Monday, March 05, 2007

Dorchester update (or Republicans are dumb)

The latest news from Dorchester is... that I don't care. Sure I've read a few posts that some of my fellow bloggers have put out there but I'm not at all excited about a political convention that was founded by Bob "sexual harrasser" Packwood for liberal Republicans.

To be honest I'm not real interested in any Republican meeting at this point because aren't they all liberals? I mean sure we have one or two conservatives here in Oregon (take a bow Rep Thatcher) but it seems that more and more we have spineless sissies [not] representing us.

Having an -R next to your name means that you DON'T vote for higher taxes. And when it's proposed how about calling a news conference and highlighting some ridiculous spending. Imagine if instead of crying like a little girl about "well we need to fund the state police somehow" why don't you suggest firing this list of people and hiring cops instead!

And do it publicly. Get yourself on the news. You can even chuckle when you ask the public if they want Gloria M. Anderson, Cultural Competency/Confidentiality Coordinator, or a state trooper keeping drunks and drugs off our roads.

I'll allow a giggle when you suggest firing James Mason, Multicultural Health Program Director, and hiring a trooper.

Heck, give it a good guffaw during the part about Amber Isaac, Bilingual Kinship, and geniunely ask the voters of Oregon if we would rather have her or a crime lab technician.

Why don't you gutless jellyfish do something like that? Don't sit around going "woes me, we are in the minority" and get steamrolled. SAY SOMETHING OUTRAGEOUS. Next time there is a hearing on gay marriage, err, civil unions, spend 4 hours talking about how homosexuality is a CHOICE! Watch some democrats heads spin. Stop conceding half the battle before the debate even starts.

Until then, forgive me if I don't give a crap about Dorchester you amnesty loving, tax raising, government increasing, stupid law creating, cave-in bunch of embarrassments to the Republican party.


Anonymous said...


leomary said...

Daniel, why don't you just join the Constitution Party and be done with the R's? They seem to be more in line with what you believe than the Republican Party is.

Anonymous said...

Awesome, awesome rant. Maybe your best yet. Party on, dude! :)

Anonymous said...

Hey, leomary, where I am from Republicans are Republicans. In Oregon, Republicans are more like traditional democrats (not that your dumb Oregon ass would know what that is), and Oregon Democrats are more akin to Socialists. As it stands, we pretty much have two parties in this state as a result. The Socialist Party of Oregon and the Democratic Party of Oregon. There are only a few exceptions to this rule.

Scott said...

You are asking the imposable.

Their democrat masters won't tell them what a spine is let alone let them up off the knees.

Liberal Jeff J said...

As a liberal, I find Dorchester to be a joke for you Republicans. Much like the Annual DPO Summit that happens in Sunriver, they are worthless affairs that only serve the purpose of sucking money out of fools. The sad thing about the type of meeting Dorchester is, is that people like you with your ideas wouldn't be accepted. Your ideas are not welcome, as it is more of an orgy of love for everything GOP than a place to get down to the roots and hone the message of the State Party.

The Oregon Democratic Summit, like Dorchester, is nothing more than stroking the ego of Party insiders and loyalists with the wannabees hovering around to get a few bone fragments. As a Democrat, one would not want to bring up anything "negative" about party insiders, or even heaven forbid Governor Kulongoski. And for Pete sake, don’t ever admit you voted for an independent over a “D”, that would blow the minds of the DPO groupies.

Long story short, the Dorchester hype has nothing for the independent minded conservative that wants change. It is about getting along and being a good little ORGOP soldier. Good for you for making such a bold statement about your own party. Maybe if more spoke out, the Oregon GOP would go back to it’s original “Republican” ideals, instead of continuing to morph into what many call a “pseudo-Democratic Party of Oregon”.

Anonymous said...

Daniel makes a good point. it all about that is important when funds are limited

RINO WATCH said...


I'm with you brother.

And to answer leomary 9:52...

Why the Hell should RW or Daniel have to change parties? Let the RINO's change parties.

I'll stay right where I've been for almost 40 years, thank you!

leomary said...

I'm not saying he should join the Constitution party, I'm just wondering why he doesn't. Near as I can tell, the C party's perspectives match Daniel's almost all the way down the line. I'm sure there isn't universal agreement on everything, but they sure seem to be more "his" party than the R's. So why not join? They seem to have some momentum, they're getting more people in races. If your loyalty is to principles, why not join and help build the party that shares yours instead of trying to dislodge the Republican New Carissa from the sand?

Leon said...

Do the taxpayers of Oregon REALLY need a "Sexual Minorities Employee Representative?" Are there that many bestialists or necrophiles "employed" by state government? If so, WHY??

Anonymous said...

You know... I totally understand why Daniel intends to stay Republican. I, too, feel at odds with many of the local party represetnatives, yet, have no urge at all to lend support to fringe parties.

There's a tendency these days to demand a lock-step march on party affiliation... heck... ideological affiliation. If you're Right, you must be pro-this, anti-that, etc etc, all the way down the list, or there's something wrong with you. Orson Scott Card outlined this phenomenon much better than I ever could in his afterword to Empire.

