(Mis)Quote of the day: What Obama said Lincoln said and what Novick said Lincoln said

What President Obama said Abraham Lincoln said:

I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.

What Abraham Lincoln said:

The legitimate object of government is "to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves." There are many such things—some of them exist independently of the injustice in the world. Making and maintaining roads, bridges, and the like; providing for the helpless young and afflicted; common schools; and disposing of deceased men's property, are instances. But a far larger class of objects springs from the injustice of men. If one people will make war upon another, it is a necessity with that other to unite and coöperate for defense. Hence the military department. If some men will kill, or beat, or constrain others, or despoil them of property, by force, fraud, or non-compliance with contracts, it is a common object with peaceful and just men to prevent it. Hence the criminal and civil departments.

• • • • •

The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere.

I'd call that a difference that makes a difference. Of course, Lincoln's actual remarks probably wouldn't have gone down quite so well in a House chamber half-full of sullen drown-the-government-in-a-bathtub Republicans.

Hat-tip to Steve Novick, who spotted this immediately and who's been pointing it out to everyone who'll listen since Tuesday night.

Dispatches: Your brain on politics, opposing indefinite detention, supporting a single-payer plan, and more

Dispatches: Your brain on politics, opposing indefinite detention, supporting a single-payer plan, and more

Items from the p3 inbox:

• This Is Your Brain on Politics, forum on progressive politics featuring Mike Lux, Steve Novick, and Carla Axtman, is this Sunday at the Bipartisan Café. (Facebook)



• Let President Obama know you're opposed to indefinite detention without charge or trial. (ACLU)



• Contact your representative and show your support for real health care reform. (Working Families/AFL-CIO)



• Join Michael Moore in calling for inclusion of the single-payer option in media coverage of health care reform. (FAIR)

Steve Novick: Portland Drinking Liberally guest tonight

Steve Novick, activist, strategist, and strongly-rumored 2010 gubernatorial candidate will be joining the usual suspects tonight at Madison's Grill, SE 9th and Hawthorne, from 7pm to 10pm. [Map]

(Portland DL now meets on the 2nd and 4th Thursdays of the month.)

Don't miss your chance to knock back a beer (or whatever) and chat with one of the sharpest political minds out there. If we're lucky, we might even get him to come clean on the question of the hour.

And, as most of you remember, the man knows how to handle a brew:

And remember: DL encourages everyone to drink, and vote, responsibly.

(Cross-posted at Loaded Orygun.)

Fear and Loathing on the Primary Trail: Seeking the Coveted p3 and Hodgman Endorsements

The short version: Steve Novick has the support of The Daily Show's "resident expert" John Hodgman in his Senate run, but I'm still remaining neutral.

The slightly longer (although, sadly, much less p3-centric) version is spelled out by Amy Ruiz at the Portland Mercury's Blogtown PDX, and we'll get back to that in a moment.

For reasons unlikely to become clear again at the moment, the Novick web page included p3 (although listed as my name, not the blog's name; it's an occasional problem) when it listed several web sites as sites that "support Steve with blogs and/or blog buttons." (Here's the Merc's screen capture--I’m down there, next-to-last on the list.)

Well, this explained the little spike yesterday in web traffic from their site to a post I put up back in April. Problem is, that post was simply an announcement that Steve would be making an appearance at the next Drinking Liberally meeting, of which I'm currently city organizer. We were delighted to have Steve attend--and hope he'll be back as the primary gets nearer--but the post was pretty clear that drinking beer with a candidate does not constitute an endorsement. (Meaning that the whole event wouldn't have passed the George Bush/Electric Burger Acid Test, which is just as well anyway, given how that worked out.) And, although this is a good deal less important than protecting the tax-exempt status of Drinking Liberally, I'm staying neutral in the primary. I want Smith out. That's my commitment for now.

(For what it's worth, we love to have candidates and electeds join us at Drinking Liberally. Smith's Democratic rival Jeff Merkley was also a DL guest and also has a standing invitation to drop back in. And I'm working on getting John Frohnmayer. And, of course, Al Gore remains my great white whale.)

I wrote Steve's campaign a friendly note explaining why it wasn't appropriate to list me or my blog as "supporters" in that way, and they politely fixed it, and that was that. No hit, no foul.

The Merc had much the same problem--wondering how "mentioning" got transmuted into "endorsing"--and . . . well, that's where John Hodgman comes into the story. Writes Ruiz (emphasis in original):

We aren’t going to be making our endorsements—i.e., supporting a specific candidate—until mid-April 2008. In the meantime, we certainly haven’t signed on with Novick.

Even stranger, the link connects directly to this a single post from June, a newsy item by Scott Moore (RIP) on comedian John Hodgman, who “calls Novick’s candidacy ‘the emergence of an intriguing public figure.’”

