Earlier this week there was a report from TA Barnhart, writing in Blue Oregon, about a meeting of Multnomah Democrats where Attorney General John Kroger bluntly asserted his desires from the state Legislature:
Kroger and his Special Assistant, Ben Unger (who, like Kroger, is a Mult Dems precinct committee person) had come to the meeting to gather support for getting the Ways and Means Committee, and, in particular, Sen Margaret Carter to approve the assignment of DoJ lawyers to civil rights works. As if incredulous that it was the case, Kroger asked how Oregon could have a real Justice Dept if it did not prosecute civil rights cases. And then, to answer his own question, he stated that while the need for both civil rights and environmental crimes attorneys in his office seemed a "no-brainer," the "forces of inertia are immense." Switching to law professor mode, he stated if there was one lesson to be learned from the Civil Rights Movement, it's that "you don't get progress unless you sue people".
Clearly Kroger is a little frustrated at not getting what he sees as important pieces of his strategy for the AG's office. But as you can read from the comments, in the areas involving both civil rights and environmental enforcement there are already agencies handling some sort of monitoring against unlawful practices, and Kroger is being perceived in some circles as a typically aggressive Easterner who is overstepping traditional lines and protocol, with strong backfiring potential.
For my part, I think both BOLI and DEQ are inadequate to fully enforce the laws they're monitoring, otherwise the arguments Kroger made on the campaign trail about lack of functional enforcement outcomes would have rung hollow. And it's a logical argument: you can't civilly pressure wrongdoing; there has to be a hammer. Kroger wants to be the hammer, the Big Toe if you're a Stripes fan.
And speaking of the campaign, I thought it would be most helpful to remind readers (especially those in the Leg or clucking their tongues in the media) that these points and pleas being made by Kroger shouldn't be surprising at all, since they mirror exactly what he was arguing for on the campaign trail for last year's elections--elections in which he won nominations of BOTH parties. Maybe the Leg should think about that a little? They can read what Kroger said about his aims, in an excerpt from our extended interview with Kroger in February 2008. Hop below the fold for his near-verbatim commentary...
The Elections Division has been kind enough to release the final turnout figures for Oregon in the 2008 elections, and they're pretty great:
Oregon had the third highest turnout of registered voters among the 50 states in the general election last month.
Numbers collected by Washington state elections officials also showed Oregon with the eighth highest turnout among eligible voters, a measure favored by academics. The number of eligible voters is based on census estimates.
Oregon's turnout of registered voters this year was 85.67 percent, the third highest in Oregon history. The only states with a higher turnout this year were Wyoming with 92.37 percent, and Colorado, with 91.02 percent.
"Any turnout that's higher than 85 percent is outstanding," said Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury. "Oregonians continue to show their remarkable interest in participating in the critical electoral issues that help govern our state and our nation. I commend them on their commitment to participating in our democracy."
Washington was fourth highest among the states with 84.61 percent, its highest turnout ever.
All Oregon elections are conducted by mail voting while Washington uses mail voting in all but its two biggest counties, King and Pierce.
I think the "picky" version is the fairer one; it's like the unemployment rate figure that leaves out those too discouraged to look for work. How are they less unemployed than those just fired? Similarly, if you're not even motivated to register, you're not turning out.
Still, eighth is pretty good, and from a more nakedly partisan perspective, 85%+ turnout from the registration base is awesome. At some point you have to let the totally disengaged go, and work on swinging the swingable.
Usually the vote-by-mail system Oregon employs--still the only state 100% non polling place state--is touted as the reason for high turnout. The literature I've read (which is not comprehensive) suggests that a more reliable indicator is days before the election that you can register. When that number is zero--ie, same day registration--those states see the highest turnout.
But I think vote-by-mail offers another solid way to maximize the opportunity for folks to vote. My dream proposal is a federal Election Day holiday every first Tuesday of November. All ballots in by that day, no matter how they got there.
One thing you will never be able to say about Oregonians, I hope, is that thay are passive politically. Left to right, they don't sit back and bitch, they step forward and bitch! I think people make fun of the endless planning and challenge hearings where neightbors yell at each other over their parochial concerns, but in reality we demand and mostly treasure the right to participate and at least make sure what we believe is being represented.
So if you represented this Election Day, take a mental bow. Thanks for making Oregon look slightly less brain dead than our sister states!
I have to say I'm of several mixed feelings regarding Barack Obama's choice of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his Inaugural. The side of me that's horrified by the pasasge of Prop 8 and revulsed by people who support it, is highly disappointed and disgusted that Obama seems not to have noticed--or cared--how offended many GLBT and allied members of the community would feel.
At the same time, this has nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with Obama's persistent hope and vision that the Inaugural can be a catalyst event for bringing the country together despite policy differences that can be quite deep in places. Warren has some nasty, bigoted and frankly homophobic views, but he is also a strong advocate against poverty and some of the "old school" concerns of the Christian church. Further, the benediction, in contrast, will be given by a very progressive cleric, one who is a strong supporter of GLBT rights. Isn't there something more important to our lives beyond January 20, that we could be focusing on?
So I've kind of vacillated back and forth whether I should be upset about Obama's choice or not. One person who's made up his mind is Portland's Rev. Chuck Currie, who is the Pastor over at Parkrose UCC, and also maintains an active progressive blog that I linked to his name, just above.>
I am deeply troubled that President-elect Obama has invited Rick Warren to offer the invocation at the inauguration. Warren stands opposed to the progressive agenda and to many of the core values that Barack Obama campaigned on. The symbolism of offering such as prodigious place in history to a figure such as Warren is upsetting.
