Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.

For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.

Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!

E-mail us here.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 4, 2006 1:57 PM. The previous post in this blog was Rocky Mountain high. The next post in this blog is We made a difference. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.



Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
Willamette Week
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Thursday, May 4, 2006

Pretzel logic with Anna

Help me out with this one. I must be missing something. In the In Portland section of today's O, Portland City Hall reporter Anna Griffin takes a shot at predicting who's going to win the Sten-Burdick-Lister City Council race, now in progress. It's pretty obvious that neither Ginny Burdick nor Dave Lister is going to pull more than 50 percent of the votes cast, and so the best they can hope for is a runoff against incumbent Erik "Opie" Sten in November. One of the challengers will get that chance if Sten gets less than 50 percent of the votes cast in the primary.

So then what is Griffin talking about here?

The candidate: Ginny Burdick

The question: How many anti-Sten votes does Lister take from her?

* * * * *

Lister, who has put $30,000 of his own money in the race and says he's raised another $30,000, appears to be chipping away at that small but vocal group of fiscal conservatives in town who might otherwise have supported Burdick in their fervor to oust Sten.

Burdick needs a diverse coalition of support if she's going to keep Sten from hitting 50 percent.

* * * * *

If he's going to serve as more than just Sten's best friend -- the guy who sucked votes away from Burdick and let Sten eke out a May victory -- Lister must get his message out to mainstream voters, the ones who might vote progressive on the big issues but are tired of reading negative headlines about City Hall.

Like I say, help me out here. How does Lister help Sten if he takes votes away from Burdick? A vote cast for Lister is a vote that counts against Sten for purposes of hitting the 50 percent mark. Unless Lister's presence somehow causes a Burdick voter to switch to Sten, or to sit out the election entirely, he can't be helping Sten at all.

Of course, Lister might place second, ahead of Burdick, which would leave him, and not Burdick, to run against the progressive boy wonder all summer long. In that sense, Lister hurts her. But any vote for him is a vote against Sten. It is mathematically impossible for Lister to "let Sten eke out a victory in May" or to contribute in any way to Sten's getting more than 50 percent.

Pulitzer committee, please send it to my home address.

Comments (54)

Well, one possibility would be that Sten's opponent will be best positioned for the general if (s)he can get a good chunk of the voters in the primary. With two moderately strong people in the anti-Sten camp, the anti-Sten vote will be split between them. If there was only one challenger, then they'd come out of the primary with 40%+ percent, which would let them tell potential funders that they are viable and electable, and that a little more $$$ will get them the rest of the way.

Instead, they will be forced to tell people that even though they only got 30%, they can still defeat Sten. That's how I read her comment--the more votes the anti-Sten candidate gets in the primary, the stronger they are on the fundraising front.

It's not possible to read what she wrote that way.

Burdick needs a diverse coalition of support if she's going to keep Sten from hitting 50 percent.

* * * * *

If he's going to serve as more than just Sten's best friend -- the guy who sucked votes away from Burdick and let Sten eke out a May victory

She's quite specifically saying something different from what you've said.

I agree with your point about fundraising, but I don't think the reporter understands the primary-general election system.

Anna wrote:

"the guy who sucked votes away from Burdick and let Sten eke out a May victory"

There are no "two ways to read this". Choosing between Lister and Burdick will have no effect on whether this election is decided in May.

Anna is either spinning for Burdick or she grossly misunderstands how the primary election process works.

Whatever disagreements we may have on policy, your command of electoral math and probability is right on here. What is Anna talking about?

I have heard other people call Lister a "spoiler." He could steal the runoff spot from Burdick, but he can't hurt the chances of there being a runoff.

While we're on the subject of twisted logic, check out the more malicious versions here and here. I don't support Burdick, but the Stennies really are proving themselves to have quite the vicious streak. They must think the runoff issue is a close call, but I don't think they're going to pick up too many more votes with long stretches like those.

