As Kroger and Macpherson run, Mannix lurks in the tall grass
The Oregonian took note of the entry of law professor John Kroger into the Attorney General race, joining Representative Greg Macpherson in the Democratic primary campaign.
A big question looming over the race: Will right-wing Republican Kevin Mannix make a third run at the post?
Republican Kevin Mannix, who lost to Myers in 2000, said he was not interested in running again but wouldn't rule it out. ...At this point, Mannix said, Republicans are hoping Kroger and Macpherson weaken each other with attacks.
"We love a divisive, bloody Democratic primary," he said.
Questions: Do you think Mannix is honestly "not interested" or is he just trying to drive down the ardor of Democratic donors? Will Macpherson and Kroger (and their supporters) be able to keep to the high road, avoiding the "bloody" primary that Mannix wants?
Discuss.
|
September 22, 2007 |
in the news 2007 | Comments (23 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Comments
Posted by: LT | Sep 22, 2007 3:56:54 PM
I would certainly hope the supporters of John and Greg (and Floyd if he gets in?) could run the kind of intelligent campaign we deserve. Nasty primaries do NOT win general elections.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 22, 2007 4:04:20 PM
I have seen some anonymous and extreme ad hominem attacks directed at Kroger here on BlueO, but I would like to think that both candidates are smart enough to avoid that kind of thing themselves, and will urge their supporters to avoid it as well.
Posted by: torridjoe | Sep 22, 2007 4:33:31 PM
Why are we talking about Mannix again? It's not because anyone thinks he's a threat to become AG, is it? Ha. Ha. HA!
Posted by: Big Barton | Sep 22, 2007 5:30:21 PM
Only two Republicans pose a threat to Macpherson or Kroger: Max Williams would have been an excellent candidate, but his political fortunes took a hit recently. Ron Saxton's name recogniation could make him formidable, but I doubt he is interested.
Please run, Mannix. Please.
Posted by: LT | Sep 22, 2007 6:37:43 PM
No, Mannix should give up on the idea.
Max Williams would be a serious Republican AG candidate, and one who could discuss the issues seriously.
I look forward to hearing the views of all the candidates on such Oregon-specific issues as election/ campaign finance law.
Posted by: Nick | Sep 22, 2007 6:57:13 PM
It seems to me that Macpherson is already playing dirty. The one issue he cared to highlight for the Oregonian was the happenstance of his Oregon birth. He's going to need to do better than that to win the support of this lifelong Oregonian.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 22, 2007 7:49:43 PM
Posted by: Nick | Sep 22, 2007 6:57:13 PMIt seems to me that Macpherson is already playing dirty.
That is hardly "dirty" to me. Call it not a valid line of argument for qualifications for the job, and/or being seriously weak tea as a way to make gains in the primary and I would concur, but not a dirty mudslinging move IMNSHO.
Posted by: Nick | Sep 22, 2007 9:16:04 PM
lestatdelc.
Point well made. Dirty was hyperbole.
But I would like to point out there are many things which we are born to, that if made a point of contention in a political contest, would be racist, sexist, homophobic, or some such intolerable thing. I am not saying that Oregon nativism rises to that level of offense, but it belies an unhealthy intolerance in our state, and when a politician panders to these tendencies he is praying upon people's intolerance. It may not be mudslinging, but realize what Macpherson is saying: "John Kroger wasn't born into our club." And born is the operative word, all Macpherson has run on thus far is that he was born here, or rather that Kroger wasn't. We don't get to choose where we are born, any more than we get to choose what race, gender, or sexual orientation we'll be born as. I for one want an AG's race that deals in the issues, not one that is mired in the nativist mud.
Posted by: Adrian Rosolie | Sep 22, 2007 9:44:47 PM
OK, but considering everybody who can possibly use that point to their advantage does, it seems like a very non-issue. What people are trying to say when they use that line is "I'm from here, I was raised here, and therefore I am in touch with the issues that people here care about most and the issues that are most pressing in this area." It's got to do with the idea that you elect people based on how they are going to represent YOU, and if they're an outsider they're perceived to be less in touch with the native issues.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Sep 22, 2007 10:36:00 PM
To me, the issue with MacPhearson's campaign isn't specifically that he's saying that he's an Oregon native. It's that, so far, that's what he's focusing on.
