Having only worked minimum wage jobs in Oregon, I was always perplexed and shocked that other states allowed businesses to pay less than the minimum wage. Sure, after a good Friday night it's not uncommon to walk out of a restaraunt with $100 in your pocket, easily eclipsing wages. But the great thing about wages is they're guaranteed. You can count on them. It's scary to count on tips that may or may not materialize when you're trying to figure out if you can make rent this month.

Glad you read the bill and realized the ORA was selling snake oil. That's probably something most people in the legislature don't even bother to do.

I'll be sure to make a reservation next time I'm back in town.

The whole situation stinks.

When I try to distill the math and everything else into a comment that gets to the point, I'm left with the following messages:

1. Despite your experience, you totally lost perspective on the benefit the minimum wage law brings to restaurant staff, especially your own.

2. The ORA's avowed consituency must feel an awfully strong sense of entitlement.

3. Progressives need to get into the habit of framing minimum wage debates as addressing the right to a living wage.

My gut says that - restaurant math aside - the cannibalization argument that you presented in Salem is a canard, except in one case: genuinely marginal operations. Given how many restaurants (even good ones!) meet that definition, that case can't be ignored, but...

An environment that raises barriers to entry by discouraging marginal operations should be welcomed by the ORA, because its ultimate consequence is to raise diner expectations, which allows for higher prices. However, the ORA wants to fight the minimum wage issue. That tells me that the ORA's position is about re-establishing the national status quo, and the profit margins that go along with it - profit margins which are obtained at the expense of staff, since labor costs are the easiest for a restaurant owner to change (relative to other costs).

That leaves the living wage issue. Business group lobbying on the issue of wages has always come across to me smelling of threats and guilt trips, as if the privilege of disadvantaging workers is essential to the continued health of the Republic's (or the State of Oregon's) economy. Driving down wages simply because they can be driven down may be a terrific economic policy, but it makes for lousy social policy.

Why aren't progressives skylining the cost to society of an underpaid and overworked service sector workforce? Seriously! What are we losing because these people lack the time and/or money to look after their health properly? What are the aggregate costs to our society because the upbringing of their children is shortchanged by the imperative to keep food on the table? Who would benefit, and how, if median compensation were to increase?

Why isn't the wage debate being framed in those terms, instead of being subjected to the prospective doom and gloom of Wall Street's disapproval?

At the end of your story, I see management and finance setting the agenda while labor goes after its own to punish inadvertent heresy.

...And that speaks for itself.

Hi Lisa, I perfectively understand what happened to you, and I sympathize. The lefties are as knee-jerked as the right wingers. I give Blue Oregon Bennie's for letting you explain your side of the story. Before all jump on you with " Why did you not read the Bill First?" routine, let me say most of our fine legislature's , on both side of the isle do not...do not , read entire bills either. They are easily tricked as was you. I admire your courage to do the right thing. It isn't easy when emotions rule the thought process. In Portland taking a percentage of tips for bus-boys, and cooks is the norm. You have proved to me you are a progressive and should stand tall. There's that thing about glass houses and I can't think of one demo that is capable of throwing that first stone

Lisa: who privately apologized to you first, the AFL-CIO or the ORA?

It's sad that any business owner must predicate their comments by saying:

I must state that I am, and have always been, a staunch Democrat. I have offered my restaurants up to the Democratic Party for countless events

Because (if she were a Republican), then she's a blood sucking, employee exploiting, partisan drone who doesn't deserve your patronage?

Do you really choose your restaurants/event venues based on some kind of labor friendly litmus test? Is Lisa worried she might be losing business if y'all thought she wasn't a "staunch Democrat"?

I usually go to where the food is good, the staff friendly/attentive, and the seating/space is comfortable. Party affiliation doesn't matter: I'm eating, not canvassing.

Pass the fois gras.

Lisa,

I have attended Democratic functions at your fine establishment. One was memorable, you opened early, provided great food. coffee and personnaly shoved your furniture around to accommodate Senator Diane Fienstein and Representative Jane Harrmond who were in town stumping for Senator John Kerry. Best of all, you let us linger and talk long after the women headed back to their awaiting airplane. You also publically endorsed Senator Kerry for president in a full page ad in the Oregonian that listed businesses across the state who supported Senator Kerry for president.

