John Minnis....John...Minnis...gosh, where have I heard that name before? Oh, I know I'm hearing it now, along with the rest of you, as the Attorney General's office has released the findings of its investigation into the (former) cop, (former) state legislator, and now (former) Department of Public Safety Standards and Training Director. It's a fairly interesting story, with the accused opting to resign immediately--rather than begin the parade of denials, walkbacks, confessions, political banishment and eventual political redemption we're used to.
If you're not totally up on things, here's the gist:
As first reported in last week’s WW, the issue that prompted Minnis to resign is the alleged sexual harassment and possible sexual assault of a female employee. Those allegations were the focus of a criminal investigation by the state Justice Department.
A letter (PDF) released today by DOJ chief criminal counsel Sean Riddell says prosecutors declined to pursue charges against Minnis because they can’t prove he broke any laws “in regards to his personal relationship with a particular employee under his supervision.”
However, Riddell’s letter to DPPST deputy director Eriks Gabliks notes Minnis “admitted to conduct that occurred outside of our jurisdiction that we do not have the authority to decline or accept prosecution.”
The DOJ forwarded a copy of its investigation to the San Diego Police Department and has offered to assist in that department’s ongoing investigation, Riddell’s letter says.
Minnis' quick goodbye suggests he understands that what happens in San Diego, does NOT necessarily stay in San Diego. But speaking of quick goodbyes, WWeek reports today that Minnis wasn't quite quick enough on the day the story broke, to avoid being confronted by an investigator for AG John Kroger:
While we were meeting [with other investigators] in the parking lot in front of the main building at DPSST, I received a phone call from [Deputy DPSST Director Eriks] Gabliks. He informed me that Minnis was moving personal items from his office and placing them in his private vehicle in the back parking lot of the building…Gabliks also informed me that he felt that Minnis was going to be leaving the building and that any effort to contact him should occur as soon as possible. I had obtained the number of Minnis’ cell phone and called him. When he answered, I identified myself and asked if he would make some time available for a meeting. Minnis said that he was already on the ‘highway’ and was unable to meet. I volunteered that we were currently in the front parking lot of the campus near the guard post and I believed he was still in the parking area at the rear of the building. At that time, Minnis became silent and I asked him to wait where he was until we could contact him. [We] drove to the back of the building and contacted Minnis at his vehicle.[emph mine]
I believe the proper term for this happenstance is, BUSTED! Sucks to tell a lie that's immediately verifiable as utter bullshit, I guess.
So that's what's going on now. But you might be forgiven if the name "John Minnis" and "sexual crimes" sticks in your memory for some reason. If you were a Loaded Orygun reader back during the 2006 election season, maybe your memory will be jogged by work done when Carla Axtman was still with us. Carla detailed Minnis' involvement in sexual assault allegations made against his brother Tuck, who worked at the pizza restaurant Minnis co-owned with his wife, former House Speaker Karen Minnis. For a quick recap:
In the girl's complaint (see pages 26-40), she alleges that John Minnis told her that "he could treat her any way he wanted because he was the employer." The girl further complained that she was forced to quit as they kept assigning her to late night shifts, ordering her to change her clothes on shift and off,setting rules for female employees that didn't apply to males and changing the girl's job description from hostess to cook--as well as treating her in a punitive and angry manner (anyone who watched Karen Minnis on KATU last night would totally buy this. Its obvious she's hella thin skinned).
Perhaps the part that rings the clearest bells, is the part where the Minnises quietly paid off their accuser to the tune of $20,000, despite claiming that they did not believe her story about Tuck. While professing innocence, Minnis nonetheless cut a deal and walked away. Sound familiar? The easy takeaway: for God's sake, don't let John Minnis hire you.
The announcement was official today, although is was a badly kept secret the final 24 hours: former goobernor John Kitzhaber will indeed run for a third (non-consecutive) term as Beav-Guv.
