If it's a stealth campaign for Governor, it must be state-of-the-art stealth technology, because I work for Jefferson - in fact, I'm sitting outside his office right now and I don't know about it.

Pull Bucky, Pull!!!

Personally, I think Jeff should issue a non-denial denial, just to keep things interesting.

"Smith has no record of holding office-but plenty of critics who view him as a self-important glad-hander."

I really love the glad-hander comment.

I nominate Derry Jackson for governor, just because he might make it interesting and certainly has the potential and history to open up a gigantic can of whoop-ass (I'm talking a literal and physically beating) on Dr. Glad-Hander and Kulongoski; nothing like a good fist-to-cuffs, bi-racial ass-beating to align the party. Maybe we can go the celebrity route and nominate Gus Van Sant, or maybe the Decemberists---I bet the voter turnout would be skyhigh--

Running for Governor takes a lot of money.

These guys should try for Portland City Council instead.

In Brother Blutowski's words:

"It don't cost nothin'."

Joe Said: “I just talked to Willie Smith and it turns out it is Willie who is running for Governor.”

So they got their Smiths wrong. That happens all the time. Next thing you know they’ll think Jefferson's running for the U.S. Senate. Or maybe they’ll think it’s Willy. Or is that Gordon running for Governor. Or maybe it’s Pattie. Or maybe Tootie. Ya gatta love a state that elects people named Tootie.

Really in the end it just proves that Oregon ... right next door to Utah.

Jefferson for Senate!

I knew Willie Smith was looking at running. I hear he keeps holding secret meetings, too, and most recently met with Bill Bradbury (they were seen together last night). I guess it's an easier to run for Oregon Governor than fight to form the State of Willie. He will have high powered endorsments soon!

Has anyone actually read this in Willamette Week and seen that this is a tiny piece in the "Murmurs" section. "Murmurs," as in, less than rumors? It's right above speculation about which "The Real World" might film the next season in Portland. In context, I don't think Willamette Week was going for prize-winning journalism. Look at all of the really interesting discussion this prompted.

But all in all, I really like the idea of a non-denial denial, just to keep people talking.

Has anyone actually read this in Willamette Week and seen that this is a tiny piece in the "Murmurs" section. "Murmurs," as in, less than rumors? It's right above speculation about which "The Real World" might film the next season in Portland. In context, I don't think Willamette Week was going for prize-winning journalism. Look at all of the really interesting discussion this prompted.

But all in all, I really like the idea of a non-denial denial, just to keep people talking.

Joe is right, Willy Week only had the story "partially" wrong. It IS Willie Smith who is secretly feeling out a run for governor. But then again, Willie has been doing this for most of his career. There is no other reason a person would migrate from one congressional district to another, carpet bagging for the right launch pad. Also, Willie ran Bradbury's statewide bid this year, testing out the turf for his own upcoming run for governor. Friends tell me that he doesn’t think he has a great shot at it, but I think he could give it a go. Even though TK, represents some vested interests, I cannot underestimate the impact of Smith's youthful vigor. Get it people: This isn’t even about Jefferson, this is all about Willie!!

Don't buy the web address Joel...'casue, just like Vicki Walker...they'll think you're running for Governor...but they’ll be confused why your last name isn't Smith...or Walker

I think this Willie-for-Gov thing started as a joke, but... come to think of it... this Mr. Smith might make a damn good candidate. Let's face it: Having worked for Hooley (in Oregon's demographically diverse Fifth CD) and Bradbury (a statewide race), Willie knows the state as well as anyone.

Also, little known fact about Willie: I heard his first political job was working for Mannix when he was a Dem. No one knows a candidate quite like his staff, and if there's anyone who can beat Kevin, it's someone who understands his strengths and weaknesses.

As I'm writing this, I'm growing more and more convinced that it would be a brilliant political move. Unlike Jefferson, no one could call Willie inexperienced -- he's worked in government for a decade. And unlike Ted, Willie doesn't have a disasterous record to defend.

Guys... I think we have a candidate I could get behind here!

Willie....Jefferson.....if this is the future of the Democratic Party we are in deep s*#t!

I've met both of them and they both seem like self important, pompous, know it alls.

If either of these two blowhards made it through the primary, Utah isn't looking half bad.

Jed,

Do you really think your namecalling helps the debate, or even so much as makes this site more interesting?

