People Are Threatening To Shut Down The O's Two-Person Mayoral Debate

Comments

1
Calling this "civil disobedience" really stretches the definition.
2
"We insist that you open your upcoming mayoral debate to all viable candidates"

See there's your problem: viable.
3
Erik Lukens needs to go run a paper in Mississippi or Oklahoma or some other rightwing hellhole.
4
Aren't the petitioners doing exactly what they complain about? Their petition indicates that there are six "viable candidates" they want as part of a debate. With 12 or so people registered as running for Mayor, that means that the petitioners have made their own determination based on their own criteria that the other candidates are not viable.
5
Considering their declining circulation numbers, you'd think the O would be a little more sensitive about providing an open forum rather than imposing its own elitist consensus.
6
I support the O's position, and suggest these people try to arrange a debate of their own.
But don't ruin it for everyone else.
Just look at some of the crackpots running for Mayor now, including Iannarone, I don't need to waste my time on their egos.
7
The real question here is why is anyone taking Lukens and the O seriously?
8
Iannarone is reporting 2500 from Nancy Hales and also contributions from 3 developers.

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/cne…

She may be incoherent in public, but she is apparently making some sort of case to developers in private.
9
This will all be moot when everyone in the city writes in "Todd Mecklem" for mayor. (Though I am a little worried about possibly being defeated by the write-in vote for "The Belmont Goats.")
10
Just write in your vote for Mike Scheckla, the Blazers' mascot hippy. He'll do for the City what he's done for the team.
11
No debate is will be legitimate unless it includes perennial candidate Watchman.
12
Gee, I can't wait to see who comes out on top. I'm absolutely giddy with anticipation.
13
I'm one of the folks who is organizing this demand/action against the Oregonian, and I can't believe the hostility that many of you, above, are spewing. How easy and safe it is to spew with a fake name, so no one knows who you are, and your hate can just spread across the city.

The petition is not ours. The facebook page is ours. And we are calling on the Oregonian to open it up to all registered candidates - not just the ones WE personally like. How about some more comments here from folks who actually care about a corporate newspaper pre-selecting who We The People of Portland get to vote for? This doesn't seem to bother most of you. Seriously? How about writing again, but this time, sign your full name in your comment. And take some personal responsibility for your words. Okay?
Paul Cienfuegos
14
Paul, if this is in fact true, that you and your ilk plan to disrupt the debate, I can only ask that you leave it alone and let the people decide on whom to vote.
Don't be a dick, man.
Arrange your own debate, if you can manage it, and invite all the fringe people you like who like to run just to see their name in print.
I prefer, as most people, to listen to realistic candidates voice their visions of the future of our city.
15
Oh, btw, I already had one nut job take offense to my words here, and try to phone me at work, while making vague threats.
In fact, this person also had the completely wrong guy singled out as to whom I was and my place of work, and I worried for this other mans property.
However, this does not change my opinion of what you are trying to do, which is just plain wrong man.
16
I'm one of the folks who think Erik Lukens is like unto a plate of barf. Blabby, Babygorilla, you're right and the word "viable" shouldn't have been in there. It, "qualified," and any other specious/ill-defined terms have been replaced with "registered." I'm sure by Erik Lukens' definition, the only viable candidates are those who have raised a bunch of developer cash.

frankieb: "I can only ask that you leave it alone and let the people decide on whom to vote."

I could easily be wrong here but it's my understanding this is the first big mayoral debate - meaning, there will be a lot of people in the audience, and it's expected to receive a lot of media coverage. Opinions about who should be mayor of Portland will be formed from this event. Thus, excluding registered candidates from the debate is the very definition of anti-democratic.

In conclusion, Erik Lukens sucks acres of developer penis.
17
Well, hold your own damn debate , get sponsers and such, find a hall, and the media will follow you.
But don't act like a bunch of spoiled kids who didn't get their way.
18
I would suggest to all readers to be wary of professional "activists", such as Paul above, to what they are preaching and selling. And yes, they are selling too, big time, despite trying to appear idealistic.
i am appalled a relative newcomer to our city would have the audacity to try to strong arm a local paper.
19
I think the Oregonian is free to host a debate, and they're free to use as arbitrary and prejudiced a selection criteria for choosing candidates to invite as they want.

