Go Kitz Go! Maybe then we could have a DEQ that enforces anti-pollution laws, a health plan that heals the working poor, and schools that don't have to sell cookie dough and Pepsi products in order to buy text books.

Call me an optimist, but when PGE lobbyists are leading the Kulogoski re-election campaign, I'm willing to look for credible alternatives. And the good Dr. John is as credible as they come. Now if only the Ds would work together to solve the real problems facing Oregonians.

How does one reconcile this with the WW's statements that Kitzhaber's running is very unlikly?

What has Kulongoski done for us anyway? I hope Kitzhaber runs. He has the courage and the spirit that Oregon deserves.

Kulongoski sure doesn't. As far as I can tell, he's led around by the nose by all of Goldschmidt's old staffers, who have long since given up any sense of public spirit in order to line their own pockets. Does Kulongoski even have the balls to demand that PGE refund the ill-gotten profits that WW just nailed them on? Oh wait, that would mean standing up to his puppeteer, Tom Imeson.

Walker is courageous and everything, but frankly, she seems slightly nuts. She makes a fine state senator.

Run, Kitzhaber, run!! We need you back in the saddle.

I agree, if she wants to run she should. On the other hand, I have to question how well she will do. Obviously she wouldnt even be thinking of running unless she had the determination to go out there and give it her best shot.

But, I think she clearly doesn't have the name recognition to pull it off, least of all against an incumbent who is part of her own party. I know a bit about her, because I follow the news, even from outside Oregon (as well as being outside the US). But that is because I am VERY interested in what is going on.

I'm happy Kitzhaber is giving this serious thought. If he does decide to enter the race, it would be interesting to hear people's reaction and what they think the outcome of the Democratic primary would be.

Kitz v. 'Goski - Separate horsemen of the same apocalypse of mediocrity for Oregon.

Rocco, what PGE lobbyist is "running" Kulongoski's campaign?

Last I checked, Peter Bragdon was the de facto campaign chair (former chief of staff, Columbia Sportswear attorney) and Pat Egan is the new governor's office chief of staff (recently from Port of Portland). There's no campaign manager at the moment, but the outgoing manager Paige Richardson most recently ran the Kerry campaign in Oregon.

What PGE lobbyist is running the campaign? What do you know that nobody here knows?

It's Teresa Miller who just joined Kulo's staff straight from PGE...interesting, huh? See..http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/p2005/press_112105d.shtml.

I have it on good authority that Kitz has been making the rounds of top demo money supporters with a message exactly the same as what he said to Vicki. My hunch is that he's trying to build up enough steam to not only jump in, but to get the others, Metsger, Walker, Sorenson to drop out. By doing this he jumps in with a much more decisive statement that really puts pressure on Kulongoski to drop out.

If he gets a hat trick of money, ground troops and a clear field I'd bet he goes for it.

Kulongoski hires the very person (MIller) from PGE who fought Metsger & Walker when they tried to deliver unpaird taxes back to ratepayers. Brilliant! At least Dr. No had principles...who is Kulongoski's HR director? what a joke! Kulongoski signs the bill Metsger & Walker pass and then hires from PGE straight into his office. Are we fooled? Did he really want Metsger & Walker to succeed with SB 408--or was he with Miller and promised her this job as a consolation if he got stuck signing the bill? Go Vicki go!!! Sorry to see Metsger cave and not run. Altho, Kitz may be the great mustacheoed hope.

Rocco, what PGE lobbyist is "running" Kulongoski's campaign?

It's Teresa Miller who just joined Kulo's staff straight from PGE...

Oh come on, "out there"... you really are.

Teresa Miller is the new LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR. Not the campaign manager. If you're going to post links to press releases, I suggest you read them.

Vicki should stay where she's at no matter what Kitz decides (not to mention her current indecisiveness and deference shows to me her lack of leadership...leadership being what Oregon desperately needs from a Governor right now).

