UPDATE: These are our 2008 endorsements. If you’re looking for 2012 endorsements, click over here!

You’re just days away from filling in a little bubble next to the words “Barack Obama” on an official ballot, thereby assisting in the demise of the Bush administration. (Note to supporters of John McCain: Obama’s name on the ballot will not be “That One.” Sorry.)

But don’t just stop at casting your vote for Obama! Crammed into that long ballot about to land in your mailbox are ballot measures that could blast holes in the state’s budget, along with races with the potential to make Oregon’s legislature so solidly blue that we may even see crazy things like tax system and health care (!) reforms in Salem next year. There’s also a chance to pick the fifth member of Portland City Council, and two-thirds of the Multnomah County Commission. Plus! Elephants, school kids, and Portland Community College are begging for your money.

To make your civic duty as painless as possible, we’ve spent hours and hours interviewing candidates and people on both sides of the issues to help you make the best choices. But if the info hereโ€”and the bonus info at portlandmercury.comโ€”isn’t sufficient to help you decide, then join us at Backspace on Thursday, October 23, at 7 pm, for our Big Ballot Bash with the Bus Project. Bring your ballot, grab a drink, quiz candidates, and confer with experts (or Joe Six-Pack readers)โ€”then vote.

The Mercury‘s Editorial Board is Matt Davis, Wm. Steven Humphrey, Sarah Mirk, and Amy J. Ruiz. โ€” We only endorse in contested races.

NATIONAL

United States President and Vice President VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA and JOE BIDEN
Don’t get us wrong: We’re excited about who Barack Obama is and what he represents. But we’re also stoked about what he’s not: a grumpy old man with spotty little doll’s hands who has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time, who plans to tax health care benefits for the first time in our nation’s history, and who is advised on foreign policy by his good friend the war criminal, Henry Kissinger. There are plenty of positive reasons to vote for “that one,” but there are just as many great reasons to stay the hell away from John McCain. Like the fact that he could die next year, handing the country over to the least qualified (not to mention pro-life and evangelical Christian) vice-presidential candidate in the history of the country, a woman who is currently under ethics investigation in Alaska. With a Republican ticket so thoroughly irredeemable and increasingly smear-hungry and desperate, who even needs to mention the economy, health care, withdrawal from Iraq, diplomacy, gay rights, and energy reform at this point? Not us. Vote Obama.

United States Senator VOTE FOR JEFF MERKLEY
We were less than impressed with Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley this spring, when Portland attorney and political activist Steve Novick ran circles around him during the primary. Both men were more than qualified to be a US Senator, but we went with Novick, noting that his feisty attitude and sharp wit would be excellent weapons in the battle to unseat incumbent Senator Gordon Smith.

Merkley won the nomination, thanks to strong support outside of Portland. Now he has our backing, too, thanks to his relentless dogging of Smith’s recordโ€”like McCain, the incumbent has voted for Bush’s policies 90 percent of the timeโ€”as well as Merkley’s unwavering support for hard-working middle-class families, and his wonkish attention to detail (you should have seen the graph he drew on our white board, comparing the enormous federal debt with our Gross Domestic Product, as he explained the problems he had with the recent “rescue” package). As if Merkley’s agenda of accessible healthcare and ending the war weren’t great enough, consider this: Sending Merkley to DC will also boost the senate democratic majority, which will help make President Obama’s agenda a reality. Merkley deserves your vote.

Representative in Congress, 3rd District VOTE FOR EARL BLUMENAUER
Quite honestly, you couldn’t create a better representative for Portland’s ultra-progressive core, from Blumenauer’s unending support for bikes and public transit to his innovative views on the future of energy (hello, solar and wind). Hell, just this month, he was calling for equity for average homeowners during the bailout hullabaloo. In DC, he may be rewarded for all of his hard work on transportation issues with a slot in Obama’s cabinet (our fingers are crossed!). But here in Portland, Blumenauer is treated to tense endorsement meetings against Republican Delia Lopez, a woman who had absolutely no problem going on and on and on about her own personal tax avoidance and her flat opposition to everything from the bailout to a cap-and-trade system, but who struggled to tell us what she’d actually do in congress. We’re sorry we put you through that, Earl. It’s democracy. (Meanwhile, the Pacific Green Party’s Michael Meo was a no-show.) But Blumenauer shined, talking up a fair cap-and-trade system, the danger of inaction on climate change, and how moving away from a carbon-dependent economy is an “opportunity” for sustainably minded places like Oregon. Vote for him.

STATE

Attorney General VOTE FOR JOHN KROGER
John Kroger is possibly the most exciting attorney general candidate that Oregon has ever known. Riding into town from New York to beat a shoulda-been-a-shoo-in opponent in the Democratic primary, he’s since managed to secure the Republican nomination as well. Two of his opponentsโ€”Walt Brown of the Pacific Green Party and J. Ashlee Albies of the Working Families Partyโ€”both bring important perspectives to the race, while the Constitution Party’s James Leuenberger thinks a smart solution to the bailout would be if Oregon had never opened any banks (it’s what the founding fathers would have wanted, he says).

But Kroger’s plans to prosecute environmental criminals and push for better drug treatment across the state could be transformative for Oregon. And the fact that he’s prosecuted mafia bosses and Enron crooks, not to mention served as a Marine, should give us confidence in his ability to deliver. He’s going to kick Oregon’s ass. Vote for him.

Secretary of State VOTE FOR KATE BROWN
As secretary of state, Kate Brown will be required to set aside her party affiliation and work across party lines to audit state agencies and oversee Oregon’s elections. Her Republican opponent, Rick Dancer, is a former Eugene anchorman with an imposing voiceโ€”and enchantingly large, emotively gesticulating handsโ€”who has criticized Brown, a veteran of the state legislature, for being too partisan for the office. Brownโ€”whose hands are smaller, it’s trueโ€”says her history of cooperating with Republicans in Salem makes her ideal for the job. Torn as we are, because Dancer is really quite the shiver-inducer, we tend to agree with her, and are impressed with her record as a leader in the state legislature (an experience Dancer lacks). Meanwhile, Pacific Green Party candidate Seth Woolley would ban all paid signature gathering to combat voter initiative fraud, an idea we would like Brown to consider should she win the office. Vote for her.

State Treasurer VOTE FOR ALLEN ALLEY
Allen Alley is a Republicanโ€”but this time? That’s okay. Despite the letter next to his name, he’s smart and has a venture capitalist and business background that will mean sharp new ideas at the state treasury. Besides, fiscally he breaks with party lines, favoring policies of tighter credit and regulation. It’s good to have someone in office who can talk money and sense to both sides of the aisle, and Alley has forged effective partnerships before: Last year, while working in Governor Ted Kulongoski’s office, Alley helped convince businesses to contribute their “kicker” tax rebates to the state’s Rainy Day Fund. His main opponent, Democrat Ben Westlund, is a highly competent legislator, and one we hope to see in a statewide office somedayโ€”but he’s better suited for the governor or secretary of state’s office than the treasurer’s. Vote for Alley.

STATE REPRESENTATIVES

27th District VOTE FOR TOBIAS READ
Tobias Read wouldn’t come into the Mercury‘s office to chat. Something about things being very busy at Nike….

It’s too bad. We love talking about things like stabilizing revenue, fixing our health care system, addressing climate change, and funding higher educationโ€”all things Read mentions in his campaign materials.

Lucky for Read, his Republican opponent blew us off, too. So what the heck: Vote for Read. And maybe he’ll find time for us in his schedule next time around.

33rd District VOTE FOR MITCH GREENLICK
Mitch Greenlick, a “progressive moderate Democrat”โ€”he’s progressive on social issues, and “I also care about economic development and jobs”โ€”is going to be a key leader in next year’s push for health care reform. Greenlick, whose career in health care included starting Kaiser Permanente’s Center for Health Research, he chairs the House Health Care Committee, and talked extensively in our interview about his ideas to pay for the uninsured via cost shifting elsewhere in the health care system.

He’s also a no-nonsense realist, calling “the myth of too-high taxes… pure bullshit,” and floating the idea of merging OHSU and PSU to create a world-class institution. We agree on both counts.

Meanwhile, Greenlick’s opponent Jim Ellison was a hoot. We’d like to get a beer with him sometime, and keep debating whether or not global warming is real (Greenlick should come along, tooโ€”he does a great job calling bull on Ellison’s more egregious claims). A former Democrat and pharmaceutical sales guy who became a Republican because “Clinton was a liar,” Ellison landed in the general after convincing a few dozen friends and neighbors to write him in during the primary. He added an interesting element to our interview, but he doesn’t hold a candle to Greenlick when it comes to legislating. Vote for Greenlick.

35th District VOTE FOR LARRY GALIZIO
A teacher at PCC Sylvania, incumbent Larry Galizio is passionate about education. He led the charge to increase Head Start and K-12 funding during the last legislative session. Now, his eye is on higher ed: He notes that Oregon ranks dismally low in “public investment in higher education,” a situation that Galizio calls “not only wrong, but stupid.” Sure, he’ll have a helluva time finding extra cash in Salem next year, but Galizio pledges to keep pushing. When asked about his other priorities, Galizio was the only one who mentioned initiative reform. His idea? To move toward an indirect initiative system, where citizen’s ideas are churned through public hearings before they’re either adopted outright or sent to the ballot. Sounds like a genius idea (and one that Bill Sizemore will no doubt try to repeal via a ballot measure).

