Chris Carlson
Carlson Chronicles

The refusal of Idaho’s gaming tribes to abide by the 2002 initiative to distribute 5 percent of each year’s annual gross revenues to school districts surrounding the reservation, and to disclose how much each district receives, could lead to a lawsuit. That it could foster more animosity among Idaho’s largely white population is a foregone conclusion.

The essence of the debate is encapsulated by two phrases: a) The public has an absolute “right to know,” especially where its tax dollars are involved; and, 2) “trust, but verify!” In addition it reconfirms the old saying about true tragedy being the conflict between equally valid rights, not the conflict between right and wrong.

The immediate issue regards questions that have been raised about the Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s original pledge of support for the 5 percent commitment until recent years when some surrounding districts privately acknowledged not having received any more donations. The pledge, contained in the initiative voters ratified in 2002, was viewed as the key part of the quid pro quo that permitted the gaming tribes to utilize more slot-like machines in their casinos.

Idaho’s executive director of the State Lottery is supposed to monitor and enforce tribal compliance with this feature of the initiative but in reality the oversight is non-existent. There are two obvious flaws in this scheme.

First, without an annual outside audit by an independent and reputable auditing firm how does one know with any confidence what gross receipts really are from which the 5% is calculated against? Second, Tribes have taken the position that they do not have to disclose who the recipients of this tribal education largess are and how much they may have been granted. Ipso facto, how is the public to know that the original deal is truly being honored?

Some tribes (the Coeur d’Alenes and the Nez Perce) say “trust us” and the Lottery’s executive director says he does. To many that is a dereliction of duty and the state is stinting on its responsibility to monitor and enforce compliance. Other tribes, notably the Shoshone/Bannocks, say their compact with the state and its governor trumps the initiative. Since it does not reference the 5%, they do not have to contribute nor are they.

One historic role of newspapers is protecting the public interest by asking tough questions and demanding transparency by any governmental entity whether federal, state, local or tribal. Without access to the vital facts, the temptation to forget public responsibility and enhance private pockets can be overwhelming.

Additionally, tribal funds directed to school districts get co-mingled with the property taxes, bond proceeds and declining state funding that underwrite public education today. Hence it follows that no entity should be claiming a special privilege to withhold information from the public. Newspapers as a group believe, correctly, that the public’s right to know and have information verified trumps any special privilege.

It is this penchant for tribal governments to claim exemptions from state and federal laws that the rest of us must follow that is the source of much angst between otherwise peaceful “neighbors” hoping to co-exist harmoniously.

It is said we are a nation of laws and no one, not even a President, is above the law. Idaho’s failure to enforce its monitoring and verifying function only serves to further undercut that key principle to a successful and orderly democracy.

Likewise, when a U.S. attorney, like Wendy Olson, tosses up her hands and does not uphold the primacy of one’s property right, an essential underpinning of American jurisprudence, she is sending an unfortunate signal that a treaty signed in the 1860’s may take precedence over a bedrock right.

The issue in that instance is a tribe’s claim to an unfettered right to access “usual and accustomed” hunting and fishing sites wherever they exist whether on lands within reservation boundaries or “ceded lands” referenced by a treaty even if it means crossing another’s private property without having to ask the property owner’s permission. This is a recipe for conflict if there ever was one.

Compounding this escalating set of confrontational and conflicting circumstances is the continuing abdication by the state to ensure the primacy of state and federal laws. Indeed, if anything Idaho is acquiescing to a delegation of enforcement of some laws and regulations to tribal governments. Tribal water standards are sometimes more strict than those of state or federal agencies and fears are they may be applied not just on reservations but on adjacent lands.

This pattern of having their cake and eating it too could result in the unintended consequence of renewed calls for Congress to extinguish all treaties, eliminate dual citizenships and coerce assimilation into the American melting pot. Or it could lead to the extension of the Alaska model wherein tribes are enrolled in regional Native corporations governed by American business law.

The bottom line is this: Idaho’s tribes, both gaming and non-gaming, ought to recognize it is in their collective long-term interests not to claim exemptions from laws made for all, and focus on that which unites neighbors, not divide.

A native of Kellogg, a former teacher at Kootenai, and a former journalist, Chris Carlson served as press secretary to former Idaho Governor Cecil D. Andrus for ten years. He is the founding partner of the Gallatin Group, is now retired and he and his wife, Marcia, reside at Medimont.

Share on Facebook


Two Idaho mayoral races were well worth keeping an eye on for their partisan and ideological implications – both in conservative Republican cities in west Ada County.

