News aggregator

Having spent many a night pouring over documents and testimony and maps related to the Urban and Rural Reserves, I was interested to read about the North Clackamas Chamber of Commerce breakfast forum held last week between Metro Chair candidates Bob Stacey and Tom Hughes.

As the former Mayor of Hillsboro, Hughes is an ardent advocate for snatching up more of Washington County's high value farmland and turning it into commercial and residential real estate. It's essentially Hughes' plan for job creation for the Metro area, in fact. He supported the badly drawn Bragdon map for urban reserves, which chews up ridiculous amounts of land for likely urbanization.

Raymond Rendleman, The Clackamas Review:

“I’m the guy who believes we should make our existing land supply work,” Stacey said, pointing out the millions of square feet of underused and vacant real estate. “We’re deferring that problem if we keep on going out to the boundaries for more land.”

Hughes shot back by arguing that Oregon’s above-average unemployment will only turn around with a real-estate infusion.

“We can’t afford to blow off the expansion land,” he said. “The concern that I have based on my experience growing jobs in Hillsboro is that we need a balanced approach... Bob has carefully and thoughtfully looked at the problem of job creation–I have actually been involved in that process.”

"Balanced approach"? Hughes told me in a previous interview that Washington County needs 3-4 one hundred acre parcels in order to accommodate the next Intel, Solarworld, Nike or Genentech. Others have told me that they've heard Hughes say between 7-9 one hundred acre parcels. Yet there's little or no discussion by Hughes (that I'm aware of--and I hope his campaign will stop by here and correct me if I'm wrong) about using the land already inside the Urban Growth Boundary--specifically the hundreds of thousands of square feet of empty commercial real estate and land sitting in Hillsboro and Beaverton. And why there isn't a substantive discussion happening at the Washington County level about encouraging small business (and large business) in the downtown areas of Hillsboro and Beaverton. Both cities have downtown regions that are beginning to crumble (I know of at least one candidate for office that was given space in downtown Hillsboro for FREE, because it's virtually impossible to rent it out right now). And there is at least one enormous plot (known as the St Mary's property) that's near already established residential development--but still Hughes looks to the rural, ag areas of Washington County instead. It's senseless, in my opinion.

If this is Hughes notion of "balanced approach", then I'd hate to see what he thinks pandering to developers looks like.

Stacey, on the other hand, is actively articulating the need to use the massive amount of existing land we already have--and reinvigorate these areas to make them attractive to business.

What we really can't afford it to blow off what we already have in favor of building huge commercial buildings/offices that are only accessible by driving (which is what building out in the middle of Cornelius at the north of Council Creek is--as is building on Scotch Church Road or any number of these other agriculture areas that aren't near any substantial residential development whatsoever), especially since Washington County can't support the traffic they have now.

BREAKING NEWS! This just in. Two new states have just joined the Union. They're going to be known as "Hawaii" and "Alaska". One tropical and one up north near the Arctic Circle. We'll see how long it takes for them to immerse themselves in American culture and public life. Might take a while, but I'm sure it'll happen someday. Who knows? Somebody we may even have presidential and vice-presidential candidates from those states.

What? Oh, that didn't just happen? You say it happened in 1959?

Weird. According to the Multnomah County Republican Party, there's still just 48 states. Here's the photographic evidence from their latest "U-Choose" meeting.

Nothing quite says Leadership for the Future like a 48-star American flag.

(FYI, the guy in the photo is Gordon Fiddes, who is running against Rep. Margaret Doherty.)

Oddly, U-Choose has its own website, but describes themselves as "the political issues action team" of the Multnomah GOP. Not sure what the rest of the county party does, if it's not political issues action. Maybe they're busy figuring out how to add a couple states to get the USA up to a round number of states.

By J. Graber of Portland, Oregon. He is a former journalist and a graduate student in strategic communications at the University of Oregon, Portland campus.

Maybe the reason you never see any coverage about the race for Oregon’s 4th Congressional District is because everyone in the fourth estate thinks the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I mean Peter DeFazio has held the seat since 1987 and took 82 percent of the vote in his 2008 election.

Or maybe they feel Art Robinson’s pseudo-scientific and sometimes self-serving rhetoric makes him less than a viable candidate.

Who knows? But betting on politics has always been about as safe as investing in a toll-booth factory in Vancouver these days.

So, with that in mind, let’s take a look at who these two men are.

Robinson is the President of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and one of the primary authors of a petition claiming global warming is bogus and that carbon dioxide is actually good for us. The exact wording of the petition reads:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

In the meantime Robinson also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter, which champions deregulating the energy industry and published the following argument for dumping man-made waste into the ocean in 2004:

Wastes dumped into the deep ocean will soon reach the bottom, where they are less hazardous than nearly any other place on Earth. Most materials will remain there: marine organisms are rare in the deep ocean, food chains are long, and few materials will be carried back to mankind.

And despite having been a chemistry professor at the University of California San Diego, Robinson calls public education “socialism in education” … on the Web site hawking his home-school curriculum for $195 and up.

Copies of his multi-media package on how to survive are also available for $149.

He also proposes to “defund all pork barrel and earmark projects” in the federal budget – a tall order for a would be junior congressman, eh?

Finally, he proposes lowering health care costs by undoing recent health care reforms granting 30 million Americans who otherwise would be left out access to medical insurance, and increasing the insurance companies’ ability to wiggle out of providing the very service for which they were created by reducing their exposure risk to lawsuits.

DeFazio, on the other hand, opposed Bush’s cuts to financial aid in 2005 and supported the 2007 College Cost Reduction Act that increased federal student aid by $20 billion.

