I don't know that Democrats are on any more solid ground than the Republicans, especially here in Oregon. Let's face it, the face (pun intended) of Oregon Democrats is Neil Goldschmidt. His financial dealings prove someone like Doyle to be the rawest of amateurs. And, despite having committed both civil and criminal offenses, I don't believe Goldschmidt has ever been disciplined at all. (Even now, after acknowledging rape of a child, his law license appears to be safe.)

An argument can be made that politicians often line their pockets at the expense of the public, and, get away with all sorts of wrongdoing, but I doubt it can be made based on partisanship. Power corrupts.

Diva's right about corruption littered throughout political divisions (and often concentrated in the middle - after all, Neil was a Clintonesque moderate, masterfully working all sides to a lucrative middle).

But that doesn't mean we just sweep things under the rug and promise the electorate that a bright new day is around the corner. They aren't going to buy it. Both parties are long overdue for some serious purges.

Mac: The bar started an investigation into Goldschmidt last year, the investigation ended when Goldschmidt surrendered his bar license.

Here's a current problem...Peter Courtney and the sexual harassment at WOU.

http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050128/NEWS/501280374

Again, I am not sure if the Peter Courtney situation compares... It might show him to be insensitive and inappropriate, but it is quite different from blatantly stealing or trashing voter registration cards.

<h1></h1>

Exactly what Jeff Alworth said, that shifting the blame from named persons to 'the system' (of government) is the tactic's purpose most used by the side with the majority of blame, offenses, indecency, crimes, and sins -- the rightism side. (And I can share my reading source in the psychiatric literature where I draw this p.o.v. and such description from, only it has to wait until I can get back here to it. Suffice to say, works in process in the 'new' neuro-psych field -- new in the few years since the in situ brain imaging has provided 'pictures of thinking' -- are studying differences in self-identified leftists and rightists or behavioral profile-scored leftists and rightists. Brains of liberals and conservatives are developed differently, and might even be different to begin with, innately ... which is subject matter for wider treatment because of its strong gasp-and-denial factor -- 'Are R's and D's brains built different?, news at 11:' Sound bites are not going to satisfy for this one. Wait, there's 'worse,' in the new neuro-psych field. The 'pictures of thinking' have investigators poring through them looking for the 'seat of the soul,' the locus of endowed divinity in humans; results so far have not found God's chambers but there are neural connections which can conduct 'thoughts' that trigger the release of a chemical neurotransmitter, or brain juice, which evokes statements of 'feeling love' -- those are my summary terms of it, to convey the drift of where research is moving and in that, to alert readers how intractable some topics may be in what I've labelled the 'gasp-and-deny' realm. Saying God is love and love is brain juices, is as excommunicable as saying the world is round once was. Compared with saying rightists' brains squirt brain juices different from leftists' brains makes the implications of political partisanship in neuroanatomy seem trifling.)

Anyway, rock-ribbed conservatives, moreso than bandwagon opportunist conservatives, tend (statistically) to have less social compunction and more wayward self-behaviors. Scientifically speaking. Look, rightists are demented, all right? It's the same thing being said in calling conservatives idiots, or saying they constrict their sources of information to a bubble of lies and surreality, except that the scientific-fact stickler way of speaking puts it in terms of logically concluded proof despite the common sense that sees there is no way of speaking that can impart information to a mindset predetermined not to follow free inquiry wherever it leads. Conservatism defies community interest and is sooner to appropriate illicit means, and that is enough to know, I suppose, regardless how one understands it to be so.

In other respects, what else Jeff says -- that "corruption ... comes in many forms" -- I see in a simpler fashion. Namely, 'three' forms rather than 'many' forms, and this is my thinking. We (humans) can only be corrupt in our motivated behaviors, not in our person. (The body is beautiful, godly, and only its misuse is evil. Or, per Frank Zappa, "What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose. Some say your toes. I say it's your mind.")

There are three primary human motivations, and others are variations and extensions of the three. There is a correspondence with three primary neurotransmitters: dopamine, serotonin, and norepenephrine. And without any of this context, Harry Truman explained it all with only a liberal arts' sensibility when he said: "I read all the books in the Independence City Library. And it seems to me, down through history, great men have fallen for only three reasons -- money, sex, or power."

