Carol is one of the sweetest and hardest working people in the Capitol.

If Billy even tries to drag Carol through the mud, I'm sure his mother will slap him silly. Oh wait...never mind. My bad! (then again, this could just be one of Chuck Adams' nasty, sleazy tricks).

If I remember correctly from the Loaded Orygun blog and lil' Billy's attempted defense of himself, he said that his mother is a hard working woman who raised him and his brother all on her own -- sometimes working two or three jobs late into the wee hours of the morning. Then Billy said that he was not aware of his mother's financial problems (bankruptcy) and that frankly, it was none of his business.

Boy, what a caring son. Billy sure is conservative with is compassion, even toward his own hard-woking mother who apparently worked her fingers to the bone to raise lil' Billy. None of your business, huh, Billy?

Wow ... what a pathetic little Republican ingrate.

If I remember correctly from the Loaded Orygun blog and lil' Billy's attempted defense of himself, he said that his mother is a hard working woman who raised him and his brother all on her own -- sometimes working two or three jobs late into the wee hours of the morning. Then Billy said that he was not aware of his mother's financial problems (bankruptcy) and that frankly, it was none of his business.

Boy, what a caring son. Billy sure is conservative with is compassion, even toward his own hard-woking mother who apparently worked her fingers to the bone to raise lil' Billy. None of your business, huh, Billy?

Wow ... what a selfish little Republican ingrate.

Why isn't the Salem Statesman-Journal covering this story? I haven't seen a thing in the S-J. Come on S-J reporters. This is news.

"I don’t know much about mom’s financial affairs but she is not a public official so to make her personal financial situation public like this is beyond the pale. My opponent should be ashamed of himself. Stooping to attack my mother, a very special lady, is indicative of his dirty brand of politics." - Billy Dalto

This was written by Dalto on Loaded Orygun the day AFTER he and his flunkies requested the Salary, Hours and personnel information (personal financial data!) on Clem's wife.

What a hypocrite.

This, of course, is despicable. And quite typical of the sleazeball right-wing.

I am wondering, though, how some of the relatively faux progressives and Democrats here would address the "what goes around comes around" nature of your failure to put attacks on family as staff completely off limits, unless and until the system is changed, by implicitly and explicitly piling on during the Kelly Wirth matter:

Wirth gives raises to staff, including her mother, before resignation http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051110/STATE/511100353/1042

"The good news is, she'll be gone by the 15th" http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/11/the_good_news_i.html

A Modest Defense of Nepotism http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/11/a_modest_defens.html

I found this to be particularly interesting:

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 19, 2005 12:52:24 PM

Now, is it plausible that a spouse, child, or parent could be perfectly qualified to be a legislative assistant? Sure. But there are 89 other legislators that they could work for.

The mixed message here is not the surface "gotcha" approving of nepotism in one case but not another (I don't think that is a "gotcha" at all. Kari clearly argued based on sound ethical principles why the system should be changed and I agree.) It is in failing to continue to consistently make that point about the system, and instead the political gaming by imputing good and bad motives in different cases.

To borrow a term from the 60's that apparently predates the political awareness of many here, it is those perceived "situational ethics" that makes it all seem just like so much political tit-for-tat to most folks whose own values make them less than interested in actively fulfilling their role in a representative democracy.

The major difference is that each of those items are about the decision making of Wirth or other legislators in hiring their families.

Carol Suzuki does not work for Brian Clem. He is a private businessman.

The equivalent would actually be going after Kelley Wirth's husband for whatever he does at work, and I never saw that happen.

Haiku:

DALTO: SAD, LIAR BILLY NOT HIS REAL NAME WHO'S THE POOP ON NOW?

You can count it 5 7 5.

WHO IS NOT LAUGHING? DALTO: NO SENSE OF HUMOR, BUT HE HAS MAN BOOBS.

Kisses Billy...see you in the unemployment line.

Haiku:

DALTO: SAD, LIAR BILLY NOT HIS REAL NAME WHO'S THE POOP ON NOW?

You can count it 5 7 5.

WHO IS NOT LAUGHING? DALTO: NO SENSE OF HUMOR, BUT HE HAS MAN BOOBS.

Kisses Billy...see you in the unemployment line.

Color me sorely disappointed in Billy Dalto.

If (strange as it would be) this is a Majority 2006 'black op' that Billy wasn't involved in, I'm disappointed that he's not publicly condemning it. If he is involved in it... that's just a giant lapse of ethics.

Carol is just about one of the nicest, most helpful, and most respected people in the Capitol Building... not only should she be off-limits in a House race, but trying to dig up dirt on Carol is a severe waste of time.

