Libertarian seeks tax-raising Republican's Oregon House seat

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.

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.

And when they don't?...

I will post this once on abortion and will not be responding to it.

You wrote: "First off JMC813, the Governor has nothing to do with abortion law and couldn't do a damn thing about it if they wanted to."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/california.html

In California, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of December 2003:

California does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions—such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement or limitations on publicly funded abortions—often found in other states.

http://www.californiaprolife.org/legislation/taxpayer.html

Unborn Children Exterminated at the Expense of Taxpayers-- 1998:
Approximately 110,295, which includes 54,885 fee-for-service abortions, plus approximately 55,410 non-fee-for-service abortions which occur in Medi-Cal funded Prepaid Health Plans and other managed care programs.

Tax Dollars:
$34,519,905, which includes $17,176,575 for fee-for-service abortions, plus approximately $17,343,330 for abortions in the other plans.

...

Policies of the Federal Government and the Other States
The federal government pays for abortions only when necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

It was the policy in twenty-seven states to fund abortions only when the life of the mother was endangered until the Clinton administration through threats and law suits forced funding for other exceptions in several of the states. (AL, AZ, AR, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, ND, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, TX, UT)

Eight other states choose to fund abortions only when the life of the mother is endangered or when the baby has been conceived by rape or incest-- several also fund when the baby might be born with handicaps or for other exceptions. (CO, IA, NC, PA, TN, VA, WI, WY)

Eight states pay for abortions by order of their state courts. (California has been so ordered, but subsequently moved into the next category.) (CT, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, WV, VT)

Seven states and the District of Columbia fully fund abortions by legislative decision. Since 1990 the California Legislature put California in this group by voting to fund abortion on demand. (AK, CA, HI, MD, NY, OR, WA)

There are a number of things the governor can do to stop state-funded abortions. Just because the republicans in California or New Jersey or the other states that provide taxpayer-funded abortions don't have the intestinal fortitude (read: guts) to do anything to stop it doesn't mean there's nothing that they can do.

Not all libertarians are pro- abortion or gay marriage. But that's the thing about our party... we don't have to pass litmus tests.

Personally, I have problems with a few things about the LP... the war on terrorism being one. The LP needs to revise its thinking about that, and perhaps put property rights as a major focus - thanks to Neal Boortz for that idea.

I'm wasting my vote on Bush. If he wins or loses, it'll still be a wasted vote, because the ONLY thing he's worth a damn at is this terrorism war. That "tax cut" wasn't nearly even a beginning, when we need tax REFORM, but why point out the obvious? And why won't he tell Ted and the gang to STFU about Condi testifying? None of their damn business when Clinton invoked exec priv, same goes here. Get some stones, George, and start slappin' these liberals around. They're gonna dog you no matter what, so go on the attack.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.