Democratic Debate in Corvallis: The Incredible Shrinking Governor
T.A. Barnhart
The Benton County Democrats and OSU College Democrats hosted a debate Monday night in Corvallis between the three candidates for the Democratic nomination for governor. Pete Sorenson and Jim Hill showed up, as they have been doing all around the state, and both represented their issues and personalities admirably. The governor was represented by a little old lady who could do nothing other than demonstrate how unworthy Ted Kulongski has become of our vote. He was not merely absent from the proceedings; he became "The Incredible Shrinking Governor."
Because the first set of questions were made available to the candidates in advance, the governor's "team" was able to provide Corvallis Mayor Helen Berg with responses to read in his absence. Berg, a Democrat of long standing and worthy of respect, did her best with what she was given, but as I heard more of the governor's responses, the less respect I had for him. "The Incredible Shrinking Governor." He bragged of tiny accomplishments, showing nothing that would inspire me or any other progressive or liberal Democrat. The few things of merit he has appeared to have done, he has done in a way that would bring a tear of pride to Gordon Smith's eye: election year genuflections towards those whose votes he'll need. "The Incredible Shrinking Governor," over three years in office and with little positive to earn the votes of Oregon Democrats, beneficiary of a limited economic recovery for which he can take almost no credit (although he tries). "The Incredible Shrinking Governor," hoping someone else's voice can distract the voters from what is happening before their eyes: Ted Kulongoski the Democrat is disappearing from sight.
While reading the governor's resume, Mayor Berg, rhetorically but mistakenly, asked "Is there anything this governor has not done?" And apart from all he has failed to do in office, and the choices he has made that harm not only his supporters but the entire state, the answer to her question is "Yes!" He has not participated in the democratic process. Salem is less than an hour's drive from the OSU campus. Hill and Sorenson drove greater distances on busy campaign days to be here, but the governor apparently has tremendous responsibilities that requite his absolute attention — on a Monday night. "The Incredible Shrinking Governor," disappearing from sight as Democrats gather to hear the two men who are working hard to become leader of the state for the next four years of more. Both Hill and Sorenson demonstrated a grasp of the issues and a passion for Oregon and the job they seek. Sorenson can barely contain the energy that drives him; Hill is more measured, his quieter energy growing more apparent as the evening progressed. Either man would make a formidable opponent to whatever corporate flunky the Rs select. But the "Incredible Shrinking Governor" does not appear to have the stomach to face his own party; what chance will he have against a GOP lusting for Mahonia Hall and facing the loss of the House?
The sad truth is that Kulongoski is still favored to win. With Jim Hill's late entry into the race, more than a year after Sorenson began campaigning all around Oregon, the opportunity to unseat the incumbent has become dicey. Several audience members, in private conversations with both candidates after the debate, wondered if either might step aside to ensure the governor's defeat. Both declined, of course, as they ought. That's not the way, the democratic way, to defeat an incumbent. Candidates do not win elections simply by appearing on the ballot; they win because their supporters work hard to get the message out and persuade voters to cast their lot with them (and also, of course, because big money and organizations with ground troops throw their weight around). In this case, organized labor is going full tilt for Hill, seeing him as their best chance to get their revenge on Ted. Pete will draw the support of the progressives and the deanistas. They may undercut each other, or perhaps the governor — "The Incredible Shrinking Governor" — will continue his self-induced slide into ignomy. If he is as unpopular as the polls indicate, then even a vote split between Hill and Sorenson could leave the governor in second or third place.
For me, the best advice on this came from Sorenson, who said he did not enter the race to defeat the governor but to win the election for himself. "Do not vote your fears," he said, "vote your dreams." His small town Oregon story is indeed the stuff of dreams, American dreams, as is Jim Hill's childhood in racially segrated Georgia. Both found personal success and fulfillment in Oregon, and both have a dream to make the state even better than it was. But the governor's dream? Well, like the Incredible Shrinking Man, who faded into an unknown that lay beyond his imagination, the Incredible Shrinking Governor has squandered the support and good will of too many Oregon Democrats and independents. If he does win the primary, he's got a lot of work to do to earn back the votes, and respect, of the state. If he's ever to regain the stature we require of the governor, Ted Kulongoski has a lot of growing to do.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
4:53 a.m.
