I guess I'm just not sure why this topic merited two posts.

I think it's a bit much to claim that having that Duin column on his site is a "slap at brothers and sisters in labor." Many people would argue that the PERS reforms were a much bigger "slap" at a lot more people.

Marc, those of us who carry a child welfare caseload might not characterize the meth problem as a "miniscule" component of the DOJ mission. It's not merely a criminal enforcement issue, something John has pointed out throughout his campaign. I'd hate to have people on BO come away with the impression that most AAGs would be scratching their heads at the Kroger campaign's emphasis on meth. The meth problem pervades the caseloads of many AAGs.

I'd have to describe this as a major endorsement... for continuing the status quo in the attorney general's office. That's something I'm not remotely interested in doing.

Atty. General Myers has been competent. Period. He gets a "gentleman's C+." I'd like more. I think the residents of Oregon deserve more. And I don't mean more of the same.

I must also agree that some judicious editing could have reduced this post by about 50% and improved the impact... even if I disagree with the poster's points.

John has presented a strong vision for what the AG's office can achieve. John's vision challenges the AG's current way of conducting business. It is not surprising to me that change would be viewed with skepticism fromt he DOJ. John has received support from Unions both because of his strong support of labor and because the Union's unfavorable view of Greg. Steve Duinn's piece was not written by John's campaign and John has not attacked or disparaged the DOJ attorneys. The elections presents a choice for voters, as I have seen it outlined throughout the campaign. John has presented a vision for where to take the DOJ, which includes a more active role in litigation for the AG's office. Greg has presented himself as a the manager, not there to shake things up but well versed in the management requirements of the AG office. That is the choice voters have. I have been turned off throughout the race by Macpherson's overuse of his Oregon family ties, but what I have been able to gleam from his proponents, is that Greg will be a manager for the AG's office. John will, in contrast, look to use the AGs office and its resources to push environmental enforcement of OR laws and advocate for smart on crime policies.

In case anyone who doesn't know better is tempted to agree with Larry McD's uninformed comment that Hardy Myers has been nothing more than a "competent" attorney general deserving of the grade of "a gentleman's C+," I decided to pick out some choice quotes from the endorsement editorials of newspapers around the state that backed Hardy's reelection in 2004.

The Daily Astorian:

“[Hardy Myers] grasps the inequities that plague Oregon’s criminal justice system . . . . As a legislator and as attorney general, Hardy Myers has been the model of what we need in Salem. We only wish there were more like him.”

The Oregonian:

“[T]here's nothing modest about [Hardy] Myers' record over the past eight years -- or his plans for the next four. In addition to providing solid legal advice for the state as the head of the state's own law firm, he's worked to bolster the state's economic restitution efforts in crime cases as well as its response to sexual assaults, crime victims services and child support enforcement.”

The Bend Bulletin:

“[Hardy] Myers has focused in particular on violence against women. To that end, his office formed a statewide sex assault task force to, among other things, recommend needed legislative changes and provide resources to local agencies responding to such crimes. More generally, Myers' office helped put in place an automated system to notify crime victims of changes in the status of offenders. Myers has also set up a restitution reform task force in order to force more criminals to pay for the economic consequences of their actions.

“In the area of consumer protection, Myers' office has concentrated on misconduct that affects large numbers of people. He points in particular to his office's response to wrongdoing (deceptive marketing, anti-competitive practices, etc.) committed by the pharmaceutical industry. And then, of course, there's Oregon's no-call list, which has been pre-empted by the federal no-call list. Myers' office has sought, and will continue to seek, the authority to recover enforcement costs, thereby increasing the registry's effectiveness.

The Statesman Journal:

“[Hardy Myers] has successfully resisted U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s efforts to interfere with Oregon’s voter-approved assisted-suicide law. It’s worth noting that he did so despite his personal opposition to assisted suicide. That’s the kind of dispassionate leadership we should expect from an attorney general. . . . Ordinary Oregonians might be most familiar with his work through the attorney general’s consumer hotline. Myers has expanded it, focusing on complaints that affect large numbers of people.”

The Register-Guard:

“[Hardy] Myers' greatest achievement, however, is one that manifests itself in silence. Oregon's government is deeply divided along partisan lines, yet there are remarkably few complaints of political spin from the attorney general's office. Myers is trusted to play it straight -- he successfully defended Oregon's assisted suicide law, for instance, despite his personal opposition to the voter-approved initiative. A Republican Legislature and a Democratic governor alike have learned to rely on Myers for sound advice and vigorous defense.”

