Westlund's Withdrawal
Russell Sadler
Independent Ben Westlund’s exit from the governors race is variously getting the horse race, celebrity or cutesy treatment.
From the start, Westlund’s candidacy was subjected to the horse race treatment that has become the unsatisfying standard of political journalism, as in “He-can’t-win-but-who-will-he-take-support-from- and-who-might-win-as-a-result.”
The celebrity treatment included the inevitable article on “What-will-the-State-Senator-who-recovered-from- cancer-surgery-in 2003-do-now?” It’s a good heart-tugging yarn, but does little to illuminate the consequences of Westlund’s withdrawal from this year’s governor’s race.
The cutesy treatment is summed up in an Oregonian columnist’s headline, “Ben Quixote: The Windmills Win Again.” Westlund is not Don Quixote. Dismissing Westlund’s independent candidacy as quixotic deliberately marginalizes the threat he represented to entrenched political interests and the voters who rallied to him.
Westlund’s independent candidacy threatened the established Republican and Democratic parties. Neither party is a majority party any longer. Both parties represent a dwindling percentage of registered voters.
The Oregon Legislature responded by passing a law prohibiting voters who cast ballot in either party’s primary from signing nominating petitions for any independent candidate. Any Republican or Democrat who is unhappy with their party’s nominee is prohibited from participating in the nomination of an independent candidate.
Westlund’s candidacy also threatened the lobbyists for interest groups that have hijacked Oregon initiative process and turned it into a private, parallel form of shadow government that bypasses the constitutional system of checks and balances imposed on the Legislature.
These interest groups, now organized as the grandly misnamed “Tax Coalition,” no longer represent Oregon interests. They are thinly-disguised, wholly-owned subsidiaries of national interests, like Movement Conservatism’s Freedom Works and scandal-tainted Grover Norquist’s American’s for Tax Reform.”
Their Oregon subsidiaries are astroturf. Their agenda and finances come from the national organizations or money from a handful of wealthy Oregon conservatives whose identities and contributions are conveniently laundered through Norquist’s organization.
Any resurgence of independent Oregon political leadership threatens the effort of this shadow government to impose their national agenda on Oregon through the initiative process.
This shadow government has also discovered that while the Oregon Legislature is constitutionally prohibited from deficit spending, the voters exercising the initiative are not. Thus the voters can pass initiatives requiring new spending that suits the shadow government while the Legislature cannot. The Legislature no longer controls Oregon’s purse strings. The shadow government controls spending by manipulating the initiative.
The voters who were rallying to Westlund’s candidacy included the deliberately disenfranchised independents and disenchanted Republicans and Democrats who hold more moderate opinions that the dwindling members of their respective parties. The cynical manipulation of the registration process for independent candidates has infuriated these voters.
Arguably, Ron Saxton, with his inexperience and narrow base of support in the Portland metropolitan area, would not be on the November ballot if he had been forced to follow the same laborious, contribution-sapping process of collecting qualifying signatures arbitrarily imposed on Westlund. Saxton simply signed up for the Republican primary with its easy access to the ballot, beat an opponent with a record as a loser and is the party’s nominee in November.
This deliberate discrimination infuriates independents and other who are not satisfied with the nominees of the Republican and Democratic parties. Frustrated by a closed primary system that deliberately prevents them from influencing the candidates presented to them in November elections, these independents have stayed away from the polls in frustration in recent years. The response of the partisans is to dismiss independents as “people who just can’t make up their minds,” which just alienates them further from the existing political system.
Westlund withdrew, I suspect, for the reasons he stated publicly. He wanted to win, not be a spoiler for one side or the other. Polls suggest the Legislature’s manipulation of independent candidates was successful. Westlund ran out of time and money trying to qualify for the ballot rather than campaigning for office on the issues he thought important.
The consequences of Westlund’s withdrawal means that the issues he and his supports thought serious -- Oregon Republicans’ practice of borrow and spend, the lobbyists who have hijacked the initiative and turned it into a private, parallel form of shadow government, the bitter and excessive partisanship that has paralyzed the Legislature in recent years, school finance, tax reform, a new direction for the state -- will simply not be discussed -- again.
