Yay, I'm glad he isn't running. For one thing, I think he hurts the Ds chances of winning this fall and for the other, he can do more good running his health initiative.

Now let's put that all behind us and go support Teddy K!

Incumbents who demand (or their supporters do) unquestioning support in January of the election year are not going to get backers who are as enthusiastic as those who engage in debate.

I suggest Ted do what John did in 1994--have a series of events where the candidate is in a local meeting room, community room or whatever, and invite the general public without charge. The candidate stands up in front of the group for an hour and says "Ask me anything" and then gives intelligent answers. The candidate also learns from such exchanges what topics are important to actual voters.

I know that helped Kitzhaber win in 1994, and given the number of questions even some of his old friends have in 2006, it would be a wise strategy for Ted. And it would knock down the "where's Waldo" complaints.

"Now let's put that all behind us and go support Teddy K!

I'm glad Kitz decided not to run, but there is no way on this earth I would support Ted the K. Go Vicki, go Pete, go anybody but Ted!

Time to move forward - Jim Hill comes to mind.

Kinda bummed, but I had a feeling he wouldn't. I'm glad he's back in the limelite though. I've always liked him and admired his ability to stand by his principles without seeming like an idealogue.

Now that Kitzhaber is out my only hope is that Ben Westlund finally decides to run. I don't see anyone else worth voting for who has a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

It's nice to see someone say "Kids First" and make it count.

Good luck, John, as you raise your young son.

Now, if we could only get Teddy K to wake up and remember his campaign pledge to ALL OF US.

So, who's on first, Ted?

Kids or lobbyists?

I think Kitz made the right call. So who is next?

Does anyone know how to spell archamedies or arkamedis or archemedies?

Wouldn't you want to make a website something people can spell when they hear? Like Blue Oregon, or cnn.com? Clearly Kitz needs Kari.

Hey if Ben Westlund does run for governor, who will be the first one to ask him, on the record, what happened that night when Officer John Minnis pulled him over?

I was talking to some Repubicans friends of mine who are working for Ron Saxton and they feel that it would be very ahrd to beat Kitzhaber but easy to beat Ted K.

Sid leader asked "So, who's on first, Ted? Kids or lobbyists?"

You should know it's the teacher's union.

"Hey if Ben Westlund does run for governor, who will be the first one to ask him, on the record, what happened that night when Officer John Minnis pulled him over?"

I don't know but Alito is a racist!

Ask Mark Hass about the Westlund arrest - he reported it on/shortly after the 1997 Legislature's Opening Day. Or just read this article in Brainstorm about his path towards recovery.

Westlund's been open about the arrest, which happened years before he served with John Minnis, and how it was a catalyst for him to go into rehab. Another example of how small Oregon really is....

Note that the relevant quote from the article also mentions Len Hannon

Ben Westlund Co-winner of the 2002 Freedom Award, with fellow state legislator Lenn Hannon

“Two things I’m thankful for that I’m not burdened with,” says Westlund. “I don’t have to know where my cancer came from—secondhand smoke, agricultural chemicals. A lot of people need to know… I don’t care.

“The other is that while I was drinking I never got in one of those wrecks. I never hurt anybody. It was just there, but for the grace of God, go I,” Westlund says emphatically. “One left turn, one right turn, one half-second delayed response and I could have been there. Those two things I am eternally grateful for.”

Sasha may have wanted to cause a stink, but I see no scandal in winning an award if the person involved is a recovering alcoholic who survived cancer and other health problems and still is one of the most optimistic people I know.

well, I'm disappointed that he is not running. Ted is a colossal disappointment, Vicky acts like a woman scorned, and Pete seems like a nerdy know-it-all. Kitzhaber would have been heads and shoulders above all of them. I'm afraid that our 20-year lock on the governor's mansion is coming to an end. where are our new leaders?

I'm one depressed progressive.

Yo Kari get over there & fix his web site! There's not even a signup box right on the home page...

I think Ben's appeal is something Democrats can learn from.

The guy works across party lines, is willing to discuss things with ordinary citizens, is not from Portland or Eugene, has impressed many people with his people skills, is open about what he believes instead of just speaking to closed groups.

