The Oregon GOP: UP? Try F*cked Instead

The Oregonian today has a front page story about the trials and tribulations of the Oregon GOP with the ridiculous headline “For Oregon GOP, only way to go is up.” The authors apparently don’t understated how much longer the Oregon GOP can continue to exist in total free fall, despite their article outlining the looming disaster to come.

The problem that the Oregon GOP faces is so deeply ingrained in the make up of the party that until one side scores a knock out:

“Who’s in charge?”

Reasons for the recent Republican tailspin abound. Among them: deep emotions among voters about the Iraq war; a failure to nominate moderates; confusion over who calls the shots within the party.

“Here’s my question,” says Robert Eisinger, a Lewis & Clark College political science professor who follows state politics. “Who’s the head of the Republican Party in Oregon? Who’s in charge? Never mind who’s the official party chairman, but who’s the leader?”

Some have tried to pin that label on Smith, but he’s not always on the same ideological page with the state party leadership. Some of the most conservative activists have turned hostile toward him for speaking out against the Iraq war and favoring hate crimes legislation.

Remember last March?  When the right was openly in revolt against Smith?  When Bill Sizemore was openly contemplating running a primary challenge against Smith?  The activist base that Lars Larson proselytizes to on his radio show loathe the mainstream moderates of the Oregon Republicans of yore.  The base of the modern Oregon GOP is in the Kim Thatcher/Linda Flores model who believe that government is evil except when it it pushing the morality of the religious right.

Having a presidential candidate that is still trying to make inroads with movement religious conservatives after dissing them in 2000 isn’t going to help either. While the article tries to paint a Republican party on the rebound, you have to look at the groups that are trying to resuscitate the dying party:

Two groups have formed, both aimed at re-energizing Republican politics in Oregon. One, the Oregon Leadership Roundtable, sought to bring together the disparate elements of the party — from business-oriented donors to social conservatives One of the group’s goals: Reduce the number of divisive primary battles.

Another, the Conservative Majority Project, is looking to shake up the party by boosting candidates who adhere to bedrock Republican values, such as property rights, lower taxes and individual responsibility.

The war to “save” the party is exactly what will keep them in this mess. Oregon Republicans are starting to realize that hating immigrants is not good for businesses that employ them, who you decide to be intimate with is irrelevant if you are a good employee, and trying to legislate values doesn’t go over well with young people or tolerant people. The fight will not be decided until there is a knock out, which can’t occur because on side has the money to fund the army and the other side provides the foot soldiers. The coalition has cracked and will not be put back together again for a long time. The emperor has no clothes.

A Tale of Two Endorsements

On Monday, both Oregon Democratic US Senate candidates “endorsed” my candidate for President, Barack Obama. For both, John Edwards was their previous choice, but has long since departed the race. That was the end of the similarities, as Jeff Merkley gave a full throated endorsement of Obama, based on shared values and belief in the grassroots. Novick on the other hand, spent 13 paragraphs praising Hillary Clinton, repeated some of the worst smears against Obama, and doesn’t use the word “endorse” once. Whose “endorsement” would you rather have?

Speaker of the Oregon House Jeff Merkley, the co-chair of the John Edwards, was the headliner in the Oregon Edward’s leadership team’s recent endorsement of Obama. Jeff emphasized the shared values between the two:

“Barack Obama and I share something more in common than simply our determination to change America for the better,” said Speaker Jeff Merkley, “Both of us come from the grassroots, where real change is sewn… Both Senator Obama and I understand what it means to empower Americans house-by-house, community-by-community. That’s the reason I’m running for U.S. Senate – to put that kind of power back into the hands of everyday Oregonians again. And that’s the same reason I’m endorsing Barack Obama for President today.”

A solid rationale coming with the added bonus of the former Edward’s campaign’s help.

Lets compare Merkley’s approach to Steve Novick. Novick, who was recently outed as a former Nader supporter, was more disparaging towards Obama than in any other “endorsement” I have ever read:

I can recite the arguments against Obama in my sleep. No, his health care plan isn’t as good as Hillary’s; we do have to require everyone to have health insurance (or go with single payer), or the math doesn’t work. He’s voted for at least one ugly “tort reform” bill, and has made unnerving comments about the civil justice system. And yes, he did say very disturbing things about Ronald Reagan. Sure, the Clintons exaggerated it – but what does it mean to say that for years, the Republicans were the party of “ideas”? Slashing taxes for rich people is an original idea? And what does it mean to say people welcomed Reagan as a response to “the excesses of the ’60s and ’70s”? What “excesses”? Medicare? The Clean Air Act?…I might ultimately be disappointed, I’d rather be disappointed in new ways, rather than the same old ways.

