Pack of Wolves
Carla Hanson
..and how the minor parties are naderizing the Oregon SOS race.
It happened in 2000, and we know the results - in the death-by-1000-cuts election, Bush oozed by Gore with 537 recorded votes. Ralph Nader played a role in drawing from Democratic Presidential candidate Al Gore's base in Florida and the result was a George Bush selection to the Presidency. Nadarites will argue that it wasn't Ralphie's fault - there were many other issues with FLA 2000. Sure there were, but everything Ralph Nader DID do in 2000 worked against Gore; had Nader not been engaged in his usual high-level ego stroking, we would not now be suffering the legacy of Bush.
Fast forward to Oregon 2012. In the SOS race there is a small force of minor party candidates and the 2 traditionals: incumbent Dem Kate Brown challenged by wealthy GOP orthopedic surgeon Knute Buehler. Buehler, a candidate with no legislative record, portrays himself as a moderate, and has the charisma to pass. Much discussed initiative activist Bob Wolfe entered the SOS race with the nod of the Progressive Party in late August. Also running is Seth Woolley of the Pacific Green Party, a GP activist and officer who received his own Party's nod. These 3 fellows in the race seem to be engaged in a nuanced dance with one another with the sole intent of unseating Brown... which would, in a most Nader-esq fashion, elect Knute. A third minor party candidate, Libertarian Bruce Knight, seems to be making little noise and has not even filed any campaign finance reports.
The Progressive Party, according to latest records available (Sept. 2012), boasts less than 2000 registered voters. PP nominee Wolfe, of course, is the most notorious of the minor party candidates; his schlocky signature gathering operation on behalf of IP 24 came under scrutiny when he self-reported apparent forgeries done by a couple of individuals on his team. The SOS signature examination process found significant problems with the IP 24 signature sheets - duplicate signatures, non-extent or inactive voters, signatures that didn't match those on file, and the alleged forgeries. IP 24 failed to obtain a sufficient number of verified signatures, did not make the ballot and the SOS levied a hefty $65k fine against Wolfe's operation. Wolfe cried wolf, got lawyers, filed suits, lost a restraining order to put IP 24 on the ballot, and easily slid himself on to the ballot via the Progressive Party. He's been busy purchasing ads on metro radio, including Portland's progressive station KPOJ, via Coast Campaign Group. Financial backing for of Wolfe's campaign is from the Foundation for Constitutional Protection, the out-of-state group which supported his initiative.
Seth Woolley, Pacific Green Party Candidate came to the ballot by way of Nominating Convention. The Green Party online features minutes and notes of past meetings and Conventions. A 2010 Nominating Convention nominated a US Senate candidate with 9 attendees. "Draft" minutes submitted at the time by Secretary Seth Woolley noted that the 9 attendees nominated Candy Neville as their Senate nominee-to-be as soon as she registered with the Green Party. 2012 Convention minutes do not seem to be available, but Woolley has stated on this blog that he was nominated via Convention, and additionally stated that it was pretty easy and that he'd had no competition. Wooley ran for SOS in 2008, and is also listed as a Co-Director of Oregon's Green Party, which has 11,000 voters statewide. As in 2008, Woolley appears to be entirely self funded.
Enter Dan Meek, longtime activist, local attorney and co-founder of the Independent Party of Oregon. Meek has teamed up with conservative attorney and activist Ross Day to represent Bob Wolfe. Meek, of course, adamantly defends Wolfe and defends the integrity of "our membership" in the Progressive Party nomination processes (Blue Oregon, Day of the Wolfe, comments 10/24). To be fair, Meek's name is no longer among the listed contacts on the Indy site, and as an attorney, he is certainly not limited in who he can represent, but the cross pollination between the Progressives and the Indies certainly merits attention. Meek had been a driving force behind worthy progressive causes in the past; campaign finance reform, for one, but since the founding of the Indy Party, Meek's focus has/had been the paternal care-taking and development of the Indy Party. The Indy's major issue is its own existence, which it bolsters through a clever nomination system that has candidates from all levels and various parties scrambling over one another to obtain an Indy nomination, which brings us to Knute.
Knute Buehler successfully attained the SOS Indy nomination with a whooping 348 votes statewide. In this top-of-the-ticket race, the Indy's cast 661 votes, less than 1% of their total registration at the time (July, 2012). Under Oregon's quasi fusion voting law, candidates can seek the nomination of multiple parties. If successfully nominated by a particular party, that party's moniker appears by the candidate's name on the ballot - up to 3 can be listed. This is a particular boon to the Independent Party, which rarely offers it's own candidates. In this year's process, 47 candidates appeared on the Independent Party nominating ballots, apparently attracted to the thought of "Independent" being printed next to their names on Oregon General Election ballots.
During June and July, the Indy's contacted their 76k registered voters, received 1264 ballot requests and had just the 661 ballots returned - a rate of less than 1%.
Both Meek and Indy Secretary Sal Peralta have vehemently defended their nomination process AND "their" candidates, but trying to find a cohesive theme or philosophy that unites the candidates is futile. Generally, the Indy nominee reflects the flavor of the particular District, the amount of effort a potential nominee puts into attracting Indy votes or simply reflects the fact that a potential nominee's opponent did not apply for Indy nomination. They are Dems, Republicans, liberals and conservatives - oh, and there IS one Indy. One candidate actually received the Indy nomination with one vote - her opponent didn't apply.
So how does all of this tie together with the SOS race? Woolley, Wolfe, Meek and Day are spoilers, and in the political world, the defeat of Brown would give them chops. The biggest winner in a Brown defeat (other than Knute) could potentially be conservative Ross Day. While Meek is out and loud along with Woolly and Wolfe, excoriating Kate for the terrible wrongs of invalidating non-signatures, Day can happily and quietly watch progressives pave the way for a new GOP SOS. It's rather brilliantly Rovian.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
3:53 a.m.
Oct 28, '12
Carla, I've been running for reforms to prevent the spoiler effect (IRV) and campaign finance reform (M47) to end the influence of big money. The other candidates (aside the no-show libertarian) are all taking big money contributions, which is something I personally refuse, as I did in 2008.
I'd rather you not call me a spoiler because I work hard to bring election reform that your party vehemently blocks at every opportunity. If anybody is spoiling this election it is Kate Brown who is stealing votes from real progressive candidates by squatting in the office as a supposed progressive.
My party's issues with Kate extend well beyond her voter suppression of the initiative process. Long before the initiative issues came to the forefront, I've had a consistent website at http://seth4sos.org/ with pretty much the same types of issues as my run in 2008. Kate had an opportunity to steal my platform and implement progressive reforms that most Democrats do support. Four years later she lost much of her support due to false promises. And now she is attacking people with false attack ads (confirmed by PolitiFact, not just myself) claiming Knute is a monster and an enemy of vote by mail.
Is that really what Oregon needs?
I tried to give Kate the benefit of the doubt, but her actions while in office troubled me from the beginning. Hiring as Director of Elections a touch screen voting advocate on Bev Harris's (of Black Box Voting) Do Not Hire list was exceptionally troubling to me. He lobbied hard against Bowen in California, elected on a mandate to audit the Diebold machines, which she decertified. While in Oregon, he implemented secret and proprietary processes, added touchscreen voting machines to provide a private polling place so disabled people could securely vote (Oh huh, Knute said something about how polling places were private, too... and now he's an enemy of the state?).
If we're going to tar people for associating with Republicans. Kate hired somebody straight out of Republican-administered institutions in California to direct her elections.
I wrote her an open letter questioning this decision when it happened outlining my concerns in detail. I received no reply.
The hypocrisy of her campaign just blows my mind. No mention of her violating her own voluntary limits now that she's in trouble, either.
The election snafus from a messed up Lane County judge election to the BOLI election debacle are just the tip of the iceberg as to how poorly the elections office functions. She's in my view worse than I could have possibly imagined four years ago. Worse than Bradbury. Even Nader has an opinion on Kate by her actions.
I rode my bike 1500 miles touring the state, camping in rest areas mainly, one 70 miles from the next convenience store in the middle of the high desert, saving one ton of CO2 emissions in the process. (continued)
3:54 a.m.
Oct 28, '12
I learned a lot on the month long tour about how Oregonians want real campaign finance reform, native forest protection, and the ability to vote for whom they want without worrying about spoiled elections.
