So is a violent revolution by the electorate against evangelicals and all marketers of standard, Amerikan fraud!

Thank you TJ!

Dan Lavey be working on a Gordon for Gov. campaign? What is he doing these days now that his favorite candidate is out of public office for the first time in well over a decade? Is he trying to drum up business because of that?

As a major part of the team which elected US Sen. Gordon Smith, he knows what both winning and losing looks like.(And yes, folks, I think Gordon won in the fall of 1996 because he had the superior campaign organization--the idea of anyone buying votes by running commercials to the point of nausea implies a) the mute button, channel selector, on/off buttons don't exist and b) Oregon voters are sheep who will vote the way TV ads tell them to vote.) Lavey did say some intelligent things in 1996. One of the most interesting was "the fastest growing party is no party at all".

Imagine in 2010 Gordon is the nominee and Democrats nominate someone intelligent like Kitzhaber or DeFazio. Imagine every strong partisan votes with their party but the weak partisans (leans R or leans D but considers themselves independent, only registered in a party to vote in primary) and those not registered with a major party are the swing voters.

Who wins that election? Why? Purely by money or are organization, volunteer base, appeal of the candidate important factors?

If someone were to do a survey in all 36 counties and ask "How big a factor do you believe the Arlington Club is in 21st century Oregon politics?", how many people would ask "what is the Arlington Club and where is it located?--I've never heard of it"

In 1994, people supporting Kitzhaber would smile and their faces would light up when talking about their candidate--same dynamic but on smaller scale as Obama 2008. I'm guessing there weren't many 2008 Gordon Smith supporters with equal enthusiasm.

Yes, when there is a nominee it will be important to have enough money to be competitive. But without knowing the state of the economy in 2010, it is tough to know how many people will be able to donate more than $100, and how many would have to budget to contribute $20. Who knows, this financial crisis could bring a return to the more volunteer-based campaigns of the 1970s.

In 1974, an (Oregonian?) editorial said the 3 Democratic candidates for Gov. were such good candidates that they'd have to give them scores of 100%, 99%, 98%, spoke of the strengths of each, and then said why they had chosen to endorse one in particular. That wasn't because the candidates had hired excellent political consultants, it was because all 3 candidates had excellent, outspoken backgrounds. 2 had been legislators, one a statewide elected official.

A friend of mine who had always voted for Gordon Smith in the past said about a year ago that if it were shown the incumbent Sen. Smith was not the same guy as the Gordon who had been elected in 1996, it was possible he would vote for a challenger. (No, I don't know how he voted in November.) Does that sound like someone who would contribute time and money to a Gordon for Gov. campaign?

Kari, do you know that much about the political landscape a year from now to be able to say, "To beat Gordon Smith in a governor's race, our candidate is going to need some $8 to $10 million. Some serious built-in name ID is going to be critical - and the ability to raise serious cash is, too."

If you can see into the future like that, I suggest you should invest in some powerball tickets, or tell legislators what the effect of a ballot measure to end the kicker would be, because if you can see into the future about the Gov. race, you've got one very powerful crystal ball!

In fairness, Smith probably WOULD at least be nominated by the party if he ran. Let's not kid ourselves. You think an Atkinson or Mannix would have a shot, even among the crazies, against someone who has actually held statewide office recently?

For now, I'm hoping for Governor Steve Novick. He'll need a lot of money to beat Smith, but he can do it on the merits.

Da Faz is not our greatest hope for the Governor's race, for the plain and simple reason that we're much better off with him in DC as the head of the important Transportation subcommittee.

Nope, it's the Kitz who is our best hope, and not just because he would clear the field (Democratic and Republican) but because he actually wants to run.

Good debate going on here. Anyone who clicks on the Dan Lavey waving his arms around link will find Republicans not thrilled with Gordon, but he will get the nomination anyway? Because there are no new registrants in that party and anyone who ever voted for him for US Senate will vote for him for Gov?

Let's look at the power of individuals to make decisions. Deciding in Feb. 2009 how voters of either party will decide the Gov. primary is apt to be proven as wrong as the folks who said "Hillary announced for president today, and as the nominee she will....".

Didn't turn out that way, did it?

If Kitz actually wants to run, that answers the Leonard question. Kitz/Leonard. That's quite nice!

On that clearing the field bit, is he up to using the "L" word? I know he's up to it, but would he?

Sorry, I just ate and can't properly consider the titular premise.

Hey I thought fear-mongering was for right-wing-nuts and the Gee-Oh-Pee!

Verasoie

DeFazio's work on the transportation committee will for the most part be complete this year. After that, he has indicated, he is a free man. This is not year around work like appropriations or ways and means.

Dave, you are right--there are times when stale ideas need to be pushed aside and new ideas brought forward. Kitzhaber did that as Sen. President and also (to the degree possible with Republican legislative control) as Gov.

