OK... Democratic Primary ballot WTF?

[quakerboy]

got my ballot. first race: US senator.

I like Wyden, But I don't love Wyden. Lets research the others. Particularly in a primary, Im gonna vote for who I would dream of as my Senator.

Ok.. Pavel Goberman. Odd name, but whatever. web search. First article: PG, Libertarian for State senate. Second PG, Republican for state Rep.

So that ones way out. Why is a pub on my "official primary nominating ballot for the democratic party" anyway?

Second guy: Loren Hooker. Thought maybe a gal, we need more female reps, but turns out its a guy. Lets check his campaign page, issues.

Balance the budgets... good. Hiring freeze on all govt employees(fuck that) Except defense/intelegence (double fuck that) Cut all government employee wages %20(say what?)

No new taxes(hmm) on ANYONE(not gonna work) particularly business(really, that's who you prioritize protecting?). Flat Tax, no cap and trade.

Health care: I cant do any better than to quote
"Health Care Insurance:
* Repeal the monstrosity. It hires no Doctors, but hundreds of IRS agents. Go figure.
* Using the Interstate Commerce Clause; Pre-empt the States from restricting trade by prohibiting out-of-state companies and Pre-empt the States from mandating the content of Health Insurance Contracts. Expand the Health Savings Account system.
* Remove Anti-Trust exemption for Health Insurance.
* Initiate Tort Reform.
* Enforce contracts to reduce rescission.
* Policies are owned by the Individual, and walk with them.
* Begin the process of Privatizing Medicare and Medicaid."

Pardon me, sir, but isn't that the core republican position?

WTFWTFWTF? Did I misunderstand what a primary nominating ballot is for? or are these part of the democratic tent now? And no one to the left of Wyden in the list?

[LWolf]

1. I'm looking at my ballot today.

Some choices are obvious, some not so.

Wyden was obvious. Nobody running against him who could get my vote in a general, let alone a primary.

Anybody who registers as a Democrat, for any reason, is "part of the tent." On the other hand, shifting the party further to the right is not okay with me, and entering primaries to accomplish that is a strategy we need to defeat.

It could be a republican strategy. It could be the relentless rise of centrism/corporatism/3rd way/new dem bullshit that we've seen picking up speed under Obama.

It could be that the party has already shifted so far to the right that "others" feel comfortable hitching a ride.

[quakerboy]

3. That was my thought process

I wonder if newly fledged "democrats" showed up on many ballots nationwide, just in the hopes of coopting a few races by knocking of incumbents in an off year anti incumbent election

I agree with you in that the no one running had a chance at getting my vote. I just wonder how many people really bother to look far enough to find out who these people are. And it bothers me that you can just be a serial runner for office, and pick any party, swapping around each election in the hopes you hit the vote jackpot at some point. I suppose in accepting any legitimately interested party running, you also have to accept the jerks.

Ive got no idea on some of these smaller races. The local ones especially.

[LWolf]

6. I ended up with

Wyden and Bradbury; Castillo, because while I'm not excited about her, her opponent spouted some code words that scream union-busting and privatization to this teacher. I really had no clue for treasurer. Ben Westlund was my state senator before he went on to become treasurer. I couldn't find much to distinguish between Wheeler and Metsger, or to see beyond the usual campaign rhetoric. I finally went with Metsger, only because he had more endorsements I was comfortable with, despite the fact that my own association endorsed Wheeler.

I didn't vote for anyone who had no opponent, which means I didn't vote for much locally.

[cascadiance]

2. I'm looking at mine too. Still have some undecided votes on my part...

Senator:

Wyden will get my vote. Those running against him seem to be to the right of him, and if you google them, one of them even has trouble with spelling and the English language, let alone having any kind of reasonable message. I still think that Wyden and Merkley, even if Wyden at times hasn't been as strong as I'd like him to be on some issues, is far better than Feinstein in California where I used to be, who I'd routinely vote against in the primaries and even for the greens against in the general election.

Governor:

For governor, for a long time I've been thinking I'd vote for Kitzhaber, and I still think he's a fairly decent candidate, but I really do like some of the strong positions that Bradbury is taking on things like starting up an Oregon state run bank, etc. and will vote for him in the primary as a demonstration of support for these issues he's campaigning on, that hopefully will pressure Kitzhaber to consider later too if Bradbury gets strong enough support.


State Treasurer:

This race is anything but "decided" as an article today indicates:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2010/05/wheeler_metsger_in_tight_orego.html

For state treasurer, everyone has been saying to vote for Ted Wheeler every place, and he is the one that's the unelected appointed incumbent. But he troubles me in the following areas:

- he comes from a wealthy timber company family
- he was a former Republican

Metsger who's running against Wheeler, has a few things going for him as well in my book
- he's been an advocate for instant runoff voting being put in place, as well as being able to show multiple parties a candidate is nominated for on the ballot (not just one). (http://progparty.org/node/101)
- was a co-sponsor of a bill that has stopped private utilities from charging Oregon ratepayers for "income tax" that these utilities never paid.

