Here's what I want to know. With three Senators in, and two more talking about, how many more have to run before we have to worry about hitting quorum at every debate or joint appearance?

Metsger would be a total disaster for the state (not to mention for progressives). I would seriously consider voting for a moderate GOP (and I am pretty much a yellow dog Democrat) if Metsger got the nomination on the Dem side of the ticket. Not just no to Metsger, but Fuck No!

how many more have to run before we have to worry about hitting quorum at every debate or joint appearance?

A quorum of the Senate is 20 members, so to answer your question, 17 more Senators would need to jump in. Of course, Democrats and Republicans probably wouldn't have joint appearances at the primary en bloc--just as the Presidential primaries group together by party.

And because there are only 18 Democratic Senators, it would therefore be impossible to have an accidental quorum unless three members of a committee are present.

To my knowledge, there is no Senate committee composed of any combination of Senators Avakian, Brown, Metsger, Starr and Walker.

The only overlaps are:

Rules - Avakian, Brown Business, Transportation, etc. - Metsger, Starr Legislative Operations - Avakian, Metsger Ways and Means Education - Starr, Walker Education and General Government - Metsger, Walker

It doesn't really matter, though, because the President of the Senate is likely to appoint an almost entirely new slate of committees sometime in August.

Oh, and it looks like you need not worry about Senator Ryan Deckert, who appears to be taking up the Oregon Business Association's offer to serve as their president...

It is also seen as a possible stepping stone to the United States Senate.

All of the Dems listed thus far either aren't running again (Brown) or were elected/re-elected last year. That means their positions aren't up in 2008.

If one of the Dem state senators succeed and become SOS, a Democrat would be appointed to fill the position. Those that lose have no problems -- they'd continue on in the State Senate for the rest of their term.

SOS can be a stepping stone to other statewide positions. However, it has a lot of very important work that it does. Sometimes people run for these positions because they have ideas on how the position could be utilized for the benefit of the citizens of the state. Not just because it can get them on to another position.

Lestat... If I remember (google) correctly, you're still upset at Metsger about SB 965. Now, I don't know much about the bill, but I do remember that it was a bill about mortgage brokering or something.

It may have been a terrible bill, I don't really know, but is one little weird mortgage brokering bill a good enough reason to put a Republican in charge of overseeing our election system and redrawing our legislative lines for a generation? I don't think so.

(And please, let's not rehash the substance of SB 965 again -- that bill hijacked enough threads around here.)

The position does more than pore over campaign finance records.

They are in charge of overseeing signature gathering for petitions. Attempts to get candidates on the ballots for statewide and federal positions. Filing your business in the state of Oregon. The office often times participates in redistricting.

If this position was appointed, rather than elected, I think people would be throwing a fit about it.

They may seem boring, but SOS, AG, and Treasurer are very important positions that have a lot of power in the state. Depending on the person running the office, the offices could have even more.

SOS Bill Bradbury, for example, was regularly down at the capitol building testifying on and supporting legislation. He brought legislation forward.

The position may not seem that glamorous, but it has a lot of power to do a lot of good (or bad) for Oregon.

Yes Kari, it IS worth expressing that much outrage over Metsger's slime-ball maneuvering on that bill. Any Democrat or progressive who thinks Metsger is about ANYTHING but his own career is deluding themselves. You have enough ears to bend Kari, ask around the caucus about how much trust they put in Metsger. Talk to the party DLs... like P.S. Jackson for example.

That wasn't just that the bill that was bad Kari, that was a neutron bomb that was be served up on a platter by Metsger and which OurOregon suckered into pushing. Ask where they got that legislative blueprint and package that OurOegon gwas boiler-plating (hint, it's genesis a GOP Rep. in New Mexico). Look at why and how Metsger was the one who slipped in the exemption for bank and credit unions into the bill when it moved from the Senqate to the House (gee does Metsger by any chance sit on the board of a credit union..? why yes he does).

The man is not our friend Kari... seriously. Any Democrat who says Metsger is on our side is either naive, not paying attention or simply not serious.

