Bailey: Why I'm for Bradbury

By Rep. Jules Bailey (D-Portland). Bailey represents District 42 in the State Legislature.

Thirty years ago, before the world knew anything about climate change, a Democrat running for office for the first time in a conservative, rural district ran a campaign ad touting the benefits of a clean energy economy.BBFirstCampaignPoster It featured a song about renewable energy called “The wind always blows in Port Orford” and was paired with a poster that had a quote reading, “Natural resources are our biggest asset on the South Coast. By utilizing these renewable resources we can gain energy independence and also create jobs for our people.” It was an economic development and environmental message well ahead of its time.

That candidate was Bill Bradbury. The year was 1980. Bill challenged the assumption that environmental leadership had to come at the expense of our economy. And he won.

It was also just the beginning of the legacy of visionary environmental leadership Bill would build in Oregon over his career. I have had the honor of knowing Bill my entire life. I have seen first hand the unusual and unlikely coalitions he has brought together to build a sustainable economy. I know that as Governor, Bill Bradbury will be the leader that guides Oregon to a sustainable, clean economy.

When the legislature renewed the ban on offshore oil drilling in the February session, protecting the fishing livelihoods of coastal communities, it renewed a ban first enacted by Bill Bradbury in 1983.

When sportfishers catch salmon in boats manufactured in Grants Pass with flies made in Hood River, they are catching fish stocks that were supported by the Salmon Trout Enhancement Program created by Bill Bradbury in 1982. And when a clean tech start up goes to a Small Business Development Center to get help getting started, it is using a business incubator that was the brainchild of Bill Bradbury in 1984.

Bill didn’t just get things done in the legislature. Over the last several years, Bill has taken his message of jobs and the clean economy to every corner of Oregon. As one of the first people trained by Al Gore to give his climate change presentation, Bill has talked with both rural and urban communities about the challenge and the opportunity global warming presents us. He has given over 250 of these presentations across Oregon. He has done so in a way that talks not just about renewable energy, but also about local economies, supporting Oregon farms and producers, and keeping Oregon dollars local. Oregon needs a Governor who is unafraid to challenge assumptions, bring together stakeholders, and bridge the divide that keeps from a truly sustainable and prosperous economy. Bill Bradbury is that leader.

Tonight, the gubernatorial candidates will engage in a debate on environmental issues. It is a chance for the candidates to share with us how they plan to build Oregon’s clean economy and protect the health of its citizens and environment. It is also a chance for the candidates to share how they will bring together a state in crisis to build a consensus. When Bill Bradbury speaks, I urge you to listen. He’s done this before.

Comments

  • Joe L (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I like Bradbury! I am very confused by the number of elected officials who seem to fall in line behind Kitz. Bradbury is willing to work to get elected and cares enough to go and find voters who want to talk wherever he can find them. I keep hearing Kitz has the support of electeds because people owe him for their careers. Am I really supposed to vote for someone because some elected got a shot at a committee or job because of Kitz. I will vote for Bradbury because he is best for the job. Thank you Rep Baily for standing up for a good candidate.

  • Chuck Wiese (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Your hero, Bradbury, is as about as duped as anyone could be on "climate change".

    The notion that humans cause the global earth system to change ( because of CO2 emissions ) is patently ridiculous and goes against all the founding work in atmospheric radiation that was supplanted with provenly wrong climate models.

    This many years after the claims and with Co2 increased 38% over pre industrial values, there are still no measurements of the earths outgoing longwave radiation ( OLR ) having decreased at all to support the contentions, and even the worst offenders of scientific protocol have had to admit the earth stopped warming nearly ten years ago, included in the hacked CRU e-mails.

    Al Gore also got his notions perked up about Co2 and temperature from the late Roger Revelle from Scripts Ocean Institute who recanted his beliefs about this after his retirement right at the time Al Gore published his book, "Earth In The Balance " in 1992. But Gore never heeded the advice from Revelle and went ahead with his assertions regardless.

    Bradbury can own this issue for his campaign entirely, because with the lack of proof and CO2 and temperature no longer tracking, and with "climategate", the longer he clings to this disproven hypothesis, the more foolish he will look.

    I am glad we have Alley, whose engineereing common sense sees through the crap and political agendas of cap and tax falsely promoting "climate change" as the most substiantive issue of our time, when it was really about implementing new taxes on the public with no representation as to how the revenues would be spent or what benefit anyone gets from them other than to the special interests who are promoting them.

    Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

  • (Show?)

    Let's keep this on-topic, folks. Climate change is a topic for a different thread.

  • Chuck Wiese (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff: My comments are not off topic.

    Bailey's article mentions climate change right off the bat and emphasizes how important an issue it is for the environment and election and how Bradbury has become a "trained" messenger of Al Gore's scientifically refuted movie, "An Inconvenient Truth".

