No. And it's a shame that an independent voice like Frohnmayer cannot find a place in either of the two major parties.

Unless Frohnmayer turns out to be the next coming of Wayne Morse, he's not going to get elected. And I suspect that he would take more votes away from the Democratic candidate than he would Gordon Smith.

But I'd vote for him. Especially if Merkley or Novick turn out to be demagogic "progressives" dedicated to the return of Smoot-Hawleyism disguised as "anti-globalization," and if they go DeFazio on "lexus lanes" anti-toll road demagoguery.

You'd like to think that for something potentially this important the Gazette-Times wouldn't, in the first sentence, confuse "effect change" with "affect change." I hope this isn't a prelude for the quality of journalism that we can expect for this race.

Okay, strange, the link/article changed after my first comment, but all the better for making a more substantive comment.

From his first speech, it looks like Frohnmayer will be another voice slamming Smith for being a Bush-lackey, and that has to be welcome while the debate over who he'll draw from more (Smith or Merkley/Novick) continues.

Yes, the effect of that lead could be to cause readers to question CGT journalism, just as people make jokes about the gremlins which have haunted the SJ proofreading efforts for many years.

I have been impressed by the positive tone of the first Novick and Merkley reactions. If Steve, Jeff, and John keep their campaigning focused on the issues and not on each other, Oregon could see the kind of intelligent debate we haven't seen in US Senate campaigns for quite some time.

It was Jan. 1996 when Gordon thought he'd be elected to the US Senate using a commercial with the slogan "we're all real tired of career politicians". He lost to Wyden who finally decided to run a 100% positive campaign and who did town hall meetings where he actually answered questions from ordinary citizens. Someone needs to ask Gordon if 10+ years in office marks one as a "career politician". Or was that just a slogan some consultant dreamed up thinking Oregonians would fall for that nonsense?

If Steve, Jeff, and John all do the same sort of dialogue with ordinary folks that Wyden does, maybe Gordon will be shamed into answering citizen questions in unscripted, anyone invited forums.

And if not, anyone has the right to ask "Hey Gordon: the other candidates can interact with voters, do you really think flashy commercials and sound bites will get you elected?".

It is about time we debate issues instead of what Minnis et. al tried to establish in this state--the R team fights the D team while anyone not on the team is just a spectator.

If that is what John meant by "not "clanning up, like the Crips and the Bloods", I don't think that is negative.

But then, I didn't consider myself a subversive who wanted Saxton to win just because in the summer of 2006 I went to a Westlund event a few miles from my home with a registered NAV who could sign the Westlund petition.

What is the goal, folks? Is the goal "electing a US Senator from Oregon who is not Gordon Smith"? Or is the goal electing a Democrat and saying a well known Oregonian has a lot of nerve declaring for the US Senate in a party other than D or R?

I was already on the verge of registering NAV after the May primary. If being a true blue Democrat means not giving John Frohnmayer the time of day because he's no better than Perot or Nader, then I'm not "true blue" enough---all I have ever done is 30 years of volunteer work, off and on, for Democratic candidates, been a national convention delegate, and a few years on State and District Central Comm.

This is basically a "faith vs. works" debate. If someone devotes thousands of volunteer hours over the years but reserves the right to think for themselves, while someone else follows the party line but is often not around to do the volunteer work, which one is "a real Democrat". I had an essay on that subject published in a county Democratic newsletter roughly 20 years ago. How many of you were active in the Democratic party 20 years ago?

If the above isn't enough to prove my "loyalty to Democrats" and I am required to swear allegiance only to those people running in the Democratic Party primary because anyone else is a troublemaker, why on earth would I want to be registered with that party after the primary?

It seems to me that Jeff and Steve would be smarter to campaign on "our ideas on these specific issues are better than John's ideas because..." rather than expecting Oregon Democrats to be the kind of true believers the Republicans have been in the last several years.

Or maybe Mr. Novick and Mr. Merkley are smart enough not to get themselves involved in such a debate and this is about overzealous supporters.

Smith's three challengers are as talented a group as one will find. The intellectual octane each brings to the table is scary, and it should make for an exciting race.

