Darlene Hooley's support means a great deal to me. This is impressive.

This is great! Go Greg!

Given last night's impressive event with Gov. Kulongoski and these endorsements, I'm happy to see Greg gaining great momentum in this race. I've worked with him in the legal community for years and I strongly believe he will make an excellent AG.

How does improving schools ad protecting open space translate into qualifications for AG?

It shows that Greg has a record of accomplishment here in Oregon. Something Kroger only dreams about.

Greg Rocks!

Greg Macpherson is truly an honorable and intelligent man. Every time I needed to speak with him on an issue down in Salem he had an open door. I didn't always agree with his positions, but he was never afraid to tell me where he stood and explain his position in detail. I wish him all the luck in the AG's race.

Did US Representative Darlene Hooley, Oregon Treasurer Randall Edwards, and/or State Superintendent Susan Castillo contact the Kroger campaign and interview both candidates? I am just wondering if this is another political endorsement that seems more based on political favors then on a careful weighing of both AG candidates' positions and qualifications for the job.

lestatdelc - so you're telling me anyone who just took the Oregon bar exam last July and still is not a member of the Oregon bar is qualified? Whatever.

And, don't be hating on kittens!

I don't think this has to do with political favors at all. Most of us have known and worked with Greg for many years and proudly give him our heartfelt support in the AG's race. I don't hear Greg complaining every time someone decides to support Kroger without talking to Greg first. Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions.

In the end, endorsements are essentially a type of heuristic i.e. a shortcut for political decision making.* In this way, an endorsement is similar to party ID (see yellow dog Democrats). However, endorsements are less effective as a method of persuasion if all relevant candidates have endorsement parity. What this week’s events reinforce is that that both AG candidates have a base of support from elected officials, so endorsements alone are less likely to be a decisive factor in the minds of voters.

*For you cognitive science types: I know it is not actually a heuristic, but it acts in a similar way by providing a rule of thumb for voters to follow.

What has Kroger accomplished in the political process?

More importantly, what has Kroger accomplished for Oregon?

As a lawyer for over 20 years here in Oregon, I've had the opportunity to meet with both candidates in person and ask important concerning the AG position. Kroger seemed enthusiastic, but it was Greg who seemed to know and appreciate what is expected of an AG. I respect Kroger for putting himself out there, but Greg has my solid support.

What has Kroger accomplished in the political process?

Why do you want a politician in the AG's office?

And what has Macpherson accomplished in the courtroom? Last I heard, he'd been to court only once, and that was arranged in anticipation of criticism during this campaign.

NBS makes a good point.

The office of AG as currently structured is described here:

http://www.doj.state.or.us/about/index.shtml

There is a section about the AG's management duties, and then a listing of the other sections in the AG's department, including this:

The Trial Division defends the State, its agencies and officials in civil litigation brought in state and federal courts. The Division strives to effectively advocate the State's interest in these cases, and to resolve them favorably and efficiently through dispositive motions, negotiated settlements, trials, or other appropriate dispute resolution procedures. Trial Division attorneys also work with attorneys in other divisions to ensure consistency and coordinate the full range of legal services provided by the Department.

When I read sentences like "The man teaches law, and has extensive experience as an actual prosecutor, actually bringing cases to court." I wonder if the implication is that a new, more energetic AG proposes to do both the management AND trial division responsibilities of the job.

If so, Kroger supporters should be saying "Our guy will do trial work as well as management"--if that is what Kroger actually intends to do.

But if Kroger intends to place higher importance on the management aspects of the AG's office, then trial court experience wouldn't seem to be as much of an asset as experience in the political system.

So, can we have more talk about "if elected..." and less talk about past experience?

And don't call me one of Greg's people. I've known the guy for years but have yet to hear or seriously study the positive proposals of the candidates.

The trial division doesn't prosecute. It defends. On rare occasions it acts as a plaintff. But mostly it defends.

The AG is not a prosecutor. That is the District Attorneys. The AG's office sometimes assists DA's, but overall that is not the function of the Attorney General's office.

Ghost, I love your name. If I hadn't recently looked up in the Oregon Bluebook to see who the last several AGs were, I wouldn't have remembered that he was one of the 2 appointed AGs over the last couple decades.

Historically, the Oregon AG has been more of a legal advisor but nether of the two candidates claim to view the office that way. Kroger has gotten a lot of attention for calling for a more proactive Attorney General, but Macpherson as has called for a more active AG by promising to be the “people’s advocate” because the office is “more than [just being a legal counsel].” Since both candidates agree on a proactive vision for the Attorney General, it is worth asking which candidate is better qualified to be a legal advocate. As such, Machpherson’s lack of experience as a trial attorney or as a criminal practitioner is highly relevant, while Kroger’s lack of being born in Oregon is not particularly relevant.

Excuse me, did somebody up there actually say that Kroger had "decades" of prosecutorial experience? How is that exactly? He graduated from law school in 1996, and started teaching at L&C in 2002. How does six years, at most, translate into "decades"? (And if Kroger's supporters think he's so great, why do they feel a constant need to pad his credentials?)

