Brading sues Minnis team over flier

The Brading campaign continues to swing hard at Karen Minnis's campaign team - the folks responsible for the reprehensible flier accusing Rob Brading of wanting kids to see porn in their county library. (Previous coverage.)

Initially, a county judge has refused to place a restraining order on the Minnis team - but has ordered them to turn over all relevant documentation. From the O:

Judge Dale Koch, however, also ordered the political committee behind the flier to turn over e-mails and other documents in a lawsuit that will, in the words of Brading's attorney, determine how low political speech can stoop in Oregon.

"It's dirty politics, and Oregon law doesn't permit it," said Lake Oswego attorney Jeff Merrick. ...

Merrick and other Democrats argue that's a false statement in violation of state campaign finance law because it misrepresents not only the library's Internet filtering rules but also that the Multnomah County commissioners -- and not the advisory board -- decide policy. ...

Charles Hinkle, a First Amendment legal expert who advised Merrick on the complaint, acknowledged it's rare for campaigns to sue over campaign literature. But this is different, he said.

"When you get a charge that is so blatantly false and misleading as this one, they tend to backfire," said Hinkle, who also represents The Oregonian. "The charge is so absurd on its face one would expect the next flier from the Minnis campaign that Rob Brading was responsible for the death of John F. Kennedy."

Of course, Karen Minnis claims that she's got nothing to do with it. After all, she apologized in 2004 (the day after the election) for leveling the same charge then. But, the Oregonian makes the relationship clear:

Campaign finance reports show that Minnis, who was unopposed in the primary, paid Adams' company $86,000 for advertising, management and other consulting during the primary.

Adams said he has been paid "a couple thousand dollars" by Manning's group to produce two brochures that were distributed to voters in District 49 and set up the committee's Web site. He said the group did most of the writing and "the cover line is not something I produced."

Discuss. And visit RobBrading.com

(More coverage at Loaded Orygun.)

Comments

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I understood that the Oregon Family Council wrote the flier, and Dennis Tuuni called Toni Manning and asked her if he could pay for the flyer. If that is the case, I assume it will be revealed in the lawsuit.

  • (Show?)

    Isn't that pretty much what they're already saying publicly?

  • (Show?)

    Here's the quote from the Oregonian story:

    In an interview with The Oregonian last week, Manning said she was not familiar with Adams and worked closely with Betsy Maynard at the Oregon Family Council, which is headed by another longtime Minnis ally, Tim Nashif.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If Anon is correct, it sounds like maybe an outside group doing harm when they thought they were helping, like the Swifties not realizing how many activist veterans there are in Oregon from ordinary folks to Jim Rassman and Gen.Tony McPeak. Swifty ads may have "worked" elsewhere, but all it did in Oregon was mobilize a bunch of people not often heard from.

    Now Karen has to either disavow her friends or say what they did was OK with her. When

    Campaign finance reports show that Minnis, who was unopposed in the primary, paid Adams' company $86,000 for advertising, management and other consulting during the primary. Adams said he has been paid "a couple thousand dollars" by Manning's group to produce two brochures that were distributed to voters in District 49 and set up the committee's Web site. He said the group did most of the writing and "the cover line is not something I produced."

    meets judicial action

    Judge Dale Koch, however, also ordered the political committee behind the flier to turn over e-mails and other documents in a lawsuit that will, in the words of Brading's attorney, determine how low political speech can stoop in Oregon.

    this is no longer just about what Karen wants or what Karen thinks is right.

    We now have adult outside supervision--unlike the way she ran the House.

    It will be interesting to see how this story develops. With luck it establishes a precedent that some campaign practices are legally beyond the pale.

  • Wesley Charles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Brading team will have a difficult job in prevailing in this lawsuit. The statute under which the suit was filed, ORS 260.532, places upon the plaintiff a higher burden of proof - clear and convincing evidence vs. the usual preponderence of evidence.

    Plus, the Oregon Supreme Court has danced around this statute for many years, considering it's potential limitations on Oregon's recognizedly broad free-speech rights. In Committee of One Thousand to Re-Elect State Senator Walt Brown v. Eivers, 296 Or. 195 (1983), the court wrote that it has

    ". . . held consistently that statements are not "false," as that term is used in ORS 260.532(1), if any reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence that the statement is factually correct or that the statement is merely an expression of opinion. The mere possibility of an inference of falsity does not confer a right of action under ORS 260.532 if the evidence may also give rise to a reasonable inference of correct fact or to a reasonable inference that the comment is the expression of an opinion."