    Bailey further states this is an important resaon to vote for Bradbury and to listen to his message about it.

    Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

  • (Show?)

    Well, Jules, I've had two conversations with Secretary Bradbury about reforming the initiative process. Each time he has told me that it's in the Constitution and that a governor has no authority over reforming the process. With that comment he appears to wash his hands of the issue.

    That is an inadequate response. A governor has to exercise leadership -- that is part of the job description as near as I can tell. The problem is that the excessively loose Oregon initiative process has seriously compromised the representative form of government guaranteed by the federal Constitution to the point where our legislature can't do much. And I notice that our legislature's incumbent Democrats didn't show much leadership on the initiative system either.

    The candidates for legislative positions I've asked to exercise leadership on initiative reform have all responded affirmatively and in detail. If Bill Bradbury would do likewise, I could vote for him. However, his record as Secretary in this area was less than inspiring. Dr. Kitzhaber's record on the subject is similarly uninspiring.

    But the bottom line is that the initiative process has cost members of the Oregon community millions of dollars, immense wastes of time, and held this state back from its true potential. Each ballot measure sets loose streams of lies and qualified truth against a not terribly well informed electorate. All of this subverts the political process, prevents enactment of legislation based on due process hearings, and gives lobbyists for corrupt interests far too much influence over the entire legislative process.

    The time has arrived for gubenatorial candidates to say they will exercise leadership to end these vicious practices or at least to provide improvements. The candidate who supports this approach is the one who deserves support from blue Oregon voters. One could, for example, require review by the state Supremes of all state constitutional amendments for compliance with the 14th Amendment before allowing the measure to be certified for the ballot. One could also require a much larger number of signatures for all ballot measures.

  • (Show?)

    I'm pleased to see someone who has been on the forefront of sounding the alarm on climate change running for Governor of Oregon. This kind of ethos is part of the fabric of this state and it shows that Bradbury has a deep understanding of (in part) what matters to Oregonians.

    I have not yet made my choice in this race due in large part to Bradbury's serious study and efforts on environmental issues. He appears to have been studying the science for a long time--and has some interesting and creative solutions. Kitzhaber has strengths as well that have made this decision difficult for me.

    I'm really looking forward to getting a better sense of them at tonight's debate.

  • (Show?)

    In view of the generally lackluster offerings in the gubernatorial field for Democrats, I'm seriously considering who I should write in. Surely there must be a more acceptable leader for us to support in the general.

  • (Show?)

    Chuck: yes they are.

    This thread is not about climate change, it's about the reasons Jules supports Bill Bradbury. If you persist on arguing climate change, I'll delete future posts.

    This is not the thread for you to grind that ax.

  • Chuck Wiese (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff: I'll obviously respect your request but I didn't bring this up on my own. It is mentioned as a reason to vote for Bradbury by Jules Bailey in his article above.

    I presume this means others are to refrain in bringing up "climate change" on this thread as well, such as Ms. Axtman?

    Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

  • Chuck Wiese (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff: I take it this request applies to everyone else including Ms. Axtman?

    Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

  • JL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I like Bill Bradbury as a person, I really do.

    And the reason I am NOT getting behind him for Governor is because of the very same reason as several here. Not necessarily because he is pro-Gore's-global warming, but because he refuses to accept that natural gas (via LNG) is a necessary and essential part of our energy future.

    Opponents to importing natural gas would rather have THOUSANDS of miles of environmental impact to bring gas from the midwest and east, rather than a relatively small amount of quite repairable impact from local import facilities.

    The person who is most forward-looking on energy is the one that will get my vote. There are entire COUNTRIES around the world that are building terminals to import natural gas so they can ease their reliance on coal and other dirty fuels, to improve their air and reduce carbon emissions.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chuck, you have the right to disagree with Bradbury, but not on a "why Jules supports Bill" topic. You just drive away people who might take your views seriously but think this is the wrong place for them.

    Lee Coleman has a point. "Each time he has told me that it's in the Constitution and that a governor has no authority over reforming the process."

    Tom McCall and Bob Straub showed that leadership involves more than the letter of the law of the duties of the Gov. If Bill doesn't see it that way, then he should say so.

    This quote from Jules is why I am not impressed with the Gov. campaign we have seen so far.

    "Oregon needs a Governor who is unafraid to challenge assumptions, bring together stakeholders, and bridge the divide that keeps from a truly sustainable and prosperous economy."

    Far too vague. Vision is the first step. How things will be done is the second. How any idea will be paid for is the third.

    (And anyone who says "But Kitzhaber has not met that standard.." risks losing my vote---Bradbury is responsible for what Bradbury says!

    I told both John and Bill that I believe we wuz robbed of an intelligent Gov. debate in 2006 and would vote for the primary candidate who did the best to provide that to us.

