Bruun's spent the last few years carefully polishing a skin-deep image as a "moderate" who's "willing" to work with Democrats. It will be interesting to see how he handles the tea-bag contingent in his own party: he won't look very "moderate" if he courts them, but if they stay home on election day, there's no way any Repub can win! You can't have it both ways, Scott!

Here's to this being the last election in which the GOP even fantasizes about OR-5 for a very, very, very long time.

that Rep. Scott Bruun (D-West Linn)

Should that be R?

One wonders if the threat of a challenger is what caused Schrader to change from being at most a passive supporter of a weak public option in the insurance reform debate (he came our for co-ops on 620 KPOJ this summer) to a semi-activist supporter of a ROBUST public option. Maybe Nick Wirth can fill us in. Nothing "clarifies" the values of a politician like the prospect of voter-compelled retirement.

The best way to make sure Wyden continues to support a ROBUST public option, and refuses to vote for a bill with a mandate without said ROBUST public option, as others have commented in other threads, is for Democrats to let him know he won't get your vote in a primary or the general. He can't win without the vast majority of Democrats in this state who support a public option.

Maybe we need to let Wyden know he needs to start today with a similar letter of his own to Baucus and Reid that says he won't support a final bill with a mandate but without a ROBUST public option that is even stronger then the public option like said he supports with his vote for the inconsequential Rockefeller amendment and his Choice proposal. He knew Rockefeller's amendment was going to loose in the Finance Committee precisely because he and most of the other committee Democrats have not drawn the line they won't vote for a mandate unless there is a ROBUST public option. Instead of getting out there to draw the line on the public option like Schrader has, he used the opportunity to push his toothless Choice proposal without a public option.

Hmmmmm, your thinking on this isn't nearly as profound as you imagine. Wyden is going to win easily no matter how much you rail against him. The Republicans won't even run anybody against him and what idiot Democrat wants to take on the most popular Democrat in the state who is undoubtedly sitting on millions already? Someone said it elsewhere on BlueOregon and I'll say it again: "this continual effort to beat the shit out of Wyden when his actions in the voting arena on this have actually been correct belie an agenda that's not about health care..but some sort of personal thing with Wyden." Run against him and get your ass kicked . . . or give it a rest. You can repeat your anti-Wyden theories a thousand more times on BlueOregon and it won't change the truth or Wyden's actions on health care.

As for Shrader, I suspect he's in for a tough cycle. It's not really his fault, but there will be a huge emphasis on the 5th because it's the Republican's best play this cycle and Obama is going to sink like a stone here and elsewhere if he doesn't get health reform. Plus, right now I see no reason big-time national money from the DNC will come here unless Kitzhaber really starts to falter. This will require a lot of volunteers or money (probably both). I'm a lot more liberal than Shrader, or at least the Shrader I remember from the legislature, but he has been a really pleasant surprise to me. If his campaign needs my help, I'll be there.

Kari:

In November 1996, Bruun ran against the freshly-minted Congressman Earl Blumenauer - who handily defeated him.

Bob T:

Oh c'mon, Kari, Earl had nothing to do with it considering the demographics - one of the safest Dem seats in the country. Blue, like Wyden before him, can sleepwalk through these campaigns every two years.

Bruun just happened to be the Repub cannon fodder that year. There've been some really interesting Repub candidates trying for that seat. One, Everett Hall (1994), wasn't even pushed by his party and the Repub office wouldn't even let him come in and use their copier. One of his ideas for legislation was for getting NASA to find a way to steer asteroids towards Earth and getting them land in desolate areas like Nevada where we can mine the minerals out of them. That was the year I was helping Gene Nanni (Libertarian Party) run for that position.

By the way, Wyden was taking the district with over 80% of the voter, and Blue was getting high 60s in some of his re-elections. Does that mean that a lot of Dems don't care for him and take a pass?

Bob Tiernan Portland

"It will be interesting to see how he handles the tea-bag contingent in his own party: he won't look very "moderate" if he courts them, but if they stay home on election day, there's no way any Repub can win! You can't have it both ways, Scott!"

