No...Ted should not debate them.

If he does he only lends their campaign legitimacy and as of now they really don't have any.

As I said, I don't care if it's bad politics, or which campaign he legitimizes. In my mind, this is about informing the public, something that trumps "just winning" in my world.

I think he's right on one point: I don't think Kulongoski is obliged to debate the GOP candidates until after they're selected their candidate for the general election. That I would view as a waste of time.

I expanded on this over on my own site. (LINK)

So Steven, They have no realistic chance of winning. All they can do is act as spoilers - splitting the progressive community to such a point that the Republicans win in the general election.

Are you saying that 60 people had no right to show up at Marion County Democrats to hear Jim Hill speak because he is just a spoiler and we should all just get in line with Ted's campaign now because he doesn't owe us any explanations, Westlund will never get on the ballot, and Ted will be better than any Republican even if he never explains anything he has done?

Maybe you should talk to Ted's campaign manager, who also spoke at that meeting. He said Gov. Kulongoski is doing "what the people want done".

Do you really think Democrats won't question that because after all he has our best interests at heart so why should we question his wisdom?

Could it be the divisive element in all this is that some look at Karen Minnis telling us she is doing is best for the state because she says so, hears Ted's campaign manager using what sounds like similar language, and wonder why we have no right to hear a sitting governor explain himself and his actions and answer questions from both voters and other candidates?

You may be right about Sorenson--Marion County Democrats had no chance to hear him because he was expected but did not show up. What I heard from Jim Hill was "as Democrats we should stand up and..." and "I support this proposal because..." sort of thing, as well as answering some tough questions in person to an audience of ordinary citizens.

Steven, do you think Ted should do such appearances, or are you saying we have to accept him without question lest a Republican be elected? If that is your attitude, why be a registered Democrat? Why not re-register Indep. and collect signatures for Westlund who actually does believe in dialogue with the public?

Wow Oregon "progressives", I continue to be impressed. You have a Governor who has taken you for granted at every turn for 3 years, and yet because of that (D) after his name, you just fall in line. I dont ever want to hear any bitching about Joe Leiberman or Hillary from you guys, when you wholeheartedly support our own DLC Republicrat. If you "progressives" are comfortable with settling, have at it. But I take comfort in the fact that the primary election is just that, an election. It takes Ted Kulongoski 3 years to finally come up with a health care plan( or steal one from Minnis), and he knows it will work because all these spineless "progressive" Democrats are to scared to have a real debate about the direction( ie to the right) Kulo is taking us. Whether or not the posters here are terrified of debating the real issues, there are 3 candidates for the Democratic nomination. I suggest you check out petesorenson.com or jimhill2006.com. If you love the DLC agenda, vote for TK. But if you do actually believe in progressive values, I suggest you grow a backbone and support a progressive on May 16th.

Hey Paulie:

Talk about focusing on the vital services this state needs: $172 million shortfall in the Department of Human Services. 65,000 Oregonians denied access to Community Colleges since 2002. 615,000 Oregonians with no health insurance currently. 750,000 Oregonians a year seeking food from an emergency food box. $57 million shortfall for Portland Public Schools. Public schools in Oregon underfunded at every level in this state. 2/3 of the largest corporations doing business in this state paying NO income taxes, while individuals and small businesses shoulder 95% of the income tax burden. Yeah, Ted has "raised the money available for state services, schools, and universities." Please, save your spin for another crowd.

I heard the Governor's State of the State address, and was impressed. But until he's willing to get away from the teleprompters (which were used during the last two speeches of his that I have seen), and debate, it seems like a sham. For that matter, is it convenient that he can make lots of speaking engagements, but can't manage to make a debate? Is there someone who doesn't see through that?

Paulie, you are missing the point. There is nothing in what you say which explains why Ted could not say publicly he had few options available when he inherited the deficit and unsustainable Oregon Health Care Plan left by Kitz. He certainly knows Oregon voters are still not ready for the much needed Sales Tax

I don't recall his saying "Sorry, the Oregon Health Plan is unsustainable, we'll have to go back to basic Medicaid" or for that matter much about health care. Hunger yes, health care no.