Nobody insisted that more money in politics was better. Nobody said IRV was a bad idea. Nobody knew who were donating or knew what ORESTAR was. All they knew is that the negative campaigns were off-putting and they had no idea how to fix it.
Instead of addressing the core reasons why people are gradually tuning out of elections, especially my generation, Kate decided to hire consultants to go negative. If she had a real progressive vision, she could have run on it the first time, and she could have implemented it in her first term. Instead, she's an example of regulatory capture by her corporate donors, from timber companies wanting to clear cut more of our state forests, to ship builders wanting subsidized job training they don't want to pay for, to public employee unions blindly intent on destroying our initiative process and stopping campaign finance reform.
This office deserves somebody who represents the politics of courage, not the politics of fear and one party rule.
Maybe you should sit back and ponder for a bit -- why would progressive parties that sat out Kitzhaber's election intentionally to hand him a minority plurality (knowing the conservative minor parties were going to spoil from the right) to avoid Chris Dudley, all of a sudden want to challenge Kate Brown?
The Oregonian's Jeff Mapes reported that the PGP didn't nominate for governor over concerns about Dudley. I was personally quoted on that. This move also led to the illegal attack by Brown (as I point out in my law suit against her they have yet to respond to) on our party status that required we perform an urgent registration drive to get back on the ballot. The amount we would have received in the governor's race would have balanced out the election and Dudley would have been on top.
We're actually quite strategic and choose our battles wisely.
Getting rid of Kate is the only option your party has left the reform movement to get what Oregon needs from this office: campaign finance reform, petitioning rights, election method reform, open and transparent government audits, fair ballot access, and a preserved natural environment, among other progressive issues. Maybe on an issue or two, there could be short-term loss, but given that Democrats control the rest of state government and likely will have control of every institution but this one, if Knute steps out of the narrow confines of the job description and isn't acting fairly in your view, you'll get to use your legislative powers to reign him in.
If my nearly zero cost campaign really concerns you because my ideas resonate better than Kate's, maybe you should re-evaluate your priorities. I'm just talking about the issues I thought you all cared about as Democrats.
1:05 p.m.
Oct 30, '12
If all of you people want to do anything besides arguing with yourselves about who has the truest heart you are going to have to learn the principle of KISS (keep it simple stupid). Third party-ites always spend way too much time arguing about the proverbial how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Major party-ites always over-react to third party attacks as in contradicts their theory that they really do own the system.
Kate Brown is not the incarnate evil but is merely continuing a trend fostered by frankly our friends in education, labor, Democratic party and civil liberties which is anti- democratic attack on initiative rights. A lot of this is the back lash from these seeds which they have sown out of fear that the right wing could muster majorities via the initiative. Instead of meeting them in the streets they chose to go into the secure forum of the legislature where any type of anti-democratic process can usally find sympathizers.
Blame your own legislature for this so-called Fusion voting- an error IMHO that invites endless game playing and manipulations that have little to do with reality except who can pick the best party names- I am all for 3rd parties but at the same time if a candidate falls below 50% I think the voters are due a run-off election.
I said before I am not an enemy of Kate Brown as she seems to have good points but I did vote Green Party. When several of us in Wasco Co. wanted to refer a county ordinance we had to establish a state PAC and were not allowed to function until we had a bank account even though we intended to spend all funds out of pocket and take no contributions. There are tight time deadlines and this really set us back. If this is the law it is wrong- why should one be required to have a bank account to exercise you constitutional rights?
You have to remember these third party people and petitioners are going to have a history of interacting with the SOS so it is natural there will be conflicts with the incumbent. Sow and reap- get it?
Knute Buehler is the best those looking to retro-tool the Oregon statewide GOP can come up so they will do their best to use him to paint a smiley face on it even though he has really never been on track to win- like a lot of professionals that come to politics they think all they need are slogans and commercials- nice try Greg but he is a weak one.
I should use KISS myself huh?
11:58 p.m.
Oct 30, '12
Christ. A round of Kumbaya, anyone?
4:23 a.m.
Oct 28, '12
There is no such thing as "inactive voters" in Oregon's election law. FAIL for Kate Brown, and FAIL to Carla Hanson for trying to make it sound like a legitimate category by calling these VALID voter signatures "non-signatures". I would hope that Kate Brown doesn't share your disdain for the will of ACTUAL voters who are lawfully allowed to sign a petition - but her actions indicate that she is just as disrespecting of those voters. I for one hope that voters DO remember that when they cast their votes, and support a candidate that has more respect for our elections process.
Feel free to prove me wrong, Carla - show me where Oregon Election law allows for invalidating an otherwise valid signature on a petition due to being "inactive."
10:00 a.m.
Oct 28, '12
Indeed there are.
10:46 a.m.
Oct 28, '12
While her first sentence is incorrect, you might want to address how you believe the Constitution provided for throwing out signatures from registered but inactive-categorized voters who actually signed a petition and neither the petitioner not the signer were committing fraud nor making any clerical errors. That is something you grouped in with non-signatures and her point was to disagree with that interpretation and ask you to back it up. Can you do so without being dismissive?
I remember Kari saying Bob could only respond with an article if his assertions were backed up with sources. Are you held to the same standards?
4:49 a.m.
Oct 28, '12
Carla, when are you going to thank the Independent Party of Oregon (IPO) for getting John Kitzhaber elected Governor? Certainly the "Independent" label he showed on the general election ballot, next to his name, helped him gain more than the 1.4% margin he achieved over Chris Dudley. As Jeff Mapes of the Oregonian wrote on November 5, 2010: "Meanwhile, the 63,000-member Independent Party of Oregon cross-nominated Kitzhaber, allowing him to list that party's nomination next to his own. It appeared to help, particularly given that several legislative candidates endorsed by the party also won competitive races."
Like Knute Buehler, Kitzhaber was the nominee of the IPO because he (in July 2010) won the IPO primary election. Your description of the IPO 2012 primary election is quite wrong. The party received 1264 ballots over the internet, but only 661 of those who cast those ballots physically sent in the type of voter ID we required (copy of driver's license, utility bill, statement from a government or educational office, etc.; same as for registering to vote for the first time). So we only counted those 661 ballots, because those were the rules we established to ensure that only bona fide members of the IPO were counted.
I challenge you to find any minor party in America in which more members directly took part in selecting the party's nominees, where the government did not conduct or pay for the minor party's primary election. I also challenge your Democratic Party from now on to conduct its primary elections by itself, with no government involvement or funding. Do you accept this challenge?
You mention that Knute Buehler received 348 verified votes. Of course you omit that Kate Brown received 277 verified votes and thereby lost the IPO nomination. I did not choose the nominee of the IPO; the (verified) members did.
You assert far more knowledge about me than you have. You claim that I "teamed up with conservative attorney and activist Ross Day to represent Bob Wolfe." Where did I do that? On what case do Ross Day and I both represent Wolfe? It is comical that you claim to know what my "focus" is, when in fact you know very little about me or what I do. One thing is consistent, though: Whatever I do, you don't like it. You don't like the IPO, because it does not nominate many of its "own candidates." And you don't like the Oregon Progressive Party, because it does nominate its own candidates (except for Peter DeFazio, which it cross-nominated in 2010 and 2012). It appears that you are pleased only by unquestioning adherence to the Democratic Party. I gave that up, after 30 years as a Democrat.
11:01 a.m.
Oct 28, '12
I am well aware - as I observed - that candidates of all stripes weigh the potential advantage of the word, "Independent," inscribed next to their names on the ballot. Clearly, many feel that it is quite advantageous. But it is purely strategy on their parts.
Does the term "Independent" truly define for the voters who that candidate is? Not at all, but the process for your Party has been a real coup. I gotta hand it to you - it's a clever arrangement and you have capitalized admirably.
<hr/>As far as my view on minor parties. I am frustrated that Parties such as your 2 parties - the Indies and the PP, simply serve to eat up Democrats. You construct an Indy Party with no real identity or binding philosophy, and manipulate the system for the sole purpose OF party building. The Progressive Party is full of sound and fury and disgust, excoriating "The Democratic Party" for regressive values and a supposed similarity to the GOP.
I am willing to bet that NOT ONE PP member understands that DEMOCRATS, especially in Oregon, have stood and testified against US intervention in the Middle East, have stood for marriage equality, have stood for living wage, single payer health care and the Dream Act and a host of other progressive values and real policy positions.
