Smith '08: John Frohnmayer in? John Russell is out.
The Portland Tribune reports that John Frohnmayer - a presidential appointee of Bush 41 - is considering an independent run for U.S. Senate.
Frohnmayer, brother of former Oregon Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer and an art historian at Oregon State University, is a former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts under George H.W. Bush.A registered Independent who formerly was a Republican, Frohnmayer told Sources Say he plans to announce his decision around Labor Day, but political observers say that his candidacy is very close to a sure thing.
Frohnmayer’s rationale is that partisanship is out of control, and that contrary to the incumbent’s bipartisan shtick, Smith is no better than any of them out there in Washington, D.C.
Which side would he take more votes from? Frohnmayer doesn’t know or care, saying, “If I run, I’m going to run to win.”
Questions: Can an independent win a U.S. Senate race - raising enough money to compete on media and build an alternative to the party infrastructure? Is there room between Gordon Smith and the Democrats for a "post-partisan" moderate? If he can't win, should he run anyway? And which side would he help?
And one more small item: The Tribune also reports on another potential challenger:
Developer John Russell says that he’s ruled out a race against Republican U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith.
Read the rest. Discuss.
|
July 10, 2007 |
in the news 2007 | Comments (75 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: LT | Jul 10, 2007 8:14:52 PM
"Can an independent win a U.S. Senate race - raising enough money to compete on media and build an alternative to the party infrastructure? "
Didn't Linda Smith of Washington State "do the impossible" by winning a write-in election to Congress back more than a decade ago?
Is there room for John F. in this race and who would he appeal to?
John Frohnmayer writes very well and as I recall also speaks well. He has the kind of common sense approach that the folks who followed Westlund's bid for Gov. as an Independent might find quite appealing.
If it is true that "the fastest growing party is no party at all " (which I believe to be true) such a strong independent voice could, at the very least, keep all partisan candidates intellectually honest and on their toes---rather than being lazy and only "preaching to the choir".
From what I recall about John F.'s book, his independent view of politics is something many might find refreshing.
And don't forget that part of Lonsdale's appeal was to Republicans of the sort who thought Packwood and Hatfield had been there long enough. But that sort of thing might only be discovered by this sort of campaign, or by people talking to friends they consider reliably Republican who say they are tired of Gordon. Really blew me away when an old friend in church who I thought was died in the wool Republican talked of voting for Lonsdale in 1990 and writing him in in 1992.
In Jan. 1996, Gordon ran that ad "we're all real tired of career politicians". How many town hall meetings (of the "come one, come all" variety Wyden does every county every year) has Gordon Smith done in the last few years? Maybe it is time to use that line to describe Gordon.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jul 11, 2007 12:42:24 AM
This can't be good for the D's.
There are plenty of good reasons to vote against Gordon Smith but unfortunately Smith's sexennial faux-moderation is kicking in and lots of well meaning Oregonians will vote for him because he is making noises that encourage their desire to see the best in him.
The Democratic nominee needs all the anti-Smith votes, and Frohnmayer runs the risk of becoming a Nader-like figure in Oregon politics if Smith is reelected by a plurality with Frohnmayer and the Democratic nominee jointly receiving a majority.
As for the excess of partisanship in Washington, regrettably, solving that problem won't be very simple, and electing John Frohnmayer won't be the answer. Fact is that the Republicans created the problem, it dates back to 1981, and it is not appropriate for the Democrats to simply stop asserting themselves, or they will perpetuate their existing disadvantage.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 11, 2007 8:17:45 AM
I think Mr. Frohnmayer will be a welcome addition to the race. I don't think it is entirely out of the realm of possibility that the DSCC will throw its weight behind Mr. Frohnmayer if they believe he has the best chance to unseat Smith.
I also suspect that Mr. Frohnmayer, who probably has the best name recognition and contacts of anyone currently in the race who is not named "Gordon Smith" has a decent chance of winning with a plurality -- certainly as good as any of the current Dem candidates in a head-to-head contest with Smith.
Also, since he is registered as "Independent", he won't run into the same problems that Sen. Westlund did trying to make the ballot.
