Westlund is a non-ideological problem solver in the manner of Mark Hatfield and Tom McCall -- though probably more conservative than either. He is attracting surprising support from frustrated Republicans and Democrats. More importantly, Westlund is attracting the interest of the state’s non-affiliated voters who hold the key to electing the next governor.

Right. Except they are the key only when combined with one of the two parties. By themselves they are a weak third party, even if they had any shared concerns to unite them. But most of the polling of non-affiliated voters indicates that they have no shared political point of view, other than that they don't identify themselves with any party.

In the real race for governor, its the Republican candidate who is likely to benefit most from a Westlund candidacy. That is assuming that Westlund, once on the ballot, does not move hard to the right to compete for his ideological soulmates in the Republican party.

Westlund is a non-ideological problem solver in the manner of Mark Hatfield and Tom McCall

Tom McCall and Mark Hatfield, by today's standards, were moderate Republicans. They were no more "non-ideological" than Victor Atiyeh or Neil Goldschmidt. Or Ted Kulongoski and John Kitzhaber for that matter. I suspect the same is true of Westlund.

Westlund ventured East yesterday and was at the City Repair Earthday Fair at Sellwood Park.

I have been a registered independent for years now, even though I tend to vote Blue and give money to Blues, an occassional Red or Green does sneak in. So I went a head and signed his petition because of the polarizing effect of the existing party structure in Oregon, I haven't been a member of a Party for a long time. This was finally my opportunity to participate in the primary process.

Westland's persona was imposing, and we need someone like that to get out in front and lead. I don't like the quiet "backroom" style of either SAXON or the current governor, its getting so our choice for Govenor in this state is how I have felt nationally for so many years voting for the lesser of two evils or disaster in the making.

Russell: If the criteria is whether one has either walked out of a legislative meeting or any other kind of meeting, then both sides of the aisle is suspect. And going to the voters or court also applies for both sides, and for many of our leading politicians.

"Traditional experience" to be a governer (or any other elected office) is maybe what we don't need right now. And again that theory doesn't apply to some of Oregon's past lauded office holders, like Gov. McCall, etc.

To those who say that the only effect of a Westlund candidacy is to help the Republicans win the governorship, remember that independent or minor party nominees for Governor have won six elections (around the USA) in the years 1974-present. A majority of Oregonians say to pollsters that they favor the Keisling election-system initiative. That tells me that a majority of Oregonians are disenchanged with the status quo. And Westlund doesn't need a majority to win. Jesse Ventura got elected with only 37.0% in Minnesota in November 1998.

Westlund's website provides about all the evidence why he is running a sleight-of-hand political campaign that easily misleads: His featured endorsements are by those who really don't know what they believe --- "I've been R, I, & D... tomorrow I'm Independent!"' Barry Daigle and his only concrete policy is to make the tax system more regressive by shifting the emphasis from progressive income taxes, and Measure 5 limited property taxes, to regressive sales taxes. And he also wants to pretty much give corporations a permanent tax holiday, along with major tax relief to those who earn passive income (capital gains). That looks to be pretty much down the line a right-wing Reagan/Bush tax plan for the privileged elite, and about as ideological as one can possibly get.

And while one a progressive could be drawn to his constitutional amendment stating the right to health care, he gives no concrete plan how to make that constitutional mandate a reality. That is, besides shifting to a more regressive taxation system. Folks might want to try to carefully read the measure Westlund supports, the actual exemptions in Sections 95-107 and 118-121 don't appear to be quite what Westlund states on his website. For instance, on a quick review it appears he wants to add a sales tax onto utility bills (except for water, a reflection of his geographic roots?) and vehicle sales. And although for the moment one has to take on faith his claim on his website that his sales and use taxes would not include "shelter", someone would do a service to the entire electorate by finding the specific text of the legislation that says the tax would not be imposed on a rented house or apartment (as opposed to the purchase of a home), since Section 95 provides that Exemptions must be specific.

The overwhelming theme railing against "partisanship" of his website arguably makes it seem what drives his candidacy is that he has failed to achieve his own personal political ambitions, and to deliver the specific legislation desired by those he actually represents, in the current political environment. Partisanship is a symptom, not a cause, of these challenging times. And making "opposing partisanship" the basis of your campaign is hardly leadership, it is simply trying to take advantage of the frustrations of those who seek a leader.

If Westlund truly were a leader, he would actually try first to build a viable third party. That requires gathering people with shared vision with a coherent political philosophy based on the articulation of a shared set of values. Right now, a pretty good argument could be made that such an effort would be welcomed by the electorate, and of more value to the state and country, than a faux cowboy independent with disjoint positions on just a few issues.

And Russell, your comment that's the nasty business of disenfranchising voters is uninformed at best. There is now a substantive body of Constitutional jurisprudence on why the recent fixes to Oregon law are not only required, and is not at all disenfranchising voters, but in fact makes good sense in a representative democracy.

For those who want to read more about Westlund's self-articulated positions on issues:

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=BS034677#0

Worth a note also are the questions he chose not to answer for reasons only know to himself.

Westlund....

Independent = Good start Republocrat = Very, Very Bad

Everywhere we hear a call for a Republican-Democrat meeting of minds and policy, except they are almost the same, and they do not work. Look at our country and our state - in every respect disaster and more disaster. Real progress is going to require really new ideas, and not just new "brands"

I have read many blog threads with great interest, but without the sense of sadness I thought would accompany such a bloodletting. I suppose I have already grieved for the death of my republican party and have accepted the leathery flap of wings in my ear as the vultures circle for the last scrap of carrion on the battlefield. It has long been said that we eat our young, resulting in a dearth of successful state-wide victories as well as a lack of leaders from which to draw. Well, we also eat our old, our sick, our has-beens and our wannabes. We dine on the middle-aged, snack on the moderate, pick our teeth with the splintered femurs of the tolerant...and we love to see our candidates bleed. Politics has become the great gladiatorial bloodsport of the age. And we are here, our feet pounding, our fists pummeling the empty air...looking for any sign of weakness and searching for the death-blow.

