I guess I was one of the (many) people that brought up AuCoin... but now it seems he's out. So I'm going to throw yet another two cents in:

What about Charlie Ringo?

· We wouldn't be in danger of giving up a state seat (especially an R-leaning seat like Bates').

· He's well-known in vital Washington County.

· He's on good terms with the key (D) groups: unions, enviros, choice... solid Democratic voting record.

· He's an officer in the Air Force Reserve.

· He campaigns and raises money like a maniac.

Just a thought.

It makes sense. Les is 65 and put in 18 years communting back and forth between PDX and D.C. He went through a very tough primary and general in '92. Had he wanted to run again, he would have stepped up in the '95/'96 special election or '96 general. I'm glad, though, that he knows a lot of us thought of him as a strong candidate.

Why people still consider The Oregonian a "news"-paper is beyond me. It's blatant political biases and editorial manipulations (supressing the Packwood Affair story to get him re-elected, the freakish double-spin on the meaning of voter turnout in the recent election, and so on) are as nauseating as they are common. They're as "fair and balanced" as Faux News, and have cut their reporting staff so far the paper's virtually nothing but an AP reprint and right-wing editorial service. Not wanting to be bothered by journalistic ethics, they've even refused to have an accredited Public Editor (Ombudsman) on staff.

Is it any wonder their circulation continues to plummet? No one I know ever buys a copy or takes them seriously. Literally everyone in my extended family dropped their subscription at some point in the past several years. The Mercury, Willamette Week, the Portland Tribune, and the neighborhood papers offer much better local information, and anything regional or national is online long before The (B)oregonian runs it.

This announcement by AuCoin seems to bring closure to the idea that one of the "old guard" Dems might jump into the Smith race. Looks like it will be up to the next generation of Dems (regardless of age) to challenge Smith.

Having watched Smith raise and spend around 10 million bucks in the last election cycle (without breaking a sweat), I don't have a good feeling about the chances of any of the newcomers, but I hope I am wrong. Senator Testor from Montana did pretty well against an entrenched incumbent, although he had Pearl Jam to help raise money. Art A., any chance new Everclear will step up to raise some early money for Novick?

The more you guys moon for someone other than Novick, the more you marginalize his candidacy. It's six more years of Smith but nobody, Republicans included, is going to be very happy about it.

Sorry, Mike R.: Secretary of Interior already taken. It will go minority.

Suggest another possibility, please.

I am still holding a grudge against the Washington Post for sitting on that Packwood story until after Election Day .... Of course, the Oregonian sat on it too...

I believe the Washington Post broke that story first, even though The Oregonian had a Washington reporter who had been kissed by Packwood in an elevator. (Not sure whether he had his box of wine in tow with him).

The single longest story The Oregonian wrote about the Packwood "affair" was the one analyzing and explaining to readers why the local paper blew it even though it was a well-known "secret" among reporters and editors there.

This whole episode spawned the famous bumper sticker:

If it matters to Oregonians, It's in the Washington Post

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

I again, and as often as is needed to have a Kari Chisolm/BlueOregon.com consider the candidacy of the Honorable Sec. of State Bill Bradbury!

I like Mr. Bradbury for three simple reasons:

1. I believe that Mr. Bradbury's credentials as an innovator in the conduct of elections, and his experience in dealing with the introduction of a new election system that has such resounding success makes him a lightening rod for election reform on the federal stage.

2. A tall man that he is, and as a reliable progressive that maintains a air of humility, and stature in times of controversy makes him a compelling figure that will make it much easier to attract the independent, and moderate Republicans in rural areas that will be needed to carry the day.

3. He has been on the right side of the debate from his last bid that makes the opportunities abundant for stark rebuttal to any of the excuses of past distortions, and attempts by Smith to paint himself anything but what he has proven himself so surely to be, a Neo-Con.

I would like to be a chorus, but I will continue my ballad alone, a soloist in need of a back round harmony.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

I wish Bradbury had run a better campaign last outing. And I wish Novick had more stature than "activist." I do believe Ben Westlund has the potential to be a real star and is attuned to Oregon demographics and political culture. Other candidates to consider that have experience, stature, and statewide name recognition might be Randall Edwards, or Phil Keisling, or even Governor Ted.

Maybe Sen. Alan Bates is our man.

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/05/bates_considering_run_against.html

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

"I wish Bradbury had run a better campaign last outing. And I wish Novick had more stature than "activist." I do believe Ben Westlund has the potential to be a real star and is attuned to Oregon demographics and political culture. Other candidates to consider that have experience, stature, and statewide name recognition might be Randall Edwards, or Phil Keisling, or even Governor Ted." // Posted by: Bill R. | May 18, 2007 10:06:16 PM

I wish the DNC & DSCC had taken his candidacy more seriously as to fund it! Bush was at the height of his power as a Wartime President, and a President that consoled a nation with promises of retribution. A nation that was swayed into believing that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and all 4 networks were pounding the drums of war with not a Democrat to be seen accept to be flogged by a Neo-Con.