Although I agree that electing one person won't end partisan divisions in Washington, Frohnmayer will be in a position to wield a great deal of influence as an Independent in a narrowly divided Senate if he gets elected -- much more so than a left-leaning D would have. Just a few of the "right kind" of centrists in the U.S. could really shift the political polarity of this country in a better direction.
Posted by: David English | Jul 11, 2007 8:28:07 AM
Would John Frohnmayer have to collect signatures to get on the ballot or can he just pay the fee and run? I'm curious to know how that works.
Posted by: LT | Jul 11, 2007 8:31:07 AM
Sal, thanks.
My guess is that there might be more latent support for his common sense centrist approach (assuming he is still the same mild mannered but strong minded John Frohnmayer as the last time we heard from him) than strong partisans of either party would like to believe.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 11, 2007 8:44:59 AM
Would John Frohnmayer have to collect signatures to get on the ballot or can he just pay the fee and run? I'm curious to know how that works.
He is registered as an Independent. As I mentioned here a few months ago, Linda Williams and some other activists formed the Independent Party of Oregon as a vehicle to help independent candidates avoid the signature collection problems that effectively ended Ben Westlund's bid for governor.
So, I believe that he can seek the nomination from the Independent Party and, assuming he gets it, run on their ballot line by simply paying the same fee that major party candidates pay.
Thanks to the 2005 legislature, which enacted HB2614 in an attempt to keep independents off of the ballot in Oregon, were Frohnmayer to run as an independent (rather than an Independent), he'd need to collect a bunch of signatures, and then throw out the signatures of everyone who is a registered D or R, who votes in the primary -- pursuant to the rules that were put into place when HB2614 was enacted into law.
Posted by: Larry McD | Jul 11, 2007 9:07:01 AM
Excuse me? With whom would he caucus? Bernie and UnHoly Joe?
Even if I were tempted to vote for him on other grounds, the possibility that he could take the Senior Center, er, Senate Chamber back to Republicant control would be enough (just barely) to get me to vote instead for T.A. Barnhart.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 11, 2007 9:15:13 AM
Excuse me? With whom would he caucus? Bernie and UnHoly Joe?
Of course, I haven't spoken with Mr Frohnmayer, but I think it's fairly likely that he would caucus with the D's, as both Bernie and Joe currently do, and as Jim Jeffords did after he left the GOP (also Wayne Morse, etc.).
I don't see how electing an I to a seat currently held by an R creates the possibility that the Senate would be thrown "back to Republican control".
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Jul 11, 2007 9:22:11 AM
Exactly right, Sal.
John Frohnmayer's core issues seem to be defending the Constitution and civil rights.
Where does this idea that he'd switch back to R come from?
Posted by: David English | Jul 11, 2007 9:27:32 AM
Sal,
Thanks for the explaination. It will be interesting to see what he decides and to do and his strategy (running for the Independant Party nomination or running as an Idependant on his own).
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jul 11, 2007 9:43:45 AM
He will take a slice of the anti-Smith vote, and in doing so, will ensure Smith's reelection. Almost no one who otherwise supports Gordon Smith is going to vote for John Frohnmayer instead. Substantially all of his support is going to come the other way.
Ben Westlund was smart enough to see that his continuation in the race would result in Ron Saxton becoming Governor. Frohnmayer, who from all accounts is a very good man, as an independent candidate would be in the same position. His legacy would be six more years of Senator Gordon Smith.
I'm not up for that.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 11, 2007 10:11:10 AM
He will take a slice of the anti-Smith vote, and in doing so, will ensure Smith's reelection.
It seems to me that if Frohnmayer looks to be the strongest candidate not named Gordon Smith, then you can make the same case for why lower profile Democratic candidates should consider dropping out and throwing their support to him.
After all, why should they eat up votes from a stronger candidate who can actually defeat Smith?
Of course, that's not going to happen, yet anyone who calls for a strong Independent candidate to drop should be asking themselves why they don't say the same thing about longshot D's. Is there a good reason why we should hold Independents to a different standard than D's and R's?