Galizio’s opponent, Tony Marino, is a former radio talk show host who now runs his own marketing company (Galizio tagged him as a spammer). Marino’s biggest reason for running is a claim that Galizio isn’t connected to his district. Based on what we saw from Galizio, it seems he knows and represents his district well. Vote for Galizio.

36th District VOTE FOR MARY NOLAN
Mary Nolan wants to go back to Salem for a fifth term as a representative. There, as co-chair of the Ways and Means Committee, she wields considerable power as she ensures that government is spending money wisely. She also notes that there’s “work yet to be done” in education, on the environment, and on civil liberties (read: protecting a woman’s right to choose, and safeguarding domestic partnerships and non-discrimination laws). And her districtโ€”encompassing downtown and Southwest Portlandโ€”is in need of more affordable housing, another issue she’ll keep an eye on.

Nolan has two opponents: Republican Steve Oppenheim, co-owner of Hippo Hardware, and Jay Ellefson, a nurse and Libertarian. Oppenheim has voted for Nolan the last four times, doesn’t have a beef with her, and notes that he’s a “liberal Oregon Republican” who helped found OSPIRG. Ellefson, who had the guts to argue his pro-life position to the two staunchly pro-choice women on our editorial board, isn’t a good fit for the district. Send Nolan back to Salem.

38th District VOTE FOR CHRIS GARRETT
Halfway through our interview, we had to ask Chris Garrett’s opponent, Steve Griffith, why he was a Republican. Until that point, the two attorneysโ€”from rival firmsโ€”had largely agreed on everything. And Griffith is the guy that another Democratic legislative candidate pegged as “the only one who doesn’t know he’s a Democrat.” Griffith pointed to his refusal to sign a no-new-taxes pledge, and stressed that he didn’t want Oregon to become a one-party state.

Garrett, meanwhile, is a moderate Democrat who wants to focus on education, environmental preservation, and expanding access to affordable health care. He’d vote to kill the kicker entirely, in the name of stronger state finances. And he’d like to broach the topic of a sales tax.

While a progressive voice like Griffith’s would be valuable in the minority Republican caucus, we’d rather have Garrett take a seat in the majority and strengthen it. Vote for Garrett.

41st District VOTE FOR CAROLYN TOMEI
Carolyn Tomei has a “tax break book” in her Salem office, an inch-and-a-half thick tome listing every tax break the Oregon legislature has granted. Some of those, she says, don’t have a sunset clause, but should. She’ll look toward rolling some of those back as a way to build up a Rainy Day Fund and carry the state through a bumpy economy.

As chair of the Human Services and Women’s Wellness Committee, Tomei has an important role to play next year, making sure human services get through an economic downturn intact. One more thing we like about her: She’s got “serious questions” about the Columbia River Crossing project, asking why she would want to “be facilitating people driving back and forth to work” over bigger priorities, like light rail.

Her Republican opponent, Randy Uchytil, was a no show in our offices, and in the voter’s guide. Vote for Tomei.

42nd District VOTE FOR JULES KOPEL-BAILEY
Jules Kopel-Bailey intimidates us, between his already-extensive resume (stints at Princeton, in Secretary of State Bill Bradbury’s office, and currently an economist at ECONorthwest) and his whip-smart outlook on how to solve Oregon’s most pressing problems. Climate change? Kopel-Bailey talks about a finding a way to leverage private capital to make it easy for people to up the energy efficiency of their home. Affordable housing? He’s ready to stand up to the real estate industry and push for a real estate transfer tax. The Columbia River Crossing? He’s not sure why “voters in Medford have to be bailing out Clark County for 20 years of bad planning.”

His opponent, Pacific Green Party candidate Chris Extine, is politically aligned with his ultra-progressive districtโ€”and he’s a teacher, to boot! But given the choice, we’re going with super-genius Kopel-Bailey.

45th District VOTE FOR MICHAEL DEMBROW Like most of the Ds who walked through our door, Dembrow ticked off priorities of reforming the health care system and funding education. He also spoke about labor and human rights, pointing to his lengthy background as president of PCC’s faculty union (he teaches English at PCC Cascade). With a district in Northeast Portland, Dembrow is also acutely aware of the need to find a reliable source of funding for affordable housing. He says he’ll push for that, and continue to advocate for smart growth, plus health care reform.

Dembrow’s opponent is the always-kooky Jim Karlock, a curmudgeonly guy who thinks our progressive land use policy is sending us to hell in a hand basket. A dense hand basket, with an urban growth boundary, and public transit. We like that hand basket. Vote for Dembrow.

49th District VOTE FOR NICK KAHL
Republican Karen Minnis is finally leaving the state legislature, after years of wreaking havoc. In the run to replace her, Democrat Nick Kahl is the stronger choice. A young, energetic law student who adores his district, Kahl promises to keep an eye on socio-economic issues that impact the folks he’ll represent. Likeโ€”you guessed it!โ€”health care.

His opponent, Republican John Nelsen, didn’t want to talk to us. Vote for Kahl.

50th District VOTE FOR GREG MATTHEWS
Greg Matthews is a firefighter. Come on! A firefighter! How could you not vote for a firefighter? A moderate Democrat who lists getting tough on immigration as one of his priorities, he’ll also address the kinds of things we care more about, like health care and funding schools.

His opponent, John Lim, is not a firefighter. Vote for Matthews.

51st District VOTE FOR BRENT BARTON
Brent Barton’s facing an uphill battle, trying to unseat Republican incumbent Linda Flores. A litigator at Perkins Coie who’s on the board of the Oregon Bus Project, Barton would be a better fit for his district than Flores (who can’t even keep her family’s finances in order, as evidenced by a mailer she just sent out to her district). Flores voted against expanding children’s health care, creating a Rainy Day Fund, protecting consumers from bad mortgages, and increasing education funding. And that was all just in the past year!

Barton says he’s “fed up with things” under Flores’ reign, and is looking forward to a productive 2009 session. In 2007, he says, legislators plucked the low-hanging fruitโ€”see the things Flores voted against, aboveโ€”and now needs to reach higher. He’s got a “list in my desk of statutes I’d love to change,” including the way wills are administered in Oregon. He’s also game to tackle health care, and excited about the “opportunity” that global warming presents. And did we mention that he’s adorable? Vote for Barton.

52nd District VOTE FOR SUZANNE VANORMAN
Suzanne VanOrman is fighting Matt “The Law” Lindland for the house seat being vacated by Patti Smith. VanOrman has been executive director of the Mid-Columbia Children’s Council for 22 years, which has expanded extracurricular services for kids throughout the district. A competent businesswoman, she is running against a two-time Olympic medalist in Greco-Roman wrestling, who now runs a gym in Eagle Creek. When we met him, Lindland had just returned from a mixed martial arts engagement in Tokyo, without a scratch on him. While soft spoken throughout the interview, he left us with the distinct impression that he’s meant for fighting, not politics. Admitting he decided to run for office when he saw the seat might go uncontested, we admire his guts. But vote for “the nice old lady” (his description, not ours).

STATE SENATOR

14th District VOTE FOR MARK HASS
Incumbent Mark Hass has a reputation for speaking out about Oregon’s crazy tax structure. In a year where that issue just might have some momentum (see Ginny Burdick, below), Hassโ€”and his years of experience in Salemโ€”will be an asset in the state senate. His role on the Senate Finance and Revenue Committee makes him ready to tackle the rough economic road ahead.

His opponent, Lisa Michaels, didn’t return our calls. Vote for Hass.

18th District VOTE FOR GINNY BURDICK
Ginny Burdick will champion tax reform as chairwoman of the Senate Finance and Revenue Committee, if reelected, she says. A gun control activist who got state law changed to stop gun sales without background checks at gun shows, Burdick is tenacious and grounded in her approach to pushing for controversial policyโ€”she learned to shoot, for example, and had to convince gun retailers to back her in order to win the gun control fight. At a time when Oregon needs to look hard at alternate sources of revenue, we hope Burdick can convince Oregonians of the need for, say, a freaking sales tax, already. The idea is a dream, of course, with the state being notoriously conservative on taxation policy. But Burdick’s close relationships with the business community and her background in communications persuade us she’s the right person to have those tough conversations. And at least her heart is in the right place. Her opponent, real estate attorney John Wight, has an answering machine that says, “This is the Wight house,” but he either never checks it, or was too busy watching The West Wing to return our calls.

25th District VOTE FOR LAURIE MONNES ANDERSON
Laurie Monnes Anderson has done time in both the state house and senate, and she’s seeking another senate term. There, she’s the chair of the Health Policy and Public Affairs Committeeโ€”an excellent role for this nurse with a background in public health (she finds herself being asked about rashes and other ailments as she’s out knocking on doors in her district).

Back in Salem, she plans to revisit the children’s health insurance plan that failed at the ballot last year. “The policy is still good,” Monnes Anderson points out, and it’ll be her job to figure out how to fund it without a tobacco tax. She’ll also push on issues important to her east county district, like safety on the MAX and controversial land use (read: casinos).

Her opponent, Dave Kim, was a no show. But he’s been hitting Monnes Anderson hard on taxes (“We’re being very fiscally responsible,” she responds). Vote for Monnes Anderson.

Bureau of Labor and Industries VOTE FOR BRAD AVAKIAN
Brad Avakian took over as Oregon’s labor commissioner in March following the departure of its six-year steward, Dan Gardner (Gardner became a Washington lobbyist). Avakian, appointed to the job by Governor Ted Kulongoski, is a Democratic senator and former civil rights attorney practicing workers’ compensation law, giving him a solid grounding in workplace issues. Avakian’s opponents, Pavel Goberman, a Libertarian Russian fitness instructor who once ran for state senator promising to reduce health care spending by recommending wider use of his Get Fit! video, and Mark Welyczko, a security practitioner with a union background, are not considered to be mounting serious opposition. Avakian deserves your vote.

