This is a non-issue. The election is about what a candidate will do for the state.

Under Macpherson’s reasoning Merkley should have turned down help from DC and the support of Senator’s from other states and Kate Brown would have to turn down the endorsement and help of 21st Century Democrats (and Macpherson should have turned down their support as well).

It is just sad that Macpherson decided to go negative against another Democrat, instead of trying to win on the issues.

In response to Macpherson's negative attack on John, John's campaign released the following press release this afternoon:

Kroger responds to Macpherson Negative Attack

Today, Attorney General candidate John Kroger was ambushed by Rep. Greg Macpherson in the very first negative, personal attack of any statewide candidate for office in the 2008 election. Macpherson launched his attack in both a press release and during a joint appearance with Kroger before the Young Professionals of Portland.

“This not just politics as usual, this is the politics of desperation,” said John Kroger. “When candidates have nothing to say about the issues, or their career, they get nasty. I’m a Marine Corps veteran. I have fought the mafia, drug lords, and Enron. I think I can handle Greg Macpherson.”

Rep. Macpherson attacked Kroger today for accepting contributions from persons outside the state. “Yes, I accepted contributions from fellow prosecutors who live outside Oregon who took on Enron and the mafia with me. I accepted money from environmentalists all over the nation who are excited about my endorsement by the Sierra Club and my plan to get tough on polluters. I accepted contributions from fellow Democrats that worked with me helping to elect President Bill Clinton. And I accepted money from my mom. I very proud of my career of public service, and I will fight as hard as I can to bring a positive tone to this campaign. My mom is proud of me too.”

I still don't know who I'm voting for, but it speaks volumes to me that John Kroger can't get much monetary support from the actual voters he's trying to court. I also don't appreciate his constant attacks on Greg Macpherson. Let's try and keep this one clean.

• How much out-of-state money is too much?

How about 50%?

• Should candidates abide by the spirit of a campaign finance ballot measure approved by voters, but overturned by the courts?

Yes. Oregonians should only vote for candidates who are all for unconstitutional ballot measures. Maybe we should be allowed to only vote for those candidates that Sisemore says are acceptable, him being the king of unconstitutional ballot measures.

What “constant” attacks? Macpherson went negative, Kroger responded. Pointing out that Macpherson is not running on the issues but on where Kroger lived is not an attack.

Both Jeff Merkley and Kate Brown are also raising most of their cash from Oregonians. What is Kroger so afraid of? He sounds like sour grapes to me.

Mac is toast. Stick a fork in Mac, as he is well done.

Macpherson is calling John Kroger out on Kroger's position on Measure 11 and Kroger's lack of support from Oregon voters. There is nothing wrong with that.

This is the Greg I know. Standing up for Oregonians. His relentless work for the State of Oregon and it's residents as a state representative will no doubt translate well into the AG position. Also, I fail to see how facts and citing a ballot measure Oregonians agreed with can be characterized as an attack?

Looks like BOTH candidates are pulling off their gloves in the race for attorney general. This one is getting nasty from both sides.

I wonder if this same standard will apply when Ron Wyden runs again?

MW

John has more of these friends than Greg.

That is just ridiculous. Greg has four times as much money and support from Oregonians than Kroger and Kroger's response admits it. Get real Kroger and grow up.

It’s interesting that while Greg is releasing negative attacks John, John is releasing his plan for the environment on his website.

I might not have characterized Macpherson's question/request as an attack if at any point in the campaign he had actually focused on ISSUES first. To be honest, this is the first time i've heard Macpherson take an actual stance on anything. I want an AG (who by the way will be representing Oregon at a national level..i don't see ANYTHING wrong with strong national connections) who is focused on making Oregon a safe, clean state with fairly applied laws and regulations, I care less about whether or not that candidate wrote for a local high school paper and has most of his political connections in the state, i care that they have the experience to protect and support Oregon.

Emily,

Kroger can talk all he wants about his plans for the environment, but Greg Macpherson has already walked the walk by writing Measure 49. Hands down Macpherson is the best candidate in this race.

All things being equal, I would love to see candidates raise at least 90% of their money from Oregon residents and voters. But there are two important things this doesn't take into account. The first applies to all campaigns, the second to this campaign specifically.

The easiest people to ask for large sums of money are close friends and family. Yes, a candidate can hold an event and get small sums of money from supporters, but I would guess that the first few big donations, the ones that make a campaign seem legit, in most campaigns come from close friends or family members - people who are willing to go out on a limb for you before you've established a wide base of support. As we are seeing play out in national politics right now, money follows support, but support requires money; you have to start somewhere. If the majority of one's family, past business associates and long time friends, happen to live out of state then large sums of early money will surely come from out of state.

In this race, we have an established politician and a candidate without the same voting record and name recognition. One of those people is clearly going to have an easier time getting early donations and endorsements than the other. Again, support requires viability, which requires name recognition, which requires money.

So yes, I'd love to see every candidate pledge to collect only donations from Oregon voters or close friends and family members. But that gives incumbents and those who have previously held elected offices another advantage, which is not necessarily good (though not always bad, either) for Oregon. I think Kroger is completely justified in his fundraising record. And further, why does someone have to have the same last name to be related? Really? Are we not counting sisters, maternal family members, in-laws...lets focus on the issues, remember, the things candidates tell us about when they have money to buy ad time and travel to events...

The Sierra Club and Kitzhaber endorsed Kroger because he was the candidate with a plan to protect the environment. So far, Macpherson’s argument for running is that he and his family have been around for a while. Kroger actually has a plan to protect the environment and do something about meth.

Kari, I have to disagree with you. The problem is that Macpherson has no real plan for the AG office. He is running on a general idea of being a guy who has paid his dues and is ready to move up. It is not like Kroger dropped into Oregon from the moon. I know I first met him at the Oregon Democratic Party Convention a few cycles ago. Kroger helped set up a Law School Democrat’s group that has produced a small army of activists (and who collectively put in a lot against Karen Minnis last time around) and he has been active in local politics.

More importantly, an election should be about what a candidate will do in the office they are running for, not the office they are currently occupying. Kroger has been very up front about his priorities for the DOJ and where he wants to take the state. Macpherson has not. This race should be about issues, not about tangential questions.

When is Macpherson going to take a stand on issues in this campaign? I heard him attack Kroger at the debate for supporting Measure 11. Yet, he never said he supports or opposes it. Does Macpherson support the death penalty? I don't and I strongly disagree with Kroger's position, but I respect him for taking a well reasoned position. When will the petty attacks stop from Macpherson and instead lets have a debate on the issues. What is Macpherson's position on Kroger's environmental policy paper? I would rather not hear juvenile attacks like calling his opponent "the professor" or resorting to a campaign slogan of "Vote for the Native Son" and instead hear Macpherson take an actual position. I look forward to a debate on the issues so Oregonians can make a well reasoned choice for Attorney General!!

