Posted by Kevin at 11:29 AM |

March 28, 2008

Ignorance plays no favorites, nor does bigotry

Demonstrating that being a Democrat isn't a vaccine against ignorance, Art Levine of Huffington Post cites a new Pew Foundation poll which shows that 23% of *white* anti-Obama Democrats believe that he's a Muslim.

From the Pew poll:

White Democrats who hold unfavorable views of Obama are much more likely than those who have favorable opinions of him to say that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far; they also are more likely to disapprove of interracial dating, and are more concerned about the threat that immigrants may pose to American values. In addition, nearly a quarter of white Democrats (23%) who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a Muslim.

Posted by Kevin at 11:26 AM |

March 27, 2008

Looking for Character

In this presidential race, like any political race, it is difficult to separate fact from dirty politics. You have to look very carefully for the clues that will tell you about a person's character. I'm not certain you find the truth in the big public debates over why someone sat in a particular church for twenty years despite certain outrageous comments from the pulpit, or even why someone said they were under sniper fire when they weren't. But occasionally, in some quiet story, you find an interesting little nugget that gives you some comfort. Such is the case with this interview with Craig Robinson, Head Coach of Brown University's men's basketball and brother-in-law of Barack Obama, in which he describes what it is like to play pick-up basketball with Obama. What can you tell about a man's character from the way he plays basketball? I think quite a lot.

Posted by Becky at 09:00 AM |

Steve Novick: Oregon's Ralph Nader

Last October reps Greenlick and Nolan denounced Steve Novick's "crass attempt to turn Democrats against one another, an effort that serves only his selfish personal agenda. And what's worse, he based his entire attack on talking points sent out by the Oregon Republican Party."

Now Novick has taken his agenda squarely back into his Naderite roots in two primary ways.

1. Steve Novick relies on the use of inflammatory language to
boost his campaign and his persona;

2. In order to promote his policies and personality, Novick has
chosen to equate progressive Democrats with conservative
Republicans. This is an inherently Naderesque tactic that
Democratic primary voters should see thorugh.

Politicker OR has the story:

Steve Novick today equated Jeff Merkley and Sen. Gordon Smith’s views on Social Security, and emphasized his own willingness to advocate for measures, that, according to his campaign, will "prevent a federal fiscal train wreck and exposed the intellectual bankruptcy of both Gordon Smith's and Jeff Merkley's approach to federal finances."

Bottom line: Steve Novick is so desperate to
make Jeff Merkley seem just like Gordon Smith that he's willing to
cede the Senate seat to Smith's re-election if he doesn't win the
primary. His scorched-earth tactics can only hurt Oregon in the United States Senate.

Reps Greenlike and Nolan were 100% right about Steve Novick.

Oregon deserves much better.

Posted by Kevin at 07:40 AM |

March 26, 2008

Conservative Christians Rabidly Anti-Obama

It is extremely fascinating to me to see how completely over-the-top the right-wing has become in its anti-Obama efforts since his big speech on race relations. I’m particularly intrigued by the fact that right-wing Christian websites are so acutely focused on National Enquirer-style attacks in an effort to paint the man as the most horrible threat ever to the American way of life and to Christians. Here’s a quick sampling of what I mean.

WorldNet Daily’s top six headlines this morning:

1. Revealed: Obama's dad polygamist, alcoholic: Parent not hero portrayed in 'Dreams from My Father'

2. Catchy Obama phrases have been used before: Politician plagiarizes freely from others, even movies

3. Top Obama adviser: NYC, Miami Jews 'the problem': Also compares Muslim terrorists to religious 'radicals' in Oregon

4. Obama-church newsletter: Israel making 'ethnic bomb': Accuses 'apartheid' state of creating weapon 'that kills blacks and Arabs'

5. Obama 'money man' tied to 'house n-ggers' pastor: Indicted fundraiser Rezko also raised cash for senator's spiritual adviser, superdelegate

6. Another Obama supporter has Farrakhan links: Priest also exhibits low tolerance for 2nd Amendment rights

At Cross Action News (a conservative Christian news clearinghouse) today, the top headline of the day (accompanied by ridiculous cartoon Obama) is:

- Obama Advisor Blames US Jews for Lack of Mid-East Peace

And at CNS News (formerly Conservative News Service, but now Cybercast News Service), the top headline of the day is:

- Obama's Pastor Slurs Italians in Latest Magazine

The message is clear: Those evil liberals have no problem with any of this and they want to take this country straight to Hell. Voting for John McCain on election day is a moral Christian imperative! We cannot allow this evil Obama character to ruin our country!

Maybe the problem here is that they know they are facing a choice between an honest moral liberal black Democrat, a lying liberal white female Democrat, or a lying adulterous moderate white Republican. They’re clearly having trouble with the liberal part, because Hillary is also mentioned in their trash headlines, though she doesn’t get top billing of late. But the fact that McCain is left fairly well alone and the fact that this anti-Obama thing has kicked up to such a frenzy all of a sudden tells you something: The worst thing of all in these right-wing Christians’ book is to be black.

Being black is worse than kissing up to lobbyists. It’s worse than cheating on your spouse with a rich young woman, even after your wife stayed true to you and raised your kids while you were a POW. It’s worse than waffling on abortion. It’s worse than being a member of the infamous Keating Five. Incidentally, it’s also worse than lying about being under sniper fire, lying about your daughter’s whereabouts on 9/11, and lying about your amazing abilities to play the stock market. It's worse than being liberal, for God's sake.

Not only are these people not acting like Christ, who very likely had some black genetic ancestry and, it could be argued, was liberal, they’re not acting like true Republicans. Their rabid reactionary rhetoric is both repulsive and irresponsible (snazzy bit of alliteration, don’t you think?).