Jaybeat has it right.

Bruun could do his party a big favor, stand up to the anti-everything fringe, and run a campaign stating what he is FOR.

2010 will not be 1994, no matter what dreams the GOP has. Say what you will about Gingrich, he was a charismatic figure. And, truth be told, Democrats had gotten sloppy and too comfortable being in majority that long (members thinking they didn't have to explain votes, and remember that House Bank mess?). "Give Republicans a chance" won't work after we saw how nasty they were in the 2002 elections and how they used total power.

1994 was the only year a generically nasty Republican won a seat in Congress for 5th District ---and it was something like Thursday or Friday of election week when we learned the result. Jim Bunn burned out in one term.

In 1990, Denny Smith used a soundbite to attack Mike Kopetski using the infamous "voice of Hitler" commercial. It proved the death knell of "but you see, negative campaigns work". In a year when only about 9 incumbents lost, we elected Kopetski. Post-election analysis said the Hitler ad was what tipped some undecided voters---anyone who would run such an ad was not fit for public office.

Unless Republicans offer a positive alternative, they are going to lose as badly as they did with Zupancic, Erickson, and the others.

Candidates are responsible for their own campaigns. Scott, are you capable of a positive campaign and intelligent debate?

I'm sure he'll be a better candidate for that district than Derrek Kitts was for Wu's district in 2006. What a joke!

Since this is my district and I have no idea who he is, does anyone have any non-partisan commentary about what he as done as an elected official so far?

Bruun was one of the rare Republican legislators (can count them on the fingers of one hand) who neither marched in lock step with Republican caucus nor insulted those who disagreed with GOP talking points. Asked some intelligent questions in committee.

Nonpartisan enough for you?

You can find Rep. Bruun's environmental voting record on our web site, with links to specific bills. In summary: 2005: 25%. 2007: 75%. 2009: 50%.

Thanks LT, he may be someone I need to watch

Kurt doesn't need to worry too much, but the Republicans will have to scramble to defend that state house seat. Personally, I can't wait to get another patch of blue in Clackamas County. This is a beautiful opportunity.

Let's see he seemed to change jobs every couple of years. With his Grandfather's Business (Lorentz Brunn Construction, who supplied all of his large campaign signs.) he even moved on from that job.

You can't even hold a gig with your family business?

In the last session he did a great job of making the Dungness Crab the State of Oregon Official Crustacean, because his daughter made the request.

Couldn't he have tried to do more?

Living in the District I got a phone survey from Freedom Works who are trying to get a person to the right of Bob to run for this seat, but campaign as a moderate.

I'm sorry but in West Linn we know how to read, that's why we passed the cigarette hike two years ago, while most of the State voted it down.

That would be Jim Morton.

With any luck we'll get a real progressive to challenge schrader, blue dog turncoat, in the primary.

Businessman and 2006 Senate candidate David Newell is running for the Republicans.

Businessman and 2006 Senate candidate David Newell is running for the Republicans.

Kari:

Bob - Bruun was cannon fodder. You're exactly right. I wasn't trying to make a comment on his campaign performance.

Bob T:

Not Bruun's, but Blue's. Bruun and others could be better at everything in a campaign in Dist 3 (debating, campaign organization, focus etc) but will still lose. Blue's victories have zero to do with any skill he has as a campaigner because he wins merely by filing. Would be interesting to see if he can "trounce" anyone in a district that's 1/3 Dem, 1/3 Repub, and 1/3 N/A. In that kind of a race, he might even have to worry about losing a few votes after the airing of a commercial with the audio of him saying that "some congestion is exciting".

As for the diff in margins of victory since the dist was redrawn, I'll take your word for it. But maybe there a lot of voters who supported Wyden who can't get excited over Blue because of things like, well, his lack of interest in real town hall meetings like the three-per-month Wyden always held even though his re-election was always a slam-dunk. Would be interesting to check out the under-voting.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bob T. Took me a minute to realize you were talking about Earl.