Second, I think it is a bad practice to publish attacks from opposing campaigns under the author name "in the news" to give it the appearance of neutrality. The fact the Oregonian published the attack does not mean it is not a clear attack. We all have opinions, and we should be willing to post our names along with our words. The word for word posting of Macpherson's press release and framing the debate with questions was not meant to inform us but to help Macpherson's campaign.

The problem with Macpherson is that he only talks about what he has done or where he is from. He has not presented a plan for what he will do. He has made a case that he is a decent legislator who should be reelected to that office. Unfortunately, he is running for AG, not the Oregon House and he still has not presented a platform or a plan for Oregon.

Until I went to a Kroger event a few weeks ago, I was in doubt about whether I should support him or not. Kroger went up and gave a very smart speech about his policy positions in regards to meth and the environmental problems in Oregon. Maybe he’s not from Oregon but he is the man to be Attorney General. As a federal prosecutor he went to court over 1,000 and won 97%, including cases against tough defendants such as Mafia members. At the end of the day, where one is born doesn’t really matter as much as what they will do. Kroger is a smart tough lawyer who will represent Oregonians in the courtroom.

I had to do a little “time out” after reading this before writing because I was so tremendously disappointed in the candidate behind it. It’s really the old negative campaign script – attack opponent on specious grounds, wait for them to defend themselves, then accuse them of going negative. I would expect more from someone my husband has known around the Lege for years as a “good guy.” I would also expect more from someone who should be focusing on serious issues right now.

Greg’s supporters are right; he has a record to be proud of. What he should be doing, instead of hammering away at the fact that John was not as blessed as those of us who were born here and chose to stay here and learn the intricacies of Oregon politics (not that one must have an Oregon birth certificate, or even a residence of at least a decade to do that, but it seems to be what Kari is getting at as a supporter of Greg), is saying how he’ll build on that record as AG. He should be saying what, specifically, he will do in that office. He must have some ideas.

What he’s showing by focusing on John’s out-of-state pedigree is that he lacks ideas, and that, to me, is disappointing and just a little frightening. I want a leader who can acknowledge his predecessor’s achievements but has the vision to try to build on them. When all someone who wants to be a leader in this state can say is “look how awful the other guy is,” well, that’s just weak.

Here’s my disclosure – I’ve known John for four years, since I first walked into his Crim Pro class (yes, I’m one of those, the ego-gratified stars-in-their-eyes former law students). Were it not for John’s passion about public service and his example as a progressive who can work for “the man” and still have tremendously high ethical principles and commitment to justice, I would not have embarked on the career path that I have. Every lawyer’s practice (well most, there are some stinkers out there) is valuable, but I have a special place in my lawyerly heart for lawyers who choose to work in the public good. John has shown that commitment, and it’s part of why I support him.

I’ve told friends and colleagues who I’m supporting when the race comes up in conversation. People who know him mention that Greg’s a good guy. I’ve agreed, invariably saying that in this race we suffer from an embarrassment of riches, then explaining why I support John. I’ve said that even after hearing of Greg’s “courtroom cowboy” comment at MultCo Dems (which, imo, is pretty insulting to trial attorneys), because I couldn’t imagine he would really go negative. I’m so sorry to see that he has, and has done so publicly.

The only newsworthy information is that Mac is worried about losing to a candidate who enjoys a tremendous fundraising advantage.

I don't believe Mac would have any objection to "foreign" contributions if he enjoyed the same advantage.

Pure politics.

The courts have made it clear that out of state contributions cannot be banned or limited.

Macpherson has the right to challenge his opponent to do or not do whatever Macpherson desires. It makes sense that he would bring up out of state contributions, since some people are concerned with that.

I am more concerned with the effect of campaign contributions on candidates than are most folks around here. I am concerned about elected officials having anyone besides the voters as their constituency. So, I care more why the money is contributed than from where it is contributed. If some out of state organization with interests counter to the interests of Oregonians gives a candidate lots of money, I would be concerned. If friends and family members from elsewhere in the US give lots of money to a candidate out of no more than kinship and friendship, I would not be so concerned. Indeed, this source of money would be less problematic than huge instate contributions from interested parties.

Since we are talking about campaign contributions, I would like to ask the attorney general candidates if they would reverse Hardy Meyer's advice that the Secretary of state not enforce the provisions of Measure 47 that do not depend on passage of Measure 46. I believe that move would do a lot more to reduce the untoward influence of money on the electoral process than does obsessing on the geographical source of campaign contributions.

Posted by: Master Tee | Jan 15, 2008 6:43:10 PM The only newsworthy information is that Mac is worried about losing to a candidate who enjoys a tremendous fundraising advantage. I don't believe Mac would have any objection to "foreign" contributions if he enjoyed the same advantage. Pure politics.

Uh, what? Macpherson is outraising Kroger like mad.

There is no doubt that MacPherson's challenge is a childish tactic by a low quality person who has no business running as a Democrat. The problem is that it is completely fair attack on a morally vacuous, lower quality person who has even less business running as a Democrat. Our tipoff should be that two candidates who an absolute terms are both abysmal, shameful betrayals of what we stand for as Democrats look reasonable to many of the ignorant here solely because they are held up against Mannix.

Kroger's support for the death penalty and his truly warped viewpoint as an ex-prosecutor bring shame to those who fight for what progressives and Democrats stand for. He is unfit to even deserve a hearing. If you can rationalize the death penalty, you can rationalize torture and every other insult to human dignity that means you are no better than the Republican scum who have destroyed our country in the last 20 years. The rationalizations their supporters offer for either of this candidates make them a disgrace to the state and our Party.

If Kroger and MacPherson actually were Democrats, and if they acutally cared about the Democratic Party rather than were just damaged egos who only will prove the Peter Principle correct if they are elected, they would both drop out of this race now to create the opportunity for someone who would do us proud by running as a Democrat. If people here who profess to be progressives and Democrats actually were, they would use this forum to do nothing but hound these two to quit the race and create an situation in which a true Democrat, and just plain decent human being, will run.

"They are not Democrats" (aka "No on Kroger"?), this is going to take us farther off-topic than your ... statement ... already has, but I'm curious to know what qualities you think the state's top law-enforcement official ought to possess, what policies you think he or she should fight for.

Right around late October 2006, you couldn't even talk about the ballot measure slate without hearing a liberal like myself groan about "massive out-of-state spending" in favor of the measure.

That was particularly true of Measure 48, TABOR, and Howie Rich. To a slightly lesser extent, Loren Parks keeps the gravy train rolling for Bill Sizemore. Both of these 'political venture capitalists' have encouraged their libertarian (fascist) friends to donate, and with success.

The point? We liberals derided them for undue influence in Oregon politics.

Greg Macpherson is absolutely right to point out Kroger's heavy out-of-state fundraising. This is exactly why we have ORESTAR, one of the best campaign finance reporting systems in the nation. Oregonians want to see clearly through the campaigns to the funders of these candidates and initiatives. And Macpherson has every right as a candidate to call attention to that, just as John Edwards has loudly called foul at Clinton's heavy lobbyist support.

