He sounds like a boilerplate GOP Bamboozler!! It's all about playing dirty pool, and I wouldn't trust the guy as far as I could throw him.

Next??

Styve

Jesse, You are such a two face, I heard a rumor last week that you called the Ben Westlund campaign office, saying that you think Ben can win and saying that you hope so. So which is it Jesse?? Now that he's jettisoned that affiliation (a few weeks ago)!! He left his party on Feb 14th. Jesse please do your homework before making false statements like this one. That's 4 months by my count. Where did you learn to add? Mr. Burr., Work for real progressive accomplishments: Senate Bill 1000, HOPE intiative, APOLLO green energy program, and fiscal reform are all Westlund projects. (where's Ted??) Jeff, politics mattered more than policy. Neither is good.: Ben left his party because of the GOP's increasing inhumanity towards American citizens. Ben says "people before politics" and "ideas before idealogy". All you folks scream real loud about how people from the 'right' need to WAKE UP and look at what is going on around them. Then someone does and you slam him for it?!? What's the deal? Isn't this what your looking for?, unity? Or would you rather have a "us vs them" attitude about it your whole life? If I remeber right didn't the Patriot act get made permanent because a substatial amount of Democrats voted for it? What about Judge Alito, Mr Hayden, etc. What about the OK to Bush to invade Iraq? Gore did a good job in Florida, and Kerry sure did a good job of getting all the votes counted in Ohio didn't he? Why haven't you left the Democratic party yet? Are you putting your politics before common sense? If you feel a two faction society is enough for you then good luck.

By the way where is Ted? What has he done the past four years?

By the way his staff is made up of Dems, Reps, Greens, a Libertarian, and a handful of Independents!! There is room on Ben's campaign from both sides of the aisle.

I am an ex- Democrat, it took me years to do so.

You know Jesse you are absolutely right on everything you just said, yet Hard Core Dems are supporting this known (former) Bush supporter.

You can blast Westlund all you want, but I find it very scary for the Ted that Westlund has any support at all amongst Dems (and you people know who you are). Worse for Ted the more people hear what Westlund has to say (and if he can rise above the bloody mess Ted and Saxton create for themselves) the more appealing he will be.

I know Ted can't get the people back he lost. I also know hitting Westlund won't make people on the fence to fall his way. The best thing Ted can do is embrace Ben for finally seeing things the way Ted has and ask "Why did it take you 10 years as a Republican legislator to see that they do not believe what we believe(fill in whatever issue)?"

By embracing Westlund, Ted won't look like a jackass and even better when Ted says, "Well Senator Westlund is severely misguided here" it will actually carry some weight.

Calling Westlund a Republican is a great way to get the base to support you, but for Ted he as already pissed off the base (SEIU members and teachers aren't going to turn out in record numbers to save Ted). If Ted is going to win he is going to have to take a page out of what Bill Clinton did in 1992.

Clinton used Ross to say "the system is broke...and this guy is to blame.” Clinton also agreed with Ross about the need to balance the federal budget (an issues that even Bush agreed with). Clinton was so good he even started using the same language as Ross. People started to think that Ross and Clinton had the same ideas. With Bush joining in it seemed as all of them would defend our pocket book so Joe Voter went with the candidate who they agreed with on social issues.

My advice for Ted...

Saxton is going to say...We can cut taxes, cut pers, fully fund services, and give people pixie dust to make their hair grow. Ted is going to say...we have gone through a tough stretch but we are going to get out of this mess and the way to do it is Fund education, give access to health care, Blah Blah Blah. Westlund is going to say the system is broke and we need to fundamentally change Politics as usual. He is going to advocate tax reform, health care reform, alterative fuels, and an end to partisanship.

Westlund's message will resonate and with Ted and Westlund saying the same things it will over power Saxton's message. Every time Westlund says we need to stop politics as usual Ted has to avoid the urge to slap Westlund and the Republicans for F-ing up the state...rather Embrace Westlund's ideas. Ted should say, "I agree with senator Westlund that Oregon needs fundamental changes to protect Oregon’s ever dwindling middle class... that is why we want to create the rainy day fund for schools or (etc...). Oregon is renowned for innovative ideas and that is why when am trying to solve a problem I never take any ideas off the table.”

As the campaign moves forward and Westlund becomes a 20% candidate (and no higher), Westlund will move to the right to pick up more Conservative NAVS. Parental Notification and Capital Gains cuts will become issues that Saxton and Westlund push. This is where Ted stands strong for Democratic Ideals and will get the base back.

I know for all the advisers leaving your base up for grabs until a month to 2 weeks before and election seems like a gamble (and it is), but Ted is in trouble. I guess what I'm trying to say is Ted can't call Ben a "Republican" because Saxton is going to say he's a "Democrat" and in the end both of them are walking right into Westlund’s trap. Ted needs to use Westlund to frame the debate and embrace his ideas and language. This will force Saxton to talk about the issues he doesn’t want to talk about (like the reality of taxes) and keeps Ted from looking like he is a political hack (thus making it hard for Westlund guy rise above politics).

