Yawn. A typical desperate ad from a typical politician.

Comparing a guy who is law professor and former federal prosecutor to a driver who just got his license and a doctor who just graduated from med school? Seriously?

And one more thing:

Why is the Macpherson campaign suddenly so concerned that John Kroger hasn't practiced law in Oregon? I thought the AG didn't actually practice law and go to court but rather managed DOJ attorneys, advised state agencies, etc.

Oops. That's what the Macpherson campaign said last month when they tried to blunt the fact that Kroger has a real courtroom record and Macpherson doesn't. It's so hard to keep up with all of the conflicting Macpherson campaign messages. (And I'm already struggling to keep up with all of the conflicting Clinton campaign messages.)

It also turns out that Kroger HAS practiced law in Oregon, while working to prosecute Enron.

Two ads, two attacks? Never seen that before...

It's cute how Mandate Media cranks it up these last two weeks before the primary. Is that included, or do the clients pay extra for this service?

It's Oregon political news, Stephanie.

And frankly, I'm glad Mandate Media is doing it. This is a classic "negative ad" smear job, which I think will backfire on Greg Macpearson.

So please, give it a rest. Kari is openly, and honestly, partisan. But he's not corrupt.

Glad I've never had to compete with Greg Macpherson for anything, I can see his nativist attack ad already:

"Now Nick Wirth wants to go to Lewis and Clark College, but Nick Wirth never graduated from high school... in Oregon. He's never gone to school, passed a single class, or learned how to read... in Oregon."

Um, we're posting all the ads. You may not like the ad, but it's worthy of discussion here.

"Now, what would be negative would be to point out that he worked for two years in the Bush administration under AG John Ashcroft!"

Junebug,

You are falling into the same mode as the Bush/Gonzales Attorney General scandal; treating career attorneys as political appointees. Progressives have been fighting to get politics out of the justice system. You seem to be on the side of those who want to politicize it. Are you really a progressive?

I agree the ad overstates its case -- the appropriate comparison is a doctor who MOVED into the state. That having been said, it is accurate to say that John Kroger has an '07 bar number, accurate to point out that -- while he promotes his trial experience -- he has none in Oregon and has never set foot in an Oregon court. You can weigh that in your calculus or not as you wish. It is NOT accurate to say that John has practised law in Oregon. Lots of lawyers fly around the nation to take depositions or review documents or have meetings -- that is NOT considered the practice of law in that state. Greg's ad is entirely accurate in that regard. The fact of John's modest legal record -- six years actual practice -- is a totally legitimate issue. The recency of his Oreogn license likewise is legitimate. It's the style of Greg's ad that I wish was different.

"It is NOT accurate to say that John has practised law in Oregon. Lots of lawyers fly around the nation to take depositions or review documents or have meetings -- that is NOT considered the practice of law in that state."

Is it considered driving a bus?

TJ--

No, it's not driving a bus, but it's not considered the practice of law either. State bar associations require that you "practice" where you are admitted. For any other state, if you go into court, you file a "pro hac vice" (i.e., one shot deal) application. Then you can fully participate in that matter filed in that state. My understanding is that John's never even done that. Simply interviewing a witness -- something one does not need a law license to do (we have investigators, for example) -- does not rise to the level of practice of law. Had John practiced law in Oregon prior to about six months ago, it would have been unauthorized and sanctionable, so I warrant he would have to agree he's never practiced law here until at least November, and as he doesn't practice law now, has never done so in Oregon.

It's so strange that a guy as courtly and aristocratic as Greg Macpherson would run such loathsome ads. I mean, he's a very pleasant person in a social setting. But it's clear that (like Merkley) he's desperate, and some unanticipated ugliness is emerging.

It's really very sad.

A Rab--

You say "The reason Kroger has a '07 bar number is a non-issue, he was a law professor or federal prosecutor in Oregon, which does not require being a member of the Oregon bar and nobody takes a bar unless there is a particular need - it is a complete non-issue."

John was NEVER a federal prosecutor in Oregon. Only a law professor, an entirely honorable profession that does not prepare one to manage 1200 employees, work with the legislature, or, really, to gain legal experience. John's been a lawyer for six years, and not in Oregon. You may think that's a non-issue, but virtually every lawyer I speak to disagrees. That makes the underlying material in this ad valid even if, as most people have noted, the style of conveying that information was inappropriate. For me, I think there's virtually nothing other than style to distinguish this from John's "Greg's never tried a case" ad. Both guys have been pretty negative except for one ad each that was their "here's who I am" ad.