In my mind, there is no reason to suppose that if Frohnmayer raises enough money to be competitive, something that Ben Westlund did not do in 2006, that he could not win a plurality in this race.
If he doesn't raise enough money, he can always drop out and throw his support to the strongest candidate in the race.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 11, 2007 10:12:35 AM
Nah, I think Stephanie is right.
When you're challenging an incumbent, there's typically two votes - pro-incumbent, and anti-incumbent. Unless there's a strong ideological push in another direction, it's always about change versus more of the same.
In short, you'd have two people making the case against Gordon Smith - and splitting the vote of those who want to remove him from office.
That's especially true if he'd be running on a center or center-left set of issues - like civil liberties.
Posted by: verasoie | Jul 11, 2007 10:17:22 AM
Sal,
Your last comments comes back to a question I asked at the very beginning: can Frohnmayer independently (not Independently!) finance his own campaign? If not, I don't see it lasting long, as I don't see a wealth of resources available for someone who's running against Smith but not also a D.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 11, 2007 10:26:19 AM
When you're challenging an incumbent, there's typically two votes - pro-incumbent, and anti-incumbent. Unless there's a strong ideological push in another direction, it's always about change versus more of the same.
I think you're misreading your elections history.
Clinton defeated Incumbent George Bush with 43 percent in a 3-way race involving Ross Perot. Reagan defeated Incumbent Jimmy Carter in a 3-way race involving John Anderson.
Jesse Ventura won the Governorship in Minnesota with 38 percent of the vote in a 3-way race involving Norm Coleman and Hubert Humphrey despite only spending $600,000.
Credible 3rd party challengers can defeat incumbents outright or help to knock out incumbents depending on the political climate.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 11, 2007 10:28:47 AM
If not, I don't see it lasting long, as I don't see a wealth of resources available for someone who's running against Smith but not also a D.
I guess that's the question and challenge for his campaign, assuming that he goes forward with his candidacy.
Posted by: Taoiseach | Jul 11, 2007 11:39:36 AM
Sal brought up a point that reminds me of the conflation of the terms Independent (now an actual minor party) and Non-Affiliated (no party whatsoever).
First of all, I would presume that John Frohnmayer isn't registered as a capital-I Independent Party member, but rather as a Non-Affiliated Voter, which is no party whatsoever. It's not safe to presume that Frohnmayer is the default candidate for the Oregon Independent Party, as they may prefer to run a candidate that is actually a member of their party. However, unlike major parties, minor political parties can nominate any qualified citizen for an office regardless of that citizen's own party identification.
Second, the Independent Party's ballot access still requires the nominee to accept the nomination of the party. Frohnmayer may actually prefer to be a true independent without party and decide to pursue ballot access through either petition or through assembly of electors. This would qualify Frohnmayer as a "Non-Affiliated" candidate on the ballot rather than as a candidate from a minor (third) party.
Another interesting question is: How do newly-registered voters tell the difference between becoming a member of the Independent Party and electing not to be affiliated with any party at all?
It seems that many of the Independent Party's members (and electors for nominees) could have intended to be without party, but mistook 'Independent' for 'Non-Affiliated'. It would be hard to get many of these unassuming party members to participate in a primary election, especially when they thought that they had chosen not to participate in such primaries.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Jul 11, 2007 11:48:14 AM
Tao,
Interesting analysis, thanks. All except the last bit, though - I think you got that wrong. Minor parties don't conduct "primaries" in the same way as major parties. The state does not fund or conduct elections on their behalf; they can choose to nominate according to whatever process they like.
(Side note: See here for a better idea.)
Posted by: Grant Schott | Jul 11, 2007 11:49:41 AM
Would John Frohnmayer have to collect signatures to get on the ballot or can he just pay the fee and run? I'm curious to know how that works.
I beleive the other option would be a nominating convention where 1,000 voters gather and sign a petiion to put him on the balllot. That is how Al Mobley ran for gov. in 1990. However, as with the regular peition process (which involes gathering somthign like 18,000 valid signatures) , the signers now have to be a member of the prospective candidiate's party (Ind., Green, Socialist, etc...) or be an R or D who did not vote in the their party's primary election that year. That might also be be part of HB2614.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Jul 11, 2007 11:54:31 AM
Anyone know what happened with this lawsuit challenging HB 2614? Or the repeal that was before the Senate in May '07?
