Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Talk to This Year's Quirkiest Senatorial Candidate

Roblimo posted more than 6 years ago | from the plenty-of-substance-behind-the-laughs dept.

Democrats 364

Not many candidates for the U.S. Senate are 4'9" tall and only have one hand. But Oregon Democrat Steve Novick qualifies on both counts -- and uses them as pluses in his TV ads. Like this one, where he shows why he's the best beer-drinking partner among all the candidates. Or this one, where it's obvious why he's for "the little guy." Also, as far as we know, he's the only candidate this year for any major office who has his own brand of beer. And his online campaign manager is a major Slashdot junkie, too, which is certainly in his favor. But will humor and oddness get Steve into the Senate? We don't know. So ask him. In fact, ask him anything else you'd like about campaigning and politics. He's promised to respond, and seems like the kind of guy who will give interesting answers, at that. (Please follow Slashdot interview rules, as always.)

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Slashdot's Hive's Net Neutrality View (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784182)

From your website [novickforsenate.org] on issues, you say:

I would join many other U.S. senators, and the rest of what we might call Google Nation, in supporting "net neutrality." We need to prevent broadband providers from creating a two-tiered system of access to information, in which content providers with money would have an advantage over those without it, and Internet users would often find it harder to Google their way to the information they really need.
Your net neutrality rhetoric rings true with this readership, for the most part. How exactly do you propose you would enforce this?

I mean, you say yourself that the companies with money are going to want this, how do you plan to fight the opposition? If your opponent Gordon Smith opposes net neutrality, you're going to face a lot more of that in the senate. Voting to ensure it in bills is one thing but what makes you unique to any other Senator trying to keep the net neutral? What are the best things we can do to help this? I tried explaining it to my friends and family but often find I've at best confused them.

Allow me to play the devil's advocate, argue against this point:

The government controls too much of our lives right now, why let them control the internet with a facade of "net neutrality?" It's just another form of restricting the market to evolve naturally, why would we want that?

Environment & Fiscal Responsibility (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784198)

If elected as Senator for Oregon, how hard would you push for environmental action? You seem to promote fiscal responsibility and I find these two topics to have interesting relationships to each other. Hypothetically (and I know this wouldn't be your responsibility) if Oregon had the chance to switch to a garbage disposal system that resulted in twice as much materials being salvaged from waste but also cost the citizens twice as much to fund, would you make the switch?

On Slashdot, we often get stories where great new ideas come but require extra cash to go green. They are under heavy fire from fiscally responsible people. Where do you stand on this? I can think of many things if you'd care to address them. Like the investment to move to a wind powered infrastructure, compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb usage being enforced by the government, tighter emissions on all transportation, electronic circuitry recycling costs, etc.

If you care to further elaborate, I'm also interested in how fiscal responsibility can be maintained in addition to your pledge to reform healthcare.

Re:Environment & Fiscal Responsibility (1, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784528)

I've personally never seen the conflict myself. If you salvage twice as much, provided it is done efficiently, then you reduce the cost of mining and ore processing (both of which are expensive), which must lead to a net reduction in cost of materials, which in turn must lead to a saving for the consumer. Efficient environmentalism is expensive to start, but would (on the longer-term) work out cheaper.

The same is true on pollution controls. A lot of pollution is generated by the processing method itself, so improving the method must reduce the pollution. Since creating pollution consumes resources (materials and power) that the company has paid for, it would seem to follow that the less pollution a company creates, the cheaper it would be. Now, there's only so far you can go with this, and the research to get any further than what is presently done isn't cheap and will give declining returns, so filters and overheads are inevitable, but it does lead me to believe that environmentalism is cheaper than we're being led to believe.

(Since we can reasonably assume companies want to make money and therefore want to lower overheads, we can assume that a lot of the research and development necessary is beyond a lot of private industry at this time, and/or there's not enough incentive to handle the high initial costs. Maybe the role of government can be to fund some of the work, perhaps provide X-prize-like challenges, and once things are cost-effective to deploy, offer tax cuts on business so that it's practical to switch methods and add an inefficiency tax to make it impractical not to.)

Re:Environment & Fiscal Responsibility (1)

josecanuc (91) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785304)

I've personally never seen the conflict myself. If you salvage twice as much, provided it is done efficiently, then you reduce the cost of mining and ore processing (both of which are expensive), which must lead to a net reduction in cost of materials, which in turn must lead to a saving for the consumer. Efficient environmentalism is expensive to start, but would (on the longer-term) work out cheaper.

There may be an overall/net savings, but the cost of greener waste processing is borne by the taxpayers, whereas the savings produced by the resulting reduced demand (or perceived reduced demand) for mining and ore processing is considered a negative on the bottom line of the mining and ore processing companies.

I don't know if Oregon has much mining industry. If not, then the net result in Oregon is higher taxes and no change in the cost of goods, because the commodity price of metals would not be affected significantly by the relatively small increase in supply generated by the greener waste processing. If Oregon does have a significant mining industry, then a policy which would get the government into the metals business would likely not be something an Oregon politician would be likely to push.

