[Off-topic comment deleted. -Editor.]

Shouldn't you be leery that they even considered Ben Westlund?

The talk here has seemed kind... I dunno, detached.  Like, right after I read an entry about how there was no way he was going to collect the signatures on time I find out he's exceeded the amount of signatures needed.

Then there was that absurd post about the potato famine.   If you're not going to make real, honest criticisms of him shouldn't you just deny him the free publicity?

Seeing as the union is joined at the hip with the Democratic Party why would Saxton bother pursuing their endorsement? When was the last time the unions endorsed more than a token Republican or two anyway? I can't blame Saxton for not responding to them. He may be a poor choice for Governor, but he isn't stupid enough to waste time on a special interest group whose endorsement he has no hope of winning.

I'm voting for Ted...inspite of AFSCME's endorsement, not because of it.

That "special interest group" are people who work for a living. Should Saxton win, many in that "special interest group" will be his employees. Why is it unthinkable that a potential boss wouldn't meet with his future employees.
That special interest group supports more than a token Republican here and there - ask Karen Minnis. She's no token. Do your research before you paint all unions together with the Democratic Party. If they are an arm of the PArty, why did unions form this Working Family Party? Ted burned them on PERS - and they are back with him. That speaks volumes about Saxton. Nice dance moves though.

Interesting document regarding AFSCME's endorsement... sounds like the decision was harder than they made it seem.

http://www.purpleoregon.com/docs/afscme_noendorse_con.pdf

Is AFSCME nuts? Ted stole their retirement - gave them wage freezes for 2 years and did little to nothing on new taxes or tax reforms. Of course they are right about the numbers - Ben has a steep hill - but why don't we stand up for someone who cares instead of someone who has stuck a finger in our eye. This is going to be one ugly election, tweedle dee, tweedle dum and no names - where are all the real candidates???????

This endorsement may say more about the desire of AFSCME to maintain the status quo than it does about the merit (or lack of merit) of Ted K. With good reason, AFSCME is concerned that financial forces and voter sentiments are turning against public employee unions and turning toward a more open public job environment that may include much more outsourcing, privatization, etc.

I am not anti-union and I believe everyone needs to be paid what they are worth in the marketplace, but in my opinion and in my observation, a day of reckoning is coming in the near future with respect to Oregon public sector wages and benefits.

Ted "stole their retirement"? Really Margie? So it's Enron and Andrew Wiederhorm all over again? Might that be a slight exageration? Maybe it would be more accurate to state that TK signed and supported legislation that kept the pension system from bankrupting Oregon, legislation that had to be painful because the corrupt PERS board didn't do it's job for DECADES. Legislation that, by the way, had Republican's been in charge would have REALLY eliminated thier pensions. I'm relatively certain that a defined contribution plan is still the norm for state workers already in PERS. That doesn't seem "stolen" to me. Public employees just didn't get to keep the extra money that the PERS board lobbed onto them in the late 90's. It seems unfortunate, but I don't get to keep money that is accidentally or inaapropriate credited to my account by the bank either. That's not stealing. The PERS Board made workers into colateral damage, not Ted K. Because of that I'm supposed to jump on board the "born again liberal" bandwagon of Westlund? Despite his Measure 36 voters pamphlet and his entire senate record? He talks a good game now so he's the man? All the cool kids like him, so I should too? Please. The choice is Saxton or Kulongoski. You, Westlund, Mary Starret, Keating, and others may not like it, but that's reality. And that choice is as easy as Kitzhaber vs. Sizemore was 8 years ago.

Also Margie, Ted K supported a tax increase called measure 30. The voters destroyed it, not him. You wanted more taxes, he tried and it was DOA. Not his fault. Blame the right people. Of course, now Saxton will beat him over the head with that failed tax.

Note: It was Ben Westlund who performed the lion's share of drafting HB2152 - which became Measure 30.

Joe:

"AFSCME is not a rubber stamp for Democrats ... We actually gave more automatic endorsements to Republicans in the State House than Democrats."

I assume those "automatic" Republican endorsements went to uncontested races?

Just curious (I really don't know), who are the last three Republican House candidates AFSCME endorsed over a Democrat in a contested race?

• Wes

it's not about spiting a face. it's about the fact that the Dems have started treating labor like an expendable bargaining chit, and the fact that labor keeps going back to them like someone in an abusive relationship. but every two years the Dems say, "come on honey, i really do love you." and labor saunters back to them, thinking that THIS year it will be different.

labor basically just told the Dems that they'll volunteer to be first on the budget chopping-block because there's no way they won't continue to endorse Dems.

