Rick Metsger Running for Secretary of State

Oregon State Senator Rick Metsger has announced he will enter the Democratic primary race for Secretary of State. Metsger, who currently represents the area surrounding Mt. Hood, announced his plans in a speech this morning:

The Secretary of State has an obligation to lead and to lead with vigor and courage. It is because of that obligation that today I announce I am a candidate for Oregon Secretary of State.

As Secretary of State, I will take very seriously the constitutional obligation to ensure fair elections, scrutinize the operations of government and preserve our state’s great heritage. But I know that, if elected, I will have an even bigger responsibility. It is not written on the vellum of the Constitution nor articulated in state statute. It is, however, clearly written in the expectations of every Oregonian.

Each of us has a responsibility to improve the community in which we live. Theodore Roosevelt once said, “The government is us. We are the government, you and I.” Let history judge that we all met the obligations and challenges presented to us with respect and commitment to the common good.

It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to defend and preserve both the integrity and accessibility of the election process. It must not become a tool of political ideology or power. And it must honor the true heroes of our democracy, the thousands of everyday citizens who manage the election process in all political subdivisions and the hundreds of thousands of citizens who biannually petition their government through the initiative and referendum process.

Metsger is the 4th Democratic candidate in the race, along with fellow State Senators Brad Avakian, Kate Brown, and Vicki Walker.

Find out more about Metsger at RickMetsger.com.


  • Sally (unverified)

    Somebody said of the Democratic primary for Sen. Smith's seat (Steve & Jeff) was an 'embarrassment of riches'.

    So what's this?

    A 'plethora of potential'? A 'gaggle of goodness'?

    And what of the rumors that he was gunning for the Treasurer spot? Or did Gov Ted put the kibosh on that, saving it for payback-ola to Sen Ben? Could Gov Ted ever hope to play the Godfather role as well as Gov Neil did?

  • (Show?)

    The Jackson County Democrats look forward to welcoming all four candidates for Secretary of State as their campaigns swing across the state. To date, Kate Brown has been in Southern Oregon in October. Best wishes to all four capable candidates.

  • (Show?)

    Given that Metsger very nearly challenged Kulongoski for Governor, I somehow doubt that Ted has much juice with Rick.

  • Albert Ross (unverified)

    "To date, Kate Brown has been in Southern Oregon in October."

    Wasn't Metsger in Medford, Ashland, K-Falls, Gold Beach, Grants Pass, and Roseburg during the past month?

  • verasoie (unverified)

    How safe is Metsger's seat? or is he up for re-election?

  • (Show?)

    Boy, just when I think I've got a handle on how to handicap a race, something totally new throws me for a loop. (And yes, this is a pure horserace post. Nothing substantive about the candidates. So sue me.)

    Prior to this, I had:

    <h1>1 Kate Brown, leading by a hair due to her capable stint as Senate Majority Leader, her biggest negative being that voters would see her election as yet another extension of the Portland hegemony over State politics.</h1> <h1>2 Brad Avakian, half a step behind and possibly able to pull ahead, a brilliant and personable legislator from Washington County who despite his progressive bona fides, is likely to attract the most moderate-Dem and registered-as-but-barely-Dem votes from rural Oregon. (Call him the "Obama" of this race.)</h1> <h1>3 Vicki Walker a distant third, her otherwise substantive record hurt by her brief quixotic challenge of Kulongiski in 2004, and having to play catchup to win her district as a result.</h1>

    Now, where does Senator Metsger fit in? Probably around where Vicki is, frankly. He hasn't been shy about his ambition. He's previously tried to get Kulongoski to show our current SoS (Bradbury) the door, and also made rumblings about taking on Kulongoski in 2004. He's also starting late. None of that looks good to potential donors, so I don't think he's going to attract the money he needs to get the required name recognition to actually win.

    But that doesn't mean that as a favorite son from Welches that he won't have an impact on the race. I just don't know what. Will he pull more from Kate or Brad?

    As they always say as a conclusion in horserace fluff pieces, "Only time will tell".

  • A. Rab. (unverified)

    What does it say about the state of the parties that Democrats have four good candidates in the race, but Republicans cannot even find a warm body for the ballot?

  • G.B. Bailey (unverified)

    Rick Metsger is really something special.

    He has a knack for taking on powerful, special interests and winning. Just look at his victory over Enron when he stopped them from charging Oregon rate payers for taxes that Enron ever paid.

