Frohnmayer to Run for Senate as an Independent

It is all but certain that next year's Senate race will feature John Frohnmayer, the former National Endowment for the Arts Chairman, running as an independent candidate. While Frohnmayer has thus far declined to officially anounce his intentions for the race, all indications are that his campaign will begin in earnest this week.

From the Statesman-Journal:

Former National Endowment for the Arts chairman John Frohnmayer said he will announce his political plans Wednesday, and many expect he'll enter the U.S. Senate race as an independent.

Frohnmayer scheduled press events in Salem and Portland, followed by Eugene and Springfield on Thursday and Medford and Ashland on Friday.

Another telling sign is reported by Oregon Public Broadcasting:

Frohnmayer declined to confirm he is in fact running for the U.S. Senate. But he's scheduled a multi-city tour of Oregon next week and his office voicemail at one point identified itself as “Frohnmayer for Senate”.

So who exactly is John Frohnmayer? OPB gives some details on the would-be candidate:

John Frohnmayer is a liberal arts professor at Oregon State University. He's the brother of the University of Oregon President and former state Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer.

Back in the late 1980's, John Frohnmayer headed the National Endowment for the Arts under the first President Bush, raising the ire of the religious right for grants to controversial artists.

Frohnmayer is registered with the Independent Party of Oregon and defines himself as a “raging moderate”.

John Frohnmayer: "The political system is so dysfunctional that we ought to be outraged, to the extent that we are looking for different solutions because business as usual is not good enough."

Frohnmayer's entrance is sure to heavily impact what will already be a contentious race. Could he become a spoiler in the election, and if so, for who? Discuss.

  • (Show?)

    Raising money will be an utter bitch. I'm not sure he'll make it to November. But if he does, it will be as a monkey wrench.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Just a reminder---the November election will include members of what has been called "the fastest growing party--no party at all".

    There are people who don't want to remember a statistic: Gordon Smith only won 11 years ago because of the number of people who defected to 3rd party candidates.

    Democrats could prevent that by running either Jeff or Steve in a way which appeals general audiences and not just "the base". By that I mean running a positive, people-oriented campaign with lots of dialogue with voters, and minimal jargon or inside references. When I hear Obama speak, I hear a refreshing lack of "insider language".

    For instance, Speaker Merkley could do as Gov. candidate Kitzhaber or Cong. US Senate candidate Wyden did and not only appear before groups of people and answer questions, but do so with details from their past experience in office.

    Steve could speak about which proposals already introduced US House or Senate he supports and why.

    One thing I noticed when I saw Steve speak a few months ago was that his speech contained references the old timers at the table caught, but what about the 2 young people at my table? For instance, when he was making a point by with the statement, "Kitzhaber said...", I turned to my 18 year old guest and asked if she recognized the name Kitzhaber. No, but that is not surprising since she was in middle school when he was Governor.

    John Frohnmayer wrote a book about his experience at the NEA which I read and would suggest to others. There is more appeal out there for a "raging moderate" (in a previous decade some called this "radical centrist") than some here and in other activist groups may realize.

  • (Show?)

    "Just a reminder---the November election will include members of what has been called "the fastest growing party--no party at all"."

    NAVs are still only 22% of Oregon's voters, and they have a poorer record of showing up for elections than either major party (which makes sense, of course).

    And for the most part, "independents" (small i) in OR vote Democratic, particularly for candidates, and track on polls much closer to Dems.

    Playing to solidly Democratic values (as opposed to some attempt to play the middle when that's not where they live) is always the way to win elections. Be who you are.

  • (Show?)

    LT says: Democrats could prevent that by running either Jeff or Steve in a way which appeals general audiences and not just "the base".

    It is a misconception that "Not Affiliated" means "between" the parties, and that appealing to them requires being more "moderate" or "centrist." That is part of the triangulation theory, which only works up to a point and in some conditions (so late 20th century). Political opinions are much more complicated than that. Many (and possibly most) people are not affiliated because they think the party they usually vote with is not sufficiently committed to what they think is most important; the frustrations I hear regarding the Democratic Party have nothing to do with it's being insufficiently "centrist."

    The past 25 years have broken the compass regarding what the "general audience" is. We need candidates who have their own compass.

  • Unrepentant Liberal (unverified)
    (Show?)

    First glance: Frohnmayer was a republican, so he might appeal those repubs that voted for Smith in the past but who now might be less inclined to re-elect him due to his about face on the war etc. Repubs don't like traitors to their Preznit and his dandy little war.

    Dems, I think will remain focused on the job at hand: electing a Democraic Senator. I don't see a ton of appeal for us to go out of party for that guy.

    Independents: Where will he stand on the war? That remains to be seen. If he articulates a 'stay' strategy, then I can't see that as a winning position.

    But, there is a lot up in the air and allot of factors to play out. So heck, I'm just guessing.

  • (Show?)

    I think John will appeal to disaffected Democrats who believe that elected D's and Democratic candidates are doing a poor job of standing up to the constitutional abuses of the current administration; to disaffected Republicans who are frustrated at the lack of conservatism, particularly fiscal conservatism, that we have seen from the GOP in recent years; and to anyone who is frustrated at the vitriol and inability of partisans to work together in support of commonsense solutions to the legion of problems facing this country.

