I knew very little about Westlund until I had the chance to go to lunch with him at the 2006 Rebooting Democracy event. It was Westlund and Rob Brading and about a dozen of us all eating lunch at this little Mexican restaurant near (in?) Welches.

It was a great time and I learned a lot about him. He'd quite impressive, and you're right about him being able to tell a great story.

First of all, BRAVO to T.A. for the mia culpa. I can't overstate how much I respect the willingness to correct a past error in as public a way as the error was committed. It's something that I've always strived to do myself.

Secondly, LT's comment reminded me that many, many Democratic partisans in the blogosphere were pinning the "still a Republican" label on Westlund. Governor K didn't do or say anything that substantial portions of the choir weren't eager to echo.

What all this underscores in my mind (I've been a Westlund fan since he went Indie) is that progressives are every bit as vulnerable to filtering reality through partisan lenses as our counterparts on the Right are. The Dem primary race for Smith's Senate seat seems to further underscore that fact, IMHO.

MythBuster your wrong. However, I understand why you believe what you believe about Ben because I felt the same way until I got to know Ben. Quote:

"Westlund stuck his finger in the air and figured which way the winds were blowing. He's an opportunist of the most contemptible kind, and I will not vote for him for ANY office."

I would submit that Ben stuck his finger in the air and felt which way the wind was blowing in the Republican Party and then realized his values are more aligned with the Democratic Party. I suggest you get to know Ben and look at his body of work in the legislature. A wise man once said:

"They will never remember what you said but they will always remember the way you made them feel"

I suggest you get to know Ben then let us know how you feel about him.

Count me among those who were properly suspicious for a while, but I've found his views to be genuine and his process to be honest, even if I don't agree with him on some things. That goes a long way.

And beyond that, as mentioned he's one of the most entertaining politicians in Oregon. I think he'll make a fine Treasurer.

So he's a really nice guy to drink with and he'll wear your bracelets. That doesn't make him a good choice for treasurer.

Is he still pushing his regressive sales tax proposal?

That was just last year, wasn't it? Has he changed his mind?

TA, thanks for being willing to publicly change your mind. Westlund is generally charismatic, thoughtful, and willing to take on some tough issues. And he's become a lock-step supporter of most of the Democratic issues, from Measure 49 to getting a 100% rating on OLCV's recent scorecard.

But I still have significant misgivings about supporting someone who

I don't know that much about Westlund at this point, but I have to say that Manton's story above probably tells me more than I could ever learn otherwise. It is downright dangerous for people in many areas to actually support the LGBT community in any way, much less in equality, particularly without judging. For Westlund to have done that, and actually reach across to do it, tells me a heck of alot about his character. I am extremely impressed.

Sorry - failed to close my href comment earlier. As noted, Ben seems to be smart, talented, and brave on some issues. But his history, despite his support of Measure 49, leadership on SB 1000, and 100% rating from OLCV for the 2007 session, bothers me.

Here's what he wrote in support of Measure 36, in 2004:

Recently, I have had long meaningful discussions about Measure 36, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

More importantly however is my own strong personal beliefs about how important it is to our culture and society that we hold on and reinforce this very important institution we know as marriage. Study after study and psychiatrist and psychologist alike point to the value and the importance of children having both a mother and a father as role models.

Of all our cultural institutions, few are more important and more worth protecting than marriage.

I've never been satisfied with his answer to why he parroted the whole "gay parents are bad for children" fearmongering. And the equation of marriage as being about parenting. Measure 36 NOT about who gets to parent a kid. It was about discrimination against gays, period.

I still don't buy that supporting discrimination is OK if someone published some study saying discrimination was good. For example, if someone published a study saying same-race parents were better for the children, would it be OK for Westlund to support a ban against mixed-race marriages?

Westlund should have been smart enough to call BRO or HRC and get the facts, and brave enough to stand up against discrimination, period.

On the environment, his record is also very mixed, except for the past two years.

Westlund, as recently as 2005, had a failing 42% environment score, and voted for bills such HB 5135, which included a provision would have prohibited DEQ from adopting rules aimed at implementing clean car emissions standards to promote healthy air and to combat global warming, and a provision would have eliminated funding for the Governor's Willamette River cleanup, endangering all those who fish, swim, or boat on the Willamette.

In 2003, he got a 0% rating on OLCV's scorecard (0 for 23 bills), in 1999, 13%, and in 1997, 13%.

And the 2004 (and for that matter, 2008) Presidential elections are a diversion from Westlund, though I understand your point.

I voted against M36, but I have to disagree with characterizing Westlund's then statement as "gay parents are bad for children." That's not what he said.

Look, I'm as hetero as anyone on the planet. But I'm also a single parent and have been for quite a few years now. Two daughters to be exact, although one has flown the coop and is winging her way through early adulthood. And I'm here to tell you that as a long-time single parent of two girls I am KEENLY aware of just how inadequate I am as a father to the task of providing everything that a healthy, functional mother and father can provide.

Stating bluntly that a two-parent, mother and father family is ideal does NOT mean that two-parent gay or single parent families are therefore bad. In my case, even though I'm handicapped by only being just one man, I know that I provided the better environment for my daughters. And my in-laws agreed because they backed me on custody.

