State Representative Fred Girod has been officially chosen to replace State Senator Roger Beyer. Congrats to one of the House’s most down to earth members. Girod’s House replacement slate will likely be voted on Thursday by the local GOP precinct voters. The rumor for early entries is Marc Lucca (former Polk County Chair, Legislative staffer for Thatcher, and Salem business owner) and also Cliff Wooten (Linn County Commissioner). Others may scramble to enter today. If you are one please let us know.
Congratulations to Senator Fred Girod!
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2004/05/09/news/community/loc01-5.txt
http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2007/12/31/news/local/7loc11_filing.txt
I agree that Marc should be the new Rep. but after seeing how the Commissioners tend to ignore the PCPs (HD 18 in '06, SD 9 '08, HD 60 '07, HD 17 in '05 and probably others that I have not watched). Something needs to be done. Some are suggesting changing the law on how this process works, but you can do the same by sending a message to the Commissioners. ie give all your votes to Marc and 2 others that aren't Commissioners.
PS -I don't know this commissioner, so I am not "against" him, but I am very much FOR Marc Lucca.
Thank you, due to your links and those stories, I revise what I said before and think it is safe to say that I would be 'against' Wooten for this position.
The commissioners are not a rubber-stamp for the PCP's. If it were intended as such, there would be no point to even have the commissioners participate. Instead, the system is very much like how our elections work. The PCP's choose the best 3 to 5 candidates and put them forward...much like a primary. Then the commissioners make a decision from those 3 to 5...much like a general election.
The person being replaced was originally elected by the participation of the entire district...republicans, democrats, independents, etc. The PCP's in this scenario only represent republicans, since that's the party of the person being replaced. It makes perfect sense for the PCP's to choose which republicans to move forward, but it also makes good sense to have the commissioners choose the finalist, since the commissioners were also elected by the entire district and, in theory, represent everyone who would have had a say in the representative's race.
Commissioners have taken a lot of flack for not just rubber-stamping the top vote-getter at the central committee process, but it has nothing to do with disrespecting the will of the PCP's and everything to do with finding the best fit for that district that will represent everyone.
The commissioners, to my knowledge, have never felt as if they were disrespectful of the PCP's when they make their final decision. It's their understanding that the PCP's are putting their best people forward. If there is disagreement about who is chosen in the final round, maybe that person should not have been put forward in the first place - and (rightfully so) that is not a process that any of the commissioners control - any more than we would want democrats deciding who wins our primaries.
You may agree or disagree with the choice, as is your right. Personally, I think Girod will make a fine senator...and it happens to be my district so I'm pleased with the choice. But just because some folks didn't get what they wanted doesn't make the process flawed.
While I appreciate the enthusiasm, I am not going to criticise someone for their faith, Buddhist or otherwise. The resume I put together for this position states, in the positions "q I believe America was founded on Christian values and heritage, and this should be celebrated. However, we are a pluralistic society and nobody should be discriminated against based on external characteristics or religious beliefs (or the lack thereof)"
I do not know the religious affiliations of the other candidates. But I reject a religious litmus test for public office.
As far as the commissioners selection process goes, I have to agree with Dan. Our government is built on checks and balances. We have a bicameral legislature, 3 branches of government, 2 major competing parties, etc.
The person selected for this position will have to appeal to a broad range, and not just a narrow set, of beliefs. If chosen, I will govern conservatively, but in a manner that respects the dissenting views of others and seeks areas of mutual benefit. This can be done without compromising our principles, and that is how I would lead.
Thanks again for your support, but please keep the heat down. These are good people all with different strengths and weaknesses. Hopefully, my strengths will be recognized by both the PCPs and the commissioners.
You denoucne the tactics Marc, yet are more than willing to reap the benifits. What am I missing here?
Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin....they would have been ashamed of last night. Especially since they were all Deists.
And about Marylin -- her influence is in Marion Co.. Linn Co. PCP's votes have a greater weight in that district. So either the Linn Co. people didn't care to show up last night or they don't support their commissioner.
MC: I absolutely do stand to defend them, as I did very publicly here on this blog before the meeting, and, in fact, in one of my answers during the meeting.
And I believe our faith can stand up to any scrutiny, or it is no faith at all. I can tell you that whoever orchestrated it did not do so on my behalf, but rather for their own motives - either to support another candidate or eliminate someone.