Both featured established mayors, conservative and with Republican support, being challenged by contenders with more-conservative and more-Republican identification. In Meridian, that was two-term mayor Tammy de Weerd challenged by four candidates but mainly former state Senator Gerry Sweet, long a close ally of former U.S. Representative Bill Sali. In Eagle, that was incumbent Jim Reynolds challenged by Norm Semanko, a council member who (among other things) has been chairing the state Republican Party. Both challenges were serious and organized, and opinions about who would win varied.

In the end the mayors won, and it wasn’t close. Reynolds was running (with results not yet complete) at around 75%. De Weerd was running well over 50%, which means that she would have been re-elected without difficulty even had Sweet (who got about half as many votes as she did) not had to contend with all those other fellow challengers.

Boise Mayor David Bieter, by the way, was running at about 75% against a minor challenger.

Share on Facebook


The campaign to move sales and distribution of liquor from state agency management to private business was the big campaign issue of the cycle in Washington state, and very nearly in Oregon too. The word spreading around Oregon was that if the Washington proposal to privatize passed, and especially if it passed by a large margin, a similar attempt likely would be made in Oregon in the next year or two.

Well, it got the green light: As per polling (which called regional races with considerable accuracy this season), Washington voters gave thumping approval to moving liquor sales to private stores. The percentage, over the last hour, has been hovering around 60%, which is surely more than enough to convince Oregonians advocates that a similar idea might sell south of the Columbia.

It was also widespread approval. Of Washington’s 39 counties, all but five voted in favor. (And those five were an odd collection, generally small and rural – Cowlitz and Wahkiakum in the southwest, and Adams, Garfield and Asotin in the southeast). Counties red and blue, urban and rural, all signed on to the change.

More on this later. Definitely.

Share on Facebook


It came in a normally Democratic district, so the win today of Democratic incumbent (newly appointed) Representative Sharon Wylie over Republican Craig Riley (a Republican legislative nominee in this district last year) isn’t a shock – it’s more or less what you would expect. That would be fair to say, too, about the 56.56% of the vote (at last count) Wylie has collected. (Riley has come closer to election than that a times in the past, however.)

Maybe what you could fairly say about that, is that the political norms in Clark are holding – no massive shift at the moment. Maybe a little less reflective, though, of 2010 than of some of the elections that preceded it.

This was, by the way, the only legislative race in the Northwest today featuring candidates of opposing parties.

Share on Facebook


A few days ago, we wrote about the Senate 4 race in the Spokane area, which featured two Republicans facing off: “This race has some interest, since it features a new incumbent (Jeff Baxter) against a veteran legislator and judge active in office starting in 1981 (Mike Padden). Long-time experience or the new incumbent (“Jeff is not another career politician satisfied with the status quo”)?”

Who won? Padden did, with about 55.58% (at last count) of the vote. He was an experienced office holder, a legislator in the 80s and a judge for some years after that. Baxter was a relative newcome, albeit the incumbent.

An indicator maybe for next year’s legislative elections, so often interesting around Spokane? And how to balance against Spokane voters’ narrow ouster of their mayor?

Share on Facebook


The guess here is that three months ago, Spokane Mayor Mary Verner would have won a second term – but then, campaigns are often won an lost in the final few weeks. And that, as we suggested a few days ago might happen here, did happen. Verner did not become suddenly unpopular, but the campaign around her opponent, David Condon, really seemed to coalesce.

Condon won the backing of the local Republican organization (though this is a non-partisan seat – but in so many cases around the Northwest, in all sorts of cities, who are we kidding?) and the Spokesman-Review, and pulled in big contributions toward the end. There were allegations of what sound like push polling. In the last week, maybe two, this outcome – a close one, with Condon pulling ahead at the end – isn’t a surprise.

How much it may indicate beyond city hall, say in next year’s legislative races, is less clear. But then, we might draw better clues from the District 4 Senate election (which see).

Share on Facebook


A while back, around the start of voting in Oregon 1, we threw out a kind of alternative scenario – what seemed like a plausible option to the general view that the major party nominations would go to Democrat Suzanne Bonamici and Republican Rob Cornilles. We thought the alt view was less than likely, but – hey, you never know. Upsets happen.

But it was no great surprise in the Oregon 1st, as it turns out – not a surprise at all. The polling, which we did think seemed a little off-kilter, wound up correct in projecting a big win for state Senator Bonamici. (There was less public polling on the Republican side, but a Cornilles win was widely expected.) Despite low voter turnout, the races on both sides wound up not dominated by party activists.