He also supported the historic health care reform signed into law earlier this year that is expected to put an additional 16 million people on the Medicaid rolls, subsidize private coverage for those who cannot afford it, and regulate private insurance companies more closely, eliminating practices like denying benefits for pre-existing conditions.

DeFazio also proposes thinning national forests by the 6 billion feet board recommended by the U.S. Forest Service, providing jobs and material for renewable energy as well as reduce federal timber revenue payments to counties.

He voted against deregulating the cable television industry in 1996, has been a long-time opponent of the North American Free Trade agreement, helped draft legislation that $2.7 billion for transportation projects in Oregon in 2005, and went against his party in opposing last year’s “$700 billion bailout bill that puts taxpayers on the hook for the mistakes of Wall Street executives and CEO's.”

So there is a little insight into the two men who want to represent Oregon’s 4th Congressional District. You decide who would better serve the public good … now where did I put that number to my stock broker?

The saga of Kevin Mannix's utter incompetence with his redistricting ballot measure has now reached its apex. This morning in a Marion County court, Judge Mary James rejected a request by Mannix to have signatures reinstated to the initiative.

Peter Wong, The Statesman Journal:

Judge Mary Mertens James rejected a request by sponsors to reinstate 12,975 signatures that state elections officials excluded from their initial count because there were flaws in the petition-signature sheets.

Sponsors had requested that the signatures be added to the 91,617 already validated — the total still would have fallen short of the 110,358 required to qualify it for the Nov. 2 ballot — or to have them blended with the 114,973 that officials accepted initially for sampling.

James said she felt she did not have authority to order the latter step.

The proposed constitutional amendment would have created a panel of retired judges to oversee the redrawing of legislative district lines after every 10-year census.

In her order, Judge James made it clear that Mannix had failed to meet the standards required to rule in his favor and very carefully lays out why. The biggest problem, of course, is that even if the judge reinstates the contested signatures, the initiative still falls short of the required number to make the ballot. In other words, there's no judicial remedy to fix the fact that Mannix was incompetent with this.

Judge James order can be read here.

In a shocker, the Secretary of State announced this morning that one of the two statewide ballot measures designed to legalize a casino in Wood Village failed to qualify for the ballot. The constitutional amendment needed 110,358 valid signatures - and only had 104,629. That's 60.78% of the 172,136 signatures turned in and accepted for verification.

Back on July 3rd, I wrote that - based on the number of signatures turned in - "Both measures should handily make the ballot."

After all, as the O's Kimberly Melton reported yesterday, the average valid rate since 2000 has been 73%. But with 60.78%, the casino constitutional measure fell way short.

Willamette Week reports that initiative sponsors intend to challenge the validation process in court.

Matt Rossman, one of the project’s two local developers, says he and his business partner Bruce Studer intend to challenge the Secretary of State’s signature-validation method in court.

“We strongly believe it needs to be challenged,” Rossman said. “And we will challenge it in the courts.”

Of course, that's a tall order. The courts have been reluctant to get into the nitty-gritty signature-by-signature process, and have regularly upheld the overall system used by the elections division.

No word yet on what this means legally. After all, without the constitutional measure, the companion ballot measure proposes enacting an unconstitutional statute. Perhaps some of our legal eagles could talk through the scenarios. Could the statute sit out there waiting for a constitutional amendment to pass later? Or would it be immediately and forever struck down as unconstitutional?

And, of course, there's the question of what the sponsors will do. If they lose their court fight, will they pull the statutory measure? Can they even pull it once signatures are turned in?

There's coverage from the Oregonian, the Gresham Outlook, the Business Journal.

When Congress shelved the Clean Energy Bill last week I’ll admit that for the first time during the Obama administration I felt discouraged. Let’s just set aside a little problem called global climate change, which if left unchecked will continue to change civilization as we know it. Let’s just talk pure electoral politics.

On July 5th, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, reported that Democrats are planning on winning in 2010 by spending millions to mobilize the Obama 2008 electoral coalition of young people and communities of color, while doing reasonably well among white voters. The challenge is that although this was a great plan for a big turnout Presidential year, it has historically proven to be very difficult to pull off in midterm elections. The reality is that turnout among these groups typically drops precipitously in non Presidential election years. Therefore, any strategy that depends on breaking these historical trends has to be connected to a clear and motivating agenda these voters care deeply about. This is where the inability to pass a clean energy bill makes absolutely no sense.

Major international studies and domestic polling show that protecting the environment and addressing climate change is one of the most important issues to young people. Polls going back to 2002 have shown that communities of color care more about environmental protection then the population at large.

And polling recently conducted in four Oregon counties by the OLCV Education Fund showed that residents strongly support and want to see the Legislature work to creating clean energy jobs in their region. In other words, the dots are not being connected where they should be. And once again, the conventional wisdom inside the Beltway that the smart political move is to avoid clean energy legislation is bollocks.

With that rant aside, the reality is that Oregon’s political leadership - at all levels of government - get it. The failure of the federal clean energy bill in the Senate came despite the major efforts of Senators Wyden and Merkley to get it done. And we can thank Congressman Schrader, Blumenauer, Defazio and Wu for passing the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill through the House last year. When you add this all up, there's no question that it is imperative for all of us who care about clean energy and stopping climate change to work our tails off this fall. Let’s run down the ballot –

• US Senator Ron Wyden has been a champion for clean energy jobs, and last year, after years of work with Congressman Blumenauer, finally pushed the historic Mt. Hood Wilderness protection bill through the Senate. There is a reason that Ron Wyden continues to be one of Oregon's most respected and liked public officials - he consistently fights to do what is right, not what is easy.
  

