2010: The Great Mentioner's Big Gubernatorial Candidate List (with money numbers)

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Last week, I asked "What are you looking for in a gubernatorial candidate?"

My only rule? No names. Which led to a a fascinating conversation about issues, personalities, leadership styles, etc. And, please, do feel free to continue that conversation over there.

But now, after completely avoiding the names, I'd like to flip the conversation over and talk about names. I'd also like to talk about money - the one thing that didn't really come up at all in that other, more high-minded, conversation.

Let's be honest: The ability to raise campaign funds is going to play a big part in who our next Governor is going to be. (Don't have to like it, but that's the system we've got.)

I've assembled a massive list of all the people that have been mentioned as possible gubernatorial candidates. Since most of 'em are in the legislature, and haven't been raising money for six months, this is a great time to take a snapshot of the financial starting line.

To be sure, my list is utterly ridiculous. Long ago, the columnist Russell Baker coined the term "The Great Mentioner" to describe the phenomenon in politics whereby names would somehow trickle out as rumors and eventually become accepted wisdom, right up to the point where they're debunked or denied.

So, my list includes people that are confirmed candidates, media reported, widely rumored, someone's idea of a great idea, or just a drunken toss-it-out-there from someone at a happy hour I've been to in the last six months. (And despite all that, I'm sure I've left someone out!)

With all those disclaimers in place, here's where all of The Great Mentioner's gubernatorial candidates are standing when the sine die starting gun goes off on the 2010 campaign.

The DemocratsThe Republicans
Peter DeFazio*370,367  Greg Walden*319,981
Peter Courtney271,171  Ted Ferrioli106,501
Betsy Johnson200,825  Gordon Smith*75,663
Dave Hunt43,428  Allen Alley71,451
Mark Hass38,567  Jason Atkinson47,756
Rick Metsger33,696  Bill Kennemer40,575
Brad Avakian32,417  Ron Saxton21,921
Brian Clem28,253  Bruce Hanna21,264
Peter Buckley24,711  Frank Morse13,002
Bill Bradbury17,978  Kevin Mannix*3,065
Alan Bates16,694  Rick Dancer0
Vicki Walker15,984  Dave Frohnmayer0
Randy Leonard14,417  Jack Roberts0
Steve Novick*9,992  
Randall Edwards7,138  
Lynn Peterson4,957  
Jefferson Smith3,585  
Ted Wheeler2,745  
Susan Castillo2,002  
Pete Sorenson531  
Steve Shields500  
Ben Westlund367  
Jim Hill2  
John Kitzhaber0  
Greg Macpherson0  
Barbara Roberts0  
Bev Stein0  

* Note: While Oregon has daily electronic reporting, federal campaigns still report quarterly. The most recent numbers from Greg Walden and Peter DeFazio are from March 31. The most recent numbers from Steve Novick and Gordon Smith are from December 31. Kevin Mannix has both state and federal committees (12/31), which I added together here. And finally, I should note that John Frohnmayer - who briefly ran as an independent for U.S. Senate last year had $985 in his federal campaign as of 12/31.

Also, I should note that I used the "cash balance" figure from Oregon's system (and "cash on hand" for federal.) That seems to be the best figure to compare across campaigns. It does ignore any outstanding loans or pledges, but pledges often don't come through and loans are often repaid after the election so the funds are available now. It does somewhat shortchange Bradbury and Alley, who've been raising and spending money for several months now; but those differences will shake out rapidly. Later, we'll use this opening cash balance to report "total raised since sine die" as another way of looking at overall strength.

Discuss!

Comments

  • (Show?)

    DeFazio. His election might mean the loss of a seat in the House and it would mean the certain loss of seniority. But eight years in Mahonia would affect public policy more than eight more in Washington, and it would be a lovely capper to a wonderful career. Plus, it would be a hell of a lot of fun to have DeFazio as Guv.

  • (Show?)

    i'm much less of a DeFazio fan after his votes on the stimulus & energy bills. yes, he voted on principle, but he also went the "cut off nose to spite face" route. i'm tired of Dems who undermine long-term progress for the sake of "principle" when the only functional principle in politics & government is getting things done. take step 1, then you can move to step 2. Brown vs Board of Education set the stage for the Civil Rights Act; you fix something you can fix now, and next year you fix the next thing. we see the country coming around on marriage equality: one state at a time. by the end of next year, DOMA & DADT will be gone. one step at a time, do you what you do now.

    not sure DeFazio's temperament is what i want as gov. 99% of the time, however, i love in in Congress. and i love his seniority. stay boy.

  • (Show?)

    Oh, I should do some kind of full disclosure here. A number of the Democrats on this list are current and former clients of my firm. So far, I'm not working for any 2010 candidate for Governor. I speak only for myself.

