SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
John Kitzhaber will be Oregon's next governor, winning a third term as the head of this state. The very close race with Republican Chris Dudley set new records for campaign spending and left people refreshing their news sites over and over again yesterday as they awaited the final call. The race was so tight that when Kitzhaber was projected the winner Dudley still actually had the greater number of votes. But by late afternoon, with the majority of remaining ballots still to be counted from Multnomah County it became clear that the Democrat was going to win by a slim margin.
Dudley conceded in front of a Mexican restaurant in Lake Oswego last night. When asked if he'll run again he said he would probably have a margarita first, and consider that later. Kitzhaber is scheduled to speak at 10 am today.
Editor's Note: Today's show will be an extended version of Think Out Loud. We'll hear from the political parties, state legislative leaders, analysts, and you -- and then at 10 take Kitzhaber's remarks live. We'll rejoin Here & Now once he has spoken.
Photo credit: Chris Lehman/Northwest News Network
-
The close race gave me a scare, I can't imagine Dudley as Governor - I thought Oregon was safe from such nonsense candidates. -- berrylava — Wed Nov. 3rd 5:57p.m.
You must not live in the 4th District, otherwise you would have been aware of "Dr." Art Robinson -- who could say nothing but nonsense!
-
I am proud as an Oregonian that we have ignored the negative ads paid for by special interests and we have voted with our minds rather than being swayed by the propaganda and millions of dollars spent trying to buy this election. No wonder Oregon stands so proudly above other states.
Congratulations Oregonians and Congratulations Governor Kitzhaber! Welcome back.
-
I'm glad Kitzhaber won as I voted for him, but really I doubt things would've been much different with Dudley.
This entire election cycle has shown me how carried away people get with politics. Everyone thinks it will be the end of the world if their candidate doesn't win. America is such a battlefield now that we forget we all live here and have to work together. This whole democracy thing has led Americas to the mindset "If we get 51% then we win and it doesn't matter what everyone else thinks" Then 4 years later the next person/measure comes along and undoes what the old majority did. Back and forth with no progress.
We need to work together and do it respectfully to move forward as a society, country and planet. Otherwise we are doomed to extinction by our own ignorance.
-
Booo! not another four years with this jerk. For the past sixteen years (eight attributed to his hand picked place holder) we have been putting up with his failed policies. It is too bad that one city, which is out of touch with the rest of the state, has so much power.
From Sad Real Oregonian
-
51% is "out of touch?"
-
Cubalist, youre so right: It wasn't just Portland that elected Kitz - it was Oregon. Unless the voters in Benton, Lincoln, Washington, Hood River, Clatsop, and Lane counties are also out of touch with the "real Oregonians." What about the 6000+ voters in Umatilla county. Or the 11000+ voters in Josephine county. Or even the 1882 voters in Malhuer county. Those counties all went for Dudley, but those voters all had their voice and helped elect Kitz.
-
I cheer Oregonians for their thoughtful consideration of candidates and issues, and their refusal to be swayed by this year's hyperbolic, highly funded media campaign. Kitz thinks ahead, he knows what can and cannot be accomplished, he knows everyone in Oregon business, politics, education and health care. He knows the value of prevention, instead of waiting for harm to occur before treatment. I breathed a huge sigh of relief when I heard Dudley concede.
-
While I'm glad that Kitzhaber will be the next governor of Oregon, I think we need more moderate politicians in the legislature. I still hear too much of the stubborn, pig-headed rhetoric from people around town, as well as from those who won or lost in Tuesday's election.
It disturbs me that anyone would suggest that they have a mandate to push their agenda, and that they refuse to compromise. Compromise is the essence of politics. Without compromise, nothing gets done, and the city/county/state/country develops desperate problems that harm all citizens.
I look forward to hearing Mr. Kitzhaber's plans for how to work with all parties (not just Democrats and Republicans) for the greater good of Oregon.
-
Red? Blue? Purple? What does it matter? Until we stop fueling the federal government's $600 billion annual thirst for military spending (by far the largest portion of any single person's tax burden) we're just choosing curtains for a house on fire.