Isn't that what we want of politicians, or would you rather have a great voting record and lousy people skills?

t.a.:

"unlike my friend mr fearless (and jayzus i had no idea you could hold a grudge like that!), i'll be voting for teddy k."

You have NO idea how long I've held a grudge against ted. It didn't begin when he was governor. It goes back to when he was in the AG's office, a very long time ago, and more recently when he was on the Supreme Court. I didn't vote for him as Gov in 2002 (I wrote in Jim Hill in the general election) and I sure as hell wouldn't vote for him in 2006 (I'll again write in someone else unless he isn't in the General election). And, I'll do my damndest to defeat him in the May primary by voting for a primary opponent.

I simply don't subscribe to the position that "I'll vote for any D over any R". To be honest, the WORST governors in my 36 years in Oregon have been Democrats, with the possible exception of Bob Straub. Bring me a Tom McCall or a Vic Atiyeh over any of the current crop of Democratic candidates or wannabes.

mrf

Heya to Oregon Trails who says the teacher's union comes first in Oregon.

Do you mean the PAT, the union that took a five-percent immediate pay cut and worked for FREE FOR TWO WEEKS so you could keep that Humvee deduction?

Yup, that union.

You are welcome, OT... or is it ODed? On greed?

We should only be electing someone from Portland. The rest of the state is too conservative and we will have a hard time trying to hold them to our agenda. Let's face it - Portland has all the people (progressives, thank goodness) and we should run the show.

We should only be electing someone from Portland. The rest of the state is too conservative and we will have a hard time trying to hold them to our agenda. Let's face it - Portland has all the people (progressives, thank goodness) and we should run the show.

So, you don't care about downstate legislative races and it doesn't matter if the rest of the state likes a candidate as long as Portlanders do? Sounds like someone saying all the campaign volunteers should come from Portland and the rest of us shouldn't bother.

Kari, This is a bit off topic, but since you commented on why liberals like Ben, I wanted to explain. As a D who works for <ahref=http: www.benwestlund.com="" index_ie.html="">Westlund, I can tell you why, even though I don't agree with him 100%, I support him 100%.

Ben knows how to bring people together and find solutions. You note he had a 0% on OLCV in 2003, this year he received a 42% (not great, but better): Here's what they said about him:

"Best Consensus Builder Senator Ben Westlund (R-Bend) When Common Agenda items such as banning toxic mixing zones in Oregon rivers and promoting biofuels were brought to his attention, as well as a bill to promote the use of solar energy in Oregon, Senator Westlund helped environmental lobbyists strategize ways to revise the legislation so that they would be more likely to pass both chambers.

While the Legislature, in the end, failed to pass the two Common Agenda items, Westlund made a valiant effort to think outside the box, and find common senses solutions on behalf of Oregon’s environment."

He's also one of the few electeds in this state with the courage to talk about tax reform. As former co-chair of ways and means, he had to cut budgets when our revenues fell 20%. He was "removed" from that position by Minnis for supporting more money for schools and human services.

You mentioned he "came around on civil unions" - Maybe you don't know that Ben started drafting civil unions within 2 weeks of the passage of BM36. It was more difficult for an R from eastern oregon to do this than a D from Portland. We received hundreds of negative phone calls every day, but they only made him more determined that it was the right thing to do. The portland mercury this week noted it's very possible he'll be targeted in his next primary.

Ben is not a Portland liberal, he wouldn't have been elected from rural Oregon if he was, but he's pretty progressive in that he works for positive change for the state of Oregon. That's why he's a chief petitioner on the Hope initiative declaring access to healthcare a basic right and requiring the legislature to craft a plan to get all Oregonians covered. It's why he's involved with the Apollo Project's efforts to expand renewable energy and create jobs.

It's why this liberal likes him.

Sid Leader posted "Do you mean the PAT, the union that took a five-percent immediate pay cut and worked for FREE FOR TWO WEEKS so you could keep that Humvee deduction?"

In combatting the health care coverage reduction to $600 the PAT union offered up the two weeks. The coverage stayed at the then $800.00 meaning a two hundred a month benefit. That's $2400.00 dollars for the two weeks work.

