{FULL DISCLOSURE: NO candidate or campaign or anyone involved or in any way concerned with any candidate or campaign was aware of or approved or had input into this post.
Further, Marc Boldt is my brother in law, and I worked for him as his legislative assistant for 6 years while he was in the State House.)
A voter making an uninformed decision is a dangerous thing, doing more harm than the alternative.
On this rare occasion, I agree with the democratian: there IS a "mountain of decisions" to make in this cycle.
I have a wide variety of blank spots on my ballots. I haven't voted and likely won't vote for SPI, Insurance Commissioner, Supreme Court, or Commissioner of Public Lands.
I'm also not voting in my commissioner's primary: I don't support any of those candidates, and since I support none of them, most strongly opposing the three democrats (Boldt, Battan and Campbell) I'm not going to engage in the ubiquitous "settle for" vote.
This is where the "Party" aspect comes into play: the "Party" wants me to vote the straight Republican slate, particularly when I don't know anything about the candidates or their positions... just because they claim to BE Republican.
Is that the right thing to do?
You can't believe that someone is a true Republican merely on their say-so. After all, McKenna, Dunn, Finkbeiner and Boldt all claim to be Republican, and they're as Republican as Obama.
Well, at this point, some might argue that the thing to do is to research the candidates; visit their websites, check the newspapers, check the record.
I find much of that (but not all) to be a massive waste of time.
Take Boldt, for example. If, as he claims, he's a true Republican, then why do so many democrats not only support him, but fund his campaign? Why is the democratian in-kinding him to tens of thousands of dollars worth of free campaigning? Why is he even taking money from Republican Tom Mielke's opponent in this race?
The newspaper here is worthless as a source of information. Their coverage reeks; if they hate you, they hate you and they give a complete pass on issues, such as the rag's failure to ever even mention the Oregon Supreme Court's decision that the CRC is a gigantic scam because that doesn't jibe with their agenda, or their efforts to engage in character assassination against those who oppose them; Van Nortwick, Boger, Madore... me... their lies, distortion and bias make them as worthless as any opposition web site as a source.
The web sites of GOP candidates are equally suspect. Boldt's is one glittering generality of favorable distortions. He doesn't talk about the tax and fee increases he's imposed on us, his efforts to avoid a vote on the CRC scam; his rabid support of a bridge replacement, loot rail and life-long tolls that will suck $100,000,000 or more a year out of the local economy... indefinitely... with the major negative impacts on the businesses depending on that disposable income and the low-income commuting families that are going to have to pay his extortion.
He doesn't talk much about being endorsed by fellow democrats Steve Stuart and Betty Sue Morris along with the democrat mayors like the biggest political liar in SW Washington, Tim Leave-it.
In short, he isn't telling the truth. So why bother to go to his web site?
You shouldn't bother to read the rag: Their hate motivation against David Madore disqualifies them as any reliable source. There is no lie of omission or co-mission they won't engage in to get their people elected; they're as partisan as the White House.
So, what CAN you do?
Well, if you don't know, you CAN ask, as I have directly asked Brandon Vick what his complete position on the CRC actually is. His response, since he doesn't address it on his "issues" page, like it's of no importance and not worthy of mention on his issues page, will be blogged here.
But even then, you have to examine each response from each candidate through a microscope; few have the integrity to commit to rock solid positions and most want to leave enough wiggle room to drive a truck through.
Voting is all about (or at least should be all about) LEGAL voters making an INFORMED decision.
Where I'm not informed, I'm not voting.
Where you are informed and the stench makes you want to pass out (like in Boldt's commissioner race) then don't give into the hype with a "hold your nose" vote.
Just don't vote. Vote where you know, don't where you don't.
Simple, really.
(Or not. It's up to you.)
Further, Marc Boldt is my brother in law, and I worked for him as his legislative assistant for 6 years while he was in the State House.)
A voter making an uninformed decision is a dangerous thing, doing more harm than the alternative.
On this rare occasion, I agree with the democratian: there IS a "mountain of decisions" to make in this cycle.
I have a wide variety of blank spots on my ballots. I haven't voted and likely won't vote for SPI, Insurance Commissioner, Supreme Court, or Commissioner of Public Lands.
I'm also not voting in my commissioner's primary: I don't support any of those candidates, and since I support none of them, most strongly opposing the three democrats (Boldt, Battan and Campbell) I'm not going to engage in the ubiquitous "settle for" vote.