A Rab --

Respectfully, you're simply wrong. Being on the Enron task force does not make John a prosecutor in Oregon. He was not at that time based in Oregon or even in federal court, let alone state court, in Oregon. Read his book -- it mostly happened in Texas (Enron may have been incorporated here, but is really a Texas company).

Ultimately, you're just arguing your own pre-conception. You can't say something is a "non-issue" -- only that it's a"non-issue" to YOU. It's not a non-issue to me or many others I know. And regardless of wehther the bar date is a non-issue, having been a practicing lawyer a mere six years is NOT an non-issue by any standard. And to say that John attacking Greg on not trying cases is not equivalent to Greg attacking John for being inexperienced? Those are precisely the same things. Each is sayingthe other lacks experience. You're simply being selective with the facts you want to acknowledge. As are most of the folks denying that John's ads are negative. They are, but they are, concedely, more slickly negative.

John's run a single positive ad, stressing, frankly, issues that are irrelevant to the AG's office (meth). Greg's run a single positive ad, stressing, frankly, his bio, which is also mostly irrelevant to the office. If you can step back from your advocacy and be a legitimate critic of the ads, you'd see that.

Well, that's (a) an incredibly slender reed, (b) what John did was nothing ANY lawyer I know would call practiing law here, and (c) if it were, he's violated the state bar by not being admitted at the time. Frankly, I'd take the "he didn't practice," and run with it.

Saying Greg's "never tried a case" isn't going after him? John didn't just stress his purportedly relevant experience, he denigrated Greg.

Greg's also run on a lot of ideas; I guess you simply don't choose to hear them. They include his plans on meth, on environmental enforcement, on DOJ reorganization, and lots of other stuff. Really read his web site with an open mind.

And I note you still don't respond to the "only six years point." You've ducked this one two or three times now. Six years, A. Rab. It's simply not enough experience.

Miles: It's really incredible, Steve, that you can criticize this ad while praising Merkley's new attack ad on Novick. They both use the same dishonest tactic of taking things out of context and presenting them as they aren't.

When evaluating attack ads, I use the following criteria:

1] Is it actually, fully, completely, true? 2] Does it summarize or mislead? 3] Is it in any way pertinent or is it a distraction? 4] Does it offer a positive alternative?

Now let's look at the two ads in this context:

Is Jeff's ad true? Yes. Greg's ad? No. Prosecutors practice law. John did this.

Does Jeff's ad summarize? Yes - Steve is well known for his over the top high profile attacks; these attacks are just a sample. Does Greg summarize? No - it misleads. As we know - but most viewers don't - John has years more courtroom experience than Greg does.

Is it in any way pertinent? Jeff's ad: Yes. How Senators relate to people is pretty important - and since the Novick campaign has already used the mirror attack against Jeff ('too bland', etc), it's clearly in bounds for Jeff to respond. Greg's ad: No. His argument that legal practice in a physical state matters, is as specious as the argument that the dramatic rise in U.S. terrorist deaths Bush has caused doesn't matter because the Americans who've died weren't in the continental U.S.

Does it offer a positive alternative? Jeff's ad: Yes. Essentially, he is offering a different, more cordial style than Steve to bring people together. Greg - No. He's certainly not going to brag about his nonexistent courtroom experience. It's just a pure hit piece.

What a masterpiece of rationalization we have just been privileged to observe.

I just thought it was a bad ad -- crude in appearance and unpersuasive. Maybe I'm wrong, have no idea really how many people vote only on t.v. ads vs. those who take a gander at the voter guide, especially when there's such a stark conflict of factual messages between this ad and Kroger's positive ones describing his experience.

Stephanie V What a masterpiece of rationalization we have just been privileged to observe.

I certainly hope that comment wasn't directed at me, Stephanie. Name calling does not become you.

But your comment does remind me of Maurer's Rule About Arguing on the Internet & Talk Radio: "When your opponent is reduced to petulantly spitting insults, you know you've won."

