A place for the writings and the ideas of the people in and around (and coming to the attention of) the Ridenbaugh Press.
Published July 21, 2016 by

Deja-vu, again

carlsonlogo1

The quote is one of the classic statements attributed to the great New York Yankees catcher, the late Yogi Berra. Known for his malapropisms, his twisting of words and talent for stating the obvious, Berra’s comment on redundacy will forever be part of his legacy.

The television commercial he made for AFLAC that left the AFLAC goose shaking his head will also be an immortal classic on YouTube.

The Senate Democratic candidate, Jerry Sturgill, running for the seat now held by incumbent Michael Dean “Mike” Crapo, is circulating a two-page memo summarizing a poll conducted by Celinda Lake from July 5th through the 10th of 500 registered Idaho voters. The polling firm, Lake Research Partners, has polled for many Democratic candidates throughout the west for many years.

The memo is somewhat of a sale piece designed to show that Sturgill, who is virtually unknown statewide, has a real shot at upsetting Senator Crapo. Of course he just needs money to get Crapo’s record known to the voters.

Lake’s memo highlights the fact that Crapo’s support is below the magic 50% number, though only by 1%, well within the poll’s margin of errors of plus or minus 4.4%. The memo states Crapo has a poor job performance ranking with 48% rating his work at fair to poor. However,the memo also admits his good to excellent number is 41%.

Lake further states her data indicates that 25% of the voters are undecided and that Senator Crapo in particular has a problem with independent voters. She also says Crapo’s re-election prospects will suffer because of Donald Trump leading the Republican ticket.

Lake says Sturgill is not a “typical” Democrat and cites as evidence the fact that Sturgill is a former bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and is a return missionary. Crapo, however, is also LDS, a former bishop and return missionary. That and a couple of bucks will buy one a decaf Americano at a nearby Starbucks.

Lake ends her memo by saying that Crapo is vulnerable and she calls it a tie race right now. That is quite simply a wish and a prayer. Perhaps if Sturgill had $3 million to spend on ads tagging Crapo as a career politician who is part of the reason our Congress is so dysfunctional and also portrayed the senator as a creature of Wall Street who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from the major banks, Sturgill might have a shot.

Crapo, for his part, is taking nothing for granted. By election day he will have been to every incorporated city, town and village in Idaho. He also will spend most of the $4.5 million he has accumulated in donations making his case that he is a working senator.

The end result will be another slaughter of a Democrat by a Republican in a statewide race. A brief look at the record of recnt senate races drives home the reality: In 2010 Crapo received 319,953 votes to Democrat Ted Sullivan’s 112,057 votes, a 71% margin; in 2004 Crapo was unopposed; in 1998 Crapo received 262,966 votes to Democrat Bill Mauk’s 107,375 votes, a margin of 70% to 28%.

Idaho’s most recent Senate race in 2014 saw former Governor Jim Risch easily defeat Democrat Nels Mitchell. Risch polled 285,596 votes to Mitchell’s 151,574 votes, a margin of 65% to 35%.

Bottom line is Sturgill doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of defeating Crapo who probably will win by a 75% to 25% margin.
.
Reporters and contributors have seen memos like this from Celinda Lake before in other Idaho Senate races. Most have not had the resources to act on her interpretation. Ask one who did, though. In 1996, Walt Minnick, at the last minute believing a Lake poll allegedly showing him within two percentage points of Senator Larry Craig, put $500,000 of his own money into additional tv advertising.

He lost, garnering 188,422 votes to Senator Craig’s 283,532 votes, a margin of 57% to 40%. Facts are facts and the Lake memo is deju vu.

Share on Facebook

Carlson

Published July 20, 2016 by

An Oregon poll to watch

harris

(Information about icitizen From their website):

“The icitizen Oregon Poll provides a non-partisan, representative read of public opinion on pressing legislative and social issues in Oregon. This installment of the Oregon Poll examines November general election matchups, key ballot measures, as well as attitudes towards the state, the economy, and personal finances.”

Presidential Race: Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump: It’s 46% Clinton, 32% Trump, and 22% undecided. Clinton has held her base, and is outperforming voter registration by 3%. Independents are split.

Governors Race: While statewide, Democrats outnumber Republicans by 11%, Governor Kate Brown leads Dr. Bud Pierce by just seven points. It’s 42% Brown, 35% Pierce, and 23% undecided. However, if you take leaners into account, Brown leads 47% to 37% with 17% undecided. Dr. Pierce beats Brown among independent voters by 10 points but that won’t be enough. If Dr. Pierce is to win he’ll need to change some Brown leaners around because it’s highly unlikely he can win 85% of the undecideds. Brown is weak but at this point Pierce is either going to have to hope for some scandal, or come up with a better reason for his candidacy.