    Rick also has stood up for what is right regardless of politcal consequences. Rick is from rural Clackamas County, which is very, very conservative, yet he sponsored a bill to give equal protection to gays and lesbians. That takes some serious courage. The type of courage I wish more politicians would show (I'm talking to you Harry Reid).

    Rick has shown that he has the guts to do what's right and the ablity to get things done. As one of his current constiutent and a former volenteer for his last State Senate Campaign, I'm excited to see him take his unquie talents to the next level.

    Good luck Rick and you got my vote.


  • (Show?)

    Rick Metsger is not a person I would trust with higher office. We have numerous other candidates who are more deserving and less self-serving. G.B. Bailey's boosterism not-withstanding, it is almost laughable to say Metsger is a guy to take on special interests (in the pocket of the banking and Credit Union industry)... being on the take of special interest I buy.

  • Albert Ross (unverified)

    Steve that's a good snapshot, but in this race, Rick Metsger is most definately the tortoise vs. Kate Brown's hare. While Brown seems to be winning the "Who Can Spend The Most Money By December" race, Metsger already has $46,000 in the bank (according to OreStar) and is spending smarter - not harder. That's a quality I want in Secretary of State.

  • (Show?)

    How safe is Metsger's seat? or is he up for re-election?

    His seat is up in 2010. He was just re-elected last year.

  • Blueshift (unverified)

    lestatdelc, I'm really not sure where you're coming from on this "special interests" card. I've questioned you about it before, and as far as I can tell, your animosity toward Metsger stems from one bill during the last session that didn't end up passing. But just because Metsger supported a bill you didn't doesn't mean he's "in the pocket" of special interests any more than any other candidate. We wouldn't saying that Wal-Mart and Bank of America are controlling Kate Brown's campaign, after all, just because they support her.

  • former staffer (unverified)

    Sen. Metzger is a great candidate. Sometimes, as Democrats, we forget how blue Oregon isn't. Metzger is one of those candidates who can win in districts that have a Republican registration advantage and that can make a huge difference. We'll be in big trouble if we lose the SOS seat in '08 and a moderate Democrat that can win in more conservative communities, as well as the traditional liberal cities, will help us keep that seat.

  • Rose in Salem (unverified)

    Finally a candidate I can vote for who will truly represent the entire state of Oregon. Senator Metsger knows Oregon beyond Portland and the Willamette Valley. He has aptly served a rural area and been able to advocate for issues not typically considered in line with his district. Senator Metsger has shown true leadership on issues that are of a concern for the entire state (tax utility loopholes, anti discrimination, and of course transportation.) People know him as someone they can approach to get things done because he gets results.

    I'm very excited he decided to run. The other candidates are good Democrats, but not necessarily representative of the constituencies throughout the State of Oregon. I want a state wide office holder like the secretary of state to represent the ENTIRE State. Rick Metsger can do that.

  • Insider (unverified)

    I would like to hear Senator Metsger orate on the topic of sexual harassment.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Blueshift | Nov 20, 2007 2:34:55 PM lestatdelc, I'm really not sure where you're coming from on this "special interests" card. I've questioned you about it before, and as far as I can tell, your animosity toward Metsger stems from one bill during the last session that didn't end up passing.

    If that's how you want to try and downplay it. But it is far more serious than you seem to think (i.e. that it is some minor trifling disagreement over a single bill). Metsger is in the pocket of the bank and credit union lobby. His actions in trying to ram through a bill that would have literally pitted the state against the Fair Lending Act, eliminated the mortgage broker industry in the state over night, decimated the housing market (which in Oregon is still stable), and ruined the careers of every major Dem in the state that supported the bill, from Merkely to Brown to everyone else.

    Then he comes here behind a fake name to try and claim that he isn't carrying water for the clients he had right up to the 30 day deadline before the start of the session.

    With that bill he tried to pull a fast one that would have screwed over the rest of the caucus (particularly Brown and Merkley) and more critically, the entire state, because of his personal ties to special interests (i.e. the bank and credit unions he made his bones with).

  • Albert Ross (unverified)

    Lemme get this straight... Metsger tried to "decimate the housing market," (as you say) at the behest of the banks?

    Did he also try to kill off all the salmon at the behest of the fishermen?

    Maybe I'm stupid about these matters... I don't understand why the banks would want to destroy the housing market.

