Salem Political Snark

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.

Chane and James Griggs' campaign contributions, 2008-2022

Today someone sent me a spreadsheet that, they said, was pulled from Oregon's campaign contribution database, ORESTAR.

It showed the contributions to 28 candidates by Chane Griggs and James Griggs between 2008 and 2022. The amounts ranged from $100 to $2,000, aside from a $5,000 contribution by James to Chane's campaign.

Chane Griggs

Since Chane Griggs is running for Salem Mayor against Chris Hoy, the accompanying email pointed out that while the Mayor's office is non-partisan, most of those receiving money from the Griggs were Republicans or conservatives.

That's true. But most of the donations, 25 of the 28, were in the name of James/Jim Griggs, with only three being in the name of Chane Griggs. Sure, usually a married couple have similar political views, but there are exceptions -- such as Kellyanne Conway (conservative) and George Conway (liberal).

So I leave it to whoever reads this blog post to decide what the information below means to them.

I've divided the 28 candidates into four categories: Registered Republicans (14), Conservatives (8), Registered Democrats (3), and Unknown Affiliation (3). I made the judgment call on the Conservative category, which wasn't that difficult, since the candidates were all known to me.

You can see that Chane Griggs made two of her three donations to Democrats, with the third going to Julie Hoy, the more conservative candidate in a 2022 Salem City Council race (who is unrelated to Chris Hoy).

So while it's clear that Chane and James Griggs make most of their political contributions to Republican and conservative candidates, Chane actually tilted toward Democrats in her three contributions. What we don't know is to what degree James' contributions reflected the political values of Chane also.

Republicans
Bud Pierce
T.J. Sullivan
Colm Willis
Raquel Moore-Green
Selma Pierce
Kim Thatcher
Denyc Boles
Cheri Helt
Knute Buehler
Jackie Winters
Kevin Cameron
Jodi Hack
Patti Milne
Chris Dudley

Conservatives
Julie Hoy (Chane)
Reid Sund
Jan Kailuweit
Brad Nanke
Jim Lewis
Kathy Goss
Anna Peterson
Janet Taylor

Democrats
Cameron Smith (Chane)
Kathleen Harder
John Kitzhaber (Chane)

Unknown Affiliation
Paige Clarkson 
Peter Dassow
Russ Isham

Marion County District Attorney candidates offer clear choice in City Club debate

I'm healed!

Thanks to the current Marion County District Attorney, Paige Clarkson, and her challenger in the May election, Spencer Todd, I've recovered from the (mild) trauma of watching the previous Salem City Club debate via Zoom between the candidates for Salem Mayor, Chris Hoy and Chane Griggs, where Hoy and Griggs agreed on almost everything and were kind and gentle toward each other.

Morally uplifting, perhaps, but boring. 

In contrast, Clarkson and Todd disagreed on almost everything and were pleasingly snarky toward each other. Partly that was because being attorneys, they're used to arguing with their fellow lawyers. But it also is clear that they have decidedly distinct political philosophies.

Paige Clarkson embraces the traditional conservative Law and Order/Lock Them Up model of public safety. Spencer Todd embraces a more modern progressive approach: Deal strictly with those who commit serious crimes, but look for innovative ways to improve the criminal justice system.

Top left: Hans West, City Club moderator; Top right: Paige Clarkson; Bottom: Spencer Todd

The first question asked by moderator Hans West was about Oregon's public defender crisis.

Clarkson said the right thing in noting that all parties in the criminal justice system are necessary, obviously including prosecutors and defenders. But she claimed that the public defender budget totaled more than the budget of all District Attorneys in Oregon combined, so we need to make sure that money is being spent well.

Todd, a public defender himself, countered that the public defender budget includes more line items than the District Attorney budget, so they aren't directly comparable. In fact, Oregon spends way more on prosecuting than defense. He argued that we need more defense lawyers.

In response to a question about Marion County crime rates, Todd said that violent crimes are up while property crimes are down. He observed that we've been trying the same things for 40 years, and it's time to change. 

Clarkson said that crime is worse. The reason: all branches of government have reduced tools for law enforcement, using as an example the Oregon legislature's recent restriction on police pulling someone over for a burnt out taillight or other minor equipment infraction. In a rejoinder, Todd observed that things Clarkson complained about are excuse-making, with most not even law yet.

