Starrett's participation in the guv's race would certainly siphon votes from the Saxton campaign, but perhaps not as many as one might imagine. Consider that republicans had the opportunity to select two, count 'em two, pro life conservatives this last time around and chose Ron Saxton, a guy who's more liberal on abortion.
Oregonians are going for pragmatism and genuine movement on the abortion issue. First, as Jack Roberts pointed out during his campaign for governor last time around, the governor doesn't perform abortions, and second, Saxton says he will trim the abortion loopholes that exist now. Those are the need for parental notification and a ban on partial birth abortion, both of which Saxton supports.
Isn't it better to elect someone who will actually do something on abortion and stands a good chance of winning versus returning Kulongoski back to office where he would do NOTHING to reduce the number of abortions or honor a parent's right to know?
As I've said before, you've got to have a guy like Saxton to set the table for more conservative candidates in the future.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Constitution Party to Select Mary Starrett as Guv Candidate?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Teddy K. can't be trusted to spell his own name....Saxton will scurry to the left as soon as the first preference-poll arrives....I'll either sit-it-out, or vote for Starrett.
A CP candidate will HELP the Republican Party. Most CP voters aren't going to vote for Saxton, so there will be no "siphoning." Without a CP candidate, most of these people simply won't vote at all. By offering a real conservative, solid pro-life alternative to Saxton, the CP gets unenthused voters to actually vote, and most of them will end up supporting the GOP in legislative and local races. In other words, Starrett is EXACTLY what we need to maintain the House and retake the Senate.
Go Mary!
The Constitution Party is expected to garner perhaps two percent of the vote in the general election. It seems that Mary Starrett's candidacy is more a symbolic gesture than as serious political campaign. And really, how much appeal to the general electorate will a candidate have who decided that Oregon Right to Life was too moderate and willing to compromise?
Personally, I welcome third parties into the fracas. I'm tired the constant back and forth childish antics of both major parties today who can't resist all the get back child games.
What your election will end up like is anybodies guess. But, I see many conservative disillusioned with the current shift left towards the center by Republicans.
If ever there was a time for a third party to gain strength and break the gridlock, it appears to be now.
Everything is in place for Kulongoski's re-election.
"you've got to have a guy like Saxton to set the table for more conservative candidates in the future."
What a laugh! That's like saying that Reagan NEEDED a guy like Ford. No, all Reagan needed was conservatism as an alternative to Jimmy Carter.
How many Oregon Democrats are willing in 2006 to vote for a conservative? You've got to have the D's on board if Starrett's going to win.
You're right about the conservative message, it wins. I haven't seen it win in 2006 Oregon, however.
"you've got to have a guy like Saxton to set the table for more conservative candidates in the future."
If you are hoping to get the Dem's out of seats and out of control, then how on earth can you not agree with Victoria's statement above?
Suddenly because your popular party candidate only meets your expectations half-way, you'd rather not vote at all?
I guess if you're not into towing the party line it makes sense, but isn't getting some of what you want better than nothing at all?
If Ron Saxton dropped out of the race, leaving a contest between Ted Kulongoski and Mary Starrett, Kulongoski would probably be elated. Kulongoski could portray himself as a moderate defending mainstream values against a strident reactionary, and he would probably make deep inroads into traditional Republican bases because many moderate Republicans would be repelled by Mary Starrett's strident stands. The Republicans who have succeeded on a statewide basis, such as Mark Hatfield, Bob Packwood, and Gordon Smith, have done so largely by appealing to a moderate constituency. Where is Mary Starrett's appeal to the middle-of-the-road voter?
When Reagan was elected, he displaced a liberal democrat, at a time when liberal democrats controlled both houses of congress and a majority of state houses. The nation was majority democrat, and the conservative won.
He did it by appealing to moderates, but not by BEING moderate.
We needed to nominate a candidate who could appeal to moderates by demonstrating superior character and integrity, combined with personal charisma. Instead, we got Ron Saxton, who has alienated disenfranchised liberals and moderates by pandering to right wing shock jocks and increasingly xenophobic and insane immigration groups. Oh, and he did this while alienating the conservative base with his increasingly shrill and negative campaigning.
Saxton will go down in flames this election, and we will have four more years of rampant liberalism in Oregon. The best thing we can do is rally behind Starrett. Not because she can win (because she can't), but because she can at least bring in a few more far right voters, who might side with the GOP on local races.
But Mahonia Hall is a write off at this point.
