I like Ben Westlund, but I won't vote for him.
By Russell Shaw of Beaverton, Oregon. Russell Shaw is a technology and politics author, journalist, blogger and consultant in Portland, Oregon. He regularly blogs at The Huffington Post.
I think the world of Sen. Ben Westlund, Oregon's Independent candidate for Governor.
From Bend, his background, heart and mind is in the right place for healing some of the divide between rural and urban Oregon. His ideas for solving the state's educational funding crisis are gutsy and innovative.
So why can't I support Ben for Governor?
Not because I disagree with his politics. It is because I look at the polling and election math, and what I see scares me.
The polling I have seen shows that most of the votes Ben Westlund would take away would be those of Democrats, or independents - the majority of whom lean Democratic at least on social issues. I can think of at least one colleague who shares these pages, and whose perspective fits that description.
It is a given assumption that at least one-third of our electorate tends toward conservative Republicanism. And I do not think that Ben Westlund can make inroads there.
The frightening thing to me, then, is that a Westlund candidacy would take away enough votes from the Democratic nominee - probably Kulongoski again - to tip the balance to the Republican nominee. And who might that be? Jason Atkinson is a right wing, pro-business, anti-choice, property-rights fundamentalist. Kevin Mannix is little better.
And I have seen the likes of Ron Saxton before. They talk a moderate game, but when they get in, they remember their supporters.
True, most of a Republican Governor's more radical initiatives would likely be blocked by a State Senate that will probably remain in Democratic hands, and a Court system with politically liberal inclinations. But I, for one, do not want the chief officer of this state advocating policies that are repulsive to me.
I know the counterarguments. The rural-urban divide has toxified this state's politics, and Ben Westlund is a problem-solver and a healer. Yet I urge those folks who are currently thinking that way to do the practical political math that at least to me, overrides any feel-good aspects of Ben's candidacy.
And no, I don't think Ben, as an independent, has the funding and the heft to get elected. I know that you will come back and say that the only reason he might not win are people like me, who lack the boldness to step out front because they are afraid of losing the status quo.
But I argue for another type of boldness. Political calculation is boldness - being able to calibrate your emotions and your sentiments with realpolitik.
Unfortunately - as many Nader voters later realized - political calculation should be considered when you mail in your ballot.
So if the choice is between a likeable guy who phones it in (Ted) or a right-winger who opposes almost everything I believe in, I have to tell myself that I do not want an Oregon where reproductive freedoms, land-use planning, and yes, public education are eroded based on the imperatives of specific theological beliefs and economic selfishness.
|
April 15, 2006
Posted in guest column. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 15, '06
Hi, Everyone--I won't vote for Westlund either. (He's not even a candidate yet!) I agree that the math doesn't work. But here are more reasons: First, Kulongoski has done tons to heal the rural-urban divide, including getting businesses to locate outside of the Portland metropolitan area, visiting every town with a population of over 2,000 people, and establishing an office of rural policy. Second, Saxton does not talk a moderate game. His statements in this Republican primary are pro-life, anti-immigration, and clueless on school issues. Third, Westlund was formerly pro-life and was Mannix's 2002 campaign chairman. He has re-invented himself and that makes me r-e-a-l-l-y nervous.
Apr 15, '06
Just because Westlund is from Bend, it doesn't make him rural.
The urban/rural issue plays out on a lot of levels, many are economic. Bend is certainly seeing itself as the urban center of Central Oregon. Now Westlund claims to be from outside of Bend, but that is his base and point from which his world view comes from.
Heal the urban/rural divide? I'd like to see specfics before I believe that.
Apr 15, '06
Geez... not that you can actually make predictions about November way out in April, but as long as it's being brought up, Zogby wrote about Kulo's chances last month:
"any incumbent below 50% is facing political trouble in an election year, as undecided voters historically tend to break for the challenger."
Without Kulongoski in the race, this election is going to break for the Republican very easily in November. Of course the Democrats are polling ahead before the primary -- they know who their nominee is going to be! (Sorry Pete and Jim... but honestly.)
Once the Repubs lock up behind their guy, they will run roughshod over Kulongoski without Westlund in the race.
