Salem Political Snark

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. 

Brad Witt jumps into Salem's HD 19 race, all the way from Clatskanie

Currently Brad Witt is a member of the Oregon House, representing HD 31 -- which consists of most of Columbia County and parts of Washington and Multnomah counties.

But recently Witt formed a campaign committee to be elected in HD 19 -- which is in Salem.

Here's a map of HD 19, which definitely doesn't include Clatskanie, where Witt says he lives.

So how is it that Witt appears ready to challenge two Salem city councilors, Tom Andersen and Jackie Leung, in the May HD 19 Democratic primary? Currently he isn't shown as having filed for this race, but as noted above, his current campaign committee is for election to HD 19 rather than HD 31.

Well, I've heard that fellow Democrats in the state legislature redistricted Clatskanie out of HD 31 so Witt couldn't run again in his old district. The map below shows that now Clatskanie (near the top) is just outside of the HD 31 boundary.

This could have happened because in June 2021 Witt was found to have violated a legislative sexual harassment rule, according to an OPB story. 

State Rep. Brad Witt violated workplace rules against sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment with a series of texts to a fellow lawmaker in April, a House committee found Tuesday evening.

But the House Conduct Committee found that, contrary to an allegation against him, Witt did not intend to create a quid pro quo arrangement with Rep. Vikki Breese Iverson in which he would exchange his vote on a bill for a date or sexual favors.

So it's possible that Democrats viewed Witt as sufficiently politically damaged by this episode to make it unlikely that he could win re-election against a Republican challenger, hence the boundary change that took his home out of HD 31.

Regardless, I've been told that Witt owns a residence in Salem which he hopes makes him eligible to run in HD 19.

That's fine.

I just think it's unlikely that Witt could waltz into Salem from Clatskanie and defeat two Salem city councilors in the May primary who have vastly more local name recognition. However, Witt might be betting that in a three-way race with Andersen and Leung, he has a chance to win as an outsider.

Which his opponents probably would term "carpetbagger."

I'll end by saying that when I told my wife what I was writing about tonight, Laurel said she had positive experiences with Witt when she advocated ending coyote killing contests during a recent legislative session, something Witt supported.

Brad Witt probably holds policy positions that are close to those held by Tom Andersen and Jackie Leung. Unfortunately for Witt, they have to be viewed as front-runners in the HD 19 race given their connections in Salem.

Nicholas Kristof's Governor run stumbles before it starts

When I heard that Nicholas Kristof, a former columnist for the New York Times, was running to be Oregon's Governor, I was enthused. 

Wow, a non-politician who, unlike Trump, was intelligent, knowledgeable about the world, and obviously a sophisticated communicator.

I started following Kristof on Twitter. I enjoyed his cogent well-written tweets, along with appealing photos of his family at their Yamhill County farm.

But now I've soured on Kristof.

Yesterday the Oregon Secretary of State, Shemia Fagan, ruled that Kristof didn't meet the residency requirement to run for Governor. The Oregon Capital Chronicle, a great news source, said in its story:

Oregon Secretary of State Shemia Fagan said Thursday that deciding former New York Times columnist Nick Kristof didn’t qualify to run for governor “wasn’t even a close call.”

Fagan’s staff notified Kristof’s campaign on Thursday morning that he didn’t meet a constitutional requirement to be a “resident within this state” for three years prior to the November 2022 election.

Fagan outlined findings by the state Elections Division in a Thursday morning news conference, citing the Democrat’s ties to New York and his failure to produce documents he said made his case.

Hours later at his own news conference in Portland, a defiant Kristof vowed to fight the ruling, calling it an act of self-protection by a “failing political establishment.”

If Kristof had simply said he disagreed with the ruling and would appeal it, that would have been fine by me. But when I saw this tweet by Kristof, I had to reply to it.

Note: It seemed obvious to me that "My candidacy was stolen by the Deep State" was my made-up quote to sound like something Trump would say, but a few people who can't appreciate literary subtlety somehow thought I was quoting Kristof. 

