Gov. Schwarzenegger isn't very popular right now. In fact, he's near an all-time low right now: http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/1676666.html

As a Californian, I'd put him more in the "failure" category with Palin and Jindal - except, they're more popular in their states than Schwarzenegger is.

Jack Roberts, Norma Paulus, Dave Frohnmayer, Vic Atiyeh, Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood might be Republicans, but they bear little resemblance to the folks in charge of the GOP today. They represent what the GOP used to be, before it was taken over by anti-intellectuals who resent the Enlightenment. A GOP lead by Roberts, Paulus, et. al., might actually have a chance of earning my vote.

From what I know of Allen Alley, he probably has views similar to the folks named above. Alas, he'll either have to hide them in the primary or give up any chance of being governor. It's too bad, really.

popular Republican Governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger

Popular in which parallel universe exactly?

Kari says: ...siding with popular Republican Governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger...

eh... maybe he's popular among some Democrats, but last month Ahnuld had a 33% approval rating. (Looks like other people beat me to it - heh!)

Kari also says: boosting unemployment benefits is among the most effective ways to inject cash into the economy.

Maybe true - but what you DON'T tell us here is that the stimulus unemployment $ comes with strings attached that affect some states more than others. States like Alaska and Louisiana governed by those 'miserable failures' Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, respectively - plus now 7 other states. To get the money, some states would have to significantly expand their benefits structure. It's a valid concern because accepting the $ would thus commit the states to continuing to pay those expanded benefits even after the stimulus $ runs out - likely meaning the need for future tax increases.

So it will become imperative those states get to 'future prosperity' sooner because they'll have higher taxes to pay!

Also keep in mind that some of the 9 states considering refusing the unemployment $ are among the poorest in the nation - so they're doubly sensitive to tax increases. You see, Kari - the 'raise taxes first and ask questions later' theory so often espoused here at BO isn't necessarily practical for every state.

I smell fear in Mr. Chisolm's posts. I'm sure he would much rather see some yokel like Jason Atkinson get the nod for the GOP in the 2010 governor's race.

That being said, Allen Alley appears to be going the route of Ron Saxton, and that's quite as much as a dead end for the GOP as Jason Atkinson.

Also, I don't think comparisons with past results in Multnomah County, at least beyond this decade, are relevant. MultCo is increasingly democratic every year - remember that Eastern MultCo produced the Minnises as late as 2006.

Don't forget Alley ran against Westlund who wasn't from Portland and who beat Alley in places like Deschutes and Jackson counties where an R should have won.

If Alley faces a D with better name recognition in PDX, his numbers there will decrease significantly.

what I think he's saying is that within Multnomah County, there are areas where he's done better than any other Republican.

What he's saying is that he's garnered more Multnomah County VOTES in a single election than any other Republican... which appears to be true.

But while comparing votes rather than percentages may be a preferable talking point, it conveys an implication that is not at all true.

This seems to be a preview of Alley's style of resume polishing... As I've said before, this should be an interesting race as Alley, a relative newcomer but a quick learn, hones his communications skills and message discipline.

2010 will not be dull. :)

I was surprised how poorly Alley ran against the recently converted Westlund who actually had a minor scandal to deal with. Alley's team of well dressed elephants with matching laptops never seemed to find a message or a way to deliver it effectively.

Kari is absolutely correct to say that Alley is running the wrong way. He sure won't win the GOP primary pushing a pro-choice agenda. If he had any real desire at all to be the nominee, he'd strap on an automatic pistol ala Lars and denounce the tax and spend liberals in Salem. If he happened to win he could then move to the center.

Just a guess but perhaps he's looking to run a little further down the ballot...

Kari says: Huh? It all depends on who you're taxing.

Oh yeah... I forgot I was talking to someone who's never heard of reasonable rates of taxation on a broad tax base. To you, all government revenue should be collected via confiscatory rates of taxation on a very small segment of the population. So much easier to pass additional tax increases when over half the voting public doesn't have to pay for them.

A broad tax base would mean getting rid of a lot of tax breaks. It was Republicans who put in a lot of those tax breaks.

Rulial, if Bob Peckerwood was one of the good 'ol Reps, does that mean you'd include Clarence Thomas? Sexist curmudgeons fit well in with today's republican party.

Zarathustra, I was referring to Packwood's policy stances, which were moderate. If I recall correctly, before the harassment scandal broke, he had the support of NOW. He publicly defended choice and opposed the Bork nomination. Of course, he committed unforgivable acts and it was good he was forced to resign. My point is that Packwood's moderate politics were typical of the GOP of old, but would be unwelcome in the GOP today.

It appears there may be a bipartisan effort to review tax expenditures (tax breaks) finally, involving st. reps as diverse as Chuck Riley and Sal Esquivel.

I'd prefer sunsetting all the tax breaks and having the good ones (mortgage on first home, historic buildings, that sort of thing) discussed openly and perhaps preserved. There are other proposals to have them reviewed on a regular basis.

Does Alley have a position on all this, or like Saxton is he one of these soundbite guys with no substantial proposals?

