So, Teddy, are the kids still "first" on your list, or did the Blazers and their bulbous, bankrupt billionaire owner just move up a few notches?

Do tell, Theodore, do tell.

Hi Kari.

I learned a very long time ago that politicians lie. Even Democrats. Why? More power than normal people like you and I can ever dream of. Absolute power, don't cha know.

The mayor's office says they are going to talk with the Blazers and the governor's office says they are still talking too. I asked them myself.

Impressions are not facts. Facts are not impressions.

So lets see if I get the gist of the speech:

No more hungry kids Meth Bad I fight Meth Green Oregon is Good (i.e. Eviros shut up) Jobs Good Sorry about the service being cut Schools Good Sorry about schools getting cut Sick kids Bad Smokers Bad Smokers pay to help sick kids President Bad Oil Bad Renewable Fuel Good

Then Kari went and did his job. What an ass :)

I don’t know about you guys but I’m moved.

Pat Egan, huh? The Governor's Chief of Staff is a drinking buddy of Oregonians in Action's Ross Day. The both graduated from Willamette Law in 2000. Small world, RIGHT?

A comment on "Addicted to oil," now a bipartisan term. The word typically applied to dependence on a harmful substance. In contrast, oil has been a boon to humankind. We now need to cut our consumption due to declining domestic reserves and production. But using less oil, though necessary and inevitable, will bring major economic problems as we try to support 300 million people on much less energy. Few people in the future will look back and be happy that petroleum energy ended.

Kari, Im not sure if your client Ted K would let you, but if you can, can you try to explain why he hasn't addressed any of his new found interests in his first 3 years in office? Aside from taking cold medication off of store shelves, and moving slightly past the old confederate states in hunger, I am still trying to figure out what he has been doing for so long. Another quote from your guy: "Today the crisis is over" hmmm, maybe the crisis of yacht owners having to pay a fair share of taxes on their boat, or the 2/3 of corporations that pay no income tax. I agree, Gov'nor, their crisis is over. I hope now that this Republicrat is suddenly meeting with and giving lip service to people who are unable cut him a contribution check, he might realize the "crisis" is not over for the 600,000+ Oregonians w/o healthcare, and the 750,000 people who ate out of a food box last year. But the last thing I want to see is Kari having to eat out of one, so let's not blame him for plugging Kulongoski over time and time again. Thanks for the soundbites.

So first he decides to cut state employees pensions, now he's punishing smokers by raising the cigarette tax. Who's next? How about the Subchapter C corporations of whom two-thirds pay little or no income tax? When a member of the audience asked Ted about the fact these corporations don't pay their share of the income tax, he completely dodged the question. Does somebody want to answer that one for Ted?

THE GOVERNOR:"the wind is at our back..."

MESSAGE TO GOVERNOR: have you talked to PORTLAND?

The great Willamette Law 2000 conspiracy? I knew it!!! Unfortunately, I don't think Pat drinks. Other members of the Willamette Law 2000 class cabal are Portland Public Schools Budget Chair Tony Larson, BlueOregon contributor Liz Leventhal and Oregon State Treasurer Randall Edwards Chief of Staff Kate Richardson. EHB

TrueBlueOregonian summed it up in one phrase:

"Newfound interests."

Aside from the indisputable generalization of "I Love Oregon," none of what I've heard out of the State of the State matches up to anything that he made a priority of during session. You see, I think a governor has to do more than just hope that certain legislation lands on his desk.

"Leader in renewable fuels..." Then where was he when the Dems torpedoed the not-green-enough Biofuels package? (I know that's a point of contention, but it got torpedoed by someone and Ted wasn't there for it.)

"Uninsured children are three times more likely to use expensive emergency room care and four times less likely to visit a primary care physician..." Umm... are Ted and Westlund sharing a speechwriter? I coulda sworn I heard exactly that at the Bus last month.

"If the [2007] legislature adopts my [education funding] plan..." Um, yeah. Thanks for finally remembering to submit an education plan to the legislature. Third session's the charm, I guess.

If he wins in November, I'll pitch in $1; we'll buy him a map of the Capitol Building so he can find his way to the legislature this time.

"There once was a mighty ship of state" "The seas were getting rough" "But not for the courage of the fearless crew Oregon would be lost" "Oregon would be lost" "Do not worry Ginger and Mary Anne, GOVERNOR Gilligan is at the helm." The professor" A little coconut glue will patch the hole" Governor Gilligan"And some palm oil for the engine" "where is the skipper?" "already washed overboard"

     AND THE REST HERE ON GILLIGN'S ISLAND

So join us here each week my friends,

You're sure to get a smile,

From 3.5 million castaways,

Here on Teddy K's isle!

