Taft v Martens: Oregon SOS Spokeswoman Called Out By MSM

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.

Anne Martens, Secretary of State Bill Bradbury’s spokeswoman, scripter and scribe, has opined on a blog (here) that I, Operation ID, State Representative Linda Flores, and anyone else who believes in getting a handle on illegal immigration and halting free long term benefits to non US citizens is a racist.
When she began catching flak for writing this screed, she issued a ‘disclaimer’ (here) attempting to placate those who wondered if the chief spokeswoman for the SOS could be fair and objective in dealing with the issue. The SOS’s office, of course, controls the elections process in the state of Oregon and therefore could check (as we requested) for citizenship on the new, but alas, compromised data base of voters in Oregon. She IS the SOS’s spokeswoman. She belittled the OPERATION ID letters before she received them thereby dismissing out of hand the requests contained therein.
Well finally, the MSM has our back. The Albany Democrat Herald weighs in calling out Ms. Martens on her attempt to have it both ways: Unbiased at the office AND anti illegal immigration reform, bomb throwing, screed writing partisan on her own time. What the DH fails to point out below is that until she was caught in the act, Martens didn’t believe she had to separate private from professional. The arrogance with which the SOS’s office (and others) operates is the problem. They don’t believe you matter. Only their agenda matters. The personal was the professional. That’s the way it has been in Oregon and that’s why it’s time for a regime change. I’m glad she outed herself for all the state to see.

“…she is kidding herself that as a spokeswoman for Bradbury and a state employee she has a completely private life in which she can make fun of legislators’ names and accuse others of “vitriol” without some raised eyebrows among people interested in politics and public life.That’s one of the downsides of blogs. Bloggers can easily get carried away by the freewheeling atmosphere where anything goes and no restraint applies. If someone in a prominent position contributes to such a site, even as a private person, she can’t be surprised if anyone takes offense. “

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.

27 thoughts on “Taft v Martens: Oregon SOS Spokeswoman Called Out By MSM

  1. Hasso Herring of the DH gets stories right more then half the time. He got this one right. The SS job is suppose to be non-partisan and Bradbury should

  2. I was appalled to see that martens the martinette claims to be a lawyer. The quality of her intellect and the precision of her logic should cause every real lawyer in Oregon to puke in horror and shame. She is an offense to civil discourse and public service. Must have flunked the Mensa test.

  3. Maybe Miss Martens missed all those news stories about people getting fired from their private sector jobs over things they said in their blog…

  4. I believe in saying what I think

    In response to Tuesday’s editorial:

    I’m never surprised that anyone takes offense at the blog, that is part of the point after all. Blogs should be understood as using hyperbole and sarcasm and provocation to make arguments, they have never claimed to be fair and balanced.

    I am disappointed, though not surprised, that those offended have glommed onto my words as an opportunity to slam my boss instead of me.

    I believe in saying what I think, I believe that one cannot go through life worried about offending people, and I believe that if more people in this state said what they thought we might actually see some semblance of leadership in public life.

    For you to endorse a chilling effect on the speech of public employees is also disappointing and strikes me as contrary to the First Amendment and to the journalistic creed.

    Anne Martens, Salem

    This miss guided irratting WOMAN should be FIREDDDDDDDDDDD ON THE Spot. The Letter to the editor above is from Todays Democrat Herald, March 30 2006 in response to Hasso Herrings Editorial.

    Ps Shame on you Ms. Martens

  5. So, she should be fired because she is an “irratting WOMAN?”

    Did you use caps to highlight the fact that she is a woman – hence because of her sex doesn’t qualify for the job?

    Should we all agree with you that she should be fired because she is a woman?

    Are you saying a woman should know her place?

  6. To anonymous (backwards) previous comment, Only a sexist would mention that and bring it into the debate. Your the irritating women, Anne should be fired becouse of her incompetence and her ignorance.

  7. klatu…just trying to figure out “why” you say she should be fired. The only clues you give is that she is irritating and a woman…not giving us much to go on there.

    Wouldn’t that, btw, make klatu the sexist, and not I?

