I am not particularly excited about Bill Bradbury or John Kitzhaber in this primary. However, I did not see Kitzhaber when we needed him on 66/67 and I did see Bill. Leaders lead and put their neck on the line when its the right thing to do. I don't plan on investing too much in this race but I do plan on voting Bradbury because of this particular issue.

Thanks Jeremy, for explaining this. Everyone has verbal "oops" moments--most of us are just lucky enough not to have cameras and tape recorders in front of us at the time.

And you're right, actions do matter and one of the many reasons I'm supporting Bill Bradbury is because he showed up for the 66/67 fight. I kept waiting for Kitzhaber to step up, one way or the other, but it just didn't happen. And that disturbs me more than if he had been vocally against the measures. It felt entirely political and too much like he was afraid to piss off/take on either side.

I appreciate Bill's work and his ideas for Oregon and look forward to having him as our next Governor.

Wait... I have no doubts that Bradbury was a stronger supporter of 66/67 than Kitzhaber... but, what was he trying to say in his response to that question? I guess in a posted titled "Clearing up Confusion" I would have expected to have the confusion actually cleared up. I understand that candidates can mis-speak, but what did Bradbury actually intend to say? If we see businesses leaving, then we should think about a repeal? Or, we shouldn't repeal 66/67, but if businesses leave we have to do something else?

Thanks for the posting.

designated attack dog in Steve Novick

I can't wait to hear their response to that accusation. Particularly relative to Novick's victory comment: All of you who helped pass Measures 66 and 67 are wonderful.Since the dawn of Time, there has never been a battle fought that featured harder work, greater talent, or more perfect unity within so broad a coalition.

Which, based on what you say, would presumably include Bradbury. Perhaps the slight hesitation at the query, "what if jobs did leave Oregon" is heresy. "There has never been a battle fought that featured harder work" sounds like it's a pretty important article of faith!

I won't begin to try and parse the title of this posting, which seems to be an odd mix of deference and spin. Perhaps, "Bill Bradbury Worked With You to Pass Measures 66 & 67" would have been a little more direct.

Let me be clear: I honor Bill's work on 66 and 67. I wish John had done more. If you are going to vote just based on who did more on 66 and 67, you SHOULD vote for Bill. If Bill gets the nomination, I'll campaign like hell for him. And when I see John saying something that doesn't make sense, I'll point it out. (A I have, repeatedly, already.) I have dedicated a lot of space to Bill's "tax expenditures" platform, not as a way to "get" Bill Bradbury, but as an opportunity to address a piece of mythology that I have seen bubbling up for years. Bill's comment in Portland Monthly was, I thought, and still think, bizarre, and worthy of note. The fact that "We need to repeal 66 and 67," came out of Bill Bradbury's mouth, whatever the context, is really weird. I will also here state, for the record, that Jeremy Wright came to see me months ago to ask for my advice about tax policy generally, and we specifically discussed the 'tax expenditures' line of attack, and I told him then that it was largely fools' gold. So my comments on that issue - admittedly voluminous - are something Jeremy, at least, should have expected.

This is ridiculous. Bill Bradbury said this to a group of active "no on 66 & 67" supporters and he expects us to believe he accidentally said it two times? I listened to entire audio file online and he clearly says they should be repealed and he thinks the tax rates are now too high.

You need to look at who he was saying it to. These women are all business owners and were active against the ballot measures. He told them exactly what they wanted to hear and didn’t think anyone else would ever find out.

I think it is clear that Bill is either willing to say anything to anyone for money or he has lost it and no longer knows what he is saying.

Hey Steve, 2 questions

Question 1 In your comment you say

"If Bill gets the nomination, I'll campaign like hell for him"

you have said this in a previous article to... so at least your consistent but what I don't get is

WHY!!!!!!!

I mean you bash Bradbury's ideas every week but if he wins THEN you will campaign like hell for him..

If you don't like his ideas.. its clear you don't .. then why say stuff like that its disingenuous

Question 2 AS for this 66 & 67 stuff

it sounds like your familiar with the great work Bradbury did on 66/67... so he has slip out his mouth (EVERYONE DOES).

And you say... know what I should post article on how I think his comments Bizarre, weird & worthy of note.... BUT Dude you know his actions and how he feels about it

Why write an article?