I have a deep respect for John Frohnmayer, who would make an excellent U.S. Senator. I do not have anything bad to say about him, except that he is not a Democrat.

Sal,

Are you campaign staff, or just a volunteer? If the latter, is that status subject to change? Just curious.

Smith's three challengers are as talented a group as one will find. The intellectual octane each brings to the table is scary, and it should make for an exciting race.

i think this is a salient point, and one worth repeating. the good news is that smith must be v. v. nervous right now, and the GOP poised to dump a bunch of money into oregon to try to save his sorry seat, draining resources away from other states' races.

it's all good, folks.

The only salient question is, will Frohnmayer bleed more voters from Smith or the Democratic nominee?

I’m sure that if polling indicates Frohnmayer will take more voters from the Dem than the Repub candidate we’ll see Sec. of State Bradbury step in to “disqualify” him from the ballot, much the way he sabotaged Nader in ‘06.

Frohnmayer is not Nader. For one thing, I've never heard John insult those who disagreed with him as Ralph did ("I told you not to vote for that ballot measure and why, but Oregonians voted for it anyway!", Nader said publicly--how to lose friends and alienate people! A Dem. friend of mineh had planned to vote Nader before hearing that remark).

Stephanie, say what you will about Gordon Smith, he isn't D'Amato. And just because that happened in NY doesn't mean it will happen here.

There is no way to know in Sept. of 2007 how many people even realize Gordon is up for re-election next year. So a statement "suppose 55% want to get rid of Gordon" has no connection to the reality of 2007 in Oregon. Speculating about theoritical possibilities never won an election.

What does have a connection to current political reality is how often candidates to replace him mention Gordon (Novick's "Gordon is a good man but a bad senator" for instance) and how often candidates talk about issues.

Do Steve, Jeff, John support major restructuring of NCLB or just minor changes? Do they support the current employer based system of health care or want to change it? How much do they know about the COBRA system (for people who leave a workplace where they'd qualified for employer based health care) and do they think it works well or needs improvement? Is that a government system or partially/ totally privatized?

Do they agree with Sen. Obama's statements on Iraq today? What do they think about the recent comments and questions at the Petraeus hearings by Sens. Warner, Webb, Lugar, Biden, Hagel, Dodd, Byrd? What should be US strategy with regard to protecting the Iraqi Kurds--or should that all be left to other countries?

Do they agree with Sens. Webb and Murray when it comes to veterans benefits? Is the Dole-Shalala Comm. report on veterans health care being succcessfully implemented? Are Family Support efforts being adequately funded?

I clicked on one of the links above and found this story. Is there anything inaccurate in this excerpt?

Golden touts independent in Senate race By Chris Rizo Ashland Daily Tidings

The two Democrats vying for the chance to take on Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., in 2008 have offered “precious little” of how they would “make a real difference,” said Jeff Golden of Ashland, who himself considered entering the Democratic race earlier this year.

Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley and political activist Steve Novick, both of Portland, have instead built their campaigns’ message on “what’s wrong with Gordon Smith,” according to Golden. That is not going to be enough to defeat the second-term Republican, said Golden, a former Jackson County commissioner.

John Frohnmayer, who has Medford roots and chaired the National Endowment for the Arts under the first President Bush, is expected to announce Wednesday that he will enter the race as an independent, making him an alternative to Merkley and Novick.

Golden said Frohnmayer’s entry into the contest is going to be the bane of the Democratic machine given Frohnmayer’s appeal to Democrats like him, looking for somebody who can affect “fundamental change” on a range of issues important to Oregonians, including the Iraq war and health care reform.

“I hope that the irritation that Democrats are going to feel is not the only thing that people talk about,” Golden said in a telephone interview, alluding to the third-party spoiler status Frohnmayer could be given. “Let’s listen to the guy and see if what he says makes sense,” he said.