Westlund is obviously the best choice, and I vote for the best candidate. So it's repulsive to me to hear my vote listed as being "taken away" from Kulongoski. Kulo doesn't own my vote, nor does he own any vote that looks toward Westlund as the best choice.
Wake up: Kulongoski is not going to win in November. If you're a progressive, you best hope that he doesn't spoil it for Westlund.
And myranda, the only people who don't think there's a rural-urban divide problem are the urbanites.
Apr 15, '06
Hi, everyone--First, JHL, you directed a comment to me about the urban-rural divide. I never said that there is not such a problem and I don't understand why you said "And myranda, the only people who don't think there's a rural-urban divide problem are the urbanites." Second, that Zogby poll is specious; it's an internet poll and not a scientific poll. Third, Westlund is not obviously the best choice for Democrats because he is a Republican, based on his past votes and actions. Fourth, of course no one owns your vote. It's yours, so why throw it away on Westlund?
3:34 p.m.
Apr 15, '06
Myranda,
If Westlund is not a candidate now, how come there is an ad for him right next to your post on this page?
Apr 15, '06
I feel whoever wins the Democratic nomination should spend a lot of time on College Campus's. Ben will appeal to a lot of the left leaning independants that are all over the college campus. I do a lot of political work at UO and there are a lot of students that claim to be indepandant and I think that Westlund will realy appeal to many of them. If the Democratic nominee does not come to college campus's in Oregon I think there are tens of thousands of votes that the Dems will loose.
Apr 15, '06
Here's a Ben Westlund radio spot from a few years ago. Caution: Progressives may be offended.
4:18 p.m.
Apr 15, '06
You know what you get if Westlund gets elected Governor? A leader who can't lead either political party. Be careful what you wish for............a three way tie for leadership (Dems, Republicans, Independent Governor) doesn't get it done. I know people will say Westlund will pull a few from each party. The reason Westlund is running at all as an Independent is because Minnis and Scott blocked him at every turn. Baffoons, Courtney and Brown had a Democratic Senate majority and couldn't deliver the goods. Saxton is playing hard to the Minnis crowd and he'll owe them big time. Mannix is a slimy loser want-a-be, Atkinson is a right wing religious type, And then there is Westlund, whom poster Myranda correctly pointed out is incredibly inconsistent and scary. I'm in total agreement with columnist Robert Shaw. Governor Kulongoski suits me fine thank you.
4:40 p.m.
Apr 15, '06
I think that articles like this one are part of the problem.
If there's ever a time in a political race to focus on substance, and leave the strategizing aside, it's early in the race.
There are many who are frustrated by the world of politics, and feel it's impossible to get their voices heard in the cacophany of political calculation.
I say this: relax already. It's a long time till November. Let's have a look at our options, and be thankful that we have a new voice in the debate this time. Sometimes good ideas come from a new perspective, and that can be important regardless of who wins.
When it comes time to make a choice, THEN let us know how your political calculus looks. But at the moment, this kind of analysis is nothing but alarmism and negativity...exactly the kind of forces that keep people from getting informed or casting a ballot.
-Pete
Apr 15, '06
I agree with Pete. We ought to look at the substance of the candidates now, and work out political calculations in the month before the election. If it looks like Kulongoski will lose to Saxton/Mannix/Atkinson in October, with Westlund in a distant third, that's the time to hold your nose and cast your vote based on political calculations.
I also think it is a mistake to think that all potential Westlund voters would otherwise vote for Kulongoski. There are a lot of folks who are not fans of Kulongoski or of the Republican bozos who are running. Don't forget how unpopular Kulongoski is.
5:13 p.m.
Apr 15, '06
For every Democrat considering Westlund, there HAS to be a disaffected Republican to match. Moderate Oregon Republicans have to be frustrated about the nuts and far-right idelogues that keep putting Democrats in office--you think faced with Saxton, Mannix or Atkinson and Westlund, they'll choose one of the nutbags again? If I'm a Republican, you damn skippy I'd vote for the independent I knew had a generally GOP pedigree, but who wasn't a partisan hack. Republicans have nothing to lose by voting Westlund; head to head against the GOP Kulongoski will hang on. But Democrats DO have something to lose by straying; control of the Executive.
