I think Torrid more or less sums it up.

I'm looking at the most recent just over a month ago Survey USA polling data which is from April 10th on all 50 Governors. It doesn't look good for Kulingoski. His approval trend lines go down across the board. Democrats, Independents, moderates, liberals... all have been trending downward for a number of months now, some going back to last November, while the disapproval trends are all going up. And the undecideds are relatively low. Oddly enough the trend lines among Republicans are ever so slightly trending in his favor, which probably says a lot more about the lack of enthusiasm for Saxton, Atkinson and Mannix than anything else. The same trends hold true when I select for conservatives too. Interesting. Still, dissatisfaction with the quality of the GOP nominee is to Kulingoski's advantage if he can find a way to exploit it.

As I said in an earlier thread, I think that in some ways Saxton winning helps him. Mostly in that it will force Westlund and Saxton to duke it out for the very demographic (moderates) they're both hoping to ride on election day. Whereas a Mannix or even an Atkinson win would have to have been preferable to Westlund.

Granted, that makes it that much harder for Kulingoski to garner a sizable block of moderates. But, he doesn't need to win them all or even most of them. Divide and conquer works as well in politics as it does anywhere else. Kulingoski could conceivably ride a portion of the left back into the Governor's mansion if neither Westlund or Saxton can pull a clear majority of moderates.

Go here for the Survey USA graph of all 50 states:

http://surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateGovernor060412State.htm

In the Oregon bar go all the way to the right and click the "OR" link. The drop down selector on the next page is up at the top left.

If Jason Atkinson is your type of guy (claiming to be the most consistent vote for the pesticide industry, cattle ranching and other mainstays of Oregon's economic past), then you have reason to be heartened by Ben Westlund's candidacy. You see, Ben had an OLCV score in 2003 of ZERO. Take heart Jason fans, you've still got a man in the race. Although Ben worked to bring his environmental score up to a robust (for a Republican) 43% during the 2005 session he still had difficulties with adoption of clean car emission standards, and with funding for pesticide use reporting. With independents like Ben now willing to stake out the irresolute middle, what exactly can we count on from such "independents?" Tell me. Show me the voting record. Make the argument that his careening voting record demonstrates principal rather than vacillation.

As I have said before, I don't vote organizational scorecards.

Looking at the Kulongoski and Westlund websites, I see more concrete information on Westlund's site (like how he proposes to PAY for his ideas) and links to "click here if you want more information on this topic" .

Ted seems to have ISSUES and PRESS as the same category--just like my state rep.

And need I remind anyone that "annual yearly income is up" doesn't mean much to an unemployed or underemployed Oregonian, and pushing the idea that Ben is a Republican in disguise ain't going to impress those who find Ben inspiring, or use his website as a resource to find information on certain issues.

But I think David Sarasohn said it best when he talked about how uninspiring people found the primary:

Apparently, enough Democrats managed a one-handed vote to renominate the governor, more strongly than expected, and very possibly the poisonous last week of the Republican campaign made it a powerful challenge for GOP nominee Ron Saxton to reconnect his party to mount a united challenge to the governor. But Kulongoski's victory margin, unsettlingly close to 50 percent, seems something less than a ringing endorsement.............

Re-elect Kulongoski; It Could Have Been Worse. ................

From a turnout below the darkest anticipations, it seemed that neither party's primary campaign electrified large numbers of voters. The result might provide a sign of double possibility to the independent campaign of Sen. Ben Westlund of Bend.

First, there seem to be lots of unhappy or simply resigned voters among the major parties.

Second, lots of people who didn't vote in the primary are now available to sign his petitions.

The nose-holding season may not be over yet.

There has been plenty of talk about Ben Westlund's environmental scorecard. It's easy to look at a two-digit number and make a decision about a candidate, but Ben's actual record shows a lot of concern for Oregon's resources.

Consider that Ben's tireless work on biofuel and biodiesel programs didn't score at all because it never came to a floor vote. Ben's support of TMZ regulation never scored because it didn't come to a floor vote.

I'm not aware of Ben having any difficulty with Clean Car Standards... I can tell you with authority that the lynchpin votes keeping the bill from the floor were actually certain Senate Democrats (who will remain nameless).

