State of the State

At this moment (12:20 p.m. Friday), the Governor is giving his State of the State address.

It's broadcast live on Northwest Cable News (Comcast Channel 49 ). (Feel free to post alternative cable systems.)

Video of the entire speech is on the NWCN site. And a transcript comes from the office of the governor.

Use this space to discuss it as it happens.

Comments

  • Sid Leader (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So, Teddy, are the kids still "first" on your list, or did the Blazers and their bulbous, bankrupt billionaire owner just move up a few notches?

    Do tell, Theodore, do tell.

  • (Show?)

    Some soundbites... "In just three years, we've gone from #1 in the nation in hunger to #19. We're making progress."

  • (Show?)

    Ugh, Sid, did you read the Oregonian article on the Blazers?

    Pat Egan, the governor's chief of staff: "What would leave them with the impression that there are opportunities for public (financial) support at this moment in time -- I'm left at a loss."

  • (Show?)

    Soundbite... "The days when a meth addict could walk into an Oregon drugstore and purchase the main ingredient of meth... are over."

  • (Show?)

    Soundbite... "I've been more aggressive in fighting meth than any governor in America. And that is not going to change."

  • (Show?)

    The days when a cold sufferer could walk in and purchase it are over, too. :)

  • Sid Leader (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hi Kari.

    I learned a very long time ago that politicians lie. Even Democrats. Why? More power than normal people like you and I can ever dream of. Absolute power, don't cha know.

    The mayor's office says they are going to talk with the Blazers and the governor's office says they are still talking too. I asked them myself.

    Impressions are not facts. Facts are not impressions.

  • (Show?)

    Soundbite... "Let me state what everyone in Oregon believes. Building the Oregon dream means preserving the abundance and bueaty of our great state. And that is why I will keep leading this state in the direction of more protection for our environments - not less."

  • (Show?)

    Soundbite... "Three years ago, nothing was more important than getting our economy back on track. ... Because thousands more Oregonians are working, and thousands of Oregonians have a stronger bottom line, we can now restore things that were cut."

  • (Show?)

    Soundbite... Regarding 2007 session: "Under my plan, 61% of the budget will be dedicated to Pre-K, K-12, and higher education each biennium. ... This is a billion dollar increase in K-12 state funding since I became governor. ... We will once again be above the national average by the end of the 2007-2009 biennium. ...

    If the legislature adopts my plan... the disaster of the five special sessions will be a thing of the past - and the nightmare of lost school days... and national ridicule ... will be over forever."

  • (Show?)

    Soundbite... "Uninsured children are three times more likely to use expensive emergency room care and four times less likely to visit a primary care physician. More than half of Oregon's uninsured children are eligible for existing programs, but aren't enrolled.

    ... Nothing will alter this fact: If you are the parent of uninsured children, you will have one less thing to worry about: Your children will be covered under my Healthy Kids plan.

    ...Where will this money come from? I will propose to the Legislature a new cigarette tax to cover the state's portion of the plan. ...

    Although I believe the health-care decisions coming from our federal partner are short-sighted and sometimes plain wrong, they will not stop me from providing health care..."

  • (Show?)

    Soundbite... On addiction to oil. "The President is right, but what's missing is any plan to stop our addiction to oil... I refuse to wait. In Oregon, we will continue to move forward... Global warming is not junk science. Junk science is the denial of global warming.

    The Legislature must join me in making Oregon a world leader in renewable fuels. ... 25% of our energy coming from renewable resrouces in 2025.

    If we cannot convince the federal adminsitration of the value of a renewable energy portfolio.... Oregonians will do what we have always done. Roll up our sleeves, do it ourselves, and be a beacon for the rest of the country."

  • (Show?)

    Sorry, folks, had a couple phone calls during the speech - so I missed a couple of key stanzas. Hopefully, somebody will post a transcript.

  • Winston Wolfe (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So lets see if I get the gist of the speech:

    No more hungry kids Meth Bad I fight Meth Green Oregon is Good (i.e. Eviros shut up) Jobs Good Sorry about the service being cut Schools Good Sorry about schools getting cut Sick kids Bad Smokers Bad Smokers pay to help sick kids President Bad Oil Bad Renewable Fuel Good

    Then Kari went and did his job. What an ass :)

    I don’t know about you guys but I’m moved.

