Heh, I'm an atheist, and have an autographed copy of the God Delusion, even. I know exactly what the Constitution Party stands for. I know they exist primarily for religious reasons and organize on abortion and xenophobic conservative Christianity. But apparently I'm not reactionary enough for you to dismiss the idea that the Constitution Party deserves an equal hearing of its candidates, despite its being reactionary. Reactions are part of democracy. I also know that Brownlow deep down is a strong religious believer. Brownlow is quite responsible for much of the content of the constitution party's platform and website on the state level. But you know, if I went through life judging people based on their religion, I couldn't vote for anybody. Does it make him unfit to serve? The Green Party has a lot of "spiritualists" who come to "green" values informed by, say, their liberal Methodism, their Unitarian Universalism, even a Catholic Liberation Theology. Or just plain wacky paganism. You know what? That's their own business, and I don't even care if a _party itself_ bases their opinions on religion. Everybody has their own worldview that they bring to the table. I'm an open atheist. That no doubt affects my decisions, but as long as I'm open about my decisions, my decisions should rule, not my religion. Should Christians not vote for me because I'm an atheist? I would hope the hell not. I would hope they look at our views as they pertain to the office, as we propose policies, as we push ideas forward, and if those material ideas line up with their own. Fictitious ideas matter if and only if they have material effects (Corrolary of Occam's Razor). So I judge based on material effects, only. That being said, It'd sure be nice to have a candidate that was an atheist that also agreed with me. In the US Senate race, it was the only federal race we weren't successful in recruiting a candidate. It's tough to run a statewide campaign and not get blasted by voters such as yourself, particularly those beholden to a major party for reasons that you espouse, such as "extremely professional, serious candidates", "regardless of whether or not they take donations", and the ringer, basically a problem of "marketing". You don't actually want to see a candidate to run that feels free enough to actually talk about issues. You're so far the only one that thought it bad that I actually discuss issues! That's surprising to me, since progress comes from discussion. If I'm not going to win, as you say, then why not use it for the purpose of broadening the discussion? Maybe I don't need to win to make a point or were you convinced that voting for "the winner" is not throwing your vote away? If they can take your vote for granted. Guess what? You lose! What you're saying is that you really don't want a candidate who will address regular people, who will just stick to three high-polled issues, who won't actually move the debate at all -- they should just "present" an extremely narrow view of the electorate and "wedge" their way to the top. You want candidates who will have chance of winning by not standing up and talking about issues that really matter in the office. When I attended debates, I'm told I'm "smart" (WWeek), that I'm introducing new ideas, that it's nice to hear somebody talk about the issues in detail rather than gloss them over. The Eugene City Club debate was the best one so far in that respect (conversely, nobody showed up to the Salem City Club debate due to the Palin debate catastrophe at the same time). Yes, I'm a programmer, not a "web designer". People like you think that professional websites are about how little information they present, and how "flashy" they are. You probably liked Rick Dancer's website. You probably like Kate's even better -- even less information. Figures, you voted for her. I make a living making websites and software that present information for actual use. And you know what? People pay lots of money for that. A "designer" on the other hand are dime a dozen and cheap to come by. So I don't repackage a PR firm's talking points that it thinks the public wants to hear or should be limited to. Why? I happen to not like the "flashy" look. You ridicule Pavel Goberman (he endorsed me in the race, interestingly enough), but he puts all his opinions out there for all to see. Yes, he's spamming his "get energized" program, essentially, but I'm not doing that. I have my own job (I'm technically the only employed candidate in the race). Yes, I use emphasis and bold in places, but you of all people should know that emphasis and bold actually works to allow people to comprehend the message. Open up a text book and see that key words are bolded and important points that could be glossed over are emphasized. But I do stick to the points. The first three items on my website are exactly the same as what appeared in the pamphlet. Those issues are front and center. They deal directly with the problems of the office and proactive solutions to the problems that have plagued the office since Bill Bradbury took it over in 1999, and even long before for over a century. I have more issues that are all related to the office, and I stick to those issues and those issues alone in the center. On the right is predominantly meta information and on the left is partisan information and events. It's organized, and you don't have to dig to find information like you have to with the other canddiates. I'm all about openness. Apparently you're against openness. You denigrate or ignore the many days I spent traveling around the state, talking to the media, being on radio shows, being on television shows (I've been on TV in every major market in Oregon, and yes, ON MESSAGE), all in all, working for change because you'd like to see a candidate that isn't a candidate. You want to see a piece of paper and a shiny website, and maybe a million dollars in special interest money manipulating the elections right underneath your nose. I did a prerecorded interview with KWSO and the interviewer was taken aback and said, "wow, you're good". I got an email from a supporter saying that they heard the reporter even mentioned it on the air. The only time any reporter has said anything odd about me was that one guy when I bugged him about not even mentioning my candidacy, and that wasn't even in public were it not for my blog that pretty much nobody reads except die-hard politicos and technophiles (I have the server logs to prove it). Yes, I don't blog about most of the things you wanted me to blog about -- positive media coverage I do get, debates, events, etc. (The blog isn't linked anywhere on my campaign website, as it's my personal blog, except the Brownlow post just recently). I put those positive things directly on my website, mainly as simple links. Were it not for the bit about Brownlow and if you hadn't gone out and searched for my personal blog, you wouldn't have any reason to claim I shouldn't be blogging about it. That seems a bit unfair to me. Am I forbidden from posting photography or security vulnerabilities or technical information on obscure but cool voting systems just because I'm a candidate for office? Wow. Fundamentally, as you say, it is about marketing. You'd rather a market-droid be campaigning even though you never will get what you want with a market-droid in the office. Why? Because market-droids are marketed for a reason: they have been bought. They have been bought not by anybody looking out for your best interest, but their best interest. That's why they are called special interests. And if marketing is really your single issue this election, as you state above, and if you truly reflect the electorate (which is not what I see when I talk to regular people) then I must say, if both those are true... Our democracy is truly in a very sad state.