Of Course, as LT said on a post here a couple of days ago. The campaign is on, and everything is fair game apparently in politics.

Is that an accurate quote or a summary? Not sure that is what I said--I am one of those who say dirty tricks are stupid because they make people angry long after the election is over (some people will still tell you about a nasty thing done to someone they knew over a decade ago--was even a topic of discussion in one Legislative Commission committee meeting).

Smart candidates say "I'm asking for your vote so that if elected I can do the following specific things" and arrange events where they stand up in front of live audiences involving the candidate giving remarks and then Q & A.

Yesterday I ran into an old friend (when we first met, we were both a lot younger and better looking--decades ago) and we had this conversation about smart campaigns. We had both known / been involved in campaigns (from school board on up) where people were really enthused about the candidates. But that was because the candidates were running positive, issue oriented campaigns about the problems they wanted to solve, not using vicious attacks or snide remarks as "campaign tactics". We had this conversation because he currently has a political job.

Carol is someone I have known for years. She doesn't deserve to have this happen to her.

Leave the family out of it. Family should only be discussed if a member of the family is on the payroll. Apparently Dalto can't campaign on "re-elect me because of my record of..." so he is resorting to this.

As my friend Julie says, "when they act like this, you know they know they are losing".

Different Salem Staffer,

I heard that Carol is Keyser Soze.

You know what I find funny...when the story broke on Loaded Orygun Billy had a message denouncing the accusations within two hours of it being posted.

So if he didn't have anything to do with attacking Carol why hasn't he sent out something saying, "I had nothing to do with this and my campaign will not be apart of using any thing against Carol."

But have we seen anything from Billy...Nope.

Why?

Cause Billy is bra-wearing, scumbag.

Cheers.

Wolfe -- Classic. :) A revealing haiku:

Carol's dark scandal- She once drank some pinot noir... With a seafood dish!

(Kari -- Let's have a post where comments NOT in haiku format will be deleted.)

Different Salem Staffer,

LOL

You know I have heard other rumors about Carol, but I feel compelled to put it in Haiku form as well:

Police chase Carol Ripped the tags off of pillows Carol is hell bound

I'm going to start selling "FREE CAROL" and "MANBOOB BILLY" T-Shirts at the Capitol next Monday.

(Just for people who don't know. Carol is truly the kindest, smartest and most gentle soul I have ever had the privilege of meeting. She spends 100% of her waking time helping others and she doesn't ask for any recognition. In fact she shies away from it. This is why everyone should stop by the Senate Majority Office and wish her well. Let her know you have started collecting bail money for her or you are willing to let her stay at your house while she is on the lam. I'm sure she will appreciate it. All kidding aside, Carol you're simply wonderful and don't let the mean, Carpet-Bagging New Yorker get you down.)

Carol was a staffer in the Senate Democratic office when I was a member of the State Senate.

As has been stated here, she was and is professional, hard working, gracious and kind.

I have been around politics a long, long time. This strategy by Mr. Dalto is a new low.

I have served as Senator Avel Gordly's Legislative Aide since January 2003, and in that capacity I have had the benefit of Carol Suzuki's professionalism, positive attitude and good, hard work for the past two legislative sessions.

Carol provided me with invaluable assistance as I learned the ropes of the position, as she has done with everyone who has come to work in those offices, and I continue to look forward to every interaction with Carol as Senator Gordly's office prepares for the 2007 session.

Ranks right up there with Minnis portraying Rob Brading as a "pornographer" because of his involvement on a library board.

While this Dalto "story" is interesting, I am surprised it has completely overshadowed what I believe is a much bigger story that appeared in Monday's Oregonian.

It looks like Karen Minnis has a new opponent in a Libertarian who moved into her district after he lost a bitter Republican primary two years ago in Washington County.

Perhaps this deserves its own thread, but if this guy peels off a few hundred votes from Minnis, it will all but assure Brading's victory in HD49.

• Wes

I'm retired and my wife and I live here in HD 21 in Salem and have for 30 years.

I have never written to an internet blog before but felt compelled to share what I learned when I called the author of the request for the personnel file of Carol Suzuki, wife of the Democratic candidate here in my area Brian Clem.

He wasn't there initially so I left a message asking he return my call.

Jarret Hamstreet returned my call to him, on behalf of the House Republicans, regarding their request for Carol's personal information. Here is the gist of our conversation in the order it happened.

1. I asked why he requested info on Carol given her excellent record and being liked by both parties. His response was that advisors for candidates order up such info on all persons and their families involved in a campaign.

