Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Vote for Atkinson

Wait a minute Daniel, I thought that you dropped your support for that candidate when he came out for a guest worker program?

I did, but after many long days of pondering all three candidates, all their positions, all their flaws and all their positives I have concluded (again) that Jason Atkinson is the best man to be governor for Oregon.

Let me get this part out of the way: I am a "purist" or an "idealogue" or possibly a "whackjob" when it comes to my position on illegal immigration. For those of you who know me or read my blog often you have probably heard me threaten to go "single issue voter" on this many times.

My current state senator, Charles Starr, has lost all my support for his vote to let a bill allowing illegal aliens to get in-state tuition out of committee. (Vote Larry George by the way)

The problem is that while the issue of illegal immigration is [almost] all encompassing I do need to take other things into account.

The other problem (and this is a huge problem for me) is that all three GOP candidates have come out for a guest worker program.

So I don't want the comments of "your guy supports this" because I know what he supports and I strongly disagree with him on this issue. No such thing as a perfect candidate. I will also not excuse positions that I disagree with. Don't ask me too.

I realize that this doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement as of yet but I'm just explaining my reasoning.

Yesterday, or maybe the day before I was on Gullyborg's site and I saw hunting pictures that Atkinson had sent him. My first thought was "this guy really is one of us." I just couldn't picture him giving a press conference at a MAX station or any of that other nonsense that comes out of Portland.

Illegal immigration issues aside (it's... so... hard... for... me...) Jason is the hands down best conservative choice. If you include the immigration stuff it only brings all three candidates down so Jason is still standing taller than the rest of the pack.

Jason is a good Christian man and he has not wavered on any of what would be considered "core" Republican values such as taxes, government, abortion, guns, etc.

That's why we elect Republicans. We do not have direct control of our government (and don't tell me initiative because the courts took that from us) so we need to elect the candidate that we have the most in common with. For me that is Jason Atkinson. I think that if you look at his history and look at what he is proposing to do with state government then you would think that he shares your values as well.

Thanks to all the Atkinson bloggers who didn't explode on me when I pulled back my support. I look forward to working together to elect a good Republican governor in Oregon.

56 comments:

Ken said...

Daniel, I doubt I can understand the difficulty of your journey over the last week, but I'm thrilled that you're back. I mean that as sincerely as I come convey on a keyboard!

Ken said...

Oops, I mean "as sincerely as I CAN convey." Darn typos.

Daniel said...

That was a bad sentence for a typo Ken...

But thanks!

Anonymous said...

Personally, this is the weakest field for the republican nomination I have ever seen. I have written these next fours off and will be waiting for Greg Walden to come back and run for Governor.

Scott said...

Glad to hear it Daniel.
By the way I see that Lars still has a link on his site for Atkinson.

Robin said...

Daniel you have to do what's in your heart.

Although the Atkinson/Larson incident shocked a lot of people including myself, I think it also sent a message just how serious everybody is about illegal immigration.

Maybe for once the candidates are going to stand up and listen to the people for a change.

I can only hope.

Bob H. said...

Daniel, check out the videos in the Daily Emerald provided by a woman from California of an illegal immigration rally there. They are attached to a comment made to the report about the Eugene rally. This is probably what we have to look forward to at future rallys. Bob H.

abe said...

That is great Daniel, especially on account that Atkinson's campaign is a complete wash. Attending the candidate debate, the crowd went nuts when Atkinson stuck his foot in his mouth again stating that illegal immigrants in this state "is our fault". So not only is he for amnesty for illegals, but he blames Oregonians for "letting illegals in".

Atkinson is a complete fool, an ass and will never win. I guess, we can all just sit back and enjoy four more years of the joke governor, Kulongoski, becuase Oregon Rs have really failed again to deliver a gubernatorial candidate worth a damn.

BEAR said...

I'm with Abe. My wife and I will sit this one out. Too many criminals, too many terrorists, too little committment from both sides on this. If we tell them we won't stand on this issue, they'll continue to cave like every rino before them.

Robin said...

we are partially at fault for the illegal alien issue.

Because of cheap labor, we have turned our back on the legal immigration because it benefited us at the time. Now that they are coming over here in large numbers and are deciding to expand beyond the fields and making a huge change in our culture, we are now taking it more seriously.

greed actually started the problem and now we have to deal with the mess that was created.

Gullyborg said...

Even for the single issue immigration voter, Atkinson is the best choice we have. He is strong on all the issues he directly affect as governor. And while he is not 100% when it comes to federal issues, he is still head and shoulders above Mannix and Saxton. Mannix panders to Mexicans, as demonstrated earlier on this blog. Saxton talks a good talk, but he has done NOTHING to demonstrate that he is serious about his newfound conservative beliefs--I don't trust him as far as I could comfortably throw him. And then, as you have said, even if you consider all 3 equally flawed on immigration, Jason stands tall as the true conservative Republican on every key issue.

I am glad to see you take the whole candidacy into account.

Jeff said...

Daniel-

Well written and very professional blog....plus what seems to be a well thought out decision.

I too support Atkinson for the same reasons. He is the best candidate and will do a wonderful job in the govenors office.

I just wish Lars would go through the same thought process. He is so influential and I don't think a GOP candidate can with without his support. Even with his support, I don't think Saxton can win.

and to all the "sit out of this one people," that is the attitidue that has gotten this state into a pattern of Dem's in the Gov's office. Your "I'm taking my toys and going home" ways do nothing but hurt.

Man, I love that saying.

Jeff said...

sorry for the typo's....

I am Coyote said...

Nice job Daniel.

Oh and for the one guy that keeps saying that Atkinson put his foot in his mouth? Uh... the rest of the world now knows what happend down there. So you can stop getting all worked up over nothing.

There are oh so many issues at stake here and even on the illegal immigration issue you have to consider whether or not you believe what the candidate is saying.

It is not just enought to talk tough, but people need to trust that you would do what you say you would do. Atkinson has been straight up consistent for years.

So if he says no drivers licenses for illegal aliens... I believe him.

Atkinson is the only candidate in the race with an A+ record from the NRA as well. Mannix is good, an A record but some subtle differences.

Now that Westlund has entered the race it kills the chance of a liberal republican like Ron Saxton ever winning a general election. There just are not that many liberal Republicans out there and not enough of them to be splintering any votes to Westlund.

Big blow to the Saxton campaign.

yip yip

Anonymous said...

Yeah, and that is why I voted for Bill Bradbury and Ted Kulongoski too. Because when I saw Bill fly fishing and Ted Bowling, why, I KNEW they were JUST LIKE ME! Give me a break.