Like it or not, politicians have an obligation to serve the interests of their constituents, which includes both individuals and the businesses that employ and serve the individuals.

Pork... (4, Interesting)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784202)

How willing are you to NOT "bring home the bacon" and possibly sacrifice local needs and wants rather than further inflate the budget? Are you for attempting to actually CUT the budget instead of cutting the rate of increase?

Re:Pork... (4, Interesting)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784334)

Adding to that, would you be in favor of tougher sunset clauses on appropriations? What about the much maligned practice of earmarking?

Re:Pork... (3, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784348)

Excellent question. I would love to hear a Democrat actually answer this question and see if they care about fiscal responsibility. And yes, I know the Republicans have been spending like drunken idiots, but at least that is in contradiction to what they *say* they believe in. Democrats traditionally believe in large government transfers of wealth from one group to another. It would be interesting to hear what they say now that we simply can't continue as we're going.

Prediction: If this is asked, he'll dodge the question by saying he'll cut the defense budget, and then use that money for social programs. Of course, the defense budget is a relatively small part of the budget, but he won't mention that, and he certainly won't mention cutting anything else where it NEEDS to be cut. And he'll totally ignore the part about pork spending.

Re:Pork... (2, Informative)

polar red (215081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784522)

Of course, the defense budget is a relatively small part of the budget, but he won't mention that,
err ... I'll give you my source : http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm [warresisters.org] and you'll give yours ?

Re:Pork... (4, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784640)

Defense is a "relatively small" part of the budget? Are you sure we're talking about the same country here?

The 2008 budget calls for total spending of $2.9 trillion (on tax revenues of $2.66 trillion). Of that, $481.4 billion goes to the Department of Defense. That's 16.6% of the entire budget. If you count other defense related areas, such as the "Global War on Terror" ($145.2 billion) and the Department of Homeland Security ($34.3 billion), we're up to $660.9 billion, which is 22.79% of the total budget.

All of this, of course, doesn't even include the cost of the Iraq war, which is financed through separate appropriations. Bush has requested an additional $105 billion for 2008 war costs, which would bring total defense-related spending in 2008 to $765.9 billion, or 26.4% of the total budget.

That's right, more than one quarter of the entire national budget is dedicated to defense spending, including the war in Iraq. By comparison, the next largest budget item, Social Security, comes in at $608 billion, or 20.97% of the total budget. And I'm not even including any military-related spending that may be assigned to other Cabinet departments or other programs.

Sure, people like to throw around meaningless numbers like defense spending is only around 4 or 5% of total GDP. But guess what: we don't pay for it with total GDP, we pay for it with tax dollars. It's absurd to compare budget items to the total GDP, because it implies that spending a giant percentage of our total production on the federal government (around 20.27% assuming a projected $14.31 trillion total GDP in 2008) is somehow okay.

Sources:

GDP Estimate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_GDP_estimates_(nominal) [wikipedia.org]
2008 Budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008 [wikipedia.org]
2008 Iraq war appropriations: http://middleeast.about.com/od/iraq/f/me080225b.htm [about.com]

Re:Pork... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22785224)


>That's right, more than one quarter of the entire national budget is dedicated to defense spending, including
>the war in Iraq.

Isn't most of that money being recycled into the hands of people? When it's "spent", it "goes somewhere".
Raw materials, labor, R&D? Doesn't it serve to increase the value of almost every corporation and many, many small businesses?

The *reason* Defense and War cost so much is because the people who provide the services and materials are being compensated.

If war were truly necessary for survival, this might change. Government might take authority over the means of production for warfare, instead of buying it on an open market. Individuals would contribute without asking for compensation. If it were truly essential to survival, that is. Then the cost would be measured in terms of natural resources alone, and not in "dollars".

But for the time being, the "cost of defense" is just another way of redistributing wealth. Buy stock in defense contractors, profit, and invest your profits into the peace movement.

Re:Pork... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22784652)

Of course, the defense budget is a relatively small part of the budget...
Oh really? The 2007 budget [wikipedia.org] seems to disagree with you by having defense take second to social security.

# $586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
# $548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense
# $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
# $294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
# $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
# $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
# $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
# $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation ...

Because of the owls (2, Insightful)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784500)

How willing are you to NOT "bring home the bacon" and possibly sacrifice local needs and wants rather than further inflate the budget? Are you for attempting to actually CUT the budget instead of cutting the rate of increase?

In Oregon?!? There's a bunch of folks who've lost their jobs because of Washington, as far as they're concerned (environmental lobbyists to be exact) and they want their due. In other words, start carving up that pork because the rest of the country owes them for keeping the owls happy!

Running for Office (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22784216)

When are you running for President? We need someone with a sense of humour in office.

Re:Running for Office (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785126)

When are you running for President? We need someone with a sense of humour in office.

What's this "we" shit? You're British! [uncyclopedia.org] But don't feel bad, as I live in Ill inois [uncyclopedia.org] instead of Oreogon [uncyclopedia.org] I can't vote him into the Senate either.

