Sunday, February 19, 2006

Moving forward

Judging by the response to my "vote for Atkinson" post where I explained my decision to get back on board with that candidate, and judging by the continued emails and continued posts on other fine blogs and their comments, we have a problem.

Let me explain how I am going to proceeding from here. (It won't be different from how I have been dealing with this "situation.")

1. I am going to think my position through carefully. You saw that I dropped my support for a very fine candidate after the "Thursday episode" and a week and a half later I decided to continue to support Atkinson. Understand that I gave it a lot of thought, it is a honestly held position.

2. I am not going to insist that people who choose to support another Republican candidate are the devil. I am not going to come up with wild conspiracy theories about why they support their candidate. I will try to convince them that Atkinson is the best man for the job but I will do it respectfully and with facts that I can back up.

3. In keeping with number two I am going to do my best to not burn bridges or say things that I will regret later on. While many of use seem to be on opposite sides right now we will all (hopefully) be pulling for the same guy in the general election. We will be collecting signatures on the same ballot initiatives, attending the same meetings, and fighting for the same causes. I don't think that I ruined any friendships from through this ordeal and I don't intend to.

4. I will absolutely point out any candidate's faults. I don't believe in any "11th commandment" when it comes to someone running for public office. But, I will always source my info and have a genuine complaint. However, I will take the candidate as a whole and I will support the Republican in November. (Just as all three candidates have pledged to do)

5. I will continue to fight for the individual issues that I believe in whether that be illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage, property rights, whatever. I think that we all feel the same about these issues.

6. I have decided to become a woman. I have an operation scheduled for next week. The new name of this site with be

7. Just kidding.

8. I will concede a good point when one is made and then move on. You can tell me what Atkinson said on immigration like I haven't heard it before but it's not going to do a thing. I like his positions the best out of all three candidates who all support guest worker programs. At the same time, when you quote him I am not going to try to explain away what he said. I can't argue with direct quotes and won't try to. When I point out another candidates fault, with ample evidence, concede it and move on. (you should also re-evaluate your position but that doesn't mean that it will change)

9. I will somehow make it to ten on this list because it just seems like I should. You know, to have a nice round number.

10. I am going to expect my candidate to do a damn good job when he gets elected. If your [Republican] candidate gets elected then I'm going to expect him to do a damn good job. I will hold him accountable for the promises he has made, the changes we expect and some good results for the families who live in Oregon.

11. (Thought of another) Not voting is not an option. I will not "stay home" for the election. Since I am going to vote for one of the three gubernatorial candidates I have to pick the best one. And since I share my opinions about everything around here I am going to publicly support the candidate that I will vote for. That is Jason Atkinson.


Anonymous said...

Without the Metro vote Jason has a very slim chance of beating Ted and
without full support from the Ag people he can forget about the slim.

How many more years must we continue making a statement while the Demos continue making the decisions?

Oregon didn't decay in one day so why must we try to restore it with one vote?

Kaelri said...

A good list, but the fact that there are two of them rather dilutes the clarity. ;)

Robin said...

thank you Daniel.

I could not have said it better.

I started this really long response to add to your comment, and when I got done, I just decided that all I will say on the matter is I still think that Atkinson is the best candidate for the job.

I just have issues about how the interview in the days immediately following were handled and I'll leave it at that.

Daniel said...

Kaelri, that was a blogger problem, it does that to me every once in a while.

I am Coyote said...

Jason can get the Metro vote.

A little election insight here:

A Republican only need to pull 31% of Portland to win a statewide race.


A principalled conservative did win 35% in a Portland city council race in 2000.

So this argument about needing a liberal Republican to win statewide is all poppycock (i just wanted to use that word). A liberal Republican would lose a greater percentage of votes than he would gain.

yip yip

Anonymous said...