[Hillary Clinton] knows, possibly better than Obama, what’s wrong with the country, and she knows what we need to do to fix it.
[emphasis mine]

While hitting someone in the face with a frying pan before saying that you support them is quit surprising, this quote from the Willamette Week’s Super Tuesday coverage should have given me a heads up that Novick’s penchant for attacking good Democrats extends beyond his primary opponent:

Even Novick, known for his direct talk despite his career as a political activist, waffled before finally naming his candidate.

“I go back and forth,” Novick said. “I suspect I’ll be disappointed with either one of them“

So why endorse a candidate if you think you think a candidate will disappoint you? I generally don’t like to write about peoples motives but one of the biggest Novick supporters on the internet did just that with Merkly’s endorsement, so lets go there.

Could it be that Novick is trying to run his campaign almost exclusively on the internet, yet he has failed to get traction on Daily Kos except when pimping presidential candidates (4 out of his top 10 most rec’ed diaries about or by Novick were presidential candidate diaries)?

Or maybe it is because he got word that his opponent had scheduled a press conference and was about to throw some real weight behind Obama and didn’t want to get outflanked?

Or maybe it was just another reason to have his internet goons attack Merkley for “disrespecting the legacy of John Edwards” (this from a candidate that didn’t join the Oregon for Edwards team or put forth any noticeable effort to get him elected)?

Or maybe it was what this hardcore Novick supporter claims:

Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Feb 25, 2008 6:58:36 PM I suspect Steve was simply trying not to piss off those of his supporters who feel passionately about Hillary

Man am I glad that we have Steve Novick in the race because he speaks truth to power and will always fight the good fight regardless of the consequences…. Oh wait never mind.

Time and time again, Steve Novick tries to present himself as a straight talker, a kind of liberal maverick, but when push comes to shove Novick is calculating, wish washy, and is never seen far from his immediate political interests, just like politics as usual. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Stymied Sho: Lobbyist and Polling Scandal Could Force Dozono from Race

Earlier, I wrote about some shady election law shenanigans from Portland mayoral candidate Sho Dozono. Sho’s campaign seemed to neglect to report a December poll as an in-kind contribution and clearly house wasn’t in order. Amy Ruiz, a super awesome reporter at the Portland Mercury, wrote an interesting follow up article after the dust settled and it doesn’t get better for Dozono. Based on his previous statements it could even force him out of the race.

The poll at the center of the scandal ended up being a massive $28,000 Cadillac, which lobbyist Len Bergstein, last week in the Portland Tribune admitted to commissioning. These revelations came after Dozono mucked things up further by initially saying that he had no idea who called for the poll, despite Bergstein giving it to him back in December before he filed as a candidate for public financing (but after he filed a candidate committee with the Secretary of State). Here’s where it becomes a sticky wicket, and where the Mercury’s Amy Ruiz starts to smell trouble:

Dozono’s campaign manager, Amie Abbott, released a statement late on Friday afternoon: “Sho determined that the most transparent action was to report the poll as a contribution to the campaign committee. Sho also decided to pay for the poll himself, even though he received this poll information prior to the time he had decided to qualify as a publicly financed candidate. He felt that was the best way to ensure the campaign remains as free of politics as possible.”

Sadly, the way Dozono reported the massive $27,295 poll was anything but transparent. Instead of reporting who commissioned the poll—lobbyist Len Bergstein admitted he did, to the Portland Tribune—Dozono reported it as an in-kind contribution from himself, leaving Bergstein’s name off of the public records.

The only person other person that believes failing to report ties to lobbyists is transparent these days is John McCain, it seems. But, it gets better:

According to state law, “a person may not make a contribution in any name other than that of the person who in truth provides the contribution” and a political committee can’t record a contribution “in another name than that of the person by whom it was actually provided.” Violation of that law is a Class C felony.

That’s not the only problem with the Dozono campaign’s attempted fix.

The transaction was dated December 21. Dozono told me—and plenty of other reporters around town—earlier this month that he had no idea who commissioned the poll (that claim showed up in the Oregonian as late as February 16). If he didn’t know that Bergstein commissioned the poll until last week, how could he have paid for the poll on Bergstein’s behalf in late December? It strikes me that marking the poll down in December is an attempt to not violate a $12,000 in-kind contribution cap as a publicly financed candidate.

The Dozono campaign was clearly trying to have it both ways. He said he didn’t know who commissioned the poll and that it didn’t count as an in-kind, but now he’s paying for it himself as an in-kind for himself? And he pays for the poll now, retroactive to December, but wasn’t that when Bergstein gave him the poll? His latest attempt to fix it might be a felony.