Are you saying no one who is "progressive" should make "where's Waldo " jokes because he spent as much time with rank and file legislators not in the closed door discussions, and spoke as much publicly about what happened during the session as any governor should ever be expected to do? But that doesn't explain why he hasn't talked in more detail about what went on in the closed door budget meetings, or why a cigarette tax is a good idea this year but was a bad idea last year, or why the 61% school funding proposal shouldn't be seen as a variation on Karen's 51%. Or whether we deserve more public debate on the details than Karen's "51% of the personal income tax, take it or leave it, not questions allowed" approach.

Ted improved the economy? The fact is, the Fed's super-low prime rate grew jobs and put money into the system. The state's quality-of-life markers are heading down, though. More and more children are without health insurance. Not only are our schools underfunded, but when adjusted for inflation, their buying power has been absolutely tanking.

But Ted got Amy's Kitchen, so I guess it's okay.

It's a smart move for Ted not to debate. Good politician, bad statesman.

Steve,

I can't let that last one slide; too many glib assumptions about motive, etc.

My call for Ted Kulongoski to debate has nothing - not a damn thing - to do with intra-party crap. I don't much care who wins and will vote for whomever I think will best serve in the position. Odds are, I'll end up voting for Kulongoski - and I don't even expect to be holding my nose if and when I do so (full disclosure: I'm eyeing Westlund as well). I'm not out to make the party more or less progressive, conservative, environmental, any of that. I'm concerned here with the election process first....and probably second as well. On a very basic level, I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice the governor's mansion to the principle that any policy that's worth a damn should stand up to scrutiny.

This isn't a "fit of pique." It's asking the governor to show some respect for voters, to submit his record to sharp scrutiny; if someone else benefits from that, whether in the party or out, maybe there's something to the griping?

From the Oregonian article: "It would benefit the voters if they could hear from all the candidates in a side-by-side setting," said Wendy Radmacher-Willis, executive director of the City Club who tried to get all three Democrats together. "Everybody else we've invited for the primary season has accepted."

I just hope the City Club uses the same standard they did 16 years ago--a general election debate where the incumbent didn't show up. So the City Club gave the challenger the whole time--speech and Q & A. Whether I listened to it on the OPB broadcast on the radio or taped it and listened to it later, I recall doing some sort of outdoor chores while listening to it--like stacking firewood.

And voted for the challenger because I was impressed by the broadcast of that appearance.

Steven probably considers me "elitist" or maybe "elite activist" because I think if Kulongoski as an incumbent doesn't want to appear at the City Club debate, he shouldn't complain if his time is given to Hill and Sorenson.

I am pro-debate. I hope Westlund qualifies for the ballot because I like his approach to tax reform: "Support my tax proposal (which has several parts which he described in an interview), come up with a better one and I'll support yours, or defend the indefensible". To me that sounds like more common sense than Ted Kulongoski's "61% for schools " but no details about comprehensive tax reform.

If the above paragraph makes me an elite activist, it sure doesn't make me a Kulongoski supporter because "He will be our candidate".

Steven, if you can find anyone from the Bruggere campaign 10 years ago, ask them how well that attitude motivated volunteers in the general and how many people ended up voting (as I did) for a 3rd party candidate who actually believed in dialogue.

I would rather drop my registration (as I did after the 1996 primary) than be told YOU WILL VOTE AS YOU ARE TOLD TO VOTE.

If Steven is right about support for the incumbent that "His popularity among the vast Democratic electorate...ensures that. " then by all means Ted shouldn't appear with any other candidate and he'll win the primary in a landslide.

But what if that support is a mile wide and an inch deep and he loses the primary? Or Westlund gets on the ballot and Ted K. refuses to debate him?

I don't believe that "support Ted K now or prepare for a Republican governor to be elected in the fall" is a valid campaign strategy. Time and time again that attitude (sometimes expressed as a sarcastic "but you see, I want to win") leads to people who think for themselves saying "sorry, I have better uses for my time than to volunteer on that campaign".