Posted by Becky at 09:57 AM |

Hillary at Tuzla

I don't know how many of you have ever BEEN to a war zone. I have.
The stress of combat and the stress of the THREAT of combat can play funny tricks with your mind.
I served for a year in Vietnam and was wounded in 1969. Also I was a Kucinich supporter who switched to Edwards and then Obama.

Now, I've seen the videos of Hillary Clinton landing at Tuzla and it is obvious she was not being subjected to sniper fire nor was she "running for the car". But, the evidence notwithstanding, I don't believe she initially lied. I believe her memory was that she WAS under sniper fire and ran for the car.
Stress is a funny (not humorous) thing and it can affect the human mind in funny (also not humorous) ways.
I think she was probably told of the possibility of sniper fire before they landed. I believe she was very stressed by the information, doubly so since her teenaged daughter was with her.
I believe what she is remembering is the THREAT of snipers and her mind made them real to her.

So I give her a "FREE PASS" on her initial statements about Tuzla.
(Though I AM troubled by her attempts to "spin" it as "mis-speaking". I think she should have been more honest about it being a case of mis-remembering under stress. But perhaps she fears that would show "weakness".)

What I DO take her to task for is going into a potentially very dangerous situation in Bosnia, and taking her teenaged daughter with her.
Assuming that you thought the trip was absolutely necessary, how many of you (who are parents) would take your CHILD into that situation with you ?
How many of you would risk your child's life unnecessarily.
Hillary's presence might have been necessary.
But surely Chelsea's presence was NOT.

Is that the kind of "wisdom" you want answering that phone call at 3:00AM?
If she is willing to place her daughter's life in that kind of danger,
what kind of danger is she willing to place the rest of America in?

Posted by Mac at 04:20 AM |

March 25, 2008

Assault at Obama rally - deja vu, sort of

A 30 year old man booing Barack Obama at his Medford rally on Saturday was cited for assaulted a 53 year old woman who was there to see and support Obama. The woman doesn't appear to have been seriously injured but she was taken to a local hospital immediately afterward.

A new witness stepped forward yesterday who caught the incident on video which he turned over to police. You can see a copy of it here which was aired on the local ABC affiliate's local news coverage. It's obvious that he deliberately shoved her. He also appears to be a great deal bigger than she is too. Gotta love the courage it takes to pick on someone nearly twice your age and half your size...

The assault wasn't exactly vicious per se. But it does bring to mind a young woman who was accosted by a Bushite while protesting a George W. Bush event in Beaverton back in 2004 and which Carla wrote about here at the time.

What is it with conservatives and their need to take out their frustrations on other citizens with physical force?

The Beaverton City Attorney declined to file charges in the 2004 case. Whether this jackass in Medford gets charged is in the hands of the Medford City Attorney. The AP piece seems to suggest that whether he'll be charged is unknown. But the ABC affiliate's coverage seems to suggest that he will be charged with misdemeanor assault. I guess we'll have to wait and see what actually ends up happening.

Posted by Kevin at 05:52 PM |

It's past time for Oregon to get ahead of the curve on this

The Oregonian's Dave Hogan has an excellent article on the finances of individual Oregon legislators which is very timely.

SALEM -- Facing large time commitments and small salaries, some Oregon legislators turn to campaign contributions to fill the gap between their job demands and their pay.

During last year's six-month legislative session, for example, the state paid lawmakers $26,000 each in salary and expense money. At the same time, Rep. Mike Schaufler, D-Happy Valley, spent an additional $12,000 from his campaign account.

The spending had more to do with the Clackamas County Democrat's living expenses as a legislator than campaigning. Most of the campaign dollars paid for gasoline for his truck, renting part of his house as an office, staying 36 nights in a Salem hotel, plus meals, beer and coffee.

As Hogan notes, two public commissions have recommended that state law be changed to further restrict how campaign donations may be spent by office holders. The Public Commission on the Oregon Legislature suggested that "the reliance by legislators on campaign contributions from special interests fuels public cynicism about the legislative process and inhibits independent decision making by legislators." That's a sentiment which I suspect finds exceptionally fertile ground among the electorate. But the entire issue is complicated by the fact that legislators are paid less than minimum wage for their work as legislators - effectively restricting who can even serve the state in that capacity to those who have sufficient other sources of income to be able to financially survive.

Rep. Schaufler was a construction contractor when he first won elective office to the legislature, but he later quit to focus on his legislative obligations.

"I don't make any money doing this job," Schaufler said. "You give me a living wage, and I'll spend all my per diem -- rather than campaign money -- on food, lodging and travel."

The League of Women Voters of Oregon demonstrate a superb grasp of the nuances in play by suggesting that the issues of increasing legislative pay and banning noncampaign uses of campaign funds should be looked at together.

I couldn't agree more. Further, I honestly don't see how either issue can be done justice isolated from the other. They are inherently intertwined. Hogan points out:

Oregon is one of only five states that have no limits on contributions to candidates, and state law gives elected officials broad discretion in how they can spend campaign donations. One provision allows campaign dollars to pay for "office-related" costs.

Posted by Kevin at 10:41 AM |

March 24, 2008

Things that make you go "hmmmm..."

Demonstrating yet once again why his blog is on my personal favorites list, Bpaul served up some more quirky goodness yesterday with a You-Tube of Resonant frequencies used to create images. He ponders to what extent some of them may correspond with various "religious and sacred symbolism." It's certainly interesting, to say the least.

To my eye several of them appear to resemble 2-D representations of a couple different Archimedean solids, which are considered sacred geometry by many. The entire thing has a decidedly "tie-dyed" feel to it.

Posted by Kevin at 10:27 AM |

Truth to power? Nope. Just power.