2. I asked if this meant that Billy Dalto requested this info on Brian's wife. Jarrett said he didn't know or denied it, I don't recall.

3. He then said that Brian Clem's campaign advisor had requested information on Billy's mother and therefore it was legitimate to do the same.

4. I asked if the House Republicans whose names appear on the letterhead were aware of this request for Carol's info; he said he didn't know.

Check out Clem on the Thom Hartmann show this morning. He is on for the last 15 minutes of the 8/9 podcast.

http://www.620kpoj.com/cc-common/podcast.html

Are family members with their own websites and swanky glamour photos offlimits?

www.adeladalto.com

www.milesdalto.com

"His response was that advisors for candidates order up such info on all persons and their families involved in a campaign."

Not directly related to the Dalto issue, but this is a telling quote. If you ever find youself wondering why "good candidates" never run, here's a big clue.

Good point Patrick.

I just can't believe he publicly admitted it.

The candidate maybe...but the families?

I think that is unique to this current batch of House R's.

This is sleazy. And totally predictable that the dirtbags on the right would do this. We know they have no shame or principles.

But Blue Stater completely missed the point of my original question, which is trying to probe the basis of what folks are really upset about in this case. My question was more general one, an if Clem wins that would be an example of Clem of what I was addressing: What exactly is the distinction between someone working in the office of a spouse, and working in the office of one of the two political offices associated with a very small club of decision makers about the office of which one's spouse is a member? All that matters is what happens going forward, not the past or who anyone got there.

Folks here are not clearly distilling why what has been done here is outrageous except that it has involved someone you like rather than someone you don't like. Remember this was a legitimate records request, even if it is undeniably unseemly. It is that inability to articulate clear principles and values in a way that resonates with voters that is costing us on the progressive side.

Remember this was a legitimate records request, even if it is undeniably unseemly. It is that inability to articulate clear principles and values in a way that resonates with voters that is costing us on the progressive side.

It was "legitimate" only to the extent that the personnel records of John Minnis (which government job is he doing now?) would be relevant to his wife's re-election.

I think Rob Brading would be wiser to campaign on why he would be a better state rep. than Minnis than to look at her spouse's personnel records. Ask, if you want to raise this subject above nepotism, exactly how much per month did Wilhelms and Diester make working for Speaker Minnis last session, and was it more than their counterparts in the Senate President's office? Now THAT is an inquiry which I think would make more sense than what you are talking about.

More to the point about "very small club of decision makers" would be the way caucus politics operates. Caucus is not mentioned in the Constitution anywhere that I can find. I sent an email to a friend who was an LA last session telling him about some of the comments at the recent Legislative Comm. committee meetings on the subject of the legislature sometimes being more concerned about what the members want than what the public thinks. He wrote back saying he agreed the system needed to be opened up, that his boss had gotten flak from the caucus for putting the needs of the Oregonians above what was going on in caucus, and he made a crack like "representative government, what a concept!".

What Ben Westlund said today about 1986 fits in here--that this state was better off then than it is today on a bunch of measurements. The question about all this should be "exactly how does investigating an opponent's family help us solve problems like state police funding, or what to do about the State Hospital, or education or health care, etc.?".

Do people really have to register NAV before they have the right to ask those questions and not be told what their party wants?

Ask,

"My question was more general one, an if Clem wins that would be an example of Clem of what I was addressing"

I don't mean to be rude but your above statement is almost incoherent and I don't even understand what you mean.

The point you seem to be missing is that, while technically legal to ask for any public employee record, the staff of people running for office have never had their records pulled LET ALONE a public employee who does not work for their spouse but is married to a private businessman running for office.

You seem to be implying that Carol, who is not working in the political side of the caucus is some how fair game, just because she works for the State of Oregon. Any private employer would have laughed off this request.

Do you think a DHS office manager, who's spouse is running for city council should be researched, when they aren't the one who is running?Because that is the exact same thing.

AGAIN, the correct example would have been for you to prove people were not angry about Kelley Wirth's husband having his background researched (which he didn't) and instead you cited her staff members who worked for her, which reflected on her decisions.

No one says that the members decision making isn't fair game, but should Ron Saxton or Ted K.'s spouses personnel records be pulled and checked out?

BlueStater -

Let me first fix the typo so you have no further excuses to avoid the question. Then I'll clarify the rest for you since you clearly are presenting in a way which makes you part of the problem we are facing in reconnecting with voters rather than part of the solution.