Asked what their biggest concern is in Marion County, Clarkson said child abuse, plus an excessively vague, "Neighborhoods don't feel as safe." Todd went with recidivism, saying, rather obviously, that there's a need to identify people likely to reoffend violently. He also mentioned homelessness and, nonshockingly, a need to reform the District Attorney's office, with crimes going unprosecuted by the incumbent, who happens to be Clarkson.

Measure 110, which voters approved by a 58-42% margin in 2020, decriminalized personal non-commercial possession of street drugs like cocaine and heroin, requiring people found with such drugs to either pay a $100 fine or complete a health assessment. 

In regard to whether Measure 110 is on track, Todd said that before the measure passed, drug users could be arrested, jailed for six months, and not get any treatment. He views Measure 110 as better than before, but it isn't doing all that was planned. "I'd rather prosecute more serious crimes," he said. Clarkson said she's a vocal opponent of Measure 110, in part because few people have sought treatment rather than pay the $100 fine. It "rolled out the red carpet for drug cartels," according to Clarkson.

Both Clarkson and Todd said they favor mobile crisis response teams like Eugene's CAHOOTS program that has diverted about 17% of police calls to non-uniformed responders. Todd said that if we can't get more police, police resources should be used more efficiently, one reason he supports mobile crisis response teams.

Lastly, Todd views the death penalty as incredibly cost-ineffective given the lengthy appeals process. He said it isn't an effective deterrent and it takes away the ability of a prisoner to repent, something he sees as important. Which made me think, OK, but given how long prisoners spend on Death Row in Oregon (executions are rare), isn't there plenty of time to repent? Clarkson said that voters have approved of the death penalty, which doesn't exist in Oregon for all intents and purposes. She supports it in certain circumstances.

I'm uncertain about who to vote for in the Democratic Governor primary

I'm usually quite opinionated when it comes to politics. But this morning my wife asked me who I favored in the upcoming May Democratic primary for Oregon Governor. 

I said, "I don't know. Tina Kotek and Tobias Read are the favorites. I'm not sure which is best."

A KGW story, updated as of April 12, shows 16 candidates in the Democratic primary. Wikipedia has 15 candidates, lacking Michael David. This is the Wikipedia list.

Again, Tina Kotek and Tobias Read seem to be the only viable candidates. Both are experienced in Oregon politics, have a decent amount of campaign funds, and have gotten high-profile endorsements, according to Wikipedia. (Highest profile is Elizabeth Warren endorsing Kotek.)

I find myself leaning toward Kotek for these reasons.

She knows how to play political hardball, given the nine years she spent as Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives. Betsy Johnson, a former Democratic state senator with a decided independent streak, is running for Governor as -- no big surprise -- an independent. 

Johnson has more campaign funds than any other candidate. She's tough. I worry that Tobias Read, who strikes me as a very nice guy, albeit a bit too bland for my tastes, wouldn't be able to handle debates with Johnson and my guess who will win the Republican primary, Christine Drazan. 

Drazan was minority leader in the House for two years, 2019-21. If she's the GOP candidate, Drazan will attack the Democratic candidate even more vociferously than Johnson will. After all, until recently Johnson was a Democrat, so Johnson and Kotek will agree on more than Drazan and Kotek do.

And I like the idea of having three women vying to be Governor on the November ballot. 

Still, I'm open to arguments as to why I should vote for Tobias Read in the May primary rather than Tina Kotek. If you have one, share away in a comment or email (address is in right sidebar).

I'm curious about any substantive policy differences between Kotek and Read. However, my top priority for the Democratic Governor candidate is that they're able to defeat Betsy Johnson and the Republican candidate in the November election. 

Other CD6 Dem candidates furious at Carrick Flynn getting $1 million from House Majority PAC

A tweet this afternoon by an Oregon Democratic consultant, Kari Chisholm, clued me in to an controversial action by the House Super PAC backed by Democratic leadership in Washington, D.C.

Below is the Joint Statement from the six Democratic candidates that I copied from the tweet above. It is indeed highly disturbing that the House Majority PAC would back a particular candidate in the Democratic primary for an newly created House seat, especially since Carrick Flynn isn't lacking for campaign funds, given how many mailings my wife and I have gotten from him.