The only sadness I feel is for the hue and cry of those people frantically trying to defend their candidate choice; pardoning grievous sins like some priest selling indulgences, overlooking flaws, excusing behaviour and in general, doing anything to convince themselves that THEY the supporter have made a good selection. Those vainglorious attempts to rationalize personal choices speaks a silent requiem for the party that once held such great promise - the philosophical heir to such men as Lincoln and Reagan. Now when election time approaches, we don't put our best foot forward...we put whatever foot we can find. The best people have no interest in participating in what could only realistically be described as a greased pig contest. Does any republican really think any of our candidates is the best person to lead us forward, to unite our party, to bring our state together and show the leadership and strength of character necessary to be an effective governor?

Every one of us know that Mannix plays fast and loose with the money of a really creepy guy, and would probably sell his very soul if the price included the public approval he so obviously craves. We all know that Atkinson has zero experience or personality to do the job. We all know Saxton is a twisted soundbite amalgam of whatever he thinks can win the Portland vote and enough scraps of the outlying areas to eek out a win. And yet here we are.

I think the only qualifying factor to be an elected official should be that you would rather die than take the office. We seem to attract the worst sort of folks. Dan Doyle? He is a lying bastard who hoped people would just flatter power like and cover everything up. Kelly Wirth? This contemptable whore was the only "no" vote on legislation to increase penalties on meth use when she had her own meth habit brewing while she was porking the janitor. Billy Dalto? Just talking to this cabbage-patchesque buffoon makes homeless people want to go shower. Forming a 527 to help GW, lying about the structure, and then pocketing the profits. If you elect a used car salesman, then don't be surprised when you get stuck with a lemon. Dalto is a feckless skid-mark on the undershorts of politics! Derrick Kitts? Mr. Mugs-and-Juggs-strip-bar-tab and drunk driver? The only reason he ran for the legislature was so he could have more credibility for a congressional bid. I guess "playboy legislator" looks better than "failed lawn-boy". He has openly expressed his comtempt for the average voter and was disgusted that he couldn't just vault into a congressional seat without some semblance of a public service record. At least now he is pitted against wannabe rapist David Wu. May the best man win? I'd rather lick out the grease trap at Arctic Circle than cast a vote for either of these two remoras on our underbody politic. Neil Goldschmidt? A rusty steakknife could have fixed this problem, but too many people were willing to cover it up. Did they flatter power just to get ahead? Looks like a lot of them did.

Make no mistake. This is our fault. There will always be self-serving pigs eager to eat at the public trough, abuse the trust and bask in the attention we give them. There will always be hangers-on, ready to flatter power at the drop of a hat and do whatever it takes to make themselves valuable - sling mud, leak information, jump ship, betray, deceive and cover up. They will always be there. So why the hell do we allow this to perpetuate? Do these people really represent US? Are they the best and brightest we have to offer, or are they the only ones whose egos whip them onward? Are we so dehydrated for leadership that we would slake our thirst with the most brackish, fetid swill and pretend it is in a crystal goblet from a bubbling mountain spring? Have we forgotten what real leadership and character is? Do we just settle for a shadowy doppleganger of genuine integrity?

Nice prose, Vox, but it doesn't go much of anywhere. You criticize and question, but offer no analysis of the problem. You conflate personal failings - some serious - with major transgressions against the public good, which suggests that you are more morally peevish than civically concerned.

A little perspective: politics has always been a dirty game of lying, demagoguery, smearing opponents, buying influence, and behind the scene manipulation. Successful politicians are often ruthless, egotistical, and willing to sell-out the public for power. The task for concerned citizens is to move the system toward one that increases the competitive advantage of candidates who champion the best interests of the people, candidates of intelligence, energy, and insight.

In our present political situation, campaign finance reform in the form of strict limits, transparent reporting, and public financing looks to me to be the most important step. Elected officials cannot represent the people and wealthy interests at the same time. Refusing to deal with this reality means giving up on democracy, plain and simple.

The media will always be a problem for various reasons. The problem is minimized by promoting diversified media that can exist independent of wealthy and powerful interests. We have been moving in the opposite direction for a long time.

Civics education, including media literacy, can be given a prominent and well-funded place in a well-funded public education system.

Procedural changes can help as well. Instant runoff voting can make the results of casting a ballot more consistent with the wishes of the voter. Rules that institutionalize the advantages of the major parties can be reformed.

Getting angry is a good first step. Understanding the probem and then doing something about it comes next.

Jesse Ventura got elected with only 37.0% in Minnesota in November 1998.

Just to keep it clear, Jesse ran as the Reform Party candidate. And it didn't seem like partisanship died in Minnesota when he was elected.

making "opposing partisanship" the basis of your campaign is hardly leadership, it is simply trying to take advantage of the frustrations of those who seek a leader.

I think this is a pretty good description of the Westlund campaign so far. There is a point at which people need to evaluate his record, what he proposes to do and how he proposes to get it done without any partisan support. Especially if he is going to propose a sales tax that will likely be opposed by both parties.

A couple of comments.

First of all, why did it take Russell to say this: "When the Democrats retook the Oregon Senate, Kulongoski still faced a hostile House Republican leadership deliberately abusing the political process anytime it couldn’t get its way. In the face of this hostility, Kulongoski decided to take a low profile, avoid ripping scabs off old wounds and simply do what he could do with a bankrupt state government operating on borrowed money and tapped out credit."

Did Ted think he could get through this re-election year without ever saying something like that publicly? And how does that explain the AuCoin nomination? ( I agree with Anon "I tend to agree that his administration took too long to transition with its legislative agenda"---were we all supposed to be good little robots and say "Ted, you have our best interests at heart so we won't ask you any questions"?)

If Ted had ever come out and said "I did what I had to do although that may have alienated my supporters and I'll be glad to answer your questions" that would have been a different story. But he's been out of the public spotlight a lot this year and his supporters have said things like "the governor has been doing what needed to be done, whether you like it or not" as if that were the revealed truth and anyone who questioned that wisdom really wants Mannix or Saxton for Gov. That's what makes Westlund so scary to partisans--they can't say the other party is running a boogeyman, so internal party debate is not allowed when there is a valid 3rd choice.

And concerning this complaint about Westlund: There is a point at which people need to evaluate his record, what he proposes to do and how he proposes to get it done without any partisan support. Especially if he is going to propose a sales tax that will likely be opposed by both parties.

I recall lots of Republicans demonizing Gov. Barbara Roberts (who I knew before she was Governor)for years during and after her term. In the 5th Special Session, Westlund was interviewed about the problems with balancing the budget. He said "Governor Roberts was right about Measure 5--everything but the timing. "

I have been a fan of Westlund ever since--what welcome candor!

