Why I Support Jim Hill

By Joe DiNicola of Portland, Oregon. Joe is the president of SEIU 503 (OPEU), which recently endorsed Jim Hill for Governor.

Jim Hill is the best choice for Oregon Governor. Oregonians deserve a chance to vote for a Governor who participates in the democratic process and does not hide from the public. We deserve a candidate who welcomes the opportunity to answer tough questions about their record and their vision for Oregon's future. Jim Hill is that candidate.

Jim Hill has the best chance to defeat any Republican challenger in November. Republican Kevin Mannix lost to Ted Kulongoski in 2002 by a slim 36,000 vote margin. And that was before so many Portland schools faced closure. According to a just released Survey USA poll, Ted Kulongoski is ranked near the bottom in popularity as Governor at 5th from last, barely ahead of the first term Governor of California. A recent Rasmussen poll revealed Jim Hill will win against either Kevin Mannix or Ron Saxton.

It's time for real leadership. Jim Hill cares about solutions that will move Oregon forward. An overwhelming number of Oregonians say the state is on the wrong track and there has been no leadership on issues that matter to us all. During the last three years, we've seen a steady decline in quality public education, growth in classroom sizes and skyrocketing public college tuition. Some members of the business community are open to increasing the corporate minimum tax and repealing the corporate kicker. Jim Hill will take a leadership role and build consensus to invest in the future of Oregon -- our children.

Jim Hill will make affordable health care a real priority. He won't leave millions of federal matching dollars on the table. The dismantling of the Oregon Health Plan over the past three years is a disgrace. Today, 22 percent of adults 18-64 are uninsured -- an all time high. Jim Hill will not stand by while more Oregonians lose their health care coverage. Jim Hill will work to expand coverage, not shrink the Oregon Health Plan.

Jim Hill will make revenue fairness a priority as Governor. He will raise the corporate minimum tax and help responsible business leaders repeal the corporate kicker. Instead of sending hundreds of millions of dollars to out-of-state corporations, Jim will work to make sure those tax dollars are used here in Oregon to fund education and vital public services. Jim Hill's vision of Oregon is one where corporations pay their fair share.

Jim Hill will enforce and improve environmental protection. He opposes plans like the Gorge Casino that will increase pollution and threaten our natural heritage. Jim Hill knows that protecting our quality of life in Oregon makes good economic sense'and it's the right thing to do.

Jim Hill stepped up to give Oregon a choice for real leadership. His grassroots campaign is running hard to make sure we have a choice to move Oregon forward. Recent polls demonstrate he's poised to win in November, no matter who runs on the Republican ticket. A vote for Jim Hill is a vote for a Democrat who can win. Jim Hill is the only choice for Governor.

  • sasha (unverified)

    If Jim Hill is the answer, then the question must be:

    How will the public employee unions keep the money flowing to PERS, outlandish health benefits and average salaries that are 30% higher than the private sector?

  • John Napolitano (unverified)

    "Vote for Jim Hill, he is electable!" We know how well things went last time Democrats nominated a candidate based on electability.

    "Vote for Jim Hill, he is open to increasing the corporate minimum tax and repealing the corporate kicker!" Which would increase tax revenue by $50-150 million a year over the current levels. A small step in the right direction, but not a visionary solution to the reduction in state revenues caused by measure 5, measure 50 and the excessive amounts of tax "loopholes". Nice, simple soundbytes, not real solutions.

    "Vote for Jim Hill, recent polls show that he is electable!" And the same polls show that any of the three Democratic candidates might win in November. Big deal.

  • (Show?)

    If Jim Hill is the answer, then the questions must be:

    What exactly are the plans, step by step, for the sweeping statements,

    "to invest in the future of Oregon, our children." "to expand coverage, not shrink the Oregon Health Plan." "to fund education and vital services." "to enforce and improve environmental protection."

    Until I see a record of past accomplishments by Hill, and actual step-by-step plans to address the issues listed, I suggest Kulongoski's record will stand tall over Hill and any other candidate running for Governor.

    P.S. Hell, frequent contributor Pat Ryan could beat Mannix.

  • (Show?)

    Sasha, care to back up any of your statements with actual facts? No? Didn't think so. (Here's a clue, moron - this site isn't right wing talk radio. You can't make something "true" simply by screaming your lies endlessly.)