Ron Saxton, who has alienated disenfranchised liberals and moderates by pandering to right wing shock jocks and increasingly xenophobic and insane immigration groups. Oh, and he did this while alienating the conservative base with his increasingly shrill and negative campaigning.
This is a great observation. I think we are seeing a majority of "Republican" political leaders now having to decide which side they are going to support in their own party.
As the shock jocks and xenophobes continue to grow louder and politicize everything, it will not be long before the current version of the party implodes. Even their ballot box golden issues, "God, guns, and gays," may no longer be enough to maintain support from their base, considering the "Republican" administration's current stance on immigration issues.
One issue voters just kill me.
Both Parties have them.
One issue voters just kill me.
Both Parties have them.
On that thought, now knowing his stance on illegal immigration, if GW had another crack at the white house would you still vote for him?
Gullyborg,
Your Reagan/Carter analogy is flawed. The majority of american voters elected Reagan in 1980 because he was not Jimmy Carter. Given the general mood at the time, most any republican nominee could have pulled it off. People were hungry for change (rightfully so) and Reagan was the right candidate at the right time.
I know many Oregonians are hungry for change and believe Ron Saxton is our best option. I think at least 50% of Oregon voters will agree come election time. It's quite evident you want him to fail and would relish "four more years of rampant liberalism in Oregon". You must envision some greater payoff from that scenario than my feeble brain can comprehend. The re-election of Ted always comes out as worst case in my rational simulations.
Dear Crackpot:
If Saxton is to win, he will have to do a great deal in the coming election cycle. I think the Republican side of the gubernatorial campaign generated more excitement that the Democratic side did in the primary, and yet more Democrats turned out to vote (some 305,000 versus 289,000 for the Democrats). Further, Kulongoski polled more votes than Saxton, 166,000 versus 121,000.
Admittedly, the general election is quite different from the primary election. (Hopefully, it will see a better than 38 percent turnout.) But whatever assumptions are used about changing votes between the primary and the general election, it seems tht Saxton will have to come up with more votes than he had in the primary, something between 16,000 and 45,000 additional votes, if he is to win the general election.
Further, I think Kulongoski has one of the more effective tactical advantages: I sense a great deal of disaffection with the Bush administration. As the Republican standard-bearer here in Oregon, Saxton is inherently linked to the Bush administration. Given Bush's lack of popularity, Saxton may well be hurt by the weakness of the Republicans nationally.
I'd Vote for Mary Starret and her husband and of course President George W. Bush again before I'd vote for you Backwards_ -_ _) - _ _ _ ,& Westside_ _ _ _ _ _ and other Taxsucking Parsites in the American Communist Party known as the Deathocrat Party that unfortunately have access to this website.Mary Starret means well with Abortion and Life, but I want to win
so State Taxes are brought down and Taxsuckers like you Backwards -and Westside___ _ _ _ _ can find a new job. Governor Ron Saxton will be a great Governor. I'll have to help hold his feet to the fire though since he's for Choice. ROE VS. WADE WILL be overturned soon and thats where a Governor Ron Saxton will be feeling the Heat from People like myself.
"...you Backwards_ -_ _) - _ _ _ ,& Westside_ _ _ _ _ _ and other Taxsucking Parsites in the American Communist Party known as the Deathocrat Party that unfortunately have access to this website...and Taxsuckers like you Backwards -and Westside___ _ _ _ _ can find a new job."
klatu, if you wish to continue making personal attacks, then I invite you to come over to my blog and do it there (makes a little more sense doesn't it?). No point in filling up Victoria's comments with name calling jibberish.
"ROE VS. WADE WILL be overturned soon..."
klatu my friend, you are out of touch. Not only is this not a reality, but you are advocating for a candidate who is rather moderate on abortion. If you are going to be a multi-issue voter, you should have an understanding of the issues.
David;
Good analysis, though I happen to like Saxton's chances at the moment. We'll hear a lot of loud grumbling from the so-called "social conservative" wing of the republican party, but Ron should have most registered republicans behind him. I believe he'll do quite well among independents and will manage to sway a small but significant number of registered democrats. With a weak incumbent governor and a rather odd independent candidate, the table is being set for Ron Saxton.
Yes, the D's will try associating Saxton with our rather unpopular president, but that tactic will be less effective in Oregon's gubenatorial election than it would in, say a congressional race. Also doubt Saxton will try to align himself with Bush as Mannix did in the last election. Anti-Bush sentiment may be a factor, but not enough to sway many voters in this race.
The Constitution Party will "take away" fewer votes from Saxton than the Pacific Greens will from Kulongoski, so the lunatic fringe factor is...well, a non-factor.
