OK, who's going to say it first? The Dems with Ted at the top of the ticket are in some serious trouble. Even if Ted were to get the nomination and sqweak through to victory, there will be down ticket pain.

If you were running a state Leg race, who would you rather have at the top of the ticket?

He speaks well and has some good ideas. If he can speak of a vision for the future, how things have changed from 4 years ago, and what specifically he would do differently, he should do well.

if he hadn't almost completely disappeared from sight, and certainly he's been off the general public's radar for the last four years, he might have had a chance.

as it is, i think most people will have legitimate questions as to 1) what he's been doing since he ran and 2) how he can do more for the funders than Gov Ted can. he's going to have a hard time answering those questions so i think he's sunk. it's too bad, his candidacy was exciting last time.

as it is, i think most people will have legitimate questions as to 1) what he's been doing since he ran and 2) how he can do more for the funders than Gov Ted can.

Sounds pretty cynical. I don't claim to speak for "most people", but it seems to me what we need in this state is serious public debates where people who have a vision for the state are able to publicly talk about that vision and why it is better than that of the other candidates.

cynical? i don't think so.

i'm not being critical of Jim Hill specifically here, but it's one thing to pop up during a primary and say what you "would do" in office and another thing to say what you would do AND what you have done. i'm going to believe more of the "would do" stuff, the stuff that professional politicos are fond of spouting, if there's a track record of "having done" things already given the position/power available already. it's not a matter of magnitude, but a matter of relative accomplishment given one's position.

also, repeat challengers get a lot more credibility (in my book at least) if they stick around in the public eye somewhat and say what they're doing to pursue the goals they laid out despite having lost whatever particular race they had run for. Maybe JH has done that, i'd love to hear it. so would the voters. so would the folks who are going to line up behind a particular candidate with dollars.

for example: say education was a candidate’s big issue. if they had spent the four years following a defeat meeting with education experts and trying to figure out how to fix the problems that exist, or even working with an education focused NGO, they'd have a lot more credibility to those concerned with education than someone who just espouses platitudes during election cycles.

visions are fine, hard work and results are better.

And then of course there is Jim Hill's work on the Public Commission on the Legislature--maybe Fournier hasn't been following those hearings and doesn't know about that.

So, is no one going to come up with what Jim Hill has been doing?

While I can't tell you what Jim Hill has been doing since 2002, I supported him in the '02 primary. While the various union leadership endorsed Kulongoski in the primary, many rank-and-file union members distrusted K in 2002 and voted for Hill in the primary. That K didn't win by a wider margin in '02 against, IMHO, a weak R candidate, was significantly related to how many rank and file union members either sat out the Governor's race, or supported Mannix.

Hill would provide some credible opposition for Kulongoski in the May primary, regardless of what he might have been doing over the past 4 years. Rank and file union members have NOT forgotten Hill and continue to despise Kulongoski.

Hey Jim Hill! What would you do to help create jobs in the State of Oregon (something besides growing the bureaucracy)?

BlueOregon won't shine the light on Oregon's Worst in the West Unemployment figures, so I will.

Notably, Oregon has clawed her way up to the 44th worst UNEMPLOYMENT Rates (excluding Puerto Rico and Washinton D.C.) in the nation for 2005. The goods news: we'd be number 42 if you include Puerto Rico and D.C.!

We've been led by Democratic Governors and Mayors for how long?

Those dysfunctional states or territories with worse unemployement include:

Puerto Rico, at 11.9% Mississippi, at 9.9% (Katrina?) South Carolina, at 7% Alaska, at 6.9% Michigan, at 6.7% Louisiana, at 6.4% (Katrina?) Kentucky, at 6.3% Washington D.C., at 6% Oregon, at 5.7%

click here for the Unemploment Report by State for 2005

I wonder why the others had a hurricane, or free trade (autos, tobacco, textiles) to blame. How about it, Ted?

How about a new state slogan: Oregon: the nations first Saw-Dust State!

I hope Jim Hill does run. Certainly, he has a better shot at the nomination then Walker or Sorensen combined. Someone needs to give TK more then a nominal challange. I'm disappointed with TK's lackluster performance in his first term.