Oregon Secretary of State: Democrat Brad Avakian leads Republican Dennis Richardson in the race for Secretary of State 36% to 32%, with 32% undecided. Avakian is under performing and Richardson is over performing in relation to voter registrations. A full 15% of Democrats, 15% of Republicans and 46% of Independents/Others are undecided. However if the leaners all vote as they lean, and the Republican and Democratic undecideds all vote their party, Richardson would have to win 85% of the independent undecided voters to win.

State Treasurer: This is the big surprise in that it’s anybody’s race. In a three-way race it’s Democrat Tobias Read with 26%, Republican Jeff Gudman at 19% and Independent Party candidate Chris Telfer at 14% with 43% undecided. Adding in leaners and it’s Read with 31%, Gudman with 23% and Telfer with 17% with 29% undecided. Gudman seems very week based on the fact that a full 31% of Republicans are undecided. Assuming those undecided Republicans are considering Telfer, not Read, Telfer could be poised to vault over Gudman and challenge Read if she can establish herself as the Democratic Alternative.

Initiative Position 28 (IP28) which would impose a 2.5% business gross receipts revenues on Oregon sales in excess of $25 million, shows 65% in favor, 19% opposed, and 16% unsure. When voters were provided with messaging in support and against the measure, support went down to 55%. So that should be considered the initial voter support level. Common wisdom is that a tax measure needs 56-57% support initially to have a chance. IP 28 has a chance. If its as close as it appears it could be, this race will suck up a substantial portion of available Democratic donor dollars. Meaning if any of the State wide races becomes more competitive, the Democrat may not be able to count on a late influx of Public employee union funds.

The Race to Watch: State Treasurer. It appears to be the most unpredictable, the highest number of undecideds. There are three viable candidates, and Republican voters could shift support to Independent Telfer unless Gudman gets some traction. Because of the largely non partisan duties of Sate Treasurer, many moderate Democrats may be willing to support a qualified Independent candidate. And, if the anti establishment anger of the electorate continues, it could be a race that voters choose to vent their frustration.

Share on Facebook

Harris

Published July 19, 2016 by

Day one

stapiluslogo1

Day one of the Republican National – that is, Trump – Convention went about as well as it realistically might have. Put otherwise: Not so well.

It started with the largest, most passionate floor conflict I’ve watched since at least the Democrats in 1980, maybe further back than that. It wound up the way these outside challenges almost always do. The Donald Trump forces were quick to quash the opposition (some of it seemingly led from Utah), and maybe too quick: There was some fury in the crowd. Delegations from two states, Iowa and Colorado, walked out.

On the wide shots, there seemed to be an awful lot of empty seats. That may be wrong for some reason or other, but the convention looked underpopulated compared to other conventions I’ve watched.

Watching via television is a tricky thing when evaluating audience response, but it seemed to me that the energy of the crowd seemed drained after that. Only a few speakers seemed to really draw it out.

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, is a strong speaker and seemed to get the crowd stirred, but he was just about alone in doing that. The others were an unusual mix of military people, entertainers (a couple of little-known actors with less presence), a long stretch about Benghazi that was hard to follow and seemed by now beside the point. And a too-long speech by Trump’s wife. (Speeches by spouses generally should be kept brief: A note for the Democratic convention to come.) Later in the day, audience responses and applause seemed, on TV at least, to be sparse and slight.

A political convention is where among other things the two parties get to critique each other. Certainly there was no lack of blasts from the GOP at the Democrats (no doubt to be returned next week), but what was missing was a lack of coherence about what the problem was. The Obama Administration was accused of being a failure all over the place, all over the world, generally, but the specifics were largely missing, or misrepresented. What exactly was it that the administration did that hurt the country’s prospects so much? There were no real through themes, no takeaways.

And I can’t wait for the fact checking to weigh in today’s speeches. Iowa Senator Joni Ernest remarked during one of the many fear-fear-fear segments, “Terrorists from ISIS are in every one of our 50 states.” Really? How could she know that? Does she know who they are?

That was only a shadow of what the retired general, Michael Flynn, had to say, warning us that we are imminent risk of national destruction from ISIS.

Something I think I have never heard from a political convention before: Demands – repeated demands – that the presidential nominee of the other party be imprisoned, even though convicted of no offenses at all. I’m fairly sure I never heard that from the Democrats in 2004. But I heard it repeatedly among the Republicans on Monday. And not, I suspect, for the last time.

And finally, the song they played upon adjournment: “Sweet Caroline.” Really? Do they know who the song is about?

Three more days to go.

Share on Facebook

Stapilus

Published July 18, 2016 by

Professional politicians required

rainey

I’ve recently undergone serious surgery. (Is there any other kind?) But, before they wheeled me in, I told the physician I didn’t want him in the room at the time. I’d already asked the guy in the next suite of offices in the same building to handle the cutting and snipping. He sells mutual funds and has no medical background. But better him than those damned professional doctors.