Backbeat, I'll say to you what I said to the folks who want to challenge Wyden in the primary.

First, you need a candidate. I've worked in multiple 5th Dist. primaries, and an empty suit with money just won't cut it. The nominee must win over solid Democrats of the variety you mention, but also the working class folks (carpenters, retail workers, etc.) in the district, esp. in Clackamas County. Then there are the coastal Dems. and the ones who live in Marion County, both rural and the folks who live inside a city limits but know that the Salem area is not Portland.

Second, that candidate must be able to DISCUSS issues, not just pontificate in sound bites.

Third, why is there an affirmative reason for people who admire Kurt and believe he is acting as they expected him to act in Congress to vote for your candidate? Attack ads would only motivate those people to go out and campaign for Kurt in the primary.

One time I called his office when that story of applying to be a member of Blue Dogs was online, and the local staffer said it was news to him. He does need to explain that.

However, anyone following what Howard Dean says about the health care debate will have noticed that Dean has said the Blue Dogs did add some positive things to the health care debate.

Backbeat, do you live in the 5th District? In which county? How many people do you know living in the 5th District who agree with your view of Kurt Schrader?

I'd love to see Jim Morton jump into the HD37 race.

I saw Scott Brunn at the Oregon Health Forum not too long ago. On the issue of HB 2009 & HB2116, which he was asked to comment on, he offered NO positive feedback, but interestingly enough, he didn't offer up any solutions, or what as a party or as an individual elected official would have done different either.

His commentary was all about "...everything that is wrong" with the revamp of the Oregon Health Plan with no alternatives.

Needless to say, I was far from impressed with his "performance" and was disappointed, yet again, at just another GOP Party hack line. He'll get no where in the 5th.

For that matter, the R's will get no where because over and over again, they are about "what is wrong" when they have no solutions other than to bash D's or moderate R's for working to do something pro-active. One of my big heros this session, at least on Health Care was Rep. Kennemer. An R.

Dude plays a wicked electric guitar, too. I saw him play "The Star Spangled Banner" at the Dorchester Conference to open the tent show.

I wouldn't be surprise if a someone ran to the right of Bruun in the primary and won. The Republican part of the district is further right than the Dem part is left.

"My sense is that Bruun looks pretty and talks well, and that will make him credible enough to run a relatively tight race. He's got a demographics problem in that district, though, "

Part of the demographics problem is the voter registration numbers. As of the June registration numbers, 102575 5th Dist. residents did not register with a major party. That's roughly a quarter of registered voters. Clackamas and Marion counties are very important to the final result. How well does Bruun understand that Canby and Oregon City are different than Lake Oswego, Tualatin, and West Linn?

In close 5th Dist. elections we had the one in 1988 which was decided by a recount (Denny Smith spent his last term saying he had won "a Boeing victory--707 votes), the first 5th Dist. gen. election in 1982 decided by something like an average of 7 votes per pct., and the 1994 election Jim Bunn won but had to wait until like Thursday or Friday of election week to know he had actually won. If Bruun gives Schrader a strong challenge, the number of people who aren't registered to a major party could be the deciding votes. Partisan "talking points" don't win over such folks.

Regarding Sal's comments: I was very impressed when Kurt was Ways and Means co-chair. There was a big stink because someone was angry their budget didn't get the extra funding they expected, and the news coverage made it sound really bad. I called Kurt's office and asked for an explanation. Rather than hearing back from staff, I got an email from Kurt himself explaining what had happened.

This is a lesson Bruun needs to learn. Tom McCall was the all time master of answering questions like that. In recent years, too many Republicans have acted as if the appropriate response to such questions should be "for me to know and you to find out".

From the comment
Posted by: Katherine Pfeiffer | Oct 1, 2009 3:09:54 PM,

it would appear Bruun hasn't yet mastered the skill of answering questions with affirmative statements about what has been done/ what should be done .

Katherine's Kenemer comment doesn't surprise me. Whatever he did this session (good, bad, or indifferent) I still remember something from when he was in the legislature years ago.