An Oregon Capital Chronicle story about this says: 

Flynn’s campaign already attracted the attention of at least two other political action committees, which together spent nearly $6 million to help his campaign by April 9, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. Protect Our Future PAC, run by cryptocurrency billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried, is responsible for about $5 million in pro-Flynn ads that have become inescapable on TV in the district. Justice Unites Us, a PAC focused on turning out Asian American and Pacific Islander voters, spent more than $800,000 on canvassing for Flynn. 

Hopefully the House Majority PAC will reconsider their screwy decision to bestow about $1 million on Flynn. After the Joint Statement I'll share a statement from the Hispanic PAC that's the campaign arm of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which is supporting Andrea Salinas and also isn't happy with the House Majority PAC backing Flynn.

Joint Statement from OR-06 Democratic Candidates
on House Majority PAC's Interference in Primary

Candidates for Congress jointly call House Majority PAC's action
"a slap in the face to every Democratic voter and volunteer in Oregon." 

Andrea Salinas, Kathleen Harder, Teresa Alonso Leon, Loretta Smith, Cody Reynolds, and Matt West - Democratic candidates for Oregon's 6th Congressional District - today released the following statement denouncing revelations that House Majority PAC, the Super PAC backed by House Democratic leadership, is spending nearly $1 million to influence the primary election in support of Carrick Flynn:

We strongly condemn House Majority PAC's unprecedented and inappropriate decision to spend nearly a million dollars in this Democratic primary. House Majority PAC - House Democratic leadership's Super PAC, allegedly tasked with holding Republicans accountable and electing Democrats to Congress - should not be spending resources to divide Democrats.

This is a highly competitive Democratic primary with many strong candidates. The field includes four women - three of which are women of color - and two men who all have substantive experience working in the legislature, local office, science, the military, and healthcare.

This effort by the political arm of the Democratic establishment to buy this race for one candidate is a slap in the face to every Democratic voter and volunteer in Oregon - and is especially concerning in a year when all resources must go to protecting the Democratic majority.

Carrick Flynn, the candidate receiving this financial support, has already benefited from nearly $5 million in support from cryptocurrency billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried, at a time when the cryptocurrency industry seeks to increase its influence in Washington. House MajoritynPAC's troubling decision to meddle in a Democratic primary in support of this candidate begs the question:

With so much needed to defend the House, how can they afford involvement in a primary? Why is this happening? Where is this money coming from? And what does its source want in exchange? We call on House Majority PAC to actually stand by our party's values and let the voters of Oregon decide who their Democratic nominee will be.

lHere's the statement from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus BOLD PAC.

Washington, D.C. - Today, CHC BOLD PAC Chairman Ruben Gallego released the following statement regarding House Majority PAC’s (HMP) decision to not endorse Andrea Salinas in Oregon’s 6th congressional district and to purchase nearly $1 million in television ads to support her primary opponent Carrick Flynn.

“Voters and candidates of color delivered majorities for Democrats in the 2020 elections. Latina women helped lead the charge by mobilizing communities and voting for Democrats up and down the ballot across the country. Their role in the midterms will be no less critical.

Yet despite this fact, House Majority PAC – the largest spender working to elect Democrats to the House – has deliberately chosen not to endorse Andrea Salinas, a candidate who is among the most qualified Latinas running in a congressional race anywhere in the country.

HMP is tasked with defending the House Majority by boosting Democrats and holding Republicans accountable, not with spending critical resources against a woman who has spent decades fighting for progressive causes and who will excite Democratic voters in November.

“Right now, Democrats should be doubling-down on their investments to empower Latino and Latina candidates like Andrea who are running strong campaigns focused on issues that matter to communities of color and working families. Oregon has never had a Latina or Latino representative in Congress, and the 6th district – which is 21 percent Hispanic – has the opportunity to make history this year.

“Instead of supporting Andrea, House Majority PAC is spending nearly $1 million to prop up her opponent Carrick Flynn. This stands in contrast to the thinking of a majority of Democrats who know that Latino candidates and voters must be taken seriously for the midterm elections. That includes over 80 elected Democrats, progressive organizations, and community leaders that have endorsed Andrea, such as CHC BOLD PAC, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and League of Conservation Voters Action Fund (LCV). HMP’s decision to oppose these groups raises serious concerns.

