Saxton vs. Kulongoski

Ron Saxton and Ted Kulongoski are debating on live statewide television on KGW-8 at 7:00 p.m.

Discuss!

Comments

  • Joe12Pack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hmmm...my pre-debate expert anyalsyis is it's Saxton's to lose. Ted's base of support is static at this point. The dyed blue crowd is all-in. Ron doesnt have that kind of support from many staunch conservatives. Ron's performance tonight will either attract or repel voters. He needs to walk that tightrope between the Republican base and quirky Independents, somehow trying to appeal to both. That's a tall order, but given the weakness of the incumbent, within the realm of possibility.

  • troublemaker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Is anyone else concerned that this race is turning into a debate on who's more anti-immigrant? Kulongoski's new mailer is all about how he is tough on immigrants--sending the National Guard to the border, increasing employer sanctions, and cracking down on "suspicious" driver's licenses. The mailer even refers to "illegals". Ugh! This seems like a pretty stupid move. Does someone actually think that Ted can get some of the anti-immigrant vote? I doubt it, and he may have just lost my vote.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The polling I've seen says there are many uncommitted. Kulongoski needs to hammer Saxton on his obvious liabilities.

  • James (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In Eugene, the Lane County Bus Project is sponsoring a drinking game at Peabody's Pub (444 E. 3rd).

    Every time Ted or Ron say "accountability" or "leadership" you have to take a drink.

    Alcohol is not required, but it helps get through the talking points...

    James Mattiace Lane Bus

  • THE WOLFE (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kick Saxton's butt Ted!

  • (Show?)

    I thought both Ted and Ron did better than expected.

    Ted actually smiled and talked forcefully. Ron spoke very well and sounded more determined.

    Saxton has the advantage of running for change in a year when the voters are clamoring for change. Kulongoski has the advantage of being the Democrat in a Democratic state and being the incumbant.

    Saxton scores his biggest points when talking about how he could find more efficiencies and savings, and run things more effectively. But I thought Kulongoski defended his record well emphasizing the tough times he has led us through. Also pointing out that Saxton's record while on the Portland school board included no balanced budgets and overly extravagant spending and poor hiring decisions.

    Kulongoski made several speaking mistakes, especially when he started to say he didn't support evolution, and then corrected himself. Ron was a much clearer speaker overall. But like Bush, Ted is the one you'd rather share a beer with.

    Saxton's trying to make this a referendum on Kulongoski and his leadership. With most voters itching for change, at least at the national level, that gives him some traction. But I though Kulongoski did a good job defending his record, even though I still think he could have done better than he did.

    Part of me would like to see what Saxton would do if he were governor, but I suspect he's more hot air rhetoric than substance, promising everything to everyone and won't be able to deliver. Plus I wouldn't want to see him screw up Oregon environmentally and on social issues.

    So I'm sticking with Ted!

  • Hmmm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gosh - I'm not sure how I'm feeling. It was too much of a he said/he said kind of discussion - not as much substance as I would have liked. Don't you think Saxton has something with all of those newspaper endorsements? I would like to know if anyone has the knowledge of endorsements from past elections to help with understanding here.

    Was it just me - or did the reporters seem to throw hard balls at Kulongoski and softballs to Saxton?

    feeling a little unsettled about it all now.

  • (Show?)

    Where were the other candidates: Starrett, Keating, and Morely? They all performed well at the Candidates Gone Wild event last night in Portland.

    It would have been great to see those candidates in the debate also.

    It's ok to have most of the debates between the two main candidates, but at least one debate in all major statewide races should be with all qualifying political party candidates on the stage together.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Saxton scores his biggest points when talking about how he could find more efficiencies and savings, and run things more effectively.

    My sense was he CLAIMED he could do things more effectively and effeciently, as long as we didn't ask that annoying question HOW?

    When we had revenue downturn after revenue downturn, how would he have kept the state police on the highways 24/7? Claiming to be more of a leader than Kulongoski is not the same as specifying a funding source.