The question should have read:

My question was more general one. If Clem wins, that would be an example of what I was addressing: What exactly is the distinction between someone working in the office of a spouse, and working in the office of one of the two political offices associated with a very small club of decision makers about the office of which one's spouse is a member?

Now are on to the rest of your beside the point comments:

1. ALL public records requests in themselves should be beyond questioning on first priniciples. Open government, including protection and strengthening of open records laws are what any citizen, much less a true progressive, should stand for, first and foremost. There can be legitimate privacy protections in the laws (such as not disclosing SSNs), but that is not the issue here at all.

2. That a private employer would have laughed of this request, is irrelevant. To the extent we are talking about public employment, and the records requested were covered by open records laws, that should be the end of any thinking that casts aspersions on the fact the records were requested. And for anybody who works for goverment that doesn't like the fact that records covered by open records laws are and should be disclosable, the answer is simple: "There's the door, don't let it hit you in the butt on the way out."

3. The reasons why a citizen makes a public records requests are not, and should not be, anybody's business. Period. What someone actually does with the information gathered is another matter entirely, and is quite properly subject to criticism on at least moral grounds.

4. This case illustrates precisely why there are ethics questions involved whenever spouses work closely, or even not so closely, together in government and one spouse is an elected official that has the ability to change laws or not enforce them fully to protect the other spouse. Is that now clear enough to get through your apparently very thick skull?

5. You're claim of what should be analogy is irrelevant to my questions which first were about whether supposed progressives actually respect public records laws, and second about whether folks have any mature sense of the dimensions of the well-developed ethics in government standards that held in previous times and in other places.

From your rather smart-alecky but shallow answers, it is unclear whether you actually value public records laws, or have any coherent intellectual framework for ethics in government. That alone is precisely that kind of presentation, combined with obnoxiousness when held to account, in the people who profess to be advancing progressive Democrat causes that turns off a lot of people I know despite my best attempts to convince them that kind of thing is quite independent of progressive values. Progressive values that are true American and Oregonian values, and that those folks actually hold, by the way. But they vote against them when candidates from our side come across as vacillating, and only defend those values when convenient, rather than truly being committed to the core to them. (I personally think the behavior of Democrats in the Wirth matter exposed the seriously flawed, self-serving, back-stabbing, and cowardly characters of most of the House leadership, and far too many people prominent in Democratic party politics on our side.)

That said, this incident is clearly typical of the slimy politics the dirt bag right wing plays and people know it. I would think that the message should be that these kind of folks can't be trusted. They will pervert and abuse the very open records laws and other mechanisms we need in our representative democracy for their own selfish grasp for power. That's what we are seeing from the local to national level under psychopathic right-wingers. Unprincipled people who incidentally want to abolish open records/FOI laws to the maximum extent possible for much the same reasons you express here, and who have made much of the government a spoils system for friends and family.

The answer is not to change open records laws or weaken ethics standards because of the abuses by the slimeballs. Or to use the slimeballs as an excuse to hide possible contempt for open records laws or self-serving lax ethical standards. It's to vote against the slimeballs. The job for our side is to present the principled alternative and we don't deserve votes either if we can't be that.

The job for our side is to present the principled alternative and we don't deserve votes either if we can't be that.

Which is why I believe (to use an obvious example) that the smartest thing the Brading campaign could do is "Changes you would see if Brading was elected" rather than the Brading campaign requesting John Minnis's personnel records.

Public records or not, there are going to be people who will vote for someone who says "and if I am elected I will..." but who would recoil from a candidate involving the opponent's family in a campaign attack.

My grandfather was in politics in the 1930s, and he campaigned on issues-- not on attacking the opponent's family. He could say really harsh things about the opponent, but family was never mentioned. A code of honor some current politicians can't understand.

I actually think AQ1 is possibly insane.

His arguments are great...except they are in reference to claims that no one is making.

I never said that the public records requests were illegal or ever should be, just unwarranted (in this case)and immoral (as you granted was fair game to place judgment on)

You, perhaps unintenionally, seem to be setting up a straw man argument...a fallacy.

Same with your ad hominem abusive name calling, another fallacy.

The bottom line is this.

Spouses who have nothing to do with campaigns should be off limits, not legally, but ethically...or else good people won't run.

You said people were hypcritical about Kelley Wirth. I think all apologists for her were misguided and criticisms of her by everyone were fair...this situation is completely different in that her spouse and his situation was never raised, just employees(which was a reflection on her hiring decisions, much like Daltos.

