Mary Starrett Runs... Pass the popcorn!
Russell Sadler
The recent Rasmussen poll showing a near-dead heat between Gov. Ted Kulongoski and Republican nominee Ron Saxton (43-41 percent) raised more questions than it answered because 10 percent of those polled were undecided. Independent candidate Ben Westlund was not included in the poll because he has not qualified for the ballot yet, though seven percent of the respondents volunteered they were voting for someone other than Kulongoski or Saxton.
But the Rasmussen poll was swept into the recycling bin by the news that veteran broadcast anchor Mary Starrett has become the the U.S. Constitution Party’s candidate for governor.
Starrett, 51, spent more than a decade hosting Good Morning Northwest with Jim Bosley on KATU-TV in Portland. She was a popular talk show host on KPDQ, a Portland Christian radio station. As executive director of Oregonians For Life, a political action group, Starrett retains substantial name familiarity in Portland and its suburbs where Oregon’s statewide elections are usually decided because that’s where two-thirds of all Oregonians live.
Bright, articulate and enormously telegenic, with an internet site archive of occasional opinion pieces oozing sweet reason, Starrett will be a formidable threat to Saxton’s bid and might even derail Westlund’s independent bid if her arrival on the scene discourages voters from signing Westlund’s nominating petitions -- unless intrigued voters look into the Constitution Party.
Founded as the U.S. Taxpayers Party in 1992 by Howard Phillips, a former aide to Richard Nixon and once a rising star in the Republican firmament, it changed its name to the Constitution Party in 1999 and merged with many of the state affiliates of the American Independent Party, ostensibly because they all shared a common desire to fight legalized abortion. But deep inside the Constitution Party, people like Phillips embraced the seditious doctrine of Christian Nationalism.
In her recently published book, “Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism,” Michelle Goldberg chronicles the development of a revisionist history of the United States now taught to home schoolers, Christian secondary school and college students and preached in fundamentalist churches describing an nonexistent, mythical United States founded on “Biblical principles.” This “curriculum” outlines a theocratic government to “reestablish” Biblical rule to replace America’s pluralistic, secular form of government.
There is no public record on Starrett’s talk shows or in her archived columns that suggests she subscribes to any of this extremism. But Starrett will discover she has acquired this baggage by running as a candidate of the Constitution Party. She will have to defend it or disown it.
More seriously, there is the question whether the presence of a Constitution Party candidate will change the nature of the discussion over school finance. For more than a decade, the Christian Republicans who control the Oregon Republican Party avoided dealing with the deadly consequences of Don McIntire’s 1990 Ballot Measure 5 by ginning up a fake debate over the legitimacy of public schools that paralyzed the Legislature.
The vast majority of Oregonians believe in the legitimacy of public schools. A race for governor among Saxton, Kulongoski and Westlund finally promised to discuss the state’s highest priority -- stabilizing Oregon’s crippled system of financing schools.
So far there is no evidence in anything that Starrett has written or said that suggests she would deliberately derail that debate. But the Constitution Party is part of a radical group that's asking the Southern Baptist Convention to lead a mass withdrawal of Christian children from the “godless” public schools. Will Starrett’s candidacy bring this feckless debate to Oregon to further delay school finance reform, or will she wisely disown and condemn her party’s Christian nationalism?
It is difficult to predict the effect of Starrett's candidacy on the governor’s race. It is certainly a blow to Saxton. His handlers hoped that Kevin Mannix’s supporters would vote for Saxton rather than run the risk that not voting would allow Kulongoski to win reelection. But now the Christian Republicans have their own candidate and they can watch Saxton go down in flames feeling good about themselves for having stuck to their “principles.” Just ask the people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 how good that feeling can be.
Kulongoski’s handlers, on the other hand, must be pinching themselves, wondering whether Starrett’s candidacy is real. There is little chance now that the Democrats who thought the Governor isn’t liberal enough will dare take a walk in November for fear that either Saxton or Westlund, if he makes the ballot, might win with a plurality of the votes.
What I thought might be a rerun of of the 1930 three-way election that elected Julius Meier, Oregon’s only independent governor, just may turn out to be a more dramatic modern history in the making. Pass the popcorn!
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 4, '06
Interesting post, thanks.
Now that Karl Rove and George Bush have (again) fired up the "Gay Marriage" issue to try and save the Republican congressional majority this November, I suspect that a lot of capital "C" christian types will be at the polls this fall, and Ms. Starrett may be a very attractive candidate for those voters. Not enough to get her elected, but probably enough to knock out the Republican.
Jun 4, '06
Is this another sign of Portland's "liberal media"?