    John, I'd love it if electability wasn't an issue for Democratic candidates in Oregon, but the Republican strategy of selling laws to the highest bidder, and then using that money for slick demogaugery, is depressingly successful. Never forget that Measure 5 and Measure 47 (and Measure 50) were passed by the majority of Oregonians, and Republicans continue to come extremely close in statewide elections. So yes, it is a Big Deal to people who don't want to see the disaster of Republican governance in Oregon. (Isn't Minnis bad enough?)

    More generally, I find it interesting that Hill is trying to make electability argument work for him. The fact is that according to the latest Rasmussen poll, this is Kulongoski's strong suit. While Hill also leads likely Republican challengers, he does so with a much thinner margin than our sitting Governor.

    Hill supporters' best argument is that 2006 is shaping up to be a strong Democratic year, so the Party can afford to take a chance on a slightly more doctrinaire candidate in the general election. I'm not so sure this is the case. I'm terrified that one of these days, the GOP will actually run an electable candidate of their own. Maybe Pat Ryan could beat Mannix, but we shouldn't count on always having Mannix to kick around.

  • MarkDaMan (unverified)

    As a dues paying member of SEIU, I find it astonishing that Joe DiNicola will explain to the readers of Blue Oregon his reasons for supporting Jim Hill, but my mailbox at home and on the computer remain empty. Joe, don't you think if you are throwing the support of our union to Mr. Hill that you should allow the opinions of SEIU members to be expressed first?

    On a thread lower down the page Commissioner Randy Leonard used the word chutzpah. It must take a certain amount of chutzpah to claim as your reasoning to support Mr. Hill that he will be a "governor who participates in the democratic process and does not hide from the public." However, your choosing to support Mr. Hill was hidden from the public (at least your dues paying members).

    I apologize to Governor Kulongoski for that shame SEIU has made me feel. Our Governor has worked tirelessly, and without thanks, on an issue dear to my heart. This Governor was the first to fight for equal rights for gay and lesbian couples, and I thank him sincerely for his support. Governor Kulongoski came into office during one of Oregon's worst recessions. He didn't have the luxury of lots of time to study ways to make Oregon solvent. He showed leadership, even crossing his base, in order to make sure Oregon didn't fall deeper into despair. Governor Kulongoski has shown his desire to work hard, through his leadership he improved Oregon's economy. The last time I checked, unemployment in Oregon has dropped close to the national average, after years of unemployment hovering around the highest in the nation. This Governor, our Governor, has much to be proud of and the people of Oregon should be thankful for that fact.

    It appears that SEIU has forgotten their rank and file members. I expect them to focus more on bargaining between my employer and my union than on the Governor's primary election, for it is my next contract that will make the biggest differences in my life, and that is what I pay SEIU to represent.

    I support SEIU's mission to support progressive candidates for office. I do not support SEIU's endorsement of Jim Hill, their reasoning as expressed through Joe DiNicola for supporting him, nor do I support the manner in which he was chosen, which is still a mystery to me. I do not support SEIU using my dues to staff phone banks for Mr. Hill, nor do I support SEIU calling me two weeks after the endorsement to ask me to help staff the phone banks in support of him.

    John McCain said to the effect, the president doesn't need our support when he's flying high at 60%, it is when he is low in the polls that we should come to his aid. Although I am no Republican, I do understand the loyalty. This Governor has done more for Oregon in the last 3+ years than almost any other Oregonian. This Governor offers to attend EVERY funeral for Oregon service members killed in Bush's wars. This Governor has encouraged companies to locate in Oregon with success, even taking on the state of California by sending letters to their employers inviting them to look north. This Governor has fought to protect and clean up Oregon's environment. This Governor has looked out for Oregonians east and west, big city and small, and gay and straight. I'm proud to call Ted Kulongoski my Governor and in 2006 I support Governor Kulongoski for another four year term!

    Mark Workman [email protected]

  • (Show?)

    Gee Steve, I'd like to venture a comment, but find myself intimidated by the thought of having to defend my opinion to people who actually know what's going on........Ah hell, why not:

    I started out a Hill supporter, but so far he's ventured two gambits:

    Ted is a rotten evil dude for supporting the Gorge Casino---paid for by the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde (who have just a tiny itty bitty doggy in this fight)

    And Ted is a rotten evil dude for working with Greg McPherson and other responsible legislators to try to fix the PERS mess---paid for by pissed off vengeful public employees (who also have a chihauhau or two in the mix)

    Pretty thin gruel Jim......We'll see if anything happens at the big forum tonight

  • (Show?)

