Gubernatorial Debate: Live blog and live video
Kari Chisholm
Update, 3:15 p.m. When the debate gets underway, we'll have a live video stream here as well for all the folks who can't make it to the event. Also, we should note that the debate tonight is sponsored by OLCV, OEC, Oregon Wild, Environment Oregon, and Sierra Club Oregon.
Update, 5:55 p.m. Here's the live video feed. The event will be underway shortly.
Hey everybody, we've figured out the best way to liveblog tonight's gubernatorial debate - and make it a collaborative effort. We'll use Twitter, and since there doesn't appear to be an official hashtag, we'll declare one: #govdebate.
Just put #govdebate in your tweets tonight, and your tweets will automatically be loaded into the live widget below. Follow along here, or with your favorite Twitter app. Anyone can participate! (Even the Chris Dudley campaign, which is apparently too scared of a few enviros to show up tonight.)
Of course, you're always welcome to comment here at BlueOregon, too!
Note: Twitter excludes RTs from the feed.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 30, '10
Of course, you're always welcome to comment here at BlueOregon, too!
Why do you keep deleting my comment about it, without edit or placeholder? How is it not on-topic or out of line with what's normally posted here?
1:25 p.m.
Mar 30, '10
You're cutting and pasting Tweets out and putting them in comments. That's what the Twitter feed is for. There's a hashtag provided for your use and it should show up in the stream. Posting it extra in comments is simply spamming.
6:39 p.m.
Mar 30, '10
Twitter: Over capacity--over capacity--over capacity! BAAAAAAAAAAA!
Mar 30, '10
At 6:38, twitter crapped out, over capacity.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Mar 30, 2010 1:25:45 PM
You're cutting and pasting Tweets out and putting them in comments. That's what the Twitter feed is for. There's a hashtag provided for your use and it should show up in the stream. Posting it extra in comments is simply spamming.
Good grief. It was a BO posting done as if it were on twitter. Look at the log on those tags. There's no corresponding twit.
Mar 30, '10
Came back 9 minutes later, OK.
Mar 30, '10
Thanks for the coverage, guys... Just a thought for next time, but have you ever tried to liveblog with Cover It Live (http://www.coveritlive.com)? I think it's a pretty good tool to get people more involved in commenting/conversation (and I'm pretty sure the basic version is free).
Mar 30, '10
As someone who doesn't use Twitter, just want to say I loved Kitzhaber's closing.
7:50 p.m.
Mar 30, '10
Insta-reax, 140+ character division.
Allen Alley. A huge missed opportunity. It was never really clear what he was doing here. Who was he trying to appeal to? He couldn't appeal to his base in this environment, but he certainly couldn't play to the crowd. If he was shooting for the undecided middle, he needed to come in with a plan about how to appear sincere and knowledgeable. Instead, he used what has become the only GOP technique: opinion by homily. His efforts at comedy at the expense of the audience sounded the wrong note. Good he showed up, but sincerity and real policy discussion would have been a better strategy. Tellingly, he mentioned "money" and "technology" lots of times, but failed to invoke Tom McCall once. A smart approach would have been to seize back some of that old-school environmental mojo from Republicans of the past.
Bradbury and Kitzhaber, generally. Totally impressive. They really knew their stuff and used their time to mention their long history with environmental issues. The differences between them represented different ideas about implementing policy, not philosophical differences (not that partisans on the LNG issue will make the distinction).
Bradbury. Wanted to illustrate that this really is his issue and that climate change underscores it all. I tend to hold this view, too, so was persuaded. However, the question about Kitz's donor at the end really undermined a lot of goodwill he had built up. It wasn't really the moment to score that particular point, and drew attention away from his otherwise stellar performance.
Kitz. Kitzhaber has never tried to present himself as the greenest candidate, and he wisely didn't play that card in this debate. For those at all familiar with the issues, his parsing was perfectly reasonable. On the Boardman coal plant, he argued social justice, which was exactly right. As governor, you have to balance priorities. Bradbury made a Kennedyesque challenge, Kitz made a nuanced point. His answer on LNG was similarly respectable (though my own forays into the topic have convinced me it's the wrong way to go.) Big downside was the flash of rage at the end. The one thing people remember about Kitz and fault him for is his short temper and sharp tongue, and both made an appearance. I don't actually think the first response was out of line--Bradbury's charge did come with a lot of assumptions--but in his closing comment, the anger still burned. This may stick with a lot of people.
Either Bradbury or Kitzhaber will make excellent stewards of the environment, and Alley demonstrated that, on that issue at least, he isn't ready for prime time.
8:34 p.m.
Mar 30, '10
Argh. Twitter kicked me off right before the Bradbury question to Kitzhaber. Apparently, the mythical "Twitter limit" really exists. Too many tweets! Twitter told me to "come back in a few hours."
Now I gotta go back and read what everyone else was writing. Thanks for participating, folks!
Mar 30, '10
"As governor, you have to balance priorities. "
Most intelligent comment I have heard in a long time.
Whoever is elected Gov. will need majority legislative support to get anything passed.
After the election is over, "and if elected I will" meets the reality of having to round up the votes.
And if, for instance, there are legislators elected on a position on LNG, for example, which does not match someone's pure position, such is life.
"The differences between them represented different ideas about implementing policy, not philosophical differences (not that partisans on the LNG issue will make the distinction). "
Implementation debates can be just as heated as philosophical debates.
Mar 30, '10
Did anyone else watch the live feed? Was it just me or did Kitz lean over to Bradbury at the end and say (thinking the mic was off) "IF that's how it's going to be, we're taking the gloves off". ?!?! What was that about? Why was he so angry? If he didn't know about the donor's dismal environmental record, why not just say so? He flipped his lid... SO not okay!
