Kari,

Brading may have a plan for protecting kids... but what he apparently mailed out (the PDF you linked to) isn't a plan, it's a few vague bullet points. What about the details?

I couldn't find the specifics on his web site, either.

Is this 25% tax on the "porn industry" a business tax, or a consumption tax? What exactly qualifies as the "porn industry"? Is it 7-11 selling Playboy behind the counter? Is it the producers of pornographic magazines and videos (few, if any, of whom are based in Oregon)? Is it strip club owners? Patrons? Workers?

These are details the voters deserve to know.

So at this point it looks like Brading has responded to an unfair characterization with a vague generality. I dunno who "wins" that debate, but the voter certainly loses.

John: How positively Rovian of you. Opposing a new business tax must necessarily entail support of porno shops? That kind of false dichotomy is ugly and unhelpful when Republicans do it, and it's ugly and unhelpful here too.

I don't expect the full and final text of a bill here, I'm just curious about what it is exactly that Brading supports. How can you ask Minnis where she stands on the principle, when we don't really know what the principle is?

TJ: Sorry, but what little Brading has said on the issue (from the flyer) is pretty much textbook demagoguery. So you've now got two candidates demagoguing the issue, and neither one offering any real "solutions" or "answers" (but I'm sorry... what was the actual problem in the first place?)

Based on this particular issue, I wouldn't want either one representing me.

So David Wright is making the case that the attack on Brading and his response to that attack are basically equal? That because his response isn't heavy on detail it is somehow equal to - and as damning as - Karen Minnis once again making the case that service on the libray board makes one some combination of sex offender and Larry Flint? I don't know if Bradings' idea is good or if it sucks. I've never thought that he was going to win. I don't care. I do care that Minnis' attack is a huge load of manufactured crap. It's not spin, it's not rounding numbers on a budget, it's lies. She should criticize him on his positions, not twist comunity service into the most hideous and personally damaging attacks available.
Is this your kind of politics - run for office, and you'll be called a perv or sex offender? Doesn't matter if it has any basis in reality, it's just the way it is? Oh, and you'll only get my vote if your produce a detailed plan with every mail piece? Imagine being Rob Brading: for simply choosing to run for office, win or lose, he gets to spend the next several years having large segments of his community think he's some perv lurking around in a trench coat obsessing about porn. Just because he disagrees with the speaker on substantive political issues like schools or taxes or the environment. It's one thing to have your neighbors disagree with you on taxes; now he's likely to have neighbors who think he might be a sex freak. That ain't right.

Whatever? Can we just agree, at least among our literate selves, to stop calling this an "issue." Seriously, is there really somebody out there who actually believes that libraries are dens of pornography luring in children? Did that ever happen, even once? Is it possible that Republicans are just simply unfamiliar with what a "library" is? God forbid should Brading involve himself in some truly high-level scandal, like instead of volunteering his time at the library he should be caught flying a kite or even singing carols at Christmas.

From dictionary.com:

demagogue, n. : an orator who appeals to the passions and prejudices of his audience

So here's what Brading says in his flyer (and there are no further details on his web site; the flyer alone is billed in the original post here as his "plan"):

Rob Brading will push for a new 25% tax on the porn industry to help fund programs to keep our kids safe. Rob Brading will work to keep our kids safe. His new tax on pornographers will mean millions more for programs to keep our kids safe from dangerous content and additional funding to help keep sexual predators off the streets. Rob Brading will support tough laws to help parents protect their kids from violent and sexually explicit video games. These games hurt our kids and can have a serious negative impact on how they develop as teenagers. Rob Brading is looking out for the values of our community. As the CEO of Multnomah Community Television, Rob successfully removed shows from the air that were indecent and posed a threat to our children and families.

OK, so there's lots of emotional appeal there (any time any politician starts talking about "values" that raises a red flag for me), but not a lot of logical appeal there, hence demagoguery. Sure, he can claim that taxing the porn industry will keep kids safe. But absent at least the basic details about what sort of programs he intends to fund with these new tax dollars, how are we to evaluate whether his proposal actually would (or even could) keep kids safe?

What I hear, and admittedly this is perhaps due to my own perceptual filters so by all means correct me if I'm wrong, is the following:

1) Porn is bad. 2) We should tax porn. 3) Give me that money, and I'll keep your kids safe.

As far as it goes... okay... maybe. But it's perfectly legitimate to ask, setting aside the appropriateness of the new tax itself, how exactly do you propose to actually keep kids safe with this extra money? Until that question is answered, however, you have nothing more than a loosely coupled set of emotionally charged concepts (pornography, child safety) and no actual proposed solution that voters can evaluate.

Wait, there's one sort of vaguely defined program -- "tough laws" to "help parents protect their kids" from video games. We don't know what laws specifically, but it's a pretty dubious claim as far as it goes.

So, once again, absent any specific proposals for how the extra money is going to be spent, this looks to me like a feel-good sound bite piece, a purely emotional appeal with no substance.