And because nothing was done to curb health care costs and the PAT refused to pick up any of the cost it is now 970.00/month per teacher and rising.

In short, there are many outstanding teachers but teachers unions are anti-public school.

Stacy:

C'mon now.... tell us about the sexual harassment claims that have been floating around the capitol building about Ben.

Don't you think THIS stink will surface sooner rather than later???

I'm with Kari on the Ben Westlund deal. One thing I don't get about progressives is how they get excited about a Republican who is moderate. Are liberals that desperate?

I'm also a little disappointed Kitzhaber decided not to run, but I'm not too surprised.

There is no way I'll support Westlund, Walker or Sorensen. Westlund because he is (regardless of his ability to cross over and compromise) a Republican. In fact, I'd go one further and say I'd rather vote for Saxton before I'd vote for Westlund. Walker and Sorensen don't have a snowball's chance in hell of beating Kulongoski in the primary.

The next interesting announcement (for me at least) will be whether Jim Hill will enter the race.

Jenni Simonis writes:

"I definitely wouldn't vote for Saxton-- his plan for reforming PERS is to fire everyone and then re-hire them under a new contract."

This may be his plan, but he simply CAN'T do it because of all the union contracts that would have to be broken to accomplish it. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in occurring and Saxton knows this. But, what is does it set the stage for Saxton making PERS an issue in the campaign and allows all Saxton's libertarian cronies to offer helpful suggestions like terminating PERS itself, which the legislature CAN do, and replacing it with a 401-K defined contribution account, and to find other economies in a new system. Ted would like to AVOID making PERS an issue because he's largely responsible for the reforms of PERS that will cost him hugely in the upcoming elections. While the unions MAY support him in the general election, the rank and file union members so despise Ted that they would sit out the election before voting for Ted vs anyone, or will actively work to defeat Ted. They are seeking political retribution for what they think is a screw job on active, inactive, and retired PERS members, orchestrated in large part by Ted, his personally appointed PERS Board, his personally selected Executive Director of PERS, his participation with legislature, and his influence peddling on the Oregon Supreme Court.

So, Ted wants to NOT make PERS an issue in the upcoming election - he'd like to say, everything is fine now, and simply move on, but someone like Saxton will force Ted to defend what he did, which will only antagonize SEIU, AFSCME, AFT, AAUP, OEA, etc members regardless of what the leadership of those organizations may do. It is a really large group of people to have terminally pissed off at you.

This is not just about "the unions" as there are people who have never belonged to a union in their lives who thought anyone who would voice "fire them all and rehire them" was not ready for prime time.

But that is one of the big stories in politics today--is it all about groups, or do individuals think for themselves and vote accordingly?

LT writes:

"But that is one of the big stories in politics today--is it all about groups, or do individuals think for themselves and vote accordingly?" .

But that's my point. The "unions" try to present themselves as monolithic entities who support candidates, but all that means is the "unions" donate money to specific candidates. The "unions" can't control how INDIVIDUALS vote and the union members are, as a fairly large group, pretty terminally pissed off with Ted and wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances. It isn't a case of "groupthink". It is a case of saying: "Ted did something that really hurt ME financially, and so I'm not going to reward him with my vote for reelection". It just happens that there are a whole lot of people who share the same feelings.

If Ted runs against Saxton, he could very easily lose because Saxton already appeals to fiscal conservatives and libertarians - not people likely to support Ted to begin with - and those who choose to NOT choose between those two are exacting political retribution against one, while they simply aren't as worried about the other, despite his bluster.

Ted might actually lose against Mannix for the same reason. Mannix is socially conservative, but not as adamant against PERS as Saxton. Unfortunately, I know a large number of people who voted for Ted last time, who have already told me that they'd vote for Mannix against Ted in a heartbeat. So Ted won in 2002 by a very narrow margin; if a large block of "D" voters decide to exact vengeance on Ted and sit the election out or vote for Mannix, Mannix has a shot.

Ted has no one to blame but himself for the predicament he's in right now. He'd have been far better off following his previous political path -- one term Ted -- than to seek reelection. He stands an extremely good chance of losing.

Ted might actually lose against Mannix for the same reason. Mannix is socially conservative, but not as adamant against PERS as Saxton.