I don't think "conservative" or other 20th century labels mean much even more. Give me a politician who says "we need to take this specific step for this reason" over vague "the voters believe..." or such other soundbites as "we must have spending discipline" (with no details).

If someone doesn't like SB 382 they should say so. But please, no more "we can't discuss it because it involves a sales tax". On that, Ben has been quite plain: Support my plan Come up with a better one or Defend the indefensible.

If someone can show me an alternative to SB 382 in written form, fine. But don't expect me to support vague rhetoric over specifics. And if you don't think Ben is being specific enough in April 2006, examine his legislative record and ASK HIM the questions--Ben knows where Ben stands more than bloggers do.

Or maybe it is more fun to throw out questions on a blog than to actually ask the candidate and either get a straight answer or the ability to say "I asked the candidate directly and the answer didn't satisfy me in the following ways".

Ross-

Perhaps you should read about Ben's positions and issues. There you might learn that Westlund is not proposing a sales tax...he's proposing fundamental tax reform: cutting income tax, providing property tax relief for owner occupied homes, earned income tax credit, etc...and the lost revenue would be replaced with a broad based consumption tax (VAT, BAT, or Sales) that exempts food, rent, medicine, etc. to make it not regressive. And it provides an additional $1.2 billion in more stable revenue for schools, health care, and public safety, while giving every tax paying Oregonian a TAX CUT. Do you really love tourists and tax cheats enough to allow them not to pay their FAIR SHARE??

If you simply have a superficial aversion to a consumption tax, what would you propose to solve Oregon's drastically unreliable tax system? Or do you support the current structure that when the last recession hit, Oregon's revenues dropped 25% leaving only cuts for schools, seniors, disabled, state police and the needy?

At least Ben Westlund is talking about solutions. Ted didn't even think to address tax reform until Ben brought up the topic and said it is a serious issue.

And Askquestions: Partisanship is a problem that is stiffling creative and innovative solution to Oregon's real problems. But characterizing Ben's campaign as merely about "opposing partisanship" is simply uninformed. I would invite you to visit Ben's website in order to understand the real problems Ben is solving for real Oregonians.

OK anon. You don't like Ben Westlund. Which candidate, which specific solutions do you support? Or do you come here just to vent?

JTT -

You seem to have missed the point. How is Westlund going to get any plan passed with both parties opposing him? He hasn't exactly shown his ability to build a bi-partisan consensus as a legislator, why is he going to have an easier time as a "non-partisan" governor.

You can label it whatever you want. Democratic opponents will call it a sales tax. And Republican opponents will call it a tax increase. Wasn't it Al Ullman who lost his supposedly safe seat in the US congress by proposing a VAT that got translated as a national "sales tax" during the campaign? I don't see why any legislator is going to fall on their sword to help Ben Westlund pass it.

Anon, Thanks for the specifics. I support candidates who provide specifics and debate policy in public. I think we deserve public airing of policy debates and thus refuse to say now who I will support in the fall. To use a formulation a friend (not at all political) used in 1994, if I hear a Gov. debate where one candidate comes across as slick and the other has "enough substance to take notes" (as my friend said then of Kitzhaber) I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the candidate talking substance, unless the specifics were such that I couldn't in good conscience support those proposals. Not everyone decides in April who they will support in the fall, and I've decided this would be a good year to be one of the undecideds--I was very decided last time and the candidate I supported exactly 4 years ago became a disappointment. So this year I will wait longer to decide.

Ross, There are those who say the only reason Al Ullman lost in 1980 was his support of the VAT/ sales tax. That is too simplistic. First, if you look up the results I seem to recall there was a 3rd party candidate.

Second of all, there was a perennial candidate (think his name was Steve) who ran in the Democratic primary that year. It was a fairly open secret that Oregon stood to gain a new seat in Congress--what became the 5th Congressional District (before that new seat, it was as if one district roughly the size of most of Walden's district plus most of Hooley's district was represented by one member of Congress). I heard discussions among Democrats who thought ol' Al was a powerful comm. chair out of touch with the folks back home. Debates went on along the lines of "shall we put up with Al for one more election, or vote for Steve to send Al a message?" Steve got something like 45% of the vote, the RNC and RCCC apparently looked at that primary result and decided Denny was worth a large infusion of money. Some of the ads were generic "vote Republican for a change because the incumbent did this bad thing..." and some were "Al Ullman voted against the elderly (turned out to be a small provision in a big bill but by golly consultants turned that into a nifty sound bite).

Ross, we know you distrust Ben and want people on this blog to answer all your questions. But the election will not be decided here, it will be decided "off line" by people talking with their friends.

And on that note, I just sent the link to this topic to a friend who has known Ben for years, and asked what he thought. This is someone who I'd earlier heard had strong feelings about a legislative primary in his district. The response back was that he thought the column by Russell and the comments were very interesting, and " I'm learning towards not voting in the primary so that I can sign a petition on Ben's behalf. ".

Ross, you may not believe in Ben's independent campaign--that is your right. But the answer to this question is not one you might like. " How is Westlund going to get any plan passed with both parties opposing him?".

If the House leadership changes (didn't Scott say in the Janie Har special session article in the Oregonian "as your leader I had to make decisions and if you don't think they were the right decisions you can remove me as leader"?) due to a change in majority or Minnis losing or members fed up with the 2 long sessions where Minnis was Speaker (I got the sense my own Repub. state rep. was fed up with the Speaker by the end of 2005 session), the next legislature may decide to have more open policy debates because obviously partisan game playing only got them disrespect and sessions stretching out to August.

If Ben had been Gov. in 2005, he might not have had much more luck than the people in leadership had solving problems.

But every session there are new members, and old timers who notice who was elected and who didn't return.

If an indep. Gov. went public and said "these are my detailed proposals" and worked to gain support from the general public and legislators (rather than ramming things thru in private meetings), I do believe an independent with experience and budget knowledge might just be the breath of fresh air this state needs.

anony 509 -

Clicked on the links you referenced, and you might want to be a little more careful next time. Westlund doesn't claim $1.7 billion in tax reductions. That's an average reduction for a sample household at each tax bracket. Single household...not aggregate. They aren't meant to be added up.

