I wonder how they came up with the sorting they used, because looking at the list, while not necessarily good, Kulongoski should be about 5 places higher at #41.

If you want to use a different analysis of the data - using their percentages, start at 0, add approval, subtract disproval ratings, use that as the sorting figure - Kulongoski comes out at #38 (-12), 2 places above Arnold (-16).

On that note, there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. You can twist the data any way you want to draw the conclusions you want. Work out your own conclusions from there.

ONE THING FROM ME ABOUT THIS....LOL

Taft (Governor of Ohio) is the political equivalent of a legacy: as close to American Royalty as there is. Click on above URL for more data...In summary, his great-grandfather William Howard Taft was President of the United States and Chief Justice of the United States; and his grandfather (Robert Alphonso Taft I) and his father (Robert Taft Jr.) were both U.S. Senators.

Gregoire is nearly a usurper in the eyes of many voters (Democrats included).

Missiouri (who knows why), Alaska (Third World).

This is very sorry company for Governor Kulongowski to be keeping: we didn't even beat out Puerto Rico?

Well, I hate to judge a man on his charisma, but…who were we talking about again? Seriously, I love a useless thread; it lets me demonstrate my inane talent for irreverence.

Honestly, the man rolled into the state with a D by his name. I for one looked at that, and whether or not he was wearing a bow tie (rimshot). The state won’t fall apart while he’s at the helm, but no one shouldn’t kid themselves if they visit another state, mention the name Kulongoski and are greeted with a questionable look.

What should we do to bolster his ranking? I’m thinking a cage match. Portland has long had a tradition of solving all grievances with a good wrestling match, or just sitting down and watching the Trail Blazers lose one more time. If Ted can bite a blood capsule, take a few blows to the face and still talk Californians out of moving here, he is our man.

Okay, I’m open to other suggestions, but how can someone compete with the powerhouse personality and bad dialect of a Schwarzenegger? Arnold is like a Greek God wrapped in the body of a boob-grabbing moron that failed remedial English. Don’t even get me started on his bad acting, which he does on purpose, and therefore it is really good acting. Arnold was groomed for governorship from the very first time he looked in the mirror, did steroids, and acted with soon to be governor of Minnesota, “diesel mouth” Jesse Ventura. Jesse knows a few things about wrestling in Portland, and though our current governor could take him down if the ref was looking the other way and someone slipped an “implement” into his hands, it just doesn’t seem like a good way to boost Kulongoski’s rating.

How about this: Kulongowski is the “sleeper governor”. No, he’s not going to answer the phone one day and go on a terrorist rampage, he’s actually biding his time before he crawls out of the cave and differentiates himself from the other governors in a really big way. If I were him I would stand up to the current administration in every way possible, be very vocal about everyone that ranked higher than himself, and stay away from wrestling all together. The last thing we need is some kind of goddamn, idiotic showboat running our state.

Two Words:

Neil Goldschmidt

I don't know a single progressive who is excited about him. People wistfully talk about primary challengers (besides Sorenson).

On the environment, which is one issue I follow, he's (a) not solved the Board of Forestry problem, instead creating a PR nightmare; (b) worked to harm the gorge with a Casino; (c) not provided leadership in a real solution to measure 37; (d) asked people to voluntarily clean up the Willamette, while not pushing to end toxic mixing zones (side note: everyone makes cleaning up the Willamette a central theme in their campaigns, why doesn't it ever get done?)

Why SHOULD he be popular, besides among tavern owners (more lottery), one tribe (the casino), and conservatives (no new taxes)?

Hear hear, Yoram! The poll's methodology is only slightly better than a web poll, and yet there's no doubt this Gov. K's support is tepid at best, for the reasons cited and many more. If only this were a wake-up call, but Rep. Hunt's reply suggests that some Salem Ds are more interested in denying and defending than identifying the truth behind the soft numbers.

If Ron Saxton could win the primary (he can't) Ted would lose the general election. Fortunately for him the Republicans are so committed to gubernatorial suicide that they will renominate Mannix and Ted will be re-elected.

I'm not exactly sure why so many D's think that Governor Kulongoski is a slam-dunk to beat Kevin Mannix in a rematch.

Mannix raised more money than Kulongoski in 2002, and the main reason he lost that election is that Tom Cox siphoned off 58,000 votes in a race that Kulongoski won by 29,000.