This is where the "Party" aspect comes into play: the "Party" wants me to vote the straight Republican slate, particularly when I don't know anything about the candidates or their positions... just because they claim to BE Republican.
Is that the right thing to do?
You can't believe that someone is a true Republican merely on their say-so. After all, McKenna, Dunn, Finkbeiner and Boldt all claim to be Republican, and they're as Republican as Obama.
Well, at this point, some might argue that the thing to do is to research the candidates; visit their websites, check the newspapers, check the record.
I find much of that (but not all) to be a massive waste of time.
Take Boldt, for example. If, as he claims, he's a true Republican, then why do so many democrats not only support him, but fund his campaign? Why is the democratian in-kinding him to tens of thousands of dollars worth of free campaigning? Why is he even taking money from Republican Tom Mielke's opponent in this race?
The newspaper here is worthless as a source of information. Their coverage reeks; if they hate you, they hate you and they give a complete pass on issues, such as the rag's failure to ever even mention the Oregon Supreme Court's decision that the CRC is a gigantic scam because that doesn't jibe with their agenda, or their efforts to engage in character assassination against those who oppose them; Van Nortwick, Boger, Madore... me... their lies, distortion and bias make them as worthless as any opposition web site as a source.
The web sites of GOP candidates are equally suspect. Boldt's is one glittering generality of favorable distortions. He doesn't talk about the tax and fee increases he's imposed on us, his efforts to avoid a vote on the CRC scam; his rabid support of a bridge replacement, loot rail and life-long tolls that will suck $100,000,000 or more a year out of the local economy... indefinitely... with the major negative impacts on the businesses depending on that disposable income and the low-income commuting families that are going to have to pay his extortion.
He doesn't talk much about being endorsed by fellow democrats Steve Stuart and Betty Sue Morris along with the democrat mayors like the biggest political liar in SW Washington, Tim Leave-it.
In short, he isn't telling the truth. So why bother to go to his web site?
You shouldn't bother to read the rag: Their hate motivation against David Madore disqualifies them as any reliable source. There is no lie of omission or co-mission they won't engage in to get their people elected; they're as partisan as the White House.
So, what CAN you do?
Well, if you don't know, you CAN ask, as I have directly asked Brandon Vick what his complete position on the CRC actually is. His response, since he doesn't address it on his "issues" page, like it's of no importance and not worthy of mention on his issues page, will be blogged here.
But even then, you have to examine each response from each candidate through a microscope; few have the integrity to commit to rock solid positions and most want to leave enough wiggle room to drive a truck through.
Voting is all about (or at least should be all about) LEGAL voters making an INFORMED decision.
Where I'm not informed, I'm not voting.
Where you are informed and the stench makes you want to pass out (like in Boldt's commissioner race) then don't give into the hype with a "hold your nose" vote.
Just don't vote. Vote where you know, don't where you don't.
Simple, really.
(Or not. It's up to you.)
3 comments:
I wonder if the strategy of Conservatives to force everybody but themselves out of the Republican Party will work? Is 51% of America Conservative? I guess we’ll see in future elections…
I really don't know, but I suppose it depends on a couple of things:
1. What does "work" mean?
Does it mean that we should just get behind a candidate when little to nothing separates them from their much more liberal opponent?
Does it mean that only the GOP should have a big enough tent that the ONLY requirement for inclusion is the choice of a label?
Does it mean that the ONLY thing that should matter is the letter after your name?
2. In reality, my primary concern isn't the party label or the use of it to get elected... it is, instead, the lies of claiming a label when your ACTIONS speak to something completely different.
If I announced today, right now, that I'd become a hard corps democrat... how many would believe it? How welcome would I be at the, say, JJ dinner?
The Duck Rule comes in. And if you pass the Duck Rule, you're a duck.
Marc, for example, passes the duck rule with flying colors, and his effort to cling to a label that bears no resemblance to his governance?
Well, his loss, and the loss of people like him, is just a risk we're going to have to take.
My point (if I have one?) is with only 2 parties, where do non-Conservatives/non-Leftists go? Teddy Roosevelt was a Liberal Republican with a capital "L." He would be forced out of today's Republicans and he sure as hell wasn't a Marxist - so the most effective president in history would never have been elected.
On the Marc Boldt issue - you've pretty much made your case. The guy lost his legitimacy because he doesn't walk-the-talk. On the other hand, Madore walks-the-talk but seems to be a 1-issue candidate.
Post a Comment