Shawn Lindsay: It's not me, it's you. And you're stupid.
Carla Axtman
Recently defeated state representative Shawn Lindsay (R-Hillsboro) is not just chewing sour grapes over his loss, he's gone public with a verbal mastication splayed out in today's Oregonian:
Every two years, after yet another loss, the Oregonian editorial board writes that "Oregon Republicans must rebrand themselves." We're already at work on that. But, respectfully, it's time that Oregon rebrand itself. Oregon is no longer "independent" or "bipartisan." No, to its detriment, Oregon is a one-party state.
If Oregon wants to find a path to relevancy in the United States and foster debate and compromise that will lead to better legislation for all Oregon residents, it must accept hard facts and rebrand its politics.
I agree that it's useless for Republicans in Oregon to "re-brand" themselves. That's merely a superficial exercise in PR that attempts to paint lipstick on a pig. But rather than looking inward to actually see if perhaps Republicans like Lindsay are out-of-touch with their constituents and pushing policy that they disagree with, Lindsay lashes out at Oregonians as being irrelevant to the rest of the nation.
And this "one-party state" canard is a steaming pile as well. In Lindsay's own county (Washington), the highest level of county government is run by an iron fist of conservative Republican authoritarianism. Further, that authoritarianism extends to 2 other members of the County Commission who goose step happily along. We need look no further than Lindsay's own backyard for the results of the GOP ruling a key part of Oregon. And how could we forget the mess that went down in Cornelius when Republicans ran things? Taxpayers in our county are casting a skeptical eye toward your party for a reason, Mr. Lindsay. Take the cotton out of your ears and pay attention.
Not to mention the fact that Clackamas County is about to be up to their gills with Republicans running things.
Lindsay continues:
Oregonians demand bipartisanship in the Legislature, but reject it at the polls. My re-election campaign is a prime example. The Democratic mayor of North Plains and the Republican mayor of Hillsboro jointly endorsed me because of my competency and bipartisan problem-solving skills. Stand for Children endorsed me, a rare feat for a Republican. Every single newspaper, including liberal newspapers, endorsed me over my opponent essentially because of my diplomatic and substantive skills. As for accomplishments? I supported the bipartisan education and health care reforms and co-chaired the committee that delivered a historic bipartisan redistricting plan, something the Legislature failed to do for more than 60 years.
I worked hard to make myself publicly available to voters, knocking on more than 11,000 doors, holding dozens of town halls (my opponent held none), appearing at every joint forum to which we were invited (my opponent attended only one), and participating in the only districtwide debate (my opponent refused to participate). Even my political opponents heralded me as one of the most available and responsive legislators.
Jeez, man. Have some pride for crying out loud. Hand wringing over thinking you're accessible while systematically pushing stuff that is out-of-step with your constituency is pathetic, douchebag behavior.
More:
Voters claim they want Republicans and Democrats to work together, and they claim to hate partisan and negative campaigns. I ran a positive campaign that focused on my bipartisan skills and accomplishments, while my opponent ran a negative campaign and even cited votes on bills that didn't exist. Yet, despite my bipartisan support and active involvement, another candidate was chosen. I fully respect that decision.
Until Oregon voters can bring themselves to vote for the person instead of the party, you'll see fewer qualified Republican candidates running, which will result in fewer qualified Democratic candidates running, because there will be no competition. This is damaging to Oregon.
If you want legislators who put policy ahead of party affiliation but in turn you do not vote for the most competent candidate because of party affiliation, then you are demanding a result you do not support. If you are unhappy with the status quo, you cannot continue voting the "party ticket" year after year, all the while expecting a different result.
So Joe Gallegos (the articulate, smart man who is deeply engaged in the community) is unqualified to serve in the state legislature, Shawn? Seriously? And a positive campaign? Does that include this hit piece video against Gallegos on your campaign YouTube channel? And the "call to arms" event you held in your district?
