there's cognitive dissonance with Adams--his combative style with fellow Council members and citizens in general versus the soft-core political porn on his samforpdx website--make me wonder: why should I vote for this guy?

when he does the ethical gymnastics like his recent split/combine/split of taxes in the recent road fiasco, but promises he's an outsider working for me in government?

when he works so hard to derail Dozono, both in public and private?

and I'm not very interested in any of the mayoral alternatives. what a poverty of leadership we've got, it seems, when we need it most.

and after the past year or more of watching City Council tear at itself in public (in which Adams had a significant part), why should I be interested in any of it?

i'd sure like to like some candidate, though.

Jack, I am glad you can find one bright spot from this decision. The rest is all bad for the city. I hope Sho runs, and with contributions from many so that he can even speak more truths than he can with VOE.

eco, Although I'm sure you and I are at quite opposite ends of the political spectrum, I've agreed with quite a few of your last comments.

No blame for Sho? This was no conspiracy: the guy broke state law when he failed to report the in-kind poll as a contribution, and now it's clear he violated City code. Dislike Adams and VOE all you want, but they didn't make Sho run an amateur campaign.

Sho hitched his wagon to Len Bergstein, and this is the type of s*** that you step in as a result.

eco,

What Joey said.

I don't think you fit anybody's mold.

While I like Sam on his substance, it's unfortunate that he is going after Sho in this way. A clean competitive race would have been best for the city.

Let the Coronation begin.

Step. 31 The King on the Day of the Coronation: The Archbishop of Canterbury shall oppose and ask the king the same day if he will hold and guarantee and keep the laws and the customs granted to his people of old by devout and rightwise kings beforehand. Also if he will swear it, in particular the laws and customs and the liberties of the glorious king Edward to the people and the clergy. And the kings shall behold that he will keep all these forsaid things. Then shall the Archbishop show and declare certain articles to which the king shall swear:

The first point: "Thou shall keep full peace and accord in God and to the Church to the people and to the clergy." And the king shall answer, "I shall do. "
The second point: "Thou shall keep in all these domains rightful and every rightwiseness and discretion with mercy and truth." And the king shall swear, "I shall do. "
The third point: "Grant thou all rightful laws and customs to behold and that thou wilt defend and strengthen them to the worship if God to his might and powers which shall choose. " And the king shall answer, "I grant and behold it. "

My vote will go for the proverbial 'Anyone But', unless Dozono stays in.

A clean competitive race would have been best for the city.

When did "(what's) best for the city" ever come before "what's best for Sam"?

Miles, CoP statutes determine the VOE process, not the state. Where does it read in VOE that I could not have a survey made for someone I might want to run, then encourage that person to run based on the survey?

JK: For the sake of Portland, we must convince Sho to stay in the race. And he will need money.

I just sent the following Emial:

shoinfo@shoformayor.com
Please stay in the race.

Only you can stop Sam from destroying Portland.

Consider this my pledge of $100

I encourage all Sho supporters to do the same TODAY.
Who else will pledge $100 or more?? Lets start a movement NOW.

Thanks
JK

LW, Sho also broke state law by failing to report the in-kind contribution. It's a separate matter from VOE, and it's why he had to amend his reports.

As for your other question, the ALJ ruling says that you can't receive more than $12,000 in-kind during the qualifying period, which extends back to July 2007. The Merc covers the substance of the ruling pretty well.

Miles, my post was made in the context that the City of Portland makes edicts, decisions and stands by them all the time in disregard to state law, and sometimes federal law. For example, CoP's interpretation of urban renewal statutes, pollution statutes-state and fed, etc.

And don't forget the street naming fiasco that failed to follow several city statutes.

So all you need to do is spend $12,001 dollars on an "in-kind" contribution and give it to the VOE candidate you wish to disqualify.

The Merc covers the substance of the ruling pretty well.

Pretty unbiased reporting, as usual. *snort*

I sent the email, JK.

"now it's clear he violated City code."

Hey, who the heck knows what city code is any more. They make up this Voe crap and then pass all kinds of rules modifying it or let Blackmer play Solomon and interpret.

VoE works for the incumbent/insider who can deciperh all of the gotchas about it - like Middaugh who had his campaign planned from the get-go - Thank you Erik.

Sam caught Sho in a $12,000 snafoo
while $100s of millions in snafoos go unchecked at the PDC

I's sure Sam with all of his "substance" is proud of his 12,000 catch.

What a jerk he is.

Sho caught himself in a $27,000 snafu.

Sho has no one to blame but himself for what he did. At best he is a hapless bozo who didn't know what he was doing, at worst he's willing to be a scofflaw in order to gain political office.

These days Sho has the character traits needed to be President. Say what you will about his opponents, Sho has made himself look bad here all by himself.

Adams sounded soooooooooooo sincere on the news tonight: "I was looking forward to a lively debate...." Yeah, right. And that's why you joined in the complaint against the only recognized opponent in the race?

The Coke vs. Pepsi, Avis vs. Hertz, Dem vs. Rep, of it all, simply never made sense to me. Sense is more than two-dimensional.

