Tue, 09/29/2009 - 4:23pm - Posted by: mungfam

Neal said:

"I took Sal Peralta's advice. I followed the money...It seems Sal Peralta had a problem with that and was fined on July 27, 2007 by the State Elections Division Case No. L9200..."

Have you ever heard the saying "People in glass houses should not throw stones"? Well the mistake Mr. Peralta made is minor and not uncommon.

Thatcher:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=kim+thatcher+campaign+finance+v...
G. George: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=gary+george+campaign+finance+vio...
L. George: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=%22larry+george%22+campaign+fina...

Not as bad as the one Ms. Nelson had, but she would be better than Weidner.

It would be nice if Sal ran again.

Tue, 09/29/2009 - 1:02pm - Posted by: WNeuhauser

The Supreme Court wrote in the LaDue case (http://openjurist.org/512/us/43/city-of-ladue-v-p-gilleo) that the question arose because “residents of Ladue are forbidden to display virtually any "sign" on their property” and they determined that a government sign law could not outlaw residential signs. But at the same time they wrote, “The decision reached here does not leave Ladue powerless to address the ills that may be associated with residential signs.” Going on specifically to note that, “It is common ground that governments may regulate the physical characteristics of signs just as they can, within reasonable bounds and absent censorial purpose, regulate audible expression in its capacity as noise.”

And finally concluding that, “Our decision that Ladue's ban on almost all residential signs violates the First Amendment by no means leaves the City powerless to address the ills that may be associated with residential signs.”

It is clearly a matter of settled law, reaffirmed and not contradicted in LaDue, that the state and local authorities can lawfully restrict the duration of display and size of signs on private property, as Oregon, County and CIty ordinances do.

So unless Oregon’s laws are successfully challenged, they are still the law even if you disagree with them. If you disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling that governments can regulate “the physical characteristics of signs” then you have to find a test case and try to get your version of reality affirmed or rejected by the Supreme Court.

Tue, 09/29/2009 - 12:14am - Posted by: ktho

(Ronald Regan mode on)

Well, there you go again Neal.

(RR mode off)

Gosh, if you keep going into overly emotional vapor lock like this, people are going to think less of you, Neal. If that incoherent rant is all you've got, it ain't much.

You seem to be implying that just because someone doesn't sue, or just because a law-breaker gets away with a crime, that makes the crime go away. Pull your head outta your ass and stop that absurd non-logic.

Once again, the signs were over-sized and therefore in violation of ORS 377, pure and simple. Regulating the size of signage does *NOT* regulate political speech on property, private or otherwise, which the Oregon Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court have upheld. It simply says "don't break the law, don't make an ass of yourself, and don't create a public and private nuisance." Political speech is allowed to be 12 sq ft on private property and every 500 feet thereafter under ORS 377; not a 20' canary yellow Tower-o-Signage that looked for all the world like a big yellow penis that Jim had pasted his name all over.

I know, I know, "property rights" is your new mantra, because that is what the developer-mafia have spoon fed you and your merry band of thugs, as the good little tools that you are. What is even more pitiable is that you have no idea that what you are really pissing for are property *privileges* - not rights. They are easily distinguishable. Rights come with concomitant duties - like obeying the law and being a good neighbor. Privileges are self-appointed with no duties due others in return, and are specifically designed and exercised to the detriment of others in a "tough noogies" kinda mind-set. I learned about that in kindergarten - did you?

Jim Weidner is a lawbreaker who was aided and abetted in breaking the law by Honey Man and ODOT. Pure and simple. His campaign financial dealings aren't too clean either, as I will document in my next post.

Gosh, were you in on that illegal activity too? Is that why you're so defensive?

You've got to pull yourself together, man, and stop acting like a little girl. You gotta quit taking yourself so seriously. Honestly, you're beginning to remind me of that poor senile character Denny Crane on Boston Legal who kept wandering around his offices saying his name over and over again so he wouldn't forget it. Really Neal, you're sounding more and more like an insecure sore winner who isn't really sure he's won but is deathly afraid he might be a loser after all. What did all those kids really do to you on the playground when you were little? Now just calm down and get a hold of yourself. (Not down there! That will make you blind!)

