According to the Merkley press release:

Of that total, more than $240,000 was collected after the Labor Day holiday.

So, that would be a $9230/day pace over 26 days. Details, details.

Hmmm.

I was thinking Merkley would raise a lot more than this. Al Franken for example raised $1.89 million in the third quarter which is more than six times what Merkley raised. Granted Franken has a lot more exposure and name ID and contacts to tap, but I would have hoped that someone in this race not named Smith would have been able to raise at least half the amount Franken if this really is a top-tier race.

As you note, Jeff Merkley isn't a well-known national celebrity like Al Franken.

But it also wasn't Franken's first quarter. Fundraising large sums of money takes time. You don't just sit down with a phone list of your high school buddies and ask 'em for money. You build a system, an infrastructure first, and then the money starts to roll in. Takes a little time.

(Full disclosure: My firm hosts Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.)

Also, Minnesota has 5.1 million people as compared to Oregon's 3.6 - so an Oregon campaign will require less funding for TV time too.

"But it also wasn't Franken's first quarter. Fundraising large sums of money takes time."

Actually, the opposite is often true. Your first quarter is when you hit up everybody you know, everyone you've helped along the way. After that it gets harder; you have to convince people.

Any reason for the box score format, other than giving Mr. Merkley a break for being in the race fewer days?

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 5, 2007 5:03:32 PM Also, Minnesota has 5.1 million people as compared to Oregon's 3.6 - so an Oregon campaign will require less funding for TV time too.

Yes, but is Oregon is physically larger (more expensive to barnstorm).

That said, even if Merkely doubles his take exponentially for the next two quarters he is still raising less than in the MN race for Q3 alone (Franken's Q2 numbers were even higher than his Q3).

Not slamming Merkley, but neither Novick or Merkley are pulling in the serious money it will take to unseat Smith or make this race top-tier. The question is, why does it seem the numbers for both are so anemic and what can be done to land bigger totals for both/either?

I'm sorry, I have something else to ask:

"(Full disclosure: My firm hosts Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.)"

This really isn't true anymore, is it? You're also an official blogger for the campaign, having covered the kickoff for Merkley for Senate.

Maybe you should say "On BLUE OREGON I only speak for myself."

So Jeff Merkley has spent $1295/day bringing in 11.80 unique contributions per day.

Meanwhile Steve Novick spent only $626/day while bringing in 7.8 unique contributions/day. For the dollars available to him, Novick has excited 36% more people to contribute per dollar spent. Details, details.

It’s easy to play with the numbers and that's using claims from either campaign’s website.

So in other words despite the support from Betway Senators for his competitor, Novick is bringing in the money and bringing in the people to make this a competitive race for Oregon Democrats. Voters will have a chance to weigh the two important conditions for this race. First, who will best represent Oregon's progressive values and second, who is most likely to prevail in a very tough campaign against a very rich Gordon Smith.

Actually, the opposite is often true. Your first quarter is when you hit up everybody you know, everyone you've helped along the way. After that it gets harder; you have to convince people.

My experience is that most of the money comes in late -- though I agree that the candidate's personal list is the most fertile source for money.

Convincing people isn't all that hard if folks believe that the candidate is speaking to their issues. We did public meeting in Bend this week where John knew 2 people in the room and half of the attendees wrote a check.

Well, when you say "late" you don't mean the 2nd or 3rd quarter out of 6 or 7, right?

Nobody but nobody thought Franken would come close to outraising Coleman, much less beat him by 200K. Comparing that singularly outstanding quarter, and expecting Mr. Merkley to raise anything like that is a little ridiculous.

That said, the best word to describe 294K in his situation would probably be "decent."

Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 5, 2007 6:12:47 PM Comparing that singularly outstanding quarter...

Franken raised even more in the previous quarter. His current haul of $1.89 million is not "singularly outstanding".

I was not expecting Merkley to raise half of what Franken is, but we are talking less than 1/6th of that. Again, not slagging him off (particularly since Novick raised even less this quarter than Merkley) I am simply saying that this is not all that "descent" given what will be needed to defeat Smith (regardless of who gets the nomination).

