As a former Republican, and now Democrat, I cringe at the "not tied to corporate America" rationale for supporting smart, thoughtful Democrats. The reason for supporting the Democrats is that they now represent the "team" with greater talent. Candidates like Ted Kulongoski simply have shown that they have the seriousness and attention to detail that is required of those managing our public affairs. On the other side we have the ultra-vague outlines of a political philosophy featuring such goals as "efficiency" without any specific benchmarks, targets or track record at achieving "efficiency" through more than a decade of Republican control of the House and its budget committees. Ron Saxton's near-absense of experience in public life does not suggest a mastering of the issues as they present themselves --in reality -- in Salem. The public is asked to presume (like The Oregonian editorial board does) that political philosophy will turn the state around, just as it failed to do in California with the election of Shwarzenegger, or in the United States with the the election of George W. Bush. I am more comfortable with promoting those with direct experience and proven committment to solving the problems that we are faced with. That's the philosophy that seems to rule the board rooms of "corporate America." Why shouldn't it direct our choice of public servants as well? I am hopful that people in "corporate America" (excluding the hopeless The Oregonian)are seeing more and more that proven competency, not promises, should be the test for promoting someone to run the (state's) business.

When Kulongoski took office, he sounded a lot like Saxton today--e.g., looking for "efficiencies" in government. He opposed any kind of tax increase because he wanted to explore ways to make the state, and particularly education, more cost effective. I don't know what came of all that scrutiny of the budget, but it appears Ted has past this rhetoric. I suspect he figured out there aren't that many savings to be had from managerial efficiencies.

It shocked me that the Oregonian endorsed Kulongoski, because the O's ideal politician has always been good old moderate Mark Hatfield. And during his first term, Ted was the epitome of a Hatfield Republican.

I enjoyed reading this posting. I find it interesting. Yes Ted vetoed the bill, and yes it passed with bi-partisan support, but this is not about ORA or Commissioner Leonard. Here is why several business groups, the OLCC and many local governments all worked to pass this piece of legislation:

HB 2056 would have provided $600,000 every budget cycle for OLCC to hire investigators, it would have provided $600,000 every budget cycle for local government, and it would have provided neighborhood groups extended time periods to investigate and comment on new liquor licenses in their area—something they have been seeking for ten years. HB 2056 was a bipartisan effort supported by several interest groups including business, state agencies and local government. Commissioner Leonard did not agree with the outcome.

He has the right to his own opinion. At the end of the day, the City of Portland has never utilized the TPM ordinance; but the veto of HB 2056 means OLCC didn’t hire more investigators, local governments don’t have an additional $600,000 and local groups still feel they do not have enough time to comment.

I still think the governor made a poor choice in vetoing that bill. Commissioner Leonard disagrees with me and the many others that worked together on the legislation. Legislators did not choose ORA over the City of Portland, they appreciated the fact that diverse groups worked together to find a solution. A strong bi-partisan vote is a reflection of broad support for good public policy that meets the needs of many groups. To dismiss this possibility does a disservice to those who thoughtfully considered the benefits in HB 2056 and chose to vote in favor of the bill.

I feel this is one of the reasons many business groups have not supported the Governor, not because of TPM, but because last session when people were trying to find compromise solutions the governor did not always participate in the process - and HB 2056 was no different.

If Governor Kulongoski had participated in discussions around this legislation he would have found broad bi-partisan support based on broad public benefit. The Governor just didn’t choose to participate—and that is too bad.

Excuse me while I make a tangential comment on a topic that continual annoys me. What Bill at ORA, and many others who find fault with the Governor's interaction with the legislature, fail to understand is the fundamental structure of the American form of government. Specifically, government is comprised of an executive branch, legislative branch, and judicial branch. Each branch has limited powers that check and balance the other branches. The Governor should no more interfere with the legislative branch than he should with the judicial. Can you imagine the Governor calling up the Supreme Court and interfering in their deliberative process? Hell no!

"...the City of Portland has never utilized the TPM ordinance..." Bill, Oregon Restaurant Association

Bill- That is not true.

The ordinance is used as a last resort or "hammer" to induce misbehaving bars and taverns to clean up their act OR the city will reduce their hours of operation.

It has been, in fact, a very effective tool to reduce disruptive behavior in and around bars and taverns. In fact, I believe that the time, place and manner ordinance is not only good for neighborhoods, it has also protected those members of yours who were often victims of neighboring irresponsible bar owners.

<hr/>