Westlund's entry could lead to better candidate debates

DANA HAYNES
February 23, 2006

OK, now. The gubernatorial race just got interesting. Last week, Sen. Ben Westlund of Tumalo, near Bend, announced that he's going to run for governor. As an independent.

And the popular thinking is: That's madness. An independent with very little name recognition outside of Salem and Deschutes County doesn't stand a chance in a statewide election.

Most times, that'd be true. This year?

I'm not so sure.

Understand, this isn't an endorsement of Westlund. I'm not saying he'd make a good governor. I'm not even saying he'd make a good candidate. I'm just saying he makes the race more interesting.

First, let's assume that Ted Kulongoski will win in the primary and will be running for re-election in November. He has the name recognition and the campaign machine. True, he alienated fellow Democrats in his first term -- including union folks and educators -- but it still is his nomination to lose.

As of today, the GOP contender should be either Salem's own Kevin Mannix or Ron Saxton of Portland. Mannix has the name reputation, and Saxton has the war chest.

There are other candidates in both parties, but they're unlikely to surge ahead.

So it's probably going to be a three-way race: Kulongoski v. Westlund v. either Mannix or Saxton.

And the calculus for the debates among that group is simply intriguing.

Oregonians increasingly are frustrated by the partisanship in Salem, which led to the two longest -- and relatively unproductive -- legislative sessions in state history. There's a belief that state government has become a broken tool, incapable of fixing Oregon's vast and vastly complex problems.

Westlund's a moderate, so he'll run in the middle. As a long-standing Republican, he could take votes from the GOP. As a fiscal moderate who is pro-gay rights and backs limited tax increases to pay for better services, he could take votes from Kulongoski.

That means the GOP candidate can't go to the right to beat him and the governor can't go to the left to beat him. Meaning that the big-ticket debates of 2006 will be more moderate, less partisan, nuanced and well-thought-out.

In short, not the knee-jerk rhetoric both parties are capable of churning out like giant, self-serving Slurpee dispensers.

Imagine having a strong, provocative debate about topics such as Measure 37 and Oregon land use. I don't mean chanting the party line; I mean really debating the issues.

How about a debate about how to pay for the Oregon Health Plan? Or universal health care for all Oregonians?

How about a three-way battle about the kicker and whether it will hamstring the Oregon economy? Does the kicker preclude a rainy-day fund, which, oh, about 48 other states seem to manage to maintain just fine?

Many lawmakers agree that the wheels have fallen off the Legislature. That's why there's a commission put together by the Senate president and House speaker to look at ways to fix it.

Now, imagine three extremely smart, experienced politicos, each wanting to be governor and each offering his own take on ways to fix the Legislature. Wow. That would be great.

You'll note that I'm not talking about who will win. I'm just saying we could be in for some great debates about issues that really matter to Oregonians.

Wouldn't that be a nice change?