Somebody said of the Democratic primary for Sen. Smith's seat (Steve & Jeff) was an 'embarrassment of riches'.

So what's this?

A 'plethora of potential'? A 'gaggle of goodness'?

And what of the rumors that he was gunning for the Treasurer spot? Or did Gov Ted put the kibosh on that, saving it for payback-ola to Sen Ben? Could Gov Ted ever hope to play the Godfather role as well as Gov Neil did?

"To date, Kate Brown has been in Southern Oregon in October."

Wasn't Metsger in Medford, Ashland, K-Falls, Gold Beach, Grants Pass, and Roseburg during the past month?

How safe is Metsger's seat? or is he up for re-election?

What does it say about the state of the parties that Democrats have four good candidates in the race, but Republicans cannot even find a warm body for the ballot?

Rick Metsger is really something special.

He has a knack for taking on powerful, special interests and winning. Just look at his victory over Enron when he stopped them from charging Oregon rate payers for taxes that Enron ever paid.

Rick also has stood up for what is right regardless of politcal consequences. Rick is from rural Clackamas County, which is very, very conservative, yet he sponsored a bill to give equal protection to gays and lesbians. That takes some serious courage. The type of courage I wish more politicians would show (I'm talking to you Harry Reid).

Rick has shown that he has the guts to do what's right and the ablity to get things done. As one of his current constiutent and a former volenteer for his last State Senate Campaign, I'm excited to see him take his unquie talents to the next level.

Good luck Rick and you got my vote.

G.B.

Steve that's a good snapshot, but in this race, Rick Metsger is most definately the tortoise vs. Kate Brown's hare. While Brown seems to be winning the "Who Can Spend The Most Money By December" race, Metsger already has $46,000 in the bank (according to OreStar) and is spending smarter - not harder. That's a quality I want in Secretary of State.

lestatdelc, I'm really not sure where you're coming from on this "special interests" card. I've questioned you about it before, and as far as I can tell, your animosity toward Metsger stems from one bill during the last session that didn't end up passing. But just because Metsger supported a bill you didn't doesn't mean he's "in the pocket" of special interests any more than any other candidate. We wouldn't saying that Wal-Mart and Bank of America are controlling Kate Brown's campaign, after all, just because they support her.

Sen. Metzger is a great candidate. Sometimes, as Democrats, we forget how blue Oregon isn't. Metzger is one of those candidates who can win in districts that have a Republican registration advantage and that can make a huge difference. We'll be in big trouble if we lose the SOS seat in '08 and a moderate Democrat that can win in more conservative communities, as well as the traditional liberal cities, will help us keep that seat.

Finally a candidate I can vote for who will truly represent the entire state of Oregon. Senator Metsger knows Oregon beyond Portland and the Willamette Valley. He has aptly served a rural area and been able to advocate for issues not typically considered in line with his district. Senator Metsger has shown true leadership on issues that are of a concern for the entire state (tax utility loopholes, anti discrimination, and of course transportation.) People know him as someone they can approach to get things done because he gets results.

I'm very excited he decided to run. The other candidates are good Democrats, but not necessarily representative of the constituencies throughout the State of Oregon. I want a state wide office holder like the secretary of state to represent the ENTIRE State. Rick Metsger can do that.

I would like to hear Senator Metsger orate on the topic of sexual harassment.

Lemme get this straight... Metsger tried to "decimate the housing market," (as you say) at the behest of the banks?

Did he also try to kill off all the salmon at the behest of the fishermen?

Maybe I'm stupid about these matters... I don't understand why the banks would want to destroy the housing market.

For anyone else like me who's interested in knowing how competitive the seats are that might be opened up by any of these guys leaving their Senate job, here it is:

Walker 51% Metsger 56% Avakian 67% Brown (solid Dem, not competitive)

Pat,

The bill in question was SB 965. As I recall, the mortgage brokers were brought very closely into discussions (as were all stakeholders) regarding the specifics of the bill.

Before the bill moved in the Senate, the mortgage brokers registered their approval of the bill. (Stop me if I'm wrong, Lestat!)

But whether this was a lack of communication between brokers and their lobbyists or a strategy to kill the bill faster in the house remains to be seen. In any event, the brokers withdrew their support after the bill hit the Senate floor. By the time it got to the house, the brokers were spinning tales of a collapsing housing market.

Fact of the matter is that everyone had a seat at the table in the Senate, and the brokers bought on to the bill before they threw a fit about it. So I'm having trouble seeing how Metsger was working against them with a bill that they said was a-ok.

"when it moved from Senate to House where the real problems begin, when the exemption was inserted after the Senate passed the bill"

So... this is Metsger's doing? Did he think that a controversial bill would have a better chance of passing in a 31-29 house or something? Give it a rest! There was a problem, but it wasn't Metsger.

Metsger has been a very strong and effective supporter of credit unions and their members. Credit unions are financial services co-ops! Trying to paint him as a tool of the bankers is a hoot and 1/2. He'll be a great SOS.

I have every confidence that Rick will be as strong a fighter for safety, soundness and integrity as SOS as he has been in all his prior service.