I know Ted thinks Westlund is an a**hole, but in the end he is also a political asset that he can use to control the debate in the campaign. But the way to do it is not to out Westlund Westlund, rather just team up with him to show that Saxton out of touch.

It worked for Bill and I think it will work for you Ted.

"I'm Winston Wolfe, I solve problems"

Right on, Andy!

A lot of Democrats were also supporting the war and the President back then because that's what patriotic Americans do. We didn't know then what we know now. The situation we find ourselves in as a country today is unprecedented and nearly unbelievable. It's the kind of thing that separates the brain-dead chaff from the wheat. Westlund has chosen a very lonely and difficult road, politically, but a lot of us are ready to follow someone who puts people and ideas first.

Do the words "doth protest too much" strike a familiar note?

Everyone has said and done things capable of ridicule if investigated deeply enough.

But you folks are kidding yourselves if you think bashing every word and action of Ben Westlund will prevent those like Winston saying things like Worse for Ted the more people hear what Westlund has to say (and if he can rise above the bloody mess Ted and Saxton create for themselves) the more appealing he will be.

Ted has a lot of explaining to do, even leaving out SEIU and others being angry about PERS. A couple of examples:

• Compare what Ted said about the possibility of raising taxes in 2005 and 2006. Are they identical? If not, why not? Does the fact that Ted was a Marine and Ben didn't serve in the military explain why Ben is more willing to explain his actions and admit mistakes than Ted?

*What was Ted thinking with some of his appointments, esp. AuCoin and Bryant? It is valid to ask what kind of people Westlund would appoint, but that's not what's going on here.

This post reminds me of what my friend Julie said over 20 years ago and still believes is valid, "when they act like that, you know they know they are losing".

I was not always a friend of Ben Westlund--he defeated a friend of mine the first time he was elected.

But I can't say I admire people who explain their voting record and admit mistakes and then say "But vote for Ted anyway even though Ben does a better job of explaining himself".

The change of campaign managers allows Ted to change the tone of his campaign from "doing what Oregonians want done" (then why did he have to work so hard to get 54% in the primary?) to "here are explanations of what I did in my first term and what I hope to do if you elect me to a second term".

His true friends will suggest this to him.

And fair warning. I have before chosen who to vote for based on the tone of campaign (once dropped a candidate like a hot potato and went with my second choice after hearing a nasty radio ad) and my brother recently did a similar thing in the Calif. Dem. Gov. primary.

If this "look at all the bad things Ben has done, vote Ted" refrain continues, and someone asks me how I am going to vote for Gov., I will say "leaning towards Ben, the positive candidate". And if that makes me "not a real Democrat", fine. I can just register with "the fastest growing party--no party at all".

The Dems' arguments against Westlund always seem to boil down to two inconsistent statements:

1. He's a shrewd political opportunist.
2. He's shed all of his support from both sides of the aisle.

I don't have to agree with a politician 100% of the time to think they're the best candidate. A politician who knows full well that he's about to walk down a "lonely and difficult road" and goes ahead and does it anyway certainly merits my consideration.

Becky wrote: "A lot of Democrats were also supporting the war and the President back then because that's what patriotic Americans do."

Becky,

What planet are you talking about? Because here on planet earth, George W. Bush was elected with fewer votes from members of the opposite party than any other president in history.

Nationally, only 11 percent of Democrats voted for Bush in 2004, which was mostly made up of traditional Democratic southerners who are still registered with the party but haven't voted for a Democrat since President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

A lot of Democrats supported the President back then because that was the patriotic thing to do? That's a good one.

JHL

(1) Someone can be a political opportunist without being shrewd. Ben Westlund is indeed an opportunist, but he certainly isn't very savvy about it. That might reconcile the apparent contradiction you observe.

(2) This business about Westlund walking down a "lonely and difficult road" is nonsense. Westlund is running on the message that he represents Oregon's silent majority of independents. His whole appeal is that he claims to stand with Oregon's majority. You can't sympathize with a guy for walking down a "lonely and difficult road" who himself claims to be running down a crowded and supportive road!

(3) I agree. You don't have to agree with a candidate's complete record to vote for him. For example, I disagree with the Governor's position on PERS reform, but I'm still supporting him. But some issues -- or groups of issues -- are bellweather indications of where a person stands. Let's look at where Westlund stands: - He didn't just support Measure 36; he submitted a voters pamphlet statement declaring his overwhelming support for the measure and influencing others to join him. - His environmental record is embarrassing. - He voted against increases in Oregon's minimum wage on multiple occasions. - He has voted against reproductive choice for women on multiple occasions.