A friend was running for the legislature back in the mid-1990s. He asked me to attend a campaign event with him. It was put on by a group that wanted candidates to interact with and include disabled people in their campaigns. Keynote speaker was blind and nationally famous, and let us know his speech had been dictated into a tape recorder, and he was reciting it as he heard it through his earpiece. There were sign language interpreters at the front of the room, someone typing the text in real time which was projected on a screen in front of the room in large type, and the room was wired for high strength hearing aids.

Keynote speaker reminded everyone that if he asked a question like "how many of you..." we would have to speak up because he couldn't see us raise our hands.

One of those questions was about challengers vs. incumbents in the audience. Lots of challengers in the room. The only incumbent was Kennemer. I thought that was a class act.

Bruun will win support if events in the campaign cause people to tell "class act" stories like that about him.

Money can never buy such stories.

Even Elizabeth Furse, seen by many as too lefty for a swing district (1st)survived the R sweep of '94 by a squeaker after winning fairly narrowly in the D leaning '92.

COnsidering that Kurt won by 20% in the 5th, I don't see how Bruun thinks he can defeat him.

I agree with other comments here that Bruun could easily lose in a primary just as moderate R candidiates did to Witt, Bunn, and Cooley in '94 OR congressional primaries.

Grant, which Bunn are you talking about?

Jim Bunn in 5th Dist. was as right wing as the come. And clearly not prepared for DC given how he crashed and burned in one term.

If Schrader can't get past Bruun (and I'm more of an R), then I'd be shocked. I actually think SChrader does a good job and has some sense of fiscal responsibility.

LT:

You are correct. Kennemer, is a class act. After session, there was an event, here in Portland, with health care policy advocates, (i.e. Lobby, grassroots organizations, etc. mostly D's) and he showed up.

Very gracious gentleman. I certainly may not agree with him on many issues, but he is congenial, he listens and is respectful.

When I say Kennemer is respectful, he is not just respectful of people who may have different points of view. He is also respectful of policy and votes with "good science" instead of "good republican politics." dictated by the GOP party leadership that leans more to the right than most Oregonians.

Bruun, on the other hand, lacks that quality, and his voting record in Salem will bear that out. Kenemer & Schrader, in many respects have qualities that make them effective lawmakers and can consistently win in swing districts.

Bruun was recruited early by the NRCC to avoid another run by Erickson. While he can count on some early support from national elephants, he'll have to perform to keep the money flowing. Too bad for the NO party he can't self fund like Erickson. While everyone in the district knew both Erickson and Manix, Bruun is unknown outside of L.O./West Linn. Kurt will have to work hard but he will prevail.

Thanks, Steve.

I recall during his last legislative session that someone said ordinary citizens loved the way Kurt did his job as W&M co-chair but some state agency people hated it because he insisted on performance measures.

Even Karl Rove couldn't spin that into "any Dem. is a tax and spend liberal" anymore than when Republicans tried to paid Barbara Roberts as one---people looked at that and said "Excuse me, the mother of a special needs child raising kids on a bookkeeper's salary doesn't know the value of a dollar? ".

Anyone who believes partisanship is all that matters should read Kurt Andersen's book RESET. Using his own experiences, Homer Simpson, Road Runner cartoons, the fable of the ant and the grasshopper--and that is just in the first few chapters of a book that is only about 74 pages long---he argues that it is time to hit the reset button instead of the "always done it mentality" which has led to stale public debate.

It is the sort of thought-provoking book which is perfect for book clubs or discussion groups (even one which calls itself a book club without books!) because there are thought provoking ideas on every page. Odds are someone would say RIGHT ON about one page and want to argue with the next page.

NRCC finally got smart enough to know that an Erickson (or a Zupancic) was not going to fly in this district? They finally got someone in there who understood that? Maybe there is a future for the GOP after all!

The ad at the top of the page as I write this has a slogan about Democrats being scared.

Turns out to be an ad for GOPAC.

What I don't think groups like GOPAC understand is that there are 435 House districts, and in each one political junkies can have discussions like this one.