It is crazy that Bradbury would say this. I am shocked. People don’t just misstate their entire position on an issue. His answer to this is a paragraph long? Did he misstate the entire paragraph? Give me a break.

OK, Bradbury was a hero on Yes on 66 & 67.

He apologized for something which sounds stupid---what my Latin teacher would have called (in Latin, of course) a slip of the tongue.

I am waiting to see a Gov. candidate say what we should be doing on kicker reform.

I greatly respect Sen. Frank Morse. The other night on Oregon Channel, I saw the joint Revenue Comm. meeting where they heard the revenue forecast.

When the subject of possible future kicker came up, Sen. Morse asked "why do we keep doing this to ourselves". Others then joined in and said he was absolutely right, but the problem was when to do kicker reform.

I don't care if Bill Bradbury spent every waking moment on Yes on 66 & 67 and Kitzhaber was nowhere to be seen.

I want to see if a Democratic candidate can bring up kicker reform the way Sen. Morse did in Feb. and the way the late St. Treasurer Westlund (who talked about 2 diff. kicker reform proposals) did last June.

Besides proposals to put part or all of the kicker in a rainy day fund, there is a proposal to change the way it is calculated, and another one to give back 85% of their kicker to 85% of recipients. Westlund said that would still retain money because it would prevent the sending out of "ginormous" checks.

http://crosscut.com/2007/11/21/oregon/9241/

contains information on how large some of those kicker checks were.

And 10 years after it was put in the Constitution, isn't it time to debate the philosophy behind the idea?

Or are some Democrats afraid to discuss this because it might make enemies?

My vote may be determined in whole or in part on which candidate does the best job of discussing kicker reform.

Let me translate this entire episode for the non-ideological among us: Bradbury said what he believed, the Blue elites got their panties in a bunch, now his mouthpiece has pull his arse out of the fire.

Oh yeah for Oregon.

Steve Novick is not a newbie or an amateur. He knows what he's doing. And what he's doing is producing hit pieces on Bradbury at a rather brisk clip. Four in the last two weeks. "Voluminous" in Novick's own words.

Novick's been on the other side of attacks like this himself, and hurt by them, so you think he'd know better. Few remember the points Novick made in his blog comments about Hilary Clinton's foreign policy positions, or Barack Obama's position on corn subsidies. Likely, they remember that he called Mrs. Clinton a "traitress" and President Obama a "fraud." Such comments may have cost him a primary race.

And Novick has initiated such attacks in the past, and heard the blowback (and one would hope he may have learned something). He distorted Jeff Merkley's position on Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq by ignoring the statement Merkley issued at the time, highly critical of Bush's policy, and made Merkley out to be a Bush fan because he voted for a nonbinding resolution in the Oregon House to support our troops. That's really about on par with his latest attack on Bradbury.

So...it's not like Novick hasn't a clue what he's up to here. He's for Kitzhaber, and like a good media consultant, he has hacked up another hit piece.

Still, seeing as he's been on both sides of such tactics, it's very disappointing and just plain sad to see Novick, a leading voice for progressives, scrutinizing every word of the one candidate in the race for governor who's willing to tell you he's a Democrat on his website, and is taking the most progressive positions in the race, while John Kitzhaber talks about "post partisanship."

About all Novick's performance these last two weeks tells me is that the Kitzhaber folks are not very confident about their own campaign and their own message (anyone have an idea what Kitzhaber's message is...?). And they've turned to Novick to take potshots at Bradbury.

Sad to see Novick playing the heavy. And not a good sign for Kitzhaber's candidacy.

Jeremy – why are you attacking Steve Novick and John Kitzhaber for something that Bill said to a group of reporters? Why don’t you attack the Portland Monthly or Jeff Mapes or the people that reported it?

It is really disappointing that Bill changed his position on this and/or lied. But I think the response to this from the campaign is even more disappointing. Say what you want about Kitzhaber, but he is running a positive campaign and I don’t think you should try to blame Kitzhaber for what Bradbury said.

There is a lesson in this for you Jeremy: always make sure you know when the candidate is being videotaped!

I repeat: This is not about Steve Novick.

Mr. Read, where does Bradbury stand on kicker reform? Or is attacking Kitzhaber by remarks about Novick the strategy you think will win the primary for Bradbury?

