"Meanwhile, I spent a good deal of time trying to talk to his office and his campaign "

Why would they want to talk to you? How would they have benefited?

Carla, it's same reason that certain democrats refuse to go on Fox, or interview with O'Reilly.

Carla, it's same reason that certain democrats refuse to go on Fox, or interview with O'Reilly.

Obama did an interview with Billo that he spread over four shows. However, Dan, can you refresh my memory regarding the interviews that McCain or Palin did with either Olbermann or Mathews?

It seems like rural Oregonians have plenty of tax dollars and political capital shipped to their part of the state--which is the right thing to do. But maybe folks in rural Oregon who feel jilted have their reasons.

I didn't vote for Smith either, because he wasn't an effective representative for rural interests. Merkley won't be either, but at least 1) we KNOW he isn't that interested in rural Oregon, so we can adjust accordingly; and 2) he'll help us move toward 60 votes in the U. S. Senate.

As I've previously discussed on this site, rural Oregon doesn't get any measurable subsidy from the Portland/Salem folks. It pretty much pays its own way from a state standpoint. And many of those federal dollars (like the misnamed "Secure Rural Schools" funds) have been re-directed into urban areas. I'm not sure what all that "political capital" is (or where it goes), but it certainly doesn't seem to migrate to the rural parts of the state. That is, unless your idea of "rural" is the less developed parts of the Clackamas and Washington Counties.

Merkley campaigned in heavily Republican parts of Southern and Eastern Oregon, and won some few votes there for his trouble, maybe enough to put him over the top.

Smith didn't bother going to places like Eugene, and only campaigned where he was already popular. If he had come here and asked for our vote, he might have won 40% of Lane County instead of 35%, and he would still be Senator.

Lesson: campaign everywhere, and represent the whole state.

@ rural resident: Paid for all those many miles of roads by yourselves, did you? And those power lines that deliver the electricity to you at postage stamp rates? And all those US Postal Service mail carriers who deliver your mail for the same prices as deliveries in Portland. Not to mention all the ag subsidies that flow to rural Oregon -- where does that come from again? And now that Oregon is a leading wind state, who do you think pays for the production tax credit on that power, while rural landowners enjoy the royalties for each tower?

Writ small, this is the same nonsense that Republicans love to dish out nationally -- "here in real America, us hardworking white folks support ourselves, unlike those city folks" -- only problem is, it just ain't so.

Rural schools do get a subsidy from urban areas in this sense: property values (and hence property tax revenues) in urban areas are higher, but this property tax money is redistributed by the state. This represents a lot of money flowing from Portland to rural districts. This is a good thing: children in rural Oregon deserve a high-quality education as much as children in Portland.

Admiral

Great point. I know of two well placed republican leaders in Eugene-Springfield, a mayor and an economic development director, tried to get Smith to campaign more in the Eugene-Springfield area and for some reason he kept cancelling and would should up in Cottage Grove. Nothing against Cottage Grove, but the votes are in Eugene-Springfield

Now, we're all relieved that Gordon Smith is gone, Carla. But does he really deserve the Dixie Chicks? I mean, that's just cruel and unusual punishment on top of being out of a job. You're starting to make me feel sorry for him...:)

Gordon Smith was born and raised in Wash. DC. An insider from the get-go. He's played that rural Oregon card again and again. He doesn't know jack about rural Oregon people. And he's been nothing but a front man for the corporatists down the line. Like others when I called his office I was treated with contempt.I come from K. Falls and Gordon Smith could care less about people in that part of the state. Oh, but he really cares about gays!! Right... Good riddance.

This election is the culmination of not only many months of hard work..but years of wretched Republican policies that have put this nation in peril.

Democrats would do well to note the latter half of this abstract. Many people, especially independents, voted against McCain and Smith and not for Obama and Merkley. Obama dropped his first ominous shoe with the choice of Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff making evident that if progressives want Obama to keep the promises they believe he made, progressives will have to push aggressively - or admit they were duped. Not a Blue America, not a Red America, but a United States of American - except maybe for Arab-Americans and peace activists.