It's time to shake things up!

David E. is right! We deserve the sort of serious debate that only comes when an incumbent has a serious challenge--in this case it would be between 2 former legislators who went on to become statewide elected officials--former AG & Sup. Court Justice vs. former St. Treasurer.

Jenni, I think the frustration is somewhat different than what you describe. I think it is "how can these politicians say the economy is improving when so many of us are/ know someone who says Oregon lost a lot of jobs during the dot-com bust. There are many of us who lost our full-time jobs during that time and have been unable to replace them with anything full time and permanent.

Across the spectrum, when someone who is experienced and educated has a hard time finding a regular job (in some cases experiencing interviews where the interviewers never contact them with the results {rejection letters/ cards/ calls from interviews are the exception more than the rule }, employers who don't seem in much hurry to hire after the interviews, etc.) why would they support someone who doesn't recognize the problem and says "Hey! Look at those numbers--the economy is improving!".

I was thinking this morning about the famous Ann Richards convention speech, which deserved more coverage than just the one-liner about GHW Bush and the silver foot. She spoke more than 40 years after FDR died, but she spoke of being a young person when the whole family would stop what they were doing to listen to FDR on the radio. Obviously FDR inspired people and left a lasting positive impression.

I think that is what bothers people about Ted's approach to unemployment. His life was shaped in part by being born during the Depression. He once was known as an outgoing charming man who understood the lives of everyday people. But recently he’s been more of an inside player who mostly worked behind the scenes sometimes behind closed doors as in the budget negotiations. That he doesn’t show he understands how tough it is for people who can’t find regular jobs is what I think disappoints so many people—that and a sense he spends too much time with “good ol’ boys “ and not enough with the general public.

Jenny:

That "dot-com" bust was much worse in California and they bounced back. 43 out of 50 states have lower unemployment than Oregon, including many that have traditionally relied on manufacturing much more than Oregon, yet their unemployment rates are lower by half.

I'm not blaming Ted, I am blaming all elected officials who served over the past 30 years, and the last decade in particular.

Oregon Democrats have had a stranglehold on the Governor's office for such a long time (need I mention I live in Multnomah County?: they are unlikely to be a part of the solution. It becomes difficult to see clearly when their eyeballs barely poke over the top of the union pockets they inhabit.

It is an economic, educational, and social failing that is being treated as if it were merely a political one. Throw more money at the educational system: if we simply paid all the teachers more money, the kids would learn better, right?

The issue transcends politics, and has produced a climate in which moderates and the affluent are voting with their feet. Did you know that Portland Metro teachers send their kids to private schools at twice the rate that non-teachers do? What do they see in the system to make them believe their kids are better off elsewhere?

Dear WBA II

There are residents of non-Metro counties like Marion and Polk who either have college degrees and are glad to have multiple part time (often retail) jobs in order to make ends meet, or were laid off from jobs in the last couple years and are having a hard time finding permanent work.

Are Democratic governors the reason that qualified people wait a long time to find out the results of interviews and in some cases are just left hanging and never hear the results? Or is it just that it is a rare employer who calls and says "we view it as a point of honor to notify everyone we interviewed of our decision"?

You said

Oregon Democrats have had a stranglehold on the Governor's office for such a long time (need I mention I live in Multnomah County?: they are unlikely to be a part of the solution. It becomes difficult to see clearly when their eyeballs barely poke over the top of the union pockets they inhabit............... It is an economic, educational, and social failing that is being treated as if it were merely a political one. Throw more money at the educational system: if we simply paid all the teachers more money, the kids would learn better, right?

The issue transcends politics, and has produced a climate in which moderates and the affluent are voting with their feet. Did you know that Portland Metro teachers send their kids to private schools at twice the rate that non-teachers do? What do they see in the system to make them believe their kids are better off elsewhere?

Are you claiming that the economic situation in this state was better under Vic Atiyeh and if only the voters had elected Norma Paulus, Dave Frohnmayer, Craig Berkman or Denny Smith, Bill Sizemore, Mannix, Saxton or Jack Roberts that there would be fewer unemployed people among the experienced well qualified citizens of this state?