(I thought about that for more than ten years before I figured out what 'power' is. I thought money was power. Or sex was power. Although Kissinger said, "Power is the greatest aphrodisiac." People say knowledge is power. Nope, nope, nope. Mao got it right: "Power proceeds out the barrel of a gun." Power is the substantiation to end life, to kill; regardless whether it is instant and illegal, such as gunfire, or protracted and enstated, such as incarceration for life. Same, same. Power is when someone says 'Oh yeah, you and whose army is going to make me?,' and the reply of power is 'My army.')

Anyway, it is in the rightist brain that there is less sanction for asocial behavior and, so, conservatives break the law more often. Not necessarily more extensively, they don't have the patent on depravity. But they have more practice.

Politics is not intrinsically corrupt. Politicians are. For example, take the Oregon Republican Party, please.

<h1></h1>

Kari says, ""Also, I think there's a key difference between official, willful corruption........""

Anything Rep. Doyle has done deserves to be punished.

However it pales in comparison to the "official", "willful" "corruption" which, in the face of universal opposition, is delivering outcomes like South Waterfront and other pocket lining schemes in the City of Portland.

Oh please Schopp get off you high horse. I've never seen someone so upset over developing an industrial wasteland into a new neighborhood. You upset that the deal for SW is going to keep OHSU from developing in the suburbs? Or that a boat load of Lake Oswego Money is going to invest in the high density housing. Or Portland gets 3 or 4 new parks and a cleaned up mile of waterfront? The new bike and pedestrian connections maybe? Or are you just a fan of storage facility architecture. Change sure is scary. Anyone doing anything you don't have the capacity to understand have to be bad guys, right Schopp? Please offer something other then complaints.

I don't have time to beg my entries about James McGreevey and Jack Ryan back from Blogger at the moment. (My archives are damn near unsearchable.) But, let me take a moment to say that, yes, I treat serious wrongdoing the same regardless of the party of the politician. It is the acts that matter, not the party label. And, I walk my talk. I did not vote for David Wu partly for that reason.

The child abuse occurred years ago, but that is not all that I am referring to with Goldschmidt. He has been lining his own and his friends' pockets at society's expense for decades. His machinations with PGE alone should be enough to give people pause. I didn't live in Oregon when Goldschmidt supposedly did so much good. But, I have read enough to know that his major goal appears to be to do well -- quite a different matter.

Tim, I like your comments, too. My quick and dirty take is to say that the societal elite is the societal elite, regardless of political party. (Indeed, it is easy to change political party. Let us not forget that much of the GOP's leadership was Democrat -- or perhaps Dixiecrat -- before the overwhelming success of the Southern Strategy.) The elite gets away with all kinds of wrongdoing and society picks up the tab. I can't see excusing the Democrats among them. They are just as much in the wrong as the Republicans. When I blogged Goldschmidt's peccadillo and was very critical of him, some of my readers wrote in to say I should have given him break. Ditto for Wu. I disagree.

Discussing politics and corruption currently would not be complete without a reference to Bernard Kerik. I think his experiences -- lying, cheating and stealing at every turn -- are not all that atypical of people who get ahead in life. I will leave it to Tenskwatawa to provide the psychological theory, but there is something about succeeding in our capitalist society, at least, that results in reprehensible behavior. That something crosses party lines.

Let's get serious. First of all, I hear from an old friend with Republican connections that Mann is angry because a)he helped Doyle get elected in the first place how many elections ago, and considered Doyle a friend b)although he has done political consulting, Red Cell was set up by Mann specifically to do security consulting work and he was furious to learn his non-political company was listed on a C& E report. Sounds to me like part of the scandal may be that Doyle used "friends" and those who knew Mann may be even less inclined to support Doyle in his time of trouble if this is the way he treats friends.

Second, why did Minnis. or for that matter the SJ editorial board which said recently "Despite his dismal record, the editorial board reluctantly endorsed Doyle for re-election over his inexperienced opponent. Oregonians -- from district voters to Minnis -- counted on Doyle to clean up his act." take Doyle at his word? Why didn't they verify whether he had cleaned up his act--too arrogant to think they could possibly make a mistake?