It's unlikely that a Republican will be elected Governor next November. But Betsy Johnson, a moderate Democrat, is running as an independent. It's unclear whether she'd pull more votes from the Democratic or Republican gubernatorial candidate. Regardless, I want to see a Democrat win.

If Kristof somehow were to win both his appeal of Fagan's ruling and the Democratic primary, he'd be saddled with carpetbagger "not really an Oregonian" epithets throughout the general election campaign.

So that's another reason I no longer support Kristof. Plus, the Capital Chronicle tried to get the documents that Kristof claims show that he truly has been an Oregon resident for the past three years, but he refused to share them.

With legal opinions by private attorneys and in a 15-page sworn affidavit, Kristof defended his right to run on two prongs. One is an analysis by his lawyers and others that concludes that Kristof meets the constitutional requirement to run for governor. The second is referring to a string of documents ranging from tax returns to incorporation papers he maintains show he has been an Oregon resident.

A long-time journalist, Kristof didn’t submit these records to the Secretary of State’s Office and rejected a request for them from the Capital Chronicle. Kristof also didn’t answer questions about other public documents obtained by the Capital Chronicle or about his sworn statements regarding his farming operation outside the rural community of Yamhill. He also didn’t respond to an email sharing elements of this story to check for accuracy.

On Dec. 23, the Capital Chronicle requested redacted copies of his New York and Oregon driver’s licenses, his 2018 and 2019 New York and Oregon personal income tax returns, the Yamhill County property tax bill for Kristof Farms for the past three years and the farm’s 2019 corporate tax return and workers’ compensation insurance policy. 

Kristof’s campaign didn’t respond with any documents or an explanation for why they weren’t being provided.

Instead, Kristof and his campaign basically say that because he feels like he's always been an Oregonian, that means he's a long-time Oregon resident. Which is absurd. I've grown accustomed to Trump elevating his feelings over facts, but I expected a lot more from Kristof.

He's appealing to the state Supreme Court. That Capital Insider story includes the 185 page brief his attorneys have filed. Which is really quick work, given that Fagan issued her ineligible-to-run ruling only yesterday. Sure seems like Kristof expected that to happen.

Glancing through the brief, it looks like some solid arguments are being made, along with, I'm sure, some dubious arguments. 

Like I said, even if Kristof wins the appeal, the way he handled the Secretary of State ruling leaves a bad taste in my political mouth. Sure, Kristof isn't a member of Oregon's Democratic establishment. But I find it hard to believe that Fagan was out to tank Kristof's candidacy when she made her ruling.

If the Oregon Supreme Court issues a scathing reversal order of Fagan's decision, that would help to rejuvenate Kristof's campaign. But I still think he's too wounded to win the Democratic primary.

Oregon Democrats thankful their redistricting maps are legal

Just in time for Thanksgiving, Oregon Democrats got a double dose of good redistricting news this week. So quite a few Dems will be happier at the dinner table tomorrow, while Republicans will stew about the legal decisions.

On Monday the state Supreme Court upheld the redistricting maps for the state legislature. 

Up, in, around or out?

It's a question facing dozens of incumbent lawmakers and scores of potential challengers after the Oregon Supreme Court on Monday removed legal obstacles to implementing new legislative political districts.

The justices dismissed two lawsuits against new maps for 60 House and 30 Senate seats approved by the Legislature and Gov. Kate Brown on Sept. 27.

The complaints filed in court claimed claimed Democrats had created districts that would build on their current supermajorities in Salem. At the end of the most recent session, Democrats had a 37-23 advantage in the House and 18 of the 30 members of the Senate.

In its decision, the court ruled that the plan for districts that would go into effect with the 2022 election was not illegal, even if it had a partisan lean.

Then today, Wednesday, a special panel of judges issued a ruling saying that the legislature's Congressional redistricting map, which could give Democrats at least four and maybe five of Oregon's six House seats, was legal.

Oregon is closer to moving ahead with its new Congressional district and new boundaries for five others after a panel of judges ruled Wednesday that work to draw the new boundaries didn’t illegally favor Democrats.