And just as quickly, the "listening tour" of potential Dem hopeful Brian Clem has gone on pause:
State Representative Brian Clem of Salem will announce his decision on whether he will run for Governor of Oregon this Thursday, September 3, in Portland. Rep. Clem has been conducting a statewide listening tour as he explores running for Governor, visiting communities across the state, sharing his vision for Oregon's future and hearing from everyday Oregonians how they feel we can best move our state forward.
He'll be dropping word (almost literally) from the third floor terrace of the Ecotrust Building in NW PDX, tomorrow at 10 AM if you like your race withdrawal announcements live and in living color. Is it 100% positive that Clem--who had already dropped some broad hints he wouldn't run if Kitz did--will be retrieving his hat from halfway inside the ring, where it's been while he crisscrossed the state listening? Of course not, but I'll buy you a Voodoo Donut if he stays in the race. I think you'll see the field clear with the exception of Bill Bradbury--who, by the way, also made some news by hiring Jeremy Wright as his campaign manager, albeit before actually formally announcing his run. Timing, schmiming! And finally, if you're starving for benchmark data on which to base the race the rest of the way, Survey USA did a run of favorability tests on various potential candidates, and just released them (h/t Blue O). Count me among those in the camp who find the results interesting, but not terribly instructive yet this far out--except that Alley and Bradbury need to learn how to open a bottle with their fingernails, or something, so they can acquaint themselves with the electorate.
With the expected announcement yesterday that Governor Kulongoski will sign two major tax bills needed to balance the Oregon budget, the battle to protect the Oregon budget from even further disastrous cuts has begun. These measures will raise taxes on the wealthiest Oregonians and on corporations (who had been paying a $10 minimum last adjusted in 1929!). The Oregon GOP has made it perfectly clear that getting these tax measures referred to the ballot is their #1 priority and so it will therefore serve as a test of how far they have fallen. Given OR's history of rejecting such increases, a rejection of them this time would not necessarily indicate GOP strength but if they are upheld the OR GOP could truly be in for a long time in the wilderness.
Happy day! I regret that I had to be informed of this by national progressive columnist David Sirota, who got the word from the national Working Families Party, whose Oregon affiliate was the spur behind restoring fusion voting in the state, but I'm happy to echo the news. Jeff Mapes had the story last evening, while I was out lubricating my throat with friends:
The governor has decided to sign the bill despite the opposition of officials from his own Democratic Party, who think it gives minor parties too much sway. Anna Richter Taylor, the governor's spokeswoman, said Kulongoski was primarily interested in repealing the 2005 law, which he had signed with reservations at the time because he was concerned it was too onerous on non-affiliated candidates.
The measure now on the governor's desk, Senate Bill 326, also allows candidates to list the nomination of more than one political party on their ballot line. The process is known as fusion voting, and it gives minor parties a new tool to use to gain political power.
Instead of just running their own candidates, minor parties can now offer what amounts to an endorsement that will be the last thing voters will see before casting their vote.
The law that SB 326 repeals said that only voters who had not participated in the Democratic or Republcian primaries - or the nomination process of a minor party - can sign a petition to put an independent on the ballot.
Mapes gives the basic details, but doesn't really highlight what the changes could mean for the future of electoral politics in Oregon. The link above for nat'l WFP has several links at the bottom to educate you on the concept of fusion, which is something Oregon actually used to have 100 years ago, as a national leader in populist voting forms. They do a good job explaining how fusion can give smaller parties and single-issue groups greater ability to leverage their democratic power.
The bill that the Governor signed features a version popularly known as "fusion-lite," because it places multiple endorsing parties on a single ballot line. In other words, it might say "Jeff Merkley (Democrat, Working Families), or Jason Atkinson, (Republican, Libertarian. Constitution), but still with each candidate getting only one line. This is good for voters, to know where the minor parties stand, but it would not have any quantifiable impact on the race--how would we know whether the listing of minor parties made a difference or not?