With these issues unresolved, Oregon government will continue to drift, leaderless, rudderless, buffeted this way and that at the whims of the shadow government and the initiatives that buy their way onto the ballot. Those are not quixotic consequences.
 |
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
Aug 20, '06
The consequences of Westlund’s withdrawal means that the issues he and his supports thought serious -- Oregon Republicans’ practice of borrow and spend, the lobbyists who have hijacked the initiative and turned it into a private, parallel form of shadow government, the bitter and excessive partisanship that has paralyzed the Legislature in recent years, school finance, tax reform, a new direction for the state -- will simply not be discussed -- again.
This would be an excellent column if we lived in some parallel universe in which our current Governor was not outspoken in his opposition to out-of-state conservative interest groups hijacking our initiative system generally, and his strong and unequivocal opposition to TABOR and the federal reconnect specifically. Or if the Governor hadn't taken on powerful lobbys like the auto industry with his tailpipe emissions rules or the pharmaceutical industry with bulk purchasing or the timber industry with his roadless protection.
Or if he hadn't addressed "bitter partisanship" by not just words, but with deeds and action by working with members of both parties to pass the most significant transportation investment package since Oregon built its share of the federal highway system. Or passing the toughest in the nation meth law. Or payday lending reform. Or laws to crackdown on sexual predators.
Or if Ted wasn't working tirelessly with a bi-partisan, bi-state coalition to get relief for hard-hit fishing communities. (Communities that are highly unlikely to vote for him, btw)
Maybe Russell lives in a world in which meaningful tax reform was possible when the state had the biggest defecit since the great depression -- a loss of nearly 25% of the state's revenues. I don't. The Governor's priority -- even though he campaigned both for Measures 28 and 30 -- was turning around the economy and creating new jobs.
You may be right about the media coverage of Westlund's withdrawl, but I for one am looking forward to the media's statewide group therapy session on this to come to a close.
1:01 p.m.
Aug 20, '06
Sorry, that should have been "deficit."
Aug 20, '06
JB -- Yes, all of the things you mentioned are true, and the Governor has been outspoken on all of these issues in recent months.
With Westlund out of the race, I'll likely be offering the Governor my vote in November ... and if the Governor keeps up this persona even after election day, I'll have been proud to have voted for him.
Aug 20, '06
JHL, you might be interested in a conversation today at a retirement party. An old family friend sat next to me, and he was very unhappy with Westlund dropping out. I should say this is a reliably Republican old friend of mine. He said "given the choice between Saxton and Kulongoski, he will be voting for Kulongoski".
But I would invite all of you who think Russell lives in a parallel universe to read David Reinhard's column today in the Sunday Oregonian. He writes about the "public employee union's "Saxton: too extreme for Oregon" video. He has a bunch of "straw men" like
Saxton supports charter schools Saxton vows "zero tolerance for waste and abuse" Saxton opposes tax increases
which Reinhard claims are stands that will attract moderate Rs and Independents.
Like the old friend I sat next to at the retirement party?
I would like to see Ted out there in public going directly at issues like these. For instance, "OK Ron, you are against waste and abuse. List 3 examples of that in the current budget, given how many budget cuts were needed in the 5 special sessions and the regular session after that." OR "Ron, you oppose tax increases. Where can we read your list of proposed cuts in order to avoid those tax increases? Are you aware that when a state senator of your party was a Ways and Means Subcommittee Chair in the 2003 session, that Senator said some cuts were too harsh and would not leave her committee? If that Senator is re-elected, how do you intend to gain that vote for your proposed cuts?".
OR, "Ron, you support charter schools. Has every charter school in this state had equal success? Do you believe the current system for setting up charter schools works well, or how would you change it? Has there been any documented waste and abuse at any charter school?". For the record, I told this man I saw no other choice than voting for Ted, but that didn't mean I had to approve of how the campaign is being run.
JBE may be 100% accurate about everything he says, but how many people know about this? Is Ted himself out there talking about these things publicly? Is he on the news talking about these issues, or about what is wrong with Saxton?
I just got an email from a friend of mine who read the discussion I sent a link to here on Blue Oregon and complimented me on asking tough questions. So please don't tell me "what voters want". In any group of 10 voters, there may be 10 different opinions--voters aren't a bloc, they are individuals.