The Willamette Week:

“In eight years of elected office, Myers has shown himself to be a solid, quiet administrator, not a politician--and that's a good thing. He has focused on seeking restitution for crime victims, combating sexual assault, and consumer protection (he's been particularly dogged prosecuting pharmaceutical industry abuses).”

In my view, Oregon would be far better off with another AG in the pattern of a Hardy Myers. Sure, things should change, especially concerning the level of funding for DOJ services. And that will require a strong working relationship between the AG's office and legislature. Macpherson has more of the legislative and other relevant experience to get that done.

"Why are 2004 endorsements relevant to Hardy Myers in 2008?"

torridjoe--

Hardy Myers's 12-year record as AG should be judged as a whole. Larry McD said he believed Hardy had done nothing more than a "competent" job as AG deserving of a "C+" grade. Obviously, the collective judgment of newspaper editorial boards in 2004 was that Hardy had done a pretty stellar -- dare I say, an A+ quality -- job as AG for the first eight years of his tenure. It's hard for me to understand how today, three-plus years later, anyone who is familiar with his record could say that it has been nothing more than "competent."

I would venture to say that if Hardy had chosen to run for a fourth term, he would receive the same praise from all of these editorial boards today. But he's not running again. Nonetheless, I think only someone who is uninformed about the work of the DOJ over the past 12 years could conclude that Hardy has done just a "competent" job at its helm.

In 2004, the Daily Astorian wrote that, "As a legislator and as attorney general, Hardy Myers has been the model of what we need in Salem. We only wish there were more like him.”

If that was true in 2004, it's also true in 2008.

Mr. Duin can say anything he likes, as can Mr. Kroger. But Mr. Kroger is responsible for the content of his website, in particular his biography page. He has chosen to post the Duin "289 underachievers" article, and has chosen to leave it there, unedited and without commentary or disclaimer, after being told what he should already know: it is deeply offensive to a group of outstanding lawyers who have devoted their careers to public service. And it seems to be part of a pattern of public-employee bashing: in his response to the OAJA endorsement of his adverary, Mr. Kroger said he was proud to be supported by the "working people" of Oregon. The lawyers at DOJ are also working people -- damn hardworking people who make considerable financial sacrifices to do the public's business. It is too bad that other public employee unions either did not know the contents of the Kroger website, or choose to disregard it.

Actions speak louder than words. If Mr. Kroger indeed supports the aspirations of public employees, he should not countenance the Duin article, no matter how many good things it says about HIM. Or, at a minimum, his website should make it clear that he does not consider those he aspires to lead to be underachievers. Unfortunately, we at DOJ were forced to conclude that Mr. Kroger with does believe that, or at least does not care if others believe it. Either way, that is the wrong attitude for a leader to have about his employees.

Valkyrie, you are way out of line about Kroger and public employees. With the exception of his professorship and the '92 Clinton campaign, Kroger has spent his entire life as a public employee. Furthermore, he has been endorsed by the vast majority of public employees' unions and his campaign has presented a plan to help working people - including public employees. For you to claim otherwise is simply disingenuous. Kroger did not write the Dunn column and looking at the website, there is simply a link to the story (which thanks to the Oregon Live website does not even work).

I have worked at the Oregon Department of Justice and I saw first hand the almost Sisyphus like task its lawyers, paralegals, clerks, and support staff had to deal with everyday. I know Dunn was unfair to the DOJ lawyers, and having spoken to Kroger, I know he does not agree with Dunn's attack on the attorneys. While Dunn may have played a role in the endorsement, it is simply wrong for Mr. Abrams to claim that Kroger is opposed to the AAGs. Similarly, it is unfair Mr. Abrams to simply discount the opinions of diverse unions (including the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and law enforcement unions) from across the state as anger over PERS.

P.S. Misha, your guess about endorsements and Myers is a fairly safe bet since Kroger had said he waited to run until after Myer's said he was not running and I would guess that Macpherson was not going to try and unseat Myers in the primary.

Mr. Abrams, by trying to tie Kroger to what Dunn wrote you are clearly trying to imply that Kroger is somehow against the AAGs, and implication you further by questioning the motives of other unions who support Kroger. What Dunn wrote is offensive but it is not the be all and end all of what is and is not pro-labor. For example, Macpherson has repeatedly defended his vote to allow PGE/Enron to overcharge customers - does that one vote mean Macpherson is automatically anti-consumer? (even this example is wrong, since Macpherson actually voted that way and Kroger did not write or publish the column). I come from a union family and I know to assign one opinion to the entire labor movement is folly. Yes, some unions are unhappy about what Macpherson did with PERS, but many more are attracted to Kroger's positive message about moving Oregon forward.