With about two-thirds of the vote in, Bonamici was taking about two-thirds of the vote; her closest competitor, state Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian, was at about 20%. It was a widespread win. But for the favorite-son vote in Columbia County for contender Brad Witt, she would have pulled upward of 60% in every county in the district. Cornilles’ win was similarly uniform.

The primary was not super-heated or especially high profile. As the contest moves into the general stage, with election in a little under three months, that looks likely to change.

ADDED NOTE The number of votes in the Democratic contest was 56,580. The Republican candidates combined got 40,933. That means the Democrats took 58.02% of the votes cast in the two primaries. This is not a predictor or a super-clear indicator – the contest on the Democratic side was more visible and organized than on the Republican. But it’s still worthy of note as an indicator of what sort of terrain the 1st is.

Share on Facebook


Contests to watch on Tuesday night (and in Washington’s case, maybe a bit beyond). This isn’t one of the hottest off-year generals around (and for the most part quiet in Idaho, with fewer heated city elections than usual). But here’s some of what you should keep your eyes on Tuesday night. (We will.)

1 – WA: Initiative 1183, on privatizing liquor sales. By a long shot the hot contest in Washington this season – it has even grabbed the attention of a lot of people in Oregon (which may take up a similar contest soon if this one passes). Polling has indicated it’s ahead – meaning that liquor sales in certain private stores may be in the cards. But the issue is so heated little is certain.

2 – OR: U.S. House 1 primary. The Republican side appears all but foregone – Rob Cornilles, a skilled candidate, has run another solid race in the primary. But will the Tea Party roar up against him at the last? You can’t entirely rule it out; if they do, they have a contender in Jim Greenfield. On the Democratic side, polling has given a large lead to state Senator Suzanne Bonamici. But keep a watch: state Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian may be closer to the activist crowd who will be sure to vote in an otherwise low-turnout election. And watch too the percentage of the other major Democratic candidate, state Representative Brad Witt. Cornilles will be a strong Republican candidate; it matters who the Democrats nominate (and what sort of campaign that nominee runs).

3 – WA: Spokane mayoral. First-term Mayor Mary Verner, who had a complicated path to the job four years ago, seemed for most of this year to be a clear prospect for re-election. That’s now in question: Challenger David Condon has the backing of the local Republican organization (this is a non-partisan seat, but still) and the Spokesman-Review, and is running on a small-government, cut-city-pay platform. Allegations of what sound like push polling are in the mix, and there’s a poll result (of some kind) indicating fast closure. This has turned into a heated and complex race, and it has become hard to call.

4 – Initiative 1125, on transportation tolling and light rail. It’s been surprisingly low-key for a Tim Eyman special, but this one is pretty impactful. Ballotpedia describes it this way: “The initiative would prohibit gas tax and toll revenues to be diverted to non-transportation purposes. It would also require that lawmakers approve toll rates. According to reports, the proposed initiative would require that tolls end on a road or bridge once the project’s construction is paid off. Variable tolls rates that depend on the time of day truckers and drivers use the road or bridge would also be outlawed.” It has also been described as a subtle but effective attack on light rail and mass transit generally. There are so many details packed into this one; how many voters will grasp them all? And what will they think if they do?

5 – ID: Meridian mayoral. Even just a few weeks ago, this looked like a slam dunk for incumbent Mayor Tammy De Weerd, a two-term incumbent who has seemed relatively uncontroversial even as her city has grown explosively to become Idaho’s third-largest. (There are no indicators that Boise’s mayoral race, where David Bieter also is running for a third term, will be anything other than an easy incumbent win.) She’s had fairly broad community support, and the advantage of not one, not two, not three but four challengers to split the opposition vote. One of those, however, clearly is the major alternative candidate: former state Senator Gerry Sweet, who also worked briefly for one-term U.S. Representative Bill Sali. He has become the candidate of the hard right Tea Party people, who make up a large portion of the active Meridian electorate. (This is a very, very conservative city.) Normal political dynamics would argue against a Sweet win in such a fractured field. But there’s some serious activism and organization behind him, and he’s not looking like the longshot he seemed to be a month ago. If he does win here, there will be shock waves, certainly across southern Idaho.