My gut feeling is that Kate Brown is not ready for state wide office. She has no interest in details and a state wide leader has at least some interest in the details of their activities. Just compare her to the last two SOS's and you will know what I am talking about. Metzger is to well liked by the republicans for my taste buds. It is not unusual for Democratic men to hang out with republican women (They love us....especially the well tanned ones) but he spends a lot of time with the men too and that is where he gets into trouble. Does Metzger have a photo of Tom Delay in his pocket? Don't know, but would not be surprised. I feel Metzger's commitment to the values most often discussed here is paper thin. But hey, I am an open minded Portland Public School Graduate. I am going to give Metzger as well as all of the other turn coat democrats that want to seek state wide office an opportunity to change my mind.

I do not know about you folks, but I am going to need to see a lot more out of all of these people to vote for any of them. If I had to vote today based on past performances, then I would have to write in Eric Sten, Jeff Merkly or Lefty Comeze (my favourite bartender). It is hard to find a real Progressive thinking Democrat these days that espiers for public office so when I do run across one, I tend to vote for them often:)

Fred

OK let me get this straight:

Rick supported a bill which was sponsored by Avakian and Brown. The unions also supoported said bill. Lestatdelc, who is apparently a businessman first and only secondarily interested in equal rights for gays and lesbians picks Rick out to dump on.

Rick's risky and public support for gay rights and multiple other progressive issues in an exurb district with a Republican registration edge, makes him.........what........courageous?

Guess not.

Let's do character assasination on all of the Dem Senators that might not get elected in the People's Republic of Portland, you know: Kurt Schrader, Vicki Walker, and so on.

We can return to the satifaction experienced during the past decade and a half, only by the Pure of Heart. We were in the minority, but we by God had our priciples and that's what really matters.

Right?

Don't be so hard on lestatdelc. A passionate liberal on the board is never a bad thing. As we all work hard to defeat Smith and uplift Merkley please keep in mind we have some house cleaning to do as well.

If you think lestatdelc is angry. Just think how angry the average family that makes less than $60,000 per year would have been at progressive candidates in 08 when they attempted to buy or refinance their home had SB-965 passed. Better yet, when some of our small business friends attempted to engage in home ownership. The lack of attention to detail on that bill is shocking. If they were weak sauce on that issue....what else where they weak sauce on? I got my answer when I went looking around.

Had SB-965 passed I am quite sure Brown and Meztger would have had an interesting holiday season since quite a few of the people near and dear to them would have suffered greatly. What ever happened to the thought about all politics starts at home or whatever....LOL

To be fair, the issue might not be Metzger or Brown's intellect or commitment to progressive values. It might be they do not attract the right people around them. We all know how important those people are and well maybe Brown and Metzger lack credibility in that department. Now that they are seeking state wide office, maybe they will attract the right people that will help them advance the values they say they live by. Only time will tell. In the mean time, let lestatdelc roll!

Fred

Posted by: DforLife | Aug 1, 2007 8:18:13 AM
Lesta... You Moron.

Why thank you. What next, the your mother dresses you funny argument?

I wasn't going to post anything, but the irony of what lestadelk is saying is truely amazing. I went to the legislature's website to look at the SB 965 and accidently clicked on the first version of the bill.

First of all, that Brown and Avakin introduced this bill is not as troubling as what Metsger did to it as it left the Senate to the House (which is were Metsger tried to stick the shiv in) though both should have actually read through the thing and not just the summary section of it, but the whole thing. Particularly the enabling section of the bill. Kari had indicated that he didn't want this to devolve into the details of why this was going to be particularly disastrous had SB 965 passed, but the devil is in the details. Especially when it was Metsger who was shepherding this thing through the Leg. and folded in the truly odious portions of the bill, which is where the damage would have been done had it passed, as it left the Senate to the House. Thank the sky-pixie that Merkely saw what a monumental disaster this bill was going to be, and helped kill it. Brown and Avakin should have been paying far more attention to the details frankly.

That's right folks, it was two of the actual candidates for SOS. Metsger didn't have his name on it until versions later.