And for the record, of course Minnis' claim that opposition to public library content filters equates to pushing porn on little kids is inane. I'm not sure it quite rises to the level of "Swiftboating", but I suppose when you scale that concept down to the local level...

I just think that Brading's response is a step in the wrong direction. I mean, since Minnis' charge was so insubstantial, I guess I shouldn't expect much in the way of a weightier response. But come on, how tough would it be to simply explain the idea of the First Amendment as it applies to public libraries? This is part of what turns people off from political campaigns. Candidate #1 falsely accuses Candidate #2 of some heinous perversion, and rather than Candidate #2 explaining his (or her) position rationally so that a reasonable person can see why they voted the way they did, instead Candidate #2 overcompensates for the original false charge.

And good public governance gets lost in the mix.

Minnis is no peach. I don't know enough about Brading to say whether he'd be better. But holding up this response flyer as a positive example from his campaign certainly doesn't convince me that he would be.

I don't understand why Mr. Brading didn't flat out expose the dishonesty of the flier by stating the MCL internet filtering policy as it relates to children:

"Teens (13-17) have the choice of filtered or unfiltered Internet access unless their parent or guardian designates filtered access.

Children (12 years and younger) have filtered Internet access unless a parent or guardian designates they can choose between filtered and unfiltered access."

And if Minnis was an honest politician, she would not only disown the group "behind" the flier, but she would would admit they are lying.

Tax porn?

Not really sure how you do that. I mean, how could we define "pornography" precisely enough to determine whether it fits in the tax code. Plus, I see all kinds of constitutional equal protection and freedom of speech problems here.

Has any government at any level (state or local) in the United States -- or anywhere else in the world -- ever taxed "pornography?" How did they do it?

Heh... John, the irony is in your post where you decry namecalling in the same breath that you refer to Minnis as the "Queen of Darkness".

Hmmm... pervert, or Satan... which label is more libelous? :-D

Oh, and the further irony is your complaint about Republicans telling us how to live. Which is true, they do, and annoyingly so. But Democrats do as well, just in different spheres of life. Both parties have their own versions of "morality" which they insist upon trying to legislate. And Democrats have actually been far more successful in codifying their particular brand of restrictions on behavior than have Republicans. It may be difficult for you to see this if you happen to agree with that brand of morality, and/or you may see nothing wrong with it if you agree with the position. But the Republicans certainly have no monopoly on telling people how to live, and they're at a disadvantage at actually legislating how people live.

BTW, I know you were using this to make your own point, but I chose the term "inane" deliberately. Neither side's arguments on the whole library filter issue are actually insane. Misguided, unhelpful, deceptive even, but not insane. Both sides, however, are certainly inane.

I expect as much from Republicans (at least, from the current leadership), but I would hope the opposition could be better than that. So far, I've been disappointed.

Brading's plan may not be stellar, but the call from his wife is right on. As Mr. Ryan notes, the R's are shameless campaign liars, and Adams is a little Rove.

Now, I wouldn't expect or support Democrats getting nasty with lies and distortions, but it would make campaign good sense for our guys to get nasty with the truth once in a while. It seems that Democrats take off the gloves only when running against other Democrats. What's that about? If you have the dirt on an R, I say unload both barrels.

There was a time when some Republicans were honorable. Dave Frohnmayer, Norma Paulus, and Verne Duncan, for instance, campaigned like decent folk. The more Republicans associated themselves with fundamentalist morality, the more immoral their campaigning became. There must be some sort of lesson in that, but I'm not sure what it is.

Brading is also going to support tough laws to keep kids away from violent and sexually explicit video games.

This again? We already have a system for that, its called parents.

I would guess if he goes that route, he needs to support tough laws to keep kids away from violent and sexually explicit music, movies, and TV too.

And taxing porn?? please...way too many people in politics get kickbacks and donations from the porn industry. Directly and indirectly. Its not going anywhere, and taxing it will never fly. I mean c'mon....the Feds couldnt even force them onto the .xxx domain. You know why? Because it would work. You could filter the content 100% of the time. That means less money for them. So it didnt pass.

And here I thought Republicans were supposed to be the ones legislating morality.

Actually, the way I understand it, among the ideas discussed is to use the funds for things like cops in classrooms talking to kids about internet safety.

I thought they did that already. When I was a kid, a policeman came in once in a while telling us what to look out for on the street or on the playground. One would think with the way technology is today, it would be a natural progression. I would also say that parents should be in the classroom when that discussion happens too. I would guess that most have no clue what's going on.

I guess I dont see punishing a particular business demographic as the answer. Are they saying that Oregon porn shops are the reason people stalk kids?

Also, a strong law that makes it illegal to solicit children on the internet for sex. (No, that's not explicitly illegal in Oregon.)

But it is a federal one already isnt it?

Torridjoe- I think those are bad examples. Those "addictions" you mention are directly related to the programs. And thats bad enough...why dont people take responsibility for their actions? Save for the gas tax, why should taxpayers have to pay for your addictions? And I have yet to see proof that looking at naked bodies of adults makes you a pedophile or a stalker. This is about as silly as Ashcroft covering up the statue.

