OLCV announces endorsements in the race for Oregon Governor
April 6, 2010
OLCV has announced its endorsement of both Bill Bradbury and John Kitzhaber in the 2010 race for Oregon Governor. The announcement comes after last week’s gubernatorial environmental debate, co-hosted by OLCV and four other groups. The debate, along with a questionnaire and interview, was used as criteria in the endorsement decision.
The debate, which was moderated by The Oregonian’s David Sarasohn, included Bradbury and Kitzhaber, along with Republican candidate Allen Alley. The other Republican frontrunner, Chris Dudley, declined to attend. Nearly 700 people attended the debate, and hundreds more watched it live online.
Filed in:
Topic |
News Type |
Join us in fighting for Oregon's environment
Help OLCV pass laws that protect our natural legacy, elect pro-environment candidates, and hold our elected officials accountable. Stay informed and sign up to receive email updates.
OLCV EMAIL SIGNUP
We need proactive leaders that we can depend on to protect the health of our environment and that of Oregonians.
Carla Hervert, OLCV supporter
Comments
It is always a good idea to invite the left wing (green or socialist) as well as the right wing (republican or libertarian) to a debate. Then we can really see the differences. Inviting only the right wing to challenge the preferred candidates is not really a contest. The right wing is not interested in debate, as we have seen in the US Congress. I would like to see Kitz and Bradbury respond to challenges from the left --the only challenges worth answering.
And how did you determine "viability"? Probably based on who has raised the most money. You excluded the true environmentalist from the debate: Jerry Wilson. See http://www.viva-la-revolucion.org/
You endorsed both kitz and bradbury? How does that help Democratic primary voters understand where you are at? WE have to pick one or the other in the primary, and having OLCV sit on the fence does not really help environmentally conscious voters make a decision. Certainly they are not both the same ...
Hey, Anonymous, it's possible that we Dem. voters will have to make our decision based on something other than environmental issues. Maybe you can distinguish between the two of them better on education or health care reform or something else. Also, we may have entirely different reasons for voting in the primary than in the general, which would elevate certain issues. For my part, I always vote as liberal and as green as possible in the primary, regardless of viability, in the hopes that it will pull the party leftward. In the general, I vote for whoever wins the Dem. nomination (i.e., my decision then is based on viability) - that is, I wouldn't vote for a non-viable third party candidate to "make a statement" in the general. But other people may feel differently, as I know some who would vote for a non-viable third party candidate in the general if they were confident that the Dem. was going to win anyway, whereas, if they thought their vote for the third-party candidate was going to result in a Rep. win, then they wouldn't (for example, the "Greens for Gore" back a couple presidential elections ago (the one we've all tried to erase from our memories!)). OLCV can't assume that all its members have the same selection criteria for the primary, so a dual endorsement actually makes sense in this case (whereas two really good candidates running against each other doesn't - I wish NONE of us had to make this choice!).
Why did you not let more candidates debate? You selected only 3 which does not really give anyone a clear picture of the candidates available to us. I am very disappointed and so are many of my friends that follow you too.
The groups invited who they determined to be the four most viable candidates in the race. The fourth candidate, Chris Dudley, declined to attend.