Salem Political Snark

Local election results look positive for progressives

Election night results always change in Oregon, even with vote by mail. This year they likely will change to a greater degree, since for the first time ballots postmarked today will count if they're received within a week.

That said, it's no fun to be cautious and say, "Let's wait until all the votes are in." Instead I say, "Let's look at the results as they are now!"

Assuming those results hold up -- again, a big assumption -- progressives like me should be pleased with how things are looking in local races. 

Chris Hoy leads in the race for Salem Mayor over Chane Griggs. This would be a pleasing win for progressives, since conservatives have occupied that seat for quite a while, and Griggs pulled in big bucks from the usual Chamber of Commerce-type business groups.

Since Linda Nishioka was unopposed in the Ward 2 city council race, that's an easy win for a progressive.

The Ward 4 race is close. If Medlock hangs on to her lead, that's another win for a progressive. 

I and quite a few others suspect that Julie Hoy's main qualification to run for the Ward 6 seat is that though unrelated to Chris Hoy, who has represented that ward on the city council, she shares his last name, so some voters probably cast a ballot for Hoy thinking she was his chosen successor or relative. It looks like she'll be a new conservative on the council.

Micki Varney, a progressive, has a slim lead over Chris Cummings in the Ward 8 race. She narrowly lost to Jim Lewis four years ago, so I'm hoping the second time is a charm for Varney, who is very well qualified to be a city councilor. (She was appointed to fill the seat after Lewis resigned.)

In the Democratic primary for the 19th House District in the state legislature, progressive Salem city councilor Tom Andersen leads Brad Witt by a fairly comfortable margin. Jackie Leung, another progressive city councilor, dropped out of the race but remained on the ballot and is getting over a quarter of the vote.

It looks like Tina Kotek will be the Democratic nominee for Governor. There were even more candidates, but I cut the screenshot off since nobody has heard of most of them.

In the Democratic primary for the new 6th Congressional District, which includes Salem, I'm thrilled that Andrea Salinas is so far ahead of Carrick Flynn. Flynn had way more money supporting his campaign that did any of the other candidates, and his almost daily mailers that arrived in our mailbox grew to be irritating as they went into our recycle bin. 

Lastly, Kurt Schrader is getting beaten badly by Jamie McLeod-Skinner in the 5th Congressional District race which includes part of Marion County. Schrader has voted in Congress against progressive priorities numerous times, so this would be a sweet victory for those who want a real Democrat to represent them.

Oh, there also were Republican primaries. Since I'm a Democrat, I'm not reporting them, except to note that Christine Drazan is leading in the race to be the GOP nominee for Governor. May she and independent candidate Betsy Johnson lose badly to Tina Kotek in November, along with Republicans in other races.

Big bucks flowing to conservatives in mayor and city council races

Today the Statesman Journal had a story about spending on the races for mayor and four city council seats in next Tuesday's primary election (which usually determines the winner in those contests, since a candidate getting 50% of the vote plus one more vote wins outright and avoids the November election).

The title of the story by Whitney Woodworth shows its primary focus: where the $375,000 came from. But equally important is where the money went.

There are four contested Salem races on the ballot -- mayor and three of the four even-numbered city council seats up for election (Ward 4, 6, 8). Ward 2 only has one candidate, Linda Nishioka. 

Each race has a more conservative candidate and a more progressive candidate.

The conservatives are Chane Griggs, mayor; Deanna Gwyn, Ward 4; Julie Hoy, Ward 6; Chris Cummings, Ward 8. The progressives are Chris Hoy, mayor; Dynee Medlock, Ward 4; Stacey Vieyra-Braendle, Ward 6; Micki Varney, Ward 8.

Using the list above in the Statesman Journal story, I totaled up the money contributed to the four conservative candidates and the four progressive candidates. Big difference! 

Four conservative candidates in contested races: $272,279 
Four progressive candidates in contested races: $96,428

(The grand total is $368,707 rather than $375,000 because Nishioka raised $5,860 in her uncontested race.)

So 74% of total contributions went to the conservative candidates and 26% went to the progressive candidates. Since Salem voters lean to the left -- Obama, Clinton, and Biden won comfortably in Salem in the past three presidential elections -- I suppose it could be argued that most of the local political money tilting rightward helps balance things out. 

