This would be exciting to me. Where do we sign up to volunteer and donate money?

Now you're talking! Sign me up too!

I don't particularly care if we have a D or an R for governor next time around, but I sure hope we have one with administrative experience. It's an administrative job, not a legislative job.

Novick has none. Walden has none. Smith has none (except the pea factory). Atkinson has none.

Bradbury has, but I can't see that he's been particularly good at it.

Am I missing something? What does Novick have experience at?

He's never been elected to anything, never managed anything and never led anything.

"It's a philosophy of education that's been embraced by the left and right -- each for their own purposes, but with the same effect: the marginalization and disempowerment of teachers."

Where do you find the left embracing "strict curriculum standards, highly regulated textbooks, standardized testing, and more?"

I see a bunch of Democratic Leisure Class corporate Dems (like the new Secretary of Education) embracing this model, but I haven't seen anyone on the left doing so. Who are you referring to? Not a single progressive teacher that I know or have ever heard of supports the style of education that NCLB demands.

For those who say that Steve doesn't have managerial experience, without knowing all of his experience, I know that he was administrator of the OR Democratic State Senate caucus in the '97 legislative session. Granted, there were only ten Democrats in the senate at the time, but I think the consensus is that he was a brilliant, effective, and popular leader. Many of those senators (Cliff Trow and Randy Leonard are two who come to mind) supported Steve in his U.S. Senate campaign.

I was one who thought that Steve's lack of elected office credentials might be detrimental as he began his last campaign, but his come from behind near-win convinced me that he has enough strengths as a candidate to offset that.

I think that DeFazio would be the early front runner if he gets in (maybe Kitzhaber, assuming he's considering it) but Steve is in a very strong position.

These are extraordinarily sensible things for a politician to be saying about education. I would also volunteer and donate to Novick's campaign.

As for those who are complaining about a lack of experience, I would have thought that they would have learned from the weakness of that argument when it was last used against Barack Obama.

Moreover, consider the strength of current governor Kulongoski's resume, and consider the relative weakness of his vision for education, capped off recently by his off-the-cuff proposal (one might almost call it a rookie mistake) for teachers to go to work for free. This was immediately rejected by everyone for lots of different reasons that need not be repeated here. The point is that Kulongoski has enormous legal and labor experience, but for whatever reasons, these seemed not to serve him well in this instance.

I hope that the field is clear for Novick to run. If that is the case, he'll win. If he wins, he'll be great. He's got some of the Paul Wellstone / Bernie Sanders in him.

And sign me up to help.

My experiences with Mr. Novick lead me to conclude that he certainly has the policy smarts, rhetorical talents, and familiarity with state government to qualify for the position. However, I don't believe that he has the temperament.

I observed him rudely shun an elected House Democrat simply because that person had endorsed Merkley for the Senate race. While it may have been shocking for Mr. Novick to find that electeds serving with Merkley, and watching him in action in Salem, would have the gall to endorse Merkley for US Senator, Novick should have the smarts to understand that responding like a 6 year-old isn't useful or impressive.

Let Mr. Novick serve in a lesser office to learn a bit about team work and subverting one's ego before making the leap to Mahonia Hall. How about school board?

If Novick wins the Democratic nomination....

...then say hello to Governor Greg Walden or Governor Gordon Smith. Ugh.

Salemite . . . I'll take some of that action.

It's really not fair since it's pretty clear Smith isn't running (and would likely not get the Republican nomination if he did), but if you'd care to place a side bet on Novick / Walden or Novick / Mannix or Novick / currently unsuspected troglodyte coughed up by the party of Rush Limbaugh, Bobby Jindall, Bill Sizemore, Lars Larson, and Michael Steele . . . oh I'm in. I'm definitely in.

Baby needs a new pair of shoes.

Walden? If Walden runs for Governor once his Congressional voting record is exposed - he's toast! Here in the 2nd Congressional District he's never run against a well funded candidate and therefore he's been able to keep his voting record under the radar. In a state wide race where he will have to actually have to court Democrats I believe Novick could clean his clock. He's been able to maintain his nice guy image and Novick would easily expose him for the wolf in sheep's clothing that he really is.

With regard to Steve running for Gov. Yes, I realize that there are ardent supporters. Yes, he is very bright. Yes, sometimes people get elected to high office without holding lower office (Wyden comes to mind). Call me a heretic or any name you like, I just don't see Steve as such a person. I believe he'd be wiser to win lower office first.