Matt Lembo, Portland OR
-
I, for one, am a "Lavender Oregonian." I want our elected officials to get off the campaign trail and get things done for the people -- restoring the economy, creating new jobs (and not just in the 'hard-hat trades'), rebuilding our educational systems, and bringing back the Oregon Health Plan for everyone -- not just the women who can't keep their pants on and their offspring). I say Lavender, rather than Purple because I am also a member of the LGBTIQ Community, and our issues need to be addressed, too!
-
Kitzhaber's victory DISPROVES several TENETS of Professional Campaigners:
1. The Candidate with the most Money wins an election.
2. The Candidate who buys the most Television Advertising Commercial wins an election.
3. Outside annonymous interests groups can influence an Oregon election by buying ads.
4. A candidate with questionable debate skills and no experience can AVOID debate with a much more experienced policy wonk candidate and still squeak by to victory.
5. A candidate with NO EXPERIENCE is an asset rather than a liability. No Record to Criticize.
6. A state wide election can win based only on Rural Oregon and not the big cities.
7. Sports Celebrities can by virtue of their popularity can beat a seasoned politician.
IN TRUTH IT IS THE STRENGTH OF THE CANDIDATES ALONE THAT SHOULD TRIUMPH IN A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION.
-
I don't think any of that statement is true outside of this specific gubernatorial election.
-
Oh my, I mistakenly thought that "The People" should triumph in a democratic election, instead of celebrity personalities and huge Corporations.
Silly me, I thought that the definition of a democratic election was the definition of a democratic election.
-
"the people" should triumph. The notion that politics is not influenced by corporations, outside interests, or name recognition plays no part is naive.
-
Not naive here.
I'm just well aware of the dangers of taking power away from The People and putting it in the hands of Corporations, personality cults, and "outside interests".
-
It is so not true that there were not cuts initiated by Governor Kitzhaber. Just one example was a cut of $20 million in services to non mandated programs that supported the Children Adults and Families program.
That is just one place where cuts were made.
What we really need to focus on is the spending that happens without the oversight of the spending committee, the hundreds of tax credits and tax expenditures that have evolved since 1980. Many of those may have some value. However, we need to evaluate them on a par with services that are crucial to people's survival and education of our future citizens.
Tax expenditures need to be under the Ways and Means knife.
Check out the organization Tax Fairness Oregon where such debate occurs and is taken to the legislature.
-
The closeness of the Governor's race and the nearly evenly divided Oregon Legislature do not reflect a right-left divide but rather a top-bottom divide. The election results do not present a puzzle that will be solved with red and blue pieces. It requires a much more thoughtful approach which understands that a third of the voters in this state are not members of either major party but are working families struggling through this cynically labeled "jobless recovery" and the high cost of housing, health care, college tuition, child care and all the other bills they must pay every month. Hopefully our Legislators and Govenor will be able to see through partisan rhetoric and work toward solutions to these very real problems.
Barbara Dudley, Oregon Working Families Party
-
Republican Politics 101:
Your candidate just lost a close election, but go on the radio and call your opponent names (Dr. Ungovernable), and then go on to say that he can't get the job done. Don't bother talking about how we can come together - just point out negatives.
The next two years can't go by slow enough.
-
I’m use to being on the losing side so, no surprise on the governor elect.
What I want is the for the governor to realize that we are a state deeply divided.
I want to see the hard cuts made, because I can’t afford any more taxes.
I know that hard cuts are going to hurt, but I want thoughtful actions taken.
None of this easy way out across the board. Oregon needs to decided what our top 4 is, and focus on those issues.
Besides that, don’t forget about rural Oregon.
All I can do is hope that our state can beat my very, very low expectations.
-
The suggestion by the voter that Portland people don't make thoughtful decisions on voting, but make "knee jerk reactions," is itself not thoughtful. Phil Keisling's comment that we have to approach the new situation with a presumption of working together is on the mark, however. Mr. Tiernan clearly won't work in that manner.
-
Dear Mr Tiernan--
Did you not hear Mr Dudley??? He said that we all needed to work together. The name calling and fear mongering about sales tax increases and killing jobs is only causing futher division between Orgonians. Mr Dudley was graceful in defeat and is willing to be part of the solution, not continue to scream in a shrill voice, scare voters. and pout like a baby because you are not in charge.
Your refusal to help, compromise, and work for the good of all Oregonians is the reason that we have not had a Republican Governor in over 20 years.
