Oregon Republicans' gubernatorial realities....
In his latest column, Dave handicaps the 2006 Oregon Governor's race, stating that we might have a "real" governor's race this fall. Yes, recent events have shaped up an intruiging race for Mahonia Hall, but I predict that any so-called excitement will end up in a result Dave will be unhappy with: Ted Kulongoski will win re-election and serve another four years as Oregon's governor.
As that is the likely course of events, it makes sense that Dave would write a column that gleefully attempts to exploit Democrat challengers taking pot-shots at the incumbent guv, and dreamily ruminating of a Republican victory months in advance, before allowing time for reality to set in.
Dave mentions a few reasons why Kulongoski will win in his column, but let's start off with the most basic fact: as goes Multnomah County, so goes the State of Oregon. Unlike the national electoral map, the metropolitan areas- the blue 'islands' in an otherwise rural red sea- carry the state in filling statewide offices. And if you feel that Multnomah County, which voted 75% for John Kerry, is going to throw a plurality of support behind one of the current Republicans vying for Kulongoski's job, then you're just not paying attention.
Certainly, I must admit Teddy K. is taking flack from Democratic "challengers", but I use the word challengers in the loosest of connotations. On Labor Day State Senator Vicki Walker announced her run for Governor, stating that she felt the need to "challenge the status quo." She is now continuing to challenge the status quo representing the Eugene area in the Senate, after dropping out of the race. Lane County Commissioner Pete Sorenson has run a spirited campaign appealing to Democrats' most base progressive needs and desires. Unfortunately his campaign has garnered little-to-no press coverage, with Dave agreeing that there was no effective challenge from the Democrat side until Jim Hill, former state treasurer, announced his gubernatorial bid.
I heard Hill explain on The Thom Hartmann show his rationale for running against Teddy K.: "The Governor has not been a good Democrat." Jim Hill has a long history in Oregon Democratic politics, and seeks to run on a platform that appeals to Democrats who feel ignored by Kulongoski. Regarding Hill, Dave writes: "The former state treasurer and gubernatorial candidate gives disaffected Democrats a legitimate vessel for their anti-Tedism in way that Lane County Commissioner Peter Sorenson does not." While Hill's quest to install a "good Democrat" in Salem seems noble, one could say it's also Quixotic: Hill ran for Governor as a Democrat in 2002, and came in second place to Teddy K. in the primary. Four years later, why would history not repeat itself- especially against an incumbent governor?
I mean, having Hill be the main Democratic challenger to Kulongoski in a primary makes about as much sense as having Ron Saxton and Kevin Mannix duke it out in the Republican primary. Oh, wait....
Reinhard attempts to spin the Saxton-Mannix primary fight, coupled with an 'anti-Tedism' and a growing Multnomah County disgust with taxes, as good for Republicans' chances. Specifically, speaking as a campaign mananger, Dave practically advises Ron Saxton to take advantage of the blue MultCo residents' anti-tax backlash, and to exploit his experience as a Portland school board member to his advantage for electoral success. One problem though: in 2002, Saxton came second to Mannix in the Republican primary. Are we to suspect that four years later, the same situation would have different results? And if Saxton were to triumph over the well-connected power-player Mannix, his chances of winning a plurality of MultCo votes over Governor Ted, or any Democratic challenger, are, realistically, impossible.
Dave did point out that Saxton won the endorsement of Vancouver resident Lars Larson on his wing-nut radio show on KXL. Larson supported Mannix in 2002, and earlier in this election season supported State Senator Jason Atkinson, before pulling his recent flip-flop after Atkinson said some pro-immigration quotes and endorsed Saxton. Regardless of the fact that Larson's endorsements seem to fail to register with Oregon's voters, why is Dave hailing Larson turning his back on Atkinson as a good thing? Atkinson provided a fresh Republican perspective, one that Larson called "...all the qualities that Oregon Republicans have been longing for. He has conservative credentials, and moderate appeal." If the Republicans had a chance to unseat the Governor, they would be more likely to do so with a fresh face that provided new rhetoric, rather than the tired faces that lost to Kulongoski four years prior. Instead, Dave states that Larson endorsing one of these same faces "...should persuade once-downcast Republicans that this is a race."