  • Cafe Today (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peter DeFazio VIABLE but recent votes could spell trouble in a primary Peter Courtney NOT VIABLE Betsy Johnson NOT VIABLE Dave Hunt VIABLE, unlikely to enter unless the field is clear of big names Mark Hass NOT VIABLE Rick Metsger NOT VIABLE Brad Avakian VIABLE, see Hunt Brian Clem NOT VIABLE Peter Buckley NOT VIABLE Bill Bradbury HAHAHA HAHA AHAH AHAHA HAHAHAAH NOT VIABLE Alan Bates NOT VIABLE Vicki Walker NOT VIABLE Randy Leonard NOT VIABLE Steve Novick* VIABLE
    Randall Edwards NOT VIABLE
    Lynn Peterson hmmm...intriguing. NOT (yet) VIABLE
    Jefferson Smith even funnier than bradbury...
    Ted Wheeler See Lynn Peterson
    Susan Castillo NOT VIABLE
    Pete Sorenson NOT VIABLE
    Steve Shields who the hell is this person?
    Ben Westlund NOT VIABLE
    Jim Hill DONE
    John Kitzhaber VIABLE
    Greg Macpherson NOT VIABLE
    Barbara Roberts See Jim Hill
    Bev Stein See Barbara Roberts

  • Greg D. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If Kitz actually decides to run he can raise plenty of money. One benefit of being "old" is having friends with money and connections with big time fundraisers.

    DeFazio is quirky but I can't imagine him leaving the powerful position he has in Congress for the uncertainty of the Oregon governor position. If the Repubs win back just a few select seats in the 2010 Oregon legislative elections, which could certainly happen, even if he is elected governor DeFazio would find himself trying to work with a deadlocked state legislature and getting nothing done, just like various others who have been in that position.

  • (Show?)

    I wouldn't be quite so quick to put Westlund into a "not viable" category.

    If Kitzhaber and DeFazio don't run, I suspect he could hold his own with some of the other floated names here.

    2 cents.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Please remember the DEEDS NOT WORDS cartoon after the Virginia Gov. primary. McAuliffe had all the name familiarity in the world, spent more money, lost to a rural legislator many outside of Virginia (perhaps even outside of his district) might never have heard of as many months before the Virginia Gov. primary as the end of June 2009 is before Oregon's May 2010 May Gov. primary. I'll bet rural legislator Deeds may have shown up on a similar local political blog as "not viable".

    Yet Deeds won the primary? How could that be?
    The subcaption to the cartoon (which was in the Washington Post) was "Did someone just go broke underestimating the intelligence of voters?".

    My point is this: the first thing we all need to deal with after Sine Die is fighting the referral efforts of AOI et al. Someone who is a leader in that effort might emerge as Gov. potential if (despite all the predictions of Bill Lunch and everyone else) not enough valid signatures are collected qualify the measure.

    It wasn't that long ago that it was considered impossible that anyone not a white male could be a serious candidate for president. Yet the 2 final primary candidates in 2008 were a black man and a white woman. It also wasn't that long ago that all sorts of annoying "experts" including reporters were saying "young people don't matter because young people don't vote". Yet how many young legislators are there in the 2009 session?

    What is the average validity record from past measures of the folks who will be running this campaign? Is it above 60% Even if the effort raised over a million dollars (which would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 per valid signature), does that mean voters are gung ho to prevent those who are succeeding in this economic climate from having to pay higher taxes? Or is it all just rhetoric on the part of those angry that tax increases were passed?

    How many people have registered to vote since the Measure 30 election? How many people voted for Democratic legislators in 2008? And yet the cynical "anyone with money can buy signatures with paid petitioners" will be true in 2009 and there is nothing anyone can do about that? Baloney!

    What was the result of the Measure 30 election? Would cuts if this referral attempt by AOI and others succeeds dwarf those cuts? Why should the hard working members of Ways and Means have to make more cuts simply because some lobby groups are angry at the well-off being taxed?

    Bottom Line: If Sine Die is today or tomorrow, the 90 day window for signature gathering would close roughly at the end of September. At that point there are various possibilities:

    a) tons of signatures (perhaps double the number needed) are turned in and unless there is a really lousy validity rate the measure is on the ballot.

    b) just over the number of signatures needed are turned in, and it will take awhile to know if the measure qualifies.

    c) although the efforts to refer each of the 2 tax bills needed almost 56,000 valid signatures, the number of signatures turned in is maybe 50,000 for one measure and 45,000 for the other measure. Therefore, not enough signatures having been collected, there will be no ballot measure as a referendum on the 2009 budget, and the budget stands as passed.

    My sense is that the answer to the above question is going to determine the political landscape more than money on hand the week before 4th of July and whether some candidates are seen as "viable" or not. The above is a data-driven question, the sort that ideologues hate. And yet, many ordinary folks prefer data-driven to ideology, if they think about politics at all.