    I've met with John on several occasions in the last month and have agreed to help him with his campaign.

    As an economic conservative and social moderate with a proven track record for defending the U.S Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, and as a decorated veteran of the Vietnam war who opposes going to Iraq and who has a great deal to say about the abuses of the Executive branch over the last 30 years, and especially under Bush, John is closer than any other candidate to Oregon's mainstream.

    I see him as a person who has some important things to say to people of this state -- things that the Democratic candidate (particularly if Novick loses the primary) and Republican candidate should be talking but won't.

    Torrid is correct when he says that John won't be able to raise the kind of money that Smith or the DSCC candidate is likely to raise, but while they are traveling to DC and around the country to raise money from partisan special interest groups, John will be out beating the streets, taking his case directly to the people of Oregon.

    I support him in his efforts, and encourage others to do the same. Failing that, I would encourage people to listen to what he has to say with an open mind.

  • (Show?)

    "Torrid is correct when he says that John won't be able to raise the kind of money that Smith or the DSCC candidate is likely to raise,"

    I should say that's not a knock on John; it's just tough when you don't have major institutional backing. I'm not sure I like the sound of "economic conservative" OR "social moderate," but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to listen.

  • (Show?)

    It's my understanding that Mr. Frohnmayer is registered with the "Independent Party", which is in fact a completely different thing that a "non-affiliated voter".

    Is this incorrect?

  • (Show?)

    Torrid,

    I didn't interpret it as a knock. What you've said about finances is true.

    My projection, based on the contested races in 2006, is that Smith will raise around $20 million and that the Democratic challenger will raise around $8 million.

    So I think raising the issue of money is a fair point.

    Similarly, I think it's fair to treat with skepticism labels like "social moderate" or "fiscal conservatism". As I said, have a listen to what he has to say and attach your own labels to them.

    A word on John's fiscal conservatism

    John has told me that he opposed Bush's tax cuts that targeted the wealthiest 1 percent, and generally opposes shifts in tax policy that have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans and multistate and multinational corporations.

    He has raised concerns that we never received the "Cold War Dividend" that Reagan promised us when we increased defense spending in the 1980's.

    He has told me that he believes in balanced budgets -- not the spiraling debt that Bush and his rubber-stamp congress have given us -- all of these are things that Democrats in Congress have had an opportunity to try and reverse but haven't at the federal level.

    A word on "social moderate"

    John is one of the strongest, most articulate advocates for the Bill of Rights and the Equal Protection clause that I have ever met.

    One of the things that appeals to me about Steve Novick's candidacy is that I think Oregon needs to send a litigator to Washington who will work to roll back the power of the executive branch and who will fight to fully restore the protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

    John is a trial attorney with 25 years of experience specializing in Constitutional Law, particularly the First Amendment.

    He was one of the first people to take on, as a Republican, the growing power of the Religious right in the early 1990's.

    The failure of Democrats to seriously oppose that effort, in my opinion, led to Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act, and has helped to move this country to a place where it is now acceptable for our government -- both parties, mind you -- to create fenced in "Free Speech Ghettos" for protesters of political events; where it is now acceptable for our government to engage in warrantless wiretapping of our citizens -- powers that were recently expanded by a Democratic Congress, etc.

    From my point of view, all of that is an immoderate change of course and character for this country -- one that I do not support -- and I deeply resent the fact that many Democratic leaders have helped to bring about that change of direction.

    I think John is the best vessel to carry that debate on through the general election.

    It is my hope that his work in Oregon will be part of a broader movement by people of conscience to demand greater accountability from our government and to move us in a much more positive direction than we have been heading in over the last 15 years.

  • (Show?)

    John Frohnmayer is registered Non-affiliated.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you Sal!

    As an economic conservative and social moderate with a proven track record for defending the U.S Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, and as a decorated veteran of the Vietnam war who opposes going to Iraq and who has a great deal to say about the abuses of the Executive branch over the last 30 years, and especially under Bush, John is closer than any other candidate to Oregon's mainstream. <<

    At the very least, John will force all candidates to get beyond appealing to "the base", whoever that is. Gordon Smith won in 1996 by a margin of a little under 53,000 votes. Add up the people who voted 3rd party that year and you get a combined 3rd party total of 57122---more than the victory margin. Those people don't count?

    People who don't like what I said above will like me less when I say that I was introduced to a 3rd party US Senate candidate and campaigned for that candidate in 1996 after he answered every question I asked, always with intelligence and sometimes with wit. What a concept--a candidate who answers questions from an ordinary citizen!

    As a friend (son of the person who introduced me to the candidate) remarked, I had decided not to choose between "the slick one and the chinless one". It is the job of Jeff and Steve to create an impression as the Senate candidate who stands for..... rather than the perception behind that sort of snide remark from someone who, at the time, was very active in issue politics.

    This year will be better, as there will certainly be a candidate on the ballot every Oregonian will be able to happily support without the old "hold your nose and vote" problem.

    My experience of actually knowing people who are registered NAV (as I was from late May 1996 - March, 2002 and may be again after May 2008)contrasts with this statement,

    "NAVs are still only 22% of Oregon's voters, and they have a poorer record of showing up for elections than either major party (which makes sense, of course).