We hacks here on BlueOregon may think little of interstate fundraising, but I can assure you that most progressive Oregonians loathe it. And that's why the Oregon Senate is taking up a bill to make it harder for out-of-state interests to finance Oregon campaigns without more scrutiny.

Jack, Are you claiming that Kroger is being funded in suck a way? Kroger’s funding is coming from family and friends throughout the country that believe in his vision for Oregon. Again, I ask, under this insular theory of government, should Merkley not accept support form outside the state or should Kate Brown turn down the support of 21st Century Democrats (and should Macpherson have turned down their support in the past)? Kroger has a plan for Oregon, and there is nothing wrong with people wanting to support that vision.

It should say "such a way"

lestat-

'DAGCC', I presume, is an acronym for the imaginary Democratic Attorneys General Campaign Committee, which supposedly contributes to favorites in contested primaries to the dismay of Novick supporters everywhere.

But really, now that you think about it, how many of these commenters are giving Kroger a pass here while raising a fuss over out-of-state interests in the Senate primary?

It's pretty apparent that if you take a look at the U.S. Senate numbers, both Novick and Merkley are keeping it heavily in-state. And that's even if you include the in-kind.

Posted by: A. Rab. | Jan 15, 2008 8:07:39 PM Jack, Are you claiming that Kroger is being funded in suck [sic] a way?

Yes, I am. Though the in-state to out-of-state gap is smaller for Kroger than for TABOR, M45 Term Limits, and the Sizemore bag o' tricks, the preponderance of funding comes from out-of-state, not in-state.

Bill Sizemore is bankrolled by far right anti-tax libertarians to push their right wing agenda in Oregon. It is unfair to compare John to Sizemore. John receives contributions from family, friends and co-workers. John does not have access to the money Greg does through Greg's connections at stole rives and lobbyist money through his time in Salem. Sadly law professors do not have the same access to cash as corporate lawyers. Part of John's campaign is to take on corporations as he did as a special prosecutor against Enron and as such, he limits his access to a lot of the money available to other politicians.

I'm tired of Macpherson playing the native Oregonian card repeatedly. Why don't you discuss the issues? Oh, that's right. You lose when you do that.

Signed, Native Oregonian not supporting Macpherson

Vote for Kroger - THis is really stupid on MacPherson's part, he would take out of state money in an instant. That doesnt stop the state of Oregon from taking federal or Ron Wyden either.

Try to think who is the candidate you agree with most and just vote that way.

Amanda - While I think the question is appropriate for another thread, I think the relevant point here is that since the first half of this decade, first the Republican-dominated legislature, and then supposed Democrats who misrepresent Democrat values like Macpherson have attempted to change the role of the AG. This is because the AG is a statutory office under the Governor, not a consitutional office, and such it is extremely prone to political winds and abuse. It is in fact the changed focus and the powers that go with it that most draws Kroger, the other supposed Democrat Kroger who also betrays Democratic Party values, to the office according to his own statements and platform.

As a Democrat who cares first and foremost about equity and social justice, it is because of this defective nature of the AG's office that I would only vote for a Democratic AG who demonstrates a strong and clear commitment to those values that would guide him or her in conducting the affairs of the office. Unfortunately, neither Macpherson nor Kroger have actually demonstrated they embody that standard of personal character. And their own chosen words suggest quite the opposite.

Kroger is so cowardly and lacking in character that he doesn't even state that he supports the death penalty on his campaign website. He lets his fawning, naive, and duped supporters like Andrew Simon write pathetic, rationalizing apologies for him. Which just begs the question: Does anybody know Macpherson's position on the death penalty? He doesn't mention his position on his website either.

If Kroger or Macpherson is the Democratic AG candidate, I'll be sitting this one out and doing what I can to bring as many Democrats with me. Hopefully that will be to vote for an independent or minor-party candidate who does embody those values.

Host Kari Chisholm has misused BlueOregon. Citing your connection to a candidate doesn't excuse "conflict of interest". Nor does his title choice dilute the bias issue. And his follow-up comments dig a further hole and somewhat controls the dialogue. I think Chisholm hurts Macpherson. Several generation Oregonian.

Kari,

It may be your "water cooler" but I'd suggest that it is time for you to quit commenting on posts that involve your clients. It would be best for them and BO. You probably meant nothing by the change in headlines (and probably didn't do it yourself). Regardless, it doesn't look good and is starting to get in the way- in this race, in the Senate race, etc.

Posted by: They are not Democrats | Jan 15, 2008 7:44:11 PM

Now that is such a sophisticated response by "lestadelc" to what is a factual and substantive critique about the manifest failure of these candidates to stand for anything close to what Democrats stand for.

By the way "lestadelc", do YOU agree with Kroger and support the death penalty?

I believe that the question about the "spirit of the ballot measure that was overturned by the courts" applies to Measure 6, a truly stupid measure. What it said was that contributions for non-statewide races would only be legal within the district. Meaning if my sister or best friend were running for a district I didn't live in, it would have been a felony for me to contribute to their campaign. Stupid measure--I once met the sponsor and he treated me like a subversive for saying to his face what I just said above about not being able to even contribute to a relative's campaign if I didn't live in the district.

That said, Ted Kulongoski was a Marine---that didn't prevent him from saying and doing stupid things which led me to vote for someone else in the 2006 primary.

I want to know if this quote shows Kroger's true colors:

Kroger shot back: "This is not just politics as usual. This is politics of desperation. When candidates have nothing to say about the issues or their career, they get nasty. I'm a Marine Corps veteran. I have fought the mafia, drug lords and Enron. I think I can handle Greg Macpherson."

Kroger, you don't want my vote if you continue to make cracks like this one --Greg is a friend.

I don't care if Kroger is the greatest prosecutor in American history and the best law professor this state has ever known. I don't vote for those who attack or insult my friends. Period.

Sal is right. Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jan 15, 2008 9:56:15 PM

I haven't heard from either candidate on this important issue, but it's a question that should be asked now that MacPherson has made campaign contributions an issue in the AG's race.

And let me expand on that point. The Public Comm. on the Legislature debated a number of campaign/election related issues. So far, I hear we should be concerned about Measure 11, meth, crime, the environment. Let me be clear. I want to know where the AG candidates stand on election law. I don't care if Greg grew up here and Kroger has lots of friends in NY and Texas. That doesn't tell me where they stand on election law!

Michael, I should have said

"Mac is worried about losing to a candidate who enjoys a tremendous out-of-state fundraising advantage.

Clearly, Macpherson is the fundraising champion thus far. But he must be worried that Kroger is closing that gap with out-of-state donors.

Why would Mac object to foreign donors unless he felt Kroger enjoyed an advantage? Certainly not because he feels that campaign donors are trying to buy influence: if that were the case, then Mac has been bought and paid for several times over. Bought and paid for by Oregonians, certainly. But still bought and paid for.