I have a friend who says that she absolutely can't vote for Hillary Clinton. She says it's because she believes that Clinton would do or say anything to be in power.

Oddly, Steve Novick's U.S. Senate campaign has eroded in a way that mirrors a lot of my friend's concerns about Clinton.

My first-hand account of Novick's attempt to game an endorsement for himself was apparently just the beginning. The untoward Wiki edits by a Novick staffer and Novick's ugly attacks on Clinton and Obama are more evidence that this is a person whose campaign runs very much like Hillary Clinton.

The latest "say anything to win" from Novick happens to be a part of their latest email and website push: Jeff Merkley is a liar. Steve uses video from the latest debate to push his claim.

The "lie" is more of the divisive garbage that Novick has patterned for himself. Based on an interview that Merkley gave to KPOJ, Novick uses the "pants on fire" phrase to demean Merkley.

Consistent with the pattern Novick's campaign has established, the accusation falls apart under examination.

Novick and his online mob have gone after Merkley for saying that Novick "recently supported Nader". The transcript from the interview (hear the complete audio here)isn't what they're saying. Here's Merkley's statement:

What he’s referring to is that there is a difference of opinion we had come up recently in which Steve was saying how much he liked Nader and how disappointed he was in Barack Obama and in Clinton. And I just have exactly the opposite point of view.

When Nader put himself forward saying Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same, that Gore is exactly the same as Bush, that Clinton was exactly the same as Dole. To me that was just completely erroneous. Completely about Nader. Not about the truth, not about the facts. Because there are vast differences are trade issues, on health care issues, on education issues. Huge differences. And so I have the reverse. I was very disappointed in Nader and I’m very excited about our Presidential candidates.

Merkley clearly says that their difference of opinion is "recent", not that Novick "recently supported Nader". There's not even an inference to such an idea. Mixing up "like" and "support" as synonymous in an effort to brand Merkley a liar is ridiculous.

Nevermind that Novick has been vocal about liking Nader.

A person would have to be deliberately trying to make something sinister out of it to reach that conclusion.

Oh wait...

Posted by Kevin at 08:17 AM |

March 23, 2008

And now something entirely different

This one is from the PK emailbag...

Lilliana Mason is a graduate student in Political Science at Stony Brook University working on a project researching online political discourse during political campaigns.

I have created a survey designed to examine who
visits political blogs and how blog readers think about the 2008
election and respond to online political discussions. Any results I
find will likely be presented at national and international political
science conferences and hopefully published in national political
science journals. In addition, I plan to use this data as part of my
dissertation.

If you can spare a few minutes I hope you will join me in taking her survey.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

Posted by Kevin at 12:14 PM |

A progressive's progressive candidate

(Editor's Note: I just posted this as a comment to a Sarah Lane diary at the new EENR Progressive Blog and thought I'd repost it here since there's probably not a big overlap in readership.)

One of Jeff Merkley's most impressive endorsements came from the Council for a Livable World who summed his candidacy up thusly,

Merkley will be an important progressive leader in the Senate. His background on nuclear weapons, his knowledge of national security issues and his political experience clearly indicate that we need him in the U.S. Senate.

What an incredibly timely background of knowledge and experience! And yes, that would be the very same Council for a Livable World which also endorsed Congressional candidate Darcy Burner (one of only 15 total endorsements by the Council), the chief sponsor of the recent A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq which Jeff Merkley was proud to be the very first Senate challenger to sign onto

But Jeff's far from a one-trick "foreign policy" pony.

From his website bio:

Jeff's passion for creating opportunities for working families led him to join Habitat for Humanity as its local executive director. In this role, he coordinated community volunteers to build homes for sale to low-income families. He also started the Walk for Humanity, launched development of the Habitat Home Building Center, and initiated a pilot project for "YouthBuild," in which gang-affected youth learn life skills while building homes in their own neighborhoods.

His work at Habitat led him to serve as Director of Housing Development at Human Solutions, where he helped create affordable housing, a real need in the community. He founded Oregon's first Individual Development Account (IDA) program to help low-income families save money to buy homes, attend college, or start businesses.

And even that is but one tiny corner of his awesome progressive resume.

Posted by Kevin at 11:16 AM |

March 22, 2008

Merkley and Obama, both behaving like grown ups!

Jeff, his wife Mary and Barack.

Barack doing what he does best - inspiring Americans.

Mary, her husband Jeff and Barack having an adult conversation.

Incredibly, Jeff managed to avoid calling Barack a "just another captive-of-special-interests fraud" or "a complete sellout" as Steve Novick did. He didn't accuse Obama of "unjustifiable political timidity" or charge that Barack is "sorely lacking in fiscal responsibility" as Steve Novick did. And most amazing of all, he managed not to derisively characterize Obama as "some great Kenya-Kansas hope" as Steve Novick did. All of which helps explain why Steve Novick's back-handed pseudo-endorsement of Obama raised more questions than it answered while Jeff Merkley's endorsement of Barack Obama made perfect sense.

Interestingly enough, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson summed up my view and I think that of many PK readers by describing Barack Obama as "once-in-a- lifetime leader." Of course, unlike both Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley, many of us here at PK have been favoring Obama for many months now. But it is good to see others recognizing what we've been saying about him.

Posted by Kevin at 05:52 PM |

March 21, 2008

Disheartened, Possibly Incurably

I've been discouraged about the state of politics before. But never have I been more utterly disheartened about our future than I am right now, after reading Ted Piccolo's "Obama Supporting the Racists" and the subsequent exchange of comments last night. I literally could not sleep for a long time thinking about it. The reaction of the Right - from conservatives, of which I always thought I was one - to Barack Obama and his message leads me to believe there is no hope or empathy left and, therefore, no cure for what ails this country.