6 – WA: House District 49. There are two legislative elections in Washington this year, owing to resignations and appointments. In District 49, new Democratic Representative Sharon Wylie is running as “an independent voice” (always a good idea in Clark County) is facing Republican Craig Riley, who lost a race for the other House seat here last year (and lost a 1990 run as well; both races were fairly close). (Wylie actually is also a former Oregon legislator.) The Columbian has backed Wylie, but this looks like a tight, tough race. It’s a Democratic district, so a Riley win would send some shock waves.

7 – ID: Eagle mayoral. So you say city elections in the Northwest are non-partisan? Hmpf. Here we have state Republican Party Chair (also a private practice attorney, head of the state water users association – when does he sleep?) Norm Semanko (who’s also – almost forgot – on the Eagle City Council) running for mayor. Against the incumbent, James Reynolds, who’s lower key, and retired. The Idaho Statesman, endorsing Reynolds, argues: “After years of drama and turnover, City Hall needs more stability and less political theater.” Issues? Well, there’s the Greenbelt, city spending, municipal relations – but you’ve got the picture.

8 – WA: Senate District 4. In the Spokane area, two Republicans face off; this race has some interest, since it features a new incumbent (Jeff Baxter) against a veteran legislator and judge active in office starting in 1981 (Mike Padden). Long-time experience or the new incumbent (“Jeff is not another career politician satisfied with the status quo”)?

NOTE: The last of these, in Washington District 4, is a race for the Washington Senate, not House, as was originally noted. The reference was corrected.

Share on Facebook

Idaho Oregon Washington

Oregon City
Oregon City (when Blue Heron was still active)/Randy Stapilus

Over the long run, Clackamas County, the southern of the three Portland-area metro counties, has been a competitive place.

For several decades until 1994 Democrats held a small edge in party registration; the 1994 sweep broad in a Republican lead in party registration, when Democrats took higher numbers again. Its voting record is more varied, though. On the presidential level, it supported Democrats only when they won nationally (since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, only Bill Clinton twice, and Barack Obama in 2008). It voted in governor’s races Republican in 2010, Democratic in 2006, Republican in 2002, Democratic from 1990 to 1998 but nearly always Republican before that.

Sop you could say that shifts in Clackamas do happen: Its voters, as a whole, are not a lock.

An Oregonian article today makes the case that Clackamas is seeing a conservative surge (“Frustrated conservatives in Clackamas County gain momentum“), and on the evidence there’s something to it, but only to a point, and with a lot of asterisks.

“For some, the resurgence is simply part of the natural political rebalancing. But regardless of the cause, many county political leaders agree that the current resurgence – at times combative and uncivil – has real teeth,” the article notes. And there’s some reason for thinking so. Republicans did well in Clackamas in 2010 – its legislative elections were central to the Republican gains that year – and there’s an anti-Portland edge alive and well that isn’t really replicated in Washington County, its suburban counterpart to the northwest. In Clackmas, streetcar and rail developments from Portland south are controversial – not so much in Washington – and what might have been a modest and quiet $5 fee to repair a key bridge many county residents use (the Sellwood) was defeated at the polls. Conservatives and Republicans are highly active in Clackamas.

Economic concerns may be a little sharper in Clackamas than in the other two counties, and may be pointed up more visibly with the recent closure of the iconic Blue Heron paper mill at Oregon City. And a number of local governments (non-partisan) have seen seats shift from moderate or liberal incumbents to more-conservative challengers.

A few more points ought to be made, however, about all this.

Democrats remain a substantial party registration lead, by about 8,000 voters. The gap between the two parties is about two-thirds of what it was at its peak in 2008, but it has held steady for a couple of years – there’s been no recent change.

After 2008, Democrats held most of the offices, a large majority of them, in this competitive county; some correction probably was likely in any event. In 2012, Democrats will have some targets of their own, as well as some well-established candidates who aren’t running as incumbent (former House Speaker Dave Hunt, running now for commission chair, comes to mind) and the activism is more likely to cut both ways.

All of which suggests that Clackamas in 2012 is likely to give people in both parties some sleepless nights.

Share on Facebook


Quite a few elected officials have joined in with the Occupy movement, if only to say that they sympathize with its concerns. On the National Bank Transfer Day, in which depositors are asked to move their funds from large national banks to locals or credit unions, fewer have been willing to go very public.

Here’s one: Seattle Council member Mike O’Brien, who made a media event of his deposit into the Verity Credit Union Wallingford branch. From his statement:

Councilmember Mike O’Brien and his family will participate in National Bank Transfer Day and he encourages other city residents to do the same. The O’Brien family joins more than 650,000 Americans in transferring their bank accounts to local banks or credit unions.

