Forget about a federal Election Day holiday – go with the Oregon model

(It's primary election day in Oregon. If you haven't voted, you've got until 8pm to turn your ballot in. Postmarks don't count. And remember to sign the envelope.)

A couple of weeks ago, President Obama floated the idea of making Election Day a federal holiday, or perhaps moving it to the weekend, as a way of increasing voter participation.

Obama's idea was enthusiastically endorsed by Charlie Pierce, a fellow we like around here quite a lot:

The president just had the best idea he's ever had as president.

His determination to play all four quarters of the game he's in has led him to the obvious conclusion that national election days should be national holidays. This is like a blast of cool, fresh air in a system that's been clogged ever since John Roberts declared the Day of Jubilee. Until we re-establish voting rights for everyone as a national priority, and blow up the fiction of widespread voter fraud, which always was simply an alibi, the only alternative left is to overwhelm the polls. And the only way to do that is to make sure that people have fewer excuses to shirk their duties at the polls.

People have to get habituated to voting again. This is one easy way to do it.

If one disagrees with either of these worthies – whose hearts, let us immediately stipulate, are in the right place on this – one rolls one's own dice. But I do disagree, and pretty strongly. A federal holiday for Election Day (or moving it to the weekend) misses the point. The problem is hardly that Americans are yearning for more time to participate in the Norman Rockwellesque living tableau of exercising their freedom to vote.

Consider the status quo, where Republican-controlled statehouses, encouraged and abetted by the Roberts Court, are ever on the lookout for innovative ways – as well as tried-and-true favorites from the days of Jim Crow – to suppress voting by the wrong people, such as making them stand in line for hours at a polling place, perhaps only to find out that it had mysteriously run out of Democratic ballots, or had been deliberately understaffed, or moved to the far side of town, or closed altogether, or required some form of ID that was expensive if not completely unobtainable. And that's if they haven't had their names struck from the rolls by some bureaucratic error (always an "error;" never a "purge.")

All that a federal holiday for Election Day would accomplish is letting them draw holiday pay for the experience, rather than having to take the day off on their own nickle. I suppose that's an improvement, but not much of one. It certainly doesn't do anything to get at the basic problem, which is that one of our two political parties has vote suppression baked into its basic electoral strategy.

Here is how it's done in Oregon (and in the interview linked to above, Obama does mention Oregon – once):

First, you're automatically registered as a voter when you apply for or renew your Oregon driver's license, unless you specifically opt out. By default you'll be registered as a non-affiliated voter, but you'll get a card in the mail allowing you to declare a party preference within 21 days. (All of these choices can be reversed or changed later.)

But the purpose of the motor voter law and online voter registration is simply to make one more route to registration available. It's not that you have to have a driver's licence to vote in Oregon, it's that if you're getting a license anyway you get brought into the system automatically. If you register by mail or in person at the local county elections office, you can use a current driver's license or an expired license, or a utility bill, a bank statement, a paycheck stub, or a couple of other forms of acceptable ID.

At any time after you register, you can verify your registration online.

Then, about three or four weeks before the next election, you'll receive a copy of the Oregon Voters Guide in the mail from the Secretary of State's office. It's also available online.

And about a week later, you'll get your mail-in ballot. All you have to do is complete it, sign the inner security envelope it goes in, and mail it back or drop it off at a local ballot drop-off point. (I traditionally go to my local public library, about five or six blocks from here.) You can wait until the last moment to drop off your ballot, but if you mail it, it has to arrive at the elections office by 8pm on election Tuesday (postmarks don't count), so you need to put it in the mail by Friday or Saturday to be sure.

That's it. You can also check online to make sure your ballot has been received. (They got mine on the 4th.)

At worst, you may have to make a trip to your local library for an online connection, or hook a ride to the county elections office, but that's it. You certainly won't have to stand in line in for hours or jump through ridiculous administrative hoops to provide documentation.

Is Oregon's system perfected? Nope.

If you don't have easy access to the internet, or readily available transportation, you've still got a couple of hurdles to get over to register and vote. Not usually insurmountable hurdles, but hurdles all the same.

Some Oregon voters got left out of this month's primary because they never returned the card stating their party preference, or returned it too late.

And as an election observer, I've watched fellow observers from the other party try to game the system by challenging signatures that were Hispanic names. (The mechanics are that ballots come in, a worker scans the bar code on the outer envelope and compares the signature on the envelope to the digital image they have on file; the scan also records the ballot receipt in the registry database so that you can't submit more than one ballot. If they don't match or there's no signature, the ballot is pulled for review. If they match, the safety envelopes are sorted by precinct and stored until the polls close.* In the case of those over-eager anti-Hispanic observers, who were leaning over the shoulders of the workers the better to interfere, a call from the lawyers the county Democrats had on tap that day put an end to their harassment.)