So how do we in the netroots help turn that around?

Posted by: James X. | Oct 5, 2007 6:13:06 PM

I believe James Barta was arguing that Merkley was spending more than a $109 per unique contributor gained vs. a little over $80 per unique contributor gained for Novick. Meaning that the cost/benefit per unique donor advantage is Novick's by a 26.8% margin (James Barta seems to have done the math wrong on the percentage difference).

James X - I was a little annoyed with all the numbers being thrown around. (I'm sure the bulk of Novick's donations came after a particular day also.) So I came up with a crazy scheme resulting in Novick being 36% more efficient.

The point is in the last paragraph. With more people involved but with less out of state resources, Novick is beating expectations and giving a real race over who will be Oregon Democrats' best nominee. I for one don't want to see someone selected for a coronation.

"Franken raised even more in the previous quarter. His current haul of $1.89 million is not "singularly outstanding"."

Well, call it the same--1.89 vs 1.9. But I wasn't comparing Franken to Franken; I'm comparing Franken to the rest of the Democratic challengers in the US. Shit, I'm not sure any GOP INCUMBENTS pulled in that much last quarter (although it's certainly possible).

I think the money theorized as necessary for either man to beat Smith is rather overrated, but I can't imagine there's any doubt Mr. Merkley will have the higher campaign overhead, so his dollars will need to account for that.

"When Merkley announced, he didn't get as big of an immediate response online (though he apparently had a better overall first-quarter haul)."

They're saying they got 60K online. I think the Novick campaign is up to around 180K in a quarter and 2/3. Not sure if it's especially meaningful, but the question of who's got the "netroots" behind him seems to be easily answered at this point.

torridjoe: I think that your initial point is likely wrong--in the context of this race. For a less-expensive, less high-profile race, you could expect to have some of your best individual-donor success very early as you are calling your personal contacts (Sal's point stands, as well, though: the PAC money and a lot of contributions from partisan activists definitely come in late).

But I agree with Kari that you can't sprint your way to millions of dollars. I am sure that Novick has long-term fundraising plans that require cultivation of networks and so-forth, because he is smart and he has been on, or a key contact for, many big-time statewide campaigns (especially for a well-established "outsider").

think that your initial point is likely wrong--in the context of this race. For a less-expensive, less high-profile race, you could expect to have some of your best individual-donor success very early as you are calling your personal contacts (Sal's point stands, as well, though: the PAC money and a lot of contributions from partisan activists definitely come in late).

Well, in context then, I think the more specific you get to this race, the more I would have expected a bigger surge. I say that for two reasons. First, this is so obviously a big target state for the Democrats, consensus top 5. For months there were only candidates saying no, and one guy who stepped up but didn't fit the "top tier" mold or the "what we're used to otherwise" mold, so money was lying in wait.

As soon as they got Jeff into the race though, and got the thumbs-up both from national and statewide bigwigs, particularly with the signaling endorsement from Ted and Ms. Roberts, that should have opened up the floodgates. I think to an extent Mitch is right--regardless of who the candidate is, combined they didn't even pull in 500K. What makes Minnesota so special that there's somehow $2mil ready to float in? OK, maybe Franken's a celebrity and leans on Hollywood. How about Mark Udall in CO; I think he did 1.5mil. Colorado's not even as far along on the red-blue spectrum as we are, for heaven's sake.

As I said, I think the money gap is less and less important as technology reduces the need for things like massive statewide broadcast ad buys (instead of targeted cable buys) and high priced commercials when solid digicam and editing skills can do it for a fraction of the price. But money is still a barometer of interest and excitement, and for a target state you gotta ask, where's the money? Are people hedging because the primary looks competitive, and nobody outside Oregon really could explain the difference between the two?

"Oregon is not a consensus top-5 race, it is definitely second tier."

You may be right, but only as of Domenici's retirement, and pending a good candidate. So far one good one has opted out. But that would put it 6th, and until this point, both Cook and Cillizza have had them at 35 for a while.