In other words, it’s more accurate to say that Hodgman supports Novick, and we reported it.

I’ve asked Novick’s campaign how they got their news reporting and political support wires crossed.

But, canons of journalism aside, for at least a little while over the weekend I was misfiled in the same group with John Hodgman--it's really sort of an honor, if you think about it.

Don't count your pastrami before it's smoked

Okay, let's recap:

The Oregon legislature passes package of bills that effectively put an end to predatory, 500% payday lenders.

Check.

Almost immediately, loan shops across the state, howling that they can't be expected to make a profit charging a mere 36% interest on their short-term loans, begin closing their doors.

Check.

So people at the rough end of the economic stick will have fewer establishments trying to legally suck their last dollar out of them.

Not so fast, Sparky.

You may remember that I mentioned seeing a payday lender in my neighborhood being turned into a deli.

Well, yes and no, as it turns out. Mostly no, in fact.

I peered in the window the other day to see how the remodeling was going. Everything was coming together--serving window, tables and chairs, prints on the wall . . . and, wait a minute, what's that 8' by 5' bulkhead coming out of a side wall, blocking the view of half the deli from the sidewalk?

Well, turns out it's standard equipment for set-ups like this:

On a weekday afternoon, deli manager Susanne Goplen helps a newcomer to the world of video poker.

She recommends breaking a $20 into fives and trying a few of the deli's six machines, the maximum allowed under state law.

How long will this last?

"Oh, honey," she says. "It could last you all day or it could last you five minutes."

Perched at one of Grampy's video poker machines on this day is 38-year-old Anita Rodriguez, a Forest Grove resident who says she hangs out at Grampy's almost daily but gambles only about four times a week.

She soon finds herself one card shy of the highest paying hand in Oregon Lottery's video poker - a royal flush, worth as much as $600.

As a good-luck ritual she runs a finger back and forth across the touchscreen, flipping the virtual cards up and down in wavelike motions. Odds are she'll lose, but she just might make a handsome return on investment. She did the other day, she says, on that machine there, in fact.

"Come on, ace of clubs! Give it to me!" Rodriguez says. "If you give it to me, I'll go home. I promise." She laughs and draws. No ace of clubs.

For the better part of two hours, the majority of customers at Grampy's sit in the horseshoe of six video poker machines, gambling. A few customers mingle around the five tables and nine chairs in the dining area, but no one is eating much

Yes, lucky us: The payday lenders, creatively skating on the thin ice of the law until this summer, have been replaced with (fanfare, please), mini-casinos, skating on the thin ice of the law.

If no one eats much at these places, how do these places stay in business, when state lottery rules require that video poker revenue cannot be more than 50% of an establishment's total take? Simple:

In the 12 months before the Oregon Lottery audit, Grampy's had nearly $211,000 in lottery sales, and $201,000 in nonlottery sales. It sold $139,000 worth of cigarettes.

Without the cigarettes, the "deli" would need to sell 120 sandwiches daily to match its lottery sales.

How many sandwiches does Grampy's sell on an average day?

Five, Goplen says.

And how many sandwiches does Grampy's sell on a good day?

Ten, she says.

But of the cigarettes, Goplen says, "We have the cheapest in town."

It's true. A quick price check around town finds Grampy's regular price for a pack of Marlboros - $3.30 - to be the cheapest by 50 cents.

John Lee, a shopkeeper at nearby Cost Warehouse, says it can't compete with Grampy's on the price of cigarettes, because it needs to have a higher markup in order to make money. He calls Grampy's cheap cigarettes "bait" luring smokers to the video poker machines.

"They don't have to make money from their cigarettes," he says. "They make their money on lottery.

I checked with a cigar store a couple of doors down from where the faux deli is going in. It's true, the fellow behind the counter confirmed with a grin. This was going to be one of those cigarette-and-video-poker places. The cigar store owner wasn't much concerned; cigarette sales weren't going to cut into his pipe and cigar business.

So--no nice, lean pastrami on marbled rye with cole slaw and Russian dressing for our hero. Not this time. Come to that, our hero would be well advised not to go near the tuna salad, either. In a place averaging five sandwiches a day, it might have been sitting there for a while. Instead of a barber shop being a front for a numbers operation, we've got a deli fronting for a legal-loophole casino.

Lottery commission auditors are, for the first time, starting to investigate the connection of cigarette sales to video poker revenue in these barely-legal joints, although the story has been on some people's radar for some time:

Steve Novick is a recently announced Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate seat occupied by Gordon Smith. But he has been a longtime Portland political activist, and has long advocated for changed rules in how the state lottery deals with its retailers.