And about this Maybe Russell lives in a world in which meaningful tax reform was possible when the state had the biggest defecit since the great depression -- a loss of nearly 25% of the state's revenues. I live in a world where people are angry that there was not even any serious discussion of SB 382. It may have been a flawed bill, it may not have had the votes. But there was not even any discussion. Nothing in Measure 30 said "should petitioners prevail, the only way taxes can be discussed in the 2005 session is the subject of tax cuts". Karen Minnis & Co. ran the legislature as if that language existed, but it didn't. And Ben Westlund dropping out doesn't mean we aren't allowed to ask how that lack of discussion happened.
As someone said last month at a Westlund event, "The reason they called her Queen Karen is that there was no King in the Capitol" (meaning no strong presence the way Kitzhaber was as Governor). You may like or dislike that comment, or this one from a disappointed Westlund supporter interviewed in one of the "Westlund drops out" articles, "Don't think we are going away. We will hold the candidates' feet to the fire. We will not accept sound bites or attacks".
In the world where I live, Westlund was threatening to upset apple carts as Russell said, "Westlund’s independent candidacy threatened the established Republican and Democratic parties. Neither party is a majority party any longer. Both parties represent a dwindling percentage of registered voters.......................Westlund’s candidacy also threatened the lobbyists for interest groups that have hijacked Oregon initiative process and turned it into a private, parallel form of shadow government that bypasses the constitutional system of checks and balances imposed on the Legislature."
Whatever you may think you know about voters from previous elections, that doesn't mean they will vote that way this year. From the woman I know who is fed up and said "This year, I am only voting for Democrats because we need a change" to the friend at the party today saying it is a good thing that Ben Westlund will now spend his time going around the state campaigning against the ballot measures put on the ballot by out of state money, there is a volatile electorate this year.
Lots of people don't pay the same level of attention that bloggers do when it comes to politics, esp. online political coverage. People with dialup connections generally can't watch videos. People who only use computers for email and very few other things are unlikely to see this blog. But if the neighborhood association gets involved in an issue, or a neighbor is running for legislature, then they might get interested.
It is important to sell voters on why a candidate is good, not just attack the opponent. THAT is the world I live in.
5:21 p.m.
Aug 20, '06
the problems you list with lobbyists are very true, but we have no evidence that Ben threatened their power. quitting the Republican Party (when he knew he could not come close to the nomination there) and saying some good things for a few months is no proof he'd do anything different. he still has a career of being a good R to disprove — and maybe he will in 2007.
an indie governor would not fix much of anything, anyway. the problem isn't who the governor is; it's our entire election financing system. until we have voter-owned elections with instant runoff voting, money will rule. Gov Ben would be as hamstrung by the lobbyists as Gov Ted is. get rid of that money and we won't need an indie governor to fix things. the entire legislature will be independent again (mostly; Minnis & Scott will still whore themselves silly, and the fanatics never did care about money).
Aug 20, '06
Great post Russell!
Especially this paragraph: "The consequences of Westlund’s withdrawal means that the issues he and his supports thought serious -- Oregon Republicans’ practice of borrow and spend, the lobbyists who have hijacked the initiative and turned it into a private, parallel form of shadow government, the bitter and excessive partisanship that has paralyzed the Legislature in recent years, school finance, tax reform, a new direction for the state -- will simply not be discussed -- again." ===============
If Westlund really believed in driving a better discussion, and getting some results in his race (results being defined as DISCUSSING the above issues, not winning the election), then he really should have not bailed out of the race so early.
He could have got on the ballot in August (or early Sept) and spent half of Sept and all of Oct holding Ted and Ron to an intelligent discussion of the key issues. Wow, and the people would have heard Ted's and Ron's answers (or non-answers) to each of those tough issues. And if he was still only going to play the spoiler role, he could have bailed a few days before the ballots got mailed. That role would have done Oregon (and Ben also) a big favor.
But I suspect now that somebody else will have to do Ben a big return favor. Only time will tell.
Aug 20, '06
He could have got on the ballot in August (or early Sept) and spent half of Sept and all of Oct holding Ted and Ron to an intelligent discussion of the key issues. Wow, and the people would have heard Ted's and Ron's answers (or non-answers) to each of those tough issues.
It would have been great to have Ben and Ted tag team Ron Saxton and prove how shallow he really is.
But with Ted's "running against 2 Republicans" and other Kulongoski supporters saying "Ben is no progressive", would that really have happened?