Said Councilmember O’Brien about National Bank Transfer Day: “I got sick of all the fees and hassle of the big banks, making life difficult for customers while reaping record profits. My family and I are excited to be members of a credit union founded here in Washington. I believe City Council should also take a look at where the City puts its money and makes its investments. Hopefully, the resolution we are introducing on Monday will help start that conversation.”

Share on Facebook


Washington state policy makers often feel boxed in when it comes to taxes – hold on a minute, Tim Eyman – in that the state doesn’t use income taxes. That eliminates a good deal of the relative flexibility Idaho and Oregon have, especially since the big single remaining tax, the sales tax, is regressive. There are a range of other taxes and fees, but a good deal of upper-level income remains untouched.

The Washington Budget & Policy Center (a private, not public organization) has a suggestion: Tax capital gains, that is, on sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals and property. Ordinarily, it is taxed at rates lower than wages. It also is the source of much of the income, at upper income levels, at upper income brackets.

Partly because taxing of capital gains is usually linked to income taxes (though they’re not the same thing), Washington hasn’t taxed capital gains – at all. Only six other states likewise do not. Idaho taxes capital gains at 7.8%, which is above the national average, and Oregon’s CG tax, at 11%, is the high such state tax in the country.

The Budget & Policy Center, in a report out today, called for a Washington state 5% capital gains tax, which would still be lower than its neighbors. It said, “Depending on the structure, a tax on capital gains could generate up to $1 billion each year in much needed resources. The tax would improve our entire revenue structure, making it a more robust and sustainable system of financing important public priorities. Wisely devoting up to 50 percent of the resources created under the proposal to our state Rainy Day Fund would lessen the severity of future recessions by maintaining vital public health and family support systems when they are most needed. Finally, resources from a capital gains tax could be used to lower taxes for the majority of Washingtonians – especially lower-and middle income families.”

Blowback from the anti-tax crowd and the business lobby can begin forthwith.

Share on Facebook


The still-emerging Democratic primary in Washington’s 1st district looks like ever-more of a hot race.

The latest indicator is the entry today of Darcy Burner, who ran two losing but strong – very well organized and financed – campaigns for the U.S. House in the current 8th district. Anticipating her home turf will be in the new Washington 1st, she’s throwing in.

But she’s by no means the only strong Democrat in the field. There’s
Laura Ruderman, a former legislator and former statewide candidate, and highly capable as well. (Last finance reports – Receipts: $182,675. Disbursed: $33,881.)

There’s Roger Goodman, an incumbent legislator. (Receipts: $162,127. Disbursed: $102,220.) And two more incumbent legislators: Steve Hobbs (Receipts: $53,674. Disbursed: $4,672) and Marko Liias (Receipts: $48,887. Disbursed: $23,463), all three successful vote-getters.

And Darshan Rauniyar, who notes that of the candidates as of the last reporting period, he raised the most from individual contributors (Receipts: $110,982. Disbursed: $11,044).

Given Burner’s powerful fundraising track record, none of this is to suggest that she’s going to run uphill – she may not have to. But this does look like a highly competitive contest.

UPDATE A commentary from the liberal Daily Kos site, of the Burner entry: “she’s setting herself up for a very difficult primary where there are already four big names, and where her entry seems likely to only further dissipate the liberal vote shared with state Reps. Marko Liias and Roger Goodman, increasing the odds that sorta-moderate ex-Rep. Laura Ruderman or moderate-to-the-point-of-being-major-pain-in-the-ass state Sen. Steve Hobbs gets through.”

Share on Facebook


Chris Carlson
Carlson Chronicles

In talking with newspaper editors about running excerpts of the book of reminiscences of my years working with and for Governor Cecil D. Andrus, I often encountered the question “where are today’s Cecil Andruses?” Or “why can’t we produce leaders like Cecil Andrus, or Dan Evans or Mark Hatfield any more?”

In other words, “where have all the leaders gone?”

Cecil Andrus reflects leadership to the core of his being. While there are many definitions of leadership, and Andrus would fulfill most, it is one of those things you just know when you see it. As long as people have known Andrus they will tell you he has always possessed the quality that says “I’m leading; I know where I’m going. Follow or get out of the way!”

As Andrus Center President Marc Johnson points out in his fine introduction to the book Cecil Andrus: Idaho’s Greatest Governor, Idaho’s only four times elected governor and the state’s first ever cabinet officer would have emerged as the leader in any situation life might have placed him. He possesses the talent and ability to run any size organization, public or private, including the presidency of the United States.