Still, it wasn't that long ago when a few thousand dollars and a willingness to get paid absolutely nothing to put in long hours and serve as mayor or a city councilor was all that was needed to become a viable candidate.

Now the price tag has risen to five figures, and in the case of Chane Griggs' campaign for mayor, six figures. It's hard to see that this is good for citizen involvement or democracy, but the plain fact is that this is how politics at every level in our country has been moving.

Small money becomes big money which becomes huge money. Intimate local campaigning by a candidate door to door becomes mass mailings/radio and TV ads/paid consultants.

So far, though, from what I can tell there hasn't been much of a relationship between the amount spent on a mayor or city council race and who wins the race. People power can still compensate for money power. 

May it always be that way.

Hating Russia, I now better understand why so many hate the United States

Before Putin invaded Ukraine, my attitude toward Russia was one of rather detached disinterest.

I knew that Russia wasn't our friend, Trump had some sort of fatal attraction toward the country, Putin was an authoritarian who killed dissidents/journalists he didn't like, and it had a lot of oil and gas.

But in no way did I hate Russia. Now I do. 

Not the Russian people. Just that portion of the Russian populace responsible for carrying out the invasion of Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin. The oligarchs who support him. The Russian military. Anyone else in Russia who knows about the horrendous war crimes being carried out in Ukraine and still is OK with the invasion.

War is hell. Even when war is being conducted as it should be, with battles being fought by competing armies. War is far beyond hellish the way Russia is acting in Ukraine.

Kidnapping, torturing, killing, and raping civilians. Targeting schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, and other targets with no military value. Leveling entire cities through indiscriminate bombing. Failing to allow civilians to evacuate from areas being attacked by Russia.

Knowing what I do about Russian atrocities in Ukraine, there's no way I could ever go back to feeling even neutral about Russia. For the rest of my life I'll detest Russia, even if Putin ever is replaced (which likely will be with another authoritarian ruler).

I now better understand why the United States is disliked by so many people around the world. Yes, my country does a lot of good beyond our shores. But we've also done a lot of bad.

The Vietnam War was a disaster. Ditto the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, leaving aside the justified invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, but not the twenty-some years that followed. The United States has caused hundreds of thousands of people to be killed unnecessarily.

Those deaths have caused a lot of intense reactions. If members of your family have been killed in a drone attack aimed at an Al Qaeda leader, the death of those innocents is going to leave a gaping hole in your heart that can't be repaired.

Anger at the United States can be as justified as my anger at Russia, albeit with some important differences. The United States didn't have an official policy directing our military to commit war crimes, but it definitely appears that Russia does.

Our intentions in going to war also were more defensible, though I realize that many would disagree. As much as I disliked George W. Bush, I feel that he truly did want to see Iraq become a democracy, even thought the U.S. strategy to accomplish this was deeply flawed.

By contrast, Putin wants to conquer Ukraine just to expand the borders of Russia back into what used to be the Soviet Union. He has no lofty aim, just the exertion of raw power.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is much more publicized than any other conflict, thanks to smart phones and the courage of journalists who report on what's going on there. I suspect that if our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had been equally open to view, American atrocities would have been much more on display, though nowhere near to the degree of Russian war crimes in Ukraine.

Ukraine is fighting a righteous war against an unprovoked invasion by Russia. That gives them the moral high ground. I wish I could say that the United States always has occupied the same ethical territory in the wars we've fought recently, but I can't. 

So while in no way do I believe that we're as guilty of war crimes as Putin's Russia is, I now can empathize more strongly with those who hate the United States for our own wartime atrocities. 

Claudia Howells text unfairly smears Tom Andersen in HD 19 race

It's getting close to the Oregon primary election day, May 17. Per usual, the nastiness is ramping up in campaign attack ads. 

Here's an example.

Today I learned the identity of the person who's been sending text messages wrongly accusing Tom Andersen, the Salem city councilor running in the Democratic primary for House District 19 against Brad Witt, of being weak on abortion rights.