Apr 25, '06
My first question is: How many debates did the Kulongoski agree to? There have been two that I know of because I listened to one and watched the other.
So why are you dogging the governor for not showing up at one of the ten or so debates that Sorenson and Hill have scheduled?(I don't know how many are scheduled, but in case you missed it that was sarcasm)
How many debates should there be in a gubernatorial primary?
Second, in response to this statement:
"Candidates do not win elections simply by appearing on the ballot; they win because their supporters work hard to get the message out and persuade voters to cast their lot with them."
In the case of Hill and Sorenson, both have failed to garner enough support. As I have said many times, I was really anxious to hear Hill talk about what he would do for Oregon if elected. At the second debate we saw a stiff wooden personality that did nothing, but complain instead of offer solutions.
Sorenson wasn't that much better. The only thing I heard him say that was vaguely interesting was that he would put a ton of money into research which was going to be funded by big business. I'm still waiting to hear how he's going to get big business to agree to this.
I came into the primary with some hope that one of those candidates who call a challanger to the governor would step up to the plate and hit a home run.
As far as I'm concerned Hill and Sorensen have struck out.
6:35 a.m.
Apr 25, '06
Kulongoski agreed to two debates. T.A. knows that. It's hard out there to support a candidate (Sorenson) that has struck out.
Apr 25, '06
Interesting: Kulogonski cowardly agreed to only 2 debates because he knew it would go badly for him the more he attended (sound somewhat like the Shrub?). So somehow pointing out that Kulongoski once again is running away somehow becomes the issue?
We all know Kulongoski was one of those functionaries that Goldshmidt brought along. A general rule of politics is that a charismatic, scheming pol like Goldshmidt never surrounds himself with people capable enough to actually usurp his power. And at least to now as Governor, Kulogoski has been true to the pattern: He has been lost in the office and accomplished little to actually further any Democratic, much less progressive, agenda. He ran away from the hard battles of defending core Democratic accomplishments like the Oregon Health Plan, and instead he took a page from Republican propogandistic play book and hyped a (meth) war.
The only thing that can be said is that hackneyed truism: We get the government we deserve if we don't care to pay attention and elect better.
Apr 25, '06
One side question about this debate: Why did Berg even agree to read Kulongoski's responses if he didn't respect the forum enough to attend? Is she just another of those small town mayors whose ego exceeds their ability and good sense? Or did she lack the backbone and good sense to just say no as she should have? Or is she just plain dumb? There is no respect due if he didn't show up because he only "agreed to two debates" as DE and paulie seem to believe is a reasonable excuse for disrespecting the voters whose votes he claims he wants.
Apr 25, '06
Come on guys.....Ted is history. And surely deserves it. He has been a big disappointment for Oregonians....especailly Dems. Jim Hill is the quiet one......he deserves to be our next Governor. We gave Ted a chance four years ago....he performed to the best of his ability....Now we know what that is....So, give someone else an opportunity to lead. If Ted wins the Primary.....The R's will win the Governorship. Ben will be the spoiler....With endorsements out this week by the Oregonian, it appears Saxton is well postitioned to win the primary. When will the Dems wake-up... Ted has got to go...
Jim Hill is our only chance for real leadership. If Pete could graciously tell his supporters to vote for Hill...for the sake of Oregon....."that would be a home-run".
Apr 25, '06
Sorry that Ted was too busy actually being governor and trying, among other things, to protect real live Oregonians that have been harmed by the bad salmon season, to show up at your little party.
Hill and Sorenson are not going to win the primary, there's no "if" about it. A strong showing by Ted in the primary, however, can translate into Oregon keeping it's Democratic governor, and to me that's more important to the whole state than a perceived social snub in Corvallis. Priorities, people.