    Pete Sorenson can beat any of the Republicans, too. electability is not an issue; any of the 3 Dems will win in November.

    obviously Gov Ted has failed as a leader in many ways, possibly the worst being losing the trust of so many Democrats. when is the last time an incumbent governor faced such a serious challenge? it takes a terrific effort to alienate as many members of your own party as Kulongoski has done.

    for Hill, my question would be: where the hell have you been? Pete Sorenson, at least, has been taking care of business in Lane County, and he's been travelling the state for over a year to listen to what Oregonians are saying and to share ideas. what have you been doing as a leader? two months ago, after Kitz decides not to run, you deign to "offer" yourself as the party's true challenger? i don't think so. if for no other reason than your absence from leadership since Ted whupped you last time, i'm supporting Pete. he at least has dedicated himself to making a stand for progressive values -- not something you were known for when you were around.

  • JHL (unverified)

    I met Jim Hill several weeks back... he seems like a really nice guy, a dedicated public servant, and a more-than-capable officeholder. But I'm just not seeing any real leadership on any issues. I could be wrong, so if anyone wants to educate me, I'm totally open to it.

    For example, on his website, he says that he will "work with Oregon’s former Governor and healthcare expert, Dr. John Kitzhaber, to find ways to efficiently address this growing concern." (Umm... his plan is that Kitzhaber will come up with a plan?)

    It just seems like a lot of his plans are about "maximizing efficiency" or "utilizing potential" ... (is anyone not in favor of utilizing potential?)

    "Pushing for performance audits" does not stabilize education funding. It just means that we'll have convinced some auditors that we don't have adequate or stable funding for our schools.

    Please Jim, give me a meat-and-potato platform! (Though I do give him credit for supporting Apollo on his website. Awesome plan.)

  • Levon (unverified)

    If the answer is Jim Hill, then the question must be:

    Who is that guy running for governor doing the where is Waldo impression?

    Vote Jim Hill? How about vote Jimmy Hoffa?

  • (Show?)

    Pat, the Democratic Party is for grownups with thick skin. We discuss things openly and honestly. And we FACT-CHECK. So if you don't want to get smacked down, don't distort what other people have written.

    We all understand by now that you don't like Neel Pender. However it does not give you the excuse to turn this:

    <font size="-1">Sorry, I'm just getting back to this thread but the irony of all this is that yesterday when Pat was spouting off about how "Howard gave you money and ordered that (me to) spend it on party building", I was literally sitting in a meeting in DC with Howard Dean talking about strengthening state parties, building year round infrastructure and engaging the grassroots.

    What makes Gov. Dean a great party chair is that hasn't "forced" us to do anything. Quite the contrary and I'm sure he'd be appalled by the assertion.

    The DPO has a field program because that was the consensus of what people in Oregon, including but not limited to me, felt would have the most impact. I also did a half dozen site visits on behalf of Governor Dean and the DNC to other states - meeting with scores of grassroots activists and elected officials to determine how resources could be best directed in their respective states. It was a privilege to participate in that effort and Gov. Dean deserves credit for following through on his commitment.<font size="+1">

    ...into Mr. Pender claiming personal credit for the DNC's 50 State Strategy: "I, of course cannot dispute your account of your pivotal role in convincing Howard that grassroots was the new paradigm for the Party as I was not in the room."

    You're welcome to call Neel an asshole, if you believe it. But what you did was not acceptable. That was no innocent mistake. Nor was it mere rhetoric. That was a lie. And all the hours of activism you put in does not serve as an excuse for that kind of behavior. Period. I doubt it would be acceptable in the Libertarian Party either.

    Oh, and by the way, I do have inside knowledge as to how the Governor's forum was originally organized, which is why I made my "know what's going on" comment in the Sorenson thread. Unfortunately, because I got that information mostly be evesdropping on my wife, I don't think it's appropriate to discuss it in a public forum.

  • Mari Anne (unverified)

    I use to work for Jim Hill in the State Treasurer's Office. I also worked with Ted when he was the labor rep for Governor Goldschmidt. Ted was the hit man for Goldschmidt when they went after injured workers, cutting benefits and lowering worker comp rates for business.

    It was always hard for me to believe that Ted would help working people after that experience. And true to form, he took after public employee pensions. The bottom line for me is that Ted told public employees that their pensions were their sacred right and he would protect them. Then as soon as he got their money and won election he turned on them. I question the ethics and values of such a person. Whether PERS needed to be fixed or not, is not the point. The fact is Ted lied to working people, sold them out as soon as he got what he wanted. Who will take the ax next time for Ted’s political career?