Pure Machiavellian politics.

Thank you Sal.

I am so tired of the "Hardly Matters" jokes.

And what kind of change would Kroger bring when it comes to issues not having to do with crime (Measure 11, meth, etc.) or the environment, or crooked companies like Enron? Seems like I read a story earlier today which involved an AG opinion--maybe it was the whole thing about tuition for full day kindergarten. How would these candidates have handled that situation?

I heard a commentary recently saying that General Eisenhower rejected a slogan with the word change in it in favor of the I LIKE IKE slogan. Probably a pretty good decision. A comment was made "back then, change agent sounded like a person in the subway giving you coins in exchange for a dollar".

Kroger needs to specify in ways he has not yet done exactly what he would do differently. "He is for change" is too vague.

John is (using the positive sense of the word) a crusader. He's going to fix the broken parts of our system - come hell or high water. He's got a ton of ideas and energy, and he still believes that being honest about his positions (regardless of their popularity) is going to win him respect and votes. To use the one word summary now popular in the press, he's all about change. No, sorry, not enough emphasis. He's about CHANGE in big giant capital letters. ...

I'm more a John sort of guy myself.

Yea, apparently someone who lacks judgement and solid values. Frankly, everytime a Kroger defender speaks up, it becomes clear just what a bad choice for AG Kroger is. We have seen over the last several years what happens when you put people in office who think sticking to a warped viewpoint is a substitute for or more important than actually have a sound viewpoint. Saying you are for "Change" is meaningless, it matters what kind of change you are for, and Kroger's own statements show that the Oregon he wants would be a more spiritually impoverished place. Marine, prosecutor, and now "crusader" for positions that are not only an embarrassment and contrary to the Democratic Party values he professes to embrace, but also manifestly devoid of sound judgment and maturity of character.

<q>"I'm a Marine Corps veteran. I have fought the mafia, drug lords and Enron. I think I can handle Greg Macpherson."</q> I could care less about the mention of Macpherson. I'm much concerned that the guy obviously has serious problems. If he's still sounding like a blowhard who has nothing to offer but the typical Republican rhetoric of what a macho guy he is at 40+, he probably never will grow up enough to be trusted with the AG's office.

The Enron Broadband Systems case Kroger is identified with was quite separate from the Enron energy trading case. Kroger himself left the case before the trials. And the outcome of the EBS case hasn't been quite what Kroger has represented it to be. It's complicated but it suffices to say that all five defendents were aqcuitted of most of the charges in the first trial, one defendent was acquitted in a subsequent trial and the convictions of another overturned. Apparently, the remaining three defendents have not been convicted and still have cases on appeal to have the charges thrown out. So Kroger is not quite the "Enron crusader" he makes himself out to be. The way he represents his crusade against Enron raises reasonable questions about his honesty and integrity.

The same question goes to you Maurer and Simonis: Are you for the death penalty? Yes or no? You can work hard to ignore the realities of Kroger's serious shortcomings, and easily be misled by meaningless issues relative to the AG's office like Kroger's ideas about "the environment", but you just undermine your own credibility.

They are not Democrats - What do you mean by “equity” and “social justice,” and how is either candidate against them? Vague terms about things we can all agree are “good” don't really help explain your passionate dislike of the AG candidates. One could certainly argue that favoring mandatory minimums is about equity, for in the previous sentencing system, people who committed the same crime would receive widely disparate sentences. Or one could say that mandatory minimums are contrary to social justice, for they fail to take into account the individual circumstance of the person who committed the crime. Either can fit into that rubric unless you share a bit about what you mean by those terms, something you haven’t done yet.

Okay, so you’re passionately against the death penalty. That’s one policy – something that is legal in Oregon, of course – that you wish the state’s top law enforcement official opposed. Would you prefer that personally opposed it but would enforce the law? Would you only be satisfied if they said they would use their position to convince DAs to abandon capital charging?

We can all talk about who we consider “real Democrats,” but you can’t seem to do so with specificity. What would your ideal candidate’s background be? What would s/he say she wants to achieve? Who could satisfy your definition of a “real Democrat?” If you are the same guy as “No on Kroger,” who (type of person, though names might help) could the party recruit who would satisfy you?

LT – I’d argue that meth is about so much more than law enforcement. Ask any state social worker about their caseload; it’s all about meth. This state has rarely seen anything more destructive to families, and it is getting worse every year.

Amanda - Your diatribe betrays a facility with language that masks a poverty of intellect. "Equity" and "social justice" are terms with specific meaning in this case, and neither candidate has articulated any positions in accordance with that. Nor do your irrelevant examples illustrates you have any ability to grasp the concepts. Support for the death penalty is by it's very nature to not understand or stand for equity and social justice on many levels. Period.

Although you obviously don't function on a level which would enable you to understand, the death penalty is even now before the Supreme Court because we have been increasingly forced to recognized it is repugnant and contrary to a civilized, decent, society. So yes, I would rather have and AG who would make his statement of values a refusal to defend Oregon's death penalty if it were challenged as being fundamentally unacceptable, as it is, rather than lobby politically to further statutorially distort the role of the office to further own morally impoverished agenda as Kroger has said he wants to do and has made the theme of his campaign.

Why don't you speak instead to the specifics given on why Kroger is a bad candidate such as: How he doesn't have the courage to say he supports the death penalty on his campaign website. The real nature of the failed prosecution strategy in the specific Enron case he actually participated in, and his pivotal role in architecting that strategy than leaving the case. Or maybe his juvenile bluster that LT quoted and what kind of personality would even think that is a persuasive, much less even adult, statement?

If we nominate a real Democrat, and I think the intangibles of personality and values of what that means have been adequately depicted here, I'll certainly vote for him or her. Otherwise, as I said, if either of these two is the nominee, I'll be doing what I can to convince as many Democrats I know to do the hard thing by standing up for those values by not voting for someone who tarnishes the name and takes further down the wrong road, hopefully by finding an indepedent or minor party candidate.

"John's demeanor is calm, confident and considerate. "

HUH?

John Kroger has a good public presence. But those adjectives are not what I saw in John when he and Greg Macpherson spoke in December. He's the gung ho political newcomer who would do a lot more to win me over by talking about his views on election law than that crack to the effect he has taken on Enron and drug kingpins, he can take on Macpherson.

Whatever the situation (I was not there) it seems to me that "taking on Macpherson" or whatever his exact words were may not have been the wisest choice of words.

Hillary Clinton may have had a point about how it takes elected officials to bring about change (local example: Vicki Berger's Dad was a great citizen advocate for the Bottle Bill, but it wouldn't have gotten passed without those like Gov. McCall and Rep. Hanneman) but the way she mentioned LBJ and MLK struck a lot of people the wrong way. Those people not only included black people who thought the language was dissing Martin Luther King, but people her own age who instinctively bristled at the idea that LBJ alone got the Civil Rights bill passed. And I think it was John Edwards who said it was people MLK and not LBJ who inspired the young people who went to the South to register voters at great personal risk, young black people sitting down at lunch counters, etc.