Over on the "Puzzling Budget Mess" topic there is a long comment on the subject:

Posted by: Ron Buel | Feb 26, 2009 5:14:50 PM

It is my belief that in early March 2009, the most productive thing anyone can do to ensure the election of an excellent Gov. in 2010 (not a disappointment as Gov. Ted turned out to be) is to start discussions among activists about the issues Buel raises.

Start with this question: Which would produce a more intelligent conversation than we have seen in awhile:

a) debating Buel's ideas and actions by the 2009 Legislature so that when there are Gov. candidates people can question the candidates (to the point of nagging if need be) on the issues debated in 2009 which were high priority for the general public and/or the people asking questions?

b) compiling in 2009 a list of candidates with name recognition and ability to raise money, restricting the possible candidates to the names on that list, and putting the raising of $X (an amount determined in 2009) above the importance of debating issues, having grassroots organizing, and getting the general public involved in debating Oregon's future?

I'm for a) regardless of who files to run in the primary.

If those who are for b) feel strongly, that is fine. But don't expect people like me to reject a) because they think spending enough money on a "good" candidate is all that is really needed.

I think the 2006 Gov. race insulted the intelligence of Oregon voters--from Ted's first campaign manager who sat through a primary challenger answering every question (no matter how tough) at a local county party meeting and then said of Ted "The Gov. is doing what Oregonians want done" as if anyone who questioned Ted's actions wasn't an Oregonian, to most of the general election. I heard Ted give one good speech (fall state central comm.) in the whole campaign.

We could have had an intelligent debate during the US Senate primary if one candidate hadn't decided "you should vote for me because you should be as angry about a 2003 legislative vote as I am and nothing else matters". That strategy failed, and if Steve had raised enough money so that the day didn't go by when there would be at least 2 Novick commercials on TV and one on the radio, I still think it would have failed.

What is so dangerous about debating issues rather than just settling on a candidate, peer pressure to support that candidate, and raising money? (Before anyone says anything, I believe DCCC and DSCC should not be involved in any state before the primary, but if they had never become involved in the 2008 Oregon Senate primary, I don't think the results would have been different.)

Clinton, Obama, and the others in Iowa had actual debates on issues, and Obama won in the fall. What is wrong with debating issues publicly in a statewide campaign? That folks outside the Portland area might force debates on issues more important to Paulie and Jackson County or Chuck Butcher and Baker County than important to Portland?

I hope he does. It would be nice to see a legitimate GOP contender for a change. The state can only be left better off if we have a competitive 2 party contest.

A DeFazio entry would probably clear the field in both parties. I don't think anyone would want to take him on. And if that's the case, the sooner he announces, the better.

Why not Jefferson Smith?

While I doubt many people outside his district and the Bus Project faithful know him by name, the Bus faithful are a pretty ridiculous canvassing machine.

Last time I saw Atkinson he was dressed as Thomas Jefferson on President's Day.

Wow...sitting in a dunk tank? Or did he think it was Halloween?

Lestatdelc,

From the horse's mouth.

Well, I tend to disagree with those who say or write there are all these givens, including but not limited to, who is supposed to do what and why. And especially going with the big name and money. That's one of the huge problems with politics-- that and the very unspecial interests who pump money into the campaigns.

This ornery computer wouldn't open the article linked to about what Dan regarding Gordon Smith and what his chances might be in the Oregon gubernatorial race.

I disagree if he thinks Smith's recent defeat does not make it more difficult for him in a race for governor.

The Democratic Party and Republican Party both need to find new candidates with fresh thinking, bold ideas, convictions and honesty which is sadly missing from most of politics.

On a very positive note, I do think President Obama is doing an outstanding job in these first (less than) two months of his presidency. God bless him always!

Scott

Well, I tend to disagree with those who say or write there are all these givens, including but not limited to, who is supposed to do what and why. And especially going with the big name and money. That's one of the huge problems with politics-- that and the very unspecial interests who pump money into the campaigns.

This ornery computer wouldn't open the article linked to about what Dan regarding Gordon Smith and what his chances might be in the Oregon gubernatorial race.

I disagree if he thinks Smith's recent defeat does not make it more difficult for him in a race for governor.

The Democratic Party and Republican Party both need to find new candidates with fresh thinking, bold ideas, convictions and honesty which is sadly missing from most of politics.

On a very positive note, I do think President Obama is doing an outstanding job in these first (less than) two months of his presidency. God bless him always!

Scott

verasoie:

Da Faz is not our greatest hope for the Governor's race, for the plain and simple reason that we're much better off with him in DC as the head of the important Transportation subcommittee.

Bob T:

By the way, this is one of the major problems with government for much of the past half-century. In this example, DeFazio is seen not as someone who's valuable because of his views on policies that are national in scope, but because of his value as a bag man for Oregon. You know, if that money was not in Washington DC in the first place for him to steer this way, more voters might have to take a look at where he is on national issues (for better or worse). No wonder Washington keeps sucking that money out of the states.

