Are you really worried that Westlund will be "the same kind of candidate he has been in Central Oregon?"

This was the central Oregon Republican who Minnis kicked off of Ways and Means because he advocated additional revenue for services. He serves in a district where the conservatives tried to recall him for his socially-tolerant views (when he was still a Republican!)

Seems that people seem to like what Westlund has to say and they like his plans and they like a voting record that's not completely bought by either side. Seems to me that the only problem is the scorecards... and they're worthless anyway.

The OLCV (who awarded Westlund the "Consensus Builder of the Year") has a scorecard that doesn't give Westlund any extra points for his tireless work on Biofuels that got blocked... and doesn't take any points away from Senator Johnson for blocking salmon recovery programs because that never got a floor vote. Plus, he had more favorable votes on his SEIU scorecard than Senator Burdick, but got a "C" to Burdick's "A"? And the school vouchers that he helped block in 2001 (SB 428) and 2003 didn't come to a vote, so that didn't show up on a scorecard...

Seems to me that a legislators' work isn't just done on the voting floor. Factor that in and you get a better legislator than many Democrats.

Could it be that he's taking a page out of Karl Rove's playbook? Bush's oxymoronic "compassionate conservative" ruse helped get him elected by pulling votes out of the middle-left. We all know what happened after that.

Umm... yeah. It's all an evil scheme to get Oregonians health care coverage and more funding into schools.

The difference between Bush and Westlund was that Bush had no record of getting anything progressive done and just blew sunshine at everyone. Westlund has a record and concrete plans of action. Heck -- he's on three initiatives and co-sponsored SB 382.

Besides -- Westlund walks his talk and dropped his party affiliation.

i think that when it's time for me make a decision, i'll come looking for this post. great job talking about his actual record. thanks.

the environmental record sounds sketchy.

Westlund's environmental record sounds reasonable, not sketchy.

I agree with JHL -- The problem with enviro scorecards (or all scorecards) is that it's a "with-us-or-against-us" mentality... and sometimes that can even conflict with itself:

For example, enviros want to increase salmon recovery. That means less hydroelectric power. And then enviros want to increase a renewable energy portfolio. But the best way to decrease coal is hydroelectric. But will any enviros look at the cormorant population, which is eating way too many salmon at the mouth of the columbia?

In swings Westlund, looking for a more balanced approach to the whole thing, and bringing with him a biofuels package. But those bills get blocked by Democrats looking for an even-more enviro bill, so it doesn't show up on Westlund's scorecard.

Enter Joe (or Jane) voter. Sees 42% and bases their entire vote on that two-digit number. Way to go.

I've seen Westlund in action this past session in Salem -- his environmental votes may not have matched up to narrow pies in the sky, but they're certainly good votes for the state as a whole.

just to clear things up...

no recall was ever seriously considered. the press made it seem like a possibility, but there was no (credible or otherwise) official effort to recall ben.

red.

Hopefully voters will remember that when Ben Westlund resigned from the Republican party he did not implicitly join the Democratic Party. The decision was not so much a statement for or against a single party, as it was a statement AGAINST the polarization of both parties. I would not try to score Ben Westlund as if his candidacy was a basketball game between progressive and conservative ideas. As a voter, I would score him issue by issue according to how his priorities matched mine, not according to how his platform or legislative record conformed to a given ideology. Thanks, Chad

Props to Chad.

If the election were today, I'd vote for Westlund hands down over anyone else in the race. I signed up as a campaign volunteer the day he announced his run for governor (but I confesss I haven't done anything other than talk about him with family and friends). Earlier this year I changed my registration from Democrat to non-affiliated because I wanted my signature to get Westlund on the ballot to count. That, and there isn't a contested Democratic primary race in which I can vote and I really care about. (If I lived 10 or so blocks to the north, I'd remain a Democrat so I could vote for Jim Robison for state representive in district 44)

That being said, the election isn't today. Westlund and all other candidates have seven-plus months to sell and explain themselves before we vote in the general election. Voters and the media will be more diligent in getting candidates to be more specific on where they stand and explain their vision for Oregon. Westlund is going to be answering a lot of questions about his more conservative, pro-corporate voting record and positions to progressives. And his more progressive voting record and positions to conservatives. I think we'll get a better picture of Westlund and other candidates as the election season continues.

Past voting record aside, my main criticism of of Westlund is he faults "extreme partisanship", but not the money that feeds it. The two are inseparable. I'd love to see Westlund champion campaign finance reform in addition the Apollo Project and health care for all.

I lived in Central Oregon when Westlund served his first few terms in the state house. I disagree with him with him on many issues, but my experience is that Westlund is the archetype of what a Oregon citizen-legislator should be. He's independent and open-minded. He tells it like it is and rolls up his sleeves when it's time to get stuff done. He cares about Oregon and Oregonians more than he cares about politics and political labels. And there is no one better (or willing) to bridge urban-rural, Blue-Red Oregon and help lead us to some consensus about what kind of state we want to be. That's why he has my support.

I agree with Former, JHL, Chad, Eric.

I am tired of scorecard politics.

Ben Westlund talked common sense in the 5th special session in a way few others did.

How is Westlund's NRA rating diff. from Howard Dean's?

And I think Westlund and Hill are the only 2 Gov. candidates who answer my friend's concern that we need a Gov. who has a vision for the future and a plan to carry it out.

I'd support Westlund or any of the SB 382 co-sponsors against any 2005 legislator who prevented that bill from having the full open debate it deserved.

Westlund was also a co-sponsor of three of five bills pushed by Oregon Forced Pregnancies (aka Oregon Right to Life) last session.

Oregonians should realize this state has been relatively free of legal restrictions on abortion access because we've had Democrat Governors for the last 18 years or so. Women in other states face dizzying layers of restrictions like waiting periods, notification requirements, unsubsidized mandatory viability testing and abusive "counseling scripts."

