Even KPOJ blows off Sorenson
T.A. Barnhart
Listening to Thom Hartmann this morning interview Tom Chamberlain of the OR AFL-CIO, and they are talking about the governor's race. Asking about how unions have not endorsed Gov Ted, Chamberlain begins to mention that one almost endorsed Pete Sorenson (OEA) when Thom ran right over the top of him. Although the discussion was about how unions seemed to be turning against Ted, Thom did at least mention Jim Hill's two recent endorsements. But nothing about Pete Sorenson, not even his name. Ben Westlund got the most extensive discussion of all, with the slant that his health problems somehow converted him into labor's best friend.
It's fine to have this discussion about Westlund, and to bring up Hill's endorsements, and to wonder if the Dems' chance are hurt by the big unions not backing Ted. But to not even mention Pete's name highlights the most egregious aspect of this entire primary: the exclusion of Pete Sorenson from the media discussion. I did not begin this primary as a Sorenson supporter; I knew very little about him and my desire was to keep the governor's seat in Democrat hands. I thought Ted, for all his faults, was the best choice for that -- power of incumbency and all that. But the treatment Pete has received has really angered me. The Democratic Party in Oregon is growing in dominance not because mainstream, business-as-usual Dems like Ted and Hill have been so successful but because of the grassroots activists (and the harm done by the Rs, of course). Decisions by media, union officials and party "powers" on which candidates are to be given a voice or not are simply wrong and will backfire.
Thom's a good guy and I don't think he meant to ignore Pete, but the fact he could do so speaks volumes: The most progressive of the three Dem candidates is the one being shunted off to the side whenever possible. The unions are doing it, media is doing, and sad to say, Thom Hartmann just did it. There is always a price to pay for stifling democracy, folks, and the treatment of Sorenson falls into that category.
 |
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
12:08 p.m.
Mar 24, '06
T.A.
Don't blame Thom Hartmann when he doesn't play up Sorenson. Pete has not run, or been able to run, a campaign that would give him more visibility or recognition in the media. Also don't blame the media, the party, or unions because Sorenson has not run an effective campaign. The whole purpose of a campaign is to gain recognition amongst those people.
While I agree with you that Hartmann should have had the courtesy to mention Sorenson, the reality is that he has not made much of an impact in the past year of running. He has always been the third candidate. A few months ago the discussion was about Kitzhaber and Walker as challengers even though Sorenson had been an official candidate for a lot longer.
I do not know him at all. I go to a lot of Democratic party events and even when he was present at the same event, he didn't make an impact. Other campaigns figure out how to do that, he hasn't. I respect you and others who support him, but my impression from Blue Oregon is that the majority of his vocal supporters are from the Eugene area where he is from. If after a year he hasn't been able to break out of Eugene, there is something lacking in his campaign. We all like to blame the media or the party establishment when a campaign doesn't click, but let's face it, that is what a campaign has to do.
Mar 24, '06
Well, who do you think owns the media anyway? Probably not someone who welcomes Sorenson's call for corporations to pay their fare share. right?
Mar 24, '06
As Nelson from the Simpsons say, "Haha!"
12:44 p.m.
Mar 24, '06
All relatively unknown candidates face a Catch-22 when running for office. The media won't cover them unless they are perceived as "viable candidates" with a certain level of support that suggests they have a chance of winning (or at the very least, influencing) an election. Of course, without sufficient media coverage, it's incredibly difficult to get the breadth and depth of support necessary to cross the "viability" threshold.
On the Republican side, Jason Atkinson is having a similar problem, though not to the same extent, because he has actually been able to round up some supporters and raise some money. Westlund is facing the same hurdle and is trying to increase his visibility by renouncing his party affiliation, sponsoring potentially popular initiatives, and speaking to as many large groups as he possibly can.
As far as I can tell, Pete's campaign never even started climbing the hump, let alone came anywhere close to getting over it. It's too bad, because he seems like a candidate I'd like to support. However, considering how long his candidacy has been going on, and how few inroads he's made, I don't see much hope of him making an impact in the next two months. It's going to take more than being "not Ted" to win the Dem primary, and right now it seems like that's about all he's been able to establish.