I would also note that the past, Kroger has said he does not agree with Dunn about the AAGs, so that has already happened. Furthermore, I am going through his website and all I see is a link to Dunn, which does not work anymore.

Also, I would add that you should actually contact Kroger if you want to tell him something, not put a "challenge" in the depths of a Blue Oregon comment thread - as far as I know who is who here (a shaky assumption) nobody who speaks for ether campaign is commenting.

Mr. Abrams, for the record, you are wrong about getting the article by clicking, the Oregonian does not make the article available anymore. At this point, it is just a list of things that were once written. Furthermore, it is you, not Kroger who is highlighting the negative parts of the article and it is you who claim that the article makes Kroger anti-union. If you can provide more evidence for this claim beyond having a dead link to something Steve Dunn wrote, please provide it.

As for the issue of contacting him, regardless of what happened on Friday, having the 15th or 16th comment on a post on Blue Oregon in the final hours of the Sunday of the state convention is probably not an effective method.

Finally, to answer your question about a boss calling me an underachiever, while I would not like a boss that did that, I have been called to my face much, much worse things by bosses - let alone a link to an article somebody else wrote. What Steve Dunn wrote was unfair to the AAGs, and as someone who worked there fairly recently it was offensive to me. However, I would not even think to base my vote on Kroger linking to an article that was generally favorable to him in the state's largest newspaper. There are serious policy difference between the candidates - and an even greater gap in the way the two candidates think about politics. It is the issues, not a dead link on a website, that will be most important to me when I will vote.

"Misha, your guess about endorsements and Myers is a fairly safe bet since Kroger had said he waited to run until after Myer's said he was not running and I would guess that Macpherson was not going to try and unseat Myers in the primary."

A-Rab,

My point has nothing to do with the mere fact of these endorsements; what's amazing is the extraordinarily high praise in the endorsement editorials. Re-read the quotes I included above. Most endorsement editorials are not so so effusive with high praise.

My point was not Hardy would have been endorsed again this year if he had run again. My point was that the editorial boards would have been just as thrilled with his performance as AG this year as they were in 2004.

And, regardless of this speculation, anyone who thinks Hardy deserves a C+ grade as AG is simply uninformed about the work he's done over the past 12 years for our state.

Marc, I would not call most family law cases "some." There is hardly a case on my docket that is not meth-involved, and John's treatment emphasis (not mere enforcement) ought to have a tremendous impact. Readers of BO, suffice it to say that there is some internal dissent about this endorsement and how it came about. I also wouldn't omit appellate from those whose caseloads are impacted by the meth problem. It is not merely a law enforcement problem since its ripple effect is seen throughout. His emphasis on this issue only seems clueless if you don't realize the extent to which it drives many caseloads in the department.

I think, unfortunately, this discussion has boiled down to what was really at issue: the infamous Duin column. I recall the buzz in the days following its publication. It's a shame that Duin used a column talking about John's ambition to be AG as yet another opportunity to slam us and the work we do, but I've never held John responsible for that. Some of my colleagues differed, obviously.

OK, folks. In response to a post by a Myers fan a couple of months ago, I did as the writer suggested and went to Hardy Meyers' website and read it... carefully. If I am uninformed, blame it on his political prose.

I suspect that giving Mr. Meyers "A+" is one more example of Oregonians comparing their public officials' performances to each other rather than to a standard of what might have been accomplished.

There is a trend in every locality on the globe to say "well, if you weren't here, you can't possibly understand." There is truth to that. There is also truth in saying "The fact that people from the outside see things differently doesn't mean they're wrong."

After tj's rant, I went back to portions of Mr. Myers'website which leads me to believe I was a bit harsh. I'll give him a "B-." There were too many missed opportunities- especially in not joining the SCHIP suit filed by Washington, California, New York and eight other states.

And finally... uninformed or not, at least I know how to spell Steve Duin's name.

My bad for misspelling throughout back there - if there was an edit feature I would jump on that.

Misha, I was not going after Myers, I was not one of the people arguing for a gentleman's C.

Jenni, A. Rab. --

I don't know why you call this a "dead link," as when you're on the Kroger web site and click, it goes to that article. And, while I've heard far worse from bosses, I've never seen it perpetuated on an open web site. Jenni, I'm glad you have think skinned friends when responding to a hypothetical, but for many AAGs, this is quite real. Anyhow, I think we've exhausted that discussion.

Ultimately, though this string has focused on the Duin article, there were many, many other issues affecting decisions that I heard. For those, go back to the top.

And, gee Larry, obviously I do know how to spell "Duin," but typed a bit fast at 11:13 PM. Glad you're focused on what matters.