Look, there's not just one thing -- or just a couple of things -- that this guy has done wrong. He's taken some clear positions on some very important bellweather issues. If you're willing to look past those issues because you think he's a progressive, then I think that makes you naive.

And does anyone else wonder: if he's changed his mind so much in the past couple of years, how many times can we expect this guy to change his mind once he's elected?

Stella, what planet are you living on? Westlund's comments relate to the war era, not the pre-war era. If memory serves, nearly all of the Democrats in Congress voted to give Bush the authority to declare war because of the BS they were told about a connection to 9/11 and the danger of Iraqi-sponsored terrorism using WMDs. We know otherwise now, but we didn't then. The President's approval ratings were VERY high in the beginning - and included a heck of a lot of Democrats. Don't you remember that?

As for the idea that a person's political transformation from loyal Republican to independant thinker can occur in an instant, let me tell you, it doesn't happen that way. It's an evolutionary process - a slow awakening. I'm willing to give Westlund a chance to show if he's really waking up, but I can't imagine he'd be doing what he's doing otherwise. I hope I'm not wrong.

OK, Becky...

I don't know what kind of pipe you're smoking, but the subject of this entire discussion is the quote Jesse lifted out of Steve Duin's column:

"Westlund has seen the e-mails and heard the screams. His support for Bush in 2004? 'I was still wearing the uniform. We were at a time of war. You tend to support presidents during times of crisis.'"

Did Westlund support Bush in 2004? Yes. Did moderate Democrats support Bush in 2004? No.

And, for the record, November 2004 was not "pre-war." We went to war with Iraq in March 2003 and we're still at war.

Stella, one of us is confused as to what the other one is saying, is all I can figure, and I'll be damned if I know which one of us it is. I can't understand why you're arguing this point and I think I've already addressed what I thought you said, so either I need some caffeine or you need to re-read the context and my posts.

Charlie says: Having a few progressive accomplishments under his belt is a reasonable thing for progressives to ask for before Westlund earns their vote. His just seems like a faith-based candidacy at this point. I could make a joke about some thinking support for Ted is "faith based" given that there hasn't been a lot of discussion about his specific actions/proposals on education (exactly what did he do on education funding in 2005, and where has he explained his 2005 actions on education, for instance).

But instead, maybe this will get attention back to the issues.

Here are the URLs for Ben, Ted and Ron on their own websites talking about education funding.

http://www.westlundforgovernor.com/issues_education.php

http://www.tedforgov.com/issues/education/

http://www.votesaxton.com/Issues/Issues.html

I am not a card-carrying progressive, so "reasonable thing for progressives to ask for" doesn't include me. I tend to trust people I know and have talked with over people who I haven't talked with ever or recently. I honestly don't know what Ted was doing about education last year because I haven't heard him talk about it. He has some sort of education enterprise he talks about now, but I don't think that's what he was talking about last year.

But then, I'm not a lifelong Democrat. I've been a McCall Republican, a member of Dem. State Central Comm. (and spent thousands of hours working on Democratic party matters and campaigns as a volunteer) and I have been a registered Indep/NAV. It seems to me Ben talks more about issue specifics than Ted (who is more detailed than Ron).

If you don't trust Ben, spend all your spare time on Ted's campaign. But don't expect me to support Ted this summer (the election isn't until November) just because there are bloggers who don't trust Ben.

Charlie - Maybe I'm just hungry to have faith in someone! I'm willing to give him a chance. But if he doesn't make it, I'd love to see him go back to the Legislature, prove himself, and try for Mahonia Hall at a later date. And if he does make it and he goes right-wing on us, which I can't imagine, then we'll have to find a strong candidate to run against him next time. The thing is, when I look at the partisan line-up I don't have anywhere else to go but Westlund. That's me. So I'm just really happy that I also feel good about him right now because for a long time I've been casting hold-your-nose votes. November is far enough away that we have plenty of time to see what he's got going on in his mind and move elsewhere if he's not showing enough depth.

Thank you Becky and Charlie for intelligent debate.

I remain undecided. As a 2002 Ted supporter, I wish he was running a better campaign. The 54% primary victory should be a warning that "I'm the incumbent Democrat, vote for me" just ain't gonna cut it for voters who didn't vote for him in the primary (esp. Indep. and those who supported Jim or Pete or chose not to vote in the primary).

Ted needs someone like Mike Selvaggio. Someone who could get out a message other than the vague "Ted's been good for Oregon, vote for him".

Why is Ted so allergic to explaining himself, even if he has to do it over and over? Does he not see the election as a job interview? What are his proposals for the future? What did he do in 2005 when he seemed so absent from public view that people told "Where's Waldo" jokes.