I wouldn't endorse the tone, but I don't think the argument is fundamentally invalid at all:

*many expected a better showing from the party-favored candidate

*many believe Mr. Merkley's particular style of governance and way of expressing himself is less-well suited to beating Smith than a non-traditional, take-no-shit style that Novick represents.

*I think even many Merkley supporters would be in favor of joint appearances, "debates,"--anything that allows the Democrats to speak with a united voice on why Smith needs to be replaced, while at the same time allowing party voters to make up their minds between two good candidates.

These are rational considerations, even if the method of delivery employed by Mr. Spiro is somewhat inflammatory.

Posted by: backbeat12 | Oct 6, 2007 2:23:41 AM

We should continue to hope that this race will not be marred with petty potshots between the two campaigns (pretty much all from Novick, truthfully)...

I don't think that the statement at the end there is entirely accurate. The "Novick has gone negative" meme is wholly without substance. It may be true that some who post as Novick supporters, may engage in "petty potshots," but there is a big difference between those on internet and the actual candidate and campaign. Let's not conflate the two.

anyone stop for a moment and think that Oregon Dems are underwhelmed at the idea of giving money to either candidate because they are both terrific? i think most Dems are inclined to be donating to a presidential candidate right now. once the primary is over, i think we'll see Dems start to dig deep to get rid of Smith. personally, i'd rather not spend much in the primary. let these guys do a lot of grassroots work, lots of debates & joint events, things that don't take a ton of money. the only reason i see for tv ads in the primary is to set the table for the general -- use the primary as a means to develop name recognition.

in fact, what i'd really love to see are commercials featuring both Novick & Merkley, telling people they're running for the nomination but the real opponent is Gordon Smith. name recognition for both, a non-stop attack on Gordo, and no negativity from the Dems.

It may be true that some who post as Novick supporters, may engage in "petty potshots," but there is a big difference between those on internet and the actual candidate and campaign.

There are plenty of pointless potshots being bandied about by supporters in both the Merkley and Novick camps. It'd be pretty easy to show that some of the folks who are paid advocates for the campaigns -- Kari, for example, with his rather bizarre "Phoney Frohnie" comment -- have crossed into the domain of taking petty potshots as members of the campaign.

How much Merkley money came from outside of Oregon is the bigger question.

Well, thanks to the magic of computers and campaign finance legislation, we should be able to start figuring that out in a few weeks. I agree, it will be interesting. It will be even more interesting to see how much of it came in $1000 chunks or larger.

"How much Merkley money came from outside of Oregon is the bigger question."

I don't have a problem with outside money from individuals per se; certainly Steve has friends around the country, and many people in states without a hot race of their own are interested in helping get better Democrats into Congress.

The issue is not individual donors outside Oregon; to me it's institutional outside pressure to support one candidate over another that's bothersome.

Of course, if outside donations end up being the bulk of a candidate's support, that might be different. I doubt that would be true of either campaign at this stage, though.

Make your respective cases directly to the people and let the press pick up on your tour. That way, you will both get the attention the Democrats need to win this race. That's our party's only chance.

I don't subscribe to the fear expressed in that final sentence, or to its melodramatic tone, nor should it be necessary for Merkley to subscribe to it in order to agree to some joint appearances. (I kept thinking, "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi.")

But the rest is spot on. The press (especially the MSM) love conflict. Conflict is an engine that practically writes stories by themselves. If Jeff and Steve face off regularly around the state it will be great for both of them and especially great in a combined way for whichever of them ends up the nominee.

Anytime anyone here burps "Merkley" Novick's supporters scream bloody murder. I don't think you understand how much goodwill Kari has built up and how much of a disservice you're doing to your chosen candidate. Frankly, I'm surprised Steve hasn't spoken up to ask you to stop. It doesn't reflect well on him. And frankly because of it the chatter around the water cooler is that the Novick campaign has nothing left but anti-Merkley anger.

If you continue to relentlessly attack Kari - a person of great integrity who has done more than just about anyone to build the progressive netroots infastructure in Oregon - just understand that me and many others are prepared to defend him.