If anything, I'd think that Lister's presence makes it more likely for there to be a runoff, not less likely. With only one viable candidate (say, Burdick), people choose between the incumbent and the opponent, and unless the opponent is really compelling (or the incumbent really stinks) they will just go with the devil they know. With two viable challengers, you've got more issues to tempt you away from the incumbent.

Yeah, she is covering it as if it is a conventional highest vote total wins general election.

I would hope that the O's political reporter understands how primaries work and just did a really poor job writing; I could see a case that Portland is too liberal for the right wing Lister to win, so if he actually finishes 2nd then Sten wins easily as enough Burdick voters switch to him in the general election. But if that is what she meant she should have said so more clearly.

Lister finishing 3rd doesn't help Sten at all, as you'd expect virtually all of his support to go to Burdick in the general.

Correct. Even a vote for Emilie Boyles is a vote against Sten, and for those who support him and those who want him out, that's all that matters at this point.

While we're on the subject of twisted logic, check out the more malicious versions here and here.

That second one is rich, Jack. They are saying that because Burdick accepts contributions which people can later deduct from their taxes, that she is somehow just as guilty as Sten when it comes to receiving taxpayer campaign money? Unreal. Talk about splitting hairs.

Not just as 'guilty' Dave, just hypocritical.

Not just as 'guilty' Dave, just hypocritical.

That's a stretch, and you know it. Sten is taking $150,000 in taxpayer money from a system he designed and refused to let people vote on. Burdick is allowing people to donate money to her, money that they can then claim as a deduction, something that has been in place in Oregon since 1969, and that could have been repealed at any point. Furthermore, she is technically correct: Sten's money is taken from tax revenues, while Burdick's is taken from individual incomes, and then deducted. Sure, it may reduce overall revenues, but the money itself is not drawn from the general fund, as Erik's is. As long as the Stenies want to split hairs and parse things down to the letter, they should think about that.

While we're on the subject of twisted logic, check out the more malicious versions here and here. I don't support Burdick, but the Stennies really are proving themselves to have quite the vicious streak. They must think the runoff issue is a close call, but I don't think they're going to pick up too many more votes with long stretches like those.

"Malicious"? Me? Surely you jest?

Burdick's campaign manager ADMITS she is taking taxpayer dollars. Are you going to add his statements to the pretzel as well?

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that "Stennie" is a bad thing--at least here. But then I'm not suffering from a case of "Lister"-ine, so the way I see it its a push.

If you're really looking for a pretzel, look no further than one who worries about what goes with the Bush Administration's disastrous policies and yet advocates for an individual that voted for him--twice.

Want some mustard with that?

"I must be missing something"? You're being way too kind, Jack.
There's a name for this in the newspaper business. This is what they call a "screw-up."

The big difference between Sten and Burdick on the taxpayer funding vs. tax credits is that the taxpayer is not required to claim the tax credit that Burdick touts. If you don't believe in this form of taxpayer funding, don't take the credit. Under Sten-Blackmer, every taxpayer, water, and sewer customer is forced to pay for Sten and Fritz's campaign whether they believe in taxpayer funding or not.

That's irrelevant, GW. Burdick says in her ads that they're not paid for by tax dollars. Her campaign admits that is not in fact the truth--they are.

Burdick says in her ads that they're not paid for by tax dollars. Her campaign admits that is not in fact the truth--they are.

100% of Sten's money is taxpayer money. Some percentage of Burdick's is taxpayer money, but we have no idea what that % is. In order to claim that "tax dollars" paid for her ads, you'd have to know the exact amount of money contributed to her that was later deducted, and then you'd have to be certain that this money bought the ads.

Another thing: since Sten apparently feels that Burdick is robbing the tax coffers by accepting donations that are later claimed as deductions, will he admit that the tax abatements he wants to give Homer Williams are taking money directly from the schools??

Dave J--
as long as we all agree that percentage is greater than zero, she cannot say it WAS zero--which is what she said.

As far as I know, Sten hasn't even commented on this aspect of her ad, so I think you're creating a strawman on that one.