    But little of this matters, because the real threat to the defendants, whoever and however many they are, lies in what Brading's lawyer(s) will find through the discovery process. The story above already hints at what will be a contentious battle over emails, phone records, etc. between Karen Minnis, Chuck Adams, Tim Nashif, et al.

    With Kelly Clark representing at least Adams in this nasty spat, look for a vigourous fight over what gets surrendered and how soon. Team Brading must be salivating over what they may discover and subsequently use in their own ads. But this is dangerous territory, folks. If this tactic works, then I would expect more similar suits in the future filed for no other purpose than to discover the inner workings of an opponents' campaign.

    • Wes
  • JefferyB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let me get this straight - Brading supports no filters or censorship on the internet but he supports censorship on political speech? But at the same time he wants to tax porn? Give me a break.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If this tactic works, then I would expect more similar suits in the future filed for no other purpose than to discover the inner workings of an opponents' campaign.

    Wasn't there a really nasty suit once between Elizabeth Furse and Bill Witt over what happened in the Congressional campaign? How did that affect campaigns in the years right after that?

    I have known people who got elected to the legislature and went on to have political careers WITHOUT having the kind of relationship the Speaker and her consultant Adams and Nashif and Clark and all the rest appear to have.

    It is like the old saying that telling the truth requires less memory than lying.

    Is Brading chair of the library board, or just one of 15 members? Is library policy set by the library board and not the head librarian or the county comm? How is this different than what happened last time? Or aren't we supposed to ask such questions because we are forced by the mailer to unthinkingly take sides? Do questions like this have no place in 21st century politics? Who said?

    According to the article, Of course, Karen Minnis claims that she's got nothing to do with it. After all, she apologized in 2004 (the day after the election) for leveling the same charge then. But, the Oregonian makes the relationship clear: Campaign finance reports show that Minnis, who was unopposed in the primary, paid Adams' company $86,000 for advertising, management and other consulting during the primary.

    This is the Speaker who had to do everything in private, couldn't find a way to speak to the Portland City Club during session and sent an underling who used hearsay in his speech http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/05/representative_.html

    Every time a fix to horendous campaign practices (from stuff like this to huge amounts of money being spent) there is a concern that it might impact future campaigns.

    Even if this case never makes it to court before November, there are going to be people who read about this and want to ask the Speaker "Have you no shame? Have you no sense of dignity?"

    Because there are really only 2 choices: Karen knew before the mailers went out OR Karen didn't know until after the mailers went out.

    There is an old play called MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL where an old English king is frustrated with his old friend the clergyman (Thomas a Beckett, as I recall) turning into a critic. One time in utter frustration, the king yells "Will no one rid me of this murderous priest?"

    Some of his underlings actually murder the priest. Is that what the king had in mind?

    Seems to me the best possible interpretation would be that Karen is like that king---didn't know what she'd unleashed. But one would have to have an ounce of sympathy to believe that. And after last session, how many people have that ounce of sympathy?

    Not only discovery could get interesting, but think of jury selection. It would take people who don't know Minnis or Brading or the lawyers involved to put together a jury.

  • Blue collar? (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Brading supports no filters or censorship on the internet but he supports censorship on political speech? But at the same time he wants to tax porn? Give me a break" No kidding!

    I don't get liberals.

    They run the library system and Brading et al support unfiltered internet access for children.

    So why aren't they proudly defending the policy they are responsible for?

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I understand that Manning was sending out emails to all the GOP politicians (including Gordon Smith) asking them to do something about the library issue. All I can say is what I was told - but that one of those emails went to Minnis or her campaign. I was told there was no response. I don't know when it was (allegedly) sent - many months ago, or more in the May/July timeframe.

    I assume they are checking Manning's computer, and the Minnis campaign's email, for this type of correspondence. I assume that if there is such an email they will find out about it during discovery, and determine if Minnis ignored it or IF it had the result of causing Minnis to enlist the "backdoor" support of Nashif, Betsy, Chuck, etc.

    Maybe they should check with Gordon Smith's office too just to see if he did receive such an email from her, and when.

    I guess Manning is not upset about the fact the Minnis was unresponsive about dealing with the issue from her position of power in the legislature, as for at least 2 years Minnis has done nothing about it.

    Important to keep in mind that Manning does not live in District 49.