Just knock off the Who-Struck-John - it's not distracting me or anyone else.

If it will make you feel any better, feel free to ask Liz, Will, Joe, and even my husband Frank if I let other people do my thinking for me, and how conservative I really am. I think to a man, they'll tell you I have a strong and prodigious intellect of my own and that I'm really a very very conservative, oath-bound servant of the Constitution, Spirit and Letter; Conservative as in a real, Old Style Southern Conservative Yella-Dawg Democrat, for many generations.

You people, on the other hand, are *NOT* conservative in any way shape or form, much less authentic Republicans. You're the hoodlums and thugs who have destroyed my old party and led Her to Gomorrah. You've raped the GOP so many times She no longer has any virtue left and in the process you and your "collective" have Borg-ed Her, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and my beloved Ronald Reagan, into a street-walking gutter-snipe.

Shame on you, personally Neal Lockhart, shame on all your thuggish buddies, and shame on the horses you all rode in on. Shame, Shame on you.

Yanno, my little Welsh Methodist grandmother used to say, "You're known by the company you keep." Well, Neal Lockhart, you're keeping company with a law-breaker who just got himself sh*t canned out of his committee assignments for being a rigid ideological ass. The harsh truth is that it's guys like you, Neal Lockhart, and Jim Weidner, and Mark Sanford and Mark Foley, and Larry Craig and David Vitter and John Ensign and Philip Giordano ad nauseum, who persuaded me that I did not want to be known by keeping company with Republicans anymore. It's why people are fleeing the decaying corpse of the Republican Party, which I used to call my own when I was a Reagan Republican.

Are the Democrats long-haired, hippie-freak tree-huggin' tie-dye-wearing, peace-sign-carrying Lefties? Yeah, a lot of 'em are. A lot of them aren't. A lot of them are devoutly religious, gun-toting, pro-life, authentically Conservative people. So what? I'm not so insecure in the value of my ideas that I'm threatened by them and can't sit down and talk sense with them. And they aren't afraid of me either. We often disagree - *strongly* - but they, Neal, are *righteous*, and because of that I am their friend, for my part. You, on the other hand, wouldn't know righteous it if bit you on the nose.

You may possibly continue to run candidates. And probably they will continue to break the signage laws, and then stoop below the level of a turd on a hot pavement to blanket the county with flyers the day before election, committing *un-documented slander and libel* against well-qualified candidates to whom they are so afraid of losing.

But, not for much longer.

If I were you, I'd keep my day job.

And remember what Harry Truman said "Don't kick a turd on a hot day."

Stop being afraid of me. Stop being afraid of Liz. (You *ran* out of the police station like a little girl when she showed up to talk about the Town Hall, even with Jim Weidner right there to protect you.) For the record, the Town Hall had been planned for the Police Station because Rep Wu brought us - *all* of us in Yamhill County - the money to build a new Police Station. Yeah, that's right, the Leftie Socialist Obama-huggin' tree-loving, Democrat brought Law and Order money to Yamhill County. *That's* why the Town Hall was held there.

Yanno, I miss my mother, who passed away in 2000. But sometimes I can still feel her with me in Spirit, like just now when I swear I heard her admonishing me "Kathleen, it's not nice to have a battle of wits with the unarmed."

Yeah, okay Mom, you're right - like always.

Semper Fi,
Kathleen

Mon, 09/28/2009 - 12:40pm - Posted by: republicanduck

Again political speech on PRIVATE property is protected, See all the cases brought forth to federal courts, the first, fourth and fifth circuit court of appeals. All cited Supreme Court case City of LaDue v. Gilleo. There the Supreme Court specifically addressed SIGN SIZE location and time frame. There was no case brought before any court in Yamhill county thus the sign is legal. Again show me the case in court where a court said the sign was illegal and had to be taken down? So If this sign was illegal why did attorney AL Hanson not file a civil case? because he would lose. you need to look beyond what blueoregon and will nuehouser say. My suggestion is find better candidates; looks like you are a sore loser. Better Yet, you file for the house seat, and put your money where your mouth is. No you just want to complain. NEWSFLASH, Hanson was such a horrible choice not even the "great obama" could save him. You and liz, joe mung have a good time complaining meanwhile we 'll keep finding conservative candidates and winning elections. I look foreword to you running for office. Somehow I really doubt you will run, as it is much easier to complain. Again a recap for the anti first amendment; Free speech on PRIVATE PROPERTY is protected speech, this is not Russia.