I am a Republican,
-
I'm relieved Mr. Kitzhaber won. He seems more enlightened and expansive in his thinking. I'm annoyed with those who seek simple solutions to complex challenges without thinking through the consequences of action.
Cutting size and expense of government is but one aspect requiring investigation. Where would displaced state workers work? Who will provide the services they provided? Can those services be provided better for less expense by corporations? Who will watch and regulate corporations if there is minimal government with no teeth?
-
You got that right! Herd of cats is an apt characterization of the Oregon Legislature!
Lane County did its part, too! Don't forget us!
-
A split house? That means this is a big win for the Conservative Republicans, they will just obstruct like they did the last time Dr. Kitzhaber was governor. They are anti-government, so they will do everything they can to prevent our government from functioning, in Oregon and at the fed level.
And who benefits from a non-functioning government? The big predatory corporations. Who loses? The People, who really do need some government protection from the De-Regulated abuses of giant Corporations.
-
Oh, god...The Party of Hell, NO! (otherwise known as Republican'ts) is back in our Legislature. That means that NOTHING will get done as long as they are there.
-
I do not think Governor Kitzhaber will initiate any bold changes in state government. Now is the time to scrutinize every position in every state agency. Does the state Department of Forestry really need its own meteorologist? What other departments have meteorologists? The federal government provides excellent an weather service free of charge. How many redundant positions are there in the Oregon State bureaucracy? Business as usual can not continue.
The legislature has only one task this up coming session. Produce a balanced budget. The legislature and governor can not improve the economy. They have no real power over. The governor and legislature need to admit this, balance the budget and go home.
-
It seems like one of the only way to balance our budget and to have a consistant/reliable revenue stream in the future is a sales tax.
Are there any plans to introduce a sales tax and if so, what type of rates are being considered?
-
Problem solving always involves lot of multiple interacting variables. Complexity will only increase with time. We have out grown our ability to sit down around a campfire and talk it out. We are a desperately social , hopelessly tribal species that has evolved to clump into specialized groups and then proceed to fool ourselves into enough confidence to function. We do this with selective preponderance.
We need more people throughout the electorate that don't just see the limits of the partisan - fooling yourself into confidence thing, but people who learn to solve complex human problems using pencil and paper. It doesn't come natural to our social sensibilities when a problem involves people, but people are capable of it. We instinctually do it all the time when confronted with complex physical and technological problems. -
Everyone seems to say that something has gone wrong with our politics. When do people ever not make this claim? When was something ever going right with our politics? I am not convinced that these claims about everyone being so partisan mean very much. Perhaps the world is just a bit more honest then it was before, with people actually saying what they believe, and now that people are actually upfront about their views, instead of being polite, we are at a democratic impasse.
We don’t need people to be less partisan, we just need them to choose the ‘correct’ side, and that is what people often mean when they make the partisan claim, they merely want people to think like them. This is the ‘authentic’ problem we face in America: that half of the country really does think and act like antiquated maniacs, and the partisanship is merely an accurate representation of the divide. We need to change the culture of the country into a culture that actually thinks and understands what a democracy ought to be, a culture that is not willing to tolerate the intolerant. It is not that we are partisan that is the problem, it is that ‘we’ are ‘who we are’ that is the problem. And, good luck fixing that one!
-
I have had little luck convincing people that they are a lot smarter with pencil and paper than without.
It's like the kids in class that are 'A' students in math competing with each other by seeing what math problem they can solve in their heads. All this, while some 'C' student in the back of the class beats them all with pencil and paper.
Part of the problem is that there is much more involve here than problem solving. The social competing, the adrenaline, and the investments in (specialized/oversimplified) ways of making sense of things, keeps us forever in an unproductive stew.
-
Another way to illustrate the specialized clumping problem, is with the adage, 'if you just have a hammer every problem is a nail', or, 'if you just have a saw every problem is a board'. While the poles argue over the merits of the tools they each favor, it is easy for the casual observer to get sucked into the drama of the competition and not step back and assess dispassionately the nature of the many complex, interacting, problems and the tools that may be required. Again it helps tremendously to get out the pencil and paper.
