Posted on 03/29/2004 5:25:31 AM PST by 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.
Why would that be less likely if the incumbents are Republicans?
Uh because it isn't mentioned in the LP press release.
That makes no sense at all.
Nah man, because the Nazis aren't embracing your ideals. But the Free Czech resistance is, so you might end up fighting with them.
In retrospect, those 6 players that you loved didn't get picked up by the Yankees, but rather the Boston Red Sox. So, the Red Sox now have the 6 main players (issues/reasons) that you are a fan of baseball. Sure, they play against the Mets (interleague play) but they also play against the Yankees more.
So, I guess the point is that this particular person is more loyal to players (ideals) than he/she is to the team (political party) since the player transcends the team. Just like conservative ideals, freedom and liberty transcend (and are ignored by) the Republican Party.
Uh sweetness, read the article posted for this thread, you will notice that the political affiliation of the three "incumbants" from this LP press release is not mentioned.
But what they you probably give the Wash Compost and CBS, the same benefit of the doubt.
How dare I question the veracity of a LP press release. Correct?
Sounds to me like the Republican Party needs to do more to attract the L/libertarian vote then!
Nader didn't defeat Gore in Florida, Gore defeated Gore in Florida. Likewise, L/libertarians don't cost Republicans elections, Republicans cost Republicans elections.
Whoops sweeteness, sorry about the typos, the above should read.
But what the hey you(sweet land) probably give the Wash Compost and CBS, the same benefit of the doubt
Sorry about that, but what the hey I know that I am not some sort of "god" as strident Libertarians think they are, IMO.
That is irrelevant to your claim that "if those three "incumbant" persons [...] are democrats, they certainly would give private support to Mr. Cox" and your apparent implication that if if those three incumbent persons were Republicans it is less than certain that they would give private support to Mr. Cox.
Maybe you should just say plainly what point you were trying to make.
Huh? What are you talking about. The Libertarians seem intent on electing democrats.
Kinda of going after a lost cause, IMO.
No...I think actually Libertarians are trying to elect Libertarians. You?
The onus is not on me. The onus is on the LP.
I can't help it if they decide to not to disclose what the political affiliation of the three incumbants are.
JMO, using common sense, the three "incumbants" are demos, since the LP press release which this thread is based on is anti-Republican.
Libertarians are trying to elect themselves by attacking their political enemies.
The democrats do the same thing.
Looks like the Libertarians and the democrats have the same political enemy.
That's a poor excuse for common sense. I would expect demos to support their own candidate.
No, I fully expect this type of 'logic' from a republican.
Republicans can only fight one battle at a time or can only run against one candidate. If there's two or more, expect the republican to lose. (Or break down and cry)
This is why Bush lost to Clinton and why Dole lost to Clinton.
If Perot hadn't run in 1992, Bush would've beat Clinton. If Perot hadn't run in 1996, Dole would've beat Clinton.
See how this works?
Since the Republican has two opponents, (count them, 2) they will break down and start whining about how unfair life is.
Just look at Dane. Judging from his posts on this thread, it's clear he's a classic republican crybaby. (A libertarian is criticizing a tax-raising republican and not criticizing a democrat Oh, the humanity.)
Republicans aren't strong. They're weak. This is why they start whining everytime someone criticizes 'their' guy and not the 'other' guy.
You tell me. It was the LP press release that decided not to disclose the political affiliation of the three "incumbants" the press release mentioned.
Why is the LP afraid of full disclosure?
Like I wrote, republicans are weak, not strong.
I think Harry Browne must have run over his dog
Please Harry Browne ran over America when he said that 9/11 was America's fault. he and Richard Vlarke are smoking doobies in the same car, IMO.
But what the hey, no one is stopping you from agreeing with Harry Browne.
JMO, thank God we don't we have a Libertarian President Harry Browne who would be on his knees in Mecca begging for forgiveness about America's sins.
Oh yeah, Mr. Libertarian Harry Browne would pobably have Oldsmobile ted kennedy right by his side.
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.