If collective bargaining for teachers were turned back to where it was 40 years ago, would all the educated and experienced Oregonians now struggling to find full time work be employed in a short amount of time? Or are you practicing misdirection from a topic which is, after all, about whether the former State Treasurer will run for Governor? After the crack about Multnomah County, how do you feel about a candidate for Governor whose name is not Mannix and who has ties to a county outside the Portland area?

Is it possible that "moderates" will elect a Republican governor again only when the nominee is of the quality of Vic Atiyeh?

And where do you stand on Ben Westlund for Governor?

While I agree that the "economic recovery" has left something to be desired, it is absolutely rediculous to suggest that Democrats are responsible. The answer also isn't as simple as rationalizing it as "the dot-com bubble burst" or "those damned enviromentalists took our jobs away". Puh-lease.

Recently, I listened to the State Economist (?) a non-partisan at the Portland City Club (OPB rebroadcast maybe?) talk about Oregon's unemployment rates. And one thing he mentioned that is never mentioned by people like Mr. Anderholt: Oregon and the greater Pacific Northwest is experiencing disproporationate population growth; and the business market, even during the recovery, has not been able to keep up with the influx of new Oregonians.

While that might not be a complete explanation to the situation, what economists refer to as "structural unemployment" is a symptom of a lot of variables that even the market and government cannot control. However, that does not mean that we should focus on developing new jobs in our state that pay a living wage and foster a new Oregon.

Just my 2 cents.

LT writes: If collective bargaining for teachers were turned back to where it was 40 years ago, would all the educated and experienced Oregonians now struggling to find full time work be employed in a short amount of time?

It would be silly to suggest that "all" educated and experienced Oregonians would do anything differently if anything happened. "All" is a very comprehensive word. That said, we would be in much better shape today if not for the Teacher's Union strangehold on the Leg.

If we had told the Teachers Union (40 years ago, or last year) that the most effective/dedicated teachers would be highly compensated, and the least effective/dedicated teachers would be hardly compensated (and/or asked to leave), our educational system would be producing MANY more competent graduates with much greater economic opportunity. All? Probably not all, but many, many, more than under the present system.

Certainly, the "FOR THE CHILDREN" money grabs would be less frequent and onerous if Teachers' Salary, PERS, and Health Insurance were not sucking up 82 cents of every general fund dollar (and virtually every revenue increase thrown at the problem in the last 20 years).

JTT:

If "Business" is responsible for not creating sufficient employment to pace population growth, why not advocate for policies that will get government off the backs of business so that they may focus their attention on growing their businesses/employment. As you observed, "since government cannot control" job creation, maybe it's time to acknowledge that Government's first task should be to do no harm to those valuable businesses that are creating jobs (i.e. City of Beaverton threatened annexation of Nike, or MultCo bidding against Columbia Sportswear for a new HQ, or Vera deciding that Portland really doesn't need to support heavy manufacturing, and then wondering why Freightliner keeps expanding elsewhere, and threatening a pull-out).

The State Economist (Tom Potiowski) was appointed by a Democrat, and (at the time of his appointment) probably leaned Democratratic. I don't know if he was a registered Democrat or not. He's extremely competent/intelligent, a great Professor of Economics, and a nice guy. That said, it is naive to suggest he doesn't color his reports to shine the light of accountability on anybody except his boss or the legislature (why piss them off?).

W. Bruce: Perhaps a study of the relative success of various programs which pay teachers according to merit (is it only test scores? is individual effort only awarded or is team teaching seen as an asset? And exactly how are principals and other administrators evaluated or doesn't that matter because they are not unionized?) might be an answer to your question:

If we had told the Teachers Union (40 years ago, or last year) that the most effective/dedicated teachers would be highly compensated, and the least effective/dedicated teachers would be hardly compensated (and/or asked to leave), our educational system would be producing MANY more competent graduates with much greater economic opportunity. All? Probably not all, but many, many, more than under the present system.<<

"Effective dedicated teachers " automatically get top test scores from their students? Or are they the special ed teachers, the classroom teachers or the librarians who do a lot of work outside their workday hours in a way that may be hard to measure?