  • (Show?)

    Saxton left himself wide open dozens of times, but Ted was so nervous he couldn't quite clobber him.

    The obvious point Ted never seemed to point out was that Saxton is a soul-less panderer. He promises everything to everybody. Increased spending on higher education? 'Yup.' No serious changes to public employees? 'Did I say that? No, no, I was misinterpreted' Massive tax cuts for the wealthy? 'Of course.' 'Free lunch for everybody! A chicken in every pot!!!'

    My goodness, if I was a Republican, I'd be embarrassed about Saxton.

    SO the big question is this: will tons of money spent on lies put Saxton in office? I'm guessing no. Not if we turn out the vote.

  • D v. TS (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Reminds me of this debate.

    "Hold your nose and vote for Ted. That says it all. Saxton is obviously the eviler of the two lessers.

  • TedWin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Both performances were very poor. It had a lot of how bad the other one is instead of what each offer for the state. I am tired of watching destructive ads. I am an independant and would like to know on what they realistically offer for my state. I don't care who or which newspapers endorse who; I will make my own judgement. I am not biased either way.

    For the moment, if I were either Democrat or Republican I would be embarrased about Ted and Ron.

  • THE WOLFE (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tedwin,

    Sorry I didn't hear what you said because I'm still LMFAO at Ted reading the Oregonian Endorsement of GWBush in 2000.

    That was priceless!

  • myranda (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hi, everyone. Ted wons this debate solely on Saxton's response to "the vision thing." Did you see his response? First, he shuffled a bunch of papers, looking for his "vision thing" response. Then he held up his white-paper booklet, thumbed the edges of it, and said that his vision was in there. It was obvious that Saxton hasn't thought about what he would do for Oregoninans if he won--he can only attack Ted (usually with misinformation). And that's REALLY scary.

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I couldn't watch the whole debate but I made it through the first hour. The thing that struck me is that Saxton would not answer a direct question. They ask him what is policy toward homosexuals would be and Saxton talks about his vision and how Kulongoski has failed. They ask Saxton about how he's going to pay for something and he talks about Kulongoski's failures and Saxton's vision. Talk about a question dodger. I just wish for once one of those reporters would grow a set and make a candidate that does that answer the freaking question instead of letting slime like Saxton ooze himself off the hook.

  • V (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You thought Ted bringing out the Oregonian endorsement of GW was clever? You really DO have low expectations of Ted, don't you? I feel sorry for you guys. Seriously. At least with GW you can chalk up his malaprops, mispronunciations, and over pronunciations as holdovers from his dyslexia and just plain affectation, but what excuse does Ted have for his inability to communicate?

  • zz (unverified)
    (Show?)

    saxton came off like a used car salesman, and a sloppy one.

    he didn't answer a single important question, and in his evasions he was very clumsy (to be kind about it). why couldn't he look into the camars? when he did attemt to say something it was always "we'll talk/think about this later, but i'm the man for the job"

    what a crock of shit. ron, you'er through. get out.

  • Sonny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I thought both Saxton and Kulongoski did a good job in the debate last night. Ted was far more prepared to defend his record than he has been in previous debates. The one thing I still do not understand, however, is what happened to Ted after his first two years in office. The editorials I have read, including those endorsing him, like today's WW, damn him with faint praise. They say he essentially disappeared in 2005, did not engage with the legislature and had a weak staff when Bragdon left. I assume that is why most of the papers have endorsed Saxton. I do not know if Ron would be better than Ted, but he sure seems to have a lot more energy and enthusiasm for the job than Ted does.

  • John (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Saxton lied about not wanting to repeal Kulongoski's clean car emission standards. Saxton told the Oregonian he would take decisive action to repeal those environmental protections.

    He knows that his position on that topic will hurt him - polls show something like 80% support those standards. But Saxton is more concerned with rewarding his big corporate donors than promoting the public good.