But Wheeler and Bailey are also free to choose whether or not they'll participate, and in effect sanction the Oregonian's choice. If I were them, I'd reconsider. Think of it as an opportunity to exercise leadership.
20
"Arbitrary and Predjudiced". ??
Puh-leez!!
21
Dear Paul:

We use fake names because of the crap Frankie B. described. At least one free-lancer has had his living destroyed by bike nazis who went to his unrelated copy-writing jobs to whine about a jokey anti-bike tweet. We don't trust the deluded bottom six of mayoral candidates and their small circles to not harass us at WORK. Oh yeah- boring type jobs that grownups do.

Paul C.- some of us have real jobs and we don't want stalky behavior.

The fact that you spew nonsense under your own name doesn't impress- you are are a fountain of hyperbole either way.

Nobody wants to hear from deluded self-indulgent twits like Iannarone or Jessie Sponberg.
They can attention-whore somewhere else.
22
The protesters have a good point. Bud Clark wouldn't have made this cut. But it makes sense to have some kind of viability threshold.
23
Making an internet comment = "hostile."

Disrupting a debate = "not hostile," apparently.

You note in your open letter that the Oregonian is "corporate owned," so how is them hosting a debate of their choosing a violation of your "rights"? What rights would those be?

You claim an "inherent right" to "attend a genuine debate amongst all candidates." I don't recall that being a right, enumerated or otherwise, in any federal or state constitution, local charter, or any other writing besides your poorly-penned call to action.

And even if this were somehow a "right" of yours, is the Oregonian somehow precluding the other candidates from speaking online, in public, at any other debate or forum? Are they precluding you from organizing your own debate and inviting any or all of the candidates of your own choosing?

Those are supposed to be rhetorical questions, and I only point that out because you don't seem to have really thought any of this through.
24
I'm sure you could pen a better one, Flavio Suave, if that _is_ your real name. I appreciate your volunteering and welcome you to the cause of democracy.

In any case, inherent/inalienable/natural rights are those that cannot be repealed by any law. Our right as electors to hear all the registered candidates flies over that bar carrying colors, or successfully limbos under it, or what have you. Boogies right on by. Cue the LMFAO hamsters from the Kia Soul commercial.
25
Demondog, but do you really think Bud Clark could win a mayoral contest in today's Portland, with or without the O's support?
I tend to think those days are gone, I dunno....
And yes, this is hard to realize for me too...
26
Get used to it white people. Are you kidding me? Your complaining about lack of democracy? How do you think Latinos feel? Portland is so segregated, Latinos aren't allowed on the area of Belmont, close-in SE, where the last debate was. Not Allowed. What kind of democracy is that when segregation keeps you from attending a mayoral debate? Oh Belmont isn't segregated you might sneer in mocking cruelty. I have proof Belmont is segregated. I used to live around 15th and Belmont. I moved out due to harassment. I had white, drug selling, drug using neighbors harassing me. The landlord was completely on their side, despite the fact, that I never partied, I was a quiet woman living alone with few guests and paid the exact same amount in rent. But it's not just this incident that makes me say Belmont is segregated. I went to one of those big Annual art festivals a few years ago. One if the events was held near 10th and Belmont. I was harassed and targeted because of my ethnicity by white art goers. They were specific and clear that my ethnicity was the problem.
Once you start accepting the lack of rights for one group,yoyr bound to lose your own as well. This is the direction Portland is going. Think about that the next time you cry about your white rights being taken away.
27
Get used to it white people. Are you kidding me? Your complaining about lack of democracy? How do you think Latinos feel? Portland is so segregated, Latinos aren't allowed on the area of Belmont, close-in SE, where the last debate was. Not Allowed. What kind of democracy is that when segregation keeps you from attending a mayoral debate? Oh Belmont isn't segregated you might sneer in mocking cruelty. I have proof Belmont is segregated. I used to live around 15th and Belmont. I moved out due to harassment. I had white, drug selling, drug using neighbors harassing me. The landlord was completely on their side, despite the fact, that I never partied, I was a quiet woman living alone with few guests and paid the exact same amount in rent. But it's not just this incident that makes me say Belmont is segregated. I went to one of those big Annual art festivals a few years ago. One of the events was held near 10th and Belmont. I was harassed and targeted because of my ethnicity by white art goers. They were specific and clear that my ethnicity was the problem.
Once you start accepting the lack of rights for one group, your bound to lose your own as well. This is the direction Portland is going. Think about that the next time you cry about your white rights being taken away.
It's ironic that the group protesting the mayoral debate has an address listed on Belmont street as well.
28
Get used to it white people. Are you kidding me? Your complaining about lack of democracy? How do you think Latinos feel? Portland is so segregated, Latinos aren't allowed on the area of Belmont, close-in SE, where the last debate was. Not Allowed. What kind of democracy is that when segregation keeps you from attending a mayoral debate? Oh Belmont isn't segregated you might sneer in mocking cruelty. I have proof Belmont is segregated. I used to live around 15th and Belmont. I moved out due to harassment. I had white, drug selling, drug using neighbors harassing me. The landlord was completely on their side, despite the fact, that I never partied, I was a quiet woman living alone with few guests and paid the exact same amount in rent. But it's not just this incident that makes me say Belmont is segregated. I went to one of those big Annual art festivals a few years ago. One of the events was held near 10th and Belmont. I was harassed and targeted because of my ethnicity by white art goers. They were specific and clear that my ethnicity was the problem.
Once you start accepting the lack of rights for one group, your bound to lose your own as well. This is the direction Portland is going. Think about that the next time you cry about your white rights being taken away. It's ironic that the group protesting the mayoral debate has an address listed on Belmont street as well.
29
If you are voting for Bernie or The Donald, then write in Mike Scheckla.
30
I don't begrudge the OEB the right to invite who they want to the debate, but I will give them a special booby prize for hypocrisy. They went nuts in 2014 pushing an open primary ballot initiative. Now here they are with an open primary, and they want to slash the field of consideration down to two candidates. That's what the general election is for, the whole point of the primary is to allow a wider field.
yeesh.
31
BJ, I think you bring up an interesting point, but perhaps the analogy is a little skewed.....
32
@Frankie - Not sure he would win now. Different times. But I do think we are seeing a YUGE change in politics this election cycle. The two old parties are fracturing, despite efforts by their leaders and the complicit media's best efforts. The clusterfuck that was Jeb Bush, with tons of super pac money and no traction. The Trump thing. Sanders. The old ways are dead. Social media can end run the Oregonian dinosaur. But we do deserve to hear more than two different points of view.
33
"Our right as electors to hear all the registered candidate".