I disagree with the popular notion that the founders were Deists. While a few were, the writings of most betray a different story.
Again, I reject 2 of the questions asked last night as inappropriate. I disagree with some of Cliff's positions but I respect his service and for him to be treated in that manner publicly was unfair. I don't know how much clearer I can be.
I think it is very easy to criticise in hindsight, and when you aren't sitting on the dais. At the time, the question seemed to rub me the wrong way, but I had to think of an answer to it. It was later, the more I thought about it the more I didn't like it. If I had it to do over again, sure I would say something.
I think the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance are a legitimate political question and it is fair to ask it. The issue could come up at the state level in legislation or litigation. To ask it in the way it was worded, though, was wrong and it was intended to hurt Cliff. If they were intended just to expose a political position that was unpopular, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. It is the right of the committee to determine if the candidate meets their criteria...but I think it should stick to the issues.
Because I believe it is a valid political issue, I had to think these distinctions through. That is what people who respect the responsibility of public office should do, in my view...not make rash statements just to play to the crowd or back down to appear tolerant. Both are wrong. Rather I think we should take a moment to look at the issue from all sides and make a decision.
Sorry if it wasn't quick enough for you or didn't come to Cliff's aid fast enough, etc. I think for me to defend my #1 opponent on the issue prior to the meeting should speak for itself.
You tout yourself as an insider wiith vast political acumen and experience. Surely you would have known that only one answer would be satisfactory to the PCP's....and only one was. You made a choice based on self-interest and decided to play dumb. You could have shown trememdous depth of character, but you let your burning desire to be appointed overcome any sense of fair play or compassion. Maybe you are ready for legislative prime-time after all.
It takes trememdous courage to face down a enemy, but that is nothing compared to the strength it takes to confront a friend about a wrongdoing. In your defense, however, no one else did. No other candidate said anything. No one from the audience rose in opposition. Not one single person spoke out. I count myself in that group as well, and I left the meeting ashamed of myself and deeply chagrined. Thank God none of us were around Germany in the late 1930's.
In retrospect, my remarks have been unkind to you Marc. I have criticized you for something that I didn't have the strength of character to do either. Your position as a candidate or a delegate or someone with a microphone was of no difference, in terms of right and wrong. I apologize to you publically for my criticism of inaction, and I realize that to single you out in a room full of people is patently unfair. We are all to blame. We, who let the question go unchallenged. We who have allowed this cancer of bigotry to grow unchecked in our party. We who have tolerated malicious zealotry and explained it away as "activism"....so long as it was benefitting us.
I do think you were hurt almost as much as Wooten by the question as it was obvious that it was a Shannon question and that there was this perception that she was with your camp in your quest to be named as a State Rep.
Folks, it's time we learned how to kill our own snakes. Kill our own snakes, and take this party back from the humiliating side-show circus that it has become.
Second, I will defend Vance and say that unless a question contained obscenity, his job is just to ask the questions presented to him. Imagine the outcry if he censored them. He did make a subtle jab at the comment by saying "I have never seen this question before," which let the audience know when they heard the question that it was basically a setup to hurt Cliff. But I think Vance did his job well and let's not drift too far into that discussion.
Those who attend party meetings regularly know that this sort of behavior has been almost eliminated. We have disagreements on ideological lines still, but that is healthy. Some want to remove pro-life planks or references to traditional marriage or the gay agenda in the platform. Others don't. We have those discussions, but they are not done with the scortched earth tactics of the former OCA. It is a much more mature and thoughful debate. Our party remains conservative, yet respectful.
A very select few still use those tactics. There will always be a few in any organization that will hang on. And I think that is what you saw the other night.
As for whether or not it hurt me, I believe it did. In the short term it helped me get out of round one, but getting out of round one is irrelevant if your electors are disgusted with you. By now, I hope you have seen a level of political sophistication that would indicate to you that I would not do that, if for no other reason than it is generally ineffective. The fact that I am also about unity through persuading others to come to my point of view (as opposed to destroying them) should also indicate to you that I try not to foster divisiveness.