"Full" fusion, something I hope we will eventually move toward, allows the same candidate to appear on multiple ballot lines. So instead of one line with multiple parties, there'd be one line for each party, and the name of their endorsed candidate on that line--even if it was the same name as that of another party. After the election, all votes are tallied by party, and then summed by candidate to determine a winner.
The advantage to that is obvious: if you know that 10% of the winning candidate's votes came from the IPO or Libertarians or whomever, that's an easy-to-understand reflection of the party's electoral influence--and thus gives the candidate an opportunity to know what issues and causes are important to a significant bloc of the voters that put him or her in office. THAT is when you'll see the dynamic shift, and bring power to minor party members--but this is a good start.
I think the indy-candidate repeal is good policy, but it stands to have less immediate impact. It's great that they can more easily collect signatures to put indies on the ballot, but nothing will change until indies become truly competitive candidates. And that will always take three things in this state: money, money--and also money. Had Ben Westlund made it onto the ballot, would he have won or done anything more than potentially spoil the election for one of the major candidates? Not without the kind of funding that nonaffiliated or small-party candidates just can't muster, typically. But as I said, it's the right thing to do to remove a power-grubbing law from the books, to benefit all Oregonians.
It's extremely disappointing to hear about the supposedly enlightened and liberal Democratic Party of Oregon fighting to keep these laws off the books seek a veto of a bill they just passed. It makes them look petty, short sighted and insecure about their status, when as I said their monetary and incumbency advantages give them little to worry about in the short to medium term. I'm pleased that the Governor took the opportunity to buck his party and do what was right (and OK, what his deputy CoS was probably pressing him on nonstop since the bill's surprise passage). Hooray for democracy with a little d!
Fruit exporters in Washington, Oregon and California have been in negotiations with Japan for years to allow cherry imports without requiring the fruit to be fumigated for codling moth. Growers in the U.S. have argued the pest is not a problem for cherries.
Japan agreed on Thursday to allow cherries from orchards that use traps to control the pest, rather than fumigate for it. Fumigation tends to shorten the cherries' shelf life, so growers have typically shipped them by air. Under the new rules, growers should be able to export more cherries in the future by ship, which is less expensive.
"It's a big deal, not so much because of the volume, but because of the fruit quality," said Jim Archer, manager of Northwest Fruit Exporters, a nonprofit trade group that represents apple and cherry packers and shippers in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. "Fumigation takes a toll on the fruit quality, and it does not have as good a shelf life." The traps use pheromones to attract the moths then catch them with a sticky material.
As someone who considers the July weekend when he and the rest of the Joes go to Hood River to pick cherries to be one of the highlights of the year, I'm excited for our growers. More exports means more financial stability for the orchards, which means they'll be around for me next year, and the next, and the next. I just hope they grow enough for the locals, too.
As promised, Oregon Republican Chairman Bob Tiernan on Tuesday launched a radio commercial accusing Gov. Ted Kulongoski of "intentionally delaying" his signing of two tax bills to make it harder for opponents to refer them to the ballot.
The radio spot, running on five stations in the Portland market and two others downstate, seizes on an issue that has been closely followed on conservative talk radio and in blogs. The governor has until Aug. 10 to sign bills while opponents have until Sept. 25 to gather enough signatures to place the two tax bills before voters (they need just over 55,000 valid signatures for each measure).
Anna Richter Taylor, Kulongoski's spokeswoman, reiterated that the governor is not delaying on signing the bills. "That's a false accusation," she said. "He's not sitting on it."
She said the governor will follow his usual process in handling the flood of bills at the end of the session and will probably sign the bills next week.
Frankly, what if he WERE sitting on it? Totally his perogative, and with "pocket activity" based on elapsed time since passage, clearly the timing of a signing or vetoing action is part of the job, and part of a governor's powers. For a bill that the GOP seems to think is a slam dunk for repeal in a referendum, why the whining about how much time they'll have? That doesn't sound like exuberant confidence. A better radio ad? "Wait all you want, Governor--Oregonians have already made up their minds to send your tax bill packing." But that's not the way the Party of Boo-Hoo rolls, I guess.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski followed through today on his threat to veto the $6 billion public school budget because it claims too much of a state reserve fund.