Most independent analyses have Democrats winning at least four, and likely five, of the state’s six congressional districts. Registered Democrats make up about one-third of the state’s voters – the largest party bloc in Oregon. Democrats have held four out of five seats in the U.S. House and both U.S. Senate seats.

Four Republicans led by former Secretary of State Bev Clarno sued to block the Congressional redistricting plan, arguing that a potential 5-1 Democratic split didn’t reflect the reality of the state. 

But in their unanimous 14-page opinion, five retired circuit court judges appointed to consider the case determined that the new map was better for Republican candidates than any in the past 30 years. 

“The evidence included expert testimony which compared 50 years of Oregon’s history with congressional districting,” they wrote. “That evidence demonstrated that the enacted map was well within the range of plans that legislatures and courts have adopted in Oregon for the past 50 years and that the enacted map is more favorable to Republicans than any map since 1990.”

The opinion is interesting reading, especially if you're a political junkie. Or, an avid Democrat. Republicans will find it infuriating, but hey, that's the nature of politics.

This passage about urban and rural voters likely will particularly irritate Republican leaders, since they objected mightily to the Congressional map splitting the Portland area among multiple districts. But the panel of judges found this to be a desirable feature.

Turning briefly to issues raised by the amicus curiae, it is evident on the record that the Legislative Assembly considered the importance of drawing districts with both rural and urban elements. FOF ¶¶ 59, 62, 101, 156-60. Indeed, because Oregon has only six congressional districts, “each will necessarily include diverse communities of interest. A plan that includes within one district communities having vastly different concerns does not violate either statutory or constitutional requirements.” Perrin v. Kitzhaber, No 0107-07021, slip op at 6 (Multnomah Cnty Cir Ct, Oct 25, 2001). There is no evidence that rural interests were disrespected. To the contrary, SB 881 amplifies rural voices by including substantial rural and agricultural communities in all six of Oregon’s congressional districts, thus ensuring that each of Oregon’s members of Congress represents rural interests and concerns.

Nonetheless, a Republican state legislator hopes to have the 2022 session of the Oregon legislature advance a proposal for an independent redistricting commission.

Sorry, Representative Bonham, but it's extremely unlikely that the Democrats who control both the state House and Senate are going to want to give up their control of the redistricting process.

In every state under Republican control, the GOP is busily drawing hugely gerrymandered Congressional districts in an attempt to regain control of the House of Representatives. If every state operated under the same independent redistricting rules, then sure, Oregon should be a part of this.

Just don't complain when Oregon Democrats play politics with redistricting in a considerably milder fashion. Bonham's Republican party isn't creeping toward anti-democratic authoritarianism, they're running headlong toward it.

So it's good that Oregon's maps have been upheld legally, even though the Congressional map approval by the special panel of judges can be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Since the panel voted unanimously against the Republican effort to overturn the map, almost certainly the Supreme Court would go along with this.

Bad and good news for Oregon Democrats after Tuesday's elections

Yesterday was horrible for Democrats. There's no other way to put it. 

After going for Biden over Trump by ten points in 2020, Virginia elected the Republican candidate for Governor, Glenn Youngkin, by several points. He was endorsed by Trump, but avoided an overly close connection with Trump. And it looks like the GOP will recapture the Virginia House of Delegates

Almost equally disturbing for Democrats was the close race for New Jersey Governor. That state went for Biden over Trump by sixteen points in 2020. The incumbent Governor, Democrat Philip Murphy, beat his Republican challenger, Jack Ciattarelli, by just 1 percent or so.

What could this mean for Oregon?

Well, Oregon voted for Biden over Trump by sixteen points, 56% to 40%. Exactly the same margin as New Jersey. So, sure, Oregon could elect a Republican Governor in November 2022, and Democrats could see their margin in the state House and Senate whittled down or even eliminated.

But wasn't the bad showing for Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey caused by a much larger turnout of passionate Trump supporters, compared to other voters, something that's much less likely to happen in the 2022 midterm election?

Not really.

In Virginia at least, where there's been more analysis of yesterday's results, the problem for Democrats was that Republicans got a larger share of the vote across the board, including independent-leaning suburban voters who were a big part of Biden's victory in 2020. 