But if Ted is sure he has all the volunteers and money he needs, by all means he should continue doing what he is doing, and trust that his campaign manager was being accurate the other day in stating "Gov. Kulongoski is doing what the people want done".

If that statement is true, we will know the primary winner by 9pm election night.

But if the election is closer and 9pm comes and goes without any Gov. candidate giving a victory speech ( I once went to an election night party where the "still too close to call" speech came closer to 11pm), then the current re-elect Ted strategy will have proven unsuccessful.

I don't claim to know what will happen in any election this year. I suspect there will be some surprises. I guess that makes me an "elitist" because I don't spend all my time saying Ted is infallible and no one has the right to be involved in any other Gov. campaign.

resulting in thousands of new jobs. Our personal income in Oregon expanded by 5.8% in 2005. Great statesman and a solid politician. With Ted leading our state he pulled Oregon from the highest unemployment rate in the country to the fifth-fastest job growth rate in the country.

Thousands of jobs for the people hired. But lots of people still out of work. Their personal income did not expand.

And there's the rub. I know there are politicians who look at the above statistics and are thrilled. But politicians need votes to get elected--incl. the votes of those who still haven't found full time work and their family/ friends.

Having known friends in close elections (recounts, or otherwise close--decided in the middle of the night or a couple days later) I know every vote counts. And that sometimes votes boil down to Candidate A's answer to some question making more sense than Candidate B's answer, or a friend/neighbor convincing someone to vote for B over A.

If Ted thinks that every private conversation among Democrats includes someone saying Ted should be re-elected, then he needn't worry about debating. But how does he know? For all he knows, there may be people saying Westlund is more open to dialogue and healthy debate, while Kulongoski seems to take voters for granted.

You want to talk about Governor Ted being progressive? How about his six gubernatorial appointments all going to Republicans, including the economic development one right after the fiasco out on the coast? Does no one remember this? I would love to hear a response from the Ted camp on that. He now has a record to run on and defend, people. Remember the poll the other day (rasmussenreports.com) that stated Jim Hill would soundly defeat any of the Republican challengers, not to mention him having a higher approval rating than Ted? I pose this question to "blue" oregon. What has our governor done in his term that would have been any different than if we had elected Kevin Mannix in 2002? And, please, be honest in your responses...

Conn. may not be a good example for those who ignore Westlund. Weicker was elected as an Indep. (technically A Conn. Party) and did not run for re-election in 1994. So that is not the same as a string of Democratic Governors leading to one who refuses to debate primary opponents because he knows he will win the primar---everyone will vote for him lest the big bad Republicans win in November.

But as Jenni says, there could be Westlund on the ballot. He has some similarities to Weicker.

Peer pressure politics doesn't work folks. It just makes people angry.

And I wonder if the good folks saying we should all give Ted a primary victory without expecting him to answer our questions because he is doing "what the people want" (and that is "democratic" because..?) will volunteer on the campaign of a primary winner whose name is not Ted.

Or haven't they thought that far ahead?

Let's keep in mind that wooing a company to a state with one of the lowest business tax burdens in the country doesn't take any kind of genius. (Just wondering: How many of those jobs were "created" when the former jobholder suited up in their National Guard uniform and left the state?)

The governor has to do more than just ride out a low interest rate. Just like he should be doing more than setting out food baskets for tens of thousands of hungry kids and hundreds of thousands of health-care-less parents.

The threat is real. Spooky. If K doesn't win this time around, we may get a governor who's not interested in pursuing progressive programs... or funding schools... or addressing the health care crisis! Wouldn't that be horrible.

Decades ago, a friend of mine said of some contentious primary candidates "when they act like that, you know they know they are losing". Those candidates ended up coming in 2nd and 3rd in the primary.