However, if I was rich [uncyclopedia.org] I could buy the sucker, and it would be legal, thanks to our insane laws that allow bribery as long as you bribe both major party candidates before the election and call your bribes "campaign contributions".

If I was Bill Gates [uncyclopedia.org] I wouldn't even bother voting. I would have no need to!

-mcgrew [uncyclopedia.org]
(The McGrew on this page [uncyclopedia.org] is an imposter. He doesn't even have the first name spelled right, the illiterate buffoon! It's spelled like the guy in the bible that got stoned [holy-bible.us] .)

Why Democrat? (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784224)

After reading your views, I see a few things that put you at odds with the current Democrat party. What causes you to align yourself with the Democrat party? What differences do you personally see in yourself that by and large the Democrats adhere to? If elected, would you promise to remain Democrat or would you entertain the idea of going third party/independent?

Re:Why Democrat? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22785388)

Score: 5 Interesting, perhaps, but you do realize that by framing the question as why do you belong to the "Democrat [sic] party", you're coming off like a Ditto-head, right?

Nucular... (4, Interesting)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784228)

Are you in favor of nuclear energy, or are you afraid of it?

Re:Nucular... (1, Funny)

stuporglue (1167677) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784306)

Nuke 'em til they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark.

It's sigs like yours which make people afraid of nuclear energy. And guns.

Re:Nucular... (2, Interesting)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784380)

People only fear what they don't understand. Then you'll fear my nucular gun.

Oddly enough, it's the people who understand the most about both in which nuclear energy and guns find the safest hands.

Re:Nucular... (2, Insightful)

andphi (899406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784508)

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy. It's possible to both fear and favor a given course of action - expanding our nuclear energy base, changing jobs, or owning a fire-arm for self-defense, for example - if the alternatives are less favorable or more fearful than the one which worries one even as one chooses it.

Interesting turn by greenies on Nuke power (2, Informative)

spineboy (22918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784940)

Many Greepeace activists are now in FAVOR of nuclear power - because it's less polluting than coal or oil. Doesn't screw up the environment like giant hydro-electric dams either.

As far as what to do with the nuke waste - we do have a state called Nevada It's almost the size of California, but with only 2.6 million residents, with 85% of them living in Reno or Vegas. It's dry, so little worry about run off. I've driven thru it many times - there really isn't much out there at all, so even a 100 square miles is easily spared. Heck - Nevada could even make money off it, by charging for it.
Am I "dumping" on Nevada? No...Every state has some resource that other states don't. Some have prairies/plains that are good for crops, some have coasts good for fishing. Nevada has wide open desolate space, and that's a resource for holding/containing things.

Mending the "Unchecked President" (3, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784242)

Complaints have been registered far and wide of our cowboy president. Democrats voting on bills hasn't done anything--some Democrats seem to have sat idly by as it happened. If you're elected into office, how are you going to stop this? More importantly with the president in his last term, how are you going to undo what has been done? Whether Clinton, Obama or McCain win, give us plans of action for how you intend to undo what you listed on your site: "warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, covert CIA 'black site' prisons, use of torture in interrogations and other tactics in tension or direct violation with the law have sparked outrage here at home and sullied our name abroad."

Universal Health Care (4, Insightful)

pudge (3605) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784244)

Steve, your state already tried, and aborted, an attempt at universal health care. Do you want federal universal health care because Oregon needs to take money from other states to make it work? Would you raise federal income taxes to make it work? How much?

Re:Universal Health Care (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22784356)

Parent is a troll. He wants healthcare reform not to be increased. Right now, Oregon healthcare is a lottery [latimes.com] it needs to be fixed.

Do you want federal universal health care because Oregon needs to take money from other states to make it work?
Please present proof that "Oregon needs to take money from other states to make [healthcare] work."

Re:Universal Health Care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22784614)

Proof schmoof. There's no proof that Oregon needs to do that, but the evidence suggests that they were not able to do it, within their own budget. Leave proof (for either side) until later. Until then, though, the position that some states could magically provide universal healthcare without being subsidized by the richer states, needs some evidence. That position currently doesn't have any credibility at all. When that position is able to at least make a believable case for itself, then we can talk about proving one or the other. Right now, the position you're asking for proof on, is the only one that doesn't look like a joke.

Re:Universal Health Care (2, Insightful)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784404)

Also, how will you prevent universal health care from being abused - IOW, how would you prevent the fat, lazy, and stupid from running the health bills up that the rest of us would have to pay for?

Re:Universal Health Care (2, Insightful)

ChristTrekker (91442) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784468)

That right there is a good argument against universal health care. Unless you really want government intruding on and micromanaging everybody's life. You don't have to worry about it being abused - universal health care, by its very nature, is an abuse.

Re:Universal Health Care (0, Redundant)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785034)

Wall Street gets universal "health" care. Why can't we?

Re:Universal Health Care (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785162)

universal health care, by its very nature, is an abuse

I see all today's mods are from the US, the only industrialized nation in the world without universal health care!