I think it's time to look at the broad outline of what makes us conservative... and let the variations within fall where they may.

I mean, you want bullet points: I'm for school vouchers (either that or outlawing unions in tax-funded industries, I mean how can you justify an organization to combat a hostile management, when the management is supposedly the "people"?), I'm personally opposed to abortion, not feeling good about gay marriage, yet don't feel the solution is government... it's society. You start trying to legislate the way people live, and you'll end up a Democrat, in my book. I don't believe that government should nursemaid me through life, making sure I wear my seatbelt, don't eat the wrong foods, etc. I want more funding for the military, less for social services. I want stable funding for fire and safety, and none at all for cultural enhancement. Cultures enhanced themselves, last time I checked... and if horror movies and amusement parks are what we do for culture, then so be it. Someone wants $10M abstract sculptures, then they should go buy one.

I could go on, but really, not everyone who calls themselves Republican is going to agree with me... and that's okay. Broad lines are what we need.

I suggest being in favor of as little government intervention as possible domestically (lower taxes, reduced regulation, reduced bureaucracy, services that can be provided by the public should be), and an aggressive international defense (Our government is there to safeguard US, not to win approval of political pundits the world over, they need to do what it takes to ensure the continuation of our nation... at all costs). That's it... two things.

Of course, by proposing a national cigarette tax tied to childrens' health care, Gordon Smith has already fallen out of my simple definition.

Amy the Razor said...


I feel your pain! I don't want to join another party..However this goes all the way to a national level. We can't even get the rinos out of Oregon fast enough....

Kalpakian said...

A better use of my time was to attend CPAC last week in Washington DC. Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Ann Coulter, Hannity, et al are a lot more fun to listen to.

I met with Chris Simcox of the Minutemen - what an impressive young man! He expressed interest in coming to Oregon, but I don't know what other efforts have been made by groups here to contact him.

A BIG debate on immigration - the idea of shutting down the whole thing until we figure ourselves out is gaining traction. I don't necessarily agree, but granted, it is a solution.

Email me if you'd like more details -

oregon conservative said...

Kalpakian: I am not encouraged by the CPAC's endorsement of Romney. It looks as though they followed the White House ballyhoo on the guy. He is Bush's pick.

He is a flip-flopper. Go watch his flip-flopping.

Romney will turn out to be another Gordon Smith. EVERY Mormon legislator has voted for hate crimes bills either nationally or state-wide. He's making ALL the same promises Smith did when he pretended to be a Christian conservative way back when.

It's a repeat. Interesting how when flip-flopper Saxton ran for gov. the two GOP leaders who came out to endorse him were two flip-floppers Giuliani and Romney. They are all playing the same game. Gotta get the conservatives during the primary, and then dump them in the general. Far smarter it would be to support only the candidates who have been consistent all through the years. So far, there is only one who has truly done that. His name is Tancredo.

You've been warned.

Kalpakian said...

Oregon Conservative: don't put much stock in the CPAC straw poll - only 1700 out of the 6300 registrants voted (the ballots were in poor locations), and Romney bussed in a bunch of folks.

Tancredo's solid. Duncan Hunter impressed. Brownback was okay. It's still early.

I actually voted Romney into office in Massachusetts. Good politician, great speaker, NOT a conservative. The pro-marriage vote is what elected him and nothing else. So I agree with you here.

BEAR said...

Terrific post, Mr.Daniel! My only addition to this erudite discussion(meaning kaelri hasn't shown up, yet), is that the Constitution Party has yet to understand the threat posed by our friendly neighborhood jihadists. I believe this to be a major flaw in any claim that organization may have to wisdom.

had enough said...

I'm down to the point where I could care less about the party... it's the individual and his or her agenda/issues.

Bobkatt said...

One way to have an impact is to change your voter registration to Independent. If enough true Reps. changed their affiliation the party heads would get the point that they are not reflecting the voice of the people. You can always change it back to Republican if there is anyone to vote for in the primary.

Anonymous said...

Mitt Romney is not likely to be the nominee. Why? Because a Northeast liberal is not electable in the south, which has gone Red in the POTUS race for many years now. The only possible exception to this rule is Guliani. Why? 9/11. People in the South will generally only elect Southern and Western Republicans. Keep that in mind. If you concede the South to the Dems, you can pretty much kiss it goodbye because the East and West coasts will elect the most socialist person they can find.

Kinship Worker said...

I think it would be great if my government job wasn't necessary. But I can't tell you how many times the police are calling and asking us to help them do their jobs. You may want to ask those police officers if they would like the other government jobs to be completely eliminated. I'll bet you there are quite a few (but not all) they would rather keep than have another officer on the streets.

Smaller government would be great ... but that depends on civil society stepping up to the plate. It takes more than a rant to do your part to make government smaller. If ranting worked, we'd still have Republicans in power thanks to Rush Limbaugh alone.

Next time you want to blog about me, give me a call and I'll give you more fuel for your fire.

And of course, this was not written on government time or a government computer and is my personal view as an individual.