As for Pesticide Reporting... Ben Westlund carried the original PURS bill (HB 3602) through the House in 1999 and is committed to fully funding the program.

Ben did a fantastic job representing his constituents. On environmental issues -- which can be divisive in the fastest-growing district in the state -- he worked to get input from people on both sides of every issue, educate himself, and make a decision. And while the rest of the state has floundered, District 27 has become a clean, green economic powerhouse with a stellar employment rate and a vibrant environment.

What we can count on from Ben's independence is a balanced approach to environmental issues... not 100% of anyone's scorecard, but always 100% of his effort.

Consider that Ben's tireless work on biofuel and biodiesel programs didn't score at all because it never came to a floor vote.

Mike, can you show me any conservative blogs where the Westlund campaign has:

1) Purchased ad spots 2) Posted a comment

Curious: Off the top of my head, I can't speak for the other campaign staff, but I have noticed our ad on Resistance is Futile.

Kari, while I certainly see your point about examining votes versus proposals, I think that in some circumstances that approach could potentially yield flawed conclussions.

For example, while I have neither the time nor the inclination to do it myself, I would expect that a detailed analysis of Kevin Mannix' voting record as a Democrat to be somewhat different from either votes or proposals from the Republican Kevin Mannix. The reason seems obvious - pressure to conform to some degree if for no other reason than to not alienate the party base for the re-election campaign that's always around the corner.

I would expect that switching from GOP to Independent freed Westlund from those kinds of pressures. If that's the case, to whatever slight degree, then his current proposals deserve to be weighted appropriately.

That's not to say that a voting record doesn't reveal something important. It does! And I certainly don't advocate giving anyone a knee-jerk pass just because of a switch in partisan affiliation. I just think that the full context needs to be part of the picture if the goal is to gain as accurate a picture as possible. If the goal is to paint someone into a corner for partisan purposes then it neither voting record nor proposals really matter. N'est pas?

Fine. Don't look at the percentages. Look at the actual votes:

In 2005, Westlund voted wrong on HB 3481... "trying to add an amendment to dramatically expand the level of tax breaks going to major polluters simply to obey existing clean water and clean air safeguards. This "pollution control tax credit" (PCTC) robs state agencies of revenue needed to enforce existing clean air and clean water laws. It also biases the market place in favor of polluting businesses against non-polluting businesses."

In 2005, Westlund voted for a DEQ budget that included a provision would have prohibited DEQ from adopting rules aimed at implementing clean car emissions standards to promote healthy air and to combat global warmng.

In 2005, Westlund voted against funding implementing the Pesticide Use Reporting System (PURS), to better protect water quality and public health.

In 2003, Westlund voted anti-environment on 19 of 19 bills. NOT ONCE did he agree with those trying to protect our air, our water, and the landscape that makes Oregon a great place to live. A "balanced approach" my ass.

Westlund deserves a new monikker: "IINO" -- independent in name only. He's more moderate than the average Republican on many issues, but he's more Gordon Smith than Tom McCall; more often than not voting on the side of corporate polluters and against clean air and water. Don't be fooled.

That's his record. And we need to stick it to him.

Kari, that's a good debate to have: Shouldn't we examine Ben Westlund's record for clues as to what he'll actually do - as opposed to what he promises now, in the midst of a campaign?

Let's talk about what Mike S. said here: Consider that Ben's tireless work on biofuel and biodiesel programs didn't score at all because it never came to a floor vote. Ben's support of TMZ regulation never scored because it didn't come to a floor vote. I'm not aware of Ben having any difficulty with Clean Car Standards... I can tell you with authority that the lynchpin votes keeping the bill from the floor were actually certain Senate Democrats (who will remain nameless).

Let's talk about how much of what Ben Westlund did in public vs. behind closed doors and how much of what Ted did was in public or behind closed doors.

Lets talk about where Ted stands on SB 382, and if Ben has any questions on Ted's 2005 funding proposal which sounded to a lot of us like Minnis plan, the sequel.

Let's have Ben talk about whether he supported Chris Heffernan for the Forestry Board when AuCoin was nominated. Let's (at long last) have Ted finish the sentence "AuCoin would have made a better member of Forestry Board than Heffernan because............"