OK -- meth is bad Cold medicine off the shelves. How does that help when Mexican meth is half as expensive as locally made? Good god. Has the aging generation of free love and pot forgotten? Demand drives sales -- not supply. Emerging medical theory on meth use is that it's like anything else -- self medication for anxiety and depression.

It doesn't help when the gov joins other politicians around the country and acts like this is a supply issue.

What happens if reducing the supply actually works? We actually stop 60%, no say 70, no say 85% of the meth supply?

Will that stop the use? Or will tweakers steal even more stuff to pay for the higher cost of a less available commodity. (Someone out there must know a Republican to explain supply and demand.)

Prohibition didn't work in the 30's It didn't work for pot in the 70's. It won't work now. Ever.

Let's focus on the reasons people are taking drugs and alcohol.

rant concluded, thanks for your time.

Did a little research after listening to Governor KulonGannix's education plan of raising the tax on cigarettes and alcohol specifically for the schools. Then went to Jim Hill's website (www.JimHill2006.com) and looked at the commercials from his '02 campaign. This exact proposal was brought forth by Gov. Kitzhaber more than four years ago. Apparently Jim Hill was the only candidate to support it then. The schools could have been saved long ago. None of this going into the reserves of Multnomah County and the city of Portland for it. Too little too late, Teddy! Now back to doing what you do best--nothing. I pray that we don't re-elect this fool. I challenge anyone to look at Jim's ads and tell me that they think Ted should be our nominee this go around.

Kari, I guess I just believe that when a site that bills itself as "progressive conversation around the water cooler", and a place for "Oregon progressives to gather", the all important conversation, would include you know...."progressive topics". I think any reasonably educated person would question your business association with Ted Kulongoski, and the effect it has on the "progressive conversation" here on BlueOregon. If you support Ted, great, but other dem blogs like kos and mydd at least list who they are supporting, and are up front with their readers. I think inevitably the conversation will keep coming back to you as long as you conveniently ignore Jim Hill and Pete Sorenson's challenge to Kulongoski. The coverage of the Multnomah Dems endorsement was completley skewed to make it look like the voters were a) insane, or b) feeling slighted. God forbid a sane, sober, active Democrat disagree with you on who would be the best choice to win the nomination. If you want the DLC's Ted Kulongoski to win so badly that you ingnore or trash real progressive campaigns, it might just be a good idea to put a post-it on the water cooler saying the guy hired you to do his website(which is a nice one). Thanks

Ted K: "The wind is at our back."

Voters: "Actually, the wind is in your trousers."

I checked out the commercials at Jim Hill's website. Pretty impressive. Is it true that there was a plan to use tabacco and alcohol four years ago and Kulongoski wouldn't back it? If so, I have to say that it is very sad although not surprising that Ted is only now getting on board. Nothing like a hotly contested primary to get an otherwise missing-in-action governor talking about important issues.

Yes, this is just all to conveniently timed. Ted's not been an effective governor and he's lost his credibility with me. But maybe people haven't been paying attention and his speech will move some folks. Not me. Like someone else said, too little, too late. Let's move on.

Happened to turn on the radio at about 50 minutes into the speech - and I LOVED his answer to the question about the Republican Legislature. Surprised the hell out of me. "All we [Democrats] are now is a series of disparate interest groups on a continuum all wanting to be heard at the same time." He understands! "They care about their jobs..." He correctly diagnosed the cancer that is killing the Democratic Party. Too bad he didn't have a cure. It was so vehement that it was almost a little Dean Scream of his own, but it totally worked. Good on ya.

True Blue--attacks on an elected offical are fine, but don't attack Kari, he is doing a good job with this.

Those who say otherwise remind me of a story from about 15 years ago. Living room of someone hosting a gathering for a candidate whose campaign was just getting off the ground. Lots of the sort of debate which often goes on in Blue Oregon but back in 1991 only happened in person. Then the subject of a particular Dem. incumbent came up. Someone was angry that a guy who'd grown up in E. Oregon was an NRA member --how could a Democrat do that? And someone asked "but did you ever ask him about that issue to his face if it is so important to you?". No, the questioner said, just assumed no one could be both a Democrat and an NRA member--never thought to ask. At which point the questioner was landed on verbally by those who said "If you'd given him the courtesy of asking him he'd have said the same thing to you he said to any of us who asked: "As a teenager living in a small town I went hunting like every other red blooded American boy in my town".