-mcgrew

Re:Universal Health Care (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784520)

I would expect that a person has to be open minded enough to not have NIH syndrome and look at countries that actually have a well running universal healthcare system.
And BTW there was, is and always will be a percent of "the fat, lazy, and stupid" that will abuse the system.

Re:Universal Health Care (5, Insightful)

imag0 (605684) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784548)

Please remember that, when using inflammatory rhetoric like that, the largest receivers of government welfare money happens to be large, multinational companies and not the "fat, lazy, and stupid" that you are probably thinking of.

Re:Universal Health Care (0, Troll)

mcpkaaos (449561) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784650)

Since when is FUD +Insightful?

Notquitecajon, would you please elaborate on how the fat, lazy and stupid would abuse a universal health care system?

Re:Universal Health Care (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784774)

Going to the emergency room regularly when all you need is some 'tussin.

Re:Universal Health Care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22785076)

there are already these people (and doctor's catering to them)...they are part of the reason health insurance has gotten insanely expensive in this country.

Re:Universal Health Care (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785232)

One is the already mentioned emergency room issues (money holes in many hospitals); another is the rampant idiocy of people stuffing their faces with way too much - and unhealthy - food, and not knowing enough or not caring about what goes into their bodies. I don't want my tax dollars further supporting anyone who eats half their meals at McDonald's, exercises too little, smokes, and drinks too much. Yes, I know what the poor in this country don't have access to. Yes, it's wrong - but how many take the easy way out when they COULD be going in another direction?

Re:Universal Health Care (2, Insightful)

Dice (109560) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785018)

It's not just abuse by We The People that we need to worry about. A federal health care system means putting control of what goes into our bodies in the hands of the government. Let me remind you that this is a government which has a well documented history of experimenting on its own people [wikipedia.org] for the purposes of developing mind control drugs and the like.

I, for one, do not welcome our new Big Government overlords.

Re:Universal Health Care (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785086)

Also, how will you prevent universal health care from being abused - IOW, how would you prevent the fat, lazy, and stupid from running the health bills up that the rest of us would have to pay for?

These are two different questions. I would imagine you would stop abuse by putting people who commit fraud, or get extra drugs, or doctors who perform unnecessary surgeries in jail. Much like the options currently available to HMOs. There may even be some kind of oversight.

As for some people having higher health care costs, you seem to be misinterperting several things. First off, since there is guaranteed emergency room care, the status quo is that people who are fat, lazy and stupid go there, taking time away from real emergencies, getting more costly care (whose costs are passed on to you) instead of local doctor care, and preventing a 'stitch int time'. So, those people would actually cost less.

Secondly, the whole point of insurance is that some people are going to have higher costs than others. Because we don't know who is going to be whom, we all chip in. And, I would say that the slight (see point three) increase in costs is worth the freedom of not having the governement try to make us eat healthily. The current status quo still, because most health insurance is in mass by employeers, lumps the fatties in with everyone else.

Thirdly, the highest costs in health care, as well as those most easily identified as preexisting conditions, are chronic diseases/conditions. Most of these are not due to being overweight, but instead an inherited or acquired condition that the person cannot change (think: cancer, AIDS, alzhimers, etc.) The diseases associated with weight are much smaller in cost than those not. So, it seems like being unable to distingish the "fat and lazy" from the "already sick" is a necessary condition of handling those with other preexisting conditions.

Re:Universal Health Care (1)

Galactic Dominator (944134) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785324)

Have you checked your healthcare insurance premiums lately?

You're already paying for it. National healthcare would simply redistribute the load more evenly across the entire populace. I suspect there's not a whole that can be done by any non-draconian system to enlighten the hypochondriac's among us. I understand it's a bit of an oxymoron to advocate an efficient national healthcare system, however when you look at the raw number of what we spend as a country currently and the level of service provided compared to nation healthcare system similar to our friends up north have, the term would apply.

I'm not aware of any governmental system that legislates fat, lazy, and stupid both fairly and effectively. Are you going to discriminate against people who eat oreos? Be prepared for retaliation legislation ad naseum. Absent of that, the only thing left is to reduced the problem to pure economics to reach the best logical system. If the goal is efficiently, a national program wins by raw numbers alone.

Re:Universal Health Care (1, Troll)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784574)

Hear Hear! It's much more important to keep that money handy for the present day and upcoming stock market bail outs, and let medical care trickle down from that. Viva la (Reagan) Revolución! VIVA!

Re:Universal Health Care (0, Offtopic)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784980)

(Score:0, Troll)

Ah, yes. I forgot. Don't taunt the happy fun pudge. Especially when his friends have points.

C'mon baby, make it hurt so good

Re:Universal Health Care (1)

sethawoolley (1005201) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785306)

Hi Pudge,

Oregon has not tried universal health care. It's voted on a version of it, but it never got around to trying it.

Seth Woolley, Secretary, Pacific Green Party of Oregon

Most quirky? I dunno... (3, Funny)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784258)

That blue guy Stan Jones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Jones [wikipedia.org] was pretty cool.

Just picture him at a Senate costume party with deelybobbers on - instant Andorean.