And two right-wing PACs appear to behind the forged election materials purporting to be from the Secretary of State's office in a local race.

And finally – this one I'm not quite sure what to make of yet – while Oregon's system has added tens of thousands of new voters since motor voter came online in January, as of last Friday only 25% of Oregonians had cast their ballots. (Interestingly, the last time Oregon saw a surge in new-voter registration, it was in 2008, driven in large part by DNC chair Howard Dean's "fifty state strategy." Once Obama was in office, of course, Dean was replaced and his strategy followed him out the door.) So while I don't think Americans are longing for the pagentry of filling out their ballot behind the curtain at the local grade school, there's the argument to be made that voters don't seem to be terribly motivated. And there are a lot of possible reasons for that; I just don't think that not getting the day off to vote is one of them. If it turned out that registered voters aren't motivated to participate in a system that already makes voting only a little harder than ordering a book from Amazon, it's not immediately clear why they would use a paid holiday to go to the polls, instead of simply taking the day off.

So there's room for improvement. But note that none of these problems would be affected in any way by making Election Day a federal holiday. 

A friend in Indiana sent me this description of his voting experience earlier this month:

In Indiana you can vote for either party in the primary but you must declare which ballot you want to get. I "early" voted last Friday to avoid the lines today, and I had to go to either the Payless Grocery store or the Board of Elections. I chose the Board of Elections. I drove through three construction zones, parked on the city street, walked six blocks, and found myself in the belly of the former J.C. Penney building now converted to a county government office. Up three flights and into an office – where there were two workers and not a single other would-be voter. Wonder why.

I asked for a Democrat ballot and I may have imagined it but I swear to you the young woman working there gave it a sort of mildly confused "humpf" in the "well I'll be damned" spirit. I felt like it was one of those "I must have some of that here somewhere....let me look...oh, yes, here it is..." Perhaps I read too much into her shuffling of papers and voting cards.

I had to present a "photo I.D." approved by the state. I had to orally confirm my birth date. I had to sign a book that confirmed my address. I had to sign my name on a screen and she compared it to the signature in the book, which I had just signed five seconds before. I had to orally confirm my address. I had to sign that I wanted a Democrat ballot.

She programmed the thingy, I put it in the machine, and there were only two races that were contested. That's right: the Democrats had managed to get only two offices (that includes Bernie and Hillary) for which voting choice could be exercised. (Republicans will win both of those in the general election, so I get the reluctance to play the game). Voting did not take long.

So I get it: Even for someone as smart as my friend, and with the resources to work the system correctly that he has, the act of voting – and not just voting in Indiana – is often a dispiriting undertaking. It can take a certain amount of bloody-mindedness even to bother. I don't see how moving his experience to a Saturday would help that.

And likewise, a federal holiday wouldn't do anything to prevent the determined gaming of the system by Republican legislatures, who start by making it harder for the wrong people to register, continue by removing any certainty that once they're registered they'll stay registered, and finish up by making it needlessly difficult to turn in their ballot and uncertain it's getting counted.

At each of those points along the way, Oregon has made registering and voting easier and more accessible. And the ballots are secure, meaning that the right-wing canard about voter fraud is not a plausible objection.

So my advice to President Obama is to forget the federal election holiday plan, if that was ever anything more than blue-skying on his part, and throw his weight behind voting by mail and motor-voter laws.

As readers of this blog know, I've lost patience on more than one occasion with Ron Wyden, but our senior Senator is right on the money here.

“My home state of Oregon has led the nation in making voting more accessible. No one has to take time off work just to exercise his or her constitutional rights,” Wyden said. “My proposition is the rest of our country should follow Oregon’s lead and offer all voters a chance to vote by mail.” [...] “Across the country, there are stories of long lines, inexplicable purges of voter rolls and new requirements that make it harder for citizens to vote. There is no excuse for accepting this state of affairs,” Wyden said. “There is no excuse for citizens in Arizona to wait five hours to cast their ballot. There is no excuse for citizens in Rhode Island to find two out of every three polling places have closed. There is no excuse whatsoever for poor communities and minority communities across this country to see their polling places shuttered.”

Of course, the party that is bringing us back the glory days of Jim Crow will fight this hammer and tong; after all, if you make it easier for the wrong people vote, the next thing that's bound to happen is that they'll be out there voting for the wrong things. But if we're going to have a knock-down-drag-out fight, let's at least have a fight over a proposal that would actually change things for the better.

____________

*Tip of the p3 hat to Ron Morgan of the Washington County Democrats office for walking me through the ballot-handling procedure, which I haven't witnessed first-hand in some time.)