You are correct that Westlund's plan brings in an addition $1.0 billion in additional stable revenue. How much does eliminating the corporate kicker and some of the selected tax breaks that you mentioned? I know Rep. Peter Buckley from Southern Oregon was doing some work last session on tax breaks, and he could only come up with about $70 million from eliminating some tax breaks.

Would you mind retracting your negative comments about being candid and having your cake, etc.??

If you don't know what you are talking about, maybe you shouldn't shoot your mouth off so fast.

Anony 330 -

It's possible to have a tax cut and an increase in revenues when you broaden your base of taxation. Currently tourists and tax cheats are avioding paying Oregon taxes. With a sales tax, tourists and tax cheats pick up their fair share...while hard working Oregonians enjoy a tax cut. That's what happens when more people start paying.

JTT - I have visited his website and quoted directly from it in my post. Hucksters spouting vacuous propoganda like Westlund, in part to distract from their real agenda, are as old as politics. His schtick, which he shares to a disturbing degree with the nitwit whose finger is on the nuclear button right now, is to reify (look it up) a state of affairs and then invites people to make the bogeyman he sets up the cause of all they view to be "bad". Which for them is anything they oppose.

And as I've already noted, for those who want learn more of his self-articulated positions, go read them at:

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=BS034677#0

And JTT's misrepresentation of Westlund's tax position is pure spin (since I don't know if you work for his campaign and therefore actually know better, I can't go so far as to call him a flat-out liar). As I already documented from his own website, he most certainly is proposing a sales tax, which is one of the most regressive forms of taxation. But he actually goes further than that. He in fact proposes a huge sales tax for the express purpose of shifting the tax burden from the more well off straight onto the backs of those down the income scale.

Consider his own numbers: He is claiming that folks making $35K will pay 2.2% of their household income in sales tax, but that someone making $125K will only pay $1.5%. He doesn't give many details of the model he uses to derive those figures, and to all appearances he simply is making it up. Nor does he mention whether he is considering gross or net income, the disparity gets worse if one considers net income with just standard deductions and allowances.

But that's not all in: The tax savings for someone making $35K is only 0.3%, but someone making $125K will save 0.6%. His numbers are even further load though than this suggests. Someone making $35K is far less likely to own their own home, so many will not receive the property tax relief Ben proposes. When one factors out property tax relief, folks making $35K would in fact pay $126 more in taxes ("save" -0.4%).

These numbers point to the bottom line question for Westlund he doesn't answer on his website: If everybody actually gets a net tax decrease under his plan, including corporations and those who have passive income, how does this state actually end up with a net increase? That he tries to sell this tax ripoff as building a sound base for education also says something about either his intellectual honesty (not too mention what he thinks of the electorate), or his intelligence.

No JTT, I am well aware of what politicians like Westlund are really about, and it is not solving real problems for real Oregonians. Furthermore, his ideas are neither so unique nor so well formed as to support the supremely egotistical view that he has been called to lead by going-it-alone (where else have we heard that?). When he is ready to do the real work of pulling people together to form a viable third party, than maybe he'll be worth a second look. In the meantime, he is just another reactionary huckster trying to hoodwink Oregonians into swallowing more of the agenda that is destroying this country.

fact checker - you are anything but. The first link shows the vast majority of individual tax payers would receive a tax break, but the second link shows that the state would receive a next increase. Whether they first numbers are added up or not is irrelevant to the main point. So YOU are the one who owes an apology not anon on this point (If you don't know what you are talking about, maybe you shouldn't shoot your mouth off so fast.). We are expecting one forthwith.

As far as tourists. Tourists who rent lodging and cars do pay some pretty hefty taxes. Whether that is a fair share is something that can be debated. But shifting the burden on to working folks in the form of a sales tax is hardly the way to increase taxes on tourists.

One correction, in the previous post

the second link shows that the state would receive a next increase

should have read

the second link shows that the state would receive a net increase

LT - your "I want to believe" attitude is exactly the naivete that Westlund is attempt to so shameless exploit. It's kind of sad really.

First the easy snipe...

Of course Ross is against the sales tax; he said on a previous post that he's a Montanan, if I recall correctly.

Secondly...

Well, someone call the Legislative Revenue Office. Tell them they can pack up and go home... an anonymous blogger will handle Oregon's revenue projections from here on in!

I don't know how to run a full-on projection, but I did here the details of Westlund's plan explained by another public official, who described it thusly:

If a person pays their income taxes as usual, there's a tax cut for them in the aggregate plan. But... people who make money from non-payroll sources (like consultants, drug dealers, undocumented workers, etc) don't really have an incentive to declare those 1099 forms on their taxes. But that money is definately taxed when it goes through the economy in the form of purchases.

Again, I don't work on this stuff, but apparently the Department of Revenue at least knows how to compare the amount of wages paid out to the amount of wages actually taxed.

It's just plain stupid to sacrifice funding to schools and services based on the altar of "if anything changes, it better be more beneficial to poor people than it is to well-off people." The fact is, all taxpaying families get a tax break. Services increase. It's such a horrble plan.

Anyways, Westlund's challenge is "support this solution, come up with a better one and I’ll support yours, or defend the current structure."

Oregon's evenue structure sucks and Westlund's the only one who's proposing a solution... maybe it's not perfect and maybe it'll get changed as it makes its way through the capitol, but he's earned my vote (and signature) because he's doing more than just placating.

Russell,

Why do you assume that Pete Sorenson, who has been a legislator and county commissioner and is a hell of a smart guy, could not administer state government effectively?

Governors often have previous statewide or legislative leadership experience because those positions give them name familiarity. I would prefer a Democrat - yes, a Democrat - who did come up as part of the Goldschmidt farm team, experience that I believe leads to ineffective administration due to cronyism and subservience to powerful interests.

I fail to understand why some folks believe Westlund, a Republican who could not get along with Republican legislative leadership, would be preferable to Kulongoski, A Democrat - sort of - who picked few fights with the R's, Hill, a decent Dem with somewhat scarey ties to Wall Street, or Sorenson, a bona fide progressive whose campaign shortcomings seem to rise from his lack of ties to entrenched interest groups.

Ya, nothing's perfect in this world, but I have seldom, if ever, seen a Republican who made things better from a progressive viewpoint. Ending paralysis in a regressive direction is worse than paralysis.

Which brings up the sales tax. While not theoretically impossible, ending up with a more progressive tax system by adding a sales tax is very unlikely. If you look at a comparison of state tax systems [sorry, i don't have the link] you will see that Oregon's big business friendly taxation is still more progressive than almost every other state.