Such is the current nutball thinking abroad in our land with all those poll responders who say they won’t vote for a presidential candidate who’s a “professional” politician. “NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY” is their mantra. So, they’re jumping on the loud, three-wheeled Trump bandwagon in record numbers. Suffice to say, a more unqualified, doomed-to-fail, ego-scratching candidate for the office of commander-in-chief has not appeared on a national ballot since that damned Palin woman.

If one knows nothing about how our political system works, if one is uninformed or misinformed by a favorite right-wing media, hasn’t spent the time to understand how our government works or is ignorant of the whole process and determined to stay that way, I can understand the dumb and dangerous response to national pollsters. But it would sure play hell with our country if that ignorance prevailed.

There are, I think, four major reasons for such misplaced anger. First, our higher and lower educational systems are graduating students who have absolutely no idea how our government works. I run into it every day in conversations with white collar, blue collar or no collar folks. Even many PhD’s are “civics challenged.” Simple queries about government form and function draw off-the-wall responses or blank stares. Too often – far to often – the response is “I have no idea” or “I don’t know.” Makes it damned tough to call yourself an educated voter or to cast an intelligent ballot.

The second reason for a sizeable part of the uneducated electorate being mad at “professional” politicians is they’ve elected too damned many of ‘em who should’ve never been candidates in the first place. We’ve filled our legislatures and congress with nice looking, smooth talking people. They either have no idea what their job descriptions are or they have singular agendas for or against something and don’t give two hoots in Hell for governing or anything else. They are strident, ignorant and dangerous voices with nothing to say. And, an elected platform on which to say it.

A third factor is loss of respect for anything challenging a person’s thinking. We’ve developed a media system and, in some cases an educational system – to which people can turn for reaffirmation of whatever philosophy they have. Fact or no fact. I get in more arguments lately when I challenge someone. Their favorite media source or favorite politician or even their favorite bartender has convinced them of the “rightness” of a certain view and no other facts need apply. Further, their challenge to me is to “convert” to their thinking. There is no middle ground. No acceptance of the right to disagree without being disagreeable. No thought they could be wrong.

Finally, we’ve created a political system where winning is the goal – not filling an office with someone who both understands and can do the job. Go with someone who can win – not necessarily someone more qualified. Both parties do it but Republicans have become masters of the process. Cruz, Lee, Cotton, Ghomert, Bachman, King, McCarthy et al. are just a few who’ve contributed nothing – will contribute nothing – and who’ll muck up the process every day of their tenure in office.

People have a right to be mad at “professional” politicians. But they have a prior – and larger – responsibility to assure an intelligent and qualified person is elected and given the opportunity to become “professional” by fulfilling the duties of that office in a “professional” manner. If they don’t, chase ‘em out. Then find another real professional.

Imagine a Trump presidency. Who would be in his cabinet? Would it be a John Kerry or a Colin Powell at the State Department to conduct delicate but dangerous negotiations with nations we oppose? Would there be an intelligent and experienced vice president to assure smooth continuity of an administration? What professional voice would be at Treasury to guide the country’s money policies? At the Pentagon? Well, so far we’ve got Mike Pence who’s as scary as Trump.

Professional politicians – really professional with no quotation marks – are necessary at all levels for this country to survive. The political stakes are no longer simple enough for just anyone to fill elected office. Our universities should be turning out trained, talented and qualified graduates ready for careers in public service – careers in politics. We need “best and brightest” in the Capitol, the White House, city hall and the court house. To a very large extent, we’re in the divided and uncontrollable mess we find ourselves because we made poor choices. Wrong choices. Tragic choices in too many elections.

No, I had the surgeon do the cutting and snipping. He’s a professional and right for the job. Upon recovery, I may wander over to the office next door and talk to the fella there about an investment opportunity. He’s a professional, too.

Right people in the right jobs. Seems simple enough. Why have we screwed it up so many times at the polls? Because a lot of folks were not “professional” in their voting. And look at the mess we’ve got!

Share on Facebook

Rainey

Published July 15, 2016 by

Patent pending

stapiluslogo1

Did it come as something of a shock to the executives at Micron Technology when one of the leading research universities in the world, Harvard, decided to file suit against it?

The question is a little generic, since the suit filed on June 24 apparently came after Harvard had sent letters and other communications. But the more non-specific answer – which Micron hasn’t given; it has not said much about the case – may tell something about the larger issue of patents and their sometimes sweeping impact.