Come on, Daniel...did you see THIS comment today when the whoregonian was singing Jason's praises: Atkinson said, "there's a huge human element to this that some people don't understand. I don't believe in rounding people up door-to-door with the National Guard or looking at everyone with brown skin as an illegal. That's not the Oregon I want to live in"

Yeah, way to say we are all just racists for wanting to enforce the law. Way to read MECHA's talking points. Way to sound JUST like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton making excuses for illegal behavior among another race group. "I don't want to have the SWAT teams going door to door rounding up people with black skin just because they are economically depressed and sell drugs," and equally racist (assumes everyone of that skin tone is criminal and unable to follow the law and should be coddled) and an apologetic statement that makes excuses for illegal behavior. Nobody is saying round up all the brown skinned people. We are saying to round up the people who are CRIMINALS and force them into compliance with the law.

I/we are NOT racists, and as a child of immigrants I am NOT against immigrants. I AM against people bumrushing my country. And I will NOT vote for this guy who is making excuses saying we need to feel their pain, and I will not concede his point that I am a racist for wanting to enforce the law and wanting illegals to go home and return here legally.

The Oregonian might be impressed with that kind of liberal bullshit but I am NOT.

And you made a mistake...Kevin Mannix did NOT come out for a guest worker program, but the reporter didn't catch the distinctions at the Medford event. I believe that, based on his stated position in the party platform in 04, the resolution he just got passed by the Oregon GOP, and his 3 times stating it on the Lars show.

Jason's bigger problem is that he is EXACTLY the type of Republican that would be giving a press conference at a MAX station. He seems to want, as others have pointed out, to want to bend his message to curry favor with the left. "I ride my bike, and I don't agree with the racist wackos who want to send illegals home." What does this indicate?

That other Medford guy was right over on NWR. Jason Atkinson THINKS like a LIBERAL, regardless of how he votes or what positions he tells us he has. And that is dangerous because it means his positions can shift.

-Andy

Sailor Republica said...

Formaldehyde fumes again, Andy?

Jeff said...

Okay, Andy. Who are you voting for then and how will they be a better ALL AROUND governor than Atkinson?

And please include some issues in addition to guest worker program support.

Looking forward to your response.

Sailor Republica said...

Jeff,

He's voting for Mannix, the guy who couldn't win the last election.

Jeff said...

It's pretty pathetic if you can't beat sleepy Ted!

Anonymous said...

Jason Atkinson's candidacy is a joke. I laughed when I read the paper over his blunder in the debate. This is someone who is gonna beat Teddy? Sure. Jason's flippin' and floppin' on illegal immigration has more than sealed his fate as a complete failure and a boob, at that.

Anonymous said...

Lars...er..uhh, I mean 'Anonymous':

Look dude, you have gone over the deep end on this one.

Jason has never supported amnesty for illegals. Instead, you have mischaracterized his position consistently on your show. Hey, it is your mic, do what you want.

But don't lie about the debate on Friday. You may not know this, but it is on videotape. The crowd was shouting you down, not Jason, because you would not let Jason finish. That much is clear.

Jason's point on Friday is well taken and undeniable....we haven't had a strict immigration policy in this country for a long, long time. Had we a strict policy, we may not be talking about this issue today. Who on Earth disagrees with that.

Here is the problem with your position, Lars. On the one hand, you want to get all the illegals out of the country. But when someone suggests that, you say "You can't throw everyone out, what will that do to our economy?"

I a word, you cannot be satisfied.

And you have purposefully fabricated this "controversy".

Why?

Like "Deep Throat" said, "Follow the Money."

Who has the money to advertise on KXL? Jason? Mannix? No, Saxton. I know from a source inside KXL that you have been told (or at least Baby James) that Jason had to start buying ad time or else the station wanted you to drop Jason (or at least stop mentioning his candidacy....)

So what do you do? Simple, you fabricate a controversy in order to give you a reason to drop Jason.

By the way, your boy Ron told the Farmers that he supports a guest worker program....which in your words is amnesty.

Funny, you won't mention that on the air....I wonder why?

Follow the Money.

Anonymous said...

from what I, saw jason was lucky lars was there. he would have been ripped to shreds over his comments if lars wasn't doing his moderatorial duty.

it seems like the swiftboating of lars is just a way for you and other atkinson supporters not to face the fact that jason (1) supports amnesty for illegals, (2) has flip flopped numerous times on his stance to try and con people into supporting his candidacy, (3)blames oregonians for illegals coming into the state and made a fool of himself at the republican candidate debate(4) blames his own incopetance and "boobery" on everyone else.

if you support him that is fine, just quit being a little child about it and realize the facts.

Anonymous said...

as for the follow the money comment, that is garbage and you (jason atkinson?) know it. jason was dropped because he is a flip flopping bozo. if jason is too pathetic to come up with a better story than that, his campaign in even more of a joke than previously thought.

Anonymous said...

Lars,

Please. Jason has never flip flopped. He has been clear...no amnesty for illegals. Period. End of Discussion. There has never been any change ever in that position.

The beauty of it is that everyone else can see through your charade, you are just too full of yourself to realize it.

So now you are supporting a candidate who (1) advocates for keeping the kicker (which you have characterized as a tx increase), (2) opposes gun rights, (3) Supported tax increases while on the Portland School Board, (4) Supports Partial Birth Abortion (oh wait, that was in the 2002 campaign, he has a different position now - but that isn't flip flopping, is it?), (5) has lied - LIED - about representing the Goldschmidts, (6) Hired Steve Goldschmidt and "negotiated" his $660,000 golden parachute, and so on.

Of course, Ron may be saying he has different positions on these issues now, but wouldn't that make hime a flip flopper? An exponentially larger flip flopper that you now erroneously claim Jason to be?

So now you expect us to believe that becuase you believe Jason changed his position on ONE issue, that is enough to send you over the edge. But all of Ron's obvious and uncontroverted flip-flops are not? Especially given the fact that Ron's record hardly squares with yours on virtually every issue.

There is only one explanation for your obvious hypocrisy - La Moolah - The Money.

You are bought and sold like a common whore.

MAX Redline said...

Daniel,

Like others, I was dismayed when you retracted support for Atkinson - although like you, I was sorely tempted to do likewise.

However, looking at all of the issues and all of the candidates, I concluded that Atkinson comes closest to elucidating my perspective. So I chose to stay on.

I respect you and your views. Besides, wouldn't it be childish to get all hissy because you came to a decision that differed from mine? It seems to me that that's what the "tolerant" Liberals do.

In any case, it's good to see that you've reconsidered, and I do look forward to working with you again - both out on the lines in front of the Carnivals of Criminality, and in the blogosphere.