The Democratic governor also vetoed a line item in a related budget that took $200 million from the reserve fund and applied it to the schools budget.
The moves set up a showdown with the Democratically controlled legislature, which could try to override the veto this week as it tries to bring an end to the 2009 Legislature.
The O goes on to say that a veto is mathematically plausible given the high number of passing votes in both houses--but given the chance to look relevant, the Republicans may seize the moment and try to scuttle the override, and get another crack at the budget apple with the pressure on to pass SOMETHING so they can go home.
There's more subtext going on here however, I think. I wish I could hat tip the idea, but now I've forgotten where I saw this concept broached--the issue of the reserves is one with strong implications for the survival of the tax package the Legislature passed earlier in the session.
The theory goes that if there are significant reserves--such as the $400 million Kulongoski proposes maintaining--then those monies will become a football in any referral of the corporate/high income tax restructuring to the voters. In other words, why would you vote for a tax when the Leg is sitting on $400 million?
It's not a very sophisticated argument obviously, but as we saw in the 2007 session on Measure 61/57, the Democratic leadership tends to run preemptively scared of what might happen to their bills in the hands of the voters. (And we're paying for that trepidation on M57, this session).
Even the $200mil figure is a comeback from the original intent to leave NO reserves vulnerable, so that shows you how scared they are of having it become a bargaining chip. The GOP loves these dumbass kinds of attack, so I have to agree an override is by no means automatic here.
A reader reminded me that there is now polling out on our new President and Senator in Oregon to go with regular updates on our current Upper Houser and Goobernor. I'm glad he reminded me, because they've been out for almost three weeks now--and while I'm not denying any existed, I sure can't find any mention of the results as published by Survey USA on March 27th.
Regular LO readers will recognize the formats; they're the same questions repeated generally every month for the Governor and Senate offices in the state, as well as the President. They're not very good for embedding, because the crosstabs are long and the simple pie chart is not interesting. But I'll link them, and you can peruse them to your heart's content.
We'll start with President Obama, who won handily with 57% of the vote in Oregon, not shabby but not among his best states, either (Washington gave him 58% for instance). We'll call his support solid, at least in late March: he currently has a 62% job approval rating, with just 31% dissenting. Two thirds of women approve, as do two thirds of young voters.
Even Republicans in Oregon are relatively hip to Obama; he has a 30% approval rating with self-identified GOPers. Indies are favorable at 56%, but are notably warier than Democrats. Liberals in particular are ga-ga, 97% approve. (As a fairly left liberal I'd have to say boiled into a single answer I'd respond with "approve" as well, but I feel definite sympathy with the 2%--especially on the handling of Wall Street and Bush torture.) Moderates approve at a 65% clip, and his appeal is essentially the same whether you answered in Portland or anywhere else in the state.
So the honeymoon's still on in Oregon for BO; he won the state easily and has retained some new admirers it seems. In the face of a severe state recession it will be interesting to see how long that approval lasts at 60%+ levels.
The organizing dispute between United Farm Workers and the Boardman feedlot of Beef Northwest threatens to cause significant and lasting disruption to a nascently flowering subcategory across any number of perishable products--local, identifiable source meat, dairy and produce. As we told you somewhat flippantly last week, Oregon Natural Beef--a cooperative of ranchers in 15 states but concentrated in the Northwest--is a sustainable producer that supplies beef for Whole Foods and New Seasons, as well as the Burgerville chain. They're a great part of the urban-rural link that is creating a stronger bond between Oregonians.
Or they have been until now. The whole bitter and really unfortunate dispute is laid out here in a long piece at The Oregonian, which has done a nice job following a story that has serious implications not only east of the Cascades but up and down the coast in three states. The heck of it is that because ONB is a co-op and they pool resources, all cattle go for three months to the same feedlot in Boardman...run by Beef Northwest. And because they're concerned for the animals, separating the head for Whole Foods to go somewhere else is unfair to the cattle. So Whole Foods is threatening to cut their relationship with the whole cooperative, because they can't upset UFW over the feedlot.