Why is Future Pac still in business? They're the ones who didn't think House District 19 was any concern to Democrats and did not target that district in the election. Had Doyle lost re-election, this would be a different story. With no outside help, Grisham got 44% against Doyle. What genius thought that wasn't an important election? Why should independent minded people belong to a political party if groups like Future Pac make such dumb decisions and treat residents of the actual districts like pawns in powerplay chess?

Maybe it is time to go back to the old system where every legislative race is run by people in the district, not by taking orders from a caucus. Or is that too radical an idea to go back decades to a time when the caucus was not saying "Hey! This worked in a race in another county, so of course it will work in your district--we know that without visiting your district or talking to anyone who is registered to vote there!"

Christy is right. I read the article indicated, and noticed that the biggest complaint against Courtney was that he was rude and apparently gave the complainant the brushoff.

That is far from the first time any WOU official treated a student that way on a variety of issues including campus red tape about getting into a program, satisfying requirements, etc. I certainly have stories about such problems when I was a grad student(including when a prof. tried to dump one person out of a required class in the 1980s to give that slot to another person)---and a story about going to Courtney's office in whatever job he had in the late 1980s with a written chronology. Courtney said "Good. You have that documented. Someone was in here yesterday with a similar story but no documentation". In my case I was trying to get into a particular education program and it took weeks for my documents to get from one office on campus to another in a different building. Talk about red tape!

There is a considerable problem with male authority figures and unsuspecting students. You may have heard about a problem in Salem. The school board ignored complaints of inappropriate conduct of a teacher toward minor students. Recently legislators met with school officials about that.

Salem school leaders meet, talk with legislators

A teacher facing sex charges is discussed at informal hearing DANA HAYNES Statesman Journal January 28, 2005

Six area lawmakers met with Superintendent Kay Baker and members of the Salem-Keizer School Board this week to discuss labor negotiations and the district's responses to a teacher who pleaded guilty to sex abuse.

Rep. Vicki Berger, R-Salem, called the informal hearing. Among those in attendance were House members Billy Dalto, Kim Thatcher and Betty Komp, and Sens. Peter Courtney and Jackie Winters, all of whom represent portions of the Salem-Keizer School District. <<

Lastly, anyone who has ever known Courtney knows the reason reporters love to use his soundbites is that he is known for being blunt and brusque. But the last I heard that is not a crime.

Reporting money on a C & E when there is no record the money went where the C & E says it went is very likely a crime.

Cab says, """"Anyone doing anything you don't have the capacity to understand have to be bad guys, right Schopp?""""

Oh yes Cab, the only problem in South Waterfront is I just can't understand it. Your post could have been more foolish and you more ignorant of the facts. I suspect you either know nothing of the issue or you are a development participant sickened by the public's emerging universal oppostion to the whole rotten thing. With your calling the prime river front property a "wasteland" I say you are a participant. And as dishonest as anyone involved. Why don't you rally the public in support of South Waterfront. Start a neighborhood or citywide petition.
And if you think OHSU is "developing" anything they promised in the way of Biotech and jobs then you are even more of a fool. While you are at it why don't you promote the Tram and Convention Center Headquarters Hotel, more tax abatements, and expansions of Urban Renewal and the PDC. I don't understand those either. But with help from the likes of you explaining things I'm sure everyone can learn a lot. So go ahead let's hear it.

Is the Waterfront Project all that corrupt? We have to do something with the space, right? Otherwise it will become (or stay) a waste of prime real estate. And something should go there that brings the city some revenue, right? So, then, the problem is that deep-pockets have been lobbying the City and the PDC... But, would we not have to find someone to do the developing anyway?

I understand the bitterness...I do. Construction sucks. I am sure that none of us want to see the planned-for uber-tall condos and we should do all we can to keep those to a reasonable height. The tram to OHSU is also troublesome.

But does not liking the plans mean that we can call it corrupt? And, with at least 3 of our current city council members (Potter, Adams, and Sten) all for campaign finance reform, can we accuse these politicians of being corrupt?

Kari-

You want an example of Democrat "corruption". How about this: Ginny Burdick charges her campaign $700 a month for the "rental" of her computer! You can buy a computer for 700 bucks! Give me a break. You can't tell me that she isn't really lining her pockets, using campaign dollars for personal expense.

