is Worth A Lot Of Bucks To...

Freedom Works. Hart Williams has done some astonishingly good work researching and reporting on conservative and libertarian causes, and most amusingly freaked out Sean Hannity. Now he's got Kevin Mannix in his sights and if you have anything shaky going on that's not a good thing. The 2006 tax return shows $268,650 for “Legal services” paid to Kevin Mannix by Freedom Works Foundation, it is interesting that in 2005 he was worth $200,089 as a political consultant. Nearly a half million dollars in two years? Freedom Works ( Inc and Foundation) are essentially petition mills and advertising shills.



Since I actually labor for money I find it just a little offensive that running conservative petitions and advertising hit pieces is such a lucrative business that "contractors" like Mannix are worth that kind of money. I encourage you to spend some time on Hart's piece, there is a lot more there that it would be pointless to cut and paste into an article when Hart has done the work. Because Freedom Works (all of it) is a national organization there are circles within circles, something Hart is great at analyzing.

Doris Anderson Found - Alive

She's been found alive after two weeks in the wilds of Baker County, Jason Jacoby and Mike Ferguson of the Baker City Herald have the story. Baker County Deputy Travis Ash and and OSP Senior Trooper Chris Hawkins went back out to search on their day off and used good woodsman tactics to find her, the story by Chris Collins in the Herald details the rescue.

I know, respect, and like all these reporters so I'm only going to tease you into reading our local paper.

For those of you unfamiliar with our countryside, it is very rough, very high, and a very good place to not get lost in.

Florida Democrats Might Want Their Vote To Count

Florida's Republican legislature moved their Primary Election to January 29th in defiance of Democratic National Committee rules. 210 Delegates are at stake since the DNC Rules Committee has imposed the harshest penalty of refusing seat Delegates elected prior to February 5th. Floridians are crying foul and disenfranchisement, seems an odd notion since the rules were in effect before the offense and it was clearly known. Democratic Party of Oregon had extended discussions on the matter last winter and made its opposition known to the legislature.

These front loading states may be making a large mistake in their thinking that they will attract candidates by moving up. The early field may get so crowded that candidates simply will not have the resources to give them the attention they desire. Candidates will definitely have to concentrate their early resources on large delegations if they crowd up. State like Oregon with a May 5th Primary (and a paltry delegation) may well turn into decisive votes if the candidates come out of the early fray bunched up. There are candidate strategies that could turn an early crowd into a low dollar campaign benefit, concentration on the small delegations could turn to advantage as the big bucks brawl in the big states.

The DNC certainly had the right to set the rules and the timetable limits, it is their Primary. Beyond a simple matter of "rights" is the matter of controlling chaos in the process. The practical effect of a DNC cave in on this issue is having Primary elections the day after Inauguration. OK, I exaggerate, but at what point does the thing become ludicrous and fall apart. I'd say it's already become ridiculous. The General Election is November 10th, this isn't a pregnancy, it does not take 9 months from Floridians voting and having an election.

I'd be real pleased to see these numbskulls have to sit on their hands February, March, and April to find out that Oregon just selected the nominee in May. Sure, it might not work that way; but it could and that's something to think about when States consider messing about with the Primary process. Size might not be all, it might get canceled by size, but that wouldn't occur to them - they're big.

Tom Butler Tells Baker City Part Of The Story

Baker City Herald; June 12, 2007; Issue23
"Tax proposals shouldn't fly, Butler thinks
Mike Ferguson, mferguson@bakercityherald.com

Mike and I know each other pretty well and I have reason to trust his reportage, so here's Rep Butler as I derived him from Mike's report. Don't blame Mike for my stuff, I'll use quotes if anybody is getting quoted.

First up, I don't think Tom has ever seen a tax break for big business or wealthy individuals he doesn't like. Butler opposes raising the $10 corporate minimum tax, a level he admits is low, but he does want you to know that corporate filing fees have been raised 500% since the $10 minimum which began in the 1930s. Yes, 500% no doubt sounds like quite the bash on corporations - except the fee is $50. How do I know that? I pay both. Of the price to satisfy government to allow me to be in business this amounts to almost exactly 1%. Me, 1%; oh boy am I impressed.

He doesn't like the boost in weight and mile tax on trucks that operate in Oregon "The increase would make Oregon the nation's most expensive state to operate a commercial tractor-trailer, he said." Has Tom looked at the roads lately? Sure, studs are hard on the roads, but check which lane is thrashed, the right one. The truck one. Chains aren't exactly nice to roads, either. The most expensive in the nation? Let me see, deep frost penetrations, lots of mountains, lots of miles with essentially nothing there thus lots of mileage. Oh my, I pay about $240 for tags for a 1950 COE (cab over engine) 18,000 pound gross dump truck that gets the kind of miles you might expect in a year - few.

He doesn't like the additional cigarette tax, he says it would push people to Other Tobacco Products site and OTP isn't taxed. He's a non-smoker - "no friend of the tobacco industry," which I might believe. What is galling is that he uses such an argument rather than the fact that the tax will fall on a lower income group with few numbers. He is perfectly willing to make the few numbers argument for the rich, I've heard him do it. And the simple fact that these are Oregonian's children, no smokers. About 60,000 of Oregon's uninsured children are eligible for Oregon Health Plan coverage, but, "their parents just aren't signing them up." He says. ( I think the tax stinks, I smoke, but for the reasons I put forward it stinks )

I'm afraid this guy represents me, oh well...