I also think a cursory read of the people who put their names on paper and the words they wrote should have spoken volumes to people about who they should trust. To the PCPs, nearly all of whom had never met me before that night, it did make a difference. But I think my detractors should have read them a little more carefully and trusted them a little more fully.
But that is hindsight for you.
Now you have completely lost me. Are you telling me Marilyn Shannon only pretended to be a supporter of you so she could get Sprenger elected at your expense?
I was told she was supporting Sherrie, but I don't know that to be true either. That is what some Linn county folks told me after the meeting, and was the first I had heard of Marilynn having any interest in the outcome.
So I can't answer your question intelligently.
Is there any chance big and bold "Adolph" and "MC" are brave enough to identify themselves? Speaking of "Trolls" ... they hide under bridges. Do you think some of them could hide under fake names? Just a thought.
Please allow me to share some ideas I have developed over the past 30 years. PCP's are NOT robots or puppets, they volunteer their time and resources because they want to make a difference.
It is sour grapes talking when Mr. Adolph writes..."the PCP process is controlled by the Marylin Shannon-esque group of former OCA-ers, and if you aren't Saved, Reborn, or at least speaking in tongues, you don't have a shot."
For the record, the majority of our PCPs are Catholic & Baptist...some are LDS and there are a few Pentecostals, too. We share a common bond, we have confidence is our judgements and we want elected official who share our core values. If that is a crime, count us guilty.
For your information, I did not know about the "under God" issue until I arrived at the meeting. I'd heard about Wooten being a Buddhist. That didn't bother me, Senator Mae Yih is a Buddhist and was the most conservative voting Democrat in the Senate.
However, when I was told that the Albany Democrat Herald ran an article about him refusing to say "under God," that was a different situation.
The PCP's you proclaim are "bigots" are far from that ugly word.
I'm not sure about your political senses, but the PCPs and I are active in this process to elect conservative elected officials...and to be the majority party in both the Senate and the House. The minority party does not set the agenda, etc.
The PCP who told me about the "under God" article also said, if the PCPs know I knew about this before the vote, but kept quiet, they are going to be upset...and then added...and rightly so.
We do need to respect our County Commissioners and likewise they ought to respect us. We are all intelligent folks and there is nothing wrong with the PCPs voting in a way that gives them the most influence possible.
Years ago, Phyllis Schafly gave me great advice. She said, "If you want to be successful in this process, you must know the rules, know the rules, know the rules." Of course it doesn't hurt if you have a little influence on making the rules, too.
Think about it, do you think if Wooten would have been selected, and then ran for the seat, the House Democrat Caucus would have let "under God" go unnoticed?
They would have made certain to mail to every household (it would have been timed to arrive the same day their ballots arrived) an ugly hit piece about him refusing to say "under God."
Make no mistake, Wooten is a nice man, but this is about winning elections. To take back the House we need to "hold" HD 17 and switch two democrat seats to republican seats.
MC & Adolph, Dan & Marc have it right and with the right attitude. The last time I spoke with Marc (before I saw him at the meeting) he said he was supporting Wooten because Wooten would be holding the seat until he was ready to run. Later, I was surprised to learn Marc was running for the seat.
By the way, I've known Fred Girod since 1992. He respects our conservative prolife PCPs and now votes with us 100% of the time. He asked me to help him in his effort to replace Jeff Kropf, and I did. Fred doesn't think any of our PCPs are trolls.
So, buck up "Adolph" and MC. As they say, "Big boys don't cry (and whine)" when a girl surprises them and her hard work helps her views be successful.
If you want us to elect conservatives to office, then we are on the same side. We ought to be getting along. Publishing hateful comments about someone (when we don't get our way) isn't for us.
How about us encouraging one another instead of name-calling and spreading lies about a fellow republican?
Your fellow foot soldier, Marylin Shannon
Just to clarify, though: I never said I was supporting anyone else. I did say that I had wished that Fred had served another 2 years because this process caught me a little off guard. Sorry if I was unclear.
Also, I had a Democrat campaign operative friend say that they would have used the pledge issue just as you said, in an attempt to suppress our turnout in the general election.
PS. my advocacy re: wooten was based on the articles from a few years ago that labeled him a liberal, and quoted him advocating for liberal policies. Nothing else - except that Marc Lucca has a great command of the issues, the legislative process, and would make a great representative.