Can Westlund break the partisan paralysis?
Russell Sadler
Sen. Ben Westlund’s decision to leave the Republican party and run for governor as an Independent, has the potential to transform Oregon’s increasingly paralyzed politics.
Westlund is already being called a “voice for independents.” He could become more than that. He could become a voice for many Oregonians who are disenchanted with the candidates offered by the Republican and Democratic parties each November.
Neither the Oregon Republican or Democratic parties are a majority party anymore. Only 39 percent of registered voters are Democrats. Even fewer are willing to register as a Republican, 36 percent. About 22 percent register as “nonaffiliated voters,” who call themselves independents.
As the percentage of Republicans and Democrats dwindles, those who remain tend to be the “true believers,” more doctrinaire, less able to create the consensus and make the compromises required to govern a pluralistic society. The result is the polarization that leads to the policy paralysis that afflicts both state and federal governments. The only people who can get nominated by the dwindling, polarized parties are people willing to toe the partisan party line. Once elected, they can’t govern because they can’t compromise with the other side. This problem has afflicted Oregon Republicans worse that Oregon Democrats.
The candidates Oregon Republicans nominate for statewide office are viewed as so extreme they cannot get elected.
The last Republican governor was Vic Atiyeh who left office in 1987. The last Republican Secretary of State was Norma Paulus whose term ended in 1985. The last Republican State Treasurer, Tony Meeker, left office in 1993. The last elected Republican Attorney General, Dave Frohnmayer, left office in 1991. The last Republican elected Labor Commission, Jack Roberts, left office in 1999.
The Democrats have their own problems. They are winning these statewide offices by default. Democrats are simply perceived as acceptable alternatives to the more extreme Republican candidates. This has caused turmoil among registered Democrats. Many of the party faithful want to “dump” Gov. Ted Kulongoski because he “hasn’t done anything.” Doctrinaire Democrats don’t seem to be aware of the shambles the Republicans and conservative “tax limitation” initiatives have made of Oregon’s finances.
As long as self-styled conservatives pretend no new tax revenue is needed and then borrow the money to keep state government going, there will be no money “to do something,” regardless of which Democrat becomes governor. Interest costs are eating up any increase in tax revenue. A Republican governor will have no choice but to perpetuate his party’s fiscal charade, continuing the state’s partisan political paralysis. And this is where Ben Westlund may become an attractive alternative as an independent.
Westlund was part of a small faction of Republican legislators that tried to derail the Oregon Republican party’s practice of “borrow and spend.” His recent resignation from the party reflects his frustration with his inability to change that practice and the implied threats of partisan primary retaliation if he continued talking about it. He decided to run for governor as an independent instead.
Westlund has one major liability. Oregon governors usually come up through the “farm club.” They usually have some experience in state or local government, then win a statewide executive office where they gain experience waiting for an opportunity to run for governor.
Westlund has not held a statewide office. Ironically, Westlund’s credentials are similar to the only other modern Oregon governor who did not come up through the political farm club -- Gov. Vic Atiyeh, who served two terms between 1979-1987.
Shortly after Atiyeh’s election, Oregon plunged into the greatest recession since the Great Depression. Atiyeh’s legislative experience was on the legislature’s tax and budget committees. As state revenues plunged, Atiyeh’s encyclopedic knowledge of the state’s finances guided lawmakers and bureaucrats through extensive budget cuts. When there were no more votes to cut budgets, Atiyeh helped craft a temporary surtax to fill in the gaps until the economy recovered. Atiyeh had the right skills for the time.
The first priority of Oregon’s next governor will be the formidable task for putting Oregon’s fiscal house in order. It doesn’t matter what other priorities anyone campaigns on, finances will have to come first.
Like Atiyeh, Westlund’s legislative experience has been in the tax and budget business. He has the skills to guide legislators through the fiscal mine field that more than a decade of Republican recklessness has left in its wake.
Westlund would have great credibility working with a Democratically-controlled legislature or a divided legislature. Westlund knows all the Republicans’ fiscal sleight of hand and he doesn’t like it. If he is elected as an Independent, he is likely to blow the whistle on them in public. In any case, Westlund would have a good chance to break the partisan paralysis that frustrates so many Oregonians.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Feb 26, '06
Ironically, Westlund’s credentials are similar to the only other modern Oregon governor who did not come up through the political farm club
What executive office did John Kitzhaber hold before becoming Governor? He was a legislator just like Westlund, although he had a higher profile leadership role. Did he have some experience before that?
Westlund would have a good chance to break the partisan paralysis that frustrates so many Oregonians.
Without any partisan support in the legislature, how much authority does a governor have? Its not like Westlund demonstrated any ability to bring together a bipartisn coalition as a legislator. What reason is there to think he would be able to do so as Governor?
Westlund knows all the Republicans’ fiscal sleight of hand and he doesn’t like it. If he is elected as an Independent, he is likely to blow the whistle on them in public.
What does Westlund know that Kitzhaber or Kulongoski didn't know? Its not like the Republicans haven't had the whistle blown on them by governors before. You are assuming that just because he isn't a Democrat Westlund's blowing will have some effect. But it may just be more hot air since he has no power base to back it up.
In order for anything to get done in the legislature you need the a majority of the votes. I am not sure how starting out with zero gives you a better shot at that. Westlund's track record in the legislature getting to 50% + 1 has not been very good. I'm not sure why it would improve as an independent Governor.
8:40 a.m.
Feb 26, '06
You caught my mistake, Ross.
Kitzhaber and Atiyeh were the only two modern governors with no experience in statewide office. My Bad.
Kitzhaber was more than just a legislators though. He was a four term President of the Senate from 1985-91. That is also an office that teaches a lot of nuts and bolts about state government.
Feb 26, '06
"Partisan Paralysis," "Partisan bickering," "Extreme partisanship."
Please - enough of this tired trope!
Real policy disagreements exist. There are very significant perceptual differences among many in the state and in the country. Life ain't no Disney film.
Even if every single elected position in Oregon were nonpartisan, ideological differences wouldn't magically disappear. Conflict wouldn't magically disappear. Egoism wouldn't magically disappear. Loyalty to particular interest groups wouldn't magically disappear.
The notion that some "knight in shining armor" is going to come and sweep away the real differences and unite Oregonians and their representatives is naive and somewhat childish. Politicians and their spin doctors sell us personalities as "heroes" and "leaders" who can conquer the evil forces of "partisanship," job loss, etc....when the reality is that complex forces, largely out of the control of a Governor, or even 90 representatives for that matter, have a much greater impact on the state of the state than do the actions of self-styled "leaders" who are sold as supermen and women.
Yes, people can make a difference. However, let's not exaggerate what one person in an elected office can do. It's fun to look forward and hope; yet it's important to gaze backward and understand as well.
The conflict of ideas is useful. Conformity and consensus are overrated.
Feb 26, '06
I may be overly hopeful, but this editorial expresses my hopes exactly. I am excited about Westlund's campaign. We need to break up the political polarization in this state and start working together. I'd like to see Oregon give Westlund a chance to do that.
10:12 a.m.
Feb 26, '06
Kitzhaber and Atiyeh were the only two modern governors with no experience in statewide office.
....And Neil Goldschmidt. He had zero experience in statewide office of any sort. Of course, he was mayor of Portland.
10:19 a.m.
Feb 26, '06
This is somewhat incidental to the post, but let's actually do the history lesson... Assuming the modern era starts with Mark Hatfield's governorship...