Beer (5, Interesting)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784262)

What will you do to get more Oregon beer east of the Mississippi river?

But seriously, you state that The manipulation of scientific data and government reports by political appointees must end. And we must stop the revolving door that has put industry lobbyists in charge of protecting our natural resources. How would attempt to improve the reliability of the EPA's research and encourage transparency within its ranks as to thwart its recent politicization and "bullying" of its scientists who don't produce data to support a political agenda?

Are you going to interview on Comedy Central? (5, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784270)

America's finest and most accurate television news and opinion programs, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report respectively, would be honored to interview a candidate of your stature.

Have you considered gracing their shows with your presence? If not, why not?

Internet's Effect on Campaign Finances (4, Interesting)

roadkill_cr (1155149) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784282)

Does the advent of the Internet mean that a politician can win elections without requiring as much financial support? Or is it simply another media out of the many already used (radio, televsion, etc.) that one must now campaign on, making campaigning more expensive than before?

Left hook (5, Funny)

Lucas123 (935744) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784284)

I like the name of your beer: Left Hook Lager, but why choose a lager to represent yourself versus, say, a stout?

Re:Left hook (1)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784824)

Alliteration, obviously. Besides, the lager name has been polluted for too long by the swill that the American macrobreweries call "lagers". Believe it or not, making a tasty lager is not only possible, it's actually done by many small breweries out there.

Re:Left hook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22785010)

Shush...He's really a closet Malt Liquor.

Re:Left hook (1)

chimpo13 (471212) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785234)

Now's my chance to ask the immortal question, [nokilli.com] that my friend Lurch asked a little person: "So, do regular beers seem really, really big to you? Since you're a midget and all?"

I hope the answer isn't "Fuck you" which is what he got when he asked.

Effect on Party Platform (3, Informative)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784290)

You seem to be pretty frank about your policy on the war. How much effect do think you could have on the Democratic platform regarding Iraq? The party has equivocated (eg pulling funding) on whether or not it will go full force at ending the current deployment of troops and on just how it would plan to work with regional players. How do you think you can work to providing a consistent and working policy for Iraq? Your site says that you are amazed at the war can still be sold. What are you going to change about that?

I'm a fan (3, Interesting)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784318)

I've been tracking your campaign for awhile, you seem like a really good candidate for the senate slot and a good fit for Oregon. Unfortunately I'm a Californian democrat... and I know that most Oregonians aren't terribly fond in Californians interfering with your state.

Is there a way I can support you without getting you in trouble with your constituents? I know even a donation opens you up to the story of "funded by San Francisco Democrats" which would probably play pretty poorly in some parts of Oregon... Should we just stay on the side-lines or is there something folks outside your state can do to help you get your message out?

And one more related question: In this increasingly interconnected world, how do you see interstate involvement in local campaigns as changing the United States as a whole? The DSCC seems to be a pretty critical source of extra-state funding for instance...

Re:I'm a fan (1)

vardavas (89769) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785120)

Send him money! I live in Oregon and I've been shaking down my friends everywhere. He will be outspent by his primary opponent but he can win if he raises enough to run the campaign he needs to run.

It's Oregon, you can't throw a dead cat (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784338)

with out hitting a dozen people with their own beer label.

Re:It's Oregon, you can't throw a dead cat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22784412)

But what are the odds of hitting someone running for Senate as well?

Re:It's Oregon, you can't throw a dead cat (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785130)

And this is bad how....

Interrogation... (3, Interesting)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784342)

With your opposition to some current tactics, how do you propose - in a positive light - to add to the national defense against militant Islamists, who have proven both time and again - in peace and war - that they want to attack the US?

Re:Interrogation... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784552)

There are many good and proven techniques that don't require torture.

In fact, the US is pretty good at it.

Congressional Accountability (1)

pashdown (124942) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784346)

How will you make the Senate more accountable to the people? At a minimum, what example will you display in your own Senate office?

Re:Congressional Accountability (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785346)

You have your politicians mixed up. The House is supposed to be accountable to the people, the Senate is a check against the Tyranny of the majority" [wikipedia.org] . That's why there are different numbers of Representatives (from the HOUSE of REPRESENTatives) depending on a state's population, while the Senate has two members per state.

-mcgrew

Building the team? (4, Interesting)

D3 (31029) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784358)

When you decided to get into politics and/or make this run, how did you build your team? How did you choose your advisers? Were they all people you already knew or just knew one or two and they made recommendations? Basically, how does one go from "I think I could be a good Senator" to having the political machinery to make a run at it?

Thoughts on the Federal Reserve (1)

ThomasFlip (669988) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784378)

What are your thoughts on the sinking dollar and the price of gold? Do you support the abolishment of the federal reserve and a return to a hard currency?

Oh Shut Up (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784554)

Enough of this gold standard crap. That bridge has been crossed (and burned) and none of your Econ. 101 blathering is going to bring it back.

Re:Oh Shut Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22785320)

Brilliant reasoning! You've given me a lot to think about...

