Where's the entire transcript?

Not going to get a response?

Just off the cuff I think he gave an entirely lucid AND appropriate response. What is the poster trying to read into this (as if I couldn't guess)?

Saxton said:I am not going to comment on Federal issues (He's running for a state office)

Saxton said (after being ineffectively baited):That the Governor has no authority over Federal issues OR Federal troops (NATIONAL guard) except for disaster relief or under STATE provisions for their use....is Iraq somewhere in Oregon?

Saxton said:He would cooperate with the President NO MATTER WHO was in office.

I guess that's not enough for some Kool Aiders though.

Kulongoski is toast.

The there's that thorny issue of Iraq not being in Oregon (and the Governor having no jurisdiction over anything done there)...and hundreds of thousand of illegals ARE...and the Governor here DOES have a liiiiiittle input into that.

...sorry missy...I'll look for a different rock.

Me? nah...I'm harmless.

Felix

ooooh! I get it now! DUH...my apologies!

You're the man who posted the riveting thread "Three Great Americans" ....my apologies to the Great American novelist.

Kudos and kowtows....PUHLEEZ accept my humble apologies.

Interesting. What would Saxtons stance be on states rights versus the federal government? Would he have a position on that, or is that a federal issue? What about state agencies which enforce federal statutes and rules, such as the DEQ which enforces the federal clean water act? Where does Ron draw the line between federal and state issues?

is Iraq somewhere in Oregon?

No ... but there are Oregonians in Iraq. Their mission (such as it is) reflects on all of us. That makes it an issue we should all feel invested in and connected to. Even someone running for Oregon "Governer."

To be fair, though, nobody ever accused Saxton of having a pair.

Too true, James. Though, I don't really see any balls on the D side, either.

Two candidates, afraid to take stances on anything of questionable polling value. Why don't we just let Rasmussen run the state via focus group?

I'm just so excited that someone out there is asking the question: "What is your stance on the war in Iraq?" Any petty arguments about why a candidate shouldn't HAVE to voice an opinion are moot. If it is so irrelevant, why not answer the question truthfully?

Now if only the TV folks would jump in and ask that pesky question....since that is where most voters get their daily dose. Let's get this party started!

What is particularly interesting is that he's now dropped his "I support the President schtick." From the February 8 Medford Mail-Tribune:

On Iraq, Saxton said, "He (George Bush) is the president and I support him. It’s a federal issue and I’m not going to comment on federal issues."

Today's Oregonian offers a much different take from his campaign.

Does anyone really think these positions are based on principle when they seem to shift based on whatever audience he is talking to?

Why is everyone who posts a differing view on this forum labeled as a troll?
Is it a requirement of this blog that everyone must agree with one point of view? How boring!

The theme of this thread sounds oh so familiar. Good for Ron. He was smart enough to leave that bait alone and stick to pertinent issues.

BTW, our governor does hold some power where illegal immigration is concerned, unlike deploying U.S. troops overseas. It's a bogus comparison, but of course you already knew that.

If the democrats think the way to win a Governor's race in Oregon is by using Iraq as a talking point, that's just another case where they really need to come up with some platform other than "We're not Bush"... seriously folks... do the Democrats even have a message?

Kulongoski's platform seems to be "Tax Everything!"

Hi, Everyone. Saxton's non-comment about the war in Iraq was another example of his tyring to have it both ways. In the primary, he said that he supported Bush's policy in Iraq. Now he is not commenting. What's he afraid of? Taking a stand on something? Yes. In a similar way, he says that he supports choice but he also is in favor of Ballot Measure 43 (parental notification). In a similar way, he says he is pro-schools but he won't take a stand on Portland's school funding measure (where he lives, for goodness sakes!) now will he reveal how he would pay for better schools. The guy is spineless.

Oh no, it appears this thread has been taken over by...dare I say it...RATIONAL THOUGHT!

Before I'm accussed of being a troll (though an oaf or ogre would probably bear a closer resemblance), I'm no Republican, nor would most reasonable folk classify me as a "right-winger". Supporting John Kitzhaber should give me some street cred from the left.