A Governor Westlund is unlikely to follow in that tradition, which is something that should give "progressives" pause in thinking that they would support him. He pretends to be pro-choice, but he's not pro-access, and that's what really matters.

I understand that for a lot of blue brethren, that's all that matters. And although that's a large chunk for me, I'm going to be looking at a much larger picture: school funding, alternative fuel and fuel efficiency, health care, and economic development in addition to choice.

If Westlund was anti-access, then I'd have to give pause. But a guy with a 100% rating from NARAL, a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, and a sponsor of SB 756 (prescription coverage for contraceptives) and SB 849 (over-the-counter energency contraception)... that certainly passes muster for me.

I keep asking where is the evidence that Westlund can put together a majority to actually pass legislation? He didn't do it as a Republican in the legislature, why is he going to be able to do it as governor with no party backing? Its a little like thinking an atheist has a better chance to bring together christians and muslims than a christian or a muslim.

Ross --

A few weeks ago on another post, I gave you this list of Westlund's bipartisan bounty (reposted below). After discounting his work on SB 1000 because it didn't pass, you said:

I don't know enough about the others to know what role Westlund actually played in them.

So have you done your homework yet or are you just going to close your eyes to it and keep on griping? Don't take my work for it -- look at the legislative histories and pull up some old news articles.

<hr/>

SB 329 (2005): Added private employers to Oregon's prescription drug-purchasing pool.

SB 31 (2005): Solar tax credits.

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.

not to make is seem like abortion is the only issue that matters, it's not, but the Planned Parenthood scorecard rating (i thought we weren't fans of scorecards, LT) for that session is not very telling.

as far as i can tell, it only rated positions on three bills that actually came to a vote: Senate Bill 756, Senate Bill 849, and House Bill 2497. it didn't count bills that died before a Senate vote. these bills also weren't particularly controversial.

if the three bills that Westlund co-sponsored, that were backed by Oregon Forced Pregnancies, had actually come to a vote in the Senate, his Planned Parenthood and NARAL ratings would have been more like 50%. that doesn't seem like a pro-access candidate to me.

these three bills were HB 2020 – "Unborn Victims of Violence," HB 2532 – "Women’s Right to Know," and HB 2605 – "Parental Notice." They're all bad, but HB 2020 is the most insidious of the three since it would have laid the groundwork for extending recognition to a fetus as a separate individual. (Planned Parenthood noted their opposition to HB 2605 on the same site linked to above.)

he co-sponsored these bills, it's doubtful he would veto them as Governor.

fournier, Has it ever entered your mind that he might have co-sponsored a bill to build consensus (don't forget that Westlund of SB 1000 also supported Measure 36)?

There are lots of people I don't agree with on everything that made good elected officials. No, I don't trust scorecards.

If people are looking for reasons to dislike Westlund, they should be out working on the Hill or Sorenson or Kulongoski campaign and not just complaining on a blog.

I look at the whole person. I'm a Westlund convert, not a supporter from the beginning. After all, he defeated a friend of mine to get elected to the House in the first place (and no, fournier, I couldn't tell you that friend's NARAL rating--score cards are not my thing).

This is the old "ideologically pure" vs. whole person debate. No one is required to support someone they don't like. But on the other hand, individuals do have the right to say "What he said that one time cancels out a lot of what I disagree with".

I support Gilbert in Dist. 18, Grisham in Dist. 19, Garcia in Dist. 20, Clem in Dist. 21, Komp in Dist. 22, Lee in Dist. 25. Not because I have interviewed them on a series of litmus test issues, but because I have met them and they impressed me as people.

If someone wants to drum me out of progressive ranks because of the previous paragraph (how dare I not know their views on all issues!) that's fine.

I still remember the insanity of the 5th special session and Westlund saying the reason for the stalemate was "Gov. Roberts was right about Measure 5 in everything but the timing" and all the problems predicted when Measure 5 passed had finally happened. That struck me as a breath of fresh air on what I recall as a hot day the day I heard that on the radio. If someone thinks I shouldn't be impressed by that statement because anyone who ever cosponsored a RTL bill should be considered pariah, they are saying they don't want my support.

Now if that makes me not a "social liberal" because I put sanity on budget and taxes above "correct " positions on social issues, then I am not a social liberal--I am an independent thinking voter. It is the candidate's job to win my support, not my job to quiz the candidates on a bunch of litmus test issues.

Now I think it is time for fournier to tell us if s/he supports someone who has been on the NARAL board or someone who otherwise passes a litmus test. If fournier doesn't like Westlund, fournier doesn't have to sign the petition or vote for him. Doesn't mean the rest of us can't tell our friends why we admire Ben Westlund.

I've met Westlund a few times now, and after listening to his rap think he's probably an ok guy who wants to do better for the state.

But we already have one of those as Governor.

Why I would want to elect another one, but this one without a supporting party structure is beyond me. At the very least, Kulongoski could (ok, he didn't, but he could)appeal to his party for support. Who's Westlund going to look to for support, the moderates in the Republican party? Now that's he's left the GOP, that club is down to one member (Morse) at least in the Senate.

I can appreciate Westlund's newfound perspective on health care and education-it appears mortality has focused his attention on these important matters. But he hasn't yet shed the Central Oregon real estate perspective that he pushed for oh, so many years.

In the last session, Westlund used his relationships with the moderate D's and the promise of support on some key Democratic bills, to gain support for his pet bill to dewater the Deschutes River.

The bill, HB3494 (see the url above for an idea of who wanted it) overturned a court ruling that supported the radical idea that water should be left in rivers-especially rivers protected by the Scenic Waterways act. Westlund's bill (which passed with Kulongoski's support as well) effectively allows irrigators to dewater rivers for part of the year, if their average flows are met at other times of the year. Which doesn't do much good for resident wildlife that needs water all year long--wildlife like Rainbow Trout.

So, if that's ok with you, by all means, support the guy without a party. I'd rather dance with someone who needs party support and is (at least occasionally) forced to behave, in order to get it.