And that precisely is the point I was driving at and why I am pointing at Metsger and not Brown or Avakin, though as I said above, they both need to get their heads in the game and pay closer attention to the details if they want state-wide office. Or at least their staffers around them need to be of a higher-caliber.

So much for the idea that Metsger served this bill up on a silver platter.

Actually just the opposite, it supports exactly what I was saying and why I am calling attention to Metsger, since the real poison of that bill was when Metsger got his hooks into it.

Lesta- Are you going to post something attacking them?

See above. I will not be attacking them, though it does make me question their capacity for being detail oriented and how well their heads are in the game (beyond eyeing higher-office that is) and their capacity to do the nuts-and-bolts job that higher office entails.

Or did they not serve a credit union board a decade ago.

Metsger serves on a credit union board and the more-than-problematic exemption of making SB 965 not applicable to banks and credit unions (i.e. they can be as predatory in their lending as they want) while shutting down the mortgage broker side of the industry (i.e. the ones that work for the home buyer/owner and not the lender) ...all while making Oregon the first and only state to ever go directly against the Federal Fair-Lending act. Yeah, that's real progressive values and not a neutron bomb waiting to go off politically for the Democratic caucus.

You know shit.

Oh really? What next, the neener neener gambit?

Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 1, 2007 9:36:18 AM OK let me get this straight: Rick supported a bill which was sponsored by Avakian and Brown. The unions also supoported said bill.

Not exactly Rick shepherded this bill, which Brown and Avakin were not paying attention to the details on, and folded in amendments that would have not only been a disaster for Oregonians as a whole had it passed, but would have been a political neutron bomb for the caucus and would have exempted credit unions and banks from this "great" bill that was suppose to protect home owners and buyers by making anyone who doesn't have nearly flawless credit scores (most people in the state) unable to get a home or refinance their home, while driving out the entire mortgage broker industry form the state (the people who work on behalf of the home buyer/owner and not the lenders) while simultaneously pitting Oregon against the Federal Fair-Lending Act (a little bedrock thing for something called the civil rights movement).

Yeah, sign me up for that sort of progressive/Democratic bill. (snark)

Lestatdelc, who is apparently a businessman first and only secondarily interested in equal rights for gays and lesbians picks Rick out to dump on.

ROFLMAO. That second part (about not caring gay rights) is about the most laughably ignorant thing I have read in years on political blogs.

Let's do character assasination on all of the Dem Senators that might not get elected in the People's Republic of Portland, you know: Kurt Schrader, Vicki Walker, and so on. We can return to the satifaction experienced during the past decade and a half, only by the Pure of Heart. We were in the minority, but we by God had our priciples and that's what really matters. Right?

Nope. Not even close.

Posted by: Cut the Crap | Aug 1, 2007 12:18:57 PM Right Lesta... First you say Metsger introduced it.

No I didn't Re-read the thread. I didn't say that once. DforLife introduced that strawman which you promptely attacked. Well done.

When proven wrong you say, oh wait, I mean he manipulated it.

Wrong again. I wasn't "proven wrong" at all . Try reading comprehension 101.

Then you elude that Metsger is currently on a credit union board when the last board he sat on was the Portland Teachers Credit Union 9 or so years ago.

Who are CURRENT clients of MetsgerForbes LLC... let's see... Advantis Credit Union, PACC Credit Union, Credit Union Association of Oregon, Electra Credit Union, Selco Credit Union. Wow. you really showed me.

As if a previous occupation is an existing conflict of interest. Sorry Lesta, again you are wrong and trying to mislead people.

Oh really? Let's see, you make false assertions about what I said, then attack someone else's strawman, then pretend that Metsger's paychecks don;t come from the very businesses he got exemptions from in order to introduce a disastrous amended version of a bill that would take a chain-saw to Oregon's mortgage industry (yeah the ability to buy a home or refinance one isn't important to Oregonains) when careful, precise legislation is what is needed to address the issue which SB 965 was ostensibly sold as trying to address.

