Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Day: January 15, 2006”

Polls and Democrats

The most trenchant part of Dan Popkey's Idaho Statesman column today was the lead: "Idaho Democrats fill ballrooms every two years to shout, 'This is our year!' The balloon bursts on election day."

Sure has, for election after election since the early 90s. The year will come, at some point, when Idaho Democrats quit playing Charlie Brown's football game with Lucy: No political status remains quo forever. So, is this the year? In today's column, Popkey maps out a case in the affirmative. Wisely, he makes no flat predictions. But he does note that Idaho Democrats are getting a little more aggressive (which, by degrees, they are). And he says, noting a new Idaho Association of Realtors poll, the issues seem to be lining up more favorably toward Democrats than toward Republicans, and this gives the Democrats a major opening.

That last is the debatable point. (more…)

Drat, no excitement

The usually sharp Oregonian columnist David Sarasohn seemed a bit scattered in today's post-Kitzhaber-announcement column. Could the reasons have to do just partly with the nature of Kitzhaber and more with the nature of politics?

Kitzhaber had for the last three months or so held out the possiblity of running for governor. He was considering it, he said, as a way of promoting his health care plan for Oregon, which he may turn into a ballot issue. Put over-simply, it appears to contemplate taking the billons Oregonians now pour into the health care and reshuffle its use in more efficient ways - an appealing prospect if politically a tough proposition.

One suspects Kitzhaber knew all along that a governor's race would be a lousy way to do that, and dangled the possibility of a race to draw attention.

Sarasohn's column (no link available yet) seemed to want to suggest Kitzhaber was rejecting politics as a means to his end. The columnist pointed out that after all, Kitzhaber was able to push the Oregon Health Plan ahead while he was a leader in the state Senate and while he was governor.

But Kitzhaber apparently never has said that the effort ahead would be apolitical, only that seeking political office doesn't seem to be the best way to get this job done. Sarasohn edged toward suggesting that was wrongheaded, and a rejection of the political process. He stopped short, though, because saying that would raise a problem: The implication that the only meaningful participants in our political process are those with important-sounding titles in front of their names.

Ask a Washingtonian which single person in the last decade (or, hell, make it two) has had the biggest impact on policy in that state, and the likely poll winner would be Tim Eyman - a private citizen, never elected to anything, a pusher of initiatives: A man whose influence many decry as negative, but whose policy impact has been nonetheless enormous. Oregon has had its counterparts, and Kitzhaber may be displaying shrewd political sense if his thought is to marry his political cachet and charisma to the power than can come from playing the role of a populist outsider. Which he likely could do to Oscar caliber.

With the right issue, the right approach and the right support, you don't even need to be a Kitzhaber to have political impact. That may be, in the end, what Kitzhaber has come to realize.

Church and charity

[Maybe we're just grumpy today. But what will follow is three posts on three separate opinion items in Northwest daily newspapers which merit a rejoinder. Was there something in the rainwater that just fallen around the region that loosened the thinking processes?]

What follows is not a slam at churches, and it also is not - in the main at least - any kind of slam at charitable giving. But today's Oregonian piece "Give more, get more, Oregon," by Ronald B. Davies, cries out for counter point.

The piece notes that Oregon's richest man, Phil Knight (founder of Nike), is in the process of giving massively to Oregon charitable organizations - a fine act, beyond simply commendable. Davies (an econmics professor at the University of Oregon) then worries, "Is Oregon, not the richest of states, setting itself up for a fall when the last of Knight's estate disappears?" He notes accurately that Oregon is home to fewer (per capita) very rich people than a number of other states, and a sidebar says that "the rich make up just 16% of our economy" compared to a national average of 22%. Who constitute "the rich" and how their specific impact on the state's economy has been determined to within a percentage point is left unsaid; but that's a lesser matter.

More important are two other points the piece makes, one specific and statistical, the other philosophical. (more…)