Four days until the election, here’s a special treat; one of my favorite mash-up artists has released a recording of a ‘party for change’ for free download. It’s a little under an hour, and it’s really good. The ‘Yes We Can’ section about 20 minutes in was particularly well cut.
Follow the link for a free download, and groove out.
And thanks to Chris, AKA Nightcap, for hipping me to this mix.
Okay, actually I am Samuel the Social Worker. Nonetheless, I do see myself (as do most Americans) as a sort of an everyman. And that’s what Joe the Plumber is all about, right? Okay; so I am Joe the Plumber – as much as any those other ya-hoos out there claiming to be Joe the plumber anyway – and I have something to say. I support Barack Obama. I would get a tax cut under Obama, as would most other Joes the Plumber, including the original Joe the Plumber (who isn’t actually a Joe or a plumber any more than I am). I’m glad about that. I would also be happy to pay a little more in taxes if my income was over a quarter of a million dollars. So I am Joe the Plumber, and I support Barack Obama. And so should the rest of you Joes the Plumber out there, if you really think about who will best represent you in Washington.
I know that it’s bad form to invoke the turnabout as fair play rule, and in the long run I think it’s bad politics. Why go negative when you’re winning? All you have to loose is credibility with the people who already like you. So the Obama campaign shouldn’t say it. But I will, only because seeing a 2000 term Republican Senator go down on corruption charges is really, really vindicating.
Ted, your Justice is Served.
((PS – Okay Dad.))
There has been an historic degree of attention paid this year to the Presidential election. It is a year of firsts, and it’s by many accounts the most important election any of us have ever voted in. This election, I believe, will shape the political landscape and frame the policy discussions in this country for at least a decade. But I am not going to talk about it.
Oregon, where I live and vote, is not a swing state in the presidential contest. Real Clear Politics has Obama up by 15 points, and 538.com has him winning Oregon in 100% of their scenarios. So I’m not worried about the Presidential race in Oregon. What I’m worried about is that Obama’s enthusiastic young supporters (of which I am one) will forget that there is actually a whole ballot’s worth of candidates and measures on which to vote. So I’m dedicating myself between now and Election day to encouraging my friends and neighbors to vote their whole ballot. In the interest of this mission, here are my picks for the three most important down-ticket races in the State. This is not to say that other races are not important. Other posts will go into detail about other candidates and issues. But this post is about three races where, if you don’t vote for anything else, your support is needed.
1) US Senate. Jeff Merkley, Democrat. Democrats have a slim chance of getting a 2/3ds majority in the Senate this year. If this comes to pass, and we have a majority in the house as well as a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, as well as a Democratic president, we will have our first real chance in over a decade to make some of the real changes we’ve all been hoping for in Health Care, the Environment, Education, Foreign Policy, and other important issues. One of the key races to win, if we are to reach the magic number, is the race in Oregon between Jeff Merkley and Gordon Smith. Gordon has changed his stripes dramatically this year, and is a Republican running on the Democratic platform. He’s made national news by trying to tie himself to prominent Dems such as Barack Obama. Don’t be fooled; he’s as conservative as they come. I got a call tonight asking me to volunteer for Merkley’s campaign, and the worker told me that it’s the closest Senate race in the country right now. This is a lie; Real Clear Politics says that North Carolina, Minnesota, and Alaska are all closer. But not by much, and it is clear that in Oregon this race is the most important.
2) Secretary of State. Kate Brown, Democrat. This race is close to my heart because the Republican candidate, Rick Dancer, was the local news anchor when I was growing up. He’s a likable personality and he has a lot of credibility in my community just because of this recognition. To be honest, I don’t (nor does anyone else, for that matter – he has no political record to look to) know much about how he would approach the SoS job. He talks about governing in a bipartisan way. So did W. in 2000. The worst thing I can say about Dancer is that he’s a Pollyanna. He also belongs to a pretty conservative church, but that alone isn’t a strike against him. He hasn’t talked much about how his religion does or doesn’t impact his politics. Also, he’s a wimp and when redistricting rolls around in 2011 he’ll be easy for the Republican leadership to push around. Kate Brown, the Democrat in the race, has a long career of public service. She is currently a ranking Democrat in the Oregon State Senate. She is enormously qualified for the SoS job.