I swear an active place like this is, has the critical mass to ignite voting chain reaction. First thing, kill all the massmedia. Get ideas from, and spread news to, one another. Don't quote what 'they' say, ignore what 'they' say, lean on 'their' advertisers to bring those dollars over here.

The Sho vs. Sam is the same same. So many say two options is all their head can ponder -- they can walk and chew gum, but they can't keep their eyes open -- that'd be three things -- at the same time.

My standing observation is that LIARS is the black plague kiss of campaign death, on anyone he touches or endorses. So Sho and Sam both (separately) got in the booth with LIARS. Both are toast. Which makes opponents of each of them happy, and leaves no one delighted.

There must be a 2nd- or 3rd-tier candidate somewhere in the pack, a sort of understated Bud Clark, if that's possible. Really, a cretin would do. Eighty percent of the job is just showing up.

Pick through the pile, come up with one no other group has grabbed, and pump up the promotion, right here in downtown bojack city. Make a Mayor. Just agreeing that we are doing it, and then doing so, means it doesn't matter what the Token Candidate says or does, or even stands for -- isn't that the moral-of-the-story in the movies about made-up political tokens, 'The Candidate,' and that Robin Williams movie ... someone else can name.

Hey, here's an idea, how about that 'David' guy 'from out in Welches' ? He could do his con-job shtick in broad daylight on Broadway, we'd all call him the Man We Like for Mayor, the TV crews would bump the buzz, surrounding him recording him stealing conned money from folks on the sidewalk -- he's already got his campaign 'message' polished to pure perfection, 'hi, I'm David, give me your money, I'm trying to get out of Portland and get to Welches' -- and, I swear, people would drive in from everywhere and line up to take a turn being ripped off, on TV. That could be a new promo: Ripped Off City.

Same effect as if someone changed their legal name to None OfThe Above, and started a write-in campaign.

It'd be wacky enough to cause high-ticket no-clients campaign advisors and image makers, to jump out windows of tall buildings. One could hope.

"Say what you will about his opponents, Sho has made himself look bad here all by himself."

Chris SMith also violated VoE rules, yet we can look the other way. Does that apply to him also?

I too contacted the Dozono campaign and made a pledge yesterday. I hope he stays in. If he drops out, feel free to write me in.

I'm not sure what's worse out of all this. The fact that if Dozono pulls out we have no real choice in who becomes Mayor, or that we'll have the liberal version of George W wreaking havoc on all that is good about PDX for the next 4 years. Under a Sam Adams administration our beautiful city's reputation would evaporate along with the good, collaborative, transparent government Sho Dozono could have formed. I think I'd rather have Tonya Harding run.

Funny, I've been thinking the same thing that Joey and CC have said WRT ecohuman.

Tensk,

Your "standing obsession" with Lars is irrational.

I wonder, why do you listen to his show?

WRT Lars and Tenty:

Normally, in these situations, because it's a deep-seated, perhaps even submliminal and unknowing, agreement with the subject's (Lars') views.

Tensk adding his or her Lars dig on every post is assinine. As is Tensk's imaginary Lars monster.
I suspect this "Tensk" character has
some history, beef and grudge with Lars and can't seem to rid hsi mind of that horror.

In the real world, out of reach of Tensk, Sam Adams is far more of an extremist and detriment, across the board, than is Lars.

Lars is a talk show host making no policies and spending no public funds.
If one doesn't like his opinions they are free and welcome to call his show any time.
Which would be far more rational than the silly approach the long winded Tensk is obsessed with.

So all you need to do is spend $12,001 dollars on an "in-kind" contribution and give it to the VOE candidate you wish to disqualify.

Absolutely. A small group of dedicated bloggers could shoot down any candidate in the qualification phase in 2009-10 by simply in-kinding enough blog-ads in support of their candidacy.

Anything that says "Support Candidate X for City Council" on banner space that is normally paid will undoubtedly qualify as an inkind.

Since VOE does not (and could not) distinguish between gifts that help a candidate a little bit and gifts that help a candidate too much, it would be easy to disqualify anyone as soon as they file to seek qualifying contributions.

It's like killing them with kindness.

While I understand that folks don’t like Sam on this blog, I read about this ruling and it looks like the judge says that the Auditor never should have certified him – that the law is really clear.

Whether I like Sam or not, and I will admit that I find him impressive, I can’t help but feel like Dozono isn’t taking responsibility for himself.  He seems to be skirting the truth and acting like a hapless bystander.

I can’t help but feel like Dozono isn’t taking responsibility for himself.

Oh, you can help it if you try.

Are you trying to blame Dozono for Blackmer's decision? That's a new twist.

Aw shucks, I can't help but feel as if you aren't taking responsibility for your mischaracterization of Dozono's actions.

"Whether I like Sam or not, and I will admit that I find him impressive"

I've found some impressive piles on my lawn on occasion. And I don't own a dog.

and I will admit that I find him [Sam] impressive

why is that?

and I will admit that I find him [Sam] impressive

He'll admit that?

I thought it was obvious.

I don't like Sam. I don't like Sho. Now what?

I can't believe I actually agree with you.