The current dynamics are that Kulongoski is sitting at 58 percent approval among Democrats in this state and he may not get the endorsement of the public sector employees who were among his primary financiers in the last election because he locked them out of his PERS "compromise".

What's worse is that he's allowing himself to be outmanouvered by Mannix on issues that will resonate with a majority of Oregonians. The fact that utilities like PGE are collecting money from ratepayers for taxes that they are not actually paying is outrageous. These utilities have pocketed $15 - $20 million from Oregon ratepayers for money collected for the purposes of paying state taxes, and several times that amount in federal taxes over the last 3 years.

Only slightly more outrageous is the fact that some Senate Dems have apparently undermined Senator Metsger's efforts to correct this problem. Governor K. and Senator Brown would go a long way towards eliminating the perception of corruption in the Senate and bolstering their support among a wide swath of Oregon voters if they would work together to restore the original intent of SB 171 and stand up for Oregon ratepayers on this issue.

At least the Salem House Ds are down there fighting the good fight, not bitching from the sidelines. And if I remember correctly, your poll numbers - as measured in votes - weren't too hot either KAZA.

I agree with you about the House Democrats. One of my prouder moments as a Democrat recently came watching Mark Haas and Peter Buckley take on the corporate tax expenditures issue in the debate on the floor.

Having said that, I find your criticism of Andrew to be mean-spirited and ill-founded. I may not agree with him on every issue, and he may not have won an unwinnable primary against an incumbant with 100x the resources he had, but you can hardly call what he did "bitching from the sidelines". He took the field against a powerful opponent and fought for his convictions. Such actions are worthy of respect, not derision.

FeelingBlue--

To paint Kaza as some kind of righteous martyr is simply revisionist history. Kaza ran a mean-spirited campaign against Hooley that was more about bomb-throwing and name-calling than it was about "fighting for his convictions."

(In a recent attack on Hooley on his blog, he tried to exploit her heart condition by raising speculation that she was excused from Congress due to her health. So I called her office to ask why she’d been absent. Her staff explained that she wanted to be with her niece who had just given birth. Exploiting heart disease just to throw a cheap political punch? This guy is shameless.)

And I have had enough of Kaza explaining away his devastating primary defeat (garnering just 13 percent of the base vote) by complaining that Hooley out-fundraised him. Hooley did raise a lot of money, yes, but she spent it in the GENERAL election, not the primary. She didn't run a single TV ad in the primary -- I even heard that she didn't have a full-time campaign manager until after the primary was over.

Kaza is a self-righteous, self-obsessed, demagogue-wanna-be, who would rather throw bombs and boost his own ego than actually work for change by building a movement beyond himself.

Kaza ran a mean-spirited campaign against Hooley that was more about bomb-throwing and name-calling than it was about "fighting for his convictions."

From what I've seen, what he did more than anything was question why she voted in favor of the Iraq war; why she voted with the R's to repeal the estate tax; why she voted with the R's on the Patriot Act, etc. In fact, didn't she just vote in favor of a bankruptcy bill that (among other things) makes it possible for credit card companies to step ahead of women and children for debt compensation?

I wish more Democrats would step up to take on incumbents they don't agree with. How else are we supposed to hold our elected officials accountable?

As for bomb-throwing and name-calling... Be careful with those stones in your glass house.

Why is it OK for Kaza to generically blast Salem Dems but not OK for me to point out that if he wants to talk about community support and polling, there wasn't exactly an outpouring of it in his race.

I didn't criticize you for pointing out that Andrew wasn't broadly supported in his race against Darlene Hooley. I criticized you for saying that he's sniping from the sidelines when, in fact, he got off the sidelines took to the field in the last election.

It's also not clear to me that Andrew was "generically blast(ing) Salem Dems". But, to be fair, I share the same concerns that many other folks in this thread have raised about Governor K. I see him as more of a so-so republican governor than a good Democrat. And I have to admit that I find it shockingly bizarre that Kevin Mannix is more in line with the public interest on the PGE tax issue than the Democratic leader of the Senate and (apparently), the Democratic Governor.

I thought this topic was about the Gov. Gee the conversations do stray sometimes.