The case arose after Micron and another company, GlobalFoundries (which also is in Harvard’s legal sights) began using a new technology which allows for placing extremely thin metal films on other substances, which can expand the reach of computing possibilities. We don’t yet know whether Micron or GF would argue they independently came up with the process, or whether they would contend it is different from others. But Harvard said that it is the same as one developed by a team led by one of its professors, Roy G. Gordon, in the late 1990s and early in the next decade.

On becoming aware Micron was using what it thought was the same approach, Harvard said it “reached out to each of the companies outside of the context of litigation and invited them to engage in good faith licensing discussions. The companies have refused to engage and have, so far, continued their infringement without licensing rights to use the patented technology.”

Patent law, or the use of it, has been changing in the last few decades, and concerns about it have been growing as well. The popular conception of patents probably relates to the classic entrepreneurial inventor in the home basement who’s come up with a brilliant new mousetrap, and wants to make sure someone else doesn’t steal his great idea. Or, at least, that he can benefit from it. The idea is to encourage invention, and also to encourage the use of the invention to benefit society. Many patents are now held by large organizations, developed by people who work for them.

Harvard’s statement on the new lawsuit said it “recognizes that the public’s interest may be best served in some circumstances by the application of legal protection to the innovations of Harvard inventors so that these technologies may be developed into useful products.” If reading that makes you feel like you’ve looped around the curves of a pretzel, you may not be alone.

Also this: “The Gordon laboratory’s research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, a federal law, enables universities to hold patents on federally funded research and to participate in technology transfer activities that help ensure inventions become useful products that benefit society. Harvard invests significant resources into research infrastructure and activities, technology development, and the cost of filing and maintaining patents.”

A question may be coming to mind, which Harvard also usefully posed in its statement: “If Harvard intends groundbreaking technologies to make an impact in the world, why file suit against companies that are making use of the technology?” The answer was that unlicensed use of the technology “can devalue the contributions and efforts of researchers who have often devoted their careers to solving important technological challenges.”

In a purely financial way, maybe. But that seems to be the limits of what much of patent law is about these days. The forthcoming legal replies from Micron will be worth watching.

Share on Facebook

Idaho Idaho column Stapilus

Published July 15, 2016 by

Minimum wage consequences

bond

OK, I admit this happened just once, and I don’t fly very often anymore and I expect airport service to suck. But changing air-planes at Sea-Tac airport in Seattle was an eye-opener.

After a very rough flight down from Vancouver Island I was hungry and thirsty. Sat down at Wolfgang Puck’s at SEA, plopped open a book, and awaited service.

Forty-five minutes later a waiter appeared — the place was not busy. I can understand busy, having once been a hash-slinger and barkeep myself.

(Rules to food- and beverage-service people: If you’re swamped, at least just make eye contact with your unattended arrivals. We are a patient lot but dammit, let us know you know we’re there.)

None was forthcoming and they were not very busy. Forty-five minutes after my 45-minute wait to place an order, which was not complicated, nothing had arrived nor had any further eye-contact even be made.

The woman sitting next to me endured the same experience — again at the classiest restaurant in the Seattle airport.

My flight was called so 45 minutes later I had to leave, having awaited an hour and a half to be fed. So no meal, no service, and bloody-well no tip nor $15/hour. You got nothing, except someone to sue. I’ve had far kinder treatment in Paris.

Now the remaining few earning $15/hour for service work are asking for a reduction in their hours so they don’t lose their welfare and subsidised housing. Jesus H.!

I never again will visit a Wolfgang Puck’s venue, nor will I buy one of his products off the grocery shelf, which are also now quite over-priced. I wonder how many college-hungry kids might like those jobs at Sea-Tac, for $10 an hour or even $7.50, just so they could advance their lives.

Share on Facebook

Bond

Published July 14, 2016 by

Looking toward Cleveland

carlson

There’s an old song that goes: Once to every person and nation comes the moment to decide – in the struggle for truth and justice—for the good or evil side. It ends with an exhortation: Twist that darkness into light!

Long-time readers know that on several occasions I have cited the 19th century Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, who wrote a brilliant essay entitled “The fallacy of the either/or.” His thesis is that there are very few either/or’s in life, that life is too nuanced, there are too many ambiguities and variables at play for most any proposition to be reduced down to a simple black or white, yes or no.

It appears though that the nation, as well as voters are approaching one of those rare moments, that we’re standing on the edge of a precipice looking deep into a canyon of regression, rampant racism, fear, chauvinistic nationalism, self-glorification, and greed.

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear – Donald Trump is borderline insane. There is no way he should be the GOP nominee for President. An essay by Richard North Patterson, entitled “Too Sick to Lead: The Lethal Personality Disorder of Donald Trump,” which appeared in the Huffington Post, should be required reading for every American.

It recounts in excruciating detail calls made over a number of years to various media outlets by a thinly disguised Donald Trump masquerading as Trump’s press agent and calling himself John Miller. As the press flak Trump brags about his sexual prowess, the movie stars panting to be in his bed. He brags about his success as a businessman, his athletic exploits.

