With Rep. DeFazio as ranking member with Rep. Blumenauer; Oregon should have some serious voice on the highways, transit and pipelines subcommittee. Plus with both of them on the railroad subcommittee, too; it might be a big plus for Oregon. Oregon is doing good on getting a major voice in DC.

Andrew...

Thanks. I must have not been paying attention. It's been a long day.

Jonathan

Rob:

Now that DeFazio has landed this plum position -- one for which he lobbied intensely -- it's highly unlikely that he will leave the House. It's just not going to happen.

"""With Rep. DeFazio as ranking member with Rep. Blumenauer; Oregon should have some serious voice on the highways, transit and pipelines subcommittee."""

How does the "serious voice" in this case translate into good things for Oregon?

Rob,

I really hate it when you make sense, but I have to agree with you on this one. No way does "serious input" contend with chief executive.

But why would you think Ted would have a challenge? He's only alienated MOST of the people who voted for him, not ALL the people who voted for him. I mean, isn't it plausable that his wife would still vote for him?

This strikes me as gross exaggeration:

But why would you think Ted would have a challenge? He's only alienated MOST of the people who voted for him, not ALL the people who voted for him. I mean, isn't it plausable that his wife would still vote for him? <<

618,004 voters chose Kulongoski for Gov. in 2002. 581,785 chose Mannix.

It may or may not be true that given that choice again people would decide exactly the same way. But has any Blueoregon poster talked with 600 people on this topic, not to mention 6,000?

Maybe your friends and those you know are unhappy. But unless you know thousands of people who are unhappy with their 2002 vote for Gov., it just sounds meanspirited to say no one but a family member would vote the way they did in 2002.

If you don't like Ted, join the Sorenson for Gov. campaign -- a better use of time than insults on a blog!

LT,

Great way to pull up those numbers from the '02 vote. Almost as good as making an actual argument! (wait, was that also meanspirited?)

I have seen polling that says Ted's approval rating would make it hard for him to gain that many votes again, if he were to run. But I'd really like to know if you seriously think that the constituency that voted for him and that worked the phones and gave the money would be really excited to expend the same effort after Ted's only real stand is to say that he is against new taxes, or even re-visiting the tax giveaway programs.

And I'll decide what campaign to support after I see who all gets into the race. I doubt Pete will be the only challenger in the primary. And isn't that what this thread is all about?

My point is this. When individuals start talking to their friends (in person or over the phone, not in blogs) and saying something like "I supported Ted last time but I don't think I will this time", then an incumbent is in trouble.

But generalizations like "the constituency that voted for him and that worked the phones and gave the money would be really excited to expend the same effort " don't mean much if only a few mentioned on the C & E report or those who put in more than one day on a phone bank are expressing lack of interest in doing that again.

Those people may well feel that way, but how many and in which counties?

And no, I don't have faith in polls, so statements like "I have seen polling that says Ted's approval rating would make it hard for him to gain that many votes again," don't impress me.

And it is my experience that when someone says "How dare you admire that speech when I didn't like it" that generally is not as good a recruiting tool as "I hope Peter DeFazio runs (or am glad Sorenson is running) because I really admire.........."

Badmouthing an incumbent is easy. Persuasion for a positive alternative takes work.

A friend and I were just talking this morning about the purity some demand from candidates as if that is more important than winning elections. In the case we were discussing, a native of Pendleton, OR was a 1980s legislator from Marion County. Some of his supporters were distressed to discover he was an NRA member, but his friends pointed out "he would have told you that if you had asked". This did not prevent the legislator in question from continuing electoral success.

Don't expect "But you're supposed to see things the way I see things" to recruit many voters.

I happen to think that the most senior member of the Congressional delegation in the House will think long and hard about his future. I will respect whatever decision he makes.

But I don't see why I should allow a blog to decide for me whether an incumbent is doing a good job. I will decide that for myself and am not required to explain that decision to other bloggers. I leave such explanations to people I talk with face to face.

LT,

Well first, I don't expect that you allow a blog to make the decisions for you. I don't even know who you are, so I'd never try to assume something about your character.