"Let me be clear: I honor Bill's work on 66 and 67. I wish John had done more."

More.........did John do anything?

This post, and the Bradbury folks' comments, make little sense to me. Vote for Bradbury because he worked harder to pass M66/67? How about vote for Kitzhaber because he worked harder to make broad change in health care? I think it makes more sense to vote for the candidate who will be a better Governor; it seems clear to me that John Kitzhaber is that candidate, but either would be head and shoulders (and torso) above the wingnut Huffman.

As Mr. Read said: "Steve Novick is not a newbie or an amateur."

Face it, everyone, Novick is a hack. If he's your hack, he's got your back. If he's not your hack, he'll find every opportunity to stab you in the back.

To my knowledge, Steve Novick isn't a hack (but if he were, he would finally give hacks a good name). Everyone with an opinion isn't a hack. A hack is someone who gets paid to express opinions or otherwise professionally work on behalf of politicians or political causes. I see no record of Steve being on the Kitzhaber payroll. Take it easy with the name-calling, please!

Bradbury didn't take repeal OFF the table, though. If it isn't working, he would look at repealing it.

The "hack" charge is straightforward. Christine laid it out way up there.

Posted by: Christine | Mar 23, 2010 8:53:05 PM

Hey Steve, 2 questions

Question 1 In your comment you say

"If Bill gets the nomination, I'll campaign like hell for him"

you have said this in a previous article to... so at least your consistent but what I don't get is

WHY!!!!!!!

I mean you bash Bradbury's ideas every week but if he wins THEN you will campaign like hell for him..

If you don't like his ideas.. its clear you don't .. then why say stuff like that its disingenuous

Or, bottom line he works for the nominee of the party, and is a party animal, more commonly known as a hack. It should also be pointed out- unless I've totally got this backwards- that "hack" is not seen as a particularly insulting term by many of the BO contributors. I know when I use the term, I mean just what Christine described. This was the point months back when Carla/Pat/myself were able to clearly define what each meant by "intellectual integrity" in political debate. I said what Christine is saying (note her conclusion, "disingenuous"?) Pat took the position that Steve is engaging in realpolitik and it is the most naive of fantasies to think that anyone would be that intellectually consistent "in the heat of battle", as he called it. From where I sit, that's the "proud to be a hack" mentality, and it's reasonable to accuse Steve of it.

LT, could you give me an example where a discrete info. source has come out with an accusation against a pol, and the resulting debate hasn't also been about the source? I agree it's stupid logic and doesn't clarify anything. The comments back during the measures debate, about "someone sitting in his basement in his underwear blogging" should have been met with the same objections. The frustration from people like me is simple. Personality has very little to do with a policy's merit, but it has much to do with its merits being heard. Weren't you just lecturing me on how to win friends and influence people? In case you didn't read my response there, I'll repeat it. "I won't criticize you for courting favor if you don't criticize me for shunning it". Either way, I see this as a case of "live by the sword, die by the sword". Roaming the halls of gov works for the same reason that saying this is about Steve is illogical. Which way do you want it?

BO should start a running index of what stories weren't about, eg., the Sam affair had nothing to do with sex. I'll nominate the current health care bill being about reform, too.

I'll say what I said during the worst of the stupidity during the US Sen. primary debate.

For all the heat here, how many people are really paying attention?

Calling names does not advance a campaign (2 years ago, the reason I put a Merkley bumper sticker on my car was that I got called one name too many and got fed up. Made a great story to tell people who asked why I had a Merkley sticker).

There are people out there leading their own lives who might know Kitzhaber is a former Gov. and Bradbury a former Sec. of State (probably a lot fewer know they are both former St. Sen. Presidents).

So Bradbury said something stupid, got called on it, and apologized.

How does attacking someone not a journalist who posted that on a blog win votes?

" running index of what stories weren't about," does not answer that question.

Maybe people want petty fights, or maybe they don't really want to discuss issues?

I went to a mayoral debate last night that was more intelligent than all this back and forth. Suppose the blog had been written by someone who submitted a guest opinion and who had never written on BO before. Would that have been different?

I am looking for intelligent discussion of issues in general and of kicker reform in particular.