What's his campaign speech going to sound like? "I'm better than that other guy who convicted mafia dons and Enron executives, because... I was born here"?
Weak. Very weak.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 23, 2007 9:39:55 AM
all Macpherson has run on thus far is that he was born here
Nick and Steve -- Rather than relying on the single sentence that the Oregonian pulls out of a long interview, I'd suggest you read what Macpherson's really running on. It's all right here.
(Full disclosure - I built Greg Macpherson's website but I speak only for myself.)
Posted by: paulie | Sep 23, 2007 12:38:18 PM
While I love the familiar Oregon story, "my parents ran a dairy farm or my dad worked in a sawmill or my mom waited tables," in-migration from other states is a fact. When the 2010 census hits the press I predict more folks from progressive states have become Oregonians. I also predict a very tiny percentage of voters select candidates because they grew up in one particular state or another.
Posted by: Minny | Sep 23, 2007 5:35:05 PM
Of course, it's completely unimportant that one candidate was *born* here, while another was not.
But it is important if one candidate knows the state better than the other one.
Kroger is a fairly recent transplant and has not spent considerable time outside the Portland area. Macperson has been dealing with Oregon issues all of his life and spent his tenure in the legislature addressing matters of statewide concern.
Posted by: Minny | Sep 23, 2007 5:43:53 PM
P.S.-- Did anyone here even read Macpherson's comments in the Oregonian? He didn't even mention where he and Kroger were "born."
The article says:
Macpherson, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee . . . also noted Kroger's recent move to Oregon. "I have years of proven experience protecting Oregon consumers, creating safe Oregon neighborhoods and protecting Oregon's environment," he said. "And I'm the only candidate in this race who can say that."
Only later in the article does the reporter bring up where each candidate was born. Macpherson didn't mention it.
Posted by: LT | Sep 23, 2007 6:44:16 PM
So, Kroger wants to put away meth dealers and polluters. But is he aware of what the Oregon Law Comm. and the Public Comm. on the Legislature said about campaign finance and election law?
Kroger has never run for office in Oregon before. Let's hear what he knows about campaign finance and election law.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 23, 2007 7:07:19 PM
>Kroger has never run for office in Oregon before. Let's hear what he knows about campaign finance and election law.
You could just as easily ask what Greg Macpherson really knows about criminal justice. The point is, these are two very smart guys with good (but different) experience.
I think we can stipulate to the fact that they are both "qualified" and have sufficient knowledge of Oregon law to serve as AG. There's no question that either of them would do a perfectly good job. Both would grow and learn on the job (or else neither of them would be worth voting for). The Democratic electorate is in a great position here: we pretty much can't make a mistake. And unlike on the Senate side, where some of us on both sides have stated qualms about that old bugaboo "electability" ... either of these guys could be expected to win.
That's a huge luxury.
So what it comes down to, in my mind, is: what kind of life experience, work experience, outlook, and temperament do we prefer?
Posted by: Auggie | Sep 23, 2007 9:45:16 PM
Mannix is an megalomaniac, a crack whore for power and attention who is oblivious to voters' repeated entreaties to him to dry up and blow away. He once had credibility among the mainstream until his abject craving for power combined with nutball positions drove them away, and he retains shards of political viability only among some Republican dead-enders, the lunatic few, and a particular Las Vegas sex freak who will continue to bankroll his campaign. Look for him to declare as soon as he gets the funding lined up.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Sep 24, 2007 1:46:29 AM
More Oregonians have been born outside the territory/state than in it at each decennial census since 1850.
Posted by: Jim | Sep 24, 2007 1:42:52 PM
Mannix must be delusional if he thinks he can win a statewide race after going 0-4 since 2000. Does he really want to lose five in a row?
Incidentally, I saw him at a stoplight in Eugene a couple of weeks ago; he looked kind of pathetic and sad. Maybe he needs a puppy.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | Sep 27, 2007 10:43:21 AM
To the original question about Mannix: who knows and who cares? There likely will be some Repug inferior to both Democratic candidates
As to the second I have great confidence in both candidates and the primary contest will be a boost to the eventual nominee in the fall. Both are well qualified and either will make an admirable AG.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Sep 22, 2007 3:42:06 PM
Mannix can't help himself. He needs to run and lose every two to four years.