We've all been there in your shoes one way or another, done in by our own not-so-thought-out impulsive good intentions and ripe for the picking. Keep on with your hard work, best wishes on your businesse's success and I know you will fight the good cause for a living wage and I'm guessing your employees know that about you too.

My entire family has enjoyed some great meals at your place. We'll be back.

I do, I find progressives are just better cooks....Come to think of it, they're also better Artists, musicians, poets, authors.

Do you really choose your restaurants/event venues based on some kind of labor friendly litmus test?

Yes.

Lisa - I was so glad to hear this story this morning on the radio. I had never had the chance to ask you what was going on with this issue and it was troubling to me on so many levels. I know that you are incredibly progressive and have other restauranteur friends who have had problems with the ORA and their heavy handed, conservative ways; and admittedly as a result of your trip to Salem, I too, had been staying away from your restaurants (the vision of those Italina, Chicago, union uncles kept dancing in my head....) I'm so glad that you took the time to get informed - I know that wasn't easy with your schedule...and if I can find paying work, I will gladly spend some of my hard earned dollars with you. Love, MaryXMass

Now I know what it looks like when the Democrats potty train one of their misdirected children.

Are you kidding? Yes, I choose restaurants based on their treatment of staff! And, Schroder's excuses are completely unbelievable. The idea that she "just didn't realize" she was arguing for a sub-minimum wage in her testimony to the legislature is hogwash. Notice she says nowhere that she is sorry for advocating against the minimum wage, and the bulk of her words on the issue speak to how "normal" the sub-minimum "tip credit" wage in her experience. I bet you dollars to donuts her entire letter was drafted for her by the ORA. I DO NOT PATRONIZE any ORA associated establishment. Speaking as someone who worked in a tip-credit locality back East, I can tell you two things, one, I as a cook was not paid more because the servers got less, and two, I saw servers LOSE MONEY COMING TO WORK, because the cost of their transportation to and from work was less than the total they earned on a slow night. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME on anybody who pretends to be ignorant about this issue.

I had become the AFL-CIO’s scapegoat for the ORA’s lobbying, and subsequently became a target for hate mail and threats.

Lisa, I'm glad you realized your mistake and backed off. But I was one of those people who were mad as hell on the day we were at your restaurant, and neither of those groups had nothing to do with getting me there -- or the other wait staff I knew. We were there because the bill that you so "innocently" tried to help pass would have been devastating for those of us who aren't fortunate enough to own our own businesses.

The hate mail, too -- While it may be comforting to imagine it coming from some outside group, I'm guessing it came from closer to home than you care to realize.

Wait a second -- Lisa says:

an employee of the ORA asked me to meet with some Democrats in the State House and Senate and give them my perspective on the tip credit issue.

According to the ORA's web site, Lisa Shroeder is on their Board of Directors, or at least she was when she painted a picture of being a restaurant owner minding her own business until she was "approached."

It seems like she is trying to distance herself from the right-wing group because they're not popular among her lefty customers. Did she think we wouldn't know how to use the Internet?

Here's the ORA's 2005-2006 Board of Directors from ORA's web site:

Chair: Chris Hein OSF International, Inc

Vice Chair: Ken Denfeld Godfather's Pizza

Secretary: Joe Benetti Benetti's Italian Restaurant, Coos Bay

Treasurer: Steve Kline Typhoon!

Past Chair: Connie Hunt East Bank Saloon

Members:

Cal Beach Prairie Schooner Bar & Grill, Eugene

Kevin Bechtel Shari's Management Corp.