The question in the labor dispute is the process to determine the workers' desire in regard to unionization. Both the Farm Workers and Beef Northwest claim there has been undue influence over workers' opinion ("Feedlot fight hurts beef supplier," June 3). The union claims it has cards signed by a majority of the workers requesting representation. The company has a petition initiated and signed by a majority of workers indicating opposition to representation. The ranching families of Country Natural Beef and our longtime retail partners are, to quote Steve Witte of United Farm Workers, "collateral damage in this dispute."
Country Natural Beef and most of our retail partners held a conference call on May 27 and agreed to this statement: "The family ranchers of Country Natural Beef and our retail partners strongly and passionately support the right of any employee of BNW to be or not to be represented by a union, whichever is the desire of a majority of the workers. We are unanimous in our agreement that it is critical for a fair process to begin immediately to determine the will of the workers at Beef Northwest. [The company] and UFW have been unable to agree on what is fair, and Oregon has no farm-labor legal process to resolve this impasse."
The union has brought extreme pressure on retailers carrying Country Natural Beef in an effort to leverage Beef Northwest into contract negotiations.
Dueling press releases out a few moments ago in quick succession:
In less than two weeks we'll be voting. Oregonians will make a decision which will impact the rest of our lives. The stakes cannot be higher, which is why I am standing with Hillary Clinton's challenge to hold two presidential debates - one on rural issues - right here in Oregon. Oregon deserves just as much attention - and just as much information to make its decision - as Iowa, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.
Join me in signing a petition calling for two presidential debates in Oregon. Debates about real issues - Oregon issues - are good for the state and healthy for our democracy.
Tomorrow I will be touring the state talking about a new Oregon Compact - Hillary's promise to our state to have a partner in the White House. The Compact is made up of some of the most important ideas Hillary has heard from Oregonians since the start of her campaign.
The Compact should be the starting point of the debate. How we bring green collar jobs to our state, how we make our state and nation more energy secure and how we will work together to bring health care to all Oregonians.
I could not be more proud to support a candidate who not only will work for Oregonians, but who will also listen to Oregonians. No matter which candidate you support, I hope you will join me in calling for two presidential debates on the issues in Oregon.
We need to hear the candidate's views on Oregon issues - sign the petition today...
Earlier today the Oregon Senate approved SB 1080, legislation that will help prevent identity fraud in Oregon by tightening the requirements to receive Oregon driver's licenses and identification. SB 1080 will require the Department of Motor Vehicles to verify social security numbers with the U.S. Social Security Administration before issuing an Oregon driver's license, identification card, or driver's permit.
"The lax standard of driver's licensing in Oregon has made our state a target for criminal organizations and more vulnerable to identity fraud," said Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson (D-Gresham). "We took a stand for high standards for state documentation today."
Yeah, sure you did. What you actually did was:
Put thousands of unlicensable drivers on the roads
Put ALL Oregonians and other drivers in the state at risk of accidents involving unlicensed, uninsured drivers
Further pushed the undocumented community underground, making identification of that community much harder--which of course makes responding to the now-hidden but still existing impacts of undocumented residents that much more difficult
Succumbed to the perception of a losing issue for Democrats, despite the fact that harsh anti-immigrant sentiment has utterly failed to capture the American electorate, and without any attempt to respond to distorted perspectives on the issue
This was expected of course, but it's still frustrating--more of the preemptive capitulation of Democrats we typically see in the US Congress, on the basis of stoked political fears rather than an honest evaluation of the issue.
This quote is particularly upsetting:
"Respect for the rule of law is the foundation of our government," said Sen. Joanne Verger (D-District 5), a member of the Transportation Committee, "These conditions are common sense requirements that will protect the public safety and security of our neighborhoods."