9:39 a.m.
Apr 25, '06
Robert sez: "If Ted wins the Primary.....The R's will win the Governorship." The only serious scientific polling I've seen is Rasmussen's. Even for a GOP-leaning shop like theirs, it's not really all that close.
Apr 25, '06
Give me a break and quit the whining!
There was a debate in Corvallis? I had no idea, as it seems the only press Hill and Sorenson can generate is when 1. They are complaining that Kulongoski is not there; or 2. Ted shows up, and the press pays some attention to these two.
The problem is not that Ted hasn't debated-he has, twice-but that Hill and Sorenson cannot generate any interest for their campaigns. Ted will beat them both, and then win in November.
Our efforts should be devoted toward two things at this point:
Making sure we recapture the House so Ted can move forward with his agenda;
Make sure that we don't buy into the Westlund "I'm just like Julius Meier" siren song-he's a Mannix knock-off dressed up like an independent.
MLA
Apr 25, '06
For the hard time that I usually give the governor... he did have the gumption to show up to the debates to which he agreed and actually stood his ground fairly well.
Sorenson and Hill (who are great) are using their initial disadvantage of not being governor as an advantage... namely, scheduling an incredible number of campaign stops and using that to highlight the governor's absence. It's a great campaign move.
I would fault the gov on his policy flubs on a more relevant post, but I don't think the governor should be faulted for missing every chicken dinner that Hill/Sorenson are able to show up at... we joke, but he probably does have some stuff to do as governor.
Apr 25, '06
As TA knows well, I loathe, despise, and generally dislike Kulongoski and everything he doesn't stand for (since I can't figure out what he does stand for, I guess that means a lot). I've been supporting Jim Hill during the primary but have little hope he will win. The song playing through the heads of many of us who've been taken to the cleaners by Ted's "so called" reforms of PERS (after I retired no less), the prospect of a Ted v Saxton race with Westlund as an Indy, leaves the MAS*H theme song playing over and over again. "Suicide is painless....."
My only real hope is to work for a strong majority of progressives in the legislature. That way, whoever is governor doesn't really matter all that much. Sure, the governor can set "an" agenda, but the Legislature decides how much of the agenda they want to buy into.
In a Saxton v Kulongoski v Westlund race for Governor, I'd probably choose "none of the above" and focus ALL my efforts in districts where my vote and/or my money and/or my volunteer activities can pay off. I've pretty much written off the Governor's race as a race to the bottom. No thanks. I'll give it a miss.
Apr 25, '06
Ted is not showing up for these candidate forums because he is his own worse enemy.
Debate #1 TK highlight, Ted declares that the answer to solving Oregon's health care crisis (last four years 80,000 lose private insurance and 70,000 cut from Oregon Health Plan) is to wait for national health care. I'm sure the Bush administration will get all over that.
Debate #2 TK highlight, Ted proclaims that Oregon needs a Sales Tax. It is not enough that he has a 36% approval rating but he figures he will give the Republicans more ammo to use against him and a regressive tax for struggling middle class to boot.
These are the reason that Kulongoski is not actively campaigning. When he does his numbers go down. Lets not forget the 20 points he gave up to Mannix four years ago.
Kulongoski is going down. It is up to us to determine whether it be to a Democrat in the primary who can hold the governors office or Saxton/Mannix in November.
Apr 25, '06
I thought it was especially telling a few weeks back when Ted skipped the debate at Willamette University. I'm pretty sure he can see the school from his office...if he ever bothered to show up at his office. Ted Kulongoski has failed the people of this state, and did not provide leadership when it mattered the most. I voted for him in 02 based on his impressive credentials, but will not be doing so this time around. Anyone but Ted!
Apr 25, '06
JG is spot-on. Kulo is going down in the general -- with or without Westlund -- but he is going to win the primary. Progressives should be relieved that Westlund is a viable backup plan. He may not talk as blue as Kulo, but he sure is a more friendly face than Saxton or Mannix.
