U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz, R-Ontario, answers a question during a livestream interview at The Bulletin in Bend on Wednesday. 

Softball questions to Bentz at Bulletin forum

I applaud your Bulletin initiative to host and stream candidate forums. Indeed I was one of those who dutifully logged it to watch what I assumed would be a robust and revealing conversation with Congressman Cliff Bentz.

But instead of probing questions, your two journalists posed softball questions that never challenged Bentz, especially about his disgraceful ranking as one of 147 members of Congress who refused to accept Biden’s Electoral College win and objected at least once to the count. He has never apologised for that unpatriotic act.

You and your colleagues failed to pose any follow up questions to Bentz about how he justifies his support for Donald Trump. His only response was how he accepted the judgment of Montana Congressman and former Trump cabinet secretary Ryan Zinke. No questions about Trump’s outrageous comments about NATO and whether he associates himself with Trump’s position. No questions about Putin and the murder of Navalny. No challenges on his right to life advocacy. No questions about Bentz’s votes to impeach Biden, especially after the breaking news that day about how a discredited Russian informant had provided erroneous material to Bentz and his fellow Republicans about President Biden.

Also you decided to turn off social media chat opportunities and viewers’ rights to challenge Bentz and pose questions.

I hope that you stage more events but that you instruct your own journalists to remember that they are our surrogates and treat your guests not as congenial dinner companions but as friendly adversaries.

— John Owen, Bend

Every party tries to draw favorable political boundaries

In his February 21st guest column, Rep. Bobby Levy, R-Echo, argues that the way to prevent Republican legislative walkouts is for Democrats to stop “hyper-partisan” gerrymandering and that the demise of his wolf depredation bill this session was a result of Democratic partisanship and could have justified his not showing up for House sessions.

It is well known that Republicans also create legislative districts that favor their party. In Oregon Democrats may do so now, but it is also true that in, say, Alabama, Republicans do so. I’d have more respect for Levy’s concern about gerrymandering if he were to acknowledge that every political party seeks to choose its voters by drawing favorable district boundaries. I don’t know how to prevent gerrymandering, but I do know that turning control over to Republicans won’t do it.

Representative Levy may be surprised to know that I share his belief that ranchers should be compensated for losses due to wolves. I love wolves. They are a keystone species that belongs in Oregon’s wild places. It’s the cows that are the intruders. But ranchers should not have to bear the entire cost of restoring an ecosystem that existed long before ranching. And I think most of us who support the re-wolfing of Oregon would agree: When a wolf does what wolves do ranchers who have taken reasonable measures to protect their cattle should be compensated for that loss. It’s part of our collective responsibility to be fair to all Oregonians.

— John Cushing, Bend

About the editorial about legislative walkouts

This is a masterpiece of “spin” by someone who didn’t want to sign their name to it like all the rest of us are required to do. If we go back to a previous walkout when Republicans reportedly went to Idaho the issue was a carbon tax bill that would have been a disaster for ranchers, loggers and farmers. This bill was stopped by the walkout and it would never have passed in a state-wide referendum. Yet the editorial claims “little benefit” from walkouts!

In the last session of the Legislature the issue appeared to be House Bill 2002. I am well into senior citizenship and do not do well “online”. So I had trouble making sense of this. But I think to call this an abortion bill is very deceptive. Better terminology would be parental rights bill. It seems like they wanted to be able to give children an abortion with out notifying the parents! Again this is something that would never pass a statewide referendum. I do agree with the statement that public business should be discussed publicly. But I also remember when the legislature met for the first time during the pandemic: We were all wondering if the mandates were “legal.” Don’t go to work, close most businesses, shut down the hospital, close the schools…etc. But Peter Courtney and Tina Kotek — legislative leaders with a supermajority — refused to let the pandemic mandates be discussed in the Legislature.

The editorial was a masterpiece of spin.

— Roger Holden, Baker City

Do you have a point you’d like to make or an issue you feel strongly about? Submit a letter to the editor.