Regardless of whether you think Kerry and Edwards should have come in first and second in the Iowa Caucuses, they did so because the presumed favorites (Gephardt and Dean) got really nasty there towards the end and we saw Gephardt and Dean come in 3rd and 4th.

If Kulongoski advocates think he owes no one who voted for him last time (primary and general ) the time of day (much less explanations of his actions in office) then say so. But don't threaten us with those bogeymen Republicans (does anyone but Atkinson have any new ideas?) or claim you know for a fact that Westlund will not get on the ballot and all his supporters then will leave that ballot line blank or vote Republican. You have no way of predicting the behavior of people you have never met.

And what was this I heard about Joe Keating running for Gov. as a Green Party candidate?

I have known Jim Hill and Ted Kulongoski for a total number of decades that comes close to 50 years or so. I don't know the people here who are saying anyone who thinks an incumbent should debate in the primary really should be worried about a Republican governor in the fall.

What I do know is this: I vote for people who can stand in front of an audience and answer questions. If that makes me an elite activist who is singlehandly threatening Oregon with a right wing Gov. in November, it sure doesn't make me think less of Jim Hill and Ben Westlund. It just means that if Kulongoski does get the nomination after such behavior he doesn't want any volunteer support from me.

But then I remember the 1982 campaign for Gov. and this is beginning to be eerily familiar. Is that my fault? Is saying that is my fault going to win the votes of people like me who didn't know in 2002 when we voted for Ted in the primary and general that our vote lost us the ability to ever question anything he did in public office?

It's not hard to have high job growth when you start with the highest unemployment in the nation.

City Club has been the place for big political debates in Oregon. Big and at times decisive. Some of you probably remember when upstart Bob Packwood bested Wayne Morse in the City Club debate in 1968, which helped Packwood defeat Morse by about 3,000 votes statewide.

I've attended several debates over the years and have to admit that a few of them changed my minds on candidates.

Pete Sorenson is a good guy and totally unknown outside of Lane County. But Jim Hill is not exactly some guy off the turnip truck. He won a statewide office that another Democrat, Bob Straub, used to launch a bid for governor. He's credible.

So if Teddy K doesn't debate at the City Club, he's acting on the orders of his political handlers and that doesn't wash with me. I'll vote for Westlund if he doesn't show up.

Steve Maurer wrote:

"It's really too bad. I kind of like Sorenson. He'd make a great candidate if he'd just wait his turn."

Who decides when it's someone's "turn" to run for office? You? What do "turns" have to do with electing the best person for the job?

Said differently, Steve, where is this roomful of cigar-smoking dinosaurs who still believe they can control public and intra-party debate over candidates in the internet age?

I continued this debate over on my blog, positing that Ted should not only join the debates on principle, but because it's smart politics. Here's the LINK to that subject.

There are a couple things I didn't get to, though. First, if you go to the post on my site, you'll see that I use Steven Maurer's comments to voice a side in the debate, as he's done here - an effort that's both welcome and to his credit. There's no intention to pick on him; he just happened to be the one who most consistently stated a particular argument.

A second thing I didn't touch on was party affiliation. As you can see above, Maurer's a committed Democrat. I, on the other hand, am not. There's nothing "wrong" with either position, but it leads to fundamental, possibly irreconcilable, differences in policy and that should be noted. His priority is keeping the governor's seat in Democratic hands and mine has more to do with the electoral process.

Even so, the argument I'm making today is that Kulongoski joining the debates actually serves both those purposes. I don't know that anyone will buy that point, but there it is.

Jeff, good points. But there is also another point--are elections run for candidates or are they run for the benefit of voters?

Basic philosophical difference there.

If elections are run for the benefit of candidates and anyone who registers with a party had better realize the rank and file are just supposed to follow orders, get in line and not ask questions; that is one point of view. If Ted is saying (or his campaign manager, telling us the Gov. is doing "what Oregonians want him to do") he believes the rank and file shouldn't ask questions because he knows best, then he shouldn't appear anywhere he doesn't really want to be.