• In John Kitzhaber we have a chance to elect the strongest environmental Governor since Tom McCall. With Kitzhaber’s proven record of protecting Oregon’s environmental legacy and building a thriving economy, just imagine what he will be able to accomplish with strong Legislative leaders to work with.

• Congressman Kurt Schrader is one of the freshmen of the year. In his first term, he cast a gutsy vote for the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill and pushed a bill through to protect the Molalla River. He also led the effort to bring the NOAA research fleet to Newport, bringing hundreds of millions of dollars in economic development to the coast.

• Congressmen Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio and David Wu continue to be champions for balanced growth, livable communities, improved transportation and clean energy jobs.
  

The last two sessions of the Oregon Legislature have been the two best pro-environment sessions since the 1970s including investing hundreds of millions of dollars in renewable energy development, which continue to create clean energy jobs across Oregon.

In 2010 we need to think local. National politicians may not get it, but our leaders in Oregon sure do. They continue to fight, day after day/week after week, to be part of the solution. If you care about protecting the natural legacy of Oregon. If you care about creating jobs through renewable energy produced in America. If you care about continuing to make progress then the only conclusion you can reach is that 2010 is one of the most important local elections in our history.

Candidate Chris Dudley has been invited to speak at the RNC meeting at the Beverly Wilshire in Beverly Hills, California. On August 13th at 11:00 am he's included in a panel of two other West Coast candidates running for governor.

The RNC is featuring Andrew Breitbart now infamous for his doctored video that brought deceit to a whole new level. This kind of kinship is costly for participants, the cheap seats start at $1,000 with options to donate at $5,000, $15,000, $30,400 and top out at $60,800. Imagine the toe-curling pleasure to be gained by listening to Andrew Breitbart explaining his painful dilemma of releasing the video clip he posted minus the entire context. After his deceit is discovered a previously unknown woman becomes a martyr for civil rights.

Dudley, who sometimes appears to be as empty as a new computer may wish to rethink participating in this RNC event.

One of the reliably good progressive blogs doing "horse race" political blogging is Swing State Project. What's more, they're very, very good at predicting races. Last week, the boys at SSP made a whole slew of adjustments to their general election prognostications and if their look at the Oregon Governor's race is right, Team Kitzhaber had better step it up. They've moved the race from "Leans D" to "Tossup".

I bumped into DavidNYC, JamesL and Crisitunity during last week's Netroots Nation convention in Las Vegas. Crisitunity is the blogger who generally covers the Pacific Northwest. He talked with me about the team's decision to bump the race over.

"Swing State Project moved OR-Gov to Tossup largely on the basis of polling showing, almost without exception, a race within a point or two either direction," said Crisitunity. "That's primarily the prolific Rasmussen (whose reputation precedes them), and a few other pollsters we're leery of (openly Republican pollster Magellan, and SurveyUSA), but also Tim Hibbitts, who has a sterling reputation in Oregon. Even if the intangibles seem to support a Kitzhaber victory -- Oregon's Democratic lean, its long track record of electing Democratic governors, and the difference in candidate quality and gravitas -- the difficult nature of the year and the potential for Dudley to outspend Kitzhaber mean it can't be taken for granted and Kitzhaber could just as easily lose as win."

Crisitunity went on to say that they're "alarmed" by chatter they're hearing that Kitzhaber seems to be coasting on his well-earned reputation. They believe Kitz may also be viewing the race through an "outdated prism of bipartisanship and amicable problem-solving". Swing State is concerned that the former Governor is waiting for the inevitable need to throw some punches and define Dudley instead of trying to somehow "transcend politicking as usual."

Crisitunity also said that this race reminds him of a mini-version of California, where there's also a semi-legendary, successful former Governor trying for a repeat, but trying to stay above the fray. This is unwise against a Republican candidate who's saying nothing, hiding behind a lot of expensive ads and vague platitudes, and who's counting on that amorphousness to get over the top in a blue state. The Republican opposition needs to be given some form, before it's too late.

When I asked for a response from the Kitzhaber folks to Swing State's change in the race, new spokesperson Jillian Schoene said, "The numbers are not surprising; they have spent a lot of money buying TV time for a celebrity candidate who sticks to his talking points. But Oregonians are going too see through that pretty quickly."

Perhaps.

But given that Dudley is heavily outraising Kitzhaber right now, I'm wondering how Oregonians are going to see through a message that's essentially going uncountered, even if it is a bunch of empty platitudes and vague bullshitting.

By Brian Hines of Salem, Oregon. Brian describes himself as "a progressive blogger who has been involved in Marion County land use issues for some time." He typically blogs at Hines Sight.

It's laughable how right-wingers will decry "judicial activism" until they don't like a law passed by a vote of the people. While Measure 37 supporters decried it when a judge initially blocked the measure's application, the same supporters begged a federal judge to undo what democracy produced when Oregonians voted in Measure 49.

Last week, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision in a case that affects over 7,500 Measure 37 claims throughout Oregon.

Sixty-two percent of Oregon voters approved Measure 49 in 2007, which saved our land use laws from being decimated by the meat-ax of Measure 37. Then a group called Citizens for Constitutional Fairness filed a lawsuit in Jackson County -- arguing that waivers of regulations allowed by Measure 37 were contracts between the county and landowners that couldn't be broken.