  • (Show?)

    Well, let's see. You're right to say that money will play a big factor, but I think there's another side to that coin. We're in an economic crisis and Oregon has double-digit unemployment, so there will be a lot of folks with very tight wallets this election cycle. Not only will a strong candidate have to raise money, s/he will have to be able to do more with less. And do it in a very serious way. Novick showed he could do this in the Senate primary, and there are some other no-nonsense grassroots candidates on the list that have longtime armies of volunteers that will come out strong with time, if not dollars. DeFazio, Sorenson and a few others would definitely fall into that category.

    That said, I want my next governor to start a discussion around the state throughout the campaign about Oregon's priorities for the next five years. Dr. Kitzhaber, Commissioner Avakian, Senator Hass and Novick could all do this, and I think there are more on that list that could really get into it, too.

    Then I want Oregon's next governor to ascend easily to that role and be able to effectively do the job every single day. Commissioner Avakian has that in strides, as do Dr. Kitzhaber, Congressman DeFazio, Commissioner Sorenson and several others.

    Long story short, I think we have an excellent bench of Democratic leaders in this state right now. There are some names on that list that almost certainly won't be making a run for Mahonia in 2010, but definitely have bright futures in higher office.

  • (Show?)

    McAuliffe had all the name familiarity in the world, spent more money, lost to a rural legislator many outside of Virginia (perhaps even outside of his district) might never have heard of as many months before the Virginia Gov.

    LT, you're wrong. Creigh Deeds had run for Attorney General previously. Terry McAuliffe, while well-known nationally among political junkies, was entirely unknown to Virginia voters. Obviously, he spent millions making himself well-known, but it all collapsed in the end (for reasons that are being hotly debated now.)

    FWIW, Deeds ran a campaign very similar in tone to Jeff Merkley's - a focus on jobs, middle-class populism, with rural atmospherics. Like Merkley, that was authentic Creigh Deeds, but it didn't hurt that they shared the same television media consultant.

    But we're not here to talk about Virginia. Let's talk about Oregon.

  • (Show?)

    I'll respect DeFazio whatever his choice is. If he ran for governor I'd try to work for him, other constraints permitting.

    T. A. Barnhart is wrong to treat all compromises as intermediate steps that "get something done," move forward and create opportunities to move forward still further.

    In some cases that may be true. In other cases it is not. I like it that Peter DeFazio tries to distinguish those cases and it adds to his qualifications as governor for me.

    For example, on the Climate bill, the loss of EPA regulatory control over carbon emissions if that part of the House version end up in the final law, is a staggering blow to long term efforts to reduce greenhouse gas production. It is both a step backward and a roadblock to future progress.

    <hr/>

    Yet it is also an unfair characterization of DeFazio's no vote to say that it was about "principle," which implies a singly overarching and abstract issue.

    I.e. he did not vote like someone who might have said, "I favor carbon taxation so much that, despite liking other aspects of the bill, I will vote no. I vote no over the principle of the mechanism for creating economic incentive to reduce carbon emissions: taxation vs. cap & trade."

    Actually DeFazio's was a vote based on deciding that too many compromises in practice in a variety of areas added up to a bad bill that didn't do enough and set in place rules and precedents and mechanisms that would make it harder to get things going at the pace they need to.

    This was an area of genuine and legitimate debate among persons of good will committed to reducing global warming who understand the urgency of it. It was not a debate over principle, but over practice. Everyone who voted no from the left agreed on the principle.

    I would like a governor who considers the practicalities & details of compromises & can make judgments about which ones actually advance matters, which ones don't, and which ones create obstructions to progress. DeFazio's ability to do that is a plus in my book.

  • John (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This list, coupled with the early poll numbers that Carla posted last week, confirm what everyone already knew: Congressmen DeFazio and Walden are by far the strongest candidates for their respective parties. Unfortunately, the buzz on both is that neither is going to run (with Walden sounding less likely than DeFazio).

    Moving down the list, Cafe Today's list addresses the Democratic side of the picture rather nicely, although I wouldn't be so quick to write of Bradbury.

    On the Republican side, the relative shortness of the list already speaks volumes about the state of the Oregon Republican Party. Going through the names on the list takes things from bad to worse. Highlights (or lowlights as the case may be) of the Republicans:

    Walden - Like I said earlier, the strongest possible candidate for the Republicans. Well established in Eastern Oregon, Walden already has the base on his side, and could focus virtually his entire campaign on winning over the Willamette Valley.

    Smith - Smith could conceivably win the primary, but even that isn't a given. He would take a harder beating than he did against Merkley in a general. His high negatives tell the story.

    Alley - Who knew that losing the Treasurer's race by six points would be a springboard for running for Governor? Alley really doesn't have anything going for him, save for the fact that the rest of the field is similarly weak.

