May primaries
Thoughts on the governor’s race so far:
I didn’t watch the last televised debate and didn’t read about
it afterwards, which I am kicking myself for. But-
—-I read about Lane County Commissioner Pete Sorenson today in the O. The guy has less than $7,000 of campaign cash on hand. Talk about cash flow problems.
He calls himself a populist and progressive, one who sticks up for
the little guy and “working families.”
Uh oh. Besides being trite, It sounds like he’s the kind of person who often believes government (and their underlying bueaucratic inefficiencies) is the answer. But hey, when you don’t have the backing of unionized labor, it can’t be all that bad, right? Well, bear in mind he has represented Eugene for much of his political career, and he was elected then re-elected. Darn, I was beginning to like him…
—-With the Loren Parks/Greg Clapper alliance and the Indian tribes, this is shaping up to be a campaign fought by proxy. My memory is hazy regarding past races-is it usually like this?
The Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde, for one, have only a financial stake in this, so do your own research, folks, on these guys.
But I don’t have to tell you intelligent people that. 
—-Read about Jim Hill yesterday. Uh, Jim who?
—-I haven’t read the O’s piece on Ted Kulongoski yet. Uh, Ted who?
(I’m just kidding, I’ll write about them a bit later.)
—-I’m going to wait until I read some more before commenting on Atkinson, Mannix and Saxton. Oregonian con-blogs seem to favor Atkinson as their man, with Saxton and Mannix “wafflers” and “flip-floppers.” Let the swift-boating begin!
—-The buzz on Ben Westlund is that he’s the Ralph Nader of the November election. His work on the Oregon Health Plan and civil unions likely would take votes away from the Dems. He’ll only be able to get so many votes from those who “declare their independence.”
Uh oh. Besides being trite, It sounds like he’s the kind of person who often believes government (and their underlying bueaucratic inefficiencies) is the answer. But hey, when you don’t have the backing of unionized labor, it can’t be all that bad, right? Well, bear in mind he has represented Eugene for much of his political career, and he was elected then re-elected. Darn, I was beginning to like him…
Hmmm…I should think that a guy who believes in government would be a better guy to govern. We’re currently watching what happens at the fed level what happens when you put folks in charge who say that “government isn’t the solution”. They’ve yielded a mess in Iraq, a mess in Afghanistan, a major deficit and national debt and massive corruption.
I don’t know if Pete’s the best candidate or not. But discounting him because he believes government can work for people seems rather antithetical.
Comment by carla — April 19, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
oops..should have proofed that before I clicked “submit”..but you get the idea.
Comment by carla — April 19, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
Carla-Thank you so much for your comments!
I didn’t say I am discounting him - that
has a ring of finality to it. The deck, at least
in this voter’s mind, isn’t stacked in his favor.
Just because one doesn’t like Bush shouldn’t mean
they should vote left-leaning Democrats into office.
I’m sure an intelligent person like you can see
the logic in that
I think most would agree that W isn’t acting like a Goldwater
(or even Reagan) conservative. Gov’t has only gotten
bigger under his watch, along with its attendant spending.
It makes many want to abandon the GOP and go elsewhere.
I’d definitely would take issue with you on Afghanistan
and Iraq, but I’ll save that discussion for another post
For the time being, however, bear in mind that federal
findings, such as those detailed in the Silbermann-Robb
report, didn’t uncover political pressure to
“twist” intelligence.
Comment by landgazr — April 19, 2006 @ 9:43 pm
Federal findings never addressed the administration’s use of intel. That was the job of Phase II, which Sen Roberts continues to stall. That there was no pressure to twist intelligence isn’t much solace, when you realize that Cheney’s OSP was simply channelling their own intel from liars like Chalabo, and passing it as analyzed, credible data. They didn’t need to twist; they just ignored them and created their own intel.
Comment by torridjoe — April 19, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
Thank you for your reply TorridJoe! Indeed, Roberts should make good on his promises. However, since much of the entire world and many of our own Congressmen on both sides of the aisle believed the same hogwash, either we here hoodwinked as well or something nefarious was going on. Our intelligence apparatus was extremely broken. I won’t deny that Bush had a “hard-on” for Iraq before he came into office, and that many prominent neoconservatives were/are in high places. But that still isn’t proof that intel was “created,” as you say. Still only circumstantial.I would want Phase II as much as you, and Roberts’ paralysis on this isn’t looking good for the administration.
Comment by landgazr — April 19, 2006 @ 10:37 pm
Google “Office of Special Plans” sometime. You’ll get your proof. They took raw intel from guys who had long been regarded as non-credible, and funneled it directly to the White House. Chalabi admitted as much that they hung us out to dry, and that info went through Cheney’s office.
Comment by torridjoe — April 20, 2006 @ 2:26 am
Thanks for your reply, TorridJoe! Yes, I know of
OSP, especially Feith, who arguably is a Zionist.
You seem to imply that OSP was created only for
the sole purpose of telling the administration what
they wanted to hear, a smokescreen in essence. However,
if you read “Rise of the Vulcans” by James Mann you
may find another reason: the intelligence apparatus
previously underestimated threats by the USSR and maybe
was doing so again. So, the money question: Was OSP was
a smokescreen or really a concerted effort to find a
“second opinion?” You imply it was a smokescreen; I am not convinced either way yet that Feith and his team
knew they were pretext makers.
Comment by landgazr — April 20, 2006 @ 12:49 pm