One thing about Packwood--he founded Dorchester to allow young moderates to have a place to discuss things, although now it is more of an institution than anything else.

But what really did him in was not his sex life, that was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

What did him in was an episode of the sort Steve Duin once described as "when you try to nail down Bob Packwood, you will find he is greasing the handle of your hammer".

He WAS a pro-choice Republican, and there were women who would cross anti-abortion picket lines to hear him speak. He got a primary challenge from Joe Lutz, and a famous feminist sent out a fundraiser for his primary campaign. He won the primary, the Dem. campaign that year imploded, and he had all that left over money he didn't need. He gave a large chunk of that money to the Oregon House Republicans (many of them anti-abortion) in that classic tradition known as campaign finance pass-throughs.

There were women who heard about that and said NOT ANOTHER DIME, BOB!

There have been Oregonians fighting pass-throughs ever since (non-partisan, and a complaint against Future Pac and other caucus campaign arms).

Nationally, Packwood still had a reputation as a feminist hero--one almost had to know one of the angry Oregon women contributors to know the level of the anger. But from that moment when he gave away the money after winning the primary against Lutz, Packwood was the classic tree on the edge of a riverbank whose roots are being eroded by the river. The strong wind of scandal hit in 1995, all those angry women and their friends refused to lift a finger to save him, and that was that.

Years ago, when women were first being elected legislators, someone famous was addressing a group of politically active women giving advice on campaigning. One piece of advice was to have strong political views, "and if you don't stand for something, sit down".

Alley would be wise to follow that advice. What does he stand for, specifically? Does he follow the legislature and say he supports certain legislation, opposes other legislation and WHY?

I read many of your articles during 2008. You come off as a Joe McCarthy style journalist. You are mean hearted, condescending, and a person who looks to exploit the worst in Human beings. You sat there and prodded republicans with a skewer the entire election cycle with a sick grimus on your face. Most of your articles lack any true objective content or journalistic integrity!

The Oregonian has been reporting this week, it's very definitely a state issue. And any person that wants to be Governor had better figure out how we're going to protect innocent little Oregon children from being shipped to foreign countries to be abused and murdered.

Normally would I not give creedence to your articles, but, What do you mean by the above statement? Are you saying that a child that is born in the United States of America from an undocumented worker should not be sent home to GranMa because he or she will be murdered? I do not get the logic? Every illegal worker, "You know the illegal worker that takes jobs from real Oregon citizens", sends their paychecks back to Mexico on Friday. This revenue is second only to oil revenue. They send their paychecks to grama and grampa. I do not see how sending a child back to gramma and Grampa is a bad thing! Will they suffer from "death by tortia?"

The governor should make E-verify mandatory for employment in Oregon. All Kulongoski has to do is pass an executive order like Napolitano did in Arizona. He wont do this. He will try and pass legislation that tracks our cars so we have to pay gas taxes, but he will not mandate the use of E-verify. This is just another example of political hypocricy!

I forgot you are an open borders guy. You think all legal working Oregonians have an obligation to pay for an illegals health care when the only signs an Illegal alien can read are stop, go, bus stop, welfare office, money order and emergency room!

give me a break! If you like Mexico so much, just go live there. Sneak across the border, have a baby, ask for welfare, ask for social security, go to the emrgency room without $500 bucks in your pocket and see how far you get!

wwww.StephanAndrewBrodheadForCongress.com

Oh please God..let this paragraph be about me!

wipe that "grimus" off your face!

wipe that "grimus" off your face!

And eat your tortia.

Requiring E-verify is definitely a pro-worker policy as it will increase jobs for legal Oregonians -- even those who might not speak or read English so well -- and it would be fought tooth and nail by the Republican-leaning business owners who profit off the sweat of their illegal workers.

I still say that if Allen Alley would just change his name to Alley Alley, he will immediate capture the votes of the "Keep Portland Weird" set and thereby launch himself on a trajectory to a sweeping victory. Only thing is, he can't do this in a GOP primary. I recommend that after the name change, he switch to the Libertarian Party, because no actual Libertarian would condone anyone criticizing a candidate's name. (The typical GOP primary voter, in contrast, would think anyone named Alley Alley is assistant anti-Christ to the anti-Christ-in-chief, Barack Hussein Obama.) A party switch by Alley would have at least two salutary effects:

(i) The "Keep Portland Weird" crowd, in order to vote for their guy, will have to re-register as Libertarians, instantly increasing Libertarian registration by at least a factor of ten and giving the LP an aura of numerical respectability. As a result of this,

(ii) Jim Kaarlock will instantly find himself forced into a political alliance with people who ride bikes or the bus and at least occasionally buy organic vegetables. This will cause Kaarlock's head to explode, thereby reducing the frequency of his posts at Blue Oregon.

Gee, Dan. I admit he had lousy crowd building skills (never hold an event in an auditorium when the audience that arrives would have fit better in a classroom), but I seem to recall John Frohnmayer running for US Senate at some point. Or was that a lecture we went to at the local comm. college and not a campaign event?