  • verasoie (unverified)

    For anyone else like me who's interested in knowing how competitive the seats are that might be opened up by any of these guys leaving their Senate job, here it is:

    Walker 51% Metsger 56% Avakian 67% Brown (solid Dem, not competitive)

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Albert Ross | Nov 20, 2007 4:09:27 PM Lemme get this straight... Metsger tried to "decimate the housing market," (as you say) at the behest of the banks?

    He was trying to eliminate the entire mortgage broker industry (i.e. the competition to his clients) which is why he did it. The bill however, would have decimated the housing market, as well as pitted the state of Oregon vs. the Federal Gov. over the Fair Lending Act, because it was a disaster of a bill.

    The salient point is, he was carrying water for his clients in order to rewrite the law to eliminate mortgage brokers in the state under the guise of addressing "predatory lending" but conveniently exempting banks and credit unions from being covered by the law. In other words, you could still be suckered into a bad mortgage, but it would be a mortgage through a credit union or bank directly and not through a mortgage broker. But the train-wreck this bill would have caused would have destroyed the Dems, and the GOP were locked and loaded with 29 speeches ready to give on the floor if the thing passed, pointing out how about the Dems basically outlawed almost 2 out of 3 mortgages in Oregon.

    The salient point is not so much how bad and odious the bill itself was, but how Metsger was busy being hog deep in the special interests in trying to destroy competition for his clients via passing an odious bill (while conveniently exempting his clients form it).

    That is NOT the sot of person we need as Secretary of State.

    We have plenty of other qualified candidates running for this seat who are not weasels.

  • (Show?)

    Welp. I'm a solid supporter of Kate Brown, but I'm also a constituent of Rick's (and of Patti Smith as well).

    Both Rick and Patti supported domestic partnerships.

    Fair's fair after all.

    Oh, and Messr De Leon-Cour, please throw us a bone here. precisely which senate bill are you referring to?

  • (Show?)

    Pat, it was Senate Bill 965, though the relevant problem is when it moved from Senate to House where the real problems begin, when the exemption was inserted after the Senate passed the bill when it was folded into the bill as it was moved to the House.

  • Actual Insider (unverified)


    The bill in question was SB 965. As I recall, the mortgage brokers were brought very closely into discussions (as were all stakeholders) regarding the specifics of the bill.

    Before the bill moved in the Senate, the mortgage brokers registered their approval of the bill. (Stop me if I'm wrong, Lestat!)

    But whether this was a lack of communication between brokers and their lobbyists or a strategy to kill the bill faster in the house remains to be seen. In any event, the brokers withdrew their support after the bill hit the Senate floor. By the time it got to the house, the brokers were spinning tales of a collapsing housing market.

    Fact of the matter is that everyone had a seat at the table in the Senate, and the brokers bought on to the bill before they threw a fit about it. So I'm having trouble seeing how Metsger was working against them with a bill that they said was a-ok.

  • Actual Insider (unverified)

    "when it moved from Senate to House where the real problems begin, when the exemption was inserted after the Senate passed the bill"

    So... this is Metsger's doing? Did he think that a controversial bill would have a better chance of passing in a 31-29 house or something? Give it a rest! There was a problem, but it wasn't Metsger.

  • (Show?)

    You are wrong Actual Insider. The Mortgage Brokers did not register their approval of the bill. And it was Metsger who had a hand of folding the exemption for the banks and the credit unions into the bill after it was headed to the House, since his committee is the one which gave instructions to the House about folding it in.

    BTW, it wasn't "spinning tales" as you so blithely put it. Once it was brought to Speaker's attention what was being done with this bill, and how it was a direct collision course with the Fair Lending Act, he promptly (and responsibly) sent it into committee to kill it.

    Again, the salient point is not the disaster of a bill itself, but how Metsger was pushing this bill and then in the 11th hour slipped in the "doesn't apply to banks or credit unions" change which, given who his clients are, is all you need to know about who he carries water for, and about the real nature of the bill (i.e. it was an eliminate the competition bill, wrapped in a train-wreck of a bill that would have had the affect, whether intentional or not, of sinking the Dem party in this state for several cycles if it passed).

  • Katie B. (unverified)

    Metsger has been a very strong and effective supporter of credit unions and their members. Credit unions are financial services co-ops! Trying to paint him as a tool of the bankers is a hoot and 1/2. He'll be a great SOS.

    I have every confidence that Rick will be as strong a fighter for safety, soundness and integrity as SOS as he has been in all his prior service.