I understand Dave attempting to rally the troops. He doesn't make a living championing party-line rhetoric and endorsing Republican power by writing columns stating that Republicans will fail to gain the Governorship this election. But what I find intruging about his column is that he lacked to mention the most recent GOP gubernatorial race news- that of State Senator Ben Westlund quitting the GOP to run for Governor as an Independent.
Westlund's defection will have ripple effects that will hurt the Republicans chances- no wonder Dave chooses to ignore this story. Westlund provides an example to moderate Republicans that it is possible to deviate from the party-line, and voice displeasure with the Karen Minnis-controlled House that chooses to avoid finding funding solutions for Oregon's schools and to demonize certain Oregon residents for political gain. Westlund provides a GOP perspective modeled in the vein of Tom McCall and Mark Hatfield, one that crosses party lines, and acknowledges that sometimes the best solutions are the hardest ones, not the most popular ones. When revenues are essential for Oregon's needs, jumping on the anti-tax bandwagon lacks common sense, a perspective that Westlund has shared. Its a shame there was no room for the GOP for a politican of Westlund's stripe, but that says more about the current state of Oregon's Republican party than it does for Westlund.
However, enough about Westlund. We are talking the realities of the outcome of the Governor's race. As I have stated before, I am squarely in Kulongoski's camp. Although I find the candidacies of Sorenson and Hill intruiging, I am not wavering in my support for Teddy K. Contrary to Hill's statement, Governor Ted has been a "good Democrat." He has pushed for tougher auto-emission standards, attempted to pass civil union legislation through Oregon's legislature, led Oregon's economy to a miraculous rebound from where it was four years ago, and the former Marine has made a point to attend each funeral of an Oregon soldier killed in Dubya's overseas adventures. Though I'd like to see Ted make a stronger push to fund his education goals, which could be accomplished with a simple re-tooling of the corporate tax "kicker" sending millions of dollars out of state, it cannot be denied Ted has been a "good Democrat." He may not have been a "great Governor" after his first term, but he has been a good one. And you simply do not turn your back on an incumbent doing a good job.
So, the reality of a Republican governor in Oregon? No sooner than 2010....
As that is the likely course of events, it makes sense that Dave would write a column that gleefully attempts to exploit Democrat challengers taking pot-shots at the incumbent guv, and dreamily ruminating of a Republican victory months in advance, before allowing time for reality to set in.
Dave mentions a few reasons why Kulongoski will win in his column, but let's start off with the most basic fact: as goes Multnomah County, so goes the State of Oregon. Unlike the national electoral map, the metropolitan areas- the blue 'islands' in an otherwise rural red sea- carry the state in filling statewide offices. And if you feel that Multnomah County, which voted 75% for John Kerry, is going to throw a plurality of support behind one of the current Republicans vying for Kulongoski's job, then you're just not paying attention.
Certainly, I must admit Teddy K. is taking flack from Democratic "challengers", but I use the word challengers in the loosest of connotations. On Labor Day State Senator Vicki Walker announced her run for Governor, stating that she felt the need to "challenge the status quo." She is now continuing to challenge the status quo representing the Eugene area in the Senate, after dropping out of the race. Lane County Commissioner Pete Sorenson has run a spirited campaign appealing to Democrats' most base progressive needs and desires. Unfortunately his campaign has garnered little-to-no press coverage, with Dave agreeing that there was no effective challenge from the Democrat side until Jim Hill, former state treasurer, announced his gubernatorial bid.
I heard Hill explain on The Thom Hartmann show his rationale for running against Teddy K.: "The Governor has not been a good Democrat." Jim Hill has a long history in Oregon Democratic politics, and seeks to run on a platform that appeals to Democrats who feel ignored by Kulongoski. Regarding Hill, Dave writes: "The former state treasurer and gubernatorial candidate gives disaffected Democrats a legitimate vessel for their anti-Tedism in way that Lane County Commissioner Peter Sorenson does not." While Hill's quest to install a "good Democrat" in Salem seems noble, one could say it's also Quixotic: Hill ran for Governor as a Democrat in 2002, and came in second place to Teddy K. in the primary. Four years later, why would history not repeat itself- especially against an incumbent governor?