I have LONG said that it takes progressives of ALL stripes working together to effect policies that serve the commons and improve the lives of all people. But those that have an ax to grind swing it wildly and indiscriminately. The self-imposed alienation that some minor Parties engage in, both during election and non-election cycles, hurts the very visions which we share.
You want to make a good name for your Party(s)? Fine. I challenge you, and Seth, to make some real impact in Oregon this next legislative session, and work TOGETHER on some of these important policies that we all care about.
By that time, you'll be done trying to get an unknown Republican elected to the second highest position in the state.
11:30 a.m.
Oct 28, '12
Dan and I frequently testify, send letters, and are active on all the issues you mention. If you checked both our party platforms you will see those things front and center. Our members also are more active than the general public on these issues. As the parties with national candidates actually talking about single payer health care and opposed to senseless ceaseless war while Obama expands our strikes in the Middle East, I am not sure how to take your challenge. Acting at all levels of government seemed like it was good enough.
I have been in hearing rooms where I was the only member of the public testifying. Maybe if you were involved more you would have seen me in Salem working on progressive reform. During the past two years I have been focused on local politics at the city level and have been highly visible advocating for reform to the Democrats in the city who are mostly just resistant to meaningful change. On the culture wars they may be pretty progressive but when it comes to real democracy and inclusion, they are what Joe Walsh described as "cocktail liberals". He I guess was one of your ignorant Progressive Party members unable to see the real good the Democratic Party elites are doing.
7:09 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
...and I meant work WITH us. I know your Platform. There are more issues on which we agree than disagree.
8:06 a.m.
Oct 30, '12
Yeah, but where are you guys on Drug policy reform? That's my deal-breaker issue. And I haven't seen ANY kind of "willing to work with you" in a lot of areas: with the exception of the last Session, for the last 6 years there have been more than 30 bills at the legislature attempting to weaken the OMMA - many of them sponsored by Dems. And last Session we got our fees doubled to crippling heights for many patients in the dead of the night. I've been reaching out to the Healthcare committees, trying to show them that our goals are the same - medical marijuana reduced my Healthcare costs by more than 85% - but I have not seen any indication that they see me as anything but a crazy pot-lady screaming in the wind. Maybe getting involved in elections will make a difference. Welcome to the Mosh-pit of cannabis politics.
12:02 a.m.
Nov 2, '12
FYI - while Mult Dems did not endorse M. 80, our endorsement bar is high- 67%. As it was, 60% favored M. 80, and I happen to be a personal endorser. I also fully support the OMMA and strongly believe that its necessary for states to take a stand - even with initiatives that are often accused of being imperfect. I also think that it IS important for electeds to take on this "third rail," even if it is still hot, it is the right thing to do.
11:54 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
Please explain how the IPO and progressives "simply serve to eat up Democrats," starting with Kitzhaber in 2010. He won the IPO nomination, giving him the valuable IND label on the ballot. Both the Pacific Green Party and the Oregon Progressive Party declined to nominate candidates in that race, while the Libertarian and Constitution parties did nominate candidates, each of whom took about 1.4% of the vote (almost certainly from Dudley). I think it is fair to say that Kitzhaber would not have won without the support of the IPO and the lack of opposition from the Oregon Progressive Party and Pacific Green Party.
11:36 a.m.
Oct 30, '12
To be fair, Carla, the Democratic Party and its allies have erected every possible barrier to third party participation. That may be responsible for some of the alienation you notice.
4:53 a.m.
Oct 28, '12
I might add that there is a lot of criticism of third party nomination processes with no mention that the major parties have their processes entirely funded by the taxpayers including minor party members and unaffiliated voters. Convention minutes are sent to an internal email list for party members only, generally. The convention in Salem where I was nominated was the Presidential nominating convention and the room was quite filled. I was unanimously nominated by consensus. The nomination date and location is listed on my campaign website as a campaign event and has been since before the nomination.
5:30 a.m.
Oct 28, '12
Carla, I don't need to defend Knute Buehler, but your description of him is pretty offensive.
You say he "portrays himself as a moderate, and has the charisma to pass." It's not a matter of portrayal; it is a matter of history. He has a long history of advocacy and action for campaign finance reform. In 1993-94, he brought the American Party of Oregon onto the steering committee for Measure 9 of 1994, an excellent campaign finance reform statute supported by a very wide variety of liberal, progressive and good-government groups, including OSPIRG, Common Cause, AARP, and League of Women Voters. The American Party of Oregon (apparently the successor to the Independent Initiative Party) was at that time Oregon's third major party, having earned that status due to Ross Perot's showing in the 1992 presidential election (24% of the vote in Oregon). Measure 9 passed overwhelmingly and was in effect for one 2-year election cycle, until it was tossed out by the Oregon Supreme Court in early 1997.
You claim he is "wealthy." How do you know that? Are you just assuming it, because he has been an orthopedic surgeon for 21 years? Are you condemning him for working hard, earning degrees from Roseburg High School, OSU, Oxford (as a Rhodes Scholar), Johns Hopkins Medical School, and establishing a surgical practice in Bend? Is John Kitzhaber also a "wealthy" doctor and to be disrespected for that?
You would be more persuasive, if you were fair to people.
7:18 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
Dan, I saw Knute Buehler's presentation at the OEA-PIE convention this spring. From what I saw and heard, I concur with Carla as to where he really stands. I didn't hear someone who sounded like a true moderate or a progressive; I heard a conservative Republican.
Interestingly, to my best recollection, there was little to no mention of this experience with the American Party at OEA-PIE. You'd have thought he would have done that to establish his credentials.
8:36 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
What secret knowledge of his positions did he bestow upon you that has not been brought up in the rest of the campaign? How do you get a recording of this and how would one be invited in the first place?
4:51 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
I have heard too many right-wingers state that they want Knute Buehler as SoS so that he can vote to cut down our forests much more aggressively than Kitz, Brown, and Wheeler have allowed. In my opinion, the blood is on your and Wolfe's hands if Buehler wins.
8:09 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
Since Kate voted to dramatically increase clearcutting in our state forests and Kate receives thousands of dollars of the same timber money (I analyzed cross-correlating donations in ORESTAR and timber companies were on the top of the list), I don't see how it really makes a difference.
Either way our state forests are mowed down, Democrat or Republican. Since he would be one vote out of three with two Democrats, whatever the Democrats want is what happens on the state land board, and they unanimously voted, Governor, Secretary, and Treasurer, to expand logging of our state forests. Earth First! responded by locking down in their offices and a half dozen went to jail. People are up in arms with the Democrats over this, and I'm the only one with a solid plan to get the state forests out of the common schools fund using a debt-free trust program. I ran on the same platform in 2008 and Kate ignored it. I'm not sure what to do here other than throw up my hands on the forests issue. Neither party is responsive to it.
8:50 a.m.
Oct 28, '12
The Naderites are out in full force advocating for a RW Republican for SOS.
10:56 a.m.
Oct 28, '12
To my knowledge no Naderite (I presume this is a term of endearment for anybody advocating a politics of courage) has ever endorsed Knute. I believe they are supporting other candidates. Do you have evidence to the contrary? I do know that long time Democrat Harry Lonsdale did endorse him.
That being said, I presume your point was to paint Knute as an extremist in the Republican Party. If that is the case, what evidence would you have for that and is there any evidence that might work against that claim that you have knowledge of?
5:08 p.m.
Oct 31, '12
It drives me crazy that Dems in Oregon think they're entitled to label anyone that doesn't unquestioningly agree with them as supporting the forces of darkness, and they act as if they are entitled to rule. When the objective is for Dems to prevail no matter what means or cost, they will ultimately lose because they become out of touch with voters. Principles matter, name-calling of anyone disagreeing with your party is just childish..
12:56 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
Thanks, Carla. My web site traffic jumps whenever you do this, and a whole lotta new people become aware of Kate's efforts to supress voter signatures in the initiative system.
But why are you attacking me instead of talking about the initiative system, the big important issue I've raised? I've made a clear and convincing factual case that Kate Brown has purposefully and in violation of statute imposed arbitrary directives that are broadly disenfranchising voters. This has had a negative impact on every initiative campaign this year -- not just mine. It's a second ugly head on the beast of voter suppression, being enacted other places by right-wing zealots - but being imposed here by a supposedly Democratic office holder.
I have assembled a legal team, experts from the left and the right, to lead a bi-partisan coalition of plaintiffs in an effort to repair the damage Kate Brown has done.