    And for the most part, "independents" (small i) in OR vote Democratic, particularly for candidates, and track on polls much closer to Dems. "

    How many elections in recent years have been decided by a margin larger than 22% ? Is it important to appeal to those registered NAV or say "they never vote, why bother?" ?

    Among the NAV I know are a former Democratic politician who just got fed up with the partisanship. No, that doesn't fit the stereotype, but then stereotypes are often invalid.

    Do polls always decide elections? Did the people who signed Westlund petitions ( or were registered with a party and couldn't sign but showed up at events) register on a poll of attitudes about the 2006 Gov. race? Did Ted change the management of his Gov. campaign after realizing people were not flocking to his cause whatever the primary result?

    Jim Hill spoke to Marion County Democrats and answered every question asked. Then the Kulongoski representative (young man who at the time was campaign manager although he didn't seem to know a lot about Oregon politics) spoke and made flat statements like "the governor is doing what Oregonians want done". That didn't go over very well with the group. Ted was above answering questions? He alone could read the minds of all Oregonians? Flat statements like that make Republicans look bad, and are something Democrats should avoid. If Jeff and Steve are as smart as they appear, they will make sure none of their staff are that cocky and unwilling to debate issues in person.

    There was a lot more energy at the Westlund event I attended than I saw from coverage of Ted's events. And the Sept. speech Ted gave to State Central Comm. was the first time in 2006 I saw a candidate I could be pleased with voting for. How Steve and Jeff will campaign in the coming months will be interesting to see.

    There's a big wide world out there, folks. I have a friend who is undecided between Novick and Merkley and it sounds like the choice is between someone outspoken or someone who has been Speaker but is more moderate. My friend will make his own decision.

    As will all other voters, regardless of what polls and other professional political calculations decide they know about voters.

    There is an online forum on the Washington Post site (in THE TRAIL section by Dan Balz) about whether Matt Bai's book THE ARGUMENT details what "the Democrats" believe. Some seem to think that Soros, MoveOn, and others who may have never been to a county, district or state central committee meeting are "taking over" what "the Democrats" believe or stand for.

    I think debate is healthy, and the enforced conformity where for years all Republicans were supposed to agree on everything hurt this country. If Democratic ideas on any topic are where the country is right now, no campaign should worry about Frohnmayer running for US Senate.

    But if he appeals to voters fed up with the bipolar nature of current politics (for instance, those more likely to listen to discussion of Iraq policy from Sestak, Webb, Walz, Hagel and Warner as combat vets who have never run for president than listen to anyone else), we could see competition where the choices are more than "which do you want--R or D?".

    The smartest thing Democrats could do is provide a vision for the future and specific plans to carry that out, and then take every opportunity to debate Frohnmayer over his vision and plans.

    EJ Dionne has a recent column saying Fred Thompson's campaign looks like a perfect campaign----for 1994. He says conservatives need to decide what they stand for in 2007.

    I think that applies across the board.

    Just because a group of people (remember "young people don't matter because young people don't vote" in the years before the Bus Project? I talked to one st. sen. in 2002 who credited Bus as a major factor in his election to the state senate that year) didn't vote in the past doesn't mean they can't be encouraged to vote in 2008. Anyone who has ever worked on a campaign where experienced volunteers are outnumbered by new people knows this. New people to politics bring an energy and refreshing point of view. The question is whether the science of appealing to a target audience will be effective in 2008. Or will it be closer to a 1968 type situation where a whole new generation gets involved in politics and turns conventional wisdom on its ear?

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sue: OPB says he's registered with the Independent Party of Oregon, and the Independent Party website features him on the front page.

  • (Show?)

    James and Sue, as I heard the OPB report, it was that John Frohnmayer would be running as the candidate of the Independent Party.

    He may not be registered with them, or not yet. If so, he couldn't vote for himself if they selected their candidate by primary. But it appears they don't.

    As I recall, Nader ran as the Green presidential candidate in '96 without being registered as one of them.

    (I voted for Nader in '96 as a protest abstention against the perfidious Clinton, who unlike others on the list, I never liked much. I came to loathe him due to his propensity to punish his friends and reward his enemies, his refusal as governor to commute the death sentence of a retarded man to gain right-wing cred, his advocacy -- defeated in the Senate -- for Patriot Act-like provisions in the already draconian "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" of 1996, his sell-out on welfare, his cowardice on the Rwandan genocide and his quasi-genocidal refusal to change the sanctions policy on Iraq long after it clearly had failed its ostensible purposes.)

  • (Show?)

    Frohnmayer will suck votes from both sides, but more from Merkley. Gordon's laughing...

  • (Show?)

    This is all the more reason that Novick and Merkley should start touring the state together ASAP. 22% won't win an election but 22% can tip an election (not to mention the loosely affiliated in both parties), and voters need to be shown the reasons why they should vote for a Democrat.

    I hope it will be a little bit like the recurring message we are getting from all the Ds in the Presidential debates. While working assiduously to distinguish themselves from one another, they are also going out of their way to remind their audiences that anyone on the stage would be better than any of the non-D alternatives. Novick and Merkley can and should set out to accomplish the same objective, and I hope they will start soon.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Stephanie, I am glad we finally agree on something.

