Raising money will be an utter bitch. I'm not sure he'll make it to November. But if he does, it will be as a monkey wrench.

"Just a reminder---the November election will include members of what has been called "the fastest growing party--no party at all"."

NAVs are still only 22% of Oregon's voters, and they have a poorer record of showing up for elections than either major party (which makes sense, of course).

And for the most part, "independents" (small i) in OR vote Democratic, particularly for candidates, and track on polls much closer to Dems.

Playing to solidly Democratic values (as opposed to some attempt to play the middle when that's not where they live) is always the way to win elections. Be who you are.

LT says: Democrats could prevent that by running either Jeff or Steve in a way which appeals general audiences and not just "the base".

It is a misconception that "Not Affiliated" means "between" the parties, and that appealing to them requires being more "moderate" or "centrist." That is part of the triangulation theory, which only works up to a point and in some conditions (so late 20th century). Political opinions are much more complicated than that. Many (and possibly most) people are not affiliated because they think the party they usually vote with is not sufficiently committed to what they think is most important; the frustrations I hear regarding the Democratic Party have nothing to do with it's being insufficiently "centrist."

The past 25 years have broken the compass regarding what the "general audience" is. We need candidates who have their own compass.

I think John will appeal to disaffected Democrats who believe that elected D's and Democratic candidates are doing a poor job of standing up to the constitutional abuses of the current administration; to disaffected Republicans who are frustrated at the lack of conservatism, particularly fiscal conservatism, that we have seen from the GOP in recent years; and to anyone who is frustrated at the vitriol and inability of partisans to work together in support of commonsense solutions to the legion of problems facing this country.

I've met with John on several occasions in the last month and have agreed to help him with his campaign.

As an economic conservative and social moderate with a proven track record for defending the U.S Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, and as a decorated veteran of the Vietnam war who opposes going to Iraq and who has a great deal to say about the abuses of the Executive branch over the last 30 years, and especially under Bush, John is closer than any other candidate to Oregon's mainstream.

I see him as a person who has some important things to say to people of this state -- things that the Democratic candidate (particularly if Novick loses the primary) and Republican candidate should be talking but won't.

Torrid is correct when he says that John won't be able to raise the kind of money that Smith or the DSCC candidate is likely to raise, but while they are traveling to DC and around the country to raise money from partisan special interest groups, John will be out beating the streets, taking his case directly to the people of Oregon.

I support him in his efforts, and encourage others to do the same. Failing that, I would encourage people to listen to what he has to say with an open mind.

"Torrid is correct when he says that John won't be able to raise the kind of money that Smith or the DSCC candidate is likely to raise,"

I should say that's not a knock on John; it's just tough when you don't have major institutional backing. I'm not sure I like the sound of "economic conservative" OR "social moderate," but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to listen.

It's my understanding that Mr. Frohnmayer is registered with the "Independent Party", which is in fact a completely different thing that a "non-affiliated voter".

Is this incorrect?

Torrid,

I didn't interpret it as a knock. What you've said about finances is true.

My projection, based on the contested races in 2006, is that Smith will raise around $20 million and that the Democratic challenger will raise around $8 million.

So I think raising the issue of money is a fair point.

Similarly, I think it's fair to treat with skepticism labels like "social moderate" or "fiscal conservatism". As I said, have a listen to what he has to say and attach your own labels to them.

A word on John's fiscal conservatism

John has told me that he opposed Bush's tax cuts that targeted the wealthiest 1 percent, and generally opposes shifts in tax policy that have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans and multistate and multinational corporations.

He has raised concerns that we never received the "Cold War Dividend" that Reagan promised us when we increased defense spending in the 1980's.

He has told me that he believes in balanced budgets -- not the spiraling debt that Bush and his rubber-stamp congress have given us -- all of these are things that Democrats in Congress have had an opportunity to try and reverse but haven't at the federal level.

A word on "social moderate"

John is one of the strongest, most articulate advocates for the Bill of Rights and the Equal Protection clause that I have ever met.

One of the things that appeals to me about Steve Novick's candidacy is that I think Oregon needs to send a litigator to Washington who will work to roll back the power of the executive branch and who will fight to fully restore the protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

John is a trial attorney with 25 years of experience specializing in Constitutional Law, particularly the First Amendment.