I find it ridicules to attempt to refute John's entire record, labor endorsements, and vision for Oregon because of one line in an article written by Steve Duin, that was not written by John, and a comment that John has never endorsed. I would hope that the decision to endorse John or Greg by the DOJ would be made based upon their vision of the AGs office. I would hope that the DOJ lawyers would be less sensitive then to take offense from one line among many positive articles discussing John's vision for Oregon.

I am tired of political debates being diverted to issues that are not important or relevant to solving real issues. This entire weekend, all one could hear was whether Obama's "bitter and frustrated" comments were offensive to middle America. When I see supporters divert policy arguments to arguments over lines in editorials not written by the candidate or to the choice of words at a fundraiser, I assume the opposing candidate has already lost on the issues. I am sure many DOJ lawyers endorsed Greg because of his view of the AG's office as primarily one of a management position. The debate between Greg's vision of the AG's office as one primarily of managing a big state law firm and that of John's vision of a more active AG seeking to enforce Oregon environmental laws and shape political discussion, is a debate we should be engaging in. The contrasting conceptions of the AG's office between John and Greg is an important debate, but whether candidates support the opinions of editorials in the Oregonian is not.

You have done a lot more than provide a “list of issues,” it is clear that you feel the Duin article was very important issue, one so important you imply that by linking to it, Kroger is anti-union.* You have also claimed that the meth issue is over emphasized, however, again, I have to wonder if this is true. When I was at DOJ, the majority of my caseload was linked to meth – to the point were it would have been easier if the program we use to track cases defaulted to “involves meth” being checked.

I agree with you that this election needs to be about the issue, but so far the discussion for this post has been free of policy.

• To answer your earlier question, it is a dead link because if you click on it, the Oregonian website is simply the headline, but no text. If there is a working link, I did not find it.

Contrary to Jonathan, I sure hope the AG's race is not decided based upon the candidates' visions. Visions can make for wonderful rhetoric. But I've not seen that Mr. Kroger has demonstrated the kind of political saavy and detailed experience that is required in order to make visions reality. So you can dismiss an AAG poll as the status quo, but if Mr. Kroger thinks he can implement his vision without them, he's wrong.

Jonathan R., what are you talking about? When has Kroger said he does not need the AAGs? Implicate in his message is a desire to use the lawyers of the Oregon DOJ to the best of their abilities.

That office currently sports 289 attorneys, perhaps the state's greatest collection of underachievers.

Wow, Marc, that's the statement, written by Duin, that you're arguing proves that Kroger is anti-union? Uh, you haven't even established preponderance of the evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. Not guilty!

Marc- I read your comments and the first two observations made valid points. However, a third of the discussion focused entirely on the Steve Duin article. I find the fact that Macpherson's supporters focus on the article a sign of frustration as Kroger mounts a serious challenge against Macpherson. Kroger did not write the article and only placed a link on his webpage, which included links to every news story written about the campaign. I find this tactic of painting Kroger as anti-labor because of a line in someone else's article similar to the recent steps by Hilary (also McCain) to attack Obama on the Bitter comment or even for the Rev. Wright comments. These arguments serve no purpose but to twist the focus away from the issues.

Many labor unions have endorsed Kroger because of what he has to say and because of Greg's record. Of course many of the Unions are turned off to Greg because of his horrible handling of the PERS reforms. I find it amusing that it is implied that the unions should give the same weight in the endorsement process to Greg's work on the PERS reforms to that of a one line insult by Steve Duin in an article otherwise making very important arguments for why Oregonian's should support Kroger as their next AG.

Marc- Perhaps you didn't intend to have your words interpreted in such a way, but from the language in your post, it was clearly explicit in the language. The use of the Duin article was clearly intended to show that John was not a friend of labor.

"Although many labor unions have endorsed John, they either did not know about or ignored this slap at their brothers and sisters in labor. And, having sat in on some of those discussions, it appears clear that Labor support for John has more to do with disagreements with Greg about the 2003 PERS reform than it does with any other factor. Our members are not unaware of Rep. Macpherson’s role in PERS changes, but I presume that was factored into their decisions."

Marc- thanks for your reply. I appreciate that throughout the post you addressed the comments of other commenters. I still fail to see the Duin article link on Kroger's website as linking John to insulting DOJ lawyers. I know he has great respect for the DOJ lawyers and has taught many of them. However, the conversation has been exhausted, and I think we will have to agree to disagree. I appreciate that you wrote your thoughts and observations concerning the reasons for the DOJ's endorsement. I look forward to your PERS post.