    Manning has stated in a KATU interview that she "did not know where the flier came from." I must point out that HER NAME IS ON IT - how could she NOT know where it came from? That is not an acceptable answer. She should be mad as hell someone sent something out with her name out it without her knowledge.

    There were quite a few prominent, INTERESTED, PARTISAN people who worked on this and made an effort to make it look like it was coming from someone else (at least until the E&C reports come out - and voters don't read those, especially months after the fact). Nobody has a problem with that?

  • Anan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JefferyB

    You have missated Brading's position on filters. Please disclose the data you relied upon to make your statement. It is not correct.

    Further, the Board of Commisioners sets the filter policy, not the advisory Board, which Minnis acknowledged in writing 2 years ago in a public apology to Brading in the Gresahm Outlook.

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Blue collar? (and for everyone's general information),

    All internet access for children at the library is filtered. This is beyond dispute. What you have said is wrong.

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's not censorship to require election laws to be enforced.

    It's not censorship to call a liar on his lies.

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Who paid for/directed/is responsible for "push polling" in District 49 along the same lines as the flier?

    Gresham Outook - Letter to the Editor

    Minnis stoops to low with negative campaigning

    Aug 22, 2006

    In a letter to the editor, Wednesday, April 16, Kat Finney stated that Karen Minnis’ name and/or campaign were not printed on a political piece that was recently distributed in the district. The piece wrongly accused Rob Brading of being responsible for children being exposed to hard-core porn in the public library.

    Before the piece was distributed, I was telephoned to participate in a survey. I was told good things about Karen Minnis and Rob Brading. Then the interviewer asked if I were told that Rob Brading was responsible for children viewing Internet porn in the Multnomah County Library, would I be more or less apt to vote for Rob Brading.

    Today I read on www.oregonlive.com, a weblog by the Oregonian newspaper politics team, that a longtime Minnis consultant, Chuck Adams, designed this piece. Also, two years ago when Rob Brading ran against Karen Minnis, Adams devised a similar piece linking Brading to children and pornography.

    Don’t tell me the Minnis campaign is not responsible for that dirty negative campaign piece! How low can you go, Karen!

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If the "inner workings of an opponents' campaign" include voter deception, that should be exposed and stopped. Why do we have election laws if they are not to be used?

  • SafeLibraries (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Fascinating story. Are the free speech people suing to prevent free speech? Is the legal manoeuver a SLAP suit? Is the man responsible for what happened to the child? Shouldn't childen's safety be the true focus of this story, or is using the courts to hide the truth more important? I can't wait to see how this story develops, and I can only hope the media will present it accurately.

    But I can tell you this, the American Library Association may also be directly responsible for these types of crimes against children nationwide. My group's web site provides evidence tending to lean in that direction; visit us to learn more and decide for yourselves. Safe Libraries - Are Children Safe in Public Libraries?

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Safe Libraries,

    You have not read even the first bit of information about this issue, or you are willfully ignorant. The Board of Commissioners of Multnomah County sets the filter policy. Your concerns must therefore be directed to the Board of Commissioners. 100% of childrens' computers have filters - so I don't understand your question.

    You'd think a proponent of library safety would understand the authority and structure of the library, and would know the specifics of the existing policy, in order to be effective at supporting your cause. It's disappointing you know so little that it clearly impairs your ability to be a good advocate.

    So, either you are an inexcusably uninformed advocate, or your group is s just a front from which to launch dishonest political attacks and smears.

    Also, I don't undertand why you let your children have access to the entire library without supervising them. Even art history can contain images not indended for children. Popular fiction and romance novels, books on WWII - not really material for children. You should not just drop your child off at the front door, and come back later. Being a good parent means taking the time to provide the appropriate supervision, even if it inconveniences you.

    Chilren have a right to be safe in libraries. And voters have a right to be safe from organized campaigns to defraud them.

  • SafeLibraries (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dear Anon,

    As usual, the first move by people like you is personal attack.

    I only read the one article and I only asked questions about the subject matter of the article. I further said I looked forward to watching as the story developed. That is very reasonable.

    Then you go on saying all these things about me that can be found nowhere in what I said. Is your argument so weak that personal attack is your only line of defense?

