Salem Political Snark

Gov. Brown makes Oregon an anti-vaxx paradise

A few days ago I wrote "Oregon Dems surrender to Republicans like scared little mice."

Now I'm even more irritated at what Governor Kate Brown and her spineless cronies in the state legislature (notably Sen. Peter Courtney and Rep. Tina Kotek) did -- needlessly killing much-needed bills to enhance vaccination rates and control guns in a misguided effort to entice Senate Republicans to end their short walkout, which denied a quorum in the Senate.

I'll let excerpts from some newspaper stories do the explaining for why this was such a bad idea. I've boldfaced parts for emphasis.

(1) Nigel Jaquiss' Willamette Week story, "Oregon Lawmakers Abandoned  Vaccination Requirements in Order to Raise Taxes. That Could Make Oregon an Anti-Vaxx Haven." 

An attempt to compel Oregonians to vaccinate their children morphed into perhaps the most emotional and polarizing debate of the 2019 legislative session. Then, on May 13, it blew up in a way nobody expected.

After a brutal process, the bill passed the Oregon House on May 1. As proponents and critics prepared to relitigate their differences in the Senate, Democrats agreed in a backroom deal May 13 to kill the bill—in exchange for Senate Republicans' agreement to return from a self-imposed exile and allow passage of a $2 billion tax measure to fund schools.

...Although the bill passed the House 37-21, five Democrats voted no and at least two Democratic senators opposed it. One of them, Sen. Lee Beyer (D-Springfield), told Oregon Public Broadcasting he didn't think the votes were there. Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland), a chief sponsor of the bill, disagrees. He thinks the votes were available in the Senate—but the courage wasn't. "The Senate is a hospice where good bills go to die," Greenlick says.

...Greenlick says he wasn't consulted about senators' capitulation on his bill and only learned about the deal Monday morning. He says he hasn't decided whether to try again next year or leave that task to future Legislatures. "I'm not very happy," Greenlick says. "This really is an important issue. And when you get blackmailed, you shouldn't fold."

(2) AP reporter Sara Zimmerman's "Oregon vaccine bill dead as US  measles count soars."

Critics blasted a decision by Oregon lawmakers that killed a bill aimed at getting more children vaccinated for measles and other preventable diseases in order pass a tax on large businesses, saying it jeopardized public health.

Despite passing the House and having the necessary votes in the Senate, the measure to make it harder for families to opt out of required vaccinations was nixed as part of a deal announced Monday to end a week-long Republican walkout over a multibillion school funding tax.

Under the vaccination measure, sponsored by state Rep. Cheri Helt, R-Bend, children would only have been be able to forgo vaccine requirements with a doctor's note, otherwise they'd be unable to attend public school.

...Oregon has the highest rate of unvaccinated kindergartners in the country, with at least 7.5% of toddlers claiming an exemption. In some schools, more than 40% of children are unvaccinated through the state's lax exemption process. That makes Oregon uniquely susceptible to an outbreak, according to Diane Peterson, associate director for Immunization Action Coalition, which receives funding from the CDC.

"Oregon in particular is a hotbed for a measles outbreak," Peterson said. "All you need is to introduce one person with the disease into the community and it will spread like wildfire."

(3)  AP reporter Andrew Selsky's "Enough GOP senators return to end Oregon tax bill standoff." 

The sergeant-at-arms of the Oregon Senate had a new regular duty in recent days: Searching the state Capitol for Republican senators who had been staying away and brought the legislative body’s business to a halt.

...To get the Republicans to return, Democrats, who hold a supermajority, agreed to not advance a measure requiring vaccinations for children to attend public schools, unless they have a doctor’s note. Democrats also agreed to drop gun-control legislation. Senate President Peter Courtney told reporters it was a painful but necessary move.

“We had a crisis of government shutdown on us. It could have gone on and on and on,” Courtney said. “It could have involved the state police. It would have been a nightmare.”

Rep. Cheri Helt, a Republican and co-sponsor of the vaccination bill, was incensed that it was sacrificed. Few Republicans were for the measure that vaccination opponents had flocked to the Capitol to protest.

Helt tweeted on Monday that “the loudest/most extreme voices in our politics prevailed.”

...Senate Republican leader Herman Baertschiger, Jr., had negotiated with Courtney to end the stalemate, officials said.

The November 2018 election gave Democrats a three-fifths supermajority in Oregon’s Senate and House of Representatives, enabling them to pass tax-raising measures without getting Republicans on board. But they didn’t have enough seats for a quorum.