Go ahead and talk smack about Jefferson, he's used to it (not to say he's deserving), but back off Willie, jackass!

With Love,

Smalls

Rupert,

I wonder if Willie does have something in his past that might be worth a little Willy Week research?

Hooley to Bradbury to Blumenauer in a year? Maybe he has a drinking problem, too?

Willie Smith...he's an idiot!!!

Willie Smith is HOT!!! but you're right, he's an idiot.

All I can say is Willie can have The Queen I'm done with her. You're right his an idiot.

Walla Walla: Are you referring to the Pirate Queen from one Island that shall not be named? You see - Willie has had the Queen and some say is the Queen. So what are you really trying to say?

Yeah, I've heard Willie's had the Queen too.

me too!

Does this mean Willie is a queen?

not that there is anything wrong with that.

My great-grandfather was Rueben Waite Smith, the first owner of an automobile in Springfield Oregon. (He used it to deliver mail to Walterville.)

Being part "Smith", I guess I have to run for Gov. now. Maybe I can find Great-grandpa's car for the effort.

Leave Willie alone. He's cool and he's NOT an idiot. Stop wishing you were him.

I LOVE WILLIE SMITH!!!!!!! I LOVE WATCHING WILLIE SMITH ACT LIKE A THESPIAN-MOSTLY BECAUSE HE IS A THESPIAN! WILLIE SMITH FOR GOVERNOR!!!!!!!!

Dear Moses Ross, I'll part your seas any day of the week! You're hot too! Moses for governor! Love, Luva ps-Willie Smith's an idiot

Javier:

Derry Jackson...has the potential and history to open up a gigantic can of whoop-ass....

I believe that elected officials like Mr. Jackson should be treated with greater respect and deference, to wit:

 <i>Portland Public School Board Member Derry Jackson has the <b>alleged history</b> to open up a gigantic can of <b>threatened</b> whoop-ass....</i>

PANCHOPDX: I kind of feel like the City Council's "Incumbent Protection Act" requires the same level of consumer acceptance as the famous Otis Day & the Nights bar scene, DO YOU MIND IF WE DANCE WIF YO DATES? "Mind, why would we mind, we were just LEAVING".

Why is there never enough money to pave some new streets, but always plenty of money for the next monument to a city commisioner's ego (SW Community Center, Voter Funded Elections, Floating Boardwalk). Is it just me, or is it smelling kind of Socialist around here?

Both Willie or jeff would be fine candidates but, quite frankly, Ted has done IMHO an excellent job. Why y'all beating up on him anyway or would you prefer Gov. Mannix? Geez.

Lack of leadership Lack of being a Democrat and trying to do anything progressive The Forestry Board debacle Emissions issue Cleaning up the Willamette - what's new on that? Casino in the Gorge??? Why?

Really it's not what he's done, it's what he hasn't done

On some level we deserve Mannix. Though that would suck like having Bush sucks, but he would lead - and we could use an example of what that looks like.

Sorry for the meanness, I just haven't had lunch yet.

"Lack of being a Democrat and trying to do anything progressive?"

OK, specifically what would you do?

Yes the AuCoin nomination was a blunder of the first order, but that is not a reason to dump Kulongoski without a strong candidate as a replacement.

I've been to too many Democratic gatherings where "being a real Democrat" meant "Doesn't matter how much work they do, or if they solve anything, as long as they agree with us".

LT,

Ted took the far right position on PERS. There was a more moderate position on that issue during the last session that he could have taken and didn't.

This session the governor was advocating for a budget that was perfectly acceptable to the Republicans in the house, but hated by the D's in the Senate. Why?

On education his 'principled stand' has been a staunch opponent of new revenue. He even refused to consider looking at unnecessary tax deductions as a source of additional revenue. Why?

On the environment he has, in his own words, held the environmental community at arms length. Hmmm.

On health care, he's done, well, nothing.

So on some of the big issues of the day he's either done nothing, or aligned himself more closely with the Republicans.

When someone says he isn't a real democrat, and you respond by saying "doesn't matter how much they do, or if they solve anything, as long as they agree with us." I have to wonder what the hell you're talking about.

What has he done? What has he solved?

IMHO he's done little, solved less and still doesn't agree with us. Pretty poor scorecard.

So, LT, what would you hold up as his stunning achievments?

-Rorobnoxious (I just love this nickname that one of the jefferson cult members gave me)

Rorovitz -

You must be really ugly, really really ugly. like, I would say you are a C.