And she has no chance to pull off a win against Kulongoski: all of the polls have her within the margin of error...of the poll that is. The Senate Ds are going to have enough on their hands trying to keep majority with the Senate Rs heavily investing in opposition, without Vicki running off on a fools errand. So while the House Ds try to take back majority, the Senate Ds try to maintain their power, the party is split over the Governor's race, and a major player in Eugene has filed for her seat (sound like a perfect storm people?)...the least Vicki can do as an incumbent Senator is stay where she's at. For everyone's sake.

Does anyone remember the mess Kitz left?

Oh, I get it. Another "no matter what Republicans control, the responsibility always goes to the Democrat" attitude. I suppose the legislature sending Measure 50 out to the voters as they did rather than the legislature having the guts to strip the double majority requirement out of Measure 47 before resending it to the ballot (or better yet, having the courts settle it) was Kitzhaber's fault because he had no magic wand? And of course, that magic wand should have gotten rid of the corporate kicker, found funding for education, public safety and the Oregon Health Plan even though he had an antagonistic legislature? And of course, there would have been no recession at the end of the Kitzhaber term had the good doctor really been able to use a magic wand? I recall an email from someone who served as a Republican legislator saying, yeah, some of the Kitzhaber vetoes were of bills pushed just to make Kitzhaber look bad. I have let my state rep.'s staffer know that it is time for legislators to start discussing more details than just "our caucus has decided on a number" budgets. But legislators are not responsible for their actions?

I recall some of the other things done to make Kitzhaber look bad. In one case the Republican leadership of the St. Senate had said "the Governor refuses to contact us about this". So Kitzhaber's office made available the correspondence with the St. Sen. leadership--the Gov. had written to that leadership on all the topics complained about, but had the gall to write his own views and not say the words the leadership had wanted him to say.

All governors do some dumb things, and Kitzhaber was more policy wonk than gladhander. But after being elected as the sort of gladhanding anti-Kitzhaber, Kulongoski pulled the "where's Waldo" routine this past session after making that stupid AuCoin nomination which made people angry for no good reason.

So what exactly was wrong with the Kitzhaber years when he faced an antagonistic legislature but made many people believe at least he was trying to help ordinary folks like me? Somehow I don't recall him negotiating in private on budgets in a way one 2005 legislator described as "in the negotiation room".

I think the "negotiation room" should be whatever meeting room is the location of various Ways and Means hearings, and that the way 2005 budgets were negotiated in private should be a very public campaign issue in 2006.

Duggy G,

In the future, if you are looking for well thought out or accurate political commentary, I would recommend you never read the WW. They have never given me or many of my colleagues in the Capitol the impression that they know what they are talking about. The Statesman is much better and that should tell you something.

I couldn't agree more with T.A. Barnhart. A primary challenge would be a disaster.

What blueoregonians forget is that we win these races by extremely tight margins. It wouldn't take much for us to lose the office, especially if the GOP decides to run someone in the Gordon Smith "gets praise for only screwing the people halfway" mold, instead of the more blatantly obvious "screw 'em all" Mannix/Bush type Republican.

Kulongoski might not be a favorite among very politically aware set of progressive Democrats, but he seems to have a following among people who actually consider voting for Republicans. They don't care whether Theresa Miller joined as campaign or legislative affairs director. They don't know or care who she is. But they do know that their governor went to every single funeral of every service member who lost their lives in Iraq, and that matters to them.

Also, to be fair, Kulongoski didn't have the sunny Clinton economy that Kitzhaber did. He had to manage Oregon through both a downturn and Bush ineptitude. His stated goal at the beginning of his term was to get the body politic to trust that the government wasn't wasting money. (And believe it or not - moving public perception is hard.) And he deserves much credit for the public's support for eliminating the corporate kicker; enough so that even Republicans aren't trying to demogauge the issue.

