Interesting...since Lars lives in Vancouver and can't vote in this election.

Lars was also a big Kevin Mannix supporter last time out, and was on stage at Mannix's election night party enthusiastically announcing him as "the next Governor of Oregon."

Concerning the "in-kind" contribution --

I asked the State about this same issue a couple of years ago concerning the Victo Boc radio show on KPAM. Boc was openly endorsing a petition campaign, even to the point of broadcasting live from places where signatures were being gathered and uring people to drive by and sign.

The response that I received from the State is as follows:

"Thank you for contacting us by email. We have reviewed your question and do not believe that this type of activity constitutes a reportable political contribution. While extensive, and apparently coordinated with the chief petitioner committee, the Victor Boc Show's broadcast on KPAM, including commentary and editorializing, appears to fall within the broad exemption under ORS 260.007. The provisions of ORS 260.007(1) states "Any written news story, commentary or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other regularly published publication, unless a political committee owns the facility." (Emphasis added) With no evidence that KPAM is owned by a political committee, we can not find that there has been a violation of election law. You might want to contact the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), the regulatory authority for broadcast communications (202-418-0200 or at http://www.fcc.gov), if you have further questions. Thank you for your question."

Well now I know who NOT to support in primary....

Several years ago I stumbled awkwardly through a few months of attempting to be a lobbyist without training of any kind. It was an embarrassing segment in my career. But I did get a feel for the different approaches of legislators. Some were disintereted, some were engaged, some were dull, some were antagonistic, some were eager puppies, some were sincere, and some were arrogant. Jason Atkinson stood out as being the only legislator with whom I met who was passionately interested in finding solutions. He completely caught me off guard. He listened carefully to what I was saying, and I could see the wheels turning in his head. Though he did not agree with what I was saying, he treated me with respect and then leaned forward and with a professionally tempered enthusiasm started explaining an idea he had to me and wanted my input. It was a darned good, clever idea, too. I don't know a lot about him because I haven't followed his career, but my gut instinct is that he is a thinker and a problem solver, a leader who is a real person, rather than a political game player. Just my impression, but I believe he is worth a closer look.

A Lars Larson endorsement is the official DEATH SENTENCE for any PUB.

Lars is like DeLay -- radioactive.

Next!

p.s. I've only lived here 20 years now. So, who is Jason Anybodyson anyway?

Sid,

Lars brought that integrity-lacking, party-flopping huckster Kevin Mannix from a prematurely written-off also-ran in the '02 Republican primary to within inches of taking Mahonia Hall.

Lars influence doesn't appear to have weakened much since then, his statewide radio network has grown and he has a national show in the evenings (some parts of Oregon have Lars on the air for 7 hours a day).

Portland's uberlefties may despise Lars more than ever now, but they weren't going to vote for Atkinson anyway. Don't delude yourself Sid, you (and your circle of friends) aren't the target audience in a republican statewide campaign. A wishy-washy "yes" vote from the guy who spends his free time watching Nascar counts the same as an I-think-he's-the-spawn-of-Satan "no" vote from someone who spends his free time trying to get things printed in the opinion pages.

I think Lars' endorsement is quite valuable in a Republican primary. Of course, the right-wingers that Lars prefers are unlikely to succeed in the general election. So, rejoice, Democrats!

Jason Anybodyson will be Governor of this great state the same day W and his blind boyz find Osama.

Nevah.

After all, it's only been four years, $200,000,000,000 and 2,000 American GI lives... for... nada.

Please excuse my ignorance, but who is Sen. Jason Atkinson?

I have worked in the capitol the last couple sessions and it is my experience that Atkinson is much more sincere than most Republicans, almost always having well thoughtout reasons for voting against most progressive bills. I was intrigued at first. Wow, a Republican towing party line, but on his own terms. His very own reasons and justifications for upholding the Republican Party's platform. I did follow his work farely closley this last session and...

Unfortunately the fact still remains, he votes against most Democratic bills, almost anything that represents progressive values. I would agree that he is worth a closer look, and when you take that closer look, I have no doubt you will end at the same conclusion. It is only so comforting to know someone's well thoughtout reasons for voting down something you or I truely believe in.