It didn't take much sleuthing, since Claudia Howells identified herself in the text message. Howells' husband, Bradd Swank, lost badly to Andersen in a 2014 City Council race, so this raises the question of whether retribution is a motive for Howells. Or maybe she just doesn't like people not named Brad/Bradd. Here's the 2014 election result and the text message.

Tom Andersen vigorously disagrees with what Howells says.

It's almost beyond belief that Tom Andersen isn't pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Claudia Howells must know this, yet she sent out the text message.

Probably she'll come up with the pitiful excuse that the text speaks of pro-choice voting records, not being pro-choice. But that's B.S.

If Andersen never has had a chance to vote on an abortion rights bill, because he hasn't been a state legislator as Witt has, obviously he doesn't have a pro-choice voting record.

This is a sleazy attempt to smear Tom Andersen. No other way to describe it. Claudia Howells should apologize to Andersen and promise never to do something like this again.

Why Paige Clarkson is unfit to be the Marion County District Attorney

A recent mailer I got from Friends of Paige Clarkson, who is running to be the Marion County District Attorney, shows why voters should cast their ballot for Spencer Todd, her opponent. 

It's disgusting. Todd is a public defender. But apparently Clarkson doesn't understand that in the United States everyone is entitled to an attorney who defends them in court, because the front page of her mailer says this:

And who is the company Spencer Todd keeps? Why, defense attorneys! OMG! The horror! A public defender has friends who are defense attorneys. 

(Note: if you're a spelling geek, another reason not to vote for Paige Clarkson is that she and her campaign can't spell "palling around" correctly.)

Gunn & Gunn P.C., a Salem law firm, posted a terrific response to Paige Clarkson's offensive mailer on their Facebook page. This was written by Marc Gunn.

Friends:

As you may know, there is presently a contested election for the District Attorney for Marion County in which Spencer Todd is seeking to replace Paige Clarkson. To date, I have remained neutral and have not advocated for one party or the other in this election. In fact, Mr. Todd is unaware I am writing this message.

 

Unfortunately, I have recently become aware of a flier published and distributed by Ms. Paige Clarkson that cannot be allowed to stand. The flier attempts to malign Mr. Spencer Todd because he is “paling around with defense attorneys and convicted criminals.” She then lists 11 local defense attorneys that are supportive of Mr. Todd, indicating that you should not vote for Mr. Todd because he is supported by these good people.

 

Ms. Clarkson apparently believes the fact that individuals represent criminal defendants (i.e., criminal defense attorneys) that they are somehow deplorable individuals who should not be trusted.

 

This inference by Ms. Clarkson is a symptom of a cancerous disease of tribalism that is destroying our democracy and the ability for civil disagreement and public discussion of important issues. In my opinion, this speaks of an individual (Ms. Clarkson) who has contempt not just for those who are convicted of crimes but for those who play an important and constitutionally protected role in the American justice system.

 

You should know that I am personally familiar with every one of the attorneys listed by Ms. Clarkson. In my experience, every one of those individuals is a competent, capable, caring individual who provides professional legal services in our community.

 

All these attorneys work as public defenders, representing fellow citizens charged with criminal conduct. They are all private attorneys contracted with Marion County Association of Defenders which is a non-profit association that provides Public Defense Services. These individuals are constantly underfunded by the legislature (though that is changing) and put in long hours for relatively little pay.

 

It is my understanding that many of these individuals receive less financial compensation than the prosecutors working under the direction of Ms. Clarkson. For the past six months, Marcus has been a part-time contractor with MCAD. Seeing the time, energy, and resources he has dedicated to that work provides me with an increased appreciation of how difficult it is to work as a public defender.

 

I find it telling that there are also multiple privately retained defense attorneys that have donated far more to Spencer Todd’s election than these individuals – but there is no mention of those attorneys. Does Ms. Clarkson feel that she should only target “Public Defenders” and not target those who are more highly compensated for providing criminal defense services.

 

No public figure should ever feel the need to malign the character of citizens because they choose to support the other candidate. I also find it highly unprofessional and unbecoming of a member of the Oregon State Bar to publicly express what I can only see as spite, hatred, and vitriol against fellow members of the bar.