“BOLD PAC encouraged Andrea to run for Congress because she is an exceptionally qualified leader who doesn’t back down from a fight. We’ve been with her since day one and we stand resolute in our commitment to helping her get elected to Congress,” said BOLD PAC Chairman Ruben Gallego.

CHC BOLD PAC Board Member Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia (TX-29) also released the following statement, “As the fastest-growing segment of the electorate over the last 20 years, Latino voters represent the country’s second-largest voter bloc by ethnicity – those who take them for granted, do so at their own peril. Andrea Salinas is a transformational leader who has spent decades fighting for women and families as an advocate and an elected official. She was instrumental in passing Oregon’s Reproductive Health Equity Act, the strongest reproductive rights law in the country. While 145 women serve in Congress today, we still make up only 27 percent of the entire Congress, compared to 50 percent of the U.S. population. At a time when reproductive rights are at stake, Democrats should be moving mountains to ensure that there are more women at the table – especially women of color – instead of actively trying to tip the scales against an exceptionally experienced Latina. That is precisely what House Majority PAC has done. BOLD PAC unequivocally stands behind Andrea and her strong and historic campaign.”

Ask these tough national questions of local conservative candidates

The saying used to be "All politics is local." Now the reverse is at least equally true: "All politics is national."

Meaning, whereas there used to be lots of politicians who were conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, those days are pretty much gone. Democratic politicians are almost all liberal. Republican politicians are almost all conservative.

This poses a problem in nonpartisan races, such as for Salem Mayor and City Councilor. 

Sure, nonpartisan has a lovely inclusive vibe to it. Let divisiveness rule in those nasty races where candidates have Democrat or Republican accompanying their name. Our local races can simply focus on local issues like homelessness, no need to bring in national politics.

Nice aspiration, but impractical. I'll explain why.

Salem is a city that leans leftward, having a liberal/progressive majority of voters. Currently there are seven progressives on the nine-member City Council (Mayor plus eight councilors), with one of the progressives, Micki Varney, being a temporary council appointment due to a resignation.

However, the Mayor's office and all four City Council seats up for election in 2022 lack incumbents. So there's more uncertainty than usual about whether progressives or conservatives will end up with a majority on the City Council.

It makes sense for conservative local candidates to appear as moderate as possible, given that Salem is a liberal city. But voters shouldn't assume that just because a non-progressive candidate sounds middle-of-the-road, they truly are. 

Usually they're more conservative than they come across as while campaigning. Then if elected, they transform into a pretty traditional right-wing Republican, since there are so few moderate Republicans.

Here's photos of the candidates supported by the Progressive Salem organization. Hoy is running for Mayor. Nishioka for the Ward 2 council seat. Medlock for the Ward 4 council seat. Vieyra-Braendle for the Ward 6 council seat. Varney for the Ward 8 council seat. 

Thus their opponents are more conservative (Nishioka is unopposed). Mayor: Chane Griggs. Ward 4: Deanna Gwyn. Ward 6: Julie Hoy (not related to Chris Hoy). Ward 8: Chris Cummings.

While it makes sense to ask tough national political questions of all the candidates, it's particularly important to do so for the four more conservative candidates listed above: Griggs, Gwyn, Hoy, Cummings. 

The progressive local candidates have little reason to appear more moderate. They're seeking to be elected in a liberal city, though some parts of Salem are more liberal than others. But as noted before, the conservative candidates are motivated to hide their right-wing'ness as much as possible, so will try to keep a focus on local issues.

That's why I'm hoping voters will ask them tough questions about national political issues. Their answers will help indicate what sort of Mayor/city councilor they would be, and to what extent they share views held by most Republicans.

Some suggestions:

-- Is Joe Biden the legitimate winner of the 2020 presidential race, having defeated Donald Trump in a free and fair election?

-- Do you favor abortion being legal in all 50 states?

-- Should marriage between same-sex couples remain the law of the land?

-- Do you support strong efforts to reduce human-caused greenhouse gas emissions in order to combat global warming?

-- Are you in favor of the United States working to strengthen NATO given Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

Obviously there are many other national political questions that could be asked of local candidates. These are just five that came easily to mind. 