Frankly, the Democrat's unwillingness to openly discuss what Kate has done means they think it's good, or are at least willing to accept it -- and that shows a shocking lack of regard for the voters of Oregon.
If Kate loses, however, don't blame me.
Blame Kate. She's a weak candidate who has trashed the initiative system, screwed up elections, and refused to act like a Democrat and work for campaign finance reform of any kind.
Blame 12 of fourteen major newspapers in Oregon, including Willamette Week, who endorsed her opponent.
Blame Knute Buehler for being so moderate that he is far, far better than Kate on campaign finance reform, voter participation in the initiative system, third party participation, and other key Democratic values.
Blame Mark Wiener for running an expensive campaign of lies and smears -- if Kate loses, it will be just one of several very expensive, negative campaigns that Wiener will have torpedoed this year. Casinos, Dwight Holton, Kate Brown -- when will Democrats stop being in thrall to this master of the smear campaign?
The fact is, after 20 years of being in the "raise money and get elected at all costs" business, Kate Brown has gone so far down the road of being a toady to her funders, that she is no longer a true Democrat.
Robert Wolfe Secretary of State Candidate Oregon Progessive Party WolfeForOregon.org
4:54 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
Robert, you paint yourself as such a victim, but you fail to reconcile the systemic problems with your own initiative effort. Kate's office treated your signature sheets the same as all the others - YOU have even admitted as much - but you are literally on a witch hunt.
A process that ID's signature duplications, apparent forgeries, etc. IS in the best interest of direct Democracy, and I am tired of hearing about the "disenfranchisement". One cannot disenfranchise what does not exist. In fact, it would be a disservice to Oregon voters if signature operations that produced such problems were not properly scrutinized.
Further, training for signature gatherers and specific instructions on every document - inc. EVERY signature sheet - make the rules crystal clear. The failure to follow the rules is on your operation, not on the SOS.
The assertion that the SOS "suppressed" bad signatures is garbage. You got caught, and instead of owning up, you're having a very public fit in the form of the candidacy of "Not Kate".
Website traffic - fine; ours goes up, too - www.multdems.org
AND, my challenge is out there - from my previous comment:
I am willing to bet that NOT ONE PP member understands that DEMOCRATS, especially in Oregon, have stood and testified against US intervention in the Middle East, have stood for marriage equality, have stood for living wage, single payer health care and the Dream Act and a host of other progressive values and real policy positions.
I have LONG said that it takes progressives of ALL stripes working together to effect policies that serve the commons and improve the lives of all people. But those that have an ax to grind swing it wildly and indiscriminately. The self-imposed alienation that some minor Parties engage in, both during election and non-election cycles, hurts the very visions which we share.
You want to make a good name for your Party(s)? Fine. I challenge you, and Seth, to make some real impact in Oregon this next legislative session, and work TOGETHER on some of these important policies that we all care about.
8:33 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
What do you mean by work together? From the sound of your dialogue it sounds like working for your conservative candidate with a D for Democrat next to their name.
Most of the donors to our campaigns are registered Democrats and Republicans. I attend organizing meetings and do not check registration of those attending.
You issue a challenge that makes no sense to me. How about you start working with us on campaign finance reform, ranked voting, redistricting reform, public financing, increased transparency, ending coal exports and selling water rights to Nestle. How about you work with us to improve direct democracy rather than stifle it? Bob did not violate the rules and signatures were thrown out while ignoring voter intent.
Why are you so averse to evaluating our rules in light of voter intent? That is all Bob is asking for. Right now voter intent is not the basic measure. That means the will of the voter is being suppressed.
Bob is fine rejecting duplicates and forgeries, too. If you remove those cases, his measure still would have qualified. Ballots are not thrown out when signatures appear to not match. They contact the voter to double check. Petitions could do that too. Further, whole sheets are discarded due to minor pen slips or minor errors by the circulator in the current regime.
Bob proposed a number of solutions. If you would work with us as you ask us to work with you, we could come together and fix these problems. But you are in stop-at-nothing campaign mode to save Kate's stranglehold on elections.
Kate told me that after the election she would work with me. It was all a lie. Your challenge is nonsense. The Bend Bulletin's editorial says whoever wins would do well to work with me on reforms. Kate did not this time. What makes you think your party will work with us in the future?
3:54 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
Carla:
Every initiative has problems with duplicate signatures and unregistered voters. I have no issue with that.
Every signature drive deals with forgers. I did that, too. But when we turned in a forger, Kate KEPT the forged signatures in the mix, denying my request to remove them! Any policy that retains signatures from a known forger and then uses them during the validity process is a bad, bad policy.
But I'm really not talking about those kinds of things when I say "disenfranchise." I'm talking about Kate's policy of tossing entire sheets of registered voter signatures without even checking them!
She does this by using temp workers to identify minor clerical errors on the signature sheets. For example, if the circulator changes "2011" to "2012" (who doesn't do THAT) then the entire sheet of ten voter signatures is tossed without recourse.
Another example is when the circulator signature fails to match an exemplar on file, according to a temp worker. When that determination is made, the entire sheet of ten voter signatures is tossed, without even checking them!
I had one cirulator who signed her name on more than forty sheets at one time, on the same day. Her signature varied a bit as she went throught the stack (ever try to sign your name exactly the same forty times in a row? Can't be done). The temp workers retained perhaps ten of those sheets, but threw the other thirty out without regard to whether the voter was registered or not -- because the circulator signature was supposedly not a match.
We lost 6,000 signatures this way. Other signature drives lost even more.
Trashing signatures from presumably registered voters based on minor clerical errors as determined by temp workers when there is zero evidence of fraud is disenfranchising voters -- and it happened to tens of thousands of voters whose signatures were not even checked during this cycle.
How did these policies come to be? in Wolfe V. Brown, I state that Kate imposed these policies by fiat, failing to follow formal rulemaking as required by statute. That lawsuit is ongoing, and is being joined by a bipartisan coalition of chief petitioners.
There are more ridiculous examples like the two above. Check out "How Kate Brown Trashes Voter Signatures" on my web site.
www.WolfeForOregon.com
Robert Wolfe Secretary of State Candidate Oregon Progressive Party
8:50 p.m.
Nov 1, '12
If every signature drive deals with forgers, then how do they get on the ballot? Are you saying that the Elections Division did something different with your signatures than all the others? Or are you saying that your problems were unique?
Full disclosure: My firm built Kate Brown's website. I speak only for myself.
8:51 p.m.
Nov 1, '12
Also, by laying all this at the feet of Kate Brown, are you asserting political shenanigans in the operations of the Elections Division?
In my experience, the folks in the Elections Division are serious professionals who wouldn't hesitate to blow the whistle if a partisan elected official - even their nominal boss - was putting his or her thumb on the scale.
1:18 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
I got my ballot, but no pamphlet ever came. Really, these ugly attacks against Bob Wolfe are not the way to change my mind. I've been a staunch Democrat for more than 20 years. I'll be supporting Avakian, Rosenblum, Holsticka, Reardon and Barton, but I am voting for Bob Wolfe in this race.
3:16 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
If you didn't get a voter's pamphlet, did you call to ask about it? You can also access it online here: http://oregonvotes.org/pages/history/archive/nov62012/guide/english/votersguide.html
8:11 a.m.
Oct 30, '12
But isn't that a basic responsibility of the job? To get a pamphlet to every voter? There are 4 at my house. Lame.
8:52 p.m.
Nov 1, '12
No, that's the job of the postal service.
2:44 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
Carla - Have you even considered the fact that Kate has been an uninspiring SoS and Knute is a really good guy? You don't have to take my word for it. The vast majority of Oregon's editorial boards - who actually took the time to sit down with the candidates, talk to them, and think about things objectively - came to that conclusion. And we are not talking about Fox News here - these are not newspapers that generally espouse a Republican tilt - and a number backed Kate four years ago. I am struck how this article, and so many others are constructed to support a predetermined premise which basically says: Democrats = good, Republicans = bad. You start out with this premise and then strive to construct an argument to support it, whether it holds any water or not. I would suggest an alternative premise: Oregon = important. Let's figure out who will serve Oregon best. Kind of unconventional, but worth trying. And another thing, how about you skip the gratuitous "wealthy surgeon" comments? What are you trying to imply here? The guy is a son of butcher, got a good education and a well paying honest job, and saved some money instead of blowing it all. What part of that is a bad thing? Do you even realize how obnoxious that sounds?