Now, what we do about Ted, that's a whole 'nuther question.

Please, Ben Westland is nothing more than a guy who runs as a right-winger when that was popular (1990's) to gain approval, then votes as a hard righty when the Rs were feeding his ego and giving him the top chairs of committees, then moves when they lose power.

Now that the Repbulcians aren't in charge in the Senate he is "reborn" as a new "moderate" Republican. Yeah right, what are you snorting?

This guy is committed to NO ONE but Ben Westlund and the next puff article by the Oregonian.

How hard is it figure out that the Oregonian rewards those that move with the wind, or with the different special interests?

Give the guy a TV camera or a newspaper article and he will move to whatever position or issue that will get him the most attention.

None of us should reward this type of self-obsessed politician.

I would rather vote for mud.

Bob, If you don't like Westlund, why not just say so?

Perhaps you are unaware that Westlund clashed with Minnis in the House over the budget--hardly "now that the Democrats control the Senate..".

Reread JHL and Eric Berg. Unless you are one of those "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts" types.

LT,

I support Gilbert in Dist. 18, Grisham in Dist. 19, Garcia in Dist. 20, Clem in Dist. 21, Komp in Dist. 22, Lee in Dist. 25. Not because I have interviewed them on a series of litmus test issues, but because I have met them and they impressed me as people.

we're talking apples and oranges here. this is not the “old ‘ideologically pure’ vs. whole person debate.” if that's who is running in those districts, then yes, by all means, support them. however, there's a significant difference between a handful of house districts and the Governor's office. while i dislike the Daily-Kos/DLC strategy to build numbers of elected Democrats by pandering and equivocating on the abortion issue, it's another thing altogether that it doesn't make much sense (given the current climate) to press for pro-access candidates in districts that won't elect them. for a statewide office, the veto wielding Governor especially, it is okay to draw a line.

(don't forget that Westlund of SB 1000 also supported Measure 36)

i don't think i'll forget that one anytime soon. while i have heard arguments to the contrary, i see his "shift" on M36 to supporting SB 1000 as a cynical move designed to appeal to "moderates" which he knew he'd need to win a statewide race.

Can you name one instance in which [Westlund's] evolving positions have evolved toward a position unpopular with the public?

There's a post from someone who apparently hasn't read Westlund's website. How about a sales tax?

An opportunistic politician doesn't take a stand that gets him fired from a Ways & Means Chairmanship... and they certainly don't go around touting a sales tax... in Oregon of all places.

Not even Jim Hill will touch the sales tax question -- but Westlund's got a revenue plan that includes it right on his website. Are you saying that the empty platitudes that the other candidates have spouted are more courageous?

Westlund's got plans and numbers -- has ideas and puts his money where his mouth is... so far, the other Dems have just talked about bleeding evil corporations for money and how much they love Oregon. Talk about political courage!

"I still remember the insanity of the 5th special session and Westlund saying the reason for the stalemate was "Gov. Roberts was right about Measure 5 in everything but the timing" and all the problems predicted when Measure 5 passed had finally happened. That struck me as a breath of fresh air"

Why? Because it was unexpected from a Republican? I suppose, but that is not the standard I would use to choose a governor - he isn't as bad as the rest of them. And he didn't exactly win over a lot of his fellow Republicans with that statement.

Don't take my work for it -- look at the legislative histories and pull up some old news articles.

And here are the results when you look it up:

SB 329 (2005): Added private employers to Oregon's prescription drug-purchasing pool.

He was the only Republican to vote for it on what was otherwise a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled senate. How is this an example of his ability to build coalitions?

SB 31 (2005): Solar tax credits.

Solar tax credits? I support them but they are hardly a partisan issue. Googling Westlund, "sb 31" and "solar tax credits" brings up two entries - one from Blue Oregon and the other a Westlund for Governor news release. Did you really look this stuff up?

HB 3624 (2003): Medical Assistance Program that saved OHP funding in that session.

Westlund deserves credit for this, but it passed the House unanimously, 56-0.

HB 2152-B (2003): Bipartisan revenue package that later became Measure 30.

From the Oregon Library Association newsletter:

"Who are the moderates behind the budget-balancing revenue proposal? From the House: Rob Patridge (R-Medford) is the leader, along with Lane Shetterly (R-Dallas), Max Williams (R-Tigard), and about half a dozen others. From the Senate, Frank Morse (R-Albany) has emerged as a clear leader. Newly appointed Senator Ben Westlund (R-Bend) is also taking an active role. "

SB 5514 (2001): As Ways & Means Chair, pushes a $5.2 Billion school funding package through the house, against Republican wishes.

Which Republicans? SB 5514 is another bill that passed the House unanimously. You can take that as a result of Westlund's amazingly effective advocacy or an indication that this was not quite the consensus-building success you make it out to be.

This appears to be a list taken from Westlund's campaign and it certainly doesn't demonstrate any great ability to build consensus around controversial issues.

Westlund's record looks like that of a fringe Republican out of step with his much more conservative party. As such, he sometimes agreed with the Democrats. That doesn't make him a consensus-builder and more than Kevin Mannix is a consensus builder. Although any other comparison with Mannix would be grossly unfair to Westlund. Westlund is the best of the Republican candidates for Governor, but the idea that he will be able to bring other Republicans along on tough issues is not reflected in his legislative record. At least, not if that list of bills is the evidence.

Its amazing what happens when you actually do look things up.

Ross

I can see there's no convincing you. On the one hand, you say bills on which he was the sole Republican vote are worthless to his record because he was the only Republican. On the other hand, bills that pass with too much support are worthless because they're too popular.

So what is that magical vote tally that indicates an effective legislator? 40-20? Maybe 50-10?

I get it: Nothing, and nothing, will make you change your mind about Ben Westlund. As is your right.