LT --

re kicker reform

I don't think you'll find substantial differences between Bradbury and Kitzhaber. Both want it reformed. Both are disappointed the present governor didn't act to broker a deal between the business community and the legislature to fix the budget and then work together to reform the kicker. Both see ballot measure campaigns as divisive in the long term. Both would like to see Oregon build a significant rainy day fund. Both were around in the legislature (as you know) when we faced our last steep recession (the early 1980s...and that recession was worse than this one), and worked together with Governor Atiyeh to address the budget crisis then. We're fortunate for that, as both have a lot of experience and are familiar with Oregon's boom and bust cycles. Sorry if that doesn't help you decide which box to fill in on the ballot.

re Steve Novick

I agree with you that this is not about Steve Novick. It's about Bradbury or Kitzhaber as our nominee of the Democratic Party for governor.

But surely you've noticed in the last two weeks that Novick has posted four columns attacking Bill Bradbury. I would say Novick has inserted himself rather prominently in the debate.

And you've probably gleaned from Novick's own comments that he has endorsed Kitzhaber. That might account for any lack of scrutiny by Novick of Kitzhaber's less than compelling call for a sales tax, or his rather wishy washy comments on LNG. One expects one-sided commentary from an endorser.

Have you also noticed that those four columns were posted shortly after Bradbury won endorsements from three influential groups of educators? The timing of Novick's columns is no accident. Bradbury has been talking about trimming tax expenditures for months, and Novick himself notes above in his comment that he talked to Bradbury's campaign manager months ago about expenditures.

Yet Novick waited till March, in the two weeks after Bradbury won major endorsements, to tell us what he thinks of Bradbury's proposals on tax expenditures. Why?

It appears folks in the Kitzhaber camp want to blunt any momentum Bradbury gathered from those endorsements by changing the conversation to an attack on Bradbury.

It's an old tactic, somewhat shabby and a little less than respectable. But that's what campaigns do. Whether that's smart politics is up to voters to decide.

The candidate with more money, who claims in his own poll to be well ahead, might be wiser to refrain from such attacks. If you're safely ahead, why invite backfire? These attacks on Bradbury haven't convinced me that Kitzhaber is a better candidate.

I'm certain that Kitzhaber could put a muzzle on Novick with one phone call. And then, to your satisfaction, LT, and likely to many other's, we could talk a lot less about Steve Novick.

Steve,

You are indeed correct we had breakfast last year and I picked your brain about various ideas of tax reform to fund public education. You gave me your opinion about tax expenditure reform which you have also laid out on Blue Oregon. Thank you for taking the time.

But there are alot of other smart people who I respect in this state who disagree with you and think we can and should look at what the billions we are giving away every year and what we are getting for that. That list includes my boss who knows a thing or two about auditing, state budget and tax expenditures.

Just because we didn't take your advice doesn't mean that the proposal is wrong or off-base. It just means you think it is.

Thanks! Jeremy Wright Bradbury Campaign Manager

Mr. Read - Really. You think John Kitzhaber could put a muzzle on me with a phone call. So why exactly hasn't he stopped me from repeatedly criticizing John Kitzhaber in this very space? Yes, I support Kitzhaber. I also support sensible and honest political debate. So when I see either one of them saying something about tax policy that doesn't make sense to me, I will point it out. Since I support Kitzhaber, I may be rather more likely to stress the flaws I see in Bradbury -- as in my last post -- so I give you a post with a headline on Bradbury's apparent flip-flop on 66 / 67, but a paragraph taking Kitzhaber to task for something he said. Is that what someone on Kitzhaber's payroll would do? As to the timing. frankly, I was consumed with the 66 / 67 campaign and then on vacation, so it wasn't until around the OEA endorsement that I became aware that Bradbury was saying goofy things about tax expenditures.

How does attacking someone not a journalist who posted that on a blog win votes?

" running index of what stories weren't about," does not answer that question.

No, it wasn't supposed to, it was just a silly aside. Anyway, I agree with you 100% on principle. Obviously, it's an attempt to discredit the source. As absurd as that sounds, your point about the narrow context folks hear these statements in, is well taken.

Part of this is a blog identity thing, imho. A "(we)blog" is supposed to be your own thoughts on daily issues. It's isn't objective. But this has become journalism, and sparked a lot of debates where the two standards come into conflict. Personally, I would say go for the high ground and self identify as something like the HuffPo. Internet journalism cum blog. It's getting as absurd to regard this as a mere blog as it would be the HuffPo.

