One spot of good news then as Courtney is horrible, but at least he is bright enough to know just how horrible he'd be on a larger stage.

Boats, here is your opportunity to say something positive:

Who was the better Republican leader this session, Hanna or Ferrioli?

Here is my guess--it will be difficult for you to answer that question because the only responsive answers are: Ferrioli Hanna liked both disliked certain aspects of both.

Can you write a comment which says something positive about an elected Republican without a snide remark about some Democrat?

I'll believe it when I see it.

And for that matter, what is your opinion of St. Sen. Jackie Winters?

Love them or hate them, few people who follow Marion County politics deny Sens. Courtney and Winters are hard workers, concerned with substance.

Ignore him if he can't be serious.

How do you define serious. As anything you disagree with?

Jamais: It was neither the Senate nor the Governor who drove this legislative session's agenda. Clearly, the House was in the driver's seat.

TJ, I have no idea of Peter's future plans. He would enliven the Gov. race if he ran. But, like any other potential candidate, it should be a family decision because the whole family will be involved. (I say this not as a commentary on any potential candidate but because I am a political grandchild.)

Peter Courtney would be WAY too blunt for some people. And it isn't as if he never ran for higher office before.

Many people forget that he ran for Congress a quarter century ago. He lost that primary. There are those who believe he lost for 2 basic reasons: Multi-candidate race (anti-front runner vote split), and the winner was the same person who had won the primary (and lost the general election) in the previous election year. Courtney has always said exactly what he thought, and supported legislation that he considered necessary, sometimes co-sponsoring legislation with someone from the other caucus.

So, he knows exactly what running for higher office would be like. And with his experience, I believe he is wise to be cautious, and this sounds to me like "at this point in time I have no reason to consider running for Gov.".

Not only that, but there was one legislative election where the opponent's ads got so nasty that my friend's parents yanked the opponent's lawn sign out of their yard they were so offended. Who wants to deal with that kind of nonsense, and why do they have to decide in July? Because bloggers want to know?

Some of us are glad (in the long run) that he lost that election and became a state senator. Who could have done a better job as Sen. President in the 15-15 session (he has said he got that job because no one else wanted it) or this session?

I'd like to see more stating the affirmative and less discussion of someone's motives.

The ideal Gov. candidate would have the extensive knowledge of state government and current issues that Courtney, Kitzhaber, Westlund and very few others have, be able to explain their views to the general public and answer questions responsively. All those men are outspoken, but none of them are in-your-face (in the sense of Wayne Scott, Karen Minnis, Dick Cheney).

The ideal candidate could present big ideas to the general public to be discussed at civic groups, town hall meetings, etc. and let us decide which way we wanted to go. The ideal candidate respects our intelligence and doesn't believe that the 30 second "gotcha" ad is going to win people over.

Seems to me the time for final decision would be October. By then we will know the political climate--did Russ Walker, AOI, et al collect the signatures to put the tax measures on the ballot, or not? Which legislators were outspoken over the summer on that issue?

But I wonder, TJ, do you have a favorite potential candidate for Gov.?

TJ, maybe that is why there aren't fully developed Gov. campaigns in July.

Long article in the SJ today about upcoming Feb. 2010 legislative session, the agenda, why that session made Sine Die by the end of June possible.

Sen. Pres. Courtney and Speaker Hunt want to have a more orderly process than the 5 special sessions in 2002. If they can do that (who knows whether the next revenue forecasts will be up or down?) they will deserve our gratitude for bringing order into what we saw in 2002 can turn into chaos without strong leadership.

I have nothing good to say about the state republicans either, but they aren't often a formal topic of conversation.

The so-called "leadership" at the top of both parties is intellectually and creatively the weakest I have ever seen since I started following state politics in the early 80s. There isn't even a decent machiavellian to admire or loathe on either side. They are collectively as bracing as dishwater and about as fresh.

It's like watching devolution play out in real time.

The more I think about it, the more I believe it might be wise for both presiding officers to have their full attention on the upcoming Feb. session. Especially the promised kicker reform and the possibility that the next couple revenue forecasts might not be great news.

<h2>Of course, that might not make political junkies happy, but it does strike me as common sense. And yes, the SJ has been covering Courtney for decades, and might have a good idea of how strongly he feels about this.</h2>