Early last month, announcing that he would not enter the primary contest, Golden opened the door to supporting a candidate outside of the Democratic Party, saying the “problem is not Senator Smith but rather the rigged political system he’s been serving the last 11 years, and that the solution involves more than replacing him with a Democrat.”

and some supporters, we had a Gordon Smith operative there with a video camera. He was a nice enough young man who told us that Smith has 4 people running around the state following the Junior Senator for Oregon's opponents

Hmm too bad smith never has public meetings anymore

chicken

Two related questions:

Should not someone ask John Frohnmayer how he will vote, if elected, in organizing the Senate (if it is not already public knowledge). I'm am not sure how the procedure goes, but some process determines the majority and the minority. How would John Frohnmayer vote - for the Democrats or the Republicans? He should not be able to avoid the issue of who controls the agenda and committees of the Senate.

Or, if he were elected, and along with the other two Independents (Saunders, Lieberman) could determine the majority (very unlikely), how would he see that playing out? Just what would he do organizationally with the "immensely powerful position" of having "the balance of power?"

Stephanie, if you have been reading BO long, you know there are Democrats really unhappy with certain aspects of the "team"--caucus deciding which candidates to back, the role of consultants, Ted for Gov. making sarcastic remarks against Westlund and then some Democrats taking offense, the role of DSCC in Senate elections, etc. esp. from those of us who had once been active in the state, district, local party structure in the days before the rise of consultants, FP, other fairly recent influences on partisan politics.

The "team" now is not what it was 20 years ago, incl. being more Portland-centric than in the past. So it is no surprise that there is a debate between those active in the Jackson County Democrats and those with roots in Jackson County supporting the native son (Jeff Golden backing Frohnmayer,for instance).

When I was involved in party politics, there was no reference to baseball as the organizing model of politics. We thought the internal debates made Democrats stronger. People supported candidates, not "the team".

Stephanie, do you attend local party meetings? Have you ever been to a State Central Comm. meeting? If not, there are people in any community who can direct you to those meetings.

We all know why John Frohnmayer can't run as a Republican. He doesn't kowtow to the Christianist right, he doesn't want to tear down government, he doesn't want poor people to go f--- themselves.

But why can't John Frohnmayer run and win in a Democratic primary.

Answer that question, Blue Oregonians. The view in the mirror might not be pretty.

I'm wondering if LT has been to an SCC meeting in the last 4 years if he thinks it's machine like or lacking in debate. I don't mind that he has a point of view to make, but using inaccurate information isn't quite right.

Frohnmayer," “The political system has become so partisan that our politics are toxic. It seems to be more important for the Republicans to bash the Democrats and the Democrats to bash the Republicans than to do the job for which they are all elected, which is to serve us the people and address our problems, ” Frohnmayer said, “I don’t think that will change until there is a third force in American politics.”

So, how does this middle of the road pap square with Sal's assertion that John will ask the tough questions neither Party will ask? Apparently opposing the other Party is just partisan noise while opposing both is principled something or the other. Fiscal conservative and social moderate? We heard that in 2000 about the current disaster in the White House.

I don't care whether he runs or not, but the assertion that his "Independent" label will broaden the debate is utter nonsense, his personal philosophy might, but regarding Democrats and Republicans not having a broad debate is silly. Smith and the Democrats do not agree, I'd think that was plain enough, does John aspire to the mantle Smith takes on each election cycle, moderation?

Sal asserts that at one time there was honest disagreement in OR politics and that John would bring its return, Sal's intellectual honesty has been on display for a couple days...he's not only willing to re-write history but change the meaning of words and Court decisions to mutilate the Bill of Rights, so - If he'd like to try to amend the Constitution to get rid of the 2nd, that's honest, but he'd rather mutilate it and that's Gonzales stating that Habeas Corpus isn't specifically stated as a right. He then makes speculations about the Democratic candidates views without attribution. Honest debate?

John might make a great Senator but a three-way race is a gift to Smith. If we had instant runoff voting, where 3rd-place etc., votes were given to the voters' second choices until one candidate held a majority, the more candidates the better. But we don't.

Perhaps Frohnmayer could run as a Democrat, T.A., you're right, that's what Westlund decided to do.

But look right now at the reaction to Brian Baird's apostasy among the posters to Blue Oregon. Look what happened to Joe Lieberman, for that matter. There are certainly those who would enforce a Democratic party orthodoxy on its candidates - they're the ones busy pillorying Hillary Clinton right now for not being sufficiently "progressive" and demanding that the party waste its time and resources in a fruitless attempt to impeach a President who's going to be out on his butt in 16 months anyway.

