I'm Voting For Chris Dudley

[ABM]

I've only lived here for a week, but it's become very apparent that this state is in great need of CHANGE!!!!

 

[andalusian]

I've only lived here for a week, but it's become very apparent that this state is in great need of CHANGE!!!!

You can move back to Vancouver and have change for both parties!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Neither choice is very good.

From our largest city to the governor's office there is a giant void of quality leadership in this state.

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

I've only lived here for a week, but it's become very apparent that this state is in great need of CHANGE!!!!

You and Duds should move back to Vancouver. Just kidding

I wouldn't mind a Republican Governor, but only if he/she managed to shrink PERS down to a size small enough to be left alone in a bathtub.

 

[MARIS61]

Given the choice between stale, unappealing leftovers (Kitzhaber) and a fresh, steaming pile of dog doo (Dudley), I'll take the leftovers.

 

[Eastoff]

i'll just leave this here... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/the-simple-arithmetic-of_b_124510.html

 

[MARIS61]

i'll just leave this here... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/the-simple-arithmetic-of_b_124510.html

Remember the last time the number of jobs grew more rapidly under an Republican president? John McCain can't. Because he wasn't born yet. Over the past 75 years, one trend has held constant. Rapid job growth only occurs when there's a Democrat in The White House.

No Republican President -- not Eisenhower, not Nixon, not Reagan, not Bush -- has ever created more jobs, or created jobs at a faster rate, than his Democratic predecessor. It's not even close. The contrast has been especially stark over the past 16 years, when 23.1 million jobs were created under Clinton and less than 5 million were created under Bush. On average, job growth under Democrats is more than twice that under Republicans.

Whatever benchmark you use, the difference is dramatic. Since Truman was elected in 1948, 53.2 million new jobs were created during the 24 years when Democrats held The White House, and 38.3 million were created during the 36 years of Republican administrations. Check it out for yourself:


Millions of Jobs Added
Truman 1949 -1952 5.2
Eisenhower 1953 - 1956 2.7
Eisenhower 1957 - 1960 0.8
Kennedy/Johnson 1961 - 1964 5.7
Johnson 1965 - 1968 9.8
Nixon 1969 - 1972 6.1
Nixon/Ford 1972 - 1976 5.2
Carter 1977 - 1980 10.4
Reagan 1981 - 1984 5.2
Reagan 1985 - 1988 10.8
Bush 1989 - 1992 2.5
Clinton 1993 - 1996 11.6
Clinton 1997 - 2000 11.5
Bush 2001 - 2004 (0.1)
Bush 2005 - 2008 5.1

 

[MARIS61]

Thankfully, Duds will be wearing prison orange for tax evasion soon.

 

[ABM]

Remember the last time the number of jobs grew more rapidly under an Republican president? John McCain can't. Because he wasn't born yet. Over the past 75 years, one trend has held constant. Rapid job growth only occurs when there's a Democrat in The White House.

No Republican President -- not Eisenhower, not Nixon, not Reagan, not Bush -- has ever created more jobs, or created jobs at a faster rate, than his Democratic predecessor. It's not even close. The contrast has been especially stark over the past 16 years, when 23.1 million jobs were created under Clinton and less than 5 million were created under Bush. On average, job growth under Democrats is more than twice that under Republicans.

Whatever benchmark you use, the difference is dramatic. Since Truman was elected in 1948, 53.2 million new jobs were created during the 24 years when Democrats held The White House, and 38.3 million were created during the 36 years of Republican administrations. Check it out for yourself:


Millions of Jobs Added
Truman 1949 -1952 5.2
Eisenhower 1953 - 1956 2.7
Eisenhower 1957 - 1960 0.8
Kennedy/Johnson 1961 - 1964 5.7
Johnson 1965 - 1968 9.8
Nixon 1969 - 1972 6.1
Nixon/Ford 1972 - 1976 5.2
Carter 1977 - 1980 10.4
Reagan 1981 - 1984 5.2
Reagan 1985 - 1988 10.8
Bush 1989 - 1992 2.5
Clinton 1993 - 1996 11.6
Clinton 1997 - 2000 11.5
Bush 2001 - 2004 (0.1)
Bush 2005 - 2008 5.1

How does freakin' Carter add twice as many jobs as Reagan?!