How many local Portland TV anchors/hosts go on to become prominent anti-liberals? Let's see, Lars Larson, Bill O'Reilly, John Stossel, and now Mary Starrett... am I missing any? Have they tested the water over at Portland's network locals?
(Apologies for reposting this comment that got buried at the bottom of the other Mary Starrett thread...)
3:44 p.m.
Jun 4, '06
Bluenote,
Interesting anaylsis!
There are alot of unknowns though. For instance, Westlund still has to qualify by submitting signatures. Also, we have yet to hear directly from Starrett in terms of what she will say as a candidate. I agree that reading her past columns will provide insight, but we really don't know for sure what issues she's going to push. Will Starrett's candidacy push Saxton farther right or will they simply ignore her?
I agree with Russell, pass the popcorn. I think this may turn out to be the most interesting Governor's race in the history of Oregon.
Jun 4, '06
Lots of unknowns. For instance, will she take a stand on the kicker?
Will she be more specific than the Republicans who said taxes were bad but don't ask for details on what they would cut? Does she support budgets debated in public or did she like the approach of Minnis and the 2005 House?
Does she think there is sufficient funding for state troopers?
Does economic security mean fewer abortions?
One interesting thing to watch is if she can be more specific than ol' sound bite Ron.
If so, my friend who says "I want to know where they stand before I vote" might decide Saxton is all sound bite, no substance. Don't ever forget there are voters in Oregon who are not ideologues or straight party line. Including the folks who voted for Bush/ Hooley in 2004, or voted for Kitzhaber for Gov. but no other Democrat.
The primary closed the lid on the coffin of "Mannix/Kulongoski rerun", this just hammers in the final nail in that coffin.
4:26 p.m.
Jun 4, '06
There is no public record on Starrett’s talk shows or in her archived columns that suggests she subscribes to any of this extremism.
She's a media professional and apparently knows how to put the right image forward. However, I've heard reports from people who attended meetings featuring her as the star attraction back when she was busy promoting anti-gay measures to the true believers for the OCA. Those reports left little doubt that she does indeed subscribe to every bit of that extremism.
Even in the absence of that "inside" information, I'd find it ludicrous to suggest, as Russell at least flirts with doing, that she may have somehow just wandered into the Constitution Party by accident while disagreeing with the majority of their fundamental tenets.
We don't want to believe that an apparently intelligent person with a slick presentation and a pleasant personality could be all that bad. Like snakeoil salesmen, cult leaders, demagogues and serial killers from time immemorial, Mary Starrett is counting on using that very human tendency.
I hope we don't let her get away with hiding behind it.
Jun 4, '06
If Mary Starrett dwells on the abortion issue, she will only receive votes from the most righteous religious zealots. Also, she's going to need a lot of money to buy enough airtime to be anything but a single digit threat to Saxton.
Jun 4, '06
Less than a week ago, the Oregon Constitution Party withdrew from the national Constitution Party. The national party committee had voted to retain the Nevada affiliate of the party, even though the chair of the Nevada affiliate believes that in certain dire situations, abortion is justified. The Oregon Constitution Party, then, is more extreme than the national Constitution Party. No other state affiliate has walked out of the national Constitution Party over the Nevada controversy.
Jun 4, '06
"There is no public record on Starrett’s talk shows or in her archived columns that suggests she subscribes to any of this extremism."
Oh really? How about this anti-MLK day piece from her archived columns:
"King's well-documented ties with the Communist Party of the United States started with his involvement with the Southern Christian Leadership Congress. The SCLC was founded by two Jewish New Yorkers. One, lawyer Stanley Levison , was tagged as a member of the Executive Committee of the Communist Party, USA. The other founder was Bayard Rustin, well known as a homosexual and a Communist."
Anti-MLK. Anti-gay. Anti-semitic.
Not extremist?
Jun 4, '06
I don't know where Mr Sadler gets his information, but I have never heard any suggestion of a 'theocratic' government. As to being extremist Im not sure I get that one either. We certinally don't approve of killing innocents or using abortion for a method of birth control. Is that extreme? Dosen't something in your brain naturally suggest don't kill babys? If it dosen't then I would say you are extreme. We are pushing for a return to moral values. Is that extreme? To want a government that begins with self-government. We want our children to be safe and to learn good moral values. Guess what, that dosen't happen in public schools. Not to meantion that the United Nations are setting rules into play to make it a crime for parents to restrict information from them if they don't approve of it. We want our laws to be constitutional. In Jackson County and probably yours to,it is against the law to have a Bible Study, Prayer Meeting, or Church in your private residence without a permit. How did that happen? Because all you Republicans and Dems were asleep at the wheel. Im working hard for Mary Starrett, and if anyone wants the real scoop on how she thinks you don't have to depend on hacks like Sadler -- log onto www.newswithviews.com and read her many articles. As for Anti-gay -- When I was attending college in the Peoples republic of Portland they taught in psychology class that homosexuality was deviant behavior, but that was before there were any gay professors. So Mr Sadler kick back in your easy chair, straighten the rim on your floppy hat, sip on your drink, take a toke now and then, and watch Mary make history! Rick Hake Jackson County Chairman Constitution Party of Oregon
8:32 p.m.