Its enough to make your head spin. So here is a brief reminder of the facts. He lied about knowing who gave him the poll. He failed to report it as a contribution. And when he reported the contribution, it seems he lied about who really gave it to him. Additionally it appears that he is still in violation of Portland’s voter-owned elections law and its in-kind contribution cap, now that he’s paid for it as a candidate.

It seems that there are three options of how Dozono can deal with the mounting scandal:

1: He could put his fingers in his ears and yell “la la la la” and still try to qualify for public financing. If he does, he better be prepared to weather a the blow back, especially considering the gross violations and cover up about the poll. Further with the Emily Boyles nightmare just last election, this could ruin the integrity of Voter Owned Elections.

2. He attempts to withdraw from public financing, but run for mayor anyway. While initially presenting less problems one only needs to go back to January 7, when Sho Dozono said that he would not run for mayor if he didn’t qualify for public financing to see the impending wrath this option would entail. He said, “I made a commitment that if I don’t qualify, I will not run for mayor.” If he’s forced to withdraw from public financing, will he go back on his word and run anyway? I wouldn’t be surprised if he did but voters love it when you lie to them and he can kiss goodbye any credibility he may have left.

3. He pulls out completely and does not run for mayor. While maybe his best way to preserve the good reputation Sho has built being a major progressive philanthropist and respected businessman, it would leave Sam Adams as the de facto Mayor elect, which is lame. No one should get to be mayor of a major metropolitan city without a real challenge.

Whatever Dozono decides intrigue is sure to follow.

UPDATED: Hillary’s Finest Moment – Nevermind

If Hillary Clinton had run her campaign with this statement as a guiding principle she would have easily become the Democratic nominee for President. Throughout the race, her campaign sought to portray her as something that was ruthless, cold, calculating, and brutal. They got their wish. The media remembered the ugly Clinton wars of the 1990s and painted her with all of the animosity that they could muster. When compared with a truly transcendent political figure of Barack Obama, she became an ugly embodiment of what is wrong with American politics. I believe that Barack Obama won the debate tonight, but Hillary Clinton delivered the most transcendent line of her campaign. Unfortunately, I believe it is far too late, as for her to win the nomination at this juncture would require destroying the Democratic party and ensuring her defeat in November. However, if this is truly the last throws of her effort, may she not be remembered for the race baiting, consultant driven, nasty campaign that has obscured her humanity but for this. Let her keep this vision and return to the Senate to resume the people’s work.

UPDATE: I knew I liked it for a reason, cuz it was an Edwards line:

Who is plagiarizing now?  I am pretty sure that Edwards isn’t one of Clinton’s campaign co-chairs either.  Every time I start to quell my distaste for the Clintons, they pull crap like this.  Ignore what I previously said, with the way they have attacked Obama on this very issue they should be roasted.  How do you spell hypocrisy?

Just a Heartbeat Away…

Rahm Emanuel may earn the ire of some progressives for playing hardball at times but this is hilarious. Enjoy while I work on my thesis.

UPDATED: BREAKING NEWS: Paul Evans Cancels "Major Campaign Announcement” At Willamette University Tomorrow

UPDATED: Evan’s representative called the Willamette University Democrats to cancel his planned announcement.

Rumors have been swirling around possible races for former Monmouth Mayor and current adviser to the governor Paul Evans. Evans will have a “major campaign announcement” tomorrow at Willamette University. The event will be held at 11:30 AM in Jackson Plaza or in the Hatfield Room of the Hatfield Library in case of rain.

Evans’ is a well known veteran in Democratic political circles, running for SD-10 in the 2006 election cycle. He chaired the Oregon Summit’s panel on Iraq policy and is one of the co-chairs of the Veterans for Merkley group. Evan’s wife Joan Mooney Evans is the chief of staff for Representative Darlene Hooley.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: PaulEvans, Willamette University, Darlene Hooley, Joan Mooney Evans

Obama Takes On Charges of False Hope

Every time Obama gives one of theses speeches it relegates Clinton to the role of the bitter cynic who criticizes everything no matter what. It exactly this kind of rhetoric that makes Obama someone that you want to support and Clinton you want to defy.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: BarackObama, President, 2008, Hillary Clinton

Macpherson Speaks to Willamette University Democrats

Yesterday State Rep. Greg Macpherson , who is running for Attorney General, came to Willamette University to address the College Democrats. I used the opportunity to blog about his speech. Below are the PARAPHRASED remarks by Rep. Macpherson as recorded by yours truly.