Warren is a good spokesman for the Religious Right but does not represent mainstream Christianity.
"My blood pressure is really high right now," said Rev. Chuck Currie, minister at Parkrose Community United Church of Christ in Portland, Oregon. "Rick Warren does some really good stuff and there are some areas that I have admired his ability to build bridges between evangelicals and mainline religious and political figures... but he is also very established in the religious right and his position on social issues like gay rights, stem cell research and women's rights are all out of the mainstream and are very much opposed to the progressive agenda that Obama ran on. I think that he is very much the wrong person to put on the stage with the president that day."
Kudos to Chuck for getting his voice out there, and standing up as a progressive Christian definitely NOT fixated on gays and abortion. I think, given the fact that Obama and Warren are personal friends, that the chances the latter's appearance won't go off as planned are basically nil. But it's a good debate to have.
You knew once he got 18% in the race for State Labor Commissioner {pdf}, nobody was going to be able to keep immigrant bodybuilder, motivational speaker and erstwhile politician Pavel Goberman away from future elections. Well, who are we kidding--not even a single vote for Pavel in that race was probably necessary to spur him on to new challenges; the G in Goberman also stands for "gadfly."
Pavel seems to have his heart in the right place, but he's what I'd call a "novelty candidate:" someone who has little to no chance of ever prevailing in a race, but who is so damned entertaining and amusingly different that he or she is often worth the attention anyway. Some of the intellectualism of what he has said in past races (or in voluminous comments to places like Blue Oregon) probably gets lost in the muddle of poor syntax typical of newcomers to America, but I think the crazy would shine through most of it, even were it written in the King's English. Where else can you get a pledge to make I-5 obsolete, and a plan to "make Oregon famous" by inventing fire resistant wood?
And it is with this introduction that I give you the official announcement of Pavel Goberman's primary challenge to Ron Wyden for Oregon's US Senate seat in 2010. I'm presuming a primary challenge, anyway, based on Pavel's self-identification as "(D, but honest)." Below the fold, I am thrilled to reproduce his statement as presented. Ron, you betta recognize! Pavel's coming to pump (clap, clap) YOU out of office! How? As you'll come to see, Pavel's a "problems slover, " and "that dummy" Wyden is the problem. Does Senator Ron have any shields in his political armory to defend against that?? Doubtful...
LO reader and blogpublisher Darrelplant had an interesting tech/politics piece crossposted to Daily Kos today. One of the many ways in which the Obama campaign innovated not only beyond John McCain's capacity to match him, but beyond what any other major presidential campaign had even tried, much less succeeded with, was the IPhone applet that provided a virtual Obama desktop literally at your fingertip. Not only is it functional, it looks dynamite on screen. And as darrel points out, it's largely a product of Portland's creative class.
That's Darrel's larger point, that Obama's advantage is much more about creative spirit and understanding of the medium's limitless capacity, than it is about money or products that will allow the Republicans to "catch up" to the left when it comes to online politics. "The right has radio; the left has the internet" is becoming a truism because it's...true. And while the GOP is doing its darndest to try to replicate even the Howard Dean beta version of the magic, they're still just making excuses about what's gone wrong until now:
First, let me just say that you would have to ask whether there would have been enough McCain/Palin-oriented iPhone users to make it worthwhile for the campaign. Personally, I think there would have been (for reasons you will hear in a minute). The main thrust of the Politico story, however, was that the McCain team was whining about how so much of the high-tech community supported Obama that they just couldn't get their ideas out of the gate.
To which I say: codswallop.
"Memo to self: next time get the co-founder of Facebook on your team," said McCain-Palin veteran Becki Donatelli. "The CEO of Google was in the Obama commercial. I mean, you don't get more out front than that."
Speaking on a panel about the role of technology in the 2008 campaign, Donatelli said the McCain team had plans for using the Internet to reach voters, but ultimately lacked the resources and the personnel to put them into action.
Oooh, Obama had Facebook and Google on his side! Well, last I heard, McCain's national campaign co-chair was former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, someone he floated as a potential Treasury Secretary when asked about that position in the second presidential debate. Surely in her decade at eBay she made a few technically-inclined contacts? And last I looked, there were plenty of programmers around the world eager for work if they couldn't find someone in the US who wanted to work for McCain.
In other words, for the "we didn't have the resources" complaint to be valid means that McCain's people couldn't manage to find some way to outperform a team of unpaid Obamaphiles that could be counted on two hands. How pathetic would that be, if it's true? Ot is it just as likely that they were so incompetent that they didn't think of doing it and now they're lying about it? Considering how Republicans tend to run things, it could be either one of those or a combination of both.
It's an amazing time. Both Democrats and Republicans are doing a lot of mouthing of the right words, but really who can tell if their intent will be borne out, or one or both sides will simply revert to status quo ante? That's why we watch, I suppose. Anyway, the online organizing program is just one tiny section of the campaign they'll be writing about for a hundred years. And thanks to some clever Portlanders, the iPhone app will be emblematic of where the gap continued to remain between Democrats and Republicans when it came to technolitics.