-
dirtguy,
If I am understanding things, the problem is largely about tone and strength in numbers. And partisanship is like being an overzealous fan, where people only have room for their team, and the way their team sees things. Where participants are willing to be against something just because it was proposed by the opposing side, not because of the merit of the issues. Yes, I accept that this is a problem in itself, but I don’t know that it is the problem. This question is another example of the-chicken-or-the-egg. Where you might be suggesting our problems are because of, or a result of partisanship, and I am suggesting it might in effect be much worse---that our problems are about an inherently deep division and it merely represents itself with the symptom of overt partisanship. I do agree it is probable that the division is made sharper by partisanship, or it is exacerbated by the collective bargaining power and social support that a two-party political system might provide. But I think the bigger problem is that people actually do believe what they believe. And when one side is potentially guided by faith on some issues, and not reasoning, it might be incredibly difficult to get out of this impasse, because there are no logical arguments to be made.
On several issues there is unfortunately no possible compromise that wouldn’t result in a dumbing-down, or a subjectifing of things. On gay-marriage, you are either (realistically) bigoted or working from a place of faith, or you are not, because the only logical argument would be to support it. And what compromise is possible? One where the rights of people are still not equal, but might just be a little differently unequal? And where is the compromising on climate change? You either believe the evidence or you don’t. You either stick to the facts and do something about them, or you don’t. With many issues that are said to be polarizing, they are generally only polarizing because the compromise being requested is either impossible or requires one side to abandon logical arguments. And most of the issues that you can actually compromise on are arbitrary and superficial to begin with---so the resulting compromise doesn’t mean or require much.
Simply put, partisanship is not the cause of our political problems, it is the effect of them.
-
Scott, I appreciate your thoughtful approach to things. And, I think I agree with a lot of what you are saying.
People who are intentionally partisan, to the point of either vowing never to compromise, or so self-brain-stuffed that there is no room for any competing ideas, can have many different motives. They can be reacting to someone(s) on the other side they think is dangerous, stupid, beneath them, or what ever. They can be acting out of material, or social, self-interest, i.e., the personally selfish, and tribally selfish, motives. They can be acting out of an investment in a way of making sense out of a chaotic world, i.e., the ideological or belief motive. Or some combination of all of the above.
The chicken and egg thing is always tough to work backwards. I think we agree that 'excessive partisanship' is a result of underlying things that, even if revealed, are so much a part of the human condition that we will be hard pressed to make much progress on it.
One reason I focus on pencil and paper so much is that it gives those rare people whose' motive is just solving the problem, the opportunity to actually compete with all the people who have other complicating motives as well. -
The urban/rural divide in Oregon troubles me and I think it's something Mr. Kitzhaber needs to address. When a handful of counties pass a statewide measure like 66 and 67, and when Dudley leads until Multnomah county is counted, it makes rural oregon feel disenfranchised and like they're not represented. It is fracturing our state. Our elected leaders have got to make those people feel involved. if the money really flows west to east, we all need to hear that. Kulongoski formed a commission that was promptly de-funded because our state can't justify affording councils like that. Our leaders need to lead the state, and they need to make people understand how the state's business is in their interest, or not. I don't really care what color this state is, I want the state to be a place I WANT to raise my kid.
-
Then, we have the always, disenfranchised folks, the self-imposed rural minorities, complaining about how they are never represented, well duh, you might have the appearance of being underrepresented because you are simply not the majority. If everyone moved to the rural areas then I guess the representation would change. Of course it is a bogus claim anyway, it is truly about conservative people complaining about liberals, and using geography as a smokescreen.
-
I don't understand the focus on the capital gains tax. It is such a minute amount of revenue for the state, that it does not warrant the amount of time focused on it. Whether it is repealed or not does not affect most Oregonians, it affects already wealthy Oregonians. Why this tax repeal is a highly touted scourge of the earth is beyond my understanding.
Sure, having the tax can in some sense discourage investment, but that is only in theory. California and Oregon has some of the highest capital gains taxes. California has a GDP greater than most countries in the world (not discouraging investment) and Oregon venture capital has increased over time, not decreased (not deterring growth to a detrimental level).
Lets move on to the real issues- education, PERS, # of gov't employees and a debate about the real essential services provided by government.
-
the notion that there are scads of redundant employees in state or fed. government is a scam, a lie, an exaggeration, a falsehood, unfounded gossip, scurillous, and to make matters simpler for you, i'll just quote the thesaurus -
exaggeration: noun - "his testimony was a laughable mix of contradiction and exaggeration.”
overstatement, overemphasis, magnification, amplification aggrandizement;
dramatization, elaboration, embellishment,embroidery, hyperbole,overkill, gilding the lily.
