May 14, 2004
Friday Election Campaign Update
First of all, today's Oregonian fact-checks the campaign advertisements to see what the candidates accentuate and what they fudge.
(Amusingly enough, the self-imposed campaign contribution limits of Tom Potter mean that he hasn't been able to run any ads, and so manages to escape any ad-related fact-checking.)
The article runs through the presence of absence of various pieces of information in the promotional material from Jim Francesconi, Sam Adams, Randy Leonard, and Nick Fish.
Meanwhile amongst various items in today's "City Matters" column is more discussion of the mysterious push poll being conducted to raise questions about Potter, including a rather choice crack from Phil Busse.
Meanwhile, the Fish campaign continues to work their email network seemingly on a daily basis, with fewer missives out of the Adams camp. And the Francesconi campaign sent out a news release today announcing the candidate's "24-hour campaign marathon" which will take him all over the City beginning at 10:00 AM on Saturday.
Finally, and oddly, the final edition of the Portland Tribune before election day includes only a single campaign-related item (unless we somehow missed something), in which one of their columnists -- with whom we're not even familiar -- presents a strange and somewhat dismissively-jokey glimpse at Busse.
Disclosure: PORTLAND COMMUNIQUE accepts political advertisements, and currently runs ads from several candidates mentioned in this item.
Comments (10)
M on 14 May 2004
I'm surprised Potter is courting Dean supporters as the "City Matters" column reports. I figured he was courting social conservatives. At least that was my impression when, during the KGW debate, I heard his disagreement with Oregon's supreme court over free expression (specifically, that on-stage nudity isn't an expression one should be free to make).
The One True b!X on 14 May 2004
Yes. See here for some reference to that part of the KGW debate.
sarah gilbert on 14 May 2004
What? You haven't heard of Jill whats-zass? She's Portland's answer to Carrie Bradshaw...ummm...mixed with a soccer mom. Yeah. That's it.
Amanda on 14 May 2004
On campaign ads:
I've received a couple of Randy Leonard mailers that quote support from citizens listed as "President, X Neighborhood Association". I presume those citizens are making endorsements as individuals rather than on behalf of their organization, because political endorsements could jeopardize a non-profit's 501(c)3 status.
Is the Commissioner in charge of the Office of Neighborhood Involvement improperly implying Neighborhood Association endorsement?
The One True b!X on 14 May 2004
I would tend to imagine that referencing someone's affiliation isn't something that violates any elections law, so I don't think it's improper in that regard. Clearly, such identifying information is meant to show neighborhood-related support of one sort or another, and while that might rankle his opponents, I can't see how it's invalid.
Rob on 15 May 2004
Amanda,
You're mean streak is showing. Please tuck it back in.
Rob
Noah Brimhall on 15 May 2004
I thought that the Oregonian's "fact-checking" article was one of the worst peices of political writing I have seen in a while.
"Commissioner Randy Leonard's re-election mailers neglect to mention his extensive efforts to reorganize the Office of Neighborhood Involvement -- a major sore point for his 10 opponents." - Really, Leonard isn't mentioning his opponents main gripe in his campaign materials? Are you kidding me? Of course he isn't. Just like Bush doesn't mention that over 700 Americans have been killed in Iraq in his campaign literature.
"Francesconi's ads also don't highlight two council achievements: His successful effort to pass a parks levy that increased park services -- and property taxes -- and his successful push to build the $30.5 million Eastbank Esplanade.
Neither accomplishment fits with Francesconi's tax-trimming, back-to-basics theme." - Which is exactly why he won't mention them. A political reporter would have to be naive or misleading to think that Francesconi would mention them.
Have the Oregonian call me back when they find some real misleading statements.
The One True b!X on 15 May 2004
Well, hold on. The point is that these two candidates presumably feel that those actions were good actions, and therefore something to crow about. It's entirely legitimate to point out that they don't mention them -- even thought they are proud of them -- and the reason for this omission is pure politics, and wanting to control their image, regardless of whether or not it reflects reality.
Noah Brimhall on 15 May 2004
b!X said, "the reason for this omission is pure politics, and wanting to control their image, regardless of whether or not it reflects reality."
My point exactly. I just don't think it is suprising or newsworth that they wouldn't mention things that don't match the image they are trying to put accross, or the central complaint of their opponent. Now, if they expressly claimed that they had not done these things or tried to cover up their actions, then it would be newsworthy. Campaign advertisemnts, by their very nature, are going to accentuate the postive and eliminate the negative.
The One True b!X on 15 May 2004
But it's the job of the press to point out those omissions.
To be clear, for example: The paper didn't argue that Leonard's ads should be saying that he was rampaging through the structure of ONI (which would be the argument of his opponents). Rather, it wondered why Leonard wasn't pointing to his changes at ONI as positives.