The fact that the lottery only considers nonlottery revenues in examining the illegal casino issue is an invitation for retailers to sell things like cigarettes at cost, or even at a loss.

"It's obvious that that's what some people are going to do," Novick said. "And I think it's totally inconsistent with the Oregon Supreme Court rules which said you're a casino if you're making all your money off lottery.

Stay tuned. And pack your own sandwiches.

Feingold/Reid amendment fails in Senate; "moderate" Smith votes to continue "possibly criminal" war indefinitely

Today it's good news and bad news if you're Gordon Smith (apart from the question of whether you think it would be good or bad news to be Gordon Smith--work with me here, people):

On the up side, you won't get a 2008 challenge from Earl Blumenauer. In a statement with the says-it-all title "Why I’m Not Running," Rep. Blumenauer writes:

There is no question that Gordon Smith is vulnerable to defeat. His post-election turnaround on Iraq leaves no doubt that he knows he's out of step with most Oregonians. Gordon Smith and the Republicans were supporters and enablers of the Bush/Cheney Administration and its disastrous policies not just in Iraq but, on the environment, impeding and influencing justice, questionable political appointees, Terry Schiavo........ The list is extensive on the many ways Gordon Smith and George W. Bush are out of step with Oregon.

There is also no doubt that the Senate Democrats under the Chairmanship of Senator Chuck Schumer are poised to build on their 2006 success, with all the resources necessary to wage a winning campaign.

The difficulty in even doing the ground work to evaluate the race was that I have an important, all consuming day job. After years of working in the minority, fighting the Bush administration and Tom DeLay to stop reckless policies and promote Oregon priorities, the world has dramatically changed.

My issues, from ending the Iraq war to stopping global warming, to making sure everyone has health care they can afford, a quality education, and a good job, have gained not just attention, but traction and even momentum. My committee assignments put me in the best possible position to deal with these priorities everyday

. . . and you can figure out where it goes from there. From Smith's point of view, this up side could probably stand to be a little upper, since (unlike Smith's Senate colleague Ron Wyden) Blumenauer adds:

I look forward to fighting hard to replace Gordon Smith with a progressive leader for Oregon and continuing to work with the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate to strengthen our majorities while we hold the Bush administration and their Republican allies accountable in 2008.

(Emphasis added.) But--again assuming for the moment that you're Smith--on the down side, although Rep. Pete DeFazio, the other high profile possible who might have taken you on, bowed out last month, you still face a vigorous challenge from Steve Novick, sharpening his "Paul Wellstone campaign on steroids" and aiming it directly at your most vulnerable areas.

And, of course, Smith still has to worry about a primary challenge from his right, from the Club for Growth/kill the RINOs crowd. It's amazing to think there are conservatives out there in numbers sufficient to mount a right-flank attack for whom Gordon Smith isn't conservative enough, but such is the state of American politics in 2007.

Perhaps with today's vote on the Feingold/Reid amendment--killing the amendment by voting against cloture--Smith hopes he can re-ingratiate himself with the right that he's been working so hard to drop like a bad smell since the weekend after the Republicans lost both houses of Congress last fall.

Perhaps.

Me, I think he's basically dynamiting both ends of a bridge and hoping he can stand on the middle part that doesn't fall. But that only works for the Road Runner.

And while Smith is waffling and diddling, the war drags on to no possible good end. Thanks, Senator.

Steve Novick at Drinking Liberally this Thursday

Steve Novick, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Oregon, will be joining the folks at Drinking Liberally this Thursday, May 3rd, to talk progressive/liberal politics.

(Drinking Liberally meets at 7pm, first and third Thursdays of every month, at the Lucky Lab brewpub at SE 9th and Hawthorne.)

The Oregonian's Steve Duin called Novick "an original"--"savagely smart, issue-driven, relentless as a junkyard dog, easily underestimated."

(Is it me, or does it seem to you that the only way Duin could have made it sound more like a movie review would have been if he called him a "taut thriller"?)

But don't take Duin's word for it--here's Novick's infamous and sly Willamette Week cover essay "If I Ran," from last January, spelling out how he could use Gordon Smith's oh-so-vulnerable vulnerabilities to defeat him in the election.

And here's DL's own Jonathan Singer's interview with Novick from two weeks ago at MyDD.

The Republicans have patted themselves for years for their self-professed committment to "family values"--but it's Novick who plans to make it possible for Oregon's junior Senator to spend more time with his family after next year. You'd think they'd show more gratitude, wouldn't you?

So bring your questions and your ideas Thursday night. Bring your copy of Willy Week for him to sign. But don't miss out!

(Drinking Liberally is not established as a political organization in any state and is not registered with the Federal Election Committee as a political committee. In a sentence: Drinking Liberally doesn't do endorsements, including Steve Novick.)