    I also worked with Pete Sorenson when he was in the Senate. There is no question he is a good and honest man that works hard and represents the values of working people. I like him as a person. But he was not a mover and shaker in the Senate and did not get much accomplished. He was like a fish out of water and I fear his lack of experience is an important issue. I think Pete just needs more time before he is qualified to be Governor.

    Jim’s experience is extensive - His list of accomplishments impressive. As State Treasurer, he started the “Invest in Oregon” policy that put over $1.2 billion to work in Oregon’s economy. He Implemented the Oregon College Savings Program helping middle class families send their children to college. He created the Oregon School Bond Guaranty Act, which saved Oregon schools over $500 million dollars. And he always did what was right despite the political ramifications. Hill’s word is his bond. He is not afraid to challenge the status quo – and frankly the status quo is not good enough. Jim has the experience and the leadership to make Oregon great again.

    You want 4 more years of what we’ve had? Just keep doing what we’ve been doing. I want a leader that will make me proud to be a Democrat. Not someone who caters to the right at my expense. I am tired of Democrats running on the republican agenda. My vote is for Jim Hill.

  • blizzak (unverified)

    A lot of people seem to use the term "working people" interchangeably with "union members". That's not the reality. Whether it's the fault of the unions, or the fault of the government, or the fault of corporations... whatever. The reality is that unions don't represent most working people and that your average non-union worker makes less than the same union worker doing the same job (please spare me the argument -- "that's why we need unions"). So, just because Hill represents the interests of union members does not mean that he represents the interests of working people (i.e. less money for PERS might equal more money for schools and/or lower taxes).

  • Bob Shook (unverified)

    I 100% support Jim Hill for Governor. I appreciate the "union" support and endorsment, however, I want all to know that the non-union community also supports Mr. Hill. I am not a union member. Timing is everything, and NOW is the time for Mr. Hill. 2002 was Ted's time, we gave him four years, and he proved what he could do during his term, it is now time for Mr. Hill to provide the leadership we desperately need, and to be the best Governor for all Oregonians. Mr. Hill is the only candidate running for Governor that has the proven ability to bring our divided legislative body together. Let's thank Ted gracefully, and give Jim Hill our professional endorsement....Union or non-union, Mr. Hill has all of our support. Bob Shook

  • Paul (unverified)

    I am curious about one thing:

    Let's assume that, despite the best efforts of SEIU, Ted Kulongoski wins the Party nomination again.

    Will SEIU then support Kulongoski against the republican? Or will SEIU instead turn to independent Ben Westlund?

    I have many friends who are members of SEIU, and they all seem to think Westlund is a good candidate.

  • (Show?)

    Blizzak, why should anyone spare you the "that's why we need unions" argument? Isn't keeping the U.S. from becoming a plutocracy run by corrupt and incompetent inheritors of fortunes (prime example: Bush) exactly why we need unions?

    Look, I understand that it's not as if the words "corrupt" and "union" have never been juxtiposed. But the simple fact is that unions are nothing like they once were. If power corrupts, then lack of power purifies. And from my experience, modern unions are nearly pure as the driven snow. They hardly work only for themselves, they are in favor of policies that will help all working people. And specifically, in terms of PERS, they were well within their rights to demand (and receive) assurances that the State live up to the promises it made during the '90s (when Public Employees were earning an average of 30% to 40% less than equivalent private sector salaries).

    On the other hand, I don't see Hill as necessarily being the "union" candidate. A single endorsement or two does not give you those bragging rights. And unions are smart enough to understand that they live in the real world. PERS was demogauged to death by the Republicans. And in truth, something did have to give when the PERS gains it enjoyed in the '90 went away. There is no evidence that any other Democratic executive could have done better under the circumstances Kulongoski was given.

  • sarah (unverified)

    Congratulations!! Our schools now have the 4th largest class size in that nation. I can't believe that we all think that this is OK, and by voting for Ted you do think it's OK.

    Ted doesn't seem to care nor has he taken any action to rectify the problem the ENTIRE time he's been in office.

    Jim Hill has a plan to fund schools in part by making sure corportations pay their taxes and by doing performance audits on school districts.

    What has Ted been doing?

  • jg (unverified)


    Thank you for taking up the "that's why we need unions argument". Your comments on the importance of unions are right on target.