Posted by Becky at 09:17 AM |

Will Novick apologize to Obama today?

Inquiring minds want to know whether Novick will take advantage of Obama being in Portland today to apologize for calling him the "great Kenya-Kansas hope" and a "fraud."

Posted by Kevin at 08:44 AM |

March 20, 2008

Novick's cheap shots at Obama continue to reverberate

The Oregonian's Jeff Mapes wrote about Novick's "fraud" attack on Obama. But he left out what is arguably the most offensive part of Novick's diatribe against Obama - the quip about Barack Obama being the "great Kenya-Kansas hope." PolitickerOr's Lauren Lafaro wasn't so hesitant.

Joe Baessler, political coordinator of the AFSCME, which broke with its national union in order to endorse Obama, chided Novick for his pronouncements.

...

“It is this kind of disregard for consequences of what he is saying that makes it harder and harder for us to even be friendly anymore,” Baessler lamented. “It’s hurtful when things like this get thrown around.”

Novick's supporters have been pointing to another paragraph in Novick's December '06 post at Blue Oregon where he appears to mock his own Scotch-Irish heritage as evidence that anyone taking offense at the Obama attacks is taking it too seriously. But I pointedly asked the attorney at our workplace harassment seminar if self-denigration of one's own race/gender/orientation/whatever avoids breaching workplace harassment laws since one would be technically harassing oneself. His answer to my question was a blunt "No!"

Personally, I don't buy the "it was satire" excuse anyway. And apparently neither does Novick's campaign manager:

"He consistently offers an honest assessment of people and issues," Weigler said of Novick.

Posted by Kevin at 08:07 PM |

Some of that Crazy Black Paranoia

Nicholas Kristof offers an excellent and succinct reaction today to Barack Obama's speech on race in The New York Times ("Obama and Race"). In it, he points out some of what many Americans view as the "absurd" and "shocking" beliefs of some black Americans - beliefs that have left white Americans "thunderstruck" when they hear of them for the first time. These include the beliefs that "the AIDS virus was released as a deliberate government plot to kill black people" and that "the crack cocaine epidemic was a deliberate conspiracy by the United States government to destroy black neighborhoods."

These notions sound crazy to a lot of white people. But if you look at the evidence, particularly if you look at it through the eyes of someone who experiences racial discrimination, these beliefs really are not terribly far-fetched. They may even be plausible. I'm not saying I believe them, but I am saying I am not surprised that a significant number of black Americans do.

Wikipedia offers a fairly good overview of the various AIDS conspiracy theories. When prominent scientists and professors are espousing these theories, is it really unreasonable to think ordinary black Americans would believe them and reject the explanations offered by the government? Particularly after our own government allowed more than 500 black men to die of untreated syphilis, all the while believing they were being treated, in the infamous Tuskegee experiment? As for the government intentionally getting black Americans hooked on crack, this, too, is not without evidence. We know that during the Reagan Administration, crack was sold to Los Angeles gangs and the profits were funneled to the Nicaraguan Contras. The U.S. Dept. of Justice offers a fascinating response. Is it really so far a leap for an ordinary black American to take, just a few years after Tuskegee, from knowing crack sales to black people are funding the Contras (an effort supported by the Reagan Administration), to believing it was the CIA that sold those drugs, to believing the white CIA did it on purpose to black people? I think not.

The point I am trying to make here is Black America actually isn't crazy. And the fact that the very forces on the right who want limited government can't understand black people's distrust of government shows more than anything else how myopic a perspective we each have of this entire situation. It is far past time we opened our hearts to our fellow Americans and started listening.

Posted by Becky at 10:17 AM |

Colbert Tackles the Obama/Wright Controversy

I love Stephen Colbert's ability to cut through the BS and get straight to the point. Last night was no exception. Colbert's "Word" last night, "The Gospel of John," laid bare the hypocrisy of the Right in this entire matter of Barack Obama's relationship with his controversial pastor. As the website describes it, "Stephen thinks Obama could learn something from McCain who is now friends with angry pastors." It's must-see TV.

While we're on the topic of hypocrisy and the Right's reaction to Obama's incredibly moving (and much-needed) speech, take a few minutes to read Hart Williams' take on the matter. He lays out in the open the undercurrent of racism that remains to be purged from our society. And it's really much worse than you want to think it is.

Posted by Becky at 09:37 AM |

March 19, 2008

Novick - Obama is a "fraud"

You can read the sordid details at Blue Oregon. Here's the money shot... er... quote:

According to a recent New Yorker article, Barack Obama of Illinois has stood with other Midwesterners in supporting the sugar industry. Doesn't this prove that Obama is just another captive-of-special-interests fraud who doesn't really care about global warming and doesn't deserve to be hailed as some great Kenya-Kansas hope? (emphasis supplied)

Here I'll just offer two observations and a question.

1. This sorta puts Novick's back-handed "endorsement" of Obama into context.

2. Just a few days ago Novick criticized Merkley saying, "He's running a very cautious, tepid campaign in a year when people prefer passion to prudence." A. that's an incredibly ironic charge given Novick's exceptionally tepid "endorsement" of Obama wherein he spent much of it praising Hillary Clinton. And B., I'm thinking that he's wishing right about now that he'd used a little caution before running off his mouth about Obama.

3. Anyone else here find Novick's "great Kenya-Kansas hope" quip about Obama... um... racially insensitive, to put it kindly?

Posted by Kevin at 08:16 PM |

Mannix: just another fiscally irresponsible conservative

The Oregonian's Jeff Mapes and Dave Hogan dig into Kevin Mannix's recent clearing up of old campaign debts.

For years, Republican Kevin Mannix has owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign debts while waging what turned out to be three failed races for statewide office.