Well, I've gotta say that Saxton's current radio ad campaign has pushed me solidly into voting for Ted. I'd been waffling before the primary, but if Saxton's gonna play it the way he's playing it, bragging about being "Public Enemy Number 1" for public employees, then by golly, this public employee ain't gonna vote for anyone who might could end up giving him the position, especially using the inflammatory text that's being used about "gold-plated retirement plans."

What kind of retirement plan do you have, Ronny-boy?

Wesley, i believe (but could be wrong) that AFSCME has endorsed at least three republicans in contested races:

A. Brown over Cowan Dalto over Clem Farr over C. Edwards

also I think they are staying neutral in Minnis v Brading

the list

actually i guess that list is old. but i am sure they endorsing Farr and Dalto. I don't know for sure about Brown.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 20, 2006 3:07:13 PM

<h1>As a PERS Tier II member, I don't have any problem with what was done.</h1>

Torridjoe is a goof off public employee in the IT department of some state agency (where his boss must be the model of Dilbert's boss) who blogs more between 9am and 5pm (but never during lunchtime) than at any other time. Like many low achievers, he finds it easier to feast at the public troff at the tax payer's expense while goofing off, than doing real work.

What's not to like about Tier II PERS when you only have to post comments all day long.

automatic:

Thanks for that list and link. But I agree, it is a bit old (i.e., it is pre-Primary). The first clue is that the list still shows Jesse Cornett as the choice in Senate 24, though he lost the primary to Rod Monroe.

Thanks, anyway. Maybe Joe can weigh in with fresh endorsements.

It might help AFSCME's reputation in some small measure to show they actually endorse Republicans over Democrats in actual contested (i.e. general) elections.

• Wes

According to the Clem website, Brian Clem has SEIU and AFL-CIO but not AFSCME.

What I have heard in conversations is that there are lots of folks who were sorry their union endorsed Dalto in 2004. So Dalto (and Cowan ) may just win this fall--those elections were close last time.

On my commute, I have been listening to the audio book TRUMAN by David McCollough. Just finished the 1948 election.

For my entire lifetime, there have been elections where the "smart money" was on the candidate all the pundits and establishment types were sure would win. But sometimes an underdog like Truman won, and often it was decided in the last few weeks. One analysis reported in the book was "people were sure Dewey would win, some might even have bet money on it--but when they voted, they voted for Truman". And Truman won.

"Wes don't be such an ass and do a little research before you make pompous assumptions."

Hey Joe,

It's been quite a while since I've been publicly called a pompous ass who doesn't do research.

Since you're so busy insulting constiuents who asked a simple question, perhaps you can post a link that works to a site that doesn't show Jesse Cornett as the AFSCME candidate in Senate 24.

I'm a little dense, after all, and I cannot find any link in your last post.

• Wes the AssFSCME idiot

Is it true that AFSCME is sitting out the Minnis v. Brading race?

According to the non-link provided to us lazy asses by Joe Baessler, AFSCME endorsed Wayne Scott in H39, but not Mike Caudle. There is nothing for H49 (or 48).

Are these purely primary endorsements, with the general endorsements to come later? As Joe figured out, I'm too lazy to call AFSCME to find out.

With Brading needing all the help he can get, his name is conspicuously absent from the AFSCME rolls. Or is AFSCME afraid of Minnis, hedging their bet, so as to not piss off the Speaker if she wins?

Sorry, I cannot figure this out.

• Lazy-Ass Wes

Joe,

Thanks for the list, and no offense taken. I assume these are AFSCME's endorsements for the November general election.

But I still don't quite get the "automatic" designations. Be patient with me, here.

For example, you endorsed Wayne Scott over Mike Caudle in H39 as an automatic endorsement, yet AFSCME endorsed Karen Minnis over Rob Brading in H49 without the * designation. What's the difference?

I looked at your web site for an explanation of "automatic," but could not find it. Obviously, "automatic" does not mean "uncontested."

Please explain. Thanks.

• Wes

Joe,

Thanks for the clear explanation.

And I was wondering how long it would take before our resident East MultCo contributor weighed in. You guys got Jenni going, and you do so at your own peril . . .

• Wes

Ted's support for working people is limited to public employee and labor unions. So it's important that BlueOregon contribute to again deciving the voting public this election cycle. This oldest established position and greatest strength of playing the working people card during an election then representing only those union allies once elected is true blue.

Joe: So are you pretty confident that Brown and Dalto are pro-worker? Can one oppose the minimum wage and be "pro-worker"? That's what happens when you think with a checklist instead of some more appropriate organ.

