Is Merkley a "top-tier" challenger? Or do they know about someone else? He's second-tier in my book, an obvious step below DeFazio, Blumenauer, etc., although I still think it's great that he might be stepping up as he's an obvious improvement in terms of electoral/professional experience over everyone else who's announced or professed interest (as much as their candidacies are appreciated).

Also, where's the link to the original article? Aren't you betraying some type of netiquette by not providing a link? Thanks anyway for the heads up.

All due respect to the Speaker, he is from Portland. Let's see how he would do in a small town appearance. If he showed up at a small town 4th of July event, how many people would recognize him, would a speech to a small town audience (luncheon group, town hall meeting, etc.) impress the locals, would local figures in districts with a Republican state rep. campaign for him, etc.?

Seems to me that a "good bet" remark from someone in downstate Oregon would be more impressive than a mention in the Washington Post. Warner (VA) is in the Wa Post backyard, so that could be considered local news. Even Kentucky isn't that far away. But how well did they predict in 2003 the 2004 Colorado results (election of the Salazar brothers to House and Senate) or the victories of Tester, McCaskill, Webb, et al in early July 2005?

Sure this is interesting fodder in a slow news period, but what does it really mean to actual election results?

LT,

I think the "good bet" part is about him running, not a prediction about him winning, but I haven't read the article yet (thanks Kari) so I can't say, that's just how I understood it.

I don't know if I would say that they don't know what they're talking about in any of the races, but I would say their round-up on the whole seems pretty weaksauce.

Didn't even mention Cornyn's ties to the Abramoff scandal.

Then again, the focus of the article was supposed to be Democratic recruitment efforts. Still, if they're going to categorize the races themselves...

The advantage Merkley has is being the Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives. The top Democrat. He will recieve endorsements from members of the Oregon State legislature.

The DSCC should recruit The lead singer of Everclear Art Alexis- Oregon Native. He is a celebrity. He has a libetarian ideology.

Where have all the porn stars gone?

Will he appeal to volvo driving soccer moms.

Jeff Merkley may not be as "top tier" as Peter DeFazio, but he is head and shoulders above Steve Novick (and no, that is not a height joke, although Merkley is pretty tall).

Merkley is a damn fine potential candidate. He has degrees from Stanford and Princeton, has worked in the Pentagon, has all those years of Habitat for Humanity work (among other things), and years of successful work in the legislature -- culminating with earning the position of Speaker. Plus, he is charismatic and knows how to speak in front of a microphone.

That is EXACTLY the kind of resume you look for in someone to break out of the state level and into the U.S. Senate.

Oh, and for the person who wonders how Merkley would do at a 4th of July picnic in rural Oregon? The answer is:

An order of magnitude better than Steve Novick.

(disclosure: I work at the Capitol. I know Merkley. I respect Merkley. If Merkley got into this race, he would have my full support.)

in for that one, although Art's actually from Santa Monica if memory serves.

Jefferson Smith for Chief-of Staff.

Art was the Oregon Delegate for the Kerry/Edwards 2004 campaign.

Blond bland Middle Class Republican Children

Na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na

You know I used to be a bad girl I got busy in the bathroom at my high school prom Yeah I used to be a dancer at the local strip club But now I know my right wing from my wrong

Yeah, yeah

I really used to be a bad girl I had a threesome with my sister and her boyfriend Tom I know I used to be a real wild child But now I am a Volvo-driving soccer mom

Na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na

I really used to be a bad girl I got busted for possession of my wizard-shaped bong I used to love to do the things they tell me not to do But now I'm different--now I sing a new song

I really used to be a bad girl I got gang-banged in the bathroom at my high school prom Yes, I used to be a real wild child But now I am a Volvo-driving soccer mom

Na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na

Where do all the porn stars go When the lights go down? I wonder where all the porn stars go 'Cause when you need one, they are never around

I think they moved out to the suburbs And now they're blonde, bland, middle-class Republican wives They all have blonde, bland, middle-class Republican children Blonde, bland, middle-class Republican lives

Where do all the porn stars go When the lights go down? I think I know where all the porn stars go They all become Volvo-driving soccer moms

Na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na

Merkley is a normal person who can relate to the average person. You know, swing voters. Novick will only appeal to the most vehemently left wing liberals. Great for pep rallies among the readers of the blog, but a disaster for Oregon come election time. The way this blog rallies around him reminds me of the way other blogs tried to manufacture support for Jason Atkinson.

Merkley is a normal person who can relate to the average person.

Well, to the "anonymous staffer" flacking for Merkley, I'll say this:

Other than my focus on grassroots efforts to reform the health care system, I'm an average person. I also find many of the people on this blog to be, putting it politely, "obnoxiously naive". I haven't rallied around Novick because I, like a lot of average folks who don't live in Portland, know very little about him. That may not make me a "swing voter" he needs in the general election, but it sure make me one of those Democratic Party voters he needs in the primary.