But its just one more thing we as parents dont have to worry about, right? Let the state take care of it. Pretty soon I bet they will be picking my son's clothing & haircut too...

I do not have a problem with a special tax on pornography sold in Oregon, however the US Supreme Court itself makes the definition of "pornography" difficult to interpret. What if a book sold in a pornography shop is also sold at Barnes & Noble? Would this book be subject to a porn tax in Barnes & Noble too or just excluded from the tax in the porn shop? Additionally, there may be a First Amendment issue involved with taxing speech / print-media at a higher rate than normal consumer goods.

Speaking of porn shops, travelling the country quite a bit as a part of my job, I am amazed at how many porn stores Portland has compared to other cities around the country. The only other place I've visited with more shops was Missouri with a porn shop off every exit of the interstate.

Errrrr... what attempt to "scare" you, John? How on earth did you get an implied threat of legal action from what I wrote? The term "libelous" is an adjective, not a verb.

I think maybe you should switch to decaf. Lighten up a little! I was simply pointing out that your own post had a certain element of irony to it, in that you complain of name-calling then proceed to do so yourself, in what most would consider to be harsher terms than you alleged of others. I find that funny, man, not actionable.

And it's frickin' hilarious when you go on to further kettle-calling by complaining about Republicans trying to tell everyone how to live.

And now I'm ROTFLMAO at your inflated sense of self-importance to imagine that I was somehow trying to threaten or scare you. Paranoid, much? ;-)

<hr/>

Regarding the broader topic of "punishing" an industry -- I agree that simply imposing a tax on targeted goods for a targeted purpose is not inherently "punishment" in principle. But again, here's where the details matter. I can imagine a number of ways that such a tax could be implemented to effectively punish the industry (and/or the customers). And I can imagine a number of ineffective programs that might be funded by such revenues, which would sort of amplify the potential punitive nature of the tax in my opinion.

Which comes back to my original point -- the over-broad, over-vague notion of "tax porn and kids will be safe" is virtually useless. How can anybody be expected to sign off on such a "plan" without knowing the details? Many other posters here have pointed out potential pitfalls, so if Mr. Brading really does have a plan and not simply a bullet point, let's hear it so we can see for ourselves whether he'd be an effective legislator. I hope he would be. But absent the details, it would appear that Mr. Brading has offered nothing more than insubstantial sound bites.

Karen Minnis has had years and years to take action on this "library issue".

For years and years, she has done nothing. Toni Manning has been mad about the library policy for 2 years and Minnis has done nothing to resolve the issue. Minnis has been completely unresponsive to Manning for years.

Minnis has refused to take action on this important issue.

I find this interesting:

http://www.katu.com/stories/88568.html

Manning, however, said she doesn't know who's behind the flier. "I'm relatively new to any kind of political thing," she said.

Doesn't know who is behind the flier - YOUR NAME IS ON IT.

So they sent out a mailing, admittedly prepared by Chuck Adams and Oregon Family Council, and the only names on the flier are Toni Manning and Friends for Safer Librarires? And Manning "does not know who is behind the flier" yet her name is ON IT?

Why are these groups sending out fliers with Manning's name on it that she knows nothing about?

Uh-huh.

John, I think you're the one with the active imagination, to have read so very much beyond what I've said here. And so very inaccurately, I should add.

So... I'm just gonna take Mark Twain's advice and leave you be. Have a great day, man. ;-)

Our daughter is the director of Friends for a Safer Library. She is not involved with political things and people. She is a devoted mom and wife and a rn..She is upset because her child was exposed to porn at the Gresham Library. She has three excellent children who are great students and she and her husband are hard working people.

speaking of fighting back--the Brading campaign has filed a restraining order against Chuck Adams and "Friends for Safer Libraries," the laundered PAC set up to attack Brading.

Nice!

Duh . . . that's what this lawsuit (known as a Complaint) is all about. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order, hoping that leads to a preliminary injunction, which they hope is made permanent.

You failed to note that Judge Koch denied plaintiff's TRO.

BTW: This is not the same kind of RO that domestic squabblers take out, requiring "no contact," etc. Brading wanted to immediately "restrain" the distribution of the hit pieces, and the judge said, "No."

Now, That's the rest of this unfinished story.

• Wes

Well I know my daughter is too busy protecting her little ones to be connected with politics. She is a family oriented gal, who sets up our family vacations, helps kids with homework, is a registered nurse, and s great housekeeper and wife.She and her husband are very middle class people, and do not hand out with politicians.

Our daughter was not concerned about politics when she started this. Not everyone is into your "hate" politics. She just wants a library that is safe for her (and everyone elses kids). I am a 70 yr old woman and know that our daughter is a wonderful person..who gave me my first computer for my 60th birthday. Yes we have our political persuasions but are more interested in all of the kids and that they turn out to be kind and loving people. We have five more grandchildren, and so far they have all been raised right.