    Just as no one can be coerced into buying anything (flavor of ice cream, type of computer, soft drink vs water, tea or coffee, etc. ) it is important to keep "eyes on the prize". The goal should be to make Democratic candidates more attractive than anyone else. This means reaching out beyond what someone may have defined as Jeff or Steve's target audience, and no better way to do that than face to face, debate, dialogue, Q & A, etc.

  • (Show?)

    Sal, your words about Dems would have some legitimacy if you were talking about an incumbent Dem who has been playing the DC game (like Gordo) and not doing what he swore to do in office (like Gordo). but we're talking about Steve Novick, who ain't gonna play anyone's game, and Jeff Merkley, who demonstrated that he is above the games by how he ran the House this year. the Dems finally have a choice of two candidates who break the DC-business-as-usual mold and you side with an ex-Republican?

    and like Jack says, with the probability of aiding Smith's re-election. i don't get it. this is about as disappointing as anything i've heard in a long time. not to mention perplexing.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm trying to run this logic through my head and make sense of it, Frohnmayer looks to get enough votes from Dems & Rep to make up the gap in Independents. That gap is a lot bigger than the registration makes it look, that bunch is split up into a lot of segments including those for whom neither party is far enough right/left and there's no way an Indie will get them. Why would they go for 'the middle way' when the established ae too middle for them. I'm satisfied that the Dems have good candidates, so I'll be voting Dem. (that's not party lock step, I just happen to be satisfied) How many Dems are showing much discontent over the choices, I haven't heard any. The Republicans are another story, not my gig. But that's not anywhere near enough votes.

    I'm about totally confused by Sal Peralta and his defense of the BOR, especially considering some of the go-arounds we've had on THAT basis. Sal must have forgotten meeting me if John is amongst the strongest he's ever met and he's enthusiastic. Sal is not exactly an admirer of the Second Amendment as written, he's a strong revisionist on that, so I have to wonder what else is revisable that gets his support? Oh yeah, I say that as a Democrat, and you bet, this guy and his supporters are my opponents, stay tuned...

  • (Show?)

    Chuck, your zealous (though revisionist) defense of the second half of the second amendment is out of step with 200 years of federal case law, and I'm guessing is totally inconsistent with the positions held by both Democratic candidates for US Senate.

    The only argument that you've made for ignoring the first half is that the word "regulate" as it is used in that sentence does not share the same plain meaning that it has elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution.

    Suffice to say that I remain unpersuaded by the NRA's line on that issue.

    As for why I am supporting John ... he has persuaded me that he intends to say some things in this campaign that other candidates should be talking about but won't -- not the least of which is the issue of special interest control over our political process and the fact that the kind of partisanship that we have seen lately is tearing at the fabric of this country.

  • (Show?)

    In a nice bit of timing, there is a great Barney Frank quote about partisanship in today's Boston Globe.

    "I became partisan in the '80s when the Republican Party moved to the right," Frank said last week. "People said, 'When will you stop being so partisan?' I said, 'When they stop being so wrong.'"

    Barney pretty much speaks for me where this whole "partisanship" trope is concerned. The correct response to escalating partisanship from one side is NOT unilateral disarmament by the other side, but an appropriate level of resistance in kind. Otherwise you get rolled, and God knows we've discussed the consequences of THAT around here in brutal detail in recent weeks.

    The article goes on to cite Barney's ability to work with conservative Republicans to get things done, without watering down his core values (or his wardrobe).

    Still, he hasn't become completely boring. Last week, when scheduled to run a financial services hearing as well as testify for a gay rights bill at another hearing, he wore a pin-striped suit and lavender tie. "A sartorial compromise," explained Frank, the first openly gay congressman.

    Ultimately, Frank said, he wants to show that a liberal can help the financial industry prosper, while protecting consumers and ensuring fairness.

    The crisis in the largely unregulated subprime mortgage market, and its spread to the broader economy, provides a "teaching moment" of what happens when government sits completely on the sidelines, Frank said.

    The pendulum, he added, is swinging from the "government is the problem" philosophy that dominated American politics in the past quarter century, putting him in the right place, at the right time.

    "I have been banging away at this economic inequality stuff for a long time," he said. "And now, I have all these friends high up in the financial industry."

  • Chehlem2 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    While living in Minnesota in the 60s, I engaged with the Democrats because of the war and the lies being told about it. But, the party was unable to listen and some of us participated in the formation of the New Democratic Coalition, a group of progressives that strongly considered a third party effort. The tactic was eventually rejected because we could not find historical precedence of a successful third party. I suspect but cannot prove that the system of regional winner-take-all elections results in either a spoiler or replacement role for a third party. The discord we caused in Minnesota certainly affected Hubert Humphrey and our rage to “dump the hump” gave us Richard Nixon.

    Frohnmayer doesn’t have a populist movement behind him sufficient to create a party so I predict his role will be that of a spoiler, much like you might say of the candidacies of Ralph Nader, of Ross Perot, possibly of George Wallace and certainly of Teddy Roosevelt. If Frohnmeyer were a professional wrestler or a popular action actor, I’d be worried that even Oregon would want to copy Minnesota or California.

    What the anti-war activists did, however, was get elected to party office and eventually affected change in the rules for election of delegates to the county, state and national conventions. Now nearly every delegate has to be elected and southern Democrats lost their hold on the national party. While I’m happy the Democrats are no longer hobbled by racist conservatives, the price we’ve paid for them moving to the GOP is much greater than I ever thought possible.