Ben Westlund is one of the handful of Representatives that I can vouch for as a person. Most of them are slime. Ben actually had the decency to, on more than one occasion, provide rides to several staffers after they overconsumed at the nightly cocktail parties during session. One more thing you should know about Ben--every night while session was going on, he would park his car across from the Capitol to remind himself of why he was there in the first place. I see some of you guys acting as apologists for our current Governor, but unlike Ted, Ben actually showed up during session and did his job.

"I can see there's no convincing you. On the one hand, you say bills on which he was the sole Republican vote are worthless to his record because he was the only Republican. On the other hand, bills that pass with too much support are worthless because they're too popular."

No. I say that being the only Republican to vote for a bill doesn't show consensus building skills and neither do bills that pass unanimously.

I didn't post that list, you did. You claimed it showed his consensus building skills. And then you said I could look it up. And I did. And I didn't find anything that remotely showed what you said I would find.

Why don't you try posting a few of things you expected me to find when I looked it up.

Ben Westlund is one of the handful of legislators that I can vouch for as a person. Most of them are slime. Ben actually had the decency to, on more than one occasion, provide rides to several staffers after they overconsumed at the nightly cocktail parties during session. He didn't have to, but he did. One more thing you should know about Ben--every night while session was going on, he would park his car across from the Capitol and look at the building to remind himself of why he was there in the first place. I'm pretty sure most of those guys didn't. I see some of you guys acting as apologists for our current Governor, but unlike Ted, Ben actually showed up during session and did his job. I'm just glad to know that we as voters have the option of avoiding the same election we had four years ago, because I refuse to vote for either Ted or Kevin Mannix. If that's what it comes down to after the primaries, Ben will get my vote, no questions asked.

"Ben Westlund is one of the handful of Representatives that I can vouch for as a person."

I suspect there is not a single representative who doesn't have people who will anonymously vouch for them on the internet. This has become comical.

Ross, if you don't like Ben you don't have to support him.

But what do you really accomplish by trashing him and his supporters here?

LT -

Someone said you can look it up and I did. The implication was that I would find all sorts of evidence for Westlund's consensus building skills. But what I found doesn't support those claims at all. If there is something I missed when I looked it up, maybe you can point it out.

But what do you really accomplish by trashing him and his supporters here?

How have I "trashed" anyone? Or is that just your sideways way of trashing me for challenging claims about Westlund's record since you can't defend them any other way?

I haven't made one negative remark here about Westlund - unless calling him the "best Republican candidate for governor" is "trashing" him. I suppose you can take it that way if you want.

Yeah, I don't like or respect Westlunds politics (I have no way to judge him personally). I don't think Westlund is with us on ANY issue if it does not feed directly into this "moderate Republican" persona he has put forward over the past few years.

Think about how you would feel if a VERY liberal legislator from Portland ran as a strong progressive, got plum chair positions in the Oregon Senate...then started voting with the Republicans so he/she could get headlines and be praised as a "consensus builder" by the Oregonian. You would be pissed..knowing that it was just for show and for personal ambition. Republicans would embrace the Democrat (just like some of you are with Westlund) and it would further feed the massive growing cancer (his/her ego).

The fact is Ben Westlund is the worst type of politician, one that votes for ego and false praise. This guy was a hard right-winger 8 years ago and now he is a moderate R, which is just stupid to believe.

As for his support of the most regressive tax in the world (sales tax), it is so he and his silver spoon buddies can keep their daddy's money and not pay capital gains. There are a ton of Republicans that support a bigger tax burden on the poor so they can get rid of the Estate Tax -- ask where Mr. Westlund gets his money.

Wake up.

Bob, thank you for voicing the opinion from a Democratic perspective showing why there was never a sales tax passed in the 1980s.

I happen to think there is a way to structure a sales tax so that it doesn't hit the poorest among us (exempting food and medicine, for instance, there have even been proposals for rebates to people below a certain income level) and know other people who think the same way.

But as far as " I don't think Westlund is with us on ANY issue if it does not feed directly into this "moderate Republican" persona" and "I have no way to judge him personally", what about the people who do know Ben Westlund ; and the people who wonder about the definition of "us"? While I have been a Democratic activist for decades, I have also been registered NAV . I like Ben, and if that means I don't belong to the "us" in that quote then fine, I am not one of "us".

Be careful Bob and Ross and some others that you don't portray a "protests too much" attitude. You don't like Ben, you have every right to be involved in campaigns for Jim or Pete or Ted.

But some of this sounds like "we don't like Ben, so you shouldn't either" which is a totally different premise and one I disagree with.

LT:

You are missing my point. The fact is that Mr. Westlund is not motivated by a view on how to make Oregon a better place...but rather what gets him personal praise.

We cannot count on politicians that are motivated by false praise. Everything that I have heard from friends who have worked with the guy is that he is like a big "frat boy" who looks at public policy as a way for him to get the most attention. This is from his background, it is what has motivated him throughout his life, what had made him make such huge swings in his life in personal behavior and political positions. It is hard for kids who grow up rich to ever feel like they have fully obtained success, so they always are seeking new sources of praise.

His politics of seeking personal approval frustrate the process. There are many politicians who fit in this category, so I am not just picking on Mr. Westlund, he is just a great example.

The issues are much more important than Mr. Westlund, and you will never be able to count on him.

You don't like Ben, you have every right to be involved in campaigns for Jim or Pete or Ted.

Stop putting words in my mouth. As I said above, I haven't said anything against Westlund.

Some of us actually don't just decide we "like" someone and then vote for them. And when the reasons supporters give for supporting Westlund can't stand up to even a cursory examination, you have to wonder.

Why don't you try making the case for him instead of attacking people who are sceptical. You aren't going to win the election for him by telling people to shut up if they don't agree with you.