It is positively sick and absolutely disgusting. It disqualifies him in every sense of the word. This goes so far beyond excessive narcissism and ego-mania.

One session between “Miller” and a media outlet was recorded and is unmistakably Trump’s voice. Trump denies it is his voice and says it is a voice imitator, and that there are hundreds out there trying to capitalize. Only problem is this was in the 90’s when few knew who Trump was and also was before his television show.

Somehow this was just a one-day story with little follow up by other media.

All of this is known to the GOP’s national leadership. The irony is what also is known is that the Republicans are on the cusp of the trifecta they have long sought – control of the Congress, the Supreme Court and the White House – if they nominate someone besides Trump.

All through the primary season polls consistently indicated Ohio Governor John Kasich, for example, would defeat Hillary Clinton in a head to head race. It is clear that many Democrats even are not happy with Mrs. Clinton as their stand-bearer. Her astronomically high “cannot be trusted” number has GOP consultants salivating.

These “beltway bandits” firmly believe just about any Republican horse, except Trump’s, can defeat the presumptive Democratic nominee. Many D’s share the fear.

Thus, there are those praying that a solid majority of the GOP delegates will see their historic time has come and will stand up to demand that their nominee be considered morally upstanding and a person of high character, something Trump decidedly is not.

They hopefully hear their fellow Americans begging they be given a choice and a real shot at taking the White House. A viewer will be able to tell if something is afoot if on the first roll call of the states one sees the Alaska and Alabama delegations scrambling around with no one initially taking the mic to be recognized by the chair.

If Republican delegates do not step up to this “once to every person and nation” moment, shame on them. It will then be incumbent on every voter to understand the risks associated with having a borderline sanity case in the White House are unacceptable.

Regardless of party one will have to examine their conscience, recognize the imperative of standing up for values, people and character and vote accordingly. The darkness has to be twisted into light!

Share on Facebook

Carlson

Published July 12, 2016 by

Oregon voter status quo?

harris

“Phase one” of Motor Voter, which registered just the people who had new DMV contact starting January 1, 2016, showed that of those who chose to join a party a majority opted for the Democratic Party. It was thought by some that Motor Voter would be a boon to the Democrats and the data foretold a coming Democratic super majority.

Then “phase two” of motor voter started. In phase two, the Secretary of State went back to 2014 DMV contacts and registered those people as well. Phase two statistics came out this week and they showed that the Republican Party outpaced the Democrats in new motor voter membership.

Of course, only 18,230 of the 206,554 new motor voters (or 8.8%) joined a party anyway, but assuming those that didn’t join a party are either not going to vote, or are fairly represented politically with those that did affiliate with a political party, will motor voter make fundamental changes in Oregon’s political landscape? The answer is no. At least not as between the Democratic and Republican balance (or imbalance) of power.

There is evidence that more voters are opting for the Independent Party or minor political parties. But it’s not a groundswell yet. And there’s no way of knowing if there is an actual groundswell of voters who are going to opt out of party membership, or if the number of non affiliated voters is simply a function of motor voter having separated the act of registration from the act of selecting a political party.

The raw data doesn’t tell us a lot about trends, since it only includes voters who registered with a party under motor voter. And because of the way motor voter works, many more voters remain NAV. Clearly using the pre motor voter and post motor voter NAV numbers is very misleading.

So, In order to normalize the percentages, I went back to pre motor voter registration records and found that the “average” percentage of voters under our old system who chose to remain NAV was 23.4%. Therefore I included an additional 23.4% as NAV’s to accurately reflect that historical average. And here is what we find.

If there is a trend, it’s that the Democratic party is still slightly weakened, and the Independent Party is growing in strength. As a percentage motor voter shows a 30% growth in affiliation for the Independent Party (from 4.9% to 6.4%). However, that rate of growth isn’t reflected in the statewide statistics, since so many motor voters are being registered NAV it will dilute all parties market shares. And the Democratic weakness in new motor voters is likely being offset by the influx of voters who wanted to participate in the historic May Democratic Primary and the November general elections.

Here are the main impacts motor voter will have on voting

More people will be able to vote. We’ll see how many of the phase two motor voters will actually vote in November, but few would argue that having more people vote is a bad thing.
Membership in political parties will plummet over time. Because motor voter divorces the act of registration from the act of selecting party membership, after this historic election, it seems pretty clear that all political parties will shrink in size.
The Independent Party is likely to revert to minor party status after 2020 and some minor parties may be dissolved by State action. Minor and major party status is based in whole or in part on what percentage of total voters a political party represents. With motor voter causing 90% of voters to register as NAV, largely due to separating registration from party selection, we’re going to see total voters spike, and party membership plummet. With 200,000 new motor voters, the IPO would have had to gain 10,000 new members to retain it’s 5% share and major party status. Over the past two months, the IPO has gained less than 1,000 new members. Even though as you can see in the tables above, it’s actually growing at a faster rate as a share of total party voters than the Democratic and Republican Parties.
But here’s the biggest problem. Motor voter will cause a crisis in Oregon Democracy.