“The tactic of denying a quorum doesn’t mean we shut them down forever,” Baertschiger said on the Lars Larson Show, a conservative talk radio program. “We all know that we’re gonna have to return. But what it does do is shine a light on what the Democrats are trying to do to us.”

Baertschiger attended the Senate on Monday afternoon, allowing the body to reach its minimum 20 senators for a quorum.

So the Senate Republican leader admitted that the R's weren't going to walk out forever, just long enough to draw attention to the tax bill that they didn't like.

But in an amazing display of political idiocy, Governor Kate Brown gave Republicans way more than they deserved, and expected to get. 

Grover Norquist was ecstatic. Which is why I'm not, being a Democrat who believes that hardball tactics by Republicans that amount to political ransom should be fought, not rewarded.

Oregon Dems surrender to Republicans like scared little mice

Disgusting. Horrible. Shameful.

Those are the non-profane words I can use to describe how Governor Brown, Senate President Courtney, and House Speaker Kotek caved in to the walkout of Senate Republicans without putting up any fight at all.

That walkout prevented the Senate from having a quorum, so no business could be accomplished.

According to a Salem Reporter story, "Tough  choices, closed door deals result in Senate returning to business," Courtney didn't want to do what Wisconsin governor Scott Walker reportedly did in 2011 when Democratic legislators walked out: use the state police to bring them back.

Courtney has been Senate president since 2003. He has the power to ask the governor to call out the Oregon State Police to bring wayward senators back to the Capitol for a vote, and he exercised it in 2007 when Republicans attempted to boycott a tax vote.

This time, Courtney chose not to send state troopers after the missing Republicans, saying that would have been “a nightmare.”

“I don’t have to conquer or win,” Courtney said. “I like it when the institution works.”

OK, I'm now moved to profanity: that's fucking insane, Courtney. You're an embarrassment to Democrats everywhere.

The institution of the Oregon Senate didn't "work" when you and other Democratic leaders agreed to kill the vaccine and gun control bills in exchange for Republicans returning to do the job they were elected to do: take part in Senate proceedings.

Actually what happened here is that Democrats gave in to a ransom request by Republicans.

Not surprisingly, we can expect that since the GOP ploy worked, they're going to try it again. So says a Statesman Journal story, "Education funding bill passes Senate as Republicans end walkout." 

Senate Republicans returned to the chamber floor Monday after securing major Democratic concessions, ending their four-day walkout and allowing Democrats to pass a multi-billion dollar education funding bill.

...In the end, Republicans secured through their extended absence the death of House Bill 3063, which would have removed the non-medical vaccine exemption for schoolchildren, and Senate Bill 978, the session's omnibus gun control legislation.

Lawmakers pushing both proposals expressed frustration that their legislation wouldn't be moving forward this session.

...Despite negotiations for most of last week, Senate Democratic leadership gave credit to Gov. Brown for jumping in on Sunday and providing the framework for the deal that brought Republicans back into the building.

This victory of sorts caught the eye of House Republicans embroiled in a slow-down of their own, and raised the possibility of a similar walkout in the lower chamber.

The House of Representatives clerk has been reading bills in full for a week and a half — ever since the education funding bill came up for a vote and eventually passed.

"My caucus doesn’t tend to want to walk. They’re very comfortable with reading the bills and slowing it up. Yet, on the other hand, I’m sure they’re tantalized in seeing what walking can do," House Republican Leader Carl Wilson, R-Grants Pass, said.

"Any time you see something like that, it’s instructive," he said. "It makes it more likely to be considered."

Sure, why not walk out, House Republicans?

The Democrats will give in without getting anything in return, because we have a Governor and legislative leadership who seem to have forgotten that Oregon voters gave Dems a supermajority in both the House and Senate so they could act like Democrats -- not like frightened little mice who screeched eek! when Senate Republicans dared Dems to call their walkout bluff.

I'm beyond disappointed.

Until now I've had the fantasy that while Republicans control most of Washington, D.C., allowing Trump to carry out his authoritarian agenda, here in Oregon we have a reassuring island of progressivism -- since the Governor's office plus both the state House and Senate are in the hands of Democrats.

Sadly, Oregon Democrats don't know what to do with power once they have it. What happened today was that the Dems surrendered their power to Republicans without a fight. 

Tomorrow, or some day after that, the Oregon GOP is going to push Democrats into another corner, even though it should be the Democrats doing the pushing. 

Usually I hate it when Republicans gloat about a victory over Democrats. But you're entitled to not just a little gloating, Oregon Republicans, you're entitled to a lot. You kicked Democratic asses with your Senate walkout stunt. I bet you never believed it would be as successful as it was.