Bob Tiernan Mult Co.

mp 97303 sez: I hope he [Smith] does. It would be nice to see a legitimate GOP contender for a change. The state can only be left better off if we have a competitive 2 party contest."

In what way exactly were either Kevin Mannix or Ron Saxton, the last two GOP gubernatorial nominees, NOT legitimate? Also, please note that Kulongoski did not exactly swamp either of these guys. Indeed, he barely beat Mannix and didn't even win a majority of the vote.

I fail to see where Smith's politics are particularly different from either Mannix' or Saxton's. None of them is a hard-core wingnut of the sort that Kitzhaber defeated (Denny Smith and Bill Sizemore).

"In what way exactly were either Kevin Mannix or Ron Saxton, the last two GOP gubernatorial nominees, NOT legitimate? "

I maintain that Vic Atiyeh was the last GOP Gov. of the 20th century for a reason--no one of his quality has run recently. Dave Frohnmayer and Norma Paulus were people of that quality but their campaigns made stupid mistakes (remember Dave's brick through the plate glass window ad? made people who had known him for years think the Gov. candidate was not the same person--to some extent Norma had the same problem).

As someone who knew Vic Atiyeh as a state senator, I don't believe that the recent campaigns of Mannix and Saxton match the Atiyeh level of quality.

Of all the current GOP legislators, St. Sen. Frank Morse comes closest to that level of quality.

I agree that the GOP will never nominate him - but I could see him running as an Independent and winning, depending on how hard-core right the GOP nominee is.

Kari-

Complete agreement here about Mannix being a wingnut. This is me adding "scumbag" to that characterization. In terms of Smith, he ran about the worst campaign I've ever seen anybody run. Ads that aired in conservative parts of the state were touting his ability to work with people like John Kerry, and he made the cardinal sin of acknowledging and attacking a third party candidate, David Brownlow. To his credit, though, Merkley really worked for that Senate seat and appeared frequently in rural parts of the state.

In the interviews I did with Merkley during the campaign, he was very on message about his opposition to "free trade" deals and his support of country of origin labeling and other similar policies.

Kari - Our answer to a Gordon Smith gubernatorial bid: Jeff Merkley for Governor!

So I don't know Jefferson, nor am I all that attached to the Bus, but I have thought for a few months that aside from the big 3 (Kitz, Faz, and Bradbury) Jefferson would be the best opponent for Gordo. I'm not so sure that it needs to be about his name recognition now, but what he is capable of. The big 3 are known, sure, but they have distinct detractors and won't gain momentum. They have a big possibility of fizzling. But Jefferson has the benefit of both the grassroots and the machine being at his disposal. There are literally hundreds of ubber talented organizers in and around the country who would travel to the Mecca to help this guy. You get these folks, many of whom are organizing on the national level for major unions and candidates, to hit the ground in Oregon (and they will) and there is an Obamaesque feel to the campaign. Can you imagine 15,000 canvassers? Jefferson can. And it's not as if he doesn't pull some weight in the DPO either, come on, money will follow him if he seeks it. Two-year senator= President One-session legislature = Governor It's not that big of a stretch.

Posted by: joel dan walls | Mar 2, 2009 11:39:17 AM

mp 97303 sez: I hope he [Smith] does. It would be nice to see a legitimate GOP contender for a change. The state can only be left better off if we have a competitive 2 party contest."

In what way exactly were either Kevin Mannix or Ron Saxton, the last two GOP gubernatorial nominees, NOT legitimate?

Saxton is capable of constructive, rational thinking.

Smith has gotten around the lobbying ban by being a so called, 'senior advisor' for Covington & Burling, described by the 'Talking Point Memo" website as a 'prominent K street shop."

AKA, a lobbying concern, more than a 'legal firm.' So much for coming back home and caring about the folks of Oregon.

Sanity, puleeeeze. Oregon had to pass "Aaron's Law" to retard the efforts of Mormon, baby mongering, criminals . Smith has never distanced himself from the Church elders involved. How corrupt does the system have to be for him to have a good shot? Guess it is.

What the hell in this was flagged as spam?

"I think what got Merkley elected above all else was the (Democrat) next to his name on the ballot."

I wouldn't discount the sentiment behind the Jan. 1996 Gordon Smith ad, "we're all real tired of career politicians".

When a friend of mine who had always voted for Gordon (incl. Jan. 1996) told me one day the conditions under which he could imagine voting for someone else (main one being "not the same guy we thought we elected in 1996") combined with more enthusiastic Merkley supporters than supporters of Gordon (and, some say, the 3rd party candidate hurting Gordon) were responsible for the result.

Folks, they just rebalanced the budget for the rest of the biennium. Isn't it a little early to be talking about personalities running for office? Shouldn't issues (some not yet to reach the House or Senate floor ) mean at least as much as personalities?

<hr/>