3) Treasurer. Ben Westlund, Democrat. Ben is the closest thing to a Republican that I’m endorsing in this election. He used to be one, but switched parties several years ago. He is that rare breed of Oregon politician, the East Side Democrat. He has made two fortunes in his life, the more recent one in bull semen. No joke. I’m told they use a cow blow up doll to collect the stuff. I met Ben at an SEIU event, and I’ll tell you; he’s a real character. I heard a story that day about him getting drunk and sitting around a campfire with a bunch of 20 somethings from the Bus Project until the wee hours of the morning, telling stories about the ranch. But he’s also brilliant, one of the smartest people in Oregon politics, and he has a record that shows a wide breadth of experience that will prepare him for the Oregon treasurer job. He has direct financial experience, but he also has legislative experience and he has a deep understanding of government. His challenger, Allen Alley, has enormous experience in business and finance, but I don’t think (and he hasn’t been able to show) that he has any insight into public policy or the policy making process.
As a side note, the Labor Commissioner race is an important one to vote in. There are bound to be a lot of under-votes (when people don’t vote at all) because no one really knows what the BOLI commissioner does. When there are a lot of under-votes, it makes it much easier for wing-nuts to get into office because of people voting based on whatever name sounds the best. The current commissioner, Brad Avakian, is a good egg. His opponent, Pavel Goberman, is a joke, so much so that the best argument I can make against voting for him is to recommend that you go read his campaign website..
Are you looking for a social media or a new media consultant? Are you a Democrat or progressive independent candidate or initiative organizer? Do you want someone to help you plan and manage a media strategy for Facebook, Myspace, Linked In, Twitter, Second Life, Podcasts, Blogs, and other Web 2.0 applications? Look no further. I am offering my services as a New Media consultant. Drop me a line and we can talk about what new Media presences are going to help your campaign get in touch with a young, technically savvy demographic of people who are opinion leaders in their communities.
Hello, readers and friends. Here are my endorsements for the various ballot measures in the state of Oregon. Coming soon will be endorsements of candidates, and of local measures. For now, this is all I had time for today. For each one, I’ve given a brief description of my point of view, and a rundown of who’s for and against each thing (based on who took out spaces in the Voter Pamphlet). I make no claims that my writing is in any way neutral, and I have editorialized freely in characterizing the groups and individuals who are for and against things. That said, I think my point of view is right. Doesn’t everyone? And what good is having a Blog if I can’t put out my point of view as if it is the one, objective truth?
The first two measures are ‘housekeeping’ measures referred to the voters by the legislature. In order to amend our State Constitution, we need a vote of the people. Sadly, our Constitution is pretty messed up (and huge, because the initiative process keeps amending it with all sorts of stupid crap that doesn’t belong in it). People often ask why the legislature refers so many measures to the voters. This is why; any time they have to clear up an inconsistency, eliminate an obsolete section, or simplify a procedure, they have to refer it to the voters.
54 – Yes. This measure is noncontroversial. Basically, the Oregon Constitution has some stuff in it about who can vote in school board elections that’s obsolete, and has been found unconstitutional on a federal level. These restrictions haven’t been in effect for some time, and they’re just cluttering up the State Constitution. This measure takes them out.
55 – Yes. This is another noncontroversial ‘housekeeping’ measure referred to the voters by the legislature. Right now, when they redraw the congressional districts every ten years, it creates a big problem of who is supposed to represent who. Sometimes there are two representatives in one district, and none in another. It’s a mess. This bill would change the schedule so that the new district lines don’t go into effect until after the election, thus eliminating the problem.
56 – Yes. Several years ago, the ‘citizen tax activists’ – who would like to see an end to all government funded social services – succeeded in passing a ‘double majority’ law for new taxes. As it stands currently, to pass a new tax in Oregon you have to get at least 50% plus one of all registered voters, whether or not they vote. In simple terms, if there were 100 registered voters, and forty of them turned out to vote, and they all voted yes, the new tax would still fail. My feeling is that this way of doing things is undemocratic, because it counts non votes as No votes. It also makes it effectively impossible to levy new property taxes at any time except presidential elections (the only time when we routinely see 50% voter turnout), which ties the hands of local governments and forces harmful cuts in core services. This measure would eliminate the double majority requirements during the May and November elections, returning those elections to the democratic principle that a majority of those who vote get to decide.
