KGW Debate: Allen Alley Crushes Chris Dudley
Kari Chisholm
Last night, three Republican candidates for Governor - Chris Dudley, Allen Alley, and John Lim - debated live on KGW-8.
According to the Oregonian's Harry Esteve, they were kinda short on specifics:
Three top Republican candidates for governor tangled in their first televised debate Wednesday, each claiming to be the one who could turn Oregon's struggling economy around.
But when asked by an audience member to name three things they would do to bring more jobs to Oregon, they gave answers that got a bit fuzzy. ...
If voters had been looking for more differences to come out in the debate, which was hosted by KGW(8) and The Oregonian, they would have been disappointed. All three candidates hewed to themes of lowering taxes, shrinking state spending and giving Oregon businesses more breathing room.
Nonetheless, KGW's assembled panel of 32 undecided Republicans overwhelmingly shifted in favor of Allen Alley. Before the debate, they were leaning 22-16% in favor of Alley - afterwards, Alley crushed Dudley 72% to 19%. Details from Jeff Mapes.
KGW also deployed a live people-meter to study reactions to the debate. Watch the video to see how it went.
 |
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
12:11 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
at least these three were talking about jobs,our economy and putting the private sector back to work unlike kitzhaber and bradbury who dont care about anyone in the private sector.its funny the blue oregon crowd nitpicks conservatives and questions them but when a progressive like bradbury or kitzhaber has no plan on reducing umemployment or getting the economy going again the blue oregon crowd is silent as can be.what is wrong with the theme of lowering taxes blue oregon crowd?when is the last time any progressive leader actually cared about private sector jobs and wanted to lower taxes on businesses?what is wrong with shrinking state spending?did the state really need to waste 80 to 130 million on consultants for the i-5 bridge project in this tough economy?why couldnt that 80 to 130 million be put in a rainy day fund?at least the conservatives care and have a plan unlike kitzhaber and bradbury who i will not vote for.
12:23 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
Better question: what's so terrible about capital letters?
12:30 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
Nothing terrible about capital letters, but then again, what's so terrible about addressing the substance of a person's comment rather than belittling someone for their commenting idiosyncrasies?
12:56 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
For one thing, if you can read the comment more easily, it's easier to address. Matthew may have some good points, but without appropriate capitalization, punctuation and spacing, it's hard to read what he is writing.
Additionally--and this is a bias towards those who can communicate effectively via the written word--if the writer can't communicate clearly or effectively, what's the guarantee that their ideas will be of any quality?
To address what I think Matthew is saying--business taxes have been lowered over the past thirty years. Personal income taxes take up the slack between what corporate taxes used to pay and what is paid now. So no, I'm not wildly interested in reducing business taxes, because that's been a consistent Republican program on the national and state level for years, with little concern for those of us in the middle.
3:30 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
If there is a discernible point to a person's comment, then it seems kind and courteous to respond to the substance of the comment rather than denigrate the person's communication skills. If not, then by all means, go after the lack of substance.
Perhaps I misunderstood the whole "identity" thing - to elevate the nature of the debate. I certainly didn't mean to imply that somebody should respond... I've heard Matthew's questions ad infinitum, and chose not to engage.
It's been said here a few times - try to avoid ad hominem responses. That was really my only point. Even with verifiable names, we don't really know the nature or capacities of many of the people who post - just hoping we can try assuming the best about people who are willing to engage.
Cheers!
9:33 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
I'm actually partial to Steven's point, but, there seems to be an implication that it speaks to character.
I could argue it either way, but it is a fact that last month I saved myself getting ripped off on eBay by scrutinizing a transaction a lot closer than I normally would have. The only reason I did was because the guy wrote like that. Seemed like anyone with that level of contempt or that lazy would be most likely to simply lie. As it turned out, it was an 18 year old that never had the item and just wanted to grab a quick $50.
As to his points, I think that's pretty simple. He only thinks that cutting business tax stimulates jobs. There are plenty of people that think other facts are just as important, maybe more so. That's fine if he doesn't believe that for whatever reason, but it is arrogant to project that model as "the answer" and say that no one else has proposed anything.
Forget the punctuation. The question is, are you going to make the point that we should be cutting business taxes on every point, unembellished, and simply flesh out the post with some name calling, or are you prepared to talk about something besides cutting taxes?
Steven, I assume this is a "party" blog. NOTHING will EVER be taken based on the factual merits. It's who you are, who you know, what you look like, and how everyone else feels about you. Political thinkers are never going to let themselves look bad. They are hardly ever going to say, "Boy, was I wrong". It's more important to look right than to be right.