Mark Hatfield - Secretary of State, then Governor Tom McCall - Secretary of State, then Governor Bob Straub - State Treasurer, then Governor Vic Atiyeh - State Senate, then Governor Neil Goldschmidt - Portland Mayor, then Governor Barbara Roberts - Secretary of State, then Governor John Kitzhaber - State Senate President, then Governor Ted Kulongoski - Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice, then Governor
It should also be noted that we've often elected candidates making their second attempt at the governor's race... Straub lost twice to McCall, Atiyeh lost to Straub, and Kulongoski lost to Atiyeh back in 1982.
10:34 a.m.
Feb 26, '06
right on, Levon. i agree heartily.
a major plank of your argument, Russsell, is that the partisanship is bad. that the kind of extreme disagreements between Rs & Ds in the Leg necessarily mean our govt cannot work. i disagree. i see the problem being not what the parties believe in but who has the power to make the machinery of govt function -- and their willingness to abuse that power.
there are many Republicans in the Leg who would gladly work with Dems to take care of the state's problems. Westlund was one, Morse another, and i don't think the list would be terribly short. the Dems are not a party with a unified mindthink -- to put it mildly -- so the range of options on any issue is fairly broad, both within each party and throughout the Legislature.
unless the argument for an independent governor hinges not on policy differences but an uproven assertion that the Ds and (most) Rs simply will refuse to work together out of partisan spite. this is simply not the case in Oregon's recent history. the breakdowns have occured for 2 reasons. 1, the overwhelming problems and barriers raised by M5 and non-partisan divisions on things like land use planning. 2, Betsy Close, Karen Minnis, Wayne Scott et al. there have been a succession of Republican wingnuts, whether religious fanatics or simply the bought-and-paid-for toadies serving out-of-state corporate interests, who have blocked members of both parties from acting on behalf of the entire state. SB1000 is our poster child for this problem. it was not an R-verus-D issue; it was Minnis toadying to a minority of Oregonians and abusing her powers. Scott was perfectly happy acting like a thug with members of his own party if it served his purposes. it's only recently that Oregon legislators have seemed unable to work together, but these problems coincide directly with extremist Republican leaders.
Ben Westlund knows that the majority, the vast majority, of both Republican and Democratic lawmakers will work together if given a chance. he wouldn't even bother if he felt the problem were hopeless. he knows that partisanship is not the problem. it makes a handy strawman, especially for a politician with no avenue in his own party to the governorship. that's a Republican problem, and the GOP in Oregon has proven itself incapable of serving the people. i don't blame Ben for bailing on them. but their problems are not our problems (says the committed Dem). i can attest that despite our unity in Benton County, as blue as you get, we are not anywhere near lockstep. we have great differences of opinion, but we also have shared beliefs and goals. we discuss, we argue, we vote, and then we move on. it's called democracy. just because Westlund's Rs have failed to take care of business does not mean my Dems have. i see a Democratic Party that is diverse yet dedicated to fixing what's wrong in Oregon. some of us don't like the gov, some do, and some think other thoughts. so be it. we'll talk, we'll campaign, we'll vote, and then we'll move on.
setting, we hope, an example the Republicans might want to follow someday.
Feb 26, '06
Russell Sadler is driving his horse staight through the middle of the two-party poltics that dominates Oregon primaries. Even the media like the Big "O" is cowtowing the powerful incumbents and tune to their campaign treasures ignoring newer canddidates competing in the parimries.
Case in point Big "O" two weeks ago talked about Rep. David Wu (D-Oregon) and the Republican candidate Katrix for the First District Reresentative in US Congress(ignoring three other registered candidates one woman and two men with diverse international backgrounds)in its Metro News section, though it's just a primary only.
The real question is, "Is it a freedom of press or freedom to suppress lesser known canddiates when the media in their editorials become the voice of Democratic incumbents and their Repupublican opponents with large campaign treasure?
11:44 a.m.
Feb 26, '06
I think both Russell and Levon are right. Levon is right that if you took away party labels, it wouldn't eliminate political factions and partisan bickering. That's why I don't think creating a unicameral legislature would achieve much. Ideological differences would still be there.
But Russell is right that we need more elected officials who are leaders, willing to put the good of the state ahead of what's good for their party, or their party's special interests.
Sure, Republicans might be more guilty of extremism than Democrats. T.A. Barnhart says this is all just Republican leaders' fault, and if Karen Minnis wasn't so ruthless, everything would be ok.
Well, for some reason people like Minnis keep getting elected. By Oregonians. Right here in the Portland metro area. Sure, Republicans have had a hard time winning statewide office, but not such a hard time dominating the legislature, even when Democrats control the Senate and Governorship. Kulongoski barely beat Mannix. As Russell says, Democrats are winning by default, not because the ideas and priorities they are presenting to the electorate are so much more compelling than the Republicans'.
People don't trust Democrats to make tough choices. Democrats always say more money is needed. That gets interpreted as saying they don't want to make tough choices. People look at the Tram, PERS, overly generous union contracts and benefits, and they say those Democrats don't have their spending priorities in the right place. Democrats could do more to expose Republican spending boondoggles and tax expenditures, but often fail to do so.
You can blame M5 and M37 all you want, but people passed those measures for a reason. Because people held on too tightly to their ideologies rather than search for common sense practical solutions. So they chose an extreme fix to the problem that was presented to them on the ballot.
People want Democrats and Republicans to work together to solve problems, not just jockey for position in order to hope to increase their numbers and power in the next election.
That’s why someone like Ben Westlund is seen as a breath of fresh air. Finally, someone willing to put the good of Oregon first, above party and ideology! That's why so many people register as unaffiliated rather than with any party.
This doesn’t mean Democrats should become less ideological. Actually, I think part of the problem is that the Democratic Party has a vague and contradictory ideological underpinning, unlike the Republicans’. But while you have to have a clear and cogent ideology to present to the electorate, you also need to know when and how to put that aside when a practical and collaborative solution today is more important than waiting forever to get the chance to achieve your preferred ideological solution.
12:43 p.m.
Feb 26, '06
Independent voters do not have a party. They are undeclared independent voters. Westlund has chosen to take a pass on the Republican primary probably for 2 reasons. He wasn't able to raise enough money from the Republicans to mount his primary campaign and he's saving his energy to run in the general election against Mannix or Saxton and Kulongoski. Will Westlund pull votes from the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate? How do the Independent voters vote? My guess is Independent voters vote by the person, not by party. What makes a voter think a Independent can control the two caucus's in Salem? I understand that if I cast a vote for Westlund I am actually casting a vote for the Republican candidate. Karen Minnis must be beside herself with unfettered glee. Peter Courtney must be shaking his head in disbelief.
Feb 26, '06
Karen Minnis must be beside herself with unfettered glee. Peter Courtney must be shaking his head in disbelief.
Maybe, but what is most likely is we end up with a Republican governor who won election with a minority of the vote. And who starts with animosity from half the Republicans in the house who supported one of his opponents, the animosity of all the Democrats who supported his other opponent and who can't deliver any votes himself.
How that is a formula for ending legislative gridlock is beyond me. What does Westlund bring to the table as an independent that Kulongoski, Kitzhaber or Roberts didn't as Democrats? Nothing that I can see unless there is some small set of moderate Republican legislators who refused to support a Democratic Governor out of partisanship. And my guess is there are at least that many D's who won't support a Republican Governor who did support Kitzhaber, Kulongoski and Roberts.
Feb 26, '06
I understand that if I cast a vote for Westlund I am actually casting a vote for the Republican candidate. Karen Minnis must be beside herself with unfettered glee. Peter Courtney must be shaking his head in disbelief.
