Libertarian seeks tax-raising Republican's Oregon House seat

www.lp.org ^ | 3 28 04 | www.lp.org

[freepatriot32]

Oregon Libertarian Tom Cox is following up on his promise: He said last year -- when he was chairman of the state Libertarian Party -- that Republican legislators in his state who voted to approve a tax hike would be opposed when they came up for re-election. He is now running against one of those Republicans.

And his move has been noted -- and applauded -- by local media and lawmakers alike.

The Salem Statesman Journal, in the capital city, pointed out that both Libertarians and some Republicans said they would do their utmost to kick those lawmakers out of office, but that Republicans had not stepped up to the plate to challenge GOP incumbents.

Only Libertarians are fielding opposition to the 10 tax-increasing Republicans, and Cox stands a good chance of winning his campaign against incumbent Rep. Mary Gallegos for the state House District 29 seat, the Statesman Journal reported.

Cox ran a high-profile gubernatorial race in 2002, then was a spokesman on three state-wide ballot initiatives -- including Measure 30, which would have raised taxes by $1.2 billion over three years -- so he enjoys strong name recognition in the state.

The facts that Measure 30 was defeated in February by 59 percent of the state's voters and that the Libertarians were given much media attention in the tax hike's defeat shed an even more positive light on Cox's race, since he was a primary opponent of the measure.

Cox also has the public support of at least three incumbent legislators: "He's had several Republicans coming to him, saying 'I think you have a real good shot at this,' said Elizabeth "Pith" Lourdes, one of Cox's campaign workers.

"We have an extremely good chance against Gallegos," Lourdes said. "She is not doing an entirely bad job, but she voted to raise taxes a couple of times."

And those tax-raising votes are enough reason to want any incumbent out of office, she said.

"Gallegos is a very nice lady, but nice doesn't get the job done," she added. "She was under pressure, and she took the easy way out."

Two Democrats -- Chuck Riley and Elena Uhing -- have also filed in the District 29 primary. Riley was the party's nominee in 2002, when Gallegos won her first term.

Cox doesn't have to run in the primary, making for a three-way race in November.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

As the good conservative I am, I investigated behind the propaganda and sought out the heart of the website and found attempts to lure children, link porn and other crap.

...

Again, the article doesn't easily state what this was going to be taxes for, was there a need, what was the reason for this?

So, you can spend all the time in the world to investigate pot sites and kiddie porn sites, but when it comes to investigating why your fellow republicans in Oregon might have voted to raise taxes by $1.1 billion, suddenly you've lost your investigative skills.

Like I wrote, republicans are weak, not strong.

It was ever thus...

[A CA Guy]

What is stopping you from answering my question about what the substance of the issue was?

Tell me why they were going for this tax?

It is not easy to figure out based on just reading the libertarian article because they only listed the amount without the reason.

What was the reason for the tax?

Could be a horrible or a great reason if there was a need in the state that had to be addressed. Unfortunately the libertarian article was propaganda driven and not content heavy at all.

[Sweet Land]

You accuse me of being silent about them in a post responding to my speaking about them?

What's the problem?

The problem is that the post you were replying to disproves the accusation with which you replied.

You and your preferred politcal party(Libertarian)

Who says?

I see you're still hiding from Dan's simple question, coward.

Do you support the "1/3 of the Oregon pubbies"?

A simple yea or nay will do.

[A CA Guy]

I was left with the "links" to these devil worshiping sites by libertarians.

At least the other libertarian link went somewhere, this story is vapid regarding facts and has no link to tell us what the tax was about.

Are you telling me this whole thread you went bonkers over the number without a clue about the substance of the tax or if it was needed? Seems thin to me. You may have drank the koolaide too fast.

Can't we get a brief version of what the measure was about from the libertarians that were bold enough to post the story here?

Conservatives like to have "all" the facts and they are not in the libertarian story which indicates that libertarians like liberals are not heavy on the details or the facts involved.

[Sweet Land]

Could be a horrible or a great reason if there was a need in the state that had to be addressed.

A legitimate need still does not justify a tax increase. Only a legitimate need *and* nothing already in the budget that could be cut, can justify a tax increase. Do you seriously think that there is nothing in the Oregon budget that could be cut?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Could be a horrible or a great reason if there was a need in the state that had to be addressed. Unfortunately the libertarian article was propaganda driven and not content heavy at all.

When it comes to investigating your fellow republican's actions, you're awfully lazy, aren't you?

I did notice you were pretty agressive when it came to investigating libertarians, however.

If I tell you what this was about, do you promise to answer my question about whether you support the republicans' votes to raise taxes by $1.1 billion? (Hint: check posts #104 & #198)

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Are you telling me this whole thread you went bonkers over the number without a clue about the substance of the tax or if it was needed? Seems thin to me. You may have drank the koolaide too fast.

Yup, that's it. You got me. </sarcasm>

I can see now why you have a 38" waist.

You are L-A-Z-Y with a capital "L".

I only posted this info twice on this thread. (HINT: SEE POSTS #104 AND #198)

Naturally, you're too lazy to go to google.com and type in measure 30, oregon.

[xrp]

Dane, notice this child seeking total crap that the libertarian linked to me when offering their pot propoganda.

Hi, sorry. What libertarian?

[A CA Guy]

A legitimate need could justify a tax increase if the need was crucial. But I would expect the government to do things better so that tax does not have to become permanent.

