Brain Surgeons & Rocket Scientists Unite!

This might get the award for best press release of the campaign cycle. From No on 45:

Q. What do a brain surgeon and a rocket scientist know about term limits?

A. That it doesn’t take either one of them to figure out that it’s a bad idea.

Join Dr. Edward Neuwelt and George Marshall as they talk about what’s wrong with term limits and preview a new video for the No on Measure 45 campaign.

We'll have that new video for you as soon as it becomes available. (The event, btw, is at 10:30 a.m. at 1125 SE Madison, Suite 210.)

Meanwhile, discuss Measure 45 and term limits.

  • Silence Dogood (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In the interest of full disclosure, the video is 100% paid for by political insiders - the highly regulated corporations and unions - who are trying to buy off the election under the radar by bringing all their undisclosed $$ millions out ONLY AFTER the ballots arrived.

    This is the most obvious and underreported conflict of interest in the entire 2006 election. This conduct is so low, it's no wonder that Oregonians are disgusted.

    The real story about No on 45: is at the FLAT website

  • Kevin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I personally don't care who paid for it. Nor do I find the video the least bit influential in how I'll vote on M45.

    Terms limits are inherently anti-democratic. All they do is to offer stupid voters an out so that they don't have to take responsibility for their own damn votes.

    If a majority of voters can be cobbled together to enact term limits then that same damn majority can cut to the chase and just vote the offensive legislators out!

    Stop blaming those evil politicians and lobbyists for YOUR voting patterns. The fault is YOURS, not theirs. If you are sick of them then vote the bums out.

  • Silence Dogood (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's not the voters' fault!

    Don't blame the voters for the system being rigged in favor of incumbents. The insiders made it that way ... not the voters. Do you really believe 98.1% re-elect in Nov. = people are VERY pleased with the job each lawmaker is doing?

    The advantage of incumbency results largely from unregulable First Amendment protections: free media virtually 24/7 for incumbents but very little for challengers, free access to special-interest election cash for incumbents but very little for challengers, legislation that puts everything up for sale to the highest bidder, etc. etc. etc. the list goes on and on.

    Between gerrymandering and incumbent advantage, your vote only realy counts if you're voting for the party incumbent. That's the way the special interests and our vaunted bi-partisan leadership want it. No voter choice (except the incumbent vote). No competition. Representation that is bought & sold. So go right along if you want it that way.

    On the other hand ... regular open-seat elections means more voter choices, greater competition, better representation.

    It's no panacea, but what is? I'm voting YES on 45. I'm not going to let the special interests get away with pulling the wool over my eyes.

  • Kevin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr. Dogwood,

    I agree that insiders rig the system. But, if I'm able to see through it and you are able to see through it then so too are all the other voters. If they can't or won't then that is their fault.

    If a simple majority of voters can be cobbled together to enact term limits then that same simple majority can cut to the chase and vote the bums out. That they either can't or won't merely proves my point that the onus is on the voters.

    BTW, there are other, better, inherently democratic ways around the very real problems that you list. Campaign Finance Reform being at the top of the list.

    Personally I would be more than willing to vote for a ballot measure amending the Oregon constitution to better reflect the objective reality that money is NOT speech, it is merely a means of amplifying speech. Which would pave the way for meaningful CFR.

    I would also be more than willing to vote for one which spreads Portland's voter-owned elections system statewide. Which is probably the most viable and effective form of CFR to have come along since the inception of our nation.

  • PanchoPdx (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kevin,

    If insiders rig the system what does it matter whether you can "see through it"?

    You still don't have any choices. Most districts are drawn to give a single party an overwhelming advantage, so the real elections occur in the primary. But you can't unseat an incumbent in the primary unless the winds are blowing just perfectly for you (or you have a lot of money).

    Term limits are about giving voters real choices in legislative races more than once a decade.

    Why are voters disenchanted?

    Most of them don't have any freakin' choices.

    Any honest intelligent citizen should be able to stand for election and take a turn in public service. Serving in the legislature is not "rocket science" or "brain surgery", but the lobbyists and the insiders want to promote the idea that it is because intimidates regular citizens from participating.

    The irony is we'd be more likely to get rocket scientists and brain surgeons in the legislature if we had regular open seat elections for those offices WITHOUT the built-in expectation that one should have to make a career of out it.

  • K (unverified)
    (Show?)

    We already have term limits; they're called elections.

  • Kevin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Any honest intelligent citizen should be able to stand for election and take a turn in public service. Serving in the legislature is not "rocket science" or "brain surgery", but the lobbyists and the insiders want to promote the idea that it is because intimidates regular citizens from participating.

    Sure, any honest intelligent citizen should be able to stand for election. But lack of term limits isn't anywhere close to the highest hurdle preventing the average Joe/Jane from running. Money is and term limits won't change that reality one iota.

    Not only does the current election model require meaningful quantities of cash just to be competitive, but the legislative salary is so tiny that only the relatively wealthy can even afford to take a turn at public service if they do win.

    You wanna level the playing field so that "any honest intelligent citizen" can be electable? Support expanding Portland's voter-owned elections system to the entire state. And then push to increase legislative salaries enough so that the non-affluent could afford to participate. Those two alone would accomplish your stated goals far better than term limits ever could because they fundamentally change the system without ham-stringing democracy.

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Any honest intelligent citizen should be able to stand for election and take a turn in public service."

    ... But apparently they're not smart enough to vote their incumbents out of office, is that it?

    They're easily dazzled by the expensive TV ads and mail pieces that the special interest money buys, they're unfairly tricked into voting again and again for the guy that they really don't want in office... and they deserve to go straight to the Capitol Building to have their chance to run the state?

    You've got some serious logical conflicts going on there.

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    M45 supporters... Is Measure 45 even sponsored by an Oregon resident? Yes or no.

  • (Show?)

    We have 'term limits' they're called ELECTIONS.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Kevin | Oct 26, 2006 1:10:39 PM

    Very well said. Spot on rebuttal.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: K | Oct 26, 2006 11:51:50 AM

    Damn, you stole my standard response to term limit 'arugments'.

    ;-)

  • Silence Dogood (unverified)
    (Show?)

    We have ELECTIONS the same way they had bread in Eastern Europe. The powers that be make sure you have ONE CHOICE - the incumbent.

    If you want to choose a challenger - 98.1% chance the state leg. incumbent wins - you lose. No choice.

    Yes. We have elections. When they offer no choice, no competition, and discourage challengers, they are a mockery of self-government.

    Do you really think people haven't caught on to this?

    You need another quick visit: here

  • (Show?)

    Yes M45 is sponsored by an Oregonian. Just as the previous TL measures were.

    BTW... I understand no one showed up to the brain surgeon event? No press that is.

    Just a handful of M45 opponents.

  • Hyena (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Coyote -- Ted Bertholete shows his address on the SoS website as 61111 Minaret Circle in Bend. But the Deschutes County DIAL website shows that he sold his house and moved out in July.

    If he's still an Oregonian, I'm sure that you or someone else from the M45 campaign will be able to tell us where he's moved to?

    <h2>Bark Bark</h2>
in the news 2006

connect with blueoregon