That said, there was indeed lower turnout among 2020 Biden voters, probably because they're disturbed by how little of Biden's agenda Congressional Democrats have been able to pass so far, even though they control both the Senate and House, albeit by very slim margins. 

The main good news for Democrats in Oregon and elsewhere is that this is November 2021, a year from the 2022 midterms and three years from the 2024 presidential election. 

There's still time for Congress to pass the two infrastructure bills, physical and social, hopefully along with some sort of immigration reform, policing reform, and most importantly, voting rights legislation. I've been bothered by the lack of urgency from Biden and Democratic leaders in Congress.

They seem to think there's a good chance Democrats will maintain control of both the Senate and House following the 2022 midterm election. Well, that chance was slim prior to yesterday's results in Virginia and New Jersey. 

Given how poorly Democrats performed, the odds now are considerably higher that Republicans will be in control of one or both houses of Congress after the 2022 election. So Biden needs to pull out all the stops, including pressuring Manchin and Sinema to do away with the filibuster for voting rights bills.

However, one more bit of bad news is that Virginia and New Jersey hadn't passed voter suppression legislation. This shows that Republicans can win elections in blue states fair and square. It'd be nice if the GOP realized this means they can stop with trying to make it harder to vote. But that isn't going to happen.

On the good news front, in Virginia Glenn Youngkin was chosen as the Republican governor candidate in an unusual fashion that seemed designed to prevent a Trumpist crazy candidate from being nominated. 

Seven candidates competed in an unusual and controversial "unassembled convention" Saturday, when 28,000 Republican voters and activists cast weighted and ranked-choice ballots at dozens of locations across the state after the party opted against a standard primary.

It seems unlikely that Oregon Republicans will be able to resist choosing a far right-wing candidate in their primary to pick the GOP candidate for governor. Youngkin would be viewed as too moderate by most Republicans, so I'm betting that Oregon will see a more Trump-like candidate go up against the Democrat nominee.

Youngkin benefitted from being a fresh face in Virginia politics, while McAuliffe had been governor before (Virginia doesn't allow the governor to serve two consecutive terms, for some weird reason).

This makes me think that former New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who has announced his candidacy for Oregon governor, could be an appealing choice. He wouldn't have the political baggage that other candidates like House Speaker Tina Kotek would bring to the race.

Regardless who the Democratic candidate is, it seems clear that their campaign can't be based on being opposed to Trump. That didn't work for McAuliffe in Virginia, though it was successful for Joe Biden when Trump was still president, still on Twitter, and still saying his usual crazy stuff.

My other piece of advice for Oregon Democrats in 2022 is to campaign as aggressively and with as much passion as Republicans have been doing. Social/cultural issues are going to keep on being emphasized by Republican candidates, since that worked well for them in Virginia.

Race has to be handled more wisely by Democrats than decrying attacks on Critical Race Theory. Sure, that isn't taught in schools other than colleges.

But Youngkin appeared to benefit by appearing Obama-like in his view that America's goal should be to view people as who they are, not as Black, Brown, White, or whatever. Wiser political minds than what I possess are arguing persuasively that Democrats have to find a way to talk about race that doesn't serve up Republican talking points like the horrible "Defund the Police."

Minneapolis voted down a proposal to do away with the police department, even though that's where George Floyd's murder happened. Blacks don't want to do away with police; they want common sense reforms of how police departments operate.

The woke far left can't be allowed to dominate Democratic politics, not in Oregon, not anywhere else. There's a big difference between pushing popular issues like paid family leave and lowering the price of prescription drugs, and pushing highly controversial topics like all whites are racist, even if they don't know it.

Here's a sampling of tweets I've come across that are related to yesterday's election.

 

GOP state legislature walkout over redistricting likely tomorrow

Oregon Republicans absolutely love to walk out of the state legislature to deny a quorum when they're unable to get their way. Which is often, since this is a blue state with Democrats firmly in control.

The current GOP hissy-fit is about House Speaker Tina Kotek changing the agreement she made with Republicans to have a 3-3 Democrat-Republican split on the House Redistricting Committee.