10:14 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
Point taken on both scrutinizing something that sets off little alarms and especially on the party and political thinkers - though I hope I'm a little more optimistic =)
Not only have I been known to be wrong, but embarrassingly wrong at that sigh
I believe the direction taken by BO was a good one, and I hope it really does improve the dialog... if not the factual merits =)
Cheers!
9:44 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
Fair enough. I should have refrained from the snark. But given Matthew's substance-free comments, a substance-free response seemed in order.
10:23 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
Perhaps I'm just old and tired - and getting to the point where I'm finally following grandma's advice: If you don't have something nice read substantial....
It's not like I haven't been snarky myself, but I'm trying Oregon's Accountability Model that requires us to model pro-social behavior huge grin Don't know if it's going to work. Sorry if my earlier comment came across as self righteous, it wasn't intended that way.
Cheers.
8:56 a.m.
Apr 23, '10
Simply showing up is not enough. Mr. Vantress does not merit a substantive reply when he could not muster up enough energy to write a coherent comment. He purged some bile without any facts or proper punctuation.
11:16 a.m.
Apr 23, '10
Thank you Jason. I've asked Matthew repeatedly here on BO and on online newspaper comments to please use standard punctuation. He refuses to do so even though many, including myself, will simply scroll past his entries because they are practically unreadable. Why anyone would waste their time typing something in a format that distracts from the point they are trying to make or that causes people to ignore their comments entirely is beyond me.
Matthew--for at least the 10th time--PLEASE use proper punctuation.
2:11 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
It's the digital equivalent of one person making their written points in crayon.
3:09 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
Like I said, nothing terrible about capitalization (any effective communication), but digital snobbery isn't really necessary either. Addressing the substance in good faith seems a perfectly courteous thing to do.
Cheers.
1:50 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
"when a progressive like bradbury or kitzhaber has no plan on reducing umemployment or getting the economy going again"
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.
On the front page of Kitzhaber's campaign website is a link that says "Jobs for Oregon". You can find his plan here: http://www.johnkitzhaber.com/prosperity/
Likewise, on Bradbury's web site, there is a document titled "8 Solutions to Get Oregon Working Again": http://www.bradbury2010.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Final8Solutions.pdf
Both of these plans talk at length about creating jobs in the private sector.
3:45 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
Thanks for the links =)
5:11 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
Kitzhaber's jobs plan: http://www.johnkitzhaber.com/media/uploads/kitzhaber_jobs_plan.pdf
Bradbury's economic solutions: http://www.bradbury2010.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Final8Solutions.pdf
9:41 a.m.
Apr 25, '10
Yes, you are right. Kitzhaber and Bradbury don't care about anyone in the private sector.
Do you even slightly care about being truthful?
From your post, it seems unlikely.
2:06 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
Did they even really need a debate? You can kind of expect that, given the current political climate and where anyone who still calls themselves a Republican stands...the further to the right you are, the more support you'll get. They could all stand up there and give the same exact answers, and whomever Lars Larson or whoever says is more conservative, they're going to throw their lot in with.
2:10 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
Matthew, just because you repeat "lower taxes creates jobs" all the time doesn't make it so.
And the notion that Democrats don't care about private sector jobs? Puh-lease. Ridiculous.
2:32 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
Chief Entrepreneurial Officer? WTH is that?
3:01 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
I don't like the type of TV coverage that KGW does here. I'd rather see a focus in the general media on actual issues - not campaigns, polls or this gimmick of audience reaction to a debate. Blue Oregon is a great place to discuss campaigns, etc., but the general media needs to better present the choices facing voters. This type of coverage is not good for democracy.
3:18 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
I agree David - attention to the actual issues instead of the "gimmick of audience reaction" would be welcome (I believe) by many people. Any coverage willing to tackle the issues from all sides would face a serious uphill battle for profitable viewer ship. Until then, I think sites like BO (from all the political perspectives) will dominate discussion of actual issues.
3:33 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
Upthread Joyce hits on the key point here: if low business taxes are such a hot ticket to wealth and prosperity, why has Oregon not enjoyed them, given that business taxes have been among the lowest in the country? And remain so, even after M67.
We can believe things without evidence, but when we try to convince others of our views, it's good to assume that THEY will require a bit more.
Matthew, I've seen several comments from you today that amount to the same thing: liberals have hog-tied business and it is for this reason that unemployment is so bad. Rather than just blame liberals, I put it to you: what is the prescription for 1) lowering unemployment in Oregon, and 2) boosting local business?
I get that you don't think liberals have done a good job. Tell us what a good job looks like.
4:21 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
I saw a great bumper sticker yesterday..."Don't believe everything you think"
Ignoring evidence, failing to investigate facts and suspending logic has become standard for too large a portion of our population.