Dick Boyd Boyd Coffee Company

Tom Drumheller Escape Lodging Company

Bob Jensen Big Green Events, Eugene

Kiauna Floyd Amalfi's, Portland

Rob Maletis Maletis Beverage

Fred Jubitz Jubitz Truck Stop, Portland

Bill McCormick (Honorary) McCormick & Schmick's

Bob Rice Goforth & Rice Restaurants

Lisa Schroeder Mothers Bistro, Portland

Scott Sonnemaker SYSCO Food Services

Dave Thomason Carl's Jr. & Elmer's Restaurants

Peter Roscoe Fulio's, Astoria

I don't blog, generally. So forgive me in advance if I break some unknown rules. I want a resolution to the issue of the women's event, Mama Mia's and Lisa Schroeder. First some facts.

1. The AFL-CIO has never organized a picket at this restaurant. If there was one in the past it was done by others, not the AFL-CIO.
2. I have attended many events at this restaurant and no one knows why the Gore, Kerry, Franken or Blumenauer events whet without incident or pickets. More important no one seems to know why this women's event has created such a ruckus and made it nearly impossible to hold.
3. Lisa and her employees seem to be victims several times over. First, because ORA misled her and shame on her for not reading the bill first. Second, because she agreed to hold the women's event at an affordable price that no one else can meet or beat. She and her employees don't get the business, the tips or the recognition. But instead they have become the focus of the progressive community. We need to find a solution.

After talking directly Tom Chamberlain, who is a good guy, and suggesting that he and Lisa talk directly, he agreed that made sense and will make the call. I have confidence that reasonable people can find a solution.

He will suggest that Lisa agree to a Union Neutrality arrangement. All that means is that when and if and when there is an organizing effort at her restaurant she will remain neutral. No effort to help or hinder her employees from forming a Union. She does not and should not assist in the effort and she should not try to stop them. Just remain neutral and let them vote for or against.

Hopefully the two of them can work something out in the next day or two so we can get moving on the event before the elections. Till this happens, can everyone just relax and stay out of the fray? The more talk there is the more difficult it becomes for Tom and Lisa to find a resolution that will work for all of us in the progressive movements, workers, women and activists.

There are a lot of us who hate what has happened here. We know Tom Chamberlain and don't see him as a person who would try to intimidate rather than reason his way to a solution. We have attended many events at Mama Mias with other union members, women and progressives and have found it to be a great place with great employees. Let's keep that in mind as the direct conversations occur and pray for a reasonable solution. Otherwise the event will be a disaster and the ones who wanted it to fail in the beginning will win, again.

My 2 cents,

Lisa Schroeder should resign her position on ORA board and membership today--and help create a "progressive"-Restaurant Association with the help of other progressive owners(after they formly resign thier memberships if they are part of ORA) to help lobby Salem on issues that are progressive and to help small to medium businesses in the restaurant/food service industry and to fight against ORA.

The deception is that she claimed to be innocent and unaware, and called testifying "giving my perspective." When you testify in favor of a bill, you are working to pass the bill. As a member of their Board, she was no innocent being "led to slaughter" as she claims.

I'll start eating at her restaurants again when she gets off the Board. Her membership dues fund a powerful lobby that attacks the minimum wage and other progressive issues in every legislative session.

Lisa:

We love you AND your restaurants. Don't let the second-guessing of your character or motives by anonymous posters here get you down.

Anonymous Character Assassins:

How can you possibly be so sure that your slings and arrows are well-placed? She's On Their Board - you need to read carefully. She said so in her post. She joined at their request. Way to go there. You really nailed her.

It's discouraging that there is so much anger here. Not on this issue alone. Is that just the nature of the blogosphere? Or is that the progressive movement? I expect it out of Lars and his ilk, but the Deomcrats are supposed to be more tolerant, more understanding, more willing to give someone the benefit of doubt. Where is that?

You who protested in front of Mothers - did you ever ask to sit down with Lisa before you grabbed your cardboard and spray paint to find out where her heart is? No. It was a slow protest day, so you go out and kill the income of both the restaurant and the servers who work in it to forward your agenda.

Back to Lisa - keep on keeping on. We'll see you at brunch!

Hate to interrupt a perfectly good suck-up, but all I'm hearing is a rich, social issues democrat who got caught playing with the bad guys trying to make even more money off the work of her employees.

