Why I'm voting NO on measure 50

I have been unimpressed with some of the comments on a thread over at Blue Oregon about Measure 50 (also known as the Health Kids Initiative) which will be voted on in the upcoming special election on November 6th. Apparently, it's not cool to be on the wrong side of the "progressive" movement on one issue (as I also found with my anti-Hillary rants when I stated I wouldn't vote for her even in the general election), least you will get attacked for having your own opinion.

Personally I have stated I have two reasons I oppose the measure 1) The measure being a constitutional amendment; 2) The fact that raising the tobacco tax to pay for it is a bad idea in general.

The disclaimers (so read carefully): First, I am not a smoker and in fact my father died because of smoking. Second, I agree with most that the anti-Measure 50 ads are terribly misleading.

My general feeling is that even though Democrats in the Oregon Legislature, even though they have a slim majority and needed 36 votes to pass any tax increase, should have tried harder to come up with other funding sources for the Healthy Kids initiative (which I would support given another funding source). Where that revenue would have come from I don't know.

I understand why it the measure was referred as a constitutional amendment, but that does not make me any less opposed to it. As I said in a post over at BO, adding a constitutional amendment (no matter who puts it on the ballot) should be done only when absolutely necessary. In my opinion, funding for a state program doesn't belong in the constitution.

The Legislature referred it to the people of Oregon in which each one of us has a vote. Regardless of what others feel, I have a right to MY opinion, to state my opinion and to vote. Until you come over and try to tell me otherwise in person, you'd better just deal with it!

Blue Oregon gets bloddy

I have to say I am disgruntled about the conversations on Blue Oregon lately. While I respect most of the people there even if I don't always agree with them (including Mr. Chisholm), I am hesitant to read some of the entries over there because of the on going squabbles about the Merkley/Novick campaigns.

Specifically, people have been going at each other's throats about Merkley's vote on a non-binding resolution. Supporters of both sides have acted poorly and said some pretty harsh things.

So here is a list of my personal observations:

1) As stated above the nasty bitch slapping between Merkley and Novick supporters whether or not Merkley's vote for a non-binding resolution counts or not as supporting the war.

I've read a lot of the comments (not all of them) and I have to say I'm extremely disappointed with everyone involved. I have no problem with people disagreeing, but when it turns into name calling and propaganda pushing, the discussion isn't even worth having.

2) The feeling that the Merkley campaign expects to be the presumptive nominee and that Novick has gotten a bum shake not only in terms of coverage in certain blogs, but also in polls and MSM. Yes, I have seen articles about Novick (so you need not post links) in several papers. However, now that Merkley has become the handpicked DNC candidate, where does that leave Novick?

Part of my worry is that a certain candidate in 1996 who was hand picked (no names mentioned) underperformed and got beaten by Smith, who won his first term in the US Senate. Granted that person had no experience in office, but the campaign was a disappointment (disclosure: I volunteered on that campaign as well as the 1996 coordinated DNC campaign).

3) I consider myself someone who decides who to back very early, long before the primary happens. In terms of Presidential Candidates I've done that. However, given the amount of information out there and the lack of a true debate between the two candidates, I foresee myself stuck in the undecided column (although I am leaning one direction that doesn't mean I couldn't change).

4) The feeling that Novick clearly will be pressured out of the race as the primary approaches and that Merkley supporters and his campaign will try to make this happen. Now I have no concrete evidence this will happen, as I stated it's a feeling.

My personal opinion is that both of the candidates have a good shot at beating Smith, which is the goal. Whether both will get a fair shake in the primary is yet to be seen.

The light at the end of the tunnel

After almost three and a half years of living overseas I'm coming home. It has been a long and sometimes tough journey. There has been somethings that have happened that I never would have expected.

On June 6th, I will get on a plane to fly home. I'm excited and somewhat nervous about picking up my life in Oregon. In mid September my wife, Namhee, will join me after she gets her visa to live permanently in the US.

Leaving my school and my life here will be difficult. There is no doubt in my mind that I have had some great experiences, especially in the last year.

This is the first of a few different posts about my life in Korea and my experience as an Expat coming home later this month.

If you'd like, feel free to visit my photo album to see what I've been up to these last few years:

David's Photo Album

Gordon Smith: The Flip Flopper

Many people remember the attacks on Kerry during the 2004 for his flip flop on the war in Iraq. Now Smith too is flip flopping after his sudden change of heart against the war. You'll remember that Smith gave a speech on the floor of the US Senate after his party got their ass kicked in the November election.

In an article that was in todays Oregonian, Smith tells the Eugene Register-Guard this:

"I don't have enough information to say I'm against the (troop) surge."

So are you against sending more troops Gordo?

Who knows? He says he's against the war, but not sure how he would vote in terms of a troop surge.

In terms of spending, Smith has said he's oppose to cuts.

So let me get this straight, he's against the war, not sure about a troop surge and oppose to any cuts to the war.

Typical Gordo spin.

Jackson Country May Mouthball Libraries Due to Lack of Funds

I'm not sure if anyone remembers when this happened in Grants Pass back in the 90's. As local bond measures were defeated, the funds for libraries in Josephine Country dried up. The libraries were closed for a few weeks. They did eventually reopen, but only after someone put an ad in US Today which made a mockery of the fact the public libraries were shut down.