BlueStater -

No one claimed you made an argument (in that sense you are the one setting up a strawman argument). The question was asked, quite intentionally framed in a way to avoid strawman argumentation, WHETHER anyone, including someone like you who makes rather direct personal attacks, makes any distinctions between the right to make records requests and how the results are used. The further question was asked whether anyone saw the ethics issues this situation highlights. Your comments weaved all over the territory and only barely now have made that distinction.

No one has done anything yet with the results of any records requests about spouses. All the attacks, including yours, are in fact focused on the fact the requests were made since nothing has been done with the results. Spouses and other family members who work in public employment are not, and should not be off limits with regard to making public records requests; nor should they be exempt from criticism should those records reveal something genuinely untoward. (I hasten to add from all evidence there is no reason to believe they will in this case.) All public employees should obviously be off-limits with regard to misuse of the results of public records requests.

Your distinctions in the Kelly Wirth case are once again irrelevant to the more fundamental points about character and ethics that I have been asking about and making. This is particularly so since hiring decisions are just a subset of the total employment decisions. As I pointed out, if Clem wins we would have a much bigger and important subset of retention and management decisions coming into play.

Finally, you also apparently don't understand what an ad hominem attack is. Or what it is at least with regard to how that term is used in the theory of argumentation. An ad hominem attack is when you attempt to disprove someone's argument on the basis it must be false BECAUSE they are an arrogant, ignorant jerk. When one uses adjectives that describe behavior, but which are not the basis of the refutation, it is not an ad hominem attack in the context of argumentation.

Now stepping aside from formal argumentation, the very premise of this whole thread was an ad hominem attack casting aspersions on someone simply because they exercised their legal rights. Amazing how a lot of NWers and Oregonians like doing that (frequently in a thoroughly disreputable passive-agressive way), but have exceedingly thin skins when it is thrown back at them. This is politics, where real life consequences are at stake, and our side suffers from too many whiners like BlueStater who are not ready to take what they give, nor apparently particularly capable of defending what they give in a way that is rooted in fundamental governing values that resonate with voters.

Pete Forsyth - Hopefully this last comment addresses may your fairly put question about tone. The perception of each person about what is going on probably has more to do with the individual sensibilities than anything else. I would only offer that you re-read in order the comments made by myself and BlueStater in this case to get a sense of the between the line dynamics that are occurring. I give BlueStater credit that he or she understands the atmospherics of how politics are fought, and have no problem responding to that.

Ask, let's be clear on what you are saying.

Are you saying (just to pick an elected official with a spouse in a public employement situation) that the Brading campaign would be within its rights to request the personnel files of John Minnis because he his married to the Speaker and the only ethical question would be what was done with those records after the request?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Ask,

The closest I had come to a personal insult was accurately describing one sentence as incoherent. I now am totally convinced you are sucking the crack pipe however.

Your comment about retention on management issues would be relevant if the candidate in question was running for the SENATE where the employee in question works. He, however, is not.

Game, set, match.

BlueStater appears to also be a bit intellectually dishonest:

Posted by: Blue Stater | Aug 12, 2006 5:10:51 PM:

The closest I had come to a personal insult was accurately describing one sentence as incoherent.

Posted by: BlueStater | Aug 12, 2006 12:08:57 AM: I actually think AQ1 is possibly insane.

Being fair, I can honestly see how one could argue that this personal expression of negative opinion of another in a public place is not an insult because of it's careful phrasing does not directly say "You are (fill in your favorite derogatory and amusing characterization here.) It also occurs to me that we may have two people posting under the name "BlueStater/Blue Stater". It would appear, however, that the space between "Blue" and "Stater" may not be significant because we also have the orginal post the "spaced" Blue Stater directly refers to is:

Posted by: BlueStater | Aug 10, 2006 11:31:26 PM I don't mean to be rude but your above statement is almost incoherent and I don't even understand what you mean.

As far as the rest of the argument it would only matter if the Clem was running for SENATE. Suffice it to say that the conclusion only follows superficially because both chambers must agree on employment law and public records issues. And because the Dems in the two chambers cooperate to accomplish legislative goals there is more involved in the retention and performance questions raised than he or she is intellectually honest enough to acknowledge.

Of course one has to recognize that BlueStater's kind of sound-biting in just this post alone is close enough for some folks given the kind of politics played today. (Pete Forsyth, this illustrates my point that BlueStater seems to be more of a politically-astute character than you might have argued, in what I think is your genuine good faith about the nature of the debate going on here.)