Crackpot:
Thank you.
I see the election developing in a manner somewhat different than you proedict. I agree with you that the Constitution Party will be insignificant, but I think also that the Pacific Green and other fringe leftist parties will be equally insignificant in the overall picture.
I see the key being Saxton's ability to build a coalition of social conservatives, who did not javor him in the primary, and independents and moderate Democrats. In this effort, I see Mr. Saxton as having a difficult time because George Bush is making an effort on the national level to rally his conservative core base. Consideer the current effort to launch a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Most analysts say that it has no serious chance of getting through the United States Senate, so that the President's effort is more a matter of grand-standing to his core conservative base than a serious effort to amend the Constitution.
If Saxton fails to support such a measure, he risks losing the enthusiastic support of the conservatives in the Republican Party, people who have traditionally been the workers, activists, organizaers, and ground troops who have carried the Republican effort. If he endorses such a measure too strongly, he risks alienating the moderates and independents whose ranks he must penetrate to have a chance of beating Kulongoski.
I do not see the table as being set for Saxton
Backwards_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _: The smartest thing a person could do is smile everytime you or Leftists like yourself post.
Ps You have a Blogg paid for by the Taxpayer AAAAAAAA
David;
I can't see the gay marriage issue hurting Saxton much, unless he mishandles it. Face it, most americans oppose same-sex marriage. The majority of those who favor it are entrenched with the democrats.
crackpot,
"Face it, most americans oppose same-sex marriage. The majority of those who favor it are entrenched with the democrats."
I find it fascinating that for the most part this is true, especially since letting the federal government settle something that really should be left to the states to decide seems to go against the very core of what a "Republican" is. I would argue what passes as the "Republican party" today is nothing of the sort, but that's a different discussion.
American's pay attention to the same-sex marriage issue, because it's exciting. People have strong feelings about it, even though a million homosexual people could get married tomorrow and it would have no effect on the daily life whatsoever of those who so staunchly oppose it. And, it's simple. You couldn't ever get the American voter excited about campaign finance reform.
I think Saxton's best strategy would advocate strong support for states to decide for themselves, and then to focus on the "real" issues facing Oregon.
wsd,
Since you and I are both painted "liberals" here, I pose a question. What would convince you to vote for Saxton, if you are not already considering it? And, if a smarter, moderate or liberal (pick your flavor) third party candidate arrived, why be so quick to write them off? Have we not had enough of the "two party" system?
klatu:
You would be so much more interesting if you attempted to enter into the substance of the discussion instead of merely making these outbursts of yours, which do little to prove the merit of anything you have to say.
suomynona:
By way of reply, let me begin with this, I find that in many elections, I am left with no one to vote "for." I vote against a more repugnant alternative. I do not remember a gubernatorial candidate in a general election that I was really "for." In this case, I look to Kulongoski as the lesser of various evils.
This is largely because Saxton is a Republican, and the Republicans seem determined to strike at things that I consider important. Here I will mention three. First, judges. Some years ago, I heard one of the nations foremost legal educators speak on state courts, and he said that the state appellate courts of Oregon are widely regarded as among the finest in the nation. A key part of that high standing is that we have kept judgeships largely out of politics. Judgeships are nonpartisan positions, in contrast to the way they are in many other states. A candidate for a judgeship may be a known Republican or Democrat, but when he (or she) runs for judge, it is without party label. Further, there is the long-standing tradition in Oregon that a judge who wishes to leave the bench will retire mid-term, allowing the governor to appoint a replacement. While Victoria Taft considers this a bad policy, I believe it has allowed some of our finest judges to come to the bench. Governors, Republican and Democrat, have often looked outside the political waters to find people who make superb judges, even if they are not the best politicians. In this regard, the Oregon State Bar has been quite influential. The Bar conducts polls of its members, which are offered to the governor as advisory matters. Lawyers very often have a fine insight on who has that very important quality of a "judicial temperment," something that may not show at all in a political campaign. The Republicans, more than the Democrats, seem determined to attack judicial independence, to politicize the judiciary, and to upset the traditional inter-relationship among the branches of government. The Democrats have been more willing to appoint high quality, independent people. (In the current context, there has been much discussion of judges "over-ruling" the will of the majority. I believe that one of the worst sins a judge can commit is to decide cases to make himself popular with the public. Legal rights are often fundamentally anti-majoritarian.)