Now, I don't expect you to admit this, and if you don't think Democrats are just as guilty as republicans for the questionable tactics, you are ignoring the obvious.

(BTW, you guys forgot one GOP - John Mabry from Wasco county was indicted during the last session for insurance fraud)

I am not trying to point blame at one side or the other, it drives me nuts that our finance laws are distorted as they are.

There is a simple solution to this whole mess - instant reporting. We have the ability to do it now - require up-to-the-minute reporting of one's campaign finances so the public can know what is happening at all times.

That is the one thing legislators do not want. Our current system only has reporting requirements (outside of election season) every six months. This allows them to use campaign funds for personal use and not allow the public to learn about it for several months.

The beauty of it is that instant reporting hurts the GOP and Democrats equally.

Having played around in politics a bit, I think the difference in ethics within the major parties is quite clear. The Karl Rove "anything to win" approach has been the dominant ethos among Republicans for some time. I would except some,like Norma Paulus and Verne Duncan [I'm sure there are others]. Although Dems want to win, I have noticed a sense of responsibility to the legitimacy of the process, in other words, Democrats care about democracy, Republicans care only about power.

Unfortunately, when Dems do get nasty, it's usually against other Dems. I am remembering a Multnomah County Commission race from a few years ago, and a Clackamas County state senate primary, the participants of which will remain nameless.

Of course, Dems are not angels, but on balance, the difference is obvious. The party of morality doesn't practice what it preaches.

Off topic, I know, but Tenskwatawa, that is absolutely, without a doubt the most fascinating blog post I have ever read. Where can this research be found? I've been wondering lately whether we somehow innately know that there are two different kinds of people out there, and each is struggling to be the dominant species, so to speak. Which way is evolution taking us?

Again schlop what are you bringing to the table other complaints? We are getting public goods for a relatively small investment. This agreement keeps the biggest employer in the city IN the city. We get parks, transportation connections and a cleaned up waterfront. As for the size of the buildings, you have to undertand that height is not the problem, design is. If we limit the height of these buildings, then to make the projects pan out the developer has to make them short, stocky and wide. By going up you can slim the buildings and open up view corridors. Now if you had any grasp of what makes a city a city then you'd undertand that density is the key to vibrant urban life. To get proper densities and support all those things that make a city a city you need to go up. If your not allowed to go up then get ready for 10 story blocks that will leave no views to the river. Its basic 101. Itstead of creating mythical crimes why not work with the project (which happens to be very popular outside your "change is really scary" crowd) and make sure we get Great design. Not sure how anyone can be upset by this development which will turn a industrial dump into something the entire city can be proud of. Would you rather leave it as is and tell OHSU to go to hellsboro?

Cab says, """ We are getting public goods for a relatively small investment."""""

"Public goods"????????

It's a ponzie scheme to line the pockets of influence peddlers, power brokers and weathly land owners. Your misleading, dishonest rhetoric is exactly why so many Portlanders have no idea of the true size shape and impact of SoWa.

""""This agreement keeps the biggest employer in the city IN the city."""""

Ya right. They would move otherwise. And never mind the abundant space they currently have to grow on the hill. How do you sleep at night after this corrupt misinformation lecture of yours?

""""We get parks,""""""

Now that's a hoot. Wold you care to expose the cost of those parks? Probably not, or you'll tell another lie to minimize the cost.

"""""transportation connections""""""

There has been no consideration of traffic impact AT ALL. Are you talking about the $40 million dollar Tram?

""""" and a cleaned up waterfront."""""

The feds are paying 60 million towards that and the property isa prime riverfront property not needing ANY puiblic subsidies at all let alone the ultimate $1 billion in tax subsidies.

""""""" As for the size of the buildings, you have to undertand that height is not the problem,""""""

As draw inaccurately by city planners probably not. But when honestly draw to scale they totally wipe out the view of everyone anywhere near them from Macada, to Terwillager and for at least a two mile stretch.

""""" design is. If we limit the height of these buildings, then to make the projects pan out the developer has to make them short, stocky and wide."""""

This is the brand of CORRUPTION you represent. The developers this week requested that along with the 325 ft. height limit they want the limits on spacing of building s removed, limits on width of building removed and the limit on overall footptint dimesion of the building removed. The reason you are here spewing your misinformation is the City Council postponed the decision because the public is wise to your scheme.