And just why hasn't Kroger bothered to become a member of the Oregon bar? Does he not want to take those pesky "basic skills" CLEs that new lawyers are required to take? Is he too cheap to pay the membership fee? Has he not passed the ethics exam yet? Or aren't we good enough for him? It would be nice to know. I'm starting to take it personally.

For me, the big question is why Kroger ran around (and is still running around) trying to drum up support for his candidacy without disclosing the very material fact that he's not licensed to practice law here. Maybe I'm setting unrealistic standards for a politician, but that seems less than straightforward to me.

Finally, for your information, the reason to have an AG who is familiar with Oregon politics is so DOJ has a shot at getting the funding it needs, through the legislative process, to do its job. Speaking as a former DOJ lawyer, I don't think Kroger knows what that job is, much less how to get the funding for it. (And, by the way, if you think Kroger's not a "politician", you're just plain delusional.)

Good for you, Oregon Lawyer.

Not sure whether AG Lee Johnson (elected 1968 ) had been a legislator, but every elected AG since then has been a legislator at some time.

If Kroger supporters want to run on "Time for an Oregon AG who has not been a legislator", that might be a great slogan if he was nominated and Kevin Mannix ran (again) on the Republican side. But is that really the way to run a primary?

Even if Kroger was the only candidate running, "Elect the crusading lawyer who worked with Janet Reno, prosecuted Enron, and has lots of trial court experience" would not impress me.

Maybe it is time for Kroger to write a guest opinion here answering Oregon Lawyer's questions, and also discuss the Oregon AG's role in consumer protection, election law and initiatives, management responsibilities of the Oregon AG, the relationship between the Oregon Justice Dept. and the Oregon Judicial Dept.

That way he could prove his knowledge of Oregon and put to rest this stupid "what do you want in this job, a lawyer or a politician?".

Sorry, but that argument sounds like a commercial--maybe the "tastes great, less filling" beer commercials.

More importantly, what has Kroger accomplished for Oregon?

What's up with the provincialism from Macpherson supporters, anyway? What flippin' difference does it make if someone is a "native" Oregonian or a transplant? Is that really Greg's strategy, to call Kroger out as a carpetbagger?

I want an AG who is qualified, and both of these candidates are. But they do seem to represent different "styles", which is good because it gives primary voters something to consider. Macpherson sounds like he'll be an AG in the Hardy Meyers mold: smart, competent, mostly operating behind-the-scenes. Kroger sounds like he'll be an AG in the Eliot Spitzer mold: aggressive, out in front on issues, pushing the envelope.

Seems like we're lucky to have such a choice between "the better of two goods."

"Kroger sounds like he'll be an AG in the Eliot Spitzer mold: aggressive, out in front on issues, pushing the envelope."

Sounds to me like the kind of AG Kevin Mannix promised to be.

Someone who says,

"Kroger would push the envelope in the followiong ways........... but realizes that the Oregon Justice Dept. is organized differently than the NY AG's office"

would be more convincing than criticizing those who support the legislator they know over the law professor they have never met.

If we don't know which way the envelope would be pushed, why should we support someone simply because they would be an activist? Pushing the envelope to clarify campaign finance or election laws? Pushing the envelope on meth? Pushing the envelope on consumer protection? Pushing the envelope on how often the AG himself appears in court?

The criticism of Kroger tends to break into two categories: 1. Kroger is to activist for the Oregon AG, or 2. Kroger is not from Oregon. However, both of these critiques are problematic.

Regarding the activist question: the fact of the matter is that both Kroger and Macpherson want a more active AG. Macpherson’s website has him rejecting the idea that the Oregon Attorney General is simply a “legal council” and instead he wants to be the “people’s advocate.” Given that both candidates want a more active AG, the relevant question is which candidate is better equipped to be an activist Attorney General? Machpherson spent his legal career as a pension attorney (and member of the Judiciary Committee), while Kroger was a Federal prosecutor (and law professor). Kroger has been very forthcoming about how his time as a prosecutor would influence his term as Attorney General, but Macpherson has been less open about how his time as a lawyer would shape the office.

As for the question of nativism: officials who were not born in the Beaver State have long served Oregon. If there were a native test for office, the lost officials would include Ron Wyden, Vera Katz, Hardy Myers, Darlene Hooley, John Kitzhaber, and Ted Kulongoski. The AG’s office is not a gold watch for years of service. The Attorney General should be the candidate best qualified, not the candidate who has lived in the state for the longest time. Kroger moved to Oregon to teach, not to run for office. Yet, even if that were not true, why would that matter? For Oregon to thrive, we need the best talent available, regardless of where that person was born. If Oregon is so desirable that it attracts talented individuals who want to serve the community, isn’t that a good thing?

P.S. Kroger did pass the Oregon Bar.

I'm surprised at how divisive this race has become, at least on Blue Oregon. Greg and John both seem to have a lot to offer the AG office, and the back and forth citicism by their supporters is insane. I am certainly not an expert on either of them or their careers, and need to learn more about both before the primary next year.

lestatdelc - what's really pathetic is your "I hate kittens" campaign. Why so angry all the time?