Now, just weeks after planning to run for Congress, Mannix has swiftly paid off $347,000 in debts with loans from his Salem law firm.

Mannix, who is running for the congressional seat left open by the surprise retirement of Rep. Darlene Hooley, D-Ore, was able to pay off his creditors by "calling in the accounts receivables" from his solo law practice, according to his campaign manager.

These so-called "fiscal conservatives" have put our children into hock with the loansharks of the world to the tune of nearly $2.5 TRILLION dollars. More than 1/2 a trillion dollars of which is owed to communist China!

Say what you will about "tax and spend" liberals. Heck, I'll agree with some of it and readily concede that there is a legit debate to be had over where our tax dollars are spent. But compared to the "borrow and spend" conservatives and their gross mismanagement of my children's inheritance, there simply is no equitable debate to be had between the two sides in terms of who is the more fiscally RESPONSIBLE. Liberals win that debate hands-down.

So now Kevin Mannix wants the voters of Oregon's 5th Congressional District to send him to Congress? Why? He can't even manage his own finances. Why should Oregonians trust him with the nation's finances?

Posted by Kevin at 01:50 PM |

March 18, 2008

Progressives heart Jeff Merkley

Posted by Kevin at 06:15 PM |

A Call to a More Perfect Union

I know, everyone is talking about Barack Obama’s speech on race this morning, but I want to talk about it, too. In a nutshell, my reaction is it’s about time someone put together a coherent explanation of the "race" issue and started this country down the road toward real healing. Hey, Mr. Obama – if this is where you’re ready to lead us, I’m certainly ready to follow.

One of the greatest obstacles to true reconciliation and forward movement on this issue has been that each demographic has focused on the matter from its own perspective and been quite certain that nobody else really understood or cared. In the process, each has failed to listen to or understand the other’s quite legitimate experiences. This myopic approach has tended to magnify the persecution complexes afflicting each group.

Today, Barack Obama took us all by the hand, and stepped us back from the situation until we were able to get a look at the whole picture. He showed us the forest and called us to work together to navigate our way through it.

I fully expect the naysayers who make their living off fostering division to find any number of ways to pull people’s eyes back into focus on their own particular suffering, and they will succeed with many people. But not everyone. I think we will see more people ready to cast off that painful, but invalid surety that others cannot and will not understand or care and reach out to their fellow Americans.

Once again, Mr. Obama has touched me deeply. I want to share some of my favorite excerpts from his speech, in case you missed it. They explain very clearly why this speech was important and why we need him to lead this country at this time in history.

I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story. … I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity.

On the controversy over his pastor:

… the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

He went on to describe the racial inequities of the past generations – segregation on a level that I am confident many white people alive today are too young to remember. Because they don’t remember it and did not experience its aftermath, they do not believe it should still impact us today. But Obama reminded us that today’s controversial older black leaders, such as the Reverend Wright, grew up and came of age when segregation was still the law.

Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

He acknowledged and explained the similar anger and resentment within the white community, too. And he showed how the undertone of resentment toward special treatment of minority groups has been counter-productive for white Americans.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

His solution is brilliant. The “grievances” of each community need to be bound “to the larger aspirations of all Americans.” Each must take responsibility for his or her own life and teaching our children to overcome this division. And we must acknowledge that the pain and hurt within each community is not a figment of that community’s imagination, that one person’s dreams need not come true at the expense of the dreams of another. To succeed in this “quintessentially American” dream, we must believe that change is possible. We cannot continue to wallow in the pain of the past and buy into the notion that our society is “static; as if no progress has been made,” and as if we are “irrevocably bound to a tragic past.”

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

I, for one, can’t deal with any more of that stagnant political atmosphere. When people talk about how Obama symbolizes “change” and how American’s want “change,” this is exactly what we mean and it is energizing that he gets it. We want to start prioritizing children and protecting their futures. We want to start taking care of each other when we are sick. We want to protect our jobs and our homes. We want to respect and take proper care of our military men and women and their families.

I especially like this:

This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.

I am praying with all my heart that America turns its back on division and chooses change on November 8.

Posted by Becky at 01:06 PM |

A Responsible Endorsement of A Responsible Plan

I'm going to heartily second our friend Ten Bears' call to read and endorse the A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq being offered by Darcy Burner and nine other Democratic Congressional candidates as well as several distinguished military experts including General Paul Eaton (U.S. Army Ret.).

Utterly unsurprising to those who support him, I believe that Jeff Merkley is the first U.S. Senate candidate to have formally signed on to the plan. Which is pretty much what you'd expect of a candidate with the extensive foreign policy/military chops that Merkley has.

I would encourage all of you to go to the site, read the plan and sign on.

Posted by Kevin at 11:15 AM |

March 17, 2008

Greg "Rubberstamp" Walden: betrayed by own rubberstamp

The "O" explains how Walden says trust 'betrayed' in theft. At issue is a financial scandal involving Greg "rubberstamp" Walden's chairmanship of the RCCC's audit committee.

But now, amid allegations that Ward embezzled money while Walden chaired the organization's audit committee, the Oregon Republican is being drawn into a saga that is getting more worrisome for Republicans by the day.

Among the questions: How thoroughly did Walden and other committee managers monitor the finances of a sprawling -- and vaunted -- operation that raised $49 million last year and, according to The Washington Post, more than $400 million during the past five years?

Even more important: How much money is missing?

Walden said he studied the audits, and they appeared authentic.

"I read through each audit. There were no red flags; no issues to be dealt with," he said.

Yet, drawing on his experience in private business, Walden said he asked Ward repeatedly to set up a meeting with outside auditors to discuss the reports.

"There was always a reason they couldn't meet -- timing, scheduling. It was one thing after another," Walden said.