COUNTY

Sheriff VOTE FOR BOB SKIPPER
Bob Skipper came back after 14 years of retirement last July to take over as sheriff following Bernie Giusto’s departure. Skipper has been the sheriff before, and has spent the time since he returned trying to restore morale, discipline, and sound management practices among the once mutinous corrections staff. Skipper plans to make more management changes to the department if elected in the fall, he says. His opponent, Sergeant Muhammad Ra’oof, is arguing for new blood at the top, and we’re impressed with his dedication to the department and enthusiasm for cooperating with other agencies to improve skills training for the county’s inmates. But with the department in such a mess following the departure of Giustoโ€”there have been problems with sick leave abuse and inmate supervision, not to mention scathing reports on jail conditions by the district attorney’s officeโ€”we’re of the belief that Skipper’s earnest experience and seasoned judgment are what the department needs right now. Skipper drove Bobby Kennedy around when the former presidential candidate came to Portland, for example. Beat that, Ra’oof! Kidding. But vote for Skipper.

Commissioner, District 3 VOTE FOR MIKE DELMAN
We asked Mike Delman’s opponent, Judy Shiprack, what she loved to teach, back when she was in the English department at Jefferson High School in the ’70s. James Fenimore Cooper she saidโ€”but the students struggled with the early 19th century work. “We ended up watching a lot of movies,” Shiprack told us, either delivering a horrible joke, or exemplifying the sort of unfocused, uncreative style she’d also bring to the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners. Then there’s her, um, keen business sense: She tried to justify the poor performance of one of her real estate developments in Old Townโ€”one on which she still owes taxpayers $1.8 millionโ€”on the continued existence of Blanchet House, a social service agency across the street that she didn’t think would be around much longer. Hmm.

Mike Delman, on the other hand, is a temperamental guy who nearly decked Matt Davis during our primary endorsement interview. He’s calmed down considerably since May, and is a more polished candidate, one who plans to prioritize health care and public safety. For example: He’d like to reopen neighborhood health clinics to reduce pressure on hospital ERs, and he’ll push to finally open Wapato as both a jail and a treatment center. He’ll also look for cost savings in the perpetually strapped county budget (one Delman idea: utilizing Zipcar for the county fleet, which he estimates could save $1.5 million, based on a similar move by the City of Portland). Bonus: He has experience navigating county politics, thanks to the 13 years he’s put in there, in roles like chief of staff to former Commissioner Gary Hansen and intergovernmental affairs coordinator at the sheriff’s office. Vote for Delman.

Commissioner, District 4 VOTE FOR CARLA PILUSO
Gresham Police Chief Carla Piluso says it’s the county’s job to look after the needy and the naughty, and can claim a career’s experience doing both. Beyond her day job, Piluso has served as chair of the Multnomah County Commission on Children, Families, and Community and is on the board of several other community organizations. Her opponent, Diane McKeel, is executive director of the West Columbia Gorge Chamber of Commerce, and says she would adopt a partnership approach to solving the county’s problems. But we’re inclined to think Piluso has been doing that already, and for the past several years. Piluso is also committed to mental health services, saying social services are more important than opening the Wapato Jail, given the county’s limited budget. We think that demonstrates sound judgment, and she deserves your vote.

East Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District

Director, At Large 1
VOTE FOR RICK TILL

Director, At Large 2
VOTE FOR PETER FINLEY FRY

What’s the East Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District? Hell if we know. But we looked it up: The agency works “toward keeping water clean, conserving water, and keeping soil healthy.”

In the first slot, Rick Till’s two opponents have impressive conservation resumes, but we’re inclined to endorse Till because he has energetic ambitions to promote the district’s education and outreach programs (which could mean we’ll know lots more about this agency next time around). He also has the support of the other conservation district directors he’ll be working with.

For the other slot, land-use consultant Peter Finley Fry is registered at city hall as a lobbyist for the Tonkin auto dealerships, and once gave one of Erik Sten’s staffers 500 pounds of manure. He may be an insider’s insider, but he has more experience in conservation issues than his opponent, tax consultant and perennial candidate Ron McCarty. Vote for Till and Finley Fry.

CITY OF PORTLAND

Commissioner, Position No. 1 VOTE FOR AMANDA FRITZ
We’ve had a tumultuous relationship with Amanda Fritz. Two years ago, we wrote a gushing endorsement of her in the race against incumbent Dan Saltzman, calling her “the epitome of what Voter-Owned Elections is all about,” and noting her “passion for the city’s inner workings” and an ability to “draw newly engaged citizens into the political fold.”

But we didn’t endorse her in the primary this spring. After keeping tabs on her since 2006, we grew concerned that she’d be an obstructionist. We envisioned a Commissioner Fritz who would grind city hall to a halt while she collected community input and obsessed over minute details, in lieu of taking charge.

We’ve come to realize that we were wrong about Fritz. What can come across as nit-picky devotion to process is actually her biggest strength in disguise: Fritz is intensely principled. She knows exactly what she stands for and what she’d like to do as a city commissionerโ€”ensure basic services for every city neighborhood, see to it that all corners of the city are treated equally, and follow up on city actions to see if they’re working as planned. Will she ask tough questions? Absolutely. Will she hold things up for the sake of excessive process? We don’t think so. We’ve come to see her strong and clear values as an asset, a focused lens through which she’ll efficiently assess both broad city projects and budget line items, before arriving at the right decision for the city as a whole. And then she’ll see that it gets done. Frankly, now that we’ve figured out Fritz, we’re excited to unleash her on the council (and especially on Commissioner Randy Leonard; Fritz’s future office shares a door with Leonard’s, and we’re giddy over the idea that she’ll barge through it regularly, to insist he back up his schemes with facts, figures, and transparency).

Fritz’s opponent, Charles Lewis, is a community leader who’s made an indelibly positive mark on North and Northeast Portland through his nonprofit, Ethos. But when it comes to public policy and political leadership, he’s still green. Where Fritz has had a consistent message, Lewis has swayed with polls and the political windsโ€”it’s not hard to imagine him getting blown over by the four more-seasoned council members.

Fritz is more than ready to take on city hall, and we’re ready to get behind her 100 percent. Vote for her.

STATE MEASURES

VOTE YES: 54: Amends Constitution: Standardizes voting eligibility for school board elections with other state and local elections.

This is a simple housekeeping measure that allows 18-year-olds to vote in school board elections. That’s a no-brainer. Vote yes.

VOTE YES: 55: Amends Constitution: Changes operative date of redistricting plans; allows affected legislators to finish term in original district.

Another housekeeping measure, one that lets legislators finish their term if redistricting boots them out of their original district. Vote yes.

VOTE YES: 56: Amends Constitution: Provides that May and November property tax elections are decided by majority of voters voting.

The way things work now, if, say, Multnomah County wants to ask voters to raise their taxes to support libraries, simply getting a majority of voters to say yes isn’t enough. Unless they ask in the November election during even numbered years, tax-increase proponents also have to cross their fingers and hope more than 50 percent of registered voters cast a ballot, in order for that majority of yes votes to count for anything. This has meant that 169 proposals from 1997 to 2007โ€”from school funding to library leviesโ€”have won popular support at the polls, but withered for lack of voter turnout.

We don’t think it’s fair that absent voters are effectively saying no to these tax proposals without lifting a finger. This measure simplifies the system: What the voters say goes in all May and November elections, regardless of how many bother to fill out a ballot. Vote yes, so your future votes on tax measures truly count.

VOTE YES: 57: Increases sentences for drug trafficking, theft against elderly, and specified repeat property and identity theft crimes; requires addiction treatment for certain offenders.

The state legislature took one look at Kevin Mannix’s budget-wrecking Measure 61 and created the saner, more productive “tough on crime” Measure 57 as an alternative. M57 creates harsher penalties for identity theft and property crimes and also provides funding for a serious drug treatment program for Oregon. If a majority of Oregonians votes yes on both Measures 57 and 61 (and polls show they will), the state will enact the measure with the most yes votes. This doesn’t make much sense and maybe isn’t even legal, but hey, what’s new in American politics? The point is, you should vote for Measure 57 even if prison spending makes you queasy because at least it promotes rehabโ€”and your grin-and-bear-it support is crucial to ensuring that Mannix’s measure (more on that one later) dies. But don’t take our word for it: John Kroger convinced us that this isn’t simply a “lesser of two evils” measure, explaining that the drug treatment program it contains is exactly the kind he would have asked for once he takes up the attorney general post. He’s a smart guy, and we trust his judgment: Vote for M57.

VOTE NO: 58: Prohibits teaching public school students in a language other than English for more than two years.

This Bill Sizemore measure mandates a two-year cap on “English immersion” for public school English as Second Language (ESL) students. According to Sizemore, the point is to ensure that kids are proficient in English after a year or two of assistance, and schools stop wasting resources. Meanwhile, “English immersion” is undefined and has teachers scratching their heads, because 85 percent of ESL students in Oregon are already taught in English. The other 15 percent includes some kids with learning disabilities who need more time and support to learn a new language. The PTA and groups that have experience teaching fear this measure’s anti-immigrant appeal will wind up knocking out support for those struggling students. While we agree that it’s important for kids to be fluent in English, we don’t think schools need a new hoop to jump through. Vote no.