    Now back to the story, you call the defendants an "organized campaign to defraud [voters]." So you jumped from attacking me to attacking them. Do you even care about the yet another little girl exposed to inappropriate material in a library? Have you read the case Multnomah County Library lost big in the US Supreme Court in US v. ALA? Considering how big a slap in the face the US Supreme Court gave the library, I am not surprised people in your area are on the war path to shut down all possible opposition to your goals.

    As the US Supreme Court said in US v. ALA: "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." Apparently, you disagree. Another voter for Brading.

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Safer Libraries,

    Agree with ME! Do what I say! Or I'll call you a child pornographer!

    Yes, I've got the gist of your nuanced argument.

  • SafeLibraries (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Anon,

    Sorry, I never asked you to agree with me nor do what I say. Rather, I specifically directed you to the US Supreme Court. I made it easy for you and gave a link. That's the authority. That's not nuance. You are very clever in diverting attention from the issues.

    Tell me, why has the library turned down over $100,000 PER YEAR despite the case it lost in the US Supreme Court just to avoid CIPA compliance? That's where attention needs to be focused. Did you read Heidi's story? That's where attention needs to be focused.

  • bama_barrron (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Anon ...

    as far as I can see adequate protection of our children is being provided by the library without taking the 100K per year. i tend to agree with safer libraries when he/she suggested you may have a personal agenda. this suspicion was more or less confirmed for me after i visited your group's web site .....

    finally and most importantly, karen minnis never fails to amaze me ... she keeps getting sleazier and sleazier ... just when i think she may have found a bottom ... she proves me wrong.

  • (Show?)

    The real issue here is dirty politics. Rob Brading is correct to stand up to coordinated sleazy tactics practiced by Minnis. She can't spout the Bush talking points much longer because the pendalum is swinging back to the middle after going too far right. We are in the middle of a long overdue self correction.

    The library internet discussion is ginned up beyond belief..most parents don't even bother to check their home computers to see what Johnny and Sally have been looking at. Don't get me started on instant messaging..brutal.

  • The Rev. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As usual, the first move by people like you is personal attack.

    This, coming from a person whose web site is set up to do little more than conduct baseless, mean-spirited, and frankly, reprehensible attacks decrying the ALA as pornographers?

    I'm pretty sure that the false piety of deceitful little trolls like yourself was predicted in Revelation, and I'm pleased to note that you and your leaders will be spending about 1000 years in the abyss for your role in sowing division and discord on behalf of the Evil that you have chosen to represent.

  • Randy2 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    SafeLibraries' argument is simply another example of Cheney's 1% argument. If just 1 child is exposed to inappropriate material in a library, then all materials must be censored to prevent any further "crimes".

    And if you're not with with them on this issue, then you're with the pornographers.

    The Brading hit piece dovetails nicely with the Rovian theory of politics. Sensational and salacious straw man argument which diverts and distracts from the core issues of the campaign.

    Yes, perhaps the discovery phase of the lawsuit might reveal just how deeply the national Republican political strategy has reached into local election practices, but don't expect any revelations before the elections. It takes months to drag out relevant documents. How long has the Nike/Beaverton lawsuit gone on? It took what -- a year? -- before the smoking guns finally showed up in discovery and that was after the judge sanctioned Beaverton repeatedly.

    R

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Minnis can not run on her record; it's attrocious. She can't run on political philosophy; conservatism isn't exactly popular these days. And she certianly can't run on charisma.

    Her only chance is to use her huge war chest and connections to run a smear campaign. It's her only shot at holding her seat. Unfortunately for her, she got caught. She should have used a group with less obvious ties to her campaign.

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Safe Libraries,

    Again, you are saying we must all agree 100% with your specific computer software choices, computer placement procedures, legal interpretations, Contitutional views, etc. or we are child pornographers, and you refuse to discuss the campaign issues.

    You've made up your mind, and you don't want to discuss it. There's not much more to talk about if that's your view.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Safe Libraries:

    If the concern is really library filters, why not go after ALL members of the Library Commission?

    And Minnis was Speaker of the House but never mentioned this subject that I recall. Is that Brading's fault because Minnis is infallible?

    This whole thing stinks. If it really were about libraries and not a political attack, why not an ad listing the names of all members of the library board?

    And - "Are Children Safe in Public Libraries?" makes it sound like a 6 year old could view porn on totally unfiltered computers in the children's section, unsupervised by any adults. First, are there 6 year olds using library computers without adult supervision? Second, where is the proof that the computers that children can access (and by children I mean under 12) porn on unfiltered library computers?