This really isn't true anymore, is it? You're also an official blogger for the campaign, having covered the kickoff for Merkley for Senate.

Sorry, I was checked out for about 24 hours - but I thought I'd respond to this.

I did do a bit of blogging over at JeffMerkley.com, but I'd say I spoke only for myself over there too. I didn't clear anything I wrote with anybody there (not that I wrote much, mostly posted photos.)

Kari, truly, you need to determine the mission of blue oregon.

I haven't got the foggiest clue what this is a reference to, and I'd really rather stay focused on the topic, rather than yet another meta discussion. Our mission remains what it has always been.

"I don't think you understand"

Jesse, who is "you" in that post? And what examples of anti-Merkley anger are you citing? I've seen lots of anti-DSCC anger, some isolated patches of anti-Kari anger, and people who say they don't think Merkley is the better candidate of the two for one reason or another--but I'm hard pressed to think of someone displaying anti-Merkley anger. Ironically, I think the anger, if there is any, is being directed at people who are either in the employ of Mr. Merkley, or are working to support him. Mr. Merkley himself has been rather passive on the subject.

If you want anger, how about someone paid by the campaign calling Novick supporters "stark raving hypocrites?" I'm no hardass, that's ultimately forgivable--but you can't go off the rails like that and then say the atmosphere has been poisoned by someone else..!

Speaking of speaking for the campaign: "I did do a bit of blogging over at JeffMerkley.com, but I'd say I spoke only for myself over there too."

Kari...come on, now. You took over for Carla while she was on vacation. Jeff may have been independent; you were on the team. You've spoken directly on behalf of the Merkley campaign, at the official site. That they trust you enough not to clear your text is surely gratifying, although it does suggest that they trusted you'd be reliably positive.

I believe you when you say you're not speaking for the campaign when you write at Blue Oregon. I suggested that maybe you make that clarification in your future disclaimers. Obviously you're under no Mandate (ha ha) to follow the suggestion.

Pat, I said "knock it off asshole" when you were attacking a lame op-ed by an Ashland Tiddings hack, by twice hurling the little gem of said op-ed being writen like "a desperate Merkely supporter" and "a sign of desperation by a Merkley supporter" on two seperate threads over on Loaded Orygun.

You were called what you called, not for "defending Novick" but for slagging off Merkley supporters hurling litlte turds like that. So can your bullshit "poor innocent me" schtick. You were throwing needless elbows and I called you on it by me, a Novick supporter.

Oh come on TJ, let's be honest here, the screams of "sellout" marinated in piss and vinegar hurled by some Novick supporters when Tester endorsed Merekly, when Novick was previously lauding Tester in a Novick blogad does wreak of hypocrisy and/or sour grapes.

There have been numerous circular firing squad posts by Novick supporters and some drive-bys by some anti-Novick folks as well (though from anonymous or unfamiliar poster names).

Both camps (or rather their online boosters) have been guilty of tossing some turds at each others doorstep. Thankfully neither of the campaigns themselves have done anything resembling that.

Posted by: BeltwayBarker | Oct 6, 2007 11:51:12 AM How much Merkley money came from outside of Oregon is the bigger question.

Is that a bigger question than how much money came from out-of-state for Gordon Smith?

TJ, this is not 1996 and the Speaker of the House is not some high tech millionaire an otherwise intelligent senator heading the DSCC decided should be our nominee. What made him think he should recruit millionaire businessmen around the country to run for US Senate? NONE of them won--either lost the primary or the general. This is not that situation. What do you mean by "institutional outside pressure"---that Chuck Schumer thought it would be a great idea to recruit the Speaker of the Oregon House? That someone in a position of power outside Oregon said "if you don't vote the way I tell you to vote, you are stupid"?

I confess your point in paragraph one eludes me. As for the second, I mean that Chuck Schumer thought it would be a great idea to indicate strongly to Oregon Democrats which candidate they should choose, by sending out mailers citing Mr. Merkley (and not Steve) running to beat Smith, and very possibly having Tester do an ask as well. And oh yeah--there's also the money and the advance team. As someone who repeatedly talks about all the campaigns they have witnessed, I'm sure you do know what it means to have the national party signalling loudly who the party establishment's choice is.