Steve does realize, I hope, that OEA endorsements don't guarantee the vote of every classroom teacher. It is a vote by a roomful of political activists, and no, the way those delegates are chosen is not as straightforward as choosing party convention delegates or elected members of the legislature.

If Steve wants to talk about concrete issues facing teachers, he could start by saying how we should clean up the TSPC red tape---that would be a good step. TSPC is notorious for not giving straight answers to questions such as what is involved in renewal if the certified person is not currently working (a concern given layoffs or people who have only been able to substitute, and not have a lot of that in these times). There are teachers who dread renewal because of the paperwork and worry that if they just mark one box on the forms wrong it will be mailed back to them and they'll have to start all over. Showing a knowledge of that problem would show he wasn't just talking theory. Lots of concern about abusive teachers, but if good teachers who were laid off, want to add an endorsement, are wondering if they want to renew or retire can't get straight answers, how does that help the system?

Where does Steve stand on SB 537, regarding outside audits of school district business practices? Does he understand the anger of some citizens (not all of whom are teachers) over high pay for administrators at the asst. supt. etc. level who never seem to be evaluated by the same strict conditions used with teachers? Why do school administrators deserve to earn more than the Gov. of Oregon? Should they get car allowances rather than reporting mileage? In a fairly compact school district (20 miles or less between the most far flung schools) how much driving do the high level administrators do in a week? Or doesn't that matter because it is all about theory of Oregon schools vs. those in Finland?

If Steve can't talk about such specifics, then vague statements like " "But is not the OEA's fault that Finland has the best educational system in the world, and the secret to their success seems to be that people want to be teachers." won't get him very far.

Question is whether Steve wants to do the hard work and travel of putting on the same town hall style meetings as Wyden uses.

If Steve made the Finland comment in a town where someone said "Fine, but our school administrators got raises and now the Supt. wants to re-open union contracts to cut costs, what do you say about that?", Steve would have to say what he felt about that particular school district action. If people expected outrage and he didn't provide it, why would they support him?

Oh, and one more thing. Barack Obama was a community organizer, which means he was out there working with the needy folks at the grass roots level. Kristin, to the extent that ordinary voters see Novick's resume as more political consultant than grass roots organizer with needy ordinary people, that resume will not impress.

I would like to hear Steve talk about specific issues relevant to this state in the kind of detail I know he is capable of, having known him for years.

But the general public is not the Democratic caucus, not every Oregonian who voted in the 1996 Dem. primary thought Bruggere ran a high quality campaign--primary or general, the lottery campaign and the "balance the budget" exercises may not be what the general public is looking for in the next Gov.

And let's get one thing straight.in 2008 Novick used up the patience of many people regarding a candidate who would say "My opponent's vote was wrong when he____ 5 years ago".

Unless he can provide proof that 5 years ago he was outspoken on that issue and this isn't a repeat of the attacks on Merkley (which looked terribly opportunistic to some of us, and obviously did not carry very many counties in the primary), that could easily drive away people who are not already Novick supporters.

I still think Steve needs to have "lessons learned" sessions with his friends to discuss what they learned from 2008. Hopefully one of those lessons is "having commercials which impress professionals as being very clever does not guarantee winning votes in Oregon".

I am looking for a Gov. candidate who runs the sort of quality, grass roots, town hall style campaign Kitzhaber ran in 1994. Steve should be capable of running that sort of campaign. But if he believes money and clever ads are more important than grass roots organizing, he will not get my vote.

If Novick supporters don't take seriously the views of those like Dane and Jamais Vu, they are making a mistake--even if they believe they could have defeated Merkley if only they'd had enough money.

Read the part in Obama's book where he talks about visiting S. Illinois as a legislator even though his staff thought he was nuts. As bright a guy as Steve is, I have a hard time imagining Steve fitting in to church socials, potlucks, and other small town community events the way the young man with the Kansas relatives fit in. My view of Steve is someone more comfortable with big cities, and political professionals like the staff who told Obama he was nuts to visit S. Illinois.

TJ, here is a suggestion for you and all of Steve's friends.

The 2008 primary is over. There are going to be 2010 voters who either didn't pay much attention to the US Sen. primary in 2008, have forgotten it due to everything that has happened since, or were not registered to vote then (too young, had not yet moved to Oregon, etc.). Each of those people have the same one vote as bloggers with strong opinions.