Apr 25, '06
Gee MLA.....If Ted wins the Primary I will definitely be doing the the Westlund thing"....
He is not the perfect candidate (Ben) but he will be so much better than Ron or Ted. Let's just vote in Jim Hill and be assured that the governhship will stay with the Dems... Ted is going down....... Vote JIM HILL....
2:05 p.m.
Apr 25, '06
The only serious scientific polling I've seen is Rasmussen's. Even for a GOP-leaning shop like theirs, it's not really all that close. I wouldn't consider that poll very serious since it's missing a candidate who could easily draw 10-15% (if not more). Plus, it was taken before Ted came out for a sales tax (I'm sure that didn't help with the Rs and Is) and spat in the faces of the Ds who support his primary opponents. Furthermore, the unscientific and unreliable poll is still useful in that it shows a willingness to move away from the major party candidates, particularly Kulongoski, when Westlund is in the mix.
2:14 p.m.
Apr 25, '06
Yo JG, Kulongoski inherited the underfunded Oregon Health Care plan when he assumed office. I recall in the debate he mentioned "some sort of consumption tax." A Medford Mail Tribune editorial didn't swat the idea down. Kulongoski will come out swinging after the primary.
2:18 p.m.
Apr 25, '06
Nate, you missed the Zogby poll a few weeks back, well after the Rasmussen. all 3 Dems handily defeat all 3 Rs; with Westlund in the mix, Ted & Jim still win, although more narrowily. Pete suffers a bit more with Westlund in; oddly, Atkinson benefits most with Westlund in, against Pete. i think it's an indication that voters aren't certain about Ben yet.
Apr 25, '06
Paulie,
He may have inherited the problem but he sure as heck didn't do anything to address it and tens of thousands of Oregonians are currently suffering because of it.
For the record... Ted followed up his debate announcement of the consumption tax (which is a sales tax) by reaffirming his stance while interviewing with the Willamette Week.
WILLAMETTE WEEK 4-19-06 http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3224/7460
"In a televised debate April 10 with his two Democratic challengers, Kulongoski set off a brush fire when he seemed to endorse the idea of a sales tax. The tax is long thought of as the suicide bomb of Oregon politics, given its failure at the ballot nine times, most recently in 1993 when three out of four state voters rejected it.
Speculation followed that it was a slip of the tongue.
But during an interview last Thursday with WW, Kulongoski was clear that he supports a sales tax as part of a proposed overhaul of Oregon's tax system, if re-elected."
2:43 p.m.
Apr 25, '06
TA, good reading of the Zogby poll (which is an interactive poll, meaning that responses are taken from people who take the initiative to respond, rather than those who are contacted randomly). The common interp I saw was that Kulo lost ground when Westlund came in. That's true, sort of--what I actually recall from the data is that Kulo loses ground all right, but to "don't know" rather than Westlund.
Right now Kulo is in a funk spurred by a primary campaign. If you look at Survey USA's monthly approval ratings, he is down just a couple points with Rs and Is (with Rs he's actually UP 4 points from Feb!), but off 20 points in the last year with Dems.
There still has not been a solid poll done that I know of, to isolate the effect on Kulo IF Westlund enters the race. Remember, he's not a candidate yet; we'll have to wait and see how many sigs the primary election wipes off his total. And I would similarly counsel that any election poll that occurs before Ted is the nominee (and thus the only Democratic choice in the general), will suffer from the primary effect.
The rule is that independents generally pull from both sides about equally, subject to a clear reading of their politics. The more that Westlund can be pegged on one side of the divide or the other, the more likely he will pull votes from that side.
Apr 25, '06
Hey Paulie, let me get this straight, your barometer for judging how Oregonians feel about a sales tax is a Medford Mail Tribune editorial. You might want to find a better defense for Kulo's plan for a sales tax.
3:48 p.m.
Apr 25, '06
Truth be told, I was shocked that Ted put his head into the lion's mouth by agreeing to two debates.