Sun, 09/27/2009 - 11:16pm - Posted by: ktho

(Ronald Reagan mode on) Well..there you go again. :) (RR mode off) Ohhh Neal, Neal, Neal…. No need to get so emotional.

Okie dokie, have it your way Neal Lockhart. I’ll take your advice and tell the world. Following is the documentation from the Weidner-20-Foot-Tall-Canary-Yellow-Tower-O-Signage:

1. The *Ninth* Court of appeals is our Appeals court, and they ruled Lombardo moot in 2007 as to the permit requirements *only* because the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the specific remedy as to the OMIA requirements was simply to strike the permit and fee requirements - *NOT* the signage size requirements, which is what Rep Weidner willfully broke the law in violation of.

2. The signage requirements even for private property still hold, and the Weidner-20'-Tower-O-Signage was and is still illegal under: ORS 377.710 (definitions and references 377.700-.840 - *apply to signs erected or maintained outside the right of way along state highways and visible to the traveling public from a state highway.*); 377.715; 377.720(9); 377.735 (b)(A-B); 377.745; 377.750; 377.757; 377.775 (removal permitted even on private property) (3)(a) addresses the 30 day time issue and the letter requirement, which was met by DOT last year; 377.780 requires just compensation under the law if a sign is removed from private property under 377.775, thus satisfying Constitutional requirements. 734-060-0175 also addressed size limits on temporary signs.

3. The overall square footage of the signage was in excess of both the sq ft permitted sizes *and* the height of the canary yellow tower was in excess of the permitted height under 377.745 & 377.757.

4. Under 377.775 it qualified as a public and private nuisance

5. From the edge of the pavement, it was 12' 9" to the tow-bar tongue of the rig, 17' 3" to the front tires. I did not measure from the center of the highway due to lots of traffic and I didn't feel safe doing that. However, clearly the rig upon which the signs were hung was in the right-of-way on the day I measured it which was at 5:30 PM 8 Oct 2008.

6. It doesn't matter if it was on private property or was moved to private property after they got a call from DOT, even on private property to begin with, the Weidner 20'-Tower-O-Signage was still illegal under ORS 377 as noted above.

7. On private property or on right-of-way, under 377.750(2) the spacing between signs was also illegal.

8. 377.992(1)(a) specifies fines in the amount of $100 per day with a maximum fine of $3,000 *per sign*

9. As to the practicality of it all - 377.735(b)(D) specifies that "No person receives compensation or anything of value as defined by the Department of Transportation by rule for displaying the sign. " I don't know if Honey Man got money, a tax deduction, or some kind of consideration in the Dundee by-pass funding for allowing Jim Weidner to break the law on his (Honey's) private property. However, practically speaking, Rep Weidner obviously did receive something of value from breaking the law and erecting the Weidner 20'-Tower-O-Signage : he got to go on the public dole courtesy of the tax payers with the title of State Representative to the tune of the amount of his salary and benefits for that position.

10. On 8 October 2008 at 3:15PM I spoke to Amy Joyce , at ODOT Signs Regulation office about the question of legality of over-sized signs that are larger than the 12 sq ft rule. If it’s on private property, *even though it violates the size restrictions,* they have to send a letter. She said the pictures of the Tower-O-Signs was *obviously egregious,* that she did not recall the Weidner campaign having submitting a request for permit exemption which he would need to do because all his signs are 4’ X 8’ (times the 8 that were on the tower-o-signage) and therefore in violation of the 12 sq ft rule and would need a permit exemption. She said they get so few of those applications she’d remember it if it had come through, because she is the one who receives them and processes them.

11. On 8 Oct 2008 at 4:18 I called McMinnville Planning Dept and talked to Jennifer Lynagh, Assoc City Planner for City of Mac . I asked her if the Weidner campaign had paid the required $50 signage bond yet. She said she’d check the files to see if it had been paid and call me back, and then she took my number. At 4:21 PM Jennifer called back to say there had been no bond filed and that she would be contacting their campaign the next day.