For:
Educators, PTAs, Firefighters, Police, Unions, Business Associations, The Governor, Human Services, Local Governments, Libraries
Against:
Anti-Tax and ideologically ’small government’ oriented Organizations.
57 – Yes, oddly enough. This measure increases certain mandatory minimum sentences for certain types of crimes, and mandates treatment for certain types of drug related crimes. Under normal circumstances, I would always vote against mandatory minimums, as I think they keep Judges from making good choices. But in this case, there are some fun politics involved. This measure gives more discretion to judges, and actually focuses on prevention and treatment instead of just prison. Another measure later on the ballot, Measure 61, creates mandatory minimums without addressing prevention and treatment. The twist; if 57 passes it has a provision to cancel out 61. Pretty clever politics. Since 61 is almost certain to pass, voting yes on 57 is a vote for moderation in mandatory minimum sentences.
For:
The Legislature, District Attorneys, Unions, Community Corrections Directors, Children’s Rights PACs, Business Groups, Educators, Democrats, Drug Prevention and Treatment types, AARP
Against:
Well funded conservative activists including Sizemore crony Kevin Mannix. Several retired cops.
58 – No. Resounding no. This measure, sponsored by Racketeer Bill Sizemore, would limit the amount of time that can be spent teaching foreign students in English as a Second Language to two years. This measure is nothing but racism, pure and simple, and it will be a tragedy if it passes.
For:
Conservative groups, Anti-Immigrant Groups, something called the ‘Traditional Prejudices Coalition’, anti-government groups. Racketeer Bill Sizemore.
Against:
PTAs, Teachers, Nurses, Parents, Unions, The Governor, Human Services, Human Rights groups, Religious groups, Rural People, Democrats, The State Superintendent of Public Instruction
59 – No. This is an(other) attempt by Racketeer Bill Sizemore to gut public services in Oregon by reducing their revenue. Right now, most Oregonians write off all their federal income tax on their Oregon tax bill. Only the wealthiest few percent of taxpayers pay enough in federal tax to go over the cap for a State deduction. If this bill passes, it would create a new tax dodge for the frighteningly well off, and further erode the already marginal State budget.
For:
Sizemore and his cronies. Anti-government groups disguised as ‘taxpayer rights’ groups.
Against:
Public employees, AARP, League of Women Voters, Oregon Consumer League, Nurses, Human Services, Unions
60 – No. This is an ideologically motivated attempt by Racketeer Bill Sizemore (can you tell that I like to type that phrase?) to shape public education the way he wants it shaped. It would peg teacher pay to performance rather than seniority. Now, this may sound like a good idea (we should pay good teachers more, right?) and I’m not altogether opposed to some kind of merit pay for teachers. But this is a bad law, it’s badly written, and it would create several problems. Most notably, it would discourage the best, most qualified teachers from teaching in difficult to manage classrooms and districts. This is because teacher performance would be measured in large part by test scores, so the best teachers will try to get into the classrooms with the kids who are most likely to score high on the tests to begin with, rather than putting their skills to work helping students in struggling schools. Also, as Susan Castille, the State Superintendent of Schools, points out, this measure would create an atmosphere of competition rather than cooperation between teachers, which would be bad for our schools and bad for our students.
For:
The same gang of well financed ideologues that backs all of Sizemore’s measures, and no one else.
Against:
PTA, Oregon Education Association, Oregon Business Association, Oregon Nurses Association, The Governor, Unions, Religious Groups
61 – No. This is the mandatory minimum law addressed by Measure 57 that does not address prevention or treatment.
For: The people who are against 57. Ideologues. Strange out of state Millionaire recluses. Racketeers.
Against: The people who are for 57. Law enforcement, courts, people who actually dedicate their lives to doing real work that’s good for the community.
62 – No. This one is about dedicating a percentage of lottery proceeds to public safety at the expense of schools and other social services. It’s sponsored by one of the usual suspects, Kevin Mannix. This guy is only marginally less dangerous than Bill Sizemore (who didn’t weigh in on this measure in the voters manual).
For:
‘Tough-On-Crime’ activists, District Attorneys (who stand to gain funding through this measure).
Against:
Educators, PTAs, Human Services, Unions, Green Party, Democrats, Religious groups.