"But your comment does remind me of Maurer's Rule About Arguing on the Internet & Talk Radio: "When your opponent is reduced to petulantly spitting insults, you know you've won."

Apparently it also applies to political campaigns. This is Merkley's negative attack ad, remember? Novick's run nothing but positive ads.

Miles: Steve, it is not name-calling or petulance to note your ability to rationalize away inconvenient facts

Ah yes, those "inconvenient facts" that neither you nor Stephanie ever cite - because, of course, they don't exist.

And you also have no concept of what the term "purity troll" entails, or else you wouldn't accuse me of such. Instead, you're just using it as a generalized ad hominem because you've been reduced to irrational, fact free, sputtering.

As it is with Stephanie, I expected better of you. I'm sorry you've had to damage your credibility like this.

I said

What a masterpiece of rationalization we have just been privileged to observe.

Steven Maurer said

I certainly hope that comment wasn't directed at me, Stephanie. Name calling does not become you. But your comment does remind me of Maurer's Rule About Arguing on the Internet & Talk Radio: "When your opponent is reduced to petulantly spitting insults, you know you've won."

Saying it doesn't make it so. Please identify the name I called you, and then, please cite the insult I petulantly spat at you. Thank you.

Lest anyone be unaware of the phrasing Stephanie used, here is the definition of Rationalization.

As you are not professionally psychoanalyzing me, Stephanie, it is clear you intended this as an insult.

It is also clear you did this because you have no actual counterargument.

"If you discount the "accidental release" that got wide play,"

1) one airing is not "wide play" 2) why is accidental in quotes, when it was confirmed as such by the TV station?

Do you really consider tax policy and questions of war to be poo flinging? Yet Bono is a substantive, meritorious issue in the Senate race?

All this Macpherson nativism is starting to remind me of that salsa commercial where the salsa is made in "NEW YORK CITY!!"

And not in a good way.

Miles: You laid out a four-point, pseudo-logical basis for why you think the Merkley attack ad is a-okay but you find the Macpherson attack ad a "smear job".

If Stephanie or you had actually engaged on the substance of your disagreement with me, instead of taking a cheap shot, I wouldn't be so disappointed in you.

Insofar as your actual argument goes, Miles, a 30 second ad must be - of necessity - brief. It is unreasonable to demand a 10 minute ad, simply because it helps puts your candidates remarks in context.

Second, this ad is by no means a distortion of Steve's style of communication. He has a penchant for making inflammatory quotes. Any remotely fair minded Novick supporter has to admit that, just as I, a Merkley supporter, freely admit that Jeff's talents don't lie in making barnburner speeches. (Although I'm pleasantly surprised about how much better he is getting.)

But even if you draw the line differently, there still remains an obvious difference between Jeff's ad, and the Macphearson ad - which compares John Kroger to a rank amateur who is a danger to everyone around him, by pretending that legal experience outside the physical boundaries of this state somehow doesn't count.

And if you refuse to admit that, well, it isn't me being "pseudo-logical".

Steve, I think I'd pretty much give you the last three of your criteria, although in the nature of the thing, on point 4, Jeff is stepping out of the usual character claimed for him with this ad & related smeary website.

That is, the claim that Steve can't logically be upset at being criticized, if he thinks Democrats criticizing other Democrats in the spirit of "calling 'em like s/he see's 'em" is a good thing, exactly entails this corollary: that Jeff can't logically be upset at being criticized for "going negative" if he thinks it's not good practice to sharply criticize other Democrats in public.

That doesn't mean that Jeff isn't offering a positive alternative (or an alternative presented as positive). I agree that he does offer one presented that way: being diplomatic. It just means that in this case he's not acting on that alternative. Pointing that out is fair comment.

But despite the other criteria, the fact of the matter is that the ad and the website fail your first and most important criterion. They represent Steve as saying things he didn't and misrepresent the meaning of what he did say. Saying they're true to his style doesn't cut it.

Consider this thought experiment: George W. Bush is well-known for committing verbal solecisms ("make the pie higher!" "help people put food on their families" etc.) Now, I might make up something he didn't say, that he could be imagined as saying. If I put it in a comedy sketch, it would be parody or satire and be fair comment in the genre.

But if I represented that he actually did say it, it would be false and lie, even if it was completely true to his style.