Posted by: Taoiseach | Jul 11, 2007 12:02:17 PM
Pete,
Thanks for the clarification. As a member of a major political party, I am a little hazy on minor party procedures.
It would seem a little odd, though, for the Independent Party to select its nominee by any means other than a mailed-ballot style election where its disparate and mostly disinterested members would have to do little to participate.
Any other form of selection would be like convening a meeting of the Anarchy Club.
Posted by: Stacey Dycus | Jul 11, 2007 12:02:34 PM
Sal-
It wasn't the signature requirement that "effectively ended" Westlund's campaign. We had gathered 50,000 signatures and our validation rates were well within the range to get the 18,000+ we needed. Gathering signatures, in fact, was a great organizational tool that kept Ben in the media for months.
There was no question that Ben could have had a spot on the ballot. So the question was- once there, would we have the resources to win? Of course money was an issue, even though we raised half of a million dollars without a lot of big PAC checks. But really have money to run effectively? Ads? Mail?
No, we weren't going to get there. Of course he could have gotten that spot, been in every debate, not spent another penny and maybe even pulled 12% which was where our last polls had him. Heck, let's say he only would have got 6%.
He always had that option. But, he didn't want to become a spoiler. That's why he withdrew, as he always said he would if it became evident he couldn't win.
Mr. Frohnmayer said he is in it to win- is he willing to step aside if he won't? And would we even want him to?
With the new Independent party status, qualifying for the ballot will not be Mr. Frohnmayer's challenge. The challenge will be in how he positions himself.
If he comes out on the right-hand side of the equation and appeals to Gordon's base, them maybe it's not such a bad thing for Democrats.
Since he was a HW Bush apointee, maybe he could run on "The old Bush was better than the new Bush" and bring out the old guard? ;)
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 11, 2007 12:08:30 PM
A few comments...
The voter registration card very clearly states "Independent Party", "Democratic Party", "Republican Party", etc. and has a line-item for "NAV". It may be the case that some people mean "independent", when they check off the box titled "Independent Party", but I doubt there is very much confusion.
The State does not pay to send out primary ballots to minor political parties, as they do for the major parties,
The news articles say that Mr. Frohnmayer is an Independent, not non-affiliated or independent.
As I understand it, the IPO was created primarily to give independents a vehicle to get on the ballot without having to collect signatures under the new rules, which would otherwise make it all but impossible for them to get on the ballot in Oregon.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Jul 11, 2007 12:13:40 PM
Stacey, thanks for setting the record straight re: Westlund. You guys handled that race very well, expanded its focus, elevated the discussion etc. It's worth making sure that the recounting of it is accurate.
Re: Frohnmayer, you might want to look into how he departed Washington before assuming he'd be basing his campaign on a defense of Bush 41…doesn't seem likely to me.
I'm kind of surprised how little we all seem to know about this significant figure. The NEA was at the center of some pretty divisive politics before, during, and after Frohnmayer's tenure. He has written two books, but if any of you get to the library and check them out before me, I'm gonna be mad!
Posted by: Taoiseach | Jul 11, 2007 12:26:43 PM
Sal, I know for a fact that John Frohnmayer is registered as a Non-Affiliated Voter. If it's so easy for the media to conflate the two, what makes you think that newly registered voters haven't done the same when they filled out the SEL 500?
Naming it the 'Independent Party' in the first place is an obvious exploitation of such a conflation. High-profile potential candidates like Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel are often mentioned as possibly 'running as independents' for president. Does this mean as a member of the Independent Party or as a candidate without affiliation? The creation of an Oregon Independent Party creates this ambiguity and subsequently collects confused voters onto the rolls of a a party with its own agenda and values.