Your age is showing, ALL of you. i.e. as in unexperienced. Jason doesn't stand a chance. He is NOT educated on the issue and the TRUE IMPACT of illegal immigration. His reaction on LARS show is a perfect example of the FACT that He does NOT understand this issue and MANY more!
He is a polished politician and you are ALL falling for his mincing of words. I offered last October at TALKFEST 3 to Help his campaign. I told his wife how the illegal immigrant CHILD MOLESTERS number is over 7,000! (operation Predator) and Jessica's law is NEEDED to hold these illegal alien molesters, instead of deporting them, only to come back. She didn't CARE! He didn't CARE! He did NOT understand Bush's plan for Amnesty? YOU beleive an experienced politician? We need to come together and make sure a Republican gets the office because all 3 have addressed Illegal Immigration. Demoncrats have NOT. Saxton has MONEY and public awareness, VITAL to WIN!
What has Jason, as a Senator, done for Immigration laws in Oregon? NOTHING! i.e. Dual-language classes, ORS 181 the sanctuary law, Proof of citizenship to Vote or get public services. Jason has had many years to come out on this issue and done NOTHING!

MAX Redline said...


(Yes, that "misspelling" is intentional): My age is showing? Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions; it is quite possible that I was voting when you were still a gleam in your daddy's eye. Even if not, you're clearly "misunderestimating" the depth of support for Atkinson.

Moreover, I'm hardly "unexperienced" - or even inexperienced. By the time I'd hit 40, I'd already cheated death under conditions most people can't imagine. At this point, I'm an expert in crap: I know it when I see it, when I hear it, and when I smell it.

And frankly, your post smells.

I will support whichever candidate comes out on top, but remain firm in my conviction that Atkinson is the best of the bunch.

Saxton has a ton of money; very true.

However, a look at last month's Executive Club straw poll showed:

Mannix: about 42%
Atkinson: about 28%
Saxton: about 15%

And this despite the fact that Don, the apparent head of the e-club, had come out in favor of Saxton.

I believe that Mannix's numbers will drop, Atkinson's will rise, and Saxton will continue to throw money around and claim that he's not an "insider" whenever it's convenient for him to do so.

Kaelri said...

"Kaelri, that was a blogger problem, it does that to me every once in a while."

Of course. I was simply making sure you were aware of it via less boring methods.

Anonymous said...

who the hell are these three people?? When are they going to be interviewed on tv. Looks like i may have the same type vote as judges--randem selection

Anonymous said...

With all those illegal's voting, you won't have to worry about any of the three winning.

Tim Lewis said...

Looks like ol' Teddy won't be getting much support from the Dems. Good luck.

I am Coyote said...


High fives man.

Gullyborg said...

The real inexperience is with the people who think immigration is the only issue that will matter to voters.

Immigration IS important. And immigration CAN play a role in who wins the election. But that role will probably be more in the line of a spoiler than a winner.

We have to face one simple fact: the vast majority of voters DO NOT share the passion on immigration that most commenters on these blogs share.

Does that mean we should give up?


But it does mean that, politically, we have to grow up a little and learn how to win elections, rather than hand them over to our enemies.

Most primary voters didn't listen to Jason on Lars. Most primary voters who read a statement like "I support the President's plan and reject amnesty" will think that sounds peachy.

Most primary voters are going to make their decision based on what they see in the voter's pamphlet--and when it comes to recent history, only Jason Atkinson can say "I spent the last 8 years working at the state level."

Mannix? His entire resume, except for 2 statewide loses and a stint as a fundstealer, came as a democrat.

Saxton? Do you REALLY think people outside of PDX care that he spent some time on the school board? And do you really think a majority of the people IN PDX think that being a board member is sufficient experience to run for Governor?

Many--probably not most--but many primary voters will vote based on their memory... which means that most of them aren't going to vote for Mannix or Saxton, and will back any credible alternative. Jason, whether you want to admit it or not, is credible. He has been in the House and Senate and has held leadership positions. He looks good, has an MBA, and is well connected. Whether or not you think he is the RIGHT man is irrelevant; you must admit he is at least credible, and as such, will take votes away from Kevin and Ron.

But then the immigration spectre raises its ugly head...

How many of you are now willing to throw your votes away by backing some fringe candidate, or not voting at all, just because of immigration? Certainly not enough to elect a hard-line Lars Larson approved candidate. But enough to keep Jason from winning.

And suppose Jason wins the primary, with a scant 38% of the vote (in other words, what Mannix got in 2002)? How many of you nominal "republicans" are willing to toss the election to Kulongoski because you won't support Jason now that Lars Larson has gone off the deep end? It will be a close race; it won't take more than a 1-2% shift to turn the election.

So who is being inexperienced here?