Point is, Kari has a right to make a living. As I recall, there was an online town hall on the 2002 Ted for Gov. website that worked a lot like a blog. Mannix had no such thing (did he prefer a one way campaign just preaching to voters?). Funniest thing ever happened in that online town hall was that Lars came on and said Ted should appear on his show, "10% of Oregonians listen to me!". Someone responded "Thanks for giving me another reason to respect Kulongoski--anyone who would prefer to talk to the 90% of Oregonians who don't listen to you has my vote!"

Seems to me that blaming Kari is like blaming the graphic artist for lawn signs with a lousy message or poor choice of color combination. Everything a candidate does is ultimately the candidate's responsibility.

Brett, Kulongoski has also quoted Will Rogers "I belong to no organized party, I am a Democrat". Personally, I think what is happening now that Ted can't cruise in the primary is what JFK called the free marketplace of ideas. But it is not enough to say "people are worried about their jobs" --that is Republican/ DLC sloganeering. It is his responsibility to talk about what he has done as Gov. Bringing in new businesses is nice, but what about the disconnect between supply/demand: employers and employees? Are iMatchSkills and Worksource Oregon working out as anticipated? In all communities and in all occupations? What is the oversight--are those working better in some areas than in others?

I've gotten more interviews out of newspaper and website ads than from iMatch, so why should I be impressed by a slogan like "its about jobs"? As opposed to what?

And where was that passionate rhetoric and concern about jobs last year? Can he now tell us what went on in those closed door budget hearings, or why a cigarette tax proposal now but not last year? If the answer is "Minnis said she'd keep the legislature in session until Christmas if I did" at least that would be honest. This way it is the reverse of the old Al Gore joke--that Al was a better speaker when he WASN'T running for President.

Ted made some good appointments as Gov. (Max Williams was an inspired choice, I wonder if Lane Shetterly is glad he got the job given the problems with implementing Measure 37) but he owes the public an explanation for the AuCoin and Bryant nominations. What was he thinking? Why shouldn't people who were upset by those consider them "good ol' boy" nominations?

But it is the job of the candidates to speak for themselves, not the job of the support staff. Do you even know the names of the creative talent for the other Gov. candidates?

For the record as Jim Hill's campaign manager I want to say that Kari has been completely objective and accomadating when it comes to BlueOregon and has offered to have Jim do a live blog which we will be doing in the near future.

I understand that this is an open process and it is important for people to be inquisitive and hold others accountable. I do also have to empathize with Kari that it is frustrating to have a post on the Kulongoksi's State of the State get side tracked off of what we really need to be discussing, which is the speech, the governors accomplishments (or lack of) and the debate over who will best represent Democrats in November.

Bottom line is that Kari has created an great venue for people (no matter who they support) to voice their opinion. Let's keep those opinions coming.

Please check out our website at www.JimHill2006.com or contact me if you have any questions. (See... shameless plug made possible by BlueOregon.com)

Jef Green Jim Hill for Governor

John Calhoun writes: "The participants on this blog do not reflect the Oregon electorate very well. For all the support here for Hill and Sorrenson, they do not make much of an impression on the electorate and will not be the party nominee. Sorenson has been running for a year and doesn't get past single digits. Hill has started too late and doesn't have the time or money to catch up. He has been invisible for the past four years and is no longer on the radar. I doubt that will change in the next two months. So the Democratic nominee will be Kulongoski.

On the Republican side, Saxton has been making great strides and is the man to beat. Mannix is yesterday's news. Saxton has moved right and has Lars on his side. Mannix will lose social conservative votes to his younger competitor while the business folks in the Republican party will stick with Saxton. Saxton has money and momentum. Mannix has neither."

While I do agree with much of what you say, John, I am quite worried about the governorship going to the Republicans this year. Kulongoski's behavior in the last four years has garnered little support from his base (aka 'us'). He can Howard Dean scream all he wants about how he has been 'a great democrat', but his record has shown almost nothing to this effect. Name one thing he has done that would have been any different than if we had elected Mannix four years ago. This being the reason that in my group of friends we refer to him as 'Kulongannix'. I seriously doubt that the sitting governor can beat the Republican nominee this year, especially with the moderate Mr. Saxton picking up the steam on their side as he is.

This is the reason that we need to take a good look at the only viable candidate who in my opinion has a solid chance in the general, that being the twice elected statewide Democratic candidate for governor Jim Hill. He has a name that everyone knows, and the ability to raise the money and the endorsements of a lot of groups that Ted has pissed off. And can you imagine if he wins the Primary the national support for him as an African-American candidate? I would bet that you'd see the Bill Clinton's and all the big wigs in our party coming out here to campaign for him. It's an exciting idea. I pose that we rethink this expected coronation for Teddy in the primary that a lot of us around here are talking of...

