Go and get 'em

You know you want one.

So, go get one.

Comments

  • Former Salem Staffer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No thanks. I would rather have a governor who shows up to work and doesn't try to tax me to death.

  • myranda (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Former Salem Staffer, you aren't being taxed to death. That's just a biennial Republican mantra, along with "we just need to make government more efficient." One of these days I hope that a Republican will explain to me how you know when "more efficient" is "efficient enough." I often ask but so far no one has been able to tell me. Similarly, I wonder how "too much taxes" computes. How much taxes is "just enough taxes"?

  • Eric (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry, I do not have a lawn. But even if i did, I wouldn't put anything on it. As a single guy with no children, I get screwed no matter who wins. I would rather have scurvy.

  • Aaron B. Hockley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nothing makes me take something seriously quite like a lawn gnome.

  • James Caird (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nothing makes me take something seriously quite like a lawn gnome.

    Lawn gnome?

    I thought that was someone from the Saxton campaign checking to see how a competent person spells "governor."

  • (Show?)

    You know, I think the lawn gnome angle could be a winner. Instead of lawn signs, go with the collectible gnomes. One each for your state reps and senator, your federal rep and senator, gov, and city council. Collect the whole set!

    (Tom Potter lawn gnomes might be more successful than Bud Clark "Expose Yourself to Art" posters.)

  • verasoie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I just ordered mine, after having seen several Saxton signs around town (PDX) and in Yamhill county this weekend, but no Kulongoski signs. Saxton as governor would be a disaster, that's enough to motivate me.

  • not so efficient (unverified)
    (Show?)

    i will never understand the desire for a "more efficient" government. every time the government is running efficiently, we wind up smack dab in the middle of a quagmire war, spending huge pots of money on pork, and corporate favors... the grease flowing smoothly from big money donor, to lobbyist, to legislator, to sub-contractor, back to big money donor. rinse and repeat. the genius of our system of government is its inefficiency, which was deliberatly designed through split and tiered government, with a whole assortment of checks and balances. we could really use a little less efficiency right now.

    besides that, republicans have been running really hard on this "efficient government" theme and "cutting waste" since 1994. that year a whole class of rep. governers was elected, and got into office and found that there really wasn't that much waste in the budget--unless you consider "waste" to be useful programs that people really care about and even depend on. when waste that does actually exist, and is desirable to get rid, is not generally something that "waste cutting" governer can just go in and slash. it is more likely to be a program, or services attached to an active political class with a considerable amount of clout, that requires sensitivity, and compromise; not a swashbuckling budget-slasher.

    i can't wait until saxten loses and goes back home... either one.

  • Embarassed Democrat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry, but I won't put the Governor's lawn sign on my lawn this time. In the past few weeks, all I've heard from him is the proposal of one new tax after another. It would embarass me to have that sign in my yard.

  • Clinton (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The definition of government waste for most people that say this is any program that doesn't directly help them.

    It is, perhaps, one of the most effective talking points that Republicans have put forward in the last decade. I can't count how many times someone has suggested at the doorstep that politicians need to find and cut waste, and none of them have ever been able to name anything more than what fits the definition above.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    E. D. How do we know you aren't like the guy who worked for Cong. Charlie Bass? Posted similar sentiments to yours here on NH blogs about the NH Congressional campaign. Except the administrators of the blogs started to get suspicious of some of the things this person who appeared out of nowhere was saying (something like that happened here as I recall last year during session and the response of the Blue Oregon folks was about the same).

    It seems there is this technology where administrators of a blog can trace posters to the server their computer is connected to or something like that.

    The NH story was on the radio news and on one national newspaper site last night. The newspaper said an investigation was going on, the radio said the blog poster had lost his job.

    It seems the posts to these blogs in NH were being made from the US House of Rep. server. Not a smart thing to do at work. Cong. Bass swore he never knew anything about it (and if his tech savvy is no better than mine maybe he didn't).

    The tone of the E.D. comments on this and other topics reminds me of the staffer from Cong. Bass's office--same tone.

  • JAC (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey folks, a bit of campaign history… I recall that four years ago when Kulongoski ran for governor he promised not to raise taxes, to reform PERS, and said he knew where the inefficiencies in government were and could save about 10% on the cost of government. Now Saxton is running on basically the same platform this year. Is anyone really asking how did Ted do on his past campaign promises during this election cycle? He ended up supporting higher taxes, did support the PERS reforms (that were partly overturned), and Oregon government overall has grown every year with mixed outcome results. Kulongoski should be able to run campaign adds on how well he’s lead Oregon, but is instead running cheese ~ feely good ~ adds about how much he cares. It looks to me the Kulongoski campaign is in deep sh~t at this point.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JAC: My guess is that you are a Saxton supporter. This quote: "He ended up supporting higher taxes, did support the PERS reforms (that were partly overturned), and Oregon government overall has grown every year with mixed outcome results. " makes it sound like you believe Saxton's rhetoric about the powers of the Governor.

    I've got news for you. There is no magic wand given to a governor when he is sworn in.

    "The governor proposes, the legislature disposes" means that even if any governor proposes everything he campaigned on, that doesn't put it into law. He can appoint people and other executive powers, but he can't pass legislation all by himself. A legislator must introduce the legislation, a presiding officer must assign it to committee where it can be ammended, and then the legislation must get at least 31 votes in the House and 16 votes in the Senate. If a bill proposed by the governor gets, say 29 votes in the House and 14 votes in the Senate, does that mean the Governor failed to keep his campaign promises?