JHL - Another Westlund Kool-aid drinker.

I'll take up the 1099 argument in a moment, but let's point out again that even the 1099 argument doesn't change the fact that Westlund's plan is regressive on the face of it. First and foremost, it is the typical right-wing plan to shift the tax burden. So your argument that all tax paying families get a tax break is misleading. Richer tax paying tax paying families get a much bigger tax break in percentage terms. And in fact, as noted previously, the further down the income scale the more likely a tax paying family will actually see a net tax increase because of a lower likelihood of owning a home. So it is indeed a horrible plan.

Now the 1099 argument is another misleading argument. And to take it apart let's first separate the categories of those who earn income that should reported on 1099 forms by those paying them, and those paid without benefit of reporting by those paying them. (And it might be worth letting business consultants know that Westlund apparently considers them to be in a class with drug dealers if JHL is accurately representing Westlund's justification for his tax plan.)

With regard to those consultants and such earning income that the payer should be reporting on a 1099, the claim that this amounts to a great deal of lost revenue is nothing short of implying that that Oregonians are wholesale not reporting 1099 income. Since folks are supposed to attach a copy of the Federal Income Tax return to their Oregon return, presumably this means a large number of folks also are not reporting 1099 income to the Feds. Who have the 1099 forms and check them against the taxpayer returns. Which means that Oregon would have to be overburdened with Federal tax cheats in white collar professions like consulting. Criminal legislation surely is in order if that is the case.

The second claim would seem to be that there are large numbers of folks who are not reporting off-the-books income. This argument similarly diverts attention from the real question: Is the tax loss in this category actually big enough to fill the gap between how much the "respectable" taxpayers would save, and the net increase in tax revenues the state would collect? (Not to mention being demagogic by lumping all manner of folks who are putting in a honest day's work for an honest day's pay with "drug dealers" into an easily demonized group.) Looking to Westlund's website, he offers no justification for his numbers save for the misleading statement that For the most detailed explanation of the effects of this tax plan, download the full text of SB 382: However, in a quick review of the legislation there was nothing that explains the alleged taxpayer savings nor the alleged increase in state revenues, much less which speaks to the amount of current lost revenue in this category.

In fairness to the subject, I am compelled to note with regret and disgust that this argument also provides another opportunity for bigots and nativists to flog the undocumented workers issue that the right wing is shamelessly demagoguing this election year because they have NO principled positions on which to run. Westlund is making character an argument in this race by assailing the "partisanship" of his opponents as one of his four main issues on his website --- Health Care, Energy, Education (actually Taxes), and Partisanship. In view of that choice by Westlund, moral honesty demands one must at least entertain serious skepticism about his personal character if, as JHL has done here, he is using this argument even in an implicit way to sell his regressive tax plan.

Finally, it is important to note something about his plan that Westlund does not mention on his website and which is only buried in Section 6 and 7 of SB 382. Namely he also wants to deliver that other favorite tax exemption of the wealthy and the privileged: Elimination of the inheritance tax for estates up to $2mil through 2009, increasing up to $3.5mil in 2009 to 2010. Hardly progressive, and quite frankly heirs inheriting that much unearned money should pay healthy taxes on it for the benefit of society.

JHL is right, Westlund isn't placating. He's pandering to the poorly informed. And he's doing it to deliver the goods to the Republican base. If that's "earning" a signature and a vote, than we are in far bigger trouble than we recognize.

Dude... when you get like that, maybe go and punch a pillow or something. :)

Have fun at the ballot box!

So, Ask thinks I am naive and poorly informed. Maybe that is because I have been reading votesmart.org ratings since before I ever heard of Blue Oregon. Maybe that is because I've been involved in politics for 3 decades and survived the sales tax wars of the 1980s.

I no more think of the Vote Smart questions as Gospel than exit polls as Gospel. In each case the questions can be written poorly, among other flaws. I don't see Ask giving competing solutions, just calling those who believe the legislator they've met over the blogger they haven't met names like naive and poorly informed.

And 10 years ago there were people telling me I was supposed to believe candidate B who I'd never heard of before the campaign announcement speech and forget competing primary candidates I'd known for many years--because someone thought I should. That is what Ask sounds like. All that pressure did 10 years ago was convince me to register Indep. for 6 years--and to now support Open Primary and nonpartisan legislature as good ideas.

So Ask, if you want to vent, feel free. But if you think votes are changed by comments on a blog, think again.

Until a tax proposal is written into bill form, we are never sure what the wording is, the exemptions are, etc. In case anyone here has forgotten, the Gov. does not directly introduce legislation. Legislation is introduced by members who might very well decide that programming grocery store cash register computers to tax a Totino's pizza or can of tomato sauce differently than tomatoes, green peppers, hamburger etc. was just too much of a hassle. I've lived in sales tax states, but the tax was on eating out, not on (for instance) orange juice but not fresh oranges. Is this a distraction from considering the Central Oregon man running as an independent?

Askquestions & Anony - drink a beer and enjoy the sunshine...it's supposed to be a civil conversation. I think that's one of the things that Sadler talked about in his original post about Ben. Let's try to reign it in back on topic and mellow out.

All of this debate about Westlund may be moot. I, too, went down to the Earth Day event in Sellwood, signed the Westlund petition, re-registered to vote as non-affiliated, so that I can at least vote for the non-partisan offices. Then I asked the Westlund campaign guy how many signatures they had gathered to date. He said about 1,500. Until the Earth Day event, they'd been trying to recruit signatures only on-line.

So they now have about four months to get to something over 18,000 valid signatures. Considering the potential rejection of thousands of signatures from citizens who voted in a party primary (not to mention normal signature gathering SNAFUs), I expect they will need to turn in close to 30,000 signatures. And since I was talking to a campaign coordinator who was on spin cycle, I figure they really only hae about 800 signatures.

I'd like to see Westlund in the race, if only to sharpen the debate. His web page is less than informative, but I'd like to give him the chance in a general election to provide more details. But it aint gonna happen if they don't get on the stick with the signature gathering.

By the way, Jim Hill was also at Earth Day and looked good and was attracting a pretty good crowd.

LT - The argument about not criticizing if you don't have an alternative is just simply juvenile. In a representative democracy, the key role of the people in bringing about good public policy is first and foremost holding those accountable whose egos cause them to believe they can lead, based on the positions they advance. By shaming and rejecting the demagogues, the people can create political space for wise leaders.