The Zogby poll isn't useless (the trends are useful), but it is interactive and not scientific. Furthermore, I never wrote on it but I was disturbed that The O said Westlund benefitted at the Dem's expense, based on the results. That's bogus; the votes went from Ted to "Don't Know" as much if not more than towards Westlund.
And it's true Westlund's not a candidate--he's got an uphill battle just getting on the ballot.
Apr 15, '06
Tell it, Pete! Here's a good example of "frustration" from the world of politics... in an earlier comment:
Westlund is not obviously the best choice for Democrats because he is a Republican[sic]
That's why I gave up my party registration. I've been a Democrat my entire life... but it seems like the party regulars think that they know me well enough to know who my "best choice" is.
And, of course, Westlund is not a Republican. That's just false information.
(Ramon -- give us a good link to that radio spot... I'm curious now. I mean... if it exists.)
Apr 15, '06
Westlund can get to 38% and win (just like Betty Roberts beat Dave F. with only 40some percent of the votes cast), provided the following: 1-Westlund gets $2-3M to spend on air time to better get his word out. 2-Kulo continues to be a rather uninspiring candidate with a lousy record to run on. 3-Republicans pick a narrowly (rather than broadly) appealing candidate.
Can he then govern? You bet! Clinton governed very well with his 'triangulation' strategy, pitting the left against the right and stealing enough good ideas from each to forge a nice middle ground. And the 14 US Senators (7 Ds and 7 Rs) that Sen McCain crafted were also able to compromise and then tell the other 86 US Senators which Judges were going where, and when it was going to happen. Oregon is ripe for an Independent governor, and the middle of both Dems and Reps will gladly craft policies that get some legislation actually passed.
After eight years of Dr. Veto, and four more years of 'absentee leadership' from Kulo, and multiple years of Minnis gridlock don't you think that the middle Ds and Rs in both the House and Senate are ready do actually DO something? Believe me, the VOTERS are.
Apr 15, '06
Travis,
There are not tens of thousands of votes on college campuses, especially not in an off year gubernatorial primary.
7:02 p.m.
Apr 15, '06
I don't actually see the logic, Russell. If I were a Westlund guy--as you apparently are--supporting him now is critical. Independents face long odds, but they're not impossible odds. The thing he needs to do is build momentum now so that he gets press, money, and attention. If that happens, there's some chance he could win.
Based on his history, I'm skeptical that Westlund is the liberal I see portrayed on his website. I figure a long campaign will reveal some things about him, and so I'm happy to play the waiting game. (The opinion now holds that he'll take more votes from the Dems, but that's because he's in a honeymoon period. Will he still be running left in August?) But if longshot candidates are ever to win, the people who believe in them must have the courage to do the work early on.
Apr 15, '06
It's Barbara Roberts. Not Betty Roberts.
9:25 p.m.
Apr 15, '06
Even though I've voted in the primary already (as an overseas voter) I certainly won't rule anything out for November. I made the choice of who I'd like to see in within my party, which is usually who I stick with in the general election.
However, given the unique circumstances of the election, I could change my mind before November.
Apr 15, '06
I know that you will come back and say that the only reason he might not win are people like me, who lack the boldness to step out front because they are afraid of losing the status quo.
Um, actually, yeah...
Like Jeff Alworth said, the time to support an independent is now. That's what I'm doing. If, closer to the election, it looks like it's not viable and that he'll just be a spoiler, then I'd be willing to consider the other candidates. But, at this point, he's got my support.
Apr 15, '06
The same people who say that they cannot vote for Kulongoski are probably the same people that said they would rather vote for Nader than for Kerry. If they had spent that much energy to help someone but W win the election, and Kerry had a much better chance than Nader, we might not have 2 new Supreme Court justices that may overrule Roe v. Wade. We probably wouldn't have illegal wiretapping of American citizens. Political calculation counts. That always seem to be lost on "progressives".
Apr 15, '06
Speaking of political calculus... think long-term here. Rallying back to Kulongoski after two sessions of complete absence on every single Democratic issue around says:
Democrats -- Don't worry about keeping your liberal promises after you get elected, because your base will always flock back to you out of fear that the other guy might get in.