12. So it seems Rep Weidner broke the law again when he failed to post his bond. However, Amy Joyce at ODOT, without sending anyone out to inspect the signs, sent the Weidner campaign a letter specifically excusing them from a right of way violation. But how could she have known there was none, when she and her staff failed to go check it out themselves? Or, how could she say in effect, that they were indeed breaking the law by having the Weidner 20'-Tower-O-Signage in the right-of-way, and refuse to take the corrective measures demanded by ORS 377? And even if she had checked it and found it to be on private property, it still was illegal as to size, and should have been removed as permitted under ORS 377. That looks very much like malfeasance and negligence of duty at the very least. By law, if the rig was in the right of way, which I documented both with tape measurements and photographs, which I sent Ms. Joyce, Ms. Joyce and her staff are are directed to remove the illegal signage. If it was on private property, Ms Joyce and her staff are empowered to remove it and must in any event send a letter. Why did she refuse to obey the law and enforce the law, I wonder?

Jim Weidner and his campaign staff willfully broke the law knowing that they were within the 30 day window and it seems they were aided and abetted by state employees of ODOT.

How can we reasonably demand that our Congressmen and Senators read each and every bill they vote on, when we are unwilling to demand that our local elected officials read and abide by our own state laws when asking us to put them into office in the first place? That seems kinda hypocritical and, well, creepy now, doesn't it Neal?

But let's go with your implied assertion that that there is no law restricting political speech – i.e. First Amendment Free Speech – on private property, and that anyone has the right to break the law the themselves and to aid and abet others to do the same, if it's on their private property because property rights give them the license to do so.

By your reasoning my husband and I could, and even perhaps should, buy frontage property and make wild hot nekkid bear love and hold Druidic ritual daily as a political statement. Nobody would want to see that now would they? It is after all, not for the faint of heart. But it’s still political speech. Just ask the U.S. Supreme Court. But, Frank and I don't do that even though, by your argument, we can and probably ought to, just to assert private property rights so the Socialists will know how the cow is gonna be eating the cabbage. That's about the size of it, now, isn't it?

As both a United States Marine (2nd generation) and a commissioned officer of the United States Air Force, I learned that there are two kinds of Leadership by Example: Good Leadership by Good Example, and Bad Leadership by Bad Example.

People will want to live up to, aspire to, and emulate Good Leadership by Good Example, whereas Bad Leadership by Bad Example, people will merely imitate because they know now that they too can get away with it. That in turn dumbs-down the virtue and moral fiber of our entire country, culture, and way of life. We don't really want that now, do we Neal?

Jim Weidner has willfully broken the law, in collusion with Honey Man, at least, and has demonstrated Bad Leadership by Bad Example.

In my next post, I will also take Sal's and your advice, Neal, and follow the money. What I found is very, well....odd...

Yr. Obed. Scrvnr.,

Kathleen Blair
McMinnville

P.S. On a more personal note, Neal, since you chose to make it personal in your last post, hows about the next time you want to call me a liar, at least summon up enough courage to grow a pair, (or borrow them back from your wife), show a little respect to a veteran, and say it to me to my face in person in public. I take exception to both the cowardice and the feckless disrespect of what you've done. You've never served a day in your life. My word has been taken by more field and general-grade officers, fighter pilots, and assorted other authority figures than I can count, who knew that people's lives depended on it being good, and accurate. If it was good enough for them, who the Hell are you to question it? Never, ever, offend me, this way again. And no, thanking me for my service does not let you off the hook for this.

Semper Fi,
Kathleen

Sat, 09/26/2009 - 9:52pm - Posted by: republicanduck

More cases from the legal world about political speech.
In Arlington, County Republican Committee v. Arlington County (1993), a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a county law that imposed a two-sign limit on temporary signs,The leading Supreme Court case is City of LaDue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 114 S.Ct. 2038 (1994),The Supreme Court addressed an ordinance restricting the placement,and size of political signs on private, residential property.Signs have long been an important and distinct medium of expression. [Id., at 54-55; footnote omitted.] Meacham vs Bloomington grove township and Rappa vs New castle county are example of cases where the city/county tried to restrict size on private property and LOST. Court cases are decided on precedent, There is plenty of it out there supporting your right, on private property to put any size political sign you want up. I never saw a case brought against the weidner campaign for the sign in question. Tell the world Kathleen Blair, which court in Yamhill county said it was illegal. You can't because there was NO CASE. You are merely making it up.