So far you are not just incorrect about your claims about what I said, but have also laughably failed in your claim you that proved me wrong.

Here's your logic applied to other legislators.

Wrong. That is not my logic at all. But your strawman BS. My logic, to use your phrase, is this; someone who is paid by the Credit Unions to re-jigger a bill ostensibly to protect home buyers/owners form predatory lending, a goal which I and most others support, that exempts banks and credit unions from the bill, while eliminating the entire industry that works for the home buyer/owner (as opposed to working for the lender, i.e. credit unions, banks).. oh and pitting the state directly in conflict with the Federal Fair-Lending Act while being employed by the very interests who pay him and are exempted from the bill (and who are free to make any predatory sub-prime loans they wish) is someone who is NOT working to protect home owners/buyers, is not good for the Democratic caucus or good for progressive values and is not someone I, or any sane person in the caucus should trust further than he or she can throw him.

I am sure next you will argue that no one is being taken advantage of by the mortgage lending industry.

More strawman BS. As I said before, precise, well crafted legislation can and should address such practices. SB 965 was not it and was in fact a competition elimination bill by the bank and credit union lobby and would have been a political disaster for democrats for having passed this thing.

What is it that you say you do for a living? Wouldn't happen to be a mortgage broker would you?

Nope, I am not in the mortgage broker industry or in an industry anywhere near it.

Posted by: pdxskip | Aug 1, 2007 12:50:25 PM Who is this fella 'lestatdelc' anyway?

Who am I, my name is Mitch Gore. I am a former Multnomah County Democratic Party PCP in district 47, now living in Tigard. If you think this is nothing at all, then you are not paying attention.

What crap Cut the Crap.

Posted by: Cut the Crap | Aug 1, 2007 2:03:23 PM Lesta... you said: "a neutron bomb that was be served up on a platter by Metsger and which OurOregon suckered into pushing." Wrong, Metsger signed onto the bill to help democratic colleagues with their project to protect consumers, and the Senate President referred it to Metsger's Business Committee, making it his responsibility. How is that anti-progressive?

No, NOT wrong. OurOregon bought into a legislation package put out by Center for Responsible Lending, which has the laudable goals of curbing predatory lending in mortgage financing. The goal is not the issue (we all want to stop predatory lending practices) but rather the HIGHLY problematic components that were folded into the bill when it moved out of the Senate into the House, where Metsger gave instructions to fold the offensive amendments (which among other things exempted banks and credit unions (i.e. the LENDERS) from the bill.

you quickly change your argument to: "CURRENT clients of MetsgerForbes LLC... let's see... Advantis Credit Union, PACC Credit Union, Credit Union Association of Oregon, Electra Credit Union, Selco Credit Union." Well, which is it? Changing your argument again huh?

Not changing my argument, it is the same argument. Metsger has been and is in the pocket of the banking and credit unions, which he was protecting by passing on instructions to the House to fold in the poisonous amendments that exempted banks and credit unions (the lenders) while pitting Oregon against the Fair-Lending Act and making it impossible for mortgage brokers (the ones who work for the home owner/buyer, not the lenders) from being able to even do business in Oregon since Oregon statute requires that mortgage brokers in this state be bonded (unlike many other states).

And by the way. wrong again, none of them have been clients of Metsgerforbes since last fall. That is way before the bill was introduced (by someone else) and long before it was referred to Metsger's committee.

Distinction without a difference. Up to the end of 2006 he was being paid by the credit union industry and then when he goes to his part-time job as legislator, exempts the credit unions and bank (i.e. the lenders) from the amended (by his direction) predatory lending bill of which he has had as clients until just before the session (according to you)

Check the measure tracking. The A-Engrossed bill that passed out of Metsger's committee did not exempt credit unions and banks. That happened in the House committee.

The most egregious part of this debacle (which was thankfully scuttled by Jeff Merkley) and the slipping in of the shiv I was previously referring to was precisely at the point when it left the Senate with instructions by Metsger's committee to the House to fold in the exemptions, for the lenders in the predatory LENDING bill. This is why I point the finger at Metsger and not Brown or the others because this was the bait and switch that Metsger pulled, though I do fault them as well for not being detail oriented and trusting Metsger.