Bob- you refered to Senator Westlund as a "hard-right winger" yet all old news articles I read about him always refer to him as a moderate legislator. While I understand that any pro-choice republican usually receives this label, I am curious why you feel that he does not deserve it. I also discovered during my research that not once but twice he did not become chair of ways and means because of the more conservative members of his former party. After Ludquist lost the speaker post, he lost his chairmanship to a more conservative rep, and only after he helped craft a passable budget we he given that position the following session. From what I have read, it seems as though he has always been more moderate than the other R's, and M28 and M30 I believe are great examples of that. I also want to agree with the former staffer who pointed out that without Ben in the race, we have another lesser of 2 evils election, and I would rather elect someone who I don't agree with all of the time but is open-minded than someone who I know will be a mediorce governor.

Ben Westlud is a moderate so of course Demcoratic (and Republican) activists will agree with him on some issues and disagree with him on others. His business was agriculture related, which puts him at odds with some environmental groups. I grew up on a ranch in Eastern Oregon, and a lot of people out there (Democrats included) view many environmentalists as sanctimonious elitists who scream whenever a tree is cut down, but then drive their gas guzzling SUVs on Portland's clogged higways/freeways. I'll have to say that I know some "environmentalists" who fall into that category, although many do practice what they preach. I think Westlund would have to be called progressive. He is also, as "former Salem Staffer" said, an extrememely friendly person who who treats people with respect.

Bob-

Who told you that Westlund is in it for the stardom and ego-boost? With friends like us, who the hell would want to be a legislator. Plus the pay is lousy. And the kind of attack ads that the Repubs and the Dems are going to put out against him in the General? Frankly I think you have to have a little ego in this day of slime campaigns in order to survive.

The issues are much more important than Mr. Westlund

Westlund has been working on renewable energy, health care, and tax reform for a couple of years now. So maybe that's why he hasn't said anything about Ted finally waking up and beginning to develop "plans" on alternative energy and a cigarette tax to benefit children's health care during an election year. Couldn't come up with your own ideas Ted? Just copying others?

I've been impressed that the Westlund campaign hasn't said bum about Ted showing up to the table, late as usual. Maybe that's indicative of the kind of leader Ben is. I heard him last week say in a speech, "it's not about who's right, but about what's right for Oregon". Now if that's an ego trip, black is white and light is dark.

It's funny that Westlund's supporters are expected to supply plenty of data about his record in order to be taken seriously, but his detractors just say, "well, he's only in it for an ego boost," and that's apparently gospel, since it was thought up out of thin air.

Ross, I don't know you but I know Jack Roberts. Not that I always agree with him, but know him well enough to carry on a conversation. So, about this: And when the reasons supporters give for supporting Westlund can't stand up to even a cursory examination, you have to wonder.

Can't stand up to whose cursory examination--yours? Maybe Ross has to wonder, but the choice of "you have to wonder" makes it sound as if Ross decides what the rest of us believe.

Ross, were you at the hearing in 1997 that Jack Roberts talks about? Or is that too specific a question because by golly you're going to keep saying why you don't like Westlund and no one should dispute you because your "cursory examination" is all that should matter?

Isn't funny that Jack Roberts jumps in here. Just like some on Democrat side, Ben and Jack run as Republicans so they can get the 30-35% of voters that vote straight R (just like the D base of 35-40%) and they take that vote for granted. The accept all of the free votes that come with being part of a major party and hardly even say thank you to the party before they start positioning themselves as different and moderate. Then they make a career out of using the major parties and then never having loyalty to that core voter. It is not sophisticated politics to understand why you would do this from a self serving perspective. It is just that most people have the integrity to have a sense of loyalty and team. The rest of us aren’t political idiots, we just have some sense of ethics. There are Libertarians, there are Pacific Greens, there are Socialists, there are all types of parties to belong to, but these politicians belong to a major party because it serves their self interest to get a free 30-40% of the vote. If Jack and Ben had real independence or integrity they never would have run as Republicans, they would have joined the Libertarians, started a new party, or run as an Independent from the beginning. But that would take work, and why not just live off of someone else's label. All of us that live within a major party, we have a sense of loyalty. Politicians such as Ben and Jack use the credibility of the hardworking Democrat and Republican base voter to grandstand and draw attention to themselves. Do I sometimes disagree with my own party, yes, but I would never grandstand those difference so I can get accolades in the media. I would work to change my party from within and then quietly vote how I believed. I would never steal the free 35% base vote and then turn on my own party in the media; by definition that is self-interested and in my view, immoral. I don't want to call anyone immoral, but the action should nt be praised. If you did this in business you would be sued for copyright infringement, in politics you get called a courageous moderate, go figure.

I am still waiting for some evidence that Westlund has demonstrated some ability to be a consensus builder beyond wishful thinking.

Ross, were you at the hearing in 1997 that Jack Roberts talks about?

No. But its certainly another good example of controversial legislation Westlund supported that didn't become law. I'm still waiting for legislation that did become law because he was able to build a coalition to pass it.

ou're going to keep saying why you don't like Westlund

I haven't said it even once. Apparently that is all the reason you have - you like Ben. I've liked lots of people I would never vote for.

ST, don't you think that he did spend nearly a decade trying to change his party from within? The reason he first ran as a Republican was that he was asked to. It was back during term limits when every few years a new candidate had to be found regardless of how moderate/liberal they were. Ross, it is clear that nothing any of Ben's supporters or OLCV can say that will convince you that he is a consensus builder. Based on what you said earlier it seems if he supports a bill and convinces a large number of people to vote for it, then he is following the crowd. If it narrowly passes, then it was successful despite him. I believe he was the 16th vote more than a dozen times last session, and was an instrumental in brokering compromises, though it is hard to demonstrate that leadership characteristic on a blog. That so many people describe him as personable, caring, fair, and open-minded speaks to the kind of person and leader that he is, and if anyone thinks for one minute that he will disappear into that office between the chambers rather than negotiating with legislators, then they clearly do not know Ben Westlund.

Folks, I do not know who I'm supporting for Governor, but as a former democratic staffer and lobbyist who has worked all but two sessions since 1993, I know or am familiar with almost all of the field, including Ben.