VOTE NO: 59: Creates an unlimited deduction for federal income taxes on individual taxpayers’ Oregon income-tax returns.

Bill Sizemore is selling this measure as one that will stop the state from “taxing your taxes.” It’s clever rhetoric that paints a picture of double taxation, but that’s an oversimplication of the tax structure. The truth is, the state is straight up basing your taxes on your income, minus a small deduction for some of your federal taxes. Voting for this measure could slash $2.4 billion in state funding for education, public safety, and health care, by allowing Oregon’s richest taxpayers to deduct an unlimited amount of their federal tax amount from their state taxes (Sizemore argues that the impact will be less). The deduction limit, right now, is $5,600; opponents say 78 percent of us won’t see any tax break from it (Sizemore says he probably won’t, either). It may be selfish of us, but we’re going to pass on this one. Vote no.

VOTE YES: 60: Teacher “classroom performance,” not seniority, determines pay raises; “most qualified” teachers retained, regardless of seniority,

Measure 60 would tie teachers’ pay to unspecified “classroom performance”โ€”a standard that Sizemore points out is up to the legislature or even local communities and school districts to hash out (and the standards could hammer out provisions for cost-of-living increases). While the measure could be burdensome if it leads to more standardized tests (and therefore fewer teachers willing to take on the toughest assignments in low-income areas where students historically score lower), we’re more optimistic. Sure, many of us have unresolved authority issues with our former teachers. But we think Sizemore has a good point on this one: The best and brightest teachers are the ones who should be rewarded, whether they’re the best because they’ve been around the longest, or because they’re working their tails off. We trust school districts to come up with a fair way to evaluate their teachers. Vote yes.

VOTE NO: 61: Creates mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain theft, identity theft, forgery, drug, and burglary crimes.

By mandating three-year prison terms for first-time drug offenders, this measure dangerously ignores the importance of judicial flexibility. It also turns addicts into inmates, rather than offering them rehab to turn their lives around. The measure is also exorbitantly expensive: Building new prisons to house all the first-time inmates could drop a $2 billion bomb on the already-strapped state budget. Chief petitioner Kevin Mannix says the state can avoid costs by sending inmates to mobile prison work camps. Let’s vote for M57โ€”and rehabโ€”instead of resurrecting the chain gang. Vote no on 61.

VOTE NO: 62: Amends Constitution: Allocates 15 percent of lottery proceeds to public safety fund for crime prevention, investigation, and prosecution.

This measure, sponsored by Mannix, proposes diverting 15 percent of the state lottery’s proceeds to law enforcement. Mannix has been pitching the measure to build a “CSI lab” in Oregon, but even law enforcement agrees that the money’s not needed. Mannix also plans to take the money from the state schools fund, to the tune of $200 million every two yearsโ€”money that currently pays for teachers. We think the best way to keep crime down is to fund education, so kids stay focused and don’t drift into trouble in the first place. Vote no on this measure.

VOTE NO: 63: Exempts specified property owners from building permit requirements for improvements valued at/under $35,000.

Another Sizemore measure, Measure 63 allows property owners to perform up to $35,000 a year in renovations without getting permits or safety inspections. There may be something romantic about being able to do what you want with your property without getting approval from “The Man”โ€”but $35,000 can build some dangerous changes. If it was just a matter of endangering the property owner, that would be one thing, but what about renters, orโ€”as opponents point outโ€”firefighters and EMTs, who come into an emergency situation with serious and unknown structural threats? Sizemore likes to say he got the idea for this measure by standing in a Home Depot parking lot and watching all the people come out with supplies to renovate their houses. He figured they didn’t get permitsโ€”so why not just do away with the laws that require them? Thank God he doesn’t have a habit of hanging out in bar parking lots at 2 am, or else we’d have a measure that legalizes drunken driving. Vote no.

VOTE NO: 64: Penalizes person, entity for using funds collected with “public resource” (defined) for “political purpose” (defined).

Another measure sponsored by Sizemore, Measure 64 seeks to bar public employees from funding unions, charities, and other organizations with voluntary deductions from their paychecks. It would also prohibit community organizations like Basic Rights Oregon from raising money in public buildings like the convention center, because they use that cash for political activities. Oregonians have already voted against a similar measure in 1998 and twice in 2000, but Sizemore is persistent. We understand his (less cynical) motivation: He argues for a separation of government and politicking, like we advocate for a division between church and state. But the true government involvement here is so minimalโ€”tapping a button in the payroll systemโ€”we’re happy to overlook it. Which leaves Sizemore’s other motivationโ€”to knock the stool out from under unions and their affiliates. Vote no.

VOTE NO: 65: Changes general election nomination processes for major/minor party, independent candidates for most partisan offices.

We like proponent Phil Keisling’s instincts: He wants more people (like unaffiliated voters) to have a say in the primary election (where you currently have to pick a party and stick with it when you choose primary election candidates). He also makes an interesting case that the age of party nominees should be over. And his proposed “top-two” primary system would certainly make for more interesting general election races in places like Portland’s 42nd Legislative District, a district that leans so heavily toward one party that under the current system, the game’s effectively over at the primary.

But as much as we’d like to see longer races between, say, Jules Kopel-Bailey and Regan Gray, we’re concerned with the potential consequences of Keisling’s new system. In races like the 42nd, it will likely mean far more money in politics, as candidates effectively run a general election campaign during the primary, spending gobs of money to reach a broad base of people. Then the top two will have to do it all over again for the November election. And in more competitive and swing districts, we’re concerned that candidates will leave their party-driven ideals behind, and instead run toward the boring, moderate middle. Finally, the already marginalized minor parties will likely get tossed out in the primary election, well before the masses start to pay attention.

And one more thing: Unaffiliated voters aren’t currently shut out of the primary, as Keisling insists. They’ve chosen not to affiliate with a party, and they can choose to affiliate, even temporarily, whenever they’d like. When it comes down to it, that’s the point of a primaryโ€”parties choosing their best candidate to put forward. While not perfect, it’s a system that’s served us well. Vote no on this measure to keep our current system.

METRO MEASURES

VOTE YES: 26-96: Bonds to protect animal health and safety; conserve, recycle water.

They should really call this the “hippo shit levy.” Hippos at the Oregon Zoo are stuck in rather filthy, shit-filled confines built 50 years ago. It’s immoral to keep animals in outdated, inhumane conditions and this levy invests in desperately needed new facilities where they can receive state-of-the-art vet care. If you don’t think it’s worth nine cents out of every $1,000 in property tax to replace some seriously sad cages (including one for the new baby elephant, you jerk), consider that the levy’s upgrades will save 11 million gallons of water a year. Vote for it.

PORTLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE

VOTE YES: 26-95: Portland Community College bonds to update, expand local educational facilities.

Did you know that Portland Community College does gobs of workforce training, graduates more high school students than all the area high schools combined, and serves 86,000 students each year? Neither did we. But PCC is undeniably an asset, and they’re deserving of our supportโ€”all $374 million of it. This bond would go to pay for a tight list of needed capital improvements, like expanding the Teaching and Learning Center at the Cascade Campus in N Portland, renovating the science labs at Sylvania in SW Portland, and beginning to turn the newest facility in SE Portland into a “comprehensive campus” with a library, science labs, and welding, automotive, and technology-driven programs. PCC already does great things for our city; this bond will help them do more. Vote for it.

CITY OF PORTLAND MEASURE

VOTE YES: 26-94: Renew five-year levy for Children’s Investment Fund.

This levy renews the one passed in 2002 that pumps property tax moneyโ€”about $5 a month from the average Portlanderโ€”into highly successful but chronically under-funded programs for needy kids. Does funding after-school mentoring and child abuse intervention work sound like it’s worth $5 a month to you? If you’re reluctant to remove a single Lincoln from your wallet during the global economic collapse, remember that child abuse increases during down economic times and children who suffer abuse at home are more likely to wind up in jail down the road. Vote yes.ย 

81 replies on “It’s Your Move”

  1. Your ignorance shows in your endorsement for Measure 60. There isn’t a Merit Pay scheme that has worked anywhere in this country because it is bad policy that doesn’t do anything significant to improve learning or school improvement. Instead it represents a failed belief that good teaching is something you can foster with bribes and competition.

  2. Our thoughts on it are coming from the opposite direction: We’re not supporting it in hopes of school improvement, or to bribe teachers to do better. As we wrote, “the best and brightest teachers are the ones who should be rewarded,” just as the best and the brightest people in other fields are paid accordingly.

  3. You must have missed the official explanatory statement on Measure 60, signed by the explanatory statement committee (including Bill Sizemore) that says: “In future contracts, cost of living adjustments unrelated to classroom performance are prohibited.”

    Teachers are paid based on a variety of factors, like advanced degrees, ongoing training and qualifications, taking on additional duties, experience in the classroom, and, yes, even performance evaluations if that’s agreed to in the contract.

    Measure 60 replaces all that with a vague notion of “classroom performance,” which everywhere it’s been tried means standardized testing, because there’s no other objective standard to quantify students’ performance. How would you, Amy, determine who the best and brightest teachers are? Would you and, say, Matt Davis come to the same conclusions about who is “best and brightest”? I’m guessing not, which is fine, except that teachers’ salaries will be hanging entirely in that subjective balance across the state under Measure 60.

    Everyone agrees that we should explore ways of improving compensation for teachers, but Measure 60 goes so far that it stops that conversation from even happening.

    It’s a shame you fell for Sizemore’s snake oil.

