This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on October 13, 2010 11:44 AM. The previous post in this blog was Show us your library card!. The next post in this blog is 1 down, 49 to go. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Everything's great, keep the status quo

That's pretty much the endorsement package this time around from Willamette Week. At least they say no to Fireman Randy's bond issue. But voter-owed elections? Hand Tri-Met more money? End term limits? Subsidize the West Hills historical society? All great ideas to the Double Dub.

Comments (12)

The first clue that this is going to be a travesty is right at the top of the page -- an anthropomorphic illustration of Oregon that is actually smiling!

As usual, the WW candidate endorsements are all worthless because they are based entirely on personality traits, with no evident consideration given to the candidates' actual beliefs, or how their election would affect the political dynamics of the governing body they will become part of. One gets the sense that the WW would gladly endorse a Ku Klux Klansman if he exhibited the requisite "independence of thought, strength of character and something in their background to suggest an ability to get things done" in the endorsement interview.

The editors of that paper are just too insulated (economically, socially and geographically) from the realities of everyday life as lived by the vast majority of their readers for their endorsements to have any relevance.

They did at least endorse Hughes for the Metro presidency and Loretta Smith over the Cogen-ette Collymore. Speaking of Cogen, they also came out against him or Kafoury or Shiprack getting to campaign for CoP Mayor or the Legislature while keeping their MultCo seats and salaries (initiative 26-110).

I'm 99% still on my predictions of the Willy Week Endorsements. I have been saying for weeks the Willy Week would jump ship from Karol and endorse Loretta. Interesting note but I'm still not sure I can endorse either yet.

Bojack readers, who are you backing in this race and why?


I had a great conversation with one other other Seat 2 primary candidates on this very topic. I would enjoy hearing more concrete perspectives on why to vote for either candidate.

I am leaning toward staying out of any endorsement at this time, unless I hear good information to differentiate the candidates.

I definitely agree with one aspect the Willy Week mentioned that Loretta has been out walking the community and reaching out more broadly then Karol. I have many friends who have had Loretta knock on their front door. This is not the most important aspect of voting for a person , but it demonstrates a commitment and hard work.

Now I need to figure out why the feds had two potential ringers in the race for Seat 2? (Almost) Million Dollar man Margraf (Blumenaur) and Loretta Smith (Wyden) Do they want that much of an influence on Seat 2 in regards to the CRC or the County getting out of the Bridge business?

Paul, I don't live in the district, but I did plenty of door-knocking for Chuck Currie in the primary. You would have been my back-up. Probably Maria after that. I'm pretty disappointed with both of the general election campaigns. Good thing I don't have to vote in that district.

What an enthusiastic vote for Kitz:

They hope he has some new "tricks" this time around. His "success" of the OHP "fizzled" because he couldn't convince the legislature to go along. His other success? Salmon preservation.

Wow, gimme more than that, especially in an economic crisis.

After reading this blog's comments on WW endorsements and other media, I'm stupefied on how so many are going to vote in the same folks and those similar that have given us Portland's $2 Billion dollar unfunded pension hole.

Did WW ever ask the question about the $2 Billion dollar hole? I guess they would rather talk about the "earnest demeanor" of a candidate than their answers to how to resolve the numerous problems we have. I'm beginning to think that Portland will fail.

I don't understand the animosity toward publicly-financed elections by you guys, especially when the only City Commissioner who tends to take your side and argue for fiscal responsibility was elected with public funding. Yeah, it got off to a bad start with Emily Boyles and then Jesse Cornutt ran a stupid campaign, but all those $150,000 giveaways don't come close to the cost of aerial trams [rim shot], soccer stadiums or convention centers.

Perhaps you are not so interested in better government, but would rather be assured you will have a brazen plutocracy to complain about.

"Voter-owed" elections has blown money on around 10 candidates -- all of whom were pretty much jerks. The only new face it's brought to City Hall is Amanda Fritz -- hardly grounds for rejoicing. The rationale "We waste a lot more money on other bulls**t" just doesn't cut it.


Thanks for a place to debate the issues.

As a fiscally conservative, conservationist, I would say the millions of dollars I have seen City Council blow on favors to Glickman, Gardner, Paulson and many many many many others comes no where close to the money spent to fine tune the VOE system. I have no faith or hope for that matter in the old system.

While I am not rejoicing, I will take the honesty and integrity that are possible and proven in Amanda Fritz and the next generation of VOE candidates over 100 years of Portland corruption.

Paul VO

Amanda is better than the rest of her colleagues, but that's damning with faint praise.

And she didn't need my money or yours to get elected. But she took it, because it's good for us. Typical Portland City Hall.

At the OPAL bus rally, after Amanda Fritz urged a yes vote for the voter owned elections and yes on the TriMet Levy she told told me " We can't afford NOT to build Milwaukie Light Rail and that we need a sales tax to give TriMet more funding."

Anyone that lacking is not a good hold up.

And she didn't need my money or yours to get elected.

I'm not sure that's true. Fritz lost badly in her first election against Saltzman. In her second, she faced a weak field (Lewis, Bissonnette, Branam, Fahey, and Chris Smith). I think you can argue that the field was weak because stronger candidates knew that Fritz would qualify for $150k in public financing, so they were faced with that in the primary, and another cash infusion in the general. The existence of VOE might have scared them away.

Put another way, in the absence of VOE do you think a cash-strapped Fritz, with maybe $10k-$20k max, would have beaten a PBA-financed Burdick? I don't.

Clicky Web Analytics