    Anyhow, why again should Ms Martens be fired?

  8. Anne Martens is not going to be fired, nor is she going to resign. That is more joke than the shame anti-immigrant rally was down at the capitol. She called crusty Victoria out for what she is. If Victoria, Slime Flores and Operation Nothing can’t take it then too bad.

  9. BTW: Editorials are a dime a doze. Just look at Reinhard over at the Oregonian. Anyone that takes him serious needs to go back on their meds or put the bottle down.

  10. I like how Martens’ opinion on her blog “counts” as representing the state and should have her fired, AND how an opinion piece in the DH carries the same weight as a front page headline and article….oh brother.

    How about an opinion is just someone’s opinion?

  11. suomynona,
    Some would deny public officals the right to voice an opinion. If Ms Martens was a policy maker then her opinion would count, if she isn’t then there is room to argue that her opinion plus $$ would get her a cup of coffee.

    Yours and everyone else’s posts here are just that, opinions.

  12. suomynona,
    On further review Ms Martens would be advised not to express opinions on issues that comes before SOS or concerning members of the legislature. Expressing an opinion in this case can very well be taken as representing state of Oregon policies.
    As to termination I doubt if it would rise to the level requiring removal per Oregon Civil Service rules. However, it does rise to the level requiring some Disciplinary action by her boss the SOS.

  13. Robert and all the others,
    Please keep your posts on topic and avoid ad hominem. Trust me, I’m doing you a favor. When you stick to discussing the issues you sound smarter.

  14. The piece on Martens by the Albany paper to be an unapologetic hit piece on Martens that completely ignored her very valid points.

    It looks like the typical conservative cherry picking–pull out what you can to make her look bad, and jettison any sort of context.

  15. Oops..sorry for the doubt post.

    That should read, “It looks to me like the the piece in the Albany paper is an…”

    My apologies.

  16. carla,
    If there was a hit piece it was by Martens on those who seek to petition the Government on a issue very much in the spot light this year. The inference that the petitioners somehow lack any right whatsoever to voice an opinion on the topic of illegal immigration to be racist is just plain wrong.

    Ms. Martins as a Government employee and offical spokesperson for the SOS she should have not voiced an opinion on this subject in a blog. She cannot separate her offical duties for an Government Agency that is being petitioned from her private views as posted on a blog.
    Being taken to task on this matter is a hazard of placing oneself in the public spotlight.

  17. She cannot separate her offical duties for an Government Agency that is being petitioned from her private views as posted on a blog.

    I think it’s more fair to say that you cannot separate her offical duties for an Government Agency that is being petitioned from her private views as posted on a blog.

  18. The idiot posing as a lawyer (martens) has used her position to advance a nonsensical argument and to label opponents as “racists.” Such irresponsible behavior should cost this bimbo her job. It won’t, because bradbury has no shame, and remains a political hack, in my humble opinion.

  19. suomynona,
    Sorry, it does not work that way and you know it. Martens was attempting to discredit the petitioners viewpoints and statements by attaching the race card to them. Instead of having a healthy discussion of the issues the petitioner’s are labeled as racist and dismissed.
    Lastly her position is as a official spokesperson for the SOS. That makes her so called private views inseparatable from her public position.
    In any caase her intent was to use the blog to dismiss the Operation ID letters out of hand.

  20. suomynona,
    It depends upon what is said. In this case it was attaching the race card to the Operation ID protesters.
    She could have made a case illustrating her disagreement with the whole idea and how the protesters just have it wrong without the race card being played.
    Instead the manner, forum and her position makes it a hit piece.

  21. Hmm, and no one, esp. Victoria said one thing about or focused on in particular, a single race of immigrants, that were “by definition illegal?”

    As you contend Miss Martens could have voiced her opposition without a mention of race, so to should have those in support and promotion of the letter.

    Instead it was talk talk talk about anyone who might “fit” the bill and label them “illegal”…Mexicans at the DMV, Mexicans at Carousels, Mexicans working in the fields, Mexicans standing in groups on the street…

    Now how on earth would she (Martins) ever think race was a factor in Op ID?

Comments are closed.