He was one of the first people to take on, as a Republican, the growing power of the Religious right in the early 1990's.

The failure of Democrats to seriously oppose that effort, in my opinion, led to Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act, and has helped to move this country to a place where it is now acceptable for our government -- both parties, mind you -- to create fenced in "Free Speech Ghettos" for protesters of political events; where it is now acceptable for our government to engage in warrantless wiretapping of our citizens -- powers that were recently expanded by a Democratic Congress, etc.

From my point of view, all of that is an immoderate change of course and character for this country -- one that I do not support -- and I deeply resent the fact that many Democratic leaders have helped to bring about that change of direction.

I think John is the best vessel to carry that debate on through the general election.

It is my hope that his work in Oregon will be part of a broader movement by people of conscience to demand greater accountability from our government and to move us in a much more positive direction than we have been heading in over the last 15 years.

John Frohnmayer is registered Non-affiliated.

James and Sue, as I heard the OPB report, it was that John Frohnmayer would be running as the candidate of the Independent Party.

He may not be registered with them, or not yet. If so, he couldn't vote for himself if they selected their candidate by primary. But it appears they don't.

As I recall, Nader ran as the Green presidential candidate in '96 without being registered as one of them.

(I voted for Nader in '96 as a protest abstention against the perfidious Clinton, who unlike others on the list, I never liked much. I came to loathe him due to his propensity to punish his friends and reward his enemies, his refusal as governor to commute the death sentence of a retarded man to gain right-wing cred, his advocacy -- defeated in the Senate -- for Patriot Act-like provisions in the already draconian "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" of 1996, his sell-out on welfare, his cowardice on the Rwandan genocide and his quasi-genocidal refusal to change the sanctions policy on Iraq long after it clearly had failed its ostensible purposes.)

Frohnmayer will suck votes from both sides, but more from Merkley. Gordon's laughing...

This is all the more reason that Novick and Merkley should start touring the state together ASAP. 22% won't win an election but 22% can tip an election (not to mention the loosely affiliated in both parties), and voters need to be shown the reasons why they should vote for a Democrat.

I hope it will be a little bit like the recurring message we are getting from all the Ds in the Presidential debates. While working assiduously to distinguish themselves from one another, they are also going out of their way to remind their audiences that anyone on the stage would be better than any of the non-D alternatives. Novick and Merkley can and should set out to accomplish the same objective, and I hope they will start soon.

Sal, your words about Dems would have some legitimacy if you were talking about an incumbent Dem who has been playing the DC game (like Gordo) and not doing what he swore to do in office (like Gordo). but we're talking about Steve Novick, who ain't gonna play anyone's game, and Jeff Merkley, who demonstrated that he is above the games by how he ran the House this year. the Dems finally have a choice of two candidates who break the DC-business-as-usual mold and you side with an ex-Republican?

and like Jack says, with the probability of aiding Smith's re-election. i don't get it. this is about as disappointing as anything i've heard in a long time. not to mention perplexing.

Chuck, your zealous (though revisionist) defense of the second half of the second amendment is out of step with 200 years of federal case law, and I'm guessing is totally inconsistent with the positions held by both Democratic candidates for US Senate.

The only argument that you've made for ignoring the first half is that the word "regulate" as it is used in that sentence does not share the same plain meaning that it has elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution.

Suffice to say that I remain unpersuaded by the NRA's line on that issue.

As for why I am supporting John ... he has persuaded me that he intends to say some things in this campaign that other candidates should be talking about but won't -- not the least of which is the issue of special interest control over our political process and the fact that the kind of partisanship that we have seen lately is tearing at the fabric of this country.

In a nice bit of timing, there is a great Barney Frank quote about partisanship in today's Boston Globe.

"I became partisan in the '80s when the Republican Party moved to the right," Frank said last week. "People said, 'When will you stop being so partisan?' I said, 'When they stop being so wrong.'"

Barney pretty much speaks for me where this whole "partisanship" trope is concerned. The correct response to escalating partisanship from one side is NOT unilateral disarmament by the other side, but an appropriate level of resistance in kind. Otherwise you get rolled, and God knows we've discussed the consequences of THAT around here in brutal detail in recent weeks.

