Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in November 2015

Why Alley won’t run


Will Allen Alley run for Governor in 2016? Here are the reasons he won’t.

Oregon GOP is a distinct minority today: Running for a statewide office in Oregon as a Republican is already an uphill battle. T he GOP now makes up just 30% of the voting population. Democrats are at 38%. NAV and Independent Party together are 29%. The NAV/IPO voters typically break 55% Democrat and 45% GOP. Minor party candidates and “others” typically make up 2- 3% of the vote. That means the Democrat is going to start off with a 10% advantage (Dem: 53%, GOP: 43%, Other 3%.) And, meaning that a GOP candidate will have to get some Democratic crossover voters, hold the GOP vote, and win the i/Independent voters by over 20% (At least 60/40)

The GOP vote is declining: And it isn’t getting any better. For the period from May 1, 2014 until February 1, 2015 (9 months), 101,892 new voters (never before registered) registered in Oregon. I am assuming this largely represents younger voters and new to Oregon voters.

But Alley Represents a different GOP: Yes, he does. He is pretty moderate, has solid business background and hasn’t risen within the GOP ranks based on his orthodox political views. He has proven he can work cross aisle in Salem. Of course that means he also won’t get the wholehearted support of the most important GOP base, the social conservatives. The GOP has built it’s GOTV and small grass roots on social conservatism and nativism. They will work for Alley, because they despise Gov. Brown and all she stands for. But they won’t go to the mats, and once it becomes apparent Alley is a long shot, they will regroup and devote themselves to either their local rural candidates or one or more ballot measures that feature the red meat conservative issues.

Gov. Brown has had few missteps: Democrats like Gov. Brown, and other than her temporary waffling on clean fuels, are pleased with her leadership. She has done little wrong to incur the wrath of most Democratic voters. And she has done little to surprise i/Independent voters. Not that they are all in her corner, but consistency and lack of surprise goes a long way with less motivated voters.

The Independent Candidate: Here is probably the straw that will stir the drink for Mr. Alley. The Independent Party of Oregon is now a major party and it’s nominations will be on the May primary ballot, giving all it’s candidates a real boost in the arm. The only current announced IPO candidate for Governor is Cliff Thomason, a rural Oregon businessman who is putting together a campaign based on rural agriculture, green jobs and local control. Thomason will definitely attract disaffected Democrats who won’t vote GOP because of social issues and many rural independent voters. These are the exact voters a moderate GOP candidate will need to defeat an incumbent Democratic Governor. If polling shows that an IPO candidate on the ballot can attract even 5-10% in a three way contest with Mr. Alley and Gov. Brown, the math gets worse for Mr. Alley. Likely much worse.

While Mr. Alley is probably the strongest GOP candidate for Governor, all these factors will likely make Mr. Alley decide to opt out of the 2016 race.

Alley may be looking ahead. In 2018 there will be another election for Governor. That race will be after a 2017 legislative session where Gov. Brown will either have signed brutal budget cuts or have handed out the $5 billion in tax increases if the Our Oregon ballot measures passes in 2016. And importantly, with Motor Voter the IPO will likely have lost major party status and lose the primary ballot access. This will be the analysis for all GOP candidates of course, including Knute Buehler and Julie Parrish, should they desire to run for statewide office.

So while 2018 may be a busy D versus R election, the 2016 race for Governor may be equally interesting if it comes down to a three way race between Democrat Gov. Brown, Republican Dr. Bud Pierce and Independent Cliff Thomason. In fact, if that’s the lineup, the IPO candidate may do much better than 5-10%.

First take/cities

Here's another report from Tuesday's election on a topic that wasn't much reported at the time, this one from the Daily Kos election sheet: "Yakima, a town of 91,000 residents in the agricultural part of central Washington state, is 41 percent Hispanic according to the 2010 Census. It, however, had previously never elected a Hispanic to its city council, in large part because all seven city council seats were elected at-large, essentially letting city's (mostly Republican) white voter majority pick all seven. The ACLU brought a lawsuit against Yakima under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, claiming that the at-large council system impermissibly diluted the Hispanic community's voting strength. In 2014, a federal court agreed, forcing the city to switch to a system of electing councilmembers by district. And lo and behold, in this year's elections, Yakima voters elected three councilors from the districts where the city's Hispanics are heavily concentrated." (photo)

Oregon and the EITC

From a report from the Oregon Center for Public Policy.