Personally, I don't think Atkinson is "in it to win it" so to speak. He is an excellent strategist with strict party loyality. The last thing Republican leadership wants to see is a Mannix v. Kulongoski general. Atkinson will split the conservative Republican vote with Mannix so the moderate Saxton can move forward, who will be much more appealling to the modate non-affiliated voters in Oregon, which is the demographic that controls the outcomes in our statewide elections. He has nothing to lose from this and a Republican Governor to gain.

As a Non-affiliated voter with Democratic tendencies, the last thing I want to see is a Saxton v. Kulongoski general.

If you want to see a more refined challenge . . . try this:

Using the poor and pretending to sound like a non-profit http://smf.pdxnag.com/index.php?topic=5.0 Oregon Primary Care Associates: OHP & The Safety Net Program

With a specific pro-Free Speech post here FREE SPEECH: BlueOregon: Lars Larson endorses Jason Atkinson

It is all relative -- relative to the use and abuse of arbitrary government power to selectively attack the liberty interests of groups or individuals with an opposing view.

Watch me stick Rep. Peter Buckley and Rep. Dennis Richardson at the same time. In the interest of free speech, mind you; for the poor.

I would say that Lars got some got some advice and is inviting a challenge.

I know Lars. I worked with Lars. Lars is not a friend of mine.

Lars tells his boss, Mac, and all his Vancouver tract home pals his show is just "The Gong Show" with an uglier host, if that is humanly possible.

So, yes, I love to slap the GED boy around some, but it's all a BIG JOKE according to someone I know VERY well over at K-HATE.

No names. Sorry.

Anne writes: To clear up the legal question - I asked the Elections Division, "if Lars Larson endorses somebody on his radio show, is that an in-kind contribution?"

<h2>Answer: "No."</h2>

That is the answer I would expect, and everything I've heard tells me that that's consistent with state law.

Which leads me to believe that the law needs to be changed. It seems to me that there is a great difference between a broadcaster offering a one-time endorsement vs. turning a radio program into an unofficial extension of a campaign.

For example, Victor Boc's efforts, that I mentioned above, were documented by this note on his web site:

<hr/>

"Every Friday, Victor continues to host live remote broadcasts from the streets throughout our community. The first week, he was in Beaverton, the next week in Portland, and the third week at the Tanasbourne shopping center. The purpose of these broadcasts is to gather signatures to refer to voters the massive and obscene tax increase passed in the recent legislative session. The governor doesn't want Oregonians to have a voice in this matter, but the people of Oregon are gathering signatures to put it on the ballot anyway. During these broadcasts, an area is set up for people to pull over on the street and sign the petition, without even getting out of their cars. These remote broadcasts have been a huge success!"

<hr/>

This was in addition to a daily 10-minute segment in which Boc interviewed the head of the petition drive so that the petition supporters could get a daily update on progress.

As far as a campaign "owning" a radio or TV station, all I can say is why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Why own a radio station when you can get three hours of free advertising weekly, in addition to free 10-minute spots five days a week? Perhaps the law needs to address this.

OK, a few things here. First of all, in what way is Ron Ledbury's post relevant to this post?

Second, is Becky, the unsuccessful neophyte lobbyist the same unsuccessful neophyte that helped Bill Sizemore get indicted in his ballot measure schemes?

Third, I think several of you are missing Atkinson's real motivations here. He is mid-session so putting his name in the ring costs him NOTHING. Who cares that he lost a gubernatorial primary. It gets him basically free statewide name id (if you're skeptical, just wait). He gets to line himself up for what I think he really wants, which is to win Secretary of State in 2008. He also gets to stick it to his old man's nemisis, Heir Mannix, who slapped poppa Atkinson aside to take over the party.

The last part is a bit of a scandal in my estimation anyway. Let me get this straight. The Rs pushed aside Atkinson senior because he couldn't deliver Oregon for Bush in 2000 and replaced him with Mannix, who did even worse for Bush in 2004. Plus, in doing so, Mannix stacked the party offices with his campaign team (2002 campaign manager Casterline, youthful and inexperienced, is now the high dollar executive director with a flashy sportscar). Could this have helped facilitate Mannix's campaign fund PONZI SCHEME where he would raise money for the party to pay off his disgraceful amount of campaign debt???