I just got an invitation to a Macpherson event hosted by 2 friends. That is something I plan to attend, schedule permitting.

I am not connected to any corporation, just someone who realizes I am not required to turn my back on a friend just because a lot of people here are gung ho for Kroger.

Although you obviously don't function on a level which would enable you to understand...

So basically you have a monopoly on what's in the public interest and anyone who disagrees even slightly doesn't warrant a discussion, because we're too stupid for you to even talk to.

And this model for social interaction has been working for you, eh?

Guess what... I declare that YOU are not a Democrat! See, my declaration carries the same weight as yours, so it looks like you're out, bub.

Posted by: Mike | Jan 16, 2008 9:48:59 AM How is your fundraising going?

Now I'm not Mac's campaign manager, but ORESTAR lets everybody take a peek into the fundraising machines of campaigns.

As of right now: Macpherson has $297,586.57 cash on hand.

Kroger has only $97,978.45 cash on hand.

So, it looks like the fundraising's going pretty well, Mike.

In fact, it's a pity that Kroger can't raise more with the many colleagues, friends and family that he has from Texas, New York, California, Maryland, Missouri...

Put another way, even if you limit both campaigns' contributions to Oregon donors, Macpherson would have $291,634 and Kroger would have only $44,090.

Too bad Kroger can't count on his friends and family to vote for him--they live out of state!

I think this post, focusing on one point made in a debate, has been blown up by commenters as reflecting some kind of centerpiece of Rep. Macpherson's campaign, which it actually does not seem to be.

However, I am curious about the carpetbagger issue (if I may call it that). And I don't mean to suggest that Mr. Kroger moved to Oregon to run, but I do think that time living in a state and getting to know it is pretty important to being elected to statewide office (IMHO). And as a corollary queestion, what kind of demonstrated commitment to public service should one have before running for public office? E.g., perhaps one reason Tom Bruggere should not have run for Senate is that he hadn't been involved in politics at all.

I don't think we should base campaign contribution limits on a sliding scale of whether we percieve the funds to be coming from an entity that represents "a good cause". The fact that out of state backers may represent a bad cause for Oregon should be reason enough to set limits for everyone.

Since most candidates give us pat versions of feel-good vagaries, in order to get our vote, I believe we can learn more about what a candidate may do once elected by examining who's backed him with cash. Hey, it's a friggin auction. I see no rescue for the middle class until we have meaningful campaign finance reform at every level of government.

And of course citizen advocates need elected officials to get laws passed. That's why we elect them...they are SUPPOSED to represent the best interests of the majority that voted them into office. But we'd have to get the citizen's majority opinion on every bill before it's voted on, for our best interests to be truly represented! And how do we define the line between citizen advocates (such a warm and fuzzy term) and big donor special interest groups? We can't.

Too bad Kroger can't count on his friends and family to vote for him--they live out of state!

Don't worry Jack. After the Rebooting debate, I'm sure Kroger will have plenty enough Oregon votes.

It's important to me that the elected officials representing Oregon, have a tract record of success in Oregon. I understand Kroger has a record of success in other states and apparently is able to raise significant money from those other states. Why doesn’t he run in one of those other states? A cynic might be led to believe he moved to Oregon because he saw political opportunity. I'm not that cynical, but I do see him having a difficult time winning local voters if he can't win local money.

"For instance, would he step in to halt a large corporate interest from pressuring one of Oregon's public institutions to hand over private information on Oregonians?

I'd bet that John Kroger would. His use of the term "bully pulpit" really resonates in my mind..."

Let's hear him use that bully pulpit on election laws. If those aren't a high priority for him, then it wouldn't matter where he was born. If he agrees with (or even discusses) what the Public Comm. on the Legislature had to say about campaigns and elections, he'd be worth considering.

If he does a better presentation on election laws than his opponent, I would consider voting for him. Otherwise, no amount of "knock off the nativist talk" will convince me that he is worth serious consideration against a friend who is running against him.

Good to see so much interest in the AG race!

I see Mac's attack as a not so veiled attack on Kroger for being born in a non-Oregon state. Like Andrew said, Kroger is from out of state, so he has friends there.

What's more, many native born Oregonians were educated outside of Oregon and have friends from those places that donate to their campaign. The real problem is out of state money for ballot initiatives. That is ruining Oregon.

On the AG debate, Kroger is an experienced and aggressive prosecutor. Mac is not. I think Mac is a great legislator (I canvassed for his first legislative race) and should stay in that body. Oregon does not need another corporate defense lawyer as an AG because those type of lawyers are not trained to aggressively build cases; they just play defense.

I do not talk to Macpherson on a regular basis as I live in another county. I do think it is time for our AG candidates to talk about campaign finance reform and other election-related legal issues.

I've been around too long to shout NEGATIVE based on what someone else says happened somewhere that I was not present.

What I see is supporters being nasty the way Clinton and Obama eventually said "some of our supporters get a little over enthusiastic".

Telling me what I should tell Macpherson does not tell me where Kroger stands on election law/ campaign practice issues.

"He was a great prosecutor"--how does that tell me where he stands on campaign finance law? Or doesn't that matter because if only enough Oregonians would repeat out loud "Kroger was a great prosecutor" he would win by acclimation without ever having discussed certain issues?

In the video of the debate, there was a question about campaign financing. I don’t remember the exact context of the question, but Kroger was in favor of the campaign financing changes and Macpherson took a stand against campaign finance laws because of the constitution.

At least part of your answer is in the debate video.

Jason S: On the AG debate, Kroger is an experienced and aggressive prosecutor. Mac is not. I think Mac is a great legislator...

I agree, and that was my initial reaction when I first heard Kroger and MacPherson were running against each other. I said to a PSU professor, "...but MacPherson's a politician, not an AG." Now that I've researched their history and positions, my opinion has been solidified. MacPherson seems to be really good at his job in the Legislature, and he should stay there. He just doesn't seem to be the right person for AG, but Kroger is.

I also agree with Brian, who said, "John's demeanor is calm, confident and considerate." Kroger is a remarkable person who seems to have the ability to successfully run the DOJ and to earn/maintain our state's respect for his past and future accomplishments.

I have officially changed my party from Independent to Democrat so I can vote for Kroger in the May Primary.

I just visited Kroger's website and the Oregon Dept. of Justice website.

Let's say Kroger gets the nomination and wins the election. He starts off putting his priorities into place: environment, crime, meth, etc.

How does that tell us how he would react to something like this:

http://www.doj.state.or.us/oregonians/pdf/measure_47_complaint.pdf

That is the suit against Oregon by the Measure 47 folks. If Kroger were in office and that suit were still alive, apparently he would go into court himself rather than sending a deputy. Aside from Just Saying telling me to watch a video, does Kroger think we don't need to know his views? (Personally, I support many campaign finance reform changes but thought Measure 47 was poorly written, although I knew supporters of the measure.)