LT -

Your question is too vague for me to give a "Yes" or "No" answer. Which records? From whom? I'm I'm assuming you are asking in good faith, and are referring to records held by the state about any public capacity or interaction Minnis has/had with the state, but since you don't say that I can only respond in general principle on good faith:

The direct answer for me is that Brading has the right to ask for any public records and that only intellectually dishonest folks (I'm not including you) would attempt to disparage his right to ask for and receive ANY public records. That includes any and all producible public records relevant to either Minnis if Brading has an interest in those public records. If improper use is made of the results of that request, that is quite fair game for condemnation.

Personally, I hope all Democrats including Brading are smart enough and actually care enough about winning to examine ALL producible public records that bear on their opponents. I frankly think more than a few of them don't do that for reasons that have nothing to do with principle, and then attempt to turn that failure to care enough about what really is going on in our government to political advantage by using maudlin outrage to distract attention. As just one example of the political fundamentals we are really talking about, the next most "exclusive" club after Democratic incumbents (or Republican incumbents) are incumbents. And the group of folks most disliked by almost all incumbents are those would have the temerity to be challengers of any type, and who in part learn the facts from public records.

Ask, let me make myself clearer:

If someone from the Brading campaign or House Democrats were to request the exact same personnel information on John Minnis, Director Oregon DPSST (from whatever source) that were requested about Brian's wife Carol, a) would that be acceptable / a good idea? b) how would those records in any way prove that Brading would be a better state rep. than Minnis?

That is my point. I am the grandchild of a politician--my grandfather. To my knowledge, no one ever requested information on my grandmother, where she worked before she was married (back then married women didn't work if their husbands could support them), etc.

Imagine if you will the combination of Ben Westlund, Peter Courtney, Kurt Schrader, McCain and Hagel, and some of the more vocal members of the 9/11 commission and you will get an idea about what a colorful character Grandpa was. A colorful figure in colorful times (Michigan of the 1930s). Everyone knew where he stood on issues and from all the clippings of his I have read, no one ever went beyond that to what his family was like or other such topics. But then, he was a WWI combat vet, put gangsters away as a prosecutor, helped break the county party "machine", dealt with a number of issues as AG incl. a recount investigation which discovered all kinds of interesting things and the investigation led to a state senator ending up going to jail.

John Minnis (according to something I found on a web search) sponsored a bill while still a state senator which classified certain protests as "terrorism". My point is that whether Karen supported her husband's bill (does she support that concept now?) is an issue worthy of discussion. But personnel records (what does her husband make, have any complaints been lodged against him as Director, who evaluates his job performance?) only sidetrack what should be an issue discussion so that the legislature elected in November can claim a mandate.

Last session, Karen Minnis implied that the small number (as a % of Nov. 2004 voters)of people who voted for Measure 30 (some voters opposed it, many didn't vote in the special election but did vote in Nov. 2004) was all they needed to stop any discussion of taxes (other than tax breaks). "The voters have spoken on Measure 30" may have been why no one seriously discussed SB 382 last session. Nothing in Measure 30 said "should petitioners prevail, discussion of tax reform shall be forbidden in the 2005 session" but that is what Minnis did and from all I can tell Dalto never disagreed with that idea.

But debating such issues takes thought--questioning the actions of candidate family members is "a game" (as in the saying "money is all that matters and only professionals know how the game is played").

Could such games be the reason both parties complain about how tough it is to recruit candidates, and the reason so many voters are cynical about election campaigns in general is that they'd rather hear issues discussed than attacks made?

Those 50,000 people who signed Westlund petitions, and those who admired Ben but had voted in the primary, deserve more serious campaigns than "examine ALL producible public records that bear on their opponents".

It doesn't take a public records search to find out what bills one's legislators sponsored, who they were sponsored at the req. of, and how far the bills got in the process. All it takes is hard work and a web connection to the legislative website. I did that with my state rep. and am convinced that no matter what the reputation, any state rep. who would co-sponsor bills with Kim Thatcher at the req. of Freedomworks is no moderate.

I don't need the state rep's husband's personnel records to know my state rep. has a lot of explaining to do. As I told someone supporting my state rep, as one of the people who recruited Chuck Lee, why would I support anyone who sponsored bills with Thatcher at the req. of Freedomworks? That supporter of my state rep. admitted there was no reason for me to support someone who had done that last session.

THAT is the sort of discussion we should be having on campaigns, not about where the candidate's spouse works unless the spouse or family member is working in the same chamber of the legislature that the candidate is running for.

Nice try Ask.

You quoted an insult (the insane part) that made AFTER (see footnote #1) you had already called me names (smart aleck and thick skulled) and then claimed I was the one guilty of ad hominems.

I figured since you had declared me guilty anyway, regardless of the truth, I might as well actually get a zinger in, but again it was AFTERWARDS. (That was the same trick Billy Dalto/Majority 2006 pulled...is that you Billy?! Jarrett?)