I didn't either.

I had confidence that Gov. Brown, Courtney, Kotek, and other Dem leaders would stand up to the Republicans. I was wrong. And now I feel like shit, because Oregon isn't a refuge from Republican attempts to subvert democracy.

Instead, Oregon Democrats are happy to cooperate in that subversion.

Breakfast on Bikes blog concerned about HB 2974 being a Third Bridge workaround

A few weeks ago I wrote a blog post, "Help stop HB 2974, a Third Bridge taxing scheme." Here's part of what I said about this bill  proposed by state Representative Paul Evans.

A bill in the Oregon legislature seems like a backdoor way to get a Third Bridge built in Salem. At least, that's how I and quite a few others view HB 2974.

HB 2974 is sponsored by Rep. Paul Evans, who I usually agree with. But after I read the following email message from a group opposed to the bill, I became convinced that HB 2974 is a bad idea. 

[Note: proposed amendments to HB 2974 add Benton County to the counties comprising the bridge district, remove the ODOT representative, and sunset the district in 2024 if a bridge district hasn't been formed by then.]

Now I've got some blogging company, since a post on the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog notes that HB 2974 is being looked at by the City Council's legislative committee. Here's what the post said:

On the Rep. Evans Bridge District idea, one item especially in the analysis might give us pause. It seems to suggest that it's not at all out of the question that the District might try to site a bridge in Salem again. 

It had seemed like the District was an attempt to gather support for something more like a bridge at Wheatland Ferry.But this note makes it look more like it might be a bad-faith end-run around City Council's decision on the SRC.

Between the problems of property tax compression, the fact that any new bridge will induce traffic and add to greenhouse gas emissions, and adding another layer of regional government or governmental entity - all these together suggest the Bridge District idea should be approached very cautiously and critically.

I've heard that Rep. Evans didn't like that some opponents of HB 2974 were worried that this was a backdoor way to get around the Salem City Council's decision to kill the Salem River Crossing project. 

But I agree with the Breakfast on Bikes blogger: it sure looks like a Third Bridge at the same location as that project proposed could be brought back to life by the Special Bridge District.

Hopefully HB 2974 won't move forward in the Oregon legislature. Most of those who testified at HB 2974's first, and so far only, hearing were opposed to the bill according to a Salem Reporter story. Excerpt:

The prospect of a new governing body empowered to build bridges drew more opposition than support at a public hearing on Monday.

House Bill 2974 would allow voters in Marion, Polk, Yamhill and Benton counties to create a special district to oversee bridge planning, maintenance and funding. Board members would be elected and any taxes would go before voters.

Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, pitched the idea mere days after Salem City Council in February effectively ended the Salem River Crossing, a long-proposed bridge across the Willamette River, by a 6-to-3 vote.

During an hour-long public hearing at the House Rules Committee, witnesses mostly opposed the idea over economic, environmental and logistical concerns.

Sid Friedman, a Yamhill County resident, said the district would only offer one solution when more are needed.

“We do have transportation issues, I think we all recognize that, but this bridge district would only be looking at one solution — a new bridge, or bridges — instead of taking a more comprehensive look and saying ‘Here’s what we truly need to address our transportation issues,’” he said.

Bob Cortright, a West Salem resident, said the proposal would add another transportation body to an area with no shortage of governing bodies, like the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study, the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Mid-Willamette Valley Area Commission on Transportation.

Help stop HB 2974, a Third Bridge taxing scheme

A bill in the Oregon legislature seems like a backdoor way to get a Third Bridge built in Salem. At least, that's how I and quite a few others view HB 2974.

HB 2974 is sponsored by Rep. Paul Evans, who I usually agree with. But after I read the following email message from a group opposed to the bill, I became convinced that HB 2974 is a bad idea. 

One big reason: four people elected to a Special Bridge District, plus an ODOT representative, would get to increase the taxes of everybody in Marion, Polk, Linn, and Yamhill counties -- without the people in those counties getting to vote on whether they wanted to pay for whatever new bridge those five people dreamed up. Or, whether they'd ever use the bridge.

If you agree HB 2974 is a bad idea, send in testimony opposing the bill as soon as possible, since a hearing on the bill is scheduled for next Monday, April 1, 3 pm, Hearing Room C, before the House Committee on Rules.

The email address for the committee is: [email protected]

Read on for why you should oppose HB 2974.