    Or are such questions not supposed to be asked because Rob Brading, and only Rob Brading, alone, all by himself, without the chair of the library board or county comm. had the power all by himself to change the policy?

    Either it is ill informed to say one person who is not even chair could influence policy like that, or it is a tactic to re-elect Minnis.

    And we are not supposed to believe this:

    "Before the piece was distributed, I was telephoned to participate in a survey. I was told good things about Karen Minnis and Rob Brading. Then the interviewer asked if I were told that Rob Brading was responsible for children viewing Internet porn in the Multnomah County Library, would I be more or less apt to vote for Rob Brading."

    because Rob Brading and only Rob Brading all by himself had the power to do what Safe Libraries wanted and there is nothing to tie Safe Libraries to the effort to re-elect Minnis?

    Sounds like another tall tale. As I recall, the Dewey Decimal System number for tall tales is 398 or something like that.

  • SafeLibraries (unverified)
    (Show?)

    To paulie:

    You said, "most parents don't even bother to check their home computers to see what Johnny and Sally have been looking at." I agree. Hence we attempt to help parents in this regard. See LMIRL.

    To The Rev.:

    You said, "This, coming from a person whose web site is set up to do little more than conduct baseless, mean-spirited, and frankly, reprehensible attacks decrying the ALA as pornographers?" I disagree strongly. The web site does not say beyond the shadow of a doubt what's what. Rather, it gathers together in one place resources needed for one to make up his or her own mind. When the ALA does something to ensure children get access to inappropriate material, we merely point out where the ALA said this, and where the ALA said something different somewhere else. In other words, the ALA sinks itself. I'm just the messenger. And I have the weight of the US Supreme Court behind me. I choose to follow the US Supreme Court. You choose to follow the losing party before the US Supreme Court that stills holds, despite losing badly in the US Supreme Court, that it is age discrimination for a librarian to keep a child from inappropriate material.

    You then said, "deceitful trolls like yourself." Now you too have gone into personal attack mode revealing to everyone here that your arguments are weak and that you know that. And all that religious stuff you added, well my arguments are based on observable fact backed up by direct links to source material for people to make up there own minds, and the law/courts such as US Supreme Court, not religion. So again your argument is weak and seeks to preclude people from thinking for themselves. I'm not fooled, and, as Ms. Manning's efforts show, other people aren't fooled either.

    To Randy2:

    You said, "SafeLibraries' argument is simply another example of Cheney's 1% argument. If just 1 child is exposed to inappropriate material in a library, then all materials must be censored to prevent any further 'crimes'." I disagree. My arguments are, well who cares. All I'm saying is let's all look at the law and US v. ALA, a case that started with the Multnomah County Library. Let's then look at the ALA, it directives to local libraries, and how those directives are being carried out. Who cares what I think. But the US Supreme Court is a different story. And if the ALA and its followers are skirting the law, and if I am merely making people aware of this, why do people like Anon and The Rev. attack me personally?

    To Anon:

    You said, "You've made up your mind, and you don't want to discuss it. There's not much more to talk about if that's your view." I disagree. Read my answer to Randy2 above. And I DO want to discuss it -- that's why I am gently attempted to get you to drop the personal attacks and why I am responding to everyone.

    To LT:

    You said, "If the concern is really library filters, why not go after ALL members of the Library Commission?" I agree wholeheartedly. I have encouraged a number of parents with children potentially victimized by ALA policies to sue the ALA directly. Then, with discovery, we can start to see the truth revealed, not the ALA's version of how and why the US Supreme Court should be ignored. It's only a matter of time before this happens post US v. ALA.

    You then said, "This whole thing stinks. If it really were about libraries and not a political attack, why not an ad listing the names of all members of the library board?" To that I have to say I have no idea. All my concerns have been about the ALA. What's going on locally, politically, well I just don't know -- but I have not been opining in that area. Although it is possible that they are going after only one person because that happens to be the one person that happens to be running right now. Sometimes winning in the ballot box is more important than winning in the courts. And if the allegations are true or more likely partially true, then is not bringing this to the public's attention perfectly legitimate? Or are we into attacking the messenger again. I don't know the facts of the local issue politically, but for half a decade I've been following the ALA ever since my kindergartner got an inappropriate book from an ALA librarian using an ALA list. There's only so much the ALA can push before people like me, like Ms. Manning, start pushing back.