In 2008, federal District Court Judge Owen Panner agreed with the plaintiffs, producing what has been called "a collective forehead slap among land use attorneys." Panner himself must have had second thoughts about his ruling, because he put a stay on it after an appeal was filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a blunt memorandum opinion, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit rejected the case brought by Measure 37 claimants and the newly-formed, self-anointed group Citizens for Constitutional Fairness (which is part of the Jackson County Tea Party movement), who demonstrated their ill-founded constitutional theories by citing a case from 1927.

This is a big slap on the cranium for the folks who appear to simply believe that the constitution says what they say it says. It only took the panel one double-spaced page to reverse Panner's original ruling, ending with:

Indeed, the waivers disavow any promise to the property owners: “Jackson County does not promise Claimant(s) that Claimant(s) will eventually be able to put the property to any particular use.” ER-63-7. Because there is no contract, appellees fail to state a Contracts Clause violation. Nor does Measure 49 implicate separation of powers doctrine. The waivers were administrative decisions, not court judgments.
REVERSED.

Great news for Oregon.

Public interest environmental attorney Ralph Bloemers of the Crag Law Center represented local citizens and landowners in an appeal of the lower court ruling. The 9th Circuit agreed with the arguments presented by Bloemers, who joined with Jackson County counsel to obtain the reversal.

When the opinion was announced on July 20 he talked about what it meant for our state.

One of the many [Measure 37] claims involved in the suit proposed a large destination resort next to the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument. Other claims proposed developments on farmland in the Applegate River, on forestland along the Rogue River and were spread throughout Jackson County.

If the ruling had been upheld, the State’s land use system would have been in disarray. Over 7,500 claims were filed under Measure 37, and the ruling threatened to re-instate all of these claims despite the passage of Measure 49.

Not to be deterred from their unwavering faith and belief that they know what the Constitution says, the so-called Citizens for Constitutional Fairness are not going to let a fairly conservative panel of the 9th Circuit deter them from throwing more of their money after a hopeless cause.

Reportedly the plaintiffs are planning to ask the 9th Circuit to rehear the case or try to beg the U.S. Supreme Court to do so. The one-page slap down doesn’t suggest the odds are good for them.

Nor does the fact that the three 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges who dismissed Panner's ruling in a mere twelve lines were all appointed by Republican presidents: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski was appointed by Ronald Reagan; Judge Andrew Kleinfeld by George H.W. Bush; Judge Sandra Ikuta by George W. Bush.

The 9th Circuit may have a reputation for being a hothouse of political liberalism, but perhaps every citizen should consider this:

We must avoid being knee jerk reactionaries who simply respond to the results of legal opinions rather than actually taking the time to read them or understand how the law works. In my view, the rule of law is effective in helping temper the influence of personal politics in our court system.  I am not naïve about how the judiciary has been politicized, but I prefer to avoid using the label judicial activism.

The three judges who affirmed the constitutionality of Measure 49 and rejected the legal claims made by Citizens for Constitutional Fairness cannot fairly be criticized for exercising their judicial power.

Last week I attended an inspiring and engaging event promoting the centennial of women’s suffrage in Oregon. The event included a faux town hall debate in period costumes about whether to give women the vote, and attendees included some of Oregon’s political luminaries, including Judge Betty Roberts and Secretary of State Norma Paulus.

It took Oregon women six ballot fights to get suffrage – more than any other state. After delegates briefly considered and rejected votes for women at the state’s Constitutional Convention in 1857, a long road lay ahead. In 1862 limited rights to vote in school board elections were given to some women. Yet Oregon's male voters continually defeated ballot-wide voting rights for women - in 1884 (28-72%), 1900 (48-52%), 1906 (44-56%), 1908 (39%-61%) and 1910 (37-63%). The 1910 initiative connected voting rights to taxpaying, losing support from some who considered it class-based legislation.

Finally, in 1912, by a 52-48% margin, male voters passed the right for most women to vote (Native women gained the vote in 1924, and for years after laws restricted immigrants’ voting rights). While voters in Benton, Washington, and Clackamas counties voted against the women’s vote, voters in most eastern and southern Oregon counties – Baker, Klamath, Malhuer, Union – were pro-suffrage, as were voters in Multnomah County. The seventh state with suffrage, Oregon followed Idaho (1896), Washington (1910), California (1911), Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. National women’s suffrage was ratified in 1920 (Oregon’s ratification was the 25th of 36 states required).

As with most great struggles, the fight for suffrage required a huge amount of work, including decades of grueling organizing and coalition building. By 1912, the coalition for suffrage included dozens of organizations, including labor groups, the Grange, temperance unions, and socialists. Specific suffrage organizations included the Colored Women's Equal Suffrage League of Portland, a group of Chinese American women, and men’s suffrage associations. The measures were fought by many newspapers and by the liquor and business interests, who were in part worried women would vote for prohibition (an accurate prediction).

After gaining the right to vote, women slowly gained power in the political sphere, becoming state representatives and senators, mayors and city councilors, and finally members of Congress, Secretary of State, the Supreme Court, and Governor (just once, so far, with Barbara Roberts). There’s still significant progress to be made; we have no women in Oregon’s Congressional delegation, only two of our six statewide elected officials are women, and only a third of our state senators and 27% of our state representatives are women.

Learning about Oregon’s suffrage history can deepen our sense of what it means to be progressive Oregonians. As we study suffrage, we naturally grapple anew with questions of race, class, and gender equity. We learn about the long work of labor unions, and Oregon’s deep history of anti-immigrant racism.

