The Eugene Register-Guard has reported in recent weeks that former Rep. Bob Ackerman is interested in the Senate seat. In my experience, I found Ackerman to be a very good and pragmatic legislator....I think I was actually one of his constituents at one point. Ackerman would do well in the Senate.

House Speaker Dave Hunt just appointed Rep. Nathanson to the House Health Care Committee today, so that will give her one more leadership role to make a difference in Salem.

Either Rep. C. Edwards or former Rep. Ackerman would be good.

What a class act Nancy Nathanson is. She accepted a real leadership position in the house and has put the peoples interest above her own. I am a PCP in the Senate district and it would have been a tough choice between her and Chris Edwards.

Now we don't have to make that choice because of Nancy's dedication to her leadership position in the house.

It should now be a simple call by promoting Chris Edwards to the Senate.

Both Nancy and Chris have done a great job representing their respective districts. Nancy would have been a a fantastic Senator but but she currently holds seniority and some powerful positions in Ways and Means, why would she walk away from that? She made the best choice for the district and that shows true leadership.

Chris Edwards will be a great Senator and his house district has a deep bench of possible candidates to run for his house seat including Andrea Ortiz, Eugene City Councilor; Rich Cunningham, EWEB commisioner and Val Hoyle former local Democratic party chair. It's time to bring in some new leadership and build up our political bench in Lane County.

Bob Ackerman is a nice guy but at his age he is at best a one term Senator. I am just not sure he has what it takes to beat a strong challenger like Jim Torrey or Eric Forrest. Chris Edwards certainly has what it takes, he was the first Democrat to win HD 14 since the district was created. He has the time, energy and funding to run a strong campaign and has stuck his neck out on a number of progressive issues so he has the support of the liberal districts in HD 13 as well as the more blue collar HD 14 precincts.

I think the County Commisioners will pick the candidate that is most likely to hold the seat in the case of a difficult challenge, Chris Edwards is that candidate.

It should now be a simple call by promoting Chris Edwards to the Senate.

Not such an easy call.

Nathanson's House district would have stayed blue. Edwards' House district will be up for grabs if he's promoted to the Senate. Even if it's given to a strong D, it's almost automatically on the R's target list for next cycle. That means that there's a lot of cash going to be spent on a district that could have been kept blue for a lot less.

On the other hand, Edwards is a fine legislator and I for one would love to see him promoted to the Senate.

But it's not as cut and dry as a "simple call."

"Even if it's given to a strong D, it's almost automatically on the R's target list for next cycle. That means that there's a lot of cash going to be spent on a district that could have been kept blue for a lot less."

JHL, as much as I respect your comments, I wonder about this.

What is the NAV + other registration in the Chris Edwards district? If memory serves, that was a fairly moderate Republican in that district before Edwards. If the R nominee is a respected local figure (school board or other local government, for instance) that would be very different than if an unknown or an ideologue ran for that seat. If people are tired of the bickering, party might not make a difference. How did Measure 65 do in that district (nonpartisan elections)?

Even if keeping that seat were the number one caucus target, I am not sure money alone would make the difference. Look at all the caucus target candidates who have lost. It could turn on a local issue. It could be that in an open race the candidate who impressed people as putting the district above the caucus wins.

As I recall, Vicki Walker never had an easy race. But she won.

LT, I think we're on the same page.

Edwards is my favorite to fill the position, but I just wanted to point out that there are political questions at stake too.

And, lets remember that this is the County's decision. This shouldn't be viewed as a "coronation". Remember this? Let's not pull a Wingard on this seat. :)

Let's be clear: Rep. Edwards is a DLC Democrat who is extraordinarily cautious. He is NOT a progressive, union-friendly Democrat.

Bob Ackerman has a sharp legal mind and is the more progressive candidate.

Caveat Emptor.