E for effort, but you're going to need to a Republican blog and try there next time, they have less braincells.

BTW, I laugh and nearly wet myself every time you say you know how to connect with voters better than everyone else. If that were true, you would be out going door to door and not sitting there in those soiled tighty whiteys beating away on your keyboard.

P.S. I noticed you took management out of your original claim once you were shown that the employee is in the Senate and her husband is running for the house.

Owned Sir, Owned.

Footnote #1: - 3 personal attacks BEFORE the insane comment was made.

Posted by: askquestions1st | Aug 11, 2006 8:21:45 PM

"...which makes you part of the problem..." - Personal attack

"Is that now clear enough to get through your apparently very thick skull?" - Personal Attack

"From your rather smart-alecky but shallow answers..." - Personal Attack

4 Hours later...

Posted by: BlueStater | Aug 12, 2006 12:08:57 AM

I actually think AQ1 is possibly insane.

LT -

Bottom line - I don't see how many ways this can be said. I see no relevance, nor anything good for our represenative democracy, in casting any aspersions on the fact a public records request was made. If Clem and our party thinks that is a winning issue, and that is pretty much the only talking point he/we have, we are going to lose that race and our party strategists are fools. And remember, I am distinguishing between all the BS so far which is solely about the fact the request was made, because as yet there has been no abuse of the results of that request.

Maybe it will help to consider this scenario: Candidate A thinks he or she can campaign in a dirty way by (mis)using something in the public record. Candidate A requests the same public record everyone else can, including the media, and finds that there is nothing in the record to sustain even the most ill-conceived sleazy attack because the media will report that to be the case. Lesson: Public record request significantly curtails or ends possible sleaze attack. End of the matter as far as the media and most of the public is concerned. And Candidate B loses if he or she continues to flog the matter and, in these times when so much is at stake, that is the bulk of what he or she has to talk about in the campaign.

BlueStater -

First a side point: "Management" was taken out strictly to add additional focus. If it makes you feel better, I still stand by the original statement because "management" includes a large amount of relevant territory.)

I'll leave it to readers to re-read the comments if they care to, although I doubt many do at this point. They can form their own opinions about the actual context of the comments you cite as actually referring to arguments that were made. I'll also again quote out of considerable amusement your statement:

I actually think AQ1 is possibly insane.

because of the too obvious connection to the very popular quote: First, they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.- Mahatma Ghandi. I hasten to add that obviously neither this issue, nor most of the issues discussed on Blue Oregon, rise to a level that is even remotely close to those Ghanda faced.

Ask,

Not wanting to take up the fact that the 3 personal attacks you made on me (listed in Footnote #1) were made 4 hours before the sentence you just re-quoted was uttered?

Owned x 2.

Jenni,

I agree with everything you said with one exception. As you mentioned, no one is saying this is the case in this situation but even if the spouse of someone running wasn't a doing a good job at work, how does that reflect on the candidate running unless they are their boss or work there as well and in some way responsible?

Systematic auditing of public employee's would be one thing, but selective persecution because they are married to a public figure sounds like a Valerie Plame situation (The CIA agent outed because her husband critized Bush)...of course Ask would say outing Valerie plame was fair game apparently.

Pete, glad you cleared that up. You were sounding like the candidate's wife was presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Does anyone here remember the year Brad Avakian was first elected? The Oregonian did a profile on his opponent, a person who deserves to be forgotten. That candidate was proud of hiring a young person "to be in charge of digging up dirt" and the young person was proud of being "at the bottom rung of the campaign ladder".

Having worked on many campaigns, I'd never heard of that "rung of the campaign ladder" before. I knew nothing of Brad Avakian prior to that article, but from that point forward fervently hoped he would win (thus defeating a scumbag) and went to his office to congratulate him when the session started.

Make no mistake, I'd be as angry if a Dem. were doing that. Maybe 20 years ago the Sen. Republicans were running a generic nasty campaign against all Dem. incumbents. A stupid lower level Dem. candidate picked that up and used it against an incumbent R (who happened to be in the Sen. district of a much admired Sen. Dem.). First I heard of it was at a 5th Dist. Dem. Central Comm. meeting. If that candidate had come to the meeting, someone might have strung him up they were so angry--the anti-incumbent mailers were so close to the ones against the Sen. Dem. they were trying to re-elect (and did re-elect).

The point should be: how does this story prove why Dalto should be in the 2007 session instead of Clem? Or are the House Maj. so scared they are grasping at straws?