Sat, 09/26/2009 - 8:53pm - Posted by: republicanduck

The post by ellen-rae is ignorant of the law. The sign was behind the State highway easement. It was on private property, And it is protected political speech. You only need to look at what the first, third, and fifth circuit court of appeals have ruled on political signs on private property and then look at the supreme court cases of political free speech. ALL of them have ruled nearly unanimously that political signs on private property are protected speech. It can not be regulated as it falls under the first amendment. The courts have ruled differently for business signs. Why on earth would anybody want to restrict free speech. Sounds like the same garbage that was being whined about last year. Do some home work. Look it up on the internet the cases are everywhere.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a City of Hudson ordinance that limited a resident's political signs to a total of eight square feet. Karen and Alex Arshinkoff placed a 32-square foot Bush/Cheney sign in their yard and were cited by the City for violating the sign ordinance. A lower court upheld the City's limitation, but the Court of Appeals found that the sign ordinance was an unconstitutional infringement on the right to freedom of speech in part because it limited residents' right to express their support for as many candidates as they desired. Do your homework!!!

Sat, 09/26/2009 - 4:18pm - Posted by: ellen-rae

I have to chime in with ktho & Willis--though I won't go into the detail they do. I just recall during the election and since, Weidner overt behavior, the first is as ktho mentioned, breaking the law in campaigning--by erecting "that giant 20 foot canary yellow tower-o-signage on 99W at the Honey Man's place."

First, Weidner knowing he was breaking the law. The land owner knowing and abetting him in breaking the law--and, then the citizens for voting him into office. That one little antic, that one little ethical premeditated fau paux should have been an indicator of "how he govern," the "tricks" he'd play to press for his vision of power.

I imagined a constituency in my district that could see through this indecency, but whether voters were ignorant or just wanted someone with what they perceived to be their belief systems, I don't know. I can't judge. However, I do hope in the future that when voting people into office, little things like this will be taken into consideration. If one "cheats" to get in, s/he's going to cheat once there. And, if like both Ktho & Willis point out, getting into office and utilizing less than accountable means to either move something or stop something, well, what could we have expected for putting him there.

Makes me think of movie title, Steal Little, Steal Big. Great movie on family values!!!

Sat, 09/26/2009 - 2:58pm - Posted by: ktho

In the latest print edition Rep Weidner is crying like a little girl that politics are involved in his removal from those committees. Duh! Of course it's politics. Heloooo??? If he's this delicate, he needs to find another way to serve his Masters i.e. large donors.

Kinda like it was politics when Weidner and his campaign staff erected that giant 20 foot canary yellow tower-o-sineage on 99W at the Honey Man's place. I measured it for myself as to it's position and it was partly in the right-of-way. It also defied the law, both spirit and letter, as to political sineage generally . But you see, they calculatedly erected it (it really was kinda phallic looking, now that I think about it) 30 days before the election. Since the State has to write them a letter and give them - oh surprise - 30 days to get it down, they were politically astute in violating the law in order to press personal advantage.

It is ironic that we have a law-breaker as a law-maker. For now.

As to the traffic problems on 99W - widening it at Dundee *WILL* do the job, and Dundee needs to quit being so bloody precious, suck it up, and take one for the team. Sure they'll get pissed off. And then they'll get glad in the same pants they got mad in. Build them a pedestrian over pass so they can cross the road, if that's what it takes. Just get the bloody road fixed in Dundee, and stop bleating about some boondoggle extra road we don't need so the gravel companies, who are Leslie Lewis' best friends, get a big cut of our tax monies. No more Corporate Socialism i.e. funding private profits with tax payer monies.