Aaron makes a point that is echoed by many mainstream, non-political junkies, including myself. IMHO, Democrats are squandering a golden opportunity to win back voters. I have never seen a political party so on the ropes as the GOP are now, yet their opponenet is too impotent to deliver the knockout blow. Come on, folks. Grow a pair and develop an agenda other than "we are not Bush" or "we need more money". I disagreed with Kitzhaber on plenty of issues, but he was still the best man (available at the time) for the job. I saw a decent man with a plan who was willing to buck the system, yet still understood who he represented. Kulongoski strikes me as a decent man as well, but I gotta tip my hat toward Saxton right now. He's in the least admirable position. The far-right calls him a liberal, the far-left calls him an extremist and he's forced to walk a razor thin tightrope between the two. At the end of the day, who is best prepared to lead us in the right direction? I say that person is Ron Saxton. Even some registered Democrats share that opinion, as I have good friends in both camps. I have noticed Kulongoski signage strangely absent from neighbors lawns where other Democratic candidates are advertised. Some are going with Saxton, along with many of our non-affilliated, independent Oregonians.

To sum up this long winded rant, I say get a message Democrats. Steal one if you have to. Too often you get stuck in this shrill, bash the other party mode and it's a real turn off to us Joe12Pack's. Give me something I can respect and I just might vote for you next time around.

Back to sports and drinking.

As someone who has gone door to door for multiple candidates (all challengers, all Dem.) I think their strength is that they don't all agree on everything. They debate issues and agree on some but disagree on others --what a concept!

There are those who say "if it is a Democrat, I am voting for that person". There are people who look at the flier and say they don't see the issues they care about on the flier (the answer is to point out the website, email address, phone number listed on the flier). There are those who are grateful that someone actually came to their door. "Don't see many legislators around here" was one comment today--a voter receptive to a candidate pledging to hold regular town hall meetings.

I don't know what "the Democrats" believe outside of their adopted platform, because when I was on State Central Comm. there were a lot of policy disagreements.

But I don't know what "the Republicans" believe anymore either. Many of them seem to be campaigning on "preserve our power at any cost!". I have voted R, D, and Indep.

And no one I have met is gung ho about hating Bush. But then, the people I know are more interested in electing legislators than in debating federal issues.

If Ted Kulongoski would spend more time at public events in Salem that would be a good idea. I heard from someone today that every visit to the website only shows visits outside Salem. And after all, as I recall Ted lost Polk Co. State workers are a big segment of Salem area voters, and if they are more interested in campaigning for legislators than in the governor's re-election, that could be as big a factor in the final vote as any issue.

With all due respect--I should think "we are not Bush" should be plenty for voters to check the D box.

My point exactly and thank you for exemplifying it for me.

By all means, continue with your effective campaign strategy. "We are not Republicans". May I suggest a Democratic slogan for the '06 elections? "We got nothin'".

The Oregonian, Saturday, October 07, 2006 HARRY ESTEVE

After once saying he supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, Gov. Ted Kulongoski now says the war "is just spinning out of control" and the United States should set a strict timetable for getting out.

It seems Kulongoski once supported the Iraq invasion. So, he was for it before he was against it? Are you sure you want to make Iraq a campaign issue in the Oregon Governors race? Y'all might want to highlight the fact that Ted makes a point to attend the funerals of our fallen soldiers and leave it at that.

Let's get the Oregon Guard back in Oregon where they belong. We need to take the "National" part out of their name, and tell the other 49 states that we're going our own way from now on.

A bunch of highly skilled and trained citizen soldiers have no business fighting a war halfway around the world.

Then -- while nobody's looking -- we can invade Canada. At least then it will be in the same hemisphere. Bonus: free beer, eh.

Two questions: How many people are going to base their vote in the gubernatorial race on a candidate's statements about Iraq? How does this compare to the number whose votes will be based on a candidate's statements about, say, roads and schools?

I won't try to answer, but I will hazard a comment about the first: if someone is going to choose a gubernatorial candidate based on a consistent opposition to the Iraq War, the candidate of choice is going to be the Pacific Green candidate, not the Democratic candidate.

I'd love to see candidates for Governor hold town hall meetings in Salem where voters could ask them questions in person. I think my friend had the best way to judge candidates for Gov. "Who has a vision for the future and a plan to carry it out?". I saw that in Westlund and I see some of that in the 3rd party candidates, but not from these 2 nominees.

And Joe12, you need to read the national news if you think the "for it before against it" crack is relevant in 2006. Not too hard to find news stories like this with a very short search: The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday offered a stark assessment of the situation in Iraq after a trip there this week, saying that parts of the country have taken "steps backwards" and that the United States is at risk of losing the campaign to control an increasingly violent Baghdad.

Or maybe you can't handle the fact that a growing number of Americans of all persuasions are tired of hearing there can be no detailed debate on Iraq because the choices are: "Stay the course" or "cut and run" and no one should even think of going beyond soundbites.

