Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Keizertimes. (Salem, Or.) 1979-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 7, 2016)
PAGE A4, KEIZERTIMES, OCTOBER 7, 2016 KeizerOpinion KEIZERTIMES.COM President The presidential elec- tion will be decided by the thin slice of undecid- ed independent voters. Presently Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump nationally by about six points. With the cam- paign entering its fi nal weeks, any can happen. Trump’s performance in the sec- ond debate on Sunday evening could change things—either in his direc- tion or in Clinton’s. Vice presiden- tial nominee Mike Pence may have taught his running mate a few things for the upcoming town hall meet- ing style debate. Pence stayed on his message—never giving a full-throat- ed defense of Trump’s style, history, plans or policies. Rather, Pence po- sitioned himself perfectly to become the front runner for the GOP nod in 2020 (if Trump does not win, that is). We were told earlier this year, after it was clear that Trump would be the Republican nominee and Clinton was but assured her party’s nomination, that 2016 would be a nasty, personal campaign. Both can- didates have given each other, their campaign surrogates and the media plenty of fodder. Trump can’t stay off Twitter nor can he stay on message, even with a teleprompter. Clinton is still un- trustworthy to a majority of vot- ers—people can’t get past her emails (Benghazi doesn’t merit much cover- age these days). It seems that those who support Trump cannot be dissuaded regard- less of what their candidate says or does. That demonstrates that the de- sire for a complete change in the way Washington does business is para- mount. Those who support Clin- ton also cannot have their minds changed—it’s un- certain if it is due to Clin- ton herself or the fact that they can’t fathom a Trump presidency. This newspaper can envision a Clinton presi- dency, which means that it cannot support Trump. He has a message that has obviously res- onated with a great swath of America but we don’t think he is the person to seriously address those issues. Sure, we wish we had a different choice of candidates, but primary and cau- cus voters across the country have endorsed these two for their party’s nomination. The presidency tends to moderate the person elected. There are many factors that can keep the occupant of the Oval Offi ce from going too far off track, Congress and the Supreme Court being just two. But words have consequences, and Trump’s state- ments on whether to support our NATO allies, use nuclear weapons and a cavalier attitude about other nations getting them are just a few that we fi nd worrisome—not to mention allies around the world. Trump’s personal and hurtful at- tacks against other politicans and ci- vilians is very unpresidential—his late night Tweets are akin to the taunts of the playround, much like his yen for nicknames like Little Marco and Lyin’ Ted. The unfortunate reality of this election campaign is that the Repub- licans have a message but it has the wrong messenger. America always gets the leaders it needs, not neces- sarily the leaders it deserves. Donald Trump is the wrong leader. —LAZ editorial I’m with her (Ameya) By ERIC A. HOWALD I always hesitate to call myself a feminist. It makes me feel like a stray dog dig- ging up a stranger’s garden. However, as a father to an only daughter, Ameya, I also feel duty-bound to say something when issues of gender inequity arise. A day after the fi rst presidential debate, Ameya’s social studies class discussed the Hindu belief in reincar- nation, the notion that a living being begins a new life after each biological death. The discussion prompted the teacher, Whiteaker Middle School’s James Decker, to pose a question to the class, “What would you like to come back as if you were reincarnat- ed?” Ameya told me she was one of the fi rst to raise her hand. Mr. Decker called on her. “A boy,” she said. “Just to see what the experience is like.” Inwardly, I cringed a bit as she told me this, but the story was only half fi nished. Mr. Decker then asked the rest of the girls how many of them wanted to come back as boys. All but one of the girls raised their hands. The ma- jority of the boys wanted to come back as animals. I wanted to believe that this is an anomaly, but Mr. Decker told the class the answers have been the same in most classes when he has posed similar questions in the past three years. The girls want to come back as boys, the boys mostly want to be animals – generally things with big teeth, big claws or some combination of the two. It varies little from year- to-year. Mr. Decker confi rmed it in an email discussion we had later in the week. Mr. Decker said that this is the one question he asks the kids where they still manage to surprise him. While the general trend is steady, some of the more recent responses have been students hoping to come back as minorities in hope of having a bet- ter understanding of life from a different perspec- tive. That lessened some of my frustration with the future of the world Ameya will inherit. He said that the girls generally feel that there is too much drama within their gender, that they are held to dif- ferent standards than boys in terms of how they look and act, or that their parents are more protective of the fe- males in their family while the boys get to run roughshod through life. The seventh graders’ responses to that single question speak volumes about the value placed on females and feminine perspectives in our so- ciety. My daughter is 12 and she’s al- ready drawn some conclusions about her inherent worth based solely on her gender. That’s not the world I want for her and no ill-defi ned so- cietal norm should be able to impact her self-esteem in that way. I told an associate recently that I wasn’t particularly a fan of the Dem- ocrat in the presidential race, but she was a woman and a female president was something I wanted my daugh- ter to see in her lifetime. He countered by saying that there were lots of women in positions of power in business and academic set- tings. I am more convinced than ever that it is not enough. I am the grand- son, son, brother, husband and father of women. In the upcoming election, it may appear as though I’m stand- ing with “her,” but it’s because I want Ameya’s daughter to hope for rein- carnation as president. moments of lucidity (Eric A. Howald is the managing editor of the Keizertimes.) Keizertimes Wheatland Publishing Corp. • 142 Chemawa Road N. • Keizer, Oregon 97303 phone: 503.390.1051 • web: www.keizertimes.com • email: kt@keizertimes.com SUBSCRIPTIONS NEWS EDITOR Eric A. Howald editor@keizertimes.com ASSOCIATE EDITOR Derek Wiley news@keizertimes.com One year: $25 in Marion County, $33 outside Marion County, $45 outside Oregon PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY ADVERTISING Publication No: USPS 679-430 Paula Moseley advertising@keizertimes.com POSTMASTER Send address changes to: PRODUCTION MANAGER Andrew Jackson Keizertimes Circulation graphics@keizertimes.com 142 Chemawa Road N. LEGAL NOTICES Keizer, OR 97303 legals@keizertimes.com EDITOR & PUBLISHER Lyndon Zaitz publisher@keizertimes.com BUSINESS MANAGER Laurie Painter billing@keizertimes.com Periodical postage paid at Salem, Oregon RECEPTION Lori Beyeler facebook.com/keizertimes twitter.com/keizertimes Support Citizens United By DEBRA J. SAUNDERS Hillary Clinton has promised that in her fi rst 30 days as president she will propose a constitutional amend- ment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United deci- sion, which she characterized as a “disaster for our democracy.” Be- cause Clinton has a better-than-even chance of being elected president, who am I to argue? The California Legislature is ahead of Clinton. It has placed on the November ballot an advisory measure, Proposition 59, which in- structs state offi cials to use “all their constitutional authority” to overturn the ruling. It’s funny how Democrats talk as if Republicans are rolling in dough, while Dems are stuck passing the hat. The opposite often is true, especially this year. As of Aug. 31, The Wash- ington Post reported, pro-Clinton campaigns had raised almost twice as much money ($795 million) as pro-Trump concerns ($403 million). Bloomberg looked at super PAC mon- ey on Sept. 21 and reported that pro- Clinton super PACs raised $153 mil- lion and spent $121 million, while pro-Trump super PACs raised $16 million and spent $12 million. That’s the Dems outspending the GOP 10- 1. Where’s the outrage? Bloomberg recently reported that Clinton campaigns are out-raising money from billionaires on a mar- gin of 20-1 against Trump. If Clin- ton wants to do something about the corrupting effect of big money in politics, all she has to do is talk to the mirror. It’s a good thing money doesn’t buy popularity. At Monday night’s presidential debate, Trump ribbed Hillaryland for spending buckets on advertising designed to bury him. Quoth The Donald: “$200 million is spent, and I’m either win- ning or tied, and I’ve spent practically nothing.” That’s the dirty little secret about campaign spending—it cannot com- pensate for a bad candidate. Accord- ing to the Center for Responsive Politics, Trump won the GOP pri- mary after spending half the amount that bankrolled the candidacy of for- mer Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was a good can- didate who outspent Trump, but he could not win his home state. Like it or not—I’m on the “not” side— Trump won the GOP primary be- cause his message popped with GOP voters. It’s laughable that Clinton is pro- posing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United because whoever her Supreme Court picks are, they are bound to oppose Citi- zens United as Clinton has promised to have a litmus test for her Big Bench picks. There would be no need for a constitutional amendment. The left gets all teary-eyed about the absolute authority in the Su- preme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare. That ruling is sacrosanct. Citizens United, however, is easy prey—so easy that state lawmakers are invited to venture into deciding federal law. “It’s become a code word for ev- erything you dislike about politics,” Bradley Smith, former Federal Elec- tion Commission chair and now chairman of the Center for Com- petitive Politics, told me. The pub- lic has come to think that a rever- other views sal of Citizens United will end the supersize role of money, especially corporate money, in politics. They forget that the 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy denied the government’s authority to censor a political documentary. The con- servative group Citizens United had produced an unfl attering 90-minute fi lm called, Hillary: The Movie. The FEC prohibited the fi lm’s airing on pay-per-view stations to comply