I kinda figured the Republicans would want to nominate Jackie Winters.

You know, holding this seat isn't going to be a gimme, but it's not going to be all that difficult either. Some of the comments yesterday were almost panicky. We've got a D+1 district that was won by the Republicans exactly once in the last nine elections (in the Newtist apocolypse of 1994 at that, which was kinda an abberation), and which has been trending ever-bluer for a decade. It's a Democratic wave year, the Republicans are fractured in the district, statewide and nationwide, and the DCCC has a cash advantage and so far no vulnerable open seats to defend other than this one. The odds are with us, really. Work hard and don't take things for granted, but be brave.

Kari, of the possible Democratic candidates, who is the most liberal? Thanks. (please don't include out-of-district people...)

I consider Scott Bruun the most formidable of the Republican contenders. He's among the best Republican legislators and is probably frustrated with his minority status. However, it would not surprise to learn that Bruun and Erickson are friends, making Bruun unlikely to challenge him.

Even if not this year, we will have to deal with Bruun one of these days.

Imagine another open legislative seat for the Republicans to defend.

A contested Republican primary is probably a good thing, especially if it involves several people having to spend a pile of cash.

One of the few advantages D's have in this race is that the DCCC is flush with cash, so having the R's blow their wad fighting each other would make that more prominent.

Plus, this is a very diverse district, and we would likely see the R's fight along ideological lines, which is always a plus and the bonds of their unholy marriage are being tested in this election cycle.

Don't forget that the insults Zupancic threw at Jackie Winters in that contested primary not only caused him to lose Marion County in the primary and the general, there were those friends of Jackie so angry at him that Jackie For Congress bumper stickers stayed on bumpers after the primary.

And in a contested election, all the people who are not strong partisans can hear what the candidates really think and use that as a way to decide in the fall.

Just remember the old saying, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." I find it difficult to believe that the GOP is going to allow a bloody primary battle. The Dems should really consider getting behind one candidate so we don't come out bruised in May.

Bruun ran a decent long-shot campaign against Earl in the 3rd district in '96, winning 26% of the vote, so he may be considering this run seriously.

"Just remember the old saying, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." I find it difficult to believe that the GOP is going to allow a bloody primary battle. The Dems should really consider getting behind one candidate so we don't come out bruised in May."

So, if Vance Day says to support Erickson and both Boquist and Brunn also run, loyal GOP members will be like sheep and all vote for Erickson? Looks to me like the GOP hasn't "fallen in line" in the presidential race. Maybe that saying is outdated.

So, it would be wrong to have a scenario like 2nd Cong. District in 2004 where candidates debated issues during the primary because we all have to get behind one candidate early?

Primary candidates shouldn't be tested?

That sounds like the rhetoric which said no one deserved any attention but Bruggere in 1996 and we all know how that turned out!

The very first 5th Dist. primary was marked by outspoken stands on issues, and lots of debates and joint appearances, but without a lot of attacks. We lost that general election campaign by a handful of votes per precinct, but not because there was more than one outspoken candidate in the primary. We only lost that election because of stupid mistakes the candidate made.

Fred Girod is now a senator. He was sworn in early last week.

Fred Girod is now a senator. He was sworn in early last week.

Even people who don't agree on much else seem to agree this could be the most exciting election in 40 years.

It would be good to see a GOP hotly contested primary for this nomination, so that we might actually have some discussion of issues. I think Bruun or Boquist might be the most interesting candidates: younger, office holders, able to discuss issues intelligently.

And for anyone concerned about the Iraq War and whether their friends/loved ones might have to do a 3rd or 4th tour of duty, I just did a web search and found this about Erickson and Iraq:

http://www.clackamasreview.com/news/story.php?story_id=1161030103304861

In addition to his focus on efficiency, Erickson has staked out positions on the political issues of the day, including terrorism and the war in Iraq. “Whether you agree or disagree with how the war began, the fact is that we’re there now,” he said. “We need to protect our troops, and we need to see progress over there. The war is funded by a vote of congress, and that’s not going to continue indefinitely unless we see some progress.” Asked to define progress in the increasingly unpopular war, Erickson said, “Progress will be when our troops are back in their bunkers in the Green Zone, not going out on patrol themselves. This will be achieved by training the Iraqi Police so that they can go after the terrorists on their own. “When our troops aren’t actually functioning as the police themselves, then they can come home.” <<<

Sounds rather vague to me. Would Erickson agree with McCain's "failure in Iraq would be catastrophic" so no one should discuss leaving Iraq anytime soon? Does he support full funding of veterans programs and would he support full implementation of the Wounded Warrior Comm. proposals? Or are other things more important?

Compare that to Boquist's speech on that 2007 House Resolution (I wish the text of the speech was online somewhere) and decide if Erickson or the state rep. who served in Iraq would be better suited to Congress.

In previous decades we managed to have serious discussions of issues. It would be nice to see such serious discussions in the 2008 Congressional elections as opposed to some of the nonsense we have seen recently. Wasn't there an anti-Hooley ad in 2006 by some 527 type group which was funded by some of the same people who funded the Swifties? Such ads try to short circuit debate with a "we're good, they're bad" mentality, and then Republicans wonder why with few exceptions ( US Chuck Hagel on the national level, St. Sen. Frank Morse who did such a great job on PCOL, for instance) are seen as people who prefer bullying to serious debate.

I know those kinds of ads are independent expenditures, but do they really help the candidate the funders hope to help?

It is going to be really interesting to see Saxby Chambliss run for re-election this year. Those anti-Max Cleland ads (whoever funded them) are still remembered in disgust by more people than he probably would like to know. Let's not tolerate anything like that in Oregon this year, OR anyone who says "but the other side..." or "politics ain't beanbag". At a committee meeting of the Public Comm. on the Legislature in early 2006, one of the commissioners was still angry about an attack during the 1990 campaign and said so publicly. It was run by a campaign which did so poorly it became a laughingstock, by the way. So let's get rid of the idea, once and for all, that "negative campaigns work".

<h2>In a few specific cases (generally a known against an unknown, a highly charged partisan atmosphere, sometimes just sheer stupidity on the part of campaigns) a candidate won after negative campaigns were run against the opposing candidate. But as often as not they backfire. People who see their friends attacked often double the amount of time or money they were already contributing to a campaign. And independent voters aren't likely to vote in favor of what is seen as the nasty side--and that decision is made by individual voters.</h2>