Writings and observations

This is a little old, but we just ran across it, and it should not pass without note: The proud assertion that a newspaper will run stories about malfeasance in government if and only if the “proper authorities” declare that, yes, they’d malfeased.

Coeur d’Alene has had more than its share of unfounded loose talk of late (you can track some of that in the excellent Huckleberries blog). But this paragraph in a November 7 Coeur d’Alene Press editorial jumps out at you:

If critics of the Coeur d’Alene City Council, Lake City Development Corp., Kroc Community Center, Mickey Mouse Retirement Village or any other publicly financed entities have proof of unethical or illegal activities by officials, produce it and let the proper authorities do their jobs. The Press will publish the outcomes of any such investigations upon their completion. In the meantime, our reporters will not be writing stories on allegations or speculation. Doing so would be an effective way to ruin an individual’s or organization’s credibility without due process, and we’re positive even the critics don’t want that.

Our job, the paper is saying, is to be stenographers of the officially-sanctioned story: Far be it from us to do any independent investigation, to try to determine any truths on our own. We’ll happily stick with press releases.

A hat tip on that to the Whitecaps blog, which commented: “Read that again carefully. The Coeur d’Alene Press said editorially it will not publish stories demonstrating unethical or illegal activities by officials unless the ‘proper authorities’ conduct an investigation and make the results public. Who would the ‘proper authorities’ be? The Mayor? The City Council? The LCDC Board? The Board of Directors of Mountain West Bank? The prosecuting attorney? Advertisers? Who? I wonder if it occurred to the editor and publisher of the Coeur d’Alene Press they have just said they will take reportorial direction from the ‘proper authorities?’ How can readers not reasonably conclude that if the ‘proper authorities’ want a story killed, it’s killed.”

In what’s becoming a one-newspaper town, it evidently will be.

Share on Facebook

Idaho

One of the more intriguing pieces of ’08 politics is the source of Northwest support for Republican Ron Paul. It is substantial, and fervent, but a little hard to identify: Who are the Republicans who are anti-war and pro-libertarian (small if not large L) and who otherwise are very enthusiastic about their guy?

We’ll keep on loking for clues, but we get one piece of the answer from the political blog at the Coeur d’Alene Press, which seems to have been largely taken over by Paul supporters.

A local meetup group post mentions two speakers: “Phil Hart, Idaho State Representative and Author of “Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?” will address the Group on why he supports Ron Paul. Dan Gookin, CDA City Council Candidate to speak at Monday’s 7pm Meetup on his support for Ron Paul.”

That will say something to locals who know Hart and Gookin. For those who don’t, the comments – you’ll find some wild stuff – attached to the meetup post should do the job. (You say you want a sample? Here: “It would appear that Ron Paul is the best, last hope to stave America from a monarchy under the North American Union. My search reveals only on other alternative, Mike Juckabee, but some claim he is a card-carrying Mason of the Southern Baptist Convention. This would make him as dangerous as Billy Graham who some alledge is a 33* Mason of the Scottish Rite.”)

Share on Facebook

Idaho

Brad Avakian

Brad Avakian

Kate Brown

Kate Brown

Rick Metsger

Rick Metsger

Vicki Walker

Vicki Walker

The rapid accumulation of Democratic candidates for Oregon secretary of state has left even some Democrats a little scattered . . . The PDX Perspectives blog has been running a list of comments about telling the four apart, and how to to pick out preferences.

It grew out of a kind of cry for help: “what is that, four mostly indistinguishable liberal Democrats? . . . I promise I am going to spend some time trying to figure this out myself, based on looking at their web sites and at their news coverage, but in the meanwhile, can somebody out there please help me with a clue as to what the substantive differences are between Brad Avakian, Kate Brown, Rick Metsger, and Vicki Walker? And how would those differences translate into the way they would do this job?”

The latter question is the tougher one; the four are distinctively different personalities with sharply different approaches, and are likely to develop very different appeals. What any of that would mean for running the office isn’t clear at all. (The eventual arrival of a Republican candidate for the office – Senator Bruce Starr has been mentioned as a possible – may help bring some clarity.)

The four Democratic senators – Brad Avakian of Beaverton, Kate Brown of Portland, Rick Metsger of Welches and Vicki Walker of Eugene – all come from the northwest part of the state, but slapping much more common definition to them is a little iffy.

Two of them have been central in the Senate Democratic caucus – Brown was Democratic leader (majority and minority both) for about a decade, and Avakian has been assistant majority leader. Metsger, representing a more rural area (far eastern Multnomah and Clackamas, and newly-Democratic Hood River County) has been a but more independent in tone. And Walker may be Salem’s premier boat-rocker, to the point that she came close a year ago to challenging Governor Ted Kulongoski in the Democratic primary (they appear to have since reconciled), not to mention her pivotal role in the Neil Goldschmidt exposure. Watch the Senate and its committees in action for a while, and all four stand out as highly distinctive personalities in the chamber.

To what extent do you want a “team player” or an “independent boat rocker”? You can make a case for either; each type is represented, in different ways.

The may be shaped a bit too by the districts they’re from. Brown is from one of the most liberal Democratic districts around Portland (you don’t get “too liberal” for re-election there), but what you see most in Brown is a kind of happy enthusiasm. Avakian comes from an area in Washington County that is now clearly Democratic, but newly so; he is an attorney, and you pick up a professional deliberation in his approach. Walker’s Eugene district is basically Democratic, but stronger that way in reputation than in voting patterns – not close to Brown’s and probably softer than Avakian’s. (A strong opponent last year, former Eugene Mayor Jim Torry, held her to a close win.) And Metsger’s district, while trending Democratic, may be the softest of the four. Walker and Metsger both convey the sense of populism more than Brown or Avakian seem to.

These points have implications. Some commenters at PDX Perspectives point to Metsger’s three-win record in a once-problematic district as evidence of statewide political strength. Another argues: “He does it by taking some Republican positions, like making the DMV into the INS. Since Oregon is not a legislative district, I see no need to elect someone to bring the state rightward. How about stronger Democrats, instead?” There’s going to be some room for debate here.

A few early thoughts, anyway, about sorting the contenders. More will no doubt sprout as the campaigns grow.

Share on Facebook

Oregon