We have a chance to elect a governor who is PRO-LIFE, who is ANTI-TAX, who SUPPORTS LOGGERS, who is PRO-GUN, who is TOUGH ON CRIME, who is FRIENDLY TO BUSINESS, who will RESTORE OREGON, and who, despite what Lars might say, is still 99% solid on immigration.

And some of you want to throw him out with the bathwater.

I think that shows where the real inexperience is.

Anonymous said...


The first three paragraphs of your post were dead on right, I think. For most people, illegal immigration will not be the big deal it is to us.

Unfortunately, I think you demonstrate your own inexperience in the rest of the post. Allow me to demonstrate.

You continue to ride the illegal immigration issue and try to point out how Jason Atkinson is good enough on the issue, and point out the distinctions. I and others continue to point out that Atkinson's childish behavior on the show is the real issue, not a point about illegal immigration and who is the most hawkish. And believe me, the other candidates will make sure that the voters get to hear it somehow. Especially now that Lars is against him and they have a way to broadcast his temper tantrum all over the state, link it with the one he had at our Lincoln day dinner, and prove a pattern.

You say he has this demonstrated record of achievement, evidenced by the fact that he has been in the legislature. So have 89 other people in the last year alone. Some have shown leadership. Others, like Atkinson, are just hanging out and voting conservative most of the time. I think this was pretty well demonstrated in the original post Daniel had up on the Atkinson issue last week.

The Governor's position is not a SuperLegislator, one where we have someone who can sit there and wait for stuff to cross his desk and then either vote yes by signing it or vote no by veto (like our last two govs). We need a leader that makes things happen, not lets them happen. Atkinson's record demonstrates that he "lets" them happen or not happen most of the time. Sometimes he steps up, like in the case of Goldschmidt or AuCoin's appointments, where I think he was really good, working on both with liberal Sen Vicki Walker to get the nominations killed.

But usually, he refuses to take leadership. I mentioned Vicki Walker - did you see her last night on KATU? I did not, because it is not on the web yet, but I heard about it. Say what you want about Vicki Walker's liberalism, but she was forcing the issue on OHSU's medical malpractice limits. She is from the Eugene area. And yet she was on the Portland news, leading a charge against something she wants to get changed.

A good leader can do that. Jason Atkinson has not. (And don't attack me and say I am liberal for using Walker as an example. I disagree with her, but I am pointing out her methods. The analogy ends there).

Jason Atkinson did not, as you say, "work for the last 8 years at the state level," he worked for 8 years representing a local district in the state legislature. What is the difference? There is a difference between working for issues of statewide consequence and pushing them and driving them and getting them done, rather than just looking at things through the lens of "what would the peopel of my district think about this" and voting on it. Do you see the difference? I have already agreed with that guy who says that he votes conservative but thinks like a liberal. I would add that he thinks like a legislator, not like a leader. THIS is an issue of much greater consequence to me.

Now, you then made this statement:
"Mannix? His entire resume, except for 2 statewide loses and a stint as a fundstealer, came as a democrat."

I am really speechless about this. When you originally posted that crap several months ago, I pointed out the facts to you about why they were wrong. I have done so several times since. Each time, you just ignore the facts and refuse to deal with the truth, and still keep hammering away with this inaccurate, stupid, and kindergarten class argument. You don't have to like Kevin Mannix because he refused to cut the crusts off your peanut butter and jelly sandwich or whatever your grudge is. That is you business.

But to lie about his record is shameful, and lowers the level of discourse about this critical election.

For those that don't know the facts and haven't read it the 50 times I have corrected it when Sailor, Gullyborg, and others have brought it up, here it is again.

1. Mannix was a D for about half his public career in the legislature. No, he did not have all his public resume as a Democrat. And I don't care what party he was in, I want to see what he DID. And for the most part, it was good stuff. He then changed to Republican, and has demonstrated a long record of accomplishment a Republican, leading statewide.

You saying he is a "fundstealer" despite the knowledge I (and others who can just call someone in the party structure and ask) have given you the truth...that the chairman of the party cannot spend money on himself, it is the opposite: the party gets to spend the money that the chairman raises for it. He only has one vote in a big room full of people on the budget. So they decided to help candidates retire their debt (to encourage other candidates to step forward in the future). Mannix had been a candidate. He had campaign debt (as did other candidates). He was given debt assistance (as did other candidates). He did not "steal" funds as you accuse him of, and for you to do so is intellectually dishonest and shows you to be a moron. If you are going to bring it up again, at least deal with the facts I have laid out.