That deal gave Republicans veto power over maps to redistrict both legislative and congressional seats following the 2020 census. At the time I thought what Kotek did was a bad idea.

Recently I wrote a post, "Oregon Democrats should hang tough with redistricting map," expressing hope that Oregon Dems would stick with a plan that could give Democrats five of Oregon's six congressional seats. (We added one due to population growth.)

Today the state Senate approved the Democratic redistricting maps, sending them to the state House. There, Kotek undid the deal she'd made with Republicans. Good for her. 

When Republicans play fair across the nation, so should Democrats.

But red states are hard at work gerrymandering their way into what they expect will be a takeover of the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms. It makes no sense for Oregon Democrats to unilaterally disarm when it comes to redistricting, since control of the House could rest on the outcome of a few races -- like here in Oregon.

What Kotek did is described in a Statesman Journal story.

House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, reneged on a deal Monday that gave House Republicans equal representation on the chamber's redistricting committee in an attempt to pass new congressional district maps which would likely give Democrats disproportionate representation in the state's congressional delegation.

Instead of one evenly split six-member committee that has been working on redistricting since the spring, there will be two House committees for the special legislative session which started Monday: one handling the state legislative maps and the other the congressional map.

The new legislative maps committee has eight members and is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. The second new committee, handling congressional maps, has only three members — two Democrats and one Republican.

Naturally Democrats are trying to put a positive spin on this, claiming that Republicans violated the spirit of the original committee power-sharing agreement by not acting in good faith in coming up with new maps.

I'm inclined to a more cynical view, which usually is more accurate when it comes to figuring out why politicians act as they do.

Many progressives were furious with Kotek for agreeing to an even D-R split on the House Redistricting Committee. Kotek is running for Governor. Winning the Democratic primary would be tougher for Kotek if she was saddled with a soft on Republicans when it came to redistricting.

So acting tough in this special session should help redeem her reputation among the progressives who she needs to vote for her in the Democratic primary for governor.

Sure, now Republicans are threatening a walkout, which could happen tomorrow. But Kotek has given them quite a bit to ponder, walkout-wise. If they walk out, Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a Democrat, would approve legislative maps, while the congressional map would be fashioned by a panel of judges.

The current legislative map is fairly favorable to Republicans.

Thus a walkout could lead to Fagan drawing maps for the state Senate and House that lead to Democrats increasing their majorities in both chambers. On the plus side for Republicans, the panel of judges probably would draw a congressional map more favorable to the GOP.

I think it's more likely than not that a walkout will happen. This would please the Republican base, though it could irritate independents who think GOP legislators should do their job rather than heading for Idaho when they're about to lose a vote.

As I said in my previous post, a walkout always was possible, given Oregon's crazy requirement that two-thirds of each chamber be present for a quorum. Kotek got some concessions in the last regular legislative session when she agreed to evenly split the seats on the House Redistricting Committee between D's and R's.

On the whole, Kotek has played this political game quite well.

If Republicans show up for tomorrow's special session in the House, she'll look even better. It's possible that GOP House members won't walk out, figuring they can always file a lawsuit against the congressional redistricting map, which would land it in the courts, where it would go whether or not a walkout occurs.

That could be the closest thing to a win-win for both sides. Republicans can play the Victim of Kotek game, and Democrats will be pleased that their congressional map was passed by the legislature -- even if a court later deemed it unlawful.

Oregon Democrats should hang tough with redistricting map

There are times to play nice, and there are times to play tough.

When it comes to drawing a new map of Oregon's six congressional districts following the 2020 census -- we get an additional seat due to population growth -- it's definitely a time for Democrats to play tough. 

After all, in states where they're in control of redistricting, Republicans are going all-out to draw maps that are gerrymandered to ensure that GOP candidates win as many seats as possible. Republican politicians even have said that redistricting alone is going to guarantee a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 2022.  

It's great that Democrats are more fair-minded than Republicans. A number of blue states have independent redistricting commissions. If every state had such a commission, that'd be wonderful.