So last year it was "Oregon is fated to have a Mannix/ Kulongoski rematch, nothing you can do about that, just accept it" and now the only change is that it would be Saxton/Kulongoski?

On the Republican side, Saxton has been making great strides and is the man to beat. Mannix is yesterday's news. Saxton has moved right and has Lars on his side. Mannix will lose social conservative votes to his younger competitor while the business folks in the Republican party will stick with Saxton. Saxton has money and momentum. Mannix has neither.

Does Lars still have the same 10% of the listenership of Oregonians he bragged about 4 years ago, or has KPOJ AM 620 or other factors cut into that? What about the people who don't listen to talk radio? What about Ben's target audience--the folks disgusted with partisanship?

I wouldn't place any bets just yet on the names for the Gov. general election. Just as there are Democrats changing to Indep. to campaign for Ben, I have talked to Republicans who would not be generally classified as "moderate" (in the Chaffee, Snowe, Jeffords, Collins, Hagel definition of that term) who are enthusiastic about Hill and not about Saxton or any of the others. What is to prevent them from either re-registering Dem. or talking to their friends who are Dem. or likely to re-register?

Are we really stuck with 2 candidates who talk generalities and soundbites as the only candidates?

As someone who lived in the old House Dist. 31 and was told I was deluded to think that in 1980 or 1982 a black man could win in S. Salem, I just don't have that much faith in conventional wisdom, esp. this year.

Are we stuck just debating which groups should be more powerful and not debating actual solutions? Saxton wants to blame PERS on the individual retirees, as if they structured the system themselves. And more recently he was going to lay off all public employees and rehire them without PERS. That is his only solution? Does he believe he can get elected without being more specific than that?

There are people who want this to be about pro-union vs. anti-union and then when elected they can negotiate privately and spring their solutions on us after the election is over. They are threatened by anyone who wants those who made the decisions about PERS over the last 20+ years to be held responsible, because gosh, that might mean the PERS Board and those people aren't unionized so anti-union rhetoric won't work if PERS Board and/ or legislators from years ago are held to account for setting up a system which ran into problems. Was the whole PERS situation part of the debate in the 1982 Gov. race? Does anyone remember back that far? Or is historical memory somehow subversive?

Too bad there aren't some PERS Board members or legislators from decades past who could explain the system in clear terms to all of us. Who could say "don't demonize the average secretary or accountant or other public employee who had no say in how this was structured".

Perhaps they could say "Maybe 8% match and some of those other ideas were wrong, but they looked good at the time". Maybe they could tell us who specifically by name came up with the structure of PERS in previous decades, when, and why. Maybe they could say "If you had been in that position, would you have told all state employees 'sorry, we can't give you a raise, we can't do anything about your retirement, if you don't like it you can get a job elsewhere' ".

Can Saxton tell us "had I been in the state capitol as governor or a legislator in 2003, I would have supported the ----- PERS bill because...?" Or how he would have worded a PERS bill differently? Or what he thinks of 21st century PERS court decisions? Or is he too simplistically minded for that?

Where was Ron Saxton 10 years ago, 20 years ago? Was he talking about PERS then? Or is this the issue he has built his campaign around so we won't ask him about any other issues because if he is elected governor he will wave his magic wand, PERS will be solved, education funded, more troopers on the highways, all Oregonians employed at living wage jobs and covered by health insurance, but if we question his PERS views none of that will happen?

Remember the promises by the Measure 30 crowd that unemployment would go up if their efforts failed and all sorts of jobs would be created and unemployment would go down if they were successful? Did that happen?

Isn't Saxton trying the same sort of con job? Why isn't he being asked tougher questions?

Calhoun --

To "beat up on [Kulongoski] for not doing it in the last session" is, I think, a lot more relevant than you give it credit for.

In that, you seem to acknowledge that he's been absent from the greater legislative discussion... shoudn't that figure in to our decisions? I did listen to what he said... I like what he said. But he does have a nasty habit of not showing up to get it done. (I wouldn't vote for Bush just because he seems to have suddenly sprouted a rhetorical love affair with alternative fuels.)

I'm for Hill in the primary. Failing that, I just don't see the difference in terms of results... if the Democrats have the Senate... between Ted and Mannix. What's the point of electing a Democrat who talks the talk without acting on it?

"I am less afraid of a hundred lions led by a sheep than I am of a hundred sheep led by a lion." ~ some dead British guy, probably.

Ron Saxton can get a facelift every week-and-a-half and it still won't make his ideas any saner.

It may not be too late for a refund, Ron. Worth a check.

<hr/>