Monday, June 05, 2006

It's a party but you're not invited

I've rooted for Ralph Nader. I think that a lot of you have too.

I've thought that we would have Mannix as governor except for Tom Cox. I'm not the only republican to say that either.

What's my point? We know that third party candidates act as spoilers. That is there purpose. We have wanted Ralphie on the ballot because we know that it hurts democrats chances of winning. We've rooted for him knowing that he has no chance to actually win an election.

So when I hear people today talking about how Mary Starrett is not going to ruin it for Ron Saxton, how Mary has a chance at winning, I wonder, did these same people recognize what Ralph did to the other side?

Is it easier to see what a third party candidate does to the other guy's side?

Have any of you known that a vote for Nader was a vote thrown away but now think that a vote for Mary is a vote for principle?

The reality is that a vote for Mary is a thrown away vote. You may agree with her on everything but that doesn't change the fact. You are not going to make a difference with a vote for a third party candidate.

Think back, think how you chuckled when you heard someone say they were going to vote Nader. The democrats are doing that to you if you are going to vote for Mary.


mark whitman said...

can you support a referendum such as this ?

Anonymous said...

Marry Starret wants an open primary. Lets face it she is a member of the Constitution Party and she can only succeed by wrecking the Republican Party, not reforming it, she has no interest in reform.

Anonymous said...

I've heard Mary Starret on the radio and she doesn't answer questions directly, she sidesteps and ducks, and interviewers don't call her on it.

Daniel said...

Lars' interview with her today was very interesting. (as were some of the callers)

We have a chance to change directions in Oregon and the Constitution Party is willing to blow it for us.

Anonymous said...

Ask Mary Starret an uncomfortable direct question and she changes the subject, or ducks unless cornered.

She has no executive experience at all by her own admission.

What has she done in Oregon in the last couple of years? From The Oregonian article on Saturday, June 3, 2006, I read her husband lives in Arizona six months a year, I asume she lived with her husband.

Crackpot said...

Lars is trying something new- Tinfoil Hat Monday. First the OSPIRG guy and then the opposite fringe of the spectrum with The Constitution Pary of Oregon. Good show, though. Mary Starrett demonstrated what some of us already knew about her "party". It's all about abortion with these folks. Okay, what else ya' got? Ummmmm...

Anonymous said...

Mary Starrett is more of a Republican than Ron Saxton could ever dream to be. Saxton on the other hand is a baby killing liberal masquerading as an R. He is backer of rapist Goldschmidt and has bankrolled tons of lib candidates and causes. If you vote for Saxton instead of Starrett and you claim to be a conservative, you are not only lying to yourself but you are a complete fool.

BEAR said...

Saxton may be a rino...excuse me, is a rino, but Starrett won't answer a direct, uncomfortable question. She is also demonstrably unqualified. Good reason for actual conservatives to refuse to "settle" for the lesser of 2 weasels. The Oregon Republican Party can no longer take my family's votes for granted. The sooner they lose as liberals, the sooner they will run as conservatives.....and behave as conservatives if elected, or be 1-termers.

Daniel said...

I hope that people are willing to give Saxton one term to see how he performs. If he fails to take us in the right direction then we can vote for another candidate in the next primary.

Anonymous said...

"Saxton on the other hand is a baby killing liberal masquerading as an R. He is backer of rapist Goldschmidt and has bankrolled tons of lib candidates and causes."

Thats some description. Sounds like the ultimate comic book villain. SAXTON! Baby killing rapist backer who hides behind a Ronald Reagan mask. He derives his diabolical power feeding on the innocent- aborted fetuses! Can anyone stop this evil menace? You can! The Oregon voter! Must...defeat...Saxton!

Theres your ad campaign. Pay up.

Anonymous said...

I would not want to be anywhere near Ron Saxton if he were to welch on his campaign promises.

There are lots of very, very angry people out there and Oregon isn't all that big.

My bet is he will be true to his word.

Bruce said...

Let's hope so...for Oregon's sake and our pocketbooks sake. With all the corruption in government,on both sides, anybody take any bets the Dems didn't bankroll and put up Marry Starret just to draw off Saxton votes. HHHMMMMMMMM !

Ric said...

In the last elections, I knew one of the Constitution Party candidates.

He was running because the Republicans keep sending up RINO's.