Think Joe Lieberman's direct attacks on Democrats and the Democratic Party were specifically limited to President-Elect Obama? Well, we know there were also kind things said about Republican Senators Norm Coleman and Susan Collins, but now via WaPo comes more info about who ELSE Joe was working to get elected in 2008. And there's another layer of quotes and reportage indicating that despite all this (although WaPo reports Merkley was unaware of the donation to Smith at the time), Oregon's newest Senator actually voted to reward Lieberman. Here's how it went:
Having ridden the wave of support for President-elect Barack Obama, Udall and Merkley spoke out in favor of the spirit of reconciliation and moving on from the campaign, in which Lieberman was one of the highest profile supporters of the Republican presidential ticket.
But no one in the room knew, as Merkley spoke, that Lieberman had supported Merkley's opponent, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). Lieberman, through his Reuniting Our Country PAC, gave Smith's reelection bid $5,000 on Oct. 10, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.
...not even Merkley knew of Lieberman's backing of Smith in their critical Senate race, until Capitol Briefing alerted his staff today.
"We were surprised to hear this news, but it's time to put the election behind us. Jeff Merkley is looking forward to working with all his new colleagues on an agenda that will put our nation back on track," said Julie Edwards, spokeswoman for Merkley.
As WaPo points out, Smith maintained a money edge throughout the election campaign, and lost by over 50,000 votes--so that wasn't exactly money well spent. (And you have to wonder, how many people or groups who contributed to Joe's Wallet for Weasels would appreciate the idea that their money was going to people like Smith and NY's even more odious Rep. Peter Kin?)
But it illuminates the situation perfectly: if Lieberman had his way, there would have been one fewer Senator (at least) deciding his fate in caucus last week. Beyond the implications for the the Party, the senior Congressional circuit and in fact the country, Oregonians now must mull over the idea that Holy Joe actively sought to saddle us with Gordon Smith for another six years. Ready to kick him in the jewels yet?
Apparently Merkley still isn't, as the quote above implies--but another quote offered by spokeswoman Julia Edwards hints yet again at the likelihood that after all the outrage and bluster expended in his speech, he went ahead and voted to retain Holy Joe anyway:
Edwards...has said that Merkley also expressed how much Lieberman's actions in the presidential race angered him. He did not encourage other Democrats to vote one way or the other, but did talk about moving on from the bitter fights of the campaign. [emph mine]
It seems awfully disingenuous to suggest that talk of "moving on" isn't some form of encouragement to the other Senators to allow Lieberman to retain his chair, but it also constitutes a confirmation that indeed during the caucus--not just afterwards, but before the decision had been made--Merkley in the end essentially spoke in favor of retaining him. As you may recall, both AP and Politico asserted that Merkley did not oppose him, with AP explicitly correcting the record to state it, with Politico claiming he spoke in favor but then removing his name from a group of other Lieberman supporters who spoke on his behalf.
And so despite attempts by supporters to claim that Merkley was speaking of moving on after the caucus, or that he was simply quoting Harry Reid's desire to do so, his office explicitly confirms that Merkley indeed did offer statements within caucus that should be construed as positive regarding Lieberman's fate.
As a final aside, late last week Sen Brown of Ohio revealed that he is the fourth known Senator to vote against retaining Lieberman. joining Sens. Sanders, Leahy and Boxer. While there may have been some pledge agreement uttered in caucus, it's clearly broken now, and no real rationale exists for Merkley to keep his vote private from the rest of us--unless he voted to keep him and doesn't want to blow the impression that he actually voted against.
What Torrid would write if he worked for Wonkette...
So, my eagle eye sources tell me Senator-elect Jeff Merkley was spotted this past Monday at Portland's Revenue Bureau, sitting at a table in the lobby discussing matters with another gentleman somewhere around 330pm. We were unable to get a comment on what he might be doing spending a slow Thansksgiving week-day at probably the only bureau less popular than Police, but that shouldn't stop us from speculating, should it? The Top 10 Things Jeff Merkley was Doing at Portland Revenue:
10. Figuring his potential tax deduction for losses on the ill-fated "Jeffmentum!" bumper sticker and lapel pin business.
9. Is the payoff from Dave Hunt to free up the Speaker's Chair considered income or an in-kind contribution?
8. Did he need a towing license that one time he punk'd Gordon Smith by having his campaign bus surreptitiously jacked, leaving Smith stuck at a Days Inn in John Day for days?
7. If he paid the kid who flipped his car driving in Central Oregon, does that make it a car for hire so he can sue the kid for unlawful embarrasment?
6. Food taken away in napkins while working the DC cocktail parties--taxable in Oregon?
5. Oh, "Revenue!" I thought you said "Rev and you!" So Chuck Currie's not coming to meet with us, then?
4. Since he used a 2nd mortgage on his 2nd home to help him win the primary, do Oregonians now have a "political lien" on the house, and does this mean he has to let them in when they come visit in DC?
3. Can he write down future payback to Chuck Schumer as a deduction on this year's taxes?
2. Does one declare bribe or extortion money that you pay AND receive as Oregon income--or just what you have to get from others?
And the number one potential reason Jeff Merkley was at the Revenue Bureau:
1. Finally time to close down that backyard moonshine operation, settle up and go legit!
OK, he didn't literally stop Gordon Smith, the voters did--and if you wanted to catalog all the people that had a hand in creating an environment that would allow Smith to be stopped, the list of names might get rather long. Kari Chisholm extends on Jeff Mapes' analysis of how Merkley managed to beat an incumbent Republican in a wave election, including the online outreach and info clearinghouse efforts:
Jim Ross did a whole heckuva lot more than "set up a Web site". At the beginning, he built the entire Stop Gordon Smith effort. Working with the DPO's Trent Lutz, they set up a communications operation to hold Smith accountable, including a Web site (which I built), a press secretary, and regular outreach to lots of organizations around the state. The DPO's 36-county grassroots organizing campaign, funded in part by Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, was also a key early capacity-building effort.
