Writings and observations

The long-term move of consumers from trading in small towns toward the mega-commercial centers in urban areas long has been one of the most serious problems small towns face (in the Northwest and elsewhere).

Here’s one approach for encouraging buying local, from an article on the city of Emmett (about 20 miles from Boise) in the Idaho Statesman:

“Last summer, a local non profit group called the Shadow Butte Development Corp. used an unusual approach to induce shoppers to buy locally. For every $100 they spent in local stores, the corporation gave them a $20 gift certificate. The result: $75,000 worth of gift certificates in July alone. ‘People found local mechanics and laundromats and other businesses they hadn’t even known about,’ said Wisti Rosenthal of the Gem County Chamber of Commerce. ‘For that $75,000, $2 million was spent in local businesses.'”

Share on Facebook



Dave Reichert

The only Northwest Republican left representing an area west of the Cascades, Dave Reichert of the district located roughly east and southeast of Seattle but west of the mountains, has been through the political wringer.

He was elected in 2004, in a fairly tight race, then re-elected more closely in the Democratic year of 2006. Through this decade, his one-Republican district has been trending firmly Democratic in legislative and other races. And then, in 2008, the opposition to Reichert looked as if it had jumped the shark. His Democratic opponent, Darcy Burner, in her second race against him, did not quite as well as she had the election previous, in an election year even better nationally for Democrats. 2010 seems unlikely to be a comparable sweep year for Democrats. And the historical norm is that once a member of the U.S. House has passed the first re-elect, or maybe two, they generally settle in to easy returns.

And maybe that happens with Reichert. But our attention was snagged today by a Tacoma News Tribune article on Reichert (and Representative Doc Hastings of central Washington, a different situation since his is a very strongly Republican district) and his response to the health care debate. In Congress, Republicans have been hanging in very solidly on health issues, absolutely opposed to public options and other key elements of Democratic proposals. Operating in a politically marginal district, Reichert has been hanging in with his caucus.

The story notes, for example, “Reichert said, ‘it’s exaggerated to say it will put a federal bureaucrat in every doctor’s office, but the government will have a role.’ Both are also absolutely convinced the Democratic proposals to rein in Medicare spending by more than $500 billion over 10 years will result in cuts in care for the elderly, an allegation Democrat’s dismiss as an outright lie.”

Not only many superhot issues where the partisan divide has been so deep have found Reichert so firmly planted with his caucus; in some other cases, he seemed to try to have at least toe in both camps. But not so in this one.

When he draws an opponent next year, as he will, what role will this play? And will there be cost exacted?

Share on Facebook


Sid Leiken

Sid Leiken

You remember the case of Sid Leiken, the Springfield mayor who said he planned to run for the 4th U.S. House seat presumably against incumbent Democrat Peter DeFazio. In the month since candidate filing has opened Leiken hasn’t, maybe because of the August 21 tearful press conference announcement of an “error in judgment.” That concerned a $2,000 payment his campaign made to his own consulting firm, a payment that ordinarily wouldn’t be legal; Leiken said it was actually just a reimbursement to an outside contractor who conducted a poll. The outside contractor was his mother.

Which sounded a little odd, but also seemed to end the story, partly since Leiken’s campaign seems to have ground to a halt since. But state investigators from the Secretary of State’s office have kept poking at it. And this tidbit from the blog by David Steves, of the Eugene Register-Guard, posted a few days ago, seems to call out for more attention. It refers to a response letter from Leiken’s mother to the state officials:

Most recently, investigators have requested evidence that there really was a poll. That’s where the letter put out today comes in. In it, Glenda Leiken explains that, beyond a memo summarizing the poll’s results and methodology, which she submitted this summer, “no other documentation exists.” She doesn’t have any notes or computer spreadsheets used to track the results. She doesn’t have phone records, either, Leiken says.

“I used a disposable/single use phone to retain my privacy, as my cell phone is my only personal phone line,” she wrote. “The cell phone account was closed over 5 months ago and the phone company does not retain phone records for closed accounts, therefore phone records are not available.”

Share on Facebook


protect marriGE

On R-71

Say you’re pushing a socially conservative concept is a state where the population is, as a majority, socially liberal or moderate at most. How do you do it? You might try a pivot to a non-morals-based argument, something relating to finance, legal complications or some other area.

What you don’t do, as the group Protect Marriage Washington has done, is something like this: A video that comes out of Sunday School and never leaves there, guaranteed to turn off all those people unlikely to support your view in the first place. (There’s no embed code for the video, hence the link to the home site.) The video’s view being that marriage itself is being violated by Senate Bill 5688, the measure that famously gave same-sex couples most of the rights of married couples but not the formality of marriage.

The guess here has been that Referendum 71, which seeks to repeal that legislature-passed law, won’t collect the votes it needs for repeal. Videos like this one do nothing to alter that sense.

Share on Facebook


If you’re a plitician, best to assume you’re never off-camera – and that goes well beyond the range of traditionally scandalous stuff, down to what kind of car you drive.

Oregon Representative David Wu, who has a generally green voting record, also drives an SUV, as a Republican video which has made its way to Politico demonstrates.

His staff argued that Wu and his family do a number of other green things (recycling and so forth). And Wu, who does have a challenge but to all appearances so far, not a strong one, doesn’t seem in particular risk.

Pictures are, nonetheless, powerful things.

Share on Facebook


John Kitzhaber, the former Democratic Oregon governor who’s seeking a third term, tried something a little different this afternoon: A Facebook discussion on health care. People would post and comment, and Kitzhaber would weigh in with comments and some answers to questions. It may be a useful direction for his and other campaigns to come.