  4. Did The Mercury really side with right wing Bill Sizemore? Measure 60 is one of the most poorly worded documents I have ever seen, and for a publication to side with such a vague initiative is pretty embarrassing. The worst part about the endorsement is the realization that the measure will do nothing but create learning obstacles for students across the state. I love reading The Mercury but you totally dropped the ball on this one!

  5. I don’t get it. You support M60 because you are “optimistic” and you think “Bill Sizemore has a point”? Those are both terrible reasons.

    This seems like you’re just trying to be controversial to drum up some attention.

    Please change your decision on this, you’re making a mistake.

  6. I agree with everything that has been said in objection to Measure 60. I just don’t see any way that this isn’t going to lead to more standardized testing. This would not only discourage aspiring teachers from taking difficult assignments, but would also continue to turn education into a shallow exercise in test-prep. Nobody wins, even the kids who are lucky (i.e. rich) enough to get the good teachers.

  7. Measure sixty is nothing more than a continuation of the same old “place more stringent standards on teachers and they will produce more” that smacks of the same puritan work ethic that brought us the 80 hour work week. Education should be about quality and in my opinion, standardize testing rarely has the ability to measure that vector. Perhaps next time we could try pointing the finger of blame at our communities and homes for shouldering the entire burden of our children on teachers rather than passing more bogus legislature.

  8. When “English immersion” is undefined, you recommend voting no on Measure 58, but when “classroom performance” is left undefined, it’s an innovative way of holding teachers accountable? Any sort of merit pay system needs to be well thought through in order to engender any kind of results. Call me a cynic, but the lack of structure and accountability displayed in Measure 60 troubles me too much for any optimism to win out.

  9. Voting yes on Measure 60 will almost definitely punish teachers who take on more challenging assignments and increase reliance on standardized testing. Seriously, do you think that a teacher who gets a class of high-scoring, high-achieving honor students is working as hard or taking on as much responsibility as a teacher who works in a class of historically lower-achieving kids who are about to drop out? Do you think that the former teacher deserves more money or recognition than the latter? While I agree that– in theory–pay should accord with merit (which is, as another commenter said, difficult for schools because the only standard measure of merit is standardized testing), Measure 60 is not the measure to make this happen. It’s a measure just vague enough to hoodwink you into endorsing it, while creating even more difficulties than we currently have in our educational system. People listen to what the Mercury says; please change your stance on this.

    Also, since when does a Portland alternative newspaper get optimistic about anything Bill Sizemore does?

  10. It seems that the Merc (of all papers!) has bought into Sizemore’s nutty logic on Measure 60. Just as the republicans consistently say one thing and do another (Clean Skies Initiative, Healthy Forests Act, Patriot Act, Operation Iraqi Freedom, ect.), Sizemore is continuing to try to dupe the people of Oregon. While it seems logical to reward teachers for their good performance, the methods of measuring that performance are inevitably flawed. The clear failures of No Child Left Behind (another misnomer) should be proof enough that test scores are the exact wrong way to judge a teacher’s ability. Oregon’s schools are struggling, but if educators that are placed in the toughest districts and schools can’t be sure that they’ll be able to make a consistent living there, they are going to be even more likely to go elsewhere. For the sake of Oregon’s students, I hope that Oregonians join me in voting NO on measure 60.

  11. It’s frustrating that a paper with otherwise awesome values would stand behind such regressive educational measure. Both 58 and 60 do not take the needs of students first, and instead look to education as a fine place to cut funding.

    Schools and learning MUST be priorities – we as young people should be standing up for the right of students to be given the most robust and comprehensive education.

    58 is an anti-immigrant measure. We tell the immigrant community to speak English, and then, what demand they learn within one or two years?

    It’s not just that 60 may incidentally lead to more standardized testing: it inevitably WILL do so. Race, class, nationality, language, family situation, etc. are all factors weighing on standardized test performance, and to reward teachers who’s students fall on the privileged end of these issues is a true injustice to education.

    I encourage anyone reading these endorsements to look elsewhere for insights on voting this election.

  12. The undefined nature of “classroom performance” is a plus in this measure, even if it confuses M58. Here’s the thing: The standards will be left up to the legislature or school districts to hash out, where teachers will be involved.

    Hell, even Barack Obama supports merit pay, and he’s for the kind attached to standardized tests. This measure doesn’t go anywhere near that far – the standards could be as simple as an evaluation from a supervisor. You know, kind of like how everyone else in the world gets raises. (Same for cost of living: If you meet the basic standard, voila, cost of living raise.)

    This is one of those reasonable-people-can-disagree issues that’s worth a broader discussion. Unfortunately, because of Sizemore’s name attached to it, that discussion isn’t had. Instead, we’re treated to cries of “unintended consequences” and “too vague.”

  13. I am very disappointed in your position on M60. The only reason that you seem to be endorsing it is because “the best and brightest teachers are the ones who should be rewarded,”. You donโ€™t seem to be taking into account the many flaws this measure has. It will cost the state and local governments a lot of money to sort this out if it does pass. How does this measure work for special educators? The majority of the students they work with will rarely meet the standards that regular education students are asked to meet and yet they are some of the best and brightest educators out there. How would this work for teachers who teach in low-income schools where there is less support from the community and more issues surrounding poverty? I would argue that those teachers are some of the best and brightest and yet their students would not do as well as students who do not live in poverty and so these teachers would not get raises. Who is going to be willing to work in a school where you are pretty much guaranteed no raise for the hard work that you do for the kids who need it most. We will lose dedicated teachers in low in-come areas. You obviously have not taken any of these issues into account. What a horrible endorsement!

  14. “The majority of the students they work with will rarely meet the standards that regular education students are asked to meet.”

    Read the statute the measure would create. It says nothing about students meeting any arbitrary standard. It’s about the teacher.

  15. >Unfortunately, because of Sizemore’s name attached to it,
    >that discussion isn’t had. Instead, we’re treated to cries of
    >”unintended consequences” and “too vague.”

    Actually you are employing the exact same logic in reverse to refute your critics: Since it’s a Sizemore initiative we are blinded by that and can’t see how awesome this measure is, and we can’t employ the standard arguments that anyone has against his hastily drafted measures or you just say we are Sizemore haters.

    Face it, the Merc was suckered like a Florida Jew in 2000.

  16. How about we deal with the reasons why bad teachers cannot be fired? That seems like the place to start rather than turning to Sizemore to fix our education system.

    You say you trust teachers and local districts to make the decisions… so why tie their hands and make them focus on “classroom performance”? They should be allowed to consider all relevant metrics to evaluate their peers and employees, and seniority might be a part of that.

  17. I always credit the Mercury for publishing unique and original stories, but to be the only paper in Oregon to actually support Measure 60 is pretty embarrassing. The Bill Sizemore initiative will cost our state millions of dollars to implement, and the result will only be more standardized testing! Of course teachers need to be held accountable but Measure 60 is not the answer! I do not know a single parent, teacher or principal who wants an increase in standardized tests and that is what will happen if Measure 60 is passed. Have you ever heard about No Child Left Behind? Come on Mercury!

    As a young Oregonian I want the best teachers taking on the most challenging assignments. If teachersโ€™ pay is based solely on standardized tests no one will be willing to risk their livelihood.

    I almost always support the Mercuryโ€™s political views but this time I have to disagree and hope your readers realize the harm Measure 60 will cause in Oregon classrooms.

  18. If you think that the merit pay won’t be attached to grade level standards you are either ignorant or fooling yourself. You have very little knowledge of how public schools run. Every teacher I have met has been dedicated to students and their learning.

  19. Yes on Measure 60?! Are you kidding?

    Here’s how this could go. A teacher in a classroom/school with difficult or high needs kids gets graded on their performance, and don’t do well because of the population involved. The teacher then leaves the job. Who do you think is going to step up and take that job? The ones that get the shaft are kids, period.

    I’m totally disgusted with you guys for endorsing this one.

  20. VOTE YES ON MEASURE 60? ARE YOU $#&*%# OUT OF YOUR MIND?
    Obviously you haven’t been following Bill Sizemore’s track record. Have you seen the other measures he’s put on the ballot in recent years? Do you know he is not a teacher nor has ever worked in education? Did you actually read what the measure says? Here, let me quote it for you since you obviously didn’t do your homework: under measure 60 teachers’ pay raises would depend on ” classroom performance”. And how do you think most districts will consistently measure performance across the board for all students? That’s right: standardized tests. Hey, I am all for getting rid of bad teachers, I am a teacher and I work my ass off and know some teachers who are awful and/or lazy and shouldn’t be teaching, but getting rid of bad teachers is up to administrators. If they were actually doing their job, there wouldn’t be as many bad teachers. Through a process of evaluation, administrators should be documenting teachers who have poor performance, putting them on plans of assistance and taking steps toward their eventual removal. But this takes work and takes time, most administrators seem too busy to do this part of their job or don’t want to deal with the work it takes to get rid of bad teachers.
    Anyways, back to measure 60… so most districts will use a standardized test. What about the teacher whose students are English language learners, on academic priority, have learning disabilities or emotional problems and/or are in special education? Do these teachers get paid less because their students don’t do as well on these tests? What about the teachers who choose to teach at traditionally low-performing schools? Will everyone fight to be able to teach the Honors classes since they know their students will obviously perform better and get them a pay raise? How about the teachers, like myself, who don’t prescribe to the idea that standardized tests actually demonstrate student growth and learning? The teachers who refuse to teach to a test? What about us? I think you need to seriously rethink your position on this measure. A lot of intelligent, liberal – minded people trust your opinion on issues and look to your paper as an alternative to the conservative Oregonian. I am so disappointed it makes me sick.

