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.

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.

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.

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 . . .

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.

So, 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.