As long as Republicans in Oregon continue to take their cues from national Republicans via ALEC when it comes to policy, they'll continue to be unsuccessful here. That's just shoving national GOP policy priorities down our throats instead of making the people that they serve the priority. And when you do that Shawn, you deserve to lose.
 |
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
4:15 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
He's basically making the argument that party labels are no different than red and blue team uniforms, that party labels don't actually signify meaningful policy differences.
But that's silly. Especially coming from a guy who actually believes in meaningful policy differences.
I tend to think that voters are smarter than we think, that they're able to figure out who is on their side.
If Oregonians are voting for Democrats, then that must mean that they agree with Democrats on policy choices.
Which means that Republicans are going to, well, lose. And they shouldn't be surprised.
Rep. Lindsay, you don't need better marketing. You need a better product.
11:22 a.m.
Nov 29, '12
Unfortunately, Kari, I have to disagree with you about the intelligence of voters. It is evident that many voters are not able to figure out who is on their side. Look at Clackams County for an example. The level of propaganda used in Clackamas County was simple-minded and completely unveiled in it's contempt for the intelligence of the voters. Yet they just walked to the polls and voted in right wing goose steppers.
Look at national politics. Granted we have hideously gerrymandered congressional districts in many states. Given that, we still have a ludicrous majority of Republicans in the House who have consistently shown a gross contempt for the American worker. We still only outvoted them for house seat by half a million. Half a million? out of around 100 million votes? That tells me we still have a depressingly large number of voters who would willingly walk into the slaughterhouse with no idea that the blade was going to come down on their neck.
4:18 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
A non-political cousin from Indiana recently said to me 'I used to vote the person, not the party, including candidates from both parties- Now I'll vote anything but Republican because I don't want to encourage that behavior."
4:23 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
It's also worth noting that this article contains one verifiable, outright lie: "... appearing at every joint forum to which we were invited (my opponent attended only one)." He was invited to a joint HD 29 and 30 candidate forum at the Center for Intercultural Organizing's Beaverton office. Both he and Katie Eyre Brewer rejected invitations.
4:35 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
This is lame on the whole but the "Call to Arms" looks entirely innocuous to me. It's not any more militaristic than the idea of a campaign, and its a metaphor progressives use for entirely positive purposes.
4:37 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
So, next up: faux attempts at "meaningful reform" of Republicanism, in order to appear kinder and gentler. So you'll vote for 'em. Good golly Miss Molly.
4:40 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
So my impression from Multnomah of Lindsay prior to this election is that he is a partisan Republican, but not a wacko. At the same time he was hardly an independent. What is the view from those who live in Washington County?
4:48 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
I live in Washington County, near Lindsay's district. He's a piece of work. The problem is that he appears not to listen (at all) to those who disagree with him. He's so pruney in his own "rightness" that there's simply no talking with him.
4:58 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
Thanks for the responses.
5:54 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
Maybe he ought to run for governor. Not listening seems to be a requirement.
4:53 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
..that is was an arrogant, out of touch Republican who tended to come late and leave early at public events, esp. if they involved the presence of esteemed figures of state such as Senators Merkley and Wyden.
4:45 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
Thanks for a spot-on rebuttal, Carla. I would just add that the fact that Lindsay is a card-carrying member of ALEC is ample proof that he and his ilk are out of step with HD30 constituents. I would also bring out the evidence of his near total party-line voting that belies his "bi-partisan" claim.
4:48 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
"holding dozens of town halls (my opponent held none)" This really steams me -- anyone familiar with the political world knows that town halls are held by ELECTED officials and not by candidates. Of course Gallegos didn't hold town halls as a candidate-- but I bet he'll hold plenty as a duly elected representative!
4:50 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
And (as long as I'm venting), I wish Lindsay would get their GD oversized yard signs taken down -- they are well past the sell-by date and I believe in violation of county and city rules-- how's that for a flagrant diregard for their former constituents?!