Perhaps most importantly, as we work to fight today’s huge challenges that seem insurmountable, we can find inspiration in the dedication Oregon women and their allies showed in their 53 year-long fight for the basic right to vote, and their work in the nearly 100 years since.

Visit the Oregon Suffrage Century of Action website and contribute, so that more Oregonians learn more about the quest for suffrage.

Excerpts from a suffrage presentation by Dr. Kimberly Jensen.

For history buffs, make sure you visit the Oregon Encyclopedia.

I had hoped to get these thoughts posted yesterday, but I'm clearly not as young as I used to be. My physical recovery from pounding out five 16+ hour days doesn't have quite the bounce back that it once had. Let's hear it for getting old and worn out! Yay!

It's amazing what a few days of energizing panel discussions and wonky training sessions can do for a blogger's tired soul. Not to mention the fellowship and camaraderie among people who really understand the unique brand of crazy required to write about the nuts and bolts of politics. I really do love getting pruney in the wonk.

The first day or two of the Netroots Nation conference felt very much like a giant bitch session, complete with navel gazing and intense griping about the current state of affairs in the Democratic Party. But as those moments of catharsis passed, I felt the mood shift to a feeling of renewed energy and familial regrouping. Discussions were had not just about the problems before us, but real strategic plans were laid to begin tackling them.

Netroots Nation is also a place where elected officials and candidates show up for some face time with both local and national bloggers. I attended an AM coffee with US Senator Jeff Merkley, who took questions from a group of us that are local, but also included Daily Kos front-pager Joan McCarter.

Merkley also participated in a wonderful panel discussion on the foreclosure crisis (video on the jump) that included Elizabeth Warren who many progressives hope will be chosen by President Obama to head the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection created with the new Wall Street legislation recently signed into law.

Warren spoke with me briefly afterward, saying about Merkley, "I spend a lot of time talking with senators. I've seen the people that take to the cameras and the people that are willing to do the hard work, inch-by-inch, until it gets done. Jeff Merkley is one of the inch-by-inch guys who does the work. He is a good man".

Very nice indeed.

You can watch the video of the foreclosure crisis panel that includes Senator Merkley and Elizabeth Warren (along with Ryan Grim of Huffington Post and David Dayen of FireDogLake) below:

I missed the "Ask the Speaker" session with Speaker Pelosi as it happened at the same time as a state caucus event I needed to attend. I did hear some grumbling about her, mostly that it seemed she was filling up her time slot with videos and introductions, rather than saving the bulk of it for the actual questioning. On substance, there didn't seem to be a lot of complaints, at least not that I heard.

One of the more amazing moments of the convention came when Lt. Dan Choi, recently discharged under the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy gave his West Point ring to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who pledged to return it on the day that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is repealed with the President's signature. View Leader Reid's session, which includes the Choi part, below:

I very much enjoyed the closing keynote address delivered by Minnesota Senator Al Franken (I do love typing that out, btw--MINNESOTA SENATOR AL FRANKEN). Franken not only acknowledged our discontent with much of what's happening federally, he gave us energy and encouragement--something that was sorely needed. He also gave us next year's Netroots Nation location: Minneapolis, Minnesota. I have hope that the Minnesota location will be a bit less smoky and dusty than Las Vegas. And it will be FUN to be in the bosom of some of the most progressive people in the nation.

Maybe Al will have me over for dinner, too. Don't laugh. It could happen. Not likely..but if I don't write it down here there's no chance someone from his staff will read it on the Google alert they have for him and pencil me in.

Just sayin.

Updating the info from Friday's post on the temper tantrum-esque game of dodge ball being played by Kevin Mannix over his failure to get a redistricting initiative on the ballot, it looks like Mannix's epic failure on this one is now official. From Eugene Register Guard political reporter David Steves:

Secretary of State Kate Brown ruled this morning that Kevin Mannix came up with an insufficient number of petition signatures for his proposed initiative to yank redistricting away from the Legislature. The timing is sure to add a little zest to a 1:15 p.m. court hearing, in which Mannix will seek a Marion County judge’s restraining order to keep the measure’s hopes alive.

Mannix's effort to sell this as a conspiracy by the Secretary of State's office to thwart his work for the betterment of all mankind isn't flying either. More from Steves:

(snip)Of the 114,973 signatures accepted for verification, 79.69 percent, or 91,617, were determined to be valid. A proposed constitutional amendment requires 110,358 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

That might make this afternoon’s legal proceedings moot; even if Mannix gets to count all 13,000 contested signatures, he’d still come up short of the required total by more than 5,000 signatures.

The cabal of major donors to Mannix's failure cannot be happy. Oh to be a fly on the wall at the conference call where Mannix is forced to explain himself to these people.

Harry Esteve and Michelle Cole had a long piece in the Sunday Oregonian discussing the myriad budgetary problems confronting Oregon. I was going to post something on it, then I wasn't, and now, thanks to OSU Econ professor Patrick Emerson, I guess I will. Patrick takes particular interest in the article sidebar called "Eight Reasons Oregon Is in Deep Budget Trouble":

1. Recession: Unlike past economic troughs, this one was too deep, too vicious to muddle through with nips and tucks.

2. No sales tax: Our heavy dependence on income taxes to pay for schools and state programs leaves us vulnerable when jobs dry up.

3. Failure to apply spending brakes: Lawmakers went on a spree in 2007 that came back to bite them.

4. Dinky savings accounts: The state's first-ever rainy day fund, established in 2007, was all but depleted within two years.

5. Ballot measures approved by voters: Property tax limits, longer prison sentences, kicker rebates and mandatory parks spending leave little wiggle room when income stalls.