However, it seems to me that Hill and Westlund (haven't seen much of the Sorenson campaign, but then I live in Salem) are running campaigns based on the concept that election campaigns are run as a "job interview" to allow the voters to ask questions, study the candidates, and make up their own minds.

Seems to me that elections for the benefit of candidates and parties is an idea older than most of us (or in the modern version born of the "money is all that matters and only professionals know how the game is played" nonsense of 10 years ago).

If Ted only wants the votes of those who take orders and don't ask any pesky questions, he should keep doing what he is doing---the nerve of primary voters to ask an incumbent of their own party any questions!

And the voters who do believe they have the right to questions answered and intelligent dialogue can choose whether they want to vote for Hill or Sorenson in the primary, or re-register Indep. and start collecting signatures to get Westlund on the ballot.

I wouldn't expect a guy who's taken the last three years off to enage in any kind of debate. Come on, guys, even Ted's staffers don't seem to know where he is or have any explaination for his continued absence.

So, Steven, either you believe polls are Gospel, or you have talked to the people you describe and of course people you have never met will vote exactly the way you predict.

You see things in reverse of what they really are. The people who have already decided that Kulongoski is worth renominating aren't the party elite. They're the regular rank and file Democrats, who prefer the Governor to his rivals by (depending on which poll you believe) anywhere from a 5 to 1, to a 10 to 1, margin.

Excuse Me! I have been involved in politics long enough to have known many legislators personally (knew Ted as a legislator, friend of the Hill family before he ran for legislature and involved in his early campaigns). Therefore I am a member of the party elite! I am also someone who has not been very active in Democratic politics in this century and recently went to the local Democratic party meeting for the first time in months. Saying there were about 60 people there to see Jim Hill and to ask him questions he answered well (why wasn't Sorenson there?) makes me an elitist?

So, Steven, you think all Democrats should be good little boys and girls and accept anything Kulongoski has done as Gov. wholeheartedly because if they do otherwise they risk running the state downhill. I've seen that attitude before (vote with us or else!) and invariably all it does is cause people not to be involved in politics if they have no right to think for themselves.

You may be right--Kulongoski may blow away the opposition and give his primary victory speech before 9pm on election night.

But what if you are wrong? Or can't you see that possibility?

Seems to me all you have done is proven Westlund's point about partisanship run rampant. I also know Ben and have since 2002. That really makes me the "doorman for smoke filled room", doesn't it?

... But when Semi-President Bush pulls similar stunts (lack of press conferences, only answering preset questions, showing up at events with only friendly audience members), us Democrats can view it as a grevious affront to the concept of public discourse and a huge helping of hubris.

I'll rail against the idea of "our leader knows best" when it's a Republican, and I'll rail against it when it's a Democrat. Since Ted doesn't think he has to explain his performance to me, I signed Westlund's petition and am staying out of the primary.

Good for you, Different! Steven was so sure people like you don't exist!

There is an article in the Oregonian today about Gov. Kulongoski and the corporate kicker---that he is talking to business leaders to help him change the kicker. Just when did it become standard Democratic practice for a Dem. Gov. to talk to business leaders about an issue but refuse to debate primary opponents?

And all that stuff about Ted walking the streets of small towns--did he take questions? Did he appear in a town hall Q & A format and engage in dialogue with local folk?

Or did he just walk down the street, chat with some folks for a few minutes, get into his vehicle and speed off to the next destination?

Steven calling me part of the party "elite" doesn't change the fact that I have seen primaries in the past where the candidate who spoke with actual citizens (not just to them in a photo op) did better than expected in the primary. In one case where just about all the pct. people and other party establishment types were supporting the "chosen" candidate that "all good Democrats" supported, the campaign I worked on got 59% of the vote statewide.

We were told we were insurgents, didn't really care about the party, not real Democrats, etc. We were never told we were the party elite.

Damn straight, A Different Salem Staffer! That's part of what's in play here....a big part for me.

