No matter which one wins, Oregon loses. So sad, we all cheer on Super K and just maybe he'll go down in history as another Vic Atiyeh. Corporations win, and middle-lower class pick up the bill. And we are cheering? We should be crying.

I agree with KISS. Thats why I am leaving the ballot blank on the Governor's list of candidates. No matter who wins, I am screwed.

I'll be voting for Ted K. A Saxton win would be deleterious to our health. Don't kid yourselves.

I'd like to - when and where is the pity party to moan about the Dems keeping the governor chair for (if this poll holds) TWENTY FOUR STRAIGHT YEARS???????? Yeah, that's just a horrible turn of events. Really, I'm about to commit suicide.

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?????

I'll be voting for Ted K. A Saxton win would be deleterious to our health. Don't kid yourselves.

Yeah... and if you don't vote George Bush for President, the Boogeyman will come and get you.

I'm so tired of being scared into voting. Let's focus on getting the House back... then it won't matter who's governor. Keep Beaverton Democratic!

That whole argument about Ds and Rs being the same fooled me in 2000, and it's not going to work again.

If Ted gets too lukewarm, we'll light a fire under him. If you put political pressure on a D, they are hearing from their base. If you put pressure on an R, you are a terrorist sympathizer.

Sorry KISS, what did W say about getting fooled again?

Wow...some very uptight people here. Have any of you heard of therapy?

I would still like to know why Governor K. through one side of his mouth expresses opposition to the war in Iraq, and through the other side of his mouth he continues to authorize deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to Iraq.

He has the authority under federal law to withhold troops from deployment in the case of their need to combat a natural disaster at home (i.e., forest fires) or the deployment would violate US or international law (such as the illegal invasion of Iraq.) Governor K. has refuses to exercise this authority.

I've twice submitted a legal brief detailing a governor's right to withhold National Guard deployment, but Kari Chisholm refuses to post it. However, he himself today sent me a newspaper link discussing new proposed legislation in Congress to take away a governor's right to veto National Guard deployment by the President.

Daily Astorian

I refuse to vote for Governor K because of his cowardess in regard to exercising his National Guard veto power, but I will not be casting a vote for his Republican rival either.

I encourage everyone to read the excellent Daily Astorian editorial linked above -- which specifically refers to the Gov's leadership in fighting a Bush Administration attempt to give the President the authority to federalize Guard troops during natural disasters.

The NGA resolution HAS NOTHING to do with sending Guard troops overseas -- it only relates to states' ability to respond to natural disasters and crises.

I suspect that Republicans are trying to spread the apathy message on progressive blogs (we lose either way, poor me, I won't vote for either one, wah) to let the air out of the tires on Ted's campaign.

I also think that most people here are too smart to fall for it. We don't want Saxton, there is a difference between the two in terms of how our work and familiy lives will be affected, and Ted's actually done a lot of good things below the radar. Fortunately, people are figuring that out and his poll numbers are rising.

I'm so tired of being scared into voting. Let's focus on getting the House back... then it won't matter who's governor. Keep Beaverton Democratic!

I'm so tired of being scared into voting. Let's focus on getting the House back... then it won't matter who's governor. Keep Beaverton Democratic!

I would like to see poll on how staunch pro-life voters react to the attempt to remove Mary Starrett from the ballot and whether they will stay home on November 2. If pro-life voters stay home it will hurt downticket R's in November.

And is it just me? Or did the lapdog piece in yesterday's Tribune about Saxton's positions on education fail to say anything meaningful? I hoped Saxton would at least be able to show some balls on the education issue in this general election and acknowledge that our state's investment in education is falling far behind Washington for example and needs to raised with smart targeted increases to train a workforce to compete in global marketplace and retain our flagship enterprises like Nike, Columbia, Intel, and now Google in The Dalles. Instead, Saxton delivers one-sided rhetoric on reducing waste without even touching the fact that core programs have been cut across the education budget and we no longer have vocational programs, gifted programs, etc. nor does Saxton acknowledge that Portland schools are carrying the cost of a disproportionate of special needs education because such programs are not available in many parts of the state and families relocate to Portland who need special needs education for their kids. Really, I expect better from Ron. I expect him to reach across the aisle and acknowledge that whoever wins the Governor race, that we've got to work together to improve the education opportunities for our kids and that will include investing to a level competitive with our neighboring state to the North. What I am hearing from Ron makes me think that all he cares about are the kids whose parents can afford to chaufer them across the metro area to get to school. In my public school in Ohio, we had computers in the classroom (in the 1980's), art, music, band, no activity fees for sports, auto shop, home economics, many foriegn language classes, much smaller class size than current Oregon schools, and a multitude of AP classes in the high school. I am just appalled that Oregon schools are being allowed to nosedive into a shambles that even a public shaming in Doonesbury has not corrected. And, the best Saxton can do is some talking points on reducing waste? Ron, are pay cuts to experienced teachers going to bring back an infrastructure of cut vocational programs, music programs, etc? Or is it okay to let the schools flounder now that your kids are through at Lincoln?