But Oregon Democrats shouldn't give up their political power. In this state, the legislature tries to draw a congressional redistricting map. If the legislature can't agree, then the state Supreme Court takes over. 

Unfortunately, a Democratic leader has already surrendered much of the power her party had over congressional redistricting. This struck me as a really bad idea at the time. Now that we know Oregon has earned a sixth seat in the House of Representatives, it was a really really bad idea. 

As part of a deal to avoid Republican delay tactics in this year’s legislative session, House Speaker Tina Kotek agreed to give GOP members an equal say on the House Redistricting Committee. Without at least one Republican vote in that committee, no map can pass.

Still, Oregon Democrats should do their best to get the map they've released approved by the legislature. Or at least, a map close to their proposed map. If Republicans want to take a chance at whatever the Supreme Court comes up with in the event of a legislative stalemate, fine.

I just don't think Democrats should bend very much on trying to get five congressional seats that are safe D or lean D. Speaker Kotek made a mistake in giving Republicans a veto over what the House Redistricting Committee comes up with.

It was crazy to give up the opportunity to do unto Republicans in Oregon what Republicans are doing to Democrats in states under their control: gerrymander Dems into as few congressional seats as possible.

UPDATE: Came across this tweet that makes my point. 

(All I can think of is maybe Kotek figured that Republicans would stage a legislative walkout over a Dem-friendly map, so that's why she made the deal, figuring that if the Supreme Court was going to draw the congressional map anyway, she might as well get a concession from Republicans to stop slowing down the 2021 legislative session.)

By comparison, this map released by Oregon Democrats seems quite fair by comparison, though not surprisingly it does tilt in favor of Democratic candidates.

Here's an excerpt from the OPB story.

Of special interest this year is how Oregon creates a brand new congressional district, splitting the state into six parts instead of the current five. With Democrats currently controlling the U.S. House by a slim margin, how Oregon proceeds could have implications in Washington, D.C.

Democrats’ proposal would center the new Congressional district in two areas that have seen some of the fastest population growth in the last decade: Washington County and the Salem region. The proposal would expand Congressional District 3, currently held by Portland Democratic U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, far to the east and south to encompass Hood River, Wasco, and Jefferson counties, and snatch up a portion of fast-growing Bend. It would send Congressional District 5, held by Democrat Kurt Schrader, deeper into the Portland area, and farther south while divorcing it from the coast.

And according to one analysis, the plan would be biased heavily in Democrats’ favor. A tool created by the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center to identify bias in political maps based on four measures suggests the proposal favors Democrats on all four measures, though it suggests such ratings might be skewed in a state with fewer than seven districts. The analysis suggests it could lead to a congressional split of 5 Democrats to 1 Republican, a breakdown that is far out-of-step with the partisan split in statewide races. The website Fivethirtyeight concurred with that analysis.

Police officers undo GOP lies about January 6 insurrection

Deeply moving. Inspiring. Gripping. 

Those words don't begin to describe the testimony four police officers gave today about the Capitol insurrection by Trump supporters who believed the Big Lie that Joe Biden didn't win the presidential election.

Their honesty and bravery put into stark contrast the lies and cowardice almost all Congressional Republicans have been displaying since they decided it was more important to kiss the ass of Donald Trump than stand up for our democracy, which rests on the foundation of a peaceful transfer of power after free and fair elections.

But it isn't just Republicans in Washington D.C. who are going along with Trump's "Stop the Steal" madness.

The Oregon Republican Party has said that the insurrection was a fake "false flag" operation meant to discredit Trump -- the exact opposite of the truth, since Trump was the prime instigator of the violent right-wing terrorists.

Keep this in mind when Republicans seek your vote in local, state, or national elections. Whether they're running for the Salem City Council or President of the United States, every Republican needs to be asked if they believe Biden won a free and fair election.

If a GOP candidate says "no," or equivocates, don't let them off the hook. Pressure them to provide solid evidence that Trump won. Naturally they won't be able to do this, but liars need to be called out on their lies.

Over on my Church of the Churchless blog, recently I've been writing about a great book by Jonathan Rauch, The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth.