Jun 4, '06
Ben Dover wrote.... [blah blah blah] to be anything but a single digit threat to Saxton.
Yeah, and a 3-5% vote for Starrett from the otherwise reliably-Republican pro-life community could be enough to crush Saxton's hopes.
Jun 4, '06
Rick, We certinally don't approve of killing innocents or using abortion for a method of birth control. Is that extreme? Dosen't something in your brain naturally suggest don't kill babys?
the question is whether abortion to save the mother's life or in case of rape or incest is "a method of birth control".
The plural is "babies" not "babys". There is a center in this debate: people who want abortion to be safe, legal, rare, and all children fed, housed, clothed and educated properly after birth.
If you are one of those who supported Jackie Winters in 2003 saying she would not cut programs for the neediest Oregonians as long as she was a subcommittee chair (and got beat up by a primary opponent when she ran for higher office) then you are indeed "pro-life". If you are one of those who think the government's responsibility is to make sure all children concieved in whatever circumstances are born, but the government has no role to play after birth (decent housing and nutrition, for starters) because tax cuts are really all that matter, you are what some (esp. some Catholics) call "merely pro-birth".
Name calling does not solve anything. "People's Republic of Portland" doesn't win friends and influence people. And not all churches frown on gay people attending.
Those of us who have lived thru anti-gay and anti-abortion ballot measures (where the namecalling was a lot more obvious than anything from the Sermon on the Mount) have the right to be tired of it all. Let's see someone propose actual solutions.
A governor who doesn't have 31 votes in the House and 16 votes in the Senate doesn't get things passed, no matter who the Gov. is. Mary could be a bright, perky candidate who says "Go to my website and see at least as many specific proposals as Westlund has on his website" and she might get somewhere.
But if her campaign is the sort of snarl you posted here (does she really mean to write off all Portlanders who don't belong to organizations she belongs to, or is she smarter than that?) she's got an uphill battle.
And the crack about Sadler being a hack was just plain mean spirited and stupid. Russell is a friend I have admired for decades.
You've just created a hurdle for Mary to overcome--she'll need to explain to those who don't belong to her party that she would like people who ask her questions and decide on their own. But every campaign with people acting as if they have the revealed truth and no one should question them is a campaign which has a tough time winning votes.
Jun 4, '06
In 1990 Al Mobley snagged 13% of the vote and helped put Barbara Roberts into the Governor's mansion with a 46% plurality win.
Assuming Westlund makes the ballot and joins Starrett as another spoiler for someone, the 2006 Governor-elect will win with less than Roberts' 1990 46% and will take office in 2007 knowing nearly 6 of 10 electors did not want him (or her). I'll even go so far as to predict that at least one loser in a 2006 legislative race will garner a higher percentage of votes than the winner of the governor's race.
That spells disaster for the next governor, just as it did for Babs in 1990-94. That also means the House Speaker and Senate President will be even more influential in 2007-2008 than they are today.
The next Governor might as well strike the word, "mandate" from their vocabulary. It won't be used the remainder of this decade.
Jun 5, '06
"seditious doctrine of Christian Nationalism"
-- sorry, I just so appreciate the subtle poetry of that phrase I felt it bore repeating. Good Post, Mr. Sadler.
Jun 5, '06
Wes -
Your points about "spoiler" candidates and pluralities illustrate why we need something like "instant run-off" elections, where a voter can select a #1 and a #2 choice. This allows (in theory) for everyone to safely vote for their truly favorite candidate, while still giving the eventual winner a true mandate.
Jun 5, '06
Mary is anti-draft and anti-abortion... a solution in search of a problem!
Jun 5, '06
I think it's time to retire the concept of "spoiler."
This fall we'll be looking at the strongest line-up of candidates in years for guv. The ground is going to be wide open and with so many viable candidates, it would be the height of hubris for people to say, "candidate x deserves your vote."
Not this year. It looks like every vote is going to have to be earned with sweat and commitment.
It's time to put away the infantile perception that one candidate exists only to take votes away from another candidate and look hard at what each individual has offered and will offer this state and it's citizens.