5:05 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
In these days of campaign finance reform discussion, the fact that Knute can bring in his own wealth - and that of his friends does have bearing. Besides, I'm not going to apologize for an accurate adjective.
Additionally, Brown offered to Knute the opportunity to honorably agree to limit their campaigns to $1,000,000 in expenditures each. To put it mildly - he rejected.
"Getting Big Money out of politics" is apparently relative.
5:37 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
Carla - You should apologize for an "accurate adjective" because you use it in a pejorative way - and that is not OK in the 21st century. And you have not answered my question about which you are against - good education, hard work, or savings?
With regard to the offer to limit spending, let's just agree to disagree on this one. Most reasonable people think that the offer was late in the game, not honorable, and would have never been made had Kate been ahead in fund raising. As you and I both know, the offer did not include independent expenditures, and if you take a look at recent spending by Win McCormack in the race, you can see why this makes the offer not a fair deal.
What is most striking, however, is that your reply ignores the main points I made and tacks in a different direction. Can't win an argument - change the topic. Except in a written forum, people get to see right through it.
3:23 a.m.
Oct 29, '12
You should apologize for an "accurate adjective" because you use it in a pejorative way - and that is not OK in the 21st century.
Really? Getting pejorative is passe? Who knew?!
1:29 a.m.
Oct 29, '12
http://swoolley.org/files/browndonation.html
Check out Brown's funding by attorneys. If you examine the grouping by employer we see a lot of bundling happening here as well. Where Kate doesn't get gigantic sums from PACs, she has support from wealthy "friends" in her field. Knute's breakdown has more corporations than PACs but has individual support did come from plenty of wealthy doctor friends. The type of money raised aside from corporations vs PACs is mostly similar. Knute has more grassroots money in the under one hundred and even under two hundred range. If you want to point fingers here the data shows that both sides are similarly matched. Both want to claim they are the least influenced by big money. Both are exposed to corruption. Who will transcend it? Definitely not Kate. Perhaps not Buehler. But really, to use the wealthy friends card is laughable Just look at the donation reports.
6:25 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
Interesting. As exemplified by this post, Blue Oregon is no longer about electing the most qualified progressive candidate for a position. It apparently is about electing the candidate with the (d) behind their name. Had Brown, a career politician done even a mediocre job as SOS would she be facing the number of diverse candidates today? I suggest not.
Carla is both divisive and lacks credibility for attacking a bootstrap young doctor from Bend with a (r) behind his name who is so similar in background as a certain emergency room physician from Roseburg with a (d) behind his name. That the opponent is a successful doctor who now would like to become an elected public servant versus a highly partisan career politician will prove interesting in the next week and a half.
The time of the democrat machine dictating who is next in line for statewide office may well be ending.
8:32 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
The post is mine alone and does not necessarily reflect the positions of other Blue contributors, nor administrators.
Yes, I am a Democrat; I came to the Democratic Party as an activist during Bush Administration, as the GOP invaded the Middle East, turned the banks loose, doubled the National Debt and effected their regressive social policies thru the manipulation of initiative processes with huge financial backing. Now, between the extreme efforts of voter suppression, their 1100+ bills nationwide to limit a woman's right to determine her OWN health care, and their unflinching blockage of every job act, plus oh-so-much-more they have done nothing to impress me that their vision will improve.
Yet, I am supposed to take an untested new GOP politico and assume he is not going to be a cog in GOP world, because hey, he's a nice Oregon Dr.?
No thanks, I didn't fall off that turnip truck yesterday. If you think that the GOP state officials and State House legislators aren't tied into the RNC and the their supporting ghosts, think again. A large number of GOP Oregon House members are members of ALEC, and there is no shyness in national GOP world as they endeavor to capture SOS positions nationwide - those very positions that protect our right to vote.
Further, if you are hypersensitive enough to think I am "attacking" the Doc., read again. The sharpest criticism I have is simply the truth - he has no record and we do not know how he would perform.
9:18 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
Measure 9 is no record? County Clerks virtually never run for this office. They are usually high up in party leadership recently, and that has not worked out well. We need people with a record of going after big money, not Kate's record of defending it citing absurd speech issues that the AFL-CIO and others argued similarly in court briefs as they supported Citizens United. I could paint the war on campaign finance limits as a bipartisan thing, which it was and is. No action has come out of Congress to address it. Here in Oregon the legislature has similarly failed to act.
Knute's record versus Kate's is thus precisely why he has more credibility among progressives for actual election reform. That is what this election is about. While you may think he is dishonest about his intentions, looked at how we feel about Kate's dishonesty. Maybe your argument would have had some weight with a better Kate. But unfortunately for you, we know Kate's SOS record, and it is not good. She is great on gay rights and women's issues. But so what? This office doesn't control those issues. Even the recording officer clerk marriage license connection to gay marriage cannot be influenced from this office except as a pulpit.
The real issues in this race are about the actual job description, and Kate doesn't deserve to be re-hired by Oregonians to the position. Simple as that. I have not seen anything she has done in this office as well done. Even her latest archiving project was bungled. It sucked to watch this the last four years. It really did. I had higher hopes.
8:11 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
Carla, I would like only to take issue with your first paragraph, wherein you speak of the 2000 election and assert that the votes the Green Party candidate for President Ralph Nader won, gave us the war in Iraq and all that has followed.
Carla, we just elected a Democrat four years ago. We have drones taking out US citizens with no charges, no trial, no conviction in a court of law. The Democrats have given this country the same corporate rule that the Republicans have.
Both the gay-rights movement and the abortion-rights movement have made steady, incremental progress by nonpartisan demands for progress from whoever is in power. The Greens will be entirely justified in causing the defeat of Democrats -- I would suggest that Brown has not helped third-party participation in state elections -- who have neglected their cause.
9:26 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
Not a fan of the drones, here, and as I said, Nader was part of a myriad of reasons that Gore went down. But he did, indeed, play a part.
As to the GLBT efforts, I can tell you first hand there has been a huge effort within the Democratic Party - among us grassroots folks esp. - that helped move policy forward. I do not discount the efforts of non-partisan and other partisan groups and orgs., but don't discount us, either.
Finally, the ballot access is tremendously easy for 3rd Party candidates - look how easily both Seth and Wolfe got to the ballot! Kate has significantly expanded the ability for Oregonians to register, and the ease with which we can examine campaign contributions is one of the best in the nation. Kate gets little credit for doing the tough, but non-headliner work that makes the SOS perform at a high level. "3rd Party participation in state elections"? That's not a blog comment or even an OpEd - that's a 2 day conference, but disappointment in this regard shouldn't be laid at the SOS' door.
10:30 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
Registration versus voting-eligible population is down (so it isn't any easier, or it would go up). ORESTAR is only basic filing data without linking the data together coherently and it does not include independent expenditures. Regarding Ballot Access I'm suing Kate's office: http://swoolley.org/files/woolley-pgp-ballot-access-suit.pdf so yes, it's actually laid on her door.
11:39 p.m.
Oct 28, '12
The "easy" minor party nominations require first creating and maintaining the minor parties. If that is so easy, why are there so few of them?
Carla wants to talk about disclosure. Good. With independent expenditures increasing (including those for Kate Brown, not included in her $1 million limit pledge), it is important to note that the Corporate Reform Coalition's report, “Sunlight State by State After Citizens United” (June 2012), found that only 5 states have reporting systems for disclosure of independent expenditures that are worse than Oregon's. See http://www.citizen.org/documents/sunlight-state-by-state-report.pdf. Kate Brown has not put independent expenditure reports on ORESTAR.
Kate Brown's website touts that she introduced a bill in the 2011 session "to require financial reporting [of contributions] every 48 hours in the closing days of an election. Unfortunately, Republican legislators did not support the bill and therefore, it didn’t pass during the 2011 legislative session."
The bill, which I testified against, would have opened a large loophole in campaign finance reporting. It would have increased the delay in reporting contributions during the 6 weeks prior to election day from 7 days to 14 days, except for individual contributions exceeding $5,000 each (which would have to be reported within 48 hours). This would allow anyone (or any corporation or union or other entity) to make an unlimited series of $5,000 contributions during the last 13 days, with no disclosure of those contributions until after election day. Sound good?
As for the claim that Republicans killed the bill, it got a hearing in a House committee on February 14, 2011, and was immediately dropped. There were no votes on it.