There’s a reason why no less a talent than President William Jefferson Clinton, while still reeling from the early challenges he was fumbling and rumors were circulating that he might face a primary challenge, sent an operative to Idaho to check out speculation that Cecil Andrus might be recruited to mount that challenge.

The book takes a swing at trying to shed light on how Andrus emerged from an ordinary background and became such an extraordinarily successful public official. Through anecdotes and stories it sheds light on his leadership style and the political rules he followed, often encapsulated in witty colloquial phrases.

He had the unique ability to give a person his undivided attention, to listen, to empathize, to really connect. He had an extraordinary memory for names and details of a person’s life. He always conveyed he was a public servant, felt truly privileged to represent his state or his nation, knew that public service was both a calling and a trust.

Above all he knew a governor was elected to solve problems, to meet challenges with a confidence that was contagious. The optimism he radiated was truly infectious.

The key was an ability to communicate in language the average person could relate with. He wasn’t a great orator like a Frank Church, but he was a far better communicator than most, especially through the television medium. No less a former television newscaster than the late Oregon Governor Tom McCall, no slouch himself at the art form, once said the two best communicators he ever saw, especially for communicating through television, were Ronald Reagan and Cecil Andrus.

There is one other aspect of successful leadership Andrus also mastered best described by Italian renaissance writer Nicco Machiavelli in his classic, The Prince: a leader has to instill a bit of fear in opponents and subordinates that if crossed there is a price to be paid.

Andrus held people accountable. The fact is if one in his employ violated any of his cardinal rules of conduct from not being loyal to conducting a personal affair with someone else in the office to letting bad news appear in the paper before informing him (his “no surprises” rule) by sundown they were gone.

Andrus was also a superb vote counter. During his 14 years he vetoed 120 some bills. Only one was ever over-ridden. The double-crossers paid a price, as did most that crossed him. If someone lied to him, that was it. He never trusted them again nor really dealt with them as a legitimate player.

The book, then, may help one understand how and why a Cecil Andrus emerged and was such a dominant political force in his adopted state for 50 years. It does not, however, answer directly the question of why there appear to be no such leaders on today’s scene.

Indirectly, and by inference, it provides clues. A fair question, though, might be could a Cecil Andrus emerge today or better yet, would a Cecil Andrus even want to try?

Andrus would be the first to say today’s political environment is too poisoned by no compromise mentalities dominated by partisanship, ideology and attitudes which portray opponents as just not wrong about an issue, but evil for holding a view or position contrary to the other’s orthodoxy.

While “hardball” politics in every generation is nasty and dirty, the compounding factor today is the internet and the 24 hour news cycle which sees totally unsubstantiated charges go viral in a nano-second. The media thrives on conflict as never before and has become a monster that demands constant feeding.

Had this environment existed in 1960, Andrus will tell you he is not sure he would even have tried for public office.

The challenge for today’s body politic is to restore civility and respect for another’s view and reject the environment that rewards incivility and disrespect, that glorifies war with absolute winners and abject losers. If the governed make it clear they understand the importance to all to reward peace that continues progress towards a more perfect union, governors worthy of trust and respect will emerge—-I hope. But then, like Cecil Andrus, I’m an optimist.

A native of Kellogg, a former teacher at Kootenai, and a former journalist, Chris Carlson served as press secretary to former Idaho Governor Cecil D. Andrus for ten years. He is the founding partner of the Gallatin Group, is now retired and he and his wife, Marcia, reside at Medimont.

Share on Facebook


In Oregon, legislative Republicans – who had equal control of the House and were short but one seat in the Senate – were in the last session productive legislators, and despite the opportunity did almost nothing that could be called obstructionist. Without abandoning their core ideas, they raised no major hackles among independents and Democrats this year. The Republican highly likely to win the Republican primary for the 1st congressional district next week is the one denounced by Tea Party-style Republicans. Earlier this year, the state party outright rejected pursuit of a number of social issue party stands they’d previously included.

Something different is going on in Oregon – can you imagine any of these things happening in Congress, or even in most other states? (In fairness, Washington Republicans haven’t been so terribly different this year, either.)

Add to all this ideas expressed by the new party chair, Allen Alley (a 2010 gubernatorial candidate), in an interview with The Dalles Chronicle, out today.

“If we let national policies define us in Oregon, we won’t win,” Alley said. The key to returning to statewide office (none of which the party has held since 2008), he said, is to attract the support of more independents and even Democrats.

When they say Oregon is different, believe it.

Share on Facebook