To raise money and declare candidacy involves some big decisions and some paperwork. What I am suggesting requires neither.

Every friend/supporter of Steve who wants him to run for Gov. should talk to 10 friends about the idea. They should then tally the responses and send them to Steve. Any of the friends who are interested should be asked to contact someone they know in a county other than the one they are living in, and ask those friends what they think of the possibility of Steve for Gov.

If the friends in the other counties are interested in Steve for Gov., they should be encouraged to talk to their friends, and send the information either to Steve or to the person who first contacted them.

This is a variant on the concentric circles form of grass roots campaigning. I've been involved in start up phase of several campaigns, including the go/no-go decision, the basic framework, decisions on campaign structure, and other topics over the course of more than 3 decades. It is said Early Money Is Like Yeast, it makes the dough rise/helps raise the dough.

But it is also true that crucial early organizational decisions set the framework for the campaign. If Steve were to hear glowing reports from a multitude of counties, or "only if he is more specific than last time" or "what is the positive, specific agenda of Novick for Gov.?", that could help craft a successful campaign.

Cautionary tales ("Joe spent many years working in substance abuse programs and was not thrilled by the beer ad" or "Kathy was involved in the Lonsdale campaign, and Michael was a friend of both Lonsdale and Rust, so I wouldn't bring up the Bruggere campaign experience with them) could help avoid pitfalls. Voters are individuals, and a top-down campaign treating voters as merely members of blocs could end up making the mistakes of Hillary Clinton or Mondale in Oregon in 1984.

Steve M.

I agree with you, but "good hard look" includes questions like where Steve is on SB 537 and HB 2500 and why.

He is capable of running an excellent, grass roots oriented campaign like the Obama campaign.

Or, he could rerun the 2008 primary by telling us what votes from several years ago he doesn't like, expect us to buy into a gimmick like the beer ad, etc.

I still say one of his biggest mistakes in the 2008 primary was hiding that excellent poverty video a few clicks inside the campaign website, while for too long the "pants on fire" link was right there on the front page. No one was going to look at that link and think "juvenile attitude unbecoming of a federal campaign"?

I wait to see which Steve we see---the one who can intelligently debate serious issues, or the one who goes for attacks and stunts.

And for those who are still refighting the whole 2003 vote thing, I'd like to see evidence Steve was vocal about that vote in 2003.

The way I see it, Steve brought it up in the Sunriver speech, some people who heard the speech thought it was an insult to the Speaker, some legislators wrote a post here saying they were offended by what they saw as an attack on the Speaker. Then some people here got angry because House members sided with their Speaker instead of saying "Yes, Steve, you are right, Jeff was wrong, so he should hang his head in shame and should have never have filed to run for US Senate".

What part of "every individual has the right to make their own decisions" do those Novickians not understand?

Anyone who believes that Merkley didn't deserve to win the primary or general because of that controversy, or "Steve for Gov. because Merkley's friends wronged him in 2008" is saying the problems of Oregon are less important than the hurt feelings of people active in a 2008 primary.

"Steve for Gov. because we need to crack down on excessive school administrator salaries" would be a candidate who wants my vote---that's an issue I have discussed with my state rep. (who says I am not alone in my anger over the issue) and is an issue in our local school board election.

However, "Steve for Gov. because he was wronged by Merkley & friends in 2008" is a campaign I will strongly oppose.

Call me any name you want, that is the way I feel. And yes, I do have the right to say I have been involved in both winning and losing primary campaigns, and it is a mistake to carry the anger from one campaign into another as in "I think rather it doesn't help those who turned a blind eye when Steve was smeared by sitting legislators in order to get their favored son in. The truth sucks, doesn't it?"

Such an attitude will only cause me to say that blind eye or not, I don't support campaigns of the "our way or the highway" variety.

I would rather see Novick as governor, where he is not one of 435. And if his remarks about education are an indication of where his head is at on that set of issues, then Oregon needs Novick as governor. Twice.

Moreover, and perhaps this is just my suspicious mind working, it seems odd that a few of the same people who tried to block Novick's path before in favor of (my characterization) the less progressive, go-along-to-get-along Merkley would now be asking: "Wouldn't you really rather be in Congress?" It's hard to gauge the sincerity of that kind of question.

TJ, what I am saying is that Steve has a choice.