The unforgiving minute: This was utterly foreseeable

Charles Pierce quotes Rep. Paul Ryan (R - Innumeracy) on something most Oregonians would prefer to forget:

In 2011, Oregon's Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and I offered ideas to reform Medicare. We had different perspectives, but we also had mutual trust. Neither of us had to betray his principles; all we had to do was put prudence ahead of pride.

(Briefly lapses into W.C. Fields impression) Ahhhhh, yessss. (Regular voice resumes) This was one of Ryan's previous scams, and he still hasn't learned that I Found A Sucker isn't a demonstration of bipartisan problem-solving. The Ryan-Wyden plan, which would have mixed private plans with a Medicare "public option," thereby blowing a hole in the Medicare guarantee, attracted the support of exactly nobody and went exactly nowhere. (In fact, to this day, it's hard to see what Wyden ever got out of the deal.)

I liked to think, then and now, that this unforced error by Wyden is attributable to: (1) his not having kicked the “senatorial courtesy” fetish that made him never turn down a photo op invitation with Oregon's then-Junior senator Gordon Smith, whether Smith was sticking to Bush like the skin on a weenie or desperately trying to put daylight between himself and Bush as re-election time grew near; (2) his evident and lingering disappointment that his Healthy American Act had been overwhelmed by events, including Obama's health care plan, to which Wyden's HAA was in some ways superior; combined with (3) a desire to stay relevant in the health care conversation.

Whatever the reason, it was inevitable that Senator Wyden's move would accomplish nothing he wanted as far as policy goes, while handing Ryan a free ticket to claim his plan to eliminate Medicare enjoyed “bipartisan support.” And it certainly left a lot of dents in a lot of desks that perfectly matched the foreheads of a lot of Oregon Democrats.

Minute's up.

Sunday morning toons: Father's Day, NSA, Plan B, chest hair, and other worrisome things

Today's toons were selected by the same utterly arbitrary process that causes the sale of striped silk ties to hit its annual spike today, from the week's pages at Cartoon Movement, GoComics, McClatchyDC.com, Time, About.com, Daryl Cagle, and other fine sources of toony goodness.

p3 Picks of the Week: Mike Luckovich, Joel Pett, Pat Oliphant, Signe Wilkinson, Tony Auth, Matt Davies, David Fitzsimmons, Chad Lowe, Rick McKee, Jeff Parker, Matt Wuerker, Jen Sorenson, and Monte Wolverton.

p3 Best of Show: Lee Judge.

p3 Legion of Merit, with Food Flakes: Clay Bennett.

p3 "Doomed to Repeat It" Award: Tom Stiglich.

p3 World Toon Review: Sergei Tunin (Russia), Oguz Gurel (Turkey), Patrick Chappatte (Switzerland), and Victor Ndula (Kenya),


Ann Telnaes knows what sucks.


Mark Fiore presents the return of Snuggly the Security Bear, who explains why it's just fine to datamine: It helps the government identify suspicious characters who merit further surveillance – characters like Mark Fiore, in fact.


Taiwan's Next Media Animation examines the next annoying app request I'm going to be blocking on Facebook.


It has the transgressiveness of “Disneyland After Dark” combined with the dramatic pacing of “Bambi Meets Godzilla.” It's Mickey Mouse in Vietnam, created by Lee Savage and Milton Glaser in 1968. Not surprisingly, Disney has tried to wipe it off the face of the earth for 45 years, but when it finally turned up on YouTube this year, there was no way that even the battalions of intellectual property lawyers at Mousechwitz could put the toothpaste back in the tube.


Tom Tomorrow follows the stages of realizing you have no privacy, no freedom of speech, and no innocence until proven guilty. (Hint: It's not so bad at first.)


Keith Knight presented his World Famous Slideshow.


Tom the Dancing Bug reminds us of every miner's worst nightmare.


Red Meat's Ted Johnson is banned from the kitchen – and possibly elsewhere.


The Comics Curmudgeon worries that Luanne's father doesn't recognize a teenage suicide pact when he sees one. But just this one time, I must disagree with TCC: It's actually a loving homage to Christopher Walken's hilarious film debut.


The fine folks at Comic Book Resources are devoting a week to “cool Superman comic book moments.” Here's one we like to call the love whose name Rick Santorum dare not speak


Continuing our brief p3 hat-tip to the release of “The Man of Steel:” If you thought that the The Great Underpants Debate was the limit, it turns out that Esquire, of all places, is meditating on the question of Superman's chest hair. Go figure.