Steven, don't tell me that I put words in your mouth: Even given the vaguarities of politics, this isn't hard to determine when dealing with incumbents. It's done by polling. If any of the rivals were losing at a mere 2 to 1 margin, the Governor's would indeed owe rank and file Democrats "an explanation". But in this case, they've pretty clearly indicated they don't think they need one. As I said at the very top of this discussion, progressives who feel the Governor compromised too much with Republicans can do nothing at this point other than split the party, insuring that Oregon really goes downhill. You have every right to attempt this. Kulongoski has no right to stop you. But he isn't morally obligated to help you, either. Posted by: Steven Maurer | Mar 3, 2006 1:35:42 PM

Are you not saying progressives have no choice but to support Kulongoski or insure Oregon goes down hill? Sounds to me like you are saying there is no other choice.

Do you really think you will get the votes of those like "different staffer" with such rhetoric? Or doesn't that matter as long as you have put me in my place because HOW DARE I say an incumbent should debate primary opponents? I thought Hatfield should have attended the City Club general election debate in 1990--does that also make me part of the political elite? I think the City Club should follow the policy this year they followed then--if one candidate fails to show up, candidate(s) who do show up get the absent candidate's time.

If you have such faith in polls that you believe only a candidate with high enough poll ratings should be debated, fine. But don't act as if you alone know what all Oregonians think of the Gov. campaign. Based on polls of what sample size?

So all I can suggest is for you to get out more. Go prove your progressive credentials. Canvass a few precincts. Table a few events. When you've shown that you've talked to a couple dozen Oregonians who aren't in your immediate circle of like-minded friends, then we'll talk.

In 30 years I have done more of that grass roots work than most people. Many legislative campaigns, often for personal friends. I have been volunteer coordinator on a local presidential campaign, all around volunteer on more than one Congressional campaign, national convention delegate, state and district central comm. member, person who carried a resolution at the Platform Convention, and pct. person who at one time went to all the county meetings. I have worked at tables at events, but never thought of "table" as a verb.

But if that makes me part of the "elite" because someone I have never met calls me a kook, why should I take that person seriously?

I did go to a gathering just the other day where more than a couple dozen Oregonians at the meeting were people I did not personally know. But you, Steven, probably think the people in that room were all fringe--they were Marion County Democrats incl. legislative candidates and some staffers. Some very interesting questions were asked of the former State Treasurer, and he answered them well. But since you have defined him as a "fringe candidate", you probably wouldn't have liked the answers.

LT wrote:

"Steven calling me part of the party "elite" doesn't change the fact that I have seen primaries in the past where the candidate who spoke with actual citizens (not just to them in a photo op) did better than expected in the primary. In one case where just about all the pct. people and other party establishment types were supporting the "chosen" candidate that "all good Democrats" supported, the campaign I worked on got 59% of the vote statewide.

We were told we were insurgents, didn't really care about the party, not real Democrats, etc. We were never told we were the party elite."

You go, LT! I suspect we probably know each other from the old days. I've been in that position within the Democratic party in the past before.

As far as my credentials are concerned, I was a Lane County Democratic party activist; knew Kulongoski from those days. Worked for him in the primary in '82 here after moving to Portland and got bounced along with the other Eugene sproutheads who won the primary for him when the Goldschmidt gang waltzed in.

I have not been seriously active with the Democratic party organization since the early 90s. I do not run with party activists any more. The teachers I work with are not OEA party activists. The other folks I talk to are not Democratic party activists.

Pretty universally, none of them are overwhelmed by Teddy K's performance. I think Kulongoski's in worse shape than his handlers realize.

Additionally, based on past experience, I strongly resent any person telling me I've gotta sit down and shut up or face the alternative of having the Republican win. Sitting down and shutting up and letting a less-than-stellar candidate win the primary loses the general election, IME. Saw it with Jimmy Carter and others at lower levels.

As for Steven's comments:

"Go prove your progressive credentials. Canvass a few precincts. Table a few events. When you've shown that you've talked to a couple dozen Oregonians who aren't in your immediate circle of like-minded friends, then we'll talk."