  • Carol W. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pat Egan, huh? The Governor's Chief of Staff is a drinking buddy of Oregonians in Action's Ross Day. The both graduated from Willamette Law in 2000. Small world, RIGHT?

  • Marvinlee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A comment on "Addicted to oil," now a bipartisan term. The word typically applied to dependence on a harmful substance. In contrast, oil has been a boon to humankind. We now need to cut our consumption due to declining domestic reserves and production. But using less oil, though necessary and inevitable, will bring major economic problems as we try to support 300 million people on much less energy. Few people in the future will look back and be happy that petroleum energy ended.

  • (Show?)

    Pat Egan, huh? The Governor's Chief of Staff is a drinking buddy of Oregonians in Action's Ross Day. The both graduated from Willamette Law in 2000. Small world, RIGHT?

    Not sure what that is supposed to mean. Having gone to USC myself, I had quite a few friends that I disagree with 100%. Sharing a beer isn't the same as agreeing with everything they stand for.

  • TrueBlueOregonian (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, Im not sure if your client Ted K would let you, but if you can, can you try to explain why he hasn't addressed any of his new found interests in his first 3 years in office? Aside from taking cold medication off of store shelves, and moving slightly past the old confederate states in hunger, I am still trying to figure out what he has been doing for so long. Another quote from your guy: "Today the crisis is over" hmmm, maybe the crisis of yacht owners having to pay a fair share of taxes on their boat, or the 2/3 of corporations that pay no income tax. I agree, Gov'nor, their crisis is over. I hope now that this Republicrat is suddenly meeting with and giving lip service to people who are unable cut him a contribution check, he might realize the "crisis" is not over for the 600,000+ Oregonians w/o healthcare, and the 750,000 people who ate out of a food box last year. But the last thing I want to see is Kari having to eat out of one, so let's not blame him for plugging Kulongoski over time and time again. Thanks for the soundbites.

  • ads (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So first he decides to cut state employees pensions, now he's punishing smokers by raising the cigarette tax. Who's next? How about the Subchapter C corporations of whom two-thirds pay little or no income tax? When a member of the audience asked Ted about the fact these corporations don't pay their share of the income tax, he completely dodged the question. Does somebody want to answer that one for Ted?

  • jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    THE GOVERNOR:"the wind is at our back..."

    MESSAGE TO GOVERNOR: have you talked to PORTLAND?

  • Erin Branagh (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The great Willamette Law 2000 conspiracy? I knew it!!! Unfortunately, I don't think Pat drinks. Other members of the Willamette Law 2000 class cabal are Portland Public Schools Budget Chair Tony Larson, BlueOregon contributor Liz Leventhal and Oregon State Treasurer Randall Edwards Chief of Staff Kate Richardson. EHB

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TrueBlueOregonian summed it up in one phrase:

    "Newfound interests."

    Aside from the indisputable generalization of "I Love Oregon," none of what I've heard out of the State of the State matches up to anything that he made a priority of during session. You see, I think a governor has to do more than just hope that certain legislation lands on his desk.

    "Leader in renewable fuels..." Then where was he when the Dems torpedoed the not-green-enough Biofuels package? (I know that's a point of contention, but it got torpedoed by someone and Ted wasn't there for it.)

    "Uninsured children are three times more likely to use expensive emergency room care and four times less likely to visit a primary care physician..." Umm... are Ted and Westlund sharing a speechwriter? I coulda sworn I heard exactly that at the Bus last month.

    "If the [2007] legislature adopts my [education funding] plan..." Um, yeah. Thanks for finally remembering to submit an education plan to the legislature. Third session's the charm, I guess.

    If he wins in November, I'll pitch in $1; we'll buy him a map of the Capitol Building so he can find his way to the legislature this time.

  • jfe (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "There once was a mighty ship of state" "The seas were getting rough" "But not for the courage of the fearless crew Oregon would be lost" "Oregon would be lost" "Do not worry Ginger and Mary Anne, GOVERNOR Gilligan is at the helm." The professor" A little coconut glue will patch the hole" Governor Gilligan"And some palm oil for the engine" "where is the skipper?" "already washed overboard"

         AND THE REST HERE ON GILLIGN'S ISLAND
    
  • Jerry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So join us here each week my friends,

    You're sure to get a smile,

    From 3.5 million castaways,

    Here on Teddy K's isle!

  • (Show?)