Otherwise, you make insightful and cutting analysis of Oregon politics. As does everyone else - I just can't figure out why this is so heated?

I mean it sounds like this guy is just someone who is organizing - if he's running for governor that would make his motivation pretty suspect. I mean who would help him out if it was billed as a coalition project that was then ditched for someone's campaign?

As a young person I'd be pretty upset. But, it sounded like he isn't running in 2006 right? So, what then are the plans for this fearless leader?

My point was that anyone criticizing an incumbent, esp. a Dem. opponent, shouldn't just say "here is what the incumbent has done wrong".

They should say "My alternative is.."

If you don't like the actions of an incumbent, by all means vote for someone else.

If you don't like the PERS bill the legislature passed and the court pretty much upheld, then say so.

Should any union have supported a Republican who opposed the PERS bill instead of a Democratic challenger? Please explain why a Republican who voted against the PERS bill is better than a Democrat--if that is what you believe.

Or would you rather just criticize instead of offering alternatives?

True or not this is an excellent time to squash the mere thought of jeffy having a leadership role that has an ANYTHING to do with tax dollars.

Smithy is self serving and deluted in mythical proportions. He and his hypnotized hitler youth who drool over anywhere his pretty blond lockes sway (pretty sick folks) are the death of any hope of engaging a progessive oregon.

We need a diverse group of people who have something in common (harvard law degree aside of course) with the communities they plan to serve. Unless of course we plan to change our fine state to a place for lily white priveledged men and put all of our tax dollars into more mirrors in public buidlings.

OK, all those of you who don't like Kulongoski and/or Jeff Smith--here's a challenge.

1)Is there a Democrat in public life you do like? Legislator, local elected official, county or higher level party chair?

Having never met him except online, I greatly admire Crook County Dem. Chair Steve B. who wrote the "it is the little things" guest opinion.

As a county chair he actually DOES things rather than just making sniping remarks.

2) What proposals do you critics want advanced that are not currently bills in the Senate? Are there any Senate bills you feel so strongly about that you have contacted friends/elected officals in support of them?

Or are you just being snarky because actually advocating for specific solutions is hard work?

"Start backing candidates because we agree with them " is a noble sentiment. But has the person

It would be interesting to know if such a person questions the current House Democrats and their FuturePac setup--which doesn't seem to be backing candidates based on any publicly specified criteria other than what seems to be "we will back the candidates we choose to back and no one should ask us why". Unless they fit that description, it seems to me they have no right to complain.

Should candidates in touch with their home county but not in agreement with those from a different part of the state be backed for legislature? Or is this a case of "agree with what the people in Portland (or wherever) agree with because that is more important than agreeing with your neighbors who could actually vote in that district"?

If someone is of the opinion "tell me why I should support the Democratic incumbent--give me some reasons", I would suggest looking hard at what has been done and deciding for yourself what you like, what you don't like, and why. To give 2 examples (feel free to choose your own examples)I think it is good that Ted has gotten involved in the civil unions/ non-discrimination battle. I think his biggest mistake was the AuCoin nomination. But it is not my business to tell other people what is important to them.

As far as learning from evangelical Republicans, I think the main lesson is not slavish obedience to a set of beliefs everyone should accept without question--Democrats lose elections when the "footsoldiers" are told to accept the nominee without question and spend all their spare time campaigning for that person (Bruggere for US Senate a good example of that).

What the Republicans did do right has nothing to do with ideology, but grass roots politics. While Democrats from other states were going to Ohio or Florida to campaign in 2004, Republicans had Ohio residents campaigning in their own county. In other words, voters are likely to listen to people from their local area more than to total strangers knocking on their door.

There was a time when Democrats excelled at that sort of grass roots neighborhood politics--long before evangelical Republicans started using that tactic. But doing that in Oregon House elections in 2006 means that, for instance, Linn County or Polk County or Coos County or Crook County residents know more about what will win elections in their own county/ district than anyone in Portland understands. This is not about whether one holds evangelicals at "arm's length" but about whether the people in the various counties who were local volunteers long before FuturePac was created know more about their own district than some "professional" looking at a spreadsheet in an office in Portland.

The case could also be made that Oregon Democrats were more successful when the Dem. state party office was in Salem rather than in Portland, but that is another debate.