HB 2974 is a bill from Representative Evans that attempts to get around the City of Salem's recent decision regarding a 3rd bridge across the Willamette River. It was just scheduled for a hearing and possible work session in the House Rules Committee this Monday, April 1, at 3:00 pm.   
 

We need your help to stop this bill.

The Rules Committee members need to hear from as many people as possible ASAP in opposition to the bill, and people need to show up in person to testify against the bill this Monday.
  
HB 2974 authorizes formation of a bridge district in the Salem area, consisting of Linn, Marion, Polk, and Yamhill counties. The bridge district would have the authority to levy property taxes to plan, finance, construct, operate, and maintain bridges over Willamette River in the Salem region. The district board would consist of four members, one elected from each of the four counties and one member representing the Department of Transportation.

Here's why this bill is NOT needed:

• • It overrides the recent decision of the Salem City Council after years of thoughtful debate.
  • Some locations for a bridge that have been discussed would adversely impact the most valuable farmland in the state.
  • The Bridge District will have the authority to tax property owners in 4 counties, most of whom will never use the bridge during the hours of congestion.
  • If tolling is also required to pay for the bridge, drivers will travel another route to avoid the cost, which means all other neighboring bridges will also need to be tolled
  • We are trying to reduce our dependence on traffic throughout the region, and adding another route will merely increase that traffic volume.
  • Building another bridge and more road miles will increase driving, adding to greenhouse gas emissions.  That’s the opposite directing Oregonians want to go.
  • The project is estimated to cost more than $400 million, and therefore consume all or most local transportation investment dollars.
  • ODOT and the City of Salem need to come together to solve the congestion, which occurs only at rush hour times or during infrequent cases of emergency.
  • Instead, actions such as improved ramp and traffic control measures at the feet of the current bridges, must be taken. 
  • Seismic retrofits of the existing bridges are much cheaper than building a new bridge.

The full bill can be read here.

 

Written testimony can be submitted here.
 

Here are the Committee members (click a name for contact info).
 

Representative Paul Holvey (Chair)

House Democratic Leader Jennifer Williamson (Vice-Chair)

House Republican Leader Carl Wilson (Vice-Chair)

Representative Denyc Boles

Representative Rob Nosse

Representative Barbara Smith Warner

Representative Sherrie Sprenger
 

Thank you for taking the time to help stop HB 2974!

 

Measles vaccine works. Anti-vaxxers are endangering children.

Let me start off by saying that I'm not out to demonize people who mistakenly believe that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. Those people simply are misinformed. 

I'm pretty sure that most of those involved with the anti-vaccine movement are quite different from global warming deniers.

The fossil fuel industry uses false information to keep money flowing into their coffers. Sure, pharmaceutical companies do make money from from vaccines, but vaccines are safe and effective.

(Some do have side effects, such as the new shingles vaccine that my wife and I had brief bad reactions to, but we were pleased to trade those side effects for a greatly reduced risk of getting shingles.)

The 2019 Oregon legislature is doing the right thing by considering a bill that would eliminate the ability of parents to deny their children the measles vaccine because of philosophical or religious reasons. 

As public health officials work to tamp down a measles outbreak in the Portland metro area, Oregon lawmakers are preparing to take up legislation that would increase the number of children vaccinated for the disease.

State Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, confirmed to OPB on Thursday that he’s ordered up a bill to eliminate a provision of Oregon law that allows parents to forego vaccinations for their kids because of religious or philosophical reasons.

This makes so much sense, it's hard to see why anybody would oppose the bill. Children's health -- even their lives, since measles used to kill 400 to 500 Americans a year before vaccines were introduced -- shouldn't be held hostage to their parents' mistaken belief that vaccines are harmful.

They aren't. This is a scientific fact. A major study reported on recently found no link between the measles vaccine and autism. 

A major decade-long study has found there is no link between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism, even among children with other risk factors for the disorder.

The study examined every child born in Denmark between 1999 and 2010, a group of more than 650,000.

The study found no increased risk of developing autism after getting the MMR vaccine, no clustering of autism cases among children who were given the vaccine, and no increase in the rate of autism among susceptible children who were given the vaccine.

What's bothersome is that so many parents aren't willing to look at the scientific evidence. Their false beliefs lead them to become strong opponents of efforts to increase vaccination rates by taking away the ability of parents to deny their children health-promoting vaccines for anything other than medical reasons. 

An Oregonian story reported that hundreds of people opposed Rep. Greenlick's bill. 

After three hours of testimony on a bill that would eliminate most vaccine exemptions, 180 people still waited to speak their minds. Nearly all of them were there to oppose House Bill 3063, which the Oregon Legislature has taken up in the midst of one of the largest measles outbreaks the Pacific Northwest has ever seen.