Now maybe Westlund explicitly said something about gay parents which I'm not aware of. But what was quoted above simply does not constitution "gay parents are bad for children."

Westlund's statement based his support for 36 on "the importance of children having both a mother and a father as role models".

How, exactly, does an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman have anything to do with parenting? Don't some people get married and not have children? Don't some people have children and not get married?

Marriage and parenthood aren't intrinsically related. Westlund's reason for supporting the measure was bogus in the first place.

I'm disappointed that some feel the big tent isn't so big after all.

There's a difference between actually getting underneath the tent and just using it as an address.

Westlund's statement based his support for 36 on "the importance of children having both a mother and a father as role models".

Based on my experiences, and only on my experiences, I happen to agree with that statement. Although I'm not at all sure it's the same thing... I have always had an unusually high EQ and I personally have zero doubt that my capacity to nurture is inferior to most of the mom's, both gay and straight, that I've known. I think it's the rarest of rare men, gay or straight, who can nurture on par with a mother. I'm dead serious about that.

And again... being less than a utopian ideal parenting package does NOT equal "bad for children."

If you're going to pin a tail on the donkey then the onus is on you to make damn sure it's actually a donkey's tail first.

Myth, you should have paid attention to what i said about writing. what do you actually know about Westlund? about his true motives? what conversations he & Ted had? or have you forgotten that he endorsed Ted during the campaign and worked to get him re-elected? this is no quid pro quo; it's what colleagues and friends do in politics: they help each other win important battles.

like many formers Republicans, Westlund did not so much switch parties as discover his old party had disappeared on him. many people have forgotten that Oregon Republicans used to be some of the most liberal politicians in America. Tom McCall? Republican. Packwood, although he had an ignominious end to his Senate career, was always ranked as one of the strongest supporters of women in Congress. much of Hatfield's record looks like a Dems -- and ofter to the left of Democrat Scoop Jackson.

now if you want to say Westlund is re-inventing history when he tells of him move out of the Republican party, go ahead. if you actually know what you're talking about. i prefer, having learned the hard way, not to blather on about those things on which i am ignortant.

" I have always had an unusually high EQ and I personally have zero doubt that my capacity to nurture is inferior to most of the mom's, both gay and straight, that I've known. I think it's the rarest of rare men, gay or straight, who can nurture on par with a mother. I'm dead serious about that."

It's just you, then. There has been plenty of research, particularly lately, to debunk any notion that male/female partnerships are intrinsically advantageous. There IS a difference between one and two parent households, but that's a manpower issue, not a gender issue.

Great that Ben has come around mostly, but that argument was pure canard.

Kevin, I said that the statement about what makes for good parenting has nothing to do with whether a couple could get married or not. You seem to be under the impression that the only reason for marriage is to have children. Westlund was supporting a measure that defined marriage, not parenthood. It would have prevented same-sex couples from getting married, but nothing about it would have stopped anyone from becoming a parent.

Westlund's argument about parenting had nothing to do with the purpose of the bill.

LT, if by "tax reform" you mean shifting even more of the burden onto the poor in this state, then I'm sorry if your feeling were hurt more than 20 years ago, but I really don't care how it was killed. There was a long discussion here of the sales tax last year when Westlund made his proposal, and every time I asked anyone to point to an example of the "progressive" or "fair" sales tax system that kept getting bandied about, people just talked about how it could possibly, maybe be done if the tax fairy would just visit us in the night.

But there aren't any examples out there because it's impossible to build a sales or use tax system that has a broad enough base to maintain steady income levels without taxing the things that people need to buy to live. The more you exempt essential items to make it less regressive, the more susceptible it is to variations in discretionary spending, and the more the volatility of the income from the sales tax matches that of an income tax. That's relatively simple mathematics.

Yes, I know most every other state and most governments around the world has a sales tax or something of the sort. I know that "Governing" magazine doesn't think much of the adequacy of the state revenue system. Maintaining a steady revenue stream from the taxpayers isn't the primary purpose of state government. Government's there to provide services to the people, and it needs to develop a fair and adequate revenue plan to provide those services.

Senator Westlund also gave the single best defense of Measure 50 that I heard. It might have passed, had his points been part of the Healthy Kids campaign.

Well said, LT. That reality underscores that the problem isn't the GOP. It's the ideology of greed and national/global hegemony that are what distinguish even a Mark Hatfield from a Gordon Smith.

I think it behooves progressives to keep our eye on the ball and not allow ourselves to get sidetracked by party politics.

I think it behooves progressives to keep our eye on the ball and not allow ourselves to get sidetracked by party politics.

Are moderates ever wrong? When people on the left said Joe Lieberman was untrustworthy and was a horrible choice for VP in 2000, people said we were purists. When he spearheaded the Senate campaign for the Iraq war, his buddies followed him. When he ran for president in 2004 magazines like The New Republic tried to jump-start Joementum. In 2006, people like Bill Clinton were more than happy to give him cover during the primaries, and he was promised leadership positions even after losing the primary. So now he's endorsing Republican candidates for president.

But progressives are still the purists.

<h2>THe GOP may not have people like Paulus representing it any more, but I don't think she or Hatfield have strayed far from the party in their endorsements.</h2>