The article goes on to cite Barney's ability to work with conservative Republicans to get things done, without watering down his core values (or his wardrobe).

Still, he hasn't become completely boring. Last week, when scheduled to run a financial services hearing as well as testify for a gay rights bill at another hearing, he wore a pin-striped suit and lavender tie. "A sartorial compromise," explained Frank, the first openly gay congressman.

"I have been banging away at this economic inequality stuff for a long time," he said. "And now, I have all these friends high up in the financial industry."

Barney pretty much speaks for me where this whole "partisanship" trope is concerned. The correct response to escalating partisanship from one side is NOT unilateral disarmament by the other side, but an appropriate level of resistance in kind.

I don't think anyone has advocated for "unilateral disarmament" -- certainly not me.

From what I've seen, the Frohnmayer's have been fighting against the worst elements of the far right for their entire political careers -- including during the early 1990's when Democrats were in full retreat. But there is a big difference between fighting back against radicalism and failing to find common ground with moderates on the other side of the aisle.

Bottom line is: six more years of Gordon Smith. No, thank you.

It's hard for me to understand why Frohnmayer, who as you point out is a good man, and has been "fighting against the worst elements of the far right for [his] entire political career," would make himself into an instrument for the reelection of someone whose career and values are such an affront to his own. Because if he believes he can win, he is delusional.

Since Smith is the incumbent, in many ways this election will be a referendum on him. "Smith" vs. "Not Smith." You win an election like that by presenting a clearly different alternative, the more different the better. You don't win an election like that by presenting a watered-down, less-extreme version of the incumbent, and you CERTAINLY don't win by presenting more than one alternative.

Divide and conquer, as they say.

It's hard for me to understand why Frohnmayer, who as you point out is a good man, and has been "fighting against the worst elements of the far right for [his] entire political career," would make himself into an instrument for the reelection of someone whose career and values are such an affront to his own. Because if he believes he can win, he is delusional.

What I know is this: Having John Frohnmayer in this race will broaden the terms of the debate. None of the candidates in this race, with the possible exception of Steve Novick (whom I would not underestimate in the Democratic Primary), will feel comfortable being pushed in the directions that John is going to push them.

Gordon Smith is going to have to go on the record and talk about why the rubberstamp congress that he is a part of helped created the largest federal bureaucracy in the history of this nation and helped move the federal budget from a $3 trillion surplus to an $9 trillion debt; and the DSCC's candidate will have to go on record with more than platitudes like "no option is off the table" when it comes to responding to the constitutional crisis that George Bush has helped to create, and which congressional democrats have failed to oppose.

Can he win? I have no idea. I've heard several people who know more about politics than I do tell me that the reason why top-tier Democratic candidates like Blumenauer , DeFazio, and Kitzhaber chose not to run is that the conventional wisdom is that Smith cannot be beaten.

But virtually no one in this state's Democratic establishment gave me much of a chance to be competitive when I ran for the state legislature - yet I came within a few hundred votes of winning. What that tells me is that Oregon voters make their own decisions and that the conventional wisdom is frequently wrong.

I believe, and there are those who will disagree with me, that John Frohnmayer is the best candidate to take the fight to Gordon Smith; is the best candidate to take aim at the special interests that currently dominate both political parties at the Federal level; and is the candidate most in-step with the mainstream values and beliefs of the citizen of this state.

I am supporting John because I believe that this country desperately needs a change of course. I believe that Democrats in Washington have failed to live up to promises that were made when we helped elect them in 2006, and I believe that Oregon voters deserve to have a candidate in this race who will hold all sides to account. John is that candidate. I encourage people to follow what he has to sa most closely, and with an open mind.

I'm all for broadening the terms of the debate, don't get me wrong. Maybe because I support Steve Novick I am just not worried that the debate will be materially narrower without Frohnmayer. But I do see Frohnmayer having a potentially horrific effect on the outcome.

And it will matter a lot, even more than in a two-way race, who wins the Democratic primary. Because I think Merkley as D nominee has more to fear from Frohnmayer than Novick does. As a representative of the establishment (albeit the Democratic estabishment), by his very nature Merkley presents less of a compelling prospect for real fundamental change than either Novick OR Frohnmayer does, simply by virtue of who they are and what they are saying.