An aside here about the Lister campaign. I have a very highly placed Democrat in the county party who is wholeheartedly supporting Amanda. When I asked her about the other race, she shrugged and said, "Sten." She registered extreme distate at the prospect of voting for Boyles and stated categorically that she wouldn't vote for a candidate who systematically placed their lawnsigns in the public right-of-way, as have the Lister campaigners. I noted that I hadn't seen the illegally placed signs anywhere other than in SW, but she corrected me and said they are all up and down Powell Boulevard in SE, too. Her final word on it? "If he can't be troubled to follow the law, he ain't getting my vote." And she absolutely hates the VOE concept.

Moral: Don't piss off the motivated voters with egregious violations of the campaign laws. They'll revolt and they'll tell everyone they know about it.

As far as I know, Sten hasn't even commented on this aspect of her ad, so I think you're creating a strawman on that one.

Of course not, he'll let his followers sling the mud. I mean, George Bush never commented on the Swift Boaters, did he? ;)

Two things:

1. Lister pulling votes away from Burdick doesn't help Sten reach 50%. All one can say is the obvious, i.e., that both Lister and Burdick have to pull votes away from Sten for either to win, first in the primary, then the survivor of the two in the general.

2. For Sten to imply that the deductability of donations to Burdick means that she is taking public monies just like Sten is taking public monies in his VOE scam I mean scheme is downright disingenuous. So much so it seems desperate.

2. For Sten to imply that the deductability of donations to Burdick means that she is taking public monies just like Sten is taking public monies in his VOE scam I mean scheme is downright disingenuous. So much so it seems desperate.

(Jack, I promise this is my last post today!) Rusty, you'll love the Stennies other claim, linked by Jack in an above comment: that because Burdick has exceeded the $150K mark by $18K, she has forced Sten to claim another $18K from the VOE fund, thus she has deprived the city's fund of $18,000 that could be better spent on cops and parks. I'm not kidding. It's unreal.

They're clowns. Just like their hero.

Moral: Don't piss off the motivated voters with egregious violations of the campaign laws. They'll revolt and they'll tell everyone they know about it.

That's my first method of eliminating a candidate from consideration. If lawn signs are planted where it's obvious that permission was not granted from the property owner, then I will not vote for that candidate.

Our hero--the wind beneath our wings. LMAO

Seriously..Burdick's own campaign says they're taking tax dollars. How tough is that to understand? LOL

Garage Wine,

The tax credit comes packaged with the abandonment of secrecy. Burdick could get donations from mystery sources where no tax credit is claimed, and is unverifiable via the revenue department, then neither disclose the amount or source. ( NAACP v. Patterson 357 U.S. 449 membership list )

Sten could claim to have standing in court, rather than the City itself, to try to discover the amount of secret money spent so as to then deliver the info to the City for submission of a claim for a match. (Would he spend it upfront, with private borrowed dollars, and gamble that he would win in court and thus not be tossed for exceeding the spending limit.)

I've read that piece, Dave--where does it say she forced him? It says she ENABLED him, allowed him, and incentivized him to do so, in so many words--but nothing about forcing. If Burdick were concerned about money being spent by VOE, why is she making further expenditures possible?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Because it's her right to raise and spend as much as she wants. You know, the way it's always been done, here and elsewhere, for centuries?

Now the Stennies are going to guilt-trip her after he took his full campaign cost from the public till, without a public vote? Only in the Incompetent Socialist Republic of Portland. It's laughable.

It's Saltzman's right, too. Somehow he's managing to restrain himself.

Why try to make this about Sten, Jack? He's not being a hypocrite. He believes VOE is a GOOD expenditure of money. It's Burdick who keeps talking out of both sides of her mouth. It's hypocritical to make the cost of VOE a campaign issue--and then trigger increased VOE costs.

You're right. The posts I linked to from the Sten camp are so ridiculous that they really didn't deserve the traffic that my comment may have gotten them.

Good night.