    Im not sure if your client Ted K would let you, but if you can, can you try to explain why he hasn't addressed any of his new found interests in his first 3 years in office?

    I don't speak for the governor, nor do I speak for his campaign.

    Sounds like you missed the live broadcast. It's online here.

  • (Show?)

    But the last thing I want to see is Kari having to eat out of one, so let's not blame him for plugging Kulongoski over time and time again.

    Here at BlueOregon, we'd cover any Governor giving a State of the State Address. Even if that governor someday is Kevin Mannix.

    Can we please stop talking about me? This isn't about me; it's about the conversation. We have three co-editors of the site, plus over 30 contributors. Many of them disagree with me. (Stop by on Sunday... you'll see.)

  • GregP (unverified)
    (Show?)

    OK -- meth is bad Cold medicine off the shelves. How does that help when Mexican meth is half as expensive as locally made? Good god. Has the aging generation of free love and pot forgotten? Demand drives sales -- not supply. Emerging medical theory on meth use is that it's like anything else -- self medication for anxiety and depression.

    It doesn't help when the gov joins other politicians around the country and acts like this is a supply issue.

    What happens if reducing the supply actually works? We actually stop 60%, no say 70, no say 85% of the meth supply?

    Will that stop the use? Or will tweakers steal even more stuff to pay for the higher cost of a less available commodity. (Someone out there must know a Republican to explain supply and demand.)

    Prohibition didn't work in the 30's It didn't work for pot in the 70's. It won't work now. Ever.

    Let's focus on the reasons people are taking drugs and alcohol.

    rant concluded, thanks for your time.

  • bdavistwo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Did a little research after listening to Governor KulonGannix's education plan of raising the tax on cigarettes and alcohol specifically for the schools. Then went to Jim Hill's website (www.JimHill2006.com) and looked at the commercials from his '02 campaign. This exact proposal was brought forth by Gov. Kitzhaber more than four years ago. Apparently Jim Hill was the only candidate to support it then. The schools could have been saved long ago. None of this going into the reserves of Multnomah County and the city of Portland for it. Too little too late, Teddy! Now back to doing what you do best--nothing. I pray that we don't re-elect this fool. I challenge anyone to look at Jim's ads and tell me that they think Ted should be our nominee this go around.

  • TrueBlueOregon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, I guess I just believe that when a site that bills itself as "progressive conversation around the water cooler", and a place for "Oregon progressives to gather", the all important conversation, would include you know...."progressive topics". I think any reasonably educated person would question your business association with Ted Kulongoski, and the effect it has on the "progressive conversation" here on BlueOregon. If you support Ted, great, but other dem blogs like kos and mydd at least list who they are supporting, and are up front with their readers. I think inevitably the conversation will keep coming back to you as long as you conveniently ignore Jim Hill and Pete Sorenson's challenge to Kulongoski. The coverage of the Multnomah Dems endorsement was completley skewed to make it look like the voters were a) insane, or b) feeling slighted. God forbid a sane, sober, active Democrat disagree with you on who would be the best choice to win the nomination. If you want the DLC's Ted Kulongoski to win so badly that you ingnore or trash real progressive campaigns, it might just be a good idea to put a post-it on the water cooler saying the guy hired you to do his website(which is a nice one). Thanks

  • PanchoPdx (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ted K: "The wind is at our back."

    Voters: "Actually, the wind is in your trousers."

  • (Show?)

    OK -- meth is bad Cold medicine off the shelves. How does that help when Mexican meth is half as expensive as locally made?

    It actually helps considerably. Fewer kids exposed to the hazardous chemicals used or created in the production of meth. Fewer houses rendered uninhabitable by the aforementioned chemicals and boarded up to be a blight on their neighborhoods. Those are no small things in struggling neighborhoods.

    Read the Oregonian series on meth. They made a good case that the supply from Mexico could be dried up too if we do the right things internationally.

    Drastically reducing the supply of meth is not going to fix all our drug-related problems and some meth users will just turn to something else. Nevertheless, there are a lot more meth users today than there used to be and supply has something to do with that.

    There is apparently some evidence that meth is nearly instantly addictive for some set of people who are genetically predisposed, for them supply may be the primary reason for their addiction.

    By the way, I walked into my local Walgreen's with virus-clogged sinuses last week and three minutes later I walked out with a box of generic psuedoephedrine. It took about 30 seconds extra to show my ID to the pharmacist and sign the book. I figure the time it took him to walk to the shelf and fetch it for me was more than compensated for by the fact that I didn't have to find the proper shelf myself.

