How many of the questions could Jack Roberts answer? And question 5 makes it sound like:

a) a Randy Miller rerun (the year Randy was House W & M co-chair, he would pull out the Gov. published budget and say "look, it is right here" as if all Democrats were supposed to regard the Gov. budget as Gospel and not think for themselves

b) question of whether Jack understands the budget process.

Jack, what do you see as the role of Ways and Means in the Oregon budget process?

Not to mention that it sounds like "we don't have a viable candidate, let's bash the former Gov.".

Mark my words---they can attack every day from now until next November, but if the Republicans can't find a Gov. nominee matching the quality of Vic Atiyeh, no amount of attacks will elect them a Gov.

How many of the questions could Jack Roberts answer?

Jack's not running for Gov. Given the unusual event of a former Gov possibly running again, I think it is only appropriate that he answer those types of questions. He has a history as Gov, both successes and failures. He should be held to account for them.

Jack Roberts wouldn't know an accomplishment if it hit him square in the arse.

Jack actually ran in 2002.

Perhaps Jack Roberts is getting ready to run again after all.

Which would be bad news for the Democrats, as he is (I believe) the last actual Republican to win a statewide election in Oregon other than Gordon Smith. Whether he could get through a Republican primary is doubtful however - the Republicans will probably hand the Democrats a gift again in the gubernatorial election by nominating a right-winger like Jason Atkinson.

And his questions about Kitzhaber are devastating - the man had eight years to make his mark on Oregon and failed miserably. It's time to give someone with fresh ideas a chance to do a better job than Kitzhaber did.

Nice to see a Republican frame the debate about who should be the Dem. candidate for Oregon's next governor. NOT!!!!

If I was a semi-paranoid quasi-libertarian nut job (Oh wait, I am!) I would be wondering to myself if the purpose of this article is to dump on Kitz rather than to talk about Jack Robert's and his musing regarding political qualifications.

My problem is Jack being just another Republican bashing a Democrat, and no one should mention the wording of the questions.

As for this: "He has a history as Gov, both successes and failures. He should be held to account for them."

No Gov. was perfect--not Tom McCall, not Barbara Roberts, probably not any other Gov.

But the idea that Dr. John and only Dr. John is responsible for answering questions from another party is what bothers me.

I agree with Greg D.

BTW, I have sworn not to choose a Gov. candidate early in this cycle. I want to see who best engages in intelligent debate.

I don't think these questions contribute to intelligent debate. An announced candidate would speak often of the answer to #1 and perhaps #2.

What does Jack Roberts think of the legacy of M. 28 and 30, and the current referral campaigns for tax measures? Or is it his job to ask questions, not answer them?

It seems to me that Republicans love to hold Democrats "responsible for their actions" but never seem to hold their own to the same standard.

Jack, do you believe all members of the Governor's party are bound by the Gov. budget, or are there 2 diff. branches of government --executive and legislative?

Do you believe in the saying "the Gov. proposes and the legislature disposes"? If not, why not?

Or isn't it the job of Republicans to discuss details because they are the generality party and Democrats are the party of details?

Is it any wonder that neither major party has 50% of registered voters?

It's too bad that Jack Roberts is not running for Governor - this state needs some intelligent Republicans - it's been too easy for the Democrats to elect nonentities like Kulongoski and "progressive" demagogues like DeFazio for too long now.

I think if the Republicans had been smart enough to nominate Jack Roberts in 2002 he would be winding up his second term in office right now. Fortunately for the Democrats, they weren't, and they're even stupider now.

Dear Jack Governor Kitzhaber's number one acomplishment: He prevented the "Jackass Republican" legislature from totally destroying the state.

Well Kari, I believe you. But how can you claim to be a political junkie if you have not released an article covering Tom DeLay's upcoming television appearance?

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/08/17/2009-08-17_dancing_with_the_stars_.html

Now that's news about a washed up Republican that we can all enjoy.

I wouldn't put too much stock in these questions. I could not care less what Roberts thinks.

As for the Oregon Salmon Plan, I didn't realize it had failed . . . .

But the idea that Dr. John and only Dr. John is responsible for answering questions from another party is what bothers me.

LT, this doesn't make any sense to me. Everyone should be able to ask prospective gubernatorial candidates questions, regardless of party affiliation. You don't disagree with that, do you?