I don't know who the flamer lestat is, but only a predatory lender would share the interests he's claiming, or pretend that removing sub-prime predators was going to kill the housing market. In my view, having sub-prime sharks against you means you DID SOMETHING RIGHT!

Go, Rick!

Ten years ago, we only had 10 Dems in the senate, and Mae Yih and Tom Wilde didn't really count. In '98, we started rebounding with three wins in swing districts- Tony Corchran (sp?) in Lane, Peter Courtney in Marion, and Rick Metsger in Clackamas County. Rick won narrowly over Jerry Grisham (I think that was his name) who I believe was a real right winger.

Rick is a tough campaigner and bright and hardworking legislator. Yes, his intense ambition has always been very clear and has turned some people off. The reviews for him in W Week's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" legislative roundup are usually quite ugly.

All four are all strong candidates, with Kate probably the front runner at this point. I'm surprised that Rick waited this long to file, and that no one other than Westlund has filed for Treas.

lestatdelc, I'm still having trouble with this. You accused Metsger of being in the pocket of banks and credit unions. I asked you what made you say that was so. So far, you have quoted one bill to me, a bill which, I must point out again, did not pass. It seems to me that you're making some sweeping generalizations that you're applying only to Metsger. I'm assuming that Metsger, in his private life (or what's left of it, now that he's a state senator and running a campaign), has had other clients besides credit unions. And yet, I don't see you accusing him, or Brown, Walker or Avakian, of being in the pockets of everyone else they've ever worked for or taken money from.

Are you making an argument that no candidate for higher office should ever have worked with or for any other organization, for fear that they're being unduly influenced by their past experience? Or is this what it appears to be, a personal grudge against Metsger?

I'm surprised Kate Brown is considered the front runner in this race. What's she done that's all that spectacular?

My preferences would be: 1) Walker, 2) Metzger, and 3) Avakian.

I'm glad to see Metsger in the race. He is a real consensus builder that has worked a bunch of tough issues. Plus, he's a tireless campaigner, and as a former sports broadcaster at KOIN for 16 years, I bet his name ID is higher than we might expect. Plus he comes from and has won elections in a true swing district, and he knows how to talk to folks outside of the Portland metro area. Let's get down to the bottom line. The most important job our next Secretary of State is going to have is redistricting, which is the whole enchilada folks. We need someone who can talk to Purple Oregon, which Rick can do (hat tip to Brad as well). Unlike Steve, I don't think Rick enters the race near Vicki. Rather, I expect we'll see a strong race out of his campaign...and with three very capable, hard working candidates (Kate, Brad, Rick): it's anybody's game.

lestatdelc - I find you to be the most insulting blogger on this site. You belittle anyone who even remotely disagrees with you. Learn how to play nice with other Dems or do us all a favor and stop blogging!

And the funniest part is that I actually agree with you on Metsger. I just chose not to disparage anyone who has a different opinion or different information.

All bias aside, Rick was merely along for the ride on the Enron thing. It was Vicki's bill. She did all the hard work and took the all the grief dished out by the energy lobby. Rick claiming HE took on Enron is, frankly, disingenuous.

Steve, all bias aside, you are wrong. Metsger did do hard work and take on Enron by passing the utility loop hole bill.

Lets not forget he and Vicki were CO-sponsors of the bill and that in order for the bill to get to a vote it had to pass through Rick's committee.

So for you to say Rick merely took a back seat is, all bias aside, both an insult to the hardwork he put into this bill and false information, Steve.

I have attached a youtube clip of Rick fighting for this bill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb_X9DfXmGw

All bias aside, Steve you are WRONG. Rick DID fight Enron and did Oregonians a great service.

Did all four of the Democratic candidates for SOS vote in favor of the partisan bill (I forget the number) that made it harder for third-party and independent candidates to qualify for the ballot? You know, the one that invalidated their signatures for a third-party candidate if they also voted in a party primary (voted AT ALL in the primary, not just for the specific office where they support an indenpendent). That was one of the worst abuses of legislative power in the last 10 years.

I'm hoping one of these folks voted against, which would show the integrity required to be SOS. If not, I'd prefer to abstain from the primary than support someone who engages in unfair electoral abuses.

Miles: Yes, that was indeed a crappy bill. HB 2614 from 2005.

The House Measure History from 2005 shows Metsger voting against it.

Walker, Brown, and Avakian all voted for it.

Miles-

From the legislature's website, here is the vote history on that bill from 2005. As you will see, out of the four candidates, Metsger is the only one who voted against it.

HB 2614 By Representatives KITTS, NOLAN -- Relating to elections.

5-24 Referred to Rules.

6-29 Bill read. Carried by Brown. Passed.

Ayes, 17; Nays, 12--Atkinson, Beyer, Ferrioli, Gordly, Kruse, Metsger, Nelson, Schrader, Starr, B., Starr, C., Westlund, Whitsett; Excused, 1--Winters.

6-30(H) House concurred in Senate amendments and repassed bill.

Ayes, 39; Excused for Business of the House, 13--Avakian, Boone, Hanna, Hansen, Jenson, Krieger, March, Morgan, Richardson, Schaufler, Smith G., Whisnant, Speaker Minnis.