Prove me wrong. Show that the chairman took the funds out of the party's bank account and spent it on himself. If you can't do that, then shut the hell up with the stupid accusations and come up with one that is actually true.

There was a chairman accused by the members of the party of taking funds that weren't his to take. I will give you a wasn't Mannix.

And you say that he had losses. Again, asked and answered. See the post from last week here on Daniel's site. Losses actually help build up buyers remorse in the electorate for the guy the did elect, and builds up name ID. Like with Reagan, Lincoln, etc. In fact, in Oregon it worked every time it has been tried in the gov's race, a fact Mannix points out at every speech for the last 2 years. Have you bothered to even go to an event and see if he might be right about it? I have heard him say it twice, and I went and looked it up. And it is true.

So, back up your accusations with facts or just maybe put a disclaimer out there that "the views expressed in Gullyborg's posts do not neccessarily reflect the reality of the real world".

This is getting too long and so I will continue below.


Anonymous said...

Now then...

You say Atkinson is "credible" because he has held leadership "positions" in the Senate. And he is young and "looks good". And he has an MBA.

No, I don't have to agree that makes him credible. That means he was blessed with some physical grace, was elected to the senate, and was given the OPPORTUNITY to lead. Which, as I demonstrated, he last week, he didn't really seize. It gives him the opportunity to be credible, which he has squandered.

But then you said that he will take votes away from Saxton and Mannix. And in this, you are right.

If he takes away votes from Saxton, Mannix wins. If Mannix spent too much to get out of the primary (which he will, it is just a question of how much Jason Atkinson forces him to spend), and we lose the race, Jason will be the spoiler that costs us the race.

The more likely scenario is, Jason takes votes away from Mannix, the conservatives split, and Saxton gets the nomination. Whether he wins (God help us) or loses, Jason then is seen as the spoiler that gave us Saxton. There are enough people out there that, in this scenario, would call for his head that I doubt he would even be re-elected to the Senate. If he splits the votes and hands it to Saxton, look for Jason's deal to backfire on him, and the angry conservatives pair up with the moderates in the party to take him out in the primary. A commissioner, a state rep, or someone else. Its a big district full of popular conservatives with credentials, and someone will likely step up.

He is already resented here for 3 things:

1. His deal with Saxton / Bob Smith to steal votes from Mannix. Our chairwoman resigned over this in disgust and changed to independent. People haven't forgotten.

2. His performance at the Lincoln Day dinner where he blamed us for illegal imigration and said we need to sympathise with their pain. People haven't forgotten.

3. Perry Atkinson's meddling in the central committee, where he is trying to manipulate the committee to help Jason. Believe me, people haven't forgotten.

With this kind of resentment building, handing Saxton a victory (or costing Mannix the victory), especially when some believe he is doing this to build himself up, will push it over the top and our voters will become "anybody but Atkinson" voters wanting to be done with the both of them. In that case, he can kiss statewide office goodbye, and it would be a miracle if he was even able to hang on to his Senate seat. My guess is he would have to retire to "spend more time with his family" and you would never hear his name again.

Finally, you say voters vote for who they remember. This is the name ID argument. Mannix has it and has produced, Atkinson doesn't have it and hasn't produced. Saxton has it but people know what he is made of and won't vote for him if Ronald Reagan sat up in his grave and endorsed him.

Therefore, Mannix will be the nominee, the question is how much damage Atkinson does to him along the way. I think that is the risk that Jack Roberts talked about of Jason self destructing - a shooting star that burns bright momentarily and falls to earth as a dusty rock in the middle of a lonely forest, never to be heard from again. My guess is this is not going to end well for Jason Atkinson.


Gullyborg said...

Candidates will remember Mannix losing 3 times already.

You keep bringing up the Reagan/Lincoln arguments. But that is just a big fat canard.

Reagan lost when he was battling bigger names than himself. He also came so close to winning against strong challengers that it inspired people. Mannix is no Reagan. Mannix never faced a sitting President of the United States. He lost agains KULONGOSKI AND HARDY MYERS FOR CHRIST'S SAKE.