Isn't it the case that an incumbent almost always suffers by agreeing to debate non-incumbents?
<hr/>Anyhow, two in the primary seems beyond the call of duty. Ten or more wouldn't be smart politics.
<hr/>Oh, yeah, as of right now, Sorenson's still got the best actual platform, but he seems like he's at least as cranky as I am.
I wouldn't vote for me for Dogcatcher. Heck, my wife wouldn't vote for me for Dogcatcher.
Apr 25, '06
Paulie, what amazes me is that you seem to vocalize more support for "Kulongoski's" tax plan right here than he is around the entire state.
Kulo didn't even dare mention a consumption tax until Westlund started unabashedly telling Oregonians what they needed to hear (but maybe didn't want to hear) about a dying tax structure. ... And then when his staff explained after the debate, he suddenly wasn't for it. And now he's apparently in favor of it again? Kulo needs to have a talk with his staff or he needs to have a talk with himself.
Kulongoski will come out swinging after the primary? I agree. He'll swing out towards an issue... and then swing right back.
5:35 p.m.
Apr 25, '06
Nate, you missed the Zogby poll a few weeks back, well after the Rasmussen. all 3 Dems handily defeat all 3 Rs; with Westlund in the mix, Ted & Jim still win, although more narrowily. Pete suffers a bit more with Westlund in; oddly, Atkinson benefits most with Westlund in, against Pete. i think it's an indication that voters aren't certain about Ben yet.
Actually, that's the poll I was referring to as "the unscientific and unreliable poll," since it was an internet poll which I don't trust for much aside from comparing trendlines and results within the poll. However, because it polls with and without Westlund, it does seem to indicate a movement away from Ted with Ben in the mix (Joe is right that this is mostly to Don't Know). Actually, you're mistaken about Ted winning v. Saxton with Weslund on the ballot, Ted loses to Saxton according to that poll (though well within the margin of error 33.7-32.5). Here's the poll (bottom of page 3). But, again, I don't consider that poll to be necessarily accurate, especially before the primary. However, the interesting information is that adding Westlund to a Saxton v. Kulongoski matchup changes: K -13.5%, S -5.1%, Other -1.9%, NS +10.3%. Though Westlund only garners 10.3%, he pushes another 10.3% from one of the candidates to unsure. I think you have to consider all of that 10% to be potential Westlund supporters.
I don't see that there's been any reliable polling that includes Westlund, and frankly it wouldn't mean much until the field is set anyway. As long as Sorenson/Hill/Mannix/Atkinson supporters still believe their guy has a chance, you're not going to get an accurate read. They may unite behind their party's nominee or, if they feel too much antipathy towards him, go looking for other options (which is why I think it's so foolish for Ted and his supporters to be pissing off his opponents' supporters when he knows he's gonna be the nominee anyway and he has to have them in November). And, of course, there's the question of whether Westlund can even qualify. I'll look for a poll after the primary with and without Westlund, and I think that'll be the first one I'll consider to be really meaningful.
Apr 25, '06
Pat Ryan quotes the "conventional wisdom" that isn't. The general rule I always heard inside political campaigns was that a strong incumbent does take a chance by agreeing to debate a challenger because he or she gives credibility to the challenger by appearing as an equal on the same stage. However, a truly strong incumbent can actually gain by appearing to give the opponent a chance and then dominating him or her.
But Kulongoski isn't even close to being a strong incumbent. And a pathetically weak candidate like him just looks even weaker when he doesn't get out in front of the public every chance he gets. A smart challenger can just stand by and let press report honestly on how the incumbent is hiding from the people and his opponents. Of course, that presumes that a lot about the integrity and competence of the press which is more than a stretch these days.
7:11 p.m.