I predicted that being in power would change it.

The whole premise of Kitzhaber's campaign is that he can talk us into doing what we haven't been able to do without him.

If we just elect him, he'll lead us in conversation, and then we'll understand the context, things will suddenly be transparent and we'll all see the value of education which we apparently haven't been able to see before (and we'll conveniently forget Kitzhaber created the QEM under his watch), and then we'll all vote for a sales tax to fund education.

If we just elect him, he'll talk us into systemic change and re-mapping government as we know it.

Repeatedly, as with LNG, his campaign seems to claim that we haven't been talking about these things. So we need him to ask the questions. And we need him to re-invent health care.

In the meantime, local folks are fighting like hell against LNG, and folks at the federal level have acted on health care. As Governor Kulongoski outlined in his op-ed in the Oregonian, Oregon is already well-positioned and prepared to follow up on health care. Exactly why we need Kitzhaber to talk to us some more is a mystery.

Perhaps this is old school, but you know, Kitzhaber's been out of office for eight years. Shouldn't his pitch be:

During my time off, I've talked to Oregonians, and come up with a plan to re-map Oregon government. Here it is. Here is my plan, here is my map.

Instead, it's elect me, and I'll lead a discussion with you all to come up with a plan to re-map government as we know it.

Well, what the heck was he doing the last eight years while some other folks came up with a plan to make Oregon governable by putting supermajorities in the legislature?

(even John Lennon sang..."we'd all love to see the plan"...)

My concern is that, if elected, we'll have a lot of talk from Kitzhaber, followed by a failed sales tax initiative, and get nowhere.

Kitzhaber's had the ball in his hands twice (1994 and 1998). He didn't make any forward progress. If we give him the ball again, even with a much better team in the huddle around him, I'm afraid he'll run up to the line of scrimmage and try to start a discussion with his tacklers about re-mapping the football field and post-partisanship. Those folks want the ball back, so they'll tackle him.

And what happens after three carries with no forward progress? You punt.

Still, if you believe the premise, and it appears that Novick at least does, that Kitzhaber can talk us into re-mapping government and systemic change, then, is it much of a stretch to believe with Kitzhaber's extraordinary powers of persuasion that he couldn't call up Novick and get him to cool it?

Mr. Read -- This is Steve Novick observing that I think you're saying some things that John Kitzhaber needs to hear. At his best, john Kitzhaber is blunt and practical: We can't afford to give everyone all the health care in the world, so let's come up with a list of 786 health care procedures and expand coverage by only paying for the 612 most important ones, rather than paying for all 786 for a much smaller number of people. At his worst, John Kitzhaber devolves into rather vague statements about transformational this and 20th century that and 21st century the other. We need to see more of the blunt practical Kitzhaber and less of the vague wonky Kitzhaber. I do think that when he gets down to brass tacks he has strong persuasive power. He was able to convince Phil Knight to put $50,000 into a campaign against a big fat tax cut for rich people, for example. I am a critical friend of John Kitzhaber: I'm for him, but I think progressives need to ride herd on him, both during the campaign and during his Governorship.

Steve, you make a good point.

True friends of a candidate are "no" people---they say "Don't do that, it is a mistake".

Yes people (never criticize a friend) don't do their candidate any favors.

I speak as someone who had a few such heart to heart talks with candidates/campaign people over the years. And one time when I ran for organizational office, I took all such advice I could get.

"But there are alot of other smart people who I respect in this state who disagree with you and think we can and should look at what the billions we are giving away every year and what we are getting for that. That list includes my boss who knows a thing or two about auditing, state budget and tax expenditures."

Jeremy, an open public debate on tax expenditures can only do this state good.

Finding legislators (or legislative candidates) to sign on to your proposal would also be good. As any former presiding officer knows, a good idea without at least 16 votes in the Senate and 31 votes in the House is just that---a good idea.

And anyone has the right to ask questions about the mechanics of the idea.

Was Bill ever on either the Revenue or Ways and Means committees in his legislative years?

<h2>Kitzhaber implies we should do worse than repealing Measure 66 - he thinks we should cut capital gains taxes AND add a sales tax. Now that's bad policy that should have all true blue Dems raising hell!</h2>