    So, I’m sticking with the party and will be working to strengthen the local organizations so we can deliver informed votes. This race will be very close and we will need to deliver every vote we can. This will only happen if each of you commits to deliver the 50 inconsistent voters living near you.

  • (Show?)

    Barney pretty much speaks for me where this whole "partisanship" trope is concerned. The correct response to escalating partisanship from one side is NOT unilateral disarmament by the other side, but an appropriate level of resistance in kind.

    I don't think anyone has advocated for "unilateral disarmament" -- certainly not me.

    From what I've seen, the Frohnmayer's have been fighting against the worst elements of the far right for their entire political careers -- including during the early 1990's when Democrats were in full retreat. But there is a big difference between fighting back against radicalism and failing to find common ground with moderates on the other side of the aisle.

  • (Show?)

    Bottom line is: six more years of Gordon Smith. No, thank you.

    It's hard for me to understand why Frohnmayer, who as you point out is a good man, and has been "fighting against the worst elements of the far right for [his] entire political career," would make himself into an instrument for the reelection of someone whose career and values are such an affront to his own. Because if he believes he can win, he is delusional.

    Since Smith is the incumbent, in many ways this election will be a referendum on him. "Smith" vs. "Not Smith." You win an election like that by presenting a clearly different alternative, the more different the better. You don't win an election like that by presenting a watered-down, less-extreme version of the incumbent, and you CERTAINLY don't win by presenting more than one alternative.

    Divide and conquer, as they say.

  • (Show?)

    It's hard for me to understand why Frohnmayer, who as you point out is a good man, and has been "fighting against the worst elements of the far right for [his] entire political career," would make himself into an instrument for the reelection of someone whose career and values are such an affront to his own. Because if he believes he can win, he is delusional.

    What I know is this: Having John Frohnmayer in this race will broaden the terms of the debate. None of the candidates in this race, with the possible exception of Steve Novick (whom I would not underestimate in the Democratic Primary), will feel comfortable being pushed in the directions that John is going to push them.

    Gordon Smith is going to have to go on the record and talk about why the rubberstamp congress that he is a part of helped created the largest federal bureaucracy in the history of this nation and helped move the federal budget from a $3 trillion surplus to an $9 trillion debt; and the DSCC's candidate will have to go on record with more than platitudes like "no option is off the table" when it comes to responding to the constitutional crisis that George Bush has helped to create, and which congressional democrats have failed to oppose.

    Can he win? I have no idea. I've heard several people who know more about politics than I do tell me that the reason why top-tier Democratic candidates like Blumenauer , DeFazio, and Kitzhaber chose not to run is that the conventional wisdom is that Smith cannot be beaten.

    But virtually no one in this state's Democratic establishment gave me much of a chance to be competitive when I ran for the state legislature - yet I came within a few hundred votes of winning. What that tells me is that Oregon voters make their own decisions and that the conventional wisdom is frequently wrong.

    I believe, and there are those who will disagree with me, that John Frohnmayer is the best candidate to take the fight to Gordon Smith; is the best candidate to take aim at the special interests that currently dominate both political parties at the Federal level; and is the candidate most in-step with the mainstream values and beliefs of the citizen of this state.

    I am supporting John because I believe that this country desperately needs a change of course. I believe that Democrats in Washington have failed to live up to promises that were made when we helped elect them in 2006, and I believe that Oregon voters deserve to have a candidate in this race who will hold all sides to account. John is that candidate. I encourage people to follow what he has to sa most closely, and with an open mind.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    All this "Frohnmayer guarantees Smith re-election" stuff ignores the fact that Gordon cannot go for many months without even mentioning what John says. John, Steve, Jeff are all core beliefs folks. Gordon isn't. Are Oregonians such sheep they will vote for Gordon, John, or the Dem nominee just because that is what past history says?

    Seems to me there are people who don't want the debate to go beyond what they expected.

  • (Show?)

    I'm all for broadening the terms of the debate, don't get me wrong. Maybe because I support Steve Novick I am just not worried that the debate will be materially narrower without Frohnmayer. But I do see Frohnmayer having a potentially horrific effect on the outcome.

    And it will matter a lot, even more than in a two-way race, who wins the Democratic primary. Because I think Merkley as D nominee has more to fear from Frohnmayer than Novick does. As a representative of the establishment (albeit the Democratic estabishment), by his very nature Merkley presents less of a compelling prospect for real fundamental change than either Novick OR Frohnmayer does, simply by virtue of who they are and what they are saying.

    If some voters are looking for real change, and their "Not Smith" choices are Merkley or Frohnmayer, Frohnmayer may LOOK a lot more like real change to them. Not enough to win, but certainly enough to take away enough Not Smith votes to be the spoiler he doesn't want to be.

    Are Oregonians such sheep they will vote for Gordon, John, or the Dem nominee just because that is what past history says?

    LT, I guess I am not following your argument. Could you please say more?