Nothing so far has let us know anything about Kroger's approach to such election law issues. Folks, much of the pro-Kroger comments here boil down to "Kroger was a great prosecutor, he is a great law professor, I heard him speak, I studied the issues, I am impressed and you should be too".

How does that approach help the campaign deal with a situation like someone walking up to Kroger at some campaign event and asking him if he agrees with what retired Supreme Court Justice Linde said about campaign finance law at the Public Comm. on the Legislature?

Folks, if you think Kroger is the greatest AG candidate ever, knock yourself out! But please be aware there are those of us who realize all that sort of enthusiasm will not answer the question in the previous paragraph.

I've worked on too many primaries where I heard someone say "I liked your guy until I heard his opinion on...." or "why isn't your candidate answering questions about...?" to know that no matter how many true believers in a candidate say things like, "Kroger is a remarkable person who seems to have the ability to successfully run the DOJ and to earn/maintain our state's respect for his past and future accomplishments. ", there may be not only skeptics in the general voting population, but also those who don't yet know there is a contested AG primary.

Kroger writes here sometimes. I hope that "Just Saying" will contact Kroger's campaign and ask him to post what he said on the video as a comment here. Even those of us with high speed connections don't always have time to watch videos.

LT,

Have you contacted Kroger with your questions about campaign financing? I know you probably hate being told that but none of us commenting are Kroger or campaign spokespersons, so contacting them is probably the best way to get the answer to your question.

lestadelc's comment says all that needs to be said about why Kroger is not a Democrat and why Democratic supporters like lestadelc are the ugly, embarrassing secret what the Democratic party in Oregon has become:

No I personally oppose the death penalty because it risks executing an innocent person.

Notice first how lestadelc does not oppose the death penalty because state-sanctioned murder is a moral abomination and no human being has the right to kill another. He just has vague misgivings that an innocent may suffer. But even THAT possibility and the outrage it cannot be reversed doesn't concern lestadelc enough to shun a morally damaged candidate like Kroger, who obviously isn't even disuaded by this. The statistics suggest that is because an ugly, privileged person like lestadelc believes this would ever touch anyone in his or her personal circle, but maybe lestadelc will provide us with a further display of ugliness and enlighten us why.

Also, the highly politicized law-enforcement oriented meth strategy that Kroger and Macpherson actually have supported, which lestadelc apparently does also, has led as predicted to an even higher level of even worse criminal activity even at it has not decreased the perceived meth problem. By being unable to understand how all of the actual consequences demonstrate a failure of this strategy, except to a certain ugly and privileged segment of our state and party typified by people like lestadelc, we see how little Kroger has to offer as AG. Even Kroger's supposed compassionate strategy is one that still reeks of a backward, paternalistic, authoritarian law enforcement attack that will not even come close to solving the problem.

As far as Brendon, I did several searches and checked Kroger's website and I couldn't find any public evidence he supports Kroger. This is not to say he doesn't and hasn't publicly said so, but obviously one or both of them has not gone out of their way to trumpet this. Cite your source lestadelc.

Marines solve problems by shooting people and blowing things up because they really can't do anything else. Prosecutors solve problems by accusing the guilty and innocent alike --- and apparently actually supporting laws which inevitably allow the innocent to be killed --- because they believe they have a special mission. Apparently, blustering "crusaders" like Kroger solve problems by first misleading (Why don't you speak to the facts of the Enron issue lestadelc and ask Kroger to put his death penalty stance front and center on his website?), and then seeking to use as a platform an office which already suffers from dangerous politicization because it is not an constitutional office. That's not even close to what we need in an AG.

I think we see all we have to see about Kroger and supporters like you lestadelc. If you represent what it has come to mean to be a Democrat in Oregon, it is ugly and we deserve to lose every race.

Posted by: Brienne | Jan 16, 2008 6:14:07 PM

Brienne, welcome to the Party! I presume that you should receive a welcome basket pretty soon (er...not really).

While you're at the Democratic ballot this May, vote for Jeff Merkley! He'll make you glad that you're a Democrat, and I hope you'll stay with us.

Jack Murray, thanks for the welcome! I must admit I've done the switch before, but it didn't help much then (2004).

Thanks for the tip on Merkley. I like him - I followed his progress in the Legislature last session. I also like Novick. I need to do a little more research before deciding. I'm fixed on Kroger, though. He's really what Oregon needs right now in the AG seat. He seems more knowledgeable, personable, and a better leader than MacPherson. A leader needs to run the DOJ; someone who can teach well (as seen by his professor of the year awards) and someone who can motivate others to pursue change.

Some family lawyers act as mediators to try and iron out the differences between the spouses, offering counseling so that divorce might be averted. In this role, instead of offering legal advice to their client exclusively, they act impartially so that both parties can benefit.

a good rule of thumb is that if the user ID refers in some way to the topic being commented on, you can safely ignore them.

Right, because if a comment actually stays focused on addressing the substantive (de)merits of candidate based on the candidate's own positions, rather than actually being an opportunity for a commentor like torridjoe to say "look at me", it must not fit into the shallow mentality that has reduced politics to a childish popularity contest. Good point torridjoe.

Kari~

Last I heard you aren't a native Oregonian!

I challenge you to only spend 10% of your political campaign contributions in in our state!

Please direct the rest whence you came!

Sincerely,

Tom Ridge

These issues are all red herrings. The real issue is that both Kroger and his supporters need to take an honesty pill. The statements that I keep hearing -- such as a statement made here earlier that Kroger has "most of the DAs" lined up to support him -- are just flat lies. Kroger had been going around saying that himself for most of last year -- and it is not true. And his purported record as an Enron "prosecutor" -- also not true.

Sure, his supporters like what he is saying. He says whatever people want to hear, whatever will get him elected. I don't think his supporters would particularly like to hear some of the things he says when they're not around, though. He went before the PGE board last fall and told them that he wasn't REALLY going to go after big businesses in Oregon -- just the little guys.

Kroger supporters are extraordinarily gullible or they're willing to go along with the lies to get their guy elected. He has no record of governing. He has nothing to recommend himself except his promises. And he has misrepresented himself so often that those promises hold zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.

As for Kitzhaber's endorsement, let me remind you of another guy Kitz passed over for endorsement -- Al Gore in 2000.

What the heck, let me add one thing. I did not hear this story directly from the source, but I would challenge Kroger's supporters to ask him directly whether or not it is true. (I would be interested myself, in knowing.)

Kroger worked (briefly) on obtaining indictments against Enron defendants (none of whom were ultimately convicted). In one case, I have been told, Kroger sat down with one of the suspects, listed in detail the "evidence" the government supposedly had against this suspect, and urged the suspect to plead guilty. The problem was that the government did not actually have the evidence Kroger claimed it had.