Between now and November of 2008 I believe we are going to hear a lot of talk about how we liberals need to overlook our personal beliefs and vote for whatever Dem. candidate is nominated for governor, senator, president, etc. Since the state and federal Dem. parties have largely been taken over by "moderate" forces, this means I am going to be asked to hold my nose and vote for Ted K or Hillary C or whoever. While I hear the argument that ANY Democrat is necessarily better than ANY Republican, I am having a very hard time continuing to support a Democratic party that is moving to the right on just about every issue that I care about. I don't think I am alone.

BlueNote: I understand your argument. I also urge you to think of it this way. Politics is give and take. Please be aware of the difference between a Republican and a Democrat. In a Republican scenario you have not a prayer in the world to put forth a progressive position and have it even make it through a committee much less a general vote. With Democrats you do have a chance to promote a progressive agenda and in a lot of cases it will pass. Your choice comes down to whether or not you are willing to remain in the party that from now and again will have a moderate stance on something but more than likely a progressive stance or bail to a 3rd party where you have no chance of advancing an issue because in the words of Randi Rhodes, "we have a 2 party system, pick one". Progressives have no place in the Republican party and they do have a place within the Democratic party. Unless we move to a parliamentary system we will remain a 2 party government. 3rd parties play nothing more than spoilers for either side.

BlueNote,

I share your frustration with Democrats who behave not very differently from Republicans, but please cite five issues on which D's have moved to the right in some recent period of time. It seems to me that as long as wealthy interests have dominated elections, both parties have needed to bend to the whims of the rich in order to win office.

If D's have moved to the right, R's have moved that direction faster and farther, making the difference between the parties greater than, say, 30 years ago when there were many pro-environment, pro-choice, anti-government overreaching R's in office at all levels. Go back farther and we find that Democrats wee the party of southern racists, a history I am not eager to rerun.

"wee" should be, of course "were"

Tom and Garrett, (does that turn the italics off?) This is not just about "how parties have moved". It is about legislative candidates that match the district (this time many do) and about candidates who actually care about what the voters think.

I hope that in the debates and elsewhere Ted "hits some out of the park" and makes the kind of excellent statements that people tell their friends about, cite when asked how they will vote (as opposed to "given the choices, I have to vote for...") and maybe even send to friends, post on the refrigerator, etc. I'm thinking Clinton's convention speech which had him going down the list of "them the women, them the minorities" etc. and then saying There is no them, there is only US, we are THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

But unless and until that happens, we are going to hear statements like "While I hear the argument that ANY Democrat is necessarily better than ANY Republican, I am having a very hard time continuing to support a Democratic party that is moving to the right on just about every issue that I care about. I don't think I am alone."

Or old friends wondering if they will ever see the old, charismatic Ted they knew a long time ago or if that person has disappeared.

It is time to get serious and address the concerns by more issue oriented arguments.

I don't know what label fits me other than I like the Westlund person who spoke out against soundbites and attacks.

torridjoe,

I agree on welfare, of course, the R's have moved right on it as well.

Gun control - Is it a left-right issue? I'm not sure. Brady is an R. Police, not considered leftists, support it. It seems more an urban/rural issue.

Abortion - Historically, Republicans are more pro-abortion rights than Democrats. it used to be a Catholic [D] versus Protestant [R] split.

Roosevelt established Democrats as the party of international trade, while protectionist industries supported Republicans. this began to change when unions and environmentalists recognized the race to the bottom effect of globalism. Democrats are becoming less pro-free trade, as seen in shifts inthe positions of Senator Ron and Representative Earl.

Death penalty - Dems followed public opinion to the dark side on this.