If we flock right back to Kulongoski, then we can forget about a Democratic candidate ever again standing up for Democratic values in office, because you just sent the message that it's okay.
10:53 p.m.
Apr 15, '06
FYI, I fixed Ramon's link above.
10:56 p.m.
Apr 15, '06
Just listened to that audio from Ramon... Ramon, is that really a Ben Westlund spot? Doesn't sound like it. It doesn't even sound legit. No "paid for by" anywhere, even.
11:15 p.m.
Apr 15, '06
Shake My Head--
Assuming always gets a person in trouble...
Every person I know who is not voting for Kulongoski in May also voted for Kerry in November, 2004. We all worked hard since 2000 towards getting a Democrat in the White House.
That has a lot to do with why we're not voting for Kulongoski-- we're tired of lowering our standards just to vote for the person people see as the "electable" one. A vote for Kerry was lowering my standards, as is a vote for Kulongoski.
I worked very hard for Howard Dean in 2003 and 2004. He's already proved he was a much better candidate for president than Kerry ever was. While Kerry is still full of talk, Dean's had action.
I will not be voting for Kulongoski in May-- my vote goes to Pete Sorenson. I'm trying to get my husband to hurry up and change his registration, as Pete was the candidate he was most impressed with as well.
However, if Kulongoski wins the primary, I will be holding my nose and voting for him in November. And if that means I have to be the monkey on his back to make sure he does what he needs to do, so be it. It we have to go down to Salem every week and rally and bug him until he gets off his ass and does something, then that's what we have to do.
While a vote for Kulongoski in November may be lowering my standards once again, I just don't see myself voting for Westlund for a variety of reasons. I like the guy, but I'm not ready to vote for him.
But in the meantime I'll talk to people and do everything I can to try to get them to vote for Pete.
Apr 16, '06
Kulongoski does not win in November, with or without Westlund in the race. He barely beat Mannix four years ago when all of labor and the Democratic Party were behind him and he had 20% head start.
Fortunately we have a primary election for Democrats to choose who will be the best nominee to lead on the issues and win in November.
We have two truly progressive Democrats to choose from in this upcoming primary neither of which is Kulongoski. Both Jim Hill and Pete Sorenson would do Democrats proud as governor.
In order to win in the primary and therefore the general election, Democrats need to pull together behind the one candidate that gives them both a true progressive agenda and the best chance to win Governor’s office. That candidate is Jim Hill.
Jim Hill shares all the true democrat values that Pete has been expressing for the past 18 months. In just two months of campaigning he has shown the ability to put together an effective campaign garnering the strong backing of many unions and he has the name recognition and record of accomplishment as Oregon State Treasurer to give him an advantage over any of the Republicans.
He proved that he can put together the war chest to counter millions that Saxton/Mannix will bring to the general election. Hill raised more money than Kulongoski in the 2002 primary and that was without any union funds.
A Jim Hill general election candidacy would be exciting for several reasons. First he would be a hard working progressive Democrat candidate that would draw a clear distinction of values and the vision of the state between himself and Saxton/Mannix.
Secondly, if Hill isn’t our nominee the only chance to make history is for Westland’s independent candidacy however with Kulongoski as the Dem nominee Westlund will be little more than 2006 version of Tom Cox giving a Saxton/Mannix a mandate type victory.
With Jim Hill as the Democrat nominee we begin an election that will take on national prominence. In addition to electing a hardworking true progressive, we will have a chance to make history by electing only the second African-American governor in the history of our nation. The attention and quite frankly the fundraising potential will make Jim the clear favorite in November. And maybe more importantly, there will be no reason for Dem voters to jump ship to Westlund.
It is obvious that there are many Democrats that are looking to Westlund because they can’t stomach four more years of Kulongoski however are there a significant number of Democrats out there who just wouldn’t support Jim Hill in the General Election? For Progressives, the path to victory is the May Primary and a Jim Hill General Election campaign.
It is not exactly simple math but…
Apr 16, '06
Hi, everyone--Jim Hill for governor? When I saw him in the televised debate he was drowsy, repetitive, negative, and confused. Especially when he tried to answer the question about siting a casino in the Gorge: his answer was essentially "I don't approve of gambling." Therefore, add "unrealistic" to the above litany. His performance on television was abyssmal and I don't see anything to suggest that his performance as governor would differ. His three union endorsements are public-sector unions that are just mad about PERS reform, which was crucial to the solvency and sustainability of the retirement system-- but those unions don't get that their retirement system would've imploded without that reform.