The results in this case? So-so. The participants around the spectrum (and they were decidedly not all from the left) generally gave him praise for the effort, and the half-hour session did yield quite a few viewpoints. Kitzhaber’s own comments were intermittent and brief (some of that owing to the format), and often suggestive of bullet points.

Scanning through the comments overall, so many cry out for more explication. Bullet-points seem to be the mode of political and policy thought these days; facts are ammunition to fire at the other side. Some of the participants didn’t seem to have an interest in putting the pieces together, though a minority did. And some of it wandered off into the mists of political philosophy, where such matters as solving problems based on facts-on-the-ground often get left behind.

Consider this exchange (in which Kitzhaber doesn’t appear):

Jeff Reynolds: Gov. Kitzhaber, with all due respect, have you ever studied the effects of government intervention into private health care, and whether the extensive proposals of free market based plans would be of more or less efficacy than simply increasing governmental involvement?

Jeffrey D Sher: This seems less like a question and more like an opinion dressed as a question.

Jeff Reynolds: Actually, it’s a question. You can tell by the question mark. There are LOTS of other plans besides the public option, you know.

Andrew Plambeck: Isn’t “with all due respect” a euphemism for “I have absolutely no respect for your opinions and will express that in the following?”

Andrew Plambeck: And there is no one in either the state or national health care reform debate pushing for “simply increasing governmental involvement.” To characterize it as such is ludicrous.

Rob Rollinger@ Jeffrey: This seems more like an accusation than a comment

Larry McDonald: No Andrew, that would be your side that has that opinion. You know, “We won, so what you think dosent matter.” Private markets always do better than government. Think USPS and UPS.

Jeff Reynolds: Andrew, you can feel free to interpret my words however you wish, but my question is for the former Governor, not you.

T.A Hope Barnhart: i’m sorry, when was the “free market” removed from the health care/insurance system? did someone shut down Cigna & BlueCross when i wasn’t looking this morning? the “free market” has had a little over 200 years to get this right, and they’ve made a fracking mess of things. i trust my govt more than “their” corporations.

Klari Crabtree: Why is government intervention into healthcare defined exclusively as the only option being a public one? That’s like saying that intelligent design and evolution are mutally exclusive ideas. Government can intervene in healthcare while keeping private entities from profiting on the little guy who is just trying to make it. Look at the Swiss system for gosh sakes.

Leisha Wharfield: I think any question expressed in a civil manner, whether or not it reveals an opinion, should be respected and considered.

Larry McDonald: The Swiss system? They are the size of Oregon?

T.A Hope Barnhart: Klari, intelligent design & evolution are mutually exclusive. i.d. is proposed specifically to deep-six evolution. i have yet to hear anyone propose how leaving profits in the system will lower costs. if the govt runs the system, and providers are paid fairly, and there is no profit built-in — the entire system comes out ahead. or did i miss something during my years in retail when we added our mark-ups?

Larry McDonald: T.A., open the windows. The paint fumes are getting to you.

T.A Hope Barnhart: thanks, Larry. you ask people to be civil and then make a comment like that? and you wonder why people get snarked off?

Share on Facebook


At just over a year to the next general election – close to the midway point – seemed a useful point to review the party voter registrations in Oregon.

A note: Ind refers to the Independent Party; non-af is nonaffiliated. None that the drops in the interim (which are across the board) are generally explained because of standard records purging.

Month Dem Rep Ind non-af
Aug 909,414 679,934 47,563 423,711
May 907,700 679,624 44,752 419,486
Feb 930,649 692,610 45,358 429,858
Nov 08 931,318 694,589 43,030 429,758


Very stable.

Share on Facebook


Those of us not much into guns – that majority of us for whom guns aren’t, maybe apart from a hunting expedition or such, a part of ordinary daily life – have one kind of mindset when it comes to firearms. Even in these western states where guns certainly aren’t rare.

But there’s also the “open carry” culture. A perceptive Boise Weekly piece on a group of “open carry” (guns) advocates, by Scott Weaver, points out the view this way:

“The question is this: How do you reintroduce firearms into a culture that, as Ludlow and Carter have admitted, has rejected them as a part of everyday life? How do you push people toward the open-carry advocate’s ideal society, one in which everyone who is permitted to do so openly carries a gun. It’s often the first question you’re asked when you inquire as to why they’re carrying guns: Why aren’t you?”

Possible answers might include the potential for deadly accidents, the improbability of needing a gun (speaking personally, your scribe never has felt the need for one in more than half a century of American living and travel across 49 states) and the possibility of getting into a conflict with someone else also carrying; and that this century is the 21st, not the 19th. But that’s just one way of thinking.

Presumably the majority way, though, Idaho’s reputation notwithstanding. The Weekly story is spun around an Idaho Open Carry group’s plans to hold a dinner (at which carrying but not shooting was expected) at the Meridian Fuddruckers, which which evidently became uneasy at the idea, then at an Idaho Pizza Company, which asked them to leave their weapons outside, before finally getting a dinner with carry at a Shari’s.

An Idaho Pizza Company employee remarked, “This is supposed to be a family atmosphere. We got no problem with them coming in. We just don’t want them carrying guns. I mean, we don’t live in the Wild West, man.”

Well, evidently he doesn’t . . .

But be it noted that the Idaho diners are far from alone in their enthusiasm. Check out the website OpenCarry.org for more on the national perspective and relevant state laws.

Share on Facebook