I met Jim during the Kulongoski campaign, late in the game after he had come in and rescued a moribund plod to November with some sharp attacks on Ron Saxton's flank, and a smart media approach. I knew there was major DPO effort behind the Stop Gordon Smith site, but what I did not know is that Ross--apparrently mostly from his Bay Area base--was the architect of the project. But he got his props from Kari. So too Trent Lutz.
That's not what made StS go and kept it up for months on end through the election, though. What got it done, what made the goals and the plans and the money worth it, was the highly active outreach to state and national media regarding the race and particularly Smith's record. For a contest where the incumbent was working overtime to obscure and obfuscate his record, it was crucial to have the facts ready to throw back in his face. Ross, Kardon, Lutz--to their credit, they knew he'd do it from the start, but someone had to do the grunt work of pushing the info out there at the right times, countering quickly and keeping things active overall.
And THAT guy was Marc Siegel of DPO. From the day it went live, Marc worked both in concert with Chair Meredith Wood Smith and on his own, pushing Gordon's record, hypocrisy and behavior on the opinion makers in state media. Of course the goal wasn't for DPO to release a statement, it was to make sure that the "she said" of any he said/she said story a reporter was putting together, included the facts that made a weasel out of Smith.
Obviously I don't know what his relationship and utility were to various members of the professional media, but it was a forward looking sign to see Siegel so engaged with the netroots. If I didn't mention anything on LO about something he'd sent, more often as not I'd get another pitch for it. It was always my decision, he never got mad or even snarky about me letting several items go by, he just kept trying.
And a lot of the stuff I used, because it was effective. It answered Gordo's bullshit, exposed his foibles, and made the usually timely case to get rid of the guy.
The worst part of Siegel's job had to be the shit he allowed me to give him about the various things I didn't like that DPO was doing. I still don't know what the point was of sending a letter to county clerks essentially smacking Novick's pee pee in the primary on the eve of the big debate, but Marc went dutifully back and forth with me under stern questioning. As another example, I think some were a bit put off by the exclusive-feeling celebratory party, in a number of ways that felt out of step with the joyous, open celebrations right in the middles of streets. We chatted about that beforehand, as well. But he remained a reliable conduit to the state office, and kept doing his job in a professional way.
So hats off to Marc Siegel for making Stop Gordon Smith part of the team effort to bring down a roadblock Senator--one whose legacy will carry the stink of Bush when history checks back in with him down the road. He--Siegel, not Smith!--deserves to be mentioned, deserves to be thanked, and deserves to sip some of that sweet Senate champagne.
See what secret ballots can bring? When a very public question is resolved in a very secreted way, it opens the potential for confusion and--in the wrong hands--shenanigans. I know for a fact we have the former already; it became national news of Senator-elect Jeff Merkley's involvement when AP first reported that Merkley spoke out against Lieberman in opposition, then as we noted earlier, corrected itself thusly:
(This version CORRECTS by DELETING Merkley from lawmakers who opposed Lieberman; Merkley did NOT oppose Lieberman.)
I know that AP's committment to objectivity in some writers was viewed askance by many in the netroots community this election season, but c'mon, we're talking the literal standard of American journalism--editors hate corrections, and they correct with rueful care. So pay attention to what precisely they are now saying Merkley did not do--oppose him. Did he speak against him? The original inclusion was among those who "spoke against him in opposition." Sen. Sanders confirms he spoke out in opposition, AND voted so, because he's technically an independent and did not agree to keep his vote secret, apparently.
So what AP has done is removed him from the group who spoke out AND opposed him, and corrects that statement only by noting that Merkley did not in fact oppose Lieberman. Did he still speak out against him? They don't say.
Merkely says he did, in an interview with Charles Pope at the O. Merkley, like so far all Democratic Senators on record, won't say explicitly how he voted. He didn't leave much else out, however, going into detail about his hurt feeling, anger and disappointment about what Joe had done. In other words, he fed into the predicate for punitive behavior--being angry and hurt, emotionally wounded by what had been done. Essentially, Merkley wagged his finger at Joe and said, boy you sure deserve to be punished but good, for what you did to us.
OK, so Merkley says he spoke, AP did but now makes no reference. AP does say he did not oppose Lieberman, which Merkley is oblique on as to whether he "opposed" Lieberman per se--since he won't say how he voted. Sanders will, and was one of the other members of that "opposition" group that AP subsequently removed Merkley from.
A stated vote not to retain is clear opposition, and while Pat Leahy won't reveal his vote he'd already said he thought Lieberman should not be retained, so the other two Senators both spoke out and made clear their No votes. The effect of AP's correction, then, is to explicitly state that Merkley was NOT in opposition to Lieberman, such that his opposition couldn't be compared to Sanders and Leahy, who'd said flat out they'd vote No. Which means their official version is either Merkley voiced support in the end, or remained mum on his direction.
We've got at least one new "better" Democrat in the Senate.
Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Pat Leahy, D-Vt., and Senator-elect Jeff Merkeley, D-Ore., spoke against allowing Lieberman keep the Homeland Security and Government Affairs post. Reid, Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and John Kerry, D-Mass., were among those speaking in his favor, according to a Democratic aide requiring anonymity to discuss a private meeting.
That would have been great, just great--and I bought it. I was totally surprised that a freshman like Merkley, who hasn't even cast a formal Senate vote yet--would stand up as part of a small minority and speak out against a senior Member. Out of my severe angst that this unbelievably poor candidate for the Homeland chair was renewed, I thought maybe there was some hope to draw out of it for the junior Senator from Oregon. I was all prepared to take my lunch break to write a glowing review of his stance, and suggest that perhaps Merkley indeed sported a pair.
(This version CORRECTS by DELETING Merkley from lawmakers who opposed Lieberman; Merkley did NOT oppose Lieberman.)
That might be disappointing enough, but Politico's report makes it even worse:
Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), John Kerry (D-Mass.) also spoke out in favor of Lieberman during the meeting, as well as Sens.-elect Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.), according to Democratic sources. [emph mine]
I want to give Merkley a chance to deny he spoke to spare Lieberman, or at least until there's another confirmation, given the confusion. But if true, it's disgusting--and validates many of the worst fears Oregon progressives had about whether he would immediately join the august club of flaccid wusses. You can order the appropriateness of the potential actions this way:
1) Speak out against, vote against
2) Say nothing, vote against
3) Speak out for, vote against
4) Say nothing, vote for
5) Speak out for, vote for
Again, if Politico's reportage is correct, Merkley either picked 5) or 3) -- and really, what would be the point of speaking for in public, and voting no in secret? So odds are he chose the worst possible position--supine, under the thrall of Lieberman's mysterious powers. I hope he gave you cab fare home after.
So wow, it took less than a month to start regretting having voted for him! Quick work there, Jeff.
Update, 4pm--TPM, among other outlets, is hearing talk from unnamed sources that the leadership will propose that Lieberman keep Homeland Security and lose a lesser subcommittee chair instead. My head says that nobody really knows anything until after the secret ballot--and it being secret, neither leadership nor Lieberman would have a way for direct retribution, which may free some to actually vote their conscience--but my heart says spineless capitulation will be the way the 111th Congress kicks off their duties. How will Senate Democrats actually take on our country's problems, if they can't even stand up to Joe Lieberman? Kee-reist.
I've just finished calling Senator Wyden, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and Senators-elect Jeff Merkley and Mark Warner* to register my comment that they should vote tomorrow to reward another deserving Senator with the plum Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, thus nor renewing the current Chair Senator Joe Lieberman. I would urge our readership to do the same.
Keener observers will see that I've framed the question somewhat differently than both the practical effect and the popular coinage of it--stripping Joe of the chair. Some might call it Lakoffian, but I think the color of that approach typically comes from reworking the truth until it's more sellable. This is, to me, pointing out a set of truths that are mostly being ignored in the popular discussion; ie, failing to sell an idea by not capitalizing on the best arguments regardless of salability.
The focus on the move being punitive is what keeps Lieberman's hopes alive, because it's a very difficult question to answer--"Wouldn't punishing a partisan rival be counter to the intent of the new Obama administration?"--if the move is seen as necessarily punitive rather than administrative or normally subjective.
Again, before we hit the fold: you have about 3 hours left of EDT today to get in a call before they close up shop in DC, and perhaps you can do your calls waiting for the bus or from a stoplight early in the morning when they'll already be open out there. Please contact at least Wyden and Merkley--who will get a vote as a member of the 111th caucus--before the vote tomorrow. OK, so more on where I think you should go in framing it in your comments, below.
*Some call as many Members as they can manage, but there is a big difference in attention paid to in-state constituents as opposed to those from other states. However, I lived in Virginia for 27 years and both voted for and enjoyed the term of Mark Warner, so I felt I might get a special dispensation. Relatedly, as Majority Leader I believe Reid should take calls seriously from all Americans.
Buried in a Huffington Post article this morning that otherwise seems to tread along the same currents of confusion and misinformation as most of the traditional media, is a blurb on the fate of Joe Lieberman that specifically references Senator-elect Merkley with regard to his and other new Senators' role in that decision--according to an unnamed Senate aide, the members of the new 111th Congress will be the ones determining what to do with the quasi-Democratic turncoat. Both the eventual involvement of Merkley--and his current reticence to say anything about it--show up in this excerpt:
Indeed, the lingering question surrounding Lieberman's fate is not so much if he will remain as committee chair, but who - if anyone - will vote for him to be stripped of this title. Obama, actually, will not have a vote on the matter. A Senate aide explains that the issue will be decided by "New Congress, new caucus, new members," meaning that the incoming class will have a voice in deciding Lieberman's fate but not the president or vice president elect.
Contacted by the Huffington Post, nearly every office of newly elected incoming Democrats said they either had not looked thoroughly enough at the matter, were deferring for the moment to Democratic leadership, or simply couldn't comment. Jeff Merkley of Oregon has expressed disappointment with Lieberman's campaign conduct, describing it as a "knife through my heart." But his office, too, said he wasn't taking a position on his soon-to-be colleague.
I'm not 100% reassured that this is the final word on how the vote will go down; there is a little bit of framing nonsense going on in some quarters regarding "caucus" vs "chairmanships," and I'm also seeing it occur between the actual, formal vote on reorgnization that happens in January--and the decisionmaking process next week that generally makes the January vote a pro forma exercise. Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio is apparently doing that dance with constituents in order to avoid having to talk about it now, apparently.