  • J.E. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I checked out the commercials at Jim Hill's website. Pretty impressive. Is it true that there was a plan to use tabacco and alcohol four years ago and Kulongoski wouldn't back it? If so, I have to say that it is very sad although not surprising that Ted is only now getting on board. Nothing like a hotly contested primary to get an otherwise missing-in-action governor talking about important issues.

  • (Show?)

    TrueBlue wrote, If you support Ted, great, but other dem blogs like kos and mydd at least list who they are supporting, and are up front with their readers. I think inevitably the conversation will keep coming back to you as long as you conveniently ignore Jim Hill and Pete Sorenson's challenge to Kulongoski.

    OK, let's start with basics. Every single page of this site features this statement: "This site is published by Kari Chisholm at Mandate Media." That includes a link to my site, which clearly discloses my client list.

    Whenever I post an item over my name, I disclose whether I have a client relationship.

    The "voice of BlueOregon posts" (open discussion, in the news, elsewhere) are deliberately void of any point of view. Sometimes I post them, sometimes our co-editors post them.

    Finally, let's discuss the question of bias in the governor's race. I was going to post all the links about Pete Sorenson, Jim Hill, Vicki Walker, Rick Metsger, and John Kitzhaber - but there's DOZENS of them.

    So, I'll let you dig through the google results yourself by clicking on those names.

    To suggest that we haven't covered the other Democrats is OUTRAGEOUS. Furthermore, I suggest you call Pete Sorenson himself or someone with the Jim Hill campaign. We've bent over backwards here to provide coverage.

    I'm a big boy and I've got thick skin - I can take it - but I think you owe an apology to the many other people who make BlueOregon work -- and to those many candidates (and non-candidates) who have worked hard to get BlueOregon coverage that you're ignoring.

    [As for the Multnomah County Democrats? Our coverage was just fine. We didn't say anything about them being insane... We said this: "Over the weekend, the Multnomah County Democrats announced their controversial picks in statewide, legislative, and local races." Straight up and factual. Not a stray word in there. Please don't confuse the comments with the posts.]

  • cm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yes, this is just all to conveniently timed. Ted's not been an effective governor and he's lost his credibility with me. But maybe people haven't been paying attention and his speech will move some folks. Not me. Like someone else said, too little, too late. Let's move on.

  • (Show?)

    TBO

    i showed up here last year and asked Kari if i could post some guest articles. he said, sure, and then when i asked to be a regular, he said Yes. so i'm a contributor, and not one single word was said about what i believe, what my opinions are, etc. the only editing he has ever done was an early headline that was so ambiguous, no one knew what the topic was (i'm not a headline person).

    i have carte blanche to say what i want. mostly, i'm negative on Gov K; not as rabid as my friend MrFearless, but possibly only Mannix is. i get to say what i want, and so does every other contributor. writing is voluntary. those of us who contribute to BlueOregon write what we want, when we want. if i want to post "Ted sucks" material twice a week, i can post "Ted sucks" material twice a week. i think Kari's only desire will be that i not be boring (that's an easy one to fulfill).

    feel free to make your "Kari is cheating" noises. regular readers, writers and commenters know better. this site fulfills the First Amendment fully: free speech for all. even you.

  • brett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Happened to turn on the radio at about 50 minutes into the speech - and I LOVED his answer to the question about the Republican Legislature. Surprised the hell out of me. "All we [Democrats] are now is a series of disparate interest groups on a continuum all wanting to be heard at the same time." He understands! "They care about their jobs..." He correctly diagnosed the cancer that is killing the Democratic Party. Too bad he didn't have a cure. It was so vehement that it was almost a little Dean Scream of his own, but it totally worked. Good on ya.

  • (Show?)

    To me, the state of the state is a big deal and should be covered on this site. If Kari happens to support Ted as well, then that's just a coincidence.

    While Kari may talk about Ted, since that is the candidate he'd know the best, that doesn't stop the rest of us from promoting our candidate-- whether it be Pete Sorenson, Jil Hill, or Ben Westlund. I don't think people would take too highly to a big "rah rah" for Saxton or Mannix, though, since they're nowhere near progressive.

    doretta--

    That's because the new law doesn't take affect until later this year. Right now you only have to show ID. The new law requires a prescription. I believe it's supposed to start sometime this summer-- June or July.

