The Republican leadership is already on the record as supporting Wingard to be appointed (“We are supporting Matt because he is the Republican nominee,” Smith said), according to politickeror.com:

http://politickeror.com/brittenchase/2182/krummel-vacate-state-house-seat-early

But it wouldn't be totally out-of-character for them to do an about-face, as they already have once about Wingard when they said they would choose someone else to oppose him (b/c of the little thing about assaulting his child with a screwdriver) before they didn't.

I see PCPs as doing whatever the party leaders instruct them to do, as they're basically party loyalists, so I would see them as sticking with Wingard.

And out of fairness to Duyck, he in all likelihood was sincere in his campaign for HD29, but as the Republicans already have a candidate for HD26 in Wingard, he'll probably respectfully not challenge him without it reflecting on his having genuinely desired to campaign for HD29.

My two cents, anyway, FWIW, although it would be entertaining to see the Republicans toss Wingard under the bus as they promised to do a while back, now that they have a non-felonious potential replacement--- that would lead to some fractious and dispirited Republicans in that district, but I don't see it happening.

Hey! Last time this topic was up, I suggested The Duyck ought to make lemons out of lemonade by trying to be sportsmanlike about it so that he'd build up some goodwill and have a shot at HD26 (or wherever his home is after the next round of redistricting). Too bad the GOP is completely incapable of sportsmanlike conduct--when they win, they do in-yo-face victory laughs, and when they lose, they scream and chant and demand that Republican judges overturn the election results.

And now here's an opportunity in HD26, lo and behold!

My question is, if they appoint him to the seat, do they also have the chance to appoint him GOP nominee for the election, or are they absolutely stuck with Wingard? Can Duyck run on the "Oregon for Duyck" Party?

I guess I'm not well-versed in state politics... Can someone explain why they would need to appoint a replacement anyway? Is the lege convening before the election?

“That's right: The mighty, mighty Lars Larson - in full outrage - managed to exhort exactly six people to call in.”

Ah, blessed schadenfreude. Larson’s a serial narcissist and professional malcontent, and hearing about his political failures is marvelous. What’s even more delightful however is listening to the general sense of panic and ennui that’s evident on far-right radio nowadays about the election. They know they’re in real trouble and are beginning a scortched-earth campaign that promises to get truly ugly.

As I understand the process for replacement on the ballot, 3-5 names must be sent by the pct. people to the county comm. and then the county comm. makes the final decision. We had a situation once where after an election we had a vacancy (the incumbent took over the higher office he had won a little early due to vacancy) the names we sent were the recently elected nominee and then 2 people whose names were not well known(Joe Schmo and Susie Sunshine?) to complete the 3.

I could tell you with a fair amount of certainty that Jeff will not be seeking the nomination, and Matt will get it. And Matt probably wouldn't drop out anyway.

If Republican PCP's don't submit three candidates, can't the county Commissioners pick someone else? In any case, they probably wouldn't pick Adamson anyway.

Jim H, I completely agree with you. I don't see a reason why they should have to. I thought the same when Avakian's seat had to be filled.

What do y'all think about Senator Starr's proposal to create a non-partisan redistricting commission?

I haven't been following this that closely, but didn't Duyck vote? Didn't he notice that his ballot listed candidates who were not what he expected? Or, did the County screw up and send him incorrect ballots multiple times?

Either way, Duyck should have known what district he was in. He does, after all, belong to the "party of personal responsibility".

They could still appoint Admason.

She's been a life long Republican.

Look on her website, she's worked for all Republicans.

"Jessica spent the 1997 Oregon Legislative Session working with Republican Senator Jeannette Hamby."

"Jessica went on to work for Republican Representative Lynn Lundquist"

haha -- So much for a die-hard Democrat.

Can someone explain why they would need to appoint a replacement anyway? Is the lege convening before the election?

In Oregon's Legislative Assembly, 90 stout yeomen gather every odd year, do the peoples' business, then return to their fields. And there's really nothing to do in between...

Actually, here in Oregon 2008, they're pretty much doing full-time year-round work for crappy pay, then they shoehorn in an unmanageable amount of work during the session, then they spend 18 months apologizing for things that were rushed through and promising that next time they're rushing things through, they'll fix that thing. This happens mainly because people like the rustic, "citizen legislator" imagery.

John

There's no shame in working for Jeannette Hamby or Lynn Lundquist, who are both good honest people.

They represent the rational wing of the Republican Party that was hounded out by the wackjobs. They're precisely the kind of people Democrats should be reaching out to.

John

I'm sorry Kari, but when did a republic ever let a constitution get in their way?

I am a libertarian and disagree with a large percentage of what is posted on this blog. I must say, however, that I could not agree more with Kari's post. The fact that Bruce Hanna and/or his advisors would think it was a smart political move to call for a special session to rectify the Duyck situation is just unfathomable. As Kari points out, the plain language of the constitution makes it clear this is a problem that cannot be fixed by the legislature during a special session. Calling a special session for the purpose of fixing a problem that can't be fixed during a special session makes Hanna look like an imbecile. Moreover, the inability of an individual to run for political office is plainly not an issue of statewide significance justifying an "emergency" special session. Why on earth should taxpayers pay per diem for 90 legislators and foot the other costs of holding a special session so that a single individual has the opportunity to run for the legislature? One of the primary reasons I disagree with Democrats on a lot of issues is that Democrats tend to believe government should intervene whenever things aren't fair or bad things happen. My problem with Republicans is they increasingly tend to share this world view - as the Duyck situation demonstrates. While there are indeed situations where government intervention is appropriate, I do not think the government has an obligation to fix every problem and rectify every injustice.

Do you speak of the same lars larson that lives in Washington but love to give the impression that he still live in OR? The same lars larson who will be (hopefully) paying a toll every time he comes to work or goes home (forgot the other bridge! Nice commute he’ll have going the long way) Is the with which you chat of?

Here is the link Carla. Sorry, I should have given it before, hopefully there are still a few people to discuss it..