But given Ward's reputation, Walden said he believed the problem was with the auditors, not his trusted treasurer. He continued to believe that when he left the audit committee at the end of 2006.

I wonder how long Oregonians in Walden's district will continue to overlook such gross incompetence?

Posted by Kevin at 10:15 AM |

March 15, 2008

Sierra Club hearts Jeff Merkley - Media Round-up

Statesman Journal - Salem

KOIN - Portland Metro

The Oregonian - Statewide

Jeff Mapes - Statewide

East Oregonian - Pendleton

Register Guard - Eugene

Oregon Public Broadcasting - Statewide

There are others but these pretty well cover the state, geographically speaking.

While not strictly (or otherwise) part of the "media," Ivan Maluski's column at Blue Oregon is well worth the read.

Posted by Kevin at 10:33 AM |

March 14, 2008

March for Peace! Join us!

A bunch of us are taking our kids and ourselves to Portland to join with Jeff Merkley and his family to March for Peace. We'll be meeting at 12:00 noon in downtown Portland. We'd love to have you join in!

All you have to do is sign up and you'll be contacted with the specifics and the game plan.

I hope to see you there! I'm taking my 14 year old daughter along. This will be her first experience with anything even remotely like this. Her older sister just naturally gravitated to protests and marches of any sort. But the younger one is more hesitant. Although to be fair, her older sister was a couple years older when she really hit her stride as an activist - primarily with GLSEN, but that's another topic best saved for another day.

Please come help us and the many other groups attending to make a statement to the region, to the state and to the nation! It'll be fun!!

Posted by Kevin at 11:09 PM |

Sierra Club endorses the true environmental champion - Jeff Merkley

The Sierra Club today announced it's hearty endorsement of Jeff Merkley for Senate.

"Speaker Merkley has been a champion for the environment and Oregon's economy, passing legislation that has created economic opportunity, benefits to consumers, and green jobs that are tackling the greatest environmental challenge of our time - global climate change," said Ivan Maluski, Conservation Coordinator for the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club.

"Gordon Smith has been inconsistent and unreliable, often walking in lock-step with the Bush administration. He's been swayed by big oil companies, timber industry cash, and destructive mining interests.
Oregonians value clean air, clean water, and the precious natural resources that boost Oregon's quality of life, and we all deserve a U.S. Senator who will protect and fight for these values"

Update: Ivan Maluski, Conservation Coordinator for the Oregon Chapter Sierra Club, has a guest column up at Blue Oregon talking about their endorsement of Jeff Merkley today: Sierra Club endorses Jeff Merkley for US SEnate

Posted by Kevin at 09:22 AM |

March 12, 2008

An open letter to Oregon Conservatives

Dear Oregon Conservatives:

Equal rights is coming. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. You can continue fighting it and that may delay the inevitable for a while. But ultimately your efforts to preserve special rights just for yourselves will be but dust in the wind because it's the blindfold that distinguishes Lady Justice from a petty tyrant.

One by one your arguments have been debunked and exposed. Perhaps most damning of all has been the very sad, very public spectacle more commonly known as Brittney Spears and Kevin Federline. The very notion that they are somehow deserving of special rights under the law on the basis of their former attraction to each other is absurd. Surely even you can see that.

So here's the situation. You basically have two choices:

1. Gay Marriage

or...

2. Civil Unions for everyone.

Now, if I were still one of you then I would go with the later choice because that would at least leave you with the thin veneer of your religious institution's exclusionary rules. But then that would be between you and your God, which is where it belonged in the first place.

You're probably wondering why I'm writing you now. After all, you're in the midst of trying to roll back Domestic Partnerships here in Oregon and probably don't want to hear any of this. Well, it's because I've been watching as your peers in California have had their legal arguments to the California Supreme Court turned into mincemeat and I'm hoping that you might be beginning to grasp the long-term futility of your quest.

Oh, and just between you and me and... well, Blue Oregon, that Gary George fellow is a huge liability to your cause. Seriously! He makes Brittney and Kevin seem like desirable neighbors. I mean c'mon!

But back to the topic at hand, I know that the French aren't exactly your favorite people, but then do you really like anyone but yourselves? Ah but I digress... The French..., they've got this "marriage" thing figured out about as well as it can be in a society that's both religiously conservative and dedicated to democratic principles. Everyone gets what is effectively a civil union document from the government and then the happy couple goes to the church of their choice to get marriage rites performed, and only then are they actually "married." I think you'd have to agree sooner or later that that's the only way you're going to be able to restrict your brand of religion to just those who agree with you. Of course there are churches that would be only too happy to perform marriage rites for gay couples. But then that's really none of your business is it?

You'd have to learn some new qualifying words like, "my Baptist wife and I" or "my Mormon husband and I" depending on how you take your tea. But hey... at least you'd be able to cling to your illusion of exclusivity in a way that still holds out the proverbial snowball's chance in Hades of not having it taken away from you.

Folks, you're holding a losing hand. Best play it real smartly or the choice will be taken away from you. Personally, I think that gay marriage as a civil institution is inevitable. But if you're going to have even a chance of avoiding that eventuality in your lifetime then you damn well better stop fighting gay rights and belly up to the table where you can at least have an opportunity to steer our collective future. Obstinantly tilting at windmills as your California peers have done is the surest way to guarantee that the choice is taken away from you whether you like it or not. And hey... who knows, maybe if everyone got used to to having Civil Unions then the whole "marriage" thing would receed back to the religions from whence it came. But either way, full equality under the law is coming, and soon! You can work with it or you can work against it. Preventing it simply isn't an option available to you out here in the real world.

Think about it...