Rule of law? WTF? What law says the DMV has to become Homeland Security? What law says the state has to do the federales' job? What suggests this law will do anything other than encourage MORE disrespect for the rule of law, by those now denied the opportunity to drive and pursue a livelihood?
Boo. I look forward to Speaker Merkley completing this pathetic dance, towards screwing the thousands of legitimate Oregon residents who will struggle mightily to produce the required documents. Boooooo.
Seems the Governor's plan to allow liquid natural gas terminals on the Oregon coast, for piping imported LNG inland, isn't being met with universal approval:
Democratic Attorney General hopeful John Kroger announced his opposition to the terminals, which would turn imported hyper-cooled fuel into natural gas, pumped through pipelines into Oregon’s pipeline network.
“This is a time when we’re trying to reduce our dependence on foreign fossil fuels. Importing a lot of natural gas from overseas just doesn’t make sense,” he said.
Last Wednesday in Forest Grove, Secretary of State Bill Bradbury announced that he opposes the proposals as well. Speaking at Pacific University at a national global warming event, Bradbury said that building up “LNG” infrastructure was 180 degrees from where Oregon should go for future energy needs.
Paul Sansone, who owns a tree farm near Gales Creek, asked Bradbury when he’d speak out against the projects. Bradbury said he’d join protesters at a Feb. 6 rally at the Oregon capitol.
“I’ll be there,” Bradbury told the crowd of about 100. “I’m with you on this one.”
Not to be outdone, Steve Novick was at that rally, and delivered a speech with strong questions for the project developers. More on that below the jump...
{more}
Like most of you apparently, I'm really freakin' excited about the race that is down to just two on each side, and the major Super-Dee-Dooper Tuesday contests coming on...Tuesday. The big prize is obviously California, where Clinton saw a strong lead evaporate late, but where early voting provides a solid anchor. Were Obama to win that state's majority of delegates--and he can do so while losing the statewide popular vote, as it's done by Congressional District--it would be a major body blow to Clinton, who could still recover in some eastern industrial states a couple weeks later, but who might well find herself sucked into the undertow of Barack's Giant Hawaiian Wave.
So I'm trying to see where things stand this weekend, particularly in the Latino community that fairly quickly has assumed a huge role in state politics, especially Democratic primaries. Clinton had long been favored overall by Latinos in California, but this past week a couple of influential news personalities and papers came out for Obama. One of them is La Opinion, and you can read the English version of their endorsement editorial.
What struck me as I read the endorsement was the primary way in which the paper distinguished the two candidates, and it was on some of the more nuanced treatments of the current reality on undocumented aliens:
[W]e were disappointed with [Clinton's] calculated opposition to driver's licenses for the undocumented, which contrasts markedly from the forceful argument in support made by Obama. We understand that this is an extremely controversial issue but we believe there is only one right position and it is that of the senator from Illinois. And, while both senators support comprehensive immigration reform, only Obama has committed to bringing forward new legislation during his first year in office.
It is this commitment to the immigration issue which drove Obama to condemn the malicious lies made during the immigration debate, to understand the need for driver's licenses, and to defend the rights of undocumented students by co-authoring the DREAM Act. The senator has demonstrated character by maintaining his position despite the hostile political climate.
Driving and your kid's educational future are pretty weighty matters in any community, but they are much less taken for granted in the Latino community. In Florida and much of the Southwest where Latino populations are strongest, public transportation is either not there or too impractical to handle the distances or the timing. If you don't drive, for a lot of people you don't work.
And having your kid get an American education and make something of himself--again, universal, but in the Latino community a key anchor for strengthening the family economically. If your choice is between the candidate who won't give you a license and isn't so sure your otherwise worthy kid should go to public college on in-state rates even though they've lived in-state nearly their whole lives--and the other candidate IS sure, and WILL give you the licenses...how hard a choice is that?
Maybe early endorsements are not such a great idea. When Rep. Hooley and Gov. Ted endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2007, the campaigns were just getting started.