  • Joe12Pack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "He knows that his position on that topic will hurt him - polls show something like 80% support those standards."

    What? Who conducted this poll? 80% of what group likes the idea of Oregon setting it's own auto emission standards? I'm sure four out of five bicyclists, regular Max riders and environmentalists think it's a grand idea.

    IMHO, it's a bad idea and wrong of Kulongoski to force it upon Oregon. Ted's handling of it ticks me off more than anything. If you want tighter federal emission standards, tell your congressman and senators. Continue to increase CAFE standards. 49-State Federal standards are sufficient. More state bureaucracy and higher new vehicle prices isnt worth the very slight reduction in emissions this particular plan claims to provide.

  • MarkDaMan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Not from last night's debate...but the Candidate's Gone Wild debate. I was wondering why the Governor didn't attend, and found this little piece on the bOregonian's website.

    From Kulo's camp,

    The Democratic governor's campaign told organizers of the event that he was cancelling out after finding that he would be attending a funeral earlier in the day for Cpl. Chase Haag of Portland, who was killed Oct. 1 in Iraq.

    "After spending the day with a family who lost their son, it's hard to transition into that environment" of a light-hearted campaign event, said Kulongoski's campaign spokeswoman, Anna Richter Taylor.

    and why Saxton didn't attend?

    "While Governor Kulongoski deserves praise for his commitment to Oregon's fallen soldiers, it is disappointing that his campaign is now using those services as an excuse to skip campaign events and engage with Oregonians even when there is no conflict. As difficult as it may be, the Governor has a duty to lead through thick and thin, and that is not happening right now." said his campaign manager, Felix Schein.

    What is wrong with Saxton's camp?

  • booooooo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Joe12Pack:

    BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Ted's handling of the emission standards shows true leadership, exactly what Saxton's campaign says he lacks. It's horsecrap and you know it.

    Saxton looked like a deer in the headlights when asked about this at the debate. Just illustrates perfectly he's all about big $ and doesn't give a crap about the little guy.

  • Harry K (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I really appreciate the candidates' willingness to debate about bipartisan, unqualified support for US-Israeli war crimes against Palestine and Lebanon. Given that no one in either party seemed eager for this debate, it is a pleasure to acknowledge that Kulongoski has thought better of his "I am a Zionist" statement, and that Saxton has agreed to divorce himself from the Bush Administration's war-mongering in the Middle East.

  • Joe12Pack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "It's horsecrap and you know it."

    No, I don't know that nor am I being disingenuous. Believe me, I'm all for a cleaner environment, conservation and sound government regulation therof. However, I don't concur with the CA-OR-WA auto emissions pact or the manner in which it was handled.

    Agreed, Saxton stumbled on this issue in last nights debate. He should have taken a clear position.

  • Stumbled? (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oh come on! You're all for a cleaner environment? Hahaha! Laughable! How you could be and at the same time be pissed off about cleaner air standards??? YOU ARE FOOLING YOURSELF!

    Saxton didn't stumble over that one last night, HE LIED TO ALL OREGONIANS LAST NIGHT.

  • Joe12Pack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Stumbled?,

    Almost hate to justify your shrill rant with a response, but I'll do it anyway. Believe it or not, I'm a pretty eco-friendly guy. I dig clean air and would like it to be cleaner. Because I happen to disagree with the policy in question, that makes me "pissed off about cleaner air standards"? Rather specious reasoning, don't you think?

    As I said before, I'm all for increasing federal CAFE standards. That combined with consumer demand for more efficient vehicles will achieve the objective. Adopting a seperate set of emission standards hurts both business and the little guy through added bureacracy and higher retail prices. There's a better way.

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Joe, I do agree there is a better way. Unfortunately the current residers of the Fed don't give a flip about clean air standards and have pulled us out of the Kyoto treaty. The bottom line is someone has to do something. If that means I have to pay a little more to do my part then no. Its not bad for me and it's for the greater good.