    I don't know who the flamer lestat is, but only a predatory lender would share the interests he's claiming, or pretend that removing sub-prime predators was going to kill the housing market. In my view, having sub-prime sharks against you means you DID SOMETHING RIGHT!

    Go, Rick!

  • (Show?)

    I regret I can't vote for Metsger for SOS, given his support for having the DMV act as Homeland Security and forcing legal presence documentation and other tenets of REAL ID onto us.

  • (Show?)

    Katie, you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.

  • John Forbes (unverified)

    Ten years ago, we only had 10 Dems in the senate, and Mae Yih and Tom Wilde didn't really count. In '98, we started rebounding with three wins in swing districts- Tony Corchran (sp?) in Lane, Peter Courtney in Marion, and Rick Metsger in Clackamas County. Rick won narrowly over Jerry Grisham (I think that was his name) who I believe was a real right winger.

    Rick is a tough campaigner and bright and hardworking legislator. Yes, his intense ambition has always been very clear and has turned some people off. The reviews for him in W Week's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" legislative roundup are usually quite ugly.

    All four are all strong candidates, with Kate probably the front runner at this point. I'm surprised that Rick waited this long to file, and that no one other than Westlund has filed for Treas.

  • Blueshift (unverified)

    lestatdelc, I'm still having trouble with this. You accused Metsger of being in the pocket of banks and credit unions. I asked you what made you say that was so. So far, you have quoted one bill to me, a bill which, I must point out again, did not pass. It seems to me that you're making some sweeping generalizations that you're applying only to Metsger. I'm assuming that Metsger, in his private life (or what's left of it, now that he's a state senator and running a campaign), has had other clients besides credit unions. And yet, I don't see you accusing him, or Brown, Walker or Avakian, of being in the pockets of everyone else they've ever worked for or taken money from.

    Are you making an argument that no candidate for higher office should ever have worked with or for any other organization, for fear that they're being unduly influenced by their past experience? Or is this what it appears to be, a personal grudge against Metsger?

  • (Show?)

    Hands Down! Rick Metzger is the Perfect canidate for the republican party.

    Fred Stewart

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)

    I'm surprised Kate Brown is considered the front runner in this race. What's she done that's all that spectacular?

    My preferences would be: 1) Walker, 2) Metzger, and 3) Avakian.

  • (Show?)

    Geeze, does anyone ever ask a qestion around here with out making a declaration? ? sure lestatdelc is upset over one bill that was up for debate for one session. Has anyone thougt to ask what is so special about this bill?


  • JTT (unverified)

    I'm glad to see Metsger in the race. He is a real consensus builder that has worked a bunch of tough issues. Plus, he's a tireless campaigner, and as a former sports broadcaster at KOIN for 16 years, I bet his name ID is higher than we might expect. Plus he comes from and has won elections in a true swing district, and he knows how to talk to folks outside of the Portland metro area. Let's get down to the bottom line. The most important job our next Secretary of State is going to have is redistricting, which is the whole enchilada folks. We need someone who can talk to Purple Oregon, which Rick can do (hat tip to Brad as well). Unlike Steve, I don't think Rick enters the race near Vicki. Rather, I expect we'll see a strong race out of his campaign...and with three very capable, hard working candidates (Kate, Brad, Rick): it's anybody's game.

  • (Show?)

    I am concerned over Rick's stance on labor. I hope he is able to explain his decision regarding AFTRA while he was working at Channel 6.

  • Angry lestatdelc (unverified)

    lestatdelc - I find you to be the most insulting blogger on this site. You belittle anyone who even remotely disagrees with you. Learn how to play nice with other Dems or do us all a favor and stop blogging!

    And the funniest part is that I actually agree with you on Metsger. I just chose not to disparage anyone who has a different opinion or different information.

  • Steve Walker (unverified)

    All bias aside, Rick was merely along for the ride on the Enron thing. It was Vicki's bill. She did all the hard work and took the all the grief dished out by the energy lobby. Rick claiming HE took on Enron is, frankly, disingenuous.

  • Dano (unverified)

    Steve, all bias aside, you are wrong. Metsger did do hard work and take on Enron by passing the utility loop hole bill.

    Lets not forget he and Vicki were CO-sponsors of the bill and that in order for the bill to get to a vote it had to pass through Rick's committee.

    So for you to say Rick merely took a back seat is, all bias aside, both an insult to the hardwork he put into this bill and false information, Steve.

