Posts published in February 2006

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.

Oregon usually doesn't fall prey to the delibitating disease of let-the-incumbent-have-a-totally-free-ride, but you could understand it this year. Last time around, all five House seats were challenged, and all cruised to easy wins (and that doesn't mention the Senate race). But odds are growing that the requisite major party challeges will emerge in all five, even if the races wind up lopsided.

The latest indicator comes courtesy the new Oregon political blog Loaded Orygun, and touts the prospective candidacy of Scott Silver, a Bend-area environmental activist. It doesn't say Silver is in the race, but implies he is not far from entry. He sounds to be thoughtful activist with a range of ideas, as opposed to a narrow partisan. Which could at least make him interesting, and expose the district to some new perspectives.

If he does enter, he will not find it easy. Incumbent Republican Greg Walden was last time with 71.7% of the vote, and it was no fluke: The guy is popular, and he's been doing a capable job.

Of course, as they say in the lottery, you can't win if you don't play. And you never know.

Illegal immigrants - f0r that is the issue emerging in Northwest politics, not that of immigration as such - may be reaching the front burner. Whether it stays there depends, presumably, on what sort of response it gets over the next two to three weeks.

The subject of illegal immigrants - and again to be plain about it, we're talking mainly about persons who have crossed the border from Mexico and points south without legal permit - degenerates easily into a nast racist matter, ugly finger pointing at "them." It doesn't mean there aren't legitimate issues related to illegals, including the batch of matters in which we treat illegal aliens as if they were here legitimately. (No, the idea of someone who is here illegally being officially licensed by our government to do things, such as drive, seems simply wrong. We would not expect to illegal cross over into Mexico - or Canada, Japan, Germany or Russia for that matter - and expect such licenses; at best, we would hope to con our way into them.)

That ethnic aspect is fuzzed at bit in Idaho where a congressional candidate of Hispanic descent (but United States birth), Robert Vasquez, has been waving it as his personal bloody shirt for years.

But did Ron Saxton, the Anglo Republican Oregon gubernatorial candidate, give it much thought when he took the lead on the issue in Oregon - "I will support a zero tolerance policy for illegal immigrants."

In this Dorchester weekend, that has prompted his two Republican competitors, Kevin Mannix and Jason Atkinson, to jump all over the issue alongside him. How did it become so hot an issue so abruptly? Maybe because the candidates all were looking for a hot button to ride - there has been none very decisive so far - they felt they had to ride this pony quickly. Certainly no major new development has made illegal aliens that much more critical a matter today than it was, say, four or eight months ago, when it wasn't getting the attention.

A note of caution is warranted, though. As a matter of policy, there really isn't a massive difference either between these candidates or between then and the man one of them likely will face in November. A statement solicited from Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski said that "The governor has a strong record of fighting to enforce immigration laws in Oregon."

The difference here could be in one of tone. And if Republican candidates, or any of them, start sounding bigoted, they could be doing themselves a world a damage. There are good reasons this issue hasn't emerged in many political campaigns in the last few years, and been decisive in . . . any?

Will Oregon officials follow up with some incentives under the law to encourage reporting of medical mistakes?

It would seem a logical step. The Oregon Patient Safety Commission has taken the useful step of requiring reporting, and then analyzing the reporting, of mistakes made in the course of medical care. It is now working on administrative rules on the subject.

Still, how good - how useful - the numbers are will depend a great deal on to what extent medical professionals 'fess up instead of cover up. The incentives, most especially liability concerns, all run in the coverup direction to date. That will constitute a major challenge.

If the commission gets past it, it may be on the verge of a breakthrough.