Why I'm Voting for Ted
Jeff Alworth
Any time a sitting incumbent faces a challenge from his own party, it means things aren't good. And things haven't been good for Governor Kulongoski for some time--witness the very early entry of Pete Sorenson in the race, and the parade of high-profile candidates who considered taking a run at Mahonia Hall. In the past four years, Ted has done a woeful job of endearing himself to the party faithful, yet also failed to generate support from Republicans and independents. According to one recent poll, he's the third least-popular guv in the country, with just a 33% approval rating.
All this notwithstanding, Ted will get my vote in this year's primary. There are two good reasons I'm voting for Kulongoski, and a bonus, half-assed reason. This being a blog, you get all three.
Reason 1: Who Knows What's Behind Doors 2 & 3?
A Democrat currently resides in Mahonia Hall, and looking at the candidates running on the GOP side, I'd say that's a good thing. Consequently, any challenger must make a far more credible case than the opportunistic "I'm not Ted" pitch. So far, I haven't seen the case from either Pete Sorenson or Jim Hill. They both have good talking points, but it's not enough to be "for" a patchwork of issues. In fact, all three mostly agree in broad strokes about the main problems confronting the state: unstable tax structure,
underfunded education, lack of sufficient health care, and fallout from M36 and M37. The real question is how Pete and Jim think they're going to accomplish the things Ted couldn't.
I haven't spent a huge amount of time digging through every public statement Sorenson has made, but nothing from his webpage or interviews gives any evidence of how he'd actually accomplish the changes he proposes. By way of example, here's how Sorenson would provide health care to all Oregonians:
We can begin by assisting small businesses with their health care costs like Governor Brian Schweitzer has done in Montana. We can work together to make health care in Oregon a right. We can also end frivolous corporate tax giveaways and begin getting people back on the Oregon Health Plan.
These may be good first steps, but if Pete wants me to believe he is actually going to provide health care to everyone, he's going to have to get a lot more specific with the numbers. Down the line, Pete lays out what he'd like to do, but not how.
Jim Hill does a better job laying out his proposals, but taken as a whole, he offers a vast new slate of services and very little in the way of added revenue or offsetting cuts. As do Ted and Pete, Jim wants to end the corporate kicker and raise corporate income taxes. But he also wants to:
- eliminate tax breaks to "special interests";
- shift the tax burden from individual income taxes to corporations;
- create a Rainy Day Fund;
- better fund k-12;
- provide adequate health care for all Oregonians; and
- support the creation of a fund to help counties to pay Measure 37 claims.
Policy wonks may be able to run the numbers on these proposals, but my layman eyeballing says they don't pass the smell test. Beyond hitting corporations (which is far from a gimme in practice), how would Hill puay for all this?
Because Kulongoski is unpopular, it provides ambitious leaders an opportunity to demonstrate how they'd govern. But to unseat a sitting incumbent, the onus is on the challengers to show their work. If we're giving up the institutional advantage offered by incumbency, challengers have to do more than offer hopeful clues--they have to have a plan.
Reason 2: Ted's Done All Right
This is a controversial point, and I'm a little shocked to be the one making it, but all things considered, Ted has done a decent job. Keep in mind that he came to power while we had a catastrophic budget problem and a mostly oppositional state legislature (the House was GOP, the Senate was evenly divided). Things got a little better in '05, but the challenges were staggering.
I fault Kulongoski principally for the decision to try to work with Karen Minnis and the House GOP--by tying his hand behind his back, he allowed her to take control from a strategically weak position. I take issue with how he handled PERS and failed to take a greater leadership role in the Measure 37 debate and on SB1000 and civil unions. Finally, I wish he would have used the bully pulpit to appeal to Oregonians and push through some of the no-brainers, like education spending. He could have tattoed Minnis and the GOP on this one in '05, and instead the Dems got jobbed.
That said, I can't really imagine a worse time to be governor. Had he made a different calculation and governed more like Kitzhaber--"Dr. No"--it may well have resulted in even more polarized and intractable sessions. He was given lemons and he tried to make lemonade. I'm willing to look at where we are now and admit it could be a lot worse.
Looking forward, Kulongoski seems to have a reasonable plan of attack that deals in far more of the practicalities than either Hill or Sorenson offer. (Compare, for example, his plan on education. Now look at Hill's and Sorenson's.) The state is so broken that at this point, we all agree on the problems. Given the three candidates in the race, I'm thinking Ted has a better chance of making progress on solutions.