Metsger is an old-school politician who uses disturbing strong-arm politics to get what he wants. People hated having bills in his committee because they never knew where they stood and knew they would have to cow-tow to Metsger.

Just one example: Metsger held the Paid Family Leave bill hostage for weeks last session. Why? So he move his bill making it legal for employers to fire employees for using medical marijuana. Say what you want about Paid Family Leave, but he wasn't holding it up because he didn't like the bill -- he was holding up a bill most Democrats thought was important to families so he could shove through an unpopular bill that he wanted to pass to make big business happy. Yuck.

Let's correct the record In The Building. The notion that Rick was holding up the family leave bill because of his marijuana bill was a common myth in the Capitol. It was such a common myth that the House leadership offered to hold a hearing on the marijuana bill after hours at the last minute, so they could buy his vote on family leave. Metsger was so disgusted with this tactic that he didn't even go to their special hearing. Before you start accusing people of strong-arm tactics, check to see who's actually using them.

Lestat: Can you provide more detail on the substance of the bill that Metsger was pushing? (Rather than the accusation that he was "in the pocket" of the banks and credit unions. Whether he agreed with the banks is of less importance to me than the substance of what they agreed on.)

From what I can tell from this thread, the bill would have made it more difficult to engage in predatory lending. That sounds good. And somewhere along the way, Metsger put in a provision that exempted the banks and credit unions from those limits. Do I have it right so far?

So what is Metsger's reason for exempting those institutions. You say it's because he's "in their pockets", but I assume Metsger has a more legitimate explanation. For instance, maybe banks and credit unions are subject to federal regulations that already prohibit such behavior? Or maybe there's no evidence that large institutions have actually engaged in such behavior?

I don't have any sympathy for mortgage brokers. Anyone who has dealt with them knows it's not a high-integrity field -- they're trying to make a buck and don't really care if you can actually afford the deal they're getting you or not. Whether predatory lending regulations should ALSO apply to banks and credit unions seems like a great policy question. Any links you could provide with research on the subject?

So, Avakian was EHB (probably a committee hearing) which means he didn't vote on the bill.

In the Senate, it looks like Gordly, Westlund, Schrader, Metsger had the good sense to see through the bill.

Thanks Albert and Staffer for the information.

Avakian was excused on the concurrence vote on June 30. He had already voted yes on the bill on May 17.

Please, for the love of god, can we drop the mortgage lending bill?

I know it was really, really super-duper important for the handful of people who cared about it (lestatdelc), but it's hardly worth the overwhelming amount of ink it's gotten here at BlueOregon over the last six months. Submit a guest column if you like.

I agree with Frank C above, drop SB 965, which is not at issue anyway. What is at issue is the fact that Mestger, along with Brad Avakian and Kate Brown, I believe sponsored that Bill. The issue is that all of them, in sponsoring this bill, did not think through the issues and unintended consequences of this bill. They listened to one source of interest "Our Oregon". Let's take this a step further. These folks want to run for S of S and given their mind set that drove their reasoning for SB 965, what can we expect from any of them as S of S. To come up with some half cocked legislation or rule that will have dire consequences to all Oregonians? Can we take a chance on any Elected offical like the threesome above to be S of S. Thanks, MM

In The Know, basically what you're saying is that Metsger didn't correct the myth, instead hiding his intentions from his own party's leadership so that they would think he was holding Paid Family Leave hostage for his bill. That's essentially the same thing I said to begin with - he let people believe he wouldn't move Paid Family Leave in order to get them to move his bill. Again, yuck.

And Patton, yes, it was SB 465. Good memory. I had to look it up.

JTT has got it right. For those who like to handicap the race, Metsger's name recognition from his days at KOIN is a HUGE intangible in his favor. In fact, I would make him the favorite right now to win this. You think the average Oregonian knows who Avakian or even Kate Brown are? Walker probably has a little more recognition, thanks to going after Neil and her high profile in the Eugene area.

This is going to be a VERY interesting race...

<h2>I not only had the pleasure of meeting Sen. Metsger but of working with him. I am just a mom, not really involved with politics prior to this past year when I began a hard fought battle against one bill but in support of another. Just a mom...just an Oregonian like many of you. Not only did Rick return my phone calls, Brown wouldn't give any of us the time of day. In fact, on her website she encourages input yet when hundreds of people sent her emails in opposition of a bill she referred to us as "email wackos" in the Oregonian. Many of our children had written, old, young, rich, poor - all walks of life but all Oregonians and we were slammed hard. Meanwhile, many of the Senators gave us respect and consideration. They included us in the political process... But not Brown, not Avakian, and not Walker. They had no interest in anything thousands of people had to say yet Rick listened, he brought opposite sides together to reach a concensus. He let a mom make a difference and be allowed to participate. If you want someone who will hear you - really care about the issues that impact you... someone with integrity, and common sense then Rick is our man. As far as Kate Brown is concerned I will do all that I can to expose her for the person she really is - one who doesn't listen then berates her public. Shame on her....Lindy</h2>