Apr 25, '06
last night, Pete Sorenson and Jim Hill stood at lecturns in front of an audience at OSU, and they answered questions directly. they demonstrated their personalities. after the event, they shook hands and chatted with local Dems, including college students.
and instead of Ted Kulongoski, we have a hole. Mayor Berg, a good person who did not deserve the nasty piece of ignorance someone plopped out above, read his prepared answers, but the man was absent. and his absence was tangible. Sorenson and Hill referred to "this governor", but the governor was not there to speak for himself. he was as he has been too much of his term: absent.
the governor has disrespected the democratic process, the Democratic Party and the voters/citizens. he pretends he has to be in Salem to govern, but that's beyond weak. he won't be in Salem governing if he wins the primary, will he? what was so important last night? the special session was over, there were no emergencies, and there was a chance to stand up for himself. clearly he has little faith in his own record.
this was what many of us felt as Hill and Sorenson stood up for themselves and made themselves available and part of the process. Kulongoski wants no part of this tough part of democracy, and his physical absence simply underscored that, for many Oregon Democrats, he has become a non-entity. The Incredible Shrinking Governor is becoming The Invisible Governor.
Apr 25, '06
With regard to Kulo being absent from events, lest we not forget that even if he is at events he is ordinarily a non factor. For example last weeks OLCV dinner in which Gov. Gregoire from WASHINGTON spoke rather than Ted at the OREGON LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS annual dinner, Ted was responsible for the intro. Lets take a honost assesment of the situation; this is how much he impresses the environmental community along with all the other voters who he has turned his back on. He is either A) absent on the issues that matter most to Oregonians or B) absent on the issues that matter most to Democrats.
Apr 25, '06
Speaking of the OLCV dinner... let's also note that Governor K's name was not in the program, which says to me that he was a last-minute addition, which says to me that there was begging going on shortly before the event.
That, too, is typical of the administration.
"What's that... Session's almost over?! Quick -- whip up some education plan or something... Now hand-write some talking points on poster-board and we'll throw together a press conference."
Ted's like the kid in the class who obviously put his science project together the night before... and it looks just like Billy's (or whoever's) project, which Billy's been working on for weeks.
Apr 25, '06
TA Barnhart - thanks for the honest assessment of "Where's Waldo". We all know the gov has been busy lately coming up with all of these new plans and putting them into action. But why now and not 3 years ago? Because it is an election year. That's not good enough for me.
I think the idea of not showing up at debates has been the wrong strategy for the Governor who already suffers in popularity and has pulled so far away from his base. If anything he needs to reconnect but I get the impression that he is too good for us. He doesn't need us anymore. We were just a stepping stone on his journey. I'm not even sure what he stands for anymore. It has been disappointing.
Jim Hill get's my vote. He may not be a rabid speaker but he is sincere, hard working and has a vision of a better Oregon. I am so ready for change!
Apr 26, '06
Though Kulongoski turned his back on many Democrats and many Oregonians overall, he's certainly a better alternative than the kool-aid Republicans (esp. crazy man Mannix). The people who pledge a vote for Kulongoski in the primary because they think he's the only one who can win or he's going to win anyway are making a mistake that goes to the core principles of democracy. When our leaders are not doing what is right or what we ask of them, we have to tell them so. If they are still ignoring us, we should have the opportunity to replace them--or at least let them know we would replace them if there weren't the threat of kool-aid drinkers.
Voting for Hill or Sorenson will at the very least send a message to the Governor and the Party establishment in Oregon. The "he's gonna win anyway" voters are our party's version of apathetic people who don't vote at all. Use your voice, or vote rather, to tell the Gov to shape up, even if you know you're going to support him on the ballot in November.
Apr 26, '06
I must respectfullt disagree with jbiddy's suggestion to protest vote in the primary and then fully support Ted in the general. As valid as biddy's sugegstion is, my personal opinion is that it hurts the Democratic platform in the long run.
Ted's not running again in 2010. Period. Handing him his second term with a slap on the wrist tells every future Democratic governor and nominee that the party faithful only looks at your affiliation, and not your record. It sends a message that inaction is okay -- we'll always come running back to you...