His position - and I don't know how closely these were to the party line - were social conservative, small government.

The Republicans need to start getting appropriate (non-RINO) folks into the state House and Senate. So they gain some experience and would be good candidates for Governor.

Douglas said...

Nice blog. I for one won't be voting for Mr. Saxton. He is in no way a Conservative and is definetely not a Republican. At least not any that I would vote for.

I am so disappointed after all this that I am changing my registration from "R" to "I". I will no doubt be taking a close look at Starrett for my choice this November.

Denise said...

Abortion is just not an issue for me in this election. Illegal immigration and it's devestating effects are much more important.

Mary Starret is in a position to make sure that kulongoski is re-elected and she knows it but apparently HER agenda and feelings are more important than the good of the state.

I have no respect for her shortsightedness.

Anonymous said...

I love it, Republicans will split, ensuring Governor Kulongoski is re-elected, and the prolife element will cause Democrats to win in November. Kulongoski may not be as pro public employee as I would like, but he got the message and I expect him to move left.

gullyborg said...

Your post is premised on a number of assumptions, none of which can be considered a fact:

Would every voter who marks Starrett have voted for Saxton if Starrett didn't run? Doubtful. Many would not vote at all, or would vote for some other non-two-party candidate, or write in someone. Odds are the average Starrett voter would never vote for any Republican, let alone one who has so divided the Republicans into conservatives and "anybody but Kulongoski" voters.

Would Saxton really be a step in the right direction for Oregon? I am not sure. I think he may even be a step in the WRONG direction. Just because the guy puts an R after name and talks a good talk on immigration doesn not a conservative make. What happens if Governor Saxton governs according to his 2002 platform? Then we basically still have Kulongoski in office AND we are stuck with him as the Republican again in 2010. Plus, he can appoint a number of bureaucrats who will remain in power long after he is gone. On the other hand, if Kulongoski is re-elected, he is out in four years and we can put a better person in place for (hopefully) eight years. Oh, same if somehow Westlund wins--no automatic renomination for him.

Would a Starrett-free race have any other implications apart from the governors race? What about the legislature? Consider this: the legislature is tight, and a tiny shift to the right could give us the Senate. Or, a tiny shift to the left could lose the House. So getting out the conservative vote is critical for the legislature as well as the governors race. Starrett might, in theory, siphon off some votes from Saxton. But odds are, she brings in more new voters than she siphons off. Most of these new voters will be very conservative, and will then be looking at all the other races on their ballot after voting for governor. Even if Starrett somehow pulls away that one vote from Saxton that would have pushed him over the top in the governors race (doubtful), she would probably at the same time provide enough new conservative voters to push us over the top in the Senate. Take her out of the picture, and not only might we fail to win the Senate, but we may lose the House also. I'd rather have a more conservative legislature with a GOP Senate and keep Kulongoski in office than elect Ron Saxton and lose the House.

Would a success for Saxton be good for the state GOP? I don't think so. Not only would he fill staff positions with questionable people and not only might we lose the legislature, but what about the long term organization and direction of the GOP itself? Is it really progress if the GOP moves away from the conservative principles that made it great? Do we really want a state GOP that keeps promoting people like Gordon Smith and Bob Packwood? With Saxton as governor, he would have tremendous influence over the party. I see on the top of this website a banner for "Deport Gordon Smith." Funny, he is a GOP Senator that many people would say is "a step in the right direction" compared to the alternative of someone like "Senator" Peter Defazio or "Senator" John Kitzhaber or even "Senator" Ted Kulongoski. Those are some of the folks who might fill the void if we boot Smith from office. Yet, all you "Saxton must win at any cost" crowd seem hell-bent on booting Smith. Why can't you see that Saxton is more of a threat than Smith is?

Is Starrett just about abortion? And can the governor really affect abortion? I don't think she is a one trick abortion pony. She would be the only true pro-gun candidate on the ballot. Her position on immigration makes as much sense as anyone elses (and recognizes what a governor can and can't do). And her solutions to most problems include limiting government, cutting spending, and cutting taxes. It's all good. And abortion WILL be a big factor in state politics soon. SCOTUS Justice Stevens is OLD and Bush might be able to replace him soon. If not, the next President (who hopefully is a conservative) will be able to replace him during Saxton or Starrett's first term. One more vote from the right and Roe v. Wade is history. And then suddenly, abortion will be the NUMBER ONE local issue. And while the baby-killing crowd wants you to think that, given the chance, they will pass a pro-abortion ballot measure in Oregon, think again. They thought they would beat Measure 36, too. Poll after poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans who are given the facts (as opposed to being given rhetoric about a "right to choose") back bans on abortions. A conservative legislature could pass an abortion ban. A pro-life governor could sign an abortion ban. And the pro-baby-killing kooks out there would never be able to undo it with the ballot.