Face it, you are wrong wrong WRONG! 3-4-5 strikes your out!

Not wrong, your obfuscating arm-waving does not at all make what I pointing out wrong at all. Just the opposite in fact.

And how about that Avakian for SOS anyway?

How about him?

Posted by: Anon | Aug 1, 2007 3:27:19 PM Hear that? We trolls are laughing. Keep it up.

Nice try. Am I supposed to be afraid of the "laughter" of trolls now or the Democrats are doomed DOOMED DOOMED!! because we need to clean house?

Too funny.

Brad will make a great candidate for Secretary of State, and brings a solid record of accomplishments to this race. Brad's work this session helped result in some of the most significant energy and environmental reforms in the last twenty years. SB 838 -- which requires the state to get 25% of our energy from renewable sources by 2025 -- will help chart a course of energy independence for our state and diversify our sources of home-grown clean power.

A lot of candidates talk about education, but Brad brings direct community experience helping found South West Music school after budget cuts forced the elimination of arts and music for his kids. I've known Brad personally for nearly 10 years, including having worked with him in 1998. Brad's an extremely hard worker on the campaign trail, and most importantly, is an extremely dedicated and effective public servant. Go Brad!

Sadie wrote... he is not looking to run for Govorner in 2010. I can't say the same is true for the other two candidates. I think it is important that if somebody wants to use the SOS office as a stepping stone, they should at least commit to fullfilling a full term before jumping ship.

Sadie, in her announcement message, Kate Brown committed to serving a full term.

I will serve my full term and will fulfill my duties with integrity, fairness and common sense.

Personally, I wish she hadn't - because she'd make a fine governor, and it's hard to know what the world will look like in 2010, but that's her stand.

Full disclosure: I'm built the website for KateBrownForOregon.com but I speak only for myself.

Because of his efforts, the barbaric practice of chasing cougars with radio-collared dogs is back in Oregon. Avakian is a disgrace and no environmentalist should support him.

This has nothing to do with environmentalism. Predators and prey need to be managed in these times of urban sprawl and habitat encroachment.

Your real objection is to the practice of hunting with hounds, right? So this argument is more about the perception of humane treatment of wild predators. Again, may be a valid issue for debate, but has little to do with environmental issues.

As was the case with ATVs this session, the LiberalsFromPortland got a wild hair to restrict yet another objectionable behavior practiced by the BarbaricRuralSavages without a thought for the damage done to rural progressives running for office.

These cutesy little efforts are one of the factors that have kept us in the minority over the past decade and a half.

Get a damn clue.......

But helen... you are not being the cliched Portland-Liberal is EEEEVIL target for bashing that is the favorite past-time of concern trolls and those who love to bash Portland. If you have sense about conservation, you have to be evil and live in Portland. Sounds like it is time for you to move to the evil environs of the Portland Metro area.

;-)

Every election cycle I give money, time, and support to select Portland liberals that I believe "get it" about the horrible PR fallout inherent in the crusade to bring the rule of Gaia forward as quickly as possible.

Just to clarify, I support your enlightened efforts to keep the wild kitties alive in your area.

The last time I hunted animals was in 1973 in South America, and it wasn't "sport". It was to provide meat to my family in the absence of refrigeration.

Nobocy chose to respond to my last paragraph, which is to me the heart of the matter.

I don't really care if you live in a tree or a condo, every time you restrict people's behavior in any way, you create anger and resentment not only among the people affected, but also among the people who see themselves as members of that tribe.

So, when you restrict ATV use, you anger virtually all of the motorsport community.

When you vilify loggers and millworkers, you reduce the number of potential allies in the battle against large extraction interests.

Likewise with hound hunting. There are probably fewer than 100 people in the entire state that hunt with hounds, but there are literally hundreds of thousands that resent the imposition.

So the question of benefits versus blowback is not a question for the misinformed lunatic fringe, but for every progressive that wants to foster a better society.