You know what, Steven? That sounds to me like the opinion of an insulated insider who hasn't a clue about Real Life outside of politics junkies, especially the comment about tabling a few events. I've been there, done that in the past. I don't think you get a realistic point of view on that end of things.

My suggestion to you is to get away from political events. Get away from formal identification with any political parties. Get out there and do some community service work. Volunteer. Listen to what people are saying without being identified as supporting one position or the other.

You might just end up being surprised. My experiences after getting away from partisan political work is that I had no idea about the degree to which such activities put blinders over my eyes at times.

Jenni, Thanks for the comment. I have done many of the same things. When the state party office was in Salem, I did lots of stuff like that. I recall when they had just moved into an office which had a loft (so it was almost like a 2 story office). I was one of the people up there in the loft as the open house started--mixing punch and looking down from the loft onto the line of people coming in the door.

There have always been "high and mighty" people like Steven who think they know everything there is to know about politics. In 1984 when I was involved in the local arm of a presidential primary campaign, someone once said to me "You Hart people don't care about the party, all you care about is the presidential race". 4 years later, when this person became a national convention delegate, I saw him at a gathering and gave him a list of all the party jobs Hart people had done/ party offices they had run for (chair of a standing committee, members of state/dist. central comm., candidate for county/state officer, etc.). I asked for a similar list of people who'd been on his side of the 1984 primary and he admitted there had been party involvement by Hart people.

I had the great pleasure as an activist in the 1980s to meet some of the grand old ladies of Democratic politics --some of whom sadly have died in recent years. The ones I remember most vividly include Kay Taylor, Louise Poteet, Dorothy Mackay.

Kay was a great lady from Linn County who I didn't always agree with but was always a great person to talk with. And she'd have had an answer for Steven or for anyone angry at his rhetoric. "Smile at them and be overly polite if you encounter them somewhere---they'll never know how to react to that".

You see things in reverse of what they really are. The people who have already decided that Kulongoski is worth renominating aren't the party elite. They're the regular rank and file Democrats...

Bollocks.

The Democratic elite in this state are not grassroots activists. They are the ED's of groups that include the DPO, AFL-CIO, SEIU, OLCV, OEA, NARAL/PPWV, and the statewide officeholders. And those groups have essentially blackballed and/or ignored Kulongoski's opponents, closing ranks behind our incumbent Governor since more than a year before the Democratic primary.

I'm not saying that these groups are necessarily wrong to have made their choice early. It takes a lot to beat an incumbent in a party primary, and they've got a limited amount of resources. But let's not pretend that Governor K's lack of a credible primary challenger is due to the fact that "the people have spoken".

The simple fact of the matter is that Kulongoski has a 58 percent approval rating among Democrats and has an overall 38 percent approval rating against 56 percent disapproval. That's George Bush territory and not exactly the sign of a beloved governor. He'd be in a heck of a lot of trouble against Kitzhaber, or against an opponent who could self-finance.

The Democratic elite in this state are not grassroots activists. They are the ED's of groups that include the DPO, AFL-CIO, SEIU, OLCV, OEA, NARAL/PPWV, and the statewide officeholders

About time someone pointed that out! Had a conversation today with someone about a particular former legislator (not currently holding any elected office) who thought he didn't have to speak to the rank and file of an organizations which endorsed him and didn't like what he did once in office. And the only response from his office (not even from the legislator himself) had been that the St. Senator had talked to the lobbyist for the organization, and that was all anyone needed to know.

Which is why Westlund is so popular--talking about having the debate over actual issues (see Steve Duin in Sunday Oregonian) rather than just telling us that the decision has been made, we're just supposed to accept it and not ask any questions.

What is needed in this state is more debate on all sorts of things, not less.

<h2>One of the great things about the Public Comm. on the Legislature is that whether you are paying attention to them or agree on what they are deciding, no legislator will be able to pull the "can't talk about that" nonsense on any topic every discussed by PCOL. The response will be "Oh, so the legislative comm. can talk about it but not ordinary citizens?"</h2>