  • Joe12Pack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Garrett,

    Can't disagree with you about the Fed's, but there's a vast divide between bullshit window dressing like the "Clear Skies Initiative" and the Kyoto treaty. Neither is in the best interest of we the people. One's a bit too rape-the-environment friendly in the name of corporate profits while Kyoto unfairly penalizes the U.S. Still, there's a lot of middle ground there and the stated goals of Kyoto are attainable.

    Speaking of middle ground, two words: Global Warming. Yet another issue where both the far-right & far-left are full of shit. It's no hoax, but the sky isnt falling either. I'm no expert in the science of climatology or meteorology, but I did study it extensively in my college years and have maintained an interest in it since. Global warming IS real and we humans are contributing to it. To what degree do we contribute to it? Not much so far in my humble estimation, but still something to be mindful of. There are several good reasons for reducing emissions, conserving resources and improving our planet, but global warming ranks fairly low on that list. People like Al Gore are as guilty of fear mongering as is our current administration. I don't know about you, but I'm not lying awake in my bed at night worrying about global warming anymore than I fear Islamic Jihadists bombing my subdivision. Seriously, both factions are trying to use us to their own political advantage. Common sense lies somewhere in between.

    I'd go on, but several glasses of Pinot Grigio may have hampered my abilities to post a coherent comment. Oh wait- I'm Joe12Pack- what I meant to say was too many Hamm's.

  • john (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Joe12pak is a few cans short of a half-rack, if you get my meaning.

    Joe- you obviously didn't study global warming in college, or you'd be convinced that it is a serious threat and that man is the cheif culprit. You're clearly lying.

    Before Kulongoski adopted the clean air standards, he formed a citizen advisory committee and held public hearings and a public comment period. Almost ALL comments were in favor.

    And the citizen advisory committee that recommened the new standards - one of the members represented the American Lung Association. Now tell me, who in their right mind would go against clean air and the ALA? I'll tell you who, someone who doesn't care about the public good, but does care about appeasing big corporate donors. And who does that sound like? That's right, Ron 'meat-head' Saxton!

    P.S. The poll showing overwhelming support for the clean air standards was commissioned by the OLCV and was done by a independent pollster that consulted Sen. Smith's last campaign (Mercury Public Affairs)

  • Joe12Pack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No John, I didnt study "global warming" in college. Is that a major now? Never claimed to be an expert in the field like a certain ex vice president does, but I have studied climatology and meteorology, both of which remain interests of mine. Just because my opinion on the topic differs somewhat from the most popular hypothesis of the moment does not make me a liar or an idiot. Now, thoughtlessly jumping on the political bandwagon every time a politician says "this will combat global warming" would be foolish. I find that strikingly similar to "surrender some of your liberties and we'll keep you safe". Better get on board or you're not a good American.

  • john (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Joe - I don't want to argue about it too much, but your opinion on global warming is outside of the broad consensus of the scientific community. This is a scientific issue and as such it needs to approached scientifically. You are relying on your gut feeling when the science is overwhelming.

    And about Gore - he did study under some of the country's most brillant ecologists. He wrote an intelligent and well informed book on the environment several years ago. So when he talks about global warming, he isn't some joe-smoe politican talking out of his ass, like Saxton, he's actually relying on years and years of study on his part.

    Long point short: go with the science, not your gut or the right-wing attempt to confuse the American public on this important issue.

    Check out the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's website, there's some good, and reliable info there, including how global warming will negatively affect the Pacific NW: www.ipcc.ch

  • Joe12Pack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    John,

    My gut only thinks for me when it's running on empty. I'd also bet that I'm better informed on this subject than the average Joe.

    I encourage you to research it further and draw your own conclusions. There's no shortage of data, assorted theories and diverse opinions out there. It's actually quite fascinating.

  • John (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I studied global warming in college and continue to update myself with recent news and reports. I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I'm made an informed and rational decision based on overwhelming data and consensus among thousands of scientists worldwide.

