Oregon 2nd Congressonal District GOP primary - an analysis
Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon's gigantic 2nd Congressional District (basically, everything east of the Cascades, plus Medford) is retiring. Eleven Republicans are running to replace him.
Since the 2nd is one of the reddest districts in the country, it's a safe bet that our next Congresscritter will be chosen in the Primary - 'coz whomever wins the Democrat primary will have about the same chance in November as a snowman in Hell.
So, if you're a Republican, and you're in this district, you'll be choosing our next Congresscritter, so you'd better choose wisely. Whom to choose? Have you even thought about it yet? Here is my analysis.
We can eliminate six of them right off the bat. All except one have raised no money, and all have $0 or less in their campaign treasury. None have any experience. With two exceptions, none have even bothered to put an ad in the Voter's Pamphlet. In Oregon, if you don't have an ad in the Voter's Pamphlet, you're not serious.
David Campbell
Glenn Carey
Travis Fager
Kenneth Medenbach
Mark Roberts
Jeff Smith
We can eliminate one more: Jimmy Crumpacker. He's a Portlander who just moved here to the east side a few weeks ago. Claims to be an "avid outdoorsman" but has never had an Oregon hunting license until a few weeks ago.
Unfortunately, Crumpacker has the coveted endorsement of Oregon Right To Life, which in my opinion is a big mistake on their part. There are other pro-lifers in the race; indeed, ALL of the other candidates except one are pro-Life.
That leaves four viable candidates. Let's look at them one by one, in alphabetical order:
However, Jason is not well funded, having raised less than $200,000 with less than $30K of it left in the bank. His pandering to the Religious Right is also a bit troubling.
I could vote for him, if there were no better candidate, and would not be displeased were he to win.
He was one of the 11 brave Senate Republicans to walk out of the state Senate last year, for which he could have been arrested, to deny the Democrat-controlled chamber a quorum to pass their devastating Global Warming Cap and Tax bill last year.
He is the 3rd-best funded candidate at this writing, with a quarter of a million dollars in the bank.
At this writing, he is the candidate I'm most likely to vote for.
I consider him a RINO. He is solid on fiscal issues but is unforgivably soft on gun rights, including not allowing 18-to-21-year-olds to buy "assault weapons," whatever those are. For me, that alone is a deal-killer, but he is also soft in some other 2A areas.
His stand on abortion is fine with me -- NO government funding for abortion -- but since he is not adamantly anti-abortion, for everyone, all of the time, he's going to lose support from the rabid religious right.
He is the best-funded of all the candidates, having raised over a million dollars (a big chunk of which came from Phil Knight, which is a little scary) and has nearly half of that still in the bank. He also has the best name recognition of any of the candidates. My prediction is that he'll be the winner, and I'll be (reluctantly) voting for him in November.
Because as bad as he is, he'll still be orders of magnitude better than any of the 'Crats that are running.
He is a weak candidate, with the least amount of money of any of the candidates (save one who is in the hole), with only $3,000 and change at the last reporting deadline.
Since the 2nd is one of the reddest districts in the country, it's a safe bet that our next Congresscritter will be chosen in the Primary - 'coz whomever wins the Democrat primary will have about the same chance in November as a snowman in Hell.
So, if you're a Republican, and you're in this district, you'll be choosing our next Congresscritter, so you'd better choose wisely. Whom to choose? Have you even thought about it yet? Here is my analysis.
We can eliminate six of them right off the bat. All except one have raised no money, and all have $0 or less in their campaign treasury. None have any experience. With two exceptions, none have even bothered to put an ad in the Voter's Pamphlet. In Oregon, if you don't have an ad in the Voter's Pamphlet, you're not serious.
David Campbell
Glenn Carey
Travis Fager
Kenneth Medenbach
Mark Roberts
Jeff Smith
We can eliminate one more: Jimmy Crumpacker. He's a Portlander who just moved here to the east side a few weeks ago. Claims to be an "avid outdoorsman" but has never had an Oregon hunting license until a few weeks ago.
Unfortunately, Crumpacker has the coveted endorsement of Oregon Right To Life, which in my opinion is a big mistake on their part. There are other pro-lifers in the race; indeed, ALL of the other candidates except one are pro-Life.
That leaves four viable candidates. Let's look at them one by one, in alphabetical order:
Jason Atkinson
I deem Jason a Good Man. He's from southern Oregon, and has legislative experience, including fourteen years in the state Senate. Has an A+ rating from the NRA.However, Jason is not well funded, having raised less than $200,000 with less than $30K of it left in the bank. His pandering to the Religious Right is also a bit troubling.
I could vote for him, if there were no better candidate, and would not be displeased were he to win.
Cliff Bentz
A Good Man. Third-generation Eastern Oregon (Ontario) rancher: he's one of us. Has a law degree, and has solid legislative experience: ten years in the State House, two years State Senate. Says he supports 2A and says he's pro-life because he's a Catholic. Doesn't otherwise make a big deal about his religion.He was one of the 11 brave Senate Republicans to walk out of the state Senate last year, for which he could have been arrested, to deny the Democrat-controlled chamber a quorum to pass their devastating Global Warming Cap and Tax bill last year.
He is the 3rd-best funded candidate at this writing, with a quarter of a million dollars in the bank.
At this writing, he is the candidate I'm most likely to vote for.
Knute Buehler
Knute was the Republican nominee for Governor two years ago and I would have -- reluctantly -- voted for him had I not missed the voter registration deadline. He's from Bend, a doctor, and has served a couple of terms in the State House - not enough to be a seasoned veteran thereof.I consider him a RINO. He is solid on fiscal issues but is unforgivably soft on gun rights, including not allowing 18-to-21-year-olds to buy "assault weapons," whatever those are. For me, that alone is a deal-killer, but he is also soft in some other 2A areas.
His stand on abortion is fine with me -- NO government funding for abortion -- but since he is not adamantly anti-abortion, for everyone, all of the time, he's going to lose support from the rabid religious right.
He is the best-funded of all the candidates, having raised over a million dollars (a big chunk of which came from Phil Knight, which is a little scary) and has nearly half of that still in the bank. He also has the best name recognition of any of the candidates. My prediction is that he'll be the winner, and I'll be (reluctantly) voting for him in November.
Because as bad as he is, he'll still be orders of magnitude better than any of the 'Crats that are running.
Justin Livingston
Justin is from Bend and does have governmental experience, all of it local. He's on the city council and has been on several local boards and commissions. He's trying to punch a little above his weight.He is a weak candidate, with the least amount of money of any of the candidates (save one who is in the hole), with only $3,000 and change at the last reporting deadline.
posted by Ken | 9:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home