Many voters already feel that the political elite don’t listen to them. Now with motor voter reducing the Democratic and Republican membership to their more vocal and active partisans, Oregon’s closed primary system, and safe Democratic and Republican districts, we’re going to have fewer and fewer voters actually deciding our legislative races. And those that remain in the major parties and vote in the partisan primaries are going to more and more consist of the Party’s financial base and the most politically orthodox.

While such a system works in favor of insiders, the financial base, and those already elected to office, it doesn’t lead to faith in our election system.

Share on Facebook

Harris Oregon Oregon column

Published July 11, 2016 by

National doors

raineylogo1

“You can’t control what’s happening, but you can control how you react.” Not sure where I read that – or when – but the words have become more personally important given recent political and social violence in our country.

While the phrase is certainly true, so is this: I’m having more trouble controlling my reactions. As violence escalates and our national political stew rots, efforts to control reactions to them have taken more personal strength and have sapped more willpower to keep my reactions under control.

Violence in our society is not new. But, in the last couple of decades, it’s become more prevalent – more pervasive – more deadly. Now, with the bloodshed of recent days flowing across our nation, it seems to have picked up intensity and has become more far-reaching – involving more and more of us.

One fact is extremely clear: we are in a national state of flux in all segments of our society and we are never – never – going back to where we were even four or five years ago. In anything.

It’s hard to describe. One way I’ve come to visualize it, is to imagine the largest, thickest bank vault door ever built, slowly closing on our nation, blocking from sight everything comfortable and familiar. At the same time, imagine a door of similar size beginning to open to reveal – reveal – what? That we don’t know, but you can be sure it will be a country and a society unlike anything we’ve ever known.

Here are some examples. We twice elected a President of mixed race. From day one, he’s been blocked, undercut and pilloried while doing his job. His performance in office can be debated, but one thing cannot: he’s been the target of the most vicious racism we’ve seen directed at a national public figure. Oh, it’s not called “racism.” No. It’s been couched in more politically acceptable terms like “typical two-party politics,” “liberal versus conservative” and “the normal friction found when one party occupies the White House and the other control the majorities in Congress.” Pure B.S.

I strongly believe the vision of a “black” man in the White House has become an excuse for racists and extremists of all stripes to come out from under their rocks and openly challenge authority without reprisal. Whether it’s Bundy or the NRA, Mitch McConnell, the apparent revival of the KKK or quickening pace of murdering Black Americans, it’s less about politics and more about race.

Another case: the dissolution of the National Republican Party. In about four decades, the cancer of extremist thought and the purging of anything different have gutted the GOP. The emergence of a dangerous buffoon like Trump is not surprising. He and the GOP have been looking for each other for years. The only questions is “what took so long?” And states with Tea Party-backed governors have seen resources squandered and several are so awash in debt they’re considering bankruptcy. Kansas, anyone? Michigan? Arkansas? North Carolina? Florida? Texas?

Another: Democrats have failed miserably to create a “loyal” opposition, have not been effective dealing as a minority party in Congress and have not built a “bench” team of up-and-coming people to challenge the majority for years to come. Anywhere.

Another: Both parties are becoming less viable as national representatives of voters at-large. Both are losing members. Both are less in-touch with Americans than just five-10 years ago. That trend will continue. A week ago, the respected IPSOS polling firm found 21% of registered voters – more than one-in-five – want someone other than the leading presidential candidates of both parties. That number will go up before November. Bet on it.

In some instances, this nation is close to becoming one run from the streets. The Dallas police killings and the documented and recent unwarranted police murders of several black men are galvanizing people of more races than just Black America. Whatever accountability – if any – that comes as a result of these slaughters will come because people in the streets stayed in the streets and demanded it. That’s not how an effective and lasting society works for all but that’s where we are. It will get louder and more violent in those streets until justice comes. In whatever form.

Maybe worst of all, the November election will have little, if any, positive effect on all this. The day after will be just as disruptive, just as raucous, just as violent and just as filled with national seething as the day before.

No one individual has all the answers to our national quandary. No one can make good on “taking the country back.” Our nation is in the throes of great change in every area of society – change that, at the moment, is undirected and uncoordinated.

One huge vault door has closed. The other is slowly opening. Behind that one is our national future. Unseen. Unknown. Out of full sight. But the first glimpses are not comforting. Not comforting at all.