1:12 p.m.
Mar 24, '06
Without commenting on the plausibly self-inflicted silence about Pete's campaign, the pollsters are ignoring him too. I think that may be more of the rightward perspective of Scott Rasmussen, but it still doesn't help.
I wanted to comment on Nate Currie's point about the catch-22: without an indication to the media that a candidate is viable, they are assumed not to be. Which is why I think VOE has had a demonstrably positive effect on the City Council elections already. Emilie Boyles is talking to the City Club as we speak, and one can almost guarantee she wouldn't be without VOE. How do we know? Because Dave Lister had to beg and have Jack Bog harumph on his behalf in order to get on the dais. Would Amanda Fritz have gotten attention as the one serious opponent to Saltzman without VOE? Setting aside the fact that she says she wasn't likely to have run without it, I think she might have gotten the coverage anyway--but with it, that coverage was guaranteed.
Sten v Burdick might have made for a nice wrestling match, but I much prefer a fearsome foursome on that stage--don't the rest of you?
1:18 p.m.
Mar 24, '06
torridjoe -- you hit the nail on the head, of course. i don't know how Pete has campaigned around the state, but i do know he's the most progressive of the candidates and he's worked hard enough (and has enough of an elective office background) to deserve more than being labelled "third candidate" and thus ignored (a shitty fate suffered by Bev Stein 4 years ago). VOE would help us -- the 'roots, the activists, the New Dems -- give our candidates an opportunity of the kind being withheld by the Big O and the public sector unions. it's great to see it working in Pdx, and i can't wait to extend it further. VOE may be the key to restoring (or finally establishing) democracy in this country.
2:40 p.m.
Mar 24, '06
Well here's one public sector union "hack" that wouldn't mind seeing VOE on a state level. I would much rather see a level playing field than the current situation. Good candidates like Sorenson could afford to run grassroots campaigns where voters opinions are actually brought into the equation and listened to by those who are running. Where one doesn't have to have a personal fortune at their fingertips before running for political office and then can actually devote their precious time to governing rather than raising funds and compromising their beliefs for the next election or the next legislative session.
Mar 24, '06
There's a lot to be sped about the media never giving Sorenson the time of day, but let's not absolve Sorenson: in addition to running a poor representational campaign around the state, he has also ran a campaign with a very limited voice. He does nothing, really, except criticize the Governor Ted--just listen to the debate for the Portland City Club last week. He seldom goes beyond pointing out what the governor has done wrong, offers no postitive alternative goal, and the fact is that Governor Ted has not been bad enough for this to be effective. His tone is so shrill, bitter, and negative that I react negatively to him almost instantaneously. This is not what a grassroots, progressive campaign does. Such a campaign motivates people with a positive message, and welcomes the influx of other opinions and new information to strengthen and evolve. His tone is not welcoming--he has not done anything to involve people, and his tone discourages involvement--and he speaks as though he has the truth in his grasp. This is no grassroots activist, T.A. At this point, the only person Pete Sorenson has to blame for his lack of public presence is himself.
Mar 24, '06
Pete is a good guy and his answers at the City Club "debate" a week ago were generally sharper and more informed that Hill's. Not great body language, though. He doesn't seem to have the political instincts and ability to connect with people that it takes to be a viable statewide candidate. He's a wonk at heart--a little like Earl Blumenauer.
I worked with him in Jim Weaver's congressional office about 30 years ago and hadn't seen him until he spoke at the City Club. He said to me, "Hey, I remember you. You look a lot older, though." Gee, thanks Pete, and you look 40 pounds heavier. Okay, so I am a lot older and I look it.
He sat with me during the lunch, which was nice for catching up on old times, but he should have been working the room. He should have contacted Doug Marker--who also worked with Weaver then and is now the City Club president--and had Doug introduce him to people. If not Doug, I'm sure he could have found someone else there to do the job. The lack of this kind of planning indicates that while his heart is good, he's pretty much of a minor leaguer in statewide politics.