So even if the misrepresentations of Steve's words were completely true to his style, as you claim, they still wouldn't meet your primary criterion of truthfulness. In fact they badly misrepresent the truth.

That's the main problem: Jeff's ad & website don't meet your primary criterion of truthfulness.

<hr/>

Less importantly:

Personally I also think that some of the misrepresentations of fact actually also misrepresent Steve's style, though not everything is a misrepresentation.

The Darlene Hooley quote is a good example. Steve didn't and doesn't go around saying "Darlene Hooley is a liar" full stop. He said that in a particular instance she was peddling lies about the estate tax that were unworthy of her.

It is his style to call a lie a lie rather than use a euphemism, at least on some occasions. So if you wanted to say "he was being undiplomatic" in not using a euphemism, fair-mindedly I'd agree, and we could debate the relative and situational merits of diplomacy vs. plain-speaking, and where Steve & Jeff fit in that picture, which I agree is a fair issue.

But if you claim that it's Steve's style to go around calling people liars as a statement about their general character, based on one criticism specifically of a particular lie, fair-mindedly I can't agree, and think in fact that claim is not fair-minded, but an untruthful misrepresentation. And the ad makes that claim.

In all honesty, Chris, I step off the Merkley bus - and agree with you - when you talk about the "smeary website".

Why? Because while it is unreasonable to expect a 30 second ad to give anything more than a brief encapsulation of an argument (complete with technically accurate but context-free quotes), the same cannot be said of the internet, which as we all know, allows for extremely in depth diatribes. So I really can't support the Merkley campaign on the "parody" site, and would encourage them to take it down.

Yet I'm not sure that Speaker Merkeley is acting defensive about being criticized over this ad. I haven't seen anything as such. I admit to being critical myself about the profound hypocrisy of some Novick partisans - the exact same people who have been spinning distortions and distractions about Merkley from day one of this campaign - pretending he's an innocent little victim. But if someone said they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either of these two guys, because they've both been negative, I think the Speaker would understand.

Insofar as the argument you're putting forth, that Steve Novick doesn't always insult people like this, I'd agree with you that it would be a distortion for the ad to say or imply this. But it doesn't. And generally it is understood that being diplomatic means being so all the time. Not just when you agree with them.

And this is especially true in national politics, which is a nonstop exercise of "gotcha" attacks. All it takes is a single malapropism, and your words will be put on a 24 hour a day cable news tape loop. You really have to watch your mouth every single second. (I would argue this is doubly true for Democrats, given the overt right wing bias of the beltway media. Just look at how Obama has been treated, who is more polite than Jeff, and leagues more polite than Steve.)

In that light, I really can't accept the premise that these quotes are really mischaracterizing Steve's communication style. Sure, if he was really sitting down in a typical bar, I'm certain he'd be one of the most polite people there. Any off color snark would only be endearing, and immediately forgotten. But Senators don't get second chances to unsay things, so it matters a lot to have someone who always says things right the first time.

For example, Steve could have said "Darlene has fallen for a widespread Republican canard; a lot of people have, unfortunately. She needs more education on the subject." -- and made the exact same point. But using the word "lie", it turns it into an attack on her credibility, making for a juicy quote that will be used to divide Democrats.

Let me put it this way - the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) doesn't always attack their fellow Democrats. Go to their website, and you'll find all sorts of things - probably 99% - that most progressives agree with completely. But is that what you hear from them in the media? Is the 1% of the time they do bash fellow Democrats - and ruin our messaging - acceptable?

If not, why accept this kind of behavior from Steve?

Kroger says he practiced law here, courtesy PolitickerOR:

"Furthermore, according to Oregon courts, "the 'practice of law' means the exercise of professional judgment in applying legal principles to address another person's individualized needs through analysis, advice or other assistance." See Oregon State Bar v. Smith, 149 Or.App. 171 (1997).

He rests his case."

Just back from yet another stint at Kroger's office, phoning voters. My suggestion to all who despise the dishonest Macpherson propaganda is that if you want an Attorney General who will activate rather than vegitate, get to Kroger's office and start talking to voters. Very few of the people I've talked to have any idea what an AG is, does, or for that matter who's running or why they should vote for Kroger. This is also probably true of the hundreds for whom I've left voicemail.

Lee Coleman NO THIRD TERM!