And finally:


Superman Saves City From Total Destruction Then Vanishes Ah, they don't make headlines like that anymore, do they? “Bulleteers” (1942), the fifth Fleischer Studios Superman theatrical short, is eye candy. Lovingly rotoscoped, set at night so the artists can use their beautiful dark and shadowy color palette, this is a piece of animation that should make anyone raised on the cheaply produced dreck of “Super Friends” realize what thin gruel it was. (Its only redeeming value: Bud Collyer voiced Superman/Clark Kent in the original Fleischer and Famous Studios cartoons of the 1940s as well as “Super Friends” three decades later.) In “Bulleteers,” Collyer also voices the Bulleteer himself. Lois Lane is voiced by Joan Alexander, who performed the same duties, along with Collyer, on the original radio series, too. Directed by Dave Fleischer, animated by Graham Place and the magnificently-named Orestes Calipini, with musical direction by Sammy Timberg. In the 2007 direct-to-video “Superman Doomsday,” the Bullet Car briefly appears as a trophy in the Fortress of Solitude.

If your browser won't display the embedded version, click here. 

The p3 Big Oregon Toon Block:

Matt Bors shows us a perfectly legal day in the life of the Commander in Chief.

Jesse Springer gives a well-earned salute to Oregon's senior Senator:

Test your toon-captioning skills at The New Yorker's weekly caption-the-cartoon contest. (Rules here.)

Sunday morning toons: The smile versus the puppy-dog eyes

I still don't know why everyone's painting Biden with this “loose cannon”/”crazy uncle” paint, and still don't understand why Ryan is considered a “policy wonk”/”serious person.”

But I think all of America can agree that Jim Lehrer should have moderated his last debate.

In addition to the Veep debate, we've got Syria and lady parts -- all this, and rabbit stew! (You'll see.) So let's get cooking!

Today's toons were selected by an elaborate process involving blindfolds, darts, and root vegetables, from the week's pages at GoComics, McClatchyDC.com, Slate, Time, About.com, Daryl Cagle, and other fine sources.

p3 Picks of the Week: Mike Luckovich, Kevin Siers, Walt Handlesman, Clay Bennett, Nick Anderson, Adam Zyglis, Bob Englehart, Rob Tornoe, Matt Wuerker, Jen Sorenson, and Monte Wolverton.

p3 Best of Show: Jim Morin.

p3 Certificate of Harmonic Toon Convergence (Part I): Nick Anderson and Mike Luckovich.

p3 Certificate of Harmonic Toon Convergence (Part II): Pat Bagley and Glenn McCoy.

p3 Citation for Best Toon Obituary: Chip Bok.

p3 World Toon Review: Ingrid Rice (Canada), Petar Pismestrovic (Austria), Cam Cardow (Canada), and Osama Hajjaj (Jordan),


Ann Telnaes marks the arrival of International Girls' Day (Seriously? A day? Just one?) with an ugly truth.


Mark Fiore brings you “News In a Nutshell” -- revised.


Whether you watched the Veep debate or you didn't, Taiwan's Next Media Animation will make you feel like you didn't.


Tom Tomorrow presents the continuing adventures of Middleman, the superhero who fights for truth, justice, and Grand Bargains. This week's villain: The Plutocrat!


But on the up side, Keith Knight has a second li'l one on the way, so that's good news, right? Right?


Tom the Dancing Bug welcomes a new arrival to that place where the air is sweet.


Red Meat's Ted Johnson and Ted's wife explore the process of negotiation that keeps marriage afloat.


The Comics Curmudgeon notes that Judge Parker has taken a horrific turn. Also for some reason, devil dogs and the end of the universe seem to be recurring themes in other CC posts this week. Take whatever action seems appropriate.


The two greatest contributions of the 2012 election cycle to our national discourse: Newt Gingrich caused the resurrection of thrice, and Joe Biden reanimated malarkey. (For you youngsters, here's the story about the latter.)


”Live in a lamp, eh? Well, t'ings are tough all over, doc!” The Aladdin story gets the Bugs Bunny treatment in “A-Lad-In-His Lamp,” directed by Robert McKimson in 1948. You can always spot McKimson's Bugs Bunny: He's a little stouter of frame, you rarely see him in close-up, and he (and all the other characters) don't just move side-to-side in the frame, they make sweeping gestures that come straight toward the screen. The villain's name is Caliph Hassan Pheffer -- a play on hassenpfeffer, a German stew made with marinated rabbit (and which I can vouch for as delicious as long as you don't think too much about what's on the end of your fork). And while Portland's own Mel Blanc did the voices of Bugs and the Caliph, do you recognize the voice of the genie? It's a very funny early performance by Jim “Thurston Howell”/”Mister McGoo” Backus.

If your browser won't display the embedded version, click here.

The p3 Big Oregon Toon Block:

Jack Ohman listens in on a political tracking poll.

Matt Bors features the animated adventures of lady parts fighting for gender justice: The Avenging Uterus!

