Thanks for the recap.

Does anybody know if there is video of the debate posted somewhere?

Thanks Andrew for the post. I really wanted to attend, but was unable to. Its nice to hear that Kroger did so well!

Lestat: I also am opposed to the death penalty, for both moral and practical reasons, and I think it's too bad that both Kroger and Macpherson support the death penalty.

That said, about three hours after the AG debate Kroger was still standing in the lobby, shaking hands and answering questions from anyone who walked up to him. I asked him specifically about the death penalty, told him that while I was morally opposed my most immediate concern was with the fairness of its application. Kroger gave me an extremely thoughtful response:

• He supports the death penalty for particularly heinous murders.
• He is very concerned with the death penalty's use (and potential abuse), and as AG would order a complete review of every conviction of every Oregon death row inmate.
• As AG he would also set a high bar that prosecutors would need to meet in order to bring a capital case.

His response certainly made me more comfortable with his position on the death penalty -- particularly since we have no alternative in the Democratic primary.

As a student in Oregon who was at the debate I handily agree with Andrew's analysis. It is exciting and refreshing to have an AG candidate who has real passion and drive and who wants to focus on moving Oregon forward. I admittedly know very little about Macpherson but his performance at the debate was...unsettling. I want someone who knows what they believe in, can articulate those beliefs in a way that helps me understand their motivations and how they would address potential issues in their job. For me the only person who did that successfully was John.

I asked a question that neither candidate had enough time to answer fully about their involvement with the Attorney General's Sexual Assault task Force. Later, I found Kroger still at the conference, so I gave him a second chance (and would have done the same for Kroger had I seen him). Two things he said encouraged me:

1) yes, of course he'd be a key proponent. He mentioned the need for a strong law enforcement system to back up violence prevention. Vicki Walker also clearly indicated her support.

2) he also mentioned taking a stand for child support enforcement -- which is vastly under enforced.

and

3) he listened to me.

I went into the debate supporting Greg, and continue to do so after the fact. I think that his casual demeanor should not be mistaken for a lack of passion for this office. He has given up his Rep seat to run for this race, and knows this is his chance. I think talking about his experience is relevant and important, especially the work he has done for the state of Oregon and it's people already. As a lifelong Oregonian, this experience and time spent means something to me. I believe it shows his commitment to really making things better in the best way he can which at this point is serving as the next AG. I was frustrated with Kroger's attempts to support everything. If there's one thing we've learned from budgeting in this state, it's that you can't have your cake and eat it too. His support of mandatory minimums, treatment, and social services pull too much from the same pot. In this way I also appreciate Macpherson's caution with not promising the stars, and then not being able to deliver.

I had thought Kroger a good candidate against Mannix, but the last I heard from people who know him, Kevin seems to have realized that the voters don't like him---after his multiple statewide losses---and chooses not to run statewide again. Whether that is true or not, we will know in March.

About the out of state money in the other post, I recall when Chris Van Dyke ran for local DA and when the names of famous people showed up in his C & E, he said something like "a young man running for office asks his parents' friends to donate". If the same sort of thing is true with Kroger (he personally knew all out of state contributors before he announced for office), that would be one thing. I will wait to see evidence of that.

Here is what bothers me about Kroger. He makes a very good impression in public BUT I try to reconcile some of the things said here and elsewhere with his statement in front of the Marion (et al) Dems about being smart on crime rather than just tough on crime---and some of the minor crimes which maybe shouldn't result in jail time in the sort of prison system which is just a jr. college for criminals.

What I would like to know is: 1) Kroger's definition of "smart on crime" in detail 2) more information on what he was saying about how "lock 'em up" for young criminals may not be the best answer in all cases.

If there is an explanation of the above, I might consider voting for him. If I am not satisfied with explanation of the above, the fact that many people on BO or elsewhere think Kroger is the greatest candidate will not convince me. I'm the granddaughter of a prosecutor. I'm also an old friend of Greg Macpherson.

Anyone who thinks Kroger is a great law professor and was a great prosecutor should volunteer on his campaign and vote for him.

I remain an undecided skeptic.

Andrew, does this qualify for "clean and civil discussion"?

I do not speak for Kroger or the campaign, so I cannot answer your question directly. However, it is my understanding that being smart on crimes means emphasizing prevention and the smart application of the law. Examples would include drug treatment for those who need it, making sure child support is paid to help people get out of poverty, and making sure the charge fits the crime. Again, I do not speak for Kroger or the campaign, but this is how I have understood it.

Actually, LT, this explains a lot about your skepticism about John (being an old friend of Greg's) and I commend you for keeping an open mind and a civil tongue. John is great about talking to people about what he means, and I know on an earlier thread he actually invited folks to call in to the campaign and chat with him about his priorities. He's a smart guy, also quite pragmatic, and wouldn't put out pie-in-the-sky ideas. But don't take my word for it, talk to John.

Thanks Andrew, and a big thank you to everyone else who came out last weekend for Rebooting Democracy. Hope you had a good time.

Adam Gretzinger from the WashCo. Dems was generous enough to tape the debate.

You can dig in right over here.

Bus volunteers are currently editing high quality footage from the rest of the weekend. We'll make it available as soon as possible.

We have two outstanding candidates for AG.

I had never met Kroger, but had heard enough good things about him that I probably was leaning toward him going into the debate. However, his demeanor was too aggressive and angry, like Bob Dole on steroids. Passion is great, but anger is not. Sometimes that is misleading, though. Senator Paul Wellstone often seemed angry, but also had a warm and humerous side.

Still, I felt far more comfortable with Greg McP's confident but calm presentation.

I went to the debate on Sunday with an open mind, having never seen Kroger and having canvassed for MacPherson during his first run for Rep.

I have to say that I walked out very impressed with Kroger and very unimpressed with Greg. I also found Greg's constant references to "the professor" very annoying and juvenile; anyone else think so?

Clearly MacPherson is threatened by the serious challenge that Kroger presents and is running scared, already going negative (which is unfortunate because I think Greg's a highly intelligent lawmaker that has done some good things for Oregon). Greg should cut the negative attacks and get back to the issues. Kroger's main challenge in this election is going to be getting out to as many people as possible and getting his name ID up...I bet that a strong majority like him once they meet him. Good luck John, you've got my support.

Yes, I would advise Greg to stop saying "the professor" as if he is on the U.S. Senate floor. It is at best too formal, if not disingenuous. I also don't think that nitpicking over Measure 11 is wise. it is the law and most of us I think support most of it.

Still, I thought that Greg scored more points.

Both candidates clearly articulated their future plans for the state. Additionally, both candidates "looked and sounded like a top-notch lawyer." Maybe because Kroger wore a tie with his suit and Macpherson didn't, you were impressed.

On your third point, I do agree. Kroger was forthcoming regarding his stances on the death penalty and mandatory minimums for any violent crimes. He was not asked about these positions (not that I can remember), so he could have chosen not to mention them. For his candor, he should be recognized. I must add that it is because of these stances, his never having held elected office before, relatively short tenure in Oregon and my general liking for the more composed style of Macpherson I will probably be voting for Macpherson.

I just watched the debate online, and I have issues with MacPherson's comment on the death penalty during the debate. He said, "...the death penalty works OK in Oregon...it can be viewed more on the line of assisted suicide than capital punishment." He says this because the two people that have been victims of the death penalty in the last 25 years did not appeal their case. What kind of person would say that, comparing the death penalty to assisted suicide? All the blogs I've read in support of MacPherson because of Kroger's stance on the death penalty are, in my mind, immaterial. At least Kroger has an adequate opinion on the death penalty, saying it should be for horrific murderers and rapists.