And I'm not saying that questions about local issues aren't just as important, or more so.

I just want the campaigning for Mayor and City Council to reveal as much as possible about the candidates, because not much is gained by hearing platitudes like "I'm in favor of working to end homelessness, preserve public safety, and improve our parks."

Also... not putting kittens or puppies in a meat grinder. 

Parents don't get to choose the version of American history they like best

Until I read a story by Jill Lepore in the March 21, 2022 issues of The New Yorker, "The Parent Trap: How school fights, from evolution to anti-racism, pit parents against the state," I failed to understand some key points about the current controversy over teaching American history in public schools.

Quite a few conservative states are passing so-called parents-rights bills that allow parents more leeway than they've enjoyed before to complain about teaching regarding slavery, systemic racism, and such that goes against the grain of a view of American history that papers over these subjects in favor of a rosier picture of the values our country was founded on.

What Lepore does in her story is put this current debate into a broader context of how people have objected to other subjects taught in schools, notably evolution. She writes:

When anti-evolutionists condemned "evolution," they meant something as vague and confused as what people mean today, when they condemn "critical race theory." 

Anti-evolutionists weren't simply objecting to Darwin, whose theory of evolution had been taught for more than half a century. They were objecting to the whole Progressive package, including its philosophy of human betterment, its model of democratic citizenship, and its insistence on the interest of the state in free and equal public education as a public good that prevails over the private interests of parents.

There is no such thing as the history of the United States. Rather, there are many histories, each with their own viewpoint. History always involves interpretation. But there are worse histories and better histories. 

Lepore quotes a 1943 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a West Virginia law requiring schoolchildren to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance: "Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."

Lepore adds a comment: "History isn't a pledge; it's an argument."

I really liked this passage from the story where Lepore argues that schools should teach not just white American history, or Black American history, but the history of all those who have made our country a wonderful admixture of nationalities and cultures.

A century ago, parents who objected to evolution were rejecting the entire Progressive package. Today's parents' rights groups, like Moms for Liberty, are objecting to a twenty-first-century Progressive package. 

They're balking at compulsory vaccination and masking, and some of them do seem to want to destroy public education. They're also annoyed at the vein of high-handedness, moral crusading, and snobbery that stretches from old-fashioned Progressivism to the modern kind, laced with the same contempt for the rural poor and the devoutly religious.

But across the past century, behind parents' rights, lies another unbroken strain: some Americans' fierce resistance to the truth that, just as all human beings share common ancestors biologically, all Americans have common ancestors historically.

A few parents around the country may not like their children learning that they belong to a much bigger family -- whether it's a human family or an American family -- but the idea of public education is dedicated to the cultivation of that bigger sense of covenant, toleration, and obligation.

In the end, no matter what advocates of parents' rights say, and however much political power they might gain, public schools don't have a choice; they've got to teach, as American history, the history not only of the enslaved Africans who arrived in Virginia in 1619 and the English families who sailed to Plymouth on the Mayflower in 1620, but also that of the Algonquian peoples, who were already present in both places, alongside the ongoing stories of all other Indigenous peoples, and those who came afterward -- the Dutch, German, Spanish, Mexican, Chinese, Italian, Cambodian, Guatemalan, Japanese, Sikh, Hmong, Tunisian, Afghani, everyone.

That's why parents don't have a right to choose the version of American history they like best, a story of only their own family's origins. Instead, the state has an obligation to welcome children into that entire history, their entire inheritance.

Disappointing: Hoy versus Griggs in City Club debate

Since I like debates, and the Salem City Club called today's program a debate between the two candidates for Mayor, Chris Hoy and Chane Griggs, after I settled into my chair for the noon Zoom meeting, I was looking forward to some argumentative fireworks.

Instead, what transpired was more like a sparkler that fizzled a bit now and then, but mostly just gave off some smoke without any real heat. Or to mix my metaphors, Griggs and Hoy acted like two fighters who were so concerned about not getting knocked out, they neglected to throw any genuine punches.

Part of the problem was the mostly softball questions asked by the City Club moderator. Based on my sometimes legible notes, they included:

-- How do you see your role as Salem Mayor? Answers were predictable. Like, engage different communities. Treat people with respect. Nothing to debate here.