Oregon Democrats even in the 1970s elected a number of qualified people (some still in politics today incl. a member of Congress, a former Portland Mayor, current governor and AG, and some no longer living incl. Frank Roberts) long before spreadsheets or "political professionals" came on the scene. There were people then who were active in their church and in the Democratic party--they just did it and didn't make a big deal out of it.

This is as good a place as any to post some comments by Howard Dean. These were copied from a USA TODAY story. There is a reason he became DNC chair--these remarks make more sense than much of what I have heard about "what Democrats need to do" from any other source.

Dean says beleaguered Democrats need to begin doing more to "show up" in all 50 states, including those they are unlikely to win.

And they should stop "speaking down to voters," especially those with views at odds with Democratic orthodoxy — for instance, those who oppose abortion or find some popular culture offensive.

"People in economic distress and harmed by the economic policies of the Republicans continue to vote Republican," he said. "It's because we're not addressing the central underlying fears of people" when it comes to the pressures they feel in raising families.

"Most of the people I know with children are worried about what's on television," he said, including the "appropriateness of time slots" for certain shows. "We need to be concerned" about that.

Recasting the Democratic message on these issues could put him at odds with Hollywood and abortion rights activists, who are among the Democrats' biggest contributors. He dismissed that as a concern: "I think there's always going to be pushback and there's always going to be differences of opinion among people who call themselves Democrats."

Didn't Dean also say:

"We have to acknowledge people's fears. It's not just about gay rights and abortion. It's fear of what happens to their families. What they need is a signal from the Democratic Party that we're going to make it easier for them to raise their kids. The mistake is to think we're going to talk people out of their fears. These are not logical fears. Most kids will turn out fine, even in this era of bad stuff on television and things like that. You cannot sit down and logically explain to people why they have their fears."

So telling people their fears are "illogical" is not "speaking down to voters"? In hat tip, Mickey Kaus said this first, and I agree with him.

In other places on this board, it has been implied that if you even respect the right of other people to shop at Wal-Mart, you are somehow in favor of raping women and destroying the planet. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, and I would prefer that others do not as well. I would also support laws raising the minimum wage and working conditions (incl. health insurance) of those who work at places like Wal-Mart.

But I'm not going to shout "rapist!" at anyone trying to save a little money. I don't think that's the way to get them on board with our agenda. Sometimes people on this board go a little too far in that direction.

Ah! The age old question. Is it about getting people to back a whole list of ideas, or just to vote for particular candidates?

Someone who votes for a next door neighbor or "that nice young man who a woman in our office watched grow up" may also be voting for a Democrat, even if they don't register as a Democrat and don't agree with all of the Democratic platform.

I've been in many debates over that in the past decades. There are straight party voters, there are issue voters, and there are voters who support whoever they believe is the best person (such as someone who voted for Kitzhaber for Gov. and Gordon Smith for US Senate because they were impressed with them as individuals).

In the end, I suspect most people are more concerned with family life (weddings, funerals, going to events involving their kids, etc), their work and other aspects of daily life than about any political party agenda. A friend of mine calls such people "the 95% of the public who actually decide elections" as opposed to activists, bloggers, etc. who are maybe 5% of the population. Could it be that is why so many don't register with either party?

But a vote by a registered Indep. for a Democratic candidate is just as valid as the vote by someone who is an active Democrat.

how can we welcome them and keep them if we take that page from the Christian Right playbook and become more rigid ourselves?

Actually it is as easy as welcoming the Jesse Jackson people (or those who thought differently on any issue) was in the 1980s. Stand up for their right to their own opinion. Stand up for their right to support primary candidates or ballot measures that maybe the whole Democratic State Central Comm. doesn't support. Speak out against such hogwash as those who say all churches think alike, coastal counties see things the same way as inland counties, etc. I know Republicans who believe that is important--matter of fact I got such an email this afternoon: "you and I agree on the idea of being anything but a straight party person(s). Each of us needs to think for ourselves.".

If you don't have personal friends who are not Republicans or Independents, why not? They are good people too.

ASK people for their vote rather than demanding it. Rather than adopting the rigidity of the Republicans, adopt their ideas of locals campaigning--Linn County residents talking to Linn County residents, etc.

Is being gracious really that difficult in politics?

I've heard a lot of rumors lately about Peter DeFazio possibly making a run a governor. He could take advantage of a lot of the opportunities that would attract Jefferson Smith without all of the baggage. He might be just the candidate we need. Has anyone heard anything more definite?