What is it about "institutional outside pressure" which caused Steve to have more donors and a lower average contribution?

If it were the cause in any measure, it would be because the larger donors with more money were being advised to give elsewhere.

Or else risk what happened in 1992--people deciding the primary was so nasty, they wanted no part of it. It ended up with nasty attack ads by the guy who won the recount, and then wondered why no one who didn't vote for him in the primary would volunteer on his campaign in the general.

I think a stronger case for "whining" might be made referring to those who continue to suggest a "nasty" primary is afoot, and not-so-subtly threatening that if certain candidates don't stop being honest about the structure of the playing field and differentiating themselves as a primary candidate, they just might get Lamonted in the general. Nice.

Do you have any evidence anyone is "shying away from the primary" in this election? What does that mean, anyway? Deciding now that they don't plan to vote in it? Forgive me if I giggle--it's shaping up to be a pretty well attended primary, I'd say, given the current split in the electorate over the better choice. Real races bring the voters in droves. It's pre-chosen blowouts that dampen turnout.

Quick response to Mitch--I don't remember anyone calling Tester a "sellout," and I think the ad fairly clearly referred to underdogs beating the odds. Jon Tester was up against a DSCC-chosen candidate, after all. And how is that "anti-Merkley?"

Chuck Schumer is not Mr. Merkley, neither is Kari, neither is Jon Tester.

Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 6, 2007 9:29:17 PM Quick response to Mitch--I don't remember anyone calling Tester a "sellout,"

Let's roll the tape:

"It's unfortunate that Tester has chosen to throw his credibility in this way before he has even proven himself as a Democratic Senator. How soon they forget." "In doing that, Democrats like Tester demonstrated a fundamental lack of integrity and leadership." "Tester showed his true colors by betraying the very people who supported his candidacy. Took netroots bucks from all over the country and then stuck it to us." "As for the debate about Novick and Tester then and Tester now, it looks like we should give some thought to the probability that we are talking about two Jon Testers."

So maybe the actual words "sellout" were not typed, but the same basic thing (and worse) were said.

Fair enough; I agree those are the potential implications if not the word. I was keying on my recollection of having heard the word used. I think the more appropriate term might be "turncoat" rather than "sellout;" given that he himself was on the wrong side of a DSCC endorsement (and he was the better candidate in that race).

Tester's endorsement itself--and why he did so--is the issue; I think less important to most people is that he endorsed Merkley.

Mitch, I would add to all this that the narrative arc of Tester's election to the Senate is one that has provided inspiration to me, to other Novick supporters, and presumably also to Steve himself. And while of course we are disappointed in the narrowest partisan sense that he endorsed the guy who's not our candidate, there's a larger sense of misalignment here (at least with me). Because Tester was the non-DSCC-supported candidate in that primary campaign, and he won anyway. (That's the narrative arc I'm talking about.) The DSCC did pour money into Montana late in the campaign and there's a strong argument to be made that he does owe his seat to them, so it is both (a) not surprising that he would do as they ask and endorse their boy in Oregon, and (b) totally ironic and in a sense a betrayal of his origins as an upstart candidate.

That's my view, anyway.

This is a really murky and complex soup we're all swimming in. Motivations and variables are all far more numerous and diverse than most of us are acknowledging (it's damn hard to be exhaustive in a blog comment). We're talking in shorthand here, expecting each other to understand the backstory of what we're saying. I think it is a mistake to default to the narrowest possible explanation for what anyone is saying, even a confessed partisan of any candidate. I think it is a compound mistake to do that and then call that person names or accuse him or her of dishonesty or other rhetorical crimes based strictly upon your own choice to default to that narrow explanation.

And Jesse, you know I love you, but with all due respect I think you have misstated what's going on here. It's clear that we hang around different water coolers, in any case.