When I was in high school during the Vietnam era, I had a editorial column in the school paper. I used my column to speak out against the Vietnam War despite where I grew up, Albany, being conservative and holding the biggest Veterans Day celebration in Oregon. After a while the newspaper adviser wanted to see the articles before they would print and they would come back with big red lines through them. So we decided to start a off campus newspaper that we distributed at school. The logo was of a column of sunshine coming down from the clouds. We called the paper The Shaft. We thought we were subtle. There was talk for a while of expelling all of us but cooler head prevailed.

Last session a bill to protect the rights of high school journalists was proposed. Remembering my days as a high school journalist I pushed the bill through the House Judiciary Committee. The bill passed senate became law and now the free speech rights of high school journalists are protected. It is not most important thing but it is indicative of my record and what I can do as the Attorney General.

The Attorney General stands at the intersection of Oregon law and public policy. I’ve been practicing Oregon law for 30 years and been a state legislator for 3 terms. At its core position is chief lawyer, what to defend, who to sue, and giving legal opinions to state agencies. But, it is more than that if it was it would be an appointed position. It is also an advocacy position.

It is about safe guarding our landscape. It is not just talking about it, I did it last year by writing Measure 49. I want you to recall the maps showing a disease spreading through the Willamette Valley. We hammered it out through long weeks of public hearings with angry people on both sides. We worked out a compromise with the Republicans but as soon as it went public, they pulled out. It didn’t get one Republican vote. We had to bring it to the house floor twice to counter attacks that would appear during the election. In the end we got it right because through our work and the work that people like you did during the election, it passed. We won’t see huge subdivisions, strip malls, rock quarries, and billboards. As AG i will implement Measure 49 which is challenging in and of itself. There is a principal of law that if you rely on the approval and you invest money you get vested right. We need an AG to push back against defiant counties to make sure that Measure 49 is implemented.

The Attorney General also needs to defend the consumers of Oregon. Until right before the last election payday loans and car title loans sharks were charging people 500, 600 percent interest. I worked in the legislature to cap the interest 36% and the AG needs to enforce cap and i will.

The Attorney General also need to defend the civil rights of Oregonians. In the last session, we passed domestic partnerships and on the same day we passed 30 year old proposal to add sex orientation to our nondiscrimination statutes. It was originally introduced in the 1977 session and finally we passed it last session. Its important for the AG to up for Oregonians. The Death with Dignity Act is another example. It helps people on the way out of life. Death with Dignity runs smack into outsiders religious notions of morality and the Bush administration, who tried to use the FDA to sabotage the ability of doctors to help their patients. I will fight back against these kind of intrusions in federal court, where I will argue these cases personally and bring to bear the prestige of the office of Attorney General.

The final area of responsibility for the Attorney General, is to promote public safety. In this area there is a lot of demogaugery and doing things out of fear. This year Kevin Mannix, a perennial candidate for whatever, has an initiative to institute mandatory minimums for property crimes. Right now the legislature is working on a package of bills in response. Our existing experience with mandatory minimums is M11 fixed sentences regardless of the circumstances of the crime. As a result of Measure 11, our prison system increased from 6,000 inmates in 1994 to over 14,000 now. We use to spend 6% of our state budget on prisons and 9% on universities now it is flipped. We are now are now living in the great prison state and it would be worse if not for prosecutors who are using discretion. The public is easily swayed by the fear of crime. We need to combine enforcement with treatment dollars. Most of property crime is done drug addicts so they can feed the habit. I am hopeful that the legislature will work out a proposal. I hope it will be on the ballot and get more votes than Mannix’s initiative.

Its a part of being smart on crime rather than tough on crime. Take home cooking of meth as an example. People would buy over the counter cold remedies and cook pseudoephedrine with iodine. The would poison the people that would live in and near these houses and kids especially would be affected because meth is common drug for women of child bearing age. In legislature many people said we had to follow the federal war on drugs but I don’t think we’re winning the war on drugs and i don’t know anyone that does. Thats why we found an Oregon solution, putting the pseudoephedrine behind the counter and required a prescription to get it. By doing so we reduced the number of meth labs in Oregon dramatically, for 40 busts per month before the legislation to 18 in all of 2007 after it took effect. Thats what we need to do find the sweet spot of public policy and as Attorney General, I will draw on my experience as a legislator to do just that.

This race is more than talking a good game but instead it is about action. I’ll stack up my record of public service against anyone. I can find common ground and work with people like I did on Measure 49. I have been through it. Be ware of the gonna people, people that say they are gonna do things. Look for the action.