Since the strawman argument of partisanship and a regressive taxation scheme are 2 of the 4 of the issues Westlund sets forth on his own campaign website as defining his candidacy, taking on the demagoguery of the former and the regressiveness of the latter is quite appropriate. Furthermore, Project Vote Smart's questions are what they are, and Westlund's answers are what they are. In addition, on his own website, he cites SB382 that he introduced this last session as the most authoritative guide to his tax platform. As his answers to Vote Smart, his website, and this bill are what he offers as a statement of his positions, it is quite appropriate to critically analyze those sources for the positions he takes and what that says about his values.

The inescapable conclusion is that almost across the board he is a right-leaning, relatively conservative Republican in all but name. He lacks the leadership ability to actually mobilize that party around him as their nominee, apparently because he has just a very few Libertarian-like social leanings. So he has decided to be a party-of-one (or maybe four if you count the co-sponsors on his rejected bill) so that his leadership is not really challenged. That's far different from successfully organizing a third party, and just begs the honest question: Which positions will he actually support most of the time? The answer to that question seems pretty clear, and they are not progressive.

If the House leadership changes

Lets get this right. Partisan gridlock will end if the Democrats take control of the House. So we should elect a former Republican as Governor rather than a Democrat? To say that logic is tortured is to understate the case.

The fact is there is little reason to think electing Ben Westlund will have any impact on partisanship in the legislature. And there is no reason to think Westlund can pass whatever proposals he has without any partisan support.

Of course Ross is against the sales tax; he said on a previous post that he's a Montanan, if I recall correctly.

You don't. But you are right - I oppose the sales tax. I think it is regressive and will get more regressive after it is adopted as a source of revenue. I don't really see any evidence Ben Westlund is going to be able to win support for it in the legislature as a Governor elected with a little over a third of the vote, any more than he did when he was a legislator. Kulongoski or Mannix would both have a better shot at it if people really want a sales tax.

But all you have to do is look at Westlund's TV spot to understand this is not about any issue. If elected, Westlund is going to spend four more years complaining about partisanship in the legislature while not getting anything accomplished. Because his only plan for ending partisanship is to elect himself governor.

Everyone's argument against Westlund seems to be that he doesn't live up to perfection... his tax plan has rough spots, or they don't agree with his campaign planks, etc.

Well, I don't think we're going to be able to vote on a perfect candidate this fall.

Westlund has been active in working towards solutions to problems that he sees, and is so far the only candidate to propose solutions... and unlike many other candidates, he has a reputation for working with both parties to re-draft and hone his legislative plans.

I don't see that from any other candidate.

Of course, I meant to write:

I would prefer a Democrat - yes, a Democrat - who did NOT come up as part of the Goldschmidt farm team, experience that I believe leads to ineffective administration due to cronyism and subservience to powerful interests.

Umm... okay, let's look at Teddy-K's proposals:

PERS reform: Broken campaign promises in '02. May have been a solid plan, but it's interesting to know we can't trust what he says in campaign season.

Bringing business: This isn't so much of a plan as it is his job description. Why don't you tout the fact that he was in by 9 and out by 5 every day. To paraphrase Bill Maher, it's like Delta airlines advertising, "Delta - We land our planes on the runway!"

Special Session: The governor cut an evil deal with Karen Minnis on this one. He needed something to hang his hat on, so he allows her to mute the payday loan issue so it doesn't turn out unions and Democrats in November... but she made damn well sure that there was no emergency clause to the bill, so it's business as usual until the end of next session.

But I guess many Dems would rather beleive that throughout the entire session, Minnis was just the victim of an evil wizard's spell, and Ted Kulongoski was the only person who could bring her out of it... but not until special session.

By the way, six months of secret wheeling and dealing followed by a farcical six hours of pretend public involvement shouldn't impress anyone in a democracy.

The governor has proposed his education plan three times now, and each time it's touted as a new plan... which says to me that either he's really reaching for attention or that the shelf life of each proposal is about three months. He's asked for more money into education without explaining where the money's going to come from... which is the epitome of election-year pandering.

At the KGW debate, he touched on a sales tax (which would begin to explain it), then denied that he ever did any such thing. This is the bold leadership we're supposed to be voting for?

Good luck getting votes by attacking each and every individual fed-up citizen as "going negative".

I didn't realize I had to have the O's permission to be discontent with my governor.

All hail Governor Kulongoski, for he is wise and just. We question him not, for he has the blessing of the O.

anon--who are you supporting for Gov?

Carla, Who in 2006 do you consider a progressive?

According to Merriam Webster online, Main Entry: progressive Function: noun 1 a : one that is progressive b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action 2 capitalized : a member of any of various U·S. political parties: as a : a member of a predominantly agrarian minor party that around 1912 split off from the Republicans ; specifically : BULL MOOSE b : a follower of Robert M. La Follette in the presidential campaign of 1924 c : a follower of Henry A. Wallace in the presidential campaign of 1948 Having known Ben for about 5 years, my guess is he is closer to Teddy Roosevelt (once the Bull Moose candidate for President) or Robert La Follette.

Ben doesn't fit ideological cubbyholes of the early 21st century, but it probably is closer to former Gov. Meier (I-OR) than lots of people comfortable with the political status quo would like to admit.

Anon -- A six-hour special session that is the result of months of closed-door meetings and backroom deals is not my idea of progressive government.

I take pride in being able to follow legislation and drive down to Salem to testify on a bill if I think I can add something to the discussion. The breakneck speed at which this orchestrated farce happened is disturbing and, frankly, dangerous in a Democracy.

Can we agree that I'm in favor of both bipartisanship and open discourse? Or is that just too much to ask my governor for?

Westlund was a legislator when HB 2614 (the bill requiring that voters participate in only one nominating process) passed, and apparently not a very good one at that since he didn't do a damn thing to stop it. Now he whines about how non-affiliated voters can't have their cake (signing his petition) and eat it too (vote in a party primary).

After we thank him for Governor Saxton, he can go back to being an even more ineffective legislator.

This isn't a prescription for ending paralysis, this is a paralytic pretending to be a panacea.

Of course people want to have and eat cake! What good is having cake if you can't eat it?!

