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.

[xrp]

I know, I know, they aren't pro-drug because there candidates don't use or promote drugs. That stance is like the demos on abortion. Lot's of democrats will say they are personally against abortion, but it should remain legal, thus they are pro-abortion.

Poor comparison. Abortion is a violation of the rights of someone else (the fetus/baby). Smoking marijuana/doing whatever drugs only harms the drug user. If you're a Christian, then you hopefully believe that you personally own your body, in a partnership with G-d. The only other alternative is that you believe the state owns your body, not in partnership with you.

[Dane]

Actually, I would agree that "pro-abortion" is not (usually) an accurate term. It's closer to the truth (when applied to liberals) than "pro-choice;" I've heard "pro-abortion-choice" suggested as the right term for most liberals.

Whew back to the late 90's when parsing was in vogue.

[xrp]

That's OK, your #31 post referring to a "political party", not the state branch of a particular "political party".

Nice try at trying to change the subject, close but no doobie.

[Il Duce]

Yes, the LP is in favor of the decriminalization of drugs.

For one thing, we don't particularly cotton to the government telling us what to do or not to do with our bodies. We believe in individual liberty, and that includes the freedom to ingest or not ingest chemicals. We believe people are free to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, eat fried chicken, or smoke a joint.

The same government that can outlaw marijuana is the same government that can ban alcohol (done that), ban cigarette smoking (on its way to doing that), or ban fried, unhealthy foods (haven't quite gotten this far yet).

The LP position is simple: small government, individual liberty. The criminalization of drugs is incompatible with both positions.

As far as abortion goes, the LP does have a position. For your convenience, I'll copy the relevant portion of the platform here:

Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.

We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.

It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements, and/or home births.

[Dane]

Poor comparison. Abortion is a violation of the rights of someone else (the fetus/baby).

Hey don't complain to me, complain to the LP, they are the ones silent about abortion.

[xrp]

Hey don't complain to me, complain to the LP, they are the ones silent about abortion.

Oh I agree with you there. The Libertarian Party definitely needs to get its act in gear regarding protecting the rights of the unborn.

[ServesURight]

Gee why doesn't he run as a Republican.

Because like a three-year old kid throwing a temper tantrum, he wants to "show" those Republicans what will happen to them by throwing the election to the Rats.

Libertarians are losers

[Dane]

Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.

We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.

It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements, and/or home births

IOW, the same stance the demos have with abortion, that it should be legal. I surmise partial birth abortion is covered under "fetal surgery".

[Sweet Land]

If you're a Christian, then you hopefully believe that you personally own your body, in a partnership with G-d.

I'm a Christian, and I do not believe that I personally own my body in a partnership with G-d; I believe that He appointed me acting manager.

[Il Duce]

Ah, so they have a position--one that advocates small government--consistent with the LP's stance.

I'm not going to get into a debate on abortion here, because I'm not interested in doing so. But the stance is clear and it is there: ok, you don't like it; many Libertarian's disagree with it, but it's there, and it is consistent with the LP's position of small government and individual rights.

[xrp]

I'm a Christian, and I do not believe that I personally own my body in a partnership with G-d; I believe that He appointed me acting manager.

Essentially what I meant. In other words, you can treat it like a temple (take care of yourself) or trash it (indulge in drugs/vice/etc) and answer to Him when the time comes.

[Il Duce]

many Libertarian's disagree

This clearly should have been "many Libertarians disagree..."

[Sweet Land]

like a three-year old kid throwing a temper tantrum, he wants to "show" those Republicans what will happen to them by throwing the election to the Rats.

Libertarians are losers

So you have information that contradicts this from the article?

"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".

[Hank Rearden]

Gee why doesn't he run as a Republican.

Because the evidence, at state and federal levels, shows that Republicans are tax-raising, deficit-increasing, Big Stupid Government-growing weasels.

[Dane]

I'm not going to get into a debate on abortion here, because I'm not interested in doing so

I am not surprised.

You are taking the typical Libertarian stance on abortion.

An issue that can be wished away. That's not dealing with reality, IMO.

[Dane]

"Cox also has the public support of at least three incumbent legislators"

Demo or Pubbie? It doesn't mention who in this LP press release.

[Il Duce]

I see. Because I'm not interested in discussing something that is entirely irrelevant, this is "typical" of Libertarians?

I think you've amply demonstrated your ignorance of the libertarian position here today. Again, we return to my original assertion: that the Libertarian Party is a conservative group, and runs for Republican seats, generally, because the LP finds more support amongst Republicans than it does Democrats because of its conservative position of small government, free markets, and individual liberty.

Its platform is consistent, be it on drugs or abortion.

If you're really interested on my personal opinion on abortion, as far as I'm concerned, it is a position for the state legislatures of each state to decide. If New York wants to allow abortions, fine. If Indiana doesn't, then great.

[Dane]

I see. Because I'm not interested in discussing something(abortion) that is entirely irrelevant, this is "typical" of Libertarians?

If you think that abortion is irrelevant that's your opinion. No one is stopping you from you giving your opinion.

[Il Duce]

It is irrelevant to what we were discussing, yes.

[Dane]

It is irrelevant to what we were discussing, yes

So an issue(abortion) demonstrated as important in modern day American politics is irrelevent to you.

Like I said before no one is stopping you from stating that you think abortion is irrelevent.