6. Public employee benefits: Most state employees get fully paid medical insurance. And the retirement system, despite rollbacks and changes for newer employees, still has old guaranteed returns and present retirement contributions that add up to soaring future costs.

7. Federal stimulus: It saved jobs for two years, but now it's going away and the economy did not recover fast enough to replace it.

8. The kicker: If the economy takes off faster than state officials anticipate, Oregon could be sending money back to individuals and corporations while cutting schools and services.

No disputing the first one, Emerson, says, but:

Number two is simply wrong. As I have illustrated in this blog through a rather extensive bit of research, a sales tax would not solve anything as consumption and income are very highly correlated. Sales taxes are almost as volatile as income taxes. It is the shift away from property taxes that contributed most the the current volatility of state revenues - which is alluded to in #5.

He adds that six is misleading because while benefits are generous, salaries are low. This is a good start, but I'd parse the list a little more.

Number three justifiable only if you ignore the fact that our terribly volatile system, which produces booms and busts, had before '07 produced two fairly serious busts. The "spending spree" was merely an effort to get back to some level of reasonable spending. Obviously, there's no objective level for "reasonable." Radical righties want to effectively defund government. But unless Esteve and Cole are joining them, how do you justify the comment given that the majority of spending, which goes to education and human services, was just plugging earlier holes?

Number four is true, but it's not the "dinky" that's the problem, it's the timing. Part of the "spree" maligned in #3 was the creation of the savings account--or rainy day fund. The scarce reserves in the rainy day fund weren't the failure, the failure was in not having created one decades ago. And of course, this element strongly relates to the eighth item, with which I strongly agree. Just before the current recession hit, the kicker forced the state to return a billion dollars to taxpayers.

As for state employees? This deserves greater discussion, but it's troubling that Esteve and Cole offer as fact that the benefits for state employees are themselves the problem. If you want a government, you have to have workers. If you have workers, you have to pay them. Oregon has chosen to pay workers poorly but give relatively--relatively--good benefits. There's no easy panacea here. And it's also troubling to hear reporters decry "old guaranteed returns"--as if the solution is to adopt a model where the state's promises to workers isn't worth the paper used to print the next poll numbers.

For what it's worth, gubernatorial candidate John Kitzhaber had an editorial in the same edition of the paper where he addresses some of these issues.

Yesterday US Senate leaders announced they will give up even trying to pass a comprehensive climate and clean energy bill this year. This makes it clearer than ever: if states like Oregon want to reap the benefits of a clean energy economy, they’ll have to do it without waiting for help from the federal government. Though Oregon is already a leader in clean tech and green jobs creation, we still have much more left to do. And fortunately, this year Oregon has the opportunity to take a huge step toward securing a clean energy future for our state.

If you guessed this has to do with the Boardman Coal Plant, you’re right. The Boardman Plant isn’t just Oregon’s biggest polluter—it is standing in the way of our transition to clean energy. Oregon has one of the nation’s most ambitious goals for reducing carbon emissions. But these goals will be near-impossible to achieve if the Boardman Plant stays open as long as its operator, PGE, would like. Transitioning away from this coal plant within the next few years is the most important thing we can do to make Oregon’s clean energy future a reality.

This choice is laid out within three tentative scenarios the Department of Environmental Quality has suggested for retiring Boardman. None of these options sanction PGE’s original proposal to burn coal at Boardman until 2020 without pollution controls almost certain to be required under federal law. Yet DEQ’s “option one” for Boardman (closure in 2020) and “option two” (closure in 2018), would still tie Oregon to dirty coal for eight to ten years. Keeping Boardman open until 2018 or beyond would also involve PGE spending hefty amounts of ratepayer money on expensive pollution controls.

DEQ “option three” would see the Boardman Coal Plant close in 2015 or early 2016, with minimal new pollution controls required. This choice is the clear winner—for the environment, for clean energy development, and for ratepayers. As the DEQ finalizes its rule-making process, it’s essential this option stay on the table and that PGE not be let off the hook for polluting.

Meanwhile Oregon’s Public Utilities Commission should not allow PGE to sink ratepayer money in the 2018 or 2020 plans, only to see the investments evaporate when the plant closes anyway. There is broad public support for closing the Boardman Plant within the next few years, and progressive Oregonians are mobilizing to make it happen. Next month young climate and clean energy activists will be taking our concerns directly to PGE’s Portland offices in a manner that can’t be ignored. Progressives who want to keep clean energy jobs flowing into Oregon need to shout out this message loud and clear: the Boardman Coal Plant needs to go, and delay is unacceptable.

When it comes to building a green economy the federal government, handicapped by a dysfunctional US Senate, won’t be coming to the rescue real soon. Oregon can create thousands of green jobs while improving air quality and protecting the climate, but we’ll have to do the grunt work ourselves. Transitioning off the Boardman Coal Plant in the next few years is perhaps the single most important step, and progressives must seize the chance to do it. It’s the only sure path to Oregon’s clean energy future.

A few weeks ago, initiative backers around Oregon turned in signatures for their petitions in an effort to get them on the ballot. At the time, Kari posted the list of potentials, along with the math on which measures were likely to make the cut, which were not and which were on the bubble.

Here's what Kari said on July 3 about Kevin Mannix's redistricting initiative:

Nonpartisan redistricting commission (full text pdf). They turned in 125,948 raw sigs. Since it's a constitutional amendment, they'll neeed 110,358 valid. In order to make the ballot, they'll need to have a valid rate of 87.6% - a tall order. I'm skeptical that they'll make it (unless they did something unusual, like pre-screening their signatures.)

