Saturday, October 13, 2007

OR HR2 Garbage; Merkley and Novick

Here is HR2, passed in 2003

72nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2003 Regular Session


House Resolution 2

Sponsored by Representative KROPF; Representatives KNOPP,

Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop
weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1441; and
Whereas the dictator Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against
neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq; and
Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global
economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; now,

Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of

That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the
Seventy-second Legislative Assembly:
(1) Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the
President's cabinet and the men and women of the Armed Forces of
the United States, and express our support for the victorious
removal of Saddam Hussein from power; and
(2) Praise the courage, dedication, professionalism and
sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United
States and their families in the defense of freedom.

Now, you can cut what this says any way you want and it will come out a Catch 22 Republican inspired piece of propagandist crap. Vote against it and you're voting against (2), vote for it and you're voting for the preamble and (1). Democratic legislators made choices about this, and so did I. I was pissed off beyond measure that any Democrat voted for this junk, that was then, now is now. I recognize now as then what the choices were and I will not move off my point of the time, you do not vote FOR something that stinks. My point of view. Period.

That alone does not disqualify Jeff Merkley in my mind, nor does it automatically make Steve Novick the superior candidate. I have come pretty close to being angry with the partisan bloggers for both candidates. Discussion of a vote is not a personal attack, calling names about either the vote or the critique of it is personal attack, and stupid and pointless partisanship. There are very real issues at play in this country and in Oregon that will demand a Senator's attention and I'd like to know what that attention will amount to, and also that that our Senator can stand up to power without making unnecessary enemies.

At this point in time the candidates have acted responsibly on this issue, I congratulate them for not descending into childishness, some of their supporters don't seem to know when to shut up. The ones with their minds made up are not going to change them despite your presentations and the ones with their minds open are going to hold some of this against your candidate. If you don't STFU you are going to cost your candidate votes. So far my anger over this is pretty much "equal opportunity" applied. Some people have said/written things that should not have been said and those things are going to last and be remembered.

The OBJECT of this exercise is to defeat Sen Gordon Smith (OR-R) in 2009 and to do so with the best representative of Oregon. I want to know who that person is, I don't really care what he thinks about the other guy, I want to know what he thinks about ME. So let's go there.

Don't bring that fight over here. I'm not in the least interested and I'll just ashcan it. I do not have to provide space for stupidity that already has its space.


Zak J. said...

I see you'll soon have a chance to have both candidates in a forum near you. Be sure to drill them both on the 2nd Amendment. Hopefully both candidates and their campaigns have learned something. Perhaps that's the point of a long primary. I mean, look at the growth in Obama over the past couple months after being repeatedly raked over the coals for thinking outloud. If they don't get real nasty and damage each other, they'll both emerge stronger candidates for having had a contested primary. Barring something really untoward, I can't see why either of these guys wouldn't have broad support in the general. They're both Democrats' Democrats.

On the war, I know not a lot of people agree with me on this one, but I think that, being honest, if Bush hadn't unfunded, unmanned, and in other ways totally bungled his Iraqi adventure then his popularity ratings would never have suffered. Most people I talk to--on the left and also the right--aren't as upset by the way we got into this war as by the way it's been mishandled. People will always demand the hide of a losing king; always have, always will. And that's all most of the anti-Bush rhetoric has behind it. I agree he is a liar and a snake and ought to be impeached for 100 reasons, but the general public is only turned against him as they are against a losing quarterback. The subtleties of international law and moral justice are more in their minds when they see their team losing than at other times.

KISS said...

I have reservations on Merkley but if he is running against Smith I'll vote for him..hold the nose thing.
Zak, do you really believe that if these two say they will support the 2nd amendment they are being truthful? You and I both know neither of them believe it is our right to own and bear arms, And remember Zak, politicians have a right to says supreme court of Washington.

Zak J. said...

Not sure what you're basing your statement on Kiss--what's your basis for saying neither Merkley nor Novick are pro 2nd Amendment? My discussions with them and their supporters have not led me to that conclusion.

Chuck Butcher said...

The (D) does not just mean "gun grabber" and I'll make that point real clear, C H Butcher III (D) candidate in 06 Democratic Primary 2CD. It is rude to prejudge somebody and results in uninformed decision making.

Chuck Butcher said...

I'd tend to agree with you this far on the war, I don't think approval of the war would have nose dived so badly minus the mismanagement. His domestic crap is still his domestic crap.

I'd like to have all sorts of faith in the electorate, well - I'd like to.

Something that gets lost is that the electorate does eventually figure things out, they can get swayed for awhile by flashy shiny items, but it seems to wear off.

KISS said...

Chuck, you caught me off guard I had read about Merkley on OFF newsletter, I think.
So being as brazen I I am I contacted each of them via their web-site and I asked " Where do you stand on Gun-Control and the 2nd Amendment?" That's it nothing more. Today these yellow dogs have not answered me. Nothing like a good politician to waffle or weasel out. So glad to be a clean Independent.

Larry McD said...

You boys really get your longjohns in a twist over your guns don't you? My problem with those of you who go gaga over the 2nd Amendment is that so many of you seem to believe that it's an absolute right to own anything that fires projectiles at high speed.

I'm a veteran with firearms training. I own three firearms of my own, none of which would I refer to as my "gun." And I agree with Howard Dean that it makes a great deal more sense for states to regulate ownership of ordinary firearms than it does for the Feds to do it. On the other hand, I don't think there's a problem with the Feds restricting the sale of military value weapons.

I'm pleased that Chuck has entered the fray because he's injecting a note of sanity that's missing in most of the other blogs... and I expect that to change soon. The pisser is, as Chuck states it, that either of these guys would be better than Gordo (as would Chuck) but their minions are going to insist on their right to self-righteous rage.

If we keep putting the screws to the candidates for the actions of their surrogates, we may actually start a movement...

I sure as hell hope so.

Kari Chisholm said...

Today these yellow dogs have not answered me.

Hey KISS... I'm no longer managing the Merkley campaign's inbox, but I did manage it for the first two weeks.

In just those first two weeks, the campaign received over 200 emails from people asking detailed policy questions -- and most, unlike you, asked at least a half-dozen questions -- and some, as many as two dozen questions.

I know that the campaign is working its way through those - but it does take quite a bit of time, y'know?

Chris Lowe said...

Right on Chuck! for original post. I'm planning on voting for Novick, & think this issue is bad for him.

Chuck Butcher said...

thanks for the civility in comments, to all.

Steve Culley said...

the second is abolute, "shall not be infringed" means keep your hands off my guns.

DA English said...

What I find distressing is the fact that some (not you Chuck) make the claim over and over again that it is a purely one sided attack on the part of bloggers for Novick. I think both sides have done their damage and alienated people. I've said countless times on BO that people ought to stop the attacks, however no one listens.

I have not decided which of the three candidates (yes I did say three because I'm keeping my mind open) I will be supporting. I am hesitant about both of the Democrats for different reasons and no very little about Frohenmeyer (sp?).

I commend you Chuck on trying to calm people down, but I doubt it will work.

Chuck Butcher said...

It has stayed civil here, and that is with the fact that several hundred have read this post.

KISS said...

Yes civility has prevailed and I am glad of such. I would like to say that another 3 days [ that is now about 14 days] have passed an I have no answer from Novick or Merkley]
Strange that Kari Chisholm who has blocked me from BO has so far tried to scapegoat from the obvious crayfishing. Hey Kari, not my fault either.