    Then you said, "And - 'Are Children Safe in Public Libraries?' makes it sound like a 6 year old could view porn on totally unfiltered computers in the children's section." Sadly, this is true in many libraries, and many of those are that way as a result of following ALA directives.

    Then you said, "Rob Brading and only Rob Brading all by himself had the power to do what Safe Libraries wanted and there is nothing to tie Safe Libraries to the effort to re-elect Minnis." Again, it's not what I want, it's the law, it's the US Supreme Court. Personally, I doubt Brading could change the world by himself, but it is possible he enabled what happened to Ms. Manning child. Again, I'm not an expert in local politics in Oregon and I do not opine in that area.

    To all:

    I thank you all for getting involved one way or another in this debate. Please visit SafeLibraries.org and FriendsForSaferLibraries.org.

  • Chris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    From SafeLibraries

    "...Shouldn't children's safety be the true focus of this story, or is using the courts to hide the truth more important?"

    No, the focus of this story is about Karen Minnis and Rob Brading and the behavior of certain folks.

    But feel free to exercise freedom of speech and thank those who died for it even if you think the focus should be somewhere else.

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Safer Libraries,

    You are still saying that anyone who doesn't do exactly what you think should be done is a child pornographer.

  • (Show?)

    To SafeLibraries:

    Your 6 year old brings home a book from the public library you think is inappropriate. Take the book back and monitor your child's choices in person. You monitor your kids and I'll monitor mine. I'm sick of organizations and religions sticking their paws into my parental responsibilities. It's a leap across the Grand Canyon to accuse any member of a library board anywhere in this country of encouraging kids to look at porn..far from it. Library board members attempt to keep collections current, utilize cost saving methods, invest in literature while encouraging and celebrating literacy. Karen Minnis and her cronnies have picked on a group of cardigan wearing book lovers who volunteer their time and energy to ensure free book/web access to all at our local libraries . This really isn't a discussion of safe libraries, rather it's another instance of self rightious tactics employed by many members of the far right. Rob Brading is a good and honorable man who needs everyone's support to unseat Karen Minnis. I'd much rather see SafeLibraries spend time on something meaningful like stopping the war in Iraq.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Saf. Lib--Paulie and I agree on this issue.

    You said, "If the concern is really library filters, why not go after ALL members of the Library Commission?" I agree wholeheartedly. I have encouraged a number of parents with children potentially victimized by ALA policies to sue the ALA directly.

    Exactly how would suing the American Library Assoc. change the internet policies of the Multnomah County libraries? Or are you just angry and showing lack of understanding of the process?

    You might want to try to Google Mult. Co. Libraries (but be sure you put Oregon in your search terms because apparently there is a Mult. Co. library system elsewhere in this country).

    I found a link to a previous agenda from the Mult. Co. Commission:

    http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/cc/PastAgendas/2006-3/07-27-06.doc DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY SERVICES - 9:35 AM

    R-3 NOTICE OF INTENT to Apply for a Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) Grant from the Oregon State Library for "Planning Adult Literacy Services for Multnomah County Library"

    Gee, that looks to me like Mult. Co. Comm. have power over Mult. Co. libraries, and power over what happens in those libraries does not exist solely with Rob Brading!

    Looks like an attack over-reach (like the ones Les AuCoin did in 1992 and other campaigns have done in other elections). This may come as a surprise to you, but friends of those attacked don't forget such things when the elections are over. There are still stories being told about a nasty 1990 legislative campaign where the person who did all the attacks not only lost the election but became a local laughing stock.

    Maybe you need to enlighten us on whether you ever discussed library policy with the Speaker. OR were you just waiting for another election so you could do another attack?

  • The Rev. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You then said, "deceitful trolls like yourself." Now you too have gone into personal attack mode

    Actually, it's simply a statement of fact. You are deceitful, and you are, in fact, trolling. If you don't like the description, don't engage in the behaviour.

    The simple truth of the matter is that the shadowy sites that you claim to represent, developed by people who are too cowardly to make themselves or their funding sources public, are baseless and mean-spirited -- an example of this is the ALA anthem and a litany of other disingenuous pages.

    And, as I said in my last post, the sanctimonious false piety and politicization of child predators is base, un-Christian, and frankly unAmerican -- as is your disdain for the Bill of Rights and the organizations that exist to protect those rights.

    You are, quite frankly, a festering wart on the ass of Democracy.