Mar 30, '10
I heard something like that.. But why did he not say
YES..
The crowd would have went crazy .. He would have got lots of votes & press .. I mean from what I hear, he is winning the cash game .. So why sweat it ?
I think Bradbury would have been screwed if he did ..
This footi guy does not sound like a stand up oregionan .. John could have lost a polluter friend/donor but win the heart of many including me
Mar 30, '10
I was at a Democratic luncheon once back in the 1980s.
Candidates in a contested statewide primary were speaking.
Friend of mine who was one of the candidates really lit into the front runner.
Months later, it turned out his charges were accurate.
However at the luncheon......
It was the kind of banquet room with round tables (maybe 8-10 to a table) so that the people with their backs to the podium had to turn their chairs around during the program to be able to actually look at the speakers.
When this candidate started landing on the front runner, the sound of scraping chairs (turning chairs back around to face the table) was quite evident.
The front runner went on to win the primary.
My point is this:
the vast majority of voters, the folks who will actually decide the primary, were likely not glued to their computers watching a debate via webcast. They were probably fixing dinner, or just gotten home from work, or maybe had a work shift which didn't get them home until the webcast was over.
If Bradbury wants to run as the candidate of "my opponent should return that contribution"---as if Kitzhaber's (or Bradbury's) long public service record indicates votes traded for contributions---that is his right.
But I can recall a candidate not that long ago who tried a similar issue to get attention. A candidate who had a "pants on fire video" on the front page of his website for quite some time.
That candidate didn't win many counties, and lost the primary.
And is Bradbury sure that every single contribution his campaign has taken in is as pure as the driven snow? Would he want a microscope equally trained on the C & E reports of all Gov. candidates? Is that really the only way to pick an effective nominee?
As I told both men last summer, my vote in this primary goes to the candidate who gives us the most intelligent debate.
Sorry folks, but by that I meant discussion of issues: education, environment, kicker and tax reform, transportation, health care, etc.
If this is going to degrade into that awful spectacle of 2 people who have known each other for years starting to attack each other when the stakes are high, then I will tune out.
There is an inspiring local campaign which sounds a lot more interesting.
One more thing. Over a quarter of a century ago, I had the pleasure of being active in a multi-candidate Congressional primary which had about as intelligent a debate on issues as I can remember seeing anywhere.
Most of the candidates had politics similar to those of Kitzhaber and Bradbury. The issues raised and debates about them were a real education. It had been a tough choice for me --which one to support. Was glad I chose the one I finally went with, though--best on the issues.
But then 2 of the candidates started sniping at each other. My friend Julie, campaign manager for the ultimate nominee, said of the sniping,
"When they act like that, you know they know they are losing".
The 2 who sniped at each other came in 2nd and 3rd.
Even if everyone here thinks Bradbury is in the right about this contribution and is willing to say to John Kitzhaber's face "Have you no shame?", that doesn't change the fact that people living their own lives could very easily a) never be aware of the controversy b) think it distracts from the intelligent discussion of solving this state's problems which we sorely need to have.
As I have said before, I am waiting to hear the candidates talk about kicker reform and tax reform. This kind of sniping is a distraction.
Mar 30, '10
ok LT. Sorry but, your point was??? Bill asked John a DIRECT QUESTION about one of his many PAC/Uber-wealthy Oregonian donations. Why did John freak out and respond with nonsense about his integrity and the OEA endorsement? I mean, I just don't get it. If GOVERNOR Kitzhaber did not know about the EPA record of his donor, why didn't he just say so? His anger/defensive speaks volumes. Is it just me? and... I've heard Bradbury speak time and again about kicker reform and so, remind me how that fits into your argument about John's $10k club????
Mar 30, '10
Are wealthy Illinois residents better contributers to Oregon Gov. campaigns?
The Sec. of State who created ORESTAR and got it operational should not be surprised if people use it to look at his C & E---which includes a $10,000 contribution from an executive of Chicago Sweeteners Inc.
But that's OK?
I want to hear where they stand on issues. Battling C & E reports solve nothing.
But if you want to support Bradbury, be my guest.
Mar 30, '10
OK, I'll bite:
"I've heard Bradbury speak time and again about kicker reform and so, remind me how that fits into your argument about John's $10k club????"
Bradbury's proposal for kicker reform is____?
And after tonight, Bradbury will take no out of state $10,000 contributions?
Mar 31, '10
My thoughts on the Bradbury money question... Bradbury probably thinks that, at this point, given that he's behind in the polls, his best shot at winning the primary is to go into attack mode on Kitzhaber. Kitz displayed, what I thought, was a surprising amount of bonhomie in the debate tonight -- the softball question to BB, the reminiscence about their steak dinner together. Either he was being genuine/sincere or he knew that the nicer he was, the less likely BB would be to attack (or the worse he would come off, if he did so).
So, BB asks his question, and Kitz clearly interprets it as a personal attack on his character and gets upset. And stays upset (I did hear a few words of the post-debate "gloves will come off" comment, but I didn't catch the whole thing). I did not get the sense that he was angry/defensive about the donation itself or the donor, but about the fact that (1) his character was being maligned (i.e., it was being implied that he could be bought), and (2) it was Bradbury who was doing the maligning. It seemed to me like he was surprised the BB was so aggressive with his question, that he maybe expected a different tone.
I'm interested to hear what the people in the room thought of who came off worse the wear for that exchange. Kitz could/should have done a better job keeping kept his emotions in check, but I have to say I was a little surprised at Bradbury. He was doing pretty well in the debate, but going into cynical attack mode didn't win him any points with me.
Mar 31, '10