    I have attached a youtube clip of Rick fighting for this bill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb_X9DfXmGw

    All bias aside, Steve you are WRONG. Rick DID fight Enron and did Oregonians a great service.

  • Miles (unverified)

    Did all four of the Democratic candidates for SOS vote in favor of the partisan bill (I forget the number) that made it harder for third-party and independent candidates to qualify for the ballot? You know, the one that invalidated their signatures for a third-party candidate if they also voted in a party primary (voted AT ALL in the primary, not just for the specific office where they support an indenpendent). That was one of the worst abuses of legislative power in the last 10 years.

    I'm hoping one of these folks voted against, which would show the integrity required to be SOS. If not, I'd prefer to abstain from the primary than support someone who engages in unfair electoral abuses.

  • Albert Ross (unverified)

    Miles: Yes, that was indeed a crappy bill. HB 2614 from 2005.

    The House Measure History from 2005 shows Metsger voting against it.

    Walker, Brown, and Avakian all voted for it.

  • Staffer (unverified)


    From the legislature's website, here is the vote history on that bill from 2005. As you will see, out of the four candidates, Metsger is the only one who voted against it.

    HB 2614 By Representatives KITTS, NOLAN -- Relating to elections.

    5-24 Referred to Rules.

    6-29 Bill read. Carried by Brown. Passed.

    Ayes, 17; Nays, 12--Atkinson, Beyer, Ferrioli, Gordly, Kruse, Metsger, Nelson, Schrader, Starr, B., Starr, C., Westlund, Whitsett; Excused, 1--Winters.

    6-30(H) House concurred in Senate amendments and repassed bill.

    Ayes, 39; Excused for Business of the House, 13--Avakian, Boone, Hanna, Hansen, Jenson, Krieger, March, Morgan, Richardson, Schaufler, Smith G., Whisnant, Speaker Minnis.

  • in the building (unverified)

    Metsger is an old-school politician who uses disturbing strong-arm politics to get what he wants. People hated having bills in his committee because they never knew where they stood and knew they would have to cow-tow to Metsger.

    Just one example: Metsger held the Paid Family Leave bill hostage for weeks last session. Why? So he move his bill making it legal for employers to fire employees for using medical marijuana. Say what you want about Paid Family Leave, but he wasn't holding it up because he didn't like the bill -- he was holding up a bill most Democrats thought was important to families so he could shove through an unpopular bill that he wanted to pass to make big business happy. Yuck.

  • in the know (unverified)

    Let's correct the record In The Building. The notion that Rick was holding up the family leave bill because of his marijuana bill was a common myth in the Capitol. It was such a common myth that the House leadership offered to hold a hearing on the marijuana bill after hours at the last minute, so they could buy his vote on family leave. Metsger was so disgusted with this tactic that he didn't even go to their special hearing. Before you start accusing people of strong-arm tactics, check to see who's actually using them.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Angry lestatdelc | Nov 21, 2007 7:07:58 AM lestatdelc - I find you to be the most insulting blogger on this site.

    Oh dear, I have offended a no-name anonymous blogger with delicate sensibilities. There goes my happy holiday.

    You belittle anyone who even remotely disagrees with you.

    Total nonsense. I have disagreed with, and people have disagreed with me, on a numerous issues and points of discussion and I do not belittle them, or vice-versa. Even in this very thread BlueShift seems to have a differing opinion on the importance and the details about why I view Metsger's actions regarding the mortgage bill as being a telling (and in this case deciding) factor in Metsger's suitability for the higher office he is seeking (I obviously do not think it is an office I trust him with). I certainly am not belittling BlueShift at all nor do I take BlueShifts questions or points of argument as belittling. When a blogger here accuses me of being a "flamer" who shares the interest of predatory lenders, and by such a statement proves they know jack-shit about what they are talking about, of course I will "belittle" and dismiss such ill-informed statements.

    Me thinks you confuse passionate debate with "anger". I freely and whole heartedly embrace the former and reject the later since it is not at all applicable in this (or most) subjects I post about.

    Learn how to play nice with other Dems or do us all a favor and stop blogging!

    I will give this suggestion from an anonymous blogger all the due consideration it deserves.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Blueshift | Nov 20, 2007 9:05:15 PM lestatdelc, I'm still having trouble with this. You accused Metsger of being in the pocket of banks and credit unions. I asked you what made you say that was so. So far, you have quoted one bill to me, a bill which, I must point out again, did not pass.