  • Marybeth (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Minnis's record is actually pretty impressive when you look at it. Last session in Salem, she was the dominant political leader, not Courtney, not Kulongoski. In 2003, she single-handily stopped massive cuts to Oregon's social service network (preserving services to thousands of vulnerable Oregonians) by the passage of her immediate care package. Both Courtney and Kulongoski wanted to turn their backs on these people due to political expediency. I am sooooooo tired of liberals not giving Minnis her due. Yes she is a conservative. Yes, she rules the House with an iron fist. But you have to admit she is one effective lawmaker. The governor's education plan was nothing but a slightly more expensive version of Minnis's education stability legislation.

    Karen is one tough grandmother.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I will give Minnis "her due" all right. By the end of the session, my GOP state rep. who had voted for her for Speaker was really fed up. But the question is, when did "we the people" as the opening words of the constitution get changed to a dictatorship/monarchy where whatever Karen wants, Karen gets, and only a subversive would talk about open public process?

    Karen Minnis talked her way out of appearing at the Portland City Club and answering questions---which I seem to recall Kulongoski and Courtney did. But hey, if you are right about everything as Karen believes she is, why deign to answer questions from ordinary mortals? Oregonians "can't afford" what Karen says they can't afford, but apparently no one is supposed to question how much she paid her top staff last session.

    And yeah, she cowed the other occupants of the capitol into holding budget hearings behind closed doors and having some of the longest and most secretive sessions in memory. Is it "liberal" to have written that sentence?

    Maybe Marybeth doesn't believe in open government. Does that mean that those of us who remember when budgets were done publicly in Ways and Means public hearings are "liberals"?

    As for Safe Libraries, they should know their website won't impress those who ask serious questions. They seem to regard "card carrying ALA member" the way some in the 1980s bashed "card carrying ACLU members"

    And it seems to be a national movement---so why they got involved in a little ol' state rep. race in Oregon is beyond me. Misjudgement? Locals who thought it would be a great way to attack someone who almost beat the Speaker last time and no one would dare question their tactics?

    The Safer Libraries website would be more impressive if it had an "about" section. To see what a good "about" section looks like, simply go to the top of the page and click on HOME, right there under the Oregon map next to the words BLUE OREGON. That Safer Libraries doesn't have such a section says to me they are either sloppy or don't want their backers known publicly.

    But I should thank them for inspiring me to do a web search. Fascinating thing I found out about the SAFE acronym:

    The SAFE Act of 2005 The Security and Freedom Enhancement Act was introduced in the 109th Congress to provide commonsense safeguards for intrusive Patriot Act powers and was created by a diverse group of members led by Republican Senator Larry Craig from Idaho. Passing the SAFE Act would give Congress a chance to bring the Patriot Act in line with the Constitution.

    I wonder what Larry Craig would think of this whole discussion. Would he think "Great, a campaign to re-elect a Republican legislative leader is attacking an opponent using a group called Safe Libraries"?

    Or would he wonder why a group which is obviously angry at the American Library Association would attack one member of a local library board (not even the chair, just a member) who just happens to be closing in on defeating a dictatorial Oregon House Speaker.

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Marybeth,

    Karen Minnis was very effective in taking $10,000 from payday lenders and then refusing to regulate this abusive industry - until she finally caved to enormous public pressure at the very end of the session.

    She also took tens of thousands of dollars from pharma companies (located in NY, NJ, PA!) and then she blocked legislation, passed in the Senate and with bipartisan support in the House, that would have allowed small businesses and individuals to participate in the prescription drug purchasing pool (thereby reducing the costs of prescriptions). (SB329)

    Didn't she appoint a House Budget Committee without Democrats because she couldn't strong-arm Dems into doing what she wanted? What stupid, immature behavior on her part.

    Oh - and remember that time she played games with the no-call list because she was "mad" at the AG?:

    From WWEEK:

    Currently, Oregonians have two different "do not call" lists available to them. About 180,000 residents have paid $6.50 to be on the state-run list. About 280,000 Oregonians have joined the Federal Trade Commission's new list, which is free.

    The feds would like states to adopt the FTC's list as their own, to avoid dueling databases, which is why Attorney General Hardy Myers' office proposed HB 3329, a bill that would merge the two lists.

    Everyone seems to agree that this is a spectacular idea. It would eliminate the $6.50 registration fee for Oregon consumers, reduce costs for telemarketers (who wouldn't need to buy a state list) and still allow Myers' office to keep the fines collected from violators and use them to investigate others....

