Saxton v. Kulongoski: Round One, Friday

The first general election gubernatorial debate has been scheduled for this Friday - between Governor Ted Kulongoski and GOP nominee Ron Saxton:

The hourlong debate, sponsored by the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association, has been limited to the two candidates to give them more time to answer questions in depth, said J. Leroy Yorgason, executive director of the association. ...

The debate is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. at The Resort at The Mountain in Welches, where the publishers association is holding a convention. A panel of newspaper journalists will ask a series of questions. The public has not been invited, Yorgason said.

"It's more like a news conference rather than a public debate," he said.

The minor party candidates were not invited. Since he's not yet on the ballot, Senator Ben Westlund (R->I) also won't be included in this first debate:

The exclusion of other candidates brought a stern protest from Westlund, who is positioning himself as the candidate for voters unhappy with the way Democrats and Republicans have run state government. He stands to miss a rare opportunity to pit his views against the two better-known contenders.

"We're disappointed and we hope they reconsider," said Stacey Dycus, Westlund's campaign manager. She said she had heard nothing about the debate until she was contacted by a reporter.

Read the rest. Discuss.

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Does anybody remember Mad Magazine's old "Spy vs Spy" cartoons? The two pointy-faced guys would square off and catch each other in booby-traps and whatnot. But once in a while, there'd be a twist... Mad would run "Spy vs Spy vs Spy." And there'd be a new spy who would watch the other two fight and then after they were battered around a bit, she (it was a lady spy) would swing in and take the microfilm, or candy bar, or whatever they were fighting over.

    Just a thought.

    Perhaps off-topic, but just curious as to why BlueOregon seems to always peg Westlund as some variation of "(R->I)" but didn't extend the same service to Kevin Mannix (D->R)...

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Isn't it ironic that the very people entrusted to provide the rest of us with information about candidates have already made up their own minds without having heard most of them?

    I can appreciate the desire for in-depth answers, but don't you think the newspaper biggies would be curious as to what each candidate has to say, and not just the two who are the most well known? Couldn't they have expanded the length of the "debate" and perhaps cut seminars such as "New Advertorial Sections to Boost Your Bottom Line" or "More (Profit) with Less News Staff?"

  • (Show?)

    Yeah, I suspect I'm not alone in finding it fairly insulting that the editors assume we don't all know that Westlund is a former Republican. Oh well, I guess they have to get their juvenile digs in somehow...

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Funy, the one thing that must don't seem to have noticed is that the Governor's camp would have refused the debate had Westlund been invited.

    "Kulongoski's campaign has said the governor will debate only "qualified" candidates -- meaning those who have made it onto the ballot."

    Interesting that he's already ducking candidates.

  • (Show?)

    Why is noting Westlund's move a dig? Seems to me it's advertising a point he likes to emphasize himself as a reason to vote for him, i.e. that he made the move because he rejects current Republican forms of partisanship but I guess doesn't see the Dems as so different on that score (or maybe just remains more conservative than most Dems). The claim that he'd be less partisan is his big selling point, and saying that he's become more independent repeats his self-description. If someone really wanted to take a dig at him, they'd say that's a sham, that he's still really a Republican.

    Mannix' political transmutation is a good deal older, but when it was new & for a considerable time afterwards (though before the advent of blogs) the dreaded MSM in their local incarnations quite regularly referred to him along lines of "former Democrat turned Republican state senator Kevin Mannix."

    Irony literally means words that say one thing but mean their opposite. So I don't think media gatekeepers making up their minds really is ironic. In fact editors & producers see it as their job to decide what's "newsworthy" & evaluate reporters in terms of their conformity to editorial standards on the subject. It is something like ironic, however, when those same folks turn around and claiim they want to inform us "objectively" so we can make up our own minds, but refuse to provide information. Not quite though, because real irony is intended, whereas I think the editorial gatekeepers are so blinded by their own ideology most of the time that they really mean what they say despite their massively contradictory behavior.

    But it isn't true that the political reporters, editors & producers don't know at least generally what the "major" minor parties (e.g. Greens & Libertarians) think. They just choose to prevent others from knowing it too. Instead they substitute judgments that the views are not "newsworthy" because they don't have a "realistic" chance of being enacted.

    The latter point of course is self-fulfilling -- if ideas were treated seriously on their own merits regardless of current popularity, some might become persuasive to more people and thus become "realistic." This is the great paradox (though also not really an irony) of the U.S. journalism ethos: in reporting, it is so mindlessly "objective" as to be moronic at times, refusing to report ideas or interpretations unless someone "important" can be quoted saying it, which greatly helps the spinmeisters & demagogues in degrading public debate. But the editorial gatekeeping is narrowly establishment-supporting, excluding ideas from any direction that might rock the boat, the opposite of the purported objectivity. The contrast is striking to say British print culture, where reporters are actually allowed to initiate questions as devil's advocates and to describe the content of debates, including nuances, in their own terms rather than by duelling spinbites, which of course helps to keep oversimplified spin in perspective.