While I can't imagine agreeing with Jack Roberts about much of anything, I do agree with his statement that Ben is not a phony. What is impressive about Ben is his style. So many electeds, of every party, don't ever want to be confused with the facts. They are ideologues with solutions in search of problems. The ones who listen before they make up their mind, or take a position and later change their mind, are often the subject of some of the criticism I see leveled here - yet it is exactly this open-mindedness and flexibilty that is necessary to make deals.

One more thing: I am unfamiliar with the 1997 hearing Jack references, but I know Ben has supported non-discrimination measures, including during the last session when he was one of the leaders in the Capitol - while our dear democratic governor disappeared into the shadows. He has also been a leader on election reform from his first session. He's a genuine article.

Ross said, "I am still waiting for some evidence that Westlund has demonstrated some ability to be a consensus builder beyond wishful thinking"

Why are you waiting for anything? Don't you live in Wisconsin or Minnesota?

There have some rather entertaining posts/dialogue here but the most amusing of all has to be ST's assertion that politicians are obligated to tow the party line. And if they don't they're "steal"ing and "immoral".

Wow.

Now there's a statement.

I didn't know anyone actually advocated the responsible party model --- politician as party puppet.

Wow. Just wow.

I wasn’t saying that anyone needs to tow the line, in fact I think internal party debate is a vital part of our system. But there is a huge difference between disagreeing within your party and using a party for your own personal political advantage. Progressives work very hard inside the party to forward issues, only to have self serving politicians ignore these issues. They put on that hard fought label of Democrat or Republican (which means something to voters), when they have zero intention of following through on our issues. I don't care if Ben wants to be an Independent, great, but why was he ever a Republican? The reason is that HE WANTED TO WIN, so he used that label because it is easier then actually earning votes on his own. Well, from those of us that are the worker bees in the party, these politicians really suck out our souls and stomp on the issues we care about. Politicians like Westlund make me want to leave politics, because issues don't matter, only personalities do. So please don't misinterpret what I said, go back and read it in detail. You can disagree and even fight for change inside parties, but please don't use and take advantage of us that put up the signs, walk the doors, stamp the envelopes, and spend countless hours working because we care about issues. We don't do it for you or your career, we do it because we want to create change. This is why it is hard to find campaign workers. Find or create a party that works for you, but please don't use us and then toss us aside.

I can understand your frustration of feeling "used", ST, but it still seems to me that you are still insisting that politicians be a puppet for the party.

I don't understand how you decide who should be allowed to stay in the party or who gets booted out to "find or create a party that works for you." Is it a gut feeling? A platform checklist? Voting record? Worker bee poll?

It seems to me that we already have a system. It's called an election. People run for office; voters select who represents them. If the partisan voters feel like they've been duped, that someone is "stealing" from the party, then they can find another viable candidate. Exhibit A: Democratic Gubernatorial race.

"They [Ben and Jack] make a career out of using the major parties and then never having loyalty to that core voter" - If the "core voter" doesn't want someone to "make a career out of using" then all one must do is vote for someone else. End of career. End of "using".

When you say someone uses a label because it's easier than running on one's own or because someone wants to win, that pretty much includes every candidate on earth.

I would suggest that perhaps your frustration is misguided. Ben Westlund is in office because voters have kept him there. If you don't like him or his stance on issues, then why on earth would you work for him?

As an aside, I too have been a "worker bee" and I've got news for you: all candidates use them and toss them aside. That's not why it's hard to find campaign workers -- it's hard to find campaign workers because people are lazy, apathetic and too busy watching American Idol.

It's good that you're involved but don't burn yourself on this kind of minutiae. There is no such thing as the perfect candidate.

elle:

you sound so cynical. The vast majority of candidates take up their frustration with their own parties within the the party. There are a couple on each sides other who take pride of taking their party's issues or platform to task in public. ie: Ben Westlund. He does this to position himself, the vast majority of others do not. It is these few that make citizens cynical. The fact that Ben Westlund gets credit or praise on a blog like this, or in the newspapers makes me feel that principles and issues don't matter it is all about personalities. But it is exactly what he wants, and apparently it is what you want, and we will see in november if it is what Oregonians want. But I think this type of plitics is very sad. Sorry

I believe he was the 16th vote more than a dozen times last session, and was an instrumental in brokering compromises,

So what were those dozen votes? What were the compromises he brokered? I don't think that is an unreasonable question.

if he supports a bill and convinces a large number of people to vote for it, then he is following the crowd. If it narrowly passes, then it was successful despite him.

That is simply misrepresenting what I said. I questioned a list of bills provided by supporters that only included votes where he was the lone Republican voting for the bill and ones that passed unanimously where every Republican and Democrat voted for them. Its hard to see how being the lone Republican voting for a bill supported by every Democrat is "brokering compromises."

Ross, you party animal. I think we can happily agree to disagree, but since all of your little 'challenges' keep getting met with you moving the line after each one, I don't think anyone's particularly enthused about helping you out with research anymore.

I think that to question Westlund's policies and legislative skills is fair game (I did, and I decided that he earned my support). But commenters continuing to question his motives from afar is ridiculous.

I certainly wouldn't say something like, "The only reason Kulongoski attends military funerals is because funerals are a good place to meet ckicks..." Can you disprove that? After all, no one's supplied me with examples of how he's stopped the war, so it must be true!

Likewise, let's keep the Westlund discussion on things that we can find out about, like policy.

David, in response to:

if they are telling people they can sign the petition whether or not they are registered as an independant, but if they are a Republican or Democrat their signature won't count.

Not exactly. The D's and R's signature won't count if they vote in the primary. If they don't vote in the primary, then their signatures will count.

ST, I was thinking just that - "gee, I sound cynical" - in response to your post. I'm usually actually not. :) But faced with overwhelming idealism, I suppose I do take to the dark side.

The lack of questioning of motives is part of the reason our country is going to hell and in a hand basket with Bush running the show.