63 – No. This one is fun. It exempts property owners from getting permits if their improvements are valued at under $35,000. What does this mean? You can build whatever you want on your property, so long as you spend less than $35,000. Doesn’t matter if it’s safe, if it’s structurally sound, if it’s environmentally disastrous, it doesn’t matter. This also eliminates some of the permitting fees that people have to pay to do improvements, and the people supporting the measure (including chief petitioner, you guessed it, Bill Sizemore) say that’s all it’s about, that there’s no safety concern. They are lying.
For:
Same usual suspects. Also, a group I don’t know called ‘Americans for Prosperity’ whose name smacks of Orwellian new-speak.
Against:
Fire Fighters, Unions, Urban Planners, Homeowners Insurance Companies, Builders, Various Local Officials from around the State, Renters Associations
So bad, I used the blink tag. Yeah, that’s right. I did it. This would prevent public employees from voluntarily giving to non-profits, Union PACs, and other charitable organizations through payroll deductions. Oregon voters have shot down this same idea three times already. It’s funded by the prolific Sizemore, and it’s a move to try to make it harder for Unions (who brought the Racketeering charges against him) to organize politically. But it’s so badly written that it would also impact other groups that get contributions through voluntary payroll deductions, including the United Way.
For:
Take a guess. That’s right. Once again, it’s Sizemore, his cronys, and NO ONE ELSE.
Against:
Firefighters, The Muscular Dystrophy Association, League of Women Voters, United Way, Nurses, Teachers, Unions, Seniors, Oregon Consumer League, PTA, The Governor, Labor Commissioner Avakian, Human Services, ACLU, University Presidents, League of Conservation Voters, Humane Society, Renters Groups, Council of Police Associations, Food Banks.
65 – Maybe, leaning No. This one is a harder choice, and there are people whose opinions I respect on both sides. What this measure does is fundamentally changes the way elections are run in Oregon. We have primary elections in the Spring. Right now, those elections are conducted within parties. If you aren’t registered as a member of a party, you don’t get to vote in that party’s primary. Democrats nominate a Democrat to the general election, Republicans nominate a Republican, and Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, and others, in practice they don’t get to vote in primaries. Sometimes there is maybe a contested primary for the Green candidate, but not very often. This measure changes all that. It creates a primary system where all the candidates from all the parties are on the Primary ballot. Anyone who files for candidacy. Could be three Democrats, five Republicans, a Green, two Socialists, a handful of Constitution, Independent, Libertarian, and Nazi party candidates all the way down the ballot. Whichever two among these gets the most votes goes on to the general election. This is both good and bad. On the good side, it stops the current practice of disenfranchising independents during the primary. Unfortunately, it also makes it almost impossible for an independent or a third party candidate to get on a General Election ballot. Well funded Ds and Rs will dominate in the primaries, and you’ll hardly ever (maybe never) see a third party on the November ballot again. Bummer. Another potential problem is that we could end up with certain districts where political opinions are so one sided as to have two Ds or two Rs on general election ballots. This limits minority parties and people with dissenting views in their free speech. On the other hand, our two party system is broken, and this is a creative way to try to retool it. It might work, which is why I’m still somewhat on the fence on this one. But my hesitations are pretty strong, and there’s a 99% chance I’ll be voting no.
For:
Several private citizens who identify themselves as ‘Independent Voters’. Former Governor Kitzhaber and former Governor Atiyeh, various Doctors and Healthcare Workers, Jim Torrey, various Business leaders, a loose association of young voters, National Open Ballot Project (which funded a similar measure in Washington),
Against:
Various third parties, including the Libertarians and the Greens, Unions, Former Governor Barbara Roberts, Various elected officails around the State including Nancy Nathanson, The Democratic Party, The Republican Party, various private citizens not identifying any affiliation other than their name
Certainly I agree that teachers shouldn't be trying to convert students to a particular point of view, but I think it's a far cry between disclosing one's own point of view in the context of a discussion about politics, and exerting undue influence. It can actually be helpful to students to be aware of their teachers preferences, as it can help them to identify areas where the teacher is expressing bias in subtle and unintentional ways.]]>
6:30 – No one is going to believe that McCain isn’t running a filthy campaign, or that Obama is. McCain is widening his own credibility gap.
6:28 – The American People are less interested in our hurt feelings… Nice.
6:26 – I’m curious how Obama will respond to this charge.
6:18 – I really hate when Republicans run for government office by dissing the government. It’s like electing someone who hates bodies to be a doctor.