    As far as being the "union" candidate, one has to give the edge to Jim Hill. Since he got in the race he is the only candidate to get union endorsements (Oregon State Fire Fighter, Oregon School Employee Association & SEIU). Kulongoski's union endorsements came before Hill announced. As for the unions that are sitting out the primary, the message is clear that the "union" candidate is not the incumbent Democrat governor.

    Does anyone really think that Kulongski can win in November with an undeniably divided Dem base, many of which who are eyeing an independent candidate? Quite simply I think a Jim Hill general election candidacy unites the party, unions and all...

  • Anony (unverified)

    Jim Hill has a plan to fund schools in part by making sure corportations pay their taxes and by doing performance audits on school districts.

    It's a drop in the bucket.

    It's a noble and good plan... but not sufficient. If anyone thinks that a big business like PGE is going to have a hard time finding an accountant that'll lower their taxes... well, that's silly.

    Our schools deserve lots more money. But let's face it -- there's a bigger problem with our revenue system than the big bad business boogeyman. It may go a long way to stroke the base, but it's clear to me that Jim Hill intends to beat up on Oregon's employers the way the Republicans beat up on immigrants. Neither of those groups are the cause of Oregon's fiscal woes.

    Our revenue system is based pretty much entirely on the income tax: a roller-coaster of a economic foundation. Until we wean off of that, we'll still have the same problems finding stable funding.

  • sarah (unverified)

    That's great! It's better to do nothing for our schools...apathy is what got us where we are now. A slow decline...how about a slow and steady incline for improvement. As for Jim's plan, I stated that the loop holes were only part of the plan. There's also lowering the cost of health insurance for school employees.
    You are correct, some of our revenues are based on income tax, so that's why Jim has a solution for real wage jobs. Then people can buy property and that will help with our other source of revenue, property taxes.

  • JHL (unverified)

    Every point of Jim Hill's plan for lowering the cost of health insurance is one of two things: 1) a values statement, or 2) a wish-list item that Senator Westlund is already working on.

    Hill says he supports raising the cigarette tax to pay for OHP... so will he be carrying Westlund's petition for the Family Health and Wellness Act?

    Hill says he supports the right to quality healthcare... so will he be carrying Westlund's petition for the HOPE for Oregon Families Initiative?

    I like Jim Hill, and I think these are good plans. But there's a candidate out there who's actually carrying the water on these issues.

  • (Show?)

    There's a great little polemic hiding out over on one of the union boards written by Tim Nesbitt addressing general messaging.

    Here's a taste.

    Progressives have been sucked in to the supply side of politics, the territory of taxes and balanced budgets, where the anti-government forces have all the advantages. The supply-siders cut the taxes that support education; then they blame teachers’ health and retirement benefits when we have to close schools. They cut the funds that support the Oregon Health Plan and promote high-deductible health insurance schemes to shift more costs to working families.

    Then, they ask those who support good schools, affordable health care and all the things that government should be able to do for working families, “How are you going to pay for it?” And, because you want to be fiscally responsible, you take that question seriously and try to answer it......

    and later, the Best one liner.....

    And, if you have to talk about taxes, say, “We don’t need new taxes, we need old taxes, when the rich and the corporations paid their fair share for our schools and our health care.”

    I wish he'd done something to differentiate between giant multi state corporations that get the vast majority of the tax breaks; and the 99,000 smaller Oregon corporations that join individuals in picking up the slack, but you can't have everything.

    Damned tasty rhetoric.........

  • Anony (unverified)

    When you buy property, you don't add to the property tax receipts. (You bought it from somebody else, who was already paying property taxes.) An exception is if you buy it from someone who's has their land forever and Measures 5/50 have kept their assessed value down, but that's certainly not enough added revenue to save schools.

    I know that loopholes are only part of Hill's plan... but what's the rest? I can't find anything more specific than "raise cigarette and alcohol taxes." Is that what it all boils down to?

  • JHL (unverified)

    Pat --

    Thank you for mentioning the difference between multi-state corporations and small businesses. As a small business owner, I take pride in paying my fair share and producing a payroll that pays their fair share.

    I can't think of a single time I didn't vote Democratic, but whenever I hear Dems start to go after business without differentiating, I always have to hope that I'm not the bad guy they're talking about.

  • christopher (unverified)

    Bob: I couldn't agree more. Let's give Ted his props for giving it a decent shot in hard times. But I'm with you - Hill has got my vote right now.

    Sarah: Totally agree. As a Democrat Governor, if you can't go to the mat hard for education, you ultimately don't have what it takes to secure the long term future of Oregon.

