AG candidates typically don't raise a lot of money (Mannix's $1 million in 2000 was by far a record) and endorsements are vital. Greg has two endorsements that are hard to beat in a D primary. I think the only one that would equal would be that of Kitzhaber.

The problem with these early endorsements by the "establishment" party leaders is they are entirely without context. I hardly know anything about either candidate; I suppose the endorsements are good for those who do not plan to learn anything about the candidates and trust establishment leaders. In fact, they have the opposite effect on me. The party "establishment", especially in Washington, has done little to give me confidence they can do anything to change the mess we are in.

Ho hum.

Randy2

Roberts and Kulongoski may not be Washington insiders but they are establishment-status quo figures for Oregon (I am not saying this disparagingly, its just an observation).

Time for a grammar lesson, kids!

"The party 'establishment', especially in Washington, has done little to give me confidence..."

The words enclosed in the two commas constitutes what's called a parenthetical phrase. In this case the phrase is a non-restrictive clause, which means that its removal does not alter the meaning of the sentence:

"The party 'establishment' has done little to give me confidence..."

You can tell that it's a non-restrictive clause because it is set off from the rest of the sentence by commas.

(I only mention it because the two comments following seemed not to understand.)

Distinction without a difference.

Well, Kari's objection seemed to hinge on the point that neither Kulo nor Roberts served in DC... an objection rendered quite null after a careful reading of Randy's point.

Incidentally, I agree with your description of the comment as a "rant"... but Kari's comment does nothing to address Randy's concern and in fact suggests that there is a factual error where there is none.

Anon67--

Now you're just being stupid. If Macpherson is to blame for having establishment clients, then Kroger is similarly to blame for representing the United States government as his client. Now shall I look into the investments held by Lewis and Clark Law School to see where Kroger's salary is coming from? I'll bet if I scratched the surface, we'd see that Kroger is a beneficiary of successful hedge funds, oil companies, and the like.

But I wouldn't do that because it would be stupid if I did.

Candidates should be judged by their views and their records, not by their associations. If you have a problem with how Greg Macpherson has governed as a state representative and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, then by all means speak up. But if all you've got is ad hominem attacks about Stoel Rives, then please keep them to yourself.

Oh, and by the way, you know who was the last AG candidate who was a partner at Stoel Rives?

Hardy Myers.

By the way...

Since one of the AG's major responsibilities is serving as the governor's lawyer, I think it is very instructive that two of Oregon's three past governors have endorsed Greg Macperson.

I hope these endorsements are the kiss of death for Macpherson. The guy managed to make at least 300,000 enemies for being Ted's go to guy in 2003 getting PERS reform. I"m certainly going to do my best to remind those 300,000 folks of Mac's role in all this. For me, his demise is a double win: he doesn't become AG and he's through as my state legislator. Go Kroger.

OK, MF47, how would Kroger have handled the situation in 2003 with PERS? Left it alone? Made different changes? Supported the brainless Saxton PERS = ENRON because details don't matter?

It seems the Novick and Kroger folks want to make a virtue out of their candidates never having been on the ballot before. Did you support Wu for Congress, Wyden for Congress, Lonsdale for US Senate the first time they ran? They also had not been on the ballot before. Or do you look at candidates individually?

Can we get to some issues here, or is that too much to ask? If you don't like Ted and Barbara endorsing the legislator over the law professor, go volunteer for Kroger.

But I still have no clue where Kroger stands on things like Oregon election law, and saying he is a law prof rather than working for a large law firm doesn't impress me.

These comments make me giggle. Very entertaining. Barbara and Ted are two excellent people, I know from personal experience. However, I favor Kroger until convinced otherwise.

I agree with Kari's comments regarding Macpherson's time at Stoel Rives and (at the risk of sounding like a corporate shill) would like to add my own. In spite of the Enron thing, I believe Stoel Rives LLP is, on balance, a model of corporate citizenship. In recent years, it has made a point of specializing in alternative energy, rather than oil. In addition, many of its employees are active members of the community, and (as already noted) have gone on to serve in public office. Jefferson Smith once worked for Stoel Rives, along with many other persons of note. In other words, there are a lot of good people in this world who also happen to be lawyers who deserve to be judged on their own merits. Greg Macpherson is just one example of this.

(Full disclosure: My father works for Stoel Rives.)

Greg Macpherson is a fantastic candidate and clearly the best out there. Kroger is an arrogant and severely inexperienced candidate who brags about a planted column that called every single DOJ attorney an "underachiever." Oregonians should get behind the candidate who has already committed to doing great things for our state and right now the only one in the race with a real record of accomplishment is Greg Macpherson.

...a planted column that called every single DOJ attorney an "underachiever."

So Steve Duin is a Kroger "plant"?

Well call me shocked and hand me a tinfoil hat.