    So far, I am more impressed with a local candidate for mayor (who talks in a lot more detail and knows at least as much about city government and upcoming city challenges as the former Gov. and former Sec. of State know about Oregon problems) than with any candidate for Gov.

    It is the job of candidates to sell themselves and their campaign to voters.

    Not the job of voters to be impressed with someone just because someone else is.

    Bill and John know a lot about this state. They have the potential to run intelligent campaigns. We the people have the right to question anything they say that they don't agree with.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JL-- "he refuses to accept that natural gas (via LNG) is a necessary and essential part of our energy future. "

    When the Measure 37 crowd start standing up for the property rights of farmers who don't want pipeline under their land, I will believe they really cared about property rights and not just the right to develop farmland.

    When the LNG supporters admit that they won't win public support by claiming their grand and glorious fuel gives them the right to trample anyone who gets in the way, they will get more sympathy.

    Natural Gas may be the answer to all problems.

    But Oregon is not a state where demanding something be pushed through and anyone who questions the public process involved in such siting decisions is "anti-LNG" wins friends and influences people.

  • Mr.Read (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "...a relatively small amount of quite repairable impact from local import facilities..."

    Really, JL. Senator Jeff Merkley referred to the tankers that would transport LNG as "floating bombs." LNG tankers and terminals are natural targets for terrorists, and would require considerable security. Should a tanker in port or a terminal explode, and level a large portion of, say, Coos Bay and its people, would you call that a "repairable impact"?

    LNG is destined for California -- the largest market. Proponents of LNG wanted to build their terminals on the California coast. Every proposed community in California rejected LNG.

    One of the strongest reasons to support Bill Bradbury is that he is the ONLY candidate in the race who unequivocally opposes LNG. He opposes "thousands of miles of environmental impact," as JL puts it, that would extract a fossil fuel from overseas from regimes we distrust, with environmental and labor practices we're uncertain of, and import that fossil fuel to our protected Oregon coast, so that we can serve as California's gas tank.

    The air pollution from LNG terminals alone will cause serious medical problems for citizens with respiratory issues in places like Coos Bay.

    And LNG pipelines would be laid across some of Oregon's best farmlands, vineyards, and forests.

    Those are some of the reasons both of Oregon's U.S. Senators are pushing legislation in Washington DC to give more power to state governors to say "NO" to projects like LNG.

    Bradbury was the first major public official in Oregon to oppose LNG, at a time when a lot of folks hadn't heard of LNG. That's leadership.

  • Jake Leander (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Opponents to importing natural gas would rather have THOUSANDS of miles of environmental impact to bring gas from the Midwest and east, rather than a relatively small amount of quite repairable impact from local import facilities.

    That's the ticket! Just make up data to support an argument. Most gas used in the US comes from the west and mid-west of the US and Canada. Most of it is used in the East, where the population is densest. So the flow is mostly west to east, not east to west. LNG imported to Oregon would mostly serve California, which does not want the terminals, not Oregon.

    Opponents to LNG are concerned with much more than pipelines, but as Jeff wrote, that's not the subject of this thread.

  • (Show?)

    Bradbury would be a tremendous upgrade from the current resident of Mahonia Hall. i think too many of his suggestions for policy are too simplistic. eg, on Boardman, where he said Close it in 2014 but failed to say a word about consequences like the affect on low income families. it was Kitzhaber who made that connection, and that's why i support him: he sees the bigger picture and connects different issues holistically.

    still, if Bradbury wins the primary, i won't be terribly disappointed because he would be a very good governor. just not the best of the available choices.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Right on TA!

    Some of what Bradbury says is too vague. I'd like to know, for instance, what he meant tonight by "protect the BETC".

    Did he agree with what the Feb. 2010 session did to control BETC spending, or does Bill believe that BETC can spend whatever it wants without oversight and the money to pay for it will be found somewhere?

    A cautionary tale of "this is a great idea--therefore it will work".

    http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/overtime_pay_piles_up_as_orego.html

    Yes folks, implementation matters, not just vision.

    And campaign gimmicks can backfire. Already I have read (Oregonian story?) that it appears Bradbury for US Senate may have taken money from Cascade General.

    The Sec. of State who implemented ORESTAR should not be surprised if people use it to look up his C & E reports.

    Cascade General is an Oregon company. ORESTAR has Bradbury for Gov. taking a contribution from an executive of an Illinois company, Chicago Sweeteners Inc.

    Maybe Bill would be smarter to spend his time on specifics of issues instead?

  • Mike H (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Chuck Wiese, a consulting meteorologist and pilot for Northwest Airlines."

    consulting meteorologist?

  • Jim H (unverified)
    (Show?)

    When I see a state legislator endorsing a gubernatorial candidate, I'd expect them to also be endorsing their campaign promises and stating that they will introduce/support corresponding legislation.