All the best!

JEFF said...

anonymous above made some great ponits with these comments:

"So now you are supporting a candidate who (1) advocates for keeping the kicker (which you have characterized as a tx increase), (2) opposes gun rights, (3) Supported tax increases while on the Portland School Board, (4) Supports Partial Birth Abortion (oh wait, that was in the 2002 campaign, he has a different position now - but that isn't flip flopping, is it?), (5) has lied - LIED - about representing the Goldschmidts, (6) Hired Steve Goldschmidt and "negotiated" his $660,000 golden parachute, and so on."

BEAR said...

having read it all, you folks have outlined perfectly the reasons why no self-respecting conservative could vote for any of these rinos. 2 sit-outs from my family....sunny-side up.

gullyborg said...

looking at all those anonymous comments, I can't help but wonder if Felix is arguing with himself...

key phrase: the swiftboating of Lars!

Only someone who worked for John Kerry would use that language!

And of course, a true Kerry supporter would take one stand on issue, then argue with himself about why he was wrong!!!

Sailor Republica said...

I think someone just got caught with his hands in the cookie jar.

sweet baby james said...

Gullyfeet and Sewer Republican-

Who cares who is saying it and who is arguing with themselves. The facts are the facts. Atkinson is not only a liar and a two-faced dweeb, he is nothing but a rino. HE SUPPORTS AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS--GET OVER IT.

-Sweet Baby James

btw: quit trying to suppress Jason's failed campaign-it is over.

sweet baby james said...

One more thing-I highly doubt Lars Larson would hide behind an anonymous comment--he doesn't anywhere else--why would he here? Besides, why would he be playing games with you pack of yo-yos here anyways? He would just gut you on his show and give all of us entertainment if he gave two shakes. There are plenty enough folks running around here that know what Atkinson stands for and the loser that he is.

-sweet baby james

I am Coyote said...

You know what? Those anonymous flip flopping posters must be Saxton supporters. Two reasons.

1) Just what Gully said. Oh so much like the John Kerry campaign.

2) The real flip flopper in this race is Saxton and he knows that our referrence to him as such hits the bullseye.

When your opponent starts responding to you on the charge you brought up... you know you are making an impact.

Saxton is the first one tagged with the flip flop tag, and deservedly so.

They know it works and want to try to pin it on Atkinson but do not have any empirical evidence to back it up. Kinda like John Kerry.

No folks... you know darned good and well that the Senator has been very consistent on his issues while Saxton has been all over the map.

Ironically it is because Atkinson stuck to his guns and DID NOT CHANGE that now has the Saxton kool aid drinkers all upset. They just wish their guy would have had the same kind of back bone.

yip yip

Anonymous said...

Jeff,

I am supporting Kevin Mannix.

Why? Well, among other reasons...

1. His Ballot Measure 11 has been credited (see Crime Victims United's site) with lowering crime in Oregon by 40%!! Nearly HALF!

1a. Mannix's anti-stalking law has helped protect countless women who were terrorized by small peckered predators.

In the meth crisis and illegal alien crisis we face, nobody else has the anti-crime achievement credentials to solve these problems.

2. He pushed through the "shall issue" concealed carry law which forces sheriffs to issue gun permits to law abiding citizens.

3. He was one of the "trinity" that pushed for measure 30 to repeal the legislative tax increase.

4. He fought actively for passage of measure 36 to prevent the redefinition of marriage

5. He fought actively for land use reforms such as M7, M37.

6. His reforms of the ORegon Republican Party structure helped clean out the deadwood and professionalize it, marginalizing the wackos who so often embarassed the party.

7. He was nearly elected last time in the closest gubernatorial election in 100 years, despite being outspent, written off, and never taken as a serious contender until the last few weeks of the campaign. Had Gordon Smith not hogged the $$ or at least campaigned with Kevin, he might have won. This time, the incumbent is incredibly unpopular, Tom Cox (who took 50,000 of Kevin's votes last time, and he only needed to change 18,000 votes) is a Republican, and there is a Green Party candidate in the race. This campaign, Kevin will be taken more seriously, and will get money easier, and will unify people as never before (as evidenced by Atiyeh, Brady Adams, Jack Roberts, and Gene Derfler all supporting the conservative Kevin).

8. He has the most comprehensive plan on illegal immigration, that does not reward illegals by allowing them to change their status while in this country illegally, but allows a temporary visa program for those who would come legally. Even Ken Mehlman today on Lars seems to be indicating that the White House is coming around to this postition as well.

9. Each time in Oregon history the incumbent faces a rematch with his opponent, the incumbent has lost. 5 times in the last century or so. This time will make 6.

10. Kevin Mannix has a record of not merely having the right opinions on issues, but actually making those opinions become law. He managed to get signatures on more good pieces of legislation in his career than any other legislator in Oregon history. I don't want a Governor who just agrees with me. I want a Governor who can get things done. No other candidate on either side has a record of getting things DONE for the state. And keep in mind that 1/2 of Kevin's legislative accomplishments were as a Democrat in Republican legislatures! We will need someone with that kind of record to get things passed in the next 4 years when the Senate, and maybe even the House, will be in the hands of the Dems.

11. Kevin Mannix favors good transportation laws, which favor auto travel over ridiculous alternatives.

12. He also will be a big advocate for common sense conservation measures, such as cleaning up the Willamete River, showing the Portlanders that it is Republicans who can clean things up without shutting off business and recreation.

13. Kevin can claim bipartisanship to appeal to Democrats and independents as a former Democrat.

14. Half of the people in the blogoshpere think he is too liberal, and half too conservative, and so that tells me that he is right where he needs to be to appeal to the masses.

15. He gets to claim no connection to Goldshmidt (sorry Ron Saxton!) and can therefore argue for ethics reform in state government.

16. He consistently has put himself second and fought for us forcefully and unapologetically over the last several years while the other candidates in the race from either side were either a) on the wrong side or b) silent on the issues. Again, sitting in your living room being conservative never helped anyone.

17. Other candidates talk about supporting President Bush NOW, but Kevin was the only candidate actively working to get the President elected, going above and beyond as Party chair to implement the RNC's plan. Where were the other 5 candidates?

18. He isn't Ron Saxton, a pathetic liberal of proven limited integrity.

19. He acts like an adult when under fire, showing he can take the heat, stand his ground, and actually persuade people to come to his side. In fact, he has always taken the heat, from being a conservative Democrat hated by the left, to being a conservative Republican hated by the left and some of the wingnuts he rightly marginalized in his own party, he has always stood his ground despite being always told he was wrong and couldnt win and couldnt do this or that. That is real leadership.