Regarding question #5, the point of the question is ask whether Kitzhaber purposefully low-balled K-12 spending in his proposed budgets and allocated the money to other government services, knowing that Republicans would be forced to increase K-12 spending when they passed the budget. In other words, were Kitzhaber's budget proposals realistic, or merely strategic? Would he have signed a bill that spent as much on K-12 as he originally proposed?

Overall, these are great quetions, and anybody running for governor should be able to answer them. If not, we need to find a new Democratic front-runner.

It's absurd to argue that just because someone is a repub or otherwise that they should not suggest ways to frame a needed public discussion. I think that anyone can and should offer their suggestions, which can rise or fall on the merits. I think Jack's questions are right on target.

I saw Kitz allow some extraordinary human service reforms die, not because he disagreed with them but because he didn't get them. Not too impressed with that. Also, in a state that worships sustainability, what's to be said about the Oregon Health Plan. I was a HUGE fan, but in the end it was not sustainable. So what does it matter in the end?

These are relevant questions. Kitzhaber's not likely to answer ANY five questions, however, until he makes up his mind on the only question that matters. Getting a little tired of wondering...

Roberts says the Oregon Plan for Salmon failed. Evidence?

In the first ten years the plan led to 2300+ miles of roads closed or decommissioned, 3000+ miles of fish habitat reopened by removing or upgrading stream crossings, 500+ fish screens on irrigation diversions, etc. And the good work goes on.

Did the plan recover all salmon stocks? Of course not, but the salmon plan was a big step in the right direction.

Jamie2, how much of what happened with the Oregon Health Plan had to do with the need for federal waivers?

How much had to do with Oregon budget concerns and process?

And while we are on the subject of health care, when he was in office where did Jack Roberts stand on family and medical leave?

Or aren't we supposed to ask that because once out of office his record can no longer be discussed?

I have no problem with every Gov. candidate discussing OHP, K-12 funding, tax reform, and any other issue.

But this seems like Gotcha! politics. Kitzhaber has not even announced, but Jack demands he answer questions because Jack says so. And Jack is all powerful because...?

Now if Jack wants to discuss the behavior of the Republican legislature while Kitzhaber was Governor, that is another question....

Does he believe Clarno and Lundquist were better Speakers than Minnis or Snodgrass?

Was Brady Adams a better Sen. President than Gordon Smith?

What did he think of Tim Knopp as Majority Leader? Knopp's push to put the kicker in the Constitution? How did that make Oregon a better place.

Why did the Republicans lose Senate majority years before losing House majority?

Yes, we need discussion of issues in the Gov. campaign.

But that goes both ways. Who are Republicans considering for Governor? Will such a candidate run on something more intelligent than NOT KITZHABER? And of course, if Kitzhaber decides not to run, that platform will be useless!

I am tired of this enemy-oriented approach. If Dr. Kitzhaber runs for Gov., I am sure he will address some or all of the above questions.

One thing that offended me about the Jack Roberts article is that I remember 1993-94 very well, incl. the Frank Roberts funeral in the fall of 1993. I attended the funeral. I was a very close observer of that time(having known Frank and Barbara for a long time, and once been on the same side of a major primary as Dr. John Kitzhaber).

I wonder what Jack Roberts was doing back then which gave him such a bird's eye view of the interaction between Kitzhaber and Roberts in that time period--or is he just relying on hearsay?

Miles, anyone can ask any prospective candidate anything---but prospective is the operative word.

"Candidate X, it is your duty to answer the questions from someone of another party who has said harsh things about you even before you decide whether to run" is not something I agree with.

In this regard, I agree with Observer.

And yes, like Posted by: Bob Van Dyk | Aug 17, 2009 1:43:12 PM

any of us reading a guest opinion in newspaper (as this originally was) have the right to quibble with the wording of the questions.

I am not convinced any Republican can state the affirmative on why they should be Gov. Instead, there are those like Jack Roberts who take potshots.