If Ted can't get a better organized campaign and explain himself and his ideas better than "I'm running against a bunch of Republicans", he doesn't deserve to win. Even if his campaign took every idea off the Westlund website and publicly agreed, disagreed, or enlarged upon those ideas, that would be an improvement from what seems to be "if you're a Democrat, you're supposed to vote for me because I did good things".

Is Ted stubborn, or why is it that he won't explain his own actions? Do he and his supporters think bashing Westlund will make up for Ted's lack of explaining what Ted has done?

I've know Ted a lot longer than Ben, but this current Gov. doesn't seem like the guy I once knew. Dissecting ever word Ben Westlund ever spoke will not answer the question "Why isn't Gov. Ted the guy we expected him to be when we voted for him 4 years ago?".

Don't tell me "times were hard". FDR faced harder times, and he was able to explain to the general public what he did and why. If Ted is not able to do that, finding some remark Westlund made and dissecting it won't hide the fact that some of us expected Ted to have better communication skills than he turned out to have. Does he not think the public deserves to know what he's done and what specifics he proposes because he meets privately with "movers and shakers" and they are the ones whose opinion really matters? Or what?

Because Jesse's our friend, I'd like to pop in and quickly clear up a potential misunderstanding.

Yes, Jesse called us. Yes, Jesse thinks Ben can win. No, Jesse NEVER said that he hopes Ben will win. If he had, we would have posted that on our supporters page on the website -- instantly.

Gosh Kari, I campaigned for Tom McCall's re-election, grew up in a Republican politician's family (Grandpa was elected statewide in our native state as a Republican and attended a GOP national convention) and have voted for a few other Republicans in my life.

I also campaigned for John Anderson for President in 1980 and Brent Thompson for US Senate in 1996--third party candidates who talked about issues the major party candidates wouldn't talk about. I was a delegate to the 1984 Dem. National Convention and for a few years was an active member of state and district Dem. state central comm.

But because I am not Becky I am a Republican because "once a Republican, always a Republican"?

Al Franken told a joke this morning "In 1858, Abe Lincoln of Illinois said "a house divided against itself cannot stand" and yesterday, Henry Hyde of Illinois blamed Democrats for 9/11. Enough said".

Al makes a good point about polarization.

Maybe there are people in Mult. Co. whose social circles include only Democrats. But in order to keep the rest of the state "blue", one must get to know Republicans and independents.

Friends of mine voted Bush/Hooley in 2004, and someone I know voted for Bush but against Measure 36. Is that because they are Republicans to the core, or because they didn't like Kerry for some reason? Do Democrats want the votes of such swing voters, or (for instance) should all 2004 Bush voters in the 5th Cong. District have been required to vote for Zupancic? Are you folks saying you don't believe individuals are allowed to vote for the candidate rather than the party? And you wonder why so many register outside major parties and find third party candidates appealing?

For all the people who have said "Blue Oregon is not a voter contact site", you have no way of knowing how many people read but never comment (unless you have website statistics on how many computers log on to the site vs. how many comments there are). I have used Blue Oregon links to illustrate points in email discussions. People have told me they read Blue Oregon but never comment.

I would strongly suggest visiting the Westlund supporter link Mike provided.

There are quotes from supporters (click on a name to read quote) including this:

Senator Westlund in many ways reflects the true Oregon heritage of independent thinking. ...

A friend of mine had a job on the E. Coast in 1968 and said if she were a betting person, she could have gotten lots of money betting on McCarthy to win the Oregon primary--struck her as just the sort of independent spirit Oregonians liked, although her co-workers said "Oregon will never go for McCarthy".

On both sides of those " words of support " on the benwestlund.com supporter page are listed "endorsers" including former Republican state reps. Jim Hill and Mary Alice Ford of Washington County. They were both thorns in the side of the Minnis type right wing Republians back in the day that caucus had intellectual diversity. Their words and actions kept previous sessions from being as conformist as the 2005 session.

I was a great fan of Mary Alice Ford---no I have never been a straight party Democrat in the sense of not even talking with sensible Republicans. Not that I always agreed with her, but the conversations were always intelligent. Too bad she was defeated in a primary by a right wing candidate.

Maybe Kari or Jesse could find a Kulongoski supporter to detail Ted's specific proposals, what he has learned in his first term, what he might have done differently. That would gain them more potential supporters than Ben bashing.

Democratic strategy for winning the White House:

1. Put up a horrible, uninspiring Dem candidate.
2. Play dress-up in hunting clothes, go windsurfing, etc.
3. Admit that candidate is not great, but better than other guy.
4. Lose election.
5. Tell voters they are stupid for not choosing the correct uninspiring candidate.

Man... sounds like a winning strategy!

Yah... I wouldn't have made the same decision Westlund did. I don't know if I'm voting Kulo or Westlund... but I'm not going to base my choice on who thought John Kerry was totally awesome.