Reason 3: I Like Ted
Ted has spent his life serving Oregon, and for the life of me, I can't see how that impulse hasn't been one of genuine civic interest. I admire him for joining the Marines, I admire him for working as a bricklayer to pay for college, and for his impressive background as an Oregon Supreme Court justice, state legislator, and Attorney General. I admire that he goes to the funerals of fallen soldiers in a war everyone wants to forget and that he doesn't mention this in his PR materials.
I've never met the man, but he seems like a genuinely good guy and the kind of man Oregonian's admire. I have spent four years wishing he'd get tougher, but have never stopped liking him. No one admired Bill Clinton, and most people thought he was a great President, so being admirable is clearly not relevant to being a good leader. But it's worth mentioning.
So there you go. Ted Kulongoski may not be a latter-day Tom McCall, but neither Pete Sorenson nor Jim Hill have offered a convincing argument that they are, either. I'm sticking with Ted.
 |
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
May 8, '06
You gotta love those platitudes --"global economy", "21st century work force"-- but I see nothing in Ted's "61% solution" for education that says where the money's coming from.
Vote for tax reform, I say, meaning an increase in revenue. Vote progressive!
5:38 p.m.
May 8, '06
Right on! I have met Ted and your post hits the mark dead on. Let's spend our energy electing Democrats to the legislature and then we will see what we can accomplish in Oregon. At an early House Party during the 2002 campaign a young girl asked "Why are you a Democrat?" Ted responded " I was born a Democrat!" I often use the line myself, because just like Ted It's true.
5:52 p.m.
May 8, '06
Jeff, I've met Ted a time or two. He's genuine, honest, humble and he tried to be the peace maker, putting Oregon first before party politics. You're correct Jeff, he got jobbed. Watching the Republican candidates for guv attack each other, literally showing their dark side for all to see (except choir boy Atkinson) I am thankful for Ted. Imagining Mannix, Westlund or Saxton in office while the Dems nationally take back the House/Senate and hopefully the presidency is just plain lame. The other Dem candidates are running on, "I hope I can do better than Ted." Ted's run the marathon for four years. He knows where he needs to shore up the state of Oregon. He did it with the economy. Now he can move on to education. He's been a good soldier for Oregon, serving in various civic roles over the years. Sometimes the quiet, persistent, thoughtful leader is what we need in a time when our country is in shambles. That is why I'm voting for Ted too.
May 8, '06
Thanks Jeff for articulating what I hope a lot of Democrats are thinking right now as they cast their ballots.
The key to a successful 2nd term for Ted would be to elect more Ds to the House. Minnis does not have to be unseated, nor do the Ds have to take the House, for this to happen. Even with just a few more Ds it might be possible to elect a more moderate Speaker who would work collaboratively with the Democrat Senate and the Governor to move forward on education, health care, tax reform, and other important issues over the next four years.
Ted has done a good job under very difficult circumstances.
May 8, '06
My gosh, Ted's ratings are lower than Bush's. I hope us democrates call for Ted's resignation or impeachment like we do for our president.
May 8, '06
Jeff, Thanks for being a supporter of the incumbent Gov. who admits he has made mistakes. I fault Kulongoski principally for the decision to try to work with Karen Minnis and the House GOP--by tying his hand behind his back, he allowed her to take control from a strategically weak position. I take issue with how he handled PERS and failed to take a greater leadership role in the Measure 37 debate and on SB1000 and civil unions. Finally, I wish he would have used the bully pulpit to appeal to Oregonians and push through some of the no-brainers, like education spending. He could have tattoed Minnis and the GOP on this one in '05, and instead the Dems got jobbed.
Too many of the Gov's supporters have been using the line "Ted did the best he could so you're not supposed to question his actions, just give him another term and quit talking". Why they think that is a good campaign strategy is beyond me.
I watched the OPB special on Gov. candidates this weekend and if I knew nothing else would be glad to vote for the guy in Mahonia Hall. Trouble is, I have been paying attention, as someone who knew St. Sen Kulongoski all those years ago. The guy on OPB was the same as the old state sen. I once knew. But I found myself asking "where's that guy been the last few years?".
Too many supporters of Ted have said things like "The Gov. has been doing what the people want done" and not admitting Ted is responsible for Ted's actions as Gov.