Hard to imagine Peter giving up his seniority in Congress (isn't he the most senior Oregon Congressman now?) to run against a Democrat who once represented Lane County in the legislature. Where would his support come from? Just as importantly, what other Democrat could keep the 4th District Congressional seat in Democratic hands?

"I don't need to look any farther than Linda Flores to tell me that privilige, gender, and ethnicity are often lousy barometers for deciding whether or not a candidate will pursue the public interest while in office. "

Sal I was pretty dissapointed with the sophistication of this argument. For a couple of reasons

1. I don't know much abour linda flores (except that she is conservative republican and everyone talks about her perfectly coiffed blonde hair - something that would never happen about a male candidate). I do know that she is MARRIED to a Latino and don;t know much about her background - the most important fact here is that she is a republican and your theory does not carry over (even if she is latina) on that alone.

2. Let me clarify - by your argument you are saying that because condeliza rice is a black conservative women - being black should be no consideration when grooming candidates - because conde does not represent dems - the fact that the GOP has done such an excellent job of grooming minorities should be the dems call to duty to get to the same thing - but instead we point at linda and conde and say if that is what a minority is like - I would rather have a safe white boy.

3. I would further say the Dems are doing themselves great damage in this respect nationwide. I watched the dem convention on univision and while I love barak as much as the next person - all univision (and me for that matter) could notice was that there were no latino speakers - it can't be because there are not dynamic latino dems (there are - especially more so than say lieberman). It is just a huge oversight in strategy.

4. To continue on the latino vein, lets talk about our new attorney general. the man disgusts me but when he was nominated every latino paper in the country talked about the man in glowing terms - why because he will be excellent on all the issues that truly impact latinos - NO - but because he embodies the american dream - as an immigrant I can tell you this is a strong pull - and to not get that is to not get the biggest and strongest voting block in the nation.

5. SO WHAT CAN BE DONE - I hate just spouting what is wrong - so here is a suggestion -Stop with the get out the vote token - Growing up we were visited (even in spanish sometimes) by politicans or their minion ONCE - vote time! Get out the vote out efforts targetting at communities of color are really an insult. I can only speak for latino communities - but to visit a latino home - ask for something and then never come back - is just rude. Latinos are not just a vote they are a critical and growing group of americans who will define much of the future of american politics (no not just in california but in oregon as well (we are one of the fastest latino popultions). To invest (and I don't mean token investment here) in grooming the next democratic leaders to include many latinos is just smart politics here and in the nation - to generalize those who have been groomed by the GOP and dismiss factors on gender, ethnicity, and race in picking candidates is just folly. And thinking that jefferson and his overwhelming white following can capture the imgination and excitement of all oregonians (not just the white affluent folks who unquestionably follow him) is folly as well.

Sara-You wrote: "I don't know much about linda flores (except that she is conservative republican and everyone talks about her perfectly coiffed blonde hair - something that would never happen about a male candidate)." Really? But you wrote about Jefferson Smith's "pretty blond lockes" in your earlier post! Hahahaha! Liar. Now please stop being so negative. And stop lying already! -Kris

kris

I was trying to be fair by addressing that comment equally about both sexes and you have to agree that happens readily to women and hardly ever men. We hear about what hilary was wearing but not bill etc.

I don't like to be negative but I also think we need to be a little more real about questioning what is best for our state. Kris I am sure you don't mean to be rude - but Never call me a liar. That is not a term I would throw around so lightly - I am sure you didn;t mean to either.

Sara- After that, yes, I'd call you a liar. I'd also call you extremely insensitive. Ever stop to think some of the people who volunteer for the bus project might be Jewish? What a horrible, ridiculous thing to write. -Kris

Sara,

I must agree with Kris that you must be a liar. I too saw the Democratic Convention, and I saw a wonderful array of diversity that is the Democratic Party. From Convention Chair Bill Richardson, to Obama, we stood proud. So, you are either a liar and ddin't watch or were too stupid to see the diversity. Which was it?

hello blue oregon.com,

great hearing the discussions on who's running for governor. at last report there were two people on the democratic side: ted kulongoski and pete sorenson. on our side, we're testing our slogan: pete sorenson, a real democrat for a change. it seems to be working well. check out our website, www.petesorenson.com thanks, pete