I could go on, but I will stop there. Yes, some of these came from campaign talking points I got at a debate. But some are personal observations over the last few years, and others I have checked out, and they are solid.

In summary, #20 is he is the most credible conservative with the most achievements for our cause, and I see no reason to dump him when he is just about to win the governorship for us, to trade him in for someone new.

I hope that answers it for you. You can support whoever you want, but I hope the attacks on Kevin slow now. If not, that is fine, I'm sure he will go on leading and I know he will win in May. If people get behind him, he will win the long shot in November as well.

-Andy

Anonymous said...

Jeff & Sailor,

Now then, with that said:

Sailor, I have heard more intelligent and intellectually honest arguments from kids on playgrounds than "he lost last time." If you were in charge we wouldn't have had Reagan, who lost to Gerald Ford. We wouldn't have had Lincoln, who lost 11 times. We wouldn't have Boquist in the House of Reps, who lost twice. You keep saying "he didn't win" as though it is some smoking gun that we should be impressed by.

Lots of people don't win, and use that to build their name ID and come back again to win. As I said before, every time in the OR Gov's race it has been tried, it is has been effective. What greater evidence do you need than that? If you come back with this same tired and incorrect argument on the blogs again, all of us will have no choice but to conclude that you should be placed in a group home for the mentally deficient, or maybe in a cult where you can be easily led around with ridiculous beliefs despite being plainly shown both your own error and the truth at the same time. Sorry if it is harsh, but we keep having the same argument for what, 3 months now? And you have YET to acknowledge the facts I have repeatedly presented to you. You continue to revert back to the "he lost an election" line as though it is somehow predictive of future events. The only prediction it makes is that he goes in stronger this time than last time as his profile is raised. If you don't think that name ID and high profile matters, look at Mannix's poll numbers and compare them to the other primary candidates.

Now, as to Jeff: I answered in my last post why I support Kevin Mannix. But you asked why he would be better than Atkinson. Ok, well, here goes.

Atkinson is a nice guy. He has a conservative voting record, mostly. Great. But he has no record of significant accomplishment. In other words, he has just been kind of marking time in the legislature instead of actually doing stuff and leading. He has a record showing no ability to rally the other side or force them to comply to get even wildly popular measures passed (for example Jessica's law, most recently). He is the legislature's equicvalent of Wimpy from the Popeye cartoons. Uninspiring, and unmotivated.

But again, a really nice guy, and he gives good speeches that make people like him. But that is not a reason to vote for someone for Governor.

Now then...he also has some character issues. Some of these have been exposed, others remain to be exposed. So far, as I and other bloggers have pointed out, we have learned that he sees illegals as victims of circumstance, that he blames Republicans for the education funding problems in the legislature, that he blames Americans for the fact that illegals break the law to get here, and that he cannot control his emotions when confronted publicly. In other words, as BizGuy so succintly pointed out, he has the right positions on issues, but he thinks like a liberal (though BizGuy has a lot of explaining to do vis a vis supporting Saxton)

The last two are the most important - his lack of emotional or impulse control, and his flawed reasoning. Lack of motivation I can maybe forgive. But can anyone say his actions and his handling of a talk show host and one issue like this inspires them to want to follow him? Think of someone who behaves like this being your governor, being confronted with much greater problems than a talk show host who (allegedly) misstates your position!

That is not a leader that people will be inclined to follow, and it spells disaster if he was elected.

I started to see things over the last few years that led me to doubt him (I had previously supported him, put up a sign, etc). I still voted for him in 04, but only because my options werent acceptable. At least I am represented pretty well when he votes conservative.

But I came to see he wasn't chief executive material, and this campaign has already exposed that much more dramatically than I would have thought. It was early on shown to me in that he would betray someone (Mannix) who did him and his dad a favor back in 03, by now running against him in what everyone acknowledges is his last chance for the Governor's seat. I have learned that Atkinson does what is best for Atkinson, and that troubles me. And now when I see he can't even keep it together in public, it is worse than I thought. Maybe someday, but definitely not now.

So that is why I believe that he is not the best choice to lead, and when added to Mannix's record, why I believe Mannix is a beter all around choice than Atkinson.

Sorry all for the long posts, but the questions asked demanded long answers. Thanks for reading.

Anonymous said...

Forgot to sign. That last post was obviously me.

-Andy

Jeff said...

Mr. Mannix....um, I mean Andy, thanks for your LONG response.

How does the Kool Aid taste?

I am Coyote said...

Andy,
Stop with the rumors OK? You tried that back in November and nobody is biting on it. Now it just sounds silly.

As for Atkinson's voting record it is not "mostly" conservative. It is SOLIDLY so.

He is the only candidate in the race with an A+ rating from the NRA. You know what you have to do to be an A+ with the NRA? You need to be strong enough to hold your position against some mighty strong oposition.

Please show us a less than conservative voting record would you? Or otherwise stop with the wild claims.

Anonymous said...

Happy to provide examples. There are more for future posts, but here is one to wet your whistle.

SB 50: Requires "cultutral competency" for school teachers, with term to be defined by the state. Their current definition includes "Cultural competence is based on a commitment to social justice and equity." Social justice is the term that radical african american groups are using as a buzzword for socialism or even communism.

Atkinson voted yes for this nonsense.

I stand by my post that he is "mostly conservative" in his voting record.

Ask me for another one.

-Andy

-Andy

Anonymous said...

Oh, and Jeff, now I am Kevin Mannix?

That makes me Andy, Tony, Stan Pullam, Felix Schein, and now Kevin Mannix.

Is their room for one more person in this little head?

Oh...and typical response to my post. I give you a mile of facts, you answer with a sentence of drivel and avoid the substance.

Why not face the facts? Perhaps you can't?

-Andy

PS: Coyote, kudos to Atkinson on the NRA rating. Don't think I am not appreciative. I will give credit where it has been earned. And 2 years from now, I am sure I will once again cast a vote for Atkinson for Senate. But I won't be voting for him for Governor.

Anonymous said...

Andy, you won't be able to vote for Atkinson for the Senate if you are living in Salem...

And as for losing...

You like to talk about Reagan losing. But he lost ONCE. And that was in a contested primary with the SITTING PRESIDENT. The fact that he almost won against those odds energized people for the next time.

You like to talk about Lincoln losing 11 times. Well, we are talking about a STATEWIDE election here, and the 3 Mannix loses were all for STATEWIDE office. How many of Lincoln's 11 losses before he became PRESIDENT were NATIONAL? How many of his 11 loses were for a state office? How many of his 11 loses were for a federal office?

I am sure Mannix lost his first election to be leader of his high school pep squad. Should we count that?