And as kin to Carrie Nation Mr. Willis, I represent that statement! :) Yanno, she went around busting up saloons only if they wouldn't give her money to feed and clothe the neglected and often abused wives and children of the drunks they were serving, creating, and enabling. Seems like the only kind of extortion I've ever heard of that had a truly moral purpose. That works for me :) Hack away!

Kathleen Blair
McMinnville

Sat, 09/26/2009 - 5:24am - Posted by: Fleadog

Wow, would this be like firing U.S. District Attorneys across this nation for not being conservative republicans and replacing them with personel that are? No. JW got canned because we need swift action on getting that damn problem with 99W fixed, and not ignored for any longer just to appease the no tax for anything crowd. Sometimes the dough has gotta be spent to fix crap that's broken. 99W through Newberg and Dundee is broken in the aspect that is severly undersized for the use it receives. Tearing half of Dundee apart to widen that portion won't do the job and will just piss everybody off who lives there. A commuter train won't work either because I don't believe the ridership numbers would be there to pay for it, and a huge portion of the Thursday through Sunday crowd is going to the coast, not Yamhill county. Let's do what has gotta be done a quit squaking about it. It is a CF that needs to be addressed and fixed. Like I said before fill up those D9's with my tax payer bought fuel and get to work boys!
Aaron Van Beurden
Sheridan

Fri, 09/25/2009 - 9:06pm - Posted by: carlrye

............In a world when people check their values at the door, it is nice to see someone who represents the PEOPLE. ..................

That is very differant than what we have thru out government at this time. Again I will not listen to leftest bull and I would vote for Weidner. I do not want someone in office that goes along to get along.

Sat, 09/26/2009 - 8:20am - Posted by: republicanduck

I took Sal Peralta's advice. I followed the money. I notice Rep. weidner has filed all of his campaign finance reports on time. It seems Sal Peralta had a problem with that and was fined on July 27, 2007 by the State Elections Division Case No. L9200. I am proud that we have an ethical and strongly principled Person Representing us. In a world when politicians check their values at the door, it is nice to see someone who represents the PEOPLE.

Fri, 09/25/2009 - 6:12pm - Posted by: James H Willis

Hiring Jim Weidner to help run your government is akin to hiring Carrie Nation to help run your saloon. All you can realistically expect from Weidner.is a subversion of the democratic process. He has consisrently demonstrated his aversion to, and his ignorance of, the basic precepts of elected governance. The house leadership is correct in trying to fill committees with people who are willing to work to solve our state's problems.

Fri, 09/25/2009 - 11:54am - Posted by: Non-partisan P.I.

The problem that I see is that the bi-partisan attitude quickly dissolves into the usual debased visceral. If removal from committee assignments was correlated to this HB 2001 vote, I feel that it is unfortunate that partisan power plays are made to SILENCE differences in opinions.
Whichever party you belong too, (myself neither), any legislator that attempts to place Oregon citizens in a more participatory role through voter referrals is a GOOD thing! I don't like seeing anyone attacked for diversity of thought. When we marginalize politicians we get the SAME answers from each of them and SAME politics as USUAL!

It seems to me, that the citizens of Oregon would be best served when legislators are FREE to speak their opinion and OPENLY discuss their true positions on policy. This personal philosophy leads me to believe that when legislators speak their mind and are then punished, that the system "incentivizes back door policy power grabs". If Salem leadership wants to keep the status-quo of legislators playing their votes based on strategic party or personal gain, their duty to all Oregon citizens is diluted. :(

I would rather see someone speak honestly and judge the merit of their philosophy with my personal views, and for that I RESPECT Rep. Weidner! You ALWAYS know where he stands :)

I want politics of productivity NOT politics of power-plays & punishment!

Fri, 09/25/2009 - 11:11am - Posted by: Sal Peralta

One point that the News Register did not mention is that Jim was the only legislator out of 60 to get pulled off of committees during the interim session. Lots of Republicans voted against Democratic legislation during the session. If it were true that this is "a vendetta" on the part of the speaker's office, then why was he the only person to lose committees?

My experience, after speaking with several of Jim's colleagues on both sides of the aisle, is that he has turned off a lot of people with incindiary rhetoric and his unwillingness to work collaboratively on the problems facing the state. The data I've seen suggests that he was one of the least effective members out of 60 during the 2009 session.