Second, over the years, i have seen a consistent battleline drawn over education. Education costs money, and while I am firmly against wasteful spending in education, I think the ongoing attitude of too many Republicans is to cut costs, even if it means further downgrading the quality of education in this state. As a state, we have been penny wise and pound foolish over the last several decades, and the result is that we are losing ground continually in our effort to educate our children. (At this point, I should disarm some critics: I am not a public employee, and I do not have children in the public school system. On the other hand, our children are our future. If they do not have high quality education, our future is in jeopardy. As a taxpayer, I think reducing taxes at the expense of the public schools is short-sighted and reckless.) Democrats seem more determined to protect public education, while Republicans seem determined to weaken it.
Finally, crime. I believe that criminals should be punished. However, the drumbeat of longer prison sentences (the United States already imposes the longest sentences of any western nation), more prisons, more widespread use of the death penalty, greater criminalization of behavior, and the like seems to me to be a diversion of needed funds from other programs into programs that often allow us to feel tough and macho, but do virtually nothing to address real social needs. In this regard, Saxton is a considerable improvement over Kevin Mannix, whose "land-and-order" stands I found chilling.
So in the present context, for me to vote for Saxton, he would almost have to desert the Republican party, something he will not do. [Are there circumstances under which I would vote for Saxton? Yes, although they are not likely to occur in the present context. If I became convinced that the Democrat was foolish, lacked integrity in open and obvious ways, and offered no real program, I might lean to Saxton.]
Of third-party candidates: I have a simple towards politics: it is all about winning. Until a third-party candidate shows some realistic possibility of winning, I think I should vote against the awful candidate, in favor of the more tolerable candidate who has a chance of winning.
Now, having gone on at length, I have probably given klatu, bear, kodiak, and other plenty to which they may wish to respond. Insofar as they offer intelligent rebuttal, I welcome their replies. Insofar as they indulge in vulgar name-calling, well, it is the price of being in our current society.
HEYYYYYYY westsidegarbage and backwardscommunist. THIS IS THE LAST TIME I'M RESPONDING TO YOU BLOGG PARSITES. GO THE _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _. AWAY. BUH BYE BUH BYE.
GO OVER TO BLUE COMMUNIST OREGON. PORTLAND.INDYMEDIA.ORG. WWW.DNC.ORG WWW.ILOVECOMMUNISM .COMMMMMMMMMMIE AND STAY THEY'RE THERE THEIR YOU PARSITES.
YOUR WASTING YOUR TIME HERE AND I HOPE OTHERS WILL IGNORE YOU ALSO IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
PS A parting shot (both of you had better be looking for a new job after JAN. 2007.
klatu:
I have made clear that I do not work in the public sector, so regardless of who is elected in November, I will unaffected. Even if I were a public employee, given that I write my comments on my own time, do you think even Mary Starrett, were she elected, would try to fire me for what I have written. (I doubt it.) So unless you are somehow arranging a January coup in which you will install yourself as dictator, I am not worried on that front.
As to your threat not to respond further, let me offer this question: you think Ted Kulongoski is a communist; I disagree with Mary Starrett on most of the issues on which she has spoken out. If you wanted to contact Governor Kulongoski, you have indicated in prior messages that you would telephone his office and scream at a staff member until the staff memeber slammed down the phone. If I wanted to contact Ms Starrett, I would write a thoughtful letter, respectfully offering my point of view and asking for her consideration. Tell me, klatu, which one of us do you think will have the greater influence on the political figure we oppose?
klatu, sorry to see you are giving up so quick after announcing you were coming after me with "both barrels blazing." Tough always firing blanks?
In all seriousness, stick around. You provide some great entertainment.
wsd,
...I think I should vote against the awful candidate, in favor of the more tolerable candidate who has a chance of winning.
I think that says it well for most of the people most of the time, except those who fall prey to voter apathy, and cast their ballot based in the "at least we know what we're getting" response.
Either voter scenario, I'm not sure where Saxton fits in. I do believe he will grab more attention from the moderate Republican, and even some right leaning Dem's and Indy's, but it appears he's already losing the extreme right of his base.
Is everything going ok in here? Just wondering if everyone is being civil...
suomynona:
I think you are right: Saxton was labelled the moderate during the primary race, as compared to Atkinson and Mannix, the "red meat" Republicans. Certainly given a choice between supporting Saxton and supporting Kulongoski, these people will support Saxton, but there are now two other alternatives with which Saxton must concern himself: Mary Starrett and political apathy. Further, Saxton is in something of a bind: if he plays for the support of the hard-core Republicans, he risks alienating the swing voters. If he plays too strongly to the independent and marginally Democratic voters, he risks alienating the Republican base. In either event, it is a position I would not want to be in.
Post a Comment