Fiscal Responsibility (2, Insightful)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784400)

You talk about fiscal responsibility. Does that include government regulation that promotes sustainable growth over growth for growth's sake? If so, what would such regulation be? Finally, I think we can all agree that Americans live beyond their means. What role should the government in dealing with the current credit crises? What action should be taken at the microeconomic level? Are you in favor of the Bear Sterns bailout, etc?

Medical Marijuana (5, Interesting)

phobos13013 (813040) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784416)

Where do you stand on the issue of medical marijuana in your state? For ten years, use of marijuana has and created [redorbit.com] a legal vacuum for the public interest versus the private use issue [nwsource.com] . Would you protect growers of medical marijuana in your state from federal prosecution when such situations occur? Do you support the free and open use of a chemical that has no known addictive qualities, no known adverse health effects and broad, diverse public support for its decriminalization?

Re:Medical Marijuana (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784504)

While I agree with everything else, I don't know about the no known adverse health effects. When smoked it has been linked to an increased risk of gum disease [reuters.com] . So maybe eating it or drinking it as tea has no adverse health effects. Plus in general it prevents and helps with glaucoma, one thing I know I'll never get.

Re:Medical Marijuana (1)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784534)

When smoked it has been linked to an increased risk of gum disease [reuters.com].

Anything smoked also increases the rate of heart and lung disease and stroke.

Re:Medical Marijuana (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784862)

I don't know about the no known adverse health effects.

Well, the more general issue with marijuana prohibition is: should policy be set by politicians or by doctors? Who is more likely to know of adverse effects, weigh possibly adverse effects against beneficial effects, and make the best informed decision? Why is government spending so much effort and taxpayer money, on micromanaging such a small and seemingly arbitrary aspect of healthcare, while not arresting people for wearing casts made of new materials on their arms, or arresting cardio doctors for not wearing their stethoscopes in an exact manner that is proscribed by Congress? What is so special about this one treatment, that Congress feels sure that their judgement is not only superior to the judgement of people that have spent years in medical school, but so superior, that they need to enforce criminal laws to get their way?

And if doctors' judgement can't be trusted, then other professionals' judgement probably shouldn't be trusted either. For example, if a congressman representing Redmond WA were to conclude that Linux has adverse effects, we now have a precedent that it would be ok for the federal government to outlaw Linux. For our own good.

Re:Medical Marijuana (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22784654)

As an Oregon resident who is a terminally ill cancer patient, I obviously have a great deal of interest in this topic, and frankly, I will be a single-issue voter on this issue. I would appreciate a detailed policy statement not only on how you intend to protect Oregon residents from Federal prosecution, but also on how you intend to allow medical marijuana users the right to carry their medicine across state lines without fear of prosecution. As a side-note, vaporization removes the vast majority of risks associated with smoking marijuana and for medicinal users is the preferred dosing method, along with adding it as an ingredient in cooking.

sex offenders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22784424)

Question for the candidate:

Oregon is one of the few states that still has enough respect for civil liberties to show leadership and not adopt the unfair Federal Sex Offender Registration guidelines.

The question is, as a Senator, what would you do to end the blatant harms that a online-available, register everyone, one-size-fits-all sex offender registration policy has caused? Do you acknowledge that sex offender registries are in fact punitive (regardless of their stated intent)? What would you do to ensure that individual property and privacy rights are not infringed (any worse than they already are)? Thank you

North Vietnam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22784428)


would have done United States democracy a favor had they KEPT John McCain.

John McCain: The Choice of the Military-Industrial-CONGRESSIONAL COMPLEX.

Iraq Pullout (3, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784430)

While I was among the many Americans that didn't want the military to engage in Iraq, not we are there.

You want to pull out of Iraq within 6 months.
How to you propose to do that? What efforts are you going to put into rebuilding.
Just leaving would be a horrible mistake that would cause even more strife to the Iraqis.

Wouldn't it be better to ahve a rebuild plan that is shared with the rest of the world? remove more of out troops as specific goals are met?

If elected... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22784440)

...will you turn Eugene into a hippy concentration camp and move all the hippies in Portland there?

Flat Tax, Fair Tax (4, Insightful)

penguin_dance (536599) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784514)

Where do you stand on having a Flat Tax? What about the Fair (or Consumption) Tax? And why.

Science (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784518)

As a brewer I am sure you understand the value of science.
What will you do to see that a strong science advisory board is available to the senate?

What about a strong technology advisory board?

What Committees Interest You? (1)

penguin_dance (536599) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784544)

If you are elected, which committees would you like to serve on and why?

Have you considered hook alternatives? (5, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784562)

Hooks are so 17th century. Which of the following would you consider adopting if you win your election?

1. Fighting claws as seen in Enter the Dragon
2. Hydraulically actuated pincer
3. Chainsaw
4. Rocket fist

But what about policy? (1)

Iowan41 (1139959) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784570)

That is all well and fine, but Oregon has trampled upon the unalienable rights of its citizens for years now. Will this guy change any of that?