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kulongoski's campaign has said the governor will debate only "qualified" candidates -- meaning those who have made it onto the ballot.

    Interesting point. So... are we to assume that Kulo would be thrilled to debate Joe Keating, Starrett, or Morley?

    And I guess this means that the Governor is ready, willing, and able to debate Ben Westlund right after Westlund gets his signatures? Good to hear.

  • (Show?)

    You can't be that dense, JHL. The Kulongoski campaign certainly isn't going to debate spoilers, especially spoilers who haven't even qualified to run for the office they seek.

    And quite frankly why should he, or anyone for that matter? You don't get to be a contender unless you've proven you can win.

    What I don't get is why is it always that Democratic candidates get attacked over this? Most BlueOregon readers don't like Bush, but I never once read an attack on the President for failing to debate the Constitution Party, Peace & Freedom, Libertarian, or Green Presidential candidates. Why not?

    This classic double-standard seems to be the only thing fueling Westlund's campaign. The man is considerably more conservative than Kulongoski, but because he is a former Republican, rather than a Democrat, the anti-Democratic-Party left ("independents") just love him.

    Meanwhile, Saxton's worry about losing his base to Westlund have evaporated. He still has the nutcases on his side, so he'll win, unless progressives vote for the most progressive major candidate in the race: Governor Kulongoski.

  • Chris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I thought we lived in a democracy. Oh, that's right it's a republic, so the politicians get to pick who debates.

    I think it should be the individuals, not the newspapers or bureaucrats that should decide who makes up the debate. After all we are the ones voting.

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve -- thanks for recognizing the sarcasm.

    If the reason Kulo won't debate Westlund is because Westlund hasn't made the ballot... that to me sounds like a promise to debate him when he does make the ballot.

    But of course, this was the same guy that held a press conference in May and stated "I'm running against two Republican candidates." And then showed a misspelled sign proclaiming Ben Westlund to be the "other republican canididate."

    So... which is it? He's bashing Westlund as a candidate, but refusing to debate him because he's not a candidate. Talk about a double standard.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This classic double-standard seems to be the only thing fueling Westlund's campaign. The man is considerably more conservative than Kulongoski

    As someone who seeks candidates who engage in dialogue with ordinary folks and who propose solutions rather than making sarcastic remarks, I don't see how statements like this help re-elect the Gov.

    Westlund's website strikes me as having more concrete information and proposed solutions than Ted for Gov. which seems to have more news clippings than up to date discussion of issues.

    Is SB 382 "conservative" or is it that you expect a st. sen. from Deschutes County to have the same voting record as a senator from Mult. or Lane County?

    Bashing Ben won't get me to campaign for Ted. As a matter of fact, Ben is coming to a public event in Salem this week and I am going to go to it after work. Is there an event open to the public where ordinary folks can talk to Ted, or is he going to do the same sort of aloof campaign in the general that he did in the primary?

    I think liberal and conservative are 20th century terms. There was a Monday Conversation interview with the recently retired Fred Neal of the Sec. of State office in the Statesman-Journal today. Here is how it concluded:

    ".........the issues I care deeply about. They are the rule of law, balance of power, stable funding -- and the evaporation of amity that has resulted in increased partisanship and polarization, and has poisoned the paint on the walls of the Capitol. A lot of our history is not pretty. But we have a history that demonstrates a pioneering spirit, a willingness to try new things, an ability to cooperate with each other for the common good. I am an optimist."

    Now, you folks who think bashing Ben will win the Gov. election for Ted, let's hear specifics on why you believe Ted has stood up for those values (things I happen to believe in) and if you have specific evidence that Ben hurt the rule of law, balance of power, or stable funding by his stands / votes on particular bills, let's see you list them here. For instance, I discovered by voting record research that my supposedly "moderate" GOP state rep. co-sponsored bills with Kim Thatcher at the request of Freedom Works. I happen to think that makes an elected official unappealing. I have no knowledge of Ben ever doing such a thing--seems more publicly concerned about those issues than I have heard the Gov. talk about in public.

    If you Ted supporters have concrete evidence to the contrary, spell it out. Otherwise JHL asks a valid question: "So... which is it? He's bashing Westlund as a candidate, but refusing to debate him because he's not a candidate. Talk about a double standard."

  • Wesley Charles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For the record, Westlund isn't the only candidate who has yet to qualify. As of today (07/11/06), neither Joe Keating (PAC) nor Richard Morley (LIB) have qualified as candidates. Assuming those three join Kulo, Saxton and Starett, that makes six candidates.