    However, due to pressure from numerous sources, the drug companies are quickly putting out reformulated versions of their medicines. I've not had much trouble getting the items I typically take, as they no longer have psuedoephedrine in them.

    So by the time the law takes effect, it may end up not being needed.

    The problem I've run into with the current law is when you need medicine later in the evening or on Sundays. The pharmacies in grocery stores are typically already closed-- this means they only have access to a very limited supply locked up in the front (or none at all, for many stores). Unless you can get to a 24-hour Walgreens, you're often times out of luck. I know I have been the times I've tried to get cold medicine at 9:30 p.m. It took more of my time to stand in line, only to find out the ones I wanted were all gone, than it would have for me to walk to the medicine aisle and get it myself-- and I would've been able to get the medication.

    I'm thankful the companies are changing the medicines, as I don't know what I would do once the new law took effect-- I guess I'd have to drive all the way across town with my sneezing, stuffy head, headaches, and such to get to the nearest 24 hour Walgreens. Good thing I live in a metro area, or that drive could be even longer to find an open pharmacy in the evenings.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    True Blue--attacks on an elected offical are fine, but don't attack Kari, he is doing a good job with this.

    Those who say otherwise remind me of a story from about 15 years ago. Living room of someone hosting a gathering for a candidate whose campaign was just getting off the ground. Lots of the sort of debate which often goes on in Blue Oregon but back in 1991 only happened in person. Then the subject of a particular Dem. incumbent came up. Someone was angry that a guy who'd grown up in E. Oregon was an NRA member --how could a Democrat do that? And someone asked "but did you ever ask him about that issue to his face if it is so important to you?". No, the questioner said, just assumed no one could be both a Democrat and an NRA member--never thought to ask. At which point the questioner was landed on verbally by those who said "If you'd given him the courtesy of asking him he'd have said the same thing to you he said to any of us who asked: "As a teenager living in a small town I went hunting like every other red blooded American boy in my town".

    Point is, Kari has a right to make a living. As I recall, there was an online town hall on the 2002 Ted for Gov. website that worked a lot like a blog. Mannix had no such thing (did he prefer a one way campaign just preaching to voters?). Funniest thing ever happened in that online town hall was that Lars came on and said Ted should appear on his show, "10% of Oregonians listen to me!". Someone responded "Thanks for giving me another reason to respect Kulongoski--anyone who would prefer to talk to the 90% of Oregonians who don't listen to you has my vote!"

    Seems to me that blaming Kari is like blaming the graphic artist for lawn signs with a lousy message or poor choice of color combination. Everything a candidate does is ultimately the candidate's responsibility.

    Brett, Kulongoski has also quoted Will Rogers "I belong to no organized party, I am a Democrat". Personally, I think what is happening now that Ted can't cruise in the primary is what JFK called the free marketplace of ideas. But it is not enough to say "people are worried about their jobs" --that is Republican/ DLC sloganeering. It is his responsibility to talk about what he has done as Gov. Bringing in new businesses is nice, but what about the disconnect between supply/demand: employers and employees? Are iMatchSkills and Worksource Oregon working out as anticipated? In all communities and in all occupations? What is the oversight--are those working better in some areas than in others?

    I've gotten more interviews out of newspaper and website ads than from iMatch, so why should I be impressed by a slogan like "its about jobs"? As opposed to what?

    And where was that passionate rhetoric and concern about jobs last year? Can he now tell us what went on in those closed door budget hearings, or why a cigarette tax proposal now but not last year? If the answer is "Minnis said she'd keep the legislature in session until Christmas if I did" at least that would be honest. This way it is the reverse of the old Al Gore joke--that Al was a better speaker when he WASN'T running for President.

    Ted made some good appointments as Gov. (Max Williams was an inspired choice, I wonder if Lane Shetterly is glad he got the job given the problems with implementing Measure 37) but he owes the public an explanation for the AuCoin and Bryant nominations. What was he thinking? Why shouldn't people who were upset by those consider them "good ol' boy" nominations?

    But it is the job of the candidates to speak for themselves, not the job of the support staff. Do you even know the names of the creative talent for the other Gov. candidates?

  • Jef Green (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For the record as Jim Hill's campaign manager I want to say that Kari has been completely objective and accomadating when it comes to BlueOregon and has offered to have Jim do a live blog which we will be doing in the near future.