If Ted had opened himself up to questions from the general public earlier, he might have had a better shot at my vote. But telling me that a vote for a candidate who I saw in person answer questions from a roomful of people is a vote for either Mannix or Saxton as Gov. is not going to get my vote--I reject peer-pressure appeals and if that makes me "not a real Democrat" that is also an explanation for why Wesltund appeals to thinking people.
I realize that is not a popular thing to say in some circles, but if Westlund gets on the ballot and surges in the fall, don't blame people like me. Blame those who say "your're supposed to vote the way we tell you to vote and don't ask any questions!".
Westlund appears in public, is friendly to everyone, answers questions intelligently. What a radical notion!
May 8, '06
This will probably drive you crazy, because you won't follow my logic....but let me tell you why I agree with you.
Of course, as an Independent, I don't get to vote this time around.
On the D side, I'd vote for Ted. (I have met him, he seems genuine). I think he has taken a bad rap. He really isn't that bad of a Governor, not as good as Kitzhaber...but light years better than Roberts. Hill was a decent Treasurer, I voted for him. I don't see how that experience equates to being Governor. However, for me he has the kiss of death on him, being endorsed by the union. Sorensen is a nice guy, I've even met him personally, but he is too out there for me.
On the R side, I think someone should put a fork in Mannix; he is done. I think his time has passed. Saxton is too slimy for me. He reminds me of John Kerry. Too fake. I might be persuaded to vote for Atkinson just to shake things up a bit. A new face and some youth might do this hum-drum state some good.
Westlund? Who knows? He's a curveball.
Of course, some BlueOregon reader will flame me because they oppose some stand by Ted or Jason, but whatever. As an independent, I never find anyone who agrees with me 100% like a lot of you rabid partisan Ds and Rs do.
By the way Jeff, nice column. Very thoughtful. I've noticed the thoughful insights on this blog are really improving. You almost lost me with Jergen's bigoted anti-religion screed last month, but even he bounced back with a really good column on education last week.
Well, that's a view from the Radical Middle.
May 8, '06
Geeze I’m frustrated with Kulongoski apologists who justify support for him by saying he’s a “good soldier,” or that he’s “done alright.” Why should the voters of Oregon settle for such an insipid choice?
Think forward in time a bit…Heaven help us if in November we face a choice between a right-wing Repub and milquetoast Ted! I understand polls show that TK would lose when running against either Saxton or Mannix (especially with an Independent in the mix). Try to get Dems around the state to unite behind mediocre Ted? Good luck…with a positive rating of 33%, do you really think a majority of Dems will hold their nose and support the ho-hum incumbent? Not! There will be little unity, enthusiasm or circling-the-wagons for do-nothing Ted, that’s for sure. I’ll wager a majority of Dems would rather vote for the Independent.
Indy Westlund comes across folksy and populist, but keep in mind, both Ted AND Westlund support a sales tax or some other euphemism, sometimes called a “consumption tax.” That’s the least progressive tax and hurts those worst who are the most disadvantaged. Get a clue, voters…do you really want a Governor who supports a sales tax?
This line of reasoning points to only one candidate in the primary who can beat the right-wingers and that’s clearly JIM HILL. I propose that even though there is creeping racism in our state, a majority of voters would rather vote for someone who’s decent, sincere, and in whom they can place trust. Hill is a modern-day populist who WILL go after the biggest corporations and get them to contribute more in taxes than the outrageous 5% they now pay.
Jim Hill won’t be bland, but rather innovative, creative and inspiring. Another means to raise revenues to solve Oregon’s critical problems? Jim Hill wants to invest in the alternative energy industry: bio diesel, ethanol, fuel cells, wind and solar. Boosting these environmentally-enhancing choices will result in sustainable (living wage) jobs and growth industries. Jim Hill’s tenacious advocacy as Governor for desperately needed alternative energy will jump-start the economy with benign development and a tax base that will remain in the state and improve our quality of life.
What more could you want than a candidate who offers a vastly more promising and hopeful future than the boring status-quo?
May 8, '06
I think I am going to lose it if I read one more endorsement for Kulongoski that is filled with complete acknowledgement of his lack of leadership and ability to take on the issues of the state followed by a willingness to vote for him anyway.
Here it is; when times are tough it takes leadership and courage to tackle the issues. Yes, times where tough during his administration and you know what, Ted didn't rise to the occasion. He didn’t even try. I have yet to read one endorsement, including this post, that says that Kulongoski is a great, strong or even above average leader. Not one.