So please, put away your calculators and listen to what this fine cadre of candidates has to offer. You might be pleased with the results.
Jun 5, '06
I agree with progvoice.
Voters will have to actually think this fall. No longer will people with megaphones be able to label someone as a spoiler and call for an end to all debate.
If candidates actually engage the voters this year, the winner may have a mandate, even with a plurality.
So forget the term spolier, and ask the candidates hard questions.
Jun 5, '06
I agree with Bob R. -- ranked-choice voting would be a very good thing for Oregon to implement for all elections, and this particular election proves why.
If you really agree with Ben Westlund, but barring his election you'd have to go with Kulongoski, ranked-choice would allow you to give a #1 to Westlund and a #2 to Kulongoski. The elections department could then figure out who won based on this system:
(from http://www.sfelections.org/demo/#)
To start, every first-choice vote is counted. Any candidate who receives a majority (more than 50%) of the first-choice votes is declared the winner. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the first-choice votes, a process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes begins.
First, the candidate who received the fewest number of first-choice votes is eliminated from the race.
Second, voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice will have their vote transferred to their second choice.
Third, all the votes are recounted.
Once the votes are recounted, if any candidate has received more than 50% of the votes, he or she is declared the winner.
If no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, the process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes is repeated until one candidate has a winning majority.
Jun 5, '06
IRV would be great, but no legislature would sponsor or vote for it.
The initiative process would be a good way to get it in front of the voters...
oh, wait. We want to shut that down. Right?
Jun 5, '06
Progvoice, Start right now and you might get a measure together in time for the 2008 ballot. Or find a legislator running for office who is willing to discuss IRV with you--I think there are some retired office holders who are supporting it.
It is time to get IRV out of the blogosphere and into general public discussion. But be prepared for questions like "So a recent local legislative election was 2 candidates and what seemed to many to be a choice between good and evil--how would IRV have helped in that situation" or "You want a drastic change to the way we vote and you know that will bring good results because...". Try local groups (incl. Rotary, etc.) as venues to get IRV discussed.
Lots of hard work but if you believe in your cause, that is the way to get it publicly discussed. But be prepared to discuss details (like the answers to the above questions) and not just "this is a great theory, therefore it will work". Too many previous ideas (legislative or ballot measure) have proven that a good theory may have lousy results if implemented poorly.
Jun 5, '06
Starrett was on Lars Larson’s Flying Circus today, and there is nothing quite so amusing as witnessing, even if on the radio, the far right in self-immolation mode.
I wonder if “Starrett” is Scottish for “kindling.”
But this is what conservatives get for playing anti-choice, regressive Christians for patsies for all these years, sooner of later they’ll come home to roost, and these folks expect more than just lip service, and when they don’t get it, -- well, stand up and take a bow, Ms. Starrett.
The truth is that this is the Achilles Heel of the hard right, particularly here in Oregon. They can’t win general elections attached at the wrist and ankles to fundamentalists, but if they try to move one iota away from them and even sniff moderation (a requirement to win a statewide election), the parishioners bolt to the “Constitution” party and that’s all she wrote.
After Kulongoski is reelected in November, would it too much to hope that Starrett might come in second ahead of Saxon, thus killing off the last vestige of Republican Party moderation and leaving its carcass to be picked over by the “Constitution” party?
I’ll supply the Chianti.
Jun 5, '06
what kind of ego does it take to think that one is a viable candidate for one of the highest offices in the land without ever holding a single elective office? This lady reminds me of that pathetic Bruggere guy from a few years back who tried to become a US Senator just because he was rich and ran a successful company. These people should start out at city council or the school board....oh wait, that would weed them out, wouldn't it?
Jun 5, '06
Yeah Andy!
This is going to be a really interesting race to watch--with the questionable candidate being Mary S. instead of Tom B.
I hope there are some joint appearances with all the Gov. candidates. My guess is Joe Keating would connect with more ordinary folks than Mary.
I wonder if those supporting either Mary or Ron understand how many old time Oregonians were once inclined to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt (how Atiyeh, Clay Myers, and many other Republicans were elected statewide or to legislature) but left years ago.
And with a recent newspaper story which said child abuse is on the rise due to cuts in programs for alcohol and drug dependence, let's see Ms. "pro-life" explain why tax cuts are more important than programs to help needy kids.
Jun 5, '06
The anti-choice crowd has always done this to the elephants. Either they nominate an anti-choice Republican or the wackos will deliberatly run someone against the pro-choice candidate.
Thanks Mary Mobley!
Pedro
Jun 7, '06