Please show me when Westlund ever "whined" about HB 2614. I signed his petition, and the circulator never complained about the bill... just said that there was such support for Westlund that it shouldn't be much of a problem at all.

Sounds like the only whining on the issue so far has been from editorial boards and the Secretary of State's Office.

Amen JHL

I like this law prof's commentary in today's Oregonian.

http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1145667315222360.xml&coll=7

If am pro-debate, and if that makes me neither a Democrat nor a person of good conscience (as anon seems to imply) that's fine, I'll just register NAV after the primary and then no one can tell me that as a Dem I should.............. That nonsense is why I registered NAV 10 years ago--being told "the primary is over, you're not supposed to ask questions of the nominee".

I know how I will vote in the primary, but not in the general. I'd like to see Westlund and the D nominee call the bluff of the GOP nominee and challenge that person to debate details. Not slogans, details. If the GOP candidate thinks the status quo is great, we have plenty of state troopers patroling the highways, no Oregon teacher leaves the state (or teaching) because of the pay and working conditions, that's fine. But say that in so many words.

Any candidate who thinks the corporate kicker is great should say "Yes, we should be sending that money to out of state corporations, and this is what we should cut to pay for that".

Any other statement supporting the corporate kicker is not intellectually honest.

I'm tired of hearing politics is all a game and no one in the 21st century should expect intelligent policy debates in public. If that's what politics has fallen to, why should anyone be involved in campaigns?

It's arrogant and illogical to assume that a citizen who is unhappy with party politics therefore doesn't know what they believe.

Thing is... as Russel notes in his post, moderates and Independents tend to decide races. Not only here in Oregon, but on the national stage too.

Are those two things are related? There are a lot of citizens unhappy with party politics who are not moderate or independent, they are just disgruntled. They vote extreme right, extreme left and some are extreme moderates.

That extreme moderate fraction is important not because of its size, but because it is part of the only group Democrats and Republicans really can compete for. The rest of the electorate has made up its mind. That's why moderate candidates from either party generally have a better chance of winning.

Its not just the legislature that is partisan, its the voters. And, as I said above, the only plan Westlund has for ending partisanship is to get himself elected as governor.

Its not just the legislature that is partisan, its the voters. ........so, the voters are a single-celled organism and not individuals who think for themselves? On what do you base that--official results of past elections? Or conversations with actual voters who are not activists?

My sense from talking to actual voters is that they live in a different world. In April of an election year, ordinary folks are talking about someone they know being on a business trip, or in nursing school, or planning a June wedding. Or a few people having a conversation might talk about some politicians refusing to discuss details, or who has the most lawn signs out.

Of course, there is no website to visit to confirm that--the only way to know what indiv. voters think is to talk with them. If someone (relative/ friend) notices there is a challenger to an incumbent legislator, or has someone's lawn sign in their yard, that is as likely a conversation starter as a blog topic.

Votes are cast in the real world, not on blogs. As has been said elsewhere, incl. elsewhere on Blue Oregon: if you care about politics, turn off the computer and go out and campaign for your chosen candidate.

o, the voters are a single-celled organism and not individuals who think for themselves?

No, the "voters" are a multi-celled organism and as such it is partisan. There are individual cells who are Republicans and indvidual cells who are Democrats. We call that partisan. Its basic American English.

My sense from talking to actual voters is that they live in a different world.

I'm sure they do live in a different world from you.

The only way to know what indiv. voters think is to talk with them.

And the only way to know how all the individual voters think is to talk with all of them. You haven't done that, none of us have. They way you get some idea of what all the voters think is by polling, not by talking to the people you happen to meet. And the polling shows about two thirds to three fourths of the electorate is highly partisan. Not because they vote for the party, but because one of the parties nominates candidates who share their views on almost every issue and the other party nominates candidates who don't.

, that is as likely a conversation starter as a blog topic.

In the real world, people talk about sports, the weather, their kids, their plans for the weekend - lawn signs and blogs are not conversation starters of any kind. They are conversation stoppers. Which is why people who think they can tell what the "voters" think from the ones they talk politics with are fooling themselves.

The reality is Ben Westlund can't get elected without getting normally partisan Republicans or Democrats to vote for him. As I said above, his only plan for ending partisanship seems to be electing himself governor.

There is no case law to suggest that HB 2614 is constitutional. It is true that the US Supreme Court said in 1974 that it is constitutional for a state to ban voters from both voting in a primary and signing a petition for an independent candidate and a new party.

But, Oregon's HB 2614 has two legal flaws. Unlike the 10 other states that have ever had this type of restriction (9 of which have sensibly repealed it), HB 2614 is the only such law that doesn't apply the principle that the "first bite" is good, and the second "bite" is invalid. I documented this for the Secretary of State hearing officer, when regulations to implement HB 2614 were aired.

There is one court precedent against a policy of disallowing the Oregon policy. Lily v Mahoney, a New York State Supreme Court case, construed New York law (which no longer exists in any event) to bar disqualifying a signature signed before the primary. The court said, "The criteria provided by this section for persons who are qualified to sign independent nominating petitions are those that must exist on the date the petition is signed". The court said those signatures count.

The second legal flaw with HB 2614 is that it discriminates against independent candidates, relative to new political parties. All the other states that ever had a general prohibition on signing for independents and voting in the primary, extended the prohibition to signing for a new party and voting in the primary. The purpose of ballot access restrictions is to keep the general election ballot uncluttered. It makes no sense for any state to make ballot access harder for a single statewide independent candidate, than an entire new party, because a new party is free to nominate for every partisan office in the state, and "clutter" the ballot much more than a single independent.

Yet that is what Oregon's policy is. Both new parties and statewide independents need 18,000 signatures. But the new party can get signatures from any registered voter, whereas an independent candidate may not. DeLaney v Bartlett, 370 F Supp 2d 373 (MDNC 2004), which struck down North Carolina's law for independent candidates on the basis that it is irrational for a state to make minor party ballot access easier than independent candidate ballot access, has a good list of all the prior precedents on this point, which are entirely in agreement; there is no conflict with any court decision.

And even setting aside these legal points, the phrase "one bite of the apple" is non-sensical. As long as EVERY voter is permitted more than "one bite", no one's rights are being violated. Every member of a board that is hiring an employee ought to be free to nominate several people for a vacancy, and not be limited to nominating only one potential new employee for that one vacancy.