It's akin to the labor unions endorsing Ted in the general... they'd be screwing their workers if they simply announced, "No matter what you do to unions, we will support you so long as you are a Democrat." Of course that would be an insane announcement to make. So why would the general membership of the Democratic party make a similar statement?
Apr 26, '06
I don't think that is the statement it makes.
Voting for a different candidate in the primary is voting for the things that candidate stands for and the policies they wish to enact--that's what voting is in general. My point is that if people are voting for Hill/Sorenson, you can be sure that's going to send a message to the party that we want a change. Maybe it won't be now, maybe we have to wait until 2010. It still shows that we are tired of these kinds of candidates.
I guess you just have to ask yourself which is worse when November comes, inaction or action that is not good for Oregon.
Your example of the labor unions is interesting. What are they to do? Do they endorse the man that let them down (and that is a very generous way of saying it), or do they endorse one of the many Republicans whose campaign contributions are from big business after big business after big business.
There's always the larger picture. In my opinion, it would be great if we had a D in the mansion that wasn't Kulongoski. However, with the very real opportunity for Democrats to take back the House this year, I think labor unions are going to have a lot better outlook with a D in the mansion, a majority in the Senate and House than if it were otherwise.
Apr 26, '06
Biddy, good point about sending a message to the party in the primary... I suppose there is value there. My concern is what will happen to current Democratic officials if we don't really hold their feet to the fire.
I'm confident that our Senate majority will serve as gatekeeper even if both other branches go south (which I don't think will happen). But you make a good point.
Apr 26, '06
Anyone read Sun Tzu's The Art of War? As the story goes, Sun Tzu was given a horribly undisciplined regiment to organize. No one would listen to his orders and it was utter chaos. So he cut off the head of the regiment's leader and said, "Ok, let's try it again with a new squad leader... I've got all day." And so they did try it again and everyone decided to be pretty disciplined from then on.
Maybe future Democratic governors will think, "I'd better push through this environmental agenda... or else I might get westlunded!"
Apr 26, '06
Why would Kulo bother to drive 45mins down the interstate to a cow campus for a debate? I mean, doesn't he (and everybody else) believe that he has it in the bag? He is the King, who deserves to keep his crown, no?
As somebody already wrote: "Your example of the labor unions is interesting. What are they to do?" Absolutely nothing!
The Demos will follow Kulo through the primary just like the Repubs bought the line in 2000 that it was inevitable that GWBush would win the primary, so a vote for John McCain was a vote wasted.
Go ahead, vote for Kulo in the primary. And come the general election, who will win the three way contest? 32.5% vs 33.2% vs 34.3%?
Apr 26, '06
Kulongoski said that he created jobs. The Oregon Employment Department (OED) gave report that unemployment is low. Really? How many people out of work and quit registration with OEP and the OED quit them? Too many. Kulongoski has a big mouth and talking, talking and talking about that state needs more good paying jobs, Oregonians need health insurance, people want.... people need .....and etc and etc. Idiot! People elected him to do it. And no one is talking that this political garbage is violating, ignoring the Constitution of the USA (USC T 5 Sect 2302) and Code of Ethics for Government Employees, and punishment for it should be at least 2 years prison term. And he gave an Oath of Office all times is saying Pledge of Allegiance. Talks only, not from heart. Amendment XIV, Sect. 3 says that no one should be a Senator or Congressman or hold any office who does not support the Constitution of the USA. From all of these candidates I do NOT see who is good for Oregonian.
Pavel Goberman (D)(American) for US Repres. 1st Congr. Distr (against D. Wu)
2:56 a.m.
Apr 27, '06
Pavel,
I said the same thing in a another thread. Anytime politicans quote unemployment figures like they are definate, I cringe.
In my case, I've been out of the country for over two years. I was unemployed before I left.
To the rest of those in the thread, when I posted the first comment I asked how many debates Kulongoski agreed to.
<h2>Those that are critizing him are missing the point. Just because Sorenson and Hill scheduled ten debates doesn't mean Kulongoski has to show up at all of them.</h2>