But there is a similarity between Darelene Hooley and Ted Kulongoski. It is something that bloggers, young political "professionals" et al. should contemplate.

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away, there were legislators who got elected by being well known in their community and running a local campaign. Then when they got to the legislature they would do the public's business in public, be polite to constituents and other voters, and carry on friendly, intelligent conversations with ordinary people. I realize that concept may be alien to some given what has been going on lately (the Krieger/ Roblan story, for instance).

Even today there are those who vote for the guy who lives down the road from them rather than the person who agrees with them on a variety of legislation.

Darlene and Ted were that sort of legislator, as were Hardy Myers, Jim Hill, and others who later won higher office. No amount of money can carry the power (esp. to a skeptical voter not sure there are any reliable politicians) of "Gee, I've known Darlene since..." or "Let me show you that nice letter Ted sent me" or, in terms of a former Congressman "So,you support Denny Smith is attacking Mike Kopetski. I'll tell you a strength of character story about Mike and then you tell me a similar story about Denny". [usually they couldn't think of one]

Those who say things like "more in line with the public interest" (defined how?) should talk to neighbors and others and find out what is important to them. In our school board election, neighbors have said things like "If you've known the one guy for years and you are voting for the other guy, that is an important thing to know". Are they making a statement about what issues are "in the public interest"?

Now I know there are ideologues and there are those who closely follow public policy. But there are others who vote differently.

What I heard from Andrew Kaza (outside of how short a time he had lived in the 5th Dist. and that he hadn't run for office before) was "vote for me because I am not Darlene". What I didn't hear was "here is the volunteer work I have done with veterans".

I saw a lot of similarity between the Kaza campaign and the lame Bruggere campaign against Gordon Smith in 1996. Both shared a campaign philosophy in the primary--"forget the people you've known for years and vote for the person you've never heard of".

When such a person wins a general election AND goes on to have an exemplary voting record, then maybe I will believe in such people.

But my suspicion is that they would be a Thune type. Thune campaigned against Daschle by saying "Vote for me because I have the ear of the president and will keep the airbase open". Except the SD airbase is on the closure list announced today.

I'd rather have someone who has been around politics a long time whose voting record I sometimes disagree with, than get stuck with a Thune type--those poor S. Dakota people are now stuck with him for the rest of his 6 year term.

Vote ideological purity if you like, but I don't support that. I'd rather vote for the person who I know, who I have watched thru the years and sometimes disagreed with, rather than some stranger who someone says is "right" on some issue.

Vote ideological purity if you like, but I don't support that. I'd rather vote for the person who I know, who I have watched thru the years and sometimes disagreed with, rather than some stranger who someone says is "right" on some issue.

I live in Donna Nelson's district. I've known her since I moved to Oregon. Nice lady. Never goes empty-handed to someone's party. Never a cross word with her neighbors.

She's anti-choice. Anti gay. Votes against funding for schools. Voted against a bill that brought $15 million in jobs to my community. Voted against legislation that would block some companies from dumping toxins in the Willamette River.

But a nice lady nevertheless.

Am I a wild-eyed idealogue because I vote against her? Of course not.

Why? Because there is no such thing as an all-or-nothing dichotomy between voting for someone you know and voting for someone you agree with. It's a false dilemma, and you of all people should know better, LT.

Those who say things like "more in line with the public interest" (defined how?)

I'm not sure how you define it, but I'm pretty sure that when an elected official takes large contributions from an energy concern and then works to bury a piece of legislation that would block that concern from taking millions from rate payers for the purposes of paying taxes that they are not, in fact, paying, we are talking about something that is not in line with the public interest.

Or can you make a case for why the Senate Democrats who shredded Sen. Metsger's bill to fix that loophole were acting in the public interest?

But my suspicion is that they would be a Thune type. Thune campaigned against Daschle by saying...

Thune campaigned against Daschle by saying that Daschle had lost touch with his constituency and painting him is a corrupt, elitist, political strategist whose conviction shifted with the political wind.

It's the same basic strategy that Republicans have been using to co-opt working people, beat Democrats, and dominate every level of American government for the last 12 years.

But it's silly to paint Thune, a life-long South Dakota resident who attended SDSU, was executive Director of the SD Republican Party, and who served as a Congressional Representative in SD for 8 years before beating Daschle as some sort of "Johnny-come-lately" who didn't know his neighbors.

