...or any issues, really.

Will be interesting to see if he speaks out on veterans issues.

...or any issues, really.

As with any politician, his viability as a candidate and the amount to which he speaks out on the issues will be in an inverse relationship.

Nick Wirth: As with any politician, his viability as a candidate and the amount to which he speaks out on the issues will be in an inverse relationship

What you are saying is that voters don't consider positions when considering candidates. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is true that voters consider more than just positions. They also vote based on whether they identify with the candidate in question. Experience (the devil you know) is also a factor, as is the perceived strength or weakness of a major rival.

I know David Robinson personally. He is a good man. That said, any neutral political analysis shows that Congressman Wu is not out of step with his district; he is certainly not out of step with the average Democratic voter in the first CD. So voters will simply not fire the Congressman for no good reason.

So the real benefit to David Robinson in doing this is to build up his name recognition, so that he has a good shot at office later. If he runs an honorable and positive campaign, I expect that that is exactly what will happen.

What you are saying is that voters don't consider positions when considering candidates. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That's actually not what I'm saying. Whether or not voters broadly consider issue positions is a different story. What I'm saying is that most candidates are loathe to actually stake out clear positions on a large variety of issues for fear of offending some percentage of the electorate. You can boil the campaign down to a few catch-words or slogans that polled the best. Have you ever seen "The Candidate"?

Backbeat -- No, I don't work with David Wu for Congress, and I never have. If I did, I'd have said so.

Nick -- I'm not so sure about that. Mr. Robinson seems like a nice enough guy, but his announcement speech didn't even suggest a critique of the incumbent -- a basic requirement for mounting a challenge, especially a primary challenge.

Carla, one final point on this. I have a difficult time reconciling your "read" about there being unrest with Congressman Wu, with the simple facts that you began with: his constantly increasing margin of victory in each of his elections.

This should be no surprise. The 1st CD is filled with pragmatic moderate-liberal Democrats who work in high tech, just like David Wu.

I suspect your read is more influenced by downtown Portland politicos like JTT, who are wishing for the great Naderite/Green hope, than your average Democratic voter out here in Silicon Forest. And the strong left is unlikely to rally around a naval commander like David Robinson.

Carla, one final point on this. I have a difficult time reconciling your "read" about there being unrest with Congressman Wu, with the simple facts that you began with: his constantly increasing margin of victory in each of his elections.

Those are against Republicans in the general, Steve. CD 1 is a pretty Democratic trending district. I've spoken with a significant number of Washington County folks who tend to vote for Democrats who would be very willing to vote for someone else in a primary against Wu, should the right person come along.

Consultant tells Robt. Redford's character what to say on the TV appearance, Redford decides to say something else instead, nothing the consultant can do.

Except that McKay's (Redford's) heartfelt improvisation at the debate is a political disaster and only his seasoned politician of a father manages to deflect the media attention. But that's all a little off topic and I was mostly joking to begin with.

I partially agree with both Steve and Carla (though I'm somewhat offended by the notion that liberal voters wouldn't support a candidate that is a member of the military). I do think that there's some space for the right candidate to unseat Wu, but not because Wu doesn't represent his district on the issues. Rather, I get the feeling that at least some of his constituents are less than satisfied with his completely undistinguished record. He has been in the House for 10 years and has no real accomplishments to speak of. The most notable moment of his career was when he gave his "Klingons in the White House" speech, making a complete joke out of himself. He doesn't have any particularly prestigious committee appointments. If Robinson or anyone else managed to successfully defeat Wu in a primary, I suspect it will be more for that reason than anything else.

No candidate ever laid out every biographical detail, every opinion, every issue and every attack on the opposition all rolled into one announcement speech.

Thank you. People here seem to forget sometimes that campaigns take time.

Regarding veterans' issues, judging by his military record as an Annapolis graduate and Marine officer, I feel quite comfortable predicting that he supports veterans in every possible way. I'm sure he will address veterans' issues in detail soon. I'm also sure that he's considerably more in touch with the CD1 constituency and certain realities than Mr. Wu.

Here's an excerpt from his website (http://davidrobinson2010.com): "As Director of Civil-Military Operations for Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa, he directed the US Government’s Humanitarian Assistance program in Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and other countries in the region. The Horn of Africa was opened as the second front in the war on terror after Afghanistan because of the region’s role in the illicit transportation of terrorists and weapons and because the extreme poverty there makes it a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists. Working and negotiating with governments, embassies, and non-governmental organizations, David initiated numerous projects. These projects included drilling new water wells, building schools and medical clinics, and providing medical, dental, veterinary and disaster assistance to the distressed and impoverished people throughout the region."

Regarding the view of Wu among his constituents, it is quite likely that despite his incredible neglect of communication with those constituents, he retains a considerable hold on the district. Steve Maurer's pretty much nailed that fact down real tight. However, Steve overlooks real unrest among the troops about Wu and his record. When Alexa Lewis ran against him in the primary, she came in with 8 percent of the vote; the next one in line came in with about 14 percent. There's a trend there.

No candidate ever laid out every biographical detail, every opinion, every issue and every attack on the opposition all rolled into one announcement speech. Thank you. People here seem to forget sometimes that campaigns take time.

Yes, they do. And it very definitely takes time to get all the issues compiled in a comprehensive way - and you roll out your attacks in due time.

But, when you're running against an incumbent, it's your job to tell the voters a) why they should fire that guy, and b) why they should hire you. And that messaging should start on Day One.

If a challenger, especially a primary challenger (who can't just rest on "we have different ideologies"), can't articulate a single reason to eject the incumbent, then there's only one reasonable question to ask: Why are you running?

I tell my clients that there's only two things you need to have written on Day One: the bio and the "why I'm running" piece. It doesn't need to be a master's thesis, but it should be articulate. And if you're challenging an incumbent, tell the voters why.

It took months for Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley to fully flesh out their proposals -- but on Day One, each one had a healthy critique of Gordon Smith.

....or maybe y'all can just dismiss this as the cranky musings of a political professional who knows what it takes to launch a campaign and is just grumpy when he sees incompetence.

Whatever. David Robinson got his one day of guaranteed free press. From here on out, he will - like all candidates - have to earn it.