We can also do better than Ted -- if this is his best, I'd hate to see his worst. The Republican mail pieces are already set: "Ted's for Taxes. Our guy (or woman? Minnis?) ain't."

If we don't take our folks to the shed for messing with our interests (workers savings, environmental protections, land use planning), they learn it's ok to mess with our interests. And it's not. Period.

Kids FIRST, right Teddy?

Oh, sorry, Ted, I forgot.

You are a charter member of the "Leave No Lobbyist Behind" club.

Never mind!

I agree with the last two posts.

Was that nicer?

Jason Atkinson just announced on LL. He also said, when asked the Big Question: "I'm pro-life. Period."

Can we have a serious discussion? Like who has a vision for the next 10 years and how they plan to implement that plan?

Sorry, Pete, you lost me with "Leader not a mediator". Exactly what does that mean? How would "leadership" have cause Minnis to behave more like a mature adult? Walker and Sorenson and Atkinson should all be called upon to explain what exactly they would have done differently this last session had they been Gov. and why they will be able to attract the folks who are tired of political speak and want someone who speaks their language. How can they show they will be able to attract the loyal following of those who show up at the county fair or local sports event wearing a campaign button or saying "I'm proud to support---because....". No amount of money and political consultants can buy that sort of support--do they understand that?

I am amazed at the number of people across the spectrum who would find Westlund vs. Schrader appealing simply because those are 2 men with budget experience who are capable of talking to ordinary folks and giving responsive answers to questions.

And can we please get over the idea that if someone hasn't announced by September that's it? Last I heard, Filing Day is next March.

It is one thing to say the Gov. caved and supported a terrible bill. I think Phil Keisling once called that the difference between consensus and consensomania.

But "the Gov. is wrong" is relatively easy. "I would have..." is harder--as in the old saying about how a farm animal can knock down a shed, but it takes a carpenter to build one.

Regardless of his politics, I believe Ted Ferrioli was a leader this session because he built positive coalitions whenever possible; allowed his members to speak and advocate legislation whether he agreed with it or not; had the people skills to carry on conversations with everyone from the mighty and powerful to a citizen he encountered in a hallway who said "Can I talk to you for a minute?" and rarely if ever relied on "the Gov. is wrong" when stating his position. That is why so many people said he was the pleasant surprise of the session.

I challenge anyone running for Gov. to be able to explain specifically what they would do-- "The Gov. was wrong on 1037, what I would have done was..." or "I agree with the "Sweet Home Oregon editorial in the Sunday Oregonian, we have to broaden our outlook beyond tax breaks", or "As we debate what to do with the State Hospital we need to discuss if we want one central facility or many out in the community and how to do the funding"--- are all acceptable. "The Governor took the wrong approach" or "the voters have spoken on..." should be banished from political rhetoric after they way they were used this year to prevent (rather than encourage) open public debate. Now if a Governor wants to be a leader in requiring all budgets be hashed out in open, well advertised public hearings, that would be an excellent campaign issue.

How about a new campaign on our part: Run, DeFazio, Run!

http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/05/representative_.html is an example of a specific situation involving an obnoxious legislative leader and the Governor. It concerns the issue of school funding.

As I recall, Sorenson's leader not a mediator crack was made here on Blue Oregon. Why must one go to a meeting to hear his explanation? Why can't he talk about specifics here?

And to paraphrase Jesse O, if we don't demand specifics from our folks, they will learn it is OK to avoid specifics.

Yeah, I'd like to hear more from Sorenson myself. I've been impressed with him the few times I've seen him speak, but that was years ago. If he's looking to build up a base of donors and future campaign volunteers, spending a few hours a week blogging, commenting on a variety of issues, and answering questions wouldn't be the worst use of his time right now.

hello blue oregon,

governor kulongoski has not been a leader. had i been governor i would not have told the house democrats and speaker minnis that there would be no revenue bills. that immediately cut off the discussion of where we would get more money for abused children, public schools, the oregon health plan, etc. second, i would not have gotten together with oregonians in action to make measure 37 worse, third i would have announced a school funding plan ahead of the legislature convening rather than at the very end. finally, i would have signed a bill that would have allowed oregon ratepayers to have public power in the PGE-enron territory, saving oregonians and our economy over $150 million each year. for more info on what i'm doing, please contact our campaign at www.petesorenson.com. i've challenged the governor to a debate on these and other issues. so far, he won't debate. i'll keep pressing for the opportunity. i hope you're with me, blue oregon.

pete sorenson, a real democrat for a change.

I'm fairly new to blue oregon and don't know all the names mentioned in the above posts, but I'd like to add something. Repubs don't put up with their electeds who don't deliver. (the most independent legislator in the house voted party line 95% of the time and she will be taken to task by leadership) Dems don't stand strong enough for dem issues. Dem voters often overlook this and reelect. Ted has been a huge disappointment. But Mannix creeps me out so I want to be sure the dem in the running could win.

And another thing--the dems need to make clear what we do stand for. Clear platform. Have you ever looked at the repubs pages on this???? So when we're all on the same page maybe we will become effective?

I agree with cm. What exactly do Democrats stand for as a party? Individuals have done great things, but is there a Democratic vision other than defeating right wingers and winning elections?

http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1124463048256260.xml&coll=7

is a visionary "In My Opinion" by former Speaker Lynn Lundquist, a moderate Republican.

Where is the equally visionary Democratic statement of what "leadership and courage" could bring us given the dire state of Oregon currently?

Hey, Peetsy, question: why don't you like to start your sentences with capital letters?

It's pretty common to use no caps, bad punctuation, etc. on the internet. But I do agree that a guy who's trying to put himself more into the public eye should pay more attention to his presentation in any public forum. Every public appearance of any kind is now a campaign appearance, like it or not. Also, I think the informality stands out in a forum where most people are reasonably attentive to proper spelling and grammar.

I won't hold this one against you, Pete, but do try to be more careful in the future.

On substantive matters, it was stupid for "Governor" Ted to rule out all revenue increases up front. Even if he had plans to balance the budget within existing revenues, he still threw away one major bargaining chip right up front. He might have been better served to push for some kind of "raise taxes on the rich while cutting them for the middle class and poor" agenda, such as a new 10% top income tax bracket on the very rich, balanced by cuts at the bottom through bigger individual exemptions and much bigger 5% and 7% brackets. Even if he can't push it through, he'd force Republicans to take a strong stand against adequate education funding and middle class tax relief.

I also agree that the governor should have lead with a school funding plan, instead of being AWOL for the whole session. And, IIRC, "Governor" Ted's excuse for not coming up with a proposal before the end of the session was that the Republicans would have opposed it. That's pretty pathetic.

If the "Rules of Grammar" mattered in politics, George W. Bush would be the gruff, but lovable dog catcher in Crawford, Texas.