People will remember that.

For every Lincoln, who lost a lot, there are dozens of Pat Buchanans and Lyndon LaRouches and David Dukes and Jesse Jacksons

Jesse Jackson ran for President twice and lost. Why is he not your front runner now?

Give up on the name ID argument. It is a lie.

What is truth is that all of Mannix's major achievements came as a democRat. You can't deny this because it is FACT. He ran as a democRat for AG back in 1996--and lost the primary. Since then, he has run twice as a Republican and lost both times. He has NO ZERO ZILCH ZIP NADA success as a Republican, PERIOD.

I am done arguing with you Andy/Tony. You are blinded by your ambition. You think Mannix might win, and you want something from him in return.

You have been huffing too much formaldehyde.

You are insane.

You are a fool.

You are an idiot.

There is no point discussion it with you further, because all it does is waste my time.

Support Mannix. Then when he loses AGAIN, do us all a big favor and GO AWAY.

Anonymous said...


You sound like that Dr. Demento song, "they're coming to take me away ha ha they're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha to the funny farm!"

Wipe off the spittle and then come back and post somethign that contributes to the debate and answers the issues I brought up.

And you are going to be an attorney? With debate skills like this? Wow.

Anyway, as to your comments:

1. I would appreciate your not using the name of Jesus Christ in vain. I'm sure the blog host and most of the readers would appreciate it too.

2. You try to scome up with little tiny nuances about why my argument will not hold. Try delaing with the bigger issues here.

Jesse Jackson' candidacy is different for a lot of very BIG reasons. Like lack of message, appealing to too small a demographic, being NUTS, failure to run a credible candidacy, etc.

Reagan and Lincoln I bring up for those who say that if you lose that makes you not a good candidate. Don't take my analogies farther than they are meant to go. And by the way, Lincoln's failures were at everything from being a farmer to running for Senate and Vice President, not just taking on a sitting president. The point is that sometimes persistance pays off when you are credible and persistent. Perhaps the bigger question for you is, after Jason loses, are you going to dump him out of hand and pick someone new for next time no matter what happens?

Mannix has no success as a Republican? Didn't win a few terms in the legislature? Didn't do anything in the legislature as a Republican? Didn't get elected as party Vice Chair? Didn't get elected Chair twice? Didn't unify the party? Didn't pay off the party's debts? Wasn't a leader on Republican ballot measures? (before you answer that last one, you might want to google a bit.

(Grover Norquist: Americans for Tax Reform: “Oregonian taxpayers can consider themselves lucky to have activists like Kevin Mannix,
Russ Walker and Jason Williams, who stand up for their rights."

Mannix, Walker and Williams succeeded in placing an infamous tax increase of $800 million snuck
by the legislature in the fall of 2003 on the ballot, and mobilized Oregonians to go out and defeat
the measure by an overwhelming margin of 60% to 40%.)

Your argument that Mannix did nothing as a Republican has just blown up in your face. Want me to make it worse? Answer this...What has Jason Atkinson done as a Republican that compares?

Now you say Name ID is irrelevant? In so doing, you expose yourself as an amateur. Have you seen the polls? It is very important.

If you are going to call me Andy/Tony, dont forget to add Felix, and Stan, and Kevin, because I have been called all of those.

And you say I have some ambition, that I want to work for Mannix and that is why I suport him. People who support candidates to get jobs are political whores and have no allegiance to the truth. I am not one of them. If Mannix wins he will not get a job application from me.

I'm just a guy who thinks Mannix is a good candidate, Saxton is a liberal, and Atkinson is a poor leader who could be great except for some character flaws. Unlike you, I don't think my candidate walks on water and is infallible.

In the end of your post/rant, you resort to name calling and hyper emotionalism. Which reminds me of the aforementioned Jesse Jackson and other liberals who, when confronted with the truth, just resort to attacking people personally. That tells me that it isn't just Jason, but at least one of his supporters, who thinks like a liberal.

Why not just take a few minutes, sit down, and research, and come back and tell me where I am wrong on my FACTS. Not that I am a poo poo head or a doo doo face or whatever you are likely to come back with.

If I am wrong, prove it. Because it is I who am wasting my time arguing with YOU, not vice versa. I bring facts, you bring attacks (hey, that rhymed..maybe I AM a Jesse Jackson fan).