Or, as others have said, would Ben have gone down in history as the 2006 Al Mobley? Someone said recently that there was a danger that if Ben had stayed in the race and gotten less than 20%, the person who he tipped the election toward would have ignored him by late November, and the supporters of the candidate who lost would never have forgiven him.
How's this for a radical idea: Everyone who wants issues discussed, contact the campaigns and ask the tough questions.
Of course, that might be more work than an independent candidate asking questions and being ignored by some who just want to know how the horse race is going.
And how many legislators have come out strongly supporting either Ted or Ron?
If you don't want to ask the Gov. candidates questions about the issues, ask your local legislative candidates. Because (although Saxton may not realize this) whether the next governor is elected by a 1% margin or a 10% margin, the legislature will have to actually introduce, debate, and pass bills.
There were something like 50,000 Westlund signatures--a larger number than Ted's victory margin in 2002.
A smart campaign for Governor would spend more time talking about the sort of issues those 50,00 care about (and not leaving any opening for the likes of Reinhard) instead of just doing press releases and fundraising events.
I've seen a press release about Ted's concern for back to school health care. That's great, but when will we see Ted actually talking about it in venues that don't involve press releases or the Internet?
Aug 20, '06
Everyone who wants issues discussed, contact the campaigns and ask the tough questions.
cricket cricket... cricket cricket...
8:46 p.m.
Aug 20, '06
That's great, but when will we see Ted actually talking about it in venues that don't involve press releases or the Internet?
Um, LT, maybe you could start showing up at some events!
I've heard him talk about the issues in person multiple times this summer. Best speech was at the DPO Convention.... next opportunity is Tuesday with Governor Schweitzer.
It's a bit disingenuous to sit in your house, spending your time writing 5000-word screeds on the internet, and then complain that you never see him speak in person.
Aug 20, '06
That's great, but when will we see Ted actually talking about it in venues that don't involve press releases or the Internet?
To add to this, let me explain how a public relations campaign works. You communicate with the public. Through the media. The WHOLE POINT of the event was to increase publicity for children's health programs that could cover 60,000 uninsured Oregon children.
You could talk to 100 people in a room, or 100,000+ through TV and newspaper coverage. If you're trying to get the message out -- and the 1-800-KIDS-NOW hotline -- mass communications is the way to go.
Also, here's another communications tip: don't post comments that are longer than Russell's original post!!
Aug 20, '06
Um, LT, maybe you could start showing up at some events!
Kari, are you saying I should drive from Salem to Portland to "show up at events"?
Every time I have looked at tedforgov.com there were no events in Marion County. Which local events have I missed? (Don't say any events in July when my temp. job took me away from home for sometimes 11 hours a day.)
I would love to see Ted in person and have been given the info about the Sept. State Central Comm. meeting in Salem Sept. 9.
I hope my schedule will allow me to attend. But if my schedule prevents it for some reason (say, if I got a job where I was scheduled to work Sat. Sept. 9 during the time Ted was scheduled to be at the meeting) would that mean I had no right to ask questions because something prevented me from "showing up" at that "event"?
Kari, not everyone has lots of free time (or the gas money) to attend events an hour or more away. Please clarify which local events I missed. Or was that was a sarcastic remark because anyone like me who has questions shouldn't think twice about driving to Portland?
Aug 20, '06
Easy, LT! Kari's just yanking yer chain! Anyone who's watched you here very long knows how deep your involvement in Oregon politics has been.
12:51 a.m.
Aug 21, '06
(Don't say any events in July when my temp. job took me away from home for sometimes 11 hours a day.)
Of course, the governor's re-election campaign isn't organized for the sole purpose of convincing you to vote for him. There are a few million other Oregonians he's targeting as well.
Aug 21, '06
Ted was here in West Eugene this weekend at our Democratic Unity event/ice cream social with Sen. Ron Wyden, Congressman Peter DeFazio, Sen. Vicki Walker and candidate for HD 14 Chris Edwards. Pete Sorenson was the MC for the event and we had plenty of Democrats, music and ice cream.
It was an incredible event and it energized the whole neighborhood once people understood that working in their neighborhood could help take back the House and keep Vicki Walker working for us in Salem. HD 14 hasn't elected a Democrat since the last redistricting and from what I am seeing, it looks like Chris Edwards will be the first. It was great to see everyone come out to support Chris and Vicki because the only way we will win is by working together.