Mannix has tried and FAILED to win a statewide election, and all three times, it was in an open race. He lost an open primary for the Democrat primary (and let's remind ALL Republicans that ALL of Kevin's resume bullets came as a DEMOCRAT). He then lost a statewide election for AG and a statedide election for the open governor's seat against a weak opponent. Now he wants to run against that same opponent, when he has done NOTHING in the last 4 years to raise his stature while the governor has spent 4 years, well, GOVERNING. It was close 4 years ago. It won't be close this time when the incumbent walks in with a built-in 10 point advantage and 3 times the fundraising.

Oh, speaking of fundraising... is Mannix out of the red yet?

And if Mannix is so superior, why is polling third among all Republicans, and losing badly to Teddy K, and EVEN TYING WITH JIM HILL, in the Portland Business Journal poll?

Mannix will come in 3rd in this primary. Period. If Saxton and Atkinson died tomorrow and Mannix was our candidate by default, he would come in third behind Kulongoski and Westlund. Period.

Anonymous said...

Anon...

How wrong can one person be...oh, let me count the ways.

I will be voting in my home county, Jackson, in 2 years. In Jason's district. I would give you my precinct, but I want a little anonymity.

If you want to call what Ted Kulongoski has been doing for 4 years "governing", that is your business. I say Ted has spent 4 years lowering his stature.

Mannix has raised his by leading the Oregon GOP and the fight for all the conservative ballot measures that were passed by the majority of voters.

The reason he is polling low in the Portland Business Journal is that his campaign is obviously not having all their people vote continually to get him on top. That is maturity. He is focused on what matters. Anyone can disable their browser cookies and vote 100 times. Obviously he isn't doing that. I put stock in something like the taxpayer association poll that has him way ahead because the sample is 10 times larger than a normal poll, and is consistent with the scientific polls that have been taken (like Riley polls).

Mannix's resume is half as a D, half as an R. Don't exaggerate, it makes you look dumb.

Just like it makes you look dumb when you say Reagan lost a contested primary. There was no primary... he lost in the Republican Convention. In Palo Alto, CA I think. At the "Cow Palace." As always, when you challenge me, you will come up short. You should never type when angry.

As always, as a political historian with some maturity level, I know that losing a race can build your name ID. That is what will happen, and that is why Kevin is polling way ahead of the other candidates and why he will win, and why he is the only candidate that can capture the buyers remorse oregonians feel about Kulongoski.

Sorry to be arrogant, but man, you made it too easy.

-Andy

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I forgot to prove you wrong on Lincoln too...First, I was incorrect - he had 8 losses, not 11. My apologies.

As to your statement:

Statewide: Lincoln lost his bid for US Senate in 1855.

Then in 1859, he was again beaten for selection to the US Senate, this time by Stephen Douglas.

As far as national losses, he lost as a Vice President candidate in 1856 running with John C. Fremont.

-Andy

Jeff said...

Mannix, I mean, Andy-

I'm not disputing your facts, I trust they are true.

But they don't make Atkinson any less of a candidate. That's great that Mannix did what he did, and I respect the fact that you are supporting a candidate becuase of facts. I wish more people did so.

But just because he did 'stuff' doesn't make him the best candidate in my mind.

The Kook Aid comment probably belonged in a different post. It's just funny how when Lars, my favorite talk show host, pulls support from Atkinson....the Kook Aid drinkers follow along.

Maybe you are not one, but most anti-Atkinson people above are.

themanthemyththelegend said...

Andy-

How does the saying go? People in glass houses should not throw stones....

First you say "Mannix has raised his [stature] by leading the Oregon GOP and the fight for all the conservative ballot measures that were passed by the majority of voters."

I don't know if Kevin was really "leading the way" on Measure 37, I am sure Oregonians In Action would have something to say about that.

And I don't think he was "leading the way" on Measure 36, in fact I don't remember hearing anything from him on that measure. I am sure the Oregon Family Council would be interested in finding out that it was Kevin Mannix - and not them -- who got 250,000 signatures in 8 weeks.

And I don't think it was Kevin Mannix who "led the way" on Ballot Measure 30 - That was Russ Walker and Citizens for a Sound Economy (now FreedomWorks) who spent $600,000 to get the referendum on the ballot, not Kevin. I am sure a lot of the folks who spent all that money would be interested to find out that it was Kevin who actually "led the way," and not them.

I am not saying that Kevin didn't support all three efforts, I am not saying that Kevin doesn't have a public record on all three issues, but you are exaggerating when you say Kevin "led the way."

Try to answer this question: In 1999, the Oregon Legislature put a measure on the ballot that put the Kicker in the Oregon Constitution, so the legislature could never touch the Kicker. Who was one of the sponsors of that measure? (answer below)

Look at Kevin's record versus Jason's record. Jason's record is far more conservative than Kevin's. There is no denying that. Kevin has supported a sales tax, taxes on beer and wine, even taxes on tires.

Now before you say "but that was when he was a Democrat.." hey, a record is a record. It is what it is.

Show me where Jason has ever supported a sales tax....oh, you can't.

So, don't pretend as though Mannix (or Ron - you aren't) has a more conservative record than Jason, because neither of them do.

By the way - the cow palace is in San Francisco, not Palo Alto. Palo Alto is considerably south of San Francisco.

Answer: Jason Atkinson. Although Kevin likes to take credit for the measure, the fact is that Jason's name is on the measure, and it was one of the first things he accomplished in his first session. Don't say he never accomplished anything.

Oh yeah, one other thing you got wrong - Kulongoski hasn't spent the last 4 years lowering his stature, he spent 4 years sleeping.....

:-)

Anonymous said...

Oh, one last thing, anon...

Forgot to point out that Reagan was a Democrat too.

And he actually lost TWICE nationally. Once against Nixon, then against Ford.

In 1980, everyone said he had missed his opportunity because he was past his prime, too old, and had already lost twice.

And then he won.

-Andy

Ron Grove said...

Thank you for the post. My wife and I still aren't sure of who we'll support, but we were leaning hard towards Atkinson before his problems with the immigration issue. We have a hard time with Mannix and especially with Saxton. We'll consider your decision reasoning as we go forward as well.

Anonymous said...

Jeff,

Fair enough.

manmythlegend:

Also fair enough. I only pointed out the chinks in Atkinson's armor when prompted to by Coyote. I never said Mannix had never supported unconservative stuff. He hasn't in recent history.

And yes, you are right. South San Francisco, not Palo Alto.

As for the kicker, since you brought it up, Jason Atkinson was one of the Senators who had a plan to suspend the kicker in 2003. Granted, it was to form a state savings account, but he did want to get rid of the kicker, so I wouldn't stake a claim on that.