    But lawmakers and lobbyists involved in the bill have heard Minnis is ticked off at the AG's office for some reason and plans to let the bill die....

    http://www.wweek.com/editorial/2941/4219

    Marybeth -- if you are an avid BlueOregon reader...certainly you saw this:

    On Saturday, the Oregonian covered the "fact finding" mission taken to the South Coast by GOP leaders Wayne Scott and Karen Minnis on Friday. Evidently, this is step one in their attempt to save face for their decision to kill funding for the Coos Bay/North Bend airport expansion in order to punish Rep. Arnie Roblan for refusing to vote with them on an inadequate school budget.

    ...

    On July 1, the Eugene Register Guard reported:

    But not this time, thanks to a vow by House Majority Leader Wayne Scott, R-Canby, to kill such legislation as a way of punishing a coastal lawmaker who crossed House GOP leaders. Rep. Arnie Roblan, D-Coos Bay, was told that if he didn't abandon his fellow Democrats in their efforts to force a floor vote on an education budget that exceeded what Republicans supported, the airport bill would be killed. Roblan refused to side with the Republicans, and Scott said in a press statement last month that, "The funding for the North Bend airport will not be included in our budget," that Roblan knew what was at stake when he defied GOP leaders, and "that decision was made two months ago and will not change."

    http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/07/welcome_to_wayn.html

    Shall I go on? How's education doing in the state? Don't we have the largest class size in 10 years? Don't we have fewer police officers on the street? (Hint: Yes and Yes.)

    Karen Minnis is all about abuse of power and serving her big out-of-state corporate contributors, to the determiment of people in this state who were counting her her to help them. Disgraceful. She is an embarassement to the legislature and to our state.

  • poidog (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You just have to suspect that it's something they are putting in the holy water at church that allows these cowardly, crybaby, criminal, conservatives to not know right from wrong. Rob Brading was one of fivteen members of a citizen's advisory committee that had no authority other than being able to advise the library board. Anyone that can't distinguish between Mr. Brading doing his job and voting what he regarded as reasonable and Karen & her Theocratic thugs intentionally libeling Mr. Brading & misleading all Oregon voters, must be brain-dead. There is a huge difference between educated & civilized people not wanting an extremist,minority of Nazi Style Christians making decisions about what is appropriate material for internet viewing at our libraries, and mr Bradings Campaign suing to stop the underhanded dirty political tricks that have become the hallmark of conservative republican politics. Fortunately, I think Karen and her pals will find that trying these Carl Rove style dirty tricks in Oregon is going to backfire in their faces. I think Oregonians like most reasonable people across the nation have finally woke up to the fact that these folks masquerading as family value moralist, are really a few ethical notches below your everyday common child molesters. Come on Karen, you sicko, how stupid do you think people are. It's OK that your party with your support, fights an illegal war which has killed hundreds of thousands, ransacks our economy, & guts our constitution, and your going to save our nation by making sure our kids never see a naked body on the internet? You really need to go lay down by your dish Karen because you are a loser. Poidog

  • Toni Manning (unverified)
    (Show?)

    My daughter was sexually harassed at my local library. She is not legally old enough to buy pornography, but adults can flash sexual images in her face. When I complained my library leaders told me," Sorry, but it's their First Amendment right." Something's wrong with this picture. I wish Rob Brading would stand up for filters. Filters would protect children from images of violence against women, child pornography, and sexual acts.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If this was only about the actions of a 15 member library advisory board, why not spend the money spent on the mailings on a newspaper ad instead?

    A newspaper ad headlined "the members of the library advisory board should be ashamed of themselves" would have shown concern about library board actions--how big an ad could be bought for the price of the mailing? Unless, of course, this isn't about "protecting children" but about protecting an endangered incumbent legislator.

    Even if Rob Brading had done exactly what the authors of the mailing wanted him to do, how would that have changed the actions of the county commissioners? Who has final authority over the operation of the library--commissioners or the advisory board.

    If it is the commissioners, then "I wish Rob Brading would stand up for filters" isn't really about library operation, is it?

  • Heidi;s Grandma (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Our daughter Toni has been protesting about library filters for at least two years, ever since our grandchild Heidi was exposed to porn that someone in the library was viewing while exercising their first ammendment rights. I gather that children in Oregon have no rights and that our daughter Toni does not have the right to stand up for her child. This is sick!

in the news 2006

connect with blueoregon