It was reintroduced in the 2012 short session as HB 4152, with the threshold for 48-hour reporting reduced to $1,000. My testimony showed that the bill was so poorly drafted it would have accomplished nothing at all, except to increase the time for reporting of contributions made within the last 6 weeks of the election cycle to 14 days instead of the current 7 days. Even the League of Women Voters was against it, stating in their 2012 Legislative Report #3 (http://www.lwvor.org/lwvimages/LWVOR-Legislative-Report-3-2012.pdf): "The League and others testified in opposition of HB 4152 on the grounds of the public's right to know and transparency."
Kate Brown also refused to oppose SB 270 (2011), a bill that would have given any committee a free pass to disregard all campaign contribution and expenditure disclosure laws in exchange for a $5,000 "fine" per month. I managed to get the Legislature to defeat the bill by publicizing it in the Oregonian. See http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/06/oregon_house_rejects_bill_that.html.
Next topic?
7:53 a.m.
Oct 29, '12
Honestly, after having read through this thread--I'm less likely to vote for Wolfe (which was admittedly unlikely) than I was before I started. The tone here toward Carla Hanson is petulant and bordering on mean spirited.
True leadership doesn't come from people running around hammering people over the head with their opinions. It comes from showing the way and ASKING people to come along with you.
I'm not a party person. In fact, I registered as a Democrat to vote in the primaries--and I'm not wed to the D candidate in any race if someone else can prove their mettle.
But frankly, the opposite is happening in this thread.
9:48 a.m.
Oct 29, '12
We were accused of guilt by association and being spoiler candidates and you, an editor here, defend Carla Hanson, all while claiming you think outside the box.
Defending against petulance (four harassing articles against a supposedly annoying third party revolt against Kate in a short time by the same author) should not itself be accused of irritability. Really it is the other way around.
We are activists fighting for the rights of voters to participate in direct democracy among a large set of other reforms. Do not minimize our efforts. You as an editor are responsible for the low journalistic credibility of Carla Hanson's post. She even misspelt my name a number of different ways. Her attack on my nomination was by attacking a years old different nomination process done at the last minute to catch candidates before the deadline where few bother attending as our primary races are already decided. Really? You allow false armchair inquisitions here? I do not even suspect she even called up our party secretary to get the nomination minutes. Hold the bar at least a little but higher next time.
None of your suppositions even pass the smell test.
Since when did BlueOregon become THE forum for attacking the progressive candidates and campaign finance reform? Was it when Steve Novick wrote his hit piece against Dan Meek accusing his campaign finance reform advocacy of being too righteous? I thought this was supposed to be where progressive candidates were lauded and factual messaging was supposed to be delivered. BlueOregon has fallen far from it's supposed goal in these attacks.
BlueOregon: where activists are attacked for being too progressive if it might hurt the corporate Democrat.
Would I like Nick Caleb get a chance to submit an article explaining how an election reform litmus test demands a vote for a third party outsider? I see you didn't allow Bob Wolfe to respond when he got attacked. Look at the above article. The attack on me did not once go after my positions and was ludicrous bull. I should at least get an article explaining what my policy positions are so people can see mine is a prescriptive candidacy, not a protest one. If you would like I could not mention Kari's client Kate and just talk about badly needed reforms. I know any portrayal of Kate truthfully would not be allowed.
10:16 a.m.
Oct 29, '12
Yeah, that's it Seth. Pound me over the head with your smartypants-ness and do talk down to me some more. That'll win me over.
I appreciate you going out of your way like this do make my point for me. That's awfully handy.
I don't get the sense that you're terribly interested in reform. I get the sense that you're terribly interested in Seth Alan getting to beat people over the head with how above everyone and everything you think you are.
1:24 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
More personal attacks. I'm not trying to win you over, by the way. We already know where you stand and it's not moving.
Kate definitely isn't interested in reform (otherwise she would have done something), but we're the ones going around talking about reform all day. Again, absurd personal attacks.
If you are supposedly interested in reform, how would you go about doing it? I have a plan, disagree with it and let's go back to discussing the actual long term strategy so we can then discuss tactics and come to agreement on them.
4:47 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
From the looks of it, you're not trying to win anyone over. That's my point. If that's a personal attack, then so be it. Deal with it.
You talk down to people, Seth. You treat the rest of us like we're stupid children who can't possibly know anything. That's not leadership. That's plowing over the top of people.
8:33 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
Who is plowing over whom here? I'm being accused of supporting the Republican when all I'm doing is running for the office myself at the behest of my party because I'm qualified to do it. I'm the only one with any software experience which is a huge amount of the job. I have security experience. I have auditing experience. I have elections experience and have administered more alternative election systems than any other candidate. I've participated electorally and through petitioning and have filed with the corporations division. I'm even a notary if that means anything (probably not although the office is the chief of the notaries). Certainly being a divorce lawyer and a doctor aren't directly related to this position.
And definitely taking big money from special interests who have a specific goal for elections or the office to promote their own interests should disqualify people for this elections administration office as essentially a form of "quasi-legal" bribery.
8:34 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
I offer solutions laid out in some detail and even newspapers as major as the Bend Bulletin want to see some of them considered. I'm serious about this campaign and it's not about trying to unseat Kate, although that might be a desirable outcome for progressives. I'd rather be in the office than Knute and my party believes this too, which is why I was nominated and we did not cross-nominate Knute. That was looked into and rejected for various reasons I've mentioned. He's not the best on forests (although another comment here outlines why Kate sucks on them too) and he's taking big money despite his past work, so that leaves corruption doubts. Kate has worse corruption doubts and actively worked against us on virtually every issue related to the office, so she was right out from the beginning.
It's not like we just let anybody run for office. We have a none of the above option that we have used in the case of Kitzhaber's recent race against Dudley. Candy mentioned in the article came to us wanting to run for Governor. We told her no, do Senate instead, it's less risky. Again, we're not just a debate society, we are strategic. Also as the only state-wide candidate, if I get 1%, it helps us maintain ballot access.
In 2008 my primary goal was 1% and to discuss issues. This time we have enough registrants that I could have sat it out. But no, I decided to campaign hard to inform people about Kate and spread the word. I didn't try hard enough last time, was the message I got from Kate. So this time it is different.
I don't mind your personal attacks, I'm just pointing them out as flawed arguments. I'd rather discuss with you about solutions you will work with the Democrats to implement, if you are up to it, like IRV, which would make it so this entire article on "Naderizing" would be moot. When we tried to get that passed, the Democratic leadership stepped in and blocked it. Filling the hearing room didn't matter. Blocked. That tells me it isn't about incorporating progressive values, it is about keeping special interests in power. Tell me that isn't what it is about and lay out a plan for how to get it passed if you think it's possible. We've been to Salem and seen how bills get stopped by special interests and we believe we know why. Argue against that and that may help inform us as to how to strategize better. I'm honest. Raise the level of discussion here toward solutions.
1:53 p.m.
Oct 30, '12
The thing is--I don't think you want to sit down with me to discuss issues. I don't think you want to work with me or hear me out, either.
I've watched on this thread and others how you rebuff the ideas of others and talk down to them. That's not the way those willing to collaborate conduct themselves, Seth.
Carla Hanson offered upthread to work together and was rebuffed. I don't see how I wouldn't be set up for the exact same treatment.
3:15 p.m.
Oct 30, '12
She offered to have us work with her for her candidates.
Working "together" for the Democrat is always a way to neutralize progressive issues. We have learned this through experience at every level of government.
She didn't say she was going to work with us on any issues we brought up. She has reiterated her agreement with Brown's attack on the initiative process and has not come out in favor of any positive issues in this race we have brought up. Instead, she wrote an attack article against everybody more to the left of Brown. How is that supposed to start a positive dialogue?
She's in party leadership and acts like a partisan hack and opened a salvo against us, as is typical. Why would I go out of my way to meet with her when she hasn't offered to actually work with us on our issues?
Get Carla to say she's going to work with us on specific issues with concrete proposals to advance them that involve the power of her leadership role, and I might take her seriously. I didn't rebuff her outright. I explained why her offer was fake. It is fake. Just like Brown's broken promise to limit her campaign spending or work for CFR.
9:33 a.m.
Oct 30, '12
Having experience is a great thing, Seth. But what you've outlined isn't leadership. And frankly, that appears to me to be missing.
You've been all over this comment thread (and this blog at large) conducting yourself just as I noted upthread: bludgeoning people over the head with your notions of how you're right and the rest of us are wrong (and inferring that we're too stupid to know better).