Jesse Springer bags his own p3 Award for Best Adaptation from Another Medium for his hilarious take on the unforced error committed by Oregon's senior senator last winter:

Test your toon-captioning powers at The New Yorker's weekly caption-the-cartoon contest. (Rules here.)

Sunday morning toons: The seven billionth person

There are now seven billion people on the planet earth -- and over 50 of them have not yet been associated with leaking the Herman Cain harrassment story.

There are now seven billion people on the planet earth -- and about 700 million of them (or one-tenth, or roughly the equivalent of the population of the three largest states in the United States) control half of the wealth on the planet.

There are now seven billion people on the planet earth -- and by next September, over one-third of them will have spent a couple of weeks in the limelight as the GOP presidential frontrunner.

There are now seven billion people on the planet earth -- of whom over 900 million are underfed.

There are now seven billion people on the planet earth -- and their average annual income is $7000.

There are now seven billion people on the planet -- and the GOP's ambitious plan is to make sure that none of the ones living in America will ever be eligible to vote again.

There are now seven billion people on the planet -- and with each tick of the clock, a few less of them care about the NBA lock-out.

Today's selections have been lovingly hand-selected from the week's political cartoon pages at Slate, Time, Mario Piperni, About.com, and Daryl Cagle:

p3 Picks of the Week:   Mike Luckovich, Bill Day, Eric Allie, Mike Keefe, Dave Granlund, Rob Rogers, Clay Jones, Jim Morin, Clay Bennett, Steve Sack, Bok, Chad Lowe, Matt Davies, and Monte Wolverton.

p3 Best of Show: Nate Beeler.

p3 Award for Best Adaptation from Another Medium (tie): Gary Varvel and David Fitzsimmons. 

p3 Legion of Merit: Rob Rogers.

p3 “You May Think It's a Superman Reference, But It's Really an Incredibles Reference” Award: Nate Beeler. 

p3 World Toon Review: Martin Sutovec (Slovakia), Patrick Chappatte (Switzerland), Ramzy Taweel (Palestine), and Ingrid Rice (Canada).


As Ann Telnaes reminds us, every barbecue hs its winners and its losers.


Mark Fiore demonstrates the political power of taking a very bad idea to its logical conclusion. Will you end up with a priceless golden scepter? Or a wooden squirrel stick?


Herman Cain's not the only one in hot water this week: Taiwan's often-ineffable Next Media Animation brings us the latest word of the unlikely-sounding Justin Bieber paternity suit.


Follow along on This Modern World as we learn two new words from Officer Friendly.


The K Chronicles present: Only In L.A.


Tom the Dancing Bug has a lovely little dream.


Thirties magazine cartoons: They weren't all about Thurberesque bloodhounds and tweedy upper-West Siders trading mots about domestic wines. Comic Riffs celebrates the work of Depression-era cartoonist Syd Hoff, whose work appears new again in the age of the Occupy movement.


Red Meat's Ted Johnson explains that gradually sinking feeling you've been getting for years.


Portland homeboy Jack Ohman says, don't think of them as millionaires versus billionaires; think of them as workers and job creators who don't see eye-to-eye yet.


The better mousetrap: That's what Tom thinks he's invented, anyway, in “Designs on Jerry,” directed by Joseph Hanna and William Barbera, with musical direction by Scott Bradley (produced in 1953, but not released until 1955):

(Note to Facebook friends: If you're reading this in FB Notes, click here to see the video.)

p3 Bonus Toon: Here at p3, we join Jesse Springer in saluting Oregon's Senator Jeff Merkley, who, with a handful of other senators, has sponsored a proposed Constitutional amendment aimed at overturning the Citizens United decision, allowing Congress to set limits on campaign spending. If you care about the US being a democracy in anything other than name, this is a no-brainer, although it's merely the beginning of a bitter fight that could easily take a decade to resolve. (Not pictured: Oregon's other US Senator, Ron Wyden.)

Test your toon-captioning kung fu at The New Yorker's weekly caption-the-cartoon contest. (Rules here.)

What's the difference between Wyden's Healthy Americans Act and Bush's war in Iraq?

Well, for starters, the Healthy Americans Act is expected to pay for itself in its first year, then produce a surplus within a few years. Can't say that about Bush's war.

Wyden, D-Ore, touted the preliminary analysis, by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, as demonstrating that it is possible to provide universal health care without large tax increases.

They have told us that all Americans can have quality, affordable health care without breaking the bank," Wyden said after emerging from a closed briefing on the analysis with many of his 13 co-sponsors.

Let's review:

Best single thing about HAA: It doesn't perpetuate the historical accident of employer-based health care. Given that workers entering the job market today will probably change jobs up to 10 times in their working lives, that's a good thing.