Page after page I give the facts on this guy and the others in the race. You can be willfully ignorant of the truth if you want to. You can accuse me of all sorts of bad motives. But don't waste everyone else's time with this kind of childishness and fluff. Its the sort of thing that gives blogs a bad name. My posts are the sort of thing that proves them essential.


gullyborg said...

the formaldehyde is getting to you again...

Anonymous said...

can anyone tell me what, exactly, with dates and stuff, Kevin Mannix has been elected to AS A REPUBLICAN? Because as far as I can tell, the last time he WON anything (and getting elected party chair doesn't count) was a state senate election in 1994 and he had a D after his name then. I believe he lost the nomination for AG (as a dem) in 1996, lost an election to the State House in 1998 (after changing parties), lost to Hardy Myers (again) in 2000 and lost to Ted in 2002. To the best of knowledge, Mannix has NOT held ANY office as a Republican. If I am wrong, please educate me, citing real evidence, without name calling.

Tony said...


You said that "There was a chairman accused by the members of the party of taking funds that weren't his to take. I will give you a wasn't Mannix. "

That was Perry Atkinson. But those people who accused him demanded an audit. An audit was done and it was determined that there was no evidence of impropriety.

Tony said...

And since I am here, I can answer you, anon. A brief web search comes up with this:

-Mannix was appointed as a Republican to the State Senate in 1998 (not sure of the date) to fill a vacancy.

-He was elected Nov 3 1998 to the State House of Representatives as a Republican. This is available at the secretary of state's website, go to "election history" and click on the Nov 3 1998 election link.

As requested:

Real Evidence. No Name Calling.

Gullyborg said...


Mannix has won one solitary election as a Republican: a House race in 1998, after swtiching parties because of the embarassment of 1996 and the AG primary. He never won a Senate election, but was appointed to the Senate briefly.

According to his official bio, every single thing he ever did, other than being a party officer, took place before 1998. Odd, considering he is supposed to be the experienced "Republican."

see Wikipedia:

Cheryl said...


I need to interject here. You said you talked to the Senator's wife about child molestors and she didn't care, he didn't care. WHAT A LIE!!! Who do you think co-wrote Jessica's Law in this State? SENATOR ATKINSON!!!! Who didn't pass it? The DEMS!! Why? Because they knew the Senator might run for Gov and didn't want him to get any credit for it. As for his wife, you will NEVER find a finer woman, or one who does more for kids behind the scenes. Pick on her husband, but leave her out.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Cheryl on this point: Stephanie Atkinson is a class act whose care for children in Jackson county is well known. She is (or was, not sure) program director at Lithia Springs School, a program to help troubled youth, and was largely credited with the orgnaiztion's turnaround and success. Many of the kids in that group are, I believe, sexual assault victims and have therefore become troubled youth that act out. The program helps them to heal, and Stephanie Atkinson helps them to be helped.

To say they dont care because they didnt drop everything and kiss your butt on some pet project is unfair. To say Jason Atkinson doesn't care about children being molested is also unfair and ridiculous on its face.

I only take issue with the rest of the post. Jason Atkinson was not a chief cosponsor. In his own words, he "signed his name to the legislation and felt strongly that it should heve passed." To try to take credit now strains credulity.

Also incredulous is the notion that Kate Brown killed the Jessica's law in Oregon because she feared giving Atkinson a political victory. He would not have gotten a victory just by signing his name to the bill. Had he written it, he would have been listed as a chief cosponsor, not just a cosponsor. Bruce Starr, his friend, was the chief sponsor, so I can see maybe Jason helping him out some.

When it didn't pass, you saw Bruce taking leadership and running with it as a ballot measure. He is collecting signatures right now and running acmapign to get it passed. That's the kind of leadership I have talked about here in the past. Not "I signed my name to it and felt it should have passed."

A good leader would have had people on the news every night shaming Kate into passing that law.

So I agree in part and dissent in part. To suggest that Jason Atkinson should or would get credit for fighting for Jessica's law is ridiculous. But to suggest that he and Stephanie Atkinson don't care about child rape is not just ridiculous, it is offensive and should be retracted.

This post may surprise you coming form me, but I will always come down on the side of facts and the truth, not election year lies, embellishment, or distortions from any campaign or supporter of a campaign.