He could run a creative campaign where he visited all 36 counties and meet people from all walks of life. He could visit veterans hospitals and other places where people are facing life without 4 good limbs. This was done as a public service by the "milkshake squad" early in the Iraq War. Amputees from the Vietnam War took milkshakes from outside the hospital and spent time with veterans who had become amputees. Steve could talk to people in the hospitals about life with a disability and how he has built a successful life.

He could visit substance abuse facilities, nursing homes, relief nurseries for abused children. He could volunteer at a YMCA in a county where he does not live, and meet lots of people that way.

Steve could visit soup kitchens and food service facilities. The Food Handler's Card exam is online and doesn't take very long. He could get that card and actually be a food server someplace.

He could visit road crews and construction workers, retail workers, clerical workers, child care workers.

He could impress people with a new kind of campaign.

OR, his friends could just say "Novick has built a successful career as a political consultant, he is as sharp as a tack, he understands Oregon's problems and has a group of avid supporters, so you should vote for him".

Steve's choice.

Lee Coleman makes a good point. People who were at Sunriver and not impressed with Steve's speech will not support Steve for Gov. just because bloggers say he would be a good Gov.

Evan, this is true:

Novick pivoted immediately and worked hard to get Merkley elected. He raised money for him, and stood by his side at several events. Novick's a class act.

If Steve ran a classy campaign like that, and did the grass roots meet and greet process across the state, he could be a strong candidate.

However, there are going to be those who agree with Lee Coleman and remain to be convinced Steve could do that. STEVE would have to prove them wrong and earn their votes. Bloggers can't do that for Steve.

Blogging like what TJ is doing is not helping Steve's case. I've been on the losing side of bitter primaries, and quitely refused to support someone who alienated me. But I never thought being in-your-face with people who didn't support my candidate in a primary helped that or any other candidate win an election.

I wonder if TJ is willing to speak to 10 friends about Steve for Gov. That might involve finding out someone he talks with was not impressed with the beer commercial, thought Steve ran a smart-alecky "clever commericals are more important than talking to people downstate face to face" campaign, or happens to be a fan of Kitzhaber, Avakian, Kroger, or some other candidate already in public office.

Kevin, a Novick v. Wu primary would be refreshing for many people. It would focus on Steve's strengths, he'd be challenging an incumbent many seem to think has outstayed his welcome (isn't that how Wyden got into Congress?), he could talk to the DCCC in advance (mild mannered chair, as I recall, not like Schumer) and explain the number of unhappy constitutents, he could use his wit, he has lots of avid Portland area fans, all he'd have to do is move into the 1st district.

And if he were really smart, he'd get his blogging friends from last year (TJ, Stephanie, and the rest) and have a heart to heart talk with them, soemthing like this:

"The blogging last time was seen as too vitriolic, so I'm asking you to help in other ways--phoning, fundraising, working in the campaign office, talking to folks face to face".

THAT would be a campaign many people could support. A candidate taking control of the message and laying down the law to supporters. Obama inspired people, rather than just the old tired "but negative campaigns work" which is no longer true.

Steve could do Wyden style town halls, and if Wu wouldn't debate, Steve could just do more town halls. He could appear on local radio and otherwise get publicity. He could say "There were a lot of wrong votes in previous years, but now is the time to fix that. I really like what Obama is doing on...., what Sen.__ is proposing about-----, what Cong.___has done with-----".

THAT would be a campaign worthy of Steve's background, knowledge and experience.

And if he were to run into someone with Lee Coleman's sentiments, he could use the class act behavior he used after the primary. Steve could say "for those of you offended by my Sunriver speech, I apologize. I got carried away and I hope you can see your way to at least consider me this time."

Notice how much praise Obama got for publicly saying "I screwed up" rather than the more fashionable "mistakes were made".

Now THAT is the Steve who is an effective public figure!

I live in a legislative district which elected the first black and the first Hispanic candidates as Democrats in the 1980s. In both cases it was more along the lines of the Obama campaign than the Hillary "with us or against us" (to use a recent example). The first Democrat ever elected in this legislative district was Jim Hill, best known to some young people as one of the candidates for Gov. in 2002 and 2006.

Barilla succeeded him, and in that primary although there were people who were at least as hammer and tongs agressive as TJ and the other bloggers last year, he and his nearest primary opponent had been friends before they ran against each other in the primary, were friends during the primary, were friends afterwards. Some of their supporters got really angry at each other, but not the candidates.

That should be a lesson about contested primaries in the future. And Steve, comments like the one you just made should always be welcome.