There's a lot more to holding office, especially statewide, than what you've articulated just above. You can't get people to follow you just because you say so--and certainly not by talking down to them and conducting yourself the way you have here.
1:14 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
The tone here toward Carla Hanson is petulant and bordering on mean spirited.
Carla [Axtman], do you not detect some of the same in the original post?
4:50 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
Not really. I'm an outside observer in this one, Tom. I've not been involved in any of the campaigns. So I think I have a bit of an objective eye here. Seems like there's a lot of effort to steamroll people who don't agree with Wolfe.
I've read Wolfe's manifesto against Brown. He makes a lot of accusations, but provides no third party source material or evidence. And it comes across as righteous indignation rather than a factual telling.
3:35 p.m.
Oct 30, '12
Bob Wolfe was speaking as a direct witness and first person participant. You don't need references for that. However, much of (nearly all of) what he points out was public data.
For example, the signature validation rates can be confirmed by calling up the Secretary's office. The rules he pointed out can be found by looking at OARs and the ORS on these subjects. That he is the first to report such instances and publish the information shouldn't count against him.
Then again, I don't for a moment believe you're sincerely saying you just don't believe him and didn't want to do any research to confirm or deny what he wrote since you're supposed to be a ferocious blogger that writes well-researched articles on your own.
You just come off as a political hack trying to cast doubt on clear facts. What did you not believe that he wrote? We can look up the facts in more detail right now if you are sincere. Point out one fact you disagree with and we'll work from there.
8:57 p.m.
Nov 1, '12
All true. And yet when you post on a blog, it's your job to provide links to those source materials - rather than insisting the reader does the work for him or herself.
That's one key difference between a blog and a newspaper column. A blog is ON THE INTERNET. And the internet has these amazing things called LINKS - y'know, the blue text that you can click on that gets you more information.
We were happy to publish Wolfe's column, and merely asked him to provide sources and citations for his fact claims. He declined.
8:24 a.m.
Oct 29, '12
With everything that has become known about the Republican/Tea Party, how can any fair-minded moderate person accept to have an R next to his/her name? These so- called "moderate" Republicans in 2012 are no Hatfields or Paulus- let us face that fact and act accordingly. We have to look at the macro picture and vote against them because they have accepted being part of that monster we are struggling with on a state and national level.
To equate Kitzhaber to Beuhler because they are both physicians is a travesty. I hope the Naderites will get REAL, and stop their fantasies about our political world.
I agree with Carla 100% and even consider her too soft-spoken in her comments.
3:23 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
I don't say Democrats are evil for supporting Obama because he's assassinating US citizens without due process. In the same vein, we recognize that not all Republicans are vile "legitimizers of rape".
Do you have evidence that Knute is an extremist in sheep's clothing?
Even if he were, we still have a right to run as candidates. I've pointed to IRV and other election reforms to eliminate the spoiler effect from our elections for years. With no action from Democrats nor Republicans in leadership positions, we have to make our case directly to the public to educate people on the issue in order to make change. Trying to shush us up with these kinds of attack articles and casting people outside your in-group as universally evil is extremely unfortunate and how society can actually destroy itself.
Voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us to where we are today. It's not a viable strategy.
9:46 a.m.
Oct 29, '12
Once again Seth and Dan dream to be seen as Steve Novick wrote in 06' "Diogene's one honest man. Tempted by the poisonious fruit of self-righteousness - quixotic and uncompromising."
1:24 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
I don't know Seth, Paulie, but Dan Meek is far from uncompromising. He is concerned with function over appearance. He resists ornamental attempts at reform and works like hell for reform that would make a positive difference.
Steve Novick was wrong in 2006. So was most of the liberal establishment who prioritized easy campaign money over pro-democratic changes that would advantage their professed positions on major issues.
1:25 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
Rather than personal attacks, do you have solutions?
10:32 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
I believe that when Mr Novick wrote that, he was working as a paid advocate for the corporations and other big money interests that wanted to stop Dan Meek from passing some of the strongest campaign finance regulations in the country here in Oregon.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if Mr Meek were supporting Knute Buehler because he believes that Oregon's Democratic establishment refused to come to the table on campaign finance reform, and has opposed his efforts at every turn.
Would he really be wrong in thinking that?
11:51 a.m.
Oct 29, '12
"Naderizing" the SoS race? Is that anything like "Bradburying" the Presidential race?
12:26 p.m.
Oct 30, '12
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151265114615412&set=pb.745190411.-2207520000.1351625165&type=3&theater
12:48 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
The Naderites are like Nader (who gloried in the election of GWB), they would rather rule in the hell of their own marginalized self-righteousness than govern in coalitions of common public interest in a universe of the rational. Their only hope is a victory of spite where they inflict harm on the people of Oregon by helping elect a RW Republican to state office.
2:27 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
All of this talk about "Naderizing" and "spoiling" would simply go away if Kate Brown understood anything about elections, or if the Democrats would actually support a democratic voting system.
Ranked choice voting would end the phenomenon of plurality vote splitting in Oregon, and Kate Brown could enact it right now through the rules process.
The fact that this DOESN'T happen, and that Democrats are more comfortable bashing dissenters, speaks volumes about their conception of "democracy".
The major parties continue to consolidate power and collude to avoid climate change, which will be the defining issue of our time, while people like Kate Brown support clear-cutting state forests, stifle democracy, and pay losers like Mark Wiener to do hits on her opponents.
If you really want to work together, re-evaluate your priorities. Trust the people to represent themselves, and get out of their way.
P.S. If you like campaign finance reform so much, you should tell Kate Brown to enforce Measure 47 instead of ignoring it.
4:26 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
Apparently Mr. Woolley and progressive activists weren't able to convince the Democratic Party leaders of the need for election and campaign finance reform these past 4 years. So a plea to work with the DPO doesn't really make much sense to me.
In fact, If I were A member of the Progressive Party or had been working diligently for CFR and been rebuffed and thought I was misled time after time, I'd feel insulted by such a plea. So the tone of some of these comments by Woolley, Wolfe and their supporters doesn't surprise me. Though the name calling by some of the DPO supporters and officials is uncalled for and sophomoric.
In the bigger picture, this SoS race could be a turning point for campaign and election reform in Oregon. If the dominant party retains power by a thin margin, it may mean that in order to avoid a future third party challenge, it will support IRV, ranked voting, open primaries, or some other election reforms.
And, If Buehler wins, he may really be a reformer like he says. But even if not then at least the 2016 DPO candidate for SoS will be.
That would be unfortunate for SoS Brown, who I think has good personal intentions and is a fine adminstrator.
(Note to Wayne Kinney - I used officials instead of Cardinals. In deference to the recent World Series results)
6:16 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
Again like Halloween 6 they are back. And with the same flawed argument of Ralph Nader, that electing a RW Republican will make Democrats bring leverage to the LW fire baggers whose sole aspiration is to bring harm to election hopes of Democrats. That worked so well in 2000. Let's see, if we elect a GOPer who is against early and easy access to registration, who will do everything possible to reduce the number of voters who can vote, then that will be a "reform" to our electoral system?? Really bright, really intelligent. You call that progressive??
7:17 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
It's pretty obvious from reading some of the comments and the original post that there are quite a few folks who have lost faith that moderate Republicans exist. There is so little trust and folks seem to see this thing as a battle between one side and another. It's too bad for Oregon because if we can't let go of our party loyalties at all, ever, we are just stuck in a permanent political war.
The truth is that Knute is a moderate, reasonable guy. I know this because I know him well. Knute would make a fantastic SoS and is in the race for the right reasons. He is an honorable and thoughtful guy. Most of the folks here, I imagine, have not met him or had a chance to talk to him. But Knute is not the most important thing.
The important thing is that moderate Republicans come back. We need that for the good of the state. We need two parties that offer substantive solutions and that each can command the support of the majority of Oregonians from time to time. I suppose Dan, Seth, and Robert would say we need more than two - and they would be right - but at the very least we need two credible parties that offer good ideas to choose between. We need this to be about Oregon and it's future and not about trench warfare.
If we are unable, as a state, to elect a moderate Republican, we contribute to the extinction of the moderate strain in the Republican Party. If we can elect a moderate, perhaps we will see a rebirth of the tradition of Mark Hatfield.
Those of us who personally know Knute, know that he is no extremist and he is worthy of the office. I am Democrat and have been for nearly my entire life. I support our President and I support Knute. I hope folks give at least a little bit of thought to what I have had to say.