And I don't believe that a group like GOPAC putting enough money in a district like this to run ads every hour on the hour would be able to turn this district as long as there are people like Pedro, Katherine, and Steve talking to their friends about the relative merits of the candidates. In the end, candidates win or lose depending on their appeal to the voters. I worked on campaigns against Denny Smith, and know that what defeats an incumbent is an appealing candidate + voters fed up with the incumbent. Partisan rhetoric and ads don't accomplish that goal unless those 2 factors are present.

Katherine Pfeiffer:

He is also respectful of policy and votes with "good science" instead of "good republican politics." dictated by the GOP party

Bob T:

Could be. But does this mean Democrats vote based on "good science" instead of Democratic politics? Considering the corn ethanol subsidies, I think not. Too bad Iowa comes early in the presidential primaries--in order to get this win to get momentum one needs to support this nonsense instead of having the guts to gut it.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Mr. Tiernan:

Your comment is an exact example of what I'm talking about.

The ethanol experiment certainly may not have been perfect, but because of that step, the research that came out of it, and the "next steps" planning regarding fuel standards, alternative fuels and other forward thinking ideas, we are now moving much faster towards a "green economy" that in turn will fuel jobs. (sorry for the pun)

Your statement offers NO alternative solution, not even a non-scientific/pie in the sky solution--just a "The Democrats got it wrong and our way is right" mentality that further plays into "doing nothing is a much better idea..." My question for you then becomes, since when is doing NOTHING the right thing to do when there is a problem that is, or will be, a crisis situation?

People want results, a tangible "thing" they can see and/or feel with respect to their quality of life. Whether it's clean air, clean water, clean dirt, health care, public services, education, and the list of course goes on.

I have met Lon Mabon, and Scott is no Lon Mabon.

"It was special rights and he's against it. He may be the kind of Republican Sal would like to see more of, but for me there's no difference between Scott and Lon Mabon. "

Back when Mabon was trying to push the idea that teachers should be prevented from "promoting homosexuality", I was in the capitol and happened to meet 2 people for the first time. One was Gail Shibley, outspoken legislator who happened to be lesbian. Mabon was the other.

There was no Mabon definition for "promoting"---was it in the eye of the beholder?

When the subject came up, I would ask this question:

"One day in the capitol I met 2 people I had only heard about before. One was Rep. Shibley, the other was Lon Mabon. My personal impression was that Gail had much better manners than Lon Mabon who seemed a very sour person. If I were to say that and be employed as a teacher, would I be "promoting homosexuality"?

Disagreement is one thing, manners are something else.

A Republican legislator was honest with you and told you exactly what he thought. You said," he was quite candid". Was he rude to you? Or was it more along the lines of "sorry, I disagree with you because..."? Or somewhere between those 2 choices?

The only way that we will be able to return civility to politics is to allow honest disagreement. In both parties.

My very first Dem. state central comm. meeting was in Portland in 1985. Some guy was trying to get everyone to take the bumper stickers he had (don't remember the issue now). Not a bumper sticker I agreed with, so I said, "sorry I would not put that on my car, save it for someone who would".

Gee! You would have thought I had insulted his family the way this guy tore into me. I responded with "OH, you are saying Democrats have no right to think for themselves because all Democrats are supposed to agree with you?". Turned into quite a heated argument. In the middle of it, I felt a hand on my shoulder and heard the words, "keep up the good work!". I looked up and saw some people going out the front door. I looked at my shoulder and a freshman legislator had taken off his nametag and put it on my shoulder. That legislator and I became great friends.

My point is this: I would rather have candid, polite politicians than people who snarl. I would take your side of that argument, Lee, but we can't have a free society unless people are allowed to say "Let me be candid. I disagree with you because...."

Scott Bruun and Bill Kennemer have nearly identical voting records will all the other extreme Republican legislators in Salem: against all taxes, for smaller government, against environmental progress, anti-choice, anti-gay rights, etc.

The only time they will vote against their caucus is when it is clear that their votes make no difference. If the vote is close, they vote the extreme right party line.