Guess what, times are still tough and we continue to have big problems; second largest class sizes in the nation, 70,000 Oregonians dropped off the Oregon Health Plan, the Willamette River third most polluted river in the nation, corporate taxation lowest in the nation, and no rainy day fund to name just a few.
Kulongoski didn't tackle any of these issues as governor; he didn't even start talking about these issues until Jim Hill got in the race. Oregon cannot afford another four years of a governor who coasted by as the state suffered and blames the hard times or the House Republicans. Now in a tough election primary he suddenly wants to start talking about what he “going” to do. We have no reason to believe that another four years is going to make Ted a more capable or courageous Democrat leader. Not to mention the fact that his chances of getting elected in November are very slim at this point.
I am not going to get into how he barely won four years ago when he had all the party and labor behind him. Kulongoski has not been the leader this state needed and Oregonians know it. There are only two governors with lower approval ratings. Taft in Ohio who is probably on his way to jail and Murkowski in Alaska who I wish was my dad so I could inherit a seat in the U.S. Senate. Ted’s 33% approval rating would not suddenly turn around if he were to win the primary. How far is his “I did the best I could under the circumstances” campaign going to get him in a general election? Saxton/Mannix are going roll over him and progressives are going agonize over whether to sink with Ted or look to Westlund as a lifeboat. Both are losing options.
One thing is true and that is that it should not be enough to vote for an alternative candidate based solely on the fact that they have a much better chance of winning the general election, which Jim Hill does. Instead you should make a point to attend one of the dozens of public events that Jim has made himself available for. If you did, you would hear him talking about his idea of what it means to be governor of Oregon. You would hear Jim say that being governor is all about having the opportunity to better the state. You would hear him say that he doesn’t care if he is governor for only four years if it means he gets to tackle the tough issues. You would hear Jim Hill say that he “would hit the ground running” and “would be swinging for the fences” on the issues of education funding, affordable healthcare, the environment and the economy. You would see Jim Hill beginning to be the leader that the current state of the State needs so desperately.
If you are serious about wanting to see first-hand the ideas and leadership that Jim Hill will bring to the governor’s office, join us this Wednesday on the State Capital steps at noon. If you do I think you find what we are all looking for.
May 8, '06
Jef, I have great respect for Jim Hill and do not want you to interpret me as criticizing him in any way.
However, I think TK has shown a lot of decisive leadership in areas such as PERS, Economic Development, Gay Rights, Environmental Reform Transportation and in acting as a good steward for the Oregon National Guard.
I am voting for Ted because I believe that he deserves a lot of credit for digging us out of the biggest budget deficit (as a % of the budget) in the country when he was inaugurated, with getting us back on our feet and moving forward. I do agree above that if we had Speaker Merkley instead of Speaker Minnis, you would be talking an entirely different game about his accomplishments.
10:51 p.m.
May 8, '06
I will say that, as a registered Dem, Westlund is out of the picture for the moment. But his campaign thus far has been intriguing. Part of the campaign is finding support and handling the tough questions--neither of which Ben has yet accomplised. But we'll watch and see.
Jef, your passionate defense of Jim Hill is great. I think you misstate Kulongoski's record, and you're putting words into my mouth. I don't blame you, but I want to go on record as saying that I think Kulongoski is a good leader, and perhaps, given the crisis the state was in when he took it over, better than we know.
One thing I didn't mention in my post but wonder about: where was Jim the last four years? That's another reason I wasn't convinced Democrats should consider replacing our incumbent with Hill. If he knew for the past four years that he wanted to run for governor, why did he disappear? Am I missing something?
1:14 a.m.
May 9, '06
"Hooray for Ted! He's darn near OK!"
could you be less enthusiastic? your "endorsement" reminds me of the title of E.M. Forster's book, "Two Cheers for Democracy."
Ted had his chance, and he made a hash of it. you speak of the circumstances, but they are nothing to what Barbara Ross had to deal with. she never turned on her supporters or walked away from core Democratic values or constituencies. Ted's numbers suck because too many Dems do not feel he's one of them.
neither Hill nor Sorenson is a stranger, by the way. they have long records to judge them on. we know what we'd be getting with either one. with Ted, it's a guessing game. few trust his word, and if he does get re-elected, i don't think he'll be looked upon for leadership. that will come from the Legislature.
May 9, '06
With reference to Ted, Paulie says: ...putting Oregon first before party politics...