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." -- Thomas Paine

Posted by Kevin at 08:03 PM |

Monsters in Your Child's Classroom

The misnamed “Center for Union Facts” is looking for monsters: its newest million-dollar anti-union campaign is seeking nominations for America’s “10 Worst Teachers.” The winners will be offered $10,000 each to quit teaching and let the group use their name and reasons for their inclusion on the list in advertising. I’ve written about this group before, here and here. I’m not a fan. And I also think this new campaign smacks of negativity.

I have a very simple question for the Center for Union Facts: In what world do you improve quality by focusing on failure? Normally, if you want to improve something you try to seek out and reward success and use that to inspire further success. If your concern really was ensuring America’s children receive a quality education from excellent teachers, it seems to me you might consider having a nationwide contest to find the ten best teachers, give each one a $10,000 bonus, and then publicize their stories far and wide, telling other teachers how to improve their teaching. You might even try a teacher-oriented campaign urging teachers' union members to hold their unions accountable for protecting teachers who are harming kids. After all, unions are mini-democracies. The teachers actually could vote the scoundrels out.

The truth is, this group's primary goal is to destroy public education and bust the teachers' unions. So they are spending a million dollars telling Americans that their precious children are in the care of monsters - and urging them to report those monsters to their organization (for what sort of future harrassment I can only guess).

Why so many Americans embrace such creative hatred is beyond me. Imagine where we would be as a nation if we were pouring that level of financial resources and creativity into something positive.

Posted by Becky at 02:20 PM |

Congress: End the Apartheid system against Native Americans!

"Busting bad guys gets complicated in Indian Country -- at least in Washington State. Unlike Oregon, native police aren’t allowed to arrest non-native lawbreakers.

Instead they have to call for backup from law enforcement outside the reservation. But a new bill just passed by the Washington legislature would change that. Richland correspondent Anna King has the story." - Native Police Could Get Power To Arrest Non-Natives On Tribal Lands

Anna King's piece goes on to cite just one example - that of a Tribal Police Chief who was unable to arrest a drunk driver because he wasn't an Indian. The drunk driver lived on the reservation and was married to a member of the tribe, but that didn't matter. A few years later this same guy, driving drunk, ended up killing three people in an accident he caused. But that is only one example.

Last year I wrote about the travesty of non-Indians raping Indian women and getting away with it because... tribal police can't do anything about it without the consent and cooperation of non-native law enforcement. As a father with two daughters this pisses me off! They're not Native Americans but that is the problem. It shouldn't matter! Rape is wrong. Period.

Props to Washington state lawmakers for doing the right thing are very well deserved, but that in itself underscores the travesty of justice here. Those tribal reservations are sovereign entities based on treaties with the federal government. Washington state's lawmakers shouldn't have to fix this! It's a federal problem and Congress needs to fix this festering problem.

Running a virtual Apartheid system where Native Americans are treated as second class citizens is unacceptable.

Posted by Kevin at 08:19 AM |

March 10, 2008

Over 200,000 union members for Merkley

With today's endorsement by the 50,000 member SEIU Senate candidate Jeff Merkley has the endorsements of labor unions representing over 200,000 Oregonians. I'm told that the actual number is closer to 220,000 but who's counting? LOL

"Widely seen as the nation's most politically active union," according to The New York Times, SEIU won 70 percent of competitive races in 2006. During the last Presidential race, SEIU registered over 4 million new voters and its members knocked on 10 million doors.

Posted by Kevin at 06:47 PM |

March 09, 2008

Patriot's Moral Code

Sometimes it is hard for me to put into words why I am a liberal.
Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer do a very good job of it in their book "A True Patriot".
It actually calls itself a "pamphlet".
And it includes:

"The Patriot's Moral Code"

WE ARE PATRIOTS. We believe in America's national ideals. We believe America has an indisputable purpose in the world: to demonstrate, the power of freedom and equal opportunity.

True patriots know that America was founded in freedom - to speak, to worship, to choose whatever path to happiness suits us best - but with freedom comes an equal responsibility to country, community and family.

True patriots believe what enables a free society to remain strong is a set of traditional virtues and values: pragmatism tied to principle, honesty and integrity, honesty and personal initiative, responsiblity and self-discipline, fairness and compassion, competitive striving and fair play, desire to serve the nation and a kinship with the world.

True patriots believe that freedom from responsiblity is selfishness, freedom from sacrifice is cowardice, freedom from tolerance is prejudice, freedom from stewardship is exploitation, and freedom from compassion is cruelty.

True patriots know that we should measure our nation's progress by whether every citizen has a fair shot to advance on the basis of talent and merit, and by the degree to which we promote the common success of all our citizens. Freedom without an equal chance to enjoy it is no freedom at all.

True patriots believe it is immoral when inequality of opportunity leads to and perpetuates inequality itself. On a truly level playing field, some will do much better than others because we are not all equally talented or motivated. But when the tilt of the field keeps even the talented from ever winning, that is unfair and un-American.

True patriots believe we should measure a citizen's worth by contribution to country and community, not by wealth or power - that those whom America has benefited most should contribute in proportion to their good fortune - and that serving others should be esteemed more highly than serving self.

These were the ideals of the founders of our country and the defenders of our union. They have made America unique and necessary from the beginning. And now it is time for them to inspire a new generation of Americans.

I think they've said it all.
Remember why we are liberals, and patriots, and stand proudly.

Posted by Mac at 02:59 AM |

March 08, 2008

McCain's guy loses to Obama's guy

Big news with big implications out of Chicago tonight:

CHICAGO (AP) — A longtime Republican district fell to the Democrats Saturday when a wealthy businessman and scientist snatched former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's congressional seat in a closely watched special election.

Democrat Bill Foster won 52 percent of the vote compared to 48 percent for Republican Jim Oberweis.

So it a way this was an election between McCain's coattails and Obama's coattails.