""""" By going up you can slim the buildings and open up view corridors.'''''''

By removing all guarantees of slim buildings and view "coridoors" it won't happen.

""""" Now if you had any grasp of what makes a city a city then you'd undertand that density is the key to vibrant urban life. """""""""""

What a farce. SoWa and you have not adequately addressed a single impact on the city. Not one. With your approach livability goes into the toilet.

""""""""To get proper densities and support all those things that make a city a city you need to go up."""""""

You could not be more dishonest Cab.

"""""If your not allowed to go up then get ready for 10 story blocks that will leave no views to the river. Its basic 101.""""""

The current SoWa proposal before the council calls for 30 story buildings with no limits in size and spacing at all. And no view coridoors. You are attemping to further decieve the public. As have been every single depiction of buildings and greenway size and shape from day one.

""""" mythical crimes """""""

You don't know how """"anyone can be upset by this development""""""

Which development? The real one or the one you fabricate.The real one which you prefer the public not know about has universal public oppositon. It represents public loses in every conceavable way. No one supports the real plan at all.

""""" which will turn a industrial dump into something the entire city can be proud of. """"""

Industrial dump? Please enough already. Several of the primary proerty owners had plans to develope the area long ago with no public money and city planers turned them down.

"""""Would you rather leave it as is and tell OHSU to go to hellsboro?"""""" OHSU already is in Hillsboro and their building in SoWa is already started. OHSU is going no where.

Thanks for showing your cards.

Perhaps we should be talking about systemic corruption which may come to light as more rocks are turned over in the Doyle story. Today in the SJ there is a story that his wife's C&E for County Clerk campaign has problems, incl. some questionable checks she wrote after she lost.

As honest as many individual legislators are (yes, I believe that those like the Doyles are the exception, but then I am a political grandchild and never thought the action of running for office automatically made anyone corrupt)the whole caucus campaign system has long struck my friends and I as a large boulder (as opposed to a small rock) which needed to be turned over and the rot underneath exposed.

And then today I got an email from a politically active friend. At the bottom of this post is the first paragraph. Sounds like systemic caucus corruption or something very close to that. Perhaps it explains why some deserving candidates never got caucus support.

There is no connection between FuturePac and the Democratic Party (they share a copier).  FuturePac is the House D's PAC.  The Party receives very little looby money--FuturePac is all lobby money and the lobby (Trial Lawyers, SEIU, AFSCME, and OEA) run the show.  I don't think most Democrats even know FuturePac exists.

Thanks, Ross. I don't follow electoral politics nearly as closely as Kari does. Heck, he probably knows what each member of the legislature had for breakfast. But, knowing human nature, I'm sure that there are probably even Democratic pols from Oregon who've done time. Perhaps before the year is out I'll be able to serve someone indicted so Kari can eat raven fricasseee.

Note that I did offer a live one before the state of Oregon requirement was thrown in. An update on McGreevey. Has dropped the straight man facade. Wife kept house. He has apartment. Divorce pending. Not yet indicted. But, one of his closest associates has been sentenced to two years in prison. McGreevey is one of those politicians who thinks you're supposed to be corrupt. Covered'em when I lived in Philly.

Here's a question: If someone resigns, the central comm. of that person's party chooses 3-5 people to submit to the County Comm. who then pick the new member. But if someone is recalled, is there a new election? If so, how are nominees chosen?

I am a hypocrite for saying that somewhere, some time a politician in Oregon who was/is a Democrat has/is doing/done time? That's a misuse of the word hypocrite, but let's focus on the factual aspect instead. About 30 percent of the population has some contact with the criminal justice system, leaving the most minor matters out. Oregon has been a state since 1959. I know that cities in Oregon have had problems with corruption in government that supposedly were cleaned up in the 1960s and 70s. Considering time, the probability of being charged with a crime, and the history of corruption here, the chance of no Democratic pol ever having done time for a crime is nil. This is not rocket science. A use of common sense will lead one to that conclusion.

Oops! 1859 for Oregon statehood.

Mac,

You need do research on the subject before making these ambiguous statements… the chance of no Democratic pol ever having done time for a crime is nil I do doubt the chances of one not being convicted during a term of office are slim. But until you have proof of it; it leads me too believe your postings are just inflammatory and that is all.