Second best thing: Guarantees every American health care at the level currently enjoyed by every federal employee, including members of Congress.

Third best thing: Subsidizes health care up to 400% of the poverty level.

Learn more about the Healthy Americans Act here.


Suggestion to Senator Wyden: Why not tell Gordon Smith he gets no more freebie "bipartisan" photo ops with you to use in his re-election campaign until he signs on as co-sponsor of the HAA?

[Want to share/recommend this post to others? Click the Digg button below.]

Wyden's Stand Tall for America launches new health care ad

It's a smart angle, especially in a time when "job security" seems more and more like a self-contradiction:

Whether you love your job or hate your job, you deserve to keep your health care when you quit or lose your job.

You'll never look at latte foam, or your boss's birthday--or your access to health care coverage--the same way again.

Oregonian/KGW Poll Approvals: Kulongoski 38%, OR Lege 30%, Wyden 45%, Smith 40%

The poll, released yesterday, doesn't look especially cheery for anyone involved, although when it comes to explaining why the numbers are where they are, it looks like where you sit depends on where you stand.

My quick take on the governor's numbers is that they won't get much better until Bernie Giusto's name stops appearing in the papers (Kulongoski also had the strongest unfavorable ratings). The Legislature would probably have better approvals if Oregon voters hadn't just spent the special election season feeling like they were cleaning up the Lege's mess on land use and children's health care. Your mileage on those two may vary.

The rest of the Oregonian's article collects theories to explain the gloomy numbers. There's a fair amount of High Broderism (i.e., the problem is that Democrats and Republicans can't get along, so the blame must be shared equally) to be found. There's also more about the Senate race.

Pollster Adam Davis goes the Broder "pox on both your houses" route:

The poll shows that public frustration with political leaders remains as intense as ever, said Adam Davis, of Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, the Portland firm that did the survey. That frustration, combined with everyday worries about health care and household finances, has fueled increasing cynicism about government, he said.

"It's just a bad time to be associated with government and politics," Davis said.

That bit of Beltway High Broderism turns up, predictably, from the Smith camp:

A Smith spokesman, R.C. Hammond, said the relatively low approval ratings for Smith and Wyden reflect overall dissatisfaction with Washington, D.C., politics.

"There's bitter partisanship in Congress right now and the public is showing its disgust," Hammond said.

(Wyden's office didn't comment for the story.) "Bitter partisanship in Congress?" Is that what we're calling Republican filibustering these days?

Other items from the O's article:

Is it me, or does it sound like Merkley's press spokesman got badly paraphrased here?

"It sort of follows the trend we've seen in other polls," said Russ Kelley, spokesman for Jeff Merkley, the Democratic House speaker who hopes to unseat Smith. Kelley attributed the low numbers to Smith's sudden shift from outspoken supporter of the Iraq war to critic.

Smith continues to support extending the Iraq occupation; he's not a "critic" of the war and (other than that one post-election outburst over a year ago) there's been no "sudden shift." Kelley surely knows that--wonder what he actually said? As it's reported, it doesn't make much sense.

And over at Novick HQ, they take a different tack:

Jake Weigler, campaign manager for another Democratic Senate hopeful, Steve Novick, said public frustration with Congress has made Smith vulnerable. But it also could work against Merkley, Weigler said. "The public is down on elected officials in general right now and is looking to outsiders to make real changes."

"Frustration with Congress makes Smith vulnerable" is unarguable enough, But trying to catch Merkley on the rebound with the same shot seems like a stretch. Of course Weigler's job is to get primary traction against Merkley where it's to be found, and if he can do it with the insider-outsider meme, more power to him. But the problem with Congress right now isn't that incumbents aren't doing anything; it's that Republicans--like Smith--are preventing anything from happening.

And mcjoan adds this over on the front page front page at DailyKOS"

[T]he biggest drawback right now for Smith's Democratic challengers in this race is his 38 percent approval rating among Democrats, a testament to the importance of Iraq as an eduring issue. Smith's break with Bush on Iraq so far seems to be trumping other issues for at least a portion of Oregon's Dems, despite the fact that he has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time. Another issue that could be buoying Smith's numbers with Dems is his close working relationship with Wyden. While that cooperation has been helpful for the state, having two Senators in the majority would be much more advantageous. Wyden is going to have to distance himself from Smith in the coming months to cut into that Dem support.

Emphasis added, but scarcely needed.

(Cross posted at Loaded Orygun.)

WaPo: Wyden going "too far" with this crazy talk about warrants for surveilling US citizens

From Saturday's Post:

Immunity aside, both the Senate and House bills would create a strong oversight role for the special court that oversees FISA. Under both measures, the court would review the procedures used to determine that targets of surveillance are outside the United States and to effect the "minimization" measures designed to protect the privacy of U.S. citizens whose communications are inadvertently intercepted.

