2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I liked the show's format of challenging the ads.  Obviously trying to say a lot within a short span of time without distorting the truth is a challenge, and while I'm biased, I believe our Yes campaign did the best job.

I also thought the questions from the audience showed part of the problem.  You had folks get up and ask questions that had already received an answer.  No wonder ads make outrageous claims, that may be what it takes to get some folk's attention.

Ultimately, though, there's no excuse for false advertising.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

When faced with a situation like the one facing the legislature, getting government to fit within a budget, that invariably means making cuts in services and/or raising revenue.  The mix of actions this legislature decided to make was #2 billion in cuts and raising $733 million in revenue.  If the voters reject that approach, that leaves making $733 million in cuts - and they're going to hurt.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=Measure6667

Consider the facts.  The Oregon legislature met for months early in 2009, and finally arrived at what's before voters now - no other proposal had enough votes to pass.  If the voters reject the legislature's solution to the $733 million shortfall, it is highly unlikely this same legislature, meeting in a short special session this coming February, will try another income raising measure.  They will most likely make cuts to balance the budget.  These cuts are most likely going to come from services to children, seniors, and to keep our communities safe.  My State Representative, Sara Gelser, is not looking forward to making these cuts.  I hope you don't want to see this done too - vote "Yes" on Measures 66 & 67.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context