    Atkinson - An everything-but-announced candidate, he stands a good shot at picking up the nomination in this field. However, he still has a lot of ground to make up with his weak name ID.

    Dancer - Only gets a mention because he has more claim to a run than Alley does, since Dancer had a slightly better performance than Alley did in 2006.

    Frohnmayer - An interesting and exciting candidate... 20 years ago. Retired.

    Roberts - Roberts is the only other candidate, apart from Walden, who struck me as even having a chance in a general election. However, he could face similar problems in the primary similar to those of 2002.

  • John (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "...similar problems in the primary similar to those of 2002."

    D'oh! Cut the first "similar" in that sentence. Also, left out an "f" in "off."

  • Scott Jorgensen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    John-

    Quick point of clarification--Dancer and Alley both ran in 2008, not 2006.

  • DanOregon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Since moving here 15 years ago, I've been surprised how low-profile the governor's job is. I admired Kitzhaber and like Kulongoski, but the job almost seems more ceremonial than influential. I'd guess the mayor of Portland, the two U.S. senators and the members of Congress have a bigger influence on the state than the governor does, at least they seem to be in the news talking about policy more often the governor is.

  • John (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yikes! Another good catch. Just not firing on all cylinders today...

  • (Show?)

    I disagree with Cafe Today on many of her "Not Viable" ratings. If DeFazio or Kitzhaber run (I hope neither will, Oregon needs to move on), she may be right and many on Kari's list will have trouble getting campaigns off the ground. But without them, the race is much more open. Many on the list, and some Kari did not include, become viable.

    I agree with Andrew both on the need for a statewide discussion of priorities for the next five years and on Democrats having s strong bench of leaders.

    And I agree with Chris Lowe's reflections on the cap-and-trade bill that "too many compromises in practice in a variety of areas added up to a bad bill that didn't do enough and set in place rules and precedents and mechanisms that would make it harder to get things going at the pace they need to." The bill locks too many bad things it place. I don't hold DeFazio's position on it against him. DeFazio's fatal flaw for me is that he doesn't seem to see the potential in international trade. I don't see him leading Oregon in going after emerging market trade, which is where the opportunities for economic growth are.

  • (Show?)

    Since moving here 15 years ago, I've been surprised how low-profile the governor's job is.

    It doesn't have to be that way. That's mostly been a factor of the people in the office lately. Unlike, say, the Governor of Texas, Oregon's Governor actually has quite a bit of power. And as we saw with Governors McCall and Goldschmidt, a pretty hefty bully pulpit.

  • (Show?)

    Many on the list, and some Kari did not include, become viable.

    Name names! Let's get 'em on the list, o' Great Mentioner!

  • (Show?)

    Only gets a mention because he has more claim to a run than Alley does, since Dancer had a slightly better performance than Alley did in 2006.

    The key to understanding Rick Dancer's potential is his performance in Lane County, where he spent twenty years as a noncontroversial television host - interviewing Girl Scouts about cookies and Mike Belotti about football.

    Of course, once people actually saw what a lightweight he is, his bubble would burst.

  • (Show?)

    I am impressed(in a kind of moral sense) that Dave Hunt starts off with such a small amount. It could easily be much larger. It proves that he's been focused on raising money for the caucus rather than stashing it away for himself.

  • backbeat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ron Wyden should run and allow us a shot at a Real Progressive for the Senate. What a huge disappointment he has been on this healthcare issue. Come on home and spend time with your kids, Ron. You've been absorbed by The Village.

  • (Show?)

    Dave Porter,

    Can you say more about your views on DeFazio and trade? Right now it seems to me that in some respects trade debates are locked up in a cycle rooted in NAFTA/WTO models & an old neo-liberal (you know what I mean) "Washington consensus" that isn't so much of a consensus any more.

    I'm part of that problem up to a point, in this way: as long as certain kinds of pro-traders are glued to the (IMO) outdated, destructive and failed NAFTA/WTO approach, I'm going to fight them. If that happens to be you, nothing personal and no offense intended. I respect your thoughtfulness and commitment to taking the long view (which IMO the neo-liberal approach generally does not do).

    But as a historian & social scientist I don't believe in economic autarky. The capacity for advances in the quality of human life is rooted in division of labor, and dividing labor to allow specialization, improved knowledge and techniques and so forth implies exchange and trade, at local, regional, national and international scales. So I'm quite interested in thinking about how to get out of stale debates & you strike me as someone who might have interesting things to say about that.

    In recent years I've been much influence in Portland metro matters by the Coalition for a Livable Future, which has tried to avoid being "anti-development," but instead to develop a better rounded definition of development and set of criteria for evaluating ideas, initiatives & projects.