with the 2002 McCain-Feingold ban on “electioneering communica- tions” funded by corporations or la- bor within 30 days of a presidential primary. If the Big Bench were to overturn Citizens United, Smith added, the court likely will make it “impossible to air a documentary movie close to the election”—whether the fi lm- maker is Citizens United or Michael Moore—but would not cleanse poli- tics of corporate funds. Jeffrey Toobin reported as much in the New Yorker. “’People use Citi- zens United as shorthand for all the problems of money in politics, but in fact the decision itself had little to do with money in politics, and revers- ing it would do little or nothing to remove money in politics,’” Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford Law School who also worked in the Obama Justice Department told him. Because of all the misinformation, expect Californians to approve Prop. 59. But the measure likely would fail if its effects were characterized more accurately. Smith’s suggestion: “We should make (Prop. 59) an up-or- down vote on whether the govern- ment ought to be able to censor po- litical documentaries.” Voter, beware. A truly apolitical ban wouldn’t apply to conservatives only. (Creators Syndicate) Trump’s immigration stand is wrong Some sources of wisdom on last week’s debate gave Hillary Clinton the win by an overall rout. That hap- pened because Donald Trump allowed his apparently often uncontrollable temperament to take over. Neverthe- less, Donald did well, even admirably well for about 30 minutes, when he drove hard his strongest issue: trade. In The New York Times, Ross Douthat and Maggie Haberman gave Trump the nod for the fi rst 25 min- utes. Douthat said he “seized on the issue, trade, and hammered away at it: linking his opponent to every estab- lishment failure and disappointment, trying to make her experience a liabil- ity rather than a strength.” Haberman wrote that Trump “has a strong case to make on trade, when he makes it.” Trump kept swinging in Hill- ary’s direction, coming hard at her on NAFTA , it being “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere.” Dur- ing these moments, he spoke with the confi dence of a man who knew what he was talking about. But what may have been Trump’s best part of the debate was—factu- ally speaking—probably his worst. Al- though a strong contender for this du- bious status would have to be where he said he both would and would not honor the NATO treaty and then said he both would and would not adhere to the fi rst strike doctrine on nuclear weapons. This juxtaposition on issues adds up (fact checked by CNN) to 140 changes of mind or reversals on 20 current issues. Trump throughout made a lot of noise about how horrible NAFTA has been for the U.S. In the fi rst place, some dis- regarding gene h. agree the effects of mcintyre NAFTA. How- ever, respect- ed economists who’ve written about the sub- ject is that the effect on the American economy was small. Economic stud- ies of NAFTA fi nd its effects causing a small reduction in wage growth for blue-collar workers to less than .20 percent increase in American wages. Further, the Congressional Research Service concluded a slight growth in output and productivity and nearly no impact on employment numbers. NAFTA came into existence in 1994, shortly before one of the great- est economic booms in U.S. history; and NAFTA did not devastate the U.S. economy as unemployment dropped from 6.6 percent in January, 1994, to 4 percent in January, 2000. Early on, Trump was asked how he would raise the wages of Ameri- can workers. Here’s verbatim what he said: “Our jobs are fl eeing the coun- try. They’re going to Mexico. They’re going to many other countries. You look at what China is doing to our country in terms of making product. They’re devaluing their currency, and there’s nobody in our government to fi ght them. And we have a very good fi ght. And we have a winning fi ght. Because they’re using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China, and many other countries are doing the same thing. “So we’re losing our good jobs, so many of them. When you look at what’s happening in Mexico, a friend of mine who builds plants said it’s the eighth wonder of the world. They’re building some of the biggest plants anywhere in the world, some of the most sophisticated, some of the best plants. With the United States, as he said, not so much.” All that he said would be eye- popping...if it were true. Jobs are not fl eeing the U.S. In August, 2016, our country marked the 78th straight month where our country increased its jobs while we’re in the longest pri- vate sector jobs growth in U.S. history. China is propping up its currency to stop its investors from running away from China. Tesla is building the big- gest manufacturing plant in the world in Fremont, California; up until now, Boeing has had the largest manufac- turing plant in the world in Everett, Washington. The accumulation of Trump’s mi- nor inaccuracies and blatant lies are so long they might not fi t on this entire page. He’s simply not credible most of the time but has bamboozled those Americans seeking a fi ctional im- migrant from the planet Krypton, a Superman-like superhero, to save them—when virtually every Ameri- can, through hard work and stick- to-it-ness has a better chance than anywhere else in the world to save himself. (Gene H. McIntyre’s column ap- pears weekly in the Keizertimes.)