Re: the Lister signs in the public right of way, I'd say that's a rookie mistake. (Imagine what would happen if he got the Water Bureau...zounds!)

Seriously, though— Lister's run a pretty good campaign for a first-timer. I'm expecting him to score surprisingly well. Even though I disagree with him on a lot of specifics and probably his, um, "worldview" as well, I hope he builds on this.

It's hypocritical to make the cost of VOE a campaign issue--and then trigger increased VOE costs.

Therein lies the beauty of this whole scam. It is absolutely tailor made for incumbents. If an opponent limits themself to 150K from VOE, then they and the incumbent are on a level playing field. Only, they are not on a level playing field, because the incumbent has the natural advantages that come with the office.

On the other hand, if the opponent refuses VOE, then the incumbent can either use aforementioned advantages of office to raise a ton of cash, or can take VOE and then get all the additional money when the opponent goes past the 150K mark.

It really is absurd. Why should she be forced to limit her spending to the incumbent's level? That will just hand him the game, as he wins on name recognition alone. So she refuses VOE, and is then condemned when she must raise additional funds to unseat an incumbent? Good lord.

I've seen plenty of Sten signs in the public right of way. It's not a rookie mistake, more like a calculated risk (turn on more people than you turn off).

Jack is right about the math. Every additional challenger increases -- not decreases -- the chance of a runoff as long as the challenger takes even one vote away from the incumbent.

Sten is our Bush.

In regards to Dave Lister's signs. I just have a problem believing that a candidate has total control over who and where the campaign signs are posted. Stating that you won't vote for a candidate because someone put their sign in a public right of way seems a little over the top to me.

Signs in the right-of-way is an old-time, long-time Firefighters' tactic. You needn't bother keeping track of who is doing what with signs in rights-of-way. It's no rookie mistake. It's the Firefighters. The Firefighters are for Sten.

My Lister sign was placed inside my property line but "someone" moved the sign into the public right-of-way. I wonder who would do a thing like that???? Gee, I'm not going to vote for Lister now-he should have a sign patrol constantly on the lookout for such infractions.

I don't about that analogy, Jack. If Sten = Bush, we would at least have invaded Gresham. Which would be awesome!

I'll agree that it's a rookie mistake, but once made, and notified, action should be swift and thorough to assure that it does not reoccur.

It is indeed a tactic to place other folks signs in illicit spots, but that really only works with early sign placement. By the final week plus of the campaign, having the sign in a high visibility placement may be a positive. Both strategies can backfire.

Lister still has my vote, but he needs to reign in whoever is managing his sign placement.

And, to be fair, where I first saw misplaced Lister signs, there was a Sten sign there first. On public property, next to a high traffic count street, with no parking to obscure nor background distractions. The Sten campaign should know better. The Sten sign disappeared before the Lister signs did. They are all gone now. Seemingly, they are reappearing elsewhere.

Is that Lister sign on the exact east end of the Ross Island Bridge still there? Totally public property.

Of course, last time around, I counted dozens of Randy Leonard signs on public property and he knows better.

If Lister scores in double digits in this election, I'll have to shave my head, sit on a flagpole for 30 days or something else weird in deference to Jack and this blog. But it's more likely Sten wins it outright. You may find this odd, but most Portlanders actually like what Sten has been doing the past ten years, especially people who have met him.

Sten is our Bush.

I certainly don't mean this as a compliment but... Sten isn't that bad.

Libertas' observation that Sten would have invaded Gresham is pretty funny though... but maybe Beaverton would be better. Nike = oil?

Sten has already participated in the Battle of Gresham. See photos here, here, and here.