When we were canvassing the neighborhood before the event, people were really excited about meeting the Governor and I can tell you that he has made some lifelong fans out here in West Eugene.
Sorry LT, I know that West Eugene is still 40 minutes from Salem but Sept. 9th isn't too far away. I hope to see you there.
Val
Aug 21, '06
I agree with much of what Russell said, and much of LT and TA,
however, JB Eads has a few inaccuracies: Pay Day Loans was initiated by Minnis & Co, and gave Rep. Debi Farr a chance to redeem herself for helping to kill the bill during the session. Minnis saw it (the proposed ballot measure) as a potent weapon against her and Farr and moved to nullify it. The Governor doesn't get that as a credit. In fact, it hurts Democrats down the ticket that Minnis took it away from them.
Secondly, the Governor did NOT campaign for M. 28 and M. 30. Campaigning involves the active support of the Governor and his network. He was mostly absent for both of those measures. Measures, I might add, which people are still suffering from. If I remember correctly he said something about supporting them, but understanding that government needed to get its own house in order. And hence....they failed. A strong statement, coupled with action, from the Governor might have made a difference.
Third, Jessica' Law was actually championed by Sen. Jason Atkinson, (remember him?) and brought up by the Republicans in the special session as another thunder stealer. Both sides of aisle now get to say they were tough on child predators, as they should be, this is a non-partisan issue.
I haven't decided where my vote is going yet. Keating or Kulongoski. I know I can vote Keating with a clear conscience if the October polls show Ted ahead by a lot. If Saxton is close then I am going to have to bite the bullet. I yearn for the day when I can vote my hopes, not my fears. Ben Westlund was my hopes. I was voting for him because, although I didn't like everything he said, he was bringing the number one issue to the table and he represented a chance to make courageous strides forward.
Something in me died when he withdrew.
8:31 a.m.
Aug 21, '06
Although I always appreciate Russell's prose, I think the analysis here is a little weak. Westlund suffered not from a dearth of money, press, or signatures--he suffered from crappy poll numbers. If any candidate was ever going to make a serious run as an independent, it was Ben. He was taken very seriously by the press, who arguably covered his campaign more than they did Ted's or Ron's. Certainly they covered it with greater richness, being forced out of the he said/she said coverage into which the two major candidates inevitably were cast. He got the signatures, too. More than double the minimum needed to qualify, which should have given him ample overage. He even had a wad of money far in excess of that which normally stymies fledgling campaigns--though admittedly it was drying up as his poll numbers stayed in the single digits.
This was no vast conspiracy by the major parties to keep a good guy down. It was the failure--probably mainly a result of the Bush malaise--of Ben to generate interest among the electorate. Sometimes politics are like that.
And to this:
Easy, LT! Kari's just yanking yer chain! Anyone who's watched you here very long knows how deep your involvement in Oregon politics has been.
Would you guys knock it off? Kari's been long transparent about his affiliations. I personally think it enriches BlueOregon. Otherwise, you'd have a piker like me who is never involved in any of the conversations offering a relatively uninformed opinion. That's better?
Aug 21, '06
Jeff -- We all should know that crappy poll numbers don't mean squat until after Labor Day.
Westlund's "dearth" was not that he was going to come out of Labor Day with those poll numbers, but that the funds were drying up for the LaborDay-to-November stretch. And the funds were drying up for two reasons:
Gathering signatures was a monumentally more expensive task than usual, given the restrictions of HB 2614, and
He wasn't able to garner money or endorsements with that signature threshhold hanging around his neck. (Who's going to give to a candidate when they're grappling with a never-before-tried signature hurdle that may or may not keep them from the ballot?)
...
And speaking of the multitude of Kulo-for-Gov events... after giving to my local legislative candidates, I did't have $50 to spend for the priviledge of attending one of the Governor's BBQ events... so last month I went to Ben Westlund's BBQ, which was free to attend (though donations were requested).