6:17 – Strangely enough, I actually like McCain’s plan on buying up bad mortgages. I was saying the same thing to my coworkers a week before his plan came out.
6:15 – I hope he can actually reform Part D so that it makes sense to Seniors. People are flaberghasted by their Part D plans. I see them every day.
6:12 – To win this debate, Obama needs to say ‘Quarter of a Million Dollars’ a quarter of a million times.
6:11 – This is going to be an exciting debate. John McCain is going to spend the next hour and a half trying to peg Barack Obama as a socialist and hope it sticks.
6:06 – John McCain continues the trend of not being able to look directly at Barack Obama. I’m starting to think it might be racism.
6:04 I’m not angry. John McCain says I’m angry, but I’m not angry. Or, to the degree to which I am angry, I am angry at John McCain himself.
6:02 Thank you, Bob, for at least asking the men not to spout talking points. Not that it’ll help.
6:00 The debate begins.
7:04 am – hahaha! I never hit publish. Funny.
7:34 and neither did John.
7:32 And Barack didn’t answer it.
7:30 The last question is the best, hands down, by far, that I’ve ever heard in a Presidential debate. I love it. I love it. No kidding, no holds barred, I love it.
7:24 – McCain’s parsing of the Evil Empire question is pretty impressive. I like it. More meta-answers would make these exercises much more interesting.
7:20 I think that McCain is an old school cold war hawk, and is likely to react in dangerous and unstable ways to Russia.
7:19 On the wars, McCain seems to be sounding a lot like he Republican forebearer, W.
7:15 John McCain only recently stopped using the word “Gook” in public.
7:10 The useless dial group seems to be saying to me that Barack has an edge with women. None of the rest of the polls I’ve read said that.
7:07 No decisive victory tonight for either man.
7:06 I am not John McCain’s friend.
7:04 Whichever candidate says “responsibility to protect” in the context of this question about when we should intervene in humanitarian crises gets my vote. No kidding.
6:57 The woman in the audience in the blue shawl is pretty good looking.
6:54 Red light, John.
6:53 Is it just me, or does John look really old tonight?
6:46 The dial groups like Obama’s rhetoric on energy as a national security issue. I like that rhetoric also. Does that make me useless? Maybe.
6:44 Regarding Nukes, only a complete idiot would intentionally create a substance that’s almost impossible to contain and that is a deadly poison for over 10,000 years.
6:43 I love that we have two candidates who are actually strong on the Environment.
6:40 Obama didn’t answer the yes, no question about setting a date certain for fixing entitlements.
6:36 I want to know what definition McCain is using for “Small” business.
6:32 His populism makes me unsettled, though.
6:30 I think Barack’s answer to this question, on what sacrifices he would ask people to make, is much much better.
6:30 The Overhead Projector; this may become synonymous in future years with the political strategy, or the repeated line, that goes absolutely nowhere.
6:23 Brokaw tries to repeat the ‘what would you cut’ question in a different way; health, energy, entitlement reform, which would you cut. $5 says he doesn’t get a real answer even with this creative framing.
6:22 Still, neither candidate has said anything of real substance.
6:20 When Obama says he’s cutting more than spending, the green Male line on CNN’s dial group dropped dramatically. I wonder why?
6:19 His saying “I understand your cynicism” makes Obama look like he’s condescending. He plays into the worst stereotypes about himself, and does the party no favors.
6:13 I hope to god the Fact checkers are going to hit John hard on the assertion that Fanny and Freddy were the catalyst that started the whole crisis. That’s the most insane thing I’ve heard in a long time.
6:12 Are the ‘crony’ remarks going to play in Virginia? I don’t think so; I think people will just see it as negativity.
6:10 shit, Barack agrees.
6:09 Did John just suggest that we promote Warren Buffet to treasury secretary? Because that seems like a bad idea. He’s a millionaire, sure, but would his instincts serve the Treasury as they have his company? It’s a really different beast.
6:06 – John McCain looks like a freaky chipmunk person.
6:04 This is where Barack makes or breaks it. Does it play that he really cares? I think he can pull it off. Also, can he subtly piss John off without looking like he’s baiting him? If we can get John to blow up, we win.
5:58 PM – Dial Groups mean nothing. Ignore the dial groups on CNN. More at Kausfiles.