If some voters are looking for real change, and their "Not Smith" choices are Merkley or Frohnmayer, Frohnmayer may LOOK a lot more like real change to them. Not enough to win, but certainly enough to take away enough Not Smith votes to be the spoiler he doesn't want to be.

Are Oregonians such sheep they will vote for Gordon, John, or the Dem nominee just because that is what past history says?

LT, I guess I am not following your argument. Could you please say more?

What do you want to bet the 2 Democratic candidates who have to campaign in the 2nd CD and other rural CDs are real glad it exists, despite YOUR opposition to it.

I don't oppose gun ownership or the second amendment. I happen to own a couple of guns that my dad and granddad passed on to me -- two more, I suspect, than either Democratic candidate for this position.

But I also recognize that the court, has in fact upheld restrictions on guns, and that your interpretation of the second amendment runs counter to most legal precedent and is just slightly to the right of the Oregon Firearm Federation, which opposes regulations to keep guns out of schools, and which has referred to the NRA as "too liberal".

Whether you care to admit it or not (and the fact that you don't want to admit it tells me that you place partisanship above honest debate) both Democratic candidates have views that more closely match mine than yours as it relates to the second amendment.

What I know is this: Having John Frohnmayer in this race will broaden the terms of the debate.

Is the goal to "broaden the terms of the debate" or is the goal to defeat Gordon Smith?

What's the point of a robust debate - if the existence of that debate guarantees a particular outcome?

...the reason why top-tier Democratic candidates like Blumenauer , DeFazio, and Kitzhaber chose not to run is that the conventional wisdom is that Smith cannot be beaten.

Not true. Of course, of course, it's a very TOUGH race. I don't think either Blumenauer or DeFazio would say No to a sure thing. But neither of them thinks that "Smith cannot be beaten" - don't be absurd. They've just got enough influence now in a Democratic House that the upside isn't worth the gamble.

(OTOH, Kitzhaber has repeatedly said, both publicly and privately, that he has no interest in living that far away from Oregon.)

But virtually no one in this state's Democratic establishment gave me much of a chance to be competitive when I ran for the state legislature

So how much of this is motivated by sour grapes, Sal? C'mon, be honest.

...........

Sal, you've always struck me as an idealistic and common-sense progressive, rather than a mushy-middle "can't we all just get along?" kind of fellow.

Can you name a single progressive leader over the last 30 years that's accomplished more for Oregonians than Jeff Merkley?

I don't think so. I don't think anyone can. That's why I'm supporting Jeff Merkley.

I'm sure John Frohnmayer is a good man, but at a time when progressives are finally ascendant, I think he's the right man for some other time. (Maybe, say, the early 1990s.)

[Full disclosure: My company hosts Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.]

Is the goal to "broaden the terms of the debate" or is the goal to defeat Gordon Smith?

My goal is to help a man I believe in take his message to the people of this state -- one that I believe will resonate with Oregonians, and one that I believe that the people of this state need to hear.

I think what John has to say will take us farther along the path to removing the junior Senator from Oregon than anything I have seen from either Democratic camp or their surrogates thus far in the campaign.

There's a lot of campaigning to do between now and November, 2008. I'll treat with skepticism anyone who tells me they can guarantee how Oregonians will respond to the choices laid out in front of them.

One of Gordon Smith's staffers spent a great deal of time trying to persuade John and his wife to stay out of this race, so it's fairly clear that the paid advocates like Kari and Carla aren't the only ones who are worried about what John's entry into this race does to the electoral math.

Can you name a single progressive leader over the last 30 years that's accomplished more for Oregonians than Jeff Merkley?

Well, I've only lived in Oregon for ten years, but when I look at Steve Novick's ten years of fighting Bill Sizemore, the payday lending industry, the Oregon Lottery / Oregon Restaurant Association, etc., I would stack that up next to anyone's accomplishments for that period of time. That's a ton of good work right there.

Wow, LT. This is the best example yet of your rhetorical style. Rather than arguing with what I said, you put words in my mouth, setting up straw men, and then knocked those down... Brave debater you are.

...makes it sound like they are being ordered to behave and follow directions. ... It is almost as if you are saying ... but it sounds like you are saying ... Are you saying ....

As for the three times I quoted Sal, they're all in italics - and they're all in the post above. Nice try.