Aug 21, '06
Westlund's "dearth" was not that he was going to come out of Labor Day with those poll numbers, but that the funds were drying up for the LaborDay-to-November stretch. And the funds were drying up for two reasons:
Gathering signatures was a monumentally more expensive task than usual, given the restrictions of HB 2614, and
He wasn't able to garner money or endorsements with that signature threshhold hanging around his neck. (Who's going to give to a candidate when they're grappling with a never-before-tried signature hurdle that may or may not keep them from the ballot?)
1) Was Westlund's ability to collect enough signatures ever really in doubt? It is simply not that difficult to integrate signature gathering into a campaign. If you don't have the ability to get the signatures, you have no chance of winning an election. And if you have a campaign that can win in November, you won't have any problem getting on the ballot.
2) No doubt, his low numbers in the polls made raising money very difficult. But that is a problem for any candidate who is an underdog. Its the chicken and egg question of fundraising and popular support that makes self-funded candidacys popular.
3) The fundraising problem for Westlund was especially acute. He didn't have party loyalists who were concerned about a terrible showing by him dragging down the dozens of other candidates in the party running for office. Essentially the only reason to give money to Westlund is if you thought he could win and his polling numbers didn't indicate he could.
In short, Westlund lacked popular support and he lacked the financial support to win popular support. There are a lot of bright, dedicated people out there willing to serve in public office except for those same shortcomings.
The effort here is to blame something other than the obvious for the demise of the Westlund campaign. There wasn't anywhere near a plurality of voters interested in voting for Westlund no matter what kind of campaign he ran. It wasn't the onerous requirements of getting on the ballot, it was the onerous requirement to put together a base of support that caused Westlund to withdraw. That is how democracies work.
Aug 21, '06
The Unity event with Kulongoski in Eugene was free of charge and lots of fun.
Aug 21, '06
Totally right -- that is indeed how our democracy works... But I think there's a deeper question that Mr. Sadler is trying to get at, and that is "Is it healthy that our democracy works this way?"
Is it healthy that so much of the money is concentrated between merely two oligarchs of the political industry? If this was any other sector, the Democrats would be screaming "antitrust" and demanding that they cease their anti-competitive bullying.
No politician builds a base of support without the necessary cash... Not Westlund, not Bill Clinton, not George Bush, not no one. So to say that those two issues are separate and that Westlund faced an isolated problem of building his support base is... well, lame.
By the way,
Was Westlund's ability to collect enough signatures ever really in doubt?
Ross, in all fairness, you've consistently beleived that Westlund was going to be able to get on the ballot. But the rumor-mills on the Democratic side had been churning like crazy saying things like "Westlund falling short... only 5% of goal so far".
Now, I can't beleive that such seasoned politicos would think that Westlund wouldn't be able to garner his signatures... so I have to think that this kind of talk is generated for the benefit of the donors and endorsers. And coupled with a new requirement that made Westlund wait until after the primary to begin his efforts (when donation season and endorsement seasons were quickly passing)... it's an insidious combination.
Aug 21, '06
I have to think that this kind of talk is generated for the benefit of the donors and endorsers.
Probably, but as a practical matter they are "seasoned politicos" themselves and are probably more influenced by polling results. I doubt many were concerned about the signature gathering effort.
"Is it healthy that our democracy works this way?"
Probably, although its also frustrating at times. In a democracy its not a bad thing that people who want to run for public office have to do it as part of a team.
If anything is unhealthy, it is the rise of self-financed candidates who are only vetted directly by the voters through a campaign where they get to define themselves. Oregon hasn't had many of those that have been successful. At least not yet. And I think that is probably a good thing, although I voted for a couple of them.
coupled with a new requirement that made Westlund wait until after the primary to begin his efforts
Nothing stopped Westlund from raising money before the primary did it? Nor was he prevented from campaigning. My guess is that, in practical terms, Westlund's campaign ended when Saxton won. His base of donors was largely going to have to come from disaffected moderate Republicans. There aren't enough of those with Saxton as the Republican nominee.
Aug 23, '06
If Westlund thought he would be a spoiler, who did he think he would be spoling?
It's amazing that this clarification has not surfaced.
What, no one asked him?
Aug 23, '06
JB Eads said, "Or if Ted wasn't working tirelessly with a bi-partisan, bi-state coalition"
<h2>The term bi-partisan, in itself, does not represent Oregon. The problem we are facing in the Legislature is the belief that there are only two ways to look at issues. Bi-partisan means two degrees in a full spectrum.</h2>