The chairwoman of the House Committee on Health Care prioritized people who had traveled from within Oregon to get to the Capitol, and about 75 people were able to speak. Rep. Andrea Salinas, D-Lake Oswego, said that as of the 3 p.m. start time, more than 1,000 written documents had been submitted for the record at such a rapid pace that workers putting the documents online couldn’t keep up.

It's really disturbing that these anti-vaxxers are being duped by medical professionals who either aren't familiar with vaccine science, or choose to ignore that science for reasons I'm unable to fathom. The Oregonian story says:

However, groups that oppose mandatory vaccinations are effective at turning out large crowds to quash these efforts in many states. Oregonians for Medical Freedom, the leading group that opposes vaccinations, was at Thursday night’s hearing, as well as Portland Dr. Paul Thomas, a prominent voice in the anti-vaccination movement.

He told lawmakers that they would create hundreds of cases of autism if they approved the bill. His contention, which was echoed by many others at the hearing, is based on debunked reports that claimed a link between vaccines and autism.

Note: debunked reports that claimed a link between vaccines and autism. There is no connection between vaccines and autism. Anyone who says this is either lying or misinformed. Hopefully the Oregon legislature will pass House Bill 3063.

Like I said, the health of children is way more important than allowing their parents to act on their false beliefs about the dangers of vaccines.

City Club debate on Measure 105 shows wisdom of voting "No"

I've already voted NO on Measure 105, which would overturn Oregon's successful sanctuary state law that prevents law enforcement agencies from using state resources to detect or apprehend people whose only violation is federal immigration law.

Nothing I heard at today's Salem City Club debate on Measure 105 made me question in the slightest how I voted. 


The debate was between Cynthia Kendoll (on the left) and Andrea Williams (on the right). Kendoll is president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform. Williams is executive director of CAUSA, Oregon's statewide immigration rights organization.

Williams' expression as Kendoll was speaking mirrored how I felt about Kendoll's exceedingly weak argument for voting Yes on Measure 105. Basically, Kendoll said that laws have to be followed; immigrants who are here illegally are breaking the law; so Oregon law enforcement agencies should help federal ICE agents find them so they can be deported.

On the other hand, Williams pointed out sound reasons to vote No. 

She talked about examples of racial profiling that occurred in Oregon prior to the passage of our sanctuary state law. Williams also said that without that law, undocumented immigrants would be wary of contacting the police or testifying in an investigation. 

There was some back-and-forth about whether undocumented immigrants commit more or fewer crimes than the general population. Studies show that "fewer" is the correct answer. (See here and here.)

So Kendoll was wrong when she tried to argue that Measure 105 would make Oregonians safer. She vainly tired to claim that undocumented immigrants engage in more lawbreaking than documented immigrants.

But as a City Club member pointed out in the course of asking a question, it makes sense that people who can't get a drivers license (for example), yet need to drive to get to work, will have more "driving without a license" citations than those who can get a license. 

In other words, illegality most often is a case of this country's broken immigration laws, which don't allow law-abiding, hard-working undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.

Not surprisingly, I felt that a question I asked of Cynthia Kendoll was brilliant.

It came to me while I was staring at a slide that was left on a screen for most of the debate to summarize the core difference between voting yes or no on Measure 105. I began to wonder about substituting a different word in the bottom line for "immigration."

Like, "marijuana." So this is how my question went to Kendoll, as best I can recall:

Along with others in the audience, I'm a federal lawbreaker, since I use marijuana, and it's illegal under federal law. So I'm wondering if you'd be in favor of local and state law enforcement agencies here in Oregon working with federal agents to arrest people who are using marijuana -- even though it is legal in this state. Conservatives like you usually are in favor of state's rights. But since you favor using state resources to enforce federal immigration law, are you in favor of also using state resources to enforce the federal marijuana law?

Kendoll's answer was so lame, and so unresponsive to my question, I can barely remember what it was. It had something to do with federal immigration law catching criminals, I think. But every marijuana user in Oregon also is a criminal in the eye of federal law enforcement, so this response made little or no sense.

This just shows the hypocrisy of conservatives. They're all for states rights when it comes to gerrymandering, restricting the right to vote, and limiting access to abortions, but on immigration policy and sanctuary state laws, they're all in for federal control. 

Bottom line: vote NO on Measure 105.

 

Here's my 2018 midterms endorsements: every Democrat on the ballot, plus Measure 102

Since I have a blog called Salem Political Snark, it's dawned on me that I should be making endorsements for both local and statewide races, plus Oregon ballot measures. 

