There’s this Ron Saxton ad — it may only be a radio ad, I don’t know — which goes: “Think back to last May.  Why did 45 percent (or whatever the number is) of Democrats vote against Ted Kulongoski.  Could it be because –”

And then we get into the supposed reasons that Ted Kulongoski met a semi-serious primary threat — 45 percent off of two opponents.  And we arrive at: “Is it because CATO gave him a D grade in fiscal management?”

The answer to that question is “no”.  45 percent of Democrats did not vote for one of Kulongoski’s primary challangers because of the condemnation of a conservative policy organization.

Can we get some political advertisements that do not insult our intelligence, please?

I won’t say how I voted.  Maybe I voted for Kulongoski.  Maybe I “threw my vote away” to a third party candidate — Keating of the Greens, you would think — or would you?  Maybe I left that slot blank.  But here’s a reason to vote for Kulongoski: it’s a subtle victory for robust primary challenges against incumbant politicians, that they can be challenged and not “weakened” into the general election to a defeat.  I don’t much like the idea that the opposing party can throw up “45 percent of his own party voted against him in the primary” as a sign of supposed turptitude.

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 5th, 2006 at 4:07 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.