    I don't recall Ted saying 4 years ago "vote for me and I won't advocate for any new taxes my entire 4 year term". I do recall something in the inaugural address about not raising taxes, but that is not the same thing as a campaign promise.

    When Ted Kulongoski decided to run for Governor, he resigned from the Supreme Court. JAC, when you say "did support the PERS reforms (that were partly overturned)" are you saying that Ted did not keep a campaign promise because the court overturned part of what the legislature did?

    As regular readers of this blog know, if Westlund had stayed in the race I would have been torn between Ted and Ben. But if you think I will vote for Ron "Ted did everything wrong, so don't ask for my detailed proposals, just vote Saxton for change" the Republican candidate, you are mistaken. When the Republicans nominate someone as serious and well versed in how Oregon's government runs as Vic Atiyeh, then they will deserve to win. This is not that year. Using juvenile language doesn't change that.

  • Zak J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Depending where you look, Oregon ranks somewhere between 35th and 41th among the states in paid taxes. But we're always in the bottom half. The Oregonian ran a piece a few days ago (sorry, couldn't find the reference) claiming our business taxes are the lowest in the nation. We're not being taxed out of existence, and Kulongoski is offering reforms--such as getting rid of the inane corporate kicker--to make companies pay their fair share of the services they use. "Former Salem Staffer" must know this.

    Saxton sounds seductive when he claims he wants efficiencies; we all want efficiencies! But in typical Republican fashion, Saxton doesn't have any specifics to offer on WHERE the savings will come from. Republicans never do. They say they want to reign in spending but they don't have the guts to tell you where because, well, Republican voters like government services, too. So we end up with the Republican gift of the national debt.

    But it's even worse than that. What happens is, they say they're going to cut spending but they only cut taxes. Cuts in taxes without cuts in services make people think public services don't cost anything; so once the tie between services and taxes is severed in their minds they keep demanding lower taxes and higher services. And we get financial ruin.

    Damn right Democrats believe in tax and then spend--we understand you have to pay as you go, not dodge the check or pass it to your grandkids. Kulongoski understands that, which is why he's the prudent choice to lead the state.

  • Embarrassed Democrat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Since Oregon State Law does not allow for budget deficits, the idea of pay-as-you-go is universal. One cannot blame the opposition for not tipping their hand with projected service cutbacks before an election. I wish Kulongoski would stop giving his opponents the plentiful ammunition they seek.

    I am still undecided as to how I will vote this time. I voted for Ted last time, but I may not be able to pinch my nose hard enough to vote for him in November.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    E.D., go back and look at those 5 special sessions. Since Oregon State Law does not allow for budget deficits, the idea of pay-as-you-go is universal.

    The legislature in those special sessions used every gimmick, one time source of money, borrowing mechanism, and still couldn't get out of the 5th special session without that idiotic Measure 28 (they couldn't find the votes to pass a budget without sending something to the voters) and then the "Mystery Money " crowd had this disinformation campaign saying there was plenty of hidden money if only voters would turn down Measure 28. It was turned down, and the cuts were severe. But we're supposed to forget that because "Ted wants to raise your taxes"? It was during that 5th special session I became a Westlund fan because he was one of the few speaking common sense. I have yet to hear common sense from Saxton, just what he doesn't like about Ted and the status quo.

    If you think Saxton understands Oregon's system of government well enough to know that anything he proposes needs 31 votes in the House and 16 votes in the Senate, by all means vote for him. Even if Saxton wins by 60%, the governor has limited executive powers and legislation requires the 31-16 no matter who is Governor. If you think Ron with a Democratic legislature would do a better job than Ted with a Republican legislature (Ron and a D. legislature is a possiblity) then by all means vote for him.

    Given a speech I heard Ted give recently, although I would have liked Westlund as a choice, I will not be holding my nose when I vote for Ted. I will be glad to vote for him.

    But study the candidates carefully. If Saxton wins because people like you vote for him and he turns out not to be what you expected, that won't be the fault of those who questioned how well Saxton understands state government. It will be the fault of those who voted for Ron--and no amount of blaming Democrats will change that. The Governor is responsible for what the Governor does. If that is Saxton, no amount of blaming anyone else will change that.

  • (Show?)

    LT wrote... ow do we know you aren't like the guy who worked for Cong. Charlie Bass? ... It seems there is this technology where administrators of a blog can trace posters to the server their computer is connected to or something like that.

    Yup. First, start digging into the Charlie Bass story on my other blog.

    Second, we're that close to publicizing IP addresses for all comments - right here on each comment. If the trolls don't knock it off, that's coming up soon.

    Trolls, you've been warned.

  • Zak J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, I heard that the online, user-created encyclopedia, Wikipedia, actually had to block IP addresses from Capitol Hill because staffers there were entering such biased information into rivals' bios. Maybe you can start the troll netting with a similar approach. ; )

  • you're a fraud! (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Embarrassed Democrat, eh? Yeah right. Give us all a break, would you troll?

  • Embarrassed Democrat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You can resort to childlike namecalling if you wish, "you're a fraud", but I assure you and everyone else that I am a longtime registered Democrat and have almost completely voted he Democratic Party line since I began voting in 1972.

    If I were you and really wanted to support the re-election of Kulongoski, I would send his campaign manager a heads up that he is turning off many swing voters with his recent advocacy of new taxes.

  • Mister Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Freedom of speech only applies to Democrats who stay on the reservation. Once you challenge the dogma, you're a troll, or a Republican masquerading as a progressive.

    <h2>Democrats aren't supposed to mind paying more taxes. Read the platform.</h2>
elsewhere

connect with blueoregon