    Whether the bill passed or not relevant to the point I am making about Metsger. It is analogous to claiming that someone writing and pushing a bill that allows a Telecom to not be subject to paying taxes isn't in the pocket of telecoms because the bill gets killed before passage. That he slipped in, in the 11th hour, an exemption banks and credit unions from the bill shows exactly whose water he is carrying.

    And yet, I don't see you accusing him, or Brown, Walker or Avakian, of being in the pockets of everyone else they've ever worked for or taken money from.
    I have not seen them try to pull a fast one like Mestger did for their paying clients, though Brown's involvmwent in sheparding this through the Senate does make me question her ability to pay attnetion to the details which is why I have a question about her suitability for the SoS job as well, though I don't distrust her on her motives or who she might be in the pocket of.
    Are you making an argument that no candidate for higher office should ever have worked with or for any other organization, for fear that they're being unduly influenced by their past experience?
    Of course not. That is a strawman argument.
    Or is this what it appears to be, a personal grudge against Metsger?
    Neither, your false dichotomy is just that, a false one. It isn't an either or proposition. My raising this issue is a valid concern about trusting Metsger in a highly critical higher office given his actions on the bill in question which is far far more serious an issue than any other that came up in the last session. If he was running for Treasurer I would be less critical, though even there if there was another qualified candidate I would be more inclined to support them instead.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: in the know | Nov 21, 2007 11:02:53 AM Let's correct the record In The Building. The notion that Rick was holding up the family leave bill because of his marijuana bill was a common myth in the Capitol.

    Then why was he holding up the bill?

  • Miles (unverified)

    Lestat: Can you provide more detail on the substance of the bill that Metsger was pushing? (Rather than the accusation that he was "in the pocket" of the banks and credit unions. Whether he agreed with the banks is of less importance to me than the substance of what they agreed on.)

    From what I can tell from this thread, the bill would have made it more difficult to engage in predatory lending. That sounds good. And somewhere along the way, Metsger put in a provision that exempted the banks and credit unions from those limits. Do I have it right so far?

    So what is Metsger's reason for exempting those institutions. You say it's because he's "in their pockets", but I assume Metsger has a more legitimate explanation. For instance, maybe banks and credit unions are subject to federal regulations that already prohibit such behavior? Or maybe there's no evidence that large institutions have actually engaged in such behavior?

    I don't have any sympathy for mortgage brokers. Anyone who has dealt with them knows it's not a high-integrity field -- they're trying to make a buck and don't really care if you can actually afford the deal they're getting you or not. Whether predatory lending regulations should ALSO apply to banks and credit unions seems like a great policy question. Any links you could provide with research on the subject?

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Miles | Nov 21, 2007 12:03:57 PM From what I can tell from this thread, the bill would have made it more difficult to engage in predatory lending.

    The bill ostensibly was for that reason, but the entire structure of the bill was flawed form the outset. Outlawing and define "non traditional loans" is not at all the direction in curbing predatory loan practices. The way the bill was written, nobody in Oregon who is self employed would qualify for a loan. And certainly the GOP would be magnamious in not pointing out that the Dems made it basically impossible for anyone who is self-employed form owning a home in Oregon.. but hey this bill is "progressive".

    More troubling is, that any person who touches the loan would be on the hook for the next 2 years of the person being able to pay the loan. What happens if the person who got the loan has a medical catastrophe or has a divorce (the two biggest reasons for defaults)...? And we wonder why by and large the business community looks at Democrats and liberals with a skeptical eye?

    There are myriad reasons this was a well intentioned but, disastrously flawed bill is problematic, but that isn't as relevant to the issue at hand Metsger's actions with it, which makes him (IMNSHO) unfit for the office he is seeking.

    Early on in this bills life, the banks and credit unions were "on board" as "stake-holders" in the bill, yet after it left the Senate, Metsger had folded into the bill exempting banks and credit unions. It is analogous to having a proposed telecom bill which seeks to eliminate egregious and disruptive phone plans which take consumers to the cleaners, the baby-bells are all involved in the bill as "stake-holders", the bill is written to basically make wireless phone companies unable to even do business in Oregon, and in the 11th hour, a legislator who has the baby-bells as clients slips in language that the law doesn't apply to baby-bell companies.

  • LT (unverified)

    So, Avakian was EHB (probably a committee hearing) which means he didn't vote on the bill.