Merkley seems to be a nice guy. However, Merkley is a pol whose performance we know more about because he is in the public eye, and it is his performance as a legislator that is one of the chief reasons I'm not a happy Democrat right now. To an average but attentive observer, at best he's been a detached, mediocre, and uninspiring leader. That may be because he's not really cut out for the role of legislator he has pursued, which is the impression I get as an average citizen just observing him from afar through the media and very limited contact with his office. It may also be because he has always had one eye on national office instead of keeping both eyes on the ball in Oregon, which is the impression that several people I've talked to both in Salem and in true grassroots activism say they have. I prefer to believe my observation; it is the more charitable option of the two and seems to fit much better with what we have been told about his life before he got into electoral politics.

The biggest thing I've heard many people comment lately is that he just doesn't seem to have much interest in serious state level issues like meaningful health care reform. Working in support of an ill-considered constitutional amendment to levy tobacco taxes, because that's easier and pays off politically in support from the mainly Portland-centric Democratic base, rather than working to build support for a responsible funding base for health care for children, is but one example. I have to say that this evidence is not incompatible with those arguments I referred to that he was thinking about preserving his viability as a candidate for national office, and so saw no percentage in being too engaged at the state level by standing up to that strangely regressive Portland-centric segment of our party.

If he is the DSCC pick, he owes it to all of us in the Democratic Party to come clean on what role he played in working for passage of SB329 and killing SB27, making us one of just 3 states in which we now are compelled by law to buy insurance from private, for-profit health insurance companies. His office was completely non-responsive to everyone I know who tried to get any information about why the Democratic majority was doing this and would not move SB27. Far too many Democratic members of the U.S. Senate count for-profit health insurance companies and big pharma as some of their biggest donors, and the DSCC reflects that. If he decides to run because he gets a nod from the DSCC, that raises some very serious questions in my mind to which we deserve clear answers.

As far as Jeff Merkley's speaking ability, I saw him speak to the Chuck Lee dinner last year honoring Vic Backlund (who'd been defeated in the primary by Kim Thatcher). An audience of everyone from Lee supporters to Backlund friends, to former students of Backlund (McNary HS) to legislators who had been in the 1999 legislative session with Merkley and Backlund. I was a skeptic, but Merkley gave an excellent speech to that diverse group.

Not that I am on anyone's bandwagon, but in that measurement, my guess is that Merkely would do better than Novick. Whether he would do better than Bates, Golden, or someone else from outside Portland, I couldn't say.

I've given Steve an ActBlue space on my blog, because he's running and I like his presentation. I've met Jeff Merkely and listened to him speak to a smallish group and large groups, he's an accomplished politician and I like him, as well.

Projecting which would do best at a small town rural 4th picnic is questionable. Neither is an Eastern Oregonian, neither has a background to just walk away with the crowd, it would take work. Anonymous Staffer (I back my junk with my name) makes an extraordinary leap on the basis of no evidence.

In order to beat Smith a decent number is required out in the 2nd CD and that means taking almost all Democrats and some Indies and that means being able to reach folks who are NOT Salemites or Portlanders. Assuming either has cache out here is silly, it needs proving. There are Democrats out here who will vote on the fact of Democrat and that tends to be the left and either Novick or Merkely would benefit, the rest are not so trustworthy that way and neither has an outstanding advantage, Merkely's legislative role is no more advantage in a General than the simple fact of Democrat versus Smith who one ought to remember is an incumbent and has actual Federal Senate credentials for his resume which trump any resume currently available. I could easily support either man as a candidate in the General and at this point I am only supporting anyone who steps up.

The rest of us have read the bill and taken note that it merely sets up a Board whose job it is to come up with a plan for universal insurance and present it to the legislature in 2009. It doesn't actually contain a universal mandate at all.

Kari, you are repeating the deceitful talking point that the Democratic leadership launched about 2 weeks ago when citizens got wise to the betrayal going down: SB27 supporters supported passage of SB329, but as soon as SB329 was passed SB329 supporters dropped their support for SB27.

First, Bates and Westlund have never represented their plan as anything but an universal insurance plan, and have always asserted the Oregon Health Fund Plan does not include a public insurance alternative.

Second, the language of the bill, as intentionally and unintentionally obfuscatory as it is, says exactly that:

Section 12 requires that every you are not fortunate enough to have an employer who provides health insurance, and you are not fortunate to be covered by a public health insurance system, you are required to participate in the Oregon Health Fund Program.

Section 9 says that the Oregon Health Fund Board "may" propose different alternatives for a health insurance exchange from which those uninsured individuals who are compelled by Section 12 to buy insurance "may" buy the insurance they are compelled to buy. In view of the fact that the law does require that Oregon Health Plan must be funded but provides no public funding source for uninsured individuals, those individuals must personally either buy from a health insurance exchange, or directly purchase insurance from private, for-profit health insurance companies. Similarly, if the Board doesn't propose an health insurance exchange alternative, then individuals are left with no option except to buy insurance from private for-profit health insurance companies.