But this now being the second time I've seen the reference to Sens-elect being involved, the chance that Merkley will get a vote looks pretty good. Will he presage that vote for public consumption, or even tell us afterwards? Perhaps not. Is his comment about Lieberman's heartbreaking political treason ("knife in my heart?" Melodramatic much, Jeff?) an indication about his leanings? My guess is don't bet on it.
By the way, since I put a shiv in the MSM for their handling of the story so far, I should mention that Congressional Quarterly did a much better job than most yesterday, running down the ins and outs with good analysis.
In other Merkley-related news, the previously-imported spokesman for his general election race against Gordon Smith, Matt Canter, has packed his bags and headed for Georgia to become a spokesman for Senate challenger Jim Martin, who--with Begich and Franken now seemingly favored in their races--suddenly appears to hold the key to a 60-member-strong Democratic caucus if he wins his runoff election against noted GOP asshole Saxby Chambliss. Check it:
Obama is keeping 25 of his Georgia field offices open for Martin, leaving most of his in-state paid staff on the ground here and importing about 100 field operatives from Southern states to help Martin, according to Matt Canter, a spokesman for Martin’s campaign.
Other veterans of completed campaigns are also on their way or are already here, such as Canter himself, who was brought in to help with Martin’s press staff. Canter most recently helped Democrat Jeff Merkley defeat incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith last week in Oregon.
Kind of a slow news day--or at least I find nothing supremely compelling that I have the time to write up--but I'll share with you a press release from the Oregon AFL-CIO, pointing out that the aggressive campaign waged against Democratic candidates like Jeff Merkley for their support of labor was an utter failure. Groups like the US Chamber of Commerce tried to focus in on Merkley's support for the Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise known as "card-check," but voters weren't biting. From the release:
What did we learn from the results of last week's election? Voters soundly rejected the misleading anti-union corporate campaign opposing the Employee Free Choice Act and overwhelmingly backed candidates, like Jeff Merkley, who support working families.
The election results tell us a lot, but now we also have poll data that goes even further. A poll by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, commissioned by the workers' rights advocacy group American Rights at Work, shows that anti-union advertising was among the least important factors in determining voters' choices for U.S. Senate and that voters continue to support making it easier for workers to join unions.
{Comments from ARW head David Bonior, and a link to the poll, below the fold}
Here's something I didn't notice until today: according to Wally Edge at PolitickerOR (and admittedly no one else that I've found so far), Toby Forsberg is a leading contender to take over Kurt Schrader's state Senate seat in the wake of Schrader's elevation to OR-5 in the Big Boy Congress. In today's winners/losers writeup, both candidates from HD39 manage to make the good side:
In an infamous year of Democratic takeovers, the popular Republican Clackamas County Commissioner narrowly edges out Dem Toby Forsberg in the battle for Oregon City’s state representative seat.
Even when he loses he still wins. After losing to Bill Kennemer for state representative it looks like Forsberg will be appointed to state Senator Kurt Schrader’s vacant seat.
Should Schrader make it to congress the looming question is who will fill his vacant spot in the Oregon Senate? Oregon law mandates someone from the incumbent member's party be chosen, so we know it will be a Democrat. Names currently being thrown around include House Majority Leader Dave Hunt, County Commissioners Lynn Peterson and Martha Schrader (wife of the congressional candidate), and Democratic House candidate Toby Forsberg.
Since Clackamas county commissioners will make the initial decision which is then passed on to the governor's office, the idea of either Peterson or Schrader nominating themselves brings its own conflict of interest issues. Hunt is likely not going anywhere unless a revolt in his Democratic caucus surfaces and he loses his bid for the Speaker's gavel. Finally, Forsberg's name being mentioned suggests his House race against Commissioner Bill Kennemer is more of an uphill challenge than expected.
All of the discussion about sticky interest conflicts appears true--but it still seems odd that a first-time candidate who LOST his race would be rewarded with a Senate seat.
What do you think? Is Forsberg a likely choice? Is he a good choice? Who else in Clackamas should be considered, beyond the names above? I really think Peterson deserves a shot, conflict or not--but surely there are others. What about folks from Johnson City or Milwaukie, perhaps the forgotten side of District 20?
Analysis/commentary from Elections Chief John Lindback on this in a bit, but here are this morning's numbers, with more to trickle in. Almost 1.85 million Oregonians cast a ballot, representing 85.5% of the electorate--which rounds up to 86%, not shabby at all! The record is 86.5%, so 1.1% more is needed to exceed. As usual, sorry about the format. I found a cheap shareware tool that converts Excel to html, but as you can see it's not all that feature-laden...
Party
Returned
Eligible
Turnout %
Democrat
831,402
936,170
0.888
Republican
615,428
697,079
0.883
Nonaffiliated
327,536
432,861
0.757
Other
20,508
28,442
0.721
Constitution
2,024
3,009
0.673
Independent Party
34,384
41,790
0.823
Libertarian
10,226
13,812
0.74
Pacific Green
7,201
8,953
0.804
Peace Party
67
91
0.736
Working Families Party of Oregon
966
2,060
0.469
Grand Total
1,849,742
2,164,267
0.855
Analysis update, 130pm--
You might well ask yourself, "Self, how will we get past 86.5% with so few ballots remaining to process? (There are thousands out there that were sent in time, but to the wrong county--so they are valid votes, we just don't know how many in total, and where they come from.) The answer comes from addition via subtraction. According to Lindback:
I'm sure some of the larger counties have not processed their non-deliverable ballots yet. Those would be ballots mailed to voters who are no longer at their address and they were returned to the county. And they never showed up before election day to update their registration and get a ballot. That means they are "inactive" voters for this election. In some counties there are trays of non-deliverables that have not been processed fully in the voter registration system. As those are processed the number of active registered voters goes down and it means the voter turnout number goes up.