Nor did I say that there was some purity test that Ted needed to live up to. For instance, I know Peter D is a supporter of gun owners rights. While I don't own a gun and really don't want guns around me, I could really care less about that issue.

What I would say is that Ted got elected by garnering support from important funders and constituencies such as organized labor, the environmental community, school funding supporters etc. And I believe these are very important groups in terms of giving money and providing significant ground trooops. Not just people who'd knock on a door for a day.

On this point it might be worth diverging a bit to say I believe that you've posted other times on this site saying that you believe Dem precinct people are the core of the party, I really disagree with you on this, but it's an honest point of disagreement.

Without these core constituencies which are very important in a primary, I think Ted would lose. I also think that in the general election the same people who did massive amounts of work in 2002 would have a very difficult time bringing themselves to do the same amount of work. Again, as you point out, it was a close margin, every little bit will count if Ted is the nominee.

Now I know you're going to come back and assert that I'm being unfair, but this is a guy who went to these groups and said that he would support them once governor and has instead made a point on saying how much he's standing up to them. Again, it's the house Republicans that want to pass Ted's budget, while the Senate D's hardly consider this a starting point.

I appreciate that you're a loyalist, but I think you're really missing just how much Ted has offended the people who got him into office. Again, I have no idea who you are, what role you play in all this, but I think you're wrong if you don't think Ted is in a whole world of hurt come '06.

Anyone has the right to their own opinion, but I will just say what my friend Cathy has said for years. There are people whose lives are very much involved in politics, incl. those who pay attention to political blogs. Those are maybe 5% of the population. They may think they decide elections, but the other 95% of the population who aren't thinking about 2006 primaries in Jan. 2005 are the folks who actually elect public officials.

As I was saying to a Republican I know today about Mannix's apparent run for Gov. in 2006, that 5% may think they decide elections. But elections really are decided by the folks who pay much less attention to politics because they are not interested, too busy, etc. A young man I worked with in 2002 was a married working college student--not someone with a lot of extra time. But he and his wife were able to get some time off in late May, 2002. So they returned their ballots (he's registered Republican) and took off for a short trip. They returned after the ballots were counted and discovered the nominees were Kevin for Republicans and Ted for the Democrats. This young man's remark was "Well, if Kevin has the Republican nomination, then I am voting for Ted because I know Kevin far too well to ever support him for Governor".

My point, which seems to have been misunderstood, is that even if all "core constituencies" in the Democratic party were fed up with Ted (which I have yet to see evidence of--most people are concerned in Jan. of an odd numbered year with just getting by, what the legislature will do, etc.)then they should put their time and resources where their concerns are and support Sorenson or get some other Democrat to run against Ted. I suspect one reason Barbara Roberts didn't run for re-election was that former Sen. Pres. Kitzhaber was already mounting a strong campaign.

BUT, that is work. All I am suggesting is that mouthing off about being disappointed with the current Gov. (and a certain amount of money dep. on where you go) will get you a cup of coffee, as the old saying goes. "I am disappointed with..." never elected anyone.

Actions speak louder than words.

LT,

Well, thanks for the clarification. I've found this an interesting exchange that it looks like others have left behind.

I agree that it's important to work and support the candidates that people would like to see.

With that said, this is a political blog (sort of, in many ways it's much more an e-bulletin board) and this is where people do spout off and make assertions. I'd note that while reading and posting here neither of us are knocking on doors or making phone calls.

Good call on brinking up the Kitzhaber/Roberts scenario. I wouldn't be surprised if we had a similar situation a year from now.

If someone has not only filed by Jan. 2006 but has lined up county chairs in several counties, there might be a vigorous primary. Or people's minds might be influenced by actions of the 2005 legislature. Just remember that the earliest announcers for any statewide election do not always win the primary.

Would you know without looking it up whether the runners up for the 2002 nominations were Jim Hill and Jack Roberts or Bev Stein and Ron Saxton? What do you suppose their supporters were saying about whether they could win the primary/ general back in Jan. 2001 (same point in the cycle)?

<hr/>