Sheesh, I make an observation about early endorsements with a comment about my lack of confidence in D party establishment leadership and a grammar debate ensues.

It just seems to me that an endorsement offered after the candidates have communicated their qualifications and plans for the office (say 3 weeks before the election) would carry much more weight for most sentient voters than this pre-emptive "I'll take Door 3, Alex" move.

Can someone more attuned to political campaigns explain the reasoning behind this strategy?

Randy2

[Disclaimer: I used to be a lock-step D voter, but think only for myself now.]

Maybe that's another reason Democrats have been winning, and Republicans have been losing, particularly in statewide races.

Um, no, that would not be the reason. Oregonians reject the Republican point of view. We're not fooled by fear fear fear. We know that the Democratic Party represents we the people, not the corporations and religious zealots. I grew up in an Oregon mill town. We're not as dumb as you think we are.

I guess I just don't get the knee jerk "anti establishment" attitude taken by many in the netroots / blogosphere / whatever.

<set sarcasm="ON">

Guv. Ted is "establishment" because he was elected by Oregonians as a state representative, state senator, and attorney general. Then, gosh darn it, those establishment minded Oregonians have twice elected him governor.

But golly, now he's part of the bad old "establishment" and, can you believe it!, has actual opinions about the candidates. What gall! Does he think his 23 year long political career might translate into experience??

And who is this Barbara Roberts person? How dare she provide an endorsement?? She's only been Sec'y of State, state representative, and governor.

Darn it! It's almost as bad as an outsider like Senator Tester expressing his opinion about a Senate race outside of Montana. We'd much rather has Markos Zuniga's opinion. He's not an "outsider" or an "establishment" figure, is he?

I think Paul G. nailed it. I just want to add that -- in my opinion, anyway -- the anti-establishment rants can be summed up by two words: "sour grapes."

We would be hearing a completely different tune if the "establishment" endorsements had gone to their candidates.

All you Kroger supporters, where does he stand on actual Oregon issues? Sure he has a great resume, but for instance, what are his views on Oregon election law?

Whether or not anyone likes Greg, he has been on a ballot before. I don't accept the "bright guy who has never been on the ballot before deserves your vote over the experienced elected official " mantra.

Could that be because I knew Ted and Barbara back when they were legislators?

To LT, who asked:

PERS was NOT mismanaged in the 1990s. The PERS Board did exactly what the Legislature charged it to do. No more, no less. PERS is charged with a fiduciary responsibility to put its members first and so long as they didn't pay out more than they took in, they were doing their fiduciary duty (and no evidence can be adduced that they ever did anything wrong). The real beef the employers had was with the Legislture. In 1995, they passed HB 3349 - the income tax remedy arising out of the Hughes case (Hughes v Oregon, 1991) and instead of placing the responsibility on the State itself to pay the cost of remediating this contract breach, they dumped it on the employers. Consequently, in 1997, employer rates spiraled up sharply (take a look at any PERS CAFR and you can see this clearly). This pissed the employers off. The only recourse they had to go after PERS' alleged mismanagement. The Lipscomb case (City of Eugene et al v PERS) was decided on a stupid technicality, which the PERS Board got trapped by in 2000. The technicality basically was that it was recommended that they raise their gain-loss reserve from 18 months to 30 months. The Board adopted this in February, but didn't publicly announce that it planned to this incrementally. As a result, when they paid out 20% earnings for 1999 (in March), they only raised the reserve to 23 months. This was their "abuse of discretion". The Legislature's actions were picked apart by the Supreme Court -- it was badly written law and the court essentially told them that. Macpherson was responsible for writing this badly written law along with Kulo. Not only did Hardy Myers tell the Legislature this was bad law, so too did the Legislative Counsel (if you are interest, I'd be happy to provide links to their opinions at the time). Macpherson, Kulo and the Legislature persisted and claimed this was great law and solves all problems. However, they lost in the Supreme Court on some big issues because what Macpherson orchestrated turned out to be "bad law". PERS is refusing to comply, and 16 court cases remain. I don't know how you can praise some one as a great pension lawyer when he nearly alone created this litigation monster. Would he, as AG, tell himself that this was "bad law", as Hardy Myers told the Legislature? Greg Macpherson as brilliant legislator -- I think not. As AG, I hope not.

(disclaimer: I run the largest, if not the only, Oregon PERS blog. My sources are wide, deep inside, and I've assembled a team to oppose Macpherson and support Kroger or possibly Alice Dale if she enters the race. I am not and never have been a union member. I am a PERS retiree and I am in Macpherson's Legislative District. Moreover, I've met with Macpherson more than once to explain my position. He politely disagrees. He is a nice guy, but so is "Hardly Matters").

