A different sort
I see that the folks at the Weed have their endorsements up. Interestingly, they're backing Keith Wilson for Portland mayor, but the rest of their picks are for more of the same shinola that got us into the mess we're in today. Steve Novick, Sam Adams, Candace Avalos, Dan Ryan, yada yada, it's all pretty underwhelming.
Whom do they agree with me about in the local races? Philippe Knab in Portland District 3, Eli Arnold in Portland District 4, and Sam Adams in Multnomah County District 2 (although they omit the required clothespin on the nose for that last one). That ain't much agreement out of more than a dozen seats up for grabs. (My picks are in the left sidebar, now through the election.)
On the other hand, of course the Weedies are for the Democrats in the partisan races. Me too. No matter who the candidates are, I will never vote for a member of the Party of Trump. For anything. Ever.
The weekly is no on "rank choice" voting (Measure 117), which is a smart call. They call it "a solution in search of a problem"; I couldn't have said it better myself.
Ditto for their no on the "free money" tax (Measure 118). But they like some of the other ballot measures; I don't. I'm a no on each and every one of those suckers.
The county says my ballot was mailed today; I suspect it will be here tomorrow. The only thing I haven't figured out is the one contested judge race on the county circuit court. Apparently the Weed is still cogitating on that one as well. Readers in the know, clue us in.
Statements (for most) judge candidates available at https://mbabar.org/judicialcandidates. Jeff Auxier, former Columbia County DA and Multnomah domestic violence unit supervisor, has a shit-ton of endorsements and is probably the favorite. Two of the others are public defenders and so might split that vote, if that’s a thing. The only one with any civil experience, John Schlosser is big on restorative justice and is not accepting campaign donations or endorsements which seems noble if not necessarily strategic.
ReplyDeleteThanks, very helpful.
DeleteIn the interest of breaking up the echo chamber I sometimes see in the comments on this blog, I am curious how you reconcile never voting for a Republican, but supporting candidates (Gonzalez, Adams, Vadim) aligned with the Trump Court in the Grants Pass v. Johnson Case. Gorsuch, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett line up nicely with the "get tough" locals approach that is more than comfortable criminalizing homelessness and sees that as a needed solution. I appreciate that the public is fed up with the current situation in Portland - I am too, but perhaps in a more nuanced way than simply labeling every every Portland liberal elected in the last few decades as failures. Do you think the Trump Court got one right in Grants Pass v. Johnson and that Sotomayor and the liberal dissenters got that one wrong? Transparency here: I work in what blog fans might label the nonprofit industrial complex - operating shelters and building affordable housing. Came here for the underdog pool and stay to keep up with the waves of public opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe Trump Court got the Grants Pass case absolutely right. The Eighth Amendment is not about vagrancy laws. Just because bad people said it doesn't mean that it's automatically wrong.
DeleteIf you are "building affordable housing," you are probably part of Portland's problems. The tent junkies who have ruined Portland, and are Portland's most pressing problem, could never live in your buildings; you know it as well as I. The money being spent to slap up modern-day versions of "the Projects," trashing neighborhoods in the process, needs to be spent on shelters, mental health treatment, and law enforcement.