I mean, having Hill be the main Democratic challenger to Kulongoski in a primary makes about as much sense as having Ron Saxton and Kevin Mannix duke it out in the Republican primary. Oh, wait....
Reinhard attempts to spin the Saxton-Mannix primary fight, coupled with an 'anti-Tedism' and a growing Multnomah County disgust with taxes, as good for Republicans' chances. Specifically, speaking as a campaign mananger, Dave practically advises Ron Saxton to take advantage of the blue MultCo residents' anti-tax backlash, and to exploit his experience as a Portland school board member to his advantage for electoral success. One problem though: in 2002, Saxton came second to Mannix in the Republican primary. Are we to suspect that four years later, the same situation would have different results? And if Saxton were to triumph over the well-connected power-player Mannix, his chances of winning a plurality of MultCo votes over Governor Ted, or any Democratic challenger, are, realistically, impossible.
Dave did point out that Saxton won the endorsement of Vancouver resident Lars Larson on his wing-nut radio show on KXL. Larson supported Mannix in 2002, and earlier in this election season supported State Senator Jason Atkinson, before pulling his recent flip-flop after Atkinson said some pro-immigration quotes and endorsed Saxton. Regardless of the fact that Larson's endorsements seem to fail to register with Oregon's voters, why is Dave hailing Larson turning his back on Atkinson as a good thing? Atkinson provided a fresh Republican perspective, one that Larson called "...all the qualities that Oregon Republicans have been longing for. He has conservative credentials, and moderate appeal." If the Republicans had a chance to unseat the Governor, they would be more likely to do so with a fresh face that provided new rhetoric, rather than the tired faces that lost to Kulongoski four years prior. Instead, Dave states that Larson endorsing one of these same faces "...should persuade once-downcast Republicans that this is a race."
I understand Dave attempting to rally the troops. He doesn't make a living championing party-line rhetoric and endorsing Republican power by writing columns stating that Republicans will fail to gain the Governorship this election. But what I find intruging about his column is that he lacked to mention the most recent GOP gubernatorial race news- that of State Senator Ben Westlund quitting the GOP to run for Governor as an Independent.
Westlund's defection will have ripple effects that will hurt the Republicans chances- no wonder Dave chooses to ignore this story. Westlund provides an example to moderate Republicans that it is possible to deviate from the party-line, and voice displeasure with the Karen Minnis-controlled House that chooses to avoid finding funding solutions for Oregon's schools and to demonize certain Oregon residents for political gain. Westlund provides a GOP perspective modeled in the vein of Tom McCall and Mark Hatfield, one that crosses party lines, and acknowledges that sometimes the best solutions are the hardest ones, not the most popular ones. When revenues are essential for Oregon's needs, jumping on the anti-tax bandwagon lacks common sense, a perspective that Westlund has shared. Its a shame there was no room for the GOP for a politican of Westlund's stripe, but that says more about the current state of Oregon's Republican party than it does for Westlund.
However, enough about Westlund. We are talking the realities of the outcome of the Governor's race. As I have stated before, I am squarely in Kulongoski's camp. Although I find the candidacies of Sorenson and Hill intruiging, I am not wavering in my support for Teddy K. Contrary to Hill's statement, Governor Ted has been a "good Democrat." He has pushed for tougher auto-emission standards, attempted to pass civil union legislation through Oregon's legislature, led Oregon's economy to a miraculous rebound from where it was four years ago, and the former Marine has made a point to attend each funeral of an Oregon soldier killed in Dubya's overseas adventures. Though I'd like to see Ted make a stronger push to fund his education goals, which could be accomplished with a simple re-tooling of the corporate tax "kicker" sending millions of dollars out of state, it cannot be denied Ted has been a "good Democrat." He may not have been a "great Governor" after his first term, but he has been a good one. And you simply do not turn your back on an incumbent doing a good job.
So, the reality of a Republican governor in Oregon? No sooner than 2010....
posted by true_slicky at 12:23 AM
2 Comments:
Hey! There's no dubya in Kulongoski!
whoops.
thanks Kari. you make silly mistakes at 2 in the morning....
Post a Comment
<< Home