Paul:

"I guess I just don't get the knee jerk "anti establishment" attitude taken by many in the netroots / blogosphere / whatever."

In my case it is (a) reaching my saturation point of political insiders telling me what is the correct vote [overly arrogant is an accurate descriptor -- as though they have some "special knowledge" about candidates which is beyond my reach] and (b) my conclusion that things have progressed so far -- particularly because of the Bush klan's behavior -- that political calculations, triangulations or whatever you call it seems highly unlikely to result in what I think is necessary for good government, namely intellectual honesty and not political accomodation.

In the case of Kulongoski, I've followed his career since his Lane County Rep. days and have been disappointed in his lack of leadership in the governor's office. Sure, lots was accomplished this term (although not necessarily because of the Governor's office), but where was he the first 4 years?

So, the combination of my low regard for his leadership combined with the way-early attempts to take sides in a D primary where as far as I can tell, either candidate will do a great job leave me anti-establishment, or at least suspicious of motives.

Cannot call up any polling results for public confidence in Ds at the state level, but I am completely unsurprised by the fact that approval of the Democratic Congress is headed towards single digits.

I'm starving here for a candidate who says what s/he means and means what s/he says, regardless of whether it fits with the "establishment's" agenda.

Randy2

I hope John and Greg have many debates since the primaries are the time when we should be debating the issues amongst ourselves. Endorsements are great, and both John and Greg have begun receiving a few. Check the Oregonian blog to see the a good run down of their endorsements. However, I want to hear a debate on the issues and not just the endorsements. I hope what Mauer says isn't true, that Greg is shying away from debating John.

Many of Greg's supporters praise his knowledge or "Oregon" issues. One of my concerns with Greg has to do with Mrfearless47's comments on the PERS reforms. I thought Greg specialized in pension law? First, I am opposed to the PERS reforms and balancing the state budget by failing to live up to our promises to state employees. That is one reason I would be hesitant to support Greg. My other concern is that, why couldn't Greg write pension legislation that would not be overturned by the Supreme Court and result in expensive, time consuming litigation for everyone involved? I thought his expertise was in Oregon issues and pension law. This is especially disconcerting if Hardy Myers even advised him that the reforms were illegal.

Randy2,

Perhaps I am just more modest than you, but I have absolutely no doubt that Governor Kulongoski and ex-Gov Roberts have some "special knowledge" about candidates which is beyond my reach.

Does that mean I take their word as gospel? Of course not. I look at what they've done in the past and what they are doing now. If you are disappointed in K's record, then by all means, don't take his political suggestions.

But I don't so easily dismiss a combined half century of successful political experience and leadership just because they are the "establishment."

They are the "establishment" for a reason: they "established" themselves by successfully winning elections, multiple times.

Torridjoe wrote (Re: the AG being the governor's lawyer):

"come again? The AG serves as the STATE's lawyer. Serving as the lawyer to the executive leads you to situations like we had with Alberto Gonzales, who thought he was supposed to address the law in terms of what his boss wanted to do with it."

Now this is just silly, Torridjoe. As anyone who has trusted the advice of a lawyer knows, the best lawyers are the ones who shoot straight and give honest, impartial advice, no matter who they represent. Saying that the AG is the governor's lawyer does not mean the AG is the governor's advocate. Bad lawyers (and, apparently, bloggers) fail to understand this fine point. (And, yes, Alberto Gonzales is the paradigm example of a bad lawyer.)

As the governor's lawyer, Hardy Myers has sometimes told the governor that the policies he advocated were illegal. In doing this, he was no less the governor's -- and the state's -- lawyer.

Jonathan writes:

"Many of Greg's supporters praise his knowledge or "Oregon" issues. One of my concerns with Greg has to do with Mrfearless47's comments on the PERS reforms. I thought Greg specialized in pension law? First, I am opposed to the PERS reforms and balancing the state budget by failing to live up to our promises to state employees. That is one reason I would be hesitant to support Greg. My other concern is that, why couldn't Greg write pension legislation that would not be overturned by the Supreme Court and result in expensive, time consuming litigation for everyone involved? I thought his expertise was in Oregon issues and pension law. This is especially disconcerting if Hardy Myers even advised him that the reforms were illegal."