One of the strange things about that blog is that although I'm now an avowed atheist after embracing an Eastern guru-centered spiritual path for 35 years, many of the people who comment on my blog posts are strong religious believers.

They dislike the notion of objective truth, preferring a wishy-washy subjectivism where if you have faith that something is true, that's good enough. I find this attitude deeply irritating. It allows all kinds of dangerous falsehoods to take root in human minds, such as Trump won the election and Covid vaccines don't work. 

Here's what I wrote this morning for my churchless blog. I found the honest testimony of the four police officers so inspiring, I just had to blast the relativism of commenters on my blog who don't believe in objective truth.

As I write this I'm listening to televised testimony of four police officers who are appearing at the first meeting of the Select Committee on the January 6 insurrection at the nation's capitol.

Watch it, Church of the Churchless commenters who think truth is relative, that what experts and professionals say can't be trusted, that everyone is free to create their own reality, that this physical realm is an illusion, that objectivity isn't possible, and other blather spewed from your religious sensibilities.

Watch it, because the truth is being spoken by four brave men who put their lives on the line. One truthful sentence from them is worth more than a thousand bullshit comments about the relativity of truth.

Truth isn't relative. Truth is truth. It is the most important thing in life, because without truth we're living a lie. Me, I choose not to do that. Those four police officers also have chosen not to do that. 

Take some time to watch this testimony. I'm sure it will be available on You Tube.

Those commenters who consider that truth is something to play word games with, that it doesn't matter if people embrace falsehoods -- watch the four police officers talk about how a dangerous mob of thousands of Trump supporters invaded the capitol because they believed a lie, that the election was stolen from Trump.

Lies matter. Falsehoods matter.

They lead to assaults on law enforcement officers who are still recovering from their many injuries. So think about this, commenters on this blog, next time you want to defend a "everyone creates their own reality" bullshit philosophy. That's an insult to the truth-telling police officers.

None of you would have had the courage to defend the capitol. You don't even have the courage to defend the truth, which requires no physical bravery, just moral strength. So learn from the four police officers. They have a lot to teach you.

Time to really freak out about climate change, Salemians

I'm a big believer in global warming. But until this weekend the stark reality of what climate change means for everybody on our planet hadn't really hit home for me.

Sure, last September Oregon suffered through devastating wildfires exacerbated by drought conditions and rare high winds. My wife and I breathed a lot of smoke as our furnace filters turned black.

And February of this year saw an unusual ice storm that cut off power to hundreds of thousands of Oregonians. We had no electricity for eleven days and got to be best friends with our wood stove and Honda generator.

Those were extreme weather events. Neither could be directly tied to global warming, though climate change was implicated in each.

Now, Oregon is facing the hottest temperatures in recorded history. Extreme heat is to global warming as an ice cube is to a freezer: they're so closely related, seeing one means seeing the other.

Today Portland broke the all-time record for a high temperature at the airport, 108 degrees.

Today Salem tied the record for a high temperature in the month of June, 105 degrees.

Tomorrow, Sunday, it's almost certain that Salem will break its all-time high temperature record of 108.

Salem tied its record high temperature for June on Saturday by hitting 105 degrees at the Salem Airport, but the capital's all-time record for heat looks all but certain to fall on Sunday. 

Meteorologists said just about every weather model is showing Salem hitting a high of around 113 on Sunday, which would shatter the previous record of 108 that was set in 1981, 1941 and 1927.

Records in Salem date all the way back to the 1890s. 

So, yeah, it's time to freak out about global warming, fellow citizens of Salem. (I call us Salemians, because saying Salemites is just flat-out wrong.)

Rob Davis is an investigative reporter with the Oregonian. He speaks the truth. There's no denying the reality of climate change, though many people still do.

Today the Oregon Senate passed House Bill 2021. It requires Oregon utilities to provide 100% carbon  free electricity by 2040, with an 80% reduction in the next ten years. Both PGE and Pacific Power supported the bill.

Yet no Republican senator voted for it. I guess Republicans love making our planet minimally habitable for humans, something most of the rest of us think is a really bad idea.