Oregon is in last place nationally when it comes to the share of families qualifying for the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) who claim it. That is costing the state's economy about $124 million a year in foregone federal dollars, according to the Oregon Center for Public Policy.

About a quarter of eligible Oregon working families do not claim the federal EITC, said the Center in a paper that analyzed the most recently available data, dating from 2012. This tax credit helps low-income households make ends meet, and enjoys bi-partisan support as an effective anti-poverty tool.

"Working families missing out on these federal work-support dollars have a harder time getting by," said Tyler Mac Innis, a policy analyst with the Center. "It also means fewer federal dollars ultimately flowing into businesses in communities throughout Oregon."

Oregon's poor performance in 2012 was not unusual. In the five years of available data (2008 through 2012) Oregon ranked no better than 48th among all states and the District of Columbia in terms of its EITC participation rate.

While the precise reasons why Oregon ranks so poorly are not altogether clear, research has shown that certain categories of working families are less likely to claim the credit, Mac Innis said. They include families who live in rural areas, are self-employed, do not have a qualifying child or are not proficient in English.

"It should be a priority of Oregon policymakers to make a state agency responsible for promoting the credit," Mac Innis said. "This is costing the state's economy millions in federal dollars and needlessly making life more difficult for families who are already hurting."

First take/pyramids

It's not directly relevant to the 2016 presidential race, but it does indicate the nature of the mental processes of a major candidate. The candidate is Republican Ben Carson, and the statement about the great pyramids in Egypt is this: “My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain.” The only real-world statement in all that is "all the archaeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves," and they have reason for that: What was found inside. And what was found inside doesn't allow storage space for grain. And the massive scope of the project, over a long period of time, precludes a single person such as Joseph (of the Bible) being behind their construction, and almost requires that the actors be the kings of Egypt (the pharaohs). What does it say about the mental processes of this candidate that he has to make this kind of leap, over the long-standing judgment (which he acknowledges) of professionals who have studied the matter for so many years? Nothing good, when you're talking about a candidate for a job who would be reliant on assessing the professional views of people who know more than he could about the specifics of making the country work. You could fairly put this bit of pyramid power in the category (all by itself) of a disqualifier from the presidency. - rs (photo)

A thank you note


It was a scene worthy of description by a Shakespeare. Even through the medium of television the viewer could sense a spirit of joy and a genuine sense of hope that the nation’s two major political parties really could come together for the common good and discern the greatest good for the greatest number.

It was an all too rare moment in our nation’s capital. There in the well of the people’s house all 435 members of Congress were united in conveying heartfelt thanks to outgoing Speaker John Boehner for his distinquished service, as well as appreciation for the accession of Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan to the Speakership.

Even the most cynical within a beltway bulging with cynics and critics had to concede the slate had been swept clean, that a transformational new beginning might be underway. Congressman Ryan is the right person in the right place at the right time with the right message.

Ryan gets the fundamental desire echoing from the constituencies of all members: collaborative, cooperative government can occur when members recognize they are sent Washington, D.C. to solve problems. They are not, as Speaker Ryan noted, to be the problem.

For a full hour animosities were set aside, respect and camaraderie prevailed. The only other time in recent memory an approximation of this coming together occurred was when Spokane’s Tom Foley, the first Speaker ever from west of the 100th meridian, succeeded the ethically challenged and disgraced Speaker Jim Wright from Texas.

Ironically, on the same day former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert was standing before a Federal Judge to be sentenced following his admission of guilt for accepting bribes in the millions of dollars. House Democrats, well aware of their own past disgraced Speaker, wisely refrained from making any partisan comments about the parallels.

The new Speaker quickly eschewed any Presidential aspirations, telling CNN that this would have been the time to run if he had a hankering to be president. In his acceptence remarks he tossed a couple of “political bones” to the Freedom Forum/Tea Party of which Idaho First District Congressman Raul Labrador is a prominent member.

Ryan said the prominence of the committee system would be restored, which means Leadership will not dictate when bills move. Additionally, backbenchers will be able to contribute especially if they have a particular expertise.

Ryan, like Boehner, is the quintessential American success story. He’s the first major political figure to have worked at a McDonald’s to help his widowed mother with expenses. He took the job when his father passed away when he was 16.