Greg Macpherson has been trumpeted as the second coming for his knowledge of pension law and he was specifically tapped by Governor Kulongoski for that law. But what most failed to understand is that Macpherson specialized in private sector, small company, retirement systems and had never once been exposed to anything close to a public employee retirement system or PERS specificically. The PERS statutes take up 73 pages of the Oregon Revised Statutes and consist of many interlocking and conjoined statutes created at many different times by many different legislatures. Macpherson tried to apply the principles of private sector law to public employee pensions, but failed to be a good student of public employee law, the law of contracts, and PERS in particular. It was in these areas that AG Hardy Meyers and Legislative Counsel Greg Chaimov both wrote their opinions, requested by legislators about the laws being proposed. Both Chaimov and Myers opinions are a matter of public record (http://oregonpers.info) on a site I help maintain and have contributed about 45% of the documents from my own archive. While the site is under construction, with a bit of patience, you should be able to locate both opinions and read them in their entirety. After you do so, you might want to rethink your opinion about Mr. Macpherson whose fingerprints and footprints are all over the bills that were sharply limited by the Supreme Court in Strunk. While it wasn't a complete wipeout for Mr. Macpherson, he and the Governor lost on the two center pieces of their legislation, which will collective cost the state about $1.8 billion in current dollars if someone can finally get the PERS Board to follow the court orders, including the one in Judge Kantor's court in Portland.

Again, how can we be praising a man as an outstanding pension lawyer when, by refusing advice from the two people in Oregon whose opinions about pension law actually included not only public employee pension law, but also PERS itself. Moreover, it was the AG's office advising PERS throughout the period under question before the Legislature in 2003. As a result, Mr. Macpherson seemed incredibly tone deaf to real legal options, while wasting our time and ultimately our money pursuing things he was warned would be struck down by the courts.

I freely admit that my support for John Kroger is based on very limited information. If Alice Dale were to get into the race, I'd probably consider her as I know where she stands on many important Oregon issues.

But my opposition to Greg Macpherson is based on solid, factual and verifiable information. As a result of his "expertise", PERS and the State of Oregon find themselves on the end of 16 current lawsuits, and 8 resolved lawsuits in Strunk. Oddly enough, the City of Eugene case that started this all off was first mooted by the Supreme Court and then vacated by the Supreme Court. There is no longer a city of Eugene case, a legal precedent, or a ruling. It has vanished. Moreover, the "savings" from the reform proved to be far less than projected, but were offset by the very thing that everyone kept telling the Legislature - the stock market itself. The PERS Board has been able to fund every reserve to the brim with the returns they've had since 2003. The money they are taking back from retirees and the money they took back from actives represents about 10% of the money they needed to become fully funded. The other 90% is from account earnings. If the Legislature had done NOTHING, the system would have righted itself in three years. So, to claim that PERS needed fixing was to misunderstand the nature of the problem. Some reforms were needed and were made without issue; other reforms were unnecessary, punitive, and have caused the total of 24 lawsuits since 2003.

As far as I can tell, Macpherson's contribution has been to make Stoel, Rives one of the "outside" firms PERS was permitted to use for the first time since 2003, and is in general a full-employment act for lawyers. Why do we need this in the AG's office?

Either that, or it just kind of stinks of political insiderism.

There's a certain amount of the latter going around.

Touche', Stephanie! You got that right! The average Oregonian, outside the political establishment, doesn't give a hoot who endorses you. What they want to know is how are you going to impact their lives in a way that is meaningful?

Do you suppose Roberts and Kulongoski even met with Kroger?

My educated guess, Mr. Currie, tells me no.

Sen. Vicki Walker, Democratic Candidate for Secretary of State

If Alice Dale were to get into the race, I'd probably consider her as I know where she stands on many important Oregon issues.

I've heard Alice is in, and my money (literally) will be on her - she's the best of all.

Stephanie and others with similar concerns:

I just read the Feingold Progressive Patriots Fund email descrbing 20 Freshmen he has promised to fundraise for because of their excellent work.

Many of them had held public office before running for Congress. But there were those who hadn't.

Each got a paragraph next to their picture describing their background.

For those who don't care about endorsements, I would suggest you quit the complaining lest there be more sarcastic remarks like Pat Ryan above (which I agree with--but then I recall a primary years ago where the guy with the most endorsements came in 2nd in a 5 person field).

Your time would be better spent on spreading positive information. I have copied one of those paragraphs from the Feingold email for you to use as an example:

Dave is a leader and grassroots activist in education, human rights and economic justice. Prior to being elected to Congress, Dave taught political science at Cornell College, serving as the chair of the department. Dave believes that our troops have laid the groundwork for the Iraqi people to construct a political system and that our continued presence brings more instability to the region.

Notice that after "Dave's background" there is a "Dave believes..." sentence.

Why not quit the complaining about endorsements and fill blogs instead with "Novick believes..." (or Walker believes... or Kroger believes...).

One other thing about endorsements. I am more likely to vote for candidates endorsed by former elected officials, and less likely to vote for those endorsed by someone who has been involved in multiple ballot measures.

I believe elected officials should have more power in our system of government than those who run ballot measures year after year after year. And my views of Sec. of State or AG candidates could be influenced on whether they speak out on that topic--regardless of who endorses them!

<h2>[Off-topic comment posted repeatedly deleted. -editor.]</h2>