Bill Clinton was nowhere in sight.It looked like Rudy was a sure thing for the Republican nomination.
Now, unfortunately, everything has changed - and not in a good way.
Rep. Hooley and Gov. Ted - it's time to pull you support from Hillary Clinton.
With all the news rolling in about the latest endorsements for Democratic U.S. Senate primary contenders Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley, one can only wonder what the old-guard establishment types like Chuck Schumer, the AFL-CIO honchos and Ted Kulongoski will say to Novick on Wednesday, May 7.
In a recent interview with Washington goobernatioral candidate Dino Rossi, Lars Larson directed a reference to the 2nd Amendment specifically at Governor Kulongoski and Portland mayor Tom Potter. Here's the clip {mp3}, and here's the transcription as near as I hear it--see what you think:
Larson: The history in Oregon right now and Washington I think is the same, the people pass a ballot measure, say "Don't do this" and the government goes ahead and says "we're doing it anyway." Or the people say "Do this." I mean, a few years ago the state - the people said we want to have - be able to drive seventy miles an hour on the appropriate roads. The state legislature passed the law, told the D.O.T. "Find the appropriate roads to drive seventy on." The D.O.T. came back and said "You know what, we've decided none of them is safe to drive seventy on, we're not gonna do it." I mean, that - if I were governor I would fire the head of D.O.T. and just start firing levels of government until I got to the people who said "Ok, we understand who's the boss. The people are the boss."
Rossi: "...and that's basically the arrogance of government once they've been in power for so long. They figure they're bullet-proof and they can be arrogant. The people are oftentimes nuisances, and, that get in the way if they don't agree with their policies. And those are some of the things, that, that we had talked about in 2004 - changing the culture of state government. And that's a complete and total change of culture if you move away from that."
Larson: "Well, you know, Dino we appreciate you coming on. We're going to have you back on as you move towards a decision on that. And of course we always like to remember that the Founding Fathers put something very important in place for governments who decide that the people are a nuisance: it's called the 2nd Amendment.
Rossi (background): "Yeah, that's true."
Larson:"And ultimately, people in government had best remember that - including people like Ted Kulongoski and mayor Tom Potter. Dino, thanks for coming on."
I've not been a big fan of the goobernor's position on REAL ID and the general issue of driving privileges and their connection to federal immigration. For one thing, he's apparently for it, having tried to push state implementation of it through the legislature. Thank goodness for the Senate on that one; Mike Schaufler and the House passed Ted's will on the bill.
Secondly, refusing to take Homeland Security's crappy mandate is neither a highly partisan nor terribly vanguard-ish kind of move--considering that according to the ACLU, seventeen legislatures have rejected implementation, with seven of them making a point to refuse to, one of them being Montana. (By the way, if you're not convinced what a hunk of crap REAL ID is, ACLU has a great page of info. So it's actually kind of feeble to try to pass it through Oregon, especially considering as ACLU notes that Congress has blocked funding of it and is still pushing back the drop-dead date for compliance.
But this IS Oregon, which has a fairly virulent strain of anti-immigrant sentiment among its electorate, and I think that's made Ted skittish. I think it's ridiculous that somehow undocumented aliens are wreaking havoc on our roads, any more than old people or folks with multiple DUIs on their record...at worst. And that's where the xenophobes want to direct your attention--dirty Mexicans getting more state "freebies" and causing a river of blood on our highways, killing our precious white children.
{more}
Kulongoski and former Gov. Barbara Roberts will serve as co-chairs of Merkley's campaign, largely ceremonial positions but a clear boost to Merkley's chances.
"Jeff's leadership is just what we need in the U.S. Senate," Kulongoski said in a news release sent by the Merkley campaign. "He's tenacious, he's principled."
The announcement will help cement Merkley's claim as the choice of Oregon's Democratic establishment to take on Republican incumbent Sen. Gordon Smith.
Yeah, no doubt it will cement his claim--and quite probably affect the reality positively for Merkley as well.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
Rrroowf!