That assumes all who supported Mannix last time will again, that none of his volunteers are now backing someone else (I have talked to someone who is) that "socially conservative" and PERS matter more to the average voter who has never read a blog than what they think is important.

How do you know that Jenni's We want someone who will do what's best for Oregon, be willing to play hardball when either party is holding up needed legislation, work together with legislators from both parties, actually participate in the budget process, etc. is not widespread among ordinary people fed up with political games? For all we know, voters may be so fed up they are looking for civil, common sense problem solvers who talk to indiv. voters rather than just watching interest groups being nasty to each other.

And it never ceases to amaze me how people I know are not politically active have strong feelings against Kevin--the woman at a church picnic who literally laughed at the idea of Kevin running for Gov., the person I talked with for the first time in years who'd had some kind of a legal run-in with Mannix, all those people I talked with in 2002 who had formed an opinion of Kevin Mannix long before the campaign started (easy to do in Salem), etc. Not to mention anyone who doesn't like what happened to GOP organization/ finances under Chair Mannix.

Elections are about more than moving pieces around on a chess board.

Jenni observes:

"As far as I know, I only have one family member with a stake in PERS, and that's my husband's sister. Since she's in management, she doesn't belong to any of the unions."

I use the term "union" in a broad sense. I was in management for the final 20 years of my public employment and therefore not in a union either. Nevertheless, managers were just as badly affected by the PERS legislation and litigation as were union members. Nevertheless, the vast majority of PERS members and retirees belonged to one of the major unions and so if you take those individuals who are pissed off and add to them the number of unrepresented public employees who are equally pissed off, Ted has a serious problem of electibility. It won't affect his fundraising, but it will affect voting patterns and participation.

I sure miss Kitz. There was a time when I could support some republicans--ie. McCall- Hatfield but those days are long gone. From my view point their whole party has gone loony tunes. I'll probably support Pete in the primary and then have to hold my nose and vote for Ted. Where is a democrat with guts and charisma?

All Kulongoski has to do is make Multnomah and Washington counties happy and he'll keep his job. He flat out said that the rest of the state didn't count when he ran last time and he proved it. Mannix won the whole rest of the state and Ted won those two counties and got the job. When the people say that the rest of the state doesn't ammount to a hill of beans they're right, we don't. What the Portland metro area wants the Portland metro area gets and to hell with the rest of us....

The problem with the night Ben Westlund was pulled over by John Minnis wasn't that he was drinking and got cited for it, but was what Minnis found in the car that he did not arrest Westlund for.

Kulongoski also won HD 54- Bend and did better in Deschutes and Jackson than expected, which was key to his win.

Ben had a case of grabby-hands in the 97 legislature. I believe his victim was a staffer in Lynn Lundquist's office, and Lynn (and the staffer) didn't take too kindly to it. But if we can all forgive Neil Goldschmidt and Matt Hennessee, we can do the same for Ben.

What ever happened to Jim Hill? I remember attending his swearing in at the Capital Rotunda in Salem after he was elected State Treasurer back in the early 1990's. The guy has gravitas with me.

Sasha,

Your facts are wrong about Westlund's DUII arrest, thus your implication that Minnis somehow bent the rules to help out Westlund fails miserably. In 1982 Westlund was drunk and got a flat tire. While changing the flat Officer Minnis came upon the scene and arrested Westlund for DUII. Minnis then conducted an illegal search of Westlund (per the Oregon Supreme Court) and found a vial of Cocaine. Minnis sent the vial to the crime lab and when it tested positive for Cocaine Westlund was charged with possession of drugs.

As has been noted Westlund had an addiction to drugs and fortunately had the courage, strength and family support to tackle his problem and set himself straight. He has never run from his past and never will. Westlund realizes that we all have our faults but that it is how we respond to these faults that is the true test of one's character. His non-judgmental, understanding, compassionate self is what is so attractive to so many.

"Compassionate conservative?" Many rightfully mocked our President (who had previous DUII and drug problems) when he claimed to be one. Westlund can claim to be a "compassionate moderate" and better yet, can back it up.

that's it?

"grabby hands" you put on the same level with child molesters?