This doesn't mean anybody will pay attention to what I say, but us bloggers don't do what we do because we believe we're influential. We just can't help ourselves, being addicted to putting what's going on inside our head into words on a computer screen, then onto the Internet where others can eavesdrop on the state of our psyche.

So here's how I'm feeling two weeks before the midterm election on November 6.

Short version: Vote for every Democrat on the ballot. Plus, vote "yes" on Measure 102 and "no" on the other measures. Regarding other choices on the ballot, like judges, use your best, um, judgement.

Long version: So why am I being so incredibly tribalistic in urging people to vote for every Democrat over every Republican and third-party candidate? 

Because this is no ordinary election. Donald Trump is no ordinary president. And the G.O.P. that Trump unquestionably has become the leader of is no ordinary political party.

We're living in dangerous times. Our country is on the brink of succumbing to authoritarianism. If you doubt this, read "How Democracies Die." Or at least my blog post about the book.

In that post I noted that the authors of How Democracies Die advised against engaging in hardball tactics against Trump, based on their familiarity with what has worked in other countries facing similar threats against democratic institutions. (Note the small "d.")

But voting for Democrats isn't at all a hardball tactic. It's simply the best way for the United States to begin digging its way out of the messy, smelly, unpleasant hole Trump and his Republican cronies have gotten us into.

Everybody has their own favorite description of the crap that lies in this hole.

Mine is lying, disrespect for the truth, trashing reality. To me this is the biggest danger Trumpism poses to the United States, and to the entire world. Without a core concern for shared facts, both societal and scientific, politics has no foundation for wise decision-making, bipartisan or otherwise.

Driving home today, I heard investigative journalist Carl Bernstein talk about Trump on CNN's Cuomo Prime Time. Bernstein said that all presidents lie. Nixon lied. Clinton lied. George W. Bush lied. Obama lied. Occasionally. 

Trump, though, is an almost non-stop liar. Bernstein said this has been Trump's modus operandi throughout his business career, and he's stepped up his lying after becoming president. We've never had a president with such little regard for the truth.

Or a president so uncaring, so lacking in compassion, so egotistical. (At least in modern times.) 

Few Republicans are willing to stand up against Trump's constant assaults on our shared reality. This is why it is so important to elect Democrats this November. No Republican can be counted on to serve as a counter-weight to Trump.

And for sure this includes Oregon's Republican candidate for Governor, Knute Buehler. So vote for Kate Brown. On health care, climate change, women's rights, and so much else, Brown will continue to be on the side of ordinary Oregonians, not special interests.

Every Republican running for office, both locally and statewide, had to be approved in a primary by members of their party who are avidly pro-Trump. Thus there's no way any Republican on the ballot can be trusted to do what's right for Oregonians, since they're committed to doing what Trump wants.

Today Senator Kamala Harris gave a talk in Iowa where she said, "This is the moment in time that is requiring us to fight for the best of who we are... We are better than this."

Yes, we are. We're way better than Donald Trump and his lying ways. So let's send a message in the form of a Big Blue Wave on November 6.

 

Oregon is #1 in ease of voting. I show why.

Oregonians are appropriately proud of our beautiful, prosperous, progressive state. Now we have another reason to feel superior: Oregon is the easiest place to vote among all 50 states.

A professor in the Political Science Department at Northern Illinois University was the lead author of the study, described in "New study scrutinizes time and effort it takes to vote in each state."

Here's the characteristics that make for easy voting:

Oregon has had mail-in voting since 1998, when we became the first state to conduct all elections by mail. We have automatic voter registration via drivers license info, thanks to a bill signed by Governor Kate Brown in 2016. Ballots arrive in the mail about three weeks before election day, which gives plenty of time to vote.

All we need to do is sign the ballot and mail it back so it's received by 8 pm on election day (or drop it in a ballot box, many of which are drive-up). Oregon has online voter registration. People convicted of a felony can't vote while they're in jail, but their voting rights are restored upon their release.

On the down side, voter registration has to occur 21 days before an election in order to be able to vote in that election. 

So all in all, Oregon deserves its #1 ease of voting ranking. I've lived in Oregon since 1971, so I've experienced both the agony of driving to a voting location and standing in line to cast a ballot, and the ecstasy of voting at home.

Which I'm pleased to show.

My ballot for the November 6, 2018 election arrived in the mail a few days ago. Tonight I sat at our kitchen counter, coffee and pen at the ready, and filled in the ballot.