    Ted is a good guy and he's done some good things. But he failed to make a tough stand for schools, he gave big business a free pass on a huge refund, and he is asleep at the switch in managing the PUC, an agency that used to actually stand up for Oregon citizens.

  • LT (unverified)

    Ted is a good guy and he's done some good things. But he failed to make a tough stand for schools, he gave big business a free pass on a huge refund, and he is asleep at the switch in managing the PUC, an agency that used to actually stand up for Oregon citizens.

    Did any of you get Lisa Grove's email from [email protected]? Maybe they would have done the same thing they did here tonight - talk. But that wouldn't have created one new job or hired one new teacher.

    How did Ted's "a different percentage of taxes for schools than Minnis, but not a lot more discussion of the details" school funding proposal hire one new teacher?

    At least Hill is an alternative, and Ben Westlund has some specific proposals. Or did Ted think he'd get re-elected without talking to voters because by golly everyone would love what he did and not expect him to explain it in public?

  • Jeff Bull (unverified)

    Not that anyone's reading this thread anymore, but I chucked my two cents onto my blog for interested parties' perusal. All of this revolves around one question: the purpose of a political party. Is it to promote a set of ideas, or is it to promote and support candidates? While these two positions aren't mutually exclusive, it's important that one trumps the other because these concepts also don't comfortably accommodate one another.

    Anyway, I'll tell you which I think is more relevant to the party as an institution here.

  • Robert G. Gourley (unverified)

    t.a. barnhart wrote "for Hill, my question would be: where the hell have you been?" As T.A. knows that question was asked about Pete during one of our drinking liberally (http://drinkingliberally.org/) meetings. Also, as T.A. wrote, "Pete Sorenson did show up last time, about 7:10" - which was only ten minuts late. But as T.A. observed, "given he had lost his father just a few days before, i thought it was cool for Pete to come at all (and since i went thru a staffer, we know where the scheduling blame goes!)"

    The point is, these things happen, and Pete is a great guy - Just like my candidate for governor Jim Hill. Since, as T.A. put it - Jim Hill's "absence from leadership since Ted whupped you last time" is more a statement of ignorance than of fact. Jim has been active with NARAL (http://www.prochoiceoregon.org/) since losing the 2002 bid for governor. He has served on the Public Commission on the Oregon Legislature (http://www.leg.state.or.us/pcol/roster.htm). And he serves on the Board of Directors of the Northwest Health Foundation.

    Folks in this state know Jim is no stranger to public service, having a record of service going back 30 years. He served 8 years as State Treasurer, with recognition for his innovation and leadership in that elected position. He also in bot the Oregon House of Representatives and State Senate.

    So asking where Jim's been reveals a lot about the questioner.

    What's important here is he point T.A. raised about the current governor - how badly he's treated the trust that's been given him. We need both Jim and Pete to win more votes than Ted, and between the two of them, may the more popular man win!

  • LT (unverified)

    Bravo Robert! As someone who is not actively involved in the Gov. primary but went to Hill's campaign kickoff, I was offended by the question "where have you been?".

    The implication was "if you lose a primary and ever intend to run for anything again in your life, you have no right to become a private citizen and must appear in public regularly to keep your options open".

    Is that really the message we want to send--that anyone who thinks they have the right to a private life after losing a primary should drop out of politics forever?

    Seems to me there is a lot of soul searching that needs to go on in politics, esp. concerning questions of the lack of quality candidates.

    And I think the people asking "where have you been?" should have to explain their own public contributions. Unless politics is more about GOTCHA! than about solving problems.

    No wonder so many ordinary citizens ignore or are turned off by politics.

  • Robert G. Gourley (unverified)

    LT wrote,

    "As someone who is not actively involved in the Gov. primary but went to Hill's campaign kickoff, I was offended by the question 'where have you been?'."

    Such a question reveals more about the questioner than about Jim Hill.

    I forgot to add the URL for Jim's Board position with the Northwest Health Foundation, and to make all links "hot" so here goes,

    Sorry 'bout that.

  • Robert G. Gourley (unverified)

    There's an interesting "Westlund effect" analyzed by the Zogby Interactive poll

    Folks may want to take a look at this.

  • LT (unverified)
    <h2>Another "Westlund effect" is that if no one is providing the level of specific proposals as there are when Ben talks or when someone looks at his website, people wanting more specifics can say "Hey! I don't have to choose between D and R, there is another choice!".</h2>
guest column

connect with blueoregon