As I heard that story, it was one incident of inappropriate behavior, not a pattern or a formal complaint, that Ben apologized for and he and the woman moved on and are still friends today.

Funny how quickly even progressives degenerate to attack ads when they feel threatened.

LT- you may long for real dialogue on the issues facing Oregon, but even we on the left seem more inclined to engage in the ugly politics of personal attack.

Count me in as a person who would have preferred Dr. Kitzhaber for Governor, over Ted. I do not want Mannix or Saxton to be Governor for a whole range of reasons, most of which have been already stated here by one or another. I've met Pete Sorenson, nice guy, great on the issues from my perspective, but he doesn't have "it".

So, my question is: why not Vicky Walker? People didn't think Barbara Roberts would get elected either, and were surprised and some shocked when she won. Vicky has courage, in my view, and is willing to take on some hard stuff that no one else does. I understand the name familiarity issue, but that can be dealt with by a massive campaign in the style of the Bus Project. I admit to watching Salem from a distance, so there may be things that I simply am not privy to. Could we have a civil discussion about the pros and cons of her role as Governor? Or maybe this isn't the place to do so.

Many of us did NOT hear it hear first. Kari, yours isn't the only game in town.

And, why is everyone ignoring Vicki Walker? How quickly we forget that people did that about 20-some years ago and Oregon got its first and only woman guv?

I know Vicki. I admire Vicki. As it happens, at lunch today I was telling a friend about being at Barbara Roberts' announcement for Governor. It was a long hard slog for Barbara to become Gov. Roberts. Vicki should study that campaign and use it as a model if she decides to run.

I was on the road in Coos Bay and used dial-up wireless on my tablet to get the news at 11:15. I did learn about it first on Blue Oregon, so thanks guys! Fast reporting!

Kari:

For the record (as I watched it on KATU's live website feed), we tied!

T. Talyor:

Nice Job Man...

I have been saying for years now that the Dems need to play hardball like the Republicans.

Thank you Mr. Talyor your post has taken us one step father along to being equals to the Republican Party.

Winston

A warning to those who say things about "the left" (or anyone else) engaging in attacks--threatened is exactly what that looks like.

Many years ago, a friend predicted the outcome of a primary where 2 candidates were nasty to each other, "when they act like that, you know they know they are losing". Those 2 candidates came in 2nd and 3rd.

More recently some of the reporting of Iowa 2004 said the same thing of Dean and Gephardt--that their campaign managers knew each other from way back and got into a nasty competition. Edwards especially was not expected to finish in the top 3, but he did with a positive message (and apparently the overflow rally at a Grange Hall the weekend before the caucuses didn't hurt).

My point is this: people with political labels (left, right, progressive, whatever) may be worried about upcoming elections and engage in attacks. But voters may choose someone who makes sense to them, regardless of the attacks.

Recently I read one of those insert boxes in a newspaper story about where Gov. candidates stand on health care. Atkinson made more sense than Mannix and Saxton put together.

That is not to say I support Atkinson, just to say that if voters start saying the above about Atkinson, the predictions of a Mannix/ Kulongoski rematch could be wrong.

Some years ago I listened to a candidate's forum at which all the gubernatorial candidates were present (except Ted) and was most impressed by Bev Stein's broad minded view ("I will travel all over and bring Oregon to the world" or something like that) and Jim Hill's sense of fiscal responsibility. I'd like to see Jim Hill enter the race again but I don't think he has the charisma to be governor. As a 6-year Oregon resident, I'm curious to know why the state doesn't have a governor and a Lt. governor. It seems none of the candidates have all that we need, but maybe if you put two of them together...

A few months ago I posted on Blue Oregon that John Kitzhaber, who was once a personal and political hero of mine, shouldn't run, that he should lasso the old fire and become the great revolutionary activist he was meant to be (as opposed to an a career politician vulnerable to the trappings of wealth and power). I also made some nasty comments about his personal habits and later received an eloquent letter from him saying that I could be right, which made me feel duly chastised. :) I once talked with Edward Fadeley about his run for governor against Neil Goldschmidt in 1986 (Ed lost the primary) and he said it was exhausting, the constant schmoozing for money and support, the gladhanding and kissing babies and having your personal habits (including the ugly ones) open to all kinds of scrutiny. You'd have to want to be governor, which he really didn't. You'd have to WANT to run the state, to administer all the committees, show up at all the parties, go abroad, go to Washington, talk to George Bush (that in itself would be reason not to run). And, if what you're really passionate about is the law (in Fadeley's case) or healthcare and the environment (in Kitzhaber's) then that is what you should dedicate yourself to.