Ok, I can see how we might interpret a Westlund vote from paulie as a benefit for the GOP, if we were certain that paulie always votes and always votes a straight Democratic ticket.
However, I happen to know that there are some voters in this state who occasionally skip an election, and some who even (gasp!) sometimes choose to vote for a Republican. Westlund votes from these people won't unfetter Karen Minnis' glee. And, frankly, these people strike me as more likely Westlund voters than do the guaranteed yellow-dog folks.
An unaffiliated governor won't put an end to the existence of profound differences of opinion. He also wouldn't change the fact that some legislators arrive believing that it's their mission to oppose anything the other party wants.
The hope he would offer is as a counterexample, showing that it's not necessarily impossible for Republicans and Democrats to agree on matters of significance. (This is something that Oregonians once knew without help, but....) He wouldn't walk into the legislature with a caucus automatically arrayed to support his agenda, but he wouldn't walk in and find a caucus a priori inclined against him.
I've got to believe there's some value in having a governor whose State of the State the legislators have to hear before they can tell you whether they agree.
Feb 26, '06
I've got to believe there's some value in having a governor whose State of the State the legislators have to hear before they can tell you whether they agree. Post a comment
But in fact what you are likley to have is a Governor where both parties can tell you why they disagree even before they hear the speech.
The hope he would offer is as a counterexample, showing that it's not necessarily impossible for Republicans and Democrats to agree on matters of significance.
How would he do that as an independent? If Kevin Mannix had declared himself an independent and run for governor instead of switching parties would you have seen him as a uniting figure?
Republicans and Democrats have their own agenda's. Its not they don't like the other party's, they don't like anyone elses. An independent Governor is going to be as much a rival as a Governor from the opposite party.
Feb 26, '06
One thing an independent candidate could do in a gubernatorial election is propose actual solutions to our state's problems, rather than just mouth the party line or some focus group-approved soundbites.
I just looked at Ben Westlund's website. He lists four issues: education, health care, energy and partisanship. He offers no solutions to the education funding crisis. His solution to affordable health care is a constitutional amendment instructing the legislature to make sure all Oregonians will have health care--sounds good, but the legislature already ignores a similar instruction on adequate school funding. And on energy, he's big on biodiesel. Who isn't?
The partisanship issue has been well-discussed here already.
So I guess I'm waiting for something substantial from Ben. What's he got that the other's don't?
Feb 26, '06
Ross asks, "If Kevin Mannix had declared himself an independent and run for governor instead of switching parties would you have seen him as a uniting figure?"
Just because Mannix switched parties some years ago doesn't mean he's a moderate, nor does it make him a potential unifier. He has been part of a very divisive trend in Republican politics that is going to be hard for anyone who is concerned about divisiveness to get past. Besides, I would hope the voters wouldn't forget his affiliation with Loren Parks as well as the, shall we say, "interesting" financial management tactics he has used in his past campaigns. It is not too hard to make the case that he is part of the Republican problem, not part of its solution.
As to whether Minnis would experience "unfettered glee" over Westlund's campaign, I sincerely doubt it. Anyone who divides the Republican vote is a threat to the GOP. Not all registered Republicans are satisfied with the far right candidates the party tends to nominate; I believe a number of them will shift to the middle if given a credible option - unless they fear their vote will be a throwaway that allows the Democrat to win.
The real question here is how many Oregon voters will ALWAYS vote Democrat no matter who the candidate, and how many will ALWAYS vote Republican no matter who the candidate. A good pollster could find out the answer to that question - and I hope one will.
Feb 26, '06
"And on energy, he's big on biodiesel. Who isn't?"
Umm... the current governor, apparently. He seems to talk a lot about it now that it's election time, but wasn't anywhere to be found when Westlund's bipartisan biofuels package got killed by the Democrats because it wasn't Democraticy enough for the major enviro donors.
That's the difference between a statesman and a partisan -- one sees certain policies as good for the state and pursues them; the other has to check to make sure they're stroking their special interest donors enough. (And some, apparently, just phone it in during session and talk big during election season.)
Feb 26, '06
So partisans just "mouth the party line"? This is why the incumbent Democratic governor has two primary opponents?
just another piece of info: while around 25% of most national polls identify themselves as Independent (and unlike claims from the O, this number has not been growing), about 75% of these are generally categorized as "leaners." These are individuals who don't want to take on a partisan label, but in their voting behavior and opinions are much like partisans. (In fact, it's long been known that "independent leaners" are more reliable partisan voters than "weak" partisans.)
As has been posted ad nauseum, the Oregon of Vic Atiyeh and Tom McCall no longer exists (nor does the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party; nor does the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic party). I worry that we are endorsing legal changes or particular candidates in some forlorn hope that they will return.
Our economy has diversified (we no longer rely almost exclusively on one industry); we've experience significant in-migration; population centers in the south and the center (Bend) have grown substantially; and we've passed a series of initiatives and referenda that have hamstrung our state finances.
6:37 p.m.
Feb 26, '06
Ben Westlund registerering as an Independent proves that The Republican Party has lost touch with Oregonians. They are more concerned with their "Ideology" than the people of Oregon. The problems with Oregon Government lies with the Leadership in the Oregon House. As long as Karen Minnis and her coharts are in charge, the problems that face the majority of Oregonians will take second fiddle to their Ideology, reguardless of who's governor. You want to stop gridlock, vote for Democrats!
6:55 p.m.
Feb 26, '06
If you look at Governor Kitzhaber's term in office, one of his weakest points was in failing to see campaigning and governing as interrelated. Don't get me wrong - it's hard to imagine where we'd be as a state without his veto pen - but to a certain degree it was an era of missed opportunity.
Governor Kitzhaber's quest for "independence" kept him from diving into some tough but important Legislative races, and as a result, we never got to a working majority in the Leg. for school funding or modernizing our tax structure. And there was never a sustained, statewide effort to build a working electorate majority.
Russell, you wrote that: "It doesn’t matter what other priorities anyone campaigns on, finances will have to come first."
I agree that finance will have to come first for the next Governor, but unless "putting Oregon's financial house in order" becomes a centerpiece in Westlund's campaign, it really won't matter what letter he has behind his name.
Feb 26, '06
One thing about Russ's column here that grates on me - Atiyeh's great knowledge of the State budget. Come on!
I was there in the trenches in 1981 when the timber recession was at its worse. Atiyeh's solution was not a finely crafted and controlled look into each budget line item - His approach was to mandate to all Departments of State Government to identify budget cuts in 5% intervals. So, over in the Children's Services Division where I knew the budget best as a non-profit contractor - we ran out budgets that cut first 5% then 10%, then 15% of our revenue. These were submitted up the ladder to the Legislative Committee's with oversight. Atiyeh didn't lay a hand on any individual budget, and in fact as far as most could tell hide away from those bloody fights in the oversight committees.
Mind you - given the cuts that had to be made - the process was okay. But to say that Atiyeh's legislative experience led the way through that maze - that is historical revision of the first order!
Feb 26, '06
Ben's background on budget and revenue issues will serve him well as governor. Unfortunately, the Oregon's out-of-control initiative and referendum system makes tax reform impossible and that is what this state truly needs to solve the school funding mess, build a world class economy and repair our tattered social services network. The fourth branch of government is much stronger than any of the other three.
Feb 26, '06
With regard to What does Westlund know that Kitzhaber or Kulongoski didn't know?
let me refer those here to the day I became a Ben Westlund fan.
