The video has comments at the end, and all of them are REALLY positive. [So I submitted a lukewarm one and will see if it makes it through the approval process.]

Rick thanks the commenters with this:

Thannks [sic] you guys. It really was crazy. Dan and I haven’t seen each other in years. It was so nice that Kathy was in the parade with me so she could see Dan too. That afternoon we met up with Dan and his wife Cindy and some of their friends and did the “Hillsboro” talk. It was so great.

The "aw shucks" thing is sort of cute for a minute. But I'm wondering why his handlers don't give him some real talking points. They could probably find some on the Internet.

Maybe I have a short memory, but I guess I don't recall the content-laden campaign Kate Brown ran for this office during the primary. Oh, that's right! She thought they should have counted all the votes in Florida in 2000!

Actually, the most substantive campaign for Secretary of State during the primary was run by Vicki Walker, but she didn't have the money to get her message out. On most of the issues, though, her positions were closer to Dancer's than to Kate Brown's.

Thanks, Carla! Funny -- I wrote my piece about Allen Alley over the weekend. I guess we've got a GOP trend here, don't we?

Meet "dddave" - who thinks it's still the 1990s.

I am not defending Dancer for his lack of substance, but I sure won't defend Brown's lack of substance just cause she is a D.

That seems a fair enough criticism. But it still begs the question of why we, the voters of Oregon, should vote for Rick Dancer rather than for Kate Brown in what virtually everyone agrees is a Democratic year?

Hmm...curious.

Some not agree with everything that Brown is saying in her campaign (especially Republicans)..but lacking substance, especially in relation to Dancer? Not so much.

Here's a video of Brown talking about some of what she will do as SOS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGpGxULeI2g

This article by Mapes shows Brown highlighting her experience for SOS based on elections-related issues:

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=175942

Here's the Oregonian endorsement, touting Brown's bona-fides on ethics reform and why it makes her best for the job: http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/120890852048840.xml&coll=7

(Which is part of what Brown is running on in the campaign)

Again..you might not agree with Brown on policy..but lack of substance? That's an argument that seems to have no legs--especially relative to Dancer.

Carla, what's really the point of trashing Rick Dancer? So far as I can tell, he's an honorable guy who stepped forward to run for an office that he knows he can't win.

Why go so negative at the start of a race when your preferred candidates are 20 points or better ahead of the people you are trashing?

Are we so enamored of the Bush era that we feel a burning need to borrow some pages from their playbook?

(Same thing is true about the hit pieces that the DPO and Kari and some of the rest are doing against Alley.)

Sal:

I'm writing the way I see it.

I haven't gone after Dancer's honor, that's obvious. He may be a decent human being--I've never met the man so I have no idea.

I've made note of the fact that his campaign seems to lack the necessary substance requisite for the second highest office in the state. That opinion appears to be coming not just from me..but from some on the right as well (as I noted).

Its odd to me that you don't find that problematic.

But then--there's a number of things on which we disagree. I daresay this would be one of the least of them.

Carla, the way I see it, 75% of your posts are hit pieces, and some of them are waaay over the top. This one, admittedly, is fairly tame compared to some.

What you do with your time is your business, but I got into politics in large part as a response to the Bush regime's cosa nostra-style of attack politics, and I don't like that I'm seeing so many "progressives" fall into similar patterns.

But that may just be one of "the number of things" about which we disagree.

RT has it about right. My point is, do we really need people to grind Dancer into the dust in a campaign that isn't going to be competitive?

Similarly, I look at Allan Alley and I see a guy who did good things at Boeing, and whose company has employed hundreds of people in this state. Yes, they haven't performed all that well in recent years, but he is a serious and credible candidate.

Do I support him for treasurer? No. But I don't like the way people are beating on the man.

It's hard enough finding credible candidates who are worthy of public office, but I think this state will be much poorer for it if the public office litmus test for business men and women is that they have to succeed 100% of the time because the other side is only interested in gotcha politics and trashing their personal and professional reputations.

Carla, the way I see it, 75% of your posts are hit pieces, and some of them are waaay over the top. This one, admittedly, is fairly tame compared to some.

Everybody has their reasons,Sal. I got in to fight back. And I intend to keep right on fighting.

