In Yamhill County, Mary Starrett tries to tea-party her way onto the County Commission

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

In Yamhill County, Mary Starrett tries to tea-party her way onto the County Commission

Mary Starrett - the Portland TV personality turned national lunatic fringe spokesperson - is running for Yamhill County Commission. She's trying to take out the only Democrat on the county commission, two-term incumbent Commissioner Mary Stern.

In 2006, Starrett ran for Governor of Oregon on the Constitution Party ticket, and now serves as the Constitution Party's national spokesperson. In her campaign for Yamhill County, she's running hard on the right, as the print ad there demonstrates (view full size). She is, of course, being supported by local Tea Party activists. In a recent debate, Starrett slammed Stern for supporting Measures 66 and 67 - as well as a hotel/motel tax for tourism promotion. (Oddly, Starrett called that a tax on local residents - really?)

Interestingly, Starrett is supported by Oregon Right to Life in this race. Why is that interesting? Because Starrett was a founder of Oregonians for Life, a group that argued that ORTL had been "too willing to compromise with pro-abortion forces", according to the Christian News Northwest.

Here's just a sampling of the kind of rhetoric folks in Yamhill County will have to get used to, if they vote Starrett into office.

“Jesus didn’t come to bring peace,” says Starrett, the former AM Northwest co-host on KATU Channel 2 and former KPDQ radio talk host. “He came to bring a sword. And He came to divide. It is time to cause division among the brethren. He says He is going to divide the sheep from the goats. We have been lukewarm too long. There is a time and place for us to sit there and be complacent and compliant and also a time to say, ‘I have seen a picture of a ripped-up baby in a garbage can. I have seen enough.’ ”

This is a race definitely worth watching. Starrett's bigger ambitions are obvious; and a post on the Yamhill County Commission may give her a launching pad. Connect with Mary Stern on Facebook, and give her campaign a hand.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    Her lawn signs and big barn signs even feature a tea cup with an American flag for the flag of the tea bag. I was very amused by the patriotic tea when I was on my way to the beach last week going through Yamhill County.

  • (Show?)

    Despite her long time claim that George W Bush had foreknowledge of 9-11 and her embracing an end to the Iraq War and legalization of marijuana, Starrett was endorsed by prominent Yamhill Republicans and the Yamhill County Republican Party. By the way. almost all her campaign placed signs exceed the legal size allowed by state law. p.s. Do not let that she is correct on a few issues obscure the fact that she is a vicious, deceitful candidate who wants to abridge your basic rights.

  • (Show?)

    As a Christian, I say yuck.

    • (Show?)

      As an Oregonian, I say yuck.

      If she gets elected, things are going to get interesting in McMinniville ... the wrong kind of interesting

  • (Show?)

    ‘I have seen a picture of a ripped-up baby in a garbage can. I have seen enough.’

    What? When? Really? This is hideous rhetoric.

  • (Show?)

    Mary Starrett is, inter-personally, a nice lady with some really fringe ideas. Fortunately, she seems committed to marginalizing herself to the fullest extent possible.

    Her opponent, Mary Stern, is probably one of the most talented, fair-minded individuals I've met in Oregon politics. She absolutely destroyed her last opponent in 2006, and I would be surprised if she doesn't do the same to Starrett.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks, Chuck, for telling us what God wants. The perfect reason not to put you in office.

    • (Show?)

      I think it's fairly clear that it's Mary Starrett who thinks she knows what God wants.

    • (Show?)

      Really?

      Chuck was speaking as a Christian, not as god. Try actually reading what people actually say, and also for the context within which they say it and you might be well on your way to avoiding preposterous leaps in hyperbole in the future.

    • (Show?)

      That's unfair.

      Look, I've criticized Chuck in the past for wearing his pastoral status on his sleeve. But the fact of the matter is that a fair reading of his comment to which you object is that he was expressing an explicitly personal opinion. In no way did he attempt to speak for God or on God's behalf.

  • (Show?)

    The Reverend Currie has a right to his opinion. Everyone does. But politicians who invoke Christiantity in expressing their opinions scare me. A lot.

    As for Erik Sten, when his worshipers explain why he ran out of town, I'll vote for them. What exactly was he running away from?

    • (Show?)

      He moved to Bend. It's not like he fled to Grand Cayman or something. No reason to imagine conspiracy theories.

      I think he was just tired of taking the hits, and decided to go raise his family somewhere where people didn't recognize him in the grocery store.

      Taking the hits is part of the job, but I don't blame him for packing it in. While I wish he'd have served out his term, I'd rather someone leave office than quit working and just stay in place. We've certainly seen that sort of thing enough times.

    • (Show?)

      Jack, come on. It's not like this is, say, Carla's thread about urban reserves and Chuck posted the comment "As a Christian, I favor more infill in Hillsboro before expanding the urban growth boundary." Perhaps you ought to consider the context of the post. The whole point of this discussion is that she's using rhetoric like "Jesus came to bring a sword" to support her campaign. Chuck is just pointing out that he is just as disgusted as everyone else despite being a Christian.

      Take this hypothetical situation. If a group of LC law professors mailed a pamphlet to voters invoking their profession in support of using sewer funds for bike lanes, using public money to renovate PGE Park, urban renewal programs, Sam Adams, the Burnside/Couch couplet, and the public's blind faith in the Portland Police (to pick a few completely random things), would it be wrong of you to say "I am also a Tax Professor and I disagree."? I don't see the difference.