Apr 16, '06
Accroding to the URL, Ramon's radio spot came from image-com.org, and they still have their samples up on this page.
There's an extended version of the ad up there, which says it's paid for by the Committee for Oregon Term Limits. According to their Secretary of State filings, their huge sugar daddy is none other than Grover Norquist.
It's an attack on Westlund, silly! Funded by the right-wing nuts we all hate.
Apr 16, '06
Myranda,
You expressed your opinion of Jim's debate performance and I respect that. In your response to my post you did not address the issue that I was getting at. Do you see an alternative scenario for a Democrat victory in November?
Apr 16, '06
Jef--I indeed see an alternative scenario to elect a Democrat as governor in November. Vote for Kulongoski, who is a darn good Democrat. He creates jobs, is pro-choice, is pro-environment, and is pro-education, including skills-training. Above all, Kulongoski is realistic in getting all he can get on those issues from the Republicans in the Oregon House. It's fine to be a "true blue" Oregonian and argue for very progessive politics but when the ballots are issued, be a realist: we are not a "true blue" state.
Apr 16, '06
Myranda,
Again I respect your opinion and support of Kulongoski, however again you did not address any of the points that I made about the current state of election prospects for the Novemeber election.
Kulongoski barley won four years ago with universal union and progressive support which it is clear he won't have this time.
Kulongoski as an incumbent governor has a 36% approval rating and is being out fundraised by at least one of his Republican challengers.
Westlund's campaign is driven by progressives that are refusing to support Ted.
Jim Hill has been elected state wide twice, is a strong fundraiser, and is a hard working and in your words "true blue" campaigner.
So again, please outline a scenario where a Democrat other than Jim Hill wins in November.
p.s. I don't think you want to start a conversation on who has gotten the best of who between TK and the House Republicans...
Apr 16, '06
Its not that I don't care who wins the governor's race, just that I care much more about protecting the Oregon Senate and winning back the Oregon House.
If it is Kulongoski (or god forbid sleep inducing Jim Hill) in the November election then every 2/4 or less voter (translation, voted in 2 out of the last four elections) will skip the election, which means House candidates Brian Clem, Chris Edwards, Larry Galizio, Jean Cowan etc lose, and the republicans might just succeed in beating Vicki Walker.
So for political calculus, disregard who wins the governor's race for now and focus on what will get the turnout we need to win the House. For my money, I don't see a ballot measure that will do it (excepting Payday loans and maybe HOPES, looks like Apollo isn't going to qualify)
For the primary I will vote for Pete Sorenson, and if Kulongoski wins I will work for Ben Westlund. Whatever Ben's impact on the governor's race, his ability to draw out Independents frustrated with tweedledee/tweedledum and his appeal to progressives will only help those further down the ticket. Kulongoski only won last time because the unions and environmental community worked like crazy, he is not going to get that same kind of support this time and by extension, turnout will be low. Luckily Mannix is a wounded bird as well. Saxton scares me, but he's not going to win over enough of his party's right wing to beat Mannix (ie Bloggers for Atkinson).
I hope like heck Sorenson gets the nod, because he will also get those voters to vote. He may not win, but by hanging on to his coattails we can take back the House and banish Minnis and Scott back to Mordor.
Just once, I 'd like to be able to vote for someone at the top of the ticket that wasn't a calculated vote. I can't pinch my nose tight enough anymore to vote for Kulongoski. He lost me for good when he proposed his '05-'07 budget.
Jm
Apr 16, '06
Hello Ben Westlund is not a republican he is a democrat or why would u have an ad on the side, calls himself a republican- running as an independent he is basically supported by Basic rights oregon or the ACLU only has one agenda...My support and my vote is going for Senator Jason Atkinson Just check out our blog www.capitol3republican.blogspot.com Also come here senator Jason Atkinson speak at the Sheridan baptist church sheridan oregon April 18th from 4:00-5:00
Apr 16, '06
Kudos for Karen Minnis for blocking ben westlund to run as a Republican way to go Karen... Just check out our blog our support is going for the True republican candidate Senator Jason Atkinson www.capitol3republican.blogspot.com Atkinson for Governor Also all are invited to come here senator Jason Atkinson do a Town Hall style meeting at sheridan baptist church sheridan oregon from 4:00-5:00 april 18th
1:30 p.m.