    And that means Oregon's next governor will be elected with a mere plurality, not a majority. Westlund will hurt both Saxton and Kulo to some degree. Starett will peel off the OCA remnants who would never vote for Saxton anyway. Keating will defintely hurt Kulo, especially in Multnomah County.

    So, my question to the candidates would be:

    "Since it is almost assured that one of you will win the governor's race with less than a majority vote, as did Governor Roberts in 1990, how will you persuade the majority of Oregon voters who didn't vote for you to now follow you?"

    • Wes
  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Great question, Wes. That is a question that would knock Ron and Ted off their talking points and "solidifying the base" rhetoric.

    My question is what stands between Keating and Morley being qualified candidates. They were nominated by their parties (that was my understanding) so is it a question of fees and paperwork?

  • Zarathustra (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Supposedly, Bill Clinton advised John Kerry that the American electorate, when faced with a choice between someone they think is qualified, but doesn't look Presidential, vs. someone that looks Presidential, but they think isn't qualified, would vote for the one that looked Presidential. Good call, considering that he is to have said it before Kerry was the nominee. He probably meant that Kerry had a much better chance that way than Dean, but it turned out to be a pretty good explanation for the unexplainable. Personally, I feel that effect in this race.

    If you get down to brass tacks, policy wise, Kulongoski's agenda- to the extent we can divine it- is closer to a progressive agenda. When you delve into the details of Saxton's proposals, it ain't pretty, from a progressive bias. But damned if Saxton doesn't feel just like I'd want a progressive candidate to come across, and the Gov really lacks that. Call it the Grey Davis syndrome.

    If you're going to play wedge issue politics, how about a strong statement in support of Oregon's assisted suicide and MM policies, contra the DEA/federal government? Wonder who that was addressed to. Ron, you're not mainstream yet. Reach out. What do you have to loose?

  • WorkingForVictory (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry to go off-topic... [off-topic comment deleted. -editor.]

  • (Show?)

    If those setting up the debate managed to get all 3 "major" candidates there, either:

    (a) Westlund would fail to make the ballot. In that case, they just wasted the public's time giving an equal platform to a non-candidate.

    (b) Westlund would make the ballot, in which case the newspapers (who like to maintain an image of non-bias) might be accused of exerting undue influence on the race. (If a flood of signatures came after a strong Westlund showing in the debate.)

    Either way, they could come off looking pretty bad. So I can see why they wouldn't do it.

    What I don't understand is why they wouldn't just wait until after the signature deadline to hold the debate. That would spare them this catch-22, and allow them to include all candidates who have demonstrated strong support.

    Personally, I'd be just as interested to see a Westlund-Saxton debate as a 3-way debate. But I doubt that will happen.

    To Chris- what exactly do you mean by "have the voters decide?" Somebody arranges a popular vote on who the public wants to see in the debate? That sounds pretty cumbersome, and even if it could be done, there's nothing forcing the candidates to go along with the voters' will.

    In the realm of political debates, I think that the media does a reasonable job of sussing out what the public wants to know about, what candidates are willing to accept in terms of format, and put on the best possible forum. I'm happy with them playing this role.

    Kulongoski's conditions may be a irritating to some of us, but it's far from anti-democratic. As a politician, it's his job to weigh the risks and take the gamble, on whether it's in his interests to debate any given opponent. If there's a political price to be paid for excluding Westlund, it's Westlund's job to drive the point home. If he fails to do that, one reasonable interpretation would be that he lacks what it takes to be an effective politician.

  • (Show?)

    What I don't understand is why they wouldn't just wait until after the signature deadline to hold the debate. That would spare them this catch-22, and allow them to include all candidates who have demonstrated strong support.

    The problem is if you allow Westlund as an independant to debate, then you probably will have to let the other three candidates as well. I don't know if that will actually happen. My bet is once Westlund is invited to a debate, the other three will scream bloody murder if they don't get invited.

    Honestly, I don't understand Westlund's supporters gripes about the debate. My question is should a candidate who hasn't made the ballot yet be invited?

    If he was invited and didn't for some reason qualify for the ballot how would that be fair? Do we let everyone who claims they are running for Governor debate.

    Where do we draw the line? Ten candidates? Fifteen?

    I think the Westlund group is just looking for another issue to * about.

  • (Show?)

    What I don't understand is why they wouldn't just wait until after the signature deadline to hold the debate.

    Because this weekend is the long-ago established date of their conference.

  • (Show?)

    My reading is that this isn't a debate, but more like a forum or, as they said in the lead of this piece, "a news conference". The public isn't even invited. It's a chance for newspeople to get some preliminary impressions at their own private function.

    There will be debates between now and November, but this isn't one of 'em. Every time a Democrat says the word "Saxton" or the word "Westlund" God kills a kitten.........

