Local elections are coming up. Yes, that’s not news; they’re held in conjunction with the midterms.
It’s interesting to watch and listen to Republican candidates Brad Hicks and Christine Drazen. Such remarkable platforms!
Brad Hicks is running to represent my district in the Oregon legislature. Christine Drazen is running to replace Tina Kotek as Oregon governor.
Brad Hicks is all about bring the ‘ABC’s to Salem. These are Affordability, Balance, and Common Sense. Brad Hicks eschews questions about Donald Trump’s policies. Brad Hicks insists that he’s focusing on local issues. Hicks aims to address the cost of living by lowering taxes, opposing new tax increases, and cutting government spending.
Gosh…that sounds a lot like Trump’s economy agenda, without tariffs.
Indeed, Brad Hicks has only said one thing about Trump that the record can find in all the years which Trump has been in the Oval Office. Brad Hicks promised that Oregon law enforcement would welcome and support ICE.
Bizarre as hell for Brad Hicks to pretend he can bring affordability to Oregon without addressing the Trump-sized elephant in Washington, D.C. It’s also laughable that Brad Hicks will deliver ‘common sense’ solutions. Like what are common sense solutions? Well, to read about the rest of his promises, it’s about suspending regulations so more things can be built.
Yes, very common sense to set aside the regulations set up to protect the air, land, and water to build, build, build. Very common sense to cut taxes and oppose new taxes at a time when the Federal government has cut funding to states — especially states like Oregon, which is generally politically blue.
His own position reminds me of the Sam Brownback experiment in Kansas, which ended in an economic mess for Kansas.
In other news, Brad Hicks hasn’t come out for or against building AI and data centers in Oregon. As the former President and CEO of the Medford (Oregon) Chamber of Commerce, I can sense which way he’ll lean. The lack of a stance is very telling.
Likewise, Christine Drazen is aggressively pursuing an old-school Republican agenda. She also promises ‘common sense’ solutions. I don’t feel a need to go much into her policies because her policies and proposals are a lot like Trump and Hicks: reduce regulation. Cut government ‘waste’. Increase the business environment to attract more business. Cut taxes.
Drazen does say she’s against more AI and data center construction at the moment. But she voted against Oregon’s 2025 POWER Act. The 2025 POWER Act is a law requiring large electric utilities to place data centers into a separate rate class so tech companies absorb the costs of new energy infrastructure rather than everyday consumers. To me, her refusal to vote FOR the law shows that her words and actions do reflect her true intentions.
She reminds me of Sen. Susan Collins, often mouthing the right sentiments, but then voting against what she says.
At any rate, Hicks and Drazen refuse to talk about Trump. Refuse to align with him or distance themselves with from him. They believe that burying their heads in the sand when it comes to Trump will win them some votes.
That’s probably true. There are always ‘never-Democrat’ voters. Staunch MAGAts are still out there, laboring away at the misconception that Trump cares for them and will improve their life and think that more business will save the nation.
I disagree and will not vote for Trump or secret surrogates like Brad Hicks and Christine Drazen. To me, they are imposters and cowards.
Vote blue.
Do Independents say where on the political line they stand? I’m just wondering if Indies take away votes for Dems and/or Reps.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Republicans in some areas are aggressively promoting third party Socialist candidates to steal votes from Dems. Independents. Independents are expressing an anti-Trump sentiment in many areas, but it depends on their reasoning for voting for Trump. Those who thought he wouldn’t start wars and would lower prices are angry seem more inclined to vote with Dems. Those who are angry with polarization in the nation and the two-party system are harder to characterize. Cheers, M
LikeLike
I have to admit, I cannot understand an either/or, two party system. To start, the electorate needs more defined systems. And while when your Constitution was written there were really only two political/philosophic ideals, liberalism and conservatism, now there are so many different philosophical isms and subdivisions of isms thereof that give the electorate a better idea of who they are voting for: communism, socialism, democratic socialism, far left liberalism, medium liberalism, mild liberalism mixed with mild conservatism (centralism?), ymedium conservatism, far-right convervatism (MAGAtism), dictatorships and and even royalty. And there could be Green Parties with similar subdivisions of their own.
Not that I would want that many choices on balllot, but a minimum 4 and a maximum 6 at a time so as not to end up with no clear winner. For example in Canada we have 5 main parties in federal elections and if no party has a majority then the party with the most votes can look to either form a minority government, or a coalition which give a smaller party a chance to co-govern even though they seldom get the chance to gain a majority.
In some European governments there are an excessive number of parties, and political chaos can occur.
Such are my thoughts, even though I would not vote for any of those isms, divisions, etc. I am a party of one, I believe given the chance and a bit of time, people can individually govern themselves to the point no actual goverment is necessary to make laws, run economies, fund police departments, or even armed forces. People right now are so damned coddled that they have no need to think for themselves. Nor is it possible for everyone to have equal access to the major and minor needs of life, shelter, food, healthcare, commodities, etc. Capitalist societies depend on having unequalities of satisfactions of needs.
Would there be much crime if everyons had everything they needed to live a good and happy lifestyle? Obviously there still would be, satisfying needs can only go so far. But the reduction of needs for jails, prisons, or other such inhumane punishments would drop drastically.
I better stop here, I am already getting to uthings that are so foreign to today’s world I probably sound insane. But as far as I can see, everyone in this world is insane. Sanity is something we can only dream of.
LikeLike