Homeland Security is a lousy name purely for its connotations: It echoes too near the old German “fatherland” and Russian “motherland” (or “fatherland”). The eeriness factor multiplies when it generates cases like that of Dwight Scarbrough in Boise.

That story, told inthe current Boise Weekly (and highlighted well in the current Boise Guardian), is enough to make anyone wonder whose security is being protected. The dividing line, apparently, has to do with who you vote for.

The full story (including tape conversation transcripts), well worth reading, is in the Weekly. (A number of comments have been posted to it; none indicate any sort of rebuttal of the facts presented.) Briefly: Scarbrough, who is a veteran and also anti-war and critical of the Bush Administration, is also a federal employee at the west Boise federal center near Overland Road and Interstate 84. His vehicle is splattered with stickers reflecting his views. As a federal employee, he is not allowed to campaign on work time or in the office, and hasn’t been accused of that. Like everyone else, he isn’t allowed “Posting or affixing signs, pamphlets, handbills or flyers on federal property”, but then most people wouldn’t consider driving a car into a parking lot to constitute “posting or affixing.” Homeland Security apparently isn’t like most people, and (provoked by who or what, we do not know) sent a couple of agents around to Scarbrough. His free exercise of speech on his personal motor vehicle, he was told, would have to go.

Scarbough has been battling this, and the American Civil Liberties Union has gotten involved. Again, read the Weekly for the whole tale. But circle back around for four other points:

First. Is there any record of Homeland Security demanding similar removal of pro-Bush or pro-war signage? Any at all? Even once? A Boise federal building parking lot surely has a few Bush bumper stickers in evidence; were the owners of those vehicles similarly confronted? (We’d give them a bye – for consistency if nothing else – if the agents similarly confronted the owners of all other vehicles in the lot containing any sort of sticker. Why should stickers for rock bands or TV shows be exempt?)

Second. Scarbrough was confronted not per se as a federal employee, but rather someone who – presumably – had “posted or affixed” signage on federal property by virtue of driving onto it and parking there. This had nothing to do with his employment, only with the vehicle he drove. Does that mean anyone who has similar kinds of signage on their vehicle – or even a worn-out Kerry/Edwards sticker on their bumper – and parks on federal property (how about, say, within a national forest or on BLM land) can expect a similar visit from Homeland Security? And if not, why, exactly, not?

Third. Under which of the DHS six agenda points does shutting down Scarbrough’s free speech fit? The closest fit might be “increase overall preparedness” – if that is, you take a really dark view of what the agency is preparing for.

Fourth. The spookiest part of the Weekly story came at the end, when the reporter was trying to track down the mysterious Boise Homeland Security office (the federal flavor, not the state). Here is what he wrote about that:

I was only able to confirm the location of the office after asking the security officer at the Natural Resource Complex, whose job (ostensibly, at least) it is to enforce the rules concerning pamphlets, dogs and other controlled substances on federal property. He would not comment about the incident, saying, “If this is about what I think it’s about, I’m not allowed to say nothing.” He referred me to “FPS, Federal Courthouse, Department of Homeland Security,” to find someone who would be able to comment. When I asked who I should say referred me, he covered his nameplate with his hand.

The “office,” once I found it, wasn’t much of an office at all, from a service perspective. The door was locked and there was neither a receptionist nor a desk at the front window. When I rang the doorbell, a woman emerged from a nearby cubicle and spoke to me through a tennis-ball-sized hole in the window. She would not confirm the name or identity of the officers, nor their badge numbers (Scarbrough, of course, had written them all down). I slipped a business card through the hole, and by press time, no one had called me back.

However, when I tried the number provided by the U.S. Marshals, Terry Martin at the Federal Protection Service was able to confirm that the officers identified by Scarbrough did, in fact, work for Homeland Security. He then referred me to the Department of Homeland Security’s media spokesman in Texas, who had not responded by press time to my request for information about the incident, or about any change in federal law concerning stickers on vehicles in federal parking lots.

The former Senator Steve Symms used to sign off his letters with, “Yours for a free society.” Welcome, Steve, to the society of Homeland Security, where government is becoming too elusive for anyone to take a bite out of it.

Share on Facebook


Who would have thought? Check the turnout at Clark County’s Prairie High School on the subject of a casino proposed for near La Center by the Cowlitz Tribe.