He worked his way through college, incurring debt from loans but also receiving Pell grants. He first came to D.C. as an intern in a Congressional office. Happily married, he is devoted to his wife and children, and only accepted the Speakership on condition he be able to continue his practice of flying home every weekend.

There’s irony in Ryan’s accession, especially for Congressman Labrador (Who voted for conservative colleague Rep. Daniel Webster of Florida in the Republican caucus; the next day he voted for Ryan in the House vote) and the Freedom Forum. Ryan becoming Speaker is a perfect example of the “Law of Unintended Consequences.” Labrador and his fellow travelers started over a year ago to undermine and drive out of office Speaker Boehner.

Little did they realize the outcome would be a no nonsense, practical, results-oriented Speaker who is not afraid of compromise. Indeed, he walked the talk 18 months earlier when negotiating a budget deal with Washington’s senior sernator, Patty Murray.

Nor could they have had any idea that Speaker Boehner would, in his words, “clean the barn” before leaving. This cleaning included an $80 billion increase in spending and a kicking the can of voting on increasing the debt ceiling down the road for almost two years.

So my friends, if you happen to see the First District congressman any time soon, be sure and thank him.

First take/election

The top executive office on the ballot in the Northwest on Tuesday was that of mayor of Boise, and a piece of the city's history was made there: David Bieter was elected to a fourth term in the job, something no one has done before (or even tried, for that matter), since the terms have been four years long. There was no loss in overall popularity, either, since he won with more than two-thirds of the vote, a strong supermajority, and had a well-known opponent (Judy Peavey-Derr), who has run for and often won offices in the area for a couple of decades. There's been a good deal of talk that he might be gearing up for a governor's race in 2018, and this election result is unlikely to coll that discussion. Still, there's a big difference between a Democratic-leaning city of Boise and Idaho taken as a whole. In the larger picture, election day didn't change an enormous amount around the region. The Seattle City Council seemed to be more or less status quo. The peculiar ballot issue in Coos County that purports to give the sheriff remarkable authorities he can't have, the region's premier bit of electoral zany, would be striking but for the fact that it will be swiftly shot down in court if serious usage is attempted. It was another low-turnout election day. - rs (Note: This item corrected the nature of the record; James A. Pinney won election as mayor five times, but the terms were then two years in length, so Bieter and Eardley both have surpassed Pinneys tenure in office by two years.)

Losers who won’t shut up


We older folk tend to compare our society these days to what we grew up with and experiences of years ago. Most of the time, the younger population thinks those changes are “no big deal.” “Just how things are,” they tell us.

Well, some of them ARE big deals. And just ‘cause that’s “how things are” doesn’t mean we have to accept them. Or, that they’re right.

One such change that rankles me is the ever-present attitude of too many folk who’ve come to believe they’re right - despite all facts to the contrary. Rather than accept losing an argument or an election, they cling to their case, ignore reality and reason, keep espousing their B.S. and, in many cases, actively work against their fellow citizens.

While this societal “change” is found in just about everything we do these days, it’s most prevalent in politics. It shows up after elections when one side prevailed and one side lost. Rather than honoring the outcome and putting away the campaign paraphernalia until next time, the new attitude is to hold fast to losing arguments - even fact-less propaganda - and become obstructionists. Congress is Exhibit “A” for this type of behavior. Many legislatures, too. And just some people.

I remember my small town Republican parents doing their part for Tom Dewey when he ran against President Truman. They distributed yard signs and flyers for Dewey and Deschutes County GOP candidates. Mom often served on election day as a volunteer. But I also clearly recall, when the election was over and Truman was back in the White House, they helped pick up all the yard signs, closed out the election paperwork and accepted the results. That’s what you did. Until next time. Until 1952.

That’s not true today in too many elections. Instead, the losing side circles the wagons, reloads the ammunition and becomes an entrenched opposition trying to gut the winners and the obvious decision of the majority of voters.

The latest “winner” who’s going to face land mines from losers is Paul Ryan. And, they’ll come from within his own Republican party. The losers who’ll keep on fighting. Even with their own kind.

Ryan was elected Speaker of the House 238-9. But the plain fact is some of those 238 ballots were cast with clenched teeth. The day before, 45 Repubs voted for someone else besides Ryan during a closed-door caucus vote. Ryan had held out agreeing to be Speaker as he sought a more unanimous vote. You can bet the phones were busy overnight.