    Scientists are trying to convince the world that the Earth is round, and people like you and Saxton are saying its flat, because that's what your gut is telling you.

    There is no amount of CREDIBLE scientists that believe global warming isn't happening or that its not largely man-induced. There is no debate.

    Done. Next topic.

    Let's talk about Saxton's ties to Big Timber or the anti-choice lobby. Or how he has acquired his wealth defending big corporations.

  • Joe12Pack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ah, true believers. Gotta love 'em.

    Discussing global warming with a political idealogue is kinda like trying to convince a creationist that the book of Genesis is not a valid record of natural history. Both are a big waste of time.

    Peace

  • john (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So Joe12pack,

    Wow, faced with some sound logic it looks like you've resorted to name calling.

    Go back to your Republican blog site and talk about whatever evil scheme you guys are planning next.

  • Joe12Pack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Faced with logic? I must have missed that part. Furthermore, I'm not a Republican. Is that more of your logic? I must be a Republican, as I dare question the veracity of a belief popular with many Democrats? Heresy!!!

    Now if you'll excuse me, I have a three o' clock with the council of evil where we'll attempt to devise more diabolical ways to increase the Earth's ambient temperature. Must...destroy...planet!

  • John (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Joe- if you're not a Republican or Republican sympathizer, then tell me that 1) Saxton is a meat-head and 2) Republicans are completely wrong almost every issue.

    Then tell me 3) you think Bill Clinton was a good president

    If you pass that test, then I'll believe that you not a republican - but I'll never believe you're a democrat (or anything close to a democrat).

  • Joe12Pack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ummm...though your questions strike me as off-the-wall and irreleveant, I'll attempt to answer them in the order they were posed.

    1) IMHO, Ron Saxton is not a "Meathead", nor would I define Ted Kulongoski as such.

    2) Forgive me, but using terms like "almost every issue" and "Republicans" seems vague and subjective to me. I'll assume "almost every issue" is something like 75% of the time (or 3/4 of the time if that helps). Also not sure which Republican I should use as a reference, but neither are you apparently. Short answer, no, I don't believe Republicans are wrong almost all of the time and I'd give "Democrats" the same benefit of the doubt. Might sound crazy to a partisan idealogue like yourself, but I prefer taking each issue on a case by base basis. You know- evaluate available data, listen to differing views and form my own opinion using critical thinking. Call me crazy, but I'm funny that way.

    3) Was Bill Clinton a good president? Relatively speaking, I'd say yes he was. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted for him twice. That's not to say that I didnt disagree with him on multiple occasions, but he was always slightly more interested in being a populist rather than a leftist idealogue, something that Gore & Kerry never quite understood.

    You didnt ask, but you probably also want to know my opinion of George W. Lousy president. Iraq? I was strongly opposed to that well before we invaded, unlike many dumbfounded Democrats and gung-ho Republicans. Anything else you wanna know Professor? Whether were in complete agreement or not on global warming theory, I think you missed my key point. It's good to question, seek the truth and form your own opinions. Dissent is the American Way. You never once heard me say that global warming was bunk or that we should not work to improve our environment. Quite the contrary. Still, you come at me like an enemy blaspheming your religion. I stand by my original comments on the subject and will leave it at that.

  • (Show?)

    This race reminds me a lot of the Bush/Gore race in 2000.

    We have a Democratic candidate that doesn't excite the base, and a "compassionate conservative" Republican that most Democrats are complacent and apathetic about, thinking maybe he won't be that bad.

    I think Saxton's new ads touting his Oregonian endorsement are devestating. I have a sinking feeling that the next big poll that comes out is going to show Saxton with a lead, and then Democrats will stop being so complacent about this race and start panicking. But it might be too late by then.

  • Ogenki Deska (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Look at it this way: if Saxton wins, you'll have something to bitch about after Shrub retires.

    Plus, it might energize the lefty base enough to challenge the Hillary 2008 juggernaut.

    Kerry Repeat!

    <hr/>
open discussion

connect with blueoregon