That said, Kitzhauber is also an amazingly impressive leader. I wish the hell he'd get on a plane and find a national presidential campaign to join. He'd make a damn fine HHS or EPA Secretary.

Look at this another way: A primary challenge would be a disaster.

The general electorate is unhappy with both parties, and looking for something new.

Old family friend I spoke with yesterday is curious about Westlund. One of the things we talked about was what combination of candidates would promote the most serious debate on issues.

What serious debate on issues was there in 2002? Most of what I heard from people I knew was along the lines of "Having known Ted and Kevin for so many years, I know who I am voting for based on that knowledge and don't need to listen to the campaign to make up my mind".

In 1994, Kitzhaber discussed serious issues, Smith did not. In 1990, for all his intelligence Frohnmayer dumbed down the debate when he paid for that brick through the plane glass window ad (as I recall, the basis behind the ad was no more serious than the "facts" behind Richardson's "N. Korea" remark), and Barbara Roberts gave us some intelligent ideas to consider. The one before that, Neil vs. Norma, was intelligent people as often as not playing games (I was at a debate where Norma attacked Neil for something and Neil's staff had prepared him for such an opening so he responded with "OK, how do you explain this from your voting record"?)

My point is this: why is it true that "What blueoregonians forget is that we win these races by extremely tight margins."?

Could it be people are tired of the tricks and would like some serious debate if only the candidates and their consultants would allow it?

Maybe if both Westland AND Kitzhaber ran we might see some actual issues debated?

The fact that the preponderance of a candidate's unexamined dogma happens to fit your own notions is a pretty thin basis for support.

Oh, so all voters decide on dogma/ ideology?

I thought the point of campaigns was to win over the votes of those who don't spend their spare time debating politics and political ideas.

In 1994 there was someone I had met professionally who was just beginning to have an interest in politics. The Salem Rotary hosted the 2 major party nominees for Governor, but only open to Rotary members. I suggested this man who had become interested in politics go to the speeches (as he was a Rotary member) and let me know what he thought. This was someone leaning Republican but not a straight party person.

The response was fascinating: Denny Smith was "just another slick politician". Kitzhaber had "enough substance I took notes--would you like to hear them?". Kitzhaber got this man's vote for Gov. in 1994.

Just got an email from this man after sending an email asking what he thought about recent news items about Kitzhaber considering another run for Governor.

His response was, "I would like to see Kitzhaber on the ballot. He seems like a good man, and with his experience could do good things for Oregon."

Talk about dogma and ideology all you want, but I suspect there are more voters like this professional man than there are 2005-6 voters concerned about dogma and ideology.

<h2>Ditto Pat Ryan. For the last 3 years I've been hearing Kitzhaber say 2 things: "we need to reframe the healthcare debate" and (paraphrase) "politicians are more concerned with winning elections than taking political risks for the good of the people." In those speeches, he spends about 3/4 of his time criticizing the current system and 1/4 of his time outlining his plan of action, which seems rather weak at this point. At one time last spring I asked him how I could help with his "revolution" and he said he had his work group all picked out. I pitched some ideas and asked if he needed volunteers, even to do grunt work but he shrugged it off. I thought: this is the same guy who rants and raves about civic engagement and why citizens don't feel empowered by their political process? OK, maybe my ideas weren't very good but it left me with the "ditto Pat Ryan" feeling. No real new ideas, a campaign platform he told The Oregonian would be based mainly on healthcare, and an ego the size of Montana, but too big for Oregon (except for our little in group of politically aware progressives who eat out of the palm of his hand). We need our next governor to have vision, new ideas, passion (not to be confused with just being darned pissed off). I also noticed in 2001 that he made everyone wait while he figured out whether to run for senate. Yes, his personal life was in shambles and yes, there was the hella-commute factor, but, on a political and psychological level I think he likes to play with people, to make people wait and watch them squirm. Oregon can do better but a lot of decent would=be candidates will shy away if he enters the race. Too bad for us.</h2>