-- Your top three priorities? Both said homelessness. Griggs said public safety. Hoy said getting through the pandemic. Nothing much to debate here.

-- Most important factors in choosing new City Manager? Unsurprisingly, Griggs and Hoy want a City Manager who listens well, has the capacity to lead the City of Salem, fosters trust. Nothing to debate here.

-- Do you support the Salem Climate Action Plan? Hoy absolutely supports it. Griggs is very supportive of it. Nothing to debate here.

-- Any dramatic new priorities for the city? No, at least not by my definition of "dramatic." They both want to pass a new bond measure in November. If you view that as dramatic, you would have liked the debate more than I did. Nothing to debate here.

-- Thoughts about the bond measure? Unshockingly, Griggs wants to keep the public safe and combat homelessness. Hoy wants to build roads, like Marine Drive in West Salem, improve parks, add branch libraries, and construct affordable housing. A few differences, but nothing much to debate here.

Questions from the audience were a bit more interesting. Probably the entire debate should have focused on audience questions, since the ones the City Club came up with were pretty lame. 

Both Griggs and Hoy are in favor of more low-barrier shelters for the homeless, and otherwise agreed on the obvious: the homeless need homes. Nothing to debate here.

When an audience member asked, "What are your thoughts about the Third Bridge?," I perked up, desperately hoping for some disagreement between Griggs and Hoy. There was, but not very much.

Griggs said it was unfortunate that the Third Bridge proposal was rejected by the City Council, but she isn't saying the bridge was in the right location.  Hoy gave some good reasons why the Third Bridge was rejected: flyover ramps, displaced homes/businesses, tax burden on Salem residents, tolls. But he said "we do need to look at other options, such as another location for a Third Bridge." 

Neither Hoy nor Griggs are in favor of making a payment to neighbors of managed homeless sites. Nothing to debate here.

A question was asked about developer-oriented planning. Griggs said that city code determines whether a development proposal can be approved. Unless the code is changed, such as by adding more protections for trees, there's no liberty to make any other decision. Hoy said Griggs was 100% correct. Nothing to debate here.

Regarding the Covanta garbage burner, Hoy said that the legislature wrote a law that leaves Salem garbage collection 100% up to the Marion County Commission. The city has no choice in the matter. After Griggs said this means that the Mayor needs a good relationship with the county commissioners, which she has, Hoy chimed in that he also has a good relationship with them. Nothing to debate here.

When asked how they would meet the needs of the Latinx community, 1 in 4 Salem residents, not surprisingly both Griggs and Hoy touted their ability to work with them. Nothing to debate here.

Since there was so much agreement between Hoy and Griggs, each must have decided that they didn't want to appear aggressive toward the other candidate. But the downside of this strategy is that voters were left with few reasons to prefer one candidate over the other.

Which means I have to fill that void.

I'm a strong supporter of Chris Hoy. With Hoy, I'm confident that what you see is what you get. He's a moderate progressive, which describes me also. Hoy strikes me as being relatively low on the political scheming scale.

(All politicians are schemers to some extent, as are all human beings, really -- including toddlers, something I remember well from my child-rearing days.)

Chane Griggs, on the other hand, strikes me as a moderate conservative who has a high probability of tilting decidedly rightward if she were to be elected Mayor, which I hope doesn't happen. Clearly she's smart, polished, and adept at saying the right things to stand a chance of becoming Mayor of a liberal-leaning city.

However, she's the candidate of the Powers That Be in Salem. Chamber of Commerce. Realtors. Developers. Those who profit from unfettered development regardless of how it affects the livability and quality of life in Salem.

A friend who watched the City Club debate told me that Hoy is the "shovel ready" candidate. Meaning, he's had experience on the City Council and a temporary appointment to the state legislature. Hoy can start working to build a better Salem on his first day in office.

Griggs, though is much more of a question mark. Her answers today to City Club questions seemed more calculated than Hoy's. She appeared determined to look like a common sense conservative who shared most of the values of liberals.

Which I have difficulty believing. I suspect Griggs would do a "bait and switch" not long after she became Mayor, revealing that the moderate Chane Griggs on display at today's City Club debate actually was a mask hiding a Chane Griggs who is considerably more right-wing.

Cindy Condon, City Club moderator (top left), Chane Griggs (top right), Chris Hoy (bottom)