And I notice that you didn't have any problem with me throwing punches over Donna Nelson's C&Es when you were running against her for the Oregon House seat out of Mac. But them's the breaks, eh?

And frankly, your contention that we can't get good people to run for office because of the fact that politics is rough and tumble is silly. I submit that we've had many good Presidents and several great ones. All managed to run the gauntlet of scrutiny and hard-assed, edgy reporting on them (with the possible exception of Washington). Heck..the stuff between Jefferson and Adams was incredibly nasty and yet both managed..especially Jefferson (The Alien and Sedition Acts will always be a major black mark on Adams' presidency, IMO).

I don't see anyone "beating on the man". I see that his campaign lacks substance and it deserves to be reported and discussed.

And yeah, this is one of many things we disagree on. I'm going to fight like hell for progressive candidates and causes. If that bothers you..feel free not to read my stuff. I promise to do the same for you, should you bother me. :)

Carla, fighting back against the Bush administration and the right wind slime machine is one thing. Gratuitously trashing anyone and everyone with an "R" after their name on a ballot, is another.

A couple of aditional points...

You are badly mistaken if you believe that there is not a shortage of credible candidates for public office. 8 out of 15 races for the Oregon Senate and 25 out of 60 races in the house will be uncontested this fall, and not one incumbent congressman faces a credible challenge.

As to Donna Nelson's C&E's...

Here's the only thread I can recall about Nelson's C&E's, and it was on Blue Oregon. If you'll read it, you'll note that I was criticized strongly by a few folks for NOT capitalizing on Nelson's C&E reporting:

http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/12/criminal_invest.html

Here's my main quote from the comments section:

"This business of winning elections by tearing down another person, in this case trying literally to destroy the other person, for partisan or personal gain is flat out wrong in my view. It promotes cynicism and mistrust among the general public, it makes it harder to work together to achieve consensus, and I'm not going to do it without cause."

You'll note how little my stance has changed in the subsequent 2 years. I think if you go back and look at the record, I was fairly critical of people who went negative on Donna during the 2006 campaign, although I actively solicited support in responding to a negative attack by her in which she said that I had taken most of my money from Portland-based unions.

As you say, if you don't want me to criticize you for the gratuitous pseudonymous hit pieces, as always, you are free to ignore my comments.

Carla, fighting back against the Bush administration and the right wind slime machine is one thing. Gratuitously trashing anyone and everyone with an "R" after their name on a ballot, is another.

It seems to me that you're fairly selective in what you consider to be gratuitous trashing. You clearly had no problem with the "gratuitious trashing" that went on against Merkley in the primary. So one man's "gratuitous trashing" would be, it seems, another's truth-telling.

Here's the only thread I can recall about Nelson's C&E's, and it was on Blue Oregon. If you'll read it, you'll note that I was criticized strongly by a few folks for NOT capitalizing on Nelson's C&E reporting

I wasn't writing at Blue Oregon then, Sal. I was writing at LO. And when both Mark and I wrote about Donna--you were actually very helpful in giving us information about what was going on in the race. In fact, I think it was you who told me that Nelson had filed the C&E report pledging to spend $2k or less in the race that I blogged about.

If I am lying or smearing someone here like the Bush Admin and Republicans in general do, feel free to demonstrate it. But accusing me as you are--when you participated in it yourself during the Senate primary (and giving me info during your race, knowing what kind of writing I do), kinda smacks odd to me, at the very least.

I don't remember Sal expressing any concern whatsoever at any of the trashing of Jeff Merkley that went on. Indeed, he agreed with a lot of it and himself trashed a wide swath of very progressive organizations as somehow being part and parcel of "the establishment."

Of course, he'd dismiss that as having been for "cause," as he puts it. Which just means that he thinks everyone should be drinking his preferred brand of Kool-Aid.

He is, of course, free to imbibe in whatever brand of Kool-Aid he wishes. But it's fairly rank hypocrisy to excuse one's own trashing while pointing fingers at other's trashing. But then again... Kool-Aid swilling produces just such predictable results.

Carla, the only communication I can recall having with you during the campaign was in response to the GOP ads from the farm bureau.