Quirky campaigning? (1)

Chardish (529780) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784586)

Steve,
In 2006 Kinky Friedman [wikipedia.org] ran for Governor of Texas, using a similarly "quirky" campaign approach, injecting humor into his message and campaigning in a style considered by many to be unconventional. While he made a strong showing as an independent (with 12.5% of the vote), he still placed fourth. What influences your campaigning style, and how do you seek to avoid the same pitfalls of other lighthearted (though serious) campaigns?

Senatorial candidates with national ambition? (3, Insightful)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784638)

Mr. Novick, your YouTube presence has attracted a lot of attention -- even mine. I find your ads pithy, sharp, witty.

When Senator Hillary Clinton ran for the open Senate seat in New York everyone knew it was but a springboard to the US President campaign trail. When Senator Obama left the State Senate for the US Senate, many people dreamed -- and more, probably, feared -- it was but a springboard for the top national office.

What is your opinion on candidates who use a limited election to project a national campaign? Who, while denying the charge, are seen as using an office for personal gain rather than determinedly seeking to serve in the very office they fight to obtain?

Lastly...what makes your beyond-the-borders campaign different than those (named and not named) others whose State-representing Senatorial campaign have reached national (and international) attention?

Not like other politicians? (4, Insightful)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784714)

In your television ads, you state that you are not like other politicians. How do your political actions differ from those normally held by politicians: namely, increasing budget sizes - whether for the war, healthcare, public schools, or other state-run programs - through taxation or deficit spending; and advancing laws violating human rights - whether through increased regulation of the economy, privacy violations, taxation, etc.

Also, how do your political motivations differ from those that have become the norm in politics? Politicians, acting as the "supply", have increasingly manipulated the economy to service the demand of corrupt companies offering to fund their campaigns - such as by contrived monopolies or selective tax breaks. How do your influences differ from the standard fare?

Re:Not like other politicians? (2, Insightful)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784916)

advancing laws violating human rights - whether through increased regulation of the economy, privacy violations, taxation, etc.

Come on. You may oppose taxes or want a lazzie-faire system, but to put those concerns as the same level as human rights is pretty insulting.

There are valid disagreements about the optimum role of taxation and government regulation (there cannot be none of either, even at the minimal contractual enforcement level of uber-libertarians). Whereas, I would say that human rights are things that are pretty universally agreed upon within the western world.

namely, increasing budget sizes - whether for the war, healthcare, public schools, or other state-run programs

I actually care a lot about which of these he wants to spend money on.

through taxation or deficit spending

Again, a distinction that I care about greatly.

Re:Not like other politicians? (1)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785170)

"but to put those concerns as the same level as human rights is pretty insulting."

What it comes down to is this: in order to live and survive in the US, one must work and get paid for that work an amount of money that he and his employer freely agree upon as the correct compensation for his productivity. This is a fundamental need.

It follows from that need that one must also have an inalienable right to the "sweat of his brow" - a right to the amount of money that he and his employer agree is the correct "conversion factor" to go from N hours of productivity to X dollars. He can then use his X dollars to buy other peoples' products - the results of other peoples' productivity. The economy is simply the free exchange of your hours of labor for others' hours of labor.

Forced taxation is a violation of the inalienable right to your productivity. Voluntary taxation, on the other hand, would not be, nor would be freely donating some percentage of your income to a charity of your choosing, and persuading your friends, family, and community to do the same.


"through taxation or deficit spending" - "Again, a distinction that I care about greatly."

Taxation is simply taking your money at gunpoint now (literally, not metaphorically), while deficit spending is a promise to take your money at gunpoint later (call it an IOU).

Where do you stand on drugs? (1)

TarpitSerpent3270 (1258366) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784762)

Steve, do you support the legalization of any drugs, or all drugs? What about decriminalization? Thank you for your availability today.

Digital piracy? (1)

pdxprogress (1258372) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784764)

What is your stance on digital piracy?

not the only major candidate with their own beer (1)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784798)

Sorry to break it to you, but he's not the only major candidate running this year to have his own brand of beer. A brewery in Kenya, home of Barack Obama's father, is brewing Obama Beer [observer.com] .

Re:not the only major candidate with their own bee (1)

penguin_dance (536599) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784898)

Darn it, if we had a few more candidates, we could have hell of a drinking game!

Water infrastructure? (2, Insightful)

bbasgen (165297) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784832)


  Infrastructure is failing in various parts of our civil society, while we also have droughts throughout the country that will continue to persist if not worsen. Oregon experiences its share of both of these important issues.

  I'm curious if you have considered a national water infrastructure? It would certainly be difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Is long term planning no longer viable in our modern political climate? Like so many other issues such as national debt, corporate greed, and the environment: is short-term expediency too powerful a force to overcome? Is it even conceivable in the modern political landscape for audacious projects to occur, such as the interstate system for water?

Uphold the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22784866)

Dear Mr. Novick:


The Forest Grove School District is currently attempting to intercept conversations between students on it's school buses, in flagrant violation of ORS 165.540(1)(c) and Federal Statute 2511(1)(b). What will you do make sure all governmental entities comply with existing law?

You may be for the little guy... (1)

mi (197448) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784910)

But will you ever be even-handed?