I couldn't find the Marion County Voter's Pamphlet that came in the mail, so I perused the online version to decide on some local judge races. That task completed, I put the ballot in an envelope, signed the back of the envelope, and affixed a stamp.

Done!

Every state should vote by mail. This week there was early voting in Georgia. Reportedly it took two hours to cast a ballot. That's crazy. No one should have to put up with that. Too many states treat voters badly, making it way too difficult to vote.

Currently only Oregon, Washington, and Colorado have 100% vote by mail. But there's hope: a graphic in the ease of voting study shows how states shifted between 1996 and 2016. Oregon used to rank #27. Now we're #1. 

Voters just need to elect state politicians who vow to expand and protect voting rights. Of course, in many states where it's difficult to vote, that's tough to do.

Still, this Oregonian's advice is: Wait in lines. Put up with bad voting laws. Then vote out those who are standing in the way of reforms. Believe me, it's worth the time and trouble to make voting easy for everybody. 

Danny Jaffer shows why Oregon, and Salem, needs to elect Democrats

Vote for Democrats in the November 2018 election. I was convinced of this before our doorbell rang a couple of hours ago, but I'm even more convinced after chatting with Danny Jaffer, who is running to represent Oregon House District 23.

My wife, Laurel, has been hand writing postcards urging our neighbors out here in rural south Salem to vote for Jaffer. So I'd heard his name, and knew he was running against Republican Mike Nearman. That was it, though.

Talking with Jaffer about his background and why he thinks he can win left me with a really good feeling.

Here's one side of the flyer he left with me. Note that Jaffer is a 20 year Navy veteran. He served in Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, and the Global War on Terrorism. 

What's not to like, House District 23 voters? Put more positively, I really liked Jaffer's statement about Oregon Forward on his campaign web site.

Oregon Forward is a movement built on the idea that Oregonians can and should work together to create a healthier, cleaner, and more prosperous community for everyone. Oregon Forward is also a rejection of the dirty politics of fear and intolerance which serve only the interests of deep-pocketed special interests, not you and me.

Whether you’re conservative, liberal, or just fed up with politics altogether, the Oregon Forward campaign seeks to make your voice and your interest the focal point of everything we do. A vote for Danny Jaffer is a vote to strip the power of extreme special interests and return power to everyday Oregonians, where it belongs.

Nicely said. 

I think just about everybody agrees that the tone of today's national politics is disgusting. I'm a political junkie, but it's getter harder and harder for me to listen to the news when I'm driving around. I get fed up with the constant bickering, backbiting, and blather -- to name a few "B's" that come to mind.

Jaffer struck me as a nice straightforward guy. He must have made lots of house calls in the past weeks and months, but while talking to him I didn't feel that anything he said was canned or scripted. 

By contrast, consider this excerpt from a Statesman Journal story about the Jaffer-Nearman race (there's also a Libertarian candidate). It followed numerous quotes from Jaffer, including his observation that Nearman doesn't champion issues important to his community.

Nearman did not respond to multiple requests for an interview. After being contacted by the Statesman Journal, Nearman hung up his phone and did not answer subsequent calls and emails. 

Wow. No wonder Mike Nearman hasn't done much for the people in House District 23. Nearman doesn't want to talk about the issues that voters care about, not even to a Statesman Journal reporter who wants to give him a newspaper soapbox.

Maybe Nearman, like Donald Trump, considers journalists "enemies of the people." A letter to the editor in the Corvallis Gazette-Times raised this possibility. 

As the midterm elections approach, I asked myself: "Who is Rep. Mike Nearman and who does he really represent?"

After searching the Democrat-Herald's website for "Mike Nearman," I found just three brief listings, one announcing his plan to run for re-election this year, and two others about the same meeting he planned to attend.

I also read in the Salem paper that Mike Nearman refused to conduct an interview and hung up the phone on the reporter.

This is the opposite behavior we need from our Oregon state House representative from the 23rd District. We need absolute transparency and effective communication practices such as using and respecting the media. The media are not the enemy of the people. This, combined with his voting to eliminate school lunches and against net neutrality, smacks of someone in the pocket of special interests.

Look, I'm not saying that Democrats are politically perfect. But I do strongly believe that Democrats are more likely to stand up for the interests of the general public than Republicans, since the GOP typically tilts toward special interests such as giant corporations.

I'm familiar with the saying, "All politics is local." However, that used to be way more true than it is today. Donald Trump views the upcoming mid-term elections as a referendum about himself. He wants one-party rule, the Republican party, which he is the leader of.