Cher is the only one of the four yet to be a member of Congress. Maybe she should challenge Wu.

i'm with the others in that i'd be happy with steve in either congress or as governor. since the governor's slot seems to be the one that is mostly likely to open up first, i would happily work my behind off to get him elected to it. i know he would do a great job.

TJ " But there should be consequences for exhibiting poor character"

You are absolutely right---except that is a subjective statement.

One of the reasons I was not a huge supporter of Steve was how excited he was to have the AuCoin endorsement. Talk about an example of "exhibiting poor character"---those commercials Les ran in 1992 and his behavior when nominated for Forestry Board show someone who sure seems like a bully, not a statesman. (By comparison, Steve's approach here and after the primary was that of a statesman.)

I could list any number of other Democrats I have felt that way about in the course of 30 years.

The point is, what does that solve? You're angry at certain people for "exhibiting poor character".

So am I. In the end, how does that elect good people to office? Or is being angry the point of it all?

I believe that is the question up for debate here.

For all I care, 10 years from now you can still be telling people why you were angry at Nolan and Greenlick. But outside of expressing anger, what is the worth in doing that?

I never did forgive AuCoin for 1992 (having been a previous supporter) and channeled that energy into the movement to deprive him of the Forestry Board position. To get confirmed takes at least 16 votes and he didn't get them. Not only that, the legislator whose name he mispelled in a vituperative email about the confirmation later was elected to higher office.

The point is philosophical. One can be bitter forever, or people can get on with their lives. There are people I am finally on speaking terms with because I may have eventually forgiven but have never forgotten, and I don't trust something they say without a confirming source.

But in the end, bitterness will eat at the bitter person more than it will hurt the object of that bitterness.

If you don't understand that, I feel sorry for you.

Steve is articulate, intelligent and would be a strong advocate for Oregonians in either Congress or the Governor's Mansion. Only he can decide which is best suited for him and I will gladly support his candidacy for either office.

Adams and Jefferson were members of Congress only if you consider being Vice President as being a member of Congress

and the Continental Congress to not have been a Congress.

Jenni, If everyone here promises never again to mention anything that happened in any primary prior to Jan. 2009, do you suppose we could talk about issues which are important in March 2009?

I think it would be great if Steve moved into the 1st Cong. District and ran in the primary against Wu. That is close enough all of his friends could help him campaign.

But I will say right now that I really admire Kitzhaber and Westlund, and Courtney has been a family friend since long before he was a legislator.

So I hold those folks up as the gold standard, and should any of them run they would have first call on my support. Anyone who admires any other public figure is welcome to campaign for that person. But if they want my support, they will have a grass roots/ town hall style of campaigning, they will be able to give a vision for the future and list 3 solutions to problems affecting either all 36 counties or a significant proportion of them. And their supporters would have to be able to complete the sentence "Our candidate is better than (insert the name of another candidate here) for the entire state of Oregon because____".

In 2005, a friend of mine said he wouldn't endorse a candidate without hearing a vision for the future and a plan to carry it out. Sounds like a good yardstick for me!

I get angry at vague rhetoric--from the press conference with people from the New Democrat Coalition talked about their great meeting with Pres. Obama where they talked about "free and fair trade" and the "innovation agenda". HUH?

We deserve specifics from Democrats--let the Republicans be vague, but Democrats be specific. "I support/oppose HB 2500 the transparency bill because..."

From Rep. Peter Buckley's latest newsletter: "I was able to reach agreement on more aggressive use of the federal funds by proposing the development of a School Day Restoration Fund".

Obama's speech on education today was excellent--which parts did the candidate like, dislike, want more explanation about?

I am not attacking anyone, just saying "the person who wants my vote will meet certain criteria".

There may be people here who are not fans of St. Sen. Frank Morse. I don't agree with everything he has ever said, done, or voted on. But he is a hard worker, not only in the legislature but on the Public Comm. on the Legislature and the Revenue Restructuring Task Force.

We could do a lot worse in the Gov. election than to have candidates who match his hard work, dedication, common sense, problem solving, and civility at a time when many people have forgotten what were once considered good manners for everyday people.

Call me any name you want, but I vote criteria, not the personality who is popular at the moment.

We do have bigger issues than previous primaries. I'd like to hear about those issues. There is an old saying that in politics "yesterday's enemies may be tomorrow's allies".

Did we enter some new Mayan calendar period? Well said, LT!

Novick for Governor? Sign me up!