It was a hot Friday and I was on my way home from work (think it was during the 5th special session). Ben Westlund being interviewed on OPB. Q: Why is it so hard to balance the budget. A: Governor Roberts was right about Measure 5--everything but the timing.
Now that told me these things: 1) A Republican praising a former Dem. Gov. who some Republicans had tried to recall twice--obviously not a straight line partisan. 2) a Republican admitting that all the "sky is falling" predictions had come true--just on a longer timeline than predicted when Measure 5 was on the ballot.
I have been paying close attention to Ben since then, met his staff, enjoyed some of his other candid remarks plus the fact he is more cheerful and friendly than many politicians.
Who else has been that candid/ honest about the budget?
Something else: correct me if I am wrong. The only way the legislature got out of that 5th special session was Measure 28 which several of the less than honest legislators then campaigned against. Remember "mystery money"? Doyle, Close, Kropf and others held a press conference saying Measure 28 could fail and there would not be dire cuts. It failed. There were dire cuts. The "mystery money crew" acted personally offended whenever anyone asked where the mystery money was. Close ran for Sec. of State and lost. Doyle is now getting fresh air and exercise while he completes his sentence for his fancy campaign financing footwork.
The 2003 session did what they are supposed to do--pass a balanced budget and go home. It contained a tax surcharge which 11 (as I recall) Republicans voted for. There was NO alternative legislation in writing. It wasn't "vote for HB 5432 because it is better than HB 2152". It was "HOW DARE ANY REPUBLICAN vote for HB 2152, they should just hang around here another couple months and eventually we will figure something out". There were some very brave Republicans who worked behind the scenes to help HB 2152 happen so the legislature could balance the budget inside the building during session without gimmicks. There names were Max Williams, Lane Shetterly, Ben Westlund. None are now in the House. Williams (who gave the great "there is a time in the tides of men when taken at the flood..." speech) is now the head of Corrections. Shetterly is now head of LCDC. Ben Westlund became a state senator and is now an Independent candidate for Gov. Is there any love lost between Westlund and Minnis, or was Westlund very glad to get out of the House so he wouldn't have to deal with her?
Those who say there isn't much on the Westlund website should (if they have video capability) watch the speech upon returning to the House after cancer surgery. "We need to think more about the next generation and not just the next election". Then something like "We need to act like mature adults sent here to do a job, and we need more revenue".
If someone can point me to a candidate who has been that blunt (and recently called the current tax system stupid and insane) I would be willing to listen.
Minnis, Scott and Richardson need to be shown the door or put into the legislative minority. But we also need people to admit that the tax system is broken and needs serious public debate rather than the games inflicted on us in recent years by House Republicans who said, for instance, we didn't need public hearings because we could always speak at the ballot box. That worked out real well, didn't it?
To some extent, specific programs need time to be worked out in detail. But I'll trade Westlund's candor and budget expertise and Hill's experience in the legislature and State Treasurer's office for all the other candidates combined unless some of the other candidates get out of the shadow of Minnis, Scott, and the initiativemeisters and admit the tax system is broken. The voters were alienated by the 2005 session being the most secretive in memory, and it is time to have the open public debates over budget and taxes which really haven't gone on to the extent needed for a couple decades.
I remember Vic Atiyeh very well--when I agreed and when I disagreed. But until Republicans nominate someone of his quality AND his good manners and ability to care about the public as adults rather than children to be lectured to, they won't win the Gov. election.
I think Atkinson comes the closest to discussing real problems but is a little too young yet--maybe if he goes to civic groups and other "all comers town hall" type gatherings all over the state he will get an education. Mannix is too sarcastic and should be subject to a "3 strikes you're out " rule given the number of times he has run statewide and lost. Saxton's "PERS = ENRON but if we could just do away with PERS no other problems in Oregon will exist, just think about it" generalities aren't going to get him elected--I have too much faith in the intelligence of ordinary Oregonians for that.
Ted K. needs to realize there are people who voted for him last time who are disappointed in his performance. Why couldn't he be such a passionate speaker last year during session? Why was a cigarette tax a bad idea last year and a good idea this year?
Marion County Democrats are hosting Gov. candidates Monday night. I have talked to people who are going because they have known Hill for decades (local guy here in Salem), or are curious, or live within walking distance of S. High where the candidates are speaking and just might walk over there to hear the speeches. These are not partisans, these are just people I know who have not worked on every campaign in the last 10 years--some have never worked on a political campaign in Oregon. Paul G. --I understand the theory of leaners vs yellow dogs vs. true independents.
But how would you classify someone who has voted for Gordon Smith, John Kitzhaber, GW Bush and Darlene Hooley? Could it possibly be someone who votes for the individual and party doesn't really matter?
Sometimes I think political scientists should talk more to everyday people in everyday situations, not just in polls or focus groups.
2:21 a.m.
Feb 27, '06
thanks to Gil Johnson, we now have a clear statement of independent party politics. "we aren't R or D, so we know best." be an independent and enjoy the Politics of Arrogance. "we are the Big I; only we can solve Oregon's problems."
i've heard this song before.
Feb 27, '06
"Under Kulongoski's union-friendly policy, if unions under his watch collect signed cards from a majority of the workers, the unions can skip a union-representation election and move straight to bargaining."
With PERS coming for Day Care workers, who needs Ben? Is there anyone left to bargain for?
Feb 27, '06
"But how would you classify someone who has voted for Gordon Smith, John Kitzhaber, GW Bush and Darlene Hooley? Could it possibly be someone who votes for the individual and party doesn't really matter?"
Or could it be they are confused Republicans whose party is far to the right of them? That is Ben Westlund's base. And that base is not remotely close to a governing coalition, as can be seen by its strength in the legislature. Where are Westlund's accomplishments that show he can expand beyond his base of 10 or 11 legislators? Or even hold that base if he is no longer a fellow Republican.
Feb 27, '06
Is everyone in this state part of some "base" and no voters think for themselves? Is someone who is a swing voter like the one mentioned above a "confused Republican" if they vote individual candidate rather than party? If someone goes to a candidate forum and says one candidate was "just another slick politician" but the other "had so much substance I took notes", which party does that person belong to? If someone looks at the ballot and says "yeah, these incumbents deserve re-election" and thus votes for those incumbents of whatever party, which party "base" do they belong to?
Do ideas not matter because people slavishly support their party right or wrong? What is the fastest growing party in this state--no party at all or one of the organized parties?
And who had a better idea last session than:
SB 382 By Senators SCHRADER, WESTLUND, Representatives HASS, JENSON -- Relating to taxation; prescribing an effective date; providing for revenue raising that requires approval by a three-fifths majority.
Or don't those sponsors get credit for introducing the bill because if there were not the votes for it in the 2005 session that is worse than not proposing legislation at all?
Is all that matters getting a more common sense legislature elected this year? Or can we talk about ideas which might unite people if they were ever debated in public? Is it possible that the Measure 30 crowd won because they were better at discussing their views than our side was? Lousy ballot measure was sold to the people because the other side didn't communicate as well? Or is this state divided into this "base" and that "base " which never talk to each other because solving problems is less important than one team defeating another team?
And will candidates try to win over individual voters, or just go after their "base" and assume anyone else belongs to someone else's "base" and therefore why bother to communicate with those folks?
If Westlund appeals to those who feel ignored because if you walked up to them on the street and asked what political "base" they belong to they would give you a blank look, is that a source of unexpected strength to him.
Or, as Minnis & Co tried so hard to sell the idea last year, is everyone in this state on a "side" which doesn't talk to the other "side"?
