Posted: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 12:00 am
Ron Saxton is an engaging and appealing person, with a warm handshake and a winning personal style. He is running, he likes to say, not so much as a Republican but as "a unifier."
Saxton stays "on message," as campaign managers call sticking to the strongest talking points, but his answers often don't address the real issues behind voters' questions. This engenders distrust, and that is why he hasn't persuaded us he would be a better governor than the man who has lead Oregon through a tough four years.
Saxton is full of solutions to issues that pale compared to what faced Gov. Ted Kulongoski when he took office in January 2003: Soaring unemployment and hunger rates; a high-tech economy mired in that industry's global slump and a $3 billion state budget deficit.
We're back from the brink on all of those things, and Kulongoski deserves some credit for that.
On a local level, Kulongoski has worked hard to position Oregon State University as one of the state's leaders in nanotechnology, and he has worked to secure funding to provide tuition assistance to middle-class students.
Kulongoski does need to be a more visible and dynamic leader, but we are confident he has learned that lesson from this campaign. But that he is more substance than flash is to his credit. Give us a leader who works rather than postures any day.
An example of this is the way that Kulongoski has made it his personal mission - with little fanfare - to attend the funerals of all of the Oregon soldiers who have been killed in action.
In general, Saxton keeps a moderate tone, which is smart when you're trying to be elected in a state that consistently skews "blue." But too often, even on the specifics, there's a disconnect between the problem that Saxton is addressing and the solution he's proposing.
For example, Saxton's answer to flagging academic performance among some students in the public school system is to approve more charter schools.
That would work fine under an every-student-for-himself scenario; it will do nothing to improve public schools. In fact, such a proposal deepens the divide between the middle-class and those who can afford to send their children to charter schools; it's hardly the solution you'd expect from a unifier.
Saxton's biggest achievement so far
is to say enough of the right-sounding things if you don't listen too hard.
We get more double-talk when Saxton proposes taking on the teachers' unions and yet boosting teachers' pay. Fundamental economics, if not common sense and history, suggest that such a course will trigger endless rounds of court battles at taxpayer expense. It's hard to see how that will improve schools.
Ultimately, when we ask ourselves the question that Ronald Reagan asked voters in his 1980 campaign, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" we have to say that the answer for Oregon is "Yes." Saxton may not be willing to give credit to Kulongoski for helping to make that possible, but we will, along with our endorsement.