Hmmmm. So Aaron has proof that no Democratic pol has ever been done time in Oregon? Excellent! Post your proof, Aaron. Take all the space you need.

Schlop, find a different source of info other the Lars Larsen. Nothing your spewing has any basis in reality. If you can't handle new progressive design and a little change why not pack up and move to Mayberry, where nothing ever changes and big scary stuff don't get built.

I actually took a walk down by the site today and all I can say its great to see cranes in the air, hundreds of portlanders working, and some new green landscaping getting done along the waterfront. Go check it out sometime. Isn't change grand?

Kari-

Actually, I don't know if Burdick's $700/month computer is legal. Oregon Law prohibits using campaign funds for personal use (as we all now know). Arguably, under any reasonable assumptions, $700 a month for a computer goes overboard, and is clearly using campaign funds for personal use. I know that a complaint was filed and -- big surprise - Bill Bradbury and Hardly Matters didn't move forward on the case. The press never picked it up etc. Why, well, Burdick is a Democrat and we all know that Bradbury and the Press only persecute Republicans.

I have no doubt that soon, there will be allegations levied against Democrats. Make no mistake, while I am not excusing what Rep. Doyle may have done, the public employee unions targeted Dan and these complaints are politically motivated. I spoke with steve law from the Statesman and he admitted the Public Employee Unions and the Demoncrat Party were feeding him information.

Only when a Democrat transgression rises to the level of raping a child will the media pick up on it. Even then, the WhOregonian tried to sugar coat Neilykins' actions. Only after the public called bullshit did the WhOregonian fess up and admit that Goldschdick raped a child. What is worse is the fact that Kitzengoski tried to cover it up.

Which leads to my point -your governor - Kulongoski - lied to the public. He issued a press release (on Official Stationary) in which he stated that he accepted the Rapist's resignation because the Rapist was "not feeling well," even though Kulongoski was told the night before that the reason the Rapist was resigning was because the details of his criminal activity were about to be revealed. (These facts are from Willamette Week)

ORS 162.415 (official misconduct in the first degree) makes it a crime for an official to fail to perform a duty inherent in the office - for instance - not lying to the public. Although a complaint was filed, we still have not heard from the Attorney General (big surprise) about the complaint. Geez, I wonder why?

So, Kari, there you have it. One instance of a current complaint against a current elected Democrat for official misconduct.

Your horse isn't so high anymore, is it?

IMHO the original post by title and content aims to tar all Republicans for what a single Republican is reported to be involved in.

Kari adds unreasonableness to injury in writing: "So, right now we're talking just Republicans doing the corruption here. If someone's got even an allegation against a current Democratic officeholder, let's hear it. Otherwise, it's all GOP, all the time in that department."

Let us have Kari's presentation of the allegations against all those other Republicans Kari is so anxious to afflict.

I am still waiting for Aaron to post all that proof he has that no Democratic pol has ever done time in Oregon. If not enough space is available for the proof at BO, he can have some on my blog. Come on Aaron, pony up.

If you would search/ Google Peg Jolin, you might find she was a woman legislator who resigned, or you might find the Senate Memorial after she died at the age of 48 (cancer, I think).

OR, you might find a paragraph like this--from a Bend Bulletin article about Rep. Mabrey's fraud problems:

A 1994 constitutional amendment passed by voters — in response to a fraud case involving former Sen. Peg Jolin of Cottage Grove — requires that an office be immediately vacated if a state legislator is convicted of a felony. <<

What I remember of Peg Jolin is much like the mirror image of Doyle. She was a Democrat but many in her party didn't like her and some thought she had a bristly personality. Because of what some called the "Peg Jolin ballot measure", if Doyle is convicted of a felony he would be out of office.

But to get this out of the level of comments like: "Why is it that the identification of scandal and misdeeds by somone on one side needs to immediately be balanced by a past example from the other? This is common in the media these days and it drives me crazy... in an attempt to be "fair and balanced" (TM, Fox News Corporation... please don't sue me) the media will temper the hit of a current story by reminding us of the other side's misdeeds." (a comment I agree with and one of the milder posts it seems to me), I think we should look at this from another perspective.