Share on Facebook

Rainey

Published July 9, 2016 by

A Northwestern veep?

stapiluslogo1

Take none of what follows as a prediction, but I will say this: The Northwest is home to the single most logical vice presidential pick in the country, in either party.

I eliminate the Donald Trump-Republican side here, because I have no idea who the most logical vice presidential nominee there might be. (For a host of reasons, not Senator Mike Crapo, who made a list of prospects by columnist Ann Coulter.)

On the Hillary Clinton-Democratic side, the calculus is easier, and by combining assets and liabilities Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley rises toward the top. He is not among the most-mentioned names, but all of those better-knowns come with problems attached. The choice of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren would thrill some people but would stir new controversy (the two-woman ticket) while putting her Senate seat at partisan risk at a time when Democrats have hopes of retaking the Senate. That same Senate problem applies to Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, who’s close to the Clintons, has financial and other issues and would aggravate the Bernie Sanders contingent. Sanders himself is a non-starter, as Clinton has made clear, not least because he has not worked in the party vineyards. Other prospects have little or no serious experience as a candidate for high office.

Merkley was the only senator to endorse Sanders, which made him beloved within that contingent, but he did that without trashing Clinton, who he has since endorsed. Picking Merkley would be a signal from Clinton that she can overcome her issues of insularity, and expand her enthusiasm quotient on the left. (Of coursse, if she’s as insular as reputed, Merkley’s Sanders link would be a disqualifer.) The risks would be small. Merkley is a loyal Democrat, has run as such since his first election to the Oregon House in 1998, and has helped other Democratic campaigns.

In demeanor, he has a low-key, “aw-shucks” manner (in person he comes across more like Crapo than an of the others in the Idaho delegation) which would neatly balance Clinton’s presentation, but he’s also a skilled speaker and debater. He rose quickly into Oregon House of Representatives leadership, and showed political chops by leading the campaign effort that switched control of the chamber from Republican to Democratic ad made him speaker. Like Oregon’s other senator, Ron Wyden, he’s held town halls in every county in the state each year he’s been in the Senate (he’s now in his second term). His background, as he routinely reminds Oregonians, is as the son of a Myrtle Creek mill worker, and his interest in practical economics grows out of that.

If elected as vice president, Oregonians would choose his replacement in a special election. Given Oregon’s politics, Democrats probably would not have to worry about losing the seat.

His easy manner led many Oregon Democrats to figure him for an unambitious centrist, and he has cooperated with a variety on other senators on sundry issues, including Idaho’s Republicans on regional topics like wildfire prevention. He also, however, has been a liberal activist on economic and other issues (his highest national profile probably has been on the subject of filibuster reform) which is why the Sanders backers would approve of him.

What few Oregonians probably know, and Merkley seldom mentions, is that he has a strong foreign relations and defense background as well. After a stretch in the office of (Republican) Senator Mark Hatfield, Merkley worked for a variety of international non-profit and other organizations around the world, spending time in Ghana, Mexico, Italy, India and elsewhere. After that he became a presidential management fellow at the Department of Defense, working in Caspar Weinberger’s administrative offices on defense process and strategy. And after that, at the Congressional Budget Office as a nuclear arms analyst. He discusses defense and foreign relations policy with ease.

Merkley’s name, as a veep prospect, has come up so far only on the periphery, and to reiterate, I make no predictions here. But the case for hism is strong enough that you shouldn’t be shocked if you hear it again.

Share on Facebook

Idaho Idaho column Oregon Stapilus

Published July 7, 2016 by

‘Greater love hath no man …’

carlson

For the sixth year now since moving back to the “home country,” on the 4th of July we drive a short ten miles from our home on Cave Lake to the annual Rose Lake Regatta. There’s a “parade” of six to ten neighborhood boats, a short program and then a potluck.

It’s all informal, relaxing and enjoyable as about 100 plus year-round and summer-only residents enjoy each other’s company. It’s about American as American can be. We sing a few patriotic songs. Generally the subject of politics is avoided.

As event organizer for 31 years, fellow Kellogg native Tim Olson, once said to me, “Chris, on the 4th of July we are neither Democrats nor Republicans. We are all Americans who love our country and love our freedoms.”

Tim is someone I wish I’d gotten to know years before that first regatta in 2010. He’s one of those decent, hard-working, country smart people one finds all over Idaho. For years he was the top lobbyist for Regence Blue Shield of Idaho and he still lobbies in Boise.

He also was the tall stud star on the last basketball state championship won by Kellogg in 1964. He and his high school sweetheart, Julie, went on to Idaho State, which Tim attended on a basketball scholarship. Their marriage has been blessed and they’ve become our good friends.

My role has always been to say a few non-partisan words about Idaho and note the previous day in 1890 was when Idaho became the 43rd star on our flag. Then I lead the group in the singing of the State Song—“Here We Have Idaho.”