As for Baird, he's wrong, but I can't imagine he's not sincere in his beliefs on Iraq, given the overwhelming party and national opinion that we should get out now. If he is defeated in a primary like Lieberman was, it's as much of a political litmus test situation as the Republicans have over anti-abortion positions.

I'll certainly admit that the Democratic party is a more diverse and tolerant bunch than the Republicans. But there's a group out there who have decided that emulating the Republicans in creating orthodoxy is the way to power.

Seems like right now the answers to three questions are what matter (succinctly reiterating Dave Porter's good questions and adding to them):

1) What party would he caucus with?

2) Why (compatibility with his values or mainly to have swing power in the Senate)?

3) Can he be trusted to give truthful answers to 1) and 2)?

Does he have a website with a statement of his position on the issues?

as far as frohnmeyer only draining votes away from the D nominee, i seriously doubt that will be the case. he'll be draining votes away from smith as well, because there are some pretty disillusioned republicans out there who are looking for some place to go, but in no way could bring themselves to vote D. frohnmeyer is the perfect candidate for them.

LT, those are good questions that you ask of the candidates. if you look, steve novick has actually posted answers to many or most of them on his website. merkley, i don't know. i understand kari is working on putting together his platform for public consumption? and: has frohnmeyer answered all these questions? i'd be curious to hear what he has to say also.

re: partisanship. it really ticks me off to hear that what is going on right now between democrats and republicans is not "honest disagreement" but rather "partisan power-grabbing". there are some big issues at stake these days, as big as any i've seen in my life time - the erosion of civil liberties, the expansion of power of the executive branch, climate change, decreasing real wages for the majority of the country, and, oh yeah, that little thing about our unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation.

anyone who asserts that, as a democrat, my position on these issues is not about honest opinions based on core values, but rather about wanting "my side" to win & gain power, well. i don't have a lot to say to that. it's not worth dignifying with a response.

A lot of folks on here have been rushing to judgment. Frohnmayer was on Air America this morning. He very likely would caucus with the Democrats.

He's already got my vote after hearing this interview.

The idea that there is an Oregon Democratic Party Machine is pretty funny if you've ever been to a state Dems meeting. The DPO is as far from authoritarian as an organization can be.

And Urban Planning Overlord is confused. There are angry, disaffected Dems. They don't like it when elected members of their party betray their deeply held beliefs. But they don't control the party. They're just one voice among many. And I think it's important that they have a voice, even when I disagree with them.

Has anyone determined which party he would caucus with or which party would get his vote for majority leader if he were elected?

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

I'm for Merkley! I don't know Mr. Frohnmayer, but I'm a bit disturbed that he would accept an appointment to the NEA from the Bush Administration to begin with as they made no secret of their disdain for the more controversial artists, and a desire to dissolve NEA altogether!!

Why volunteer to skipper a burning ship just as they begin the fire?

I don't know the history of this man, and we don't seem to have any other public service or elections to reach back on to judge him. I am very dubious of newcomers in politics throwing their hat in a race for the US Senate after having been both a Dem & Rethug only to become a Independant when being a Republican is no longer a good idea!!

I would think that the desperate Republican voters may find themselves leaning toward this independant thus having the effect of drawing support away from Smith more so than the Democrat. I may be wrong since I'm not familiar with this candidate, and who really is?

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

Frohnmayer is well known and respected by those of us who grew up in this state with him. He should be a very strong competitor in S. Oregon and the mid valley. I've always voted Democratic, but Merkley or Novick have their work cut out for them now to distinguish themselves, since his positions align with theirs. I found myself crying this morning when he called for impeachment to defend the Constitution. The only possible bad outcome here imho, is if this tosses the race to Smith. Pass the popcorn, this is going to get interesting.

Frohnmayer's comments sound like a marketing strategy to me--if he were genuinely appalled at partisan mud-slinging he would practice what he preaches & not throw around comments like Ds & Rs = Crips and Bloods.

Ultimately if an Independent wants to get anything done, he has to caucus with one of the major parties. Fronhmayer surely understands that, and that he's just blowing smoke.