So the number of cast votes won't appreciably climb, but the number of ELIGIBLE voters will decline. Recalling our elementary math lessons, when you reduce the denominator of a fraction, the decimal ratio expressed by that fraction moves closer to 1 (ie, 100%). So for example, say there are 50,000 newly discovered inactive registrations. I don't know how many there will be, but let's use that. The total number of returns would go down to 2.11 million from 2.16--and that would be enough to kick the turnout to 87.4%--a roughly two-point increase. So if I still have my math hat on correctly, it would take about 25,000 of them to raise turnout by a point. Doable? Quoth Lindback, "possibly." Stay tuned.
Yesterday, you may recall a piece I did that ran down the results of the Leg races, working from the Oregonian's page and calls. In it, I cited The O's tabulation of 37 House Democrats, including a pickup in HD39 by Toby Forsberg for Wayne Scott's old seat. Over at Blue Oregon, Kari Chisholm was doing the same thing:
In HD 39, Toby Forsberg (D) defeated Bill Kennemer (R) 52-47% to capture the seat held by former GOP majority leader Rep. Wayne Scott.
Hooray! we both said. Democratic pickup!, we both said.
So imagine my zeal to correct fellow editor skywaker9 this morning, in his predictions post-mortem:
I missed 2 house races, both of which were very close. I projected that Adamson and Eberle would win and neither did. Forsberg appears headed to a narrow defeat as well, which is unfortunately predicted.
Au contraire!, I was ready to exclaim in a comment--it's 37 Dems, not 36. But before I did anything that might be embarrassing later, I checked back at the results page to make sure I wasn't hallucinating. Wouldn't you know it, now the check mark by Forsberg's name is gone, and it shows this:
Oregon House District 39 Toby Forsberg Dem.12,54449% Bill Kennemer Rep.12,74750% Write-in 710%
That's crazy close--just 203 votes--but quite obviously, not only would you not call the race for Forsberg at this time, he's now LOSING. Which makes The O's projection on him a touch premature, no?
I checked with Clackamas Clerk Sherry Hall this afternoon, and she confirmed that there are still votes left to tabulate there--the county results page shows 76% "turnout" while the state indicates a turnout of at least 83%. The question is how many of those are in the HD39 area, which comprises Canby and Oregon City. The answer is...
...they don't know. But it's not because they're not on top of things, but because the votes left to count are "special" ballots. Ms. Hall reported 16,532 ballots they call "second look," because there's some issue with them: a bad signature match, part of the ballot marked too poorly for the machine to read but with voter intent possible to discern, etc. On top of that, there are over 4,500 ballots from Multno and Washington Counties, mismailed by voters to the wrong clerk's office. (That's a lot for one election, she noted). Another 400 ballots are from other counties beyond the Portland metro. Because these are oddball ballots in some way, officials have no sense of what parts of the county they belong to--so there's no telling how many of them have HD39 votes on them.
Oh, and just to confuse you a little more, they have a different number than The O, updated at least once:
Aside from being a disappointment for Forsberg, his supporters and anyone who wants to see as many Dems in the House as possible, it's the cardinal elections sin to project a race and then have to un-project it. Whether it's calling the Presidency for Dewey or Florida for Gore, having to backtrack from a projection is cause for massive embarrassment at a news organization. I hope they're massively embarrased, anyway...
Earlier this morning the Oregonian called the last of the ballot measures for the 2008 cycle, projecting No votes on both Measure 61 (harsh crime bill) and Measure 64 (curtailing payroll deductions for political purposes). Both measures were nominally ahead in the hours after polls closed, and much like Gordon Smith held onto shrinking leads as ballots in more liberal areas were tallied.
And now like Gordon Smith, defeat must be their only sustenance--for the calls on 61 and 64 complete what may be an historic, epic defeat for not just the state Republican Party, but the conservative initiative movement that many say has plagued the state for well over a decade.
The principal losers were Bill Sizemore (64, among others) and Mannix (61, among others), and the fact that these two particular measures strongly embody each man's core values and legislative focus makes their defeat all the sweeter. Sizemore's raison d'etre has been hamstringing the political efforts of labor and public interest groups, and M64 was designed to cut the flow of funding, leaving them helpless to defend against Sizemore's future measures.
Mannix is a law and order guy, the hero of the criminal-industrial complex, and while he may take some solace in the passage of its desperately presented little brother M57, his crown jewel of incarcerative fury and expenditure has been rejected. And considering that the existence of M57 proved how easily state leaders thought M61 would pass without some counterbalance, the failure of M61 to even gain a majority--much less more votes than 57--must sting bitterly for Mannix.