The fact that Schroeder tried to use her influence as a democratic donor to screw her own employees and thousands of other low-wage workers is shameful, as is the fact that she signed on as a member of the board of directors of ORA and began trying to leverage Democratic legislators without (supposedly) having read the actual bill she was pushing.

My guess is she could always read just fine, and it was the threat of losing business through the exposure that got her to change her stance.

Instead of worrying about Schroeder's feelings, we should all be celebrating the activism of the wait staff that changed her stand and helped secure minimum wage protections. That's a nice bit of work for a bunch of waiters and waitresses willing to get active to make a difference. Those are the Democratic donors we should be keeping foremost in our mind.

I stand corrected on my approach -- I read Lisa's several claims of innocence and thought she was claiming to have some distance. But yes, she admitted her place on the Board. My bad.

I'm still pissed that:

One, if she had her way, more than 20,000 minimum wage workers in Oregon would have lost several hundred dollars' income each month.

Two, it's not a character attack but a truth issue: she was aware of what she was doing. When you're on a Board, you know. When you show up to testify, you know.

Three, while it's cool that she's decided to back off the anti-minimum wage thing, she now seems to be more interested in blaming other people -- the ones on whose behalf she was speaking, and the ones who held her accountable -- than in saying sorry to the workers that she tried to screw out of hundreds of dollars a month.

Worker-owned businesses make the most sense. Perhaps OSBL can add to their list of to-do's.

She testified in the state capitol to change state law with a bill she didn't even read. That's hardy comparable to a blog rant.

Never in all the tip credit discussion was I arguing against minimum wage or for anyone to take home any less money. I never cared about more money for me – I was trying to get more money to pay my cooks!

So then you just pay them more. You make those decisions, after all its your business, right? And if you have to raise your prices, so be it. I think your progressive friends will understand. Its all for the "living wage"...and if people quit eating at your establishment because prices are too high, I guess those are the breaks.

As for picking who/what you do business with based on political ideology...I just dont get that. Even when I was a republican I didnt do that.

My 2 cents, Lisa Schroeder should resign her position on ORA board and membership today--and help create a "progressive"-Restaurant Association with the help of other progressive owners(after they formly resign thier memberships if they are part of ORA) to help lobby Salem on issues that are progressive and to help small to medium businesses in the restaurant/food service industry and to fight against ORA.

To make this wider than a restaurant in Portland, and about more than discussion of economic boycotts, how about this: Every time someone says "but the OEA is the most powerful lobby in the state" counter with "and how much more did they contribute than the ORA?"

Regardless of how much some people hate public employee unions, the ORA power is not just about the min. wage. There were 2 competing capital gains tax cut measures in the 2005 session. The one co-sponsored by Rep. Hunt actually paid for itself. It died in committee. The one with Wayne Scott and ORA in the masthead of the bill got favored treatment in the House (although I don't know what happened to it in the Senate).

Talk about "framing issues"! This is a good one to use in all sorts of discussions--the power of the ORA.

Joining an organization and fighting for change from within is a valid strategy. I think Ms. Schroeder has resigned from the ORA board, even if it isn't reflected on their website. However, even if she hadn't, joining an organization and then working to change its direction it is just as valid as forming an alternative or not participating.

After all, isn't that what progressives are trying to do with the Democratic Party?

Anyway, kudos to Lisa for offering a public explanation and bon appetit to the women who will attend the lunch.

"I never cared about more money for me – I was trying to get more money to pay my cooks!"

So, is she against a tip penalty (it sure ain't a credit...)? I can't tell.

Before everyone thinks this is such a great stance, I'd like to know. Or, was she just against the bill (which also exempted restuarant workers form the annual cost of living adjustment)?

First, I do appreciate Lisa's reconsideration of her lobbying efforts against the voter-passed minimum wage. However, her explanation of why she originally supported it -- to help the back line cooks, ect.. -- is still really the same line the ORA uses every session to try to pass this thing. The problem with this argument is every time there's an amendment with specific language to redirect wages to the back line, the amendment's defeated by the ORA.