Joe and Wes,

So is a debate to see who is the bigger dumba**?

Cause at the moment you’re both are winning!

Joe,

Learn to shut your mouth.

Your organization is Blue at heart but by helping Republicans your legislatively very successful. The problem is for the "Blue Oregon Crowd" they could care less about pragmatism. They are all about 100% or nothing and trying to convince them otherwise is as likely as convince a horse it’s a pig. Most of your members and allies are Blue, getting on a Blog and telling them “you’re a lazy, a**” is not a great way to keep friends and influence people. Your organization has a huge secret….they’re a lobby group and by getting on here and bitching at bloggers you are outing your organization faster then the former Mayor of Spokane was. In the process you lessen the effectiveness of your organization. Silence is golden especially when talking to “true believers.”

Wes,

Sometimes you have to do a little bad for the greater good...life sucks wear a helmet.

I know that in your little, uber-liberal mind "if we just talk to enough people they are certain to see things our way and we will for sure win back the House" thinking may get you laid in the Republic of South East Portland, but in the rest of the state (you know, where they grow the grass and trees) people don't think like you. Odds are the republicans will still have control of the House (Yes, I said it) and everyone is going to have to deal with Speaker Scott. So for organizations like AFSCME (who don't represent the Democrats rather government workers) it is important to keep an open door. Also their "automatic endorsement policy" guarantees that at least a few of their bills each session are going to go through. Are they sell outs...maybe...but to the people they represent (who are also the people that write AFSCME's paychecks) they are effective. And the only thing a LOBBY group gets graded on is effectiveness.

So please you two continue taking pot shots at each other. I'll grab some popcorn and watch, but at the end of the day nothing has changed except 200 more people think your both dumba**es.

Cheers

Winston:

There is nothing dishonest about a lobby group saying "meet our criteria and we will endorse", be it a women's group which has a stated policy of only endorsing women; OR a union saying "vote with us and we will endorse you next time".

But I wonder what you think of a race where AFSCME endorses one candidate and SEIU another. Surely all your rhetoric about "true believers" isn't valid if diff. public employee unions endorse diff. candidates.

Interesting the AFSCME support of Chuck Lee over Kim Thatcher but supporting Vicki Berger who co-sponsored bills with Thatcher at the req. of Freedomworks. Oh well, I guess if the voting record on the high priority bills was good enough, that sort of thing doesn't matter.

And it is going to be interesting to see what happens in Sen. Dist. 10. Jackie Winters did some good things--refusing to go along with the worst of the budget cuts and supporting the balanced budget that turned into Measure 30.

Jackie is an icon to some in Salem and elsewhere, but others are tired of her and thrilled she has a solid opponent. The energy level locally is with Paul Evans, so it will be interesting to see whether endorsements or people who support Paul because they have known him for years will have more influence on the result.

Tucker – tucker – tucker

I agree with so much of what you closed with --- but

Defined contributions??? Nope defined benefit – get it right or keep quiet till you learn the difference. That is what Enron and public employees have. Corrupt board??? Now you are really showing your ignorance. The state legislature is the only body that has the authority to grant benefit increases. READ THE LAWS – then talk. Sorry but I get a little worked up over serious miss statements.

Look I think Westlund is really a good guy after his near death experience. I watched him transform and am willing to say he is a born again Moderate – not liberal yet.

Let’s see Saxton or Ted – Ted every time. Saxton is mean, expensive and stupid. Just look at the legal costs for the Portland janitors that he and his school board buddies fired and what it is costing us. Imagine that on a statewide scale – no thanks.

I agree – Joe learn to be quiet. AFSCME does not have to defend the decision of its membership. As I understand it you and the rest of the staff have NO vote. Your job is to do the work for the members not to defend their democratic decisions. Right?

The Purple Organ (that is the one without blood or oxygen) oops Oregon – is trashing this union for making a decision they did not agree with too. My apologies to AFSCME and their leadership for the stupidity of all who have questioned your motives, your actions and your commitment to progressive causes. Hang in there some of us think you are just swell!

Zoë

Joe - be quiet - you have done more than you needed to do. What AFSCME does is their business not a bunch of ignorant boggers (me too I guess) who know nothing about the trade union movement or its processes.

This is sort of like questioning the local parrish for the vaticans dicisions. AFSCME in Oregon gets to do its business just like a parrish and the methodists don't get to second guess their choices.

AFSCME has been a MAJOR contribtor in nearly every progressive cause I have worked on - and that says it all for me.

Go green power - all AFSCME all the time. I am with you even when we don't agree.

<hr/>