  21. Your endorsement of Measure 60 shows that none of your staff has been on the working side of a public school. I speak from the perspective of 25 years as a public education teacher with most of those years spent working with students with high impact behaviors. My students all made progress, but little of it would show up on a standardized test. And since most of the administrators I worked under were either afraid to come into my classroom or woefully ignorant of what a program like mine should look like, they were in no way qualified to evaluate me for the purposes of determining my pay. Add to this the fact that we have any number of incompetent administrators who have spent little time in a classroom and you have a recipe for disaster. We are already losing our new teachers due to frustration and low pay. This is not going to help. And oh, by the way…Where is the extra money going to come from to pay the “good” teachers more? Are they going to take it away from all of the others? Before you make endorsements you need to be talking to people who are directly impacted by the issue.

  22. Here’s what Amy wrote about Measure 60 just a few short weeks ago: http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/ballot_box/Content?oid=868677

    “MEASURE 60โ€”Another Sizemore measure, this one creates a merit-pay system for public school teachers, instead of paying teachers based on seniority, qualifications, experience, and post-graduate degrees. In other words, teachers in districts where students do wellโ€”though the measure doesn’t define “classroom performance”โ€”will get raises, while dedicated teachers in districts where students aren’t doing as well (arguably, the places you most need well-paid teachers) won’t be paid as well.”

    Did I miss something here?

  23. “Did I miss something here?”

    Yes: The rest of our editorial board. Plus our endorsement interviews with folks on both sides of the issue. And our analysis of the statute it would create.

  24. It’s interesting that you identify with Bill Sizemore as a “reasonable” person. He has done so much damage to Oregon by abusing the initiative process. His hate filled measures are nothing more than a way to divert real issues from being addressed such as poverty, which has a much greater impact on “classroom performance” than how teachers are paid.

  25. VOTE NO ON 60! Passing measure 60 would practically eliminate Special Ed teachers (their students cannot, by nature, perform to the same standards as regular ed students), punish teachers in the poorer schools or schools with less parental support, and drive those willing to take on the toughest problems from the system. Measure 60 worsens the problem. Please reconsider.

  26. I think you guys should have picked one conservative politician rather than one conservative measure. That would have been more interesting.

  27. Ms. Ruiz, you say that “the best and brightest teachers are the ones who should be rewarded, just as the best and the brightest people in other fields are paid accordingly” I totally agree with you, the best and brightest should be paid more, so should the ones who work the hardest to improve their skills and who continue their education and professional development. But the only way to measure this consistently that we have come up with so far is a standardized test given to students. If this measure would have been created by teachers and others in the education field, it would have included how teachers were going to be measured and evaluated. Don’t you get it? The measure is so poorly written that even if you agree with the basic idea that people should be paid more for doing a better job – I think everyone can agree with that- you shouldn’t vote for Measure 60.

  28. You know what? FUCK all this intelligent discourse. Ms. Ruiz and the rest of The Mercury’s editorial board can suck my ass. Same goes for Captain Douchy McFraudpants Bill Sizemore. Are you fucking kidding me? I wouldn’t endorse this guy taking a shit, much less any of his slippery and poorly-written ballot measures. Dude is enemy number one in Oregon politics (or at least to anyone with a brain) and you clowns are backing one of his ballot measures?! REALLY?

    I am so pissed off that my hands are shaking as I type this. My mom is an incredibly gifted high school teacher and struggles every day to give her kids a decent education in spite of overflowing classrooms, budget cuts, clueless administrators and everything else all the fine educators said in the posts before mine. Adding “merit pay” to this is maze of issues to navigate is yet another slap in the face to people who put their heart and soul into one of the hardest and undervalued jobs in this country.

    Go fuck yourselves, Merc.

    Put down the coke spoons, try on some pants that don’t cut off the circulation to your Iron City-addled brains and wake the fuck up. Sizemore is NO ONE you want associated with your publication.

    Shame on you.

    Seriously.

    SHAME ON YOU.

  29. You know what? FUCK all this intelligent discourse. Ms. Ruiz and the rest of The Mercury’s editorial board can suck my ass. Same goes for Captain Douchy McFraudpants Bill Sizemore. Are you fucking kidding me? I wouldn’t endorse this guy taking a shit, much less any of his slippery and poorly-written ballot measures. Dude is enemy number one in Oregon politics (or at least to anyone with a brain) and you clowns are backing one of his ballot measures?! REALLY?

    I am so pissed off that my hands are shaking as I type this. My mom is an incredibly gifted high school teacher and struggles every day to give her kids a decent education in spite of overflowing classrooms, budget cuts, clueless administrators and everything else all the fine educators said in the posts before mine. Adding “merit pay” to this is maze of issues to navigate is yet another slap in the face to people who put their heart and soul into one of the hardest and undervalued jobs in this country.

    Go fuck yourselves, Merc.

    Put down the coke spoons, try on some pants that don’t cut off the circulation to your Iron City-addled brains and wake the fuck up. Sizemore is NO ONE you want associated with your publication.

    Shame on you.

    Seriously.

    SHAME ON YOU.

  30. “But the only way to measure this consistently that we have come up with so far is a standardized test given to students.”

    It’s amazing that people in other fields are able to have their performance judged by an employer without subjecting the customers/clients/readers/patients/patrons/staff/fans to a standardized test.

    Under M60, thanks to the “vague” way it’s written, we can come up with a creative way to evaluate teachers that takes into consideration the creativity they must employ daily in the classroom. Like a combination of student evaluations, administrator evaluations, parent evaluations, and peer reviews. Subjective standards like this strike us as the way to go, since every teacher and classroom situation is different. And again, the fact that school districts (and teachers, and the teacher’s union) could help craft those evaluations or standards puts this measure in line with Sen. Barack Obama’s stance on merit pay. From MSNBC:

    “The most controversial aspect of any discussion of teacher compensation is merit pay,โ€ Obama said, โ€œand I know that folks here object to the idea properly that if you are being measured and paid simply by how the child is doing on a test without taking into account what that child is coming to the school with, … if it’s all based on assessments made on No Child Left Behind, then it’s not fair to pay teachers who are pouring their heart out based on some of these arbitrary measures.”

    He pledged to work with the NEA and teachers’ unions to determine a new system for accountability. “What I want to do is work with teachers, and where we can work with teachers to come up with ways to set those kinds of professional standards, then I want to be part of that process,โ€ Obama said. โ€œBut I’m not going to do it to you; I’m going to do it with you.”

    We agree with that, and we think M60 encompasses that spirit. One last thing: The word “test” does not appear in the statute, despite what you might read in opponents’ voter guide statements. (Read the statute: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov42…)

  31. > It’s amazing that people in other fields are able to have their
    > performance judged by an employer without subjecting the
    > customers to a standardized test.

    Maybe because there aren’t dozens of laws that these industries have to conform to, passed by well meaning idiots and special interests?

    > Under M60, thanks to the “vague” way it’s written, we can come
    > up with a creative way to evaluate teachers that takes into
    > consideration the creativity they must employ daily in the
    > classroom.

    Yeah, just like the “vauge” funding details in NCLB turned into such a success! Weird call to try to glom onto Obama’s popularity but merit pay is a seperate issue from undefined terms like “seniority”, “classroom performance” and “successfully teaching.”

    It obvious that the Merc doesn’t understand how education policy would be enacted. All schools would have to be treated equal under the law so I have no idea where you get this idea that “vague” translates to “grassroots input” and “local control”.

    > Read the statute: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov42

    I read it, now about *you* read the financial impact statement and the arguments for (one of which is a Sizemore plea not to think he’s a bad guy) and against. Now how about you interview some local people who know what they are talking about and see what they think? Isn’t that how editorial boards work, or do you have a dart board?

  32. It seems like it’s time for the Merc to admit they made a mistake on this one. Trust is a two-way street and if we the readers are to continue to trust your editorial choices and stories, then you also have to trust when your readers point out an error.

    I think if you talk to some teachers and spend more time on this issue (as these comments indicate you should) you will likely start to doubt your initial endorsement. (If you want, I can put you in touch with some teachers.)

    There is a lot of shock and anger in these comments, but the Merc should know that the anger comes from a sense of betrayal. It’s like finding out your boyfriend voted for Bush.

    Don’t mistake the three pages of comments here as a sign that you have created a discourse. You are losing our trust and we’re going to just start reading the Willy Week. I’m serious.

  33. I appreciate the comments, Mikey, but we’ve spent more time on this measure than any of the others. Given Sizemore’s reputation, we didn’t come to the decision lightly, and it’s not an error. (On another note, we love correcting factual errors, but endorsements are opinions.)

    Merit pay is an issue where people disagree. We don’t oppose it, lots of people do. Which leaves us with potential problems this particular iteration of merit pay might contain. From our analysis, debate, and discussion, we felt comfortable with the statute it would create, and saw great potential for it to lead to a hearty discussion on the best way to great teachers with the respect they deserve. Especially your mom, Isis: If she’s incredibly gifted, lets put our money where our mouth is, and treat her well.

  34. I’d also like to know where the funds for the “combination of student evaluations, administrator evaluations, parent evaluations, and peer reviews” are going to come from, seeing as many schools can’t afford to offer basic art or music classes, much less have access to the kind of resources to staff, administer and monitor multiple multi-layered educator reviews.