I believe because Bradbury was their making the arguments that were in opposition to the propaganda of the day will make him seem prophetic, and at very least much more competent than Smith!

I believe he made a good effort in a hopeless candidacy at the time which makes him the perfect candidate this time around. He will as the candidate be his own evidence of things that should have been, and now could be opposed to the lies, distortions, and fantasies Smith told in the 2002 election.

Do we really believe that people outside of Portland are incapable of talking about issues?>/i>

Such thinking insults me and many that I know. If Oregon Democrats are serious about their avowed goal of reaching out to rural Oregon, that kind of nonsense must stop.

My suggestions: 1.) Focus on only a few issues, prioritizing. 2.) Brainstorm until our stand & its reasons can be simply expressed. 3.) Keep backup info available to answer qestions & challenges. 4.) Expend time & dollars to adequately train workers. Brochures with guidelines are often quite effective here. 5.) Apply all four to both issues & candidates.

Armtwisting doesn't work. I've experienced too much of it from hyped-up overnight would-be political operatives.

Great ideas, Stanley.

But I will add one more. Sometimes votes come from the unlikeliest places, such as someone telling a friend "the one guy was just a slick politician, while the other guy had so much substance I took notes" or "The candidate I'm supporting is someone I have known for years. I'll tell you a strength of character story about my friend the candidate, and then you can tell me one about the person you are supporting".

Stanley's ideas could create the atmosphere/infrastructure which make the above paragraph possible. And don't forget when prioritizing issues that there are areas in this state where some issues matter more than others (coastal vs. inland, urban vs. rural, not to mention demographics of age or anything else).

I thoroughly did not support Aucoin (in fact voted for the republican incumbent)in '92. As House Rep., he helped the republicans destroy wildlife habitat in Oregon and became a lobbyist for the timber industry when the revolving door of politics sent him packing as opposed to a promotion to the senate. That Aucoin is out of the race for '08 is good news to me.

Charlie Ringo would make a good candidate and would have the potential to be a great senator. But he has never run a statewide race and, like everyone, he has a certain amount of political baggage. I think getting several candidates like him to face off in a primary would deliver the best candidate. I know it runs counter to the idea of "lets choose a candidate early and all get behind him/her". But new faces need to be tested as candidates and a tough (not rough) primary would do that.

Thanks East Bank and Ross W.

East Bank Thom's comment, "I thoroughly did not support Aucoin (in fact voted for the republican incumbent) in '92," demonstrates real political genius.

The man he voted for (Bob Packwood) advocated gutting the Endangered Species Act so the timber industry could mow down ancient forests and the spotted owl. AuCoin was endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters. That same year, Packwood scored 29% on the LCV's issues.

No "Natural Man," i am not a genius as you so adeptly point out. It was wrong of me (as a majority of Oregonians did), to vote for the moderate Republican incumbent, instead of elevating a young, mediocre (my opinion, sorry) congressman from the House to the Senate. I did not perform your most excellent political calculus and therefore did not come to the conclusion that any Dem would be better than any Repub.

Unfortunately, you have to put up with many such dolts as me come election time. So rather than chide my stupidity, try recognizing the reality. Some of us will not simply give our vote to any Les, Dick or Larry. (Oh, this ought to tick you off... I voted for Nader in 2000!)

It was wrong of me (as a majority of Oregonians did), to vote for the moderate Republican incumbent, instead of elevating a young, mediocre (my opinion, sorry) congressman from the House to the Senate.

It was outrageously stupid to vote for Packwood because of Aucoin's environmental record. Which is what you said you did. Packwood was not a "moderate" on environmental issues and certainly not on the issue of protecting ancient forests.

It was outrageously stupid

Ahh, another pearl on how to persuade from my friends within the big Democratic tent. Thanks Ross.

It wasn't on a single issue alone that Aucoin lost support of Oregon D's like me. The bigger point i wish some of you would get is that being a Democrat isn't all about entitlement. Aucoin didn't deserve my vote just because a won a primary. And Gordon Smith does in fact still enjoy support from many Oregonians whose voter registration card has a D on it. But if its easier for you to lob insults at those who disagree with you, by all means... i'm on vacation.

he bigger point i wish some of you would get is that being a Democrat isn't all about entitlement.

Its not about screwing the environment in a fit of pique either.

Aucoin didn't deserve my vote just because a won a primary.

And Packwood didn't deserve your vote either, at least not if you really cared about ancient forests.

if you really cared about ancient forests.

<h2>See, that's the beauty of us on the Left. We are all-knowing, and in the case of Ross Williams, he can even read minds. He was able to deduce from my vote for Packwood that i really don't care about ancient forests. Brilliant. Anyone else care for a spin at the pulling-notions-out-of-me-arse wheel?</h2>