About 1,000 people were estimated to have shown up at a formal federal event that, as the official in charge noted, was still early in the process. Nonetheless, the Vancouver Columbian described the event as “full-fledged political theater with information booths, signs, buttons, stickers and banners. Casino supporters rallied their troops with 300 caps, 500 T-shirts and upwards of 150 pizzas, the uneaten last dozen or so turned over to the high school’s busy maintenance staff. More than 700 people filled the auditorium, another 100 milled around outside, grumbling at their inability to get in, and 200 more stood in a hallway and watched the meeting on a video monitor. Judging by who cheered and when, supporters outnumbered opponents by perhaps four or five to one.” Union support apparently accounts for much of the organization.

Share on Facebook


We’ve suspected for a decade or so that the rise of the web was likely to change, eventually, the requirements by governments for providing proper notification to the public of its actions. In sum: Is the public adequately notified of an important action if the agency puts notice of it on its web site, as opposed to – for example – notifying or taking out ads in newspapers?

Washington courtsMedia executives should take notice of Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority v. Kenneth & Barbara Miller (Docket 76284-8), just filed. The subject of the case concerns property condemnation for public use, in this case a tract at Tacoma owned by the Millers (as owners of a construction company) intended for use as a park-and-ride station. (Sound Transit is trying to run its line further south, toward Lakewood.) The case has several prongs; the one at hand here concerns notice to the public. The court summarizes:

Sound Transit held a public hearing to determine which proposed site to use for the rail station. By law, potential condemnees are not entitled to actual individualized notice. Instead, Washington law requires that agencies develop procedures to give reasonable notice of these meetings to the public which may include informing the local media. Sound Transit has elected to implement this statutory discretion by posting meeting times and agendas on its website. It does not directly notify the media.

The primary issue for review is whether Sound Transit’s method of notifying the public of its meetings is adequate. Alternately, Miller challenges the substantive decision that public necessity for the condemnation exists. We hold that Sound Transit complied with statutory requirements in notifying the public of its meetings and that Sound Transit’s determination of necessity is not the product of actual or constructive fraud.

The theory behind newspaper ad (or news) notification of government actions is that the public has one central place to go if it wants to keep up on substantive government actions. The court is taking a different view here, saying at base that members of the public has to monitor all the governmental web sites if it expects to stay informed about government actions that may affect them.

The court notes that case law is thin-to-nonexistent on the use of web posts as legally sufficient notification, and has been rejected as a notification tool for class action lawsuits. In this case, however, it said “Just as it is impossible to assure that anyone will look at a particular web site, it is equally impossible to assure that anyone will purchase, much less read, a newspaper. In addition, there is no way to assure that a newspaper will even publish a notice furnished by an agency because agencies are not required to buy advertising space. More important, however, is the fact that RCW 35.22.288 does not require an agency to use one of the listed methods, much less prohibit the use of the internet.”

The decision doesn’t, of course, directly affect the legal ads already required to appear in newspapers, and it isn’t license for government agencies to clam up about their actions.

Share on Facebook


In 1982, Idaho’s voters repealed an old – original – section of the state constitution which had gone unobserved for decades but remained there as a testiment to bigotry of another age: The provision which, in essence, sought to deny Idaho Mormons their rights as citizens, including the right to vote.

The repealer passed easily. But more than a third of the votes were cast against the repeal; that was, simply, the anti-Mormon vote, the people who thought so little of Mormons that they would just as soon they all moved away. We’ve wondered, over the years, how Idaho’s Mormons felt seeing those 100,113 votes, representing people who just didn’t want them around here. That was, after all, their real meaning.

The same kind of thing will happen this year, as Idaho voters act on another constitutional amendment, one approved this morning by the Idaho Senate, to ban marriage in Idaho by same-sex couples.

The measure, House Joint Resolution 2, is simple; its one-sentence operative text is, “A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” The language is sweeping, not narrow. That makes it different from gay marriage measures adopted in a number of other states, such as Oregon, which leave open the possibility of civil unions or other devices which would all9ow gay couples to receive some of the marriage-related legal rights heterosexual couples can obtain.

There is another difference. In Oregon, the state’s law and its constitution both had been interpreted as allowing for marriage by gay couples, to the point that marriage licenses were actually issued. (In some other states, the question had been raised though not strongly advanced.) In Oregon, in other words, whatever one’s view on the matter, gay marriage was firmly placed on the political table, a subject fully ripe for address by the voters at the constitutional level. In Idaho, none of that is true. Nothing in the Idaho Constitution credibly opens the door to same-sex marriage, and state law expressly forbids it. Unless one wants to change the law by permitting same-sex marriage (imagine that happening in Idaho anytime soon! but no one has), the subject is settled law.

