Does anybody remember Mad Magazine's old "Spy vs Spy" cartoons? The two pointy-faced guys would square off and catch each other in booby-traps and whatnot. But once in a while, there'd be a twist... Mad would run "Spy vs Spy vs Spy." And there'd be a new spy who would watch the other two fight and then after they were battered around a bit, she (it was a lady spy) would swing in and take the microfilm, or candy bar, or whatever they were fighting over.

Just a thought.

Perhaps off-topic, but just curious as to why BlueOregon seems to always peg Westlund as some variation of "(R->I)" but didn't extend the same service to Kevin Mannix (D->R)...

Isn't it ironic that the very people entrusted to provide the rest of us with information about candidates have already made up their own minds without having heard most of them?

I can appreciate the desire for in-depth answers, but don't you think the newspaper biggies would be curious as to what each candidate has to say, and not just the two who are the most well known? Couldn't they have expanded the length of the "debate" and perhaps cut seminars such as "New Advertorial Sections to Boost Your Bottom Line" or "More (Profit) with Less News Staff?"

Funy, the one thing that must don't seem to have noticed is that the Governor's camp would have refused the debate had Westlund been invited.

"Kulongoski's campaign has said the governor will debate only "qualified" candidates -- meaning those who have made it onto the ballot."

Interesting that he's already ducking candidates.

Kulongoski's campaign has said the governor will debate only "qualified" candidates -- meaning those who have made it onto the ballot.

Interesting point. So... are we to assume that Kulo would be thrilled to debate Joe Keating, Starrett, or Morley?

And I guess this means that the Governor is ready, willing, and able to debate Ben Westlund right after Westlund gets his signatures? Good to hear.

I thought we lived in a democracy. Oh, that's right it's a republic, so the politicians get to pick who debates.

I think it should be the individuals, not the newspapers or bureaucrats that should decide who makes up the debate. After all we are the ones voting.

Steve -- thanks for recognizing the sarcasm.

If the reason Kulo won't debate Westlund is because Westlund hasn't made the ballot... that to me sounds like a promise to debate him when he does make the ballot.

But of course, this was the same guy that held a press conference in May and stated "I'm running against two Republican candidates." And then showed a misspelled sign proclaiming Ben Westlund to be the "other republican canididate."

So... which is it? He's bashing Westlund as a candidate, but refusing to debate him because he's not a candidate. Talk about a double standard.

This classic double-standard seems to be the only thing fueling Westlund's campaign. The man is considerably more conservative than Kulongoski

As someone who seeks candidates who engage in dialogue with ordinary folks and who propose solutions rather than making sarcastic remarks, I don't see how statements like this help re-elect the Gov.

Westlund's website strikes me as having more concrete information and proposed solutions than Ted for Gov. which seems to have more news clippings than up to date discussion of issues.

Is SB 382 "conservative" or is it that you expect a st. sen. from Deschutes County to have the same voting record as a senator from Mult. or Lane County?

Bashing Ben won't get me to campaign for Ted. As a matter of fact, Ben is coming to a public event in Salem this week and I am going to go to it after work. Is there an event open to the public where ordinary folks can talk to Ted, or is he going to do the same sort of aloof campaign in the general that he did in the primary?

I think liberal and conservative are 20th century terms. There was a Monday Conversation interview with the recently retired Fred Neal of the Sec. of State office in the Statesman-Journal today. Here is how it concluded:

".........the issues I care deeply about. They are the rule of law, balance of power, stable funding -- and the evaporation of amity that has resulted in increased partisanship and polarization, and has poisoned the paint on the walls of the Capitol. A lot of our history is not pretty. But we have a history that demonstrates a pioneering spirit, a willingness to try new things, an ability to cooperate with each other for the common good. I am an optimist."

Now, you folks who think bashing Ben will win the Gov. election for Ted, let's hear specifics on why you believe Ted has stood up for those values (things I happen to believe in) and if you have specific evidence that Ben hurt the rule of law, balance of power, or stable funding by his stands / votes on particular bills, let's see you list them here. For instance, I discovered by voting record research that my supposedly "moderate" GOP state rep. co-sponsored bills with Kim Thatcher at the request of Freedom Works. I happen to think that makes an elected official unappealing. I have no knowledge of Ben ever doing such a thing--seems more publicly concerned about those issues than I have heard the Gov. talk about in public.

If you Ted supporters have concrete evidence to the contrary, spell it out. Otherwise JHL asks a valid question: "So... which is it? He's bashing Westlund as a candidate, but refusing to debate him because he's not a candidate. Talk about a double standard."

For the record, Westlund isn't the only candidate who has yet to qualify. As of today (07/11/06), neither Joe Keating (PAC) nor Richard Morley (LIB) have qualified as candidates. Assuming those three join Kulo, Saxton and Starett, that makes six candidates.

And that means Oregon's next governor will be elected with a mere plurality, not a majority. Westlund will hurt both Saxton and Kulo to some degree. Starett will peel off the OCA remnants who would never vote for Saxton anyway. Keating will defintely hurt Kulo, especially in Multnomah County.

So, my question to the candidates would be:

"Since it is almost assured that one of you will win the governor's race with less than a majority vote, as did Governor Roberts in 1990, how will you persuade the majority of Oregon voters who didn't vote for you to now follow you?"

• Wes

Great question, Wes. That is a question that would knock Ron and Ted off their talking points and "solidifying the base" rhetoric.