-
How can Tea Party and conservative Oregonians claim they are disenfranchised when their vote counts just as much as mine?
I'm not particularly fond of John Kitzhaber, but voted for him.
Next time pick a challenger that isn't a former NBA player that has never voted or participated in government at any level. The county animal shelter employees have more government experience than Dudley.
-
Of course, the last question should be "How do we address him?" Do we refer to him as Dr. Governor, or Governor Kitzhaber, MD, or what?
(Okay...maybe that isn't the most important or serious question, but I thought this discussion needed a bit of levity.)
-
Maybe the last question should be "Are you maybe better at being a doctor?"
-
Nothing has changed, except the name. Oregon will continue to on the same path, bummer.
-
You mentioned the benefit of having more than just two candidates available to the voters for a given position. Folks talk about this, and even try to place a third or fourth candidate into races, but the outcome is always predictable, and always binary (liberal vs. conservative).
A viable third-party candidate will always be a spoiler in our two-party-dominated winner-takes-all system.
The solution is some variation of Instant Runoff Voting. Rather than casting a static vote, each voter ranks his or her preference (but still only gets one vote). If I choose a third-party candidate as my first choice and the final tally shows that candidate receiving less than 50 percent of the vote, that candidate would be eliminated and my vote would shift to my second choice.
In the end, the results are the same as if there were multiple runoff rounds of voting (hence the name "Instant Runoff Voting"). The result is that the candidate who wins has the support of the majority, and the will of the voters is most accurately expressed.
There are several organizations around the country struggling to bring this simple idea to the people in an effort to provide a more representative democracy for us all. Locally, the Green Party is a champion of the cause, but you can imagine that all the other small parties, such as the Libertarians, would benefit from such a system.
Can we have a show to discuss this important idea?
http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#irv
http://www.pacificgreens.org/issues/instant-runoff-voting-irv/
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/11/better_and_cheaper_elections_f.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/11/making_more_sense_of_our_elect.html
-
Then we have to hear this ignorance of stating the obvious, while not realizing it is obviously correct, that Multnomah county changed the election. Well, yeah, why wouldn’t it? Did you think that one up, just because, they were some of the last votes to be counted? What if the Multnomah county votes were counted first and then the rural areas started to change the numbers? Would it not be as obvious to you then? Of course Multnomah county will always have the power to change an election, it has an enormous population! And, I think voting is usually based on the number of people casting ballots, so generally the areas with the most people are going to, obviously, have the power to change the election.
-
The politics of Oregon are incredibly complex. They always have been and they always will. Yet, it is this complexity which makes our state such an incredible place to live. Born and having lived in Central Oregon, I understand the disconnect between the "rest of the state's" concerns, hopes, and aspirations and the decision-making which occurs in Salem and Portland. Sometimes you feel left out. Sometimes you feel neglected, as if the farmer, the rancher, the builder has no say in the matter.
I also think that as a state, we're a lot more moderate than we actually think we are. The media, bloggers, and comment boards paint Portland as a giant hippie commune. As a Portland resident I'm convinced that we we're not so different than those in Deschutes or Harney County. We want good schools, businesses to succeed, reasonable taxation, and the opportunity for our friends, family, and children to thrive.
In the end, I'm proud that we've elected a governor that is ready to ask difficult questions, make difficult decisions, and bring everyone to table. No doubt, it's not going to be easy, but as Oregonians, we must set aside the name calling, the bickering, and accusations. All of us are concerned and all of us are committed to making Oregon a model of complex, yet successful government.
-
I am really tired of all this "Real Americans" and Real Oregonians" bull. As a lifelong Oregonian who has lived in both rural and urban Oregon I find this insulting. I'm also getting sick of rural Oregonians claiming they are being dis-enfranchised by urban Oregonians. We are not out of touch with anything. Should we forget about our own problems and beliefs because a minority of Oregonians see things differently? Would you do that if the roles were reversed? The political structure in Oregon is the way it is because people from all over Oregon vote either Dem, or Repub.. The dividing line between red and blue and liberal and conservative only exists in our minds, and is not truly geographical.
-
Word.