I don't recall any coverage on LO or anywhere else about Nelson's C&E's until after the News Register broke the story in response to a complaint filed on election day by Debbie Runciman. To the best of my recollection, I never discussed he matter with anyone other than Debbie and my wife until after the election was over.

Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken about that.

As to the Democratic Senate Primary, I'll cop to posting a couple of comments in anger, but again, go back and look at the general line taken in my comments:

http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/03/this-is-a-diffi.html

I think Jake was right to offer his comment. I'm glad he did it. Having said that, I'd like to encourage supporters on both sides of the primary divide to tone it down a notch. Kevin was out of line. Some of the state reps who set the tone of this race on this blog were out of line. Novick's campaign was right to respond -- albeit belatedly. Now it's time to focus on why you've got the best candidate in the race rather than tearing down the other guy. Just sayin' Kudo's to Kari and the other editors for airing this dirty laundry. Better to lance this boil now, before it gets even bigger.

Sal, that is a great example of your comments during the primary.

When it came time for sweeping generalizations, you are obviously comfortable making it appear as if you were holding everyone to the same high standard.

But when it came to specificity... the blinders dropped down.

It'd be a hell of a lot easier to respect you if you'd stop trying to hide the axes you grind behind your back as if nobody else realizes that you are as fond of grinding axes as anyone else.

Here's another of my evil and wrong-headed comments from the Democratic Primary...

I think that all of us should remember that a person who agrees with you on 90 percent of your issues should be regarded as a friend and ally, and not demonized, nor vilified for the 10 percent of the time that you disagree.

After this primary is over, the Democrats are going to need all hands on deck to have even a prayer of running a credible general election campaign.

My advice is the same as Charlie's: Focus on propping up your candidate rather than tearing down the other guy, and this primary will be a net plus.

Actually Sal, what I remember is us speaking on the phone about the Mac NR story cuz it wouldn't have crossed the radar without a head's up. We were watching a ton of races. I believe that Mark wrote that one up when he had time to get to it--after Randy Stapilus had posted it first. But as I recall, you gave us the head's up.

I also believe you spoke to both of us about a poll that was being conducted against you (maybe that's the Farm Bureau thing you're talking about?) Again..you were pretty willing to talk to us, knowing that both of us were very harsh in our writing style. And once the campaign was over..you seemed more than eager to talk with me in our interview in Mac.

As I recall, we met in a coffee shop downtown where you thanked me for all the effort we put in to writing about the race.

Actually Sal, what I remember is us speaking on the phone about the Mac NR story cuz it wouldn't have crossed the radar without a head's up.

Yep. And that story came out after the race was over. And again, look at the comment thread linked above. I was excoriated for not using information that she might have a C&E problem in the closing weeks of the race.

And I remain very appreciative of LO's coverage of the farm bureau phone calls. What eludes me is how responding to a false negative attack by telling the press and bloggers that there was a false negative attack somehow constitutes me "going negative".

Sal, you mean to say that characterizing Basic Rights Oregon as part of "the establishment" was meant to be a compliment and not... oh, I dunno... a GROSS exaggeration designed to dismissively denigrate a group who had endorsed someone other than who you self-evidently supported?

Really?

Intellectual self-honesty, what a concept...

OK, people, back on topic.

Sal, you mean to say that characterizing Basic Rights Oregon as part of "the establishment"

Kevin, Basic Rights Oregon IS a part of this state's Democratic establishment. Pointing that fact out is not tantamount to trashing anyone.

Learn some perspective, Kev. Seriously.

Sal, you mean to say that characterizing Basic Rights Oregon as part of "the establishment"

Kevin, Basic Rights Oregon IS a part of this state's Democratic establishment. Pointing that fact out is not tantamount to trashing anyone.

Learn some perspective, Kev. Seriously.

I somehow ended up on the Oregon GOP mail list and the piece they sent out the other day had -- in its subject line -- the name "Ricker Dancer".

Yeah, and the Smith campaign recently sent out an email from the "Friends of Gordon Smight". Bizarre.

A party in such deep financial trouble that they've had to cut back on the spellchecker budget.

Looking good in '08.

<h2>Blue Oregon gets trolls, I guess the state GOP has gremlins...</h2>