At the bottom line, Section 9 also provides that the only plans the Board "may" consider for inclusion in the exchange are "Accountable Health Plans". Section 2 defines an AHP as a prepaid managed health plan (defined by ORS 414.725) or an entity which contracts with the Board to provide a health benefit plan (defined by ORS 743.730). That is the individual must personally buy insurance from a non-governmental insuror, not from the state.

Third, All the intentionally vague and somewhat misleading language aside, Bates, Westlund and the rest of the legislators who actually were instrumental in passing SB329 have ALWAYS represented this as a plan to compel individuals who are not fortunate to have employer-provided insurance, and who are not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, to buy insurance from private for-profit health insurance companies. Furthermore, they vehemently rejected any attempt to actually put language compelling or suggesting creation of a public health insurance alternative in SB329. Had SB27 been passed, we would have been allowed to decide whether we want a public health insurance alternative that is neither provided for, nor funded by SB329.

Now you can play deceitful games in your standard style by saying in the end the Board could render SB329 meaningless legislation by exercising their right to do nothing under Section 9. No legislator has gone on record as saying they consider each enumerated provision of what the Board "may" do as anything less than what the Board will be made to understand that they will do (what do you think will be the first qualification for being appointed to the Board?). In fact, the ability for proponents of a public health insurance alternative to influence the Board to actually create a public health insurance alternative when the enabling legislation makes no provision or offers any moral or financial support for that is nil. That is, unless and until we make it clear that we quite understand that the prescribed provisions of SB329 in reality do compel uninsured individuals to buy insurance from private, for-profit health insurance companies, and we won't stand for it.

Frankly Kari, you may have read SB329, I'm pretty certain you actually aren't bright enough to fully understand what it says in context. What's worse is that because you can't understand it, and really just want to be a player, you're willing to flack for a segment of our party who have been very deceitful throughout this debate. The bottom line is that the Democratic majority could have passed SB27 to clearly and unambiguously put any number of variants of a public health insurance alternative on the table and they didn't.

Yeah, but you're about the only Dem I've found who is unhappy with the broad thrust of legislative accomplishments this year. Many folks have a single bill or a single program that didn't make it, but most will say it was a 95% session.

I think most intelligent and thoughtful people judge the performance of our Democratic legislative leadership not by the number of bills passed, but by how well the bills passed actually defend and promote Democratic Party values. Quality not quantity. By that measure I see this as significantly less than a 95% session.

Even John Kitzhaber, who wrote Archimedes supporters today:

I think your interpretation of what Kitzhaber actually said reflects precisely that lack of quality of character. You are flacking for the Party by using Kitzhaber's comments in a superficial, self-serving fashion, but clearly don't feel compelled to honor what Kitzhaber actually says in the very quotes you cite.

Having heard Kitzhaber speak about these matters and read many things from the Archimedes Movement, I read this as Kitzhaber being politely political: He feels as a leader he should do everything necessary to not foment division in the Democratic Party. If only the DSCC and whoever they give the nod to would have such integrity.

As an average citizen and Democratic Party member who is not an Archimedes Movement member, I have no such obligation of leadership nor to the group. In fact, it's my job to stand up and give meaning to the dictum: "When the people lead, the leaders will follow".

I think Kitzhaber was betrayed in defending SB329. The difference is that he did so out of leadership and honor, even though he knew from the outset that he would be betrayed by SB329 supporters. SB329 supporters, on the other hand, exhibited little leadership and even less honor by accepting and using the support of SB329 by SB27 supporters, but then not passing SB27.

SB3 (Healthy Kids) is far more complex and it illustrates my point well. A careful reading of Kitzhaber's full blog entry here:

http://wecandobetter.org/node/1186

shows that Kitzhaber applauds the passage of SB3 but does not address SJR4. SB3 as passed commits us, as it should, to providing health care for children. However, because SB3 proponents chose to gamble with health care for children by playing politics by playing to their base and tying it to the tobacco tax rather than the general fund, they really betrayed Democratic Party values: You don't gamble with children's health for political purposes. Period. They gambled and lost in the legislative session. That is one example of why quality of legislative action is what counts, not quantity.

Kitzhaber responsibly and honorably does not address what I as a citizen can address and criticize: SJR4 is a failure of Democratic leadership and a betrayal of Democratic Party values. Rather than act responsibly, the Democratic majority irresponsibly gambled again by passing SJR4. Reffering the funding matters addressed by SJR4 to the people in a constitutional amendment is irresponsible. Sticking to the same funding formula for political advantage is irresponsible. SJR4 is another glaring example why quality of legislative action is what counts, not quantity. If those who chose the strategy of SJR4 lose again, and there are principled arguments why we will be better off if SJR4 is defeated, they will have accomplished little by passing SB3, unless they do what they should have done in the first place and worked to establish a principled and sound funding base for SB3.