Even if the party was created to give independents ballot access, they can only choose one nominee for each office. When more than one non-major party office seeker looks for the Independent Party's support for ballot access, the Party can choose only one of them. And that is precisely the moment that it becomes independent in name only.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 11, 2007 2:02:51 PM
I think Mr. Frohnmayer will be a welcome addition to the race. I don't think it is entirely out of the realm of possibility that the DSCC will throw its weight behind Mr. Frohnmayer if they believe he has the best chance to unseat Smith.
That would be utterly disgusting. Frohnmayer is not a Democrat. The DSCC exists to support Democrats. They made the mistake of not doing so in 2006; I'm sure they are ruing the day. They'd best not try it again, here.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 11, 2007 2:14:40 PM
Did the DSCC support Bernie Sanders in 2006? If so, was that also a mistake?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jul 11, 2007 2:38:52 PM
Sal,
as far as I know, the DSCC did not fund Sander's in any way, though on their website the list him as being the candidate who will caucus with the Dems in the race in the last election cycle, an give his bio. Admittedly I am not 100% versed in the particulars of the DSCC activities in the VT race that cycle beyond the election news consumer during the elections from here in Oregon.
In addition, I believe there was no fielded Dem candidate in that race. Sounds like an Apples to Oranges argument.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 11, 2007 2:51:28 PM
That's a fair point about the Sanders comparison.
Let me amend the DSCC comment to suggest instead that it would not surprise me if traditional Democratic funders gravitate towards the candidate they feel has the best shot at unseating Smith, even if the candidate in question is an "I".
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 11, 2007 3:51:19 PM
Stacey:
Thanks for clarifying the point on Westlund. I was about to go dig through archives to prove the point you just did.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 11, 2007 3:56:33 PM
Naming it the 'Independent Party' in the first place is an obvious exploitation of such a conflation.
There are other states, including California, that have barred the use of the word "independent" in party names to prevent confusion. In Oregon, we don't - we merely prohibit the use of any word that exists in another party's name.... so we couldn't create a party called the "Liberal Democratic Party" or somesuchthing. (Not that I'd want to.)
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 11, 2007 4:46:56 PM
There are other states, including California, that have barred the use of the word "independent" in party names to prevent confusion. In Oregon, we don't - we merely prohibit the use of any word that exists in another party's name.... so we couldn't create a party called the "Liberal Democratic Party" or somesuchthing.
I suspect that both behaviors -- the one Kari attributes to California, and the Oregon law, have less to do with avoiding name confusion than they do with limiting the competition.
It's a system that's already pretty tilted anyway. For example, taxpayers pay for the free printing, distribution, and counting, of primary ballots for the major political parties -- in effect, subsidizing their nominating process of the D's and R's -- but not the minor ones.
Re: Stacy's comments on Westlund.
Stacy, I believe your comments upthread, but both you and Ben are pretty widely quoted in the press as saying that the new rules hampered the ability of your campaign to get on the ballot. It certainly raises the costs of collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot.
The press release you put out last July said that you collected 36,000 signatures, not 50,000. That's what I was basing my comment on.
http://www.westlundforgovernor.com/documents/release_signatures_7-24-06.pdf
I gather that you collected another 14,000 signatures in the last few weeks of the campaign, but it's unclear to me that you were a shoe-in to qualify even with 50,000 signatures.
DR's validity rate was only in the low to mid 60's for ballot initiative campaigns, and you had to contend with the loss of a third of the electorate, all D's and R's who voted in a primary.
You are a very talented campaign manager, and you did a great job for Westlund, but based on a look at voter registration, primary participation, and validity rates from other campaigns in 2006, I do not believe that you could have guaranteed a validity rate far greater than 40 percent using DR plus volunteers.
I've done signature gathering campaigns. It's much, much, harder than candidate races.
Posted by: Stacey Dycus | Jul 11, 2007 5:38:23 PM
Sal-
Yes- the signatures cost money, but that wasn't what knocked us out. And yes, we gathered a total of 50,000 and not to knock DR who gathered early for us, but Team Westlund using our own paid signature gatherers and volunteers gathered the over 30,000 of the signatures, over 12,000 in the the last week alone. Our validity rates were sufficiently high, coming in over 50% in almost every county, 54% in Multnomah and 64% in Deschutes and Washington.