No, the "voters" are a multi-celled organism and as such it is partisan. Ross, are you saying every voter (or even every voter you know) votes straight ticket? How do you explain a rural county which goes for Bush, for Wyden by almost the same number of votes, D for Congress, D for Sec. of State, R for St. Treasurer, D for AG, etc? Have you never met someone who voted split ticket (Bush/ Hooley in the 5th Dist. for example) or who voted for Kitzhaber for Gov. and Gordon Smith for US Senate?

It was 10 years ago that a partisan political consultant told me "the fastest growing party is no party at all".

But if you want to believe in 2006 all voters think alike--that they look at the party label and nothing else and therefore they will vote left, right or moderate, go ahead.

As far as "And the only way to know how all the individual voters think is to talk with all of them. You haven't done that, none of us have", of course no one talks with all voters. But people who go door to door for their favorite candidate(s) do have a chance to interact with folks they would not otherwise meet. And sometimes people put party label aside for reasons like "I've known you for years, I don't know the other candidate". Even in the 21st century, elections can be about personal connections. Polls and focus groups are imperfect at best--although I did like the story I heard the other day where a focus group was asked to comment on a partisan policy statement and one man said "it is too full of banana peel words, slippery things politicians say as if we are too stupid to see beyond the sound bites".

But I have talked with some voters and the ones I have talked with don't always agree with each other or with a "team". And esp. sales people or others whose jobs require attention to detail get cynical about public figures who say details don't apply in politics--it is all about soundbites. Life is full of details--model numbers when selling computers or appliances, what to have for dinner, schedule for the day, etc. And politicians who say things like "we must do this" or "we must have spending discipline" or try to blame opponents for their own words or actions sometimes find themselves in late November with the title "former elected official"--regardless of party.

RW -- I don't have so much of a problem with the fact that I can't support Westlund and Kulongoski (or Hill, whom I prefer) at the same time... but what say those case laws about the following example:

I sign Westlund's petition, then receive my primary ballot. I do NOT vote in the primary for governor, but DO vote for my local school bond. Suddenly, my one bite at the apple becomes NO bite. Is there any case law speaking to this?

It seems like the state is making an overly-broad assumption about my voting habits in this case (namely, since I am a Democrat, I must have voted for either A, B, or C on my secret ballot)... an assumption that is neither clearly tied to the policy ends nor rises to the level of a legitimate state interest. ("Ballot clutter?") Basically, my act of supporting a school bond has (in this hypothetical case) resulted in my support for a gubernatorial candidate being withdrawn.

But you have certainly done your homework more than I have, so I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on a challenge specifically to Oregon's law.

Anyways, that's why I left the Democratic party last fall. And it's been great -- bittersweet for the first few hours, but after that it's quite fantastic.

JHL's comment about his signature for Westlund being invalid, even though he voted for no one in any primary for Governor, is completely rational and sensible. But it's not a winning point in any potential lawsuit against HB 2614, since the Texas law had the same flaw, and that didn't stop the US Supreme Court from upholding it in 1974.

THanks, RW... but I wonder if the Oregon Supreme Court (or even the US Supreme Court) would have more of an issue with the Oregon law... the Oregon constitution seems to protect voting rights a lot better than the Texas constitution, which provides for plenty of legislative restrictions.

Oregon's: Section 2. Qualifications of electors. (1) Every citizen of the United States is entitled to vote in all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution... [age and residency requirements follow]

Texas': Article 6, Section 2. (a) Every person ... who is a citizen of the United States and who is a resident of this State shall be deemed a qualified voter ... (c) The privilege of free suffrage shall be protected by laws regulating elections and prohibiting under adequate penalties all undue influence in elections from power, bribery, tumult, or other improper practice.

(... Not that I have either the standing or resources to mount much of a challenge, but I think the law certainly gets a run for its money at the very least.)

And even setting aside these legal points, the phrase "one bite of the apple" is non-sensical. As long as EVERY voter is permitted more than "one bite", no one's rights are being violated. Every member of a board that is hiring an employee ought to be free to nominate several people for a vacancy, and not be limited to nominating only one potential new employee for that one vacancy.

By this argument everyone should be able to vote in the Republican Primary and the Democratic Primary. I think the idea is that people who don't choose to participate in the primaries have the opportunity to participate in nominating a candidate in other ways. One is by participating in an alternative party's endorsement process, the other is by signing petitions for independent candidates. But you can't just be a sore loser.

I think there is a perfectly rational reason for the difference in party and independent candidate petition requirements. A new party is not being created solely for the purpose of this election cycle. Whether one participated in the May primary or not, one might want to be part of forming a new party for the future, presumbably beyond the next election. Independent candidates are running solely for this election cycle and someone who voted in the primary has already participated in that election.

Your legal arguments may have merit. But there are reasonable arguments for not allowing people to participate in multiple processes created to narrow the list of candidates on the ballot in the fall.

LT - I prefer to have discussions with people who read and respond rather than using me as a foil for repeating their cliches.

As I said above, Westlund's plan for endind partisanship seems to be limited to electing himself as governor. I don't think that there is any connection between the two. Elect a democratic governor and a democratic house and partisan gridlock will disappear. Westlund will just end up in partisan battles with both parties.

Ross writes: "As I said above, Westlund's plan for endind partisanship seems to be limited to electing himself as governor. I don't think that there is any connection between the two. Elect a democratic governor and a democratic house and partisan gridlock will disappear. Westlund will just end up in partisan battles with both parties."

Yes, disappear. Poof!! Partisan gridlock is gone. We are all one happy party.

Kinda like the Republicans in the US House, US Senate and the Exec Branch? Yep, no partisan gridlock there. After all, each and every Republican thinks and votes just like every other Republican.

And the same will happen in the state of Oregon, if the D's take the state House and Senate, and keep the Gov-ship. Gridlock-B-Gone!!

The Dems (or any one party, for that matter) holding all the cards? Ugh!

Aside from all the ridiculous bills that would be released, there'd be an extreme partisan "solution" to every issue... which may be great policy, but remember that we have the initiative system.

Look at Oregon's land use system... the Dems refused to establish a 'lot of record' rule (which would have been a great compromise), and as such, the discontent came to a head in the form of Measure 37. Hooray. If a Democratic Capitol overturns that, we'll just have another, slightly more constitutional, measure to deal with.

I don't want issues fought at the ballot box and in courtrooms -- there needs to be incentives to work out these compromises in Salem.