And yet, session after session, it has returned to the Idaho Legislature, each time with growing force. The first time, in 2004, it passed the House but was stopped by a single senator who happened to chair a key committee, Sheila Sorensen. (She will now be hearing a lot more about that as her congressional campaign progresses this spring.) In the 2005 session it got to the Senate floor but was stopped there by a group of Republicans – John Andreason, Charles Coiner, Dick Compton, Tom Gannon, John Goedde, Brad Little, Gary Schroeder, Joe Stegner – joining all but one of the chamber’s few Democrats.

This year, after House passage, it returned again, but this time Andreason, Goedde, Compton, Gannon and Little changed their votes, and put the measure on the ballot. [NOTE: Edited here to correct a statement that the measure hadn’t yet cleared the House; it did so on February 6, on a 53-17 vote.]

Why the five changed their votes is a worthy question, since neither the measure nor the circumstances around it have changed significantly from a year ago. (The language in the measure did change a bit, but not so as to affect its meaning.) A year ago, the Republican critics of the measure were clear why they opposed it. Andreason was quoted as saying, “Here we are on the 24th day of the legislative session, and what is the longest debate we’ve had in this session so far? Is it about education? Is it about public transportation? No. It’s SJR 101. And I think that’s a small example of what we’re going to see in the next election if this is on the ballot.” Little suggested, “It’s the old rule of unintended consequences. Are we going to be back here next year creating a whole new bureaucracy to address a problem that doesn’t exist today?” And 2004 election results suggest that opposition to the amendment is unlikely to cost a senator his or her seat.

The switching senators were less clear on why they reversed course, and as is our practice, we won’t try to read minds here. That said, the only apparent reason why putting it on the ballot now would make more sense than it would have a year ago is that 2006 is shaping up as a relatively Democratic year, and a gay-marriage amendment would press the hot button which sending religious conservatives across the state to the polls. In a heavily Republican legislature, that would be reason enough.

But as Little noted a year ago, there are always other consequences. One of them is the message sent by – probably – hundreds of thousands of Idaho voters, likely a strong majority, to the state’s gay population. That message, echoing the 1982 message which only a minority sent to Mormons, will be: “We’d really just as soon that your kind weren’t here.” The social atmospheric change in Idaho over the next year and beyond may be no more subtle than that.

Share on Facebook


Announcements of new university presidents usually suggest little interest outside the institution’s community. Today’s announcement that the State Board of Education has named Arthur Vailas as the new president of Idaho State University at Pocatello ought, probably, to suggest a little more.

Arthur VailasThere has been some talk, generated partly by the interim ISU president but also running around elsewhere, that the university ought to aim its long-range future toward medical schooling. And maybe it should. But the path getting there would not be easy or cheap, and the navigation would have to be strong, careful and well-informed.

So view Vailas’ hiring in that light. Here’s the ISU short summary of his background:

Dr. Arthur Vailas is vice chancellor and vice president for research and intellectual property management for the University of Houston System and the University of Houston (UH). He joined UH in 1995 as vice president for research and vice provost for graduate studies, and professor and distinguished chair in biology and biochemistry.

Prior to joining UH, Vailas was associate dean for research and development at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a university he served in numerous capacities including professor of surgery, division of orthopedic surgery in the College of Medicine; professor of kinesiology, school of education; professor, department of poultry science in the College of Agriculture; and professor and director of the Biodynamics Laboratory.

And there is plenty more besides; he is, apart from other considerations, a fully-qualified academic. But the interest comes in this: He’s just about what you’d want if your idea is to move ISU in a more developed medical-research direction.

Share on Facebook


News reports now have it that Ben Westlund, just recently declared as an independent, is joining the race for governor.

Assuming he meets the statutory requirements for doing so – and that looks likely – he will make the general election a good deal more interesting.

Primary effects? Probably little to none on the Democratic side, since incumbent Ted Kulongoski is almost certainly to easily win that. On the Republican side, he could prospectively strengthen the hands of Kevin Mannix and Jason Atkinson against Ron Saxton. The latter has the reputation of being the “moderate” in the race; the argument could run that with Westlund in, a Republican would have to run stronger to the right in the general to wind up winning. But this sort of thing can and will be spun in all directions.