 

Though my name was not included in the list, I am a criminal defense attorney. I represent individuals charged with and convicted of crimes. I take personal offense at the inference that citizens should not listen to someone because they are a “criminal defense attorney.”

 

Apparently, Ms. Clarkson feels that her credentials and record are so weak that she needs to engage in what I consider vile behavior. She should be ashamed of what she has published and should publicly apologize for her statements. I am sad to say that Ms. Clarkson lost a great deal of my respect today – something that is hard won and easily lost.

 

When you are casting your ballot in the next week, please seriously consider voting in favor of Spencer Todd as our next District Attorney.

 

Please feel free to share this message with anyone you feel will benefit from this perspective.

Best Regards,

Marc

#thecompanyhekeeps

If we make the mistake Zelensky did, we'll lose our democracy

I'm a huge fan of Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. They've fought against Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine with amazing skill, valor, and determination. 

Zelensky

Since the war began on February 24, Zelensky has led his country almost perfectly. He inspires both Ukrainians and the entire freedom-loving world with his words and actions. And yet...

A special report in the May 9 issue of TIME magazine, "Inside Zelensky's World," describes how close a bad decision by Zelensky came to imperiling Ukraine in the first few days of the war.

The error was ignoring the obvious evidence that Russia was planning to invade Ukraine. The story says about the morning of the invasion:

For months Zelensky had downplayed warnings from Washington that Russia was about to invade. Now he registered the fact that an all-out war had broken out, but could not yet grasp the totality of what it meant. "Maybe these words sound vague or pompous," says Stefanchuk. "But we sensed the order of the world collapsing."

Until I read the TIME story, I wasn't aware of the disaster that almost befell Zelensky and Ukraine in those first few days of the war, since Ukraine hadn't prepared for the invasion.

Beyond the checkpoints is the government district [in Kyiv], known as the Triangle, which Russian forces tried to seize at the start of the invasion.

...It soon became clear the presidential offices were not the safest place to be. The military informed Zelensky that Russian strike teams had parachuted into Kyiv to kill or capture him and his family.

...As Ukrainian troops fought the Russians back in the streets, the presidential guard tried to seal the compound with whatever they could find. A gate at the rear entrance was blocked with a pile of police barricades and plywood boards, resembling a mound of junkyard scrap more than a fortification.

...As night fell that first evening, gunfights broke out around the government quarter. Guards inside the compound shut the lights and brought bulletproof vests and assault rifles for Zelensky and about a dozen of his aides. Only a few knew how to handle the weapons.

One was Oleksiy Arestovych, a veteran of Ukraine's military intelligence service. "It was an absolute madhouse," he told me. "Automatics for everyone." Russian troops, he says, made two attempts to storm the compound. Zelensky later told me that his wife and children were still there at the time.

Reading this got me to thinking about the parallel between Zelensky denying the evidence that Russia was about to invade his country, which left Ukraine worse off than if preparations to repel an invasion had been taking place during those months of denial, and how people in the United States are failing to grasp the evidence that Republicans are busily working to undermine our democracy.

So far the pitiful response of Congressional Democrats and President Biden to GOP efforts to take away voting rights, set the stage for overturning the 2024 presidential election if a Democrat wins, and stack the Supreme Court with highly partisan right-wing justices willing to stand by and allow our democracy to be trashed is painfully like the frantic efforts to protect Zelensky's compound.

Piles of barricades and boards wouldn't have been enough to stop Russian troops without a combination of Russian incompetence and Ukrainian fortitude. Yet too many people in the United States are hoping, as Zelensky did, that the worst isn't going to happen, even though there's lots of evidence that it will.

Two of those people, sadly, are Democratic Senators Manchin and Sinema, who are standing in the way of doing away with the archaic Senate filibuster that's preventing Democrats from taking steps to protect our democracy in the short time remaining when this can occur, since Republicans likely will take back at least the House in November of this year, and perhaps the Senate also.

For months Zelensky looked at Russian troops massing on the border of Ukraine and thought, there's no way Putin would order a full-scale invasion of my country. 

For years too many Democrats have been looking at Republican efforts to undermine our elections and thinking, there's no way Trump and his GOP cronies would order a dismantling of our democracy. 