As far as that kicker ballot measure, yes I know. Atkinson signed his name to that as a "cospnsor", which means he put his initials on a piece of paper circulated by a colleague who actually did the work on it. Oh, and Mannix was on the committe that worked the bill and voted it out. He has at least as much claim to getting that passed, if not more, than Atinson. (see http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/legislative/legislativeminutes/1999/house/rules_elections/hrules38.html). When it was in Atkinson's committee, he didn't even speak in favor of it on the record, though he was vice chair (http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/legislative/legislativeminutes/1999/house/general_government/hgg03251.html)

You can't really claim credit for something when you just sign your name to the bill. That was Tim Knopp's bill. Atkinson gets only as much credit as Reps BEYER, BUTLER, CLOSE, GIANELLA, HARPER, KROPF, KRUMMEL, LEWIS, LOKAN, MINNIS, MORGAN, SIMMONS, STARR, SUNSERI, WELSH, WESTLUND, WILSON, WINTERS, and Senators DERFLER, FERRIOLI, GEORGE, NELSON, QUTUB, SHANNON, STARR, TARNO, WILDE.

What will you say if Ben Westlund starts going around taking credit for that bill? He is just as entitled to because he signed his name to it.

See, this is something I have blogged on before. Jason Atkinson thinks he can claim credit for stuff just because he signs his initials as a cosponsor. He was called on that in our local paper when he kept trying to take credit for someone elses Jessica's law bill, and his answer was that "he put his name on the sex offender bill and felt strongly that it should have been passed."

Having strong feelings and signing your name to a bill is not the same as sponsoring it or taking leadership.

Look, I don't hate the guy, for crying out loud, I just don't think he has demonstrated that he can handle the job. And we have options. Thats all. You don't like the guy I'm supporting, don't vote for him. But I want to keep the debate honest and grounded in reality.

-Andy

themanthemyththelegend said...

Andy-

Grounded in Reality!!?? Whose reality, yours?

I happen to know that Senator Atkinson did much more than simply "put his initials on the bill" as you claim.

Seriously though, applying your logic, Mannix should not be able to take credit for any of the conservative ballot measures that have passed over the last couple of years because Mannix' involvement in those efforts was no different than what you believe Jason's involvement in the Kicker Law was.

And yet you claim that Mannix "Led the way". How is that grounded in reality?

Andy, you are fishing. You know as well as anyone that politicians every day put their names on things and take credit for them (I am not saying that is what atkinson did or does) but it happens, and it is a common occurrence. I am positive your boy Mannix has done the same.

But lets talk turkey, and Ginny Burdick's gun show bill in 1999. That session, SB 700 unfortunately passed out of the Senate, but Representative (now Senator) Roger Beyer saved us by making sure the bill was sent to his committee.

Unfortunately someone saw to it that Representative Beyer (Chair of the committee) was run over on this issue. Who was it?

Your boy Kevin, while he was a Republican! He ran over one of his own just to score political points. He ran over one of our stalwarts just to curry favor with those who oppose the second amendment.

The 2003 bill you speak of was sponsored by Roger Beyer and Steve Harper, and Jason Atkinson. Which one of those guys is liberal? That's right, none.

And, seeing as how you want to be "grounded in reality" I noticed you forgot to mention that while the law would have suspended the kicker for a period of time, it also would have repaid Oregonians the suspended kicker monies after a period of time.

Oops, those darn details.

The bottom line is this. You obviously don't like Jason personally. No matter what he does, you are going to question why he does it. In your mind Jason will always be self serving. You cannot possibly be objective about Jason.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Jason and Kevin. I think the world of both of them, and I would be thrilled if either of them were to be our governor. Boy would Oregon be a great place to live.

But you, you seem to have a personal vendetta against Jason. Perhaps you are jealous because he has accomplished something with his life. He has a purpose. Perhaps he is where you want to be.

Either way, you are hardly grounded in reality.

Jeff said...

Andy-

You deserve a ton of respect because unlike most, you do know your facts and seem to be an educated voter.

I just wish you were in the Atkinson camp.

Anonymous said...

manmythlegend,

Whoa boy. Take your meds.

And when you calm down, rather than getting defensive, just tell us what he did. Maybe you are right. Maybe he was a crusader beating down the doors of the other legislators. All I can go by is the state record. There may be more. But the state record, and the news media records, none of them indicate he took the lead on it. As I said, he didn't even as a question in committee. Mannix, again according to the online record, brokered a truce that kept the Dems form issuing a minority report, by negotiating a 2/3 legislative override for emergencies, smoothing the passage. Mannix is on record as saying that he was instrumental in helping Knopp, then a freshman, guide his bill through the legislature or it would, in his words in the Oregonian, "still be stuck in committee". I will be intellectually honest and say that Knopp was mad about that, but Mannix stuck by it. And I believe it. I think it would be hard for a freshman to get that through.

Anyway, I dont so much care about all that. Just tell us, you say you know, what did Atkinson do? Maybe he was stellar in his leadership. Just enlighten us. If I am wrong, I will apologize.

Mannix can take some credit for the ballot measures. I recall that he offered law firm service pro bono, and was credited nationally as one of only 3 people recognized by Americans for Tax Reform for leading the way with CSE and TAO on Measure 30. On the other ones, I wasn't there to see, but I was told he ordered party resources be used to put up signs, assist in signature gathering, held media events, etc. Perhaps you can tell me what Atkinson did on Measure 30? 36? 37? I have the luxury of being in his district. I can tell you: diddly squat that I saw. If I am wrong, please tell me with specific examples.

I do know that politicians put their names on people's bills and then take credit. I am saying Atkinson does that. You brought up the kicker, not me. And he keeps talking about Jessica's law like he is doing something about it. Bruce Starr is. Steve Doell is. Even Democrat Jeff Barker is. All Atkinson did, in his words, was signed his name to the bill and felt strongly that it should have passed.

You say I just have a personal grudge against Jason. That is simply not true. I wish him well. He didn't beat me in some election, or refuse to bring home the bacon for me, or whatever. I don't dislike him. I just think he is not right for the governor's race, and I think he has some character / personality flaws that are being exposed that illustrate that.

I kind of look at it like a 3 legged dog trying to play frisbee with the other dogs. Hes cute, fun, but he's awkward and just lacks the ability to compete. But I don't hate him or anything.

I never claimed to be objective, by the way. I was in his camp solidly as my senator, then I turned to objective and unsure, then I became sure that he was unfit to be governor. You think he is fit. You aren't objective either, as evidenced by the fact that you don't really contest my facts with facts, but perceptions and opinions, telling me that you have some personal affinity that blinds you perhaps. I don't know. I don't want to make assumptions about you.