Regarding comments that Joe Lieberman has been unfairly attacked merely for being an Independent, the man is a lap dog for W. and his war on reason. Calling him out for it isn't partisan; it's just the truth. Voters DO consider the candidate in addition to the party, and sometimes they decide the candidate doesn't deserve their support regardless of what he tries to carry himself off as.

So maybe if I vote Dem they'll stop funding the war?

Or maybe we can bring war criminals to justice?

Or end the Military Commisions Act and restore habeus corpus?

Or shut down Guantanamo?

Or maybe stop the secret wiretapping?

Maybe repeal the bad parts of the Patriot Act?

If the Dem horse isn't going to run for us, I just might have to put my money on another. I don't want one big happy family- I want these policies OPPOSED now !

I'm sorry to be such an old fart on this point, but we've had this debate before:

There was a time in this country, particularly in Oregon, where honest disagreement played a bigger role in political dispute than partisanship.

Yes, this is true. For a very short period in our nation's history, from about 1950-1976.

Why was this the case? Because the major party in power, the Democrats, attempted to straddle the two most divisive issues of the day, racial integration and the Vietnam War.

Eventually, reality bit the Democrats in the ass, and conservative, anti-integration, anti-communist Democrats (mainly in the South) moved over the the Republican party. Meanwhile, on the right, pro-welfare state and pro-choice Republicans (mainly in the NE) moved into the Democratic party.

Result: "Polarization".

It's no surprise that Sal would pine for the mythical Oregon glory days yore - especially since he moved here just a few years ago after not having much success in Colorado. One thing is consistent about Mr. Peralta - he's a shameless self promoter and he's always holier than thou. Thus, it's logical that he readily join onto to any campaign that positions itself to tell us how everybody else has it wrong and should jump on board with the next new thing. I'm just glad that BO readers are finally going to get to see what a schmuck this guy is - no matter his smooth and oh so sincere progressive pleadings. Manipulator - and now we know the likes that Frohnmayer is surrounding himself with. Who's next Bill Sizemore and Dan Meek...they all have more in common than they probably realize!

Dan, if you support Jeff, try and get him to publicly announce, either in a news conference or a blog like this, where he stands on Raul's list of issues.

And SS, venting like that does no one any good, unless you feel relieved now.

Which candidate do you support, or are you just angry?

I have not thrown support to either Democratic candidate, not because I am displeased, but because I am pleased with the candidates. It is early days to make a choice and I respect both Jeff and Steve enough to let them have time to make their pitch.

I do not "oppose" John Frohnmayer, but I also don't like the supercillious "I'm better than you partisans" take on Independents. I work in DPO to try to make the Party better (my better...) not more powerful or ideologically rigid. I encourage any unaffiliated voter to pick a party and improve it.

I'm late to this thread, but I can't let Kari's absurd comments about partisanship stand unchallenged (especially since they were seconded by others).

What's wrong with partisanship? That's how we express our values. . . . Anybody that thinks the problem is that these are just two feuding families that should just get along better and compromise with each other, and against each side's values, is just flat wrong. What's more important - getting policies passed, no matter what's in it? Or getting good policies passed, while stopping bad policies?

First, Kari, let me suggest that you put a "strawman" button on this site so when we respond we can have little scarecrows dancing in the margins. According to you, the options are either 1) passing policies no matter whether good or bad, or 2) passing good policies and stopping the bad ones. No one who argues against partisanship believes we should just pass laws -- any laws -- no matter what. What we do believe is that Oregon and the nation's problems aren't getting solved because the political parties are more interested in retaining power (and sticking it to the other side) than they are in finding a middle ground that can engender broad support.

One example. In 1999, Sen. Wyden crossed party and Congressional chamber lines to work with Representative Bill Thomas (R-CA) on a Medicare drug benefit. They crafted a moderate approach to solving the problem of seniors who lacked drug coverage. But Wyden had to work in secret, because the Dem leadership had forbidden him and others from working with Republicans on a solution. They wanted to use the issue in the 2000 election as a hammer against the GOP. When Daschle found out he went ballistic and denied Wyden a spot on the Finance Committee as payback (and he didn't get on Finance until after Daschle was defeated). The bill died, and we were left with Bush's significantly worse Medicare drug bill a few years later.