The next thing Zelensky knew, his guards were fighting Russian paratroopers at the gates of his compound. What I fear is that the American people are going to discount warnings of a Republican assault on democracy until that battle has gone too far to stop it from succeeding.

Once abortion is illegal, gay marriage and contraception could follow

Unless you're living in a news desert where word of the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion overturning abortion rights hasn't reached yet, likely you're either outraged or ecstatic -- depending on how you view abortion. 

Me, I'm in the outraged camp.

I strongly favor a woman's right to choose what medical care she gets. That leads me to be upset at what anti-abortion zealots and their enablers in the Republican Party have wrought: the imminent doing-away of a constitutional right to an abortion that has been the law of the land since 1973, almost 50 years.

Even worse, there's good reason to believe that the Supreme Court won't stop with doing away with the constitutional right to an abortion, but could reverse other rights also, such as same-sex marriage and contraception. So says a piece in The Atlantic, "Alito's Plan to Repeal the 20th Century."

However, listening to liberal Congressional politicians speak today about how they're going to work to codify a right to an abortion in a law to be introduced soon leaves me with a bad feeling also. 

After all, these are the same Democratic politicians who have been promising to pass voting rights legislation because that too deserved urgent attention. Yet nothing has happened with voting rights. Just as nothing has happened with police reform, immigration policy, and other progressive priorities.

Since there aren't 51 Democratic votes for doing away with the filibuster in the Senate, and no abortion rights bill can get 60 votes, the chance of such a bill passing is essentially zero. Which raises the question: why didn't Democrats enshrine the right to an abortion in legislation when they had the chance at a time when this was possible since 1973, assuming it ever was?

As much as I dislike today's Republican Party, I give the GOP credit for fighting tough on what it deems important. Yes, they fight dirty, but that got them a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and gerrymandered districts all across the country that now provide them with a solid base of support.

Democrats are good at expressing outrage at Republican nastiness. They're not nearly as skilled at responding in kind to cure the ills that the GOP is inflicting on our country.

Below I've shared some tweets from my Twitter feed that I especially liked out of the many views about the Supreme Court leaked draft order that I read today. You'll see that a woman who clerked at the Court has changed her mind about who likely sent the draft order to Politico reporters.

Yesterday she thought it was a liberal law clerk or justice who wanted to raise the alarm at how five conservative justices were poised to not just restrict abortion rights but do away with them entirely by reversing the Court's previous rulings on abortion.

But now she leans toward the notion that it was a conservative law clerk or justice who sought to lock in Justice Alito's strong, even harsh, draft order, since it appears that Chief Justice Roberts may have made some progress in finding support for having abortion rights pared back, yet not eliminated entirely.

Now that will be more difficult, since any weakening of the draft order will infuriate anti-abortion activists who want abortion illegal in any state that wishes it so, and ideally in the entire country -- which could happen if Republicans get control of both the House and Senate in 2024, along with the presidency.

So any conservative justice in favor of softening Alito's language will find this more difficult to do, given that the draft order has been publicized. Anyway, we may never know who leaked it. It just won't be surprising if it turns out to be, say, one of Justice Thomas' law clerks.

Here's the tweets.

My feelings as I filled out the May 2022 Oregon ballot

Here in Oregon we vote in the privacy of our own homes. Or any other damn place that we choose, since our oh-so-enlightened state is 100% vote by mail in every election.

Yesterday my ballot arrived in the mail.

Being eager to vote ASAP, almost immediately I sat down at our dining room table, a pen with black ink in hand, so I could put my ballot in a mailbox on my way back from a Thursday evening Tai Chi class.

I can't say it was a highly emotional experience. But I did have some clear feelings as I filled in my choices for a variety of races in our rural south Salem area.

In the Democratic primary for the 6th Congressional District (a new district, so no incumbent), I was thrilled to see that Carrick Flynn was near the bottom of the list of candidates, because we've been getting an annoyingly large number of mailings from Flynn, along with noting his annoyingly large number of political ads on TV.

The order in which names appear on a ballot is determined by a random ordering of the letters of the alphabet by the Secretary of State office. It was nice to see that the amount of money Flynn has attracted both for his campaign and independent expenditures by a Flynn-loving PAC (obviously) wasn't able to overcome randomness.