I suspect that Jim was pulled off of consumer affairs because Republican leadership felt that he was ineffective and they wanted someone who was more willing to build coalitions with Democrats to advance the interests of the business community. He was pulled off of transportation because he had promised, as part of the work group on the transportation bill, to vote for the final legislation. He broke that promise.

He's speaking out of both sides of his mouth on that issue, by the way. He told members of the Government Affairs Council at the McMinnville Chamber of Commerce recently that he would have supported the Gas tax had his vote been determinative in the package passing. Now he's saying in this forum that he wouldn't have supported it in any case. Which is it, Jim?

Fri, 09/25/2009 - 12:17pm - Posted by: BlazerFan

Albert,
I went to see if you had your facts straight. I was disturbed at the fact that you mentioned our legislator was absent so much. However it was to my surprise that it was Weidner who had one of the highest attendance records missing just 2.84%. Speaker Hunt on the other hand was gone 7.07% of the time over double the amount of representative Weidner. Furthermore I was pleased to see Weidner’s non partisan voting history, only voting with his party 81.72% of the time, while Speaker Hunt voted 91.8% of the time with his party, showing a narrow perspective of voting at our capital. These are the facts on The Oregonians website. Educate yourself before slandering the name of someone you dislike and using God as a reference of credibility.

http://gov.oregonlive.com/legislators/House/Dave-Hunt/
http://gov.oregonlive.com/legislators/House/Jim-Weidner/

Fri, 09/25/2009 - 10:28am - Posted by: Jim Weidner

With a poor economy and one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, it’s unfortunate that Speaker Dave Hunt would put partisan politics ahead of Oregonians. The comments made by Hunt to the News Register further demonstrate why people are fed up with Salem politicians. Because I was away on business and unable to provide comments for the Sept. 24 story, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

Speaker Hunt’s comments were misleading, and his actions are nothing more than a cynical and partisan attempt to marginalize the people of Yamhill County. Last year, I was elected to the House because I told you I’d focus on the economy, oppose job-killing taxes and fight wasteful spending. I told you that advancing local transportation projects was vital to improving our economy, but it was wrong raise taxes on working families when our state bureaucracy was wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.

As a member of the Joint Committee on Transportation, I appreciated the opportunity to work with Democrats and Republicans in developing a major transportation bill. While we were successful in advancing the Dundee bypass, I was clear that Oregonians should have been given a voice on whether they could afford higher gas taxes, higher vehicle registration fees, and higher titling fees. Unfortunately, Hunt and other proponents would only consider steep tax and fee increases, not administrative efficiencies, to fund these projects.

I introduced an amendment to the transportation bill that would have referred the gas tax and fee increases to Oregonians for their approval. I would have been happy and honored to support the bill if this provision had been included. Because Hunt and others insisted on pushing the tax increase without a vote of the people, I had no choice but to oppose the bill on the House Floor. Speaker Hunt could have acknowledged our differences and moved on, yet he decided to pursue a political vendetta by removing me from the committee. House Democratic Leader Mary Nolan also opposed the transportation bill but, unsurprisingly, she didn’t receive the same treatment.

While Hunt thinks he can question my “commitment” to transportation, he can’t question my commitment to the taxpayers of House District 24. Hunt claims he’s talked to people in Yamhill County, but I talk to folks in Yamhill County everyday because I live, work and raise my family here. As I visit with friends and neighbors, I’ve been given a clear message that people can’t afford to send more of their hard earned dollars to Salem.

I believe legislators should put aside their partisan differences in order to address the problems facing Oregon. It’s regrettable that the Speaker of the House would resort to making misleading comments that distort my position and my work on behalf of my constituents. In addition to questioning my commitment to transportation, Hunt claims he removed me from the interim House Consumer Protection Committee because a senior Republican requested the appointment. This is simply untrue.

I am honored to represent the citizens of House District 24, and I will continue to prepare for the 2010 special session. I am once again willing to put partisan differences aside to put Oregon back on the right track. Yet, Speaker Hunt’s comments show that this Legislature is only interested in putting partisan politics ahead of Oregonians.