      I totally agree that all too often politicians justify a policy preference by invoking their faith. But maybe you should consider the context of Chuck's statement before complaining about it.

    • (Show?)

      "God forbid any politician should allow their faith to inform their views on things:"

      First of all, lets acknowledge that "God" is imaginary by any reasonable standard.

      People have a very good reason to be scared by politicians invoking superstitious beliefs. That's why it's the law in this country that religion is kept out of government.

      It's not a coincidence that the least religious democracies have created the happiest and healthiest societies on Earth. It's not a coincidence that the higher the IQ and the more formal education one has, the more likely they are to reject unjustified and unsupported ideology.............religion

    • (Show?)

      Good point, Sal.

      Personally, I prefer that candidates be transparent about what informs their decisions. That helps me to better form my own decisions on their candidacy, as well as making them more trustworthy (IMO). It's the candidates who hide their ideology who worry me the most.

  • (Show?)

    Chuck,

    As a Christian, I say "yuck", too!

  • (Show?)

    As an agnostic atheist, I also say yuck.

    • (Show?)

      Kinda cool. I'm guessing an agnostic atheist isn't quite sure God's not there. I'll be the agnostic Christian cause I'm not quite sure he is =)

      Of course, I'll still say yuck!

      Cheers.

      • (Show?)

        Hi Steve,

        Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any god, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a god does not exist. It's exactly that. I don't let the existence or lack thereof of a god affect my daily life, nor do I pretend to know the truth.

        • (Show?)

          In other words, don't believe in God, but not so arrogant as to say no Gods exist.

          • (Show?)

            This is where I disagree with the semantic dodge of the label 'agnostic atheist'. So we are all invisible pink unicorn agnostic? We are all invisible ogre who will punch me if I say the word 'banana' three times agonistic?

            There are a near infinite number of improbable, imaginary things with which you can claim we can never know with 100% certainty don't exist, which are full worth demising as so improbable as being no different that saying doesn't exist in the definitive use of the term.

        • (Show?)

          Thanks for the specialized definition Dad, I appreciate it. I get people defining words for a particular group or purpose. On the other hand, I was pretty much relying on standard definitions and understanding the use of agnostic as being used as an adjective.

          agnostic: n. A person who holds the view that nothing can be known of the existence of God or of anything beyond material phenomena. Also, a person who is uncertain or noncommittal about a particular thing.

          atheist: 1. n. A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods, or 2. A person who denies God morally; a godless person.

          Since I'd never heard of an agnostic atheist, nor the specialized definitions they hold, it looked like it might be fun to play with the plain meanings of the words from the Oxford English Dictionary,

          Never was much of a comedian - oh well.

          • (Show?)

            er, sorry, Freudian slip? That should have read "Thanks for the specialized definition DAN..."

            sheesh.

          • (Show?)

            Nothing "specialized" in the meaning.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

            • (Show?)

              Thanks for the link, now it's not so special to me. Oh well. As I said, I hadn't heard the term before - nor had I heard a person claim to be an agnostic atheist before.

              On the other hand, it seems to be a fairly specialized use of two words defined by the theologian (Flint) mentioned in the article to demonstrate that the ideas are not mutually exclusive. Always nice to learn something new, especially terms that combine old words. Thanks again.

              Mostly the original intent of the post was to have a little fun with the words - comedy that obviously fell flat here. After reading further, I find I'm not an agnostic theist either. Since I can't seem to prove God's existence one way or the other, I guess I don't see the point in my having an opinion on the matter.

              Cheers!

      • (Show?)

        OT: Not speaking for Dan, but the term agnostic atheist is an atheist who does not believe in the existence of any god(s) and that the knowledge of the existence of god(s) is unknowable. It is functionally one and the same with the standalone term atheist. It is a way I guess for some atheist to underscore what is the basic meaning of the term atheist, though I prefer using the accurate stand-alone term without the redundant (and often confusing) modifier (agnostic) preceding it.

  • (Show?)

    Starrett is dangerous. Her vision of America in the future would disallow her from even being in office (cf. "The Handmaid's Tale.") I will not live in a theocracy.

  • (Show?)

    Interesting. I've just been doing some reading - starting with Googling the phrases that Starrett used "not to bring peace" and "came to bring a sword."

    Turns out that that's a reference to a controversial passage in Matthew 10:34 - and one that some interpret as Jesus calling for violence. Obviously, most Christians do not.

    A good starting place is Wikipedia.

    • (Show?)

      One of Ann Coulter's favorite Bible verses

      http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/07/ann-coulters-favorite-bible-verses.html

  • (Show?)

    There's a good single word substitute for agnostic atheist...

    rationalist--

    asserting no particular entity or dogma beyond accepting as useful information, only that which can be demonstrated empirically.

    Everything else just assertion.

  • (Show?)

    Being forced to identify himself via Facebook has thankfully not shorn Bojack of the intense need to be a total dickbag, it appears.

    (cue some non sequitur public employee rant!)

  • (Show?)

    Being forced to identify himself via Facebook has thankfully not shorn Bojack of the intense need to be a total dickbag, it appears.

    (cue some non sequitur public employee rant!)

    Kari, good catch. Quite a bit of political rhetoric used by Christians has "dog whistle" references from Scripture. Bush used to do it all the time.

  • (Show?)

    OK, add me to the "yuck" vote. However at the end of the elction cycle it will be yamhill County voters who decide this issue, nt the pages of any blog.

connect with blueoregon