This is also about whether people running for the legislature put a top priority on listening to voters and making winning more votes than other candidates top priority. Or whether "implementing the campaign plan" is more important than listening to and answering questions from those individual voters--as if what is written on paper will automatically win elections as long as the specified number of mailers and other ads in the campaign plan is implemented.
Sometimes it seems there are more candidates interested in implementing the game plan than in trying to inspire undecided voters to support them by having town hall meetings or otherwise engaging in dialogue with the public. Are elections about voters, or about who can best prepare and implement a campaign plan?
That sense that "professionals" know more about campaigns than someone (esp. at the legislative level) who goes out and engages in dialogue with ordinary citizens strikes me like a sales person who is asked a specific question about their product (such as "will it be possible for me to ...with this product, such as clean under my bed, run the kind of software I need, whatever) and just reads from company-prepared materials which don't really answer the question.
Politics IS like sales--if the candidate (or measure) "doesn't make the sale" in what JFK called the marketplace of ideas, the other candidate has an opening to win. The quotation is something like "a nation afraid to let people judge truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation afraid of its people".
Feb 27, '06
Westlunds candidacy threatens the base of each party. Those earnest, hardworking party volunteers. The base is also for the most part, substantially more liberal, or conservative, than the average Oregon vote.
If it can be shown that a moderate independent can win, then it would argue for more moderate candidates from each party. The party base doesn't want moderate candidates. They feel they should be able to have the largest say in nominations, and they want a candidate that more closely matches theur views. Partly becuse they don't want to work as hard for a moderate candidate, which is understandable.
Of course on the other hand, the base does expect the progressive independents, and moderate and conservative of thier party affiliation to support their party's nominee.
So interestingly enough we'll see both the Demo base and the Rep. Base all criticizing Westlund, for largely ideological reasons. Any victory, or even a good showing, by a relatively middle of the road candidate will harm the power they now hold.
Feb 27, '06
is everyone in this state part of some "base" and no voters think for themselves?
No. But governing requires decisions have 50% +1 in agreement on a specific proposal. The proposals where 50% of the people come to the same conclusion independently are pretty scarce. When you start out with 10% in agreement, your base, getting to 50% +1 is a lot more difficult than if you start out with over 40% in agreement.
What is the fastest growing party in this state--no party at all or one of the organized parties?
"No party at all" isn't a party, its just a bunch of people who proably don't agree on much of anything. Not even why they are "members" of the "party". Its pretty easy to get a majority of people to disagree with one another. But you can't govern with that majority.
Or don't those sponsors get credit for introducing the bill
Yes they get credit for introducing the bill. But the problem is hardly a shortage of good ideas or legislative proposals, its a shortage of good ideas that can win the support of 50% +1.
Politics IS like sales--if the candidate (or measure) "doesn't make the sale" in what JFK called the marketplace of ideas, the other candidate has an opening to win.
And what has Ben Westlund sold? Nothing.
And selling yourself to the voters and selling a program to the legislature are two different things. When you sold yourself to fewer voters than the legislator in virtually every legislative district, why should that legislator pay any attention to you or your good ideas that a majority of his constituents rejected?
Having a governor who starts having 90% of the legislators disagreeing with him, and no record of being able to build a coalition beyond a handful of like-minded Republicans, is not the way to break the stalemate in Salem.
But that is unlikely anyway because Westlund is a spoiler unless he can win the support of most of the Republican party and become their defacto standard bearer. The problem is that, without a good portion of the Republican "base", there aren't anywhere near enough votes for Westlund to get elected.
Feb 27, '06
"If it can be shown that a moderate independent can win, then it would argue for more moderate candidates from each party."
And if it shows he can't does that argue against more moderate candidates from each party?
Parties already try to find moderate candidates where they need them to win elections. This is why we have Kulongoski as governor and Kitzhaber before him. There was nothing extreme about either of them. In fact, it would be hard to find many differences between them and Westlund, except Westlund was a Republican. Now, the difference is Westlund is an independent.
Feb 27, '06
What? I should want to replace a decent Republican who calls himself a Democrat with a decent Republican who calls himself an independent? I don't see the upside.
The only way to "break the partisan paralysis" in a way that benefits Oregonians is for Democrats to control both houses and the governor's office. Of course, we will need to be real Democrats, not more denizens of the Goldschmidt ruling elite.
Feb 27, '06
Come on Tom
""""The only way to "break the partisan paralysis" in a way that benefits Oregonians is for Democrats to control both houses and the governor's office. Of course, we will need to be real Democrats, not more denizens of the Goldschmidt ruling elite.""""""
Aren't you forgetting something?
The majority of voters and those rascally things like M5, the kicker, M28, M30, M36 & M37 which partisan democrats stand in opposition to???
Even with every single seat in Democrat hands, with or without RINOs, the outcome will be the same.
Unless you think the voters just haven't understood your meassage all these years and will simply roll over with your new partisan domination.
11:15 a.m.
Feb 27, '06
Ross,
It's very disingenuous to argue that because Ben Westlund hasn't created his own bi-partisan base as a Republican senator and passed a bunch of his own bills, that he has no base and is ineffective. You act as if party majority leaders have no power over their members to hold them in line and prevent them from crossing party lines to support bi-partisan ideas. It's not like rank and file senators and house members can always just vote however they want on any given issue or bill that someone might propose. The only ideas that really get a hearing and have any chance of passing are those that are supported by a few party leaders - regardless of whether they are good or bad ideas or if they have majority support or not.
You say, "But the problem is hardly a shortage of good ideas or legislative proposals, it’s a shortage of good ideas that can win the support of 50% +1.
I disagree. There are plenty of great ideas floating around that have 50% +1 support. The problem is that if party leaders don't like them, for whatever reason, these ideas can't get a hearing and/or party leaders enforce party discipline to keep people from voting on them and/or voting for them.
11:22 a.m.
Feb 27, '06
t.a. barnhart posts this gem:
"thanks to Gil Johnson, we now have a clear statement of independent party politics: "we aren't R or D, so we know best." be an independent and enjoy the Politics of Arrogance. "we are the Big I; only we can solve Oregon's problems."
Talk about projecting your own faults onto others! The exact opposite is what's true. Unaffiliated or independent voters are a lot less arrogant than party partisans. Parties and special interests are the ones who usually think they have a monopoly on the truth and what's right, and are unwilling to listen to others’ points of view.
Unaffiliated voters by their nature are usually open to considering good ideas from all sides, regardless of where the idea comes from.
Feb 27, '06
The majority of voters and those rascally things like M5
Yes, and only the people who voted on Measure 5 will vote in 2006?
And everyone who voted on the prevaling side of the other measures mentioned has never had any second thoughts and would vote the same way if the measures were put on the ballot again--and new voters who didn't vote on those would vote the same way the majority did?
Somehow, I don't think so.
Feb 27, '06
The only ideas that really get a hearing and have any chance of passing are those that are supported by a few party leaders - regardless of whether they are good or bad ideas or if they have majority support or not.
If true, how does electing Westlund Governor change this?
You act as if party majority leaders have no power over their members to hold them in line and prevent them from crossing party lines to support bi-partisan ideas. It's not like rank and file senators and house members can always just vote however they want on any given issue or bill that someone might propose
Of course they can. And its not like Westlund and his supporters couldn't have caucused with the Democrats if the Republican leaders were sitting on their ideas. They chose not to and they helped choose those leaders as well. How does Westlund escape accountability for their actions?