5:02 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
The bigger problem for Republicans in Oregon is that they are working with a damaged brand. Unless the moderates are willing to do a sister souljah moment and denounce the wackos in their party and their positions, the rest of us should not expect them to be independent. Party representation does mean a lot since it determines who is in charge of the agenda in Salem and DC. Unless the voter wants the Republicans in charge it is silly to say they should vote for a Republican for their representative.
8:16 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
I'm just proud and happy that we now have people of intelligence and integrity now representing most of Washington County's legislative districts. I know how if feels to lose an election, but losing doesn't entitle one to whine in public.
9:04 p.m.
Nov 28, '12
Blaming voters, the sure way to get the support of voters.
8:34 a.m.
Nov 29, '12
What I sent him:
Dear Shawn, I read your op-ed in today's O with interest. I voted all Democratic this year, but it wasn't always that way. I have voted for some great Republicans in my time. I've even had close relatives whom I admire serve in state government as Republicans. But not now. Let me give you this Oregon voter's perspective.
First, let's talk about branding. Unlike a corporation, which can hire a PR firm and create pretty much whatever brand it wants ("Wonder Bread builds strong bodies"), a political party's brand is established by its candidates and their representatives. The Republican party is defined by Michelle Bachmann, Todd Akin, Rick Perry, Donald Trump and a number of other people that couldn't get elected to anything in Oregon. Nothing you do at Dorchester will change that. So if you want to be seen as something different than those people, then start by dissociating yourself from the National Republican Party. Run as an independent if you want to be elected for who you are. If you run as a Republican, you are likely to be thought of as a xenophobic, racist, anti-science religious nut, because that's what your party is full of.
Second, lets talk about you. Like lots of other Republicans, post-election, you seem to think the problem is that voters are stupid. You showed up at all the right events. You got the right endorsements. You're just so wonderful, how could anyone not give you their vote? Well, if we look past the disgusting national brand, then we have you: Mr. Alec. You are a prime player for ALEC in Oregon, which I see as a conspiracy to undermine democratic government and replace it with corporate plutocracy. I'm not a corporation, so I wouldn't trust you for a second.
If you want to win election in Oregon, then the reality is you need to dissociate yourself from - nay, denounce - the Neanderthalic national Republican Party, and the border-line fascist ALEC organization, and start standing up for the people in district you want to represent, many of whom are are surviving on programs like Medicare, Tricare, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and food stamps. Can you represent them? Or are they the 47% you and Romney don't care about? Voters aren't stupid. Get real.
9:52 a.m.
Nov 29, '12
Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment (and I preface this by saying that as a Republican, I have a supreme dislike for the tone and premise of Lindsay's article).
Kari, on a district-by-district basis in Eastern or Southern Oregon where Republicans traditionally dominate, would you maintain that Democrats "need a better product" to secure a win? And likewise, is there the same respect for the views of those voters...or is it written off as the choices of a backwards, out-of-touch electorate...instead of an out-of-touch candidate?
Being a numbers game, it's really not an issue. You guys have the numbers and we don't. It's simple math. But I'm curious if your status as the dominant party in Oregon allows for this kind of self-examination.
10:02 a.m.
Nov 29, '12
Dan:
The Democrats sustained some pretty serious losses in Oregon in 2010. I can tell you that in fact, a serious examination of what went wrong and why occurred, at least in the places near me where it happened.
You guys actually do have the numbers. You have managed to win before, in the not too distant past.
10:37 a.m.
Nov 29, '12
True...although I see those gains as very transitory. We may manage to win, but we rarely seem to enact realistic plans to secure and expand upon those gains. Let me ask another question: When Republicans lose, there is always the loud voice within the party that says it was because we weren't conservative enough, or that we tried to compromise too much. When Democrats lose, do you face the same questions? How do you usually answer them?
11:53 a.m.
Nov 29, '12
I agree that it's about policies, not branding.