And Westlund’s chances? For one thing, he’s late in, and has to organize everything, and raise money, from scratch – a horribly tough proposition. For another, as matters sit, the numbers for neither Kulongoski nor any of the probable Republican nominees are so bad as to open a logical large chunk of the vote. Put another way: From where is Westlund going to collect the 35%-plus of the vote he would need to prevail? Until a satisfactory answer to that question emerges, he looks to be more an interesting factor in the race than a probable winner.

But keep watch. The dynamic hasn’t finished settling yet.

Share on Facebook


Oregon had an independent – politically independent, unaffiliated with party – governor once. His name was Julius Meier, and he was a businessman from Portland.

The year was 1930, and the issues at hand concerned responses to the Great Depression and calls for creation of public power projects and utilities. Public power was growing fast in popularity, but it faced obstacles, including major political figures both among the Democrats and Republicans. After heated battles, both parties nominated candidates for governor who were opposed to public power. (This is, of course, oversimplifying a complex struggle.) Meier was among the liberal Republicans who favored public power, and he entered the race as an independent. He wound up sweeping the general election, taking more votes than the major-party candidates together.

Ben WestlundHard to envision a truly comparable scenario now for Ben Westlund, a Republican state senator from the Bend area (more specifically, Tumalo, just north of Bend) who has split from that party and now describes himself as an independent, and who may or may not run for governor.

This has been coming for a long time, well before Westlund’s active support in Salem for gay rights, among other things. In an article on the switch in the Bend Bulletin, he said, “As I continued to examine my role in the party, it became clear to me that it just wasn’t a good fit and wasn’t intellectually honest. They’re unhappy with me half the time, I’m unhappy with them half the time.” But the Democratic Party wouldn’t be a comfortable fit either, he says, and he makes a good case for that too.

The more immediate question now is, what will this mean – for the governor’s race, for Westlund’s Senate seat, and for the voters of the Bend area.

None of these offer immediately easy answers.

Westlund isn’t saying whether he will run for governor, but the 1930 dynamic doesn’t look likely to repeat. The overwhelming majority of Oregon voters probably will vote for the Republican or Democratic nominee, and most of those unhappy with the choices are more likely to be at the edges of the spectrum, on either side, rather than in the middle.

But what of Westlund’s Senate seat? Is it defensible by an independent?

His persnoal history in-district is strong enough: elected four times in a row to the House, then appointed to the Senate in 2003. In his 2004 Senate race, he was opposed only by a Constitution Party candidate, and he swept about 80% of the vote. The last time he faced a Democrat, running for the House in 2002, he took about two-thirds of the vote.

Clearly he has some local popularity. Clearly too he was a Republican running in a Republican territory. District 27, which includes Bend, Redmond and Sisters and the high country around them (including a lot of the voters in unorganized La Pine) have been solidly Republican for a long time.

Senate District 27

Last election, there were some indicators that Bend itself might be softening in its Republican support. Back in November 2004, for example, we pointed to “a close House race [at Bend] – the Democrat in District 54 came within a percentage point or so of beating the Republican, a startlingly good showing, and possibly a focal point for 2006.”

Could Westlund, with his personal popularity (admittedly, not still in all quarters), pull off a plurality win against a Republican and a Democrat?

Maybe. If he did – and this would be in 2008, when the seat next is up – it would say something about trends in the Bend area.

Share on Facebook


Aquick bit of horn-tooting here: The web site Politics1.com named ridenbaugh.com as their “political site of the day.” That throws us in with a nunch of other political web sites around the country for recognition of a special approach to politics. (What that approach is, varies from site to site.)

The list of named sites is worth a look. Quite a few are national in scope; not many are northwestern.

Share on Facebook


Should be entertaining but on top of that, maybe even a little enlightening. Might even help Democrats start to work through some of their problems in rural areas in the northwest, and bridge come gaps.

Oregon's 2nd congressional district

The Oregon 2nd District race, where the dominant figure is Republican incumbent Greg Walden, now has two Democrats in the field (probably). One, Scott Silver, went public earlier this month. Now comes a filing and a news report (courtesy the Baker City Herald) of a second: construction contractor Chuck Butcher. (No web site indicated so far.)