The Senate measure would expire in six years while the House version would expire in less than two years, along with provisions of the USA Patriot Act; the shorter House time frame is preferable. An amendment to the Senate bill by Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden would go too far by requiring that a warrant be obtained when U.S. citizens are the target of surveillance overseas; this would be an unnecessary and potentially disruptive precedent.

Yeah, come on, Senator Wyden--what country do you think we live in, anyway? America? Jeez.

"Unnecessary" and "disruptive," says the Post? Memo to Fred Hiatt: Judicial oversight is meant to be disruptive, at least to the extent that it impedes an executive branch that would otherwise be gliding effortlessly in the direction of its own worst impulses.

I also love that first phrase--"Immunity aside"--tossed in with such studied nonchalance That's the editorial equivalent of "Other than that"--as in "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

It's a sad state we've reached: Thirty years ago, the Washington Post was synonymous with standing up to government lawlessness. A generation of students entered journalism school for no other reason than that ideal. Now its editors find the very idea of oversight in any form "unnecessary."

(H/t to Americablog. Cross-posted at Loaded Orygun".)

Wyden, Smith, and due process: The clock is ticking

S.A. 2022--which restores the right of habeas corpus after it was removed by the abominable Military Commissions Act of 2006--will come up for a Senate vote in the next couple of days.

Ron Wyden will probably vote for it, but will he sign on as a co-sponsor?

Gordon Smith, despite his faux centrism, has stuck by Bush whenever it counted--will he vote the Bush party line again on S.A. 2022?

Read more here, including how to make your voice heard.

While making your voice heard is still, you know, legal.

Wyden co-sponsors Reid/Feingold

Loaded Orygun brings the good news:

Feingold/Reid is another step forward from the previous Senate vote, and Wyden's cosponsorship is a welcome sign that he intends to stay ahead of the peloton rather than behind it.

More here.

An accountability moment comes and goes

I'd blame this on the Governor being delirious from hunger, but it happened a couple of days before he started living on food stamps.

When asked whether he will criticize or attack Smith's record, Kulongoski replied, "No, I will not be doing that."

Kulongoski's stance is similar to that of Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., whose close, across-the-aisle relationship with Smith has received national attention.

Wyden's chief of staff, Josh Kardon, said Thursday that Wyden will continue his practice of supporting Smith's Democratic opponent without criticizing Smith. Kardon said part of Wyden's general policy is not to engage in negative campaigns against anyone.
Kulongoski has worked with Smith since the '90s, when Kulongoski was Oregon's attorney general and Smith was president of the state Senate.

"The reality is that whenever I have called Sen. Smith, he's always answered, and I'm going to continue to do that this next year," he said.

He also praised Smith's image in the state.

"What (Oregonians) tell me more than anything is not about issues. They like him. They think he's a good person." […]

"The biggest disadvantage he has right now is, I do believe there is a shift in the body politic nationally and the movement toward Democrats," he said.

"Biggest disadvantage." That's generous.

Over at Loaded Oregon, TJ is absolutely right (although I think he may overestimate the value of the Blunt/Nemcova analogy). He's apoplectic, but he's right: There's no need for TK to declare open war on one of his state's two U.S. Senators, and no one expects him to--but for the love of Mike, doesn't he get it? Smith is no friend of the Governor's base, or of his pet issues. He's parted company with Oregonians again and again on everything from taxes to Iraq to working wages to physician-assisted suicide. Smith is a highly vulnerable Republican from a bluer-by-the-day state when the Senate is in Democratic control by a single vote (and that vote, heaven help us, may be Lieberman's).

Professional courtesy, Senatorial courtesy, etc., is fine. But Democrats need to stop cutting the Repubs unnecessary slack. Need to recognize how wide the gap is between "courtesy" and "enabling." Need to realize it's not about niceness, it's about the record. Need to stop listening to the David Broders of this world. Need to stop looking for reconciliation with a party that screwed them and defamed them at every opportunity for the last twelve years, ran the country into the ground, and are only being slowed down slightly in this pursuit now because their failed policies and politics are coming home to roost like the ending of a Hitchcock movie.

TJ writes:

This is not about red meat. It's about reacting to the truth and the danger in letting the obfuscators continue ignoring it to retain any semblance of power. It's about saying "No I will not personally defame Senator Smith, who has given his life for public service--but I will support the Democratic nominee because I don't believe we can continue the road we are on, and Republicans in the Senate are still voting to back the President and his failed policies. The things that Oregonians want for their state and their country, Democrats are showing that they are the party to help make them happen. So yes I do think Senator Smith has to be held accountable for the job he's done, and when voters compare the record I'm sure they'll make the responsible choice."