Posted by Kevin at 09:27 PM |

Oregonians don't prefer "Prudence"? Are you sure?

"He's running a very cautious, tepid campaign in a year when people prefer passion to prudence," Novick says. - in The O, very successfully distinguishing himself from Jeff Merkley.

Main Entry: pru·dence Pronunciation: \ˈprü-dən(t)s\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin prudentia, alteration of providentia — more at providence Date: 14th century 1 : the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason 2 : sagacity or shrewdness in the management of affairs 3 : skill and good judgment in the use of resources 4 : caution or circumspection as to danger or risk

In fact, I would go further and argue that Senator Gordon Smith's demonstrated lack of prudence in rubberstamping the prudence deficient BushCo is the single strongest argument for replacing him with someone who does exhibit prudence. And since Steve Novick is now on record as not valuing prudence, that would seem to leave Oregonian's with one less reasonable choice for Senate.

Posted by Kevin at 11:24 AM |

March 07, 2008

Obama = truth, Clinton/McCain = dishonest

Americans need a President who can and will tell us the truth. Only Obama fits that criteria as the following makes crystal clear:

You can watch what I actually said. The full transcript of this portion of my interview is below.

Rather than acknowledge this indisputable truth, Senator Clinton's campaign chose to edit selectively and thus grossly distort my words in a video it sent to reporters and posted on Youtube. Senator McCain's campaign also misrepresented and manipulated my statement. - Susan Rice at Huffington Post

Posted by Kevin at 11:31 AM |

March 06, 2008

OEA leaders call Willy Week on the carpet

Blue Oregon has the details. All I'm going to say here is that this vindicates what I've been saying all along. Willamette Week in general and Beth Slovic in particular has been engaged in a concerted attempt to smear Jeff Merkley. One can only guess why. But given the copious ink and pixels WW has used singing Steve Novick's praises and giving him a platform... I'll let you decide the relevance.

Pimping Novick while trying to malign Merkley, all while pretending not to have a horse in the race, was bad enough. But when Willy Weak and Ms. Slovic blatently attempted to influence the OEA's upcoming endorsement meeting they went too far.

Posted by Kevin at 07:11 PM |

Hillary Explains Her Christianity

Hillary sounds like a traditional Bible-believing Christian in this CBN interview from July of last year that is being re-released by the Christian network. In it, she claims to believe in the Trinity, to have "felt the presence of the Holy Spirit," to believe that Jesus' life, death and resurrection are historical fact, and to believe that "the whole Bible is real."

Some here who support Hillary Clinton and think of her as an intelligent woman also view these beliefs as ignorant or worse. So I am curious. If she is as smart as we've been told she is, does that mean she wasn't telling the truth in this interview? Was she just trying to win points with Christian voters? Or did she artfully word her answers so as to lead Christian voters to infer something from her answers that was different from what she actually believes? If Hillary really does sincerely believe these things, does that affect your opinion of her and her ability to lead the country?

For those of you who are Christian, does this interview sound to you like the real deal? Does it lend credibility to Hillary, or do you see it as manipulation of the voters?

Here's my cynical interpretation. It doesn't matter to me whether she believes it or not. The real story here is that the right-wing politically-connected Christian Broadcast Network is touting Hillary Clinton's Christian credentials. We already knew they were a Republican tool and this proves it. Everyone knows John McCain has a much better chance of beating Hillary Clinton in November than he does beating Barack Obama.

Posted by Becky at 01:24 PM |

Gordo - stuck between McCain and a Hard Place

The silence from Senator Gordon Smith about the recent Air Force decision to award a massive contract for refueling tankers to Air Bus rather than Boeing is understandable given his voting record and his outspoken support for Senator McCain.

U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who clinched the Republican Party's nomination for president Tuesday, told reporters in Phoenix that jobs were irrelevant to the Air Force's choice. - Tanker tempers are still sizzling

In 2003, Sen. McCain authored an amendment undermining "Buy American" rules requiring U.S. military equipment, defense systems and components to be manufactured in the United States. - Democrats Criticize Senators Over Outspoken Statements

Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Greg Walden, and Senator Gordon Smith have voted for every NAFTA-style trade treaty to come before Congress... - Anti-worker CAFTA treaty may be nearing vote in Congress

The silence from Steve Novick, who is vying with Jeff Merkley for the right to take on Gordo in the general election, is much less easily explained. In fact, I have no explanation for it. Merkley has vocally spoken out but, Novick appears to be more interested in selling beer than in speaking out in support of working men and woman.

Posted by Kevin at 10:03 AM |

March 05, 2008

Joy in Mudville

Bret Favre has retired from football.
Leaving the Green Bay Packers with a big void to fill.
Luckily for them Bret's wife Deanna Favre has stepped forward.
Claiming her qualifications for the job:
16 years spent watching Bret from the sidelines. Not only during games, but often during practice too.
Overhearing team meetings from just outside the door.
Knows all the other players and opponents already.
"I'll be ready to play on day one." she claims.

"Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"

Posted by Mac at 09:25 PM |

Willy Weak's push poll

Should Willy Weak writer Beth Slovic ever decide that she needs extra cash she could always land a moonlighting job doing push polls if this is an example of her native talent for such unsavory things.

Ms. Slovic lifted a paragraph from a Merkley campaign email sent by Jeff's wife, Mary Sorteberg:

I will always remember a day last July before we decided to get into this race. I was on the phone talking about whether this was the right thing to do. Our daughter Brynne was in the kitchen and dropped a whole flat of blueberries. As I watched blueberries rolling all over the floor, I realized that Jeff was needed in Washington D.C. as much as I was needed in my kitchen.

Is the statement:

a) sexist

b) an attempt to appeal to moderate female voters

c) tone deaf

d) sweet