    Rep. Baily: Will you work to bring to fruition Bradbury's $2B for education? Can you tell us where that money will come from? Which tax expenditures will be cut to provide that money?

  • Chuck Weise (unverified)
    (Show?)

    [This comment was not by Chuck Wiese. Please don't impersonate other people. -editor.]

  • Mr. Read (unverified)
    (Show?)

    [Response to bogus comment above removed. -editor.]

  • Kurt Hagadakis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    [Response to bogus comment above removed. -editor.]

  • Chuck Wiese (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I demand that Blue Oregon immediately remove the post dated April 1st that uses my identification that was posted by Mike H. This post is a fraudulent misrepresentation of my identity. I made no such statements in that post or contributed to any part of it.

    I further request that Blue Oregon provide me with the identification of the individual that did this.

    Chuck F. Wiese Meteorologist

  • (Show?)

    All right, folks, we're getting far afield. Let's knock off the side chatter with Chuck. He's got an ax to grind, and it doesn't have anything to do with Bailey, Bradbury, or the governor's race.

    Chuck, I'm not here to moderate the truthfulness of other's claims (otherwise I'd remove nearly everything you've written), and I'm not removing anything just because you've worked yourself up.

    But I will remove subsequent comments that aren't on topic. Let's move on, folks.

  • Chuck Wiese (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff: The post dated dated April 1st by "Mike H" uses my identity to make bizzarre statements.

    I never made any such statements or contributed to that post or made that post.

    Your website has the identity of the individual that did this and I want it.

    Under no circumstances should this website or any other tolerate this sort of abuse that attempts to undermine the professionalism or character of another.

    Kerry and you have my e-mail address. Please reveal the identity of this person who made that post and their e-mail address.

    And Jeff, I have "no axe to grind". That must be your perception of not wanting to hear any truth about AGW.

    Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

  • (Show?)

    Chuck, I've removed the comment made on April 1 at 1:03 a.m. by "Chuck Weise" It doesn't match the email or IP address usually associated with your comments - and your last name was misspelled.

    The email address that was posted with it was bogus. The IP address similarly bogus - probably a proxy.

    (One more note - that comment didn't claim to be posted by "Mike H", it claimed to be by "Chuck Weise". It quoted a comment above by "Mike H" and then responded to it, impersonating you.)

  • Mr. Read (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari -- as my comment quotes from a comment that has now been removed, and attributes those quotes to Mr. Wiese, and those apparently are not his words, and my comment responds to those words, I think it would be appropriate to also delete my comment. Someone could read my comment and conclude that Wiese wrote the things I quote, which would be inaccurate.

  • Kurt Hagadakis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ironically, my comment is still relevant, as it goes to Alley's constant "I'm an engineer, trust me" comments. His personal beliefs lead one to question how he can be good technically, without being inconsistent.

    It should be noted that Alley is Kitz's fault. Alley’s interest in politics began when he was appointed by Kitz, in January 2002, to serve as the inaugural chair for the Oregon Council for Knowledge and Economic Development.

    Would have been more impressive to have heard about his brilliant insights serving there, as opposed to his "hey, guys, let me tell you what you can't figure out" asides.

  • Chuck Wiese (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari and Jeff: Below is a direct copy of the Oregon Revised Statutes regarding identity theft. The person who proxied my identity did so with the intent to discredit me and attempted to make it appear as though I am using a false title in more than one instance. Please e-mail me the URL or e-mail address of this individual. I don't take the matter lightly. I will do the tracking if you don't have a matched address. See below:

    " ORS 165.800 Identity theft. (1) A person commits the crime of identity theft if the person, with the intent to deceive or to defraud, obtains, possesses, transfers, creates, utters or converts to the person’s own use the personal identification of another person."

    "(2) Identity theft is a Class C felony."

    This person attempted to deceive your bloggers and me by using my identity and make false, incorrect statements and titles pertaining to me.

    Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

  • Chuck Wiese (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari and Jeff: There are still quotes used by others on this thread that pertain to the false statements made by the individual that illegally used my identity and made them. Please remove them. In particular, I'm referring to the posts dated April 1st by Kurt Hagadakis and Mr. Read.

    Those are both responses to the illegal posts made using my identity.

    I am again requesting that you cooperate with me and provide me with the e-mail, URL or IP address of this individual that illegally used my identity and made these posts that deliberately misled your bloggers into believing this was me. This is the third and final request for this information.

    Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

  • Kurt Hagadakis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think my follow-up was clear that I wanted my comments, at least, taken in the context of the debate, and not this off-topic aside, better addressed via email.

    <hr/>
  • (Show?)

    Bradbury is so on top of things. His plan for schools, for a greener Oregon, for a Bank of Oregon, and his endorsements from Al Gore, Howard Dean, Barbara Roberts, the Oregon Education Association, AFT-OR, OSEA, etc, all prove he is qualified.

guest column

connect with blueoregon