So here we have a "lock 'em up," Measure 11 kind of guy, who is (presumably) in favor of the death penalty, and -- if the above story is true -- who has lied to at least one suspect in order to convince the suspect to give up his or her civil rights.

I would urge Kroger's supporters to be a little more questioning and critical. Take a good look at this guy. Ask some questions. I think you're being bamboozled.

I am not a volunteer on any AG campaign and have not yet chosen who I will vote for. Kroger was in many ways an impressive candidate (esp. if he were running against someone I never met) but I have just seen him the one time. Greg Macpherson is not only someone I met his first day in the legislature, but whose Dad I remember as a legislator. The Sec. of State candidates are all legislators, so as a Salem resident I have watched them in action for years. So far, I have not decided how to vote on either Sec. of State or AG primaries, and view campaign finance/ election law issues as great "tie breaker" question in case I have a hard time deciding.

So anyone who says things like " However, you seem to be highly critical of Kroger not having a position on campaign finance on his site, and yet your guy doesn't have anything on his either." doesn't seem to realize there is a big wide world of Oregon voters who have not yet chosen a "side". Most people couldn't name any statewide election candidates beyond "is this the year Gordon Smith runs for re-election"?

If you folks are truly pro-Kroger (not just anti-Macpherson), it would be more helpful to the Kroger campaign if you spent the minutes you spend blogging getting the word out to Oregonians that there is this guy named Kroger running for AG.

"such as a statement made here earlier that Kroger has "most of the DAs" lined up to support him -- are just flat lies"

According to the Kroger website, he has 2 DAs listed as supporters, along with other interesting people.

Just a warning to anyone who overinflates the number of supporters: Political careers have been sidetracked or ended when someone claimed support and then the "supporter" went public and said they were neutral, had not announced support for that candidate, etc.

Kroger will win the AG nomination if voters decide they like him, if they decide the best job qualification is a former federal prosecutor who made a big impression on his law students, and that their most important priorities include meth, crime from corporate crime to Measure 11, the environment, and Kroger's other priorities.

There are Oregonians who remember 1996 when they were told they should ignore candidates they had known for years because there was this guy Bruggere everyone was supposed to support. Saying that left a bad taste is an understatement, and may cause people to wait until at least April or later to publicly choose sides. Saying anyone who questions Kroger is an active Macpherson supporter just sounds like 1996 all over again.

Anyone who has ever been in sales knows the buyer has the final power of decision. Anyone who likes coffee drinks from somewhere else is not required to buy coffee at Starbucks, and many people drink tea or something other than coffee. "We the people" is a revolutionary phrase, as is the JFK line about free marketplace of ideas.

Enthusiasm for a candidate is great if it is channelled into positive support spreading the word to the electorate. However, there have been more "I've trusted him since he...." votes for all sorts of candidates over the years than campaigns generally know about.

The "questioning our candidate must mean you are working for the other side" attitude doesn't have a very successful track record in Oregon.

Jenni, that is commendable.

It is just so different where I live between the people I know who in most cases are just learning the names of the people running, and the folks here at BO who assume their guy is good and that is all we should need to know.

Stephanie V., Novick does seem like a great candidate. I just need to look into him a bit more. Interestingly, I had a pollster from Nevada call me the other day and ask about my opinion of Smith v. Merkley. No mention of Novick. I imagine this is not good for his campaign in regards to getting his name heard.

Speak the Truth, your blogs do nothing but hurt the MacPherson campaign. Your anonymity portrays cowardly behavior to voters and the pure spitefulness and negativity of your ranting gives me the understanding that none of what you say has any relevance or truth to it. I strongly encourage you to take an alternative campaigning approach.

It is my understanding that Merkley supports Macpherson, and I believe they have held some joint fundraisers.

No, no, no. Merkley has not endorsed anybody in a statewide race, not even Ben Westlund (yet, anyway).

Any joint appearance by Merkley and Macpherson at a fundraiser would have been for Future PAC/Housebuilders, which doesn't benefit the campaigns of either one.

Posted by: Stephanie V | Jan 17, 2008 1:54:34 PM

Well, the coverage was by Steve Duin, curmudgeon-in-chief of the Oregonian. Like the writing of David Reinhard, to a certain extent there's automatic backlash to whatever he writes, because it is written with such contempt and pusillanimous indignation.

You can count me and a lot of my friends in that automatic backlash group.

"Any joint appearance by Merkley and Macpherson at a fundraiser would have been for Future PAC/Housebuilders, which doesn't benefit the campaigns of either one."

OK, a very specific question for both AG candidates:

Given the discussion on campaign finance and legislative campaigns at the Public Comm. on the Legislature, what does either AG candidate believe is/ should be the legal status (or general practicality) of

a) caucus campaign arms like FP and the House Republican group which last time was Majority 2006?

b) candidates contributing to such caucus groups from contributions to their campaigns rather than their individual bank accounts

c) the idea that whatever else one thinks of nonpartisan legislature, it would end the idea of the caucus campaign arm (which has not "always " existed--ask Jim Hill about his experience running in S. Salem in 1980 as not only a black candidate but as a Democrat in one of the most Republican districts in the state).

I have emailed Kroger via his website on the general question of campaign finance. No answer yet.

Jack, you may have had a different intent in mentioning Merkley and Macpherson at an FP event, but thanks for the opportunity to ask this specific question. As I recall, there were people involved in the PCOL discussions who have qualms about the current caucus campaign arm approach to electing legislators. That is not the way things were done decades ago, so "we've always done it that way" is not sufficient as an explanation.

It would be interesting to see how the native Oregonian and the newcomer respond to this. I doubt Hector Macpherson was recruited to run by a caucus. Maybe someone supporting Greg can ask him that question.

Having no valid arguments, lestadelc progandistically wrote:

So no deadly force can be ever used by law enforcement? Gotcha. How morally abominable of me to hold the position that the risk of executing the innocent is a valid reason to oppose the death penalty. How immoral of me.

There is a fundamental difference between the death penalty, being state sanctioned murder, and the minority of police killings that are legitimate self-defense. There are also a lot of illegal police homicides which don't get punished because we have no intention of holding cops we immorally use as tools to do our dirty work as a society responsible when they cross the line. In fact, NWers across the political spectrum are particularly guilty in this regard, which says a lot about the supposedly liberal majority, but that's another issue altogether. (Anybody know if Kroger ever chose to bring a criminal civil rights case against any government official when he was a prosecutor? I couldn't find any mention on his website, just a lot of Republican-style bluster about his crusades against virtually stereotyped bad guys.)

The fact that you resort to misrepresenting the few legitimate cases of self-defense by police, when state-sanctioned murder has a clear meaning, to defend your argument and your support for Kroger once again demonstrates the emptiness of your position.