I'm glad that you've been reading Ben Westlund's website paulie...next time you might want to correctly cite the source (PDF) of your plagarism: "It is time to put ideas before ideology, to put people before party, it is time to put Oregon first..." Ben Westlund (Announcement Speech 2/14/2006)
Paulie, are you a closet Westlund fan? :) or is Ted's campaign feeding you messaging that they have copied from Westlund's webpage...
May 9, '06
I won't vote for Ted because he is a liar. He said he'd hold retirees harmless when dealing with PERS, and he lied.
Furthermore he and his cronies in the legislature gutted the best retirement plan in the nation - instead of working to apply its benefits to all working Oregonians. Plus they did this illegally.
If you were to deal with your kid the way Ted dealt with PERS problems, you'd whack the little rascal in the head the first sign of a cold.
6:59 a.m.
May 9, '06
I supported Teddy years ago, when Atiyeh beat him. I've always agreed that he's a decent guy. And I do like his policy towards the families of the troops - a lot.
I view the others as follows:
Sorenson: yeah, he worked for Weaver. But his campaign strategy seems to be: raise the least money, genuflect towards every stereotypical liberal issue, offer nothing that sounds innovative and make voters think he'll raise taxes. He displays the political savvy that Wes Clark did.
Hill: someone said "creeping racism." "Creepy" would be more accurate, and Oregon's history of racism is pretty well-established. IF anything, it's been creeping out, not in. And enough supported Hill to make him Treasurer. I think he's capable of winning in spite of the racists. And his record as treasurer helps make the case that he's not going to make the mistake Barbara Roberts did by going for a sales tax. He's as viable a candidate as Ted is, at least.
Westlund: us downstaters get ignored a lot in campaign strategies. Here in the state's second largest city, I really have heard little about the guy. If it wasn't for BlueOregon, I'd know nothing at all about him. I consider this to be his "pick-up-name-recognition" run.
Against that backdrop, let's review the Republicans.I think it's clear that the race is between Mannix and Saxton. And Mannix is a proven also-ran. Saxton's been raising the biggest money and I fully expect he'll be the nominee.
Which brings me back to Ted.
I think voters in this state like the Libertarian approach of 'the government that governs least'. Pragmatically, I'd say Ted's bland record suits most fine. But there's three things that stand out on the negative side. He could overcome one of them, but the trio makes his chances slim:
1) Healthcare: The OHP never served enough of the lower middle class, so it lost its popular appeal. However, since the need has only grown, voters can only despair that the problem will ever be resolved by someone who's let the momo slip to the wrong direction.
2) Though it gets little press yet, I fully expect the GOP will raise the topics raised by Vickle Walker related to Goldschmidt's repulsive behavior. What did Ted know? Hey, I have friends with secrets and understand loyalty, but I've also had friends that had to be excised from my life because of misdeeds. I grant that there's no proof that Ted knew anything, but as I said, combined with two other negatives, it makes his chances tough.
3) He supported the war on Iraq. That's going to matter this year in a state like ours. Even though his support (and the probable support of ANY GOP candidate) had no practical impact on the decision to go to war, it still makes him untenable for most progressives in the primary especially.
His low approval ratings don't bode well at all. How it plays out from here is a (potentially) different matter. Here's what I expect to see:
If Sorenson was not in the race, Hill would likely beat Ted in the primary. But Sorenson will pick up some progressive support here from his home base. Ted thus retains the edge heading into the final stretch. Hill is the only real pragmatic alternative with a chance, but at this point, I think most will vote for Ted because at least he brings some percentage points on the power of incumbency.
On the GOP side, I expect the GOP will dump perennial wallflower Mannix. So we're looking at a race we could dub "Bill and Ted's Unexcellent Venture."
Which Ted might win, if...
I expect gas prices will fall, which currently creates voter discomfort with ALL incumbents. Any and all such improvements give Ted a few more percentage points.
Given his support for Kitzhaber, it'd conversely help him if Kitzhaber spends a little time campaigning for him. But will he?
Despite the troubles we have especially with our schools and healthcare, voters in this state won't easily go for candidates who talk 'more taxes' as the only way to afford new initiatives. When property tax limits passed, the overwhelming advantage went to Big Business. Voters willingly surrendered the schools to that, simply because of the small personal gain they got.