Apr 16, '06
Editorials in the Medford Mail Tribune offered soft support of Ted's comment in the debate about some sort of consumption tax. There was even a call for raising the gas tax in Rogue River to improve roads. Strong complaints about the crumbling Medford schools dotted the letters to the editor. Ted Kulongoski got corporate tax increases through the 2003 Legislature as part of a statewide tax increase, but the package was rejected by Oregon voters. Kulongoski has been tilling the fields to raise the corporate income minimum tax and he wants to end the corporate kicker, according to the "O." The Medford Mail Tribune editorials are beginning to reflect a need for more resources in the form of a consumtion tax and did not stomp on Ted's idea. Mannix, Saxton and Atkinson are all opposed to raising business taxes and want to cut capital gains taxes. Like the sign over main street in Grants Pass says, "It's the climate." it sure is starting to look like the climate down in Southern Oregon just might be changing.
1:40 p.m.
Apr 16, '06
Tammy, Westlund is not a Democrat, he's a card carrying Republican who switched to Independent because Minnis and Scott blocked him at every turn in the legislature.
Apr 16, '06
Paulie, you last two comments are truly bizarre.
The first is a cut-and-paste of a Kulongoski talking points page, taking credit for a plan that he offered no support on during the last session. In fact, he ran away from those comments so fast that your support here is more than anything Kulongoski ever gave to his own lame proposal.
The second contains another one of your famous opposing couplets:
So... Westlund is such a good Republican that Minnis and Scott disagree with him on everything? I'm not sure I follow.
2:26 p.m.
Apr 16, '06
Howdy JHL,
Minnis and Scott aren't happy with Westlund,s support of gay and lesbian rights. Atkinson is the candidate to watch on the Republican side. The 35 year old conservative candidate is running hard with conservative religious folk's support. As the most conservative of the three Republican candidates, his stance on immigration is resonating with the base of the Republican Party. Expect Atkinson to take votes from Ben Westlund (whom I applaud for his enlightened stance on gay/lesbian rights) and to be the candidate to fear after Ted Kulongoski serves out his second term.
3:00 p.m.
Apr 16, '06
This is insane. Are we really trying to talk with certitude about who we're going to vote for half a year from now, when it's still a month before we even know who's going to be on the ballot? All this talk about who can or can't win with or without Westlund on the ballot is ridiculous. Especially when we haven't even establish a consensus on who the two major party candidates are going to be. I can't believe people are actually claiming to be basing their votes on what they seem to clairvoyantly know is going to be the situation in November. I mean, anything could happen in the next six months. Come November, the Dem candidate could be up or down by 10% or more. Westlund may or may not even be on the ballot and could have support anywhere from 5-35%. I really can't believe there isn't a little more of a wait-and-see attitude. Now's a great time to be making your mind up about the primary, but I think getting ahead to the general is more than a little bit premature.
And is that really an Atkinson supported trawling for support on BlueOregon? What's up with that? At least she does a great job of making the case that we're not spending enough on education. Those were a couple of painful comments to [try to] read...
3:44 p.m.
Apr 16, '06
In my neck of the woods, Tualatin, there are Atkinson lawn signs up.
5:37 p.m.
Apr 16, '06
Paulie--
They're everywhere out here in Gresham. Thus far the only signs I've seen out my way are Atkinson and Wheeler.
Apr 17, '06
Oh ye of little faith saying Clem and Cowan will lose because of the top of the ticket. Try to sell that In 1980 were you saying Jim Hill didn't have a chance because Carter was going to lose to Reagan?
Only because Carter conceded early did Jim Hill not get elected state rep. in 1980 (recount said 61 votes). Whatever you think of Hill now, I think Brian Clem is that sort of up and coming, young, well known Salem candidate with a real chance of winning against an incumbent who has won twice--the second time by a smaller margin than the first. And Cowan only lost by 400 and some votes last time but hasn't got a chance without a strong candidate at the top of the ticket because she can't get elected unless people come out for the Gov. race?