    They/we employ something they call "the triple bottom line," comprised of economic benefit, sustainability, and social equity as evaluation criteria. (At present there is developing interest in thinking more systemically and at interaction of sub-systems, but I don't think that changes the fundamental criteria).

    It strikes me that something similar may apply to developing new approaches to trade politics and policies.

    To try, however lamely, to tie this back to DeFazio & governorship, perhaps I'm naive or don't know enough about him, but I wonder if a reframing of debates and issues around trade might draw him in to engage with them more strongly.

    It's not quite clear to me if your critique is based on disengagement, or wrong policies from your point of view.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "i'm much less of a DeFazio fan after his votes on the stimulus & energy bills. yes, he voted on principle, but he also went the "cut off nose to spite face" route."

    This bill was like many candidates the Democratic Party foists on the public forcing them to decide which is the lesser evil. It was clearly an imperfect bill so the question becomes, "To vote for and be stuck with its shortcomings or fight on for something better." Most answers will be based on attitudes or ideology. Whatever, if the people voted "yea" or "nay" with the best of intentions, then we should respect their votes, even if we disagree.

    Otherwise, I agree with DeFazio remaining in Washington. He is on the national stage where he can be a positive influence, and there is no telling what his district would send as a replacement.

    (Disclaimer: I had a brief discussion with DeFazio a few years on the issue of banning land mines and was impressed with his honesty and integrity, so I'm prejudiced.)

  • curious (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why isn't Kate Brown on the list? She said during the SOS campaign that she planned to stay there a full term, but she's the number two elected official in the state so seems a logical addition to this list. Has she definitively ruled herself out?

  • backbeat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why isn't John Frohnmayer on the list?

  • Grant Schott (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think Kate Brown is at the top of the list for next time, and perhaps Ben Westlund as well. With a potentially long 2010 line led by Kitzhaber and DeFazio at this point, most in Kate's and Ben's shoes would probably lean towards waiting until 2014 or 2018. Having said that, Hatfield and McCall both ran for Gov. just two years after being elected SOS and Bradbury ran for the U.S. Senate two years into his first SOS term.

  • (Show?)

    Chris, i never used the word "compromise". i said something entirely different. a better word would be "strategic", an approach that works far better for fundamental, long-term change that either self-righteousness or compromise.

  • (Show?)

    The key to understanding Rick Dancer's potential is his performance in Lane County, where he spent twenty years as a noncontroversial television host - interviewing Girl Scouts about cookies and Mike Belotti about football.

    I know you weren't here at the time of the Churchill High School shooting, but that is not only unfair but untrue.

    Rick was a newsman, who among other things covered the Churchill shooting at the scene immediatley after it happened. He was also a news anchor, not a "noncontroversial television host."

    Frankly, your reaction confirms what I've long suspected--Rick Dancer is the Republican Democrats fear most. And with good reason.

  • John (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jack- I'll spare you the Governor question, since I don't think you'd answer it anyway. That said, I assume you meant Thurston High School, and not Churchill.

    I stand by my view that Dancer is not the Republican that can win in 2010.

  • (Show?)

    @ Chris Lowe,

    My thinking about Oregon's economic future starts with the big picture of where global economic growth is going to take place during the rest of this century. As I probably repeat too often, forecasters are estimating 80% of global economic growth in the next several decades will be in emerging markets (especially think BRIC countries: Brazil, Russia, India and China). China alone is forecast to have an economy twice the size of the US economy in 2050, and it is just across the Pacific Ocean from Oregon. The opportunities and challenges before us are how to sell our goods and services in those markets, the growing global middle class. We need a governor that understands this global economic future and can lead us in the changes we need to make. While there are many dimensions of changes needed, I stress the importance of educational change: of teaching more of our students the languages of these markets and sending them to study abroad in these markets in large numbers. Bills to do this have died in the current legislature. No support from the current governor.

    Utah, for example, is adding 21 foreign language immersion programs next year (here). Oregon is adding zero.

    I think Portland could and should become a creative, cosmopolitan, international city and not remain a regional economic center (however nice it is to live here now).

    DeFazio has been a outspoken critic of most trade agreements. Maybe he has just had specific problems with their terms (They all have had too many special interest provisions). But I need to hear him speak to how Oregon can can gear up to sell more in those markets rather than just how we can "save" jobs here.

  • (Show?)

    Why isn't Kate Brown on the list? ... Has she definitively ruled herself out?

    Yes, repeatedly. Both in her initial announcement, in multiple press interviews, in the City Club debate, and since.

    Why isn't John Frohnmayer on the list?

    He is. But he's not a D nor an R, so he's down in the notes.

  • (Show?)

    Jack Roberts on Rick Dancer: I know you weren't here at the time of the Churchill High School shooting, but that is not only unfair but untrue.

    That's true. I also don't live in Lane County and don't watch Lane County television.