In the past, I would have agreed that abortion should be off the table as a campaign issue, just because of SCOTUS. But with SCOTUS about to change one more time, now may be the ONLY time our generation has to change abortion policy at the federal and state levels.

Could Starrett even win? Most here would say no. But consider this:

We are looking at a possible 5 way race. There is a green candidate who will pull a decent percentage away from Kulongoski, especially since he is weak among the left. Ben Westlund will pull away moderates from both Kulongoski and Saxton. And a real conservative could pull a good chunk of the far right. And most of you "Saxton must win at any price" people would, if you thought she really could win, support Starrett because she IS truly conservative. Al Mobely got something like 13% of the vote with the incredibly popular Dave Frohnmayer as the GOP candidate. Saxton has far, far less institutional and emotional support than Frohnmayer had. And Mobely was an out of state NOBODY, as opposed to Mary Starrett, who has long term ties to Oregon and enjoys good popularity as a media personality. If you grassroots conservatives really got motivated for Starrett, she could almost double Mobely's numbers. So imagine her breaking 20%... In a five way race where everyone is close, breaking 20% can give you a win.

If the far left is willing to bail on Kulongoski (probable), if Kulongoski runs a crappy campaign (zzzzzzz probable), if Westlund gets on the ballot (probable), if Saxton tacks to the middle for the general and pisses off the GOP base (probable), then a strong grassroots campaign for Starrett can WIN this election. That is the only variable, and YOU control it.

What's the downside? Maybe Kulongoski is re-elected. Well, at least then we are no worse off than we already are. It's not like we are worried about Pete Sorenson winning by default if Starrett blows it for Saxton. And if we build up our strength in the legislature, which we WILL do if Starrett gets out the far right vote, then even a re-elected Kulongoski is better than the current situation, because he will be forced to work with a more conservative legislature.

I honestly can't see any reason to pick on Starrett. At this point, I think promoting her campaign is probably the best thing for Oregon.

Anonymous said...

lets embrace diversity are we free to vote for our own kind? let the chips fall where they may. any vote for one takes a vote away from another.If your candidate is not strong enough to win on his own then maybe he shoud not win!!

Crackpot said...

Heckuva post, Gully. Think we get it- Saxton must lose at any cost. Throw it back to Ted for another term while you reinvent The Oregon Republican Party. Get some REAL conservatives in there and purge all the so-called RINO's. What will you have then? A smaller, weaker party, that's what.

Also gotta question statements like these:

"She would be the only true pro-gun candidate on the ballot."

Really? I thought Saxton made his position on gun ownership clear, but now I'll have to double check. Can't have that sneaky bastard rappelling from a black UN helicopter on my property fixin' to confiscate my firearms.

I assume "the baby-killing crowd" and "pro-baby-killing kooks" refers to anyone who would not go along with an outright abortion ban. Is that correct? If so, you're using derogatory names to define most Americans. You'll find support for making significant reforms, but not nearly enough to outlaw the practice entirely.

"Poll after poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans who are given the facts (as opposed to being given rhetoric about a "right to choose") back bans on abortions."

Bullshit, unless these numerous polls were taken after Sunday worship at an evangelical church. Give me a break. The majority of Americans are pro-choice, though some have serious concerns about it's application. You know, I'll bet you would draw far more people toward your side if you toned down the rhetoric a bit and made an intelligent, compassionate argument against abortion. Using it as a political wedge does little to help the cause, assuming you're truly concerned about life. I am, but having an endless political tug of war is not going to solve the root problems.

"Is Starrett just about abortion? And can the governor really affect abortion? I don't think she is a one trick abortion pony."

Yes, she and The Constitution Party of Oregon are all about abortion. I know a few of these people (decent folks, by the way) and the abortion issue is by far their #1 fixation. Sure, they also claim to believe in smaller government, lower taxes and the second amendment (all good things), but they take an authoritarian view which is based upon their biblical beliefs. Not the types I want running the show, thanks.