The results are now in, and Mannix's initiative didn't make the cut. But instead of revisiting his incompetent signature gathering campaign, Mannix and his cadre are whining about Secretary of State Kate Brown following and applying the rules that everyone other initiative is required to follow.

The Oregonian has the story:

The initiative needs 110,358 valid signatures to make the November ballot. Elections officials have not finished checking the 125,948 signatures initiative petitioners turned in -- a number Secretary of State Kate Brown has said was the closest call among initiatives that submitted signatures. But already, the Elections Division has thrown out 12,975 signatures, making it highly unlikely that the measure will qualify for the ballot.

"It's a devastating situation," said Kevin Mannix, who helped write the initiative. "We know we can't make it on the ballot if they pull this many without even looking at them."

In other words, Mannix is pissed that Kate Brown applied the same rules to his initiative that she applied to everyone's and he didn't make the cut because his team didn't gather enough signatures.

Initiative Petition 50 is probably not going to make the ballot for one simple reason: Mannix turned in way too few signatures. The campaign turned in roughly 126,000, which would require an 87.6% validity rate. As far as I'm able to divine, no initiative in the last 10 years has had a validity rate that high. In fact, since 2000, only one has been above 85%, and that was Measure 9 in 2000. Mannix's other initiative this year, IP13, had a 68% validity rate.

There's no possible way they were going to make the ballot, and they knew that when they dropped off the signatures. Or if they didn't, then they're idiots.

Essentially, Mannix, Common Sense for Oregon, and VOTE Oregon LLC screwed this thing up from the get-go. They started too late didn't really ramp up until they saw they could tap into people pissed off about M66 and M67. Basically, it was revenge marketing that happened too far down the road.

The other reason Mannix may be hitting the panic button here has to do with money. Normally, Mannix only has Loren Parks' money. But this time, he had a lot more investors. Some noteworthy players bought into this: $35,000 from AOI, $10,000 from Stimson Lumber, $50,000 from Phil Knight, $25,000 from Oregon Restaurant Association, not to mention tens of thousands from other donors and corporations. To put it simply, Mannix has a lot of explaining to do to a lot of major donors--and he's in no hurry to cop to his mistakes. So what does he do? Loudly and disingenuously shifts the blame to Kate Brown, claiming that because she is following the rules, that sunk the initiative.

All in all, Mannix's boondoggle fleeced more than a half million dollars for Initative Petition 50. Keep in mind that this cash could have gone to Chris Dudley or other GOP legislative candidates--and Mannix basically just flushed it down the toilet. That can't be making his benefactors very happy.

Not a pretty picture.

And speaking of not pretty, radio hatemonger homophobe Bill Post thinks the problem is that Kate Brown is bisexual. What a jackass.

John Kitzhaber, my candidate for governor is introducing the Community Jobs Movement at house parties across the state on July 31st. Kitzhaber is a man who's spent thousands of hours meeting with community members, economic developers and business leaders throughout Oregon. He's filled with ideas gathered from on-the-ground conversations with people from all walks of life and of every political persuasion. Check out his website for a house party nearest you.

In contrast, the other candidate for governor is claiming that "Oregon's political leaders have made job creation and economic growth an after thought". Huh! Way to insult the Republican and Democratic economic developers statewide. Oregon's economic development has been the number one priority for governor after governor, mayors, county commissioners and city councils. How quickly the Dudley campaign dismisses all that effort. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Dudley campaign ad in the Willamette Week used the words worst, weak, worse, tired, old, in describing Oregon and then invites the readers to "join the comeback, we need a new direction." Which direction? Where are the specifics? Where's the leadership? Chris Dudley says he believes Oregon is unstoppable. What exactly do you think that phrase means? I'm looking for presentation points, some supporting material, not slogans.

Dudley's consulting team fails to recognize that Oregon took a huge hit when the timber industy began to fade in the 80's. Oregon quickly became experts at finding companies, enterprise zones, developing shovel ready sites, identifying business clusters, and recruiting companies.

My caveat to Oregon voter's is to look at the untested candidate. Who is he talking with? Who's talking to him? Where is your greatest risk?

See you at the house party next Saturday!

85%. Women are responsible for making 85% of all consumer purchases, but still make only $.78 for every dollar a man makes. Make that $.68 for African-American women and $.58 for Latinas for every dollar. And the disparity hits single women with children hardest -- they average up to 44% less pay. The "Paycheck Fairness Act" supported by President Obama's Administration aims to close that ever-present gap.

I spoke with Senator Merkley on Tuesday about the Administration's support for pay equity following his attendance at Vice President Joe Biden's Middle Class Task Force event. Vice President Biden emphasized that with two-thirds of families being run by working parents, the "Paycheck Fairness Act" would be creating a change to reflect the reality of today's families.

Senator Merkley added, "The average income of working families has been flat since 1974. Since then, the economy has generated a tremendous amount of wealth (even with the current Great Recession) and we have seen a growing disparity." And the continuing wage gap for women only exacerbates the disparity.

On its face, the fight for pay equity is simply about a principle of fairness: equal pay for equal work. A popular graphic from pay equity advocates is a coupon (see below) for 23% off services for women since they make that much less. But no such coupon exists for women. And working women with children, in particular, face a double whammy. Not only will they fall prey to the across-the-board wage disparity that women experience, but they also can face wage depression in the form of "mommy tracking" where mothers are put on a different career development path for various reasons.