    I should note that my impressions as to Rick's seriousness come from having read every single blog post and comment on his pre-campaign blog and his campaign blog. There wasn't a single bit of heft anywhere to be found. The most controversial thing was something along the lines of "Coach Belotti, do you think your team will be good or great this year?"

    He was also a news anchor, not a "noncontroversial television host."

    Fair enough, though news anchors are paid to be noncontroversial. I prefer the British term - "news reader".

    Frankly, your reaction confirms what I've long suspected--Rick Dancer is the Republican Democrats fear most.

    Bwah hahahahaha!

  • Joba (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What about one of the most powerful women in Oregon, Mary Nolan? She still has over $80,000 in her PAC...

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Frankly, your reaction confirms what I've long suspected--Rick Dancer is the Republican Democrats fear most. And with good reason."

    Jack, where is Dancer on legislative issues? On the potential referral of the tax bills to the voters? Can he say what he would advocate cutting if the measures get on the ballot and are overturned? Will he play an active part in that campaign this summer?

    Does he believe the GOP Mainstream Project or Back to Basic's budget were reasonable alternatives? Is he one of those who loves to talk about the "all funds budget" to the point that ordinary folks' eyes glaze over?

    And what about health care? If someone working part time had a life threatening illness or injury and did not have employer-provided health care, how should that health care in an emergency situation be paid for?

    My impression of Dancer was a very slick guy but we didn't really know where he stood. The best news people running for office (McCall being at the top of that list) can talk specifics). I wouldn't have voted for Dancer if he were the only person on the ballot--Norma Paulus he ain't.

    Atkinson is a stronger candidate. Agree or disagree, he is a very pleasant man in person, and having survived severe injury, he may have learned more about the health care system and the concerns of ordinary folks (incl. people who chatted with him in the capitol about walking with a cane)than many of the ideological Republicans.

  • (Show?)

    Well, I hadn't heard her mentioned for Governor before (Metro and City Council, yes)... but now that you have, Joba, she's going on the list!

    I'll add her next time around.

  • Cafe Today (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nolan is not running for Governor...

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Fair enough, though news anchors are paid to be noncontroversial. I prefer the British term - "news reader"."

    Indeed. With the rare exception of examples such as Keith Olbermann and Steven Colbert who break with the corporate line, television anchors just read the news that their corporate bosses decide is fit for mouthing. Once in a while Katie Couric comes up with some candor, but Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams are examples of playing the system as Lewis Lapham described in a perceptive essay some time ago. Most likely someone can top this, but one of the great examples of BS from the TV media is the NBC Nightly News "in-depth" report - a piece of superficial claptrap that lasts little more than three or four minutes. That's in-depth?

  • (Show?)

    O.k. T.A., I still say your account is unbalanced, sometimes being strategic means saying no, sometimes other people make compromises that you can't stop the specifically impede a strategy.

    I assume that in thinking about strategy you also include an element of flexibility, that a good strategy might envision several routes & more importantly that a good strategist needs a capability to adjust to new realities when they are created. And I'll grant you all that.

    But take the healthcare reform debate & the many, many kinds of public insurance plan options floating around out there. Howard Dean said in Portland that there were real public options and fake ones. I don't think he was advocating voting for the fake ones just because they had the name "public option" on them, do you? If he were, he wouldn't have said they were fake (when he originally sent out a letter on behalf of MoveOn.org, I was worried because he wasn't making such a distinction & thought he might be going down a "declare victory if you can remotely call it public option" path).

    So as best I understand it, progressive supporters of a public plan option may have several strategic criteria, not mutually exclusive but varying in importance among individuals. Some of them, maybe many want it to be something that could be a step toward single payer as one of their strategic goals. Most probably want it as part of a way to get universal insurance "coverage" (a problematic concept but never mind for now). Many see it as a tool for cost containment.

    Yet many of the lead balloons being "floated" in the oleaginous media "coverage," such as it is (damn! there's that word again) cut against those strategic goals, some in ways deliberately designed to prevent them.

    I still say that it's legitimate and not "purism" or "cutting off nose to spite face" to ask, o.k. if I accept this compromise (which is the word being applied to the lead balloons, even if you don't like it), where does that leave the strategic position? Are there poison pills in here that mean not only that this is only part of what we should want, but that this prevents further progress or makes other things worse?

    If you rule out ahead of time ever saying no, you are a) setting up bargaining against yourself and b) not being strategic.

    Now, being strategic as a legislator and as a governor might be different things -- do you think the idea you're trying to get at works differently for governors?

  • (Show?)

    O.k. T.A., I still say your account is unbalanced, sometimes being strategic means saying no, sometimes other people make compromises that you can't stop the specifically impede a strategy.