Exactly.

There is a great expanse of as-yet-unexplored territory between "engaging in a negative campaign against anyone" and "pointing out the obvious facts on record," facts that we presume justify the positions Kulongoski and Wyden themselves take on the issues. Senator, Governor, gear up--time to do some exploring.

The Oregonian underestimates Oregon voters

When it came right down to it, Senator Gordon Smith's promised filibuster (didn't he used to think those were a bad thing?), in defense of timber payments to Oregon counties about to be cut from Bush's latest federal budget proposal, was something of an anticlimactic moment.

True, there was no muted trombone playing "wah-wah-wah"--in fact, fellow senator Ron Wyden joined in the cause, and Representatives DeFazio and Walden showed their solidarity on the floor of the House.

But, in the end, there wasn't much there there:

Because senators are adamant about passing a federal budget this week, that vote [to end Smith's filibuster] was a foregone conclusion.

His filibuster busted, Smith was restricted to speaking for however long the Senate leadership allowed.

So rather than talk all night Monday, Smith resorted to a very polite two hours on the Senate floor, which he shared with his Democratic colleague, Sen. Ron Wyden. Wyden also spoke adamantly about the need to reauthorize the county payments program.

The speeches were largely formalities, spoken to a largely empty chamber.

Smith entered the Senate chamber shortly after 2:30 p.m., and after speaking with some Senate staffers, exited a side door to negotiate for time with Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

And so on. But though Smith was denied his Jimmy Stewart atmospherics, the Oregonian gave him a rousing attaboy in the middle of today's editorial page, huffing at anyone who might suggest that Smith's pointless grandstanding was . . . well, you know:

There's no more important federal issue facing this state. The county payments law, which the Republican-controlled Congress and the Bush White House allowed to expire last year, provides over $200 million a year to Oregon's rural counties. […]

So don't bother with the political chatter about county payments. Don't waste time speculating about all the reasons that Sen. Gordon Smith, who faces re-election in 2008, sought a filibuster Monday to force action on county payments.

None of that matters now. All that matters is that Oregon's delegation push together on a vital issue for the state.

No one is denying the seriousness of stakes for Oregon's rural counties. It's not a luxury; not some bit of congressional pork: Schools, police, and other basic services depend on that timber money.

But as it turns out, most Oregonians are capable of holding two thoughts in their heads at the same time, for example:

1. Restoring that federal money to Oregon's rural counties is extremely important.

and:

2. Where the hell was Senator Smith on this issue during the six years his party was in the majority?

Gordon Smith: A year late and $200 million short.

Where are Walden and Hooley?

(Updated below.)

The recent semantic haggling may be an indication that Gordon Smith is experiencing that frozen moment when he realizes what's on the end of every fork (and it isn't frozen vegetables), but both he and the senior Senator from Oregon are on record as opposing Bush's "surge" plan for Iraq.

And thanks to a handy searchable database provided by Think Progress, we can see that, at the other end of the building, Smith and Wyden have been joined in their opposition by Blumenauer, Wu, and DeFazio.

But where are Walden and Hooley?

Think Progress lists their positions as "unknown." Ridenbaugh Press found found little evidence of Walden's position and even less from Hooley.

So, p3 readers from Oregon's 2nd and 5th--what's happening with your representatives?

Update: The Torrid One is on this like white on rice. See the Comments.

Socialized medicine

We've already got it, folks. Here's the nut graph from a post this morning over at Hullabaloo:

Indiana's alarming health statistics

• 561,000: Hoosiers without health insurance on any given day.

• $953: additional amount each family with health insurance paid in premiums in 2005 to cover the uninsured.

The entire post is worth the read, including the background on health care economics in the Hoosier state since WWII.

The thing is, though, while Indiana's situation is bad, it's not that much different from what we face in Oregon or anywhere else in the US, except as a matter of degree.

It cracks me up that free-market worshipers mock the idea of "socialized medicine" as if that's not what we have in America right now: We ration access by income level and employment situation, and socialize the costs by having the people who can afford coverage pick up the tab for those who can't. The only thing we've successfully privatized is the corporate profits.

Check out Stand Tall for America, Sen. Ron Wyden's website for the Healthy Americans Act.

Wyden offers Healthy American Act

Oregon's Democratic senator is proposing universal health insurance for all Americans, guaranteeing each of us coverage as good as what Members of Congress get (a framing that will surely make it harder, though obviously not impossible, for those in thrall of the K Street lobbyists to stand against it).

The proposal will end the historical-oddity of employer-based insurance, which means that in a sane world the big corporations would immediately get on board with this--starting with Wal-Mart.

Sirota has background, including the role of SEIU prez (and p3 fave) Andy Stern on the issue.

Way to go, Senator Wyden.