But I think you missed my point. There are people in this state who are not members of a teachers union (journalism grads, biology grads, former high tech workers, college grads who work in retail or in temporary jobs because they can't find work in their field, etc.) who are having a tough time in this economy. And the way I read your comments, you are saying their economic prospects are related to the activities of the teachers union. It seems to me that you are oversimplifying, or else you want this to be a debate on whether the teachers union is a good organization (I could tell you stories about the times I have had arguments with OEA lobbyists) rather on the headlined topic of whether the former State Treasurer will announce for Governor tomorrow.

Are you involved in the campaign of one of the Republicans and worried about the entry of someone who would bring a more serious tone to the debate?

WBA wrote: As you observed, "since government cannot control" job creation

No, I actually didn’t say that. I said that there are variables in the market that government (i.e. government policy) cannot control and that creates structural unemployment.

maybe it's time to acknowledge that Government's first task should be to do no harm

Uh, businesses currently pay approx 4% of the GF revenue in the State of Oregon. Just 16 short year ago, they were paying 20%. Now I’m not going to sit here and defend Beaverton, but I really don’t know much about the other examples you cite (I’m not from the PDX/metro area). But you can’t argue that “government should do no harm” and also argue for government handouts for private business. If the poor don’t get government handouts, then big business shouldn’t either.

And finally, let me just draw attention to the fact that you didn’t address the issue of OR/PNW inflow population growth. Now that’s a market variable that government cannot control: population growth.

Oh wait, but back to Jim Hill...

I like Jim Hill, but I'm afraid he's too low-key and/or reserved to be an effective campaigner. If we don't hear any passion at tomorrow's announcement, then I have to wonder how he could possibly defeat an affable incumbent. Besides, what percentage of Oregon Democrats would be willing to change a horse mid-stream?

If the Republicans had a choice, I'm inclined to believe they would prefer to run against Jim Hill, if only because of his long hiatus from government (call it the "Jim who" factor). Maybe Ted could run for Treasurer: perhaps the only elected office in Oregon that he hasn't won (yet)?

The rumor on the Big O website is Hill has told friends he is going to run for governor. I hope you guys keep me posted, I'm all the way over here in Korea and need to be kept updated.

cc:

Ignoring your first sentece (a throwaway, because joe voter doesn't hate Ted), the first twp paragraphs read like a "meet the man" TV commercial. Brilliant. Artful. Full of vinegar. But if Jim Hill were reading it from a lecturn, my eyes would have glazed over at "we can talk about his record."

So I'll start a 'BOLI needs Ted and we need him now' whisper campaign if you'll tell Jim Hill to get an extra shot of espresso in tomorrow's latte. Retail politics is not for the soft-spoken. Deal?

W Bruce--. "Retail politics is not for the soft-spoken. Deal?"

I wouldn't bet against a guy who can say strong things in a soft voice, esp. someone who has won statewide and who prob. would have been elected state rep. in 1980 had Carter not conceded before the polls closed on the W. Coast.

Does anyone know how I can GET IN TOUCH with Jim Hill or his campaign manager Cameron Johnson? I work w/ campaigns in Jackson County and would like to invite Jim Down asap. Thanks

oops. Cameron Johnson is Teds CM. Does Jim Hill have a CM yet? Still needing to get in touch with this campaign asap. Thanks.

97 days to mount a grass roots (read: low budget) primary campaign against an incumbent Governor? Good luck.

Alice wrote:

"97 days to mount a grass roots (read: low budget) primary campaign against an incumbent Governor? Good luck."

A lot can happen in 97 days. If Jim Hill even begins to challenge Ted Kulongoski's capitulation to the Republicans, many will campaign for him. Remember Potter's low budget mayoral campaign in Portland.

I look forward to hearing more from Hill about his programs, in particular his solutions to the statewide schools and human services funding crisis.

Does Hill have a website yet? Anne

Anne