There was a story on OPB about this issue this morning. What was mentioned on OPB and what upsets me so much about Kitzhaber's strategy is the game-playing and coyness. Apparently, several other prospective Democratic candidates are waiting to hear about Kitzhaber before they make their decisions to run. They are looking at party unity, even though this puts them back several months from their own exploratations and fundraising. Meanwhile, Kitzhaber rafts the Rogue (or whatever) and does some more narcissistic navel gazing, which could set the party back in terms of planning and financing if he doesn't run, and give the Republicans a vulnerable opponent with a rich history to muck rake if he does. And my question is - is he such an egoist that he'd rather risk failure for the Democratic Party in the 2010 gubernatorial election and is he such a passive-aggressive avoidant that he can't make a freakin' decision? My advice would be to step aside and let someone new have a shot. (Sorry, John, but you're no Barack Obama.)

Unlike Kari and LT, I am not a fan, but at this point I think he just needs to decide - the sooner the better - and as the woman at the Brian Clem rally who was interviewed on OPB said, "Let us move on."

I thought that Jack went overboard in his column when talking about Kitzhaber as almost the Grim Reaper or Ebenezer Scrooge when he informed Governor Barbara Roberts of his decision to run in 1993. The fact is that, however highly many of us in our party regard Governor Roberts , she won with only 45% of the vote in 1990, had two tough legislative sessions, and pushed a sales tax which never passes and which went down in flames in 1993. With a tough midterm election for Dems. on the horizon Kitzhaber probably was doing what he felt was best for the party. Considering the fact that even Jim Bunn (and almost Bill Witt) managed to get elected in '94 (not to mention that Jack Roberts defeated long time incumbent Mary Wendy Roberts for Labor COmmish.) I think that Governor Roberts could have lost to Denny Smith. Even Kitzhaber's lead of almost 20% was whittled down to about 9% in the final week as the Republicans surged. What might have been view by some as a hostile and even heartless takeover of an incumbent could also be seen by Democrats as a wise political move.

We should also be grateful to Barbara Roberts for stepping up and running when Neil Goldscmidt waited until near filing deadline in 1990 to announce he wasn’t running. She was the only Democrat to do so, and, despite long odds, ran a gutsy and skilled campaign and prevailed. She is a great campaigner for Democratic candidates and causes in Oregon!

"I also remember that, despite the attacks on Republicans for underfunding education, they did in fact appropriate more than Kitzhaber requested each session he was governor."

So Jack, if I want to reduce state spending, I should vote for democrats?

"My article was actually framed more as what I think should be the Democratic critque of the Kitzhaber years."

So, Jack, you are telling us how we should judge a Democratic governor?

Without discussing the role of the Republican legislature?

If people are unemployed, underemployed, worried about their housing situation, etc. why should they care about how the salmon plan worked?

Remember those green apple buttons which were originally the emblem of the Coalition for School Funding Now? Those were the folks who did the large march just before the Starlight Parade one year during the Rose Festival---and Bill Sizemore got on TV calling them "dupes of the teachers union".

Someone gave me one of those buttons if I would wear it when I visited the capitol. I was a substitute teacher back then. I would wear that button if I visited the capitol and some people would grin when they saw it. However, there were Republicans who would snarl at me for wearing it.

The 1990s were not the same time as now for a variety of reasons.

I heard a dynamite speech by St. Treasurer Westlund talking about Oregon values---time to end the kicker, time for initiative reform (too much out of state money), time for sensible tax and budget reform.

I'd much rather hear any candidate for Gov. talk intelligently about such issues, about whether it is time to hold districts accountable for how they pay their school administrators (supt., asst. supt, etc.) rather than just talking about teacher pay.

Brian Clem seems to be finding a way to travel around the state even before Kitzhaber makes an announcement. If it is October and he has not announced, that would be another thing.

The big event in September will be whether the tax measures turn in enough signatures. Just like it was said that Measure 5 was Gov. (not Barbara), the political climate in this state will be determined to some extent by whether enough signatures are gathered. I'll believe it when I see it--Oregonians are too unpredictable to bet one way or the other.

I would like to see a full debate on issues of the sort we were deprived of in 2006. Say what you will about Gov. Kitzhaber, he was capable of intelligent debate (without wisecracks and diatribes) in a way Kulongoski and Saxton just couldn't master.

Jack, where do you stand on those referrals and the idea of kicker reform? Or is it your job to snipe and tell Democrats what they are supposed to ask? Sez who?

<hr/>