However, it's important to remember that when the Republicans were winning in Oregon, they had financial parity with the Democrats in candidate races largely because the timber industry was healthier than it is now, and because they had Bill Sizemore and Don McIntyre out running ballot initiatives that were relatively cheap to place on the ballot but that soaked up millions of dollars from the public employee unions.
Once the Democrats took control of the legislature in 2006, one of the first things they did was to pass reforms that were intended to drive up the cost of using the initiative process and that made it more difficult to "ballot title shop". This, coupled with Mr Sizemore's legion of problems, effectively shut down the ability of the Republican side to force the unions to spend millions playing defense on ballot measures.
Much of the money and the apparatus that the unions built to deal with Sizemore is now going into candidate races, and the Republicans have no real way to answer, at least not in the immediate term, and not without a massive investment of resources. So now, they not only have to contend with a massive voter registration disadvantage, they also have a significant funding disadvantage.
( 2010 was a notable exception to that. In that year, Chris Dudley was able to raise about twice as much money as Governor Kitzhaber so overall they had rough campaign parity. That coupled with some high profile campaign mistakes by House and Senate Democrats, probably contributed significantly to the Republican gains that year. )
In the meantime, the orthodoxy of the GOP (in Oregon and nationally)shifted from one that was primarily focused on limited government and rational (i.e., balanced) policies to encourage economic growth to one that is more concerned with appeasing increasingly rigid constituencies of social conservatives and tea partiers (and their funders).
The Democrats used the influence of those constituencies to create "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios for GOP candidates by doing things like shifting the terms of the debate on women's rights from abortion to contraception, which forced people like Todd Akin to publicly defend views that were ill-informed and outside of the American mainstream.
This, coupled with Republican efforts to suppress minority voter participation on a national basis (ironically) contributed to large minority turnout in the 2012 election AND resulted in higher percentages of minorities than usual voting Democratic.
When you overlay that read of the funding situation and the national situation, and the internal situation, things are bad enough for the Oregon GOP. Add to that the voter fraud in Clackamas County, which hurt Republican candidates among late voting undecided voters, "Strippergate", "Wingard-gate", etc. and you have the basic recipe for the disastrous results they experienced in this cycle.
1:55 p.m.
Nov 29, '12
I basically agree with Sal's points except one: Unlike the national Republican party, I didn't see any evidence that Oregon Republicans shifted their emphasis after the 2010 elections to "appeasing increasingly rigid constituencies of social conservatives and tea partiers."
I do believe that much damage was done to the Republican "brand" by Republicans in more conservative states, particularly but no exclusively in the south, that promoted extreme policies regarding subjects like reproductive rights and immigration. But I don't think the Oregon Republican Party or Republican elected officials generally were guilty of this.
8:08 p.m.
Nov 29, '12
I must respectfully point out that a significant amount of money from out-of-state was generated to oppose actions taken by the elected officials regarding expansion of "light rail." Furthermore, the same source of out-of-state money overwhelmed the funds available to the Commission Chair and one incumbent Commissioner in their quest to retain their seats.
These actions blatantly resemble tactics funded by supported by those claiming to represent the will of the people via the "tea party." Furthermore, the stimulus for this political activity came from the privileged community of Lake Oswego, Oregon was traditionally has opposed attempts to improve the traffic along State Highway 43.
Clackamas County is now a prime example of the modern "golden rule" which states "those with the goal to get to make the rules."
7:58 p.m.
Nov 29, '12
Sal, when you state "Much of the money and the apparatus that the unions built to deal with Sizemore is now going into candidate races" I must respectfully disagree at least where the largest in public employee union in the state SEIU Local 503, OPEU is concerned. The funds for political candidates are scrupulously kept separate from those funds used for the purposes of supporting or opposing ballot measures. The bylaws of SEIU Local 503, OPEU prohibit the funds earmarked in the dues structure for the purpose of opposing or supporting ballot measures to be used for ANY other purpose.