Now a decade later, the same thing could happen to the Jackson Country Library system. Loss of timber recipts from the federal government, due to the fact the Republican Congress did reauthorize the reciepts leading to $23 million shortfall in the budget. Living overseas this came as a shock (I'm not able to keep up with all the news happening in Oregon sometimes). My mom happened to email me this morning asking me if I knew this was happending.

Represenatives Defazio and Walden have reintroduced a bill which will bring Oregon rural communities $273 million dollars. The thing is, with the change in power in Congress and so much legislation getting pushed though, who knows if this will really happen.

Westlund Conspiracy Theory

Over at the NW Republican Blog, Teddy P and gang have been pushing their Westlund conspiracy theory. Their story supposedly goes like this: Westlund dropped out of the race for governor and made a deal with Ted Kulongoski to get a political appointment at some future date, so that Kulongoski would be assured re-election last November.

Hmm...and they lefty's conspiracy nuts?

Recently, Westlund announced he has changed his party affiliation from Independent to Democrat. Westlund was a Republican until earlier this year when he switch to Independent status to run for governor. In August, Westlund dropped out of the race despite having collected the signatures he needed to file as a candidate for the governor's race.

But here is the jaw dropper: Now Bill Sizemore (of all people) is calling for a recall of Westlund because he changed his party affiliation to Democrat. In his post, he specifically repeats the same conspiracy theory that has been repeated on many right wing blogs:

"Ben was elected as a Republican in a Republican district in Central Oregon. Switching parties breaks faith with the voters who elected him. I think an enthusiastic, energized recall drive might take a little wind out of Mr. Westlund's sails. Let's see how self-righteous he sounds when he has to sell Central Oregon voters on all of those left wing positions he has now embraced. He might have to go to Ted a little sooner than expected for that appointment for which he has been hoping and Republicans would have one more seat in their caucus. This time it might even be a real Republican. "-Bill Sizemore

Wow, Sizemore has a lot of nerve calling for a recall of Westlund on a basis of ethics? Is this the same guy who's political foundation was found guilty of fraudulent signature gathering?

The only thing Westlund has done is change his party affiliation, nothing wrong with that. Why the right wants to make a capital offense out of this is beyond me. Especially given the many scandals that have been uncovered among members of their own party.

Gordo The War Monger

Well Slick Gordo is at it again. You really have to hand it to him, he's a real snake charmer. It seems the blogs are a buzz with people taking a swipe at Gordo. The biggest question is why did he wait until after the election, after his party failed miserably, to finally come out and say the war is immoral.

My feeling is that it's not necessarily that he's against the war per say, but against losing the war. It's funny sometimes how he'll make it look like he's taking more then one side. I have to question the timing (as so may others are doing) of his "coming out" party. He makes a speech on the US Senate floor in the closing days of Congress after his party has had a "thumpin" in the last election. What are his motives?

With 2008 coming around the corner, I have to wonder if this is simply a reelection ploy to once again paint himself as a moderate. As I pointed out over at BlueOregon recently, he's got two things going against him: 1) His party is in the minority and 2) His voting record.

The Oregonian has done pretty good in term of sucking Gordo's big toe and printing stories that use the term "moderate" to describe him. Unfortunately, the only way to describe Smith is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Is Pat Buchanan Crazy?

Sure, some of the suggestions Buchanan made as a presidential candidate were pretty far out there. But as I listen to him and read his books, I’m convinced he’s actually pretty sane. I’d like to tell you why someone like me might think that.

First, Buchanan has opposed the US invasion of Iraq from the beginning. In a column published just prior to the invasion, Buchanan said:

“Though Iraq does not threaten us, has not attacked us, cannot defeat us, and does not want war with us, the United States is about to invade and occupy that country. If we do, it will be the first purely imperial war in our history, a war launched to reshape the domestic politics and foreign policy of another nation to conform to our own.”

I for one, happen to agree with Buchanan 100% that this war has reshaped our domestic and foreign policy. Our strategy of pushing democracy, our own values and beliefs is wrong. Do we intend to make a habit of starting wars for the purpose to promoting democracy?

Yet it is these words that Buchanan wrote in his column on February 3rd of 2003 that ring eerily true, “Rarely do wars, once begun, work out as anticipated.” Now, three and a half years into the Iraq war, over 2900 American’s have lost their lives. So much for “mission accomplished.”

Buchanan has stated in his latest column, as well as on MSNBC, that the Republican party may be headed for a civil war over what to do in Iraq. Many conservatives, like Chuck Hagel, have begun to state their doubts about our involvement in Iraq. The war in Iraq caused the Republicans to be defeated in the 2006 Midterm Election and landed them in the minority in both houses of Congress for the first time in 12 years.

Some think if fighting in the Republican Party becomes worse, due to differing opinions about what our involvement in Iraq should be, so much so that it could spark a civil war within the party. Such a civil war could lead the Republicans to lose any hope of regaining control of Congress races in 2008, but also the keeping a hold on the presidency.

Now, being a Democrat, I have to salivate at the idea of this happening. The Republican Party imploding? Are you kidding? That would be the next best thing to one of my favorite football teams winning the Superbowl. Yet, also I have to wonder if ole’ Pat is whispering to the neocons, “I told you so.”