Hey all... I appreciate my supporters, and I enjoy my critics... but having just returned from a charity benefit where the topic of the night was children dying of cancer, well, I'm just going to pass on all this yammering.

I sure do hope we stop arguing about the 1% difference between Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley and get about the business of defeating Gordon Smith.

"I sure do hope we stop arguing about the 1% difference between Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley and get about the business of defeating Gordon Smith."

I know you do, and I wonder if you're hearing the problem with that--it's not yet TIME to defeat Gordon Smith, as neither man has been granted the opportunity. It's time to argue about the 1% difference (or 2% or 5%), frankly, because that's the decision at hand. It's a primary.

Off topic. James Barta--that is my name too.

I heard one of the presidential candidates (was it Huckabee?) talking about the government providing health rather than health care----helping people lose weight, stop smoking, have cancer screenings, well baby care, etc. Even if DSCC sends out a mailing a week, if Frohnmayer were the first to talk about such health issues, I'd say more power to him.

From John's announcement speech

But education isn’t just math and science. We must teach our children the tools of democracy - careful reading, critical thinking, history, languages, music, visual arts, architecture. We must inspire creativity because creativity is the currency of the 21st century. We must teach physical education and nutrition so they are strong and healthy. We must encourage good teachers and give them the respect and support that reflects their critical importance to our children’s well being and to our nation‘s future. There is a Chinese saying: if your vision is one year, plant rice; if it is 10 years, plant trees; if your vision is 100 years, educate children.

Also, on cancer screenings

It is a mistake to infer that someone would do something under orders rather than of their own volition-

I didn't say "under orders."

I doubt that even Chuck Schumer would purport to give a direct order to another United States Senator. But I'm equally sure he doesn't have to. Perhaps I should have said "honor their wishes" and not "do as they ask," but that's really a distinction with very little difference in my mind.

How many of you have taken a non-political friend to see either candidate in person?

I have. It happens that the day of Steve's announcement was the same day my all-time favorite former boss happened to be in Portland on business, and we were supposed to have lunch, but I didn't want to miss Steve's announcement, so I dragged David along. He listened to Steve and was blown away.

EBT why do you still labor unders the delusion I am a Merkly supporter since not only has this been poonted out to you by me and othersseveral times but underscored by the fact I am still raising money for Novick?

You are unhinged.

Ugh...

EBT why do you still labor under the delusion I am a Merkley supporter since not only has this been pointed out to you by me and others several times that I am not, but underscored by the fact I am still raising money for Novick?

(preview is your friend Mitch, preview is your friend()

In what sense is this a Democratic Primary thread, Chuck?

As to the rest... I'd encourage you to take your own advice.

I'd like to see it happen based on my principles and politics, but it won't, the candidate has to win the votes of people much more to the center than most of the people here and certainly me. We cannot afford to blow each other up so please, root for your guy, but don't lose your mind. And kick in some money and organizing help.

Or do the rules of basic civility only apply if the candidate you support has a "D" after his or her name?

No word yet on Gordon Smith's numbers, nor John Frohnmayer's. We'll update when those become available.

At least have the integrity to reference the full topic, as posted:

"No word yet on Gordon Smith's numbers, nor John Frohnmayer's. We'll update when those become available."

Can you explain to me, exactly, why those names were mentioned in the original post if this thread is only about the Democratic Primary?

Or didn't you read that far?

As for the rest... let me repeat: I strongly suggest that you take your own advice. You aren't capable of pissing me off, Chuck.

Mostly, I just feel a sense of pity that you can't have a discussion with someone with whom you disagree on probably a handful of issues without throwing a temper tantrum. Seriously, my 3 year old has more emotional maturity than you've been displaying lately.

Well, Sal, what about the numbers? Y'all gonna release 'em or not?

I have no idea what the numbers are. No one in the campaign was particularly worried about trying to beat the clock in the 3rd quarter since we announced so late in the filing period and we aren't (yet) in a contested primary race. If I had to guess, I'd say that we were probably somewhere between Merkley and Novick on the dailies despite the fact that John didn't spend much time fundraising in September.