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks Sal,

    You've made my point for me and as a Democrat with perfectly good candidates I'm glad you did. A BOR revisionist spokesman says he'll talk about things the others won't, hanging that in the same article as your attempt to paint me as revisionist when I use the plain language, English construction, and writings of the time tells me that we've got a gun banner out there masquerading as a defender of the BOR. Sorry, Sal, you don't like it, get it amended don't play stupid revisionist games of making things mean what they don't to justify your abridgement of the BOR. The question becomes, just how Bush-like in abridgement is your guy? We already konw what happens to the 4th in the hands of "revisionist" and "pragmatists."

    You walked right off into Indie land and I don't need gloves anymore. You haven't got a leg to stand on other than with the backing of a handful of extremists on the language part. Your philosophical views are whatever they are, the BOR is exactly what it is and not subject to your games. If you say it is, we have exactly the right president for you, now. Have you cleared this fight with your candidate? You can't peel spit worth of Republicans on that one and the Democrats want no part of it. You aren't playing for a dinky State House seat now, you're out in the rest of the state and you just walked on a landmine. Remember DPO Resolution 08-05? DPO Gun Owners Caucus will be happy to remind you and everybody else what it is, and it regards the 2nd A. What do you want to bet the 2 Democratic candidates who have to campaign in the 2nd CD and other rural CDs are real glad it exists, despite YOUR opposition to it.

    Thanks again, Chuck

  • Travis Diskin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think it's premature to make broad guestimations on how an Independent will shape this race. Mostly because until all candidates for all parties announce (and win those party nominations,) you don't know what they are running to change.

    The Democrats (and I am not one,) will need to make their own decisions on what nominee they will run and why they want that person to run. If the only goal is to unseat Smith, they may make their decision even harder.

    It is not incumbent upon any individual who runs for office to place the needs of the Dems at the top of their agenda. The top priority should be to deliver the message of why they would be the best candidate to hold that seat.

    When all the candidates have stated why they are running and why they would best represent Oregonians, you may have a very different opinion on who you'd support and how this race will shake out.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    200 years of case law? You need to fact check yourself, the SCOTUS has not ruled in your manner, ever. Miller, you guys are so fond, of was appealed to SCOTUS and ruled "moot" because the appeallant was DECEASED. That's the only Fed ruling that's out there other than the recent Fed voiding of NY,NY gun laws on the basis of plain language. You talk to too may Bradys and not enough actual scholars. The only Fed rulings have been in regard to the militia applicability of weapons, never your assertion that the militia is the Nat Guard. Not once, not ever. Gotta love it, John is in good hands.

  • (Show?)

    What do you want to bet the 2 Democratic candidates who have to campaign in the 2nd CD and other rural CDs are real glad it exists, despite YOUR opposition to it.

    I don't oppose gun ownership or the second amendment. I happen to own a couple of guns that my dad and granddad passed on to me -- two more, I suspect, than either Democratic candidate for this position.

    But I also recognize that the court, has in fact upheld restrictions on guns, and that your interpretation of the second amendment runs counter to most legal precedent and is just slightly to the right of the Oregon Firearm Federation, which opposes regulations to keep guns out of schools, and which has referred to the NRA as "too liberal".

    Whether you care to admit it or not (and the fact that you don't want to admit it tells me that you place partisanship above honest debate) both Democratic candidates have views that more closely match mine than yours as it relates to the second amendment.

  • (Show?)

    What I know is this: Having John Frohnmayer in this race will broaden the terms of the debate.

    Is the goal to "broaden the terms of the debate" or is the goal to defeat Gordon Smith?

    What's the point of a robust debate - if the existence of that debate guarantees a particular outcome?

    ...the reason why top-tier Democratic candidates like Blumenauer , DeFazio, and Kitzhaber chose not to run is that the conventional wisdom is that Smith cannot be beaten.

    Not true. Of course, of course, it's a very TOUGH race. I don't think either Blumenauer or DeFazio would say No to a sure thing. But neither of them thinks that "Smith cannot be beaten" - don't be absurd. They've just got enough influence now in a Democratic House that the upside isn't worth the gamble.

    (OTOH, Kitzhaber has repeatedly said, both publicly and privately, that he has no interest in living that far away from Oregon.)

    But virtually no one in this state's Democratic establishment gave me much of a chance to be competitive when I ran for the state legislature

    So how much of this is motivated by sour grapes, Sal? C'mon, be honest.

    ...........

    Sal, you've always struck me as an idealistic and common-sense progressive, rather than a mushy-middle "can't we all just get along?" kind of fellow.

    Can you name a single progressive leader over the last 30 years that's accomplished more for Oregonians than Jeff Merkley?

    I don't think so. I don't think anyone can. That's why I'm supporting Jeff Merkley.

    I'm sure John Frohnmayer is a good man, but at a time when progressives are finally ascendant, I think he's the right man for some other time. (Maybe, say, the early 1990s.)

    [Full disclosure: My company hosts Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.]

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, I think the reason "the fastest growing party is no party at all" is comments like yours.

    I couldn't find Sal's quote in your comment anywhere above--was it from another topic? Maybe I should register NAV after the primary--I have yet to see anything Sal says be offensive. But maybe that is because I don't think it is a vice for people to get along.

    I think John Kitzhaber (as a legislator, Senate President, Governor) accomplished some good things for Oregonians. Whether that makes him as good as Merkley is a matter of opinion.