    I understand that this is an open process and it is important for people to be inquisitive and hold others accountable. I do also have to empathize with Kari that it is frustrating to have a post on the Kulongoksi's State of the State get side tracked off of what we really need to be discussing, which is the speech, the governors accomplishments (or lack of) and the debate over who will best represent Democrats in November.

    Bottom line is that Kari has created an great venue for people (no matter who they support) to voice their opinion. Let's keep those opinions coming.

    Please check out our website at www.JimHill2006.com or contact me if you have any questions. (See... shameless plug made possible by BlueOregon.com)

    Jef Green Jim Hill for Governor

  • (Show?)

    T.A., Jenni, LT, Jef... My thanks.

  • (Show?)

    UDPATE: A transcript has been posted over at the governor's office website. (Which I have nothing to do with.)

  • (Show?)

    Kari--

    Not a problem.

    I think it's good that we get a variety of people in here who all support different candidates. Then we can have discussions on why we don't/do support certain people. Those with the knowledge on those candidates can then add in what they know.

    It makes for some lively discussions, that's for sure.

  • (Show?)

    Jenni--I can understand you being grateful...but ask yourself why this is only happening now, when the substitute has been available for a while--and so has the problem. The Frontline that OPB did with The O on meth dipped their toe into that story, but didn't dive in. Think of all the ruined lives and orphaned kids (real or metaphoric) who may not have been exposed if profits weren't the primary concern. It took cutting their profits by taking them off OTC sales, to get them to lurch into action. I'm glad they're finally doing it, but--pardon me--where the fuck have they been?

  • (Show?)

    brett, thanks for bringing it up, because i love saying it over and over again: the diversity of the Democratic Party is our strength. those who think it's bad -- or a cancer -- have to face up to the fact that much of what's most necessary in life is often also hardest. sometimes hard means you have to put your shoulder to the grindstone, and sometimes it means you have to get very, very creative. being a Democrat requires both. the GOP and most other "third" parties like to put a simple, pseudo-unified message out to the world as if one voice can speak for all. there are those in the Democratic Party who long for this as well, but they (imo) don't really understand the essence and soul of our party. we may be messy and difficult and unruly in our diversity and our multitudinous cries for primacy, but we have one great strength that comes from that same source: we're very American.

  • (Show?)

    Oh, I agree-- the companies should've had the alternatives out much sooner than they did.

    I'm just glad they're available now, or else a lot of people would probably be going without OTC medicines.

  • (Show?)

    "Kulongoski, shouting to be heard over waves of applause." That's what the big "O" reported about the City Club speech.

    Rather than converse about the State of the State speech which was one heck of a speech, the conversation quickly turned into a mish-mash of swipes at Pat Eagan, our own Kari, and other unsubstantiated hisses and snorts. Thanks for taking the high road Kari.

    Oregon has the 5th fastest growing economy in all 50 states under Ted's leadership. I support getting rid of Karen Minnis..send your donations to Rob Brading and to the Ted Kulongoski campaign. Removing Minnis will give real progressive bills a chance to pass in the next session.

  • (Show?)

    I suggest that people actually listen to what the Governor said and not just repeat their criticisms from the last session.

    The participants on this blog do not reflect the Oregon electorate very well. For all the support here for Hill and Sorrenson, they do not make much of an impression on the electorate and will not be the party nominee. Sorenson has been running for a year and doesn't get past single digits. Hill has started too late and doesn't have the time or money to catch up. He has been invisible for the past four years and is no longer on the radar. I doubt that will change in the next two months. So the Democratic nominee will be Kulongoski.

    On the Republican side, Saxton has been making great strides and is the man to beat. Mannix is yesterday's news. Saxton has moved right and has Lars on his side. Mannix will lose social conservative votes to his younger competitor while the business folks in the Republican party will stick with Saxton. Saxton has money and momentum. Mannix has neither.

    Then there is Ben Westlund as an independent who, although a Republican until this month, will probably pull more votes from the left than from the right if Saxton wins the primary. The "moderate" Republicans are going to stick with Saxton and not go to Westlund, while many progressives are threatening to support Westlund. This is likely to put Saxton in the governor's seat in November.

    So folks, how do you feel about this scenario? I suggest you go back to reading what Ted said he wants to do and line it up with what Ron wants and see if you would rather support Ted than Ron. Ted has helped bring the economy back. He now has a positive schools program and is willing to support a tax to provide some healthcare. He is getting stronger on the environment. What is it that you want other than to beat up on him for not doing it in the last session?