4:46 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
I'm currently in Reno where there is no income tax and the economy is in tatters. They would love to have the Oregon economy.
I'm a managing partner in a business here and many of the employees would love to move it to Oregon and for the business, we would pay lower taxes in Oregon. However, the cost of the move and the disruption will make it really difficult to move. Same goes for companies in Oregon that claim they would like to move elsewhere.
Frankly, there is little the Governor can do to add jobs in Oregon quickly, but I really believe that we are on a path to recovery ahead of the rest of the country because we didn't trash the state with the cuts that have taken place in Nevada and California. I just read that Stream is adding 500 jobs in Beaveton and Columbia and Intel have had strong results and are hiring.
My suggestion to the Republicans, since they were short of specifics, is to start boosting the state instead of running it down.
Go Oregon.
6:56 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
The most interesting question to me was the one asking the candidates to identify which parts, if any, of the state Republican party platform they disagreed with. It was a great question, as anyone who had actually read that crazy-ass document would know.
None of the three wanted to touch that can of worms, much less open it, and they each sidestepped the question in their own way, finding not a scintilla of difference between the official Oregon Republican party platform and their own views. The moment begged for follow-up questions, but the format did not allow follow-ups.
Mr. Alley did state, somewhat gingerly, that the Oregon GOP platform was 38 pages long, and that should have offered the audience a clue that there were perhaps some other elephants in the room. The fact that the platform is that long was the only direct comment on the platform by any of the candidates.
The GOP platform is actually 48 God-fearing pages long, was mostly written by the religious right, and is full of those crazy-ass ideas so popular with the tea party people.
These examples are from the section on Education:
“2.10.We encourage the inclusion of voluntary firearms safety and hunting safety curricula as well as the support of rifle and other marksmanship clubs in government schools.”
“2.12.We support the abolition of the United States Department of Education and the Oregon Department of Education….”
“2.14.We stand opposed to state and federal funding of pre-schools including Head Start.”
The debate would have been far more interesting if the candidates had been asked direct questions about their views on guns in public schools, the abolition of the Oregon State Department of Education, and whether they were indeed opposed to both state and federal funding of Head Start.
Maybe next time, next debate, there will be better questions, better answers, and a candidate with real courage might emerge….
So far, it’s not in the cards.
8:09 p.m.
Apr 22, '10
(almost) completely off topic. Another useful thing that Facebook brings to the discussion is sympathy, if you bother to follow the links out a bit.
Harder to get a good Mad on when you know just that little bit more about the commenter, even if the merits of their argumentation are unchanged.
12:02 a.m.
Apr 23, '10
the speech coach in me cringes when I see these debates.
7:47 p.m.
Apr 23, '10
i dont judge someone on whether they use capital letters or not.i could care less personally.i notice that the blue oregon crowd has no answer to when i raise a valid point and ask an intelligent question like what have any of the democrat leaders in oregon done about unemployment and putting the private sector back to work.is that how your liberals are?you can only nitpick me over puntuation.i have nothing personal against any of you i just wonder why you progressives cant give me straight answers when i ask a question?how are my posts unreadable?i can read them fine and so can many others.instead of nitpicking me over punctuation why dont you blue oregon folks answer questions when i pose them instead of criticizing my punctuation?is it maybe because you liberals have no answer and realize that i am smart enough to see through the same old tired liberal baloney,lies,extortion scare tactics and nonsense about school funding and etc?does it just insult you people that someone like me who has intelligence,half and a right wing point of view on things and you cant handle it?
7:59 p.m.
Apr 23, '10
Once again i will ask what have any of the democrat leaders done about unemployment and putting the private sector back to work?Can any of you Blue Oregon folks answer that?A good job Mr alworth is low taxes,fees,less regulation,less system development charges,less govt interference and low unemployment.Does Oregon have any of that right now Mr Alworth?The clearcut answer is no.Does Oregon give businesses a reason to want to stay here or come here Mr Alworth?Of course not.Its a fact whether you like it or not Mr Alworth liberals have hog tied businesses with high income taxes,fees,regulations,system development charges and etc.I encourage you to go try to run a priavte sector business and then come back on here and tell us you really only pay 10.00 to 150.00 a year in your total tax burden?
11:01 p.m.
Apr 23, '10
Government "putting the private sector back to work" is not the laissez faire style of capitalism that conservatives advocate for.
I will agree on the State Government as elected by the population of the State determines the level of business taxation, user fees, and the degree of regulation.
If you are arguing that there should be a collusion between the private sector and Government, then what you are really arguing for is central economic planning that has defined Italian fascism under Mussolini and other various fascist governments in South America during the 1970s and 1980s.