If anything, Thune is the poster child for why, taken to the extreme you've taken it to, your argument makes no sense. Of course people need to have a record of public service before running for high level office. But to suggest that someone is a wild-eyed idealogue for demanding accountability from the people we elect is asinine.

This attitude that there is some God-given right for a Democrat incumbent to go unchallenged in political primaries is elitist, and it is hurting the Democratic Party.

If you believe a Democrat should be challenged in the primary, go right ahead. But those of us who remember when Al Ullman's primary opponent got 45% "to teach Al a lesson" and the GOP money opened up for Denny Smith have the right to point out it took 10 years to get rid of Denny. And it was a legislator with a long record of activism who finally beat him.

Whatever else you think of Donna Nelson, she has some very nice staff (as opposed to some GOP members) and has been more interested in actual help for veterans--not just "support the troops " rhetoric and car magnets. Can you find a Democrat who can win over Yamhill voters? Seems to me that rather than taking on Democratic incumbents there should be efforts to win Republican seats by demanding a candidate who can win the district, not just win endorsement from a group like FuturePac.

Everyone has the right to volunteer for any candidate they choose. I just don't believe that someone I have never met is better than a Democratic incumbent I have known for years just because someone tells me they are. Call it sales resistance.

Someone I once helped elect to the legislature made a remark about 20 years ago that politics is more like sales than many would like to admit. I think he is right. I spent enough time in sales to know there are those who want concrete information and want questions answered before they will buy the product. Smart campaigns know that.

But those of us who remember when Al Ullman's primary opponent got 45% "to teach Al a lesson" and the GOP money opened up for Denny Smith have the right to point out it took 10 years to get rid of Denny.

Al got beaten the same way that Mannix got beaten. A third party candidate siphoned off some of his votes. He also got beaten because he got behind the national VAT, which enabled Smith to label him "Sales Tax Ullman", which effectively ended his political career.

In any case, if he had broader appeal among his base, he would not have been subjected to a primary challenge, nor vulnerable to a third party candidate on his left. The fact that an opponent got 45 percent against one of the most powerful Democrats in congress in a Democratic primary should tell you that all was not roses with Al Ullman in 1980.

There is a greater than 95 percent re-election rate over the last 30 years in the U.S. Congress. An incumbent who loses has no one to blame but themselves.

Seems to me that rather than taking on Democratic incumbents there should be efforts to win Republican seats by demanding a candidate who can win the district,

You've created another false dilemma.

Holding incumbents accountable, without regard to political party, is something that people can do regardless of where they choose to put their energy in a political campaign. If some Democrats torpedo the efforts of another Democrat to right an egregious wrong, such as the fact that utilities collect millions for taxes that they are not paying, the public has a right to know about it. And people in their district, including Democrats, have a right to do something about it.

I thought this thread was about Kulongoski.

The way I see it, this is a guy who has almost a majority of voters disapproving of the job he's done. I've read a lot of polls over the last year and SurveyUSA tends to be a pretty accurate firm. I don't think anyone here would disagree with me that if any of the other governors in the bottom five were up for re-election today, they'd probably lose.

Mannix is a pretty conservative guy, but he is a smart, smart man, and the fact that he lost had everything to do with Tom Cox. Back in August 2002, Kulongoski's favorable/unfavorable was 37/12. Mannix's was 27/20. Kulongoski now has an extra 1/3 of the population against him. The state is pretty evenly split because of the D's registration advantage and the R's turnout advantage, and I honestly think this election is going to come down to three things; whether Mannix has a bloody primary and has to run to the right to win; whether Liberal Democrats get behind one of Ted's challengers in the primary to, as this thread was discussing, show our elected officials what we want from a Democrat, and whether Kevin or Ted (I use first names because I can't always spell Kulongoski correctly) will have third party challengers. If I were Kevin Mannix, I'd find a way to get a Green Party candidate on the ballot. And if I were a Democrat supporting Ted, I'd find a way to get Constitution and Libertarian Party members on the ballot.

For anyone who would rather see a Democrat than a Republican, it's a bad idea to oppose Ted in the primary, that just hurts him and emboldens Mannix, who will be the nominee. I'm all for screwing with incumbents, but its not the smart thing to do if your goal is to see a Democrat get elected.