I'm trying to figure out if the Dem candidates released their numbers early to get an extra hit with the press, to avoid a same-day comparison with Gordon Smith, or both.

Sal- Are you no longer a Democrat? I thought that you ran for office as one less than a year ago. I know that you are currently working for an NAV campaign--and that explains some of your rhetoric, to be sure--but you are talking about "the Dem candidates" as if they are some unknown species.

I don't ask that question as a means of insinuating anything one way or another, or anything, but I have to say that I find it wacky for that anyone could be driven away from being a Democrat in Oregon during 2007--especially someone who says they want politics to be more issue-focused. Has there been any other year in recent history (1973 is cited as a possibility by some) on which such progress has been made in this state on such a progressive constellation of issues?

I don't ask that question as a means of insinuating anything one way or another, or anything, but I have to say that I find it wacky for that anyone could be driven away from being a Democrat in Oregon during 2007--especially someone who says they want politics to be more issue-focused. Has there been any other year in recent history (1973 is cited as a possibility by some) on which such progress has been made in this state on such a progressive constellation of issues?

Patton,

"Dem candidates" was shorthand for the two Democratic candidates who released their fundraising totals on Friday. John didn't release his numbers. Gordon didn't release his. Don't read anything more into it than that.

To answer your question about the 2007 legislative session...

I strongly supported the legislative agenda that was passed in Oregon during 2007. With one or two major exceptions, and a couple of minor exceptions, I agree with what they managed to accomplish across the board.

What the party has become at the national level is another matter entirely.

In 2006, Democrats campaigned on getting the United States out of Iraq; protecting our civil liberties; and rolling back the power of the executive branch.

They have not only failed to accomplish virtually every aspect of that agenda, in many cases a significant majority of Democrats have marched in lockstep with the current administration (see votes on expansion of presidential powers for domestic spying; repeated re-authorizations of the war, et al for details).

More importantly, the national leadership of the Democratic Party has failed entirely to begin taking steps to re-prioritize Federal spending away from the military industrial complex, and toward education and infrastructure -- preferring instead to merely grow the federal budget in a way that will pass on a crushing debt to our children and our children's children.

When Democratic candidates speak to those issues, the response from the national leadership is to marginalize them, not to support them. The silence of the national leadership and Oregon's leadership to Novick's candidacy was deafening, and it was at about that time that I started thinking that I wanted to get involved, and about that time that I met John Frohnmayer.

I was very skeptical about the prospects of working with him at first, but after our first meeting, I felt that he was a kindred spirit, who saw many of the same problems that I do.

I am supporting John Frohnmayer because he is the one candidate in this race who is speaking about my issues -- rolling back the power of the executive branch; restoring our constitutional protections for free speech, assembly due process, etc; prioritizing education and infrastructure above defense spending, etc.

I am supporting John Frohnmayer because I believe that he is one of the few people in this country who can speak as persuasively as he does to Republicans about what has happened to the Republican party. I think that's a discussion that we have got to have in this country.

Finally, I am supporting John Frohnmayer because, as Chuck Butcher has so ably demonstrated, the kind of partisanship and division that I am seeing -- where it's okay to trash someone because they have the wrong label after their name -- is not healthy for this country.

We are Americans first. Party affiliation is probably about 50th on the list of things that matter to me when sizing up another individual.

It hasn't always been that way for me. The turning point probably happened when I was canvassing in 2006. I can't tell you how many times -- probably 10-15, where I considered skipping the door of a registered Republican who voted in every election, thought better of it, and found someone who agreed with me on a whole bunch of issues that people in the Democratic base support, but which our leadership considers "too extreme".

It's true that we need to fight against the extremism that has overtaken the republican party in recent years, but countering that extremism by trashing reasonable moderates on the Republican side -- Frank Morse, or Dave Frohnmayer, or Lane Shetterly, for example -- is not the solution to our problems.

Thanks for a respectful and thorough answer, Sal.

I am supporting Jeff Merkley because he has proven he knows how to win on issues that matter.