Our right as electors not to have to wade through crap from fringe candidates while the two guys who are truly capable of winning the elections don't get the robust debate that many many people in Portland want.

It is about OUR choice- and we aren't ordering off your menu of misfits.

Sarah Long, no one is stopping you from hearing Jesse Sponberg clown around, or from hearing Sarah Inane make a word salad.

But not everyone wants to hear from the mayoral midgets- the ones who will not break 1% in the polls. They are a time suck for some people. Have your own midget debate where all registered candidate cans debate in front of an audience of 20.

There is a real debate to be had between the two guys who are serious contenders and filed in time.
34
Sara Long, I won't be joining your particular movement because I don't think it's worthwhile, or even coherent for that matter.

The Oregonian is not a governmental entity. If it was, it might possibly be bound by some kind of parity on 1A grounds, but it simply isn't. When the Oregonian editorial board writes an endorsement of a political candidate, which they have hundreds of times in their existence, has that been a similar "violation" of your rights? Of course not.

If I invited a candidate to speak in my living room, and didn't invite the other candidates, is that a "violation" of your rights? Of course not. And it similarly is not a violation when the Oregonian does it on a larger scale, since they are also a private enterprise (does anyone actually read their four-day delivery or crappy website anymore anyway?).

You seem to have spelled "the inherent/inalienable/natural right to get exactly what I want" wrong, or are confusing actual rights with your personal preferences, but at the end of the day, neither legally, morally, or in any other way are your rights being violated by how the Oregonian chooses to host and conduct a candidate debate.

You are not being denied the opportunity to hear from other candidates. They are not being denied the opportunity to speak in public-sponsored forums. You are not being denied the opportunity to organize an alternative debate. You're simply planning to throw the adult version of a temper tantrum because you aren't getting what you want from a crappy local newspaper.

For the life of me, I can't imagine why you would want to spend your time and energy on that instead of perhaps organizing an alternative debate forum, or stumping for the candidate of your choice to get their message out.