    Plus I’ve got a funny feeling that the NEA wouldn’t touch Bill Sizemore with a ten-foot pole made out of cat poop, much less work with the S.O.B.

  35. Sirs:

    Recently published research clearly shows that the “best and brightest” are rarely successful at things. From personal knowledge, most members of Mensa are like Comic-book-guy on the Simpsons. Smart and socially unskilled in the extreme.

    Research shows that people who are more socially skilled are in almost all cases significantly more successful, and this includes in the profession of teaching.

    As I’m sure you experienced in your schooling teachers that were brilliant but that couldn’t teach a fire fly to blink. My best teachers were fun, humorous, saw the absurdity of things and took us on a delightful, mind-expanding trip.

    The problem with any Sizemore measure currently up for vote, and especially Measure 60, is that it appears that Mr. Sizemore is putting together measures in a slap-dash, give-a-damn manner apparently just to get them on the ballot so as to make sure that he can continue to live an affluent life-style. This, apparently in violation of a court order.

    I doubt Mr. Sizemore cares one way or the other if any of his measures pass at this point in his life. From the quality of the thought and precision of language in his current year’s crop, he wrote these while suffering a hang over or between trips to his Mexican time share.

    My concern is we may vote in one of his typically ill-conceived measures creating a law that will cost us a fortune to sort out later.

    I agree, merit pay for teachers has merit.

    This year’s measures as penned by Mr. Sizemore do not.

    Vote no, purely in self-defense.

    I remain,

    Jacomus d’Paganus-Fatuus

  36. One more point, Mikey, on reading WW instead. You should check them out, especially what they wrote on this measure. I think you’ll find that the substance of our opposing endorsements is largely the same.

    They do land on the no side: “We like the fact that Sizemore wants to dislodge seniority as the primary way a teacher can get more money. What we object to is his initiativeโ€™s ridiculous requirement that seniority have no role in a teacherโ€™s pay.

    That said, Sizemore is on to something here…”

    What the measure says about seniority: “pay raises for public school teachers shall be based upon each teacherโ€™s classroom performance and not related or connected to his or her seniority.”

    The difference between the two papers is that we don’t have as dire a read on that sentence as WW does. The way we see it, the language means that a teacher isn’t paid at a specified level because they’ve been on the job for five years, and an administrator isn’t tallying up the years on the job when figuring out the annual raise. However, we’re talking about determining pay raises, which by definition means a person’s pay is going up year after year. Which then means that teachers who have been around longer will be paid more, thanks to cumulative raises.

  37. > Which leaves us with potential problems this particular
    > iteration of merit pay might contain.

    Are we getting closer to an eventual goal? I don’t get it. This isn’t something we’ll improve on later, this is something the public could be stuck with for years.

    > From our analysis, debate, and discussion, we felt
    > comfortable with the statute it would create,

    Everyone that knows anything about education or law seems to disagree. I’m curious who provided the legislative insight.

    > great potential for it to lead to a hearty discussion on the
    > best way to great teachers with the respect they deserve.

    A “discussion” that will cost between $30 and $60 million dollars year-over-year for a cash-starved public school system.

  38. Kudos to you on your no recommendation on Measure 65. It was crafted by two people who have axes to grind with their politcal parties and is intended to end party politics in Oregon. A very bad idea.

    As far as the crime measures are concerned, I am voting no on both 57 and 61. I don’t think the state can afford either one.

    61 was purely the result of Kevin Mannix wanting to come up with some political capital so he went back to his only successful idea in the past (Meas 11) and pulled another “tough on crime” idea out of his left ear. The legislature had to respond because of the disastrous fiscal consequences of 61.

    By the way, I am voting against both these measures despite the fact that I am a property crime victim. My house was burglarized in November of 2006.

    I also applaud your endorsement of Alley. We need a financial person in the treasurer’s office. I am not sure I agree with your view of Westlund. Some see his migration from R to I to D as courageous; I see it as politcal exediency, pure and simple. He aspires to high office and you don’t get there in Oregon without a D next to your name.

  39. I’m curious, you keep saying that merit pay won’t be based on student performance, so what in you mind do you think it will be based on? You did say you had discussions about M60 the most so this must’ve come up. Have any of you that made this decision ever even been in a public school? It really sounds like you haven’t.

  40. Maybe it comes from the limited space you had in the paper to write up the endorsement for M60, but it seems like there is clearly a lot of interest in this subject and the Merc could devote some more space to explaining their position on the issue.

    If in your research on the matter you found examples of merit based pay working in the field, I’d love to know about it. Also, what about the current structure is so flawed? What is your best case scenario about how this will all shake out, and why do you think that? Who did you talk to and what did they say? Why is every progressive organization AGAINST this measure?

    Clearly your readers are having a hard time with this.

  41. Do you think public school teachers aren’t already trying their damndest to be the best teachers they can possibly be? I understand incentive regimes, and I’m all for giving teachers more pay, but maybe we can incentivize better teachers by giving them all the money that Sizemore wants to spend on the prison-industrial complex in a state that already spends more money on carceration than on education.

  42. Yeah, so Iโ€™m writing in reference to the douche baggery of Nick Kahl. Heโ€™s running for state rep in East County. Heโ€™s in one of those floofy new age jazz groups. All swishy and fizzy with a pussy ass never-never land hip hop backbeat. It was enough to straighten even Kenny Gโ€™s mop. Should of named the album: I Brake for Rainbows. Heโ€™s also a sweaty overweight bass player (how original). He stopped by my house and tried to relate to me because I play in a band, and I tried to be nice, but just had to shut the door on him before I accidentally blurted out: โ€œDonโ€™t standโ€ฆ donโ€™t stand soโ€ฆ donโ€™t stand so kahlostomy.โ€
    Bag oโ€™ douche, even by politicianโ€™s standards.

  43. Portland Mercury you shock me. I counted on you to give some good advice this election season! I went through your voting suggestions, for the most part agreeing and filling in my ballot bubbles, until I stopped cold on measure 60. You must be kidding. Vote yes? And you call yourself a progressive and community oriented paper? Maybe you don’t, I guess that’s an assumption. Anyway, I am a public school teacher and I oppose this measure as do 99.9 % of teachers!!! Did you not notice that the teacher’s union strongly opposes this measure? This is not because we’re a bunch of slackers. If you actually know any teachers you will know how hard we work and for how little money. This measure will ensure that no teachers in Oregon ever get a significant raise again unless lawsuits are filed. Merit based pay? Which will undoubtedly be tied to student standardized test scores? In a huge bureaucracy where teachers receive very little positive reinforcement and struggle with a daily landslide of issues beyond their control, this is not fair. Standardized tests are narrow, unrealistic, and do not take into account a myriad of factors and subject areas. This will be one big green light to cut costs on teacher salaries, which are already shamefully low. The small increase in salary that teachers do receive each year which barely covers an increase in cost of living should not be taken away. This is another step in the direction of complete erosion of the public school system, ensuring that only the rich will be educated. Do your homework next time; I give you a failing grade on this one. I might consider you redeemed if you ran a LARGE retraction of this immediately before some of your trusting readers make the mistake of taking your advice on this one!

  44. Ok, now that I read Amy Ruiz’s comments I am even more infuriated. Amy, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You may have done some research on this, but you have not worked in a public school, and you should have talked to someone who has. Your comment:

    “Under M60, thanks to the “vague” way it’s written, we can come up with a creative way to evaluate teachers that takes into consideration the creativity they must employ daily in the classroom.”

    is ridiculous. Who is ‘we?’ I can tell you who; not teachers. And the vague way that it is written is not a positive, it’s a negative. This is an open door to screw teachers, period. Your other comment that this would not reduce teacher pay but would be an addition, is also uninformed. This would would mean that no teachers would get raises unless they performed successfully for whatever mystery assessment gets devised. Teachers unions have fought long and hard to have the small pay increases and the salary schedule that is currently in place, why would you support undermining that? Amy you have just massively dropped the ball on this. I love Barack but just because he’s a fan of merit based pay doesn’t mean it’s right, and as soon as he’s in the White House I intend to start sending him letters about it.

  45. Does anyone on the Merc staff know how much time teachers already spend on standardized tests and teaching kids how to take them? I would guess not, this measure will surely increase the amount of time wasted on that when they should be writing and learning critical thinking skills.

    Gee, let’s see who else says to Vote No on Measure 60.

    Oregon Education Association
    Oregon PTA
    Basic Rights Oregon
    Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon
    NARAL
    Oregon AFL CIO
    SEIU
    Stands for Children
    The Oregonian

    Face it, on this one you are WRONG.

  46. yeah the best and brightest teachers sometimes want to challenge themselves and teach at schools in poorer socio-economic areas and when doing so it is a total crap shoot as to whether or not their students are going to be able to meet the standards. they deal with issues such as larger class sizes (therefore less individual instruction time for each student), less supportive families who may not give them the time and attention they need to succeed, students who come from immigrant families and arent as prepared for the rigors of an english speaking school, im not wording these issues very well, but one of my family members is a teacher at a school located in a poorer part of town, and she is one of the best and brightest teachers that PPS has, she gives them her time, energy, money (buying supplies, books, and anything else to try to help her students succeed), and most of all enthusiasm, but if this bill passes, she may not see pay raises due to the crop of kids that go through her classroom every year, you folks are WAY out of touch on this one, merit based pay will only make teachers want to stay away from the worse schools and go to schools in nicer neighborhoods where they can put forth less effort, have smaller class sizes, and more supportive parents in order to help their own financial gain, im sorry Amy but your comment does not take into account people such as my family member, who does the school system proud with her effort, ability and passion, ESPECIALLY choosing to put this towards children who need teachers like her more than other schools. She does not take the easy route here, she challenges herself, because as a teacher, she wants her kids to succeed and does everything she can to help them along that path, and yet you support basing her pay on what their standardized test score are, you guys missed the boat entirely on this one and should be ashamed, maybe you should go out and interview some real teachers from poorer schools before making your decision…….