Feb 27, '06
And its not like Westlund and his supporters couldn't have caucused with the Democrats if the Republican leaders were sitting on their ideas. They chose not to and they helped choose those leaders as well. How does Westlund escape accountability for their actions?
Please explain to me how SENATOR Westlund is accountable for House Republicans choosing Minnis, Scott, Richardson as the majority leadership?
Or is this just partisan potshot?
Feb 27, '06
"Please explain to me how SENATOR Westlund is accountable for House Republicans choosing Minnis, Scott, Richardson as the majority leadership?"
Who said he was? He's responsible for the Republican leaders in the Senate.
And the bottom line is that if he couldn't get his ideas past the Senate Democratic leaders as a Senator, why will he be able to as Governor?
Or is this just partisan potshot?
I'm not partisan. I vote for the person I think will deliver the results I want. I haven't seen any results from Westlund. The response of his supporters seems to be to blame everyone else for that except Westlund. I'm not sure how you make progress by getting the D's and R's to stop blaming one another and start blaming the Governor instead.
6:25 p.m.
Feb 27, '06
Unaffiliated voters by their nature are usually open to considering good ideas from all sides, regardless of where the idea comes from.
Commonly known as the myth of the independent voter. It is a nice myth. It's one that Americans have believed for a long time.
Unfortunately there is almost no evidence that it is true. The vast majority of Independents are less informed, less interested in politics, vote less frequently, etc.
(And no, of course I don't mean the independents who post to this blog.)
Feb 27, '06
RW: So... you're annoyed that Westlund continued to caucus with the Republicans in the Senate. But now he's stopped caucusing with the Republicans in the Senate. And you're still angry.
I haven't seen any results from Westlund.
Well, it helps when you pay attention:
SB 329 (2005): Added private employers to Oregon's prescription drug-purchasing pool.
SB 31 (2005): Solar tax credits.
SB 1000 (2005): <sarcasm>You know, I just don't remember what this bill was about...</sacrasm>
HB 3624 (2003): Medical Assistance Program that saved OHP funding in that session.
SB 5514 (2001): As Ways & Means Chair, pushes a $5.2 Billion school funding package through the house, against Republican wishes.
HB 2152-B (2003): Bipartisan revenue package that later became Measure 30.
Etc, etc.
Feb 27, '06
SB 1000 (2005): You know, I just don't remember what this bill was about...
And this is a great example of Westlund's ability to end gridlock?
So... you're annoyed that Westlund continued to caucus with the Republicans in the Senate. But now he's stopped caucusing with the Republicans in the Senate. And you're still angry.
I'm not angry at Westlund about anything. I'm annoyed at people who point to him and say as Governor he will end gridlock in Salem because he's a moderate independent, based on nothing but wishful thinking. And I missed the announcement that he wasn't going to caucus with the Republicans any more. Are you assuming that is true, or has he really said it.
Feb 27, '06
Hey -- you asked for examples of how he would pass things by the Democratic Senate. You want examples of ending grodlock, look at the other bills on the list. Two bipartisan revenue plans and an OHP save... Zeroed in on the one that didn't pass, though, huh Sheesh.
By and by... is anyone actually annoyed at Kulongoski for being absent on SB 1000?
9:52 p.m.
Feb 27, '06
Commonly known as the myth of the independent voter. It is a nice myth. It's one that Americans have believed for a long time. Unfortunately there is almost no evidence that it is true. The vast majority of Independents are less informed, less interested in politics, vote less frequently, etc.
And much to the frustration of political professionals, damn expensive to reach. Welcome back to blueoregon, Professor Gronke and thanks for the pander-free comments.
1:13 a.m.
Feb 28, '06
You can blame M5 and M37 all you want, but people passed those measures for a reason. Because people held on too tightly to their ideologies rather than search for common sense practical solutions. So they chose an extreme fix to the problem that was presented to them on the ballot.
Amen, brother.
1:29 a.m.
Feb 28, '06
Actually, one small modification to that "Amen".
Voters in Oregon are pretty consistent in rejecting extreme solutions when they recognize them.
In the case of Measure 5 voters simply chose the only fix that was presented to them and they voted for it in large measure because the weasels behind it poured all their efforts into convincing them that it wasn't an extreme solution.
Feb 28, '06
You want examples of ending grodlock, look at the other bills on the list. Two bipartisan revenue plans and an OHP save... Zeroed in on the one that didn't pass, though, huh Sheesh.
I don't know enough about the others to know what role Westlund actually played in them. But I am not going to take it for granted they are examples of his coalition building abilities given that SB 1000 was on the list and it, if anything, was an example of partisan gridlock at its worst.
There seem to be a few "independent" ideologues here who believe that people who identify with the Republican or Democratic party are the source of all evil. And if we just get rid of those pesky labels we will all live in harmony and agree with them.
Westlund can't win in a Republican primary, so he is running as an independent. Fine, that is a good strategy for him. But thats all it is and it will make actually governing more difficult if he is successful. Voting for him because he is an independent is just another form of partisans voting for the party instead of the person.
is anyone actually annoyed at Kulongoski for being absent on SB 1000?
There are plenty of things to be annoyed at Kulongoski for, including that, but this was a discussion of Westlund.
Feb 28, '06
""""""In the case of Measure 5 voters simply chose the only fix that was presented to them""""""""""
You got that part right.
The rest of your view that the "weasels" fooled the stupid voters is exactly why there will be more similar measures as the only fix.
The "only fix" was the genesis of M37.
As with M5, M37 opponents insisted there was no problem and refused to provide any adjustments.
Even today in the shadow of the M37 revival, critics display an extraordinarily stubborn stance that our pre M37 land use planning was working fine. Never mind the countless examples of restrictions on property without any reasonable justification.
Radical land use controllers who hijacked Tom McCall's vision just don't want it used. It may not be farm, forest or watershed, or of any significance but too bad.
That's their message and they're sticking to it. If the voters are too stupid or weasels are fooling them, then perhaps voting should be halted.
Feb 28, '06
Radical land use controllers who hijacked Tom McCall's vision just don't want it used. It may not be farm, forest or watershed, or of any significance but too bad.
So, will you be paying close attention to the implementation of M 37, or is passage enough? What about neighbor's rights--if someone files a Measure 37 complaint, do neighbors have a right to weigh in? If the Measure 37 complaint causes neighboring land to lose value, what option do the neighbors have?
Or isn't that your concern?
Just how many implementation lawsuits are still to be decided?
Feb 28, '06
As usual you fail to respond to my central point. Which then you immediately validate. You saw no need for M37 and had no concerns for property owners. Yet now you have concerns for property owners because of M37.
""""""So, will you be paying close attention to the implementation of M 37, or is passage enough?""""""
I'll be looking for the paved over vineyards, pig farms, smelters and the end of the Oregon as we know it.
Please let me know as soon as you imagine, or see some signs of them.
"""""What about neighbor's rights--if someone files a Measure 37 complaint, do neighbors have a right to weigh in?""""""'
"Weigh in"?
Sure. But zoning will still be intact and weighing in does not mean stopping someone from using their land because a neighbor would prefer it stay undeveloped.
Yeah there will be some housing built where someone doesn't want it.
So what.
No, that isn't my concern.
There are plenty of people who are opposed to the infill, overcrowding, mandated & subsidized high density our planning is creating and all they are essentially getting are middle fingers. Same goes for the horrible transportation planning.
Or isn't that your concern?
10:47 a.m.
Feb 28, '06
And its not like Westlund and his supporters couldn't have caucused with the Democrats if the Republican leaders were sitting on their ideas. They chose not to and they helped choose those leaders as well. How does Westlund escape accountability for their actions?