Thanks for the compliments, but you just didn't have all of the information.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 11, 2007 5:42:57 PM
Thanks for the compliments, but you just didn't have all of the information.
Hey, story of my life.
I'm shocked that you had such high validity rates, even after factoring out people who voted in the primary. Maybe you should start working the ballot initiative circuit. :)
Posted by: Stacey Dycus | Jul 11, 2007 6:23:43 PM
We got better at screening people out to improve rates and we had a great group of folks including Katherine Pfieffer, the field director, who really worked hard. I think we did 20 county fairs.
Maybe you should start working the ballot initiative circuit. :)
I will say our company Oregon Political Staffer LLC has had offers, but we're going to leave the signature gathering to Democracy Resources.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 11, 2007 7:45:20 PM
Katherine Pfieffer's a hard worker - I had the opportunity to do some work with her during last year's primary season. She doesn't seem to ever stop for a rest.
Posted by: Miles | Jul 12, 2007 1:59:06 PM
That would be utterly disgusting. Frohnmayer is not a Democrat. The DSCC exists to support Democrats.
TJ, aren't you just proving Frohnmayer's point that partisanship is out of control? If Frohnmayer agrees with the Dems on 60-70% of issues, and he's the most credible candidate to defeat Smith, why in the world shouldn't the DSCC (and all of us) support him? Just because he refuses to put a "D" after his name?
I'm disappointed that no one responded to Sal's excellent point about why a weaker Democrat shouldn't consider dropping out in order not to ensure Smith's reelection. If this race is Novick, Frohnmayer, and Smith, it's very possible that Novick will end up in third place. (And I'm saying this as a huge Steve Novick fan.) If the goal is getting someone into that seat who is better than Smith, and Frohnmayer is running in 2nd place, wouldn't Stephanie V's logic up above dictate that Novick drop out and throw his support to Frohnmayer?
Posted by: Ms. Mel Harmon | Jul 12, 2007 2:54:52 PM
Independent Party vs Non-Affiliated Voter IS very confusing to those registering. I do regular voter registration and I finally gave up and started adding "The Independent Party of Oregon is NOT the same as being 'independent' (ie not in a party at all). Please be very careful when filling out your voter registration card to mark the party with whom you truly wish to affiliate" to my regualar spiel when handing out the voter reg cards.
I can't tell you how many people have asked me what the difference is. I always tell them that if they are interested in the Independent Party of Oregon's stances/creed they should go their website. If they truly want to be unaffiliated, they need to make that clear by registering NAV. But the confusion persists. I really wish Oregon had not allowed the Independent Party to use "independent". It's just muddied the waters. Not to mention that 3/4s of people who claim to be Independents are truly NAV and you only learn that by quizzing them. I'm concerned that the Independent Party may claim more folks in polls since many folks when asked at the end of a poll how they are registered answer "Independent" without realizing they are now NAV, not Independent.
Sorry, I guess this could be considered a thread-jack, but it hit a nerve with me and the confusion over Mr. Frohnmayer's registration just proves what a mess this is.
Back to Mr. Frohnmayer, does anyone know what his views are on the "hot button topics" that others have mentioned in previous posts?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jul 12, 2007 4:17:43 PM
> the DSCC exists to support Democrats
Will someone please explain to me how this is partisanship gone wild? For a Democratic Party committee to support Democratic candidates seems like a baseline definitional thing.
This is one of the inherent advantages that accrue to the nominees of the major parties - the major party apparatus is there to support them.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 12, 2007 5:13:35 PM
the confusion over Mr. Frohnmayer's registration just proves what a mess this is.
There is no confusion on that point. John Frohnmayer is not unaffiliated. He is an "I".
As to the voter registration card itself...
There is nothing confusing about it. The card says "Constitution Party", "Democratic Party", "Independent Party", "Libertarian Party", "Pacific Green Party", "Republican Party", "Working Families Party", and "Not a member of a party".