As an observer and hoping for the future of Portland which is the economic driver of the region to be headed up and not down, I am hoping that Lister does well, and there is also a part of me that likes Sten. Each of these guys in there own way is important and I am glad they are both running and speaking out on the issues. I have been a footsoldier knocking on doors in east county to get votes for various measures to fund programs for kids, parks, and transportation. This last time out I felt really guilty, as I believe East Portland is getting a raw deal, but it took getting chewed up and spit out by the local cronies before my eyes were opened and I began to see just how things worked in this town, Jack, thank you also for your educational blog. If you look at the tax structure, and cash flow from the neighorhoods and neglect of the infrastructure (streets, parks) of the common folk especially in East County it makes you ill. I was in council for another issue when that old fellow from East County made his case again for some kind of credits for stormwater runoff, because they pay for such a disproportionate amount of the bill, when they don't contribute to the problem. The Gateway UR district didn't fund any million dollar parks like SoWhat, roads in East County are in awful shape.

It is good that Lister is giving those folks a voice, and I hope for the future of Portland, that he does well so that those folks feel like they have a voice that can be heard and don't give up. Portland needs all its citizens engaged and some honest debate not just the ones who march to the same drum beat, and drown out the concerns or call any one who questions that agenda so that it more fairly represents all the folks in Portland.

If Burdick outshines them, then it also sends a message that the money and strings of the powers that be are as tightly controled as ever, and I don't think that bodes well for Portland. I was so disappointed at WW endorsing Saltzman over Fritz, and Cogen over Lew Fredrick. I hope that the people of Portland will defy the print media and vote for character and independence of these people. It would make for a much livlier November election if this happens, lord knows we will all fall asleep at a Sax-Kulo Governors race.

Hinckley wrote: "That's my first method of eliminating a candidate from consideration. If lawn signs are planted where it's obvious that permission was not granted from the property owner, then I will not vote for that candidate."

PLEASE tell me you're not serious. That's f'ing ridiculous.

Dave Lister has run a good campaign. For the shaved head crowd and The Oregonian this fact: 30% of Portland voted for George Bush. Dave Lister is fically responsible, but socially moderate, live and let live. So, the math works this way. Sten screwed up, so says Willy Week, so says Dave's lawn signs, wherever they are. Burdick is a two-faced phoney: Burdick's voter's pamplet piece doesn't mention or say the word business once, not even under occupational background, nor even "I care about small business." Yet, on the campaign trail and in forums she shovels her business shtick off of the pavement day after day. Center/right folks are fooling themselves if they think Burdick will change the status quo at all.

Sten 40%, a nod to encumbency and his feverish supporters; Lister 35%, center/right, who know better than trust wooden Burdick, and knowing center/left voters who want more bang for the buck, and want voters to trust city government again; Burdick 25%, cynical downtown types, center/left who don't care she is selling her sole to the Portland Business Alliance, center/left that are hoping Burdick will betray the PBA once in office.

Sten 40%
Lister 35%
Burdick 25%

There is flexibility here which spells optimism for Dave Lister:
Sten 35%
Lister 33%
Burdick 32%
Hows that for a close race!!!

Lawn signs.... let's not get to self-righteous on behalf of any candidate here, folks. This happens a lot and it is often the doing of over-eager campaign volunteers (I don't know about the firefighters, those lawn-sign kings). You aren't even supposed to plant the things in your own parking strip, since it's city right-of-way.

That said, there have been some egregious offenders out there. Bussey's supporters put signs all over the 39th and Glisan traffic circle a couple years ago. And just the other day, I noticed a Sten sign planted right by the Grant High School track when I was over for a softball game. I resisted the urge to relocate it.

Unless it's clear that there's systematic abuse, we should probably all find other issues to decide our votes.

I also think Lister will beat Burdick, but I'm predicting Sten secures another term in round one.