Ryan’s opponents within his own caucus are hardcore GOP zealots. Count Idaho’s Rep. Raul Labrador among them. Their driving political sense is that of the Kamikaze pilot who believed not in the facts of the day - Japan had lost the war - but of the eventual “rightness” of the cause. Where the two differ is Labrador and cohorts have no “cause,” damned little facts and a determination to just destroy the opposition regardless of political party.

They don’t give a damn if government is already run by Republicans controlling both houses of Congress. Those of their party in control don’t “represent” the zealots outlook on things. Their leaders are often seen as part of the problem. Just like those damned Democrats. Purity of cause is the mother’s milk of these people. One instance of “collaboration” and Ryan will be deemed “impure.”

The best and most successful politicians know you don’t get everything you want on every issue. So, they determine what’s possible by compromise and inclusion to get the job done. To Labrador and his ilk, that’s treason.

This you can take to the bank. Early on, Ryan will decide on something - anything - he wants to achieve. Something he’ll go to the mat for. Something the zealots oppose. When that happens - and it will - the knives will come out. Ryan may convince a majority of his caucus to support him then. But that support won’t total 238. It’ll be something closer to 190.

Which means Ryan - if he truly wants to carry the day - will have to turn to House Democrats to be successful. When that happens, the target will be removed from the corpse of John Boehner and pinned on Ryan’s back.

We’re told Ryan wants to be president someday. Good for him. Every one should aspire to something. Even president. But, if - like Boehner - he’s drawn and quartered politically by the crazies in his own party, he’ll have to shift his presidential hopes a bit lower. Like president of the Janesville Rotary Club.

Yep, times have changed. Our vaunted electoral system has become home for too many zealots who don’t understand why their political ancestors accepted negative election results - why they put away the signs and worked with the winners until the next go-round. Why they didn’t keep their swords drawn and charge up one political hill after another to defeat what the majority of voters had said they wanted.

Me? I prefer the old ways. So Dewey lost in ‘48. Now, was Harry all that bad? Really?

First take/elections

It's an election day in many places, though many people seem only marginally aware of it. Not much happening in Oregon, but Washington has a couple of initiatives - one aimed once again at cutting taxes, another at protecting endangered species - along with a few legislative and judicial races. Idaho has city contests all over the state, including the race for mayor in Boise, the state's largest. There's a pot legalization issue on the ballot in Ohio, a governor's race in Kentucky, and more. Keep watch later in the day. - rs

Promises broken


Contrary to his repeated promises, Barack Obama announced on Friday the deployment of U.S. combat forces into Syria to assist local rebels fight I.S.I.S. The political, military and legal morass boggles.

There is no express legal authority for the United States to commit ground troops into Syria. It is not clear exactly who needs help or why. There is no mission statement particular to this situation. There appears to be no exit strategy. The rationale Obama has manufactured is that he has authority under the War Powers act of 2001, even though I.S.I.S. is not al Qaeda, Syria is not Iraq, and Bashar al Assad is not Saddam Hussein.

The area is in northern Syria, reportedly under the control of Kurdish rebels. The force to be deployed is a special operations unit of a few dozen. Their orders are to train and advise the Kurdish rebels, but administration officials acknowledge that the unit will be operating at or on the “front lines,” if such ever can be said to exist in guerrilla warfare, and was expecting to find themselves in firefights sooner or later.

The rebels are also seeking to overthrow Syrian president Bashar al Assad, and may be expected to engage in fighting against the government forces as well. What complicates this to an astronomical level is that the Russians have declared themselves allied with the Syrian government, and will be supporting the government forces with aid, weaponry, and air support.

Air Force A-10 Warthogs and F-15 fighters from bases in Turkey will be committed to the air support of the U.S. forces as and when needed. The Russian air support may well be coming from Russian bases in Crimea or navy carriers in the Black Sea. This may well entail both countries flying through shared airspace on the way in, over and out of Syria. While the Russians have said their main target will also be the I.S.I.S. forces, they may have already conducted air strikes on Syrian-Arab rebel forces. Further, although President Putin has stated that Russia has no intent of committing ground troops to the effort in Syria, President Obama has made exactly the same promise.

There is no other way to look at this other than that the chances of the United States finding itself in a firefight with Russia, either on the ground or in the air, have just increased through the roof.

What can possibly go wrong?