  • (Show?)

    Geeze John,

    I agree with your analysis (except for the end where you list his accomplishments). So I guess that I'm going to wind up voting for him in the fall, but I'll hang in there with the lurching Hill campaign until after the primaries.

    It's all a little depressing to think that we've got four more years of cautious triangulation, tiny victories, big losses, and a continuing slide down the state rankings in a number of areas.

    go ted--Sometimes pragmatism's a bitch.

  • bdavistwo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    John Calhoun writes: "The participants on this blog do not reflect the Oregon electorate very well. For all the support here for Hill and Sorrenson, they do not make much of an impression on the electorate and will not be the party nominee. Sorenson has been running for a year and doesn't get past single digits. Hill has started too late and doesn't have the time or money to catch up. He has been invisible for the past four years and is no longer on the radar. I doubt that will change in the next two months. So the Democratic nominee will be Kulongoski.

    On the Republican side, Saxton has been making great strides and is the man to beat. Mannix is yesterday's news. Saxton has moved right and has Lars on his side. Mannix will lose social conservative votes to his younger competitor while the business folks in the Republican party will stick with Saxton. Saxton has money and momentum. Mannix has neither."

    While I do agree with much of what you say, John, I am quite worried about the governorship going to the Republicans this year. Kulongoski's behavior in the last four years has garnered little support from his base (aka 'us'). He can Howard Dean scream all he wants about how he has been 'a great democrat', but his record has shown almost nothing to this effect. Name one thing he has done that would have been any different than if we had elected Mannix four years ago. This being the reason that in my group of friends we refer to him as 'Kulongannix'. I seriously doubt that the sitting governor can beat the Republican nominee this year, especially with the moderate Mr. Saxton picking up the steam on their side as he is.

    This is the reason that we need to take a good look at the only viable candidate who in my opinion has a solid chance in the general, that being the twice elected statewide Democratic candidate for governor Jim Hill. He has a name that everyone knows, and the ability to raise the money and the endorsements of a lot of groups that Ted has pissed off. And can you imagine if he wins the Primary the national support for him as an African-American candidate? I would bet that you'd see the Bill Clinton's and all the big wigs in our party coming out here to campaign for him. It's an exciting idea. I pose that we rethink this expected coronation for Teddy in the primary that a lot of us around here are talking of...

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So last year it was "Oregon is fated to have a Mannix/ Kulongoski rematch, nothing you can do about that, just accept it" and now the only change is that it would be Saxton/Kulongoski?

    On the Republican side, Saxton has been making great strides and is the man to beat. Mannix is yesterday's news. Saxton has moved right and has Lars on his side. Mannix will lose social conservative votes to his younger competitor while the business folks in the Republican party will stick with Saxton. Saxton has money and momentum. Mannix has neither.

    Does Lars still have the same 10% of the listenership of Oregonians he bragged about 4 years ago, or has KPOJ AM 620 or other factors cut into that? What about the people who don't listen to talk radio? What about Ben's target audience--the folks disgusted with partisanship?

    I wouldn't place any bets just yet on the names for the Gov. general election. Just as there are Democrats changing to Indep. to campaign for Ben, I have talked to Republicans who would not be generally classified as "moderate" (in the Chaffee, Snowe, Jeffords, Collins, Hagel definition of that term) who are enthusiastic about Hill and not about Saxton or any of the others. What is to prevent them from either re-registering Dem. or talking to their friends who are Dem. or likely to re-register?

    Are we really stuck with 2 candidates who talk generalities and soundbites as the only candidates?

    As someone who lived in the old House Dist. 31 and was told I was deluded to think that in 1980 or 1982 a black man could win in S. Salem, I just don't have that much faith in conventional wisdom, esp. this year.

    Are we stuck just debating which groups should be more powerful and not debating actual solutions? Saxton wants to blame PERS on the individual retirees, as if they structured the system themselves. And more recently he was going to lay off all public employees and rehire them without PERS. That is his only solution? Does he believe he can get elected without being more specific than that?