"Sten is our Bush"

I think I get what you mean here Jack. Bush won handily in '04 with the red state vote because the constituency in the United States of Nascar/NRA America mindlessly swallowed his conservative "family values" fear based gay bashing war mongering diatribe. For whatever reason the red state crowd ignored the incompetency and the lies because Bush was their boy and that's all that mattered. Similarly the majority constituency in the Incompetent Socialist Republic of Portland just can't get enough of their dear Opie. No matter the Water Bureau fiasco, no matter getting his butt kicked on the PGE deal, no matter the failure to secure anything meaningful for 99.9% of his constituency in the South Waterfront District while the fat cats make millions with the help of our tax dollars, no matter the Voter Owned Elections fiasco which was so poorly conceived that it basically turned a into a tax payer sponsored welfare fraud scheme. (i.e. you give me 5K, I'll get you 150K, and then you give me 15K). The Willamette Week's endorsement of Sten was the biggest journalistic blow job I have seen in a long time. "Hey...Sten's our liberal white knight. He says all the right things and hates the greedy corporations...who cares about the results?" Maybe all the Stennies can get together at Dignity Village and pat each other on the back when they win the upcoming election. Way to go guys...way to go.

Wow. Pre-emptive sour grapes!

Hinckley wrote: "That's my first method of eliminating a candidate from consideration. If lawn signs are planted where it's obvious that permission was not granted from the property owner, then I will not vote for that candidate."

PLEASE tell me you're not serious. That's f'ing ridiculous.

I'm totally serious. Two reasons:

(1) If a candidate has no respect for property rights when they're running for office, that demonstrates to me they'll have no respect for property rights once IN office.
(2) It's a short step between "I had no idea where my lawnsigns were being placed" and "I had no idea the tram was going to cost $55 million". Ignorance is no excuse.

BTW - on my way out of Portland this evening, I took note of the following candidates who had illegally placed signs: Borg, Fritz, Lister, Sorenson, and Sten.

So... have you shredded your ballot yet?

If you won't vote for a candidate with misplaced lawn signs... and there appear to be a lot of those (from most, if not all campaigns)... then it seems that you will have no one to vote for.

FLASH...: This Bullitin: The Multnomah Village Post, May, 2006 FRONT PAGE review of the debate co-sponsored by Southwest neighborhoods, Inc. and neighbors West/Norhtwest.

"Portland City Council Position #2"
"Dave Lister, the first candidate for City Council Position #2,... "

Pulitzer Committee: First newspaper story in Portland to lay out the story, make that emerging story of this race. MUST READ for people to see what a leading newspaper reads like when they report the story of the campaign trail and forums as they have been happening all month(s).

The Multnomah Post lays out in simple quotes what The Oregonian has been missing all season,
some would say: willfuly ignoring, what this campaign is about. They are so invested in their candidate that they seem to fail to report up to the best of their ability.

Jack I've read this paper for years and I respect their efforts to illuminate the issues in Southwest Portland as they see it.

Think of it this way, what would happen if the Oregonian was reporting this way, what would the race look like?

Read the the rest of the "POST" too.
The tram story is right next to a picture of Ginny Burdick's face.

Sten is Blair, thats Tony Blair, his government is on the rocks in England, Sten has hit the rocks here in Portland. And the Oregonian celebrates "weird" in their weird editorial today, Saturday. I think the writer popped a spring, as all their cherished notions are lanced like balloons. Their distortions of the candidates records particularly Burdick's shows the extent they are willing to go to throw the race to their favored candidates.