If I could rule the state legislature pecking order, I'd demand that a bill be passed that requires every legislator who voted against HB 2021 to live in a dwelling without air conditioning.

That way global warming deniers in the Oregon legislature will have to experience what they wrongly claim isn't happening: rapidly rising temperatures and more extreme weather events.

Alternatively, they could be required to wear a heavy coat outside when the temperature exceeds 90 degrees. That's what our dog, Mooka, has to do all the time, given her coat of fur. When we let her out in the yard  to pee this very hot afternoon, she instantly laid down and didn't want to get up.

Kind of pathetic that our dog is more attuned to the reality of global warming than Republicans are.

Walkout in Texas legislature, good! Walkout in Oregon, bad!

I'm tribal. No, I'm not a Native American.

But I belong to a variety of other sorts of tribes that define my identity. Democrat, atheist, environmentalist, blogger, citizen activist, Subaru owner, Apple aficionado, author. To name a few.

It's easy for me to see when other people allow their tribal'ness to lead them into liking actions that, if an opposing tribe had done the same thing, would have been met with outrage. 

Yet when it comes to my own tribal leanings, it's more difficult for me to recognize when this happens. 

For example, on Sunday night Democrats walked out of the Texas House of Representatives to deny Republicans the quorum needed to pass legislation restricting voting rights.

Democrats pulled off a dramatic, last-ditch walkout in the Texas House of Representatives on Sunday night to block one of the most restrictive voting laws in the United States from passing before a midnight deadline.

The sudden revolt torpedoed the sweeping measure known as Senate Bill 7, which would have reduced polling hours, empowered poll watchers and scaled back ways to vote in Texas, which already has some of the nation's strictest voting laws.

The move worked, because the legislative session was scheduled to expire at midnight. 

I was happy at what Texas Democrats did. Yay!

Even if the horrible legislation is brought up again in a special session, at least walking out cast a national spotlight at what those nasty Republicans in Texas are up to, perhaps spurring Democrats in Congress to pass much-needed voting rights bills.

Today, though, while watching MSNBC's Chris Hayes talk about what happened in the Texas legislature, it belatedly dawned on me that when Oregon Republicans walked out of our state legislature to prevent a climate change bill from becoming law, I was outraged.

So am I for or against walkouts in state legislatures to prevent a bill from passing? 

Well, based on my emotional reaction to the Texas and Oregon walkouts, it depends on who is doing the walking-out. If it's Republicans, I hate it. If it's Democrats, I love it.

But here's the thing. 

In 2019 I said Oregon democracy was threatened by a Republican walkout. In that blog post I argued that democracy respects majority rule. If voters don't give you a majority, it isn't fair for a minority to use a walkout to get their way.

Yet in 2021 I applauded a walkout by Texas Democrats, even though they are a minority in that state's legislature. 

Sure, Emerson said "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Yet inconsistency also can be foolish. I can justify my Texas-Oregon inconsistency by the purpose of the walkouts, one noble (Texas), one horrible (Oregon). 

Problem is, Oregon Republicans believed they were engaging in a noble cause when they prevented a cap-and-trade bill from passing via their walkout, because they considered that the bill would harm already struggling rural economies. So nobility is in the eye of the beholder, even though some eyes do see more clearly than others.

I don't think we can do away with our tribal tendencies. Given the way the human brain works, it simply isn't possible to be a purely logical being unswayed by emotions and personal beliefs.

However, we can be aware when we're acting in a tribal fashion. And that produces a willingness to not be quite as harsh toward members of an opposing tribe when they act in a way that I'd applaud if my tribe did the same thing.

To offer another example, a few days ago Black Lives Matter protesters had a rally in Salem to mark the anniversary of George Floyd's murder by a police officer. After some speeches, attendees marched through downtown streets without a permit.

I thought that was great.

But when right-wing groups have done this to protest Governor Brown's Covid policies, with members of the Proud Boys militia group taking part, I was critical of the Salem police department allowing them to march in the streets without a permit.

Can't justify this inconsistency. It's just how my mind works. Which is how most minds work. (Maybe all minds.)