I think Ted - or Hill if he squeaks by next week - have to use that knowledge of elections past to craft a tax plan that utilizes that same self-interest. If I had the ear of the successful nominee, this is what I'd be advising.
Tell voters it's time to give up the kicker for the sake of our kids, because otherwise, we're giving them only two alternatives for their future and the future of our state: Dumb and Dumber. Then couple a healthy increase in corporate taxes with a smaller (overall) revenue loser that hands them an immediate populist benefit: a homestead property exemption for their place of principal residence.
An economist would have to crunch the numbers to see what level that exemption could safely be, so the tax increase with the broader-but-cheaper tax decrease, would still bring in sufficient revenue to tackle the big problems we face. (I'm guessing an exemption on the first $30K of a home's assessed value would be close to the right number).
I think a proposal like that would undercut the GOP's chances of picking up this seat, and without an exciting new proposal, I expect our next governor will be Saxton.
There's an added plus from a homestead exemption longer-term: it appeals to retirees. We already are among the states picking up residents from baby boomers retiring. That brings added federal dollars (read: Medicare) into the healthcare fund pool that can help resolve the healthcare problem eventually. Retiree-friendly economic legislation has lured millions to Florida. It's certainly not the horrible humidity there that retirees yearn for. And it's made wages boom in the healthcare professions there.
So who will I vote for? Today, I'm not certain, but it's only Ted or Hill that I'll be considering next week or in November. I lean slightly to Kulongoski for precisely the reasons you've so well outlined, but I'll probably take the pragmatic course of reviewing the final polling before making my choice. I'd advise other Dems to hold their ballots till Saturday's mail, and use the same strategy. It's just not a race where ideology should exceed the pragmatism of building support for the likely nominee.
Whichever candidate emerges, I can tell it's gonna be a race where the best scrapper wins in November. Ted's got the better resume. But who has the best potential to display some innovation to generate excitement for this race and counter the appeals of tax cuts the GOP nominee is likely to make?
As yet, that's not clear. But it's not too late...
May 9, '06
As you noted, Ted's pretty vulnerable, with very low approval ratings. If you want to keep the Governor Democratic, I think now's the time you jump ship to someone who doesn't have as much to attack. Jim Hill is that man.
Ted will be attacked for being a flip-flopper, a tax-raiser, and so forth. And will labor run to his rescue this time? I'm skeptical. Without labor, and with independents looking to Westlund, Ted's got a very difficult race. And if Saxton wins, the Grande Ronde may continue to bash Ted.
On the other hand, Hill would have backing of the unions, the backing of the Grande Ronde if Mannix wins (likely), and no recent record of increasing taxes to attack. He's in much better shape to win in November, I think.
On a less Machiavellian note, Ted lost my support the day he endorsed Oregonians In Action's plan on Measure 37 -- to make the damages of that measure an order of magnitude worse with transferrable waivers. Not a single Democratic senator supported such an inane plan, thank goodness. But Ted didn't understand why people were so upset.
Yes, he's done some good things, he's genuine, he had some hard choices, but it's time to give someone else a chance to do better. And if we choose Ted, we may be handning the election to Saxton or Mannix.
May 9, '06
Thanks Jeff, you make good points.
I'm still not convinced that Jim Hill is anything other than a union protest vote, and Pete Sorenson is a nutty left wing protest vote, both defining themselves as not Ted. Protest votes are the equivalent of stomping your feet and rolling your eyes and storming off in a huff (see also: Nader) - very dramatic, but not very effective, and generally not the way to win (in the general, people, keep your eyes on the prize). And Ted - despite his struggling under difficult circumstances - will always be better than any Republican governor.
May 9, '06
Jef -
I realize that you must respond on blue oregon but....
The extent of your responses and in depth reading of everything tells me something...
When you sign on to blueoregon, you aren't campaigning!!! Now, log off and go out to work for your candidate. Talk to voters, undecided ones especially. Wean yourself from blueoregon until later, it will be here May 18th, Jim may not...
3:14 p.m.
May 9, '06
neither Hill nor Sorenson is a stranger, by the way. they have long records to judge them on. we know what we'd be getting with either one. with Ted, it's a guessing game.
<h2>I'm glad you posted your thoughts in a post, TA. Good for a little diversity. However, I have to take issue with this comment. A state treasurer and Lane County commissioner deal with few of the issues a governor confronts. That you would argue we know more about Hill and Sorenson than Ted more than strains credulity, in my mind.</h2>