This is a pretty big endorsement. After seeing both speak, they decided that they want Macpherson for a boss. You really can't knock a decision like this. It is pretty telling. Congrats to Greg!

I'm Shocked!

The John Kroger for Attorney General campaign just released this statement:

John Kroger Receives Strong Support from Department of Justice Staff

Much of the strong support for the endorsement of John Kroger by the Service Employees International Union Local 503 (SEIU) comes from the staff of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

"In his life and in his campaign, John Kroger has shown a ground-level understanding of what it takes to work for a living, and sometimes struggle, to make ends meet," said Mike Bonner, a SEIU Local 503 member who works in the Department of Justice. "That came across clearly when John met with members of the Justice Local to discuss our concerns. John Kroger's approach resonates well with our members because he's faced tough times and tough situations."

"I think he'll make a great Oregon Attorney General," concluded Bonner.

SEIU members met with Kroger early in the campaign to discuss their ideas for moving the office forward, they discussed new strategies for child support enforcement and improving the day-to-day operations of the department.

John Kroger enjoys strong support from across the labor community. SEIU Local 503 and 49, the AFL-CIO, Former Labor Commissioner Dan Gardner, the Oregon Education Association, the Teamsters Joint Council 37, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 48 and Carpenters Local Unions 247, 711, 1388, 2416, 2154 and 1065 are all supporting Kroger, an award-winning Lewis & Clark Law School professor and a former federal prosecutor. Kroger has received nearly every labor endorsement in the Attorney General's race to date.

"I am proud to have the support of the working men and women at the Oregon Department of Justice," commented Kroger. "I look forward to working with them as Oregon's next Attorney General."

As a Kroger supporter, I have to admit this hurts.

I definitely find this interesting, but I am a bit skeptical (any response is greatly appreciated).

If your union has only been around 14 years, it's not surprising you've never endorsed, since Hardy was elected when your union had been around just two years, and he's been the incumbent ever since. This is your first significant chance to support a candidate. Is there any reason you refused to endorse Hardy in previous elections?

Second, I might be wrong here, but based on the way you describe voting for an endorsement, only 50%+1 of your members has to return a ballot, and only 50%+1 of those returning a ballot have to be in favor of endorsing. That basically means you can endorse if only 25% of your members want to actually do so. Considering you made your members answer who they would choose -- even if they chose not to recommend having an endorsement -- you could essentially end up with 13% of your members saying, "We want to endorse, and we choose Greg." It's really not clear how many of your members actually wanted to endorse Greg.

Lastly, and this is completely anecdotal: I have a few friends who work at DOJ and heard both John and Greg speak. They told me that most people were disappointed with both candidates but for different reasons. They told me neither candidate seemed to really understand what the AG's role was, at least from the AAGs' perspective. If that's true, I'm rather surprised the union felt a desire to endorse at all.

<h2>"... OAJA endorsement required (a) a majority of OAJA members returning ballots, (b) a majority of those participating supporting the concept of issuing an endorsement, and (c) regardless of their answer to the question of whether to endorse, a majority of those returning ballots supporting a single candidate. These criteria were met."</h2>

Sounds like a double majority rule here (and more). I wonder if they are against the general public having the same double majority for themselves?

Harry

ps that other Harry who previously posted is just that

Yeah, I guess I should have written a bit more. Consider the following scenario: let's say 200 of your members return ballots (that's 80% of your membership), and 120 (60% of total votes) favor Macpherson.

Then 80 people (40% of total votes) favor Kroger. But let's say 80% of those who favor Kroger (that's 64 people) favor endorsing. That's 64 who say, "We want to endorse, and we choose Kroger."

Then 60 of Macpherson's supporters say they want to endorse. That's 50% of his support out of 120.

So what are we left with? Well, 104 voters supported the idea of endorsement. That's 52%, so it's enough to create an endorsement. BUT, out of the people who actually supported a candidate AND wanted to endorse, Kroger actually had a higher number.

Instead of Kroger winning because he had a higher number of people who favored endorsement AND favored him, he loses because more people favored Macpherson overall, even though fewer of his supporters actually wanted to endorse.

I guess I want to know the voter breakdown and why you think this is an acceptable voting system.

torridjoe wrote: "If you're of a mind that criminal response needs a boost at DoJ as I imagine many DAs do, you'd be backing Kroger. If maintaining a primary focus on civil action is where you live, perhaps Mac is your man."

I think this analysis is incorrect. Almost all of the DAs -- who are, by and large, a generally conservative bunch -- endorsed Hardy Myers in 2004, even though his Republican opponent was running much the same kind of tough-on-crime campaign that John Kroger is running today. The DAs have been enthusiastic supporters of how Hardy Myers has run the DOJ. As Hardy's 2004 campaign manager, I often heard from local DAs how appreciative they were of the support they received from Hardy's staff -- without having their toes stepped on. Many of them described Hardy as an ideal AG.

My guess is that Kroger received the support of so many DAs largely because they felt a sense of kinship with a former prosecutor who has supported tough-on-crime measures like mandatory minimum sentences. Kroger may also have done a better job courting the DAs individually than Macpherson did. If that's the case, then Kroger rightfully earned those endorsements with a well-run campaign.

And, obviously, the reason why Kroger has received so much labor support generally is because of Macpherson's votes on the PERS reforms.

None of these points are meant to denigrate Kroger's endorsements from the DAs or from labor. I just think the narrative torridjoe has offered to explain the endorsement is incorrect.

Look, this isn't really that hard to understand.

There is a reason why the DOJ attorneys decided, for the first time in their history, to endorse a candidate. I mean really - who doesn't get it?

If Kroger was even nominally acceptable to the DOJ lawyers, they would have played it safe. The fact is this guy scared the shit out of them. They saw what he was all about: a hyper-ambitious Spitzer-wannabe who figures Oregon is a podunk enough state that he can rise through the political ranks quickly, as a crusading AG, and get back to DC in higher office.

Just another east-coast second stringer trying to dupe us into voting for him. Haven't we seen enough of this?

As a former DOJ attorney, I can appreciate the OAJA support for Macpherson. Although Kroger also has strong credentials, in my view Macpherson has a better grasp and understanding of the role of DOJ here in Oregon.

torridjoe wrote, ". . . certainly in terms that the GOP uses to mean "crime." They mean black people doing drugs and robbing people, not white people doing designer drugs and robbing their stock holdings or