I disagree about Ackerman. Having been involved with progressive and environmental and Dem. issues for many years, and being a SD 7 constituent, I can tell you that Ackerman is horrible on land use issues, and that's really a problem in a Senate that has enough trouble keeping development-at-all-costs R's in check, without any help from development-at-all-costs D's. I love Nancy, but I am glad she's staying in HD 13, and will serve as vice-chair of Ways & Means next session - we really need her there. Chris will be an awesome Senator, and I think you'll be surprised with how he'll be free to be even more progressive once he doesn't have to rely on only the conservative HD 14 constituents to keep him there. Also, I think we have some stellar HD 14 candidates in the wings to replace him, and I'd expect to see all Eugene-Bethel / West Lane progressives work hard to fend off any R candidates (which are no more viable in HD 14 than in HD 13).

As the long time Political Chair of our local Sierra Club Chapter, I have to disagree with Sperling and anyone else who claims Ackerman is the progressive choice. Altho he has always been entirely cordial, his voting record reveals a decided bent toward sprawl and other bad land use decisions. If you want a Chamber of Commerce Democrat, stick with Ackerman. I don't and, as a PCP in HD 13, will be supporting the dynamic, smart, energetic and dedicated Edwards. Replacing him will be a piece of cake due to the diligence of local grass roots organizations that have been building rapport within the district. That may have been an argument before Edwards was elected there; it no longer is.

Ackerman has a terrible environmental record & is not progressive at all Ido NOT think we need him again for anything Jim Baker

I really think Edwards is a great progressive candidate. I don't think we can afford to have Ackerman in the Senate. I don't think the district is best represented by someone who will do an about face on land use. Walker really stood up for clean air and clean water. I believe Chris Edwards is the best candidate to do the same.

Wow! I am amazed at all the Glen Beck like propaganda certain so-called "progressives" are using to describe former Rep. Robert Ackerman and his "record" on social issues.

I just got my mailing from Ackerman and his record is anything but what these so-called "progressives" are spewing.

For the record, Ackerman has been a life-long Democrat, unlike most so-called "progressives" who started out as frustrated socialists or non-committeds. He's a retired attorney who could have made a fortune in business or land use but instead chose to focus defending the working class, small businesses and people of color. In fact, he received a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP for his work defending and promoting people of color. Interesting that everyone who has attacked him has been strangely lilly-white. But such is the nature of Eugene's so-called "progressives."

Ackerman is best remembered as being the attorney for our congressman, Peter DeFazio, when, before he was a congressman, he took on the Washington Public Power Supply System. The result was the 4 nuclear power plants being constructed were stopped, and we were spared $$$ millions in electricity rate increases.

Ackerman's record in the Legislature has been one that any real progressive would be proud of. He stopped deregulation in Oregon. He fought against the Republican scheme of using the tobacco tax settlement to balance the state budget (how many so-called "progressive" legislators caved in on that one?), he fought against the unfair cuts to community college funding when many other Democrats sold the working people out. And as chair of the House Judiciary Civil Sub-Committee he succeeded in stopping Republican attempts to gut the people's right to a trial jury.

So just where is this garbage from these so-called "progressives" coming from? It appears that some official in the local party wants Edwards promoted so that he/she can replace him and is using his/her position within the party to unfairly influence the outcome.

The fact is that Ackerman is the only logical choice to preserve the Democratic supermajorities in the Oregon Legislature. Ackerman is the only Democrat to have won both house districts. Ackerman has kept Republicans like Jeff Miller, Jim Torrey, and has crushed anyone the Republicans have thrown against him. He has won elections for LCC and currently serves on the Board of Education. His appointment is the only assurance that both house seats, as well as the senate seat remains in Democratic hands.

On the other hand, if Edwards is promoted, we run a better than 50% chance of losing HD 14. HD 14 has winning and well-liked Republicans like Pat Farr and Jennifer Solomon in the district. If Edwards, himself carpetbagged in from Cottage Grove, were to put his personal ambition ahead of the party and win the nomination, he will be condemning HD 14 to a long and very expensive campaign just to hold the seat.

I'm not willing to take that risk simply because some so-called "progressives" wants me to gamble our supermajority away for some party hack's personal ambition!

With Ackerman we get the best of both worlds and our Democratic money gets spent on taking out a Republican in HD7 or somewhere else. With Edwards we get uncertainty and an unnecessary and unneeded fight to defend our house seat.

I am a hard-working Democrat and I have voted for Ackerman since 1999. I don't plan to change now!