Democrats like Danny Jaffer see things differently. They want the people to rule, not a party, nor one Supreme Leader. That's why I'm voting for Democrats on November 6. I encourage everybody to do the same.

Statesman Journal partnership with Verify More seems creepy

About a week ago Salem's daily newspaper, the Statesman Journal, ran a story, "Statesman Journal partners with nonprofit on political candidates' background checks." 

Most businesses run job candidates through a background check before hiring, to ensure there are no surprises or issues that didn't come up during the interview process.

With that in mind, the Statesman Journal is partnering with a nonpartisan, nonprofit called Verify More to do background checks on Mid-Valley political candidates.

This idea struck me as strange at the time. Now that I've learned more about Verify More, I'm adding disturbing and creepy to describe how I feel about this budding partnership with the Statesman Journal.

What got me to look into this was a message I received from a local candidate for public office. This person told me:

Not sure if you'll find this interesting, but this "non-partisan" non-profit seems to be run and funded by right-wingers. I looked up the guy, David Doud, when I got the invite. He ran for office in Washington a few times as a Republican and lost. Then, the board of the "non-profit" are mostly lobbyists from what I could tell. I talked with a few other candidates and a democratic consultant confirmed that they're funded by real estate developers and other corporate lobbying groups.

I haven't been able to learn who exactly is funding Verify More. The organization's website doesn't share that information, from what I could tell. But let's assume that the Partners listed on the website are financial contributors to Verify More. 

Most of these organizations do seem to tilt toward the conservative side of the political spectrum, aside from Amplify Washington and Ballotpedia.  And David Doud, the founder of Verify More, was indeed a Republican when he ran for Commissioner of the Port of Seattle. 

In his 2009 race for Port Commissioner, Seattle's the Stranger publication had a pleasingly caustic piece about Doud, "David Doud: Dickish!" This was their election endorsement statement. 

So this is another sign that Doud leans rightward.

The piece in the Stranger also discussed numerous false or misleading statements David Doud made in his campaign materials, including my favorite -- citing the "Seattle Times online" as the source of a quote that wasn't made by a reporter or editorial writer, but by someone who commented on a Seattle Times story. 

Given that Doud now supposedly is all about fostering clean political campaigning, it sure seems discordant that seemingly he didn't run his Port Commissioner campaign that way.

At any rate, I'm left with a feeling that the Statesman Journal may end up regretting its partnership with Doud and his Verify More organization.

There certainly isn't much history to go on. Currently Verify More only has lined up four newspapers to partner with (including the Statesman Journal), and has conducted thirty-one background checks, all on candidates in the state of Washington. 

Actually there is more to the Verify More investigation than a background check, as the organization's database lists three categories: Background Check, Resume Verification, and Social Media screening. Here's how the FAQ's describe each:

Background check: Our Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) approved background checks are self-authorized, voluntary and limited in scope to a Multi-State Instant Criminal Check, National Sex Offender Registry, Criminal County Search (10-Year Address History), Criminal Federal Search (10-Year Address History), Civil Federal Search (10-Year Address History), Civil County Search (10-Year Address History). Finally, we offer candidates a safe forum from which to disclose prior criminal convictions or other adverse information beyond the scope of our reports.

Resume Verification: Education, Employment, Professional Credentials, and Military Service Records (e.g. Medals, Tours of Duty), i.e. DD214/SF180.

Social Media screening: There are two types of social media searches: 1) ‘Character Search’ includes negative behaviours a candidate may exhibit online by scouring all publically available content (excludes non-user generated content). 2) ‘Reputation Search’ provides a 360 degree view of a candidate’s reputation by searching all publically available online content (excludes non-user generated content)

The 31-person politician database currently has only one non-green Clear or Verified rating on the 93 ratings. Terry Harder got a red ALERT on the social media screen. 


Naturally I had to view the report so I could see what sort of "negative behaviours" (English spelling, for some reason) candidate Harder was exhibiting online. What I found was shocking!

By which I mean, I found it shocking that Verify More would put a big red ALERT next to a candidate's name because the person had some mention of marijuana on Facebook, given that the sale, growing, and use of marijuana is legal in Washington state. 

This is one of the reasons I find Verify More to be creepy.

Obviously it's Social Media screening is highly subjective. Yet Harder's opponent would be able to cite Verify More in a campaign ad that says "Terry Harder's character rated an ALERT from a group that checks the background of candidates for public office."

I'll do my best to keep an open mind about Verify More's upcoming ratings of Oregon candidates. I'm just suspicious of the organization's motives, and also its methodology.