Whoever is elected governor ought to hire him as chief of staff.
3:59 p.m.
Mar 24, '06
i've been with Pete a few times, the guy is wonk central. he can talk policy & details in a way that would make Clinton proud. perhaps the Ted attacks have been necessary to try and gain attention; after all, we know that talking positively about the issues doesn't sell for shit. we want it to; it doesn't.
glad you're on the VOE bandwagon, Mark. i'm not saying Pete is the greatest public servant in Oregon, but until we do something to democratize these processes (and Open Primaries ain't it), we'll be stuck with unpopular incumbents or endowed favorites of the already powerful. maybe we can address VOE, IRV and the like in huge detail in BlueOregon next year. a BlOR project?
7:28 p.m.
Mar 24, '06
Will--
You've obviously not heard Sorenson that much. He often goes into detail on what he's like to do, things that need to be changed, etc. I'd say more than 80% of the stuff I've heard him talk about was not Ted bashing-- it was stuff of substance.
I've been very impressed with him, both in his speeches and when sitting down and asking him questions.
Mar 24, '06
Jenni-- I feel like I have heard enough of Sorenson to make the judgment that I did, but let's say for the sake of argument that I have not; take a look at his website. Home page: the "news" section off to the left is two anti-Kulongoski articles. Media: Mostly anti-Kulongoski articles. Issues: Not so much overt anti-Kulongoski sentiment, but a definite undertone. Even under policy areas such as the environment, he is unwilling to give the current governor any credit--to say anything along the lines of, "the Governor has done a good job in this vein, and we should continue that" or "the Governor's policy is a good start, but we should expand it..." EVEN IF he did not say these things or present this image, he is so harsh in his tone that I, for one, can't focus enough to take in any positive message he may have to offer. If you really support him you should encourage him to be less harsh, preachy, and negative. Maybe news outlets would cover him, then, and treat him as the progressive alternative that he wants to be.
11:36 p.m.
Mar 24, '06
As most candidates have yet to get how to use the Internet, I don't judge candidates based on their web sites. I've offered to work on the web site to several of his volunteers, but I haven't talked to Pete recently in order to make the offer to him personally.
Kari gives a pretty good talk on what a campaign web site should and shouldn't be-- unfortunately not that many people in politics understand it yet.
Mar 25, '06
Pete impressed me the first time I heard him. He is the only candidate that comes close to speaking for me. I guess I missed that negative stuff. What I get from Pete is hope. I think the corporatists are afraid of him.
Mar 25, '06
http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/01/pete_sorenson_c.html
has Sorenson saying "we need a leader not a mediator.
Sorry, Pete lost me with that crack. He didn't say then or since exactly what he meant by that. He could have come on Blue Oregon and said "a leader would do----where Ted has done ___". Can anyone find an example of where he has done that? Not his supporters, but Pete himself.
Mar 26, '06
Pete will be on KLCC at noon today.
Mar 28, '06
Just responding to the "catch 22" comment earlier... It strikes me that this catch 22 only seems to apply to progressive candidates, whereas conservatives are often presumed to be viable until proven otherwise. Exhibit A: Ron Saxton has no real base of support and no track record. His only experience is helping run the Portland Schools into the ground. Yet in the media he's always treated as viable. And I don't think he'll break 10% of the vote on primary day. John
2:32 p.m.
Mar 29, '06
Ron Saxton is considered "viable" because he got over 93,000 votes last time he ran for state-wide office (about 30%), even while splitting moderate votes with a candidate who ran on almost an identical platform.
I'll bet you a steak dinner Sorenson doesn't get to 25% (or probably even close). I'll bet you a second steak dinner Saxton more than doubles up your 10% prediction. Quite frankly, I think he's going to be closer to 40% and win the R nomination.
None of this is to take away from Sorenson as a person or as a potential governor. I'm sure he'd be great. However, "anemic" would be a more than charitable description of his campaign thus far. I guess he's still got a month and a half, but I'm not exactly holding my breath...