Tim surprised me this year when he announced a special award besides the regatta winners. It was for the person the board felt had made a solid contribution to the welfare of the state. He announced I was the winner, which caught me totally by surprise. Knowing that our son, Scott, is a major in the US Marine Corps, the prize was a large volume telling the story of many of the nation’s Medal of Honor winners.

Further to my surprise, though, there was no account of our fellow Kellogg resident, Frank Reasoner, mortally wounded in July of 1965 in Vietnam. He was awarded the medal posthumously for honoring the code that says no Marine is ever to be left behind.

First Lieutenant Reasoner, in command of Company A of the 3rd Recon Battalion of the 3rd Marine Brigade, was killed in action while trying to retrieve a wounded member of his command.

His story should be required reading in all Idaho history classes (As should the stories of Idaho’s other 12 winners) much as students in Texas hear and memorize Colonel Travis’ speech before the Alamo was overrun.

Reasoner was born in Spokane in 1937 but largely raised in Kellogg. He enlisted in the US Marine Corps three months before his 18th birthday in June, 1955. Initially trained as an airborne radio operator, he rose through the enlisted ranks quickly to become a sergeant, but he decided he wanted to be an officer.

He studied hard and successfully passed the entrance exams for America’s academies, then accepted an appointment from Idaho Senator Henry Dworshak to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

He began his collegiate time there in the summer of 1958 and graduated on schedule in June of 1962. He was placed on the inactive reserve list of the Corps during his time at West Point. A good athlete, he lettered in baseball and wrestling. Being from Kellogg, though, he loved boxing.

He holds a record that will stand forever at West Point: in four years he won four brigade boxing championships at four different weight levels.

Second Lt. Reasoner still had to enter and finish the demanding Officer Training Program at Quantico. One imagines it was a
snap for him and in January, 1963, he began a three-year assignment with the Fleet which lead him into Vietnam in April, 1965, and his death in July, 1965.

His body rests on a knoll in Kellogg’s Greenwood Cemetery just above St. Rita’s Catholic Church. He has a beautiful view up the valley and into the mountains surrounding Kellogg.

A brisk breeze blowing off of Rose Lake with gorgeous clouds flying by brought me back to the present. I said a special prayer of thanks for all those who risk life and are in harm’s way, current members, as well as veterans and their families and relatives to protect our freedoms.

This evening I added an additional prayer for the service of Frank Reasoner as well as his 216 Idaho colleagues who made the ultimate sacrifice.

God Bless America.

Share on Facebook

Carlson

Published July 6, 2016 by

Email lessons

stapiluslogo1

What Hillary Clinton should say, soon, about the e-mails. Should, probably won’t.

First, I want to thank Director Comey and his staff at the FBI for their extraordinary efforts at investigating the circumstance surrounding my emails from the years when I was secretary of state. They had to have known that exceptional efforts needed to be taken, since whatever their report and recommendation would be, some people, maybe a lot of people, would criticize it. The best way to counter that is to do what they have done: Investigate with great thoroughness, and then analyze the results carefully in making recommendations. I believe they did just that.

You could say I’m happy to endorse the results because the director, and the agency, recommended no indictments in the case. But as we all also know, the director was also sharply critical of my handling of the emails, and the procedures used. And he was critical of what he described as a culture at the Department of State that was lax in handling classified material.

Let me be very clear here and reiterate as plainly as I can: I mishandled my emails during that period. I made a mistake – more than that, a running series of mistakes over a period of time. And I apologize to the American people for that, for putting classified material at risk. I will have a few more things to say here, but none of those changes any of that.

Today, however, the question should be: Can we make sure something like this doesn’t happen again? It doesn’t diminish my own culpability to recognize that many other people in sensitive positions have handled their email in similar ways, and many have, including some of my predecessors.

Our system of internal federal communications, especially in the area of classified information, is badly in need of an overhaul. One reason many people have resorted to informal communications methods, like private email servers, is that the official system for secure communications – which I also used over the years – is cumbersome and doesn’t allow for the kind of efficient contacts and information sharing we need.

If I am elected president, I will first of all pledge to confine my communications to a better set of channels. But beyond that I will set about finding ways to improve our secure communications, making their efficient, speedy and effective as well as confidential.

There is a related subject we should address: The vast number of documents held by the federal government which are marked as confidential, whether “top secret” or otherwise. The numbers of such documents has exploded, and a large number of them are over-graded for security. I will seek a wide-ranging review of these records so we can make sure we focus our security efforts on those documents which really are sensitive, and allow the American people to inspect, as they should be able to, those which are not.

This has been a troubling case for many people, not least me. But lessons can be drawn from it, and we may be better off down the road from having had this discussion.

Share on Facebook

Stapilus