I also don't buy the "Blue/Obama Tsunami" as the main reason Smith lost.

Oregon and Maine each supported That One with 57-point-something percent of the vote. Susan Collins was re-elected in Maine with over 61 percent against a well-funded member of congress, a three point increase over her 2002 re-election. Smith received nearly 57 percent that year against Bill Bradbury.

Smith lost because his "moderation" is phony and he's out of touch with his state.

Carla,

Merkley did more damage to rural Oregon than any politician in Oregon's history by passing his (non)"ethics" bill.

What, about the thousands of rural Oregonians on (volunteer) planning committees and councils who resigned rather be subject themselves to reporting things like credit card debts, names and location of relatives without the guarantee by law the ethics commission wouldn't make that information accessible to the public. In fact the law is specific in stating the reporting forms are to be accessible on the internet by 2010.

Some other brief highlights in the "ethics" bill:

It ignores 'home rule' and puts the hand of the legislature directly into the each municipalities general fund with no say by the councils. By law, local funds are to pay for the state budget for the ethics and reporting requirements. Merkeley established this because he didn't want future legislative sessions to eliminate the funding during the budget process. So by decree he established something that no politician has done in Oregon, reaching directly into the local coffers without the local entities consent. I find this audacity very Orwellian.

It also established actions rural Oregonians see as part of small town life as "unethical". A person who lives in the home of a city official who goes to a BBQ hosted by someone who "may" have interest in City business City (general contractor, a business person that needs a conditional use permit, a person who is subdividing or requesting a pending code variance) can be interpreted as unethical.

Further, the State the gift limitation is expanded to include the entire household. So a son/daughter of a city official who dates a son/daughter of say a general contractor who does occasional work for the City cannot pay for dates once the $50 limit is met. The example used by the League of Oregon Cities was same gender friends invited to a movie. The interpretation was the friend can pay for the ticket, as long as it was reported it and it was under the $50 limit, but her friend can't pay for the food and drink. Same for people dating

There are others but this is already long enough. And being from John Day, you'll understand how integrated a small community is and how they interact (dating, BBQ's) all the time compared to large communities. Some communities are so small that a code variance request makes nearly the entire community in violation with the ethics bill. (person making the request, the planning commission, council members and the neighbors within 300' of the lot who are affected, have an interest in the variance). What should happen? Stop dating or taking friend to movies while the variance is under consideration?

If this is helping rural Oregonians then there are thousands of people who'd like to have their unanswered phone calls and unansewered requests for meetings finally be answered by Merkeley.

Seems like your experience with Smith and other's experience with Merkely are about the same, then again, you didn't have to provide you and your family members private information to the State (or even resign) due to a law passed by Smith.

To those who believe Merkely's office in that false information was propagated, I'll respond the same way rural Mayors and Council members responded to the Governor's office. Paraphrasing, 'We can read. We have read the law and we have city attorneys who advise us on the law. We don't get our information on this law by lobby groups, legislature's or newspaper articles, we go to directly to the source and directly to our legal counsel.'

I fear if this law remains in place, local government will be changed forever. If the legislature can reach directly into the general fund of any municipality in the state without the consent of elected local officials, then there is not need for a local government, just create State field offices in every community.

Carla,

Merkley did more damage to rural Oregon than any politician in Oregon's history by passing his (non)"ethics" bill.

What, about the thousands of rural Oregonians on (volunteer) planning committees and councils who resigned rather be subject themselves to reporting things like credit card debts, names and location of relatives without the guarantee by law the ethics commission wouldn't make that information accessible to the public. In fact the law is specific in stating the reporting forms are to be accessible on the internet by 2010.

Some other brief highlights in the "ethics" bill:

It ignores 'home rule' and puts the hand of the legislature directly into the each municipalities general fund with no say by the councils. By law, local funds are to pay for the state budget for the ethics and reporting requirements. Merkeley established this because he didn't want future legislative sessions to eliminate the funding during the budget process. So by decree he established something that no politician has done in Oregon, reaching directly into the local coffers without the local entities consent. I find this audacity very Orwellian.

It also established actions rural Oregonians see as part of small town life as "unethical". A person who lives in the home of a city official who goes to a BBQ hosted by someone who "may" have interest in City business City (general contractor, a business person that needs a conditional use permit, a person who is subdividing or requesting a pending code variance) can be interpreted as unethical.

Further, the State the gift limitation is expanded to include the entire household. So a son/daughter of a city official who dates a son/daughter of say a general contractor who does occasional work for the City cannot pay for dates once the $50 limit is met. The example used by the League of Oregon Cities was same gender friends invited to a movie. The interpretation was the friend can pay for the ticket, as long as it was reported it and it was under the $50 limit, but her friend can't pay for the food and drink. Same for people dating

There are others but this is already long enough. And being from John Day, you'll understand how integrated a small community is and how they interact (dating, BBQ's) all the time compared to large communities. Some communities are so small that a code variance request makes nearly the entire community in violation with the ethics bill. (person making the request, the planning commission, council members and the neighbors within 300' of the lot who are affected, have an interest in the variance). What should happen? Stop dating or taking friend to movies while the variance is under consideration?

If this is helping rural Oregonians then there are thousands of people who'd like to have their unanswered phone calls and unansewered requests for meetings finally be answered by Merkeley.

Seems like your experience with Smith and other's experience with Merkely are about the same, then again, you didn't have to provide you and your family members private information to the State (or even resign) due to a law passed by Smith.

To those who believe Merkely's office in that false information was propagated, I'll respond the same way rural Mayors and Council members responded to the Governor's office. Paraphrasing, 'We can read. We have read the law and we have city attorneys who advise us on the law. We don't get our information on this law by lobby groups, legislature's or newspaper articles, we go to directly to the source and directly to our legal counsel.'

I fear if this law remains in place, local government will be changed forever. If the legislature can reach directly into the general fund of any municipality in the state without the consent of elected local officials, then there is not need for a local government, just create State field offices in every community.

sorry for the double post, I had a hickup on my connection.

What will the off-shore banking industry do without Smith? You tax haven mavens ought to be very nervous. That includes you Mr. Smith.

Carla,

Regarding your question on the Secure Rural Schools money: When the original legislation passed in 2000, it was Congress' intent that the portion for schools go directly to districts in the impacted counties. Instead, the Legislature chose to put it in the Common School Fund. I was told by one of Senator Wyden's staff that this was a sore point with him, but he chose not to press the issue because of the need to focus on the effort to get the measure reauthorized. The staffer also pointed out that approximately 90 percent of the money still was distributed according to the original intent of the bill.

I am a Lincoln County Commissioner and was an enthusiastic Merkley supporter from the start. He was in our county at least three times during the course of the campaign, versus one last-minute visit from the incumbent. I am confident he will be responsive to the issues of rural Oregonians.

A bit off topic, but this has confused me for years.

Why does "rural America" want smaller government when they are the beneficiaries of government policies? If they had to pay their own way, their quality of life would suffer greatly.

. . but I'm under the impression that schools in rural Oregon get a good chunk more tax money per capita then schools in urban Oregon. Is this not the case? Is that the only example where urban Oregon dollars move heavily into rural areas?

Nope, it's not the case, Carla. Schools in rural areas are very much paying their own way. In some cases, much more so. Of the eight districts that pay the largest percentage of their local K-12 operating budgets, five are on the central and north coast. In fact, the Seaside district gets no K-12 funds at all from the state. I have lots of information about this, but it's far too extensive to post here. If you're really interested, I will be happy to share it with you offline sometime. As for Merkley, I'm sure he's a prince of a guy and he'll represent the urban areas very well. Those are the folks who elected him, and he won't forget that. Other than zipping through rural areas on a bus tour, he spent most of his time along the northern part of the I-5 corridor. I'm glad it worked out for him. It would be nice if he would be less provincial as a U. S. senator, but I'm not dumb enough to make any bets on it.

Rural schools do get a subsidy from urban areas in this sense: property values (and hence property tax revenues) in urban areas are higher, but this property tax money is redistributed by the state. This represents a lot of money flowing from Portland to rural districts. This is a good thing: children in rural Oregon deserve a high-quality education as much as children in Portland.

Sorry, Rulial. Local property tax money stays within the local jurisdictions. That's just as true for school taxes as it is for cities, park districts, etc. Your last statement is correct. It's too bad it isn't happening that way now. Bill Hall is mostly right. The 90% is nationally, certainly not here in Oregon.

George .... No, we didn't pay all of the cost for those roads, any more than you in the Portland area paid all of the cost for your roads, or your public transit system (talk about massive subsidies!), or your electrical lines, etc. Much of the money came through federal sources. Nobody here is talking about people in rural areas being any more "real," patriotic, etc. However, once one actually looks at the numbers (and I have, in great detail), those of us in rural Oregon get awfully tired of idiots in Portland talking about how they're paying all of their own costs and most of everyone elses ... especially when it simply isn't true.

"what specifically would Merkley need to do in order to be considered a "good representative Senator" for rural Oregon?"

Live a year in LaGrande, then a year in Baker City, ect. He's got 6 years, he could make the most of it.

waits patiently for Carla's rersponse calling this "bullshit" too

Kevin,

While it's true your position isn't part of the ethic's reporting, planning commission that report to councils are. Many communities planning commissions are on a volunteer basis and yes are subject to the reporting requirements.

Anything else in the post disturb you from a privacy rights standpoint?

I absolutely agree that the landslide brought down Smith. But to nitpick one point--there are instances where rural money flows to urban areas here in Oregon. Here's one that hasn't been mentioned--community colleges. The local property tax revenues a school receives are deducted from its general fund allotment, with the goal being to equalize the amount spent per student in the state.

• Those who pay the most per student (full-time enrollment) via property taxes and thus are penalized the most by the state support Central Oregon, Oregon Coast, Tillamook Bay, Clatsop, and Rogue Community Colleges.

• The biggest gainers are Columbia Gorge, Umpqua, Linn-Benton, Portland, and Treasure Community Colleges.

In other words for instance, those of us in Josephine and Jackson Counties are supporting folks in Portland. It's not huge money...Portland is fighting the change because it would lose $5 million a bienniem if other communities weren't penalized for supporting their CCs better. Nonetheless...

Steven, you obviously don't have to agree with Republicans, but please do something about your ugly intolerance. There are plenty of us rural Oregonians who don't fit your prejudices.

I've previously discussed on this site, rural Oregon doesn't get any measurable subsidy from the Portland/Salem folks.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Not only does it far more state money per capita, but every statewide charity in Oregon supports the rural areas with Portland donations. Having directed several of them, I can assure you this is the case. None of the rural areas would have services from statewide nonprofits if not for the generosity of people in the Portland area. Get over it. (I grew up in rural red mill town Oregon and even pulled green chain so don't troll poop me man).

Johnnie, do you support Big Look's idea of local control over land use?

If so, that ethics law is not nearly strong enough--speaking as someone who lives in a community where a construction company got a lot of city work and school work when their owner was a local elected official. Or the time the car dealership wanted to expand to the boundaries of the school, the planning comm. went along, and the parents and others in the neighborhood had to sue the city to get a park between the school playground and the car dealership.

Think about the recent debate over a destination resort in Crook County, or before that the debate about Measure 37 claims in that county.

Yes, I realize that at one time there was a good old boy network in small towns where printed information on family business connections wasn't needed. But given the nastiness and insider quality of some local politics, it seems that some sort of "sunshine law" regarding local politics is needed.

Pat, you are right. The idea that there couldn't possibly be honest, moderate Republicans because they all divide into Steve's groups is what drives people to become I or NAV.

backbeat .... A lot of private money goes in both directions. Rural folks are almost forced to drive to urban areas to do at least some of their shopping, which results in huge transfers from rural to urban. Besides, we're talking about tax funds (public money) being used for supposed "subsidies."

Aside from that, let's look at this from an historical perspective. For many decades, going back to the 1800s, the backbone of Oregon's economy was the timber industry. Much of the wealth of the more urbanized Willamette Valley and Portland Metro areas was derived from that industry and its offshoots. Now if we want to talk about subsidies ... where exactly did all those trees grow? (Seems to me we're talking about rural resources being used to create wealth in urban areas.)

Glad to know you're from John Day and congratulations on turning your back on your roots!

Another "progressive" idea. Since all you blue morons love the electorial college so much and the fact that it doesnt actully reflect the will of the voters. If we were to use the same system county by county in Oregon we might get closer to actually getting representation to the east side of the state now that someone who routinely worked across party lines far better than we can expect Merkley or any of the other liberal Robin Hoods you folks support. Smith was no angel but still did what we never see out of politicians on either side, he went with his gut and that why he got my support during both elections he ran in.

At some point you folks have to accept that BHO is going to screw this up far worse as he gets everything he wants with little opposition from the legislative 3rd of the check's and balances of the government because eveyone will be afraid to possible hurt the touchy-feely feelings of a minority. That will be true Change!!! as he screws up all that is holy!!!

Steven Maurer: "So when I read Eric Parker, who talks about Merkley not caring about "rural voters", while conspicuously refusing to state the actual issues he thinks Merkley is not addressing, it's clear exactly what he would like to say, but won't."

I'm sorry - I only ACT like I believe I have this huge brain and perfect understanding. I honestly am not getting this. Please be explicit as to what Eric would like to say but won't? I'm just not getting it.

Thank you.

Dan up at the top of the thread: why would Smith's office have talked to Carla?

Ummmm... intellectual honesty.

In my brief little lobbying stint, I found that many LA's were my sort of people - they might have a belief, but they respected your passion. And if you could present them a dimenion they had not heard of, they got curious and took a look at it. I doubt positions were changed.

There were only a few offices that were nasty, dogmatic, and were there to tell YOU how it is -- Ashcroft's was the main one, and McCain's was a slightly softer version of this. I was energized and surprised to find that there were many GOP offices that had more-open minds than I could have imagined. By this, I mean that they allowed a conversation.

So, if you are wondering what good it would have done Smith's office, I suppose it's a woman thing.

RELATIONSHIP.

"Theocrats (the Christian Taliban), Plutocrats (the economic royalists), Imperialists (now known as neocons), Racists (the Southern and Appalachian Dixiecrats), and the Earth Rapers."

Hahahahahah.... it's not "right" for me to say this, but that was GOOD.

Huh?

Come clean? What's that all about here?

I was only answering a question, nothing more ornothing less, and you all get extremely uptight and foaming at he mouth over it, believing there is some 'deeper and sinister' meaning to the answer. I do know that Jeff grew up in Douglas County and I was trying to answer a question. But you all just get your panties in a knot becuase I dared to answer any question about Jeff. Just because he won an election with your help does not make him a diety. So he is the Dem God Merkley now? Sheesh.

It was only an answer to a question. Gee whiz. Maybe it is not good to say anything at all with you. Anything and everything to you people now have some deeper and sinister meanbing to it, especially when it considers the new Dem God Merkley.

So I guess that anything that is said about Merkley is sacralidge (sp).

This shows that some of you Democrats much like the Republicans by the way you acted over this answer of mine.

..and all I did was answer a question. cool your jets, kids.

Anyone who says something like this "At some point you folks have to accept that BHO is going to screw this up far worse as he gets everything he wants with little opposition from the legislative 3rd of the check's and balances of the government because eveyone will be afraid to possible hurt the touchy-feely feelings of a minority. "

doesn't know how often Dems are of the "5 in a room, 4 factions and a moderator" variety.

The newly appointed chief of staff was screaming bloody murder 2 years ago because the DNC chair wouldn't take orders from him.

And as one Chicagoan said in a commentary this morning, Obama is a quintessential Chicago politician--playing it cool but playing to win, knowing all the players, knowing what the result will be before putting something up for a vote.

Now Earwig, remember always that blogging brings out the shallow-nasty of us.

<hr/>