Toss your vote to the Theocrat candidate at your own peril. Teddy K. will be your reward.

End of rant

Kaelri said...

Huh. In-depth, intelligent debate. This is... refreshing. Onward! Onward!

Rick Hickey said...

Crackpot, THANK YOU.
GULLY, All that rambling is still immature & ignorant BS! Glad Ben is paying you to run his ad, you SELL OUT. When are running the ACLU AD about diversity and pedophiles? Hey it pays well.

We either get Saxton or Kulongoski.

Ben takes votes from Ted K because he is a LIBERAL.

Mary takes votes from Ron because she is a conservative.

Ron & Ted have the most money, name recognition and won the primary.

Don't vote for RON and Ted keeps the office. Giving Ron a chance is better than 4 more with Ted.

Want Ron to stick to his words on ILLEGAL immigration?
Donate to OFIR PAC. It is a Tax break for you AND if his office sees checks coming from OFIR PAC, he will have to remember us when he is Governor. Ron is the only candidate in Oregon HISTORY to spend thousands on ads about illegal immigration.


Oh my brother ROB thought you would all like his DR. EVIL impersonation, guess not.
Sorry if anyone was offended.
He is banned from using my computer.

Anonymous said...

So we should just shut up and dance, even when the Reps want to open the borders to keep wages down, institute the most expensive and inefficient entitlement program in history, and take away states rights.

Why? I, and apparently many others, believe that the Reps have abandoned us for dollars. They've been bought and paid for, and there is no way they're going to even come close to living up to their own ideals.

So it's on their own heads - the Reps are the people forcing us to got to the extreme of trying to establish another party. It's the Reps that need to be spanked until they start to straighten up.

Members of the Constitution Party (and I ain't one, yet) appear to be doing what YOU don't have the guts to to - put their standards out there and daring the citizens of Oregon to live up to them.

BEAR said...

anon 4:58, well said.

Anonymous said...

To Gullyborg
Its funny that somebody has a blog site and they write alot(sometimes think), and boy, they know the future. Your a man who wrote too many posts in the primary supporting a losing candidate and is full of bitter wrath, your cup tastes of wormwood, and your grapes are sour(crab)apples.

Talk about a deluded mind, or one that is stuck on abortion- I guess you can't see it in yourself, but as already pointed out you keep coming back to it, although your blind hatred for Saxton is pretty obvious also.

Actually, I think it is your blind hatred for Saxton and abortion is just a hook to hang your hat on. Your real reasons, whatever they are, are twisted into a knot so tight I'm not sure anybody could fathom your logic.

Ron Saxton has a forceful and vibrant agenda for Oregon. Gullyborg get over it, your candidate lost, at least the candidate is supporting THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR OREGON GOVERNOR, not the Constitution Party candidate for governor, who has stated almost all Republicans are corrupt and sellouts, and worse. No party is perfect, no candidate is perfect, but all I hear from you, gullyborg is Constitution Party propaganda. Are you a member of the Constitution Party and how long have you been a member. No question, you are a sympathizer.

Please, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, as you go to your new party.

24 YEARS SINCE WE ELECTED A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR and now you want to take your marbles and go home, boy you are selfish, and frankly in political terms stupid. Go to it, but don't come back to my Republican Party, stay in the Constitution Party where you belong. Because I will be at the door and will kick you in the ass out the door. Just like Kulongoski will be kicking all Republicans in the teeth with higher taxes and more programs and a social agenda even people clouded over like you wont like.

I guess you like what has been going on the last four years. I don't, but more importantly Ron Saxton will lead this State with the energy to get it going in the right direction and build the Republican Party so we can have success at the Statewide level, or have you forgotten all those races we lose every two years. Gullyborg, you really have your head up your ass.

Anonymous said...

Huh. In-depth, intelligent debate. This is... refreshing. Onward! Onward!

That's because it is conservatives doing the arguing. The second you throw in a liberal it turns into monkeys throwing crap.

Kaelri said...

"That's because it is conservatives doing the arguing. The second you throw in a liberal it turns into monkeys throwing crap."

An admirably provocative hypothesis. Which can easily be dispelled by poking around the Daily Kos for a few days.