When voting for Democratic candidates unopposed in the primary -- probably because the positions they're seeking are in a Republican-leaning area -- I sent each candidate this thought:

Thanks so much for running for this office. It takes a lot of commitment of time, energy, and money. I hope you win in November, but even if you don't, you're a winner just for choosing to put your name on the ballot and stand up for Democratic values.

Vance Day is a jerk of an ex-judge, which made it a delight to vote for his opponent. My compassionate Buddha-nature came into play when I carefully filled in the box for each incumbent judge running unopposed. 

Even though a lazy part of my mind briefly considered not voting for races with a foregone conclusion, I quickly tamped that part down by envisioning how the incumbent would feel if they look at the election results and see that many people didn't vote in their race. 

Ooh! It was thrilling to see my wife, Laurel Hines, on the same ballot as candidates for Oregon Governor and Senator. Sure, Precinct Committee Person is a bit (OK, a lot) lower on the political totem pole, but, hey, it's an elected office.

Looks like Laurel, along with our neighbor Amy Urban, have excellent chances of winning, since you're supposed to vote for eight and they're the only two people listed.

As far as I can tell, the main qualification for the position is being willing to sit through lengthy mostly-boring Zoom meetings with your fellow Democratic precinct committee people. That disqualifies me, but I admire everyone who volunteers to do this mostly thankless job.

Vote for these progressive candidates in the May election

I like progress. That's why I'm a progressive.

And why I'm recommending that you vote for these candidates in the May election that likely will determine who becomes the next Salem mayor and wins the even-numbered Salem City Council seats.

(If a candidate gets 50% of the vote, plus one more vote, they win outright in the May election, which is a primary for partisan Democrat/Republican races, but usually is the deciding election in local nonpartisan races.)

For more detail, here's a recommendation I saw today from a progressive group that includes some additional races. They leave out the Ward 2 race because Linda Nishioka is running unopposed. I agree with their recommendations.

Lastly, I favor Andrea Salinas in the Democratic primary for the 6th Congressional District seat, and Tina Kotek in the Democratic primary for Governor.

I'm undecided in the Democratic primary for the 5th Congressional District seat. I'm not wild about Kurt Schrader, but I think he has a better chance than Jamie McLeod-Skinner of keeping this seat Democratic in the November general election, which could be crucial if control of the House comes down to just a few races.

Three reasons to vote for Medlock rather than Gwyn in the Ward 4 council race

If you live in Salem's Ward 4 and are thinking of voting for Deanna Gwyn, I urge you to think again. Her opponent, Dynee Medlock, is a much better choice to represent you on the City Council.

A couple of Salem Reporter stories by Rachel Alexander provide the reasons. Here's three of them, based on a written Q&A where Medlock and Gwyn answered questions sent to them by Salem Reporter staff, and a devastating story, "Salem council candidate Deanna Gwyn has rarely voted, records show."

(1) Voting records. Gwyn has voted just twice in the past decade, not voting in 14 elections since 2012. When asked about this, the Salem Reporter story says:

Contacted Monday by Salem Reporter over the phone, Gwyn said a question about her voting record “caught me off guard” and asked for time to formulate a response.

In an email Tuesday, she said her lack of participation reflects feeling disengaged from the political process.

So Gwyn couldn't even give an immediate honest answer. She had to take a day to come up with an excuse other than simply not caring about voting, which probably is a lot closer to the truth than "feeling disengaged from the political process," which sounds like something her campaign manager told her to say.

By contrast, Medlock voted in every primary and general election in the past decade, missing only four special district elections. 

I can't see voting for a candidate who doesn't bother to vote.

(2) Time living in Ward 4. Gwyn only moved to an apartment in Ward 4 last May, so she's lived in the area she wants to represent for less than a year. Medlock has lived in a house in Ward 4 for 14 years. 

(3) Endorsements. Among the eight current city councilors and mayor, who comprise the nine-member Salem City Council, Gwyn is backed by only one person, Mayor Chuck Bennett. Medlock has four endorsements: Jackie Leung (current Ward 4 councilor), Trevor Phillips, Vanessa Nordyke and Chris Hoy, who’s currently running for mayor.