 

[BlazerCaravan]

How does freakin' Carter add twice as many jobs as Reagan?!

1980 was a census year. Doesn't explain 1970 or 1990, though.

 

[Shooter]

What a joke. The only jobs Democrats create are at the federal level, through the expansion of government programs. Those employees often sit around and do nothing except pass paper back and forth and live off our taxes.

Republicans, on the other hand, are better are creating jobs in the private sector, where goods and services are actually produced without causing a drain on our taxes.

 

[MARIS61]

How does freakin' Carter add twice as many jobs as Reagan?!

Reagan actually reduced jobs overall by privatizing government jobs, which resulted in the largest deficit in US History and an as-yet-uncorrected plunge in what you get for your tax dollar. It is a cruel media-myth that Reagan in fact did anything positive at all for the common man, or for this country.

 

[julius]

What a joke. The only jobs Democrats create are at the federal level, through the expansion of government programs. Those employees often sit around and do nothing except pass paper back and forth and live off our taxes.

Republicans, on the other hand, are better are creating jobs in the private sector, where goods and services are actually produced without causing a drain on our taxes.

Link?

 

[MARIS61]

What a joke. The only jobs Democrats create are at the federal level, through the expansion of government programs. Those employees often sit around and do nothing except pass paper back and forth and live off our taxes.

Republicans, on the other hand, are better are creating jobs in the private sector, where goods and services are actually produced without causing a drain on our taxes.

Poppycock.

BTW, did you and your significant other enjoy your trip?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Republicans, on the other hand, are better are creating jobs in the private sector, where goods and services are actually produced without causing a drain on our taxes.

The private sector being located in China doesn't phase you?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The private sector being located in China doesn't phase you?

Not as long as they're Republicans.

 

[MARIS61]

The private sector being located in China doesn't phase you?

repped!

 

[ABM]

The private sector being located in China doesn't phase you?

Why should it? They're our banking system, as well.

 

[barfo]

1980 was a census year. Doesn't explain 1970 or 1990, though.

Don't think that explains it - the census people would have all been laid off by the time Carter left office in Jan 1981.

barfo

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I'm voting for Kitzhaber. My best friend works on his campaign and I met him briefly. The little I've read about both makes me like Kitzhaber more. Plus I'm pretty liberal so I can't see myself ever voting for a Republican, at least at this stage in my life.

 

[ABM]

Plus I'm pretty liberal so I can't see myself ever voting for a Republican, at least at this stage in my life.

Good point. Usually, it takes a few years.

 

[barfo]

Good point. Usually, it takes a few years.

No question about it, brain cells start to die as you get older.

barfo

 

[tlongII]

I'm voting for Dudley. We know Kitzhaber can't do the job. Why not take a chance?

 

[ucatchtrout]

Chris Dudley.... no experience, and no platform other than vague republican party jivetalk.
Yet you want him to be the states CEO for the next four years?

 

[MickZagger]

Chris Dudley.... no experience, and no platform other than vague republican party jivetalk.
Yet you want him to be the states CEO for the next four years?

He did graduate from Yale.

 

[ABM]

No question about it, brain cells start to die as you get older.

barfo

Then, certainly, we've been channeling you all this time.

 

[ABM]

He did graduate from Yale...

...with a degree in Political Science, I believe.

 

[MickZagger]

...with a degree in Political Science, I believe.

But...He doesn't wear sweet cowboy boots like Kitzhaber.

I'm sure Duds would look cool in some spurs if he really wanted to get the wheels spinning on his campaign.

 

[barfo]

I'm voting for Dudley. We know Kitzhaber can't do the job. Why not take a chance?

Actually, we know he can do the job. He did it for 8 years already.

Why not take a chance on Duds? Because the outcome is likely to be worse rather than better.

If a guard misses a free throw or two, why not take a chance on Dudley shooting the next few technical free throws?

barfo

 

[julius]

He did graduate from Yale.

Which doesn't really qualify him for the job, as our former president proved Ivy League educations doesn't mean you necessarily have Ivy League ideas.