When you combine all of that with a lurching economy, pay equity takes on a brighter sheen. With women overwhelmingly responsible for the majority of consumer purchases, depressed wages for women have a ripple effect in the economy. In moderate income families, bringing in more money often results in spending more money to raise the family's standard of living. Perhaps it's new clothes for school, a much-needed appliance, or other purchases that get delayed due to lack of resources. Getting a fair and full wage into the hands of working women encourages spending and pumps up the GDP.

I don't know about you, but I vote for doubling down on fairness and bolstering our economic recovery.

So what does the "Paycheck Fairness Act" do primarily to close the wage gap:

• First of all, it would place gender-based discrimination on par with other forms of discrimination. As Senator Merkley said, "It's an injustice that wage disparity exists for such a huge proportion of our work force."

• Secondly, it would protect employees from retaliation for asking about or discussing wages with other employees. Women can experience a loss of a half a million dollars over the course of their career for not negotiating their first salary. When employees have access to information about salaries, they are in a better position to successfully negotiate their salary.

In addition, the Obama Administration wants to close the 11% gender-wage gap found by the General Accounting Office in the federal workforce and is working on improving collection of data on salaries that will be open and accessible to the public. (Read the entire equal pay task force document.)

Vice President Biden summed it up nicely at his event on Tuesday. "Closing the gender pay gap, helping parents keep their jobs while balancing family responsibilities, and increasing workplace flexibility – these are not only women’s issues, they are issues of middle class economic security.”

It's Day 2 of Netroots Nation in Las Vegas. As I mentioned in my first dispatch yesterday, there's a serious cranky thread winding its way through the conference. But as I've begun to take in more events and chat with more folks, there's also a very real recognition that the fight against rightwing authoritarianism and anti-government memes will never be over.

If I had to boil it down to a short sentiment: sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug. Right now, there's a whole bunch of "bug feeling" going on--but it seems as if most believe it's going to be short-lived.

Last evening's keynote address was delivered in parts by a number of speakers. However the last two especially stand out as particularly interesting. MSNBC and radio host Ed Schultz delivered an angrier edged speech, like a coach pissed off at his team at half time--giving them the business from the locker room. Schultz focused a lot on how the Obama Administration has failed to use progressive media outlets and messaging to frame their policy agenda--and its contributing greatly to the larger problems Team Obama is having with their message in the traditional media.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer followed Schultz (after a brief and very funny speech by Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga, founder of the Daily Kos blog, the initial inspiration for Netroots Nation). Schweitzer's style was just as energetic as Schultz, but much more uplifting and inspiring. Schweitzer reminded us of the effectiveness of progressive policy--and why this good public policy matters at the local, state and federal level. For me, Schweitzer's speech was the more effective. It reinforced for me the importance of continuing to blog--and the key contribution bloggers can have in discussions around both good and bad public policy. And policymakers, for that matter.

I chatted about Netroots Nation this morning with Carl and Christine on KPOJ--which gives a bit more of an Oregon flavor to what's happening here. Check it out.

More to come.

Stu Rothenberg is one of the most respected independent analysts of political races. So, it's not surprising that the Jim Huffman for U.S. Senate campaign sent him the recent polling memo touting Huffman's campaign. (Jeff Alworth had the back story last week here on BlueO.)

Here's how Rothenberg reacted:

Was I skeptical? Sure. But I read on because in a year such as this, any Democrat might be in trouble, even those who haven’t had tough re-elections in the past. ...

No, there was no initial Wyden-Huffman ballot, no Wyden ID (with favorable and unfavorable) and no Huffman ID.

When I asked pollster Bob Moore for that data, he declined to produce it, noting that the campaign had not authorized its release.

Obviously, those crucial poll results weren’t released because they contradict the conclusion that Wyden is vulnerable. They almost certainly showed Wyden far ahead on the ballot test and with strong favorable ratings. ...

[S]imply asserting that an incumbent is in trouble doesn’t make it so, and nothing in the Moore Information memo suggests that it’s true. In fact, leaving crucial information out suggests that the Huffman campaign has something to hide.

Seems to me that, going forward, reporters and editors that receive polling memos from Moore Information ought to be much more skeptical than they've been in the past.

It's been under the radar for a while now, but a big question looming has been the response of the U.S. Senate to the passage of the clean energy and climate change bill passed by the U.S. House. Will the Senate find a way to pass the House bill? Will they pass a more-limited bill that makes important strides to invest in clean energy technologies that reduce carbon emissions? Or will they abandon everything important - and do a few token things?

Well, it looks like the latter. From the L.A. Times:

Senate Democratic leaders shelved plans for major energy and climate legislation on Thursday, bowing to political reality and probably ending hopes for action this year to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, boost alternative energy production and wean the nation from carbon fuels.

Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada — who had promised to bring a sweeping energy bill with an emissions cap to the Senate floor by the August recess — said he would instead offer a scaled-back bill focused largely on responding to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

And Senator Jeff Merkley isn't happy. In a statement:

This proposed energy and oil spill legislation laid out this afternoon is an enormous disappointment and a huge missed opportunity. Our nation desperately needs a strong energy strategy that creates a million new clean energy jobs and puts us on a path to ending our addiction to overseas oil.

I am convinced that while some particular policy approaches may not be able to get 60 votes, a bill that focuses on those critical outcomes could. Instead of a bold stride, this proposal offers only small steps.

In the restrained language of the U.S. Senate where even your most diabolical opponent is "my good friend, the honorable Senator from...", Merkley's "enormous disappointment" is a powerful statement about Harry Reid's leadership.

It's all the more striking because Merkley's headed to the Netroots Nation conference - held in Reid's home state - on Saturday.