Butcher is not entirely a unknown. He has been active in the state Democratic Party organization, and in policy has pressed to make sure references to protecting the 2nd Amendment are incorporated into state Democratic platforms. (Not such a small matter, either; Democrats lost a lot of voters in western states when they gained the reputation of being anti-gun.)

In loose terms, call Butcher the rural-based lunch-pail Democrat in the race, while the articulate and environmentally-motivated Silver comes from another wing of the party. There is opportunity here for internal combat, but in his newspaper interview Butcher seems to want to avoid that: “I am not about beating other Democrats. If somebody else has better ideas and a better campaign, then they should run against Greg Walden. But at some point, somebody will walk away with the Democratic nomination. It would be a good idea for the Democrats not to bloody each other up in the process.”

Walden will be exceedingly difficult to beat. But Democrats would move a few steps down that road, over the longer haul if not necessarily the shorter, if the district’s Butcher Democrats and Silver Democrats learned to get along and find common ground.

Share on Facebook


Those who disapprove of the term “corporate welfare” – mainly those whose interests are allied to large businesses which rely on governments for much of their support – might consider an alternative term: “making choices in the marketplace.”

Free-enterprisers usually are quick to suggest that this is something governments ought not to do. Often, they are right about that, but their eagerness to push the argument often depends on which marketplace, and which players, are involved.

Enter the recent talk in Washington state about a new sports facility for the Seattle Supersonics, whose owners say that their team is unprofitable and cannot be made profitable without a new facility. Were the Supersonics owners planning to invest their own money in their own business and build the thing, the only issue under debate would be the precise location and maybe the traffic flow. There would be, in other words, no substantial debate.

There is debate, though, because this business wants its costs and losses to be made up by the taxpayers.

Tacoma News Tribune columnist Peter Callaghan outines the issue cleanly in today’s column, noting first, “The Mariners in 1995. The Sea-hawks in 1997. The SuperSonics in 2005. The names change but the rhetoric and the politics stay the same.”

The idea is getting a round of “no” from elected officials, so far. Callaghan suspects – probably rightly – that the will to resist will fade as the threat of a move is pressed.

Finally, in a tone that suggests defeat, he asks plaintively, “If the Sonics want to claim the team is losing money, they should be required to prove it. And when they get the $200 million to $250 million in public money, there should be an easily enforceable mechanism to make sure they continue to tell their “partners” – the taxpayers – how the business is doing.”

After the past experiences, why is resistance so hard? The rise of Tim Eyman suggests that Washington taxpayers don’t like being smacked upside the head; but the recurrence of public sports facility funding suggests that maybe they do.

Share on Facebook


Up to this point Washington Republican Representative Doc Hastings, who has chaired the largely inert House ethics committee, has fielded attacks basically from Democrats, which he can toss off as partisan.

Harder to do now, with entry into his contest this year of Benton County Commissioner Claude Oliver, who will take him on in the Republican primary.

This is highly intriguing, because Oliver has given evidence before of being not a maverick but a party loyalist. Last month, the Benton Commission had to appoint a new county clerk. Two of the three commissioners chose to reject the recommendation of the county Republican central committee in making their choice; the holdout for the party point of view was Oliver. Should be noted that he apparently has had periodic conflicts with the other commissioners on other matters as well, and both of those commissioners have signed on in support of Hastings.

Certainly he’s no outsider to area politics, though. The Tri-City Herald describes his background this way: “The 58-year-old Republican has spent nine years as a county commissioner and was the county treasurer for 15 years before that. He also served a four-year stint in the state House of Representatives from 1977-81 and ran unsuccessfully for state treasurer in 1988 and 1992.”

We’ll hold off for a time to see how this develops. But this primary contest could be of substantial interest.

Share on Facebook


Even in Microsoft terms, this looks like a big deal, the expansion plan outlined by the software giant on Thursday. This could lock in a big growth spurt on the northeast side of central Puget – a significant expansion for Bellevue and Redmond.

First of planned Microsoft buildingsAnd that’s saying something, because MS has more than 30,000 employees already in the area (along with a similar number elsewhere). It already has reshaped the eastside several times over; now it looks to be doing it again. Here’s the Microsoft description of what’s coming:

Microsoft Corp. today announced it will accelerate campus development plans and spend $1 billion over the next three years to expand its Redmond campus by one-third its current size. Roughly half of the development agreement, approved by the city of Redmond in May 2005 to expand Microsoft’s Redmond campus over the next 15–20 years, will now be fulfilled by 2009, making the company’s Redmond campus one of the largest corporate campuses in the world.