I have no personal vendetta, and I am comfortable with myself. As far as his accomplishments, he got elected Senator. That is an accomplishment to be proud of, I will not take that away from him. But that is not just a perk or something neat, that is a solemn charge. He is one of only 30 people in the state that gets to represent us with the powerful title of Senator. And I have said that he hasn't really used it to advance the ball much for conservative causes, save for voting mostly conservative.

But if you can point me to the major achievements, the ones that really impacted Oregon, and prove me wrong, here is your chance.

I laid out what I think Kevin Mannix's were. Big stuff. Stuff that saved lives. Put criminals away. Gave us back our right to carry guns to protect ourselves. Fought tax increases (once he came to his senses and left the Demoncrat party). Helped defend marriage. Saved women from the terror of men stalking them. Those are big ideas that effect the lives of Oregonians. None was easy to do...they required fights, taking the heat and pressing forward. Not crater lake license plates to fund a new government information center at crater lake or fishing line recycling, trying to look like a moderate who is all things to all people.

Look, that is my impression. You have the floor. Just show me where I am wrong, and I will apologize. I'm just one guy here giving his opinion like everyone else, though I obviously have some info based on proximity that otehrs don't. But tell us, the mike is yours, and I actually hope I am wrong and have just overlooked something...

-Andy

Anonymous said...

Jeff,

Thank you. Probably the most intellectually honest blog post (other than Daniel's) I have seen since I began blogging.

And you know, I wish I was in his camp too. I wanted to believe. I've just been at this a few years and I am disappointed.

And nearly all of this info I have is available via the net. I am a political junkie, I love to watch the battle, so I pay a lot of attention, probably too much. But if you know where to look, most of this stuff I blog is available. And if you know one person with good tentacles in the the legislature, and another with good tentacles in the party structure, you can learn all this stuff with a phone call. But I only have to use that sparingly.

So again, I wish I was in his camp still too. I wanted to believe that I could have a candidate to have hope in again. Maybe my expectations were too high, I don't know, but I was let down when my observations could not be ignored anymore.

If someone can set me straight again, please try. But I don't think I can be now. So I am sticking with the guy who let me dare to dream last time.

Thanks again. That's one small compliment for Andy in 4 months.

-Andy

themanthemyththelegend said...

Andy-

Seriously dude, you are blinded by your own allegiance to Mannix.

Yes, I know for a fact that Atkinson personally lobbied the 1999 legislature, and his colleagues, to support the measure. Will that be enough for you, obviously not. Apparently you expect Jason to tattoo the kicker law on his ass and show it off for everyone to see.

Did Kevin support the measure? Perhaps. Of course, you cite kevin for authority that kevin shepharded the measure through the process. What else would Kevin say?

But to suggest that because Jason didn't ask a question in committee that he did not support or otherwise advocate for the kicker law is silly. Significantly, Kevin mannix never testified in support of the bill either....or, you forgot to mention that, didn't you?

As far as the other measures are concerned, I know that Jason led the 37 effort in southern Oregon. (See 2004 Oregon Voter's Pamphlet). I also know that Jason was instrumental in getting Measure 36 petitions to churches in southern oregon so the measure would qualify for the ballot.

And as far as Measure 30 is concerned, Jason gave one of the best floor speeches I have ever heard in opposition to the Measure, and was frequently on the radio in medford and up in the valley stressing his opposition to the measure. (See Jan. 6, 2004 Medford Mail Tribune for an example)

Oh, whoops. I hate to confuse you with facts.

Your statements about Senator Atkinson and his accomplishments are silly and just plain wrong.

C. said...

I never thought I would have to stoop to the level of Lloyd Bentson but...

I have met Ronald Reagan. I knew Ronald Reagan. And trust me when I tell you:

Kevin Mannix is NO RONALD REAGAN!

Anonymous said...

1. I have no allegiance to Kevin Mannix. I do not get marching orders from him, I have only seen him at official functions like campaign apperances. I just think he is the best candidate to field this time around. You seem to have some personal involvement with your candidate, I do not. Once again, a charge you throw at me with no factual basis.

2. Lobbying your fellow majority Republicans to support a kicker amendment does not seem to be a monumental feat. I am trying to wrap my head around the notion of a freshman legislator lobbying members of his own party to support another freshman legislator's bill, one that the constituents of just about every one of them would demand they support. I just can't see how that would be needed or effective. But I am not saying that it didn't happen. Just seems a bit incredulous to me, but it is a minor point. But it seems to me like getting a Democrat to lobby his caucus for increased ecucation funding or tax increases. If I am wrong, fine, I am wrong. I'm just saying it seems like a stretch.

As far as Kevin's involvement, I just cited that to say that there is a public record of Kevin's leading on that in the Oregon Archives. I cited the link but I am not technical enough to make it come through properly. Not all young people are computer savvy. But there is a public archive that backs up his claim in the paper to taking leadership on that and heading off a minority report.

"to suggest that because Jason didn't ask a question in committee that he did not support or otherwise advocate for the kicker law is silly". Yesd, that would indeed be very, very silly. Which is why I never said that. I'm sure he supported and advocated for it. I just said I doubted that he took leadership on it, and ctited that I thought it was odd that he had not one comment in an entire meeting of the committee he was vice chair of, that dealt with several bills that day. That probably has something to do with his relative newness and youth at the time. I only cited as evidence that I didn't believe that he was leading the fight and pushing hard for it.

Kevin Mannix did speak on the bill. In fact, he put forward an amendment in committee that led to then Reps Devlin and Gardner to withdraw their minority report. Thats in the public record.

The floor speech: I maintaint that Senator Atkinson is an excellent speaker. I have no doubt his floor speech was very eloquent.

The Mail Tribune article: Its an announcement of a meeting of the John Birch Society he was speaking at, which was a forum for all the southern oregon legislators. Susan Morgan was there too. Are you going to say she should be given credit too? (she voted for HB 2152 which led to the need for Measure 30). Showing up to a town hall in your own district is not the same as being a statewide leader. It shows you represent your district well, which I have repeatedly agreed with as concerns Jason Atkinson.