  47. I stumbled upon this after filling out my ballot, and I have to say M60 is the one disagreement I was surprised to find (we disagreed a few other places, but M60 is evil).

  48. Hey, Amy, if the entire Mercury editorial board is behind Measure 60, why are you the only one defending the endorsement? I’m guessing that your annual pay raise isn’t predicated upon standardized testing, so I can’t imagine why you’re so adamant that anyone else’s should be, particularly in light of the uneven playing field that is public education…

  49. I’m not completely opposed to the idea of merit pay for teachers, but I’d rather wait and see what President Obama comes up with before endorsing that nutball’s Measure 60.

    I don’t trust school districts to come up with fair and consistent ways of implementing this measure. I’ve seen some really freaking ignorant people serve on school boards. You know, the depressingly misinformed and bigoted folks at the McCain/Palin rallies–those kind of people. And I’ve seen school administration so full of petty little corruptions that it can’t function properly. It’s like the chain of command on The Wire or something.

    There are reasons why teachers in the US organized and unionized, and some of ’em are actually really good reasons.

  50. How very embarrassing for Amy. I’m sure there’s nothing I could say that hasn’t been said already.

    P.S. Thanks for the link, Matt. I’d appreciate it if you un-banned me from your blog.

  51. Matt-

    My mother, too, was a teacher, and she can tell countless tales of uncommitted, unqualified students whom she wished hadn’t come to school. Yet she went in everyday and did her job the best she could. Had she been working within a system of “merit pay,” by which she’d been judged on the performance of her students as defined by narrow parameters such as standardized testing, she’d have gotten the short shrift.

    What’s with you folks? Why are you so adamant in defending such an obviously flawed measure? Those of us who oppose this measure are not simply against “the concept of merit pay,” nor do most of us, I would argue, believe that you’ve endorsed this measure merely to “incite a discussion.” Give us some credit, we’re a little more sophisticated than that. We’re in favor of a system that takes into account all of the factors that should play into teachers’ salaries: performance, qualifications, seniority and, yes, cost of living. Those are the criteria by which my colleagues in the allied health care industry and I get our annual pay raises, and most of us, along with our union, wouldn’t have it any other way. If the “concept of merit pay” existed in a vacuum, it would be a fine way to reward teachers, but the fact is that there are far too many variables at play in the field of education for merit pay by itself to constitute anything resembling a fair criterium for teacher compensation.

    My mother was not only a dedicated teacher, but also a very active negotiator for her union, and regularly faced off against administrators (who in many cases happened to be close friends) in order to protect that which was due her and her colleagues. That the Mercury would endorse a measure such as this is nothing short of an insult to all those who strive for a level playing field. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

  52. > More here.

    If by “more” you mean Sizemore-apologist then yes.

    Seriously, I encourage everyone to read Matt’s link: Being a father of public school students means you are qualified to administer the state’s education system? Makes me wonder why you didn’t like Palin more with that logic…

    Sizemore is *not* corrupt? Have you even done a google search on the guy?!

    You think this measure will attract teachers to public schools that would normally go private? Can we please get some more ink from the so-called “editorial board” explaining these wild claims and conclusions?

  53. I don’t usually comment on these, but I’m really floored that the Mercury endorses Measure 60.
    I absolutely agree with the previous comment that this measure will result in more standardized testing. What then happens is that teachers at the lowest performing schools will get penalized, when in fact, we should be creating incentives for those teachers. Don’t we want to attract quality teachers to the schools where they’re needed most? For the sake of the kids and teachers who would get shafted by this, please vote NO!

  54. I’m a teacher. I would decline an offer to work in a school that has struggling scores on academic performance because of this law. I cannot afford to risk my income.

    This law would take the “best and brightest” from the kids that need them most.

    Mercury: your decision on this one is risky, and it scares me to think what your “hope for the best” optimism will do for the children in this state. Teachers cannot afford to “hope for the best” when it comes to caring for their own families.

  55. Measure 60 is a tough call, guys. Even the League of Women Voters chooses not to make a vote suggestion. Let’s not rip eachother apart on this one. Devote your effort to getting some attention to the more important issues. Talk to your loved ones and elders.

    http://www.lwvor.org/bmpositionsgen08.html

    I’d like to add that there is little difference in whether a D or R occupies the seat of Secretary of State and that the Green Party actually benefits from your vote even if their candidate does not win the seat. http://www.seth4sos.org

  56. I’d vote against 60 just because Sizemore is behind it. This self absorbed shit disturber has pissed me off too much to win one thing. Now on the the merits…Prop 60 is the wrong tool for evaluation on teacher performance. Take it to your school board. Portland Mercury rarely misses this badly. You guys deserve the shit storm your getting.

  57. From the LMV site:

    “No position” on a ballot measure does not indicate neutrality; it means that the League of Women Voters of Oregon Board of Directors does not feel that we have the research and member agreement to either support or oppose these issues.

    The difference between LWV and the Merc is that LWV has the intellectual honesty to say they can’t make a call and they are clear that “No position” does not mean neutrality, just an inability to research the measure and come to a consensus. (vagueness apparently isn’t a selling point to everyone)

    I get the impression that the Merc “editorial” board thought they needed to support or oppose every item, and so when put to the test on M60 they pulled a Colbert and went with the option that had the most “truthiness”.

  58. Alas, though I usually rely on the Merc to help me determine my votes, I’ll have to skedaddle over to the (gag) WilliWeek for a possibly more sensible take on Measure 60. Side with Bill Sizemore? Please.

  59. I am so confused by this endorsement of Measure 60. Does the Mercury believe that all students in the state of Oregon come into our classrooms with the same backgrounds and education, and that the only thing holding students back is that their teachers aren’t motivated by money?

    Shouldn’t the “best and the brightest” teachers be encouraged to teach in the schools where they are needed the most? Doesn’t this measure have a mechanism built in to encourage teachers to go to schools where they are most likely to get high standardized test scores? Am I just rambling here? I’m so angry I could just spit and piss. Measure 60 reeks of NCLB and I think it was a really dangerous move for the Mercury to endorse it! I can only hope that voters won’t be swayed by this endorsement!

  60. really??? yes on Measure 60??? wow. hope your kids do well on standardized testing, cause that will be their teacher’s main focus if this shit passes and i guess thats good real life training, cause you know most problems i run into day to day invovle a #2 pencil & a scantron sheet. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

    can people get the fuck off of teachers already? the reason kids are doing SO badly in school has waaaaaaaaaay more to do with negelctful uninvolved parents than it has to do with teachers.
    teachers are not only expected to make a kid who comes to school w/o breakfast, w/o proper sleep, w/o homework & magically make them do well on a test? and then the teacher is judged on that?
    Bill Sizemore wouldn’t last 15 minutes in a class full of 8th graders.

  61. I don’t know much about Measure 60 but I think it’s pretty funny that if you read the wikipedia article on it, you’re the only paper out of 14 different oregon-based publications (including ww) that says vote yes.

    Any comments?

  62. While a spirited debate would be nice, I suspect that the Merc has gone into “head in sand” mode on this issue, davemode. Embarrassing, but not surprising.

  63. I know this subject is being beaten to a pulp, but I recommend reading the teacher test cheating chapter in Freakonomics. Basically, giving a huge economic incentive for teachers to maybe “correct” a few kids’ answers on a standardized test is less than wise.

  64. I don’t understand why extra pay for seniority is such a “bad” thing. I suppose you could argue that there are tenured teachers who, one they become such, stop being good teachers and just sit on their ass making money and taking advantage of the system. Yeah, there are some teachers like that. Just like there are some poor people who take advantage of welfare. This isn’t a good enough reason for me to do away with something because of a few bad people. Pay that is partially based on seniority (as well as degrees, inservice training, and other upkeep) encourages teachers to stay in their community and build relationships with parents and their fellow teachers. Many of these people have put a lot of work and effort into something that has become increasingly difficult for them (one of my teacher friends, for example, cited how when she began teaching over 20 years ago, she had maybe one autistic kid and no ADHD kids. Recently, she had two and four, respectively, as well as 5 ESOL students and a meth addict’s daughter). Every year, her job gets anything but easier, and her students’ scores will fluctuate. Where would this put her if Measure 60 passed?

  65. Ok, so the M60 issue. I generally agree- better teachers should be paid better. I felt it was actually pretty bold of you cats to endorse it and it did further conflict me about this measure. In the end however, this line made up my mind:

    “We trust school districts to come up with a fair way to evaluate their teachers.”

    I don’t.

    But thanks anyway!

  66. How about a ombud style article about your stand on M60? If you want to be taken seriously as a news source you will have to point the spotlight at yourself once in a while.

  67. Blueoregon has a great article describing how M60 is NOT the same as “merit pay”, supported by Obama.

    http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/10/fact-che…

    Took me 10 seconds of Googling to find this, which leads one to ask what the “Editorial Board” of the Merc does to research these measures.

    Candidates get an interview (and if they don’t show up apparently you just flip a coin based on your article), but what do you do for ballot measures?

Comments are closed.