Show me a single issue where Bruun or Kennemer demonstrated one iota of moderation or independence.

Katherine Pfeiffer:

Your comment is an exact example of what I'm talking about.

The ethanol experiment certainly may not have been perfect, but because of that step, the research that came out of it, and the "next steps" planning regarding fuel standards, alternative fuels and other forward thinking ideas, we are now moving much faster towards a "green economy" that in turn will fuel jobs.

Bob T:

I'm afraid there's more to it than that. The research you refer to was not dependent on subsidies to agri-corps and smaller farmers -- those are hard to turn off once started, and become increasingly political as time goes on while the beneficiaries and other supporters get better at pulling the wool (also subsidized) over our eyes.

Katherine Pfeiffer:

Your statement offers NO alternative solution, not even a non-scientific/pie in the sky solution--just a "The Democrats got it wrong and our way is right" mentality that further plays into "doing nothing is a much better idea..." My question for you then becomes, since when is doing NOTHING the right thing to do when there is a problem that is, or will be, a crisis situation?

Bob T:

Making a simple reply to the "Science over politics" remark in no way proves that I stand for doing nothing. In fact, I've written about this a few month ago and will insert those several paragraphs below--you should find them interesting. The point that needs to be kept in mind is that if politics is to be minimized, then saying "No" to Iowa farmers and others is necessary for a lot of reasons.

Here it is (and I'd appreciate any additional comments you might have regarding this):

Depends on the type of ethanol. Corn ethnol is a total waste of time, land, and money (not to mention costly to us all) because corn is not a very efficient crop to use as a biofuel, while sugar-cane ethanol is (corn ethanol reduces net greenhouse gases by 13% and sugar cane ethanol reduces this by 90%). Ethanol apparently costs about a buck a gallon and has 2/3rds the energy of gasoline.

Even worse, because of the subsidies there's less corn available for food and and often costs more, and more land is switched to growing corn instead of soybeans and wheat which thus causes increases in soy and wheat products such as feed grains which thus leads to increases in the price of poultry and beef. That's the unseen cost, and one that I guess politicians will "solve" by handing out more in food stamps, which is not a solution but a curtain (i.e. one program must be created or enlarged to hide the problem caused by an earlier bright idea).

Corn ethanol subsidies will continue down this rat hole because few, if any, politicians and serving lawmakers will challenge it (and with Iowa being a key early primary state they leave their integrity in New Hampshire - heck, even West Wing's President Santos caved on that one. Such is the danger of all welfare).

Brazil has a great climate for multiple yields of sugar cane year-round while North America and Europe does not, but a good alternative for our own source of biofuel can be some of the grasses that are being used. Bush mentioned swichgrass in one of his speeches, but the better grass to use is miscanthus (used in Europe as a fuel). An acre of that grass yields 1150 gallons per year compared to 354 gallons from an acre of corn.

The only real problem is that being cellulose instead of the sugar or starch it cannot yet be efficiently converted to a liquid fuel. The solution being worked on is the use of bioengineered microorganisms to break down the cellulose to aid in converting the grass into ethanol or some other type of alcohol. The best alcohol biofuel we might use would be butanol which is close to gasoline in energy per gallon.

Bob Tiernan Portland

I have known Scott for 20 plus years. He is a good man and a good father and has very strong beliefs. He has been self driven and even was a political science major in college. But, to call Scott a moderate is just not true. He is a strong right wing Republican and has always been.

His voting record says it all.

Votes with party majority: 82.94% (Party avg: 83.62%) Votes missed: 3.09%

http://gov.oregonlive.com/legislators/House/Scott-Bruun/

.5% difference from the Republican party average is no difference at all.

A previous poster's comment on not giving a straight answer is somewhat true. Ask him something non-controversial and you will get a strong answer with a yes or a no. Ask him something controversial, and you will usually get a watered down answer explaining how the subject is difficult and controversial. Not a yes or a no.

Dear Insider:

Just one issue?? Ok. Health care.

Dear Insider:

<h2>Okay. To name one, health care.</h2>