As if he is single handedly responsible for who the Republican leaders are and what they believe. Maybe he didn't want to face retaliation from his fellow Republicans for caucusing with Democrats during the session. What makes you think the Democrats would have welcomed him into their caucus, and not think he was just trying to be a spy? Maybe he was trying to change the party from within, but found out that he was in the minority in his own party, so decided to become an independent. It sounds like what you are saying is, that since Westlund couldn't single handedly summon up the support from within the Republican party to change the party completely, that therefore he isn't a leader.
how does electing Westlund Governor change this?
It doesn't change the fact that party leaders can enforce party discipline and prevent any idea or bill from getting a hearing or coming up for a vote if they want to, even if it has majority support. But if Westlund wins, I think that would send a pretty powerful message to both parties that they have lost touch with a big chunk of Oregon voters.
There seem to be a few "independent" ideologues here who believe that people who identify with the Republican or Democratic party are the source of all evil. And if we just get rid of those pesky labels we will all live in harmony and agree with them.
I'm not one of them. The above comment is an example of the typical partisan tactic of creating an extreme straw man that you can then easily knock down.
The vast majority of Independents are less informed, less interested in politics, vote less frequently, etc.
I agree. But there are a lot of unaffiliated voters who are informed and vote frequently, but just don't believe in either the Democratic or Republican party line 100%. Is that so hard to believe?
Feb 28, '06
Let me get this straight.... A "moderate" is:
On fiscal issues is someone who supports a sales tax (Oregonians voted against 9-1) a new gas tax (Oregonians voted 9-1).
On environmental issues votes against the land use planning system, votes for big corporate polluters, always has one of the lowest scores with OLCV.
This is a moderate who can bring people together????
Please, one session of press releases in favor of a "civil unions" bill that he knew would be killed in the House does not make a moderate.
Wake up...Westlund is a media whore.
Feb 28, '06
Well, if you're concerned about whether Westlund can bring people together, why don't you ask the OLCV (whose scorecard you seem to like so much). They named him the consensus-builder of the year... but let me guess: You think the OLCV scorecard is sacrosanct, but their opinions on who can bring people together is worth bupkis?
Incidentally, Westlund had an average OLCV score; he was the highest-scoring (then) Republican. And the OLCV scorecard is worthless anyway. Biofuels didn't come to a vote, so his immense work on that didn't count in favor. But Senator Johnson kills salmon programs behind the scenes and it doesn't count against her?
There's more to the legislative history than scorecards.
Feb 28, '06
Thanks JHL. I had this conversation last night with someone at Marion County Democrats. Someone who couldn't name a particular bill he voted "wrong" on. But by golly, the OLCV scorecard is God, and if he got a lousy score....... Except he didn't. And on one of those bills the score card lists, "no is the environmental vote" and only 8 people voted no.
Sounds like "bring people together" is a ruse--more like "every good person thinks like us".
Those who believe all good people agree with them are not interested in consensus.
5:11 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
The rest of your view that the "weasels" fooled the stupid voters is exactly why there will be more similar measures as the only fix.
All that jerking of your knee must have interfered with your ability to read my posts since you clearly didn't understand the point of them.
But on the subject of all that twitching on your part,
5:16 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
Sorry about the bad link.
Feb 28, '06
Doretta,
I read clearly. You don't understand
""""""">measure 5 was passed on the back of campaign that insisted it would not hurt schools --that the legislature would be required to see that schools didn't take a hit. It's been amply demonstrated since that that was false.""""""""'
Oh BS. More like it has been amply demagogued. It wasn't M5 hobbling our schools all these years since. The PERS and Health Care coverage costs have soared due to people with no scruples, poor leadership and conflicts of interests. Throw in the wholly horrific CIM/CAM and other bad policies and the rest is history.
My point was you and yours never acknowledged these problems just as you did not with land use. That's why you never arrived with any alternative to M5 or M37.
It's always voters being hornswoggled though, isn't it.
""""""" You don't have to be stupid to be hornswoggled by people with no scruples. Some of them have a lot of practice.""""""""
And who has had more practice than the OEA, ODE, COSA, OSBA, OBC and OBA.
Feb 28, '06
As if he is single handedly responsible for who the Republican leaders are and what they believe.
The above comment is an example of the typical partisan tactic of creating an extreme straw man that you can then easily knock down.
I agree.
But if Westlund wins, I think that would send a pretty powerful message to both parties that they have lost touch with a big chunk of Oregon voters.
What message will his getting less than 50% of the vote send? That the majority of voters don't support his agenda. Let me suggest email if you want to send a message. Elections are about choosing leaders and I don't see how a Governor elected with minority support is going to end gridlock. Of course, if Westlund gets a substantial number of votes that is likely going to be the case regardless of who wins.
What I find interesting is how partisan the Westlund supporters here are. I assume at some point Westlund will put together a campaign that explains what he hopes to do as governor. I hope its got more to it than bashing the two parties and promising to "end partisansship." And I hope people hold his feet to the fire on how he will build a governing coalition as a minority Governor without partisan support in the legislature.
Feb 28, '06
What message will his getting less than 50% of the vote send?... I don't see how a Governor elected with minority support is going to end gridlock.
Last time an Independent beat the odds, Julius Meier came into office with 54% of the vote. He had no caucus, no party, and the Republicans were amply pissed off at him for sinking their candidate. Regardless, he passed some seriously critical legislation.
Incidentally, you may be correct... our current governor was elected with less than half of the vote and he doesn't seem to be faring well at all.
Feb 28, '06
Incidentally, you may be correct... our current governor was elected with less than half of the vote and he doesn't seem to be faring well at all.
Precisely. And he has almost half the legislature with a stake in his success.
11:01 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
My point was you and yours never acknowledged these problems just as you did not with land use.
Yes, you made your point clear, which is precisely how you made it clear that you didn't understand my posts. I do and have always acknowledged the problems with PERS and health care costs. My original comment in support of Adam's comment was precisely an agreement that what opens the door to things like Measure 5 is the rest of us failing to work to find solutions to the real problems to which things like Measure 5 purport to be solutions.
Feb 28, '06
"You and yours" implies an organization which doesn't exist.
It is a false dichtomy to say that people either supported Meas.5, Meas. 37, PERS reform etc. or else they went around saying that the property tax system, land use planning, PERS were perfect just as they are and never needed to be tweaked, updated, or reformed.
Truth is that there were people talking to their friends about needed adjustments, but these were not people in a position to make those adjustments themselves.
And cracks like "you and yours" just polarize the situation.
I am a person who was on friendly terms with both Bill Moshofsky and Wes Kvarsten (wonderful old gentlemen who disagreed without being nasty and sarcastic). Do you recognize those names? Can you say what their view of land use planning was?
If someone has solutions, they should publicly advocate them. But I don't see how cracks like "you and yours" solve anything. Anymore than I think 1037-D was the solution to Measure 37 given how late in the session it was and how few people really understood what it said.
Mar 1, '06
LT
""""If someone has solutions, they should publicly advocate them. But I don't see how cracks like "you and yours" solve anything.""""
How perfect. Yo get all hung up on a harmless phrase.
Come on you know what I meant. Get over your phony self. I can just imagine you sitting there with your fingers in your ears saying "I'm not listening I can't hear you".
"""""Truth is that there were people talking to their friends about needed adjustments, but these were not people in a position to make those adjustments themselves."""""""""
You haven't been paying attention.
You and yours have spent all of your considerable efforts attempting to worsen the situation by continually calling for more funding and expanding land use regs with Portland Healthy Streams like programs.