Basic Rights Oregon Called

Basic Rights Oregon called on the phone today, a person I know from political activity told them I might be a contact person. Andrew Hogan, of Communications Dept, wanted to know if I could think of anyone who might be willing to be a "Voice" in Eastern Oregon. As he explained to me what they were looking for I ran through the list of people in my head that might do. This person would be a heterosexual with some community reputation and recognition who could speak on their behalf in Op Ed or related instances. I won't say I was coming up dry, but as I ran through the names I realized that I was ignoring something.

That something was kind of like a dinosaur in the living room.

The people I know who would do this are Democrats, I'm County Vice-Chair, SCC Delegate, and a former candidate for higher office, and an opinionated Blogger - opinions that have a lot to do with fair play, economic and social justice - and I'm standing next to my work truck trying to think who'd be good? I'm thinking (sorta) this isn't my fight, (maybe a little) this has potential to cause me embarrassment. That's about the time I probably persuaded Andrew that I'm crack brained because I started laughing, and told him (paraphrased), 'well, why not me.'

Yes, some of my friends and associates are going to poke at me over this, well, geeze, I live in Baker County and ran as a Democrat against (other Democrats) Greg Walden. What do I have to lose, everybody that knows me knows I'm a gun totin', drag racing left wing nail banger with a wild beard and a huge white dog. Is there anybody that doesn't think I'm goofy? My wife tells everybody I'm goofy. Damn, I'll lose my reputation?

Yes, absolutely. If I don't do this I lose my reputation. I lose it where it counts, with me. I've never cared about odds, I care about doing right, I care that I see me doing what I believe. I'll tell you straight up, I'm heterosexual, I have no understanding of a homosexual relationship and I find the idea of me engaging in such an act utterly unappealing. SO WHAT? I don't care what color or gender or religion people are, I care about who they are. Any fellow citizen of Oregon who is law abiding should have exactly the same rights AND responsibilities as any other law abiding citizen. I care about people. I don't get to rant about money grubbing sonsabitches with their foot on the workers' necks and shrug off somebody else's neck under a foot.

So I'm going to be a Voice for Basic Rights Oregon, it's a thing worth doing. I sincerely hope it does some good. They're looking for people, maybe you can help out.

More Cigarette Tax

This would be a great time to tell you what a great idea additional tax on cigarettes for children's health care is ... not. Health care for children is a great idea, over due, as is some form of universal health care. Not just great ideas, wonderfully, stupendously, awesomely great ideas. Paying for them with additional cigarette taxes is errant nonsense. These are Oregonian's children, not cigarette smokers' children. On a pack of Camel straights @ $5.00 the tax is 24% of the cost, that's not the tax rate which is 31% and that is on top of the federal taxes. I mention Camel straights because I smoke 1/2 pack/day of them.

I make no claim that cigarettes aren't bad for your health, they absolutely are. There are some real basic problems with some of the claims, but that's small change. It cannot be shown that those costs are not recovered over time, there certainly are some issues about aging vs not that get lost. Even that is not the point. The point is that cigarette smoking has not squat to do with child health care. Yes, you can impose that tax by vote on a minority that hasn't enough votes to challenge it, because you can do something does not make it right or reasonable. It might not bother anybody that most smokers make less than the median income, but it sure seems an odd way to be progressive.

People make "fairness" claims about the social and health costs posed by cigarette smokers, as though voluntary choices like that only include smoking. Maybe those advocates would be well paid to take a look at the consumption of alcohol when they bring up those kinds of costs. It does pose a bit of a problem for the cigarette agenda, smoking pales in comparison. The single greatest hit in those costs is ... alcohol. Yes, there's an elephant in the living room and nobody notices. As far as personal health goes try on liver damage, brain cell death, nerve damage, esophagus and stomach damage, lowered immune system, circulatory damage, and pregnancy issues, then move onto mental health issues, including verbal and emotional components, neglect, irresponsible behaviors . From there add in car crashes, falls, assaults, lost work days. Then go take a look at the prison system and find how many crimes were committed under the influence. This stuff is advertised on TV and in magazines and its use is glorified, yes, in front of children. What works for alcohol is much better lobbying and advertising and a much larger constituency.

*Further disclosure* I don't drink, I haven't for almost 19 years, I do know something about it.

Do I want to duck responsibility for my smoking habit? No. I've smoked for over 35 years, though, and I'm healthier than the majority of the population and you'd better be in outstanding condition if you want to keep up with me. Since I can't afford to retire you don't need to worry about taking care of me in old age, besides I like my work.

If we're going to take on progressive ideas and institute policies on those ideas, let's do that exactly, do progressive things in a progressive manner. I'm sorry Gov. K. this idea sucks, but I voted for you and still would.

Blue Oregon is having a nice argument and they even have a poll. I don't like the idea over there either.