It's not about a pithy comeback. It's about the future of our state.
10:26 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
I appreciate your thoughtful comment, but even if Knute could be as reasonable a politician as he is a regular guy, we just don't know. He is literally jumping in at the top of the heap, without any political experience as a Rep. or even as a County official.
As Democrats, or thoughtful progressives, we are not unaware of the nationwide disappearance of moderate Republican, and the explosion of bull-headed, Tea Party regressives. We are painfully aware of how tightly Super PAC tycoons like the Koch boys and Sheldon Adleson are with the GOP. We are also aware of the feigning of moderation ala Gov. Scott Walker of WI, the fella that gave no hint about his plan of shutting down public unions. Finally, we are increasingly aware of how intertwined national GOP/right wing orgs are with our Oregon GOP legislators. Quite a number are teamed up with ALEC.
Could Knute actually buck the trend of the GOP? We have no proof of that, to be fair, either way. What we do know is that he has signed on as GOP, he is trying to become the second highest ranking elected official in the state with no experience and no voting record, and that even amidst his purported advocacy of campaign finance reform, he refused to agree to limit his own campaign finances when Kate offered him the honor agreement for each of them to keep it to 1 million.
I can understand you casting a vote for your friend, but I won't be encouraging any other folks to do so.
9:15 a.m.
Oct 30, '12
I might believe that Knute could be a moderate if he publicly dissociates himself from the extreme positions his party has taken on a number of issues. Personally, I don't think he can do that because he will be run out of the party. Let's face it- Republicans nationally and locally have thrown their lot in with what was called the extreme wing in the past, but now is the mainstream Republican path.
Romney is trying to wiggle out of that position since the Denver debate but assuredly will revert back once the election is over if he wins. Luckily for all of us it does not look like he will win.
11:39 p.m.
Oct 29, '12
Moderate Republicans??? Really.... Norma Paulus was the last moderate Republican to hold statewide office in Oregon. Her analysis of the present GOP in Oregon. "There is no one left in the Republican Partyi in Oregon I can talk to." Let's take a view of the GOP SOS in other states. Exhibit A is Ohio, trying to block early voting, and exclusionary requirements to block voting through Voter ID laws, limiting voter registration. Since Buehler is a supporter of the national ticket and its extremist positions on nearly everything, he can't possibly make any credible claim to be a "moderate."
My father was a life long moderate Republican, he got out of his sick bed weeks before his death in 2004 to change his party registration out of pure disgust with the GOP. And in those past 8 years the GOP has been taken over by the most extreme tea party elements. The GOP wants to turn Soc. Sec. over to Wall St. Voucherize Medicare, and eliminate the Medicaid mandate for the elderly and disabled, turning it into partial block grants.
Their candidate Mitt Romney is on record wanting to get rid of Roe v. Wade, FEMA, and neutralize the EPA. As long as those positions are mainstream GOP there can never be a state of peace or collaboration.
9:53 a.m.
Oct 30, '12
lets have some consistency here. If Nena Cook's character, sympathies and politics is revealed by her 2008 Democrats for Smith chapter, what does it say about Beuhler that he donated to and supported Democratic candidate Kitzhaber just two years ago?
Buehler is not a typical Republican candidate. He is in the tradition of Hatfield/McCall.
Seth Woolley and Bob Wolfe are being very strategic in picking this race, with these candidates, to highlight the issue that they feel is most important.
That is smart, rational, and speaks to their character and commitment.
Win or lose in number of votes. They will have furthered their goal of election and election finance reform.
10:02 a.m.
Oct 30, '12
If Knute is in the tradition of Hatfield/McCall, would he please take public policy positions consistent with that. And why in the world would he support the Romney/Ryan ticket and their extreme positions on defunding FEMA, Planned Parenthood, criminalizing abortion, contraception coverage, privatizing Soc. Sec. and Medicare, eliminating Medicaid and a whole host of other policy issues. He has no credible claim to be a "moderate" Republican.
11:49 a.m.
Oct 30, '12
Your argument proves too much.
By your standard, no Oregon Republican can ever be a moderate as long as the National platform contains those positions. Forget ones personal positions or philosophy or who one has supported in the past or ones work on progressive issues. It's really about whether someone has denounced their own party national platform publicly.
So basically quitting the Republican Party, or committing political suicide is your test to prove someone is a moderate Republican.
but perhaps Buehler is trying to bring the Republican Party back towards the middle. And he is doing so strategically and carefully. Ignoring those national issues that you cite and focusing on more moderate statewide issues where he could have some influence. And which are popular among a broader political spectrum.
Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Perhaps that's what worries some Democrats so much. The fact that he isn't a right wing acolyte of the national party and could lead a challenge to the dominant Democratic Party from the center/right.
12:26 p.m.
Oct 30, '12
Tom McCall and Mark Hatfield would have no problem with those policy positions. They supported Soc. Sec. Medicare and Medicaid. They supported the EPA (creation of Richard Nixon). They supported contraception access and family planning. Mark Hatfield supported Planned Parenthood even though he was opposed to abortion. You prove my point. Knute Buehler is no moderate in the McCall/Hatfield tradition. He is a phony who claims to be moderate.
11:30 p.m.
Oct 30, '12
So whom did McCall and Hatfield back in presidential elections?
I'm looking for clips showing McCall endorsing McGovern or Hatfield on a stage with Clinton, Dukakis, Carter or Mondale but damn if I can't find them.
9:22 a.m.
Oct 31, '12
That just proves to Bill that Hatfield and McCall were not in the tradition of Hatfield and McCall.
9:02 p.m.
Nov 1, '12
Tom McCall called for the impeachment of Richard Nixon, long before many Republicans did.
5:56 a.m.
Oct 31, '12
Bill: You obviously feel very strongly about this, but I sure wish you wouldn't throw words like "phony" around so willingly. If you look at what Knute has actually done and what he has actually said, it is obvious that he is a reasonable guy. You and he may not agree on all issues, but that does not make him a phony. Your endless list of litmus tests is impressive. But the issues you raise are not relevant to the Oregon SoS race. It seems to me that the position you have taken is that in the current Republican party, there cannot be a moderate or anyone you can support no matter what. That's fine, but that doesn't make your targets phony.
11:31 a.m.
Oct 30, '12
Given the meanness and nuttiness of the present GOP, it will be difficult for any [R] to get support from Democrats. Rather than run for statewide office, Hatfield/ McCall Republicans should fight to take the party back to compassion and reality.
11:51 a.m.
Oct 30, '12
Tom, I agree, but I think that's exactly what Buehler is doing by running for statewide office.
1:02 p.m.
Oct 31, '12
That may be his hope, but parties are more often changed from the bottom up. Even though their was big money behind the fundie and Tea Party efforts to take over the GOP, the change built from the bottom.
11:09 a.m.
Nov 1, '12
It seems like if the highest ranking elected Republican was a moderate, that would go quite a ways to changing the perception and makeup of the party. You need both leaders and followers for change.
1:50 p.m.
Oct 30, '12
Ding! Ding! Ding!
12:46 p.m.
Oct 30, '12
Vote for Peace and vote for the Green Party.
Anyone voting for a (Democrat/Republican) candidate has blood on their hands. <<
12:55 p.m.
Oct 31, '12
T,
There's some truth to what you write. One can also claim, with some justification, that anyone paying federal income tax, buying gasoline, or saying the Pledge of Allegiance has blood on his hands. We all have some responsibility for what goes on.
D's and R's are war parties for two reasons: public opinion and the power of the war lobby. In the end, it all comes down to votes. D's and R's play to win. Some minor parties stand up for their principles, as opposed to playing to win. They will not win under the present system. It they decide to play to win, they will become war parties.
You might argue that the differences between the major parties are engineered to reduce the chance of most voters looking for alternatives. If correct, the engineers are skilled. As a progressive who cares about many issues, including use of the military, I feel the need to limit the power of Republicans wherever I can. They do real damage wherever they serve in government. Democrats do less damage.
I would prefer to see Jill Stein's favored policies put into practice, but voting for her is very unlikely to accomplish that. Voting based singly on foreign policy for a state government office is even less likely to make a difference.
I respect third party people of principle. I am glad that progressive issues ignored by D's are given voice by folks in these parties. I might even vote for Stein if I'm sure Romney will not win Oregon - just to make myself feel less bloody. But generally, principled politics cannot win in an unprincipled system. Let's work to change the system.