    I have been a fan of John Frohnmayer since reading his book years ago. I attended a Westlund event last year and saw some friends from Democratic campaigns years ago. The idea that if John Frohnmayer didn't run that all Democrats would be active in the primary and then for the nominee makes it sound like they are being ordered to behave and follow directions. How does that comply with a Constitution which begins "We the people of the state of Oregon..."?

    It is almost as if you are saying "the parties provide perfectly good chocolate and vanilla ice cream--why would anyone want to even taste strawberry or marionberry or butter pecan?".

    Protest away, but it sounds like you are saying no one has a right to even listen to a 3rd party candidate since Novick and Merkley would be perfectly fine nominees.

    And about your comments to Sal--he almost won as did some other candidates in 2006. Are you saying Democrats should only target races they know they can win and scream "sour grapes" whenever a candidate who almost won states the fact that there wasn't much institutional support?

    I've seen that go both ways, having worked on both a successful primary and a couple of times a successful general election where the party establishment was not very helpful to the candidate.

    Kari, I am wondering if you have read the Matt Bai book and what you think of it (Democrats, billionaires and bloggers or some such title). This debate about professionals vs. grass roots took place on the Washington Post THE TRAIL forum discussion of the book--- not everyone agreed with the thesis of the book or that professionals should be telling grass roots Democrats what to think and do.

    There is a JFK quote about the free marketplace of ideas which says something along the lines of debating truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market because a government afraid of such a debate is a government afraid of his people.

    I like Jeff Merkley but if his supporters aren't confident he could win a debate with John Frohnmayer (or have the low opinion of Oregonians not being able to be trusted with that decision), that makes me all the more interested in hearing John and Jeff debate ideas.

  • (Show?)

    Is the goal to "broaden the terms of the debate" or is the goal to defeat Gordon Smith?

    My goal is to help a man I believe in take his message to the people of this state -- one that I believe will resonate with Oregonians, and one that I believe that the people of this state need to hear.

    I think what John has to say will take us farther along the path to removing the junior Senator from Oregon than anything I have seen from either Democratic camp or their surrogates thus far in the campaign.

    There's a lot of campaigning to do between now and November, 2008. I'll treat with skepticism anyone who tells me they can guarantee how Oregonians will respond to the choices laid out in front of them.

    One of Gordon Smith's staffers spent a great deal of time trying to persuade John and his wife to stay out of this race, so it's fairly clear that the paid advocates like Kari and Carla aren't the only ones who are worried about what John's entry into this race does to the electoral math.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Remember the old bumper sticker "If it matters to Oregonians, it is in the Washington Post"? Apparently Gordon Smith feels that way. When was the last time he said something publicly in Oregon like this:

    In recent weeks, Reid has talked of striking a more conciliatory tone, and he has said that to bring Republicans to the table, Democrats will even reconsider their demand for a fixed end date. But he said he has no regrets about the debate so far. "If we hadn't done something, nothing would have been done," he said. "I think we've done the right thing by pushing out here." Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.) is a moderate Republican who split from Bush on Iraq in December. But he has voted for the Democrats' rigid withdrawal terms with a heavy heart. Like his constituents, Smith yearns for something different and, so far, elusive -- a way out that unites Congress and the country. "I think the people would follow a light at the end of the tunnel," he said, "as long as it's not an oncoming train."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/09/AR2007090901992.html?hpid=topnews

  • (Show?)

    Can you name a single progressive leader over the last 30 years that's accomplished more for Oregonians than Jeff Merkley?

    Well, I've only lived in Oregon for ten years, but when I look at Steve Novick's ten years of fighting Bill Sizemore, the payday lending industry, the Oregon Lottery / Oregon Restaurant Association, etc., I would stack that up next to anyone's accomplishments for that period of time. That's a ton of good work right there.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm trying real hard to reconcile this support of fiscal conservatism and social moderation with the Sal Peralta from DPO, my brain cells aren't atrophied enough to miss the disconnect. The DPO wasn't quite loudly left enough, Sal, and now this? The fact that the Democratic Legislative PAC (Merkley??) didn't give you any money help you on this rightward journey? Maybe they were shortsighted, or, maybe they were better judges than it seemed. I pay close attention to what's going on around me, who says what and when and why, and this doesn't pass the smell test, buddy; you've said and written what you've said and written, no free pass. You can try it on Kari, I was there for all of it. And I am a DPO SCC & DPO Convention Delegate.

    As for NRA and OFF, don't bother summoning up the left demons, my membership in the NRA is renewed for one reason only, people like yourself. And by the way, "right" is about as ridiculous a stance to ascribe to me as it gets, I stand by my leftism; and you? If you want to lump me into the kind of right that included the Revolutionaries and Constitutional Convention, you knock yourself out, I'll take it and welcome. I'll tell you again, you want to argue the philosophy of having a 2nd Amendment, that's fine, but - NO federal court has ruled on anything other than militia application of weapon, except for the "voiding" of NY,NY gun laws, and NY says they'll take it to SCOTUS. Have you asked John if he wants to be out in this mine field? You're walking him into it. And that'll play real well.