I found this:

But virtually no one in this state's Democratic establishment gave me much of a chance to be competitive when I ran for the state legislature - yet I came within a few hundred votes of winning.

It was in a post signed by salvador, above. Not Sal Peralta. Kari, are you saying that salvador and Sal Peralta are the same person?

and on top of everything else, considering that John's brother lost the governship to a 3rd party candidate (from the right), not sure why he thinks a 3rd party candidacy is such a grand thing. of course, Sal & others are going to start the Nader argument: you should be able win on your own merits, whoever the opponents. yea, tell that to Dave Frohnmayer. (of course, Al Mobley did Dave a favor considering that it was Barbara Roberts what got stuck with M5....)

Kari, are you saying that salvador and Sal Peralta are the same person?

Yes. Sal Peralta often interchanges between those two names. Certainly, I'm not aware of anyone else named Salvador who has run for the legislature recently and came within a few hundred votes of winning.

(And looking under the hood, they're from the same IP address.)

Sal & others are going to start the Nader argument: you should be able win on your own merits, whoever the opponents. yea, tell that to Dave Frohnmayer.

Gordon Smith doesn't need a 3rd party candidate to win this race. Just ask Bill Bradbury who had much better name familiarity than Merkley and lost to Gordon in the Portland Metro area en route to a crushing defeat statewide.

A traditional campaign between D&R in this particular race is, in my opinion, a one-way ticket to another 10-20 point win for Gordon Smith.

Don't believe me?

Take a look at the poll numbers: Gordon has 21 percent support among D's compared to 34 percent for Merkley and 63 percent support from R's compared to 2 percent for Merkley. Throw in the fact that he's insulated himself against some of the worst charges that will come his way from Democrats in this campaign and will have more than double the money of his Democratic challenger, and you may come to the same conclusion that I have: Someone needs to shake things up.

Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick do not have the credibility to start a conversation with Republicans about how the Christian Right has taken over their party. John and his brother have lived that fight. His entrance in the race significantly increases the percentage of undecideds, particularly among Republicans.

I think the biggest problem that some of the partisans in this race have with my supporting John is not that he's a spoiler -- both sides are making that claim -- it's that his candidacy is going to force some people to reflect on their own self-imposed blind-spots when it comes to the action and inaction of many of our Democratic candidates in DC.

It's perfectly understandable that some partisans don't want their party's feet held to the fire, but the kinds of ill-informed, misguided personal attacks that people like Kari and Chuck want to take part in do little more than reinforce my own opinion that the bitter and mean-spirited nature of partisanship in this country is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick do not have the credibility to start a conversation with Republicans about how the Christian Right has taken over their party. John and his brother have lived that fight.

This is another really bad idea Sal. The trap here is in assuming that the "Christian Right" is:

A) monolithic and;

B) immobile.

I've got lots of friends and relatives that are "Christian Right", and they cover a spectrum of thought. It's also a fact that seven years into the Bush administration, many of them are sick to death of the cronyism, corporatism, and flat out corruption exhibited by their current leaders.

We need to be real attentive to the idea of not fighting last year's (or last decade's) war.

Jeff is a Lutheran and his back up guy in the last session, Dave Hunt, is very active in the evangelical Christian community.

The conversation with Christians needs to be about whether their leaders follow the teaching of their own Dogma, which is actually about self sacrifice, helping the poor, mistrusting the power structures of the wealthy and so on..........

If Fronmeyer plans to attack Christianity itself....Well good luck to him.

As an atheist in a nation with 92% believers in a "Supreme Being", I'm all sympathetic to your idea, but it would result in a massacre at the polls.

Stephanie V., there is nice empirical evidence behind what your wrote about Reps, Dems, and party polarization. Jacob Hacker is coming into the area at the end of October, and I suspect you'll like what he has to say.

Look folks, regardless of partisan and ideological sentiments, no one denies two things:

1) Frohnmayer is running as a moderate, positioned between Merkley and Smith, neither to the left of Jeff or to the right of Gordon.

2) Frohnmayer and Merkley will both be competing under the "not Gordon Smith," "not GOP", "not Iraq War", and "not the incumbent banner."

Ergo, Frohnmayer will pull more votes from Merkley than from Smith. Q.E.D.