Isn't Jerky Jeff Kropf the down on his luck PUB who used Lars Larson radio show to say that, get this, Osama Bin Laden has smuggled a dirty nuclear bomb into the USA and it is programmed to kill all the Jews?

Yup, sad but true, according to the FBI who questioned him.

Want to hear the tape?

I hear KXL is busy burning it right now!

There is a reason why we should not be electing judges to office... so they cannot be affected by special interests!

Judges should all be appointed, whether for life or a certain number of terms.

No one should be recalled unless they actually commit a crime. It is costly and usually serves nasty right-wing hate-mongers. They talk about creating smaller government and cutting waste, but then they turn around and spend money to do a recall election. It is hypicritical and cowardly.

It's seems absoultely stupid to recall a judge because one disagrees with one decision he made. In that case, let's recall all judges we disagree with? How about making a hit list? wink

Next we'll have the other side recalling conservative judges because of their decision. Who would want to be a judge when people who disagree with their decisions say, "We can just recall them."

The logic stinks to high heaven.

What is most disturbing is the lack of either an understanding or appreciation of the value of an independant and impartial judiciary as one leg of the tripod of democratic governance. Surely the good citizens of the county will recognize an abuse of the recall system when they are thus confronted.

The recall system itself need not be the doom of the separation of powers between judicial and legislative branches of government; that will depend on people being wary of abuse. That trumpeted initiative was enacted by the electorate acting in place of the legislature.

You have to believe in the general good will of people to believe in democracy. Is that the malfunction of the motives of people that are able to so baldly state their anti-democratic goals and yet call themselves the "Constitutional" party?

Interesting, Jeff. I won't sign any petition even if I agree with it because I think the initiative and referendum process undermines the representative process and is very likely a cause of our dysfunctional legislature.

It's always neat to see the look on the person's face when I say "no" to signing their petition, they say why, and I respond "I am opposed to the initiative process." They dont have a canned response for that one!

(Probably think as I walk away, "damn political science professors...")

Actually, both paul and Charlie Burr touch on arguments that warrant some elaboration.

paul's is, obviously, the more fundamental of the two and, as much as I understand the why of referenda and intiatives, I'd be just as happy to see them gone - and for the reasons paul pointed out. One of the most aggravating moments of the 2005 session of the Oregon legislature came when they passed a tax package....and then kicked the can to the voters. On its face, it seems like a fine thing to do, while in reality it's nothing more than dodging responsibility for raising taxes. Long story short, these give ou legislators an out. Whether they like or not, we elect them to make decisions on our behalf and to take responsibility for those decisions at the ballot box.

As for Charlie's point, yes, there's a little part of me that feels some guilt at signing some of the more ludicrous proposals, but I do it all the same. Obviously, the attempt to recall James crossed a red line for me, but, generally, I'm a big enough believer in open debate to sign the things. Charlie Burr provided the downside - the cost; and that is significant - but, absent a petition any debate will lack a certain - how do you say? - urgency and focus.

-Paul,

I agree with you 90%. The referendum system hobbles the effectiveness of the legislature. It makes citizens the legislature and frankly, most of us are not educated enough on all of these issues to make informed choices when we go to the polls. That is the role of the Legislature!

I think that the only valid reason for voting on a ballot measure would be if the Legislature could not, otherwise resolve an issue and decided to have the public have a say... but this should be rare.

I am slowly shifting my position to NOT sign future inititivates and instead work to empower those that we elect to office to do their job. Ballot measures are too costly and divide public monies that could be used in more focused campaigns.

I also believe that there are FAR too many Constitutional Amendments. It is pathetically easy to collect enough signatures and then our entire political process or social systems can be threatened or dramatically altered.

Oregonians seem obsessed with re-writing the Constitution!

I would love to see the bar raised much higher for Constitutional Amendments if they go to the voters: 1) More signatures would be needed and 2) They should pass with a 75% "yes" vote in order to be added to the Constitution.