David, I agree with you up to a point. But long before there were blogs, there were people in politics saying "you're not supposed to like that candidate, because what I believe is..." and that harms civic life in this country as much as "lack of questioning motives".

Can we at least agree that Chad, Eric B, Former and the rest of us have a right to any opinion without someone like Ross saying "But you haven't convinced me!".

Bipartisan negotiation is a skill not always reported in articles that one can Google. It seems like what Ross is saying is "what you experienced/ saw with your own eyes is invalid unless I saw/ experienced the same thing". THAT hurts politics because it seems to me that attitude is saying "you have no right to an opinion I don't share". We saw what that sort of peer pressure politics did in 1996. There were lots of people trying to use peer pressure to elect Bruggere, as in "although he hasn't answered your questions, if you could just talk 2 of your friends into voting for him...".

Let's be clear. Ross can support whoever he wants. But if he thinks his posts are going to drive people away from Westlund (to Mannix, or Saxton, or Atkinson, or Kulogoski, or Hill, or Sorenson, or Keating for all we know--he hasn't said who he supports) he is mistaken. My motive for saying that: I think people should state the positive, as in "don't support Westlund, support_". I think Ross is just trying to take up our time answering his questions. And as JHL said "I think we can happily agree to disagree, but since all of your little 'challenges' keep getting met with you moving the line after each one, I don't think anyone's particularly enthused about helping you out with research anymore."

but since all of your little 'challenges' keep getting met with you moving the line after each one,

I haven't moved the line at all, its still where it started. Where is the evidence Ben Westlund has built a coalition on any issue?

I don't think anyone's particularly enthused about helping you out with research anymore.

That fine. The evidence I presented by Westlund's supporters here is that Ben Westlund sometimes voted with the Democrats. Other than that he doesn't seem to have been able to bring the support a single Republican with him.

He's frustrated and running for Governor on a platform of a sales tax. Is there any reason to think he will be more successful with that than Barbara Roberts was? No.

Other than that he doesn't seem to have been able to bring the support a single Republican with him.

Actually let me reword that, its giving him too much credit. Based on examining the evidence presented by his supporters here Westlund wasn't able to bring a single Republican or Democrat with him to pass legislation. Every one of the bills cited above had unanimous Democratic support and either unanimous support of Republicans or their unanimous opposition with the exception of Westlund.

I guess that is consensus building of a sort.

Other than that he doesn't seem to have been able to bring the support a single Republican with him.

...But if he brings too many Republicans with him, then he shouldn't get credit because it's too popular of a bill, right? I think I see exactly where you're coming from.

LT is right -- it's more constructive by far to back up criticism with positive assertions. It's really, really easy to dial your standards up so high so that no elected official or candidate will meet them. Westlund may not have super powers, but he easily outshines anyone else that's going to be on the ballot.

By and by... I don't know when we started accepting the Oregon Library Association Newsletter as the official legislative history. Can anyone find an actual legislator or staffer who says that Westlund stood on the sidelines of the 2003 budget negotiations?

But if he brings too many Republicans with him, then he shouldn't get credit because it's too popular of a bill, right?

He gets the same credit as every other member of the legislature when they all voted for the bill. But I don't think the problems at the legislature are going to be solved by finding solutions that please, literally, everyone.

it's more constructive by far to back up criticism with positive assertions.

I agree, assuming the assertions are true. But the assertion that Westlund has a track-record of successful consensus building seems to be empty. He has a track record of being a moderate Republican who voted with the Democrats on occasion but rarely, if ever, was able to persuade other Republicans to join him.

Can anyone find an actual legislator or staffer who says that Westlund stood on the sidelines of the 2003 budget negotiations?

How about you coming up with one that says he was critical to getting a compromise without the legislature being deadlocked for weeks? How many times has the legislature failed to reach a compromise and pass a budget?

He gets the same credit as every other member of the legislature when they all voted for the bill.

Umm... in all fairness, he really should get more credit when he writes the bill, or when he's the one sitting down with the stakeholders crafting the policy and bringing interests to the table.

Legislation doesn't just happen on the Senate or House floor. If plenty of people are on a bill, it doesn't mean that Westlund sent them an extra-nice Christmas card... it means he worked with the interests and lobbyists behind the scenes to craft legislation that made sense to the various interests that advise the legislators.

The answer to "How a bill becomes a law" extends beyond a Schoolhouse Rock understanding of the process.

"if plenty of people are on a bill, it doesn't mean that Westlund sent them an extra-nice Christmas card... it means he worked with the interests and lobbyists behind the scenes to craft legislation that made sense to the various interests that advise the legislators."

And when bills pass unanimously its rarely because of the courageous leadership of a single legislator. And when a passes with the unanimous support of Senate Democrats Westlund is the only Republican vote its very difficult to think Westlund was the critical player in its passage. And when the only bills his supporters cite as examples of his consensus building ability fall into one of those two categories ...

Stacey -

Thank you for providing some real evidence to support the idea of Westlund as a potential consensus-builder. I think much of Westlund's reputation for trying to reduce the partisanship in the legislature is well-deserved. I don't remember the 2001 legislative session (they all kind of blur into one fiasco after another) perhaps someone else can comment about how that process started in January ended the next summer.

My fear is of the independent-partisans here who are ideologically convinced there is a majority in the middle that they are determined to liberate. When, in fact, the only way the handful in the middle can get a majority is by choosing sides. Its going to take more than a sincere desire to actually build a coalition that can end the partisan gridlock that has characterized state government for the last 15 years.

My fear is of the independent-partisans here who are ideologically convinced there is a majority in the middle that they are determined to liberate. When, in fact, the only way the handful in the middle can get a majority is by choosing sides. Its going to take more than a sincere desire to actually build a coalition that can end the partisan gridlock that has characterized state government for the last 15 years. Ross, are you registered to a major party? Have you ever been registered NAV? I have. I was registered NAV from 1996-2002, and only re-registered with a party to vote in a primary. My slogan when I was Indep/NAV was "The I means I think for myself, thank you very much!". Is that an ideology? Who was I trying to "liberate"?