One of my problems with Ted is that I have never seen him make such explanations---unlike the guy I thought I voted for in 2002, he seems close to the way some other politicians have been over the years: "I'm doing this, therefore it is the right thing to do".

Need I remind you folks that Tom McCall was a personally charming Republican who feuded with his party, was personally charming, discussed and debated his proposals in public? And that long after his death there are still people who will tell you about a conversation they once had with McCall?

So Ted's "running against 2 Republicans " is supposed to win over which demographic? Certainly not the folks who say "well, if Ted is the nominee, I will look closely at Westlund".

The same folks who are now urging progressives to unite behind Ted will no doubt be pushing Hillary or Lieberman in 2008 because, after all, "any Democrat is better than a Republican, right?".

I disagree. Something has got to give, and the sooner it breaks, the sooner we can start fixing it.

LT--Did you know that hardly anyone knows who Tom McCall was? He lost his bid to re-take the governor's seat--and died--long before most of today's Oregonians arrived in this state.

Hello Blue Oregon,

This is Pete Sorenson. I spoke to the Governor yesterday and thanked him for his kind remarks about me and our campaign Tuesday night. I also told him that I had debated Ron Saxton and that I strongly support the Governor in this re-election year. Please get behind Ted Kulongoski. The Ron Saxton of 2006 is much worse than the Kevin Mannix of 2002.

Pete Sorenson, Lane County Commissioner, former Assistant Democratic Leader, Oregon State Senate

So Ted's "running against 2 Republicans " is supposed to win over which demographic? Certainly not the folks who say "well, if Ted is the nominee, I will look closely at Westlund".

The closer you look at Westlund's record the quicker you'll discover that Ted (despite his mixed record) is indeed running against two Republicans -- both of whom are all over the map depending on what crowd they're speaking to.

I didn't vote for Ted in the primary, but of the four remaining (Joe Keating included), Ted's by far the best.

Mike, which is it?

Mike> I'm not aware of Ben having any difficulty with Clean Car Standards... I can tell you with authority that the lynchpin votes keeping the bill from the floor were actually certain Senate Democrats (who will remain nameless).

Jesse O

In 2005, Westlund voted for a DEQ budget that included a provision would have prohibited DEQ from adopting rules aimed at implementing clean car emissions standards to promote healthy air and to combat global warmng.

...

If Westlund supports clean car standards, why did he carry the budget bill that blocked the DEQ from enacting them?

myranda, it depends on who you talk to. Some of us still remember McCall as the gold standard of governors.

As for "hardly anyone", it depends on who you are talking to. If everyone you know arrived in Oregon (by travel or birth) after 1983, your statement might be valid.

LT--Did you know that hardly anyone knows who Tom McCall was? He lost his bid to re-take the governor's seat--and died--long before most of today's Oregonians arrived in this state.

Saying McCall doesn't matter is no way to win votes from those who say he was the best governor in their adult lives.

"Don't pay attention to scorecards" is code for "vote based on the spin I'm putting out, not what I how I have actually behaved while in office."

Kulongoski's environmental record is lackluster. He has fallen into the same trap as other "establishment" Democrats in thinking that if he just hides or ducks on issues like old growth logging or industrial pollution in the Willamette, he can win votes (and money) from the logging industry and big polluters. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way (as witnessed by the logging industry's massive infusion of cash into Saxton).

But I'll take a lackluster environmental record over a really really bad one. I will never forgive Westlund for sponsoring legislation to exempt water flows in the Lower Deschutes River from the State Scenic Waterway Act so his pal's in the development industry could suck more water from it for golf courses and subdivisions around Bend.

Hey BlueNote, I'm not supporting H. Clinton or Lieberman. I do support Ted because Gertrude Stein got it right, "A Republican is a Republican, a Republican is a Republican,a Republican is a Republican.

A Tiger can't change it's stripes, huh?

Um... remind me again what party Kevin Mannix was a member of when he was in the Legislature? You know... before he became a Republican...

Gail Atterberry of Oregon Right to Life was quoted as saying something like "Kevin has had his chance".

What would Kevin do, run as the Loren Parks candidate?