    I assume that in thinking about strategy you also include an element of flexibility, that a good strategy might envision several routes & more importantly that a good strategist needs a capability to adjust to new realities when they are created. And I'll grant you all that.

    But take the healthcare reform debate & the many, many kinds of public insurance plan options floating around out there. Howard Dean said in Portland that there were real public options and fake ones. I don't think he was advocating voting for the fake ones just because they had the name "public option" on them, do you? If he were, he wouldn't have said they were fake (when he originally sent out a letter on behalf of MoveOn.org, I was worried because he wasn't making such a distinction & thought he might be going down a "declare victory if you can remotely call it public option" path).

    So as best I understand it, progressive supporters of a public plan option may have several strategic criteria, not mutually exclusive but varying in importance among individuals. Some of them, maybe many want it to be something that could be a step toward single payer as one of their strategic goals. Most probably want it as part of a way to get universal insurance "coverage" (a problematic concept but never mind for now). Many see it as a tool for cost containment.

    Yet many of the lead balloons being "floated" in the oleaginous media "coverage," such as it is (damn! there's that word again) cut against those strategic goals, some in ways deliberately designed to prevent them.

    I still say that it's legitimate and not "purism" or "cutting off nose to spite face" to ask, o.k. if I accept this compromise (which is the word being applied to the lead balloons, even if you don't like it), where does that leave the strategic position? Are there poison pills in here that mean not only that this is only part of what we should want, but that this prevents further progress or makes other things worse?

    If you rule out ahead of time ever saying no, you are a) setting up bargaining against yourself and b) not being strategic.

    Now, being strategic as a legislator and as a governor might be different things -- do you think the idea you're trying to get at works differently for governors?

  • Outsider (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Republicans

    Greg Walden* - Viable, but remember last year when he voted for oil companies over county payments?

    Ted Ferrioli - If any one thinks he could win anywhere near Portland, I've got a recycled bridge I will sell you.

    Gordon Smith* - Come on. The fact that he took a job with a DC law firm should be some indication of his lack of interest in this job. Besides, governors have to work. Gordo just liked being able to hide and be one of 100 in the Senate.

    Allen Alley - Wealthy sure, but he's kind of weak. And boring. Zzzzzz... And he's tainted by that connection to Bush that he desperately sought to hide.

    Jason Atkinson - This guy, I think could make some waves. But is Oregon ready for four years of "shooting himself in the [foot]" jokes? Still I wouldn't be surprised if he's the R nominee.

    Bill Kennemer - No comment.

    Ron Saxton - He lost to Kulongoski, when Teddy ("Special") K attracted serious primary opponents.

    Bruce Hanna - Meh.

    Frank Morse - No comment.

    Kevin Mannix* - Perennial loser. Hard to win when you're tagged with the "Loser" label. Plus, aren't people just tired of him yet? Anyone who uses the ballot initiative process this much shouldn't be in a position of power.

    Rick Dancer - Heh.. I enjoyed the anchor/reader debate above. You know what you do with an anchor? Throw it overboard. Empty suit. Although, with a good team and some actual policy positions, he could make some waves.

    Dave Frohnmayer - Eh. His playing days are over. Plus, there's probably some good research to be had from his tenure at UO. "The Oregon Governor's Office sponsored by Nike" could be fun though. Could solve some budget problems.

    Jack Roberts - Blogging was the downfall of Novick last year. How many Google pages till there's something on blog that could show up in an ad against Jack?

  • DarkHorse (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am for Johnson. Her stance on protecting the Metolius proves she cares about the enviornment. She loves it so much she has with her own money put a fence around the most beautiful space in Oregon. Plus her recent vote about protecting us form the evil public employees unions should get her plenty of support for us evil public employees.

  • DarkHorse (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am for Johnson. Her stance on protecting the Metolius proves she cares about the enviornment. She loves it so much she has with her own money put a fence around the most beautiful space in Oregon. Plus her recent vote about protecting us form the evil public employees unions should get her plenty of support for us evil public employees.

  • (Show?)

    Awwww, DH, you're so cute!

    You know that Sen Johnson didn't build that fence (it's older than she is) and she's ordered it torn down this summer, right?

  • (Show?)

    My preferences early on in no particular order would be

    Peter DeFazio John Kitzhaber Rick Metsger Steve Novick
    Ben Westlund

    I briefly lived in Metsger's district and corresponded with his office a number of times. Granted he'd be a real long shot. Novick and Westlund have a chance I think depending on what happens with DeFazio and Kitzhaber. In fact I think those two would make for an interesting primary battle.

  • (Show?)

    Well, now that you all have concentrated on mere opinion, the time has arrived to talk about who would be best for Oregon. All of the individuals CT deemed "not viable" are not only that but also not all that hot for Oregon.