I suggest you look into what percentage of Oregonians were NAV or Other in 1996 and what percent now.

There were 7 House races in 2004 where the victory margin was less than 1,000. According to Sec. of State numbers from a year ago, every House district had at least 4,000 registered NAV and from several hundred to 1000+ registered "other".

Do you have numbers to back up your statement "When, in fact, the only way the handful in the middle can get a majority is by choosing sides"? How many NAV have you talked with personally, or do you just "know" where they stand? Does that mean the independents will never elect Westlund Gov. or anyone from a minor party to the legislature and the only way those registered NAV can have an effect is to vote for the partisan candidates they like and hope enough others do the same?

Almost sounds like those folks in 1980 saying "Jim Hill will never be elected to the House because S. Salem will never elect a black man". Yeah right.

the only way the handful in the middle can get a majority is by choosing sides.

Wow. What a great sentiment -- "You're either with us or you're with the Republicans" (or terrorists, depending on what party you're from). Same kind of rhetoric that the Dems are railing against in DC.

Wow. What a great sentiment

There is no sentiment involved. I manage to distinguish between the world as I wish it was and the world as I think it is. The fact is that the militant-middle doesn't have many adherents. Those in the middle do get to pick the winners and that gives them a lot of power come election time, but its tough to govern without a firm base of support.

My slogan when I was Indep/NAV was "The I means I think for myself, thank you very much!".

I think the people on both sides think for themselves, they just don't think like you. Not belonging to a party doesn't show a person is any more thoughtful or any less a captive of whatever cliches they do believe.

I suggest you look into what percentage of Oregonians were NAV

Thus proving my point about the delusions of nonpartisan ideologues. The people who don't belong to any party are all over the political spectrum. They are no more likely to vote for an independent than they are for a Democrat or Republican.

There is no sentiment involved. I manage to distinguish between the world as I wish it was and the world as I think it is.

So... you made those assertions because you "think" that the world works that way. You're cartainly free to think that. I, personally, think different. But if that's what your assertion is based on, then it is sentiment.

(Psst -- LT and Ross... I think we're the last ones on the board.)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that all Democrats vote together.

They don't, except on the list of legislation his supporters posted here as evidence of Ben Westlund's consensus building skills. And all the Republicans voted together on those bills too - except Westlund.

So... you made those assertions because you "think" that the world works that way.

No, I made those assertions based on experience. People in the political center, whether members of a party or not, are often there because they don't have strong political beliefs. The beliefs they do have are as often in conflict with one another as they are with the more partisan members of the two parties on those issues.

So, while a moderates in either party are going to be able to reach out to both the center and moderates on the other side while holding their base. A moderate outside either party is going to have a very tough time of it. They will have the opposition from both sides with strongly held views that combined usually represent a substantial majority, even if they don't agree with one another.

Westlund couldn't do it as a Republican, I don't see how not being a Republican is going to make it any easier.

So, while a moderates in either party are going to be able to reach out to both the center and moderates on the other side while holding their base. A moderate outside either party is going to have a very tough time of it. They will have the opposition from both sides with strongly held views that combined usually represent a substantial majority, even if they don't agree with one another.

I don't follow.

Are you saying that because Ben is now registered as an independent he will have no allies?

These seems a bit off. Do you believe he gained votes based on party status before? Isn't this the whole point of the discussion we've been having about Ben? He's been a coalition builder in the past. I'm supposed to believe a label change is now going to erase that history and render him ineffective?

He's been a coalition builder in the past. I'm supposed to believe a label change is now going to erase that history and render him ineffective?

Has he been effective in the past? I see him as trying but if he was successful we wouldn't still be discussing the disfunctional legislature. And there is no reason to think he failed because he was a Republican. His problem wasn't getting Democrats to go along with him, it was getting Republicans to go along. I'm not sure how being elected as an independent is going to change that.

Frankly, there are not a lot of good choices out there and maybe Westlund is the best of the bunch. But the notion that starting out as a moderate with no party base is an advantage needs to be challenged.

Ross, You seem to think that because Westlund could not singlehandedly convince not only a majority of the members of his own chamber (House in earlier sessions, then Senate) but also a majority of the other chamber to act responsibly he is not qualified to run for Governor? Did Kulongoski by himself provide that sort of leadership and therefore you are supporting him?

Or is it that you can't handle the fact that a guy who was elected to the State Senate with the Republican nomination in the primary and the Dem. nomination by write in has registered Indep. and without a party structure behind him still has a lot of admirers?

Westlund could not singlehandedly convince not only a majority of the members of his own chamber (House in earlier sessions, then Senate) but also a majority of the other chamber to act responsibly

I don't think not being able to persuade anyone of either party in either chamber is a qualification for being Governor, no.

he is not qualified to run for Governor?

I have never said Westlund isn't qualified to run for Governor.

still has a lot of admirers?

Actually his sole qualification in the eyes of some of his admirers seems to be that he dropped his party registration. I don't think you are doing him justice.

I think electing Ben Westlund would scare the crap out of the Democrats and the Republicans both. For that reason alone I would seriously consider voting for him.

Ross, I admire Ben Westlund and have since the 5th special session. He is the Straight Talk legislator McCain was 6 years ago before McCain started being Mr. GOP Talking Points. Back in the 5th Special Session Ben said something so intelligent I have been a fan ever since. He is as outspoken as Dems should be but often aren't. And in a world of angry people he is more cheerful than most. He is fun to be around and he is a cancer survivor. All before he dropped his partisan registration.

That "sole qualification" nonsense, though, makes a friend's point. My friend said it was a better use of time to watch a movie than to read Blue Oregon because so many of the postings are contentious and could raise someone's blood pressure.

<h2>Ross, there may be people who became a fan of Ben only after he became an Independent. But the broadbrush in your statement means either you are engaging in propaganda are are one of those scared people MJD mentions.</h2>