    There are people who want this to be about pro-union vs. anti-union and then when elected they can negotiate privately and spring their solutions on us after the election is over. They are threatened by anyone who wants those who made the decisions about PERS over the last 20+ years to be held responsible, because gosh, that might mean the PERS Board and those people aren't unionized so anti-union rhetoric won't work if PERS Board and/ or legislators from years ago are held to account for setting up a system which ran into problems. Was the whole PERS situation part of the debate in the 1982 Gov. race? Does anyone remember back that far? Or is historical memory somehow subversive?

    Too bad there aren't some PERS Board members or legislators from decades past who could explain the system in clear terms to all of us. Who could say "don't demonize the average secretary or accountant or other public employee who had no say in how this was structured".

    Perhaps they could say "Maybe 8% match and some of those other ideas were wrong, but they looked good at the time". Maybe they could tell us who specifically by name came up with the structure of PERS in previous decades, when, and why. Maybe they could say "If you had been in that position, would you have told all state employees 'sorry, we can't give you a raise, we can't do anything about your retirement, if you don't like it you can get a job elsewhere' ".

    Can Saxton tell us "had I been in the state capitol as governor or a legislator in 2003, I would have supported the ----- PERS bill because...?" Or how he would have worded a PERS bill differently? Or what he thinks of 21st century PERS court decisions? Or is he too simplistically minded for that?

    Where was Ron Saxton 10 years ago, 20 years ago? Was he talking about PERS then? Or is this the issue he has built his campaign around so we won't ask him about any other issues because if he is elected governor he will wave his magic wand, PERS will be solved, education funded, more troopers on the highways, all Oregonians employed at living wage jobs and covered by health insurance, but if we question his PERS views none of that will happen?

    Remember the promises by the Measure 30 crowd that unemployment would go up if their efforts failed and all sorts of jobs would be created and unemployment would go down if they were successful? Did that happen?

    Isn't Saxton trying the same sort of con job? Why isn't he being asked tougher questions?

  • (Show?)

    How does Saxton "move right" and gain favor of republican moderates?? The moderate Republican in the race is Westlund, label or no. That much seems obvious. Are there progressives who may vote for him? Undoubtedly. Will there be more Republicans without all the partisan vigor who will vote for him? I think so.

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Calhoun --

    To "beat up on [Kulongoski] for not doing it in the last session" is, I think, a lot more relevant than you give it credit for.

    In that, you seem to acknowledge that he's been absent from the greater legislative discussion... shoudn't that figure in to our decisions? I did listen to what he said... I like what he said. But he does have a nasty habit of not showing up to get it done. (I wouldn't vote for Bush just because he seems to have suddenly sprouted a rhetorical love affair with alternative fuels.)

    I'm for Hill in the primary. Failing that, I just don't see the difference in terms of results... if the Democrats have the Senate... between Ted and Mannix. What's the point of electing a Democrat who talks the talk without acting on it?

    "I am less afraid of a hundred lions led by a sheep than I am of a hundred sheep led by a lion." ~ some dead British guy, probably.

  • (Show?)

    paulie and john c--it's a lot easier to have a fast growing economy when it was in the pits beforehand. That 7.8% GDP a few quarters ago wasn't the sign of a great Bush economy, it was the sign of a low denominator. :)

  • (Show?)

    brett,

    The response to Gavin White's question was, honestly, about the only passion I heard in one and half hours. I appreciated the passion, but I did not stand up and cheer, as many did in the room. I turned to my tablemates and said "where was that passion during the last legislative session." (He did, by the way, fail to answer the question. What I read into the response was "Yes, Mult. Dems, I am pissed off at you.)

    I want a Democratic governor, and will likely end up voting for K. Hill's close connections to the public sector unions worries me, since I have not seen leadership on the part of the police, fire, or teacher's unions in portland that makes me think they realize they may be part of our fiscal problem, and have to work together on forging a solution.

    I don't know enough about Sorenson yet to make a call.

    I know K's campaign director and told him when he asked me about the speech as I left: I am looking for passion and leadership, two things I find sadly lacking among my city, county, and statewide leaders. Like many Democrats, I am disheartened.

    Soundbites about 'three tracks', or education plans that are doomed to fail in the legislature, or stuff about biofuels doesn't do it for me. We have structural problems in this state and no one seems to be willing to step up to the plate and address them.

  • Sid Leader (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ron Saxton can get a facelift every week-and-a-half and it still won't make his ideas any saner.

    It may not be too late for a refund, Ron. Worth a check.

    <hr/>
open discussion

connect with blueoregon