Also, I do think it's a good idea to read a bill before lobbying for it. Especially if you're a self-proclaimed progressive being recruited by what in Lisa's own words acknowledge is a fairly "right-wing organization." I'd be curious to know if Lisa understood there was a statewide vote on this issue and that her position was fundamentally at odds with Oregonians as a whole and Portlanders in particular.

I don't want to pile on to Lisa personally, but I will say of the tip credit issue, it's really not that complicated: Do Oregon wait staff make too much money or not?

Me thinks not.

If a progressive restauranteur is required to toe the line on "family wage" politics, will y'all agree to quit eating at fast food restaurants and eating takeout?

Nobody ever tips fast food employees, and it's very rare for a takeout customer to pay more than 10% in tips (about half pay nothing).

I most certainly choose where I spend my dollars based on political views. Why give it to someone who then spends it against me later? I give time and money to a lot of issues, (more time than money, mind you). It would be asinine to work against myself.

It is an occasional shot in the eye when I find out a favored place of business is owned by a person who shoots down my daily work everytime they write their lobbyist checks. (case in point; Fisherman's Market in Eugene, which the West Bros thankfully sold and so I can return there.) I support the AFL's do not patronize list, I support local calls to boycott, and I try to stay abreast of the activities of whatever business I shop at. I also INVESTIGATE RUMORS before I make the decision.

I'll tell you though, it is hard to return to patronizing a business after pointedly avoiding them for so long. (I still haven't been to a Bi-Mart because I found so many other good alternatives when I stopped shopping there.)

If you don't think much of voting with your dollar (and try here for the buy blue website ) then what's the point? We only vote in elections 2x a year in even years, we vote with our dollars every day. Sometimes I feel the latter is the more important decision.

As for Mother's Bistro...I'll wait and see. I like the idea of a progressive Rest. Assoc.

James PS- yes, I know we also vote in odd years for school board etc, but it made the sentence awkward. PPS- and as an aside, I personally like ORA's lobbyist,Tim Perry, I just don't like the shenangin's ORA pulls. I'll buy him a beer when I see him, just not from an ORA establishment.

I support Lisa Schroeder. It only took her 18 months to figure out that removing $250/mo from my wage might cause some sort of hardship. And that whole "read the bill before you testify" argument is completely bunk in my opinion because 1 1/2 years can go by in the blink of an eye. March 2005 seems like the day before yesterday--to my landlord and PGE. I just wish there was an equivalent ORA for other professions. We could cap lawyers' salaries at $50k/year, restrict car salesmans' commissions at 1.5%, lower strippers' tips to 50 cents per song, and make gas just a buck-eighty per gallon. That's something that both democrats and republicans can agree upon. Best of all, I like Ms. Schroeder's committment to pay BOH more money, which I'm sure was her original intention in hooking up with the ORA. My roommate has a $24k WCI loan that isn't going to pay for itself.
And kudos to Ms. Schroeder for speaking the truth: "...since I made $2.30 per hour during the five years that I was a server in New York. In most states, this is how it’s done. As a server, I never expected a paycheck, and knew that any hourly wages I earned would go to pay the taxes on my declared tips. It seemed to make total sense to me, and until I moved to Oregon..." Finally! Someone from a REAL state that knows how things should be done around here!

Every time I think Blue Oregon is evolving into a more significant forum, it seems something like this commands more than it's fair share of attention.

Frankly, I find little sympathetic about Ms. Shroeder as she presents herself in her post. She comes across as someone who claims to be "progressive", but whose argument conveys this is more out of self-centered habit than any core conviction or understanding about what that means. What she's experiencing is the result of her actions, including, as evidenced by the totality of her post, making a life decision up to now to not be very well informed. By her own admission, she didn't even make the effort to fully understand the issues around a specific political action central to her own business. The facts are indisputable that she is a victim of herself.

In fairness to the situation, we cannot forget she is not just a simple cook working for someone. She is the owner of two, heretofore relatively successful, upscale businesses that are frequented by people who don't necessarily harbor any particular convictions or make any particular contributions that move our society in a progressive or just direction. And also in fairness we cannot forget that by definition the Democratic Party as an institution is not inherently committed to social justice and progressivism. The party only defends those values only to the extent that it's representatives are held accountable by it's membership.