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

Lange, Pinot Gris 2015
Kiona, Lemberger 2014
Willamette Valley, Pinot Gris 2015
Aix, Rosé de Provence 2016
Marchigüe, Cabernet 2013
Inazío Irruzola, Getariako Txakolina Rosé 2015
Maso Canali, Pinot Grigio 2015
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Kirkland, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2016
Cantele, Salice Salentino Reserva 2013
Whispering Angel, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2013
Avissi, Prosecco
Cleto Charli, Lambrusco di Sorbara Secco, Vecchia Modena
Pique Poul, Rosé 2016
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Rosé 2016
Stoller, Pinot Noir Rosé 2016
Chehalem, Inox Chardonnay 2015
The Four Graces, Pinot Gris 2015
Gascón, Colosal Red 2013
Cardwell Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
L'Ecole No. 41, Merlot 2013
Della Terra, Anonymus
Willamette Valley, Dijon Clone Chardonnay 2013
Wraith, Cabernet, Eidolon Estate 2012
Januik, Red 2015
Tomassi, Valpolicella, Rafaél, 2014
Sharecropper's Pinot Noir 2013
Helix, Pomatia Red Blend 2013
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2013
Locations, Spanish Red Wine
Locations, Argentinian Red Wine
La Antigua Clásico, Rioja 2011
Shatter, Grenache, Maury 2012
Argyle, Vintage Brut 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16 Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2014
Benton Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
Primarius, Pinot Gris 2015
Januik, Merlot 2013
Napa Cellars, Cabernet 2013
J. Bookwalter, Protagonist 2012
LAN, Rioja Edicion Limitada 2011
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2009
Denada Cellars, Cabernet, Maipo Valley 2014
Marchigüe, Cabernet, Colchagua Valley 2013
Oberon, Cabernet 2014
Hedges, Red Mountain 2012
Balboa, Rose of Grenache 2015
Ontañón, Rioja Reserva 2015
Three Horse Ranch, Pinot Gris 2014
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
Nelms Road, Merlot 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris 2014
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2012
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2013
Villa Maria, Sauvignon Blanc 2015
G3, Cabernet 2013
Chateau Smith, Cabernet, Washington State 2014
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16
Willamette Valley, Rose of Pinot Noir, Whole Clusters 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Ca' del Baio Barbaresco Valgrande 2012
Goodfellow, Reserve Pinot Gris, Clover 2014
Lugana, San Benedetto 2014
Wente, Cabernet, Charles Wetmore 2011
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
King Estate, Pinot Gris 2015
Adelsheim, Pinot Gris 2015
Trader Joe's, Pinot Gris, Willamette Valley 2015
La Vite Lucente, Toscana Red 2013
St. Francis, Cabernet, Sonoma 2013
Kendall-Jackson, Pinot Noir, California 2013
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2013
Erath, Pinot Noir, Estate Selection 2012
Abbot's Table, Columbia Valley 2014
Intrinsic, Cabernet 2014
Oyster Bay, Pinot Noir 2010
Occhipinti, SP68 Bianco 2014
Layer Cake, Shiraz 2013
Desert Wind, Ruah 2011
WillaKenzie, Pinot Gris 2014
Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2013
Des Amis, Rose 2014
Dunham, Trautina 2012
RoxyAnn, Claret 2012
Del Ri, Claret 2012
Stoppa, Emilia, Red 2004
Primarius, Pinot Noir 2013
Domaines Bunan, Bandol Rose 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Deer Creek, Pinot Gris 2015
Beaulieu, Rutherford Cabernet 2013
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
King Estate, Pinot Gris, Backbone 2014
Oberon, Napa Cabernet 2013
Apaltagua, Envero Carmenere Gran Reserva 2013
Chateau des Arnauds, Cuvee des Capucins 2012
Nine Hats, Red 2013
Benziger, Cabernet, Sonoma 2012
Roxy Ann, Claret 2012
Januik, Merlot 2012
Conundrum, White 2013
St. Francis, Sonoma Cabernet 2012

The Occasional Book

Marc Maron - Waiting for the Punch
Phil Stanford - Rose City Vice
Kenneth R. Feinberg - What is Life Worth?
Kent Haruf - Our Souls at Night
Peter Carey - True History of the Kelly Gang
Suzanne Collins - The Hunger Games
Amy Stewart - Girl Waits With Gun
Philip Roth - The Plot Against America
Norm Macdonald - Based on a True Story
Christopher Buckley - Boomsday
Ryan Holiday - The Obstacle is the Way
Ruth Sepetys - Between Shades of Gray
Richard Adams - Watership Down
Claire Vaye Watkins - Gold Fame Citrus
Markus Zusak - I am the Messenger
Anthony Doerr - All the Light We Cannot See
James Joyce - Dubliners
Cheryl Strayed - Torch
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Saul Bellow - Mister Sammler's Planet
Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria Dermoȗt - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 5
At this date last year: 3
Total run in 2017: 113
In 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269

Clicky Web Analytics