Have you ever considered becoming an economist [economist.com] ?

Will you uphold the Law? (4, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784928)

Dear Mr. Novick:

The Forest Grove School District is currently attempting to intercept conversations between students on it's school buses, in flagrant violation of ORS 165.540(1)(c) and Federal Statute 2511(1)(b). What will you do make sure all governmental entities comply with existing law?

I volunteer. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784930)

My question: How can I help your campaign?

I'm a registered Democrat in Portland, Oregon. I have professional editing experience. I have advertising copywriting experience. Obviously, since I'm on Slashdot, I have plenty experience with computer technology. Other sciences, too. I'm comfortable meeting and talking with groups of people. If there is any interest in my helping, reply or write to my email address above.

Economic policy and teh "defense" budget (1)

NoSelf (656465) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784956)

As the US economy heads into a recession and the dollar falls like a rock against the Euro and other currencies, what's your position on the size of the defense and national security budgets compared to our national investments in science & technology research, health care, education, and (domestic) economic development? Would you be willing to take a stand on freezing the defense & national security budgets and reallocating them more sensibly? Would you be willing to go so far as to call for a reduction in overall defense spending in order to achieve energy independence?

intriguingly alluring (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22784988)

Reminds me of the X-Files:

NUTT: Not all woman are attracted to overly tall, lanky men such as yourself. You'd be surprised how many women find my size intriguingly alluring.

MULDER: And you'd be surprised how many men do as well.

(I figure this is OK, since he is using his size in his campaign :-)

Campaign slogan? (1)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785002)

Would a campaign slogan consisting of "One of us! One of us! One of us!" reach its target market of voters effectively?

Drugs. (2)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785008)

would you support legalization of any/all drugs?
If not how can you justify the 'war on drugs', and do you believe that people should be protected from their own stupidity by laws instead of information?
If you will which drugs? and how would you defend yourself against the claims that this would create more drug addicts?

Education in Oregon (1)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785020)

Oregon has a disasterous reputation when it comes to education. State schools are not doing well and the department of education at the state level has a reputation for being gridlocked. Whether or not this reflects events on the ground, it hurts Oregon to be seen this way. It hurts the migration of business in, it hurts those who are already in Oregon, and it depresses those entering or in the system. I've lived in Oregon for many years now and have yet to hear a single good word about the schools here. To the extent that it is true, it's far from necessary. Oregon has some of the brightest people in the world, has an amazing reputation for creativity and expression, and has all the natural, historic and modern resources a teacher could possibly want for any art, science or social science class you could imagine.

What would - or, indeed, could - you do to improve the reputation and quality of Oregon schools, to produce the kind of skilled yet generalized mind so badly needed?

Contextual Information: Oregon could - and should - be one of the leading States in America in education and should be regarded in much the same way as the Oxbridge or former JMB regions in England are - centres of excellence. The old JMB region (which covered five educational districts in the northwest of England) is probably the closer of the two - they are roughly from the same era, the industries past and present are roughly the same, and the resources available are comparable. There, the comparison seems to end. The Universities in Cheshire, Lancashire and Derbyshire are ranked amongst the best in the world. The schools are generally highly regarded and the state-run schools are considered comparable with the old grammar (ie: private) schools. Not equal, in terms of intake - the grammar schools are very select - but certainly comparable in terms of what they do with who they take. Even if the only real difference between them and Oregon's system was on of image and attitude, Oregon's system is broken and theirs isn't. The fix exists, apply it.

Health care (2, Interesting)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785070)

. I will be an outspoken fighter in the Senate for comprehensive national health reform. I want to make sure everyone has affordable health care, and that means doing the hard work of addressing the complex web of factors that drives up costs.

Many democrats now support socialized health care as reform. Would you vote for or against Senator Clinton's national health care bill?

A simple list. (1, Troll)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785380)

1. When do you want to see all USA troops removed from Iraq. If window > 12 months, WHY?

2. Will you introduce or back a bill to immediately restore habeus corpus? If not, WHY?

3. Will you seek to imprison or support the imprisonment of the Bush Junta for their obvious war crimes? If not, WHY NOT?

4. Will you introduce or back a national adoption of the International Depletion Protocol, as developed by Prof. Heinberg of California? If not, WHY NOT?

5. Will you introduce a bill or support a bill that bans practices such as extreme rendition and waterboarding? If not, WHY NOT?

6. Will you support the prosecution of those responsible for the practice of extreme rendition and waterboarding? If not, WHY NOT?

7. Will you introduce or support a bill that will close American military bases outside the USA? If not, WHY NOT?

8. Do you repudiate american imperialism? If not, why not?

9. Will you introduce or support a bill that reinstitutes a graduated income tax that will actually force the rich to pay a larger percentage of their wealth than the working middle class? If not, WHY NOT?

10. Will you introduce or support a bill that reduces military expenditure by at least 50% over the next 4 years? If not, WHY NOT?

RS

His own beer brand? (1)

ivoras (455934) | more than 6 years ago | (#22785410)

What's it called, "Brawndo"? Is it full of electrolytes?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?