In this case her businesses may be damaged, perhaps permanently. There is no reason it shouldn't be. One of things we are supposed to learn as we become adults is that there are consequences to bad decisions, and that we must learn to accept and deal with those consequences in the best way possible. Unfortunately, the "you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" tone at the end of her post does not sound like she has accepted this yet.

"aaron" has provided exactly the right suggestion for her which deserves support by way of repeating.:

Lisa Schroeder should resign her position on ORA board and membership today--and help create a "progressive"-Restaurant Association with the help of other progressive owners(after they formly resign thier memberships if they are part of ORA) to help lobby Salem on issues that are progressive and to help small to medium businesses in the restaurant/food service industry and to fight against ORA.

Unless and until she does this to make amends, why should anyone not follow James Mattiace's well-reasoned advice, which also deserves support by way of repeating, about responsible progressive behavior in the market system:

If you don't think much of voting with your dollar (and try here for the buy blue website ) then what's the point? We only vote in elections 2x a year in even years, we vote with our dollars every day. Sometimes I feel the latter is the more important decision.

Well said aaron and James. So well said, in fact, that these were the only two comments that really needed to follow her post.

Mister Tee wrote:

"Do you really choose your restaurants/event venues based on some kind of labor friendly litmus test?"

Tom Civiletti writes: Yes, I do.

I can't think of many groups more anti-progressive than the Oregon Restaurant Association.

<h1>Well said aaron and James. So well said, in fact, that these were the only two comments that really needed to follow her post.</h1>

I agree, and would only add the following post by Jim:

"Now I know what it looks like when the Democrats potty train one of their misdirected children."

Ms Schroeder has been publicly spanked. May she learn from her misdeeds and change her ways. Only then should we embrace her with our open arms (and wallets).

She comes across as someone who claims to be "progressive", but whose argument conveys this is more out of self-centered habit than any core conviction or understanding about what that means.

Frankly this is self-righteous nonsense from anyone short of Mother Teresa or Dorothy Day. And I have my doubts about Mother Teresa. We all fall short of being perfectly in tune with our values all the time.

She goofed. She didn't realize how politically charged this issue was. She got snookered into supporting something that would help her business without thinking about its politics or how that might effect others. The AFL-CIO (or someone) did their job and embarassed her about it. She is using this forum as a mea culpa and apology.

The proper response is "Apology accepted." If you are really p'o'd about it you can add "don't do it again."

Only then should we embrace her with our open arms (and wallets).

I would love to see the list of places you shop and products you buy - it must be an awful short list.

Peter -

"I don't like the "so I'm so hurt I'm just going to take my ball and go home" aspect."

I agree. That was my initial reaction as well. Trying to somehow blame the unions for calling her on her misteps was annoying as well. I just got even more annoyed with the self-righteous responses.

Ross Williams -

Frankly, I find little sympathetic about Ms. Shroeder as she presents herself in her post. She comes across as someone who claims to be "progressive", but whose argument conveys this is more out of self-centered habit than any core conviction or understanding about what that means.

Frankly this is self-righteous nonsense from anyone short of Mother Teresa or Dorothy Day. And I have my doubts about Mother Teresa. We all fall short of being perfectly in tune with our values all the time.

Are you genuinely unable to distinguish between the statement of a perception "She comes across as ..." (quoting without grabbing enough of the quote to establish the context may be part of the problem), and an accusation such as "She is ..." that might actually entitle you to lecture someone as being ill-advised? Particularly since the rest of the paragraph, which your comment at least arguably suggests you ignored, takes some care to explain the reason for the perception.

You very well may be annoyed at your perception of what others are saying, and you have every right to feel however you feel. But the proper response to your annoyance is to lecture into the bathroom mirror.

Lisa, congrats for getting your piece said. It's hard, in the mudslinging world of political wrangling, to avoid some loam in between your teeth.

However, while I believe you are not an evil, blood sucking Republican vampire, I do take issue with one of your justifications.