    In the Senate, it looks like Gordly, Westlund, Schrader, Metsger had the good sense to see through the bill.

    Thanks Albert and Staffer for the information.

  • Albert Ross (unverified)

    Avakian was excused on the concurrence vote on June 30. He had already voted yes on the bill on May 17.

  • (Show?)

    ugh.. numerous typos in my previous post but this one was simply finishing a sentence after being interrupted and somehow typing the wrong word entirely and not preview/proofing it at all.

    "...egregious and disruptive phone plans which take consumers to the cleaners..."

    Should read:

    "...egregious and deceptive phone plans which take consumers to the cleaners..."
  • Frank Carper (unverified)

    Please, for the love of god, can we drop the mortgage lending bill?

    I know it was really, really super-duper important for the handful of people who cared about it (lestatdelc), but it's hardly worth the overwhelming amount of ink it's gotten here at BlueOregon over the last six months. Submit a guest column if you like.

  • (Show?)

    I've actually learned a few new things from this thread (on at least two separate bills), and I find it fascinating that the Salem guys had such widely divergent interpretations of the same events.

    I also noticed that we got a couple of insights on how all of the candidates handled some of these issues in real time.

    So for me, it was a pretty informative thread when compared with a thread that say, devoted 150+ comments to the outrageousness of spelling Colombia with a "u".

    But that's just my opinion........

  • Matt Mann (unverified)

    I agree with Frank C above, drop SB 965, which is not at issue anyway. What is at issue is the fact that Mestger, along with Brad Avakian and Kate Brown, I believe sponsored that Bill. The issue is that all of them, in sponsoring this bill, did not think through the issues and unintended consequences of this bill. They listened to one source of interest "Our Oregon". Let's take this a step further. These folks want to run for S of S and given their mind set that drove their reasoning for SB 965, what can we expect from any of them as S of S. To come up with some half cocked legislation or rule that will have dire consequences to all Oregonians? Can we take a chance on any Elected offical like the threesome above to be S of S. Thanks, MM

  • (Show?)

    Yeah, "in the know," why did Metsger do everything he could to kill Paid Family Leave?

    I can't say I know for sure it was an attempt to strongarm the House in order to pass his bill to deprive disabled people of their rights in the workplace (SB 465, I believe)--what do I know about the private thoughts and motivations of another individuals--but I would certainly be interested in hearing some other reason beyond the AGC/AOI talking points that he read on the Senate floor.

  • in the building (unverified)

    In The Know, basically what you're saying is that Metsger didn't correct the myth, instead hiding his intentions from his own party's leadership so that they would think he was holding Paid Family Leave hostage for his bill. That's essentially the same thing I said to begin with - he let people believe he wouldn't move Paid Family Leave in order to get them to move his bill. Again, yuck.

    And Patton, yes, it was SB 465. Good memory. I had to look it up.

  • (Show?)

    The Gresham Outlook has a pretty good story on him entering the race.

  • calmnsense (unverified)

    JTT has got it right. For those who like to handicap the race, Metsger's name recognition from his days at KOIN is a HUGE intangible in his favor. In fact, I would make him the favorite right now to win this. You think the average Oregonian knows who Avakian or even Kate Brown are? Walker probably has a little more recognition, thanks to going after Neil and her high profile in the Eugene area.

    This is going to be a VERY interesting race...

  • Lindy Minten (unverified)
    <h2>I not only had the pleasure of meeting Sen. Metsger but of working with him. I am just a mom, not really involved with politics prior to this past year when I began a hard fought battle against one bill but in support of another. Just a mom...just an Oregonian like many of you. Not only did Rick return my phone calls, Brown wouldn't give any of us the time of day. In fact, on her website she encourages input yet when hundreds of people sent her emails in opposition of a bill she referred to us as "email wackos" in the Oregonian. Many of our children had written, old, young, rich, poor - all walks of life but all Oregonians and we were slammed hard. Meanwhile, many of the Senators gave us respect and consideration. They included us in the political process... But not Brown, not Avakian, and not Walker. They had no interest in anything thousands of people had to say yet Rick listened, he brought opposite sides together to reach a concensus. He let a mom make a difference and be allowed to participate. If you want someone who will hear you - really care about the issues that impact you... someone with integrity, and common sense then Rick is our man. As far as Kate Brown is concerned I will do all that I can to expose her for the person she really is - one who doesn't listen then berates her public. Shame on her....Lindy</h2>
in the news 2007

connect with blueoregon