-
The state of Oregon is deeply divided, but not by convenient 'red' or 'blue' divisions, but by those who live in the major metropolitan cities and everyone else. The comments posted here and on other sites illustrate the lack or understanding or respect for anyone who does not live and share the "urban view". Anyone who doesn't agree with them is labeled 'scary' or an 'idiot' or 'obviously confused'.
We who choose to live in rural areas are independent (we snowblow our own streets, fight forest fires, get mail 2-3 times a week, volunteer in our communities for schools, foodbanks, domestic violence, and raise money for local arts). Most choose to live here, are not uneducated (we do have college degrees, master degrees and Phds) and live a healthier lifestyle. We eat organic food (yes, we hunt and process the meat and know exactly where it comes from), raise chickens and have vegetable gardens without pesticides.
Our communities have to balance our budgets where more than 50% of our county land is government-owned (state and federal) so no property tax revenue is collected to help our schools or communities.
We don't tell (or pass legislation) proscribing how the urban dweller must live, but must submit to laws passed by them which directly affect our lives such as the cougar hunting ban with dogs which increased the cougar population which preys on livestock, stalks our kids in rural schools and wander into towns to prey on pets. I personally don't hunt cougar but the fact that citizens who don't fully understand the issue and don't have to live with the consequences voted for this measure.
I don't expect everyone to think like me or even agree with me, but I would like to be able to air my views or support a candidate without being disregarded out of hand. There seems to be no place in Oregon for the voice of the minority to be heard. Our country was founded on the principle that the majority should not be able to run 'roughshod' over the minority and checks and balances were put in place. These checks and balances no longer exist when one county can control the entire state.
Until the politicians and citizens of this state begin to listen and care about the entire state and not just the 'majority' we will not have representation for every Oregonian.
-
It was actually founded to keep a wealthy powerful elite from running roughshod over a majority. Rural Oregon does have representation in the Oregon legislature, and has congressional representation in Wahington. You also benefit from Federal and State funds in many ways, including subsidies for agriculture, forestry and schools.
-
When the minority and the majority (or any two groups of citizens) disagree fundamentally about how an issue is to be solved, then the majority gets the better end of any possible compromise. Sometimes compromise simply isn't possible by the nature of the issue (it's either one way or another) and sometimes both sides are unwilling to consider any compromise as anything other than defeat.
This is the nature of human politics. It always has been and always will be. It isn't a new thing or a city vs. rural thing, it's the nature of any system designed to make decisions based on the input of many and the power of the majority.
That said, I agree that often, people who live in different ways and view the world in different terms often don't take the time or make an effort to really consider the viewpoints of the 'other.' That, also, is a human trait and shows up in political dealings as a result. The best way to be listened to, is first to listen. It'll take some pride-swallowing and ego-shucking on both sides, but I think there are some examples of where this has started to happen. One is the cooperation by conservationists and ranchers to preserve open grazing lands by protecting relatively small but fragile habitats in exchange for guaranteed access and in some cases even new ownership of grazing lands. Similar work is being attempted in finding ways to have our forests continue to provide material and work for our state, without destroying the soils, watersheds and systems that support those forests in the long term.
The solution to most of these seemingly intractable issues is to step back, step back, and look and really be honest about what our goals are in each area. Are we interested in long-term viability of a given economy or resource? Are we interested in short-term gain despite possible long-term reprecussions? Are we interested in determining, through study and analysis of facts and evidence, what has worked in the past and what the outcomes of various methods have been? Once we've done these things, and really only once we've done these things, we then can step forward from a solid, common, understanding with rational discourse and solutions.
-
I live in Portland. Many of my relatives live in rural Oregon. I know that my relatives are just as educated as I am, some of them even more so. We don't always see eye-to-eye, but we can at least respect each other enough to discuss issues and the consequences of decisions.
To paint the picture as black-or-white, urban-or-rural, or any other binary metaphor, is to oversimplify the issues. I understand that my cousin has to manage his time and money around his blueberry crops. I applaude his decision to grow his crops organically. I would not support legislation that takes decisions on farming practices out of my cousin's hands, unless that legislation is a matter of public safety. My cousin would probably support the public safety legislation as well, because he would more than likely be following the practices dictated already- he doesn't want to sell an unsafe, inferior product, even if it means he makes more money at it.