Maybe we should all step back from "which side is worse". Time to realize that Doyle's case is now in the hands of the authorities. If charged with a felony he will have the right to have his case heard by a grand jury and to have a court trial. That is the way the system works.

To my mind anyone reporting on a C& E that they wrote a check to a company whose name is mispelled or isn't involved in political work, or a case where a broadcast outlet or printer says "Here's the bill, and here is the proof of payment--both lower amounts than listed on your C & E report", should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

But I don't believe that anyone who ever spoke to Dan or Victoria Doyle should be suspected of financial corruption until proven innocent, any more than I believe anyone who ever was friendly to Neil Goldschmidt should be suspected of condoning child rape until proven innocent. Call me silly, but having been a witness to a crime and having testified in grand jury and in court, I believe in the power of evidence. But then I am not at heart a polarizer. I have been registered in both major parties at some time in my life and am contemplating registering Indep. again, having registered with a party awhile back to vote in a contested primary.

Some people get so wrapped up in politics (as I was once) and maybe need to be told to "get a life".

Part of my life is researching family history--my grandparents in Michigan in the 1930s. Doyle has nothing on the 1934 Michigan election which ended in a recount that is like 2004 Washington State Gov., Ohio presidential and 2000 Florida all wrapped into one. Blue pencils to deface ballots, secret meetings of the "recount committee", various judges and law enforcement at the state and local level were involved. And the Senator who served time in jail after involvement in that 1934 recount was able to get back into politics later.

Saved on my computer is this quote from the newspaper article--a recent Michigan article about a legislator in legal trouble:

Sens. Anthony Wilkowski and Charles Diggs, both Detroit Democrats, were refused their seats in 1951. Neither was expelled but both had been re-elected after serving prison terms.Wilkowski was a senator while he was in prison in the late 1930s for tampering with an election recount. He was released and re-elected in 1944, 1948, 1950, 1952 and 1954. Diggs, the state's first black senator, served during the 1930s and 1940s. He went to prison for bribe conspiracy linked to his early legislative career but was re-elected in 1950. Wilkowski later was elected as a delegate at the 1962 Michigan Constitutional Convention and he pushed for a constitutional amendment barring a legislator from being expelled twice for the same cause.

More on Jolin.

The late Sen. Peg Jolin, a Cottage Grove Democrat, was convicted in 1992 of eight felony counts of election law violations and seven misdemeanor theft charges in connection with improper fund-raising.

Jolin resigned her Senate seat in 1993 and died in 2001.

Source.

Thanks, LT. Not having spent my entire life in Oregon, I did not know about this. You saved me some digging.

Kari, would you like to eat your raven fricassee from a paper plate or crockery? Fork or fingers? Salt or pepper?

Aaron, proving there has never been a Democratic pol in Oregon who did time just went from difficult to impossible. Considering your obvious lack of support for your earlier comment, you owe me an apology. I find both your ignorance and your attitude rather inflammatory.

I think you people should take off the tinfoil hats. What a bunch of freaks.

Cab says,

""""Schlop, find a different source of info other the Lars Larsen.""""

Cab you are as bad as it gets. Dishonest and juvenile. What's with the "Schlop" thing? My sources are the City and the folks who have been involved with this plan all along. I have shared everything, the facts, with Lars and countless others. This is what you object to.

I notice you didn't respond to the current proposal to remove the remaining limits on building size and spacing. So what is it you are spewing? That the proposal before the city is made up?

"""""""nothing your spewing has any basis in reality. If you can't handle new progressive design and a little change why not pack up and move to Mayberry,"""""""""""""

The changes are not progressive, little or good. You are a liar and cannot make a case anyone would support.

"""""" where nothing ever changes and big scary stuff don't get built.""""""

Again there are other options which would lead to great things in South Waterfront with little or no adverse impacts and far less public cost.

"""""""I actually took a walk down by the site today and all I can say its great to see cranes in the air, hundreds of Portlanders working, and some new green landscaping getting done along the waterfront. Go check it out sometime. Isn't change grand?"""""""""

Look Homer, or whoever you are, your lectures and declarations are near moronic and certainly meaningless. I have certainly, like MANY others explored and devoured the ENTIRE scope of the plan top to bottom.