Fri, 09/25/2009 - 9:04am - Posted by: AlbertTaylor

"By their fruits, ye shall know them" Matthew 7:16

Weidner is simply ineffective and a complete wast in Salem. There were many other conservative legislators that signed a pledge to not raise taxes, they kept their seats, like Kim Thatcher. Weidner simply is completely worthless as a legislator and had this coming. Maybe if he simply showed up to vote every now and then this wouldn't have happen. Check it out, weidener missed more votes and committee meetings than any other legislator save the senior statesman from eastern Oregon who spent time in the Hospital.

Fri, 09/25/2009 - 7:30am - Posted by: billsizemore

There is nothing much lower than a legislator who as a candidate pledges not to increase taxes and then when he or she is elected votes to increase taxes. Weidner kept his pledge. What else could he have done.

The people of his district knew how Jim had promised to vote on tax bills when they voted for him to represent him. It would have been a breech of honor for him to break his pledge.

No matter what you think of the gas tax or the Bypass, Weidner had no choice but to vote as he had promised.

Thu, 09/24/2009 - 9:07pm - Posted by: ktho

I have to agree that it appears Rep Weidner is a seat holder, but for whom? I also agree with mungfam, he voted against it because he knew it would pass and he was currying favor.

The wrong reason to be sure, yet I think the bypass should have been voted against. It is environmentally, fiscally, and morally irresponsible to allow one small community - Dundee - to hold everyone else in a headlock thus necessitating a by-pass at all, rather making them than moving half the town to one side or the other of the highway and widening the road where it is. The age of the automobile as we've known it is over, we don't need a by-pass.

Even better, kill the by-pass and use the money for a commuter train instead. We had one once, and yes, part of the road bed is in a sink hole, but that's why we have engineers and bridges fer Pete's sakes. Furthermore, it wouldn't entail moving any part of Dundee at all since the rail is already there. It can be a multi-purpose tourist and commuter train. It is more environmentally, and fiscally responsible, as well as being forward-thinking.

Bob Dole was right - unless you're the lead dog, the scenery doesn't change much. Building a commuter train rather than a by-pass, (which would be going across high quality farmland BTW), will put us at the head of the pack and on the cutting edge of 21st century transportation solutions.

Kathleen Blair
McMinnville

Thu, 09/24/2009 - 8:31pm - Posted by: mungfam

You are two of many conservative supporters he wanted to fool. He new it would pass that is why along with Thatcher and Boquist he voted against it, to make you (conservative base) think they were against raising taxes. The joke is on you. Not standing up for what you believe in is rewarded these days, by loosing committee appointments. I would not be surprised if the bypass money is stripped from the bill as a further reward for our freshman representative come next session. Maybe followed up by a handsome loss in 2010.

Here are some more details that will please you. Nobody voted 59-1, against both caucuses, more than Weidner. The "Legislator of NO". What a Maverick. So he was the most worthless legislator this session, or ever. He was sent there to basically keep dust off a chair at the capitol. When he was joined in descent on 58-2 votes, it was none other than Thatcher most of the time. Two peas in a pod. If more embarrassment is what you were looking for, you got it with him. Ms. Nelson has never been missed so much and she was quite frankly shunned by many of her peers.

His own leadership begged him to submit a bill or he would not have done that either in the days before the filing deadline. What was it again? Who cares, he didn't. He was boasting that he could beat Smith in a primary for Governor. What a blowhard. When he wasn't provoking democrats with counterproductive drivel, he was trying to sell his part time business junk across his capitol desk to lobbyists and constituents. This guy scared Republicans. He is ill equipped, uncouth, arrogant, shameless, opportunistic, lacks mental depth and is ethically challenged. Get real sheep, dump your curse.

Thu, 09/24/2009 - 5:03pm - Posted by: carlrye

Wow a politician that believes in not raising our taxes. Spending is out of control he would get my vote again.

Thu, 09/24/2009 - 4:42pm - Posted by: cooksey

I am so pleased we have a representative who has principles and votes accordingly. Being rejected by the "powers that be" in the Oregon legislature is more a compliment than a curse.