Sorry, I think voters cast their votes for individual candidates on individual ballot lines, not for straight tickets. But that may be because I know Bush/ Hooley voters and other combinations like that.
4:02 p.m.
Apr 18, '06
As I stated in another thread, I remained open minded as to who I was going to vote for within the Democratic party. I have to agree with Myranda, Hill was stiff and seemed disconnected from reality in the debates. He had been someone I was seriously thinking about, but in the end really disappointed me.
I'll try to remain open minded in the general election, at least in terms of voting for either Westlund or whomever wins the democratic nomination.
A side note: Someone was arguing about Westlund's political affilation. I believe I read somewhere he was a Democrat, switch to a Republican and then to an independant.
4:11 p.m.
Apr 18, '06
He's certainly been a Republican for as long as he's been in the public eye.
Apr 18, '06
Really enjoying each sides' campaign hacks posting anon and pseudononymously.
Anyway. It's really important that Oregon have a Democratic governor.
Because only a Democratic governor will solidly defend a woman's right to an abortion. And I trust only a Democratic governor to work on issues like the environment and education and health care and all that other stuff that goes in the campaign lit. And only a Democractic governor will make Oregon-specific issues relevant to and work well with our largely Democractic congressional delegation and a hopefully Democratic next president. And only a Democratic governor can bring Oregon towards a future that is at all worth having.
The Democratic nominee is going to be Kulongoski. This is no time for a whiny protest vote in the primary. We need to come out swinging. In a Kulongoski v. Saxton contest, Westlund plays the spoiler. In a Kulongoski v. Mannix contest, Westlund plays the spoiler. Even if hell freezes over and Westlund wins, Westlund still plays the spoiler, because he's a Republican. Let me say that again in case you missed it: Westlund is a Republican. Just because he re-labeled himself, doesn't mean the content has changed. Westlund is a Republican under new management, he's a Republican with a shiny new look, but he's still a Republican.
So you can hem and haw, and you can wax poetic on independence or wax nostalgic on politics, you can drink Ben's bull sperm or you can wish that Ted was more communist or Ron was less extremist or Kevin was less weird, but in the end, if you are a progressive at all, you should recognize that it is really important that we have a Democratic governor, and that Democratic governor has to be Ted Kulongoski.
Apr 19, '06
you can drink Ben's bull sperm
What??? I... uh... there was a point being made... but then you lost me.
12:48 p.m.
Apr 19, '06
Really enjoying each sides' campaign hacks posting anon and pseudononymously.
Really? Which campaign are you with? For the record, I, for one, am not affiliated with any of the candidates for office.
The Democratic nominee is going to be Kulongoski. This is no time for a whiny protest vote in the primary.
On the contrary, this is exactly the time for a whiny protest vote, in the primary. You're right, Ted is going to win this primary, and when he does he's going to need all the Democrats to unite behind him if he's gonna knock off Saxton. The only way he's going to get that is if his detractors feel as if they're at least part of the process. That's what primaries are for, choosing the party's nominee (whether he/she is an incumbent or not). But there's all this talk by Ted's supporters disparaging the other primary candidates, telling them they should just suck it up and vote for a guy they don't like, and (the whopper of them all) Ted himself refusing to support the other candidates should one of them win (a move that was especially moronic since it's a gesture of respect that would've cost him nothing, since he knows he's going to win anyway). That just further alienates the supporters of his primary challengers when it comes time for the general. If you try to hard to discourage them from casting their whiny protest vote now, in the primary, they just might do it in the general, when it will actually matter.
Let Pete and Jim have their say. Let them talk about the issues that are important to them (and, if you're smart at least pay lip-service to some of them). Let their supporters feel like they're part of process and have a say. Winning the primary 50-25-25 but having the support and respect of the 50% that voted against you is SOOO much more important than winning 70-15-15 and having that 30% not vote (or vote for an independent) in November.
<h2>Also, for the record, Tom McCall was a Republican too, and I'd take him in a heartbeat over any of the candidates on this year's slate.</h2>