One of the things I noticed is how different (and better) the transcript is from the speech, in terms of its impact. The campaign has just done a poor job with messaging and selling itself. First, how often do you think that Macpherson talks about student first amendment rights when not patronizing young activists? Making me feel like hes talking down to me is not a good way to start a speech. Secondly, I disagree with Kroger on mandatory minimums but Macpherson’s waffling on the position (though he was more clear in this case than in the past) and subsequent failure to understand that concentrating power at the hands of the district attorneys is the problem prevents him from gaining any traction with me. Furthermore, this comment proves very problematic:

I will fight back against these kind of intrusions in federal court, where I will argue these cases personally and bring to bear the prestige of the office of Attorney General.

This was originally a highly successful line of attack from the Kroger campaign that Macpherson has stolen. I asked a follow up question during the Q and A about what important cases he has tried and Macpherson was unable to point to a watershed case that he has argued, saying only that he won an appellate case “just last year”. Macpherson’s job is to convince me that he will be a better manager of the Department of Justice than Kroger, because that is the only way I am voting for him. Reminding people that the AG ever shows up in court is horrible strategy, as Kroger not only has vastly superior in court credentials than Macpherson, he was throughly engaging and inspiring during his speech at the Willamette Dems, which Macpherson was decidedly not. I am going to take a step back and another look at this race before I make a final decision, but the picture is becoming more clear.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: AttorneyGeneral, Greg Machperson, John Kroger, Willamette University College Democrats

Sho Me The Poll, And Fill In The Hole

Election reform is something that has always interested me and Portland’s voter owned election system is an interesting model of how campaign finance could work.  Some interesting events have occured concerning Portland’s public financing system in the last couple of days that have my eye.

First the good.  Charles Lewis who is running for what was Sam Adam’s seat on the Portland City Council is using his campaign funds to buy a dump truck full of gravel to fix potholes.  Yes, thats right the campaign is spending its money not on buttons, bumper stickers, campaign literature, or offices but on fixing pot holes.  As first reported on Jack Bog’s Blog:

Last week we half-kiddingly suggested that Portland City Council candidate Charles Lewis should spend some of his “clean money” — taxpayer-supplied campaign funds — to fix potholes as a publicity stunt public awareness event. Lo and behold, we were right on the money, and not just in a comic sense. From Lewis’s camp, we got a press release this morning that reads in part:

On Friday, February 8th, 2008, Charles Lewis became the second person certified for Portland’s publicly financed campaigns. When Lewis receives money from the City on Wednesday, his first purchase will be a dump truck full of gravel to fill potholes on a public street in Southeast Portland.

“City Council needs to get back to the basics of running a civilized society,” said Lewis. “That means rebuilding our infrastructure, creating new jobs, and making sure everyone can afford to live in Portland.”

Clearly, Lewis is running an innovative campaign based off of his history of public service, like starting the awesome kids music education nonprofit Ethos Music Center.  Taking a roll up your sleeves atitude to the campaign trail will certainly garner media attention (hey it got mine!), as well as drum up some votes.

Now for the bad.  Not long after the Emily Boyles/Voter Owned Elections Scandal, Sho Dozono who is running for mayor of Portland might have also stepped into something that doesn’t smell to good.  Sho recently admitted to receiving polling information that was not reported by his campaign, sparking an ethics complaint, and some bad press.  At issue is not only the failure to report the poll, but also its status as an in-kind expenditure.  As the Willamette Week reports:

The second possibility, that the poll was paid for by Dozono supporters, could make it an “in-kind” contribution. That could also be a problem. Given the size and scope of the poll (it included dozens of questions about the state of the city and public safety. And it tested Dozono’s name familiarity, outlined his background and gauged his popularity compared to other city officials) people familiar with polling estimate the survey could have cost well in excess the $12,000 cap on in-kind contributions for publicly-financed mayoral candidates.

The whole event seems pretty shady from this perch.  Dozono needs to get his house in order as it appears like their is a major violation of the Voter Owned Election rules.

At least for today Voter Owned Elections are a mixed bag of sparking innovative campaigning and being plagued with candidates failure to play by the rules they agreed upon when accepting the public’s funds.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: Portland, Voter Owned Elections, Charles Lewis, Sho Dozono, Emily Boyles

This Week’s Fun

I have a big assignment for my thesis due tomorrow which is slowing my blogging.  However, there is a lot to look forward to this week. I will be blogging Rep. Greg Macpherson’s speech to the Willamette University College Democrats, as well as the kickoff party for HD-20 candidate and all around good guy Rich Riggs.  At the end of the week I am hoping that I am able to get to what will be the start of an ongoing series of State Rep. races throughout the state.  All of that of course is subject to random news events and lots of fun.

Look forward to seeing you there.