My question is what stands between Keating and Morley being qualified candidates. They were nominated by their parties (that was my understanding) so is it a question of fees and paperwork?

Supposedly, Bill Clinton advised John Kerry that the American electorate, when faced with a choice between someone they think is qualified, but doesn't look Presidential, vs. someone that looks Presidential, but they think isn't qualified, would vote for the one that looked Presidential. Good call, considering that he is to have said it before Kerry was the nominee. He probably meant that Kerry had a much better chance that way than Dean, but it turned out to be a pretty good explanation for the unexplainable. Personally, I feel that effect in this race.

If you get down to brass tacks, policy wise, Kulongoski's agenda- to the extent we can divine it- is closer to a progressive agenda. When you delve into the details of Saxton's proposals, it ain't pretty, from a progressive bias. But damned if Saxton doesn't feel just like I'd want a progressive candidate to come across, and the Gov really lacks that. Call it the Grey Davis syndrome.

If you're going to play wedge issue politics, how about a strong statement in support of Oregon's assisted suicide and MM policies, contra the DEA/federal government? Wonder who that was addressed to. Ron, you're not mainstream yet. Reach out. What do you have to loose?

Sorry to go off-topic... [off-topic comment deleted. -editor.]

I'm really sorry to see that the minor or "spoiler" candidates are not in the debate. They are the ones who are not afraid to talk about real issues. They could cause the "major" candidates to some entertaining artful dodging or to actually take some stands.--- But I guess that's why it won't happen.

First, the Gov has not tacitly agreed to debate Westlund et al. after they qualify for the ballot. That's absurd.

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about the Gov saying, "I'm not sure whether I want to debate third party candidates in the fall, but for now I can say that at a very minimum I will not debate anyone who has not yet qualified for the ballot."

For now, it would be foolish for the Gov to help his opponents qualify for the ballot by offering them free, unearned exposure. The jury may still be out as to whether he and Saxton will debate them later in the season.

Second, excluding third party candidates from a candidates' debate is not undemocratic, no matter how many times Ralph Nader may claim otherwise. Remember, debates are limited in time, which means that every additional candidate invited gives less opportunity for substantive, meaningful discussion of important issues.

(Sidebar: Some have said, then why not have a debate every week, instead of just a few each cycle. The answer is that (1) frequent debates are impractical, given HUGE time commitment involved in preparing for debates and the candidates' very busy schedules, and (2) more debates mean less people paying attention -- for debates to be meaningful, they must be limited or else the public stops listening and debates just become a forum for wonks to watch and candidates to try to trip-up their opponents.)

Has anyone here been to a candidate forum with six candidates competing for the same office? It's absurd. There's only time for a few questions at these things, there's usually no time for rebuttals, and the speaking periods are severely limited. No one gets to say anything worthwhile. It just becomes a forum for soundbytes.

The "to debate, or not to debate" question is not a measure of the candidates' commitment to democratic elections. It reflects genuine opportunity costs: for every additional candidate you invite to the debate, the debate gets incrementally less substantive.

To P. Forsyth,

"To Chris- what exactly do you mean by 'have the voters decide?' Somebody arranges a popular vote on who the public wants to see in the debate? That sounds pretty cumbersome, and even if it could be done, there's nothing forcing the candidates to go along with the voters' will."

There is nothing now that forces an elected official going along with the voters' will (short of a recall election, which is probably more cumbersome). People who want to run for elected office need to master time management. There are a multitude of special interest groups that can share the burden of organizing since that what they do for a living.

What I mean is since voters will decide who will occupy the office of governor, it makes sense to have many debates with all candidates. I consider it another research tool towards making an informed choice.

To Stella,

"Second, excluding third party candidates from a candidates' debate is not undemocratic, no matter how many times Ralph Nader may claim otherwise. Remember, debates are limited in time, which means that every additional candidate invited gives less opportunity for substantive, meaningful discussion of important issues."

Are you in a hurry? Like I said, have more debates. If politicians are too busy, they need to get into another line of work. Debates are one of the few times that direct questions are asked and voters get to be as close as possible to the people who direct policy without media and spin filtration.

Any idea if the debate will be broadcast live?

The debate over debates biennial silliness is upon us. Karl says the minor candiadtes are the ones ``not afraid to talk about real issues.'' Phooey. Stella has it right. At such a six-way gabfests, minor candidates often will make cute jokes or far-out remarks to get attention, knowing they have nothing to lose. The major contenders are left with 60 seconds for thoughtful discussion. These kind of events have happened before and benefit no one. The major media will have plenty of stories in the end on the minor candidates' views if anyone takes the time to read them. At any rate, private groups can invite whomever they want.

Wow,

And all this time I thought the Corporation Party ruled Oregon politics. One wing red, the other blue. So my Green Party vote is a spoiler vote?

I do not support your red (saxton and fake independent Westlund) and blue candidates, do not agree with them, and I am supposed to give them my vote? Ha.

Check the voter reg data, there are plenty of available votes for either wing of the Corporation Party to CRUSH the other wing in the election. But neither wing can motivate unlikely voters because the red and blue leaders or out of touch, pure and simple.

So if you guys are so brainwashed to believe that Nadar, who I think is cool but did not vote for, cost the Democrats the election in 2000, then you need to take a deep breathe and remember, both parties are out of touch with many, many voters. Extend that to the guv's race coming up. thanks for the minute, fairchance

<h2>P.S. Is this a progressive blog?</h2>