This is going to sound snarky, and it is not intended that way.

Is there anyone in politics you like on either the federal or state level? If so, who, and why?

This economy is Bill Clinton's fault?

Yes, in fact it is. Globalization, Nafta, yada yada. It killed the American middle class. Which means it killed America.

I thought Obama would be different. I've thought a lot of stupid stuff in my lifetime.

Funny how 20 years on, Perot looks pretty much correct.

nancy -- not to read too much into Jack's non-response, but I think this forum is more a critique of common sense (or lack thereof). The second Jack comes out in favor of any one person, he automatically gets labeled as "leftist" or "rightist" in the broader debate. Plus, as Jack noted, he's been wrong before, but we won't belabor that point other than to say the words Hope and Change can never be used again in a political campaign;)

Let's see... On the federal level? DeFazio tells it like it is. Bernie Sanders makes a lot of sense. You can have the rest of them, pretty much. Especially fakers like Wyden (R-N.Y.) and loose cannons like Earl the Pearl. Obama is the biggest disappointment I have ever voted for.

In Salem, there's so much shinola on both sides of the aisle. Steve Griffith would have been good in Devlin's district. Greg Macpherson has cojones. But no. What's in there now are largely dingbats. Wheeler is decent, if he doesn't put on too much rouge and spiked heels to get elected to something.

I dunno. If you put lipstick on a pig, you still have a pig. If a politician campaigns for office, you still have someone who will say anything to get elected, but who will be far different once in office.

Yet for all the complaints here about corporate puppet-masters, everyone hated VOE.

I thought Clinton left us a budget surplus?

...What's in there now are largely dingbats...

My opinion at this point is that people with integrity want no part of being one in with the group of "largely dingbats" in a dysfunctional system.

Since there is so little respect for the majority of those making unfortunately serious decisions about our concerns, have an idea. We have a list of people we know are not at all career politicians and wanting to give service for the public interest. . . rather than making decisions based on getting elected and reelected often pandering to those who have given huge sums of money. Surely there are enough good people in our community that might consider coming in on a platform devised to bring in a whole new slate of others with them. These candidates would be vetted as good to go for the people, on all levels from local to national to replace those in now, many who have been part of a sick system and seem to function within it and all the myriad of dysfunctional rules to benefit some at the expense of the people's interest.

This would take some doing, but why lay back and despair, only to continue on with more of the same. Am thinking the public is ready for something different, as I hear from all sides how disgusted people are. This might work better in a community where the knot is not tied so tight as the D's in pdx. . . but then all the more reason to think of options.

Paul Krugman has an excellent takedown of the tax amnesty idea in yesterday's column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/opinion/04krugman.html