The moral? There are partisans willing to sacrifice things like seniors health just to score a political point, and that's flat-out wrong.

I'm a partisan. And proud of it. . . I'm not interested in compromising my values just to "get things done".

Nice. Meanwhile, 47 million Americans don't have health insurance because the major parties won't compromise. Illegal immigration is still simmering as an issue because the parties won't compromise. We don't have a national energy policy because the parties won't compromise. And the biggest is that we're still in Iraq because Congress won't compromise on a mutually agreeable, veto-proof solution to get us out. (And if you don't think we could find 15 Republican Senators willing to support a gradual but certain drawdown of troops, you haven't been paying attention.)

So hold onto your immutable principles, Kari. The rest of us will continue to fight against the mindless partisanship you endorse.

Kari or Nick,

Can you please delete the nasty, ad hominem attack on Sal Peralta posted last night? It does not contribute to the discussion and demeans this forum. Thank you.

From today's SJ

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070914/OPINION/709140310/1048

WINNER: John Frohnmayer. He has spiced up Oregon's U.S. Senate race by running as a candidate from the Independent Party. He may have a chance. Oregonians tend to be independent-minded instead of party-line voters.

I too ask that the annonymous, dim-witted and slanderous rant against Sal be removed.

Funny -- you were only able to come up with an example from eight years ago; and one that, while it might be true, has details that I don't think have been reported anywhere.

The partisanship that goes on behind closed doors is exactly the partisanship that's most damaging. But look at this NY Times article when they went public (I got the year wrong, it was 2000). Note the following excerpts:

The Thomas-Wyden collaboration is significant for several reasons. It is one of the first serious efforts by members of opposing parties to find common ground on Medicare drug benefits. Until now, President Clinton and Democrats have pushed their proposals and attacked Republican ideas as inadequate, while Republicans have belittled the Democratic proposals.

A Senate Democrat expressed concern about possible political consequences of today's announcement, saying, ''This will blur the lines between Republicans and Democrats on what is one of the Democrats' best election issues.''

Congressional aides said the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, had urged Mr. Wyden to be cautious in dealing with the Republicans.

As for whether it cost Wyden a Finance Committee seat, ask Josh Kardon next time you see him and I think he'll confirm it. That was certainly the belief of people working on the Hill at that time.

As for Merkley and Frohnmayer, I wasn't making a case for or against any of the candidates in my attack on partisanship. Neither were you in your original defense. I just didn't want the defense of partisanship by a political hack (and I mean that in the nicest way) to go unchallenged, because your view is exactly what's wrong with Oregon and America. I mean, do you really think M50 is an example of breaking the partisan divide? It's pure power politics to the point the Dems were willing to put the damn tax in the Constitution rather than compromise to get a few more Republican votes and refer it as a statute. If it passes, Merkley is a hero, but if it fails, the continued lack of health coverage for kids will fall squarely on his shoulders.

mythical middle where the American people supposedly reside.

If you don't understand that most Americans are apolitical and every day occupy the "mythical middle" that you deride, you need to turn off the computer, walk outside, and meet some real people. The simple act of logging onto Blue Oregon disqualifies all of us (including me) from the "real person" label.

It will be hard for anyone who takes a serious look at Frohnmayer's record at the NEA to believe he'll make a credible Senator. He angered the right with his support for what they saw as sacrilege. He angered the left by demanding a "loyalty oath" from NEA artists. He angered artists, by subverting the peer review process and making funding decisions based on his own tastes.

Somehow when John wrote his book, he came out looking like a warrior for the first amendment, but that's his fantasy - not the way most newspapers and magazines, of every political persuasion, portrayed it at the time. The most consistent view was that he was a political and artistic naif from remotest Oregon who played into the right wing's hands.

After Bush fired him, he made a living for a while giving speeches that made him out to be the hero of the whole mess. When that business tailed off he went to Montana and tried to start a law practice, then came back to Oregon where he's been volunteering as an unpaid professor.

<h2>This campaign is all about ego and setting himself up as a spoiler, who the Democrats will then buy off with some sort of sinecure a few months before the election.</h2>