I believe in public records laws for a worthwhile purpose. Anyone who says this request of Carol's personnel records was to be presumed worthwhile until proven otherwise should contemplate whether their personnel records should be in the hands of someone with a political agenda. How would Wayne Scott feel if someone requested the personnel records of J. Hamstreet?

Probably not very good LT, considering J. Hamstreet is his nephew...

I think Pete Forsyth originally put things very well indeed. Clear-headed and pointing out how we hurt ourselves by losing perspective. It's too bad you felt the need to back down a bit.

Jenni Simonis -

I'd say the information posted above by Bon shows exactly what the reason was-- the information was requested because her husband is a candidate.

And as Kari pointed out-- this is the first time in anyone's memory that such a request has ever been made. So not only did the do it because her husband is a candidate, it was an extraordinary effort that they haven't undertaken in the past.

I can't say it any simpler that "So what?" Why do you think this matters one whit?

I think BlueStater and this line of thinking illustrate a fundamental lack of sophistication in a segment of the Democratic party that underlies why we have rendered ourselves impotent for over a decade.

Know matter how much some might want to mistakenly believe, comments like

From your rather smart-alecky but shallow answers,it is unclearwhether you actually value public records laws, or have any coherent intellectual framework for ethics in government.

Point of fact: what DOES seem worth pursuing is the fact that Hamstreet, an employee of the Senate Republicans, is apparently misrepresenting common practice to the public, and basing his request on incorrect information.

This may sound like heresy, but the son of a friend is working for Sen. Republicans. Above there was information Hamstreet works for House Republicans.

Democrats should be the folks who get the facts straight--and don't insult Sen. Rs if Hamstreet works for House Majority.

Coudn't figure out to to use your bold key to make these non-personal eh ask?

"...which makes you part of the problem..." - Personal attack

"Is that now clear enough to get through your apparently very thick skull?" - Personal Attack

Owned x 3.

( italics off? Apologies to all for any rendering oddities. The text as entered from my browser appeared properly formatted. But at least when I re-download it, it appears quite jumbled. I'm now wondering if there is a minor problem with data entry in the "Comments:" box on some browsers.)

Since BlueStater persists, it is easy to demonstrate the two comments he cites out-of-context are not personal attacks when put back into context.

The first comment in it's full context is:

Then I'll clarify the rest for you since you clearly are presenting in a way which makes you part of the problem we are facing in reconnecting with voters rather than part of the solution.

This not a personal attack in any honest use of that term because it is in fact a fair critique of the manner and effect of the way that someone is behaving/communicating. In addition, it is not an ad hominem fallacy. The statement does not say the argument to which it responds is false BECAUSE of any personal characteristics of the person making the argument. And indeed this comment is followed by a rather long explanation of what I previously said in response to those that argument.

The second comment in context is:

4. This case illustrates precisely why there are ethics questions involved whenever spouses work closely, or even not so closely, together in government and one spouse is an elected official that has the ability to change laws or not enforce them fully to protect the other spouse. Is that now clear enough to get through your apparently very thick skull?

This comment was part of an extended response and clarification to an argument which ignored and misrepresented the substance of a previous comments. The concluding sentence could have said: "Is this now stated in a way which that you can no longer pretend to ignore, or refuse to address (perhaps because you don't understand it)" and been no more or less of a personal attack in any honest use of that term, than the actual comment. And again, it is not an example of an ad hominem fallacy because it in no way says the argument to which it is responding is false BECAUSE of any personal characteristic of the person making the argument.

I think most can readily discern a qualitative difference between these comments in context, and a comment like:

The closest I had come to a personal insult was accurately describing one sentence as incoherent. I now am totally convinced you are sucking the crack pipe however.

The fact that some try to gain political or forensic advantage by misrepresenting these kind of pointed comments about the content and manner of argumentation, which is quite fair game in politics and life, and then feigning victimhood about "personal attacks" is exactly back on point about why our party has been impotent for over a decade.

Pete Forsyth wrote:

"I do see behavior for which someone could easily be held politically accountable (as opposed to ethically accountable.) It seems very worthwhile to see how far up the chain of command the R's are willing to let that go."

Succinctly well put. And I totally agree.

That's the real point isn't it: This is politics, and one can try to gain political advantage by (mis)characterizing completely ethical and legal behavior. However, one runs a risk of overplaying one's hand in doing this that one wouldn't run in criticizing genuinely unethical or illegal behavior. Furthermore, this is the kind of thing folks complain about vociferously here when the other side does it. And I happen to think the Democratic party (my party) has played this game particularly poorly for the last several years.