I think, in making a choice about who to support, it's important to look at who would be passionate about the job, who would want it like a new possibility for Oregon, not just "because I'm better than the other guy (or gal)." I'm not sure we have that in our candidate pool, but I'd suggest we start looking for it or sit it out until the national 2008 cycle. I'd like to know what our remaining candidates see as possible for education and poverty, for assimilating immigrants into our community and, yes, healthcare. Other questions include - how can we keep the Bend area from becoming LA North? How can we keep Portland from becoming Seattle? How can we stop encroachment of the urban growth boundary and still provide affordable housing and how can we curb environmental infractions and still prosper as a state?

This thread is probably dead, but you never know who's reading it.

I once talked with Edward Fadeley about his run for governor against Neil Goldschmidt in 1986 (Ed lost the primary) and he said it was exhausting, the constant schmoozing for money and support, the gladhanding and kissing babies and having your personal habits (including the ugly ones) open to all kinds of scrutiny

I remember that campaign vividly, and "passionate about the law" is being polite to ol' Ed, who I have known for years.

Anyone who didn't like the 2005 political games of Minnis, Scott and Richardson would not have liked Sen. Pres. Fadeley. He'd move things around different committees until on reporter compared him to "a camp counselor who is the only one who knows where all the game pieces are". He was caught telling ethnic slur jokes as well as game playing. He was nasty to Democrats who didn't agree with one of his core issues (he was as anti-sales tax as Richardson is anti-tax, and about as polite about it). He thought he could claim his opponents were saying what Ed said they were saying, rather than what they said (like Bush and the Swifties have done to Democrats).

Bright guy, but people who are that obnoxious deserve to lose. That is not about "personal habits" but about whether someone believes it is impossible to be positive and still win. We can debate that one if you wish, but please don't try to tell me it wasn't Ed's polarizing nature which lost him 2 nominations in 1986. I was at the replacement convention when Jim Weaver dropped out of Sen. campaign. As the man standing next to me in the meeting room said, it didn't matter that Ed gave the best speech of all the nominees because "Ed at some time in his life has alienated every person in this room, while Rick Bauman called every voting delegate and asked them for their vote". Bauman got the replacement nomination.

I think he might agree with you there, LT. He listed the 2 reasons he didn't really want to win as opening his personal life to the scrutiny it surely would have garnered and not being a good manager/administrator. The second of which is probably the most important job skill for a would-be governor. The point I was trying (maybe not so successfully) to make is that governors need to be generalists, not so highly specialized that they're bored with the day-to-day business of governing the state, and wishing they could focus on their own projects or interests. In a world that is becoming more and more specialized, this will be harder to find and I'll be curious to hear from the remaining candidates on their own skill sets.

Edward's a good friend of mine, but I've only known him in the last 6 years, through his wife Darian. And, yep, he pretty much says what he thinks, even if he knows it's going to piss people off, a trait I admire, as other politicians tend to blow sunshine up people's rear ends trying to make everyone like them and all we get is an image, not a person.

Well we do have a colorful history here in Oregon. Now what about the future?

PS: I will stand by my comment that Ed Fadeley is passionate about the law, but more from the standpoint of the judicial than the legislative branch. If you sit with him at his kitchen table or in his library at his farmhouse in Creswell and you ask him about any supreme court decision, in Oregon or nationally, he'll get out the books and he can talk for hours and you can tell he loves his subject.

<h2>John Kitzhaber was a good governor. But two terms is enough for any governor. Ted Kulongoski doesn't seem to have too many accomplishments as governor. It will be interesting to see if anyone can mount a serious primary challenge. Some vision for Oregon's future and proposals that will work. That is what Oregonians deserve in governor.</h2>