If you don't know what you and yours means well how about you and your many activist and interest groups. And just as with today's critical issues they were NEVER going to do anything about any of the "needed adjustments" thay may be occasionally chatting about. And it ain't becasue they aren't in positons to help either. They are the problem makers. Transportation is the prime example. Everyone knows we need congestion releif but your entire camp is pushing rail and obstructing all attempts to add road capacity.
Sure I know Bill Moshofsky and sounds like you would possibly be on friendly terms with me as well.
But, as I am sure Bill would agree you just happen to be chronically wrong and misguided.
Mar 1, '06
Come on you know what I meant. Get over your phony self.
Back at ya'
How could someone living outside the Metro area be involved in "continually calling for more funding and expanding land use regs with Portland Healthy Streams like programs"?
Do you really believe everyone who disagrees with you is an activist advocating what you claim? Is anyone who knows one of the plaintiffs in the Measure 37 case because they live near them or even met them once a person who is advocating "Portland Healthy Streams like programs"? What exactly is that, for those of us who don't live in Portland--concern for riparian areas? Are you saying any Oregonian with concerns about riparian areas is a phony? Is that they way you win friends and influence people? Is everyone who campaigned for Tom McCall what you mean by "you and yours"?
"But, as I am sure Bill would agree you just happen to be chronically wrong and misguided."
The Bill Moshofsky I knew (haven't seen him for years) was a gentleman who was too polite to tell someone he'd been talking with/ debating politics with for years they are "misguided" just because they disagree. We'd be in better shape in this state if everyone had his manners and level of civility.
And we met when he ran for Congress all those years ago. Ask him sometime about when he was GOP chair and went around with the Democratic chair talking to student groups about the difference between the parties.
Of course that is harder work than just calling opponents "you and yours " who ""continually calling for more funding and expanding land use regs with Portland Healthy Streams like programs".
But you are probably one of those (Kulongoski's campaign manager, Karen Minnis, Wayne Scott, Dennis Richardson all use the same rhetoric) whose attitude is "we are doing what Oregonians want, and because of that we have the right to say those who disagree with us don't realize what Oregonians want".
What if there are individual Oregonians who say "I'll decide for myself what I want for this state, thank you very much!". Is that someone who you can win to your side, or an independent more likely to support Westlund than to support you?
Steve, which candidates are you supporting this year? Or is that too positive an action because it is easier to say you are right, those who ask questions misunderstand you, and if only we would all say OIA RULES and quit asking those pesky questons there would be no problems and Measure 37 would implement itself without those pesky implementation lawsuits getting in the way?
Mar 1, '06
""""""How could someone living outside the Metro area be involved in "continually calling for more funding and expanding land use regs,"""""""""
I wasn't specifically using only Portland and that one program.
Do you really need such a deep level of explanation?
""""""""Do you really believe everyone who disagrees with you is an activist advocating what you claim?"""""""""""
I was referring to the two major opposing sides on either side of M5 and M37.
The Portland Healthy Streams was an effort to attach additional radical restrictions and prohibitions, (beyond the current extensive protections), extending as much as 300 feet from stream centers.
Far beyond "concern for riparian areas".
"""""""""Are you saying any Oregonian with concerns about riparian areas is a phony?"""""""""
No but I am saying you are a phony for suggesting I was. This tired play of casting opposition to extreme policy as opposition to all policy is dishonest IMO.
You can take that anyway you want.
The same tactics are used against light rail opponents with calling them anti-transit.
"""""""""'Is that they way you win friends and influence people?"""""""""
Let me see. Am I to adopt the methods of 1000 Friends of Oregon as a model for winning friends and influencing people?
I am not trying to pursued you. Many other people visit these blogs and recognize BS when they see it pointed out.
"''''''''' Is everyone who campaigned for Tom McCall what you mean by "you and yours"?""""""""""
Hardly. More like the opposite. Tom McCall has been hijacked against his will by the enviro-planning cabal who have morphed and retarded his vision and SB100 into their extreme weapon of control.
"""""""""The Bill Moshofsky I knew (haven't seen him for years) was a gentleman who was too polite to tell someone he'd been talking with/ debating politics with for years they are "misguided" just because they disagree.""""""""""
Say what? He would tell you right now that you are misguided. But not "just because you disagree". Because you support policies which do not work and are a detriment to the State. And he would get into detail. Have you read his recent book? E-mail me your address and I'll have him send you a copy.
""""""""We'd be in better shape in this state if everyone had his manners and level of civility.""""""""""
If you think those policies and methods to advance them which we are opposed to have been civil you are sadly mistaken and just do not get it.
That's why you can't understand the 61% vote for M37.
You should call Bill yourself and share your current wisdom over lunch.
503-620-0258
I'm more than certain he would immediately detect your extreme shift since your last conversations.
Of course if you are too busy dwelling on the meaning of phrases like "you and yours " you may avoid the continued education you obviously need.
""""""But you are probably one of those (Kulongoski's campaign manager, Karen Minnis, Wayne Scott, Dennis Richardson all use the same rhetoric) whose attitude is "we are doing what Oregonians want, and because of that we have the right to say those who disagree with us don't realize what Oregonians want"."""""""""""""
Boy you aren't very perceptive are you? Clearly those people have not been doing what Oregonians want as M37 showed. I'm not sure what you were getting at there but you'll get no praises of any part of the legislature or governing from me.
"""""""""What if there are individual Oregonians who say "I'll decide for myself what I want for this state, thank you very much!".""""""""""
Like me?
""""""""""Is that someone who you can win to your side, or an independent more likely to support Westlund than to support you?"""""
What do you mean "your side"? That sounds like "you and yours".
Westlund is weak, unimaginative, a poor leader, has no base and thank God has zero chance of elevating his role in guiding Oregon or it's policies.
""""""""Or is that too positive an action because it is easier to say you are right, those who ask questions misunderstand you"""""""""""
"Misunderstand"?
What you do is dishonestly 'misrepresent' as you did with my comments and positions.
You and yours continually misrepresent OIA and our land use policies just as you did with M37, the M37 campaign and Judge James ruling.
Your misrepresentation continue today with transferability and your pandemonium over M37 ruining our state with pig farms, quarries, smelters and paved over wine country. Disingenuously misleading the public with suggestions that all zoning and regulations have been abolished due to M37.
Far beyond any legitimate "pesky questions" or "pesky implementation lawsuits".
Try and remember it's the EXTREME nature of Oregon's land use and other policies the vast majority of M37 voters object to. It's not all protections, zoning and planning.
You should take your own advice and be more polite.
View all Washington County M37 Claims http://washtech.co.washington.or.us/measure37/
and note the near total absence of the destruction voters didn't buy.
Mar 1, '06
Steve, Have you ever run for office? Or only been involved with ballot measures?
Will be interesting to check back here some months from now and see if your prediction about Westlund is accurate.
Mar 1, '06
""""Steve,Have you ever run for office? Or only been involved with ballot measures?""""""
I ran for Metro in 04
""""""""Will be interesting to check back here some months from now and see if your prediction about Westlund is accurate""""""""
Much will be interesting in a couple months.
What is your name and I'll say hi to Bill M for you.
Peace
Mar 5, '06
In today's Sunday Oregonian, there are 2 very interesting pieces about Westlund and partisanship. One is Steve Duin, the other is Mike Burton on the front page of the print Opinion section or at
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1141412119239740.xml&coll=7
<h2>These should provide lots of information/ opinion to promote more debate.</h2>