Let's see, one for the party, three for me... Not that I really care, but the guy is a crook. I personally would like to see him prevail in the primary. He would be the easiest of the three declared candidates to defeat. He's a three time loser and it's only a matter of time before his financal corruption is detailed for all the world to see (Note to Willamette Week or Dave Hogan: GET CRACKIN')

Maybe I could add just one more bit of info. I don't know if I'm right or not, but I saw Atkinson a bit in the last session. I thought he was aloof, a bit strange, and out there in his thinking. His crowning achievement? Trying to pass a bill to require the legislature to enact a school budget within like 80 days or something? My question: when would real Oregonians get to weigh in on the number? How many public hearings do you get?

His crowning achievement? Trying to pass a bill to require the legislature to enact a school budget within like 80 days or something? My question: when would real Oregonians get to weigh in on the number? How many public hearings do you get?

I happened to hear Atkinson telling a reporter that "everyone" liked this idea across the political spectrum. HUH? Without asking questions? Seems to me a big question is "suppose you get the school budget on Day 80 and a down revenue forecast by Day 90. Does that mean the reduction must come from other state spending and no one has the right to look at cutting some education funding?" If so, he should say so. A "great idea" reaches the general public, not just political activists, and I discovered my friends had not even heard of the idea.

Although off topic, I actually find Becky's comments interesting.

In terms of Lars endorsing Atkinson, I think the comment by Political Staff is a vaild one. We may see a Saxton/Kulongoski match up this time around, if Saxton, Mannix and Atkinson run against each other in the primary.

Is that all that bad, I don't really think so. The one thing I don't want to see is Mannix winning the Republican nomination.

If I wasn't an overseas voter, I'd be tempted to do then end around thing and register Republican during the primary and switch back for the general election.

I don't have an opinion either way of Atkinson, although I think he might be the senator in my mom's district.

<h1></h1>

And now for something completely backwards ...

Liars has nothing to confer on Atkinsin, endorsement or otherwise, more than defamation and ill repute. It is Atkinsin who has now betrayed himself by taking Liars support. Buddies like those two are their own enemies. Step away from their madness of mutually assured destruction.

Of course it is some political calculus ploy in twisted minds -- add lies, subtract laws, double-down dumb and divide phony Republican voters. Atkinsin Manics or Soxtan does not matter now that their Republican hatred of humankind has killed so many Oregonian neighbors and families, and attacked pioneer culture.

How's that war working for you, Jason, oh 'thoughtful statesman'? Thanks for not hiding and openly sharing your Kill People policy as attributed in Liars words speaking for you.

In the latest just out today, after the suspicious fire, your Republican spokesman Liars put on record for you that "it was an empty wood building, fifty years old, and no tragic loss," and 'don't even think about federal assistance to restore the National Landmark, Oregon peasants should rebuild it at their own expense if they feel so sentimental but Liars refuses' to lead any Republicans in it.

Jason Atkinsin, you have taken Liars putting words in your mouth. Oregon's voters do not want or need to hear any more.

<h1></h1>

Tens: have you been defragmented lately? You might give it a try.

Mannix, is a liar. That is documented. Atkinson is a nobody that is being portrayed by lars as "the next governor" of Oregon. Before I knew that Mannix was a liar, I voted for him instead of Tom Cox. Will I be mislead again by the mainstream right? No. I plan to investigate Jason. Does he agree with my second ammendment rights? I don't know. He has side stepped that question. He is however willing to try to stop the influx of illegal aliens. So, do I vote for him because he will do (or so he says) one thing that I like and ignore the other? I don't know. We have held our own against a loony left Senate for years now. We can keep it up, Kate Brown or no Kate Brown.

What are you talking about?

You say "We have held our own against a loony left Senate for years now."

We are only in our 10th month of Democratic control of the Senate.

Just thought you ought to know