Vice President Dick Cheney has been omitted from the Oregon Voter's Pamphlet by decision of the Republicans. I noticed that he was missing last week as I was reading through it. My first thought, like many, was "uh-oh, they forgot Cheney. This is not going to go over well with the republican voters in this state." Many angry republicans called into State offices demanding an explanation and that new pamphlets be distributed. Those callers were directed to the Republican party HQ's as the decision to OMIT Cheney was that of the Bush administration.

Wash Post




Is this an attempt to mislead or not be forthright to the voters of Oregon?

Is the Republican Party ashamed of Cheney's biography?

Does your state provide you with a voter's pamphlet? Does it contain Cheney's picture and bio?

If one's name is on the ballot, should that person be required to submit this info for the pamphlet?

What if the ballot measures in the pamphlet simply said Measure 38 with no details on what Measure 38 was. Is that similar to omitting a candidate whose name is on the ballot?

Here's another article about this that doesn't require registration:

Dick Cheney Missing From Oregon Voter Pamphlet

I don't this is an attempt to mislead the voters, or to hide something. Frankly, it just seems weird to me. I can't imagine any reason why the Republican Party chose to do this.



This seems perfectly legal, but it seems sort of silly. Why not provide a biography of the VP, painting him as favorable a light as possible? That just seems like common sense to me.

I think making some sort of candidate biography and/or statement mandatory might be a good idea, but I'm really baffled that it would even be necessary to require this. I've never heard of a American politician who didn't take every possible opportunity to get her message across.

The comparison between candidates and ballot measures is a bit of an apples and oranges situation, but I see your point. Why the heck would you want to vote for somebody who won't even take the effort to try to communicate with you?

GM,

Seems like a stupid decision to me, but consider if you're still an undecided voter. Who looks better, Cheney or Edwards? Who has the more powerful background? And perhaps more to the point, who is more scary?

There you are, an undecided voter, trying to make up a mind that seems to have been sleeping over all these years. Might your decision be based on something so superficial as looks? Might you distrust a former high-rolling business guy more than a former trial lawyer?

Those might have been the thoughts of whoever made this decision. First, do no harm, eh? Hold out the hand full of oats, coax the horse on over to feed, then harness the sucker.

If you spook the undecided voter at the outset, the voter is lost. I think that's why Cheney isn't in the Oregon voting guide. I bet the tactic will work for some undecided ones too. Meanwhile, it might mystify decided voters, but no harm will be done.

There must be something about the demographics or polling in Oregon that drives this.

To me, it doesn't make sense. Dick Cheney is the most Presidential of the four guys in this race. I doubt looks has much to do with most people's choice for President (as long as he is good enough looking to see on TV once in a while).

Otherwise, Brad Pitt or Ricky Martin or some other knucklehead would be President.

Hanlon's Razor - in my sig - applies here, I think.

Rather than trying to think of all the reasons that Cheney might have been deliberately left out, why can't we conceive that some fool of a copy checker forgot to look at the final draft before it went to print?

I mean, if an organisation like Chevrolet can try to sell a car called a "Nova" in Spanish speaking countries and wonder why sales don't take off, and if Toyota can do the same thing with the MR2 in Francophone countries, why should the Oregon Republican party be incapable of errors but have to have an underlying motive for such a glitch?

Clearly, Americans are too used to competence in their organisations, so mistakes like this must be deliberate when they do happen. Come and live in Britain, and you'll soon realise they are 99% stupidity and 1% malice. Yet another area where we lead the world.

I don't think that you have the facts straight Julian. It was a conscious decision on the Republicans' part. This was no mistake. It was a tactical move by the Bush campaign. They admit to that.



I normally enjoy reading your take and opinion on things Julian. Knowing what you know now, that this was not a mistake, what do you think?

1. I don't think its a attempt to misled the voters but.....

2. ..... in Oregen, yes they are.

3. In my state, a voter's pamphlet is provided, but instead of a biography, the canidates are only required (well, not required really) to provide a picture and a statement. In Washington state, Cheney is on the same page as Bush listed as his running mate, and the statement provided is about Bush and how he will lead us to the future in defeat the terrorist and stuff like that.

4. No they shouldn't be required. Its their loss for not doing so. One example comes to mind for this election. In Alaska in one of the state assembly races, three people are in the ballot, but only one is in the pamplet. The Libertarian. He was the only one to provide a statement, picture, and $100 by the deadline back in July. The Dems check bounced and they wouldn't accept a credit card so he missed the deadline and claims they should have it nonetheless. And the Rep was just to busy and shrugs it off as being nobodys fault but his.

5. Here in Washington, we actually have a Ref or two without a statement for or against.