Does this mean we're rid of these poxes on the polity? Of course not; I know for sure Sizemore already has 2010 measures going. What it does do, is help make an ever-easier case to voters that if it says Sizemore or Mannix, your vote should be NO. Both men were already on something of a losing streak; a couple of Sizemore's bills this year have appeared once or even twice before, and Mannix has recently been beaten by such electoral heavyweights as Ron Saxton and Mike Erickson. This utter, horrific, demoralizing and total defeat for both men stands to make them clear political pariahs, the Midas in Reverse Duo. Everything they touch turns to No! Couldn't happen to two nicer guys.
This is the diary I had hoped to be able to write Wednesday, but with the closeness of the Smith-Merkley US Senate race was happy enough to write a diary talking about the reasons why Merkley would win, as he indeed has. This diary serves as my review of the Oregon campaign, in what can, without a doubt, be described as the best cycle for Oregon Democrats and other progressive organizations in my lifetime. All of our goals were met and we beat back every single bad ballot measure to boot.
Near as I can tell, the Oregonian called this race for Merkley at 5:50pm local time. There's no article as of yet, but the big red check mark and the phrase "Jeff Merkley Wins Senate Seat" are there, so I'll assume they've made the call. :)
In a little speculative folly to flesh this diary out, once you're done looking at the Senate tabulations, click over to the President tab. Notice (first of all) how much Obama outperformed Merkley in several counties, winning some outright that Merkley could not. One of those is Jackson County, usually bright red (and where Smith is currently up by 7 points). But Obama narrowly won Jackson, and is all of 300 votes behind McCain in Deschutes County, home of the Transplanted California Republican. Two percent of the ballots are still outstanding there.
Could Obama win Deschutes? He probably doesn't have enough votes left, actually--but I still find it notable how close he came. Obama is also within 225 in Polk County, the more conservative sister of Benton County. Two percent remain there as well. And in Coos County, he's only down about a thousand with four percent remaining. All other counties look to stay the way they are now. In Oregon, as elsewhere, Obama successfully stretched the map. Merkley's failure to reproduce the feat is why we had to wait until now for the call.
But it's been made, Smith is gone. HOORAY! Now I can take that "Stop Gordon Smith" link down, eh? Congrats Senator-elect Merkley!
As it has for much of the year, the Presidential and Senate contests have sucked almost all of the oxygen out of the state legislative races, which featured a number of retirements and some strong challenges by the Democrats in their quest for 36--the number needed to pass revenue bills.
They did that and one better, according to the Oregonian, which currently shows a 37-23 advantage for the Democrats. Additionally, they have yet to call two other races where the Republican incumbent is ahead, but are operating from the premise that until they have conclusively lost, the seat stays in GOP hands.
Check out the results for yourself, but there are some stunners in there:
Brent Barton's win shocks me in some ways, because Flores was pretty darn popular among her base, and reliable to her caucus. Currently Barton stands almost 2,000 votes ahead with 55%. I saw an overwhelming number of Barton ads--maybe only Toby Forsberg had more that I saw--and not a single Flores ad or mailer.
Judy Stiegler's lead is also right around 2,000 votes, and she was given the nod by The O at 57%. Chuck Burley seemed vulnerable, but as with Barton I neither expected a win nor saw it being quite this easy.
Greg Matthews has a 2,300-vote edge over John Lim in HD50. Again, Lim looked vulnerable but I didn't expect to see him have his ass handed to him.
Speaking of Forsberg--whose ads I liked the best in the whole cycle with the exception of Novick's primary ads and Mark Hass's great McCall evocation--had a closer go of it with Bill Kennemer in the race to succeed Wayne Scott, but then again his district is a tougher one, still relatively red. I hoped he might squeeze it out, but I wasn't too optimistic. (I did think if he had a chance it was because he flooded the airwaves, and I suspect that may have played a role).
Beyond those four, the other two pickups at present are Suzanne van Orman in HD52, who I walked for this summer and who fairly well whomped "The Law" Lindland in an open seat get; and Nick Kahl, who won handily and erases the bad memories of the Karen Minnis era in HD49.
The two seats The O is not calling yet are in West Linn, where Scott Bruun leads by fewer than 800 votes with what looks to be about 10K or so remaining; and Sal Esquivel down in Jackson County, who leads Lynn Howe by just 7,000 votes, also with at least 10K apparently left to go. Jackson County used to be redder than red, but Obama actually WON it this time, and Merkley is running within a couple of points at the moment. I really have no way to tell how those races will go, since I don't know what precincts are left and what their electoral histories are. Maybe I'll ask some Bus people, see if they have any thoughts.
There are some disappointing results as well. Not all of these would Dems have been expected to pick up, and I certainly don't want to point any fingers (not yet)--but a few races looked winnable but turned out not to be:
Jessica Adamson didn't have enough gas to boot Matt "Screwdriver" Wingard from his oh-so-brief incumbency.
Jim Gilbert comes up just short, again. I wish he'd move; a lot of counties could use a great guy like him as their Rep.
Kevin Cameron wasn't challenged in the end by Hanten Day; it was thought that might be a potential pickup.
I was never optimistic about Brian Boquist and Vicki Berger, but some said they could have been vulnerable. They weren't.
I thought Mike Ahern might have a chance in HD59; he didn't.
So all in all, another great cycle for the Dems. As with 2006, perhaps it could have been even better--but I think this time the party actually did a little better than could have been expected. Kudos have to go to Michele Rossolo and FuturePAC, the main fundraising arm for Leg candidates. Let's have a productive 2009 session, eh? We've got the horses to do it.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
LO reader and 