A total of 14 buildings will be added to the campus. Seven buildings will be new and seven have been purchased. Coupled with leased spaces, they will provide the capacity to house approximately 12,000 people based on the current conceptual layout. By June 2009, 3.1 million additional square feet will be available.

That’s more than many cities have in their downtowns. It’s an enormous chunk of activity to drop on these communities – not that there will be (or need be) any complaints.

Share on Facebook


Bearing in mind that the subject may – strike that, almost certainly will – come up elsewhere, we found this interesting:

Oregon’s secretary of state, Bill Bradbury (a Democrat) and California’s, Bruce McPherson (Republican), have released a “neutrality pledge.” They didn’t seem to overtly suggest their counterparts elsewhere (and both Washington and Idaho have secretaries of state, and all these states’ SoSes have mostly similar responsibilities) adopt it too, but the subtext seemed to be there. The idea for the pledge evidently grew out of meetings of the National Association of Secretaries of State.

Here are its five points:

I will not serve in any ongoing capacity on a campaign supporting any candidates.

I will remain neutral, will not raise or contribute funds, and will not serve in any ongoing official capacity on a campaign supporting any referendums, measures, propositions, recalls or initiatives, unless they relate directly to the official duties and responsiblities of the Secretary of State.

I will not take any action in my official capacity as Secretary of State for the purpose of directly benefitting or disadvantaging any candidates, referendums, measures, propositions, or initiatives.

I will pledge to follow the current campaign finance and disclosure laws that apply to candidates for statewide office.

If I am a candidate for any office, this pledge will not restrict me from any otherwise legal campaign activity on my own behalf.

May prove interesting if the subject arises . . .

Share on Facebook


How to read the political fallout from the Boise library bond vote, which failed at 57% approval (needed two-thirds)?

It was a defeat for Boise Mayor David Bieter; a win would have set him up with some momentum headed toward next year’s election.

But it was a mediated loss – but a big and outright one, and probably not overly damaging. There are two reasons for saying so. One is the positive vote, 57%, which while not enough to prevail in a bond election, does indicate some overall community support for the bond and, presumably and to a degree, for Bieter. It was not a weak showing.

The second reason is that the property taxes that would have supported the bond are, just at this moment, a big topic of discussion, and the dominant word seems to be that the Idaho Legislature will do little or nothing to address the subject. If people are little touchy about the subject of property taxes right now, that may be understandable, and not entirely the doing of the city of Boise.

Share on Facebook


Toward the end of the movie “Animal House,” the leader of the titular college fraternity, beaten, lost and shut down, made a rousing speech: It was time, he said, to reply in the form of a hopeless but explicit gesture of defiance.

Jim HillSo, we might reasonably assume, is former Oregon Treasurer Jim Hill entering the race for governor.

That was of course not the story four years ago when Hill ran for governor. He was then a recent two-term state treasurer, a current major figure in Oregon politics on a par with Ted Kulongoski, and with a better win-loss record. And he ran competitively for governor in 2002.

But he lost that primary to Kulongoski, and hasn’t been visible in statewide politics since. That puts him at a huge disadvantage. His late start now – true, after raising the prospect for months, but not really starting up until now – puts him at an enormous financial, organizational and message deficit to the incumbent. It doesn’t even position him well against Pete Sorenson, the Lane County commissioner who has been actively running for months, and with whom Hill will split the vote to the left wing of the party.

Hill’s entry was a shot at Kulongoski, who he accused of breaking a number of promises from the last campaign (certainly in the case of casino growth at least, there’s truth in that). But by splitting the opposition vote, he actually solidifies Kulongoski’s lead. (Longstanding rule in politics: When an incumbent is running, it’s investment v. everyone else, and an increase in the number of challengers improves the incumbent’s chances.)

So why do it? Only one explanation really serves: That a number of people to Kulongoski’s left (presumably including Hill) are genuinely ticked off that he has tacked toward the middle during his term, and want to call him on it. Once described as a liberal, Kulongoski has acted more as a centrist as governor, and Hill fired the shot that he couldn’t tell the difference between the incumbent and a Republican.

Well, the Republicans can … and so, likely, can many of the voters in the big middle. If Hill and Sorenson on the left, and the Republicans on the right, push Kulongoski into the position of representing that big group in the middle, well, that’s not so uncomfortable a place to be, especially come November.

Share on Facebook