For me at least, I'm a progressive on some issues, and on the rest I really don't care. And even if Basic Rights, Oregon wants to kiss Ted's ass for the Civil Unions bill, I at least believe that equal people should have equal rights. Also, schools. I'm 20 years old and so schools are close to my heart. I didn't go to Oregon schools, but I've heard horror stories from my friends who did. When Republicans are elected, I expect lower taxes, when Democrats are elected, I expect higher taxes and better schools for it. So far, if I remember correctly, Oregon's schools had to close something like two weeks early, because there just wasn't enough tax money to keep them open. You know, when it comes to school funding, it almost feels like Kevin Mannix is the governor.

There is a simple solution to funding Oregon's schools; Ted Kulongoski should refuse to sign any budget which does not fund Oregon schools at ABOVE the minimum level necessary to avoid cuts. Most voters already dislike him; maybe if he showed some backbone more people would think he was worth voting for.

Here's the kicker, and why I strongly suspect Kevin Mannix will someday have a portrait in the capitol. In 2006, there will be no Senator up for re-election. There will be labor commissioner and Super. of public instruction. Assuming I'm right, and Mannix wins the primary, Mannix is much more popular among average Republicans, than Kulongoski is among average Democrats. In Gubernatorial elections, turnout is enormously important. I've done voter turnout for the last two campaigns I've worked for, and the fact is, if your base doesn't like you, and there's no other race that's going to get them to turn out, well, you're kind of screwed.

The Republicans sense blood, correctly. Right now Democrats hold all six statewide offices, and this is the Republicans' best chance to take one. Notwithstanding Greg Walden's support at Dorchester, Kevin Mannix will rally the party faithful because he's run the party for the last two years, and he'll have more money than Kulongoski, exactly because those poll numbers are so awful.

Democrats are fond of saying Mannix has run three times and lost. The first time he ran, he went up against Hardy Myers as a conservative Democrat, and got his ass kicked because Democratic primary voters rarely vote for moderates. Them in 2000 he ran against Myers again, and lost by just under the number of votes received by none other than Tom Cox, the Libertarian candidate.

In 2002 the same thing happened.

Kevin Mannix will win the nomination because he works hard, and he'll be running against the one kind of incumbent it's good to be running against, an unpopular one. It is questionable what the unions will do, and you certainly won't see the kind of enthusiasm among Democrats you saw in 2002. And if there's anything that will kill Ted, it's going to be that. The GOP will be out in force for 2006, and they'll work hard to make sure they win the turnout game. Democrats are tired; most who would volunteer worked hard in 2004 only to see their worst fears materialize. I canvassed against Measure 36, and we all know what happened there.

I see 2006 as Kevin Mannix's race to lose, and the fact is, aside from his stupid comment about Ron Saxton, he's a smart guy. If there isn't a Tom Cox or some Constitution party candidate on the ballot, and if Republicans are smart enough to get the Greens to nominate someone, Ted Kulongoski is going to join the ranks of Oregon's well-paid lobbyists, and I'll probably see my taxes go down.

Hey all you out there who can't stand Andrew Kaza!

After a few jabs by him on his blog about me, it was suggested that I should create a website about him. So I took his advice. Check it out:

http://andrewkazasucks.blogspot.com

Many of you might ask how I have such a intimate knowledge of the reasons why Andrew Kaza sucks....well I I'm sorry to say I worked for him. Thats right my name is Dan and I am a recovering Kaza employee.

Feel free to add your own reasons why Andrew Kaza Sucks.

Hey all you Kaza-green-hippie-far-leftwing-crazy-nutjobs! I have something to tell you before the spaceship lands and we all go to liberal paradise...

Look, I know that the primary 2004 election has got you all down. I understand and feel your pain. But there is a ray of hope on the distant horizon because I hear that there will soon be a rematch between Hooley and Kaza. If we all work really hard, gather all the nut-jobs, felons, homeless and dead people we can find, along with the 6 or 7 supporters he had last time.... HE CAN WIN!!! (err..well..ok, maybe not but, HE CAN AT LEAST BREAK 20%!!)

P.S. I took Andrew's advice and wrote a website about him. Check it out. http://andrewkazasucks.blogspot.com