8:47 p.m.
Nov 29, '12
Barney - I think you are saying that ballot measure committees dont spend money on candidate races. I dont disagree with that. What I am saying is that OEA and SEIU spent millions in the early part of this decade and the 90's fighting Sizemore measures and contributed heavily to organizations like Our Oregon that were created to fight right wing ballot measures. Now that he's gone those resources are freed up for candidate races. I don't see that as a terribly controversial or provocative statement.
2:59 p.m.
Nov 30, '12
Are you really claiming, Sal, that the Republicans are losing because they're being outspent?
I'd love to see the evidence of that.
4:50 p.m.
Nov 30, '12
I am saying that beginning in 2008, the Democrats have consistently outspent the Republicans in state races, and especially in contested state legislative races.
Here's the chart that provides a pretty good graphical representation of that assertion.
With respect to relative spending by public sector unions as compared to other entities, the data is striking. Scroll down to the section titled campaign spending by sector 2008 and 2010.
Although that chart doesn't break it out, the consistency of the advantage in state legislative races is striking as is the consistency of the advantage with party committees.
Candidate 2008
Candidate 2010
Party 2008
Party 2010
10:05 a.m.
Nov 29, '12
Someone please send Rep Lindsay some cheese to go with his whine.
10:27 a.m.
Nov 29, '12
Take heart, Carla. Clark County, WA now has a Republican majority of county commissioners, too. And promises to withdraw county support of the CRC. Whoops---there goes the "30,000 jobs" that Kitzy and Chrissy said we would have. But in it place, hopefully, something that make sense. That is unless you think spending billions in transit projects to reduce our CO2 by a whopping one percent is good policy.
2:57 p.m.
Nov 29, '12
Ron: I've been pretty vocal about my resistance to the CRC. And I've also been pretty vocal about not being thrilled with the Democrats supporting it.
In fact, I was very supportive of the position of Rep. Katie Eyre (R-Forest Grove)when she came out against it, too.
As far as I know, Eyre hasn't been talking to the press about how the voters are just too stupid to keep her in office--as opposed to Lindsay.
4:55 p.m.
Nov 29, '12
As someone on the ground during the last election I was pleasantly surprised by Joe Gallegos' win. Joe had many obstacles to overcome; he entered the race late, he had very little name recognition, his opponent had the benefit of incumbency (it's no accident that Lindsay conflates his constituent town halls with campaign events). But the bottom line is that Joe worked harder than Lindsay. We can talk about party and branding until we're blue in the face, but when you're beaten by someone who has flat outworked you, then the focus and blame should be inward.
1:55 p.m.
Nov 30, '12
I constantly have to wonder why the GOP laments its losses in Oregon, do they believe I suffer from a severe case of amnesia?
Do I not remember Chris Dudley speaking to a group of restaurant owners promising to cut their labor costs by excluding them from the minimum wage requirements?
Can I not surf over to sites run by Oregon Conservatives and see their support for ideas like right to work?
Has the national GOP not embraced a "takers" vs. "makers" meme straight out of Ayn Rand?
I do not care how many endorsements a republican candidate receives, I don't care how many public forums they participate in. Frankly I could careless what purported policy positions they hold. What I do care about is that the GOP has decided that I'm an enemy who needs to be literally stomped into the ground. I'd be happy to vote for a moderate republican running on the platform of government efficiency, so long as they ran as a democrat. As I view the GOP as openly hostile to me and every middle and lower class american, and I will not reward this attitude and agenda with a vote EVER!
12:00 p.m.
Dec 2, '12
Lets see Anti Education, Anti Labor, Anti Retirement for workers, Anti health care, Anti science, Anti woman, Anti immigration reform, Anti LGBT, Anti job creation. What else can Repugs do to get elected. Learn to get their message out better???? The problem that escapes Mr Lindsey is that more voters in his district finally understand how bad the Repug agenda is for all but the 1%.