Wheeler does sound like a reasonable guy who here indicates he supported props 66 and 67, so he doesn't sound like a bad guy. I'm just really wanting to get instant runoff voting put in place, and was disappointed when the local Washington County Party Dems voted against a resolution to endorse that. Metsger sounds like he could really get more grass roots progressive politics moving.

Congressional Rep 1st District:

I'm not sure about David Robinson vs. David Wu primary. David Wu is a 100% improvement over my old reps in San Diego (Duke Cunningham and then Brian Bilbray), but he's no Pete DeFazio, who could motivate me to go out and actively campaign for him if he were my rep. Some have noted that he's not really been that active about many issues except supporting activist movements in China (like situation in Tibet, etc.) as a native Taiwanese immigrant. Robinson wants to increase trade and engagement with China, which I think isn't necessarily a good stance, since though I want to help the U.S. and Oregon economy, I do feel that some stances should be taken towards China's controversial policies, which I do like what Wu is doing there. But there is validity that Wu's not really done much to work on many other issues here that affect us here in Oregon, and that he did vote for the bankruptcy bill, along with just "going along with the crowd" that often takes us down roads that support more the corporatists than being independent and supporting the grass roots like a Defazio would. I'd like a contender in the primary that would talk about doing such things. Not sure that Robinson is that person though. He's not really been pushing on many other populist issues, so I probably will ultimately vote for Wu.

Perhaps in 2012 it would be a better time to look for another alternative if Wu doesn't do much the next term. And there's a lot of GOP candidates that are potentially more threatening this time around than last time too, so definitely want to keep supporting Wu over one of them if he gets the nomination.

Portland Metro:

Will vote for both state props and for the Metro here in Portland will support Bob Stacey for Metro County president. Met him at a fundraiser and saw him in a debate and he seems like a good guy. Tom Hughes seems the most conservative of the three, and Burkholder would also get my support as the incumbent, but both of these guys are looking to throw a lot of money at a big bridge over the Columbia which I'm not sure is a wise thing from a financial perspective, when there are other alternatives that Stacey is looking at.

A lot of other local candidates that I won't go in to detail here. A lot of unchallenged races. Wondering if there are any out there that people should be just left blank, or if there's a valid write-in campaign against. Most of them seem reasonable, but there are a few here and there (judges, etc.) that have ruled in some cases in ways that I'd vote against.

One big local race that sounds like we should vote for in Washington County is that County Commissioner at Large position. Dick Schouten seems to be a clear pick there.

[quakerboy]

4. hmm

Going down
Wyden
Blumenauer
Bradbury

I am also unsure on the metsger/wheeler thing. Not in love with either.

I wish there was an easier way to get information on some of the smaller races, and the judicial ones.

I find your input on the Metro president interesting. What other options is Stacey looking at? Despite the potential cost, I am a proponent of leaving the I5 bridge alone and building a third river crossing to the NW. my perception is that a lot of the traffic problem is beaverton-vancouver traffic, and creating a more direct route across would relieve that pressure through the whole city center, not just at the I5 bridge.

[cascadiance]

5. I think this article explains Stacey's positions on the bridge...

https://www.bobstacey.com/blog/solutions-crc

I think greater usage of mass transit solutions across the river with another bridge, etc. are ultimately the better solutions, both economically as well as environmentally.

Blumenauer is a good choice too. He's my next favorite congressman for Oregon after DeFazio, who btw I think also sides with Stacey on this bridge effort too.

In the only state judicial race on my ballot where there are multiple candidates, Jack Landau vs. Allan Arlow, I've had a tough decision. A lot of recommendations favor Landau, and he would probably help with gay and lesbian issues such as equal access to health care benefits. Arlow has also a lot of experience in corporate law, which could translate in to some corporatist leanings, but I haven't seen anything to support that he's such. But Landau also is vocally proud of a decision he favors in striking down nude dancing as a form of free speech. The court position on the Oregon Supreme Court he's running for was occupied by Michael Gilette, who is now retiring, and who also overturned Landau's earlier lower court decision on this issue. Now nude dancing by itself is probably not something for many of us to be overly concerned about, and perhaps some here might actually support that too. But I always am leery of someone who's very anxious to limit and censor our forms of free speech, and wonder about the side effects of this and if there are other areas he would do this as well, if it is just a personal wish for him to do so. I'm inclined to vote for Arlow in this case, but would like to know more about Arlow in case he has any skeletons I should worry about as well that might have me change my mind.