    So, now it's the Democratic camp? This is beyond funny, Westlund moves into the Democratic Party "camp" and you move out and pick up a Republican toss-off, disaffecteds together, I guess. You've got 2 Parties gearing up for a dogfight and you think you've got the guy who'll ask "The Questions"? Kinda like Monte Python's Knight isn't it? Well, he'll make a lovely target for the GOPropaganda machine.

  • (Show?)

    Wow, LT. This is the best example yet of your rhetorical style. Rather than arguing with what I said, you put words in my mouth, setting up straw men, and then knocked those down... Brave debater you are.

    ...makes it sound like they are being ordered to behave and follow directions. ... It is almost as if you are saying ... but it sounds like you are saying ... Are you saying ....

    As for the three times I quoted Sal, they're all in italics - and they're all in the post above. Nice try.

  • (Show?)

    I found this:

    But virtually no one in this state's Democratic establishment gave me much of a chance to be competitive when I ran for the state legislature - yet I came within a few hundred votes of winning.

    It was in a post signed by salvador, above. Not Sal Peralta. Kari, are you saying that salvador and Sal Peralta are the same person?

  • (Show?)

    and on top of everything else, considering that John's brother lost the governship to a 3rd party candidate (from the right), not sure why he thinks a 3rd party candidacy is such a grand thing. of course, Sal & others are going to start the Nader argument: you should be able win on your own merits, whoever the opponents. yea, tell that to Dave Frohnmayer. (of course, Al Mobley did Dave a favor considering that it was Barbara Roberts what got stuck with M5....)

  • (Show?)

    Kari, are you saying that salvador and Sal Peralta are the same person?

    Yes. Sal Peralta often interchanges between those two names. Certainly, I'm not aware of anyone else named Salvador who has run for the legislature recently and came within a few hundred votes of winning.

    (And looking under the hood, they're from the same IP address.)

  • (Show?)

    Sal & others are going to start the Nader argument: you should be able win on your own merits, whoever the opponents. yea, tell that to Dave Frohnmayer.

    Gordon Smith doesn't need a 3rd party candidate to win this race. Just ask Bill Bradbury who had much better name familiarity than Merkley and lost to Gordon in the Portland Metro area en route to a crushing defeat statewide.

    A traditional campaign between D&R in this particular race is, in my opinion, a one-way ticket to another 10-20 point win for Gordon Smith.

    Don't believe me?

    Take a look at the poll numbers: Gordon has 21 percent support among D's compared to 34 percent for Merkley and 63 percent support from R's compared to 2 percent for Merkley. Throw in the fact that he's insulated himself against some of the worst charges that will come his way from Democrats in this campaign and will have more than double the money of his Democratic challenger, and you may come to the same conclusion that I have: Someone needs to shake things up.

    Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick do not have the credibility to start a conversation with Republicans about how the Christian Right has taken over their party. John and his brother have lived that fight. His entrance in the race significantly increases the percentage of undecideds, particularly among Republicans.

    I think the biggest problem that some of the partisans in this race have with my supporting John is not that he's a spoiler -- both sides are making that claim -- it's that his candidacy is going to force some people to reflect on their own self-imposed blind-spots when it comes to the action and inaction of many of our Democratic candidates in DC.

    It's perfectly understandable that some partisans don't want their party's feet held to the fire, but the kinds of ill-informed, misguided personal attacks that people like Kari and Chuck want to take part in do little more than reinforce my own opinion that the bitter and mean-spirited nature of partisanship in this country is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

  • (Show?)

    Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick do not have the credibility to start a conversation with Republicans about how the Christian Right has taken over their party. John and his brother have lived that fight.

    This is another really bad idea Sal. The trap here is in assuming that the "Christian Right" is:

    A) monolithic and;

    B) immobile.

    I've got lots of friends and relatives that are "Christian Right", and they cover a spectrum of thought. It's also a fact that seven years into the Bush administration, many of them are sick to death of the cronyism, corporatism, and flat out corruption exhibited by their current leaders.

    We need to be real attentive to the idea of not fighting last year's (or last decade's) war.

    Jeff is a Lutheran and his back up guy in the last session, Dave Hunt, is very active in the evangelical Christian community.

    <hr/>

    The conversation with Christians needs to be about whether their leaders follow the teaching of their own Dogma, which is actually about self sacrifice, helping the poor, mistrusting the power structures of the wealthy and so on..........

    <hr/>

    If Fronmeyer plans to attack Christianity itself....Well good luck to him.

    As an atheist in a nation with 92% believers in a "Supreme Being", I'm all sympathetic to your idea, but it would result in a massacre at the polls.

  • (Show?)

    Stephanie V., there is nice empirical evidence behind what your wrote about Reps, Dems, and party polarization. Jacob Hacker is coming into the area at the end of October, and I suspect you'll like what he has to say.

    Look folks, regardless of partisan and ideological sentiments, no one denies two things:

    1) Frohnmayer is running as a moderate, positioned between Merkley and Smith, neither to the left of Jeff or to the right of Gordon.

    2) Frohnmayer and Merkley will both be competing under the "not Gordon Smith," "not GOP", "not Iraq War", and "not the incumbent banner."

    Ergo, Frohnmayer will pull more votes from Merkley than from Smith. Q.E.D.

  • sonjia (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you Sal! I've enjoyed reading your comments. Thank you John for running! I'm hoping to help.

in the news 2007

connect with blueoregon