What? The war in Iraq isnt going so well? NO WAY! Who could have foreseen such an outcome?

Thanks so much for enlightening me, LT.

We can and should have detailed debates on Iraq- just not in Oregon gubernatorial debates. Injecting it only serves as a political wedge and distracts from more pertinent issues. Besides, trying to photoshop Saxton in with Bush & Iraq probably wont fly. Just ask Phil Angelides down in California how well that strategy has worked for him. Heck, his opponent even stumped for W. at the GOP convention. No, I think Ted & Ron will do best sticking with local themes and ideas for Oregon. May the best man win.

BTW lin qiao,

All three of the minor party candidates strongly oppose the Iraq war, not just the Greenie.

Frank,

Of course you realize that the federal government holds ultimate authority over the National Guard, not state governors. You wont hear Ted make the same kind of ridiculous statements a desperate candidate like Starrett makes because he knows better. He did publicly object to placing our National Guard troops along the Mexican border, but if the feds deploy 'em, that's where they'll go.

Interesting sidenote, I was surprised to hear Tim Hibbits say recently that Mary Starrett also took a point or two from registered democrats in a recent poll. Can that be explained away by margin of error? Recent polling also indicates that some mongooses really like cobras.

Kari,

You've illustrated that one cannot post one's opinion here freely without being attacked and called sophmoric names. Did you graduate from the first grade?

Kari,

Your house, so you make the rules.

But Wikipedia has the definition of a troll as including those people who call others a troll. I laughed when I saw that.

Regarding your comment: "First, Phil wrote, Why is everyone who posts a differing view on this forum labeled as a troll?

Then, Phil wrote, Kulongoski's platform seems to be "Tax Everything!"

Seriously, Phil.

<h2>Not everyone who has a differing view is labeled a troll. Just people who post uninformed, unsubstantiated, ideologically-blinded, idiotic comments like yours."</h2>

Ouch, but whatever! (your house...)

If Saxton wanted to really win this thing, then he would just keep advertising Kulo in his own words on all of the KULO PRO-TAX sound bytes. I am not a troll for saying that during the election, it is probably not the best time to blab about a sales tax to Oregonians.

Of course, if Kulo really wanted to win this thing, then he would keep replaying Saxton's brilliant "We should fire all state employees, then hire them back on a gutted PERS plan".

Maybe, deep down, neither one really wants to win this thing.

I know I have, and many of my friends and associates have, used phrases that are exaggerated such as Saxton's "We should consider firing all state employees.....". For me, exaggeration is used to make a point in a debate or conversation; then the dialogue goes on to explore the options. Ted has made exaggerated comments on issues to make a point and it has helped to understand his position and his seriousness in addressing the issue. Exaggeration is not a dem/republican flaw, but how we converse for many of us. Sure, there will be some of you that will say I don't want a leader that uses this means. I don't mind and I am use to it.

Saxton is neither a D nor an R. He is a professional candidate that has proved that he is willing to LIE to be eligible for an election. Shock!

Saxton comes from the Sizemore/McIntire school of making a nice living representing out of state political interests. How come he can't raise all of that money in Oregon?

Ted K doesn't put a lot out there, and I am not a huge fan. Ron Saxton is the type of snake oil salesman that has been pushing no tax/privatization around here since the early 90s. Maybe we should let Saxton have a term, so he can be like the rest of the Rs, get the screwing over with and let everybody see how full of it they are. These Rs are terrible with our money, and there is no getting around it. Bill Sizemore is terrible with his own money as well.

A troll is someone who drops a bumpersticker remark on a blog, no substance. If you wish to participate, feel free to disagree, etc. Dropping a tired one liner and then running away is just foolish. At least read a Man Coulter book or listen to Lard Larsen to get some talking points that we can debunk, ok?

Actually, governors' decision on how National Guard troops are deployed DOMESTICALLY has a profound influence on how well we are protected in our global wars.

Kulongoski stood up to Donald Rumsfeld when The Don tried to apply his failed ideas about down-sizing the U.S. military that have led to such dismal results in Iraq to the North West's air defenses. I like having fighter jets nearby to stop would-be attacks, and I thank Kulongoski for keeping them here. As an RNC puppet, Saxton wouldn't have the brass to say no to the administration. Even his supporters have to know that.

Saxton's apparent belief that governors don't make major decisions and contributions to the safety of the country in war time shows once more that he doesn't understand the job he's trying to get.

I'm voting for the marine.