I think anything in the Oregon budget that could be cut would probably come close to 10% of the needed Billion plus dollars.

I would suggest they pass a balanced budget amendment in that state to curb growth of future spending.

[A CA Guy]

No, I'm at a 34-35 right now and exercised 3 hours in Racquetball Sunday. I could be in better shape, but am not in the worst by a long shot.

Thanks for providing 104, all you had to do was point it out to me.

It is a form of exactly what happened to us with Gray Davis as he grew the government by 40% as the revenues only increased by 25%.
Our debt due to that bastard is 19 BILLION.

Guess what, we passed a bond rather than a state bankrupts and we will have to pay it.
We added another balanced budget amendment to the mix to offset attempted future spending.

This is all a result of folks believing in government that the revenue from all the stock gains would never end.

I don't like the tax form directly and would have suggested that Oregon pass a bond and balanced budget amendment as we in California have done.

You can't bankrupt the state. No way you can cut all at once what was needed, so a bond should have been pursued, and later revenue would have had to be paid by increased taxes YES.
Or they could TAX not temporary.

It would be unlikely they could gut the budget and throw mental patients on the street. Not likely to happen.

[A CA Guy]

Some pro-drug pot advocate pushing pot as good somewhere earlier in the thread.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Guess what, we passed a bond rather than a state bankrupts and we will have to pay it. We added another balanced budget amendment to the mix to offset attempted future spending.

Guess again. Those spending increases put into place by Davis and the democrats are permanent.

Did Ahnold suggest any cuts to the spending increases put into the budget? Nope. He only suggested that the bond be passed so that Davis' spending increases could be paid for legally, but the budget is still $19B larger and will be staying that way. The only republican suggesting spending cuts was McClintock. I saw how poorly he was treated by your fellow republicans for his efforts. Kind of funny how the so-called 11th commandment wasn't observed in his case, isn't it?

Bustamante wanted to raise taxes to pay for Davis' debt, just like the Oregon republicans.

So, if you support the republicans in Oregon who voted to raise their taxes, then you're no different than a Bustamante supporter.

[Sweet Land]

A legitimate need still does not justify a tax increase. Only a legitimate need *and* nothing already in the budget that could be cut, can justify a tax increase. Do you seriously think that there is nothing in the Oregon budget that could be cut?

A legitimate need could justify a tax increase if the need was crucial.

No, as I said, only if there was *also* nothing already in the budget that could be cut.

I think anything in the Oregon budget that could be cut would probably come close to 10% of the needed Billion plus dollars.

So you accept without question the Rat/RINO claim that those billions were "needed"? Some conservative you are.

[jmc813]

Dane, since abortion seems to be one of your big issues, I'd be interested in your opinion on this. In 1997 here in Jersey, we had a three way gubernatorial race. The candidates were the pro-abortion scumbag Democrat Jim McGreevy, the pro-abortion RINO Christie Witless, and the staunchly pro-life Libertarian candidate Murray Sabrin. I voted for Sabrin. Would you have?

[jmc813]

I'd be interested in your opinion on the situation I described in the previous post.

[jmc813]

The only republican suggesting spending cuts was McClintock. I saw how poorly he was treated by your fellow republicans for his efforts.

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that two (R)nold supporters are lecturing people on conservatism?

[Dane]

In 1997 here in Jersey, we had a three way gubernatorial race. The candidates were the pro-abortion scumbag Democrat Jim McGreevy, the pro-abortion RINO Christie Witless, and the staunchly pro-life Libertarian candidate Murray Sabrin. I voted for Sabrin. Would you have?

Well first of all I say thank God that I don't live in Jersey, the home of Corzine, Torricelli, Lautenberg, Bradley, Mcgreevey, and even Christine Whitman.

New Jersey is a pro-abortion state, what else can I say, so then it becomes a strategic vote. Whitman did cut taxes and was the incumbant, McGreevey I think in 97 got within 25,000 votes for her. McGreevey would be worse than Whitman IMO, so I would have held my nose and voted for Whitman.

New Jersey is paying dearly with McGeevey and I would have voted enthusiatically for Schundler in 01.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that two (R)nold supporters are lecturing people on conservatism?

No, I don't find them hilarious. I find their tactics to be utterly disgusting.

They had no problems ignoring my repeated requests for a simple answer about whether they supported the tax-raising republicans in Oregon.

Instead of getting a straight yes or no answer, I was demonized variously as a dope smoker, kool-aide drinker and al-queda supporter, without a shred of evidence, I might add.

Then, when that line of attack failed, they either retreated without answering or pleaded ignorance in spite of the fact that I had posted information that described what was being taxed, not once, but twice to this thread. Naturally, they 'overlooked' it.

They can spend all kinds of time to research ways to skewer the libertarian party, but refused to spend even a single minute to find out about this massive tax increase voted for by 11 republican legislators.

Even then, they never came out and said whether they support the Oregon republican spend-and-taxers or not.

These two are the poster children for today's republican party --Mentally lazy, morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest.

[jmc813]

New Jersey is paying dearly with McGeevey and I would have voted enthusiatically for Schundler in 01.

Bret is awesome. I worked on his team in '01, and have been writing him like a pain in the a$$ encouraging him to run again next year.

[A CA Guy]

True, the 40% increases were from a 40% growth by Davis of the California government.

There is a budget limit in place and next year things get cut or all take a cut, but we don't continue like we did under Davis.