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Jul 12, 2007 6:41:16 PM
Sal says strongly that John F. is I-party. Tao says strongly that he's NAV. Anyone with access to the voter file care to settle this?
Stephanie: I believe that the goal of the DSCC is to strengthen the majority of the Democratic Party in the Senate. Most times, that means running and supporting Democrats. In not one but TWO cases last cycle, it did not: the DSCC endorsed Bernie Sanders and did not run a candidate of their own, and promised him committee memberships, in exchange for his commitment to caucus for them (not sure whether they gave money or not); and (right or very wrong) they supported Joe L.
There is no reason why they shouldn't consider unusual cases on their own merits, and make a decision accordingly. It's being suggested here that this case is unusual: Smith is vulnerable and relatively short on funds, we have a former cabinet secretary considering a run as an independent, who appears very unlikely to caucus with Republicans, and thus far there is a case to be made that no strong Democratic challenger has emerged.
So, I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to say that your position "exemplifies extreme partisanship," but I do think it's reasonable to expect the DSCC to consider the possibility of endorsing/supporting John Frohnmayer.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Jul 12, 2007 7:01:53 PM
To put a finer point on that: I think the DSCC should consider endorsing/supporting any non-D candidate who (1) credibly pledges to support Democratic Senate/committee leadership, (2) demonstrably shares Democratic values on a large number of issues, and (3) is likely to be open to discussion/negotiation on those where there is disagreement (seek common ground rather than playing up the polarity of the issue.)
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 12, 2007 7:11:07 PM
Pete:
Unless he has re-registered lately, he is NAV.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 12, 2007 9:02:51 PM
The DPO's voter file is outdated. The last update was March or earlier.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 12, 2007 10:30:42 PM
I talked with someone who had also called in to check some weeks back. They were told on the phone NAV.
That's why I said that about he may have changed recently.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jul 12, 2007 10:37:44 PM
>So, I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to say that your position "exemplifies extreme partisanship," but I do think it's reasonable to expect the DSCC to consider the possibility of endorsing/supporting John Frohnmayer.
Well, thanks for the kind words, but I guess I just struggle with the idea of the DSCC supporting a non-D when there is a perfectly good D in the race, and the non-D (albeit a very good man) last held public office (non-elective) 15 years ago.
Posted by: Taoiseach | Jul 12, 2007 10:40:55 PM
Sal, last DPO update was in May, actually, just two months ago.
The Secretary of State's office could settle this matter, as it is public information after all.
Some articles call him little-i independent, like Jeff Mapes in a July 2006 Oregonian Article; others capital-I Independent, as the Tribune's Sources Say indicates.
I'm pretty sure that the Tribune article could have clarified his membership in the little-known Independent Party if that were the case. His classification as an independent--or even as an Independent--in journalism without such a clarification or so much as a note still indicates that he's probably what is commonly considered an independent, but is known as a NAV to us junkies.
Besides, don't you think his membership and possible candidacy in a minor party would have generated a different angle for this story?
It's a little too easy just to say that the voter file hasn't been updated.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 12, 2007 10:42:22 PM
I should say that I don't know when the DPO voter file was last updated (although I thought it was in May for the elections), since I need to re-sign my authorization papers so my login will work again. That's why I asked a friend who was local to call and check the registration.
However, I know sometimes election offices can take a while to input voter registration forms when there isn't a deadline for an election or whatever coming up.
It may be if you call and ask now that the registration says something different.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: verasoie | Jul 10, 2007 8:05:01 PM
I can only speculate that this would hurt Smith, because the Dems will stick by their nominee, and independents or moderate Republicans dissatisfied with Smith but not willing to vote for a Dem would possibly vote for Frohnmayer.
But really, it'll come down to the Democratic nominee, the positions he (so far there are only speculations about men) takes, and which positions Frohnmayer endorses, particularly the lightning-rod ones of abortion rights, gun rights, Iraq, etc.
If Frohnmayer runs as a Dem in everything but name, then that could make it difficult for the Democratic nominee, but my thought is that the more people out there criticizing Smith, the merrier.
Any word if Frohnmayer can independently finance a campaign? If not, I don't see it going especially far.