You also feebly try to imply in your comment that I was demeaning or criticizing your claimed opposition to the death penalty because innocents could (and have been) killed. My point clearly was that you obviously don't feel anywhere close to strongly enough about even that possiblity that it stops you from supporting a guy who doesn't feel that the significant risk of committing a horrendous and irreversible outrage is sufficient to oppose the death penalty. You want it direct: the criticism was that you are morally deficient because you don't have close to what it takes to stand up for what you claim to believe by shunning Kroger.

Until Mayfield is willing to publicly announce he supports Kroger, and then takes any criticism due for it, I don't regard his support as much more than making a poor choice between two poor candidates. Just because Mayfield was unjustly prosecuted, and deserves much more for that than what he got in the settlement to teach the government and all of us a lesson, doesn't mean that he or Kroger represents Democratic Party values. That you think Mayfield's private "support" is an affirmative argument that Kroger actually has a commitment to equity and social justice, particularly since Kroger had nothing to do with the government in the Mayfield case, really is embarrassing to witness.

I hope Kroger is taking note of the people who support him, and particularly how they respond when BS is called on them and their arguments why we should give our votes to him. The kind of supporters a candidate draws are the most accurate reflection of how the candidate chooses to represent himself or herself, and ultimately whether the candidate is qualified for the office.

Not really, if you really want to unpack the "moral argument" since someone who commits a heinous capital crime is still a potential threat to society\

Yes, really, lestadelc and you have reached the level now of utter ignorance. Self-defense is an "in the moment" condition. The potential for escape is so low as to be criminal negligence on the part of those in the system who are responsible for maintaining custody when it happens. You're too stupid to "unpack" the argument, and you continue to bring shame on the Kroger candidacy like so many of his cultish supporters.

Maurer - I'm going to otherwise the "flamer" crack go because it's apparent that you just pulled out another word you've heard that might apply but really don't know what it means. Instead I'm only going to answer two questions that are substantive:

3) Since the Oregon death penalty was reinstated in 1984, how many convicts have been put to death? blah blah blah Sorry, I don't play games with people who have nothing to offer except games. The answer you don't deserve is that the number is greater than 0 and it is irrelevant whether the appeal process was played out.

The information everyone deserves to know is that Oregon has actually gone to the Supreme Court to defend our law that prevents the convicted from offering new exculpatory evidence at sentencing that wasn't introduced at trial (Can't let a little thing like possible facts interfere with carrying out a state-sanctioned murder as expeditiously as possible, can we?) And oh yeah, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating whether lethal injection --- Oregon's only method of execution --- is cruel and unusual punishment based on clear medical evidence that the poison's used actually make it extreme physical and mental torture. That would seem to make Kroger and his advocates at least passive supporters of state-sanctioned torture too. I guess that wouldn't matter in their moral calculus though, the tortured condemned would be dead soon, anyway, right?

(I have asked already and nobody answered: But you seem as that you could supply the only relevant piece of information to this whole debate: Did Macpherson say he supports the death penalty or unconditionally opposes it?)

5) Why should we listen to you, someone who doesn't even have the courage to use their own name? Let's see, does the Federalist Papers down through McIntyre v. Ohio (1995) cut through any clogged neural circuits why this is really kind of a juvenile taunt?

Man, Kroger really draws quality support.

It's so cute when people use these comment threads to spout their own closed-minded viewpoints while holding their fingers in their ears and screaming "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Thanks everyone else for your contributions to this thread, there's some good perspective here on this issue that I haven't come across elsewhere.

TAND

I hesitate to encourage you hijacking threads, but to answer your question, Macpherson supports Oregon's death penalty law. At the debate last week, he agreed with Kroger about it. Macpherson even compared it (I assume jokingly) to the death with dignity statute, because it was rarely used.

Thank you "A for a Q". Now we know that my criticisms of Kroger apply to Macpherson, and therefore an entire faction of people, who mislead the voters and sully the good name of the Party by calling themselves Democrats.

Paulie - Do YOU support the death penalty? Do YOU believe the Supreme Court should dismiss the case they are hearing that lethal injection, the way we do the death penalty here in Oregon, is cruel and unusual punishment since your candidate, if it is Kroger or Macpherson, affirmatively supports the death penalty? Why don't you provide us with a nice presentation of how you are so very proud of Kroger's or Macpherson's (whichever candidate you're behind) support for state-sanctioned murder?

Do you argue that these are the values and positions that should define us as Democrats in Oregon? Are you proud that Oregon, unlike New Jersey, is what helps put the U.S. in the company of countries like China and South Africa? If you believe you have the moral high ground that will persuade people then you should have no qualms about making the case instead of hoping people will look away: Why don't you publicly call on your chosen candidate to put a full and clear statement of his support for the death penalty and the reasons why on his website? Maybe you and he are ashamed of the position or the votes it will cost from people who thought we as a Party actually stood for high principles?

You and a lot of the really immature people here that have seemed to become the selfish, mean-spirited, tragically visible face of our Party never seemed to have grown up and learned one thing: We all have a right to an opinion, we don't have a right to have our opinion and the character defects from which they stem exempt from the brutal criticism they deserve when you are asking people to vote those opinions into power. Particularly when it comes to state-sanctioned murder by means that the evidence demonstrates are torture. There's a big difference between ignoring criticism that outs someone as an ugly contradiction to what they hypocritically mouth they stand and work for as Democrats, and ignoring what is without substance. These two candidates and their supporters need to bow out before they embarrass the "D" label further, and we need to get a new AG candidate who actually does the Party proud.

Paulie - Do YOU support the death penalty? Do YOU believe the Supreme Court should dismiss the case they are hearing that lethal injection, the way we do the death penalty here in Oregon, is cruel and unusual punishment since your candidate, if it is Kroger or Macpherson, affirmatively supports the death penalty? Why don't you provide us with a nice presentation of how you are so very proud of Kroger's or Macpherson's (whichever candidate you're behind) support for state-sanctioned murder?

Do you argue that these are the values and positions that should define us as Democrats in Oregon? Are you proud that Oregon, unlike New Jersey, is what helps put the U.S. in the company of countries like China and South Africa? If you believe you have the moral high ground that will persuade people then you should have no qualms about making the case instead of hoping people will look away: Why don't you publicly call on your chosen candidate to put a full and clear statement of his support for the death penalty and the reasons why on his website? Maybe you and he are ashamed of the position or the votes it will cost from people who thought we as a Party actually stood for high principles?

You and a lot of the really immature people here that have seemed to become the selfish, mean-spirited, tragically visible face of our Party never seemed to have grown up and learned one thing: We all have a right to an opinion, we don't have a right to have our opinion and the character defects from which they stem exempt from the brutal criticism they deserve when you are asking people to vote those opinions into power. Particularly when it comes to state-sanctioned murder by means that the evidence demonstrates are torture. There's a big difference between ignoring criticism that outs someone as an ugly contradiction to what they hypocritically mouth they stand and work for as Democrats, and ignoring what is without substance. These two candidates and their supporters need to bow out before they embarrass the "D" label further, and we need to get a new AG candidate who actually does the Party proud.