You said that you wanted the "tip credit" to take money out of your servers pockets...because you wanted to pay your cooks more?

Please.

When I fought for the living wage in Santa Fe two years ago, this was the same excuse every restaurant owner used: if they had to pay servers more, they said, then the money would simply come out of other employee's paychecks. Not their own, obviously.

Reasoning: the owners of the restaurants have NO financial interest in their own restaurant. You offer a similar standoffishness, implying that your gains from slashing server wages would not find their way into your pocket.

By trying to insinuate that a savings in labor costs would be reapplied to labor costs is bad business, even for a democrat.

What was missing from your article, as noted in some of the above comments, was giving a damn about the quality of life of your servers.

The whole reason that I moved back to Oregon from New Mexico is because I get paid more as a server here than I did there--three times as much.

If you want to pay your cooks more, you can do it with or without a "tip credit." If you want to pay your servers more than the minimum wage, feel free. But it is the nature of business to pay the lowest prevailing wages possible and still have quality employees. Implying you are somehow exempt from this habit is disingenuous.

(Disclaimer: I feel it necessary to reiterate my opinion of your lack of fangs. I appreciate the sometimes precarious contradictions in being a progressive business owner. Unfortunately, the nature of political discourse is such that, even if many of your points are right, and I believe them to be so, in order to contribute to the discussion I must attack the weakest point of your argument, which, in itself, implies a complete disagreement with your stance. Please note that I do not have this complete disagreement, but on this one point, I think you are full of it.)

Are you genuinely unable to distinguish between the statement of a perception "She comes across as ..." (quoting without grabbing enough of the quote to establish the context may be part of the problem), and an accusation such as "She is ..."

Yes - I genuinely think the former is an attempt to avoid responsibility while still making the accusation. Which merely adds hypocrisy to the self-righteousness.

James M. wrote: PPS- and as an aside, I personally like ORA's lobbyist,Tim Perry, I just don't like the shenangin's ORA pulls. I'll buy him a beer when I see him, just not from an ORA establishment.

First it is Bill Perry not Tim.

Lisa did resign from the board and shame on Bill for not being clear about the impact this could have and on Lisa for being so nieve' as to think she would not pay a price.

Having said all that - I for one am more interested in getting women to the polls in someway. So for now I am willing to forgive Lisa this mis-step and move forward.

I will continue have a real problem getting over the fact that no one had this much to say when it was Fraken, Blumenauer, Kerry, Gore or others who have been there. Could it be that they are men, no that can't be it...or can it????

Becky

Becky -

I think you do no service when you just classify this as a "misstep". She is a business owner, after all, and at best her argument is that she didn't care enough to fully understand an issue that was central to her business.

I for one am more interested in getting women to the polls in someway. This is a bit of a non sequitor given the core issues being discussed here, particularly when it offered as the rationale for not holding someone accountable for their own political actions. After all, "security moms" were a key contributor to the right-ward shift of the country. Frankly, I could do with a people being more interested in getting critical thinkers, with solid American working class values, to the polls.

Ross Williams -

The mirror is still the best place for you to direct your comments. Imputing negative motives to someone you don't know, and based solely on your reaction to a few written statements critically analyzing the rationalizations of another, is something that says much more about your character than anything else.

Imputing negative motives to someone you don't know, and based solely on your reaction to a few written statements

Here is what I said:

"Frankly this is self-righteous nonsense from anyone short of Mother Teresa or Dorothy Day. And I have my doubts about Mother Teresa. We all fall short of being perfectly in tune with our values all the time."

That describes your written statements - which were and are self-righteous. Its not surprising that you disagree.

Trash Mother's Bistro if you want to; but leave Mother Theresa out of it. She should be immune from criticism from the likes of Ross Williams. It's not nice to speak ill of the dead, and she's probably got friends in high places.

She should be immune from criticism from the likes of Ross Williams.

No doubt true. But I actually I spoke well of Mother Teresa, unless you think that having some doubts about her sainthood is a criticism. I have no similar doubts about Dorothy Day, although she probably would have herself.