    <hr/>
  • Karl (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm really sorry to see that the minor or "spoiler" candidates are not in the debate. They are the ones who are not afraid to talk about real issues. They could cause the "major" candidates to some entertaining artful dodging or to actually take some stands.--- But I guess that's why it won't happen.

  • Stella (unverified)
    (Show?)

    First, the Gov has not tacitly agreed to debate Westlund et al. after they qualify for the ballot. That's absurd.

    There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about the Gov saying, "I'm not sure whether I want to debate third party candidates in the fall, but for now I can say that at a very minimum I will not debate anyone who has not yet qualified for the ballot."

    For now, it would be foolish for the Gov to help his opponents qualify for the ballot by offering them free, unearned exposure. The jury may still be out as to whether he and Saxton will debate them later in the season.

    Second, excluding third party candidates from a candidates' debate is not undemocratic, no matter how many times Ralph Nader may claim otherwise. Remember, debates are limited in time, which means that every additional candidate invited gives less opportunity for substantive, meaningful discussion of important issues.

    (Sidebar: Some have said, then why not have a debate every week, instead of just a few each cycle. The answer is that (1) frequent debates are impractical, given HUGE time commitment involved in preparing for debates and the candidates' very busy schedules, and (2) more debates mean less people paying attention -- for debates to be meaningful, they must be limited or else the public stops listening and debates just become a forum for wonks to watch and candidates to try to trip-up their opponents.)

    Has anyone here been to a candidate forum with six candidates competing for the same office? It's absurd. There's only time for a few questions at these things, there's usually no time for rebuttals, and the speaking periods are severely limited. No one gets to say anything worthwhile. It just becomes a forum for soundbytes.

    The "to debate, or not to debate" question is not a measure of the candidates' commitment to democratic elections. It reflects genuine opportunity costs: for every additional candidate you invite to the debate, the debate gets incrementally less substantive.

  • Chris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    To P. Forsyth,

    "To Chris- what exactly do you mean by 'have the voters decide?' Somebody arranges a popular vote on who the public wants to see in the debate? That sounds pretty cumbersome, and even if it could be done, there's nothing forcing the candidates to go along with the voters' will."

    There is nothing now that forces an elected official going along with the voters' will (short of a recall election, which is probably more cumbersome). People who want to run for elected office need to master time management. There are a multitude of special interest groups that can share the burden of organizing since that what they do for a living.

    What I mean is since voters will decide who will occupy the office of governor, it makes sense to have many debates with all candidates. I consider it another research tool towards making an informed choice.

    To Stella,

    "Second, excluding third party candidates from a candidates' debate is not undemocratic, no matter how many times Ralph Nader may claim otherwise. Remember, debates are limited in time, which means that every additional candidate invited gives less opportunity for substantive, meaningful discussion of important issues."

    Are you in a hurry? Like I said, have more debates. If politicians are too busy, they need to get into another line of work. Debates are one of the few times that direct questions are asked and voters get to be as close as possible to the people who direct policy without media and spin filtration.

  • Larry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Any idea if the debate will be broadcast live?

  • (Show?)

    It wasn't clear exactly what this even was until reading the last few posts. I was also under the impression that this was a debate. It sounds like it's a private meeting between Saxton, Kulongoski and the newspapers. If that's the case, Westlund's campaign really has nothing to gripe about.

  • (Show?)

    Editor's note: TypePad crashed today, and all comments made between 12:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. PST were lost. Our apologies. We're not happy either.

  • CEllis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The debate over debates biennial silliness is upon us. Karl says the minor candiadtes are the ones ``not afraid to talk about real issues.'' Phooey. Stella has it right. At such a six-way gabfests, minor candidates often will make cute jokes or far-out remarks to get attention, knowing they have nothing to lose. The major contenders are left with 60 seconds for thoughtful discussion. These kind of events have happened before and benefit no one. The major media will have plenty of stories in the end on the minor candidates' views if anyone takes the time to read them. At any rate, private groups can invite whomever they want.

  • fairchance (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wow,

    And all this time I thought the Corporation Party ruled Oregon politics. One wing red, the other blue. So my Green Party vote is a spoiler vote?

    I do not support your red (saxton and fake independent Westlund) and blue candidates, do not agree with them, and I am supposed to give them my vote? Ha.

    Check the voter reg data, there are plenty of available votes for either wing of the Corporation Party to CRUSH the other wing in the election. But neither wing can motivate unlikely voters because the red and blue leaders or out of touch, pure and simple.

    So if you guys are so brainwashed to believe that Nadar, who I think is cool but did not vote for, cost the Democrats the election in 2000, then you need to take a deep breathe and remember, both parties are out of touch with many, many voters. Extend that to the guv's race coming up. thanks for the minute, fairchance

    <h2>P.S. Is this a progressive blog?</h2>
in the news 2006

connect with blueoregon