"Kroger would push the envelope in the followiong ways........... but realizes that the Oregon Justice Dept. is organized differently than the NY AG's office"

LT: Do you have a link where I could read more about the different structures of the NY and OR AG's offices? I'm interested in learning how NY differs, whether it's good or bad, and whether Oregon might be better off adopting (or staying away from) some of NY's practices.

Thanks.

A Rab,

Your argument is a straw man -- you recast the arguments made above in their weakest form and then attacked those weak arguments.

As to your two points:

1. The criticism of Kroger is not that he is "an activist" -- indeed, I have no idea what that even means. People have been criticizing him because (1) he has no experience getting things done in the political process, (2) he has no record of accomplishment in Oregon's political structure, (3) he is running as a prosecutor, but the job of the Oregon AG is much more robust than merely prosecuting lawbreakers. As one commenter posted above, most of the lawyers working for the Oregon DOJ defend the state; the power lies primarily with local DAs to prosecute crimes. The Oregon AG must oversee a staff of hundreds; his portfolio includes the child support division, consumer protection, Medicaid fraud, charitable organizations, crime victim services, and task forces on school safety, terrorism, etc. The Oregon AG must negotiate with the legislature over major policy initiatives as well as the DOJ's budget. People criticize Kroger not because he is "activist"--as you say--but because he is running as a one-hit wonder. Sure, he's a prosecutor. Great. Why does that qualify him to be Attorney General -- especially in a state where prosecutions comprise very little of the AG's job?

2. Nativism. I find this very frustrating because you have reframed a legitimate criticism as an illegitimate criticism.

Here is the legitimate criticism: Kroger is new to Oregon. This means (i) he has no record of accomplishment in this state; (ii) he has no record of working in partnership with political leaders in this state to enact policy; (iii) as someone new to the state, he is likely out-of-touch with the various constituencies and localized concerns in Oregon.

Here is the illegitimate criticism: Kroger was born out of state so we hate him.

Please note that NO ONE IS MAKING THE ILLEGITIMATE CRITICISM!!! For the love of Jebus, no one cares where Kroger was born. Other people not born in Oregon include: Ron Wyden, Darlene Hooley, Ted Kulongoski, Hardy Myers, and the list goes on. No one cares where these people were born and no one cares where Kroger was born. Please just set that aside.

What distinguishes Kroger from Wyden, Hooley, Kulongoski, and Myers is that they have deep roots here, they've been fighting for Oregon concerns for decades, and we trust them to draw from their experience in advocating for the folks in this state. We have no reason to vest that trust in Kroger.

If Kroger was running for Multnomah County DA, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. If he was applying for a job as state Solicitor General, I would suggest that the AG hire him. It's just not clear to me why on earth I should vote for him for Attorney General.

Kroger is not running to be a prosecutor, he is running while highlighting his time as a prosecutor, there is a big difference. In terms of what he talks about (and has on his list of key priorities) environmental protection is probably tied as the number one priority. My primary point is that both he and Machpherson have called for an AG that emphasizes the law enforcement/civil enforcement aspects of the office, as opposed to the legal counsel aspects of the job. With that as the case, it is worth comparing work as a pension attorney vs. a criminal prosecutor.

As for the nativism, it seems that Kroger has been at times portrayed as just arriving in the state, and having no substantial ties. The truth is that Kroger has been active in Oregon’s legal and political community for a few years. When Ron Wyden first ran for Congress, he had spent a comparable amount of time in the state. Additional, the number of high profile endorsements (a former Governor, the majority of the Portland City Council, etc.) seems to indicate that Kroger has a connection to the political community. My deeper point, however, is that even if Kroger was new, so what? Isn’t it a good thing if Oregon can attract talented people from across the country?

FYI- from Wikipedia:

Kroger is a graduate of Yale College and Harvard Law School and served in the United States Marine Corps. Before teaching law, he was a Deputy Policy Director of Bill Clinton's 1992 Presidential Campaign, legislative assistant to Representative Tom Foley (D–WA) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), senior policy analyst at the U.S. Treasury Department, and federal prosecutor. As a prosecutor, Kroger won the Director's Award from then-Attorney General Janet Reno, worked on the emergency response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and served on the Justice Department's Enron Task Force.

T-

In response to claims that Kroger has no connections to the political establishment here in Oregon, I think it is important to note he has been a member of the DPO Finance Committee and is a Multnomah County PCP. I cannot tell you how long he served on the committee (because I don't know), but I can tell you he has been involved in the political process in Oregon in ways that have enabled him to build relationships within our state's political structure and become involved in the localized concerns of Oregon.

One person above said it very well: the AG office is not a gold watch. Reading the endorsements from Edwards, Hooley, and Castillo read like, "MacPherson has done some good things. Reward all of his hard work by giving him the AG job." Sorry, but I am going to vote for the most qualified candidate, thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Born and raised Oregonian for Kroger (take that nativists)