As for the urban majority running roughshod over the rural minority, it's not that simple. There are people in Portland who maintain small hobby farms that are subject to as stringent, or more stringent oversight than the massive farms of rural Oregon. There are other people like me, who appreciate the lifestyle differences and the different necessities of living somewhere other than a major city, thanks to friends and/or relatives. I know people who have lived in the city and made the choice to move away from the noise and stress in favor of the wide-open spaces of their farms or ranches. I know liberals, conservatives, and people in-between who reside in cities, small towns, and locations that most would consider the middle of nowhere.
Not all people in Portland voted for Kitzhaber, and not all of the people outside Portland voted for Dudley. The urban-rural divide is much more permeable- and it's more like a spectrum than a simple dividing line.
-
This is regarding the folks you choose to interview, the 'man on the street', so to speak, not your guests -
the last gentleman you had speak today, was it Gus?-
he spoke as if he was ashamed to sound as if he even had graduated high school -
I think he didn't understand half the words he was using, he understood even less the ideas he was struggling with. Do you really think that sort of person is an example to put on the air?
For my own point of view, I think he is perfect - the inarticulate attempting to chew gum and speak at the same time, and where thought fails, and in this case it failed early, then emotion and disgust are supposed to convey an intelligent and well-thought out approach to problems.
He feels disenfranchised? Great!! In my opinion the ignorant, especially those who choose that path, ought to have NOTHNG to say about anything important, and even less about everything else.
I don't mind hearing a well-thought out argument, whether i agree with the upshot of the argument or not, but irrational ramblings are hardly a basis to vote for someone, and groups that accept that sort of support are to me more an argument to vote against.
My vote goes against giving willfully stupid people a voice.
But really, i think 'Gus' was a very revealing representative of the 'opposition' to any progress whatsoever, and, call me cruel, but recidivism runs rampant in the world today, and it blindly tramples seekers of a better future.
-Intellectual elitism, not social or economic elitism-
after all, when was the last time the stupid solved a problem?
SO, in summation, there are always several sides to an argument - please spend the time to find someone articulate to express those views, unless you are trying to show that the opposition really is a bunch of knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing un-evolved lesser animals.
Thank you so much for this opportunity, and i apologize for any perceived rudeness on my part. I know 'Gus' is another person, and am sure is a very nice guy, and in this case was an accidental spokesperson. He is not blameless, but neither is he the heart of the problem.
-
Intelligence tests for voting was outlawed around the middle of the last century, mostly because they were used to disenfranchise black people.
I agree with Jefferson about needing good public schools to educate good citizens in order for our new type of nation to be successful.
You really have to wonder about who really benefits from the ongoing and constant Rupert Murdoch mis-education campaign
-
intelligence tests were misused and abused, they were not 'used' -
... who really benefits? ...
-those with no ideals and enough money for too many
-those who think they too could be rich and powerful and would lord it about rather than spread it about (they benefit by proxy, and really only in their imagination)
-enemies of the better mentally developed individual
-friends, cronies and toadies of the selfish rich (as opposed to the beneficent, munificent rich
Rhetoric is better a tool of calibration than a stone in the gears, although it can be used, or misused, or abused, in any number of ways
-
I have read your reply to my reply.
-
There are many, but two large spirits live in Oregon.
One is the Dweller, Another is the Inhabitant.
Ones Spirit Dwells in Oregon, Oregon Inhabits the others' Spirit.
You cannot listen and hear the difference. You cannot look and see the difference. The difference is in the Spirit.
I care nothing for Democrat or Republican.
I see Kitzhaber as Dweller..
Too much talk makes for many lies. He is committed to himself.
-
Kitzhaber has nothing to be proud of. The only reason people elected him was the same reason that the Republicans stole the senate back. Just to make a statement about the current direction. How sad. I was truly hoping for a fresh face and direction in the Oregon politics. And no, I don't mean Dudley as the automatic "other" choice. This isn't an "either or".
-
Comments are now closed.
I'm thrilled that Kitzhaber won, he was a fantastic governor before and I'm sure he'll be again.
The close race gave me a scare, I can't imagine Dudley as Governor - I thought Oregon was safe from such nonsense candidates.
What I'm taking away from this election is that I need to get more involved campaigning and encouraging people to vote next election year.
Congratulations to Oregon!!!!