Okay, so Frank Ivancie didn’t exactly have the greatest reputation around here. He once called homosexuality a “a severe, unnatural personal problem,” for example. But the fella sure knew how to deal with unwelcome distractions, like, say, a NUCLEAR ATTACK:
- MAYOR IVANCIE: “COMFORT THE DYING”
Fortunately, I’ve prepared an updated version of the poster for Mayor Sam Adams to deal with today’s news about a second recall petition being filed:
- MAYOR ADAMS: “BRACE FOR THE FLASH,” AND OF COURSE, VOTE YES ON 66 AND 67!!!
- OREGONIAN: AGAIN WITH THE COVER AD SAYING “NO ON 67” THIS MORNING
Speaking of distraction, here’s the thing: This recall petition has been filed in a week when conservatives around the state are funneling their money into every possible avenue to distract voters from the election on January 26, to decide on the tax measures [see Oregonian ad, right, for example]. Research shows that a low voter turnout in the race favors the “no” vote, while young people, like, say, Mercury readers, are more inclined to vote yes to support paying for basic services.
We’re still joining the dots here at the Merc—so far, all we can come up with is that Voice of the Electorate (VOTE), the firm which stands to gain from a $150,000 contract by gathering signatures for the second recall effort, also gathered signatures for the “No” campaign on Measures 66 and 67. VOTE boss Ross Day is yet to return a message asking whether the second recall is timed to distract from the measures debate.
Columbia Sportswear boss Tim Boyle has also funded both initiatives—the “no on 66/67” side, and the second recall. He’s yet to return a call for comment this morning asking whether the timing is intended to distract voter attention from the debate over the ballot measures.
Update, 12:18pm:
Boyle says he’s “not involved in either campaign other than to be a financial supporter.”
Original post:
Yes for Oregon campaigner Steve Novick didn’t want to talk about the possible distraction issue this morning, either. But we did talk to Yes campaign spokesperson Elana Guiney. “We’re not really concerned,” said Guiney. “This is a busy state, there’s a lot going on, people are going to be pretty concerned about the measures and focusing on that.”
Perhaps we’re just paranoid. Either way, Vote Yes on 66 and 67. No matter whether the four TV stations are all preoccupied with the second recall this evening. You stay focused on the importance of this election. Okay? We’re better than that.
Hat tip to the Makezine blog for that nuke poster.
—Sarah Mirk contributed reporting.
Yeah, I’ve always loved that poster. If step two is already “avert eyes from the flash,” I’ll be upset when I get to step six and find out that I should already have “food and water for several weeks.”
Good thing I put that newspaper over my head!
I don’t understand how campaigns to get people to vote ‘no’ are an attempted ‘distraction?’
The deadlines are not the same.
What do you mean ‘distract?’
What the fuck does the newspaper over your head have to do with surviving a nuclear blast? Poster is wonderful. Where can I buy a reproduction?
@D: Any stories about the massive turnout to canvass the “Yes” vote for 66/67 are likely to bolster turnout. Like this one, for example:
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…
Research shows that the higher the turnout, the more likely we’ll get a “yes” vote.
By contrast, “no” voters are already motivated.
There’s also a great deal of negative coverage about the “no” campaign: The controversial advertising the anti-66/67 campaign has financed over the last six months includes imitation ballots that drew a rebuke from the secretary of state’s office, impassioned letters from supposedly destitute dairy farmers and accountants who actually make over $250,000 a year, and claims that the tax increases will go to raising state employee salaries, though state employees are actually taking pay cuts in the coming year.
The more voters think about these measures, the more attention they pay to the methods of the two campaigns, the more likely they are to vote “yes.”
Putting a big “RECALL RECALL” story in their minds instead confuses the issue.
I guess to me, ‘distract’ means draw attention towards something else. I don’t think either of the campaigns are saying ‘look over at that recall’
Maybe its a british/yank word usage thing.
@D Yes, as I say, it may be paranoia. But consider that the folks backing the “no” measure are also backing the recall 2. And that both sides win if more attention is paid to the recall than negative news stories about the “no” campaign’s methods, over the coming days.
Then it starts to look more like an orchestrated step.
While I’m unsure if it’s an orchestrated step, its no coincidence that these businesses that support the recall and the tax hike are motivated by their greed and bottom line rather than any moral imperative.
@Mr. Humphrey – I’m not sure about that, and it seems like too-easy an insult to sling at someone who may just disagree with for what they feel are honest moral reasons. By supporting “Yes,” you’re saying that we should redistribute wealth to help those in need. They may be saying “No” because they value self-responsiblity more than charity, or because they think these taxes will hurt more in the long term than they will help in the short term. Casting them as simple “greed and bottom-line” monsters may not be fair.
Note: the “PAID ADVERTISEMENT” text on The Oregonian 66/67 ad is significantly bigger and bolder than the last such ad they ran.
Think somebody got some complaints?
@Reymont: I thought the same thing. You wouldn’t want to be standing there reading the poster out loud after a nuclear war: “OK, so we did the newspaper thing, and then the medicine thing, so now we… wait.”
@Reymont: First of all, you sir are a gentleman, and your measured discourse is always welcome here at Blogtown. To your point, while there is MORE than a possibility I’m generalizing, I still think its an unhealthy dose of self-delusion/rationalization on their part—especially with the Sam situation—that they think they’re putting the “good for all” first.
I have seen very little about the recall effort except for news coverage from print media. Doesn’t really seem to constitute enough “shock and awe” to qualify as an organized distraction from the Measures, which are the focus of a much-more visible statewide political ad blitz.
“…while young people, like, say, Mercury readers, are more inclined to vote yes to support paying for basic services.”
Because they’re less likely to be actively paying for any of it.
‘Greed’ is economic self preservation only when the OTHER guy does it.
“Because they’re less likely to be actively paying for any of it.”
Perhaps, but your young, poor (alcoholic?) Mercury reader is less likely to benefit from an educated, healthy workforce. That would be your captain of industry right there.
I think the idea of putting the newspaper over your head was so the newspaper, and not your head, would burst into flames from the flash. They taught us that stuff back in the early sixties.
Hey, come to think of it, maybe if Iran gets the bomb the Oregonian circulation will go back up!