DESPERATION ROW The November Election: Unpopular Ideas and Candidates Hungry for Your Love Endorsements by the Mercury editorial board Illustrations by BT Livermore
G
OD, WHAT A MESS. The worst part of politics is the circus of the campaign. Candidates who get the most votes by digging up the most dirt on their opponents. Interest groups who peddle mistruths and mischaracterizations in hopes of conning voters too busy and too cynical to pay attention. The endless barrage of awkward, shrill TV commercials that somehow make candidates look more wooden than Lincoln Logs. And now? We’re stepping right in the middle of it. Which brings us to the best part about politics: you. Your voice. Your informed vote. Ballots will drop in your mailbox any day now (you did remember to register, right?)—and you can punish the devilish and the dark. Or reward the decent and the daring. But maybe you need a little help. That’s why we’re here! The Mercury editorial board has studied the issues, queried candidates and advocates, and made the miserable, tough calls some of us would prefer not to make. Study up, and then let’s do it all again in a couple of years.
CITY OF PORTLAND Vs.
MAYOR: CHARLIE HALES
C
HARLIE HALES AND JEFFERSON SMITH are essentially the same dude, separated by several years. They’re mainstream liberals difficult to like and tougher to trust—but both would probably do a decent job passing smart progressive policies at city hall. With a few exceptions, when you dig into the nitty-gritty specifics, they’re nearly identical on policy issues. And yet, a large plurality of voters would seemingly rather have anyone but either of the two in charge. But we have to pick one. Hales got our
reluctant endorsement in the spring, and he’s getting our still-reluctant endorsement now. Yes, he radiates the sober persona of an insurance salesman. Yes, he’s got a history with developers. Yes, his campaign staff got caught in a couple of lies. And, yes, he has to tuck in his raging hard-on for the wasteful Portland Streetcar. We’re going to be watching him like a goddamned hawk. Even though it was a tough call—based overwhelmingly on policy, political experience, and leadership skills—we’ve decided he’s the (slightly) better choice for Portland at a time
when big issues like police accountability and a crumbling infrastructure need tending by a steady, effective hand. Among the things we appreciate most about Hales: He’s a practical progressive, with an actual track record in city hall, based on his admittedly 20th-century tenure (1992-2002) on Portland City Council. He’ll be stronger on police accountability—based on his willingness to tilt with the influential firefighters union over diversity in hiring during that past political life. That lingering bitterness likely cost him the backing of both the fire and police unions this time around. He should be proud of that. Both candidates have emphasized training and community policing, à la the recent federal report condemning our police bureau for beating up on the mentally ill, as well as having fractious relations with minority communities. But Hales has spoken out, time and again, about another solution close to our hearts [“Where Police Officers (Don’t) Live,” News, Oct 21, 2010]: enticing more of our cops to actually live in the Portland neighborhoods they patrol, rather than places like Southern Washington and Troutdale. Hales was pro-bike funding before it was trendy and won’t let hot-button issues like potholes and paving diminish his enthusiasm for expanding our bicycling system. (We’re overlooking his waffling stance on the Columbia River Crossing.) Hales also says he’s against expanding coal trains in the Northwest (although it’s super disturbing that he’s received campaign cash from coal fans). And he’s able to communicate his ideas well, articulately summing up complicated, wonky details—which is a big part of the mayor’s job. And, unlike some of the mayoral candidates of the past, at least he’s not a buffoon. Smith—a two-term East Portland state representative—isn’t exactly a buffoon, either. Unlike Hales, who reportedly needed some coaching on how to precisely use Portland-friendly buzz words like “equity,” Smith comes steeped in the city’s quirky and liberal values. But his overwhelming overconfidence in the belief he’s preaching a new brand of political gospel tends to work against him. We were already troubled by Smith’s penchant for haughtiness and surliness, and we’ve not seen much that’s made us feel better. A steady drip of news about Smith’s past—and especially Smith’s messy handling of all the surfacing muck—highlight his arrogance and seeming inability to spill all
Worst Mayors
Ever
W
ith 30 percent of voters still undecided in the mayoral election, Portland is clearly not very keen on either Jefferson Smith or Charlie Hales. But let’s put it in perspective: They definitely won’t be as bad as these guys.
1. William Farrar (1862): “I have a soft spot for him,” says local historian Dan Haneckow. At the beginning of Farrar’s term, he told council he had to take a threemonth leave for his business. Then he was never seen in Portland again. “No known photograph of him exists.” 2. George Luis Baker (1917-1932): Mr. Baker proudly posed for a photo shoot with hooded members of the Ku Klux Klan and felt his greatest accomplishment as mayor was “removal of subversives” from the city by busting up the International Workers of the World. 3. George Frank (1894-1896): Frank handily won the election thanks to a flood that kept voter turnout low while he paid drunken repeat voters with free booze to cast ballots in every precinct they could, says Haneckow, who runs Portland history blog Café Unknown. 4. James Chapman (1867-1868, 18751877, 1882-1885): According to Portland Walking Tours guide (and Merc contributor) Joe Streckert, Chapman admitted to taking a bribe of about $1,000 in gold in exchange for making a political appointment. After the story got out, though, he didn’t resign, saying, “Such bargains are made before every election.” 5. Scandal Bonus! Terry Schrunk (19571972) and Neil Goldschmidt (19731979) were solid mayors... except for scandals that put all the current “driving-record, lady-punching” dirt to shame. Schrunk was accused—but acquitted!—of taking bribe money from a gambling boss, and Goldschmidt admitted to having sex repeatedly with a 14-year-old girl while in office. Hales and Smith have nothing on them.
the straight facts about touchy personal issues (his assault case, his driving record) until it’s too late. Smith’s handling of the dirt—which, he’s right, is unbecoming of a Portland campaign—matters way more than its substance. That Smith’s obvious charm comes with a dark side is no grand revelation. It also doesn’t mean he’s a bad politician with bad ideas—a temper can be used effectively in Continued on pg. 11
October 18, 2012 Portland Mercury 9