Hopefully with additional activism such as yesterday's meeting between neighborhood groups and the mayor will lead to a much better South Waterfront. In every conceivable way. As word circulates, I can imagine Willamette Riverkeepers, Executive Club, Audubon, Oregonians in Action, 1000 Friends of Oregon, City Club and a few others from both sides of eternity to sign on to the opposition. If any of you are from these groups please contact me for additional information.

Jeff Alworth more or less made the point I meant to all along among his choices of viewpoints:

Politicians are human ... and some of them may actually have committed crimes.

Regardless of party or whether they wear boxers or briefs.

Restoring integrity? Easily said. Hard to do. The people raking in money through influence peddling, the main way pols get rich, are very desirous of continuing to do so. Proposals to impose rules, policies and laws that make it harder to do that will therefore be thwarted. It is possible, obviously, to identify and prosecute those who violate the law in less sophisticated ways like stealing money from their clients, or, putting their girlfriends on the state health plan. That is already happening to an extent. It could happen more.

An advantage of having lived in several cities as a reporter is that I have got to see politicians up close. I have few illusions about them as a result.

"Er, the GOP running SAIF? No. Johnny K. had 8 years, and now there's Ted. Don't blame Vic Atiyeh for that cr*p."

First of all, I wonder how many of the businesses which opposed the measure to kill SAIF contributed/ volunteered for Democratic campaigns.

Second, so Kathy Keene was an active Democrat and the governor, not the SAIF board, decides all the SAIF decisions such as contracts for services?

Next we should believe AOI really supports Democrats?

Last session, the (now departed) Republican legislator who couldn't tell me who set the salary for Keene, the head of SAIF, at higher than the Governor's salary was upset that I even asked the question.

But I suppose someone will blame a Democrat for the Republican legislator's comment on who set the salary: "The Governor deals with public employee unions!"

Perhaps someone can enlighten me on a) which union Kathy Keene belonged to as the head of SAIF b) what Jack Roberts would do differently from the current governor and from his own actions in his losing 2002 primary bid for governor.

Or maybe some would rather bash politicians than answer questions?

Doyle's a crook. The Reps dumped him.

I don't see this as saying anything particularly special about the Republican party. Minnis probably regrets she took the chance. Now she takes her lumps.

Let's not overblow this.

Doyle's offically gone. See Minnis's statement at: http://www.leg.state.or.us/press_releases/speakerminnis01_31_05.pdf

Wow, how he fell soooo quickly.

Lord Acton said it long ago: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Let he who is not stoned cast the first sin.

This just in the SJ when I went on their site looking for something else.

Rep. Doyle steps down from Legislature

Updated at 10:15 a.m.

STEVE LAW Statesman Journal

January 31, 2005

SALEM -- State Rep. Dan Doyle, R-Salem, under investigation for potential election law violations, resigned from his post in the Oregon Legislature this morning. Doyle’s attorney notified the Secretary of State’s office at 8:38 a.m. that he resigned his seat immediately. Doyle was not available for comment, but House Speaker Karen Minnis released a statement of acknowledgement. “Rep. Doyle submitted a letter of resignation from office to the Secretary of State today," Minnis said. "I wish the Doyle family well and hope the process to fill his seat will move quickly so that his constituents will have a voice at the Legislature.”

[rest of article snipped for copyright reasons. Full article here. -ed.]

Mac:

"I am still waiting for Aaron to post all that proof he has that no Democratic pol has ever done time in Oregon"

C'mon... that's the cheesiest position to take in support of your position. Asking Aaron to prove a negative. You're capable of higher level argument than that.

You argue (without citation to any source as support) that sometime in the last 159 years a D (or Whig or whatever they called themselves through the years) was convicted of a crime similar to what Rep. Doyle is suspected of committing.

When asked to prove it you respond "Prove I'm wrong".

Someone who disagrees with your unsubstantiated assertion shouldn't have to do YOUR work to prove your argument. You open your mouth (or move your fingers) -- it's your job to provide back-up, 'cause you don't have the cred here for me, at least, to accept you know what you are talking about simply because you're an invited contributor here.

<h2>Someone doesn't know what he is talking about alright -- Randy S. As any person capable of reading can see, an example of a Democratic politician who was charged with more crimes than Dan Doyle was presented.</h2>