Your comment about M37 puzzles me. I checked the voter's pamphlet you mentioned. Here are the legislators who are listed in support of M37:

Jackie Winters, State Senator
Steve Harper, State Senator
Bruce Starr, State Senator
Gary George, State Senator
Bill Fisher, State Senator
Charles Starr, State Senator
Roger Beyer, State Senator
Tim Knopp, State Representative
Linda Flores, State Representative
Gene Whisnant, State Representative
Dennis Richardson, State Representative
Jerry Krummel, State Representative
Donna Nelson, State Representative
Cliff Zauner, State Representative
Tootie Smith, State Representative
Jeff Kropf, State Representative
Gordon Anderson, State Representative
Susan Morgan, State Representative
Wayne Scott, State Representative

Notice who is not listed. Both of the state reps from Atkinson's district are listed. But no Atkinson.

Which is fine, but a little puzzling as to why you thought this would be a positive thing for your candidate and why you asked me to check it out. He didn't even take the usual method of signing his name and hoping it passes. Why reference it? Am I missing something?

I listen to the radio all the time, and I never heard Jason on the radio pushing for Measure 30. Again, not saying it didn't happen, just saying I never heard it despite listening to Carl Wilson's show on KAJO, Rosemary and Garth, Lars Larson, Jefferson Public Radio, etc. How about you folks up in the Willamette valley? This blogger group listens to talk radio all the time. Do any of you remember hearing him on the radio for Measure 30? I do remember Mannix doing that stuff.

Just a quick google search will give you that. Quotes from the papers like Mannix hopes that M30 "will put state government on the road to fundamental reform" (sorry Saxton, you are late). Or "Mannix was one of the strongest proponents of getting it on the ballot." Just do a search for Kevin Mannix and Maesure 30 and you will see that he was leading the fight along with Williams and Walker.

A similar search for Jason Atkinson and Measure 30 shows NOT ONE PUBLIC COMMENT from the period. So unless I am wrong, we will be replacing sleepy Ted with sleepy Jason. (a trade I am more than willing to make, by the way, but I don't think it will happen).

So, sorry. I have the facts, I am not confused. Nor am I silly. Nor am I wrong.

I am a little tired though of carrying this whole debate on my own back and getting nothign but crap for it. There are good bloggers here who do research all the time and come up with amazing gems. And yet, I sit here while I am on the phone or doing other things and can come up with this research all on my own.

Why is that? Why are other bloggers not finding this stuff?

For the same reason that a chicken just can't seem to find a coyote. They don't want to find it, so they aren't looking. In fact, they run away.

That is not an insult, just a challenge to my fellow blogospherians to start looking at the candidates with a more critical eye. That is our job...to do the job the media won't do. Otherwise, what is the point of spending a couple of hours each day doing research and putting it out there? I could be BBQ'ing or who knows what else with that time.

So I just ask that we be more critical.

And C, I never said that Kevin Mannix was the second coming of Ronald Reagan. I agree he is no Reagan. The analogy was only relevant to the point of "Mannix used to be a Democrat," and I was pointing out that many fine Republicans used to be Democrats.

Oh...and be careful quoting Lloyd Bentsen to make your point. His supporters thought that was a really snappy line until election day.

-Andy

I am Coyote said...

Andy,
Knock off the sneaky attempts to pin some suspicious label on a Republican candidate that has a SOLID record of conservative votes.

You gave you list of voter's pamphlet supporters of M37 to hopefully cast some pale of doubt on Sen. Atkinson for not being in that list.

Well let me tell you Andy.. I have put together many many voter's pamphlet statements for a number of statewide and local campaigns. That list was the responsibility of the M37 boys. I am sure they were operating under several deadlines at the time and juggling several VP statements... The fact that the Senator was not in that list means nothing. That is N. O. T. H. I. N. G. Just in case you forgot how to spell nothing.

I also know the M37 boys very very well. Had lunch with them just the other day in fact. I can tell you this Andy... They have NO suspicions about Sen. Atkinson over property rights.

While they are neutral in this race they certainly have no, zero, nadda, deep seeded concerns about Senator Atkinson's solid position on property rights.

What does the Oregon Firearms Federation say about Mannix?

NRA? Well the NRA give Mannix an A, while they give Atkinson an A+.

Anonymous said...

Coyote,

I don't know what all the hostility is about. If you had read my post, you probably wouldn't have raised your blood pressure so much.

"Knock off the sneaky attempts to pin some suspicious label on a Republican candidate"

I made no such attempt. You are attempting to throw mud at me to obscure the record I pointed out. "Facts are stubborn things." Deal with the facts I pointed out.

"..that has a SOLID record of conservative votes." Not all of them, but I admit that almost all are. The ones I pointed out that weren't are, in my view, indefensible. Perhaps that is why you didn't try. Press me, and I can give you more. I don't reccomend you do that, your choice though.

"You gave you list of voter's pamphlet supporters of M37 to hopefully cast some pale of doubt on Sen. Atkinson for not being in that list."

No I did not. I only brought up the voter's pamphlet because of this statement by Atkinson defender, manmythlegend:

"As far as the other measures are concerned, I know that Jason led the 37 effort in southern Oregon. (See 2004 Oregon Voter's Pamphlet)."

So I went to that pamphlet and looked. And no Jason Atkinson.

I didn't say he didn't support it. I am quite happy with Jason's voting record on property rights. I have never said otherwise. I criticise his lack of LEADERSHIP, that he couldn't even get his name on the measure, let alone actually helping with it. But in the legislature, he has voted very well on that I think.

But voting right is not the issue. As I said in the new post today, the governor is not supposed to just be a super legislator, voting with his signature or veto. He is supposed to be a leader pushing the legislature to get things done. And Jason Atkinson doesn't.

So don't put words in my mouth to set up a straw man you can easily torch. I think Oregonians in Action is likely very happy with Atkinson. They have no reason not to be. They may resent you calling them "boys." But whatever :)

I think now, though, your post does raise the question of why he wasn't listed in the voters pamphlet. Your reasoning is not logical.

If they can contact all these other legislators in alphabetical order, why can't they list Atkinson (A is in front)?

The "boys," as you call them, at OIA do not do anything half assed and at the last minute. And I am sure they KNEW that Atkinson supported their measure...they saw him all the time in the senate land use committee. With that strong a supporter, how was he left off? Either they didn't want him to be on there, or he asked to not be on there, or he didn't return a questionnaire or something. The last one is less plausible because I think they would have called him and asked.

So, it is just a minor point, but maybe since you are so close with them, you can ask them and post the results.

I've responded to the Oregon Firearms Federation argument. They are nuts. Read through my old posts for a greater explanation than that. But they are just plain goofy.

If you think that the NRA likes Atkinson better, fine. I concede. He has an "A+" to Mannix's "A". We will see what it is after their questionnaires are received for this election. But I will take a A or A+ from a candidate. If the Oregon Firearms Federation allegations were credible, NRA would not have given Mannix an A, so I think the rating says more about them than Mannix.

-Andy