    Among the viable ones, imho, Brad Avakian stands out head and shoulders as a civil libertarian, a progressive, a skilled negotiator, and a very well experienced executive. If he decides to run despite his "aw shucks" reluctance, he would deserve the backing of any Democrat in Oregon as the best governor Oregon could have.

  • Janus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Anyone who counts out Betsy Johnson is very foolish. The Metolius Bill was the Beach/Bottle Bill of the 21st Century and she made it happen despite incredible nastiness from well-heeled lobbyists. She is revered in her district on the coast, has long family ties to Central Oregon and doesn't need to ask anyone for so much as a dime. She's honest, outspoken, and not an oultlier in the Democratic Party. She is a force to be reckoned with.

  • (Show?)

    There are many well known/not so well known folks on this list...where is Sam Adams and Bruce Campbell?

  • (Show?)

    Lee, you and I seem to agree an awful lot these days. What with the 1st CD last year and the idea that no one, for better or worse, would do the job the way Commissioner Avakian would.

    But you're right, his "aw shucks" nature about it would make it seem that he's happy where he is. Especially in the sense that it's a nonpartisan office. As a longtime supporter of fusion voting and an Oregonian first and foremost, he would be an excellent option in tough economic times and a splintered political climate.

    I can only imagine the headway he could make in reuniting the state after having served a district with both the highest high tech and some incredible farmland. It's going to take all of us to rebuild Oregon and he'll be fighting that fight for years to come, no matter where he is.

  • (Show?)

    Three things:

    1. Dave Hunt was solid as Speaker.

    2. Kari - Don't they still call news anchors in England "presenters"?

    3. Mary Nolan doesn't want to be Governor. She wants to be Portland's next Mayor. (Take that, Great Mentioner!)

  • John Silvertooth (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I say draft Beau Breedlove- he understands politics.

  • (Show?)

    Frankly, your reaction confirms what I've long suspected--Rick Dancer is the Republican Democrats fear most. And with good reason.

    Dancer..? I think the guy is affable enough..and even charismatic. But to be feared for Governor..? Uh, no.

    Frankly it seems to me like the guy Dems are most concerned about is Walden.

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What about Darlene Hooley?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Carla, I remember when Walden was a freshman legislator. He has always been a serious young man (although he isn't that young anymore). He might be a serious contender if he could get the Republicans off this "all taxes are bad but don't ask us how to fund the government" kick and onto serious debates on what Oregonians want (rather than the caucuses telling voters "you should like our proposal and not ask questions!").

    But he lost his "shining rising star" quality when he made the mistake of getting too close to Tom DeLay, and anyone who noticed that might not trust him.

    I believe it would be very smart for any Gov. candidate of either party to forget all the consultant stuff like name ID and how much money someone has collected by a certain date. Study the Revenue Restructuring Task Force report and the Public Comm. on the Legislature proposals and talk in terms of those. Among them are campaign finance reform, the regular session ending in June, the winter of even numbered year special session (and debate over annual sessions), campaign finance reform, initiative reform, nonpartisan legisalture.

    The report can be found here. http://www.leg.state.or.us/pcol/

  • (Show?)

    What about Darlene Hooley?

    She's completely uninterested. I've asked her. She's very happy being retired - spending time with the family, traveling, etc.

  • (Show?)

    But he lost his "shining rising star" quality when he made the mistake of getting too close to Tom DeLay, and anyone who noticed that might not trust him.

    Also, when he spent three years unable to use a phone.

  • (Show?)

    I'll spare you the Governor question, since I don't think you'd answer it anyway. That said, I assume you meant Thurston High School, and not Churchill.

    Yikes! Of course, you're right.

    And, no, I'm not running for governor (even if you didn't ask).

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jack, with your common sense, perhaps you can suggest to your chosen Gov. candidate what I wrote above that Walden should do about studying the Pub. Comm. on the Legislature debates.

    If Republicans run a candidate for Gov. with no more substance than Mannix's "tough on crime no new taxes" ideology, my guess is they lose to someone who actually talks substance.

    Hint: a friend of mine who is demographically Republican, but enough of a swing voter to have voted Kitzhaber and Gordon Smith in the 1990s, went to Rotary to hear the Gov. candidates. He came away from that meeting supporting Kitzhaber because "he had so much substance that I took notes--wanna hear them?".

    I submit that for all the debates about ideology, all the advice of consultants, all the talk about money, etc. that with current voter registration numbers, the Gov. winner will be the one who wins over voters like my friend, not the straight party voters, the ideologues, etc.

  • John Lloyd Scharf (unverified)
    (Show?)

    SINE DIE - Lat. The final adjournment of a legislative session, without adjourning to a specific time or date; Adjournment without definitely fixing a day for reconvening; literally "adjournment without a day."

    <h2>Would you like to explain your use of the term? It seems meaningless in the context of your article.</h2>

connect with blueoregon