Why is Eileen protecting the 1%? First, she opposes Measures 66/67 and now she gleefully embraces the PBA? Doesn't sound like a grassroots community activist.

I think there's too much extrapolation going on from many sides here.

PBA's endorsement simply implies "this is the candidate who most closely aligns with our views on the issues and the majority of us want to be our mayor."

Now, I'm not one to side with the PBA on most issues. Read their candidate questionnaire and the candidates' answers if you want a sense of what matters most to the PBA and where the candidates are.

Per their questionnaire, the PBA supports a regime of environment versus the economy, transportation choices versus economic growth, exemptions from certain taxes of individuals making $125,000, using urban renewal in the already strong central city retail core (robbing other neighborhoods of revenue), diversion of affordable housing resources away from housing the poorest of the poor, building the costly risky CRC highway mega-project, limits on using TIF funds to help our most needy schools, building the university system, weaker stream mitigation laws, increased tax credits for businesses, reduction of racial disparities in eduction, and a few other things.

To think that the PBA is signing off on everything Brady supports, like her youthful protesting, is incorrect. Nor is Brady signing off on everything the PBA stands for.

All we know is apparently she's the closest of the three major candidates to PBA's agenda. Make of that what you will.

Plans are good, I think records are better. When 95% of the businesses in Portland are "small business," and Jefferson Smith was named Small Business Champion of the Year based on his record, that's a more meaningful endorsement. On the other hand, I haven't liked very much of what the PBA's had to endorse over the last decade or so. I certainly was no fan of their relentless interest in canning public finance.

As an aside, this read as one of the more directly stenographic Blue Oregon candidate/client pieces. Bravo.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, so to speak and as such, I've stayed pretty quiet on this race.

But from out here in the bleachers, it doesn't seem like an awesome endorsement to me. It's the rough equivalent of getting the local Chamber of Commerce endorsement--or at least that's how it looks to me.

I really don't know that much about Brady (I know a lot more about Smith because he's been a pretty outspoken activist and a legislator), and in fact she may be a really incredible progressive. But this is the second thing (the first being her support for the Columbia River Crossing) that has made me raise my eyebrows.

I nod in the general direction of Carla and Kyle's questions as to what end the endorsement of the PBA gets you in Portland.

It may not hold sway over most Portland voters. The PBA endorsed Francesconi in 2004, and co-endorsed Dozono with Adams in 2008.

It may not be in political agreement with the readers of Blue Oregon. For example, PBA is also endorsing Republican Rob Cornilles over Bonamici in the 1st CD general: http://bit.ly/ujfMj9

But. The other side of the coin -- is coin.

Which is to say, if a PBA endorsement gets Brady pass the top hat around downtown that she could use to get up on the air early with paid advertising, she might be able to create some significant separation from her opponents.

As a campaign strategy, taking PBA's money may prove quite clever.

Either way it's too early to know. Most voters are not listening to this race.

That's why I definitely agree that Kari should set up some online wagering. Whose got $10,000 they wanna put up?

Jefferson Smith for mayor!

Republican Portland endorses Blue Oregon's candidate. Go figure.

The PBA endorsement seems like a bit of a booby prize to me.

I haven't lived in Portland that long (only 14 years), and I'm not even sure how long the PBA has been in business, but I have never thought of them as having the same objectives that I do, as an individual voter/taxpayer. It's right there in their name. They represent Portland's business interests. I think of PBA as the people who want to keep the sidewalks clear, keep city taxes low, make downtown more car-friendly, etc. These objectives are not in and of themselves shameful or bad, but the tradeoffs involved need to be examined, and the PBA are not very nuanced in the way they pursue their objectives.

It strikes me as a foregone conclusion that the PBA would endorse one of their own, and while it behooves the other candidates to behave respectfully toward them, I'm quite certain they aren't crying into their pillows about this outcome.

The support of the business community doesn't hold that much sway with Portland voters. I'm looking at you, Jim Francesconi.

Actually Kari, I want to clarify, filling out a questionnaire for the PBA, is not "competing vigorously." If we had been "competing vigorously" we would have actually told them what they wanted to hear. But to the contrary, we heard internally that Jefferson Smith actually had the "lowest" score given by the PBA (meaning he gave the most progressive answers.) Apparently, Jefferson's score was even lower than Steve Novick's. Also, if we had been "competing vigorously," we would have asked for a second interview that both Eileen and Charlie did with their executive board recently. BlueOregon readers can either decide the PBA endorsement represents their values, or they can read what the candidates said in their answers and decide for themselves. http://valueofjobs.com/candidate_ques/cq_cc_mayor.html

The endorsements we did go after vigorously include the list of over 200 people we announced this week who are supporting Jefferson. http://www.jeffersonsmith.com/over-200-people-you-can-ask-about-jefferson/ Folks can add their name to this list by dropping an email to [email protected]

• Disclaimer- proud to be the campaign director for Jefferson Smith for Mayor.

No single group has done more damage to progressive causes in Portland than the Portland Business Alliance. They've opposed clean and fair elections, worked to fight affordable housing and solutions to address homelessness, and endorsed ballot measures and candidates that activity seek to undermine the values that make Portland special. I'd be embarrassed to have their support. And I'd be hard pressed to support a candidate that welcomed their endorsement. This is just one more reason I'm proud to be among the hundreds of Portlanders supporting Jefferson Smith as part of a grassroots campaign that champions job growth and equity. If you're happy with business as usual in City Hall vote for the candidate the Portland Business Alliance supports. If, like me, you believe our city can do better than I invite you to consider voting for Jefferson Smith.

About the CRC. I think Nolan and Eileen Brady know better than to go to the AFL-CIO endorsement meeting and say, "Build it".
The Highway Departments of Oregon and Washington, and the Governors, and the Transportation Commissions, have a federal Record of Decision on this $3.6 billion project, that they are pushing forward in every way possible. This is a 10-lane bridge and $1.8 billion in interchanges, and a billion dollar light rail project that won't work.

So, when Eileen and Mary Nolan tell the AFL-CIO "Build it" there is not much nuance to those statements. Nolan and Brady know this project can't be financed, that after six years of trying, there is no money for construction yet. That it is an empty promise that is going to fall on its face, and the only jobs it will deliver are to the consultants and the lobbyists who the two states have spent more than $100 million on so far.

Nolan and Brady know there are cheaper alternatives and better alternatives available, ones we could actually finance and build, and would actually provide jobs.

And they'd like to dodge and duck and say one thing on their websites and to the enviros, and another to business, and yes labor.

It's all so cynical. No one really looks closely at the project itself. No one cares that it won't end congestion as promised. No one cares that the project will eat up Oregon's transportation dollars for decades to come. No one cares about climate change. No one cares that Ted Wheeler, our State Treasurer, called out a $500 million hole in the $1.3 billion plan for revenue bonding the tolls across the new bridge. No one cares that the 12 neighborhoods of the North-NE Coalition of Neighborhoods oppose this thing because of the air pollution and air toxics that will rain down on their neighborhoods.

Nope, what today's politicians care about is those endorsements, getting elected, that's what matters.
Frankly, TA, I think Eileen is a good candidate, and I am happy you are working for her, and Kari, I am sure you have done a good job for her, too. But let's not point to her website and what is written there. Let's hear what she said to the AFL-CIO and PBA on the subject, and I did watch the videotape at the AFL-CIO. Here's for a Portland politics that is less clearly bought and paid for. Maybe putting the public interest ahead of private gain is going out of fashion among progressives?

T.A. I met with Eileen twice at "meetings", and incidentally I was very impressed with her. We discussed the CRC both times. What she said in those meetings was not what she said in the video I watched before the AFL-CIO. She's your candidate. You referred us to her website, which I assume you wrote and she approved. This is the largest public works project in the history of the region. I think she should be saying the same thing in public endorsement meetings that she says in smaller meetings. That's not too much to ask, is it? It's kind of like John Isaacs, your campaign manager, who when he was Executive Director of OLCV was saying one thing in meetings about the CRC and saying another in the Oregon Labor Press to build his labor relations there. We all know where Bob Shiprack, John Molles and Tom Chamberlain are on the CRC. They think they want jobs and are going to get them from the CRC (the problem, of course, is that they aren't going to get construction jobs from a project that can't be financed). And, like the PBA, who has the CRC as its "number one priority", and like The Oregonian who wants its largest advertisers (like major CRC proponent Fred Meyer) on its side, and has written 30 fanatically favorable editorials about the CRC since June of 2008 (count 'em 30), Labor has been using its position on the CRC as a bottom line issue in its endorsements (remains to be seen in the Mayor's race, I guess). So I would simply like to suggest that all three of the major candidates in the Mayor's race ought be have their feet held to the fire on what their positions on this very large project are. If they want to write off the enviros, the BTA, 1,000 Friends of Oregon, and the North-NE Neighborhood Coalition of 12 neighborhood associations, then they should say "build it" to the AFL-CIO, and they should say "build it" when they talk to everyone else, too. And they should say "build it" on their websites.
I would point out that Bob Stacey, who carried the City of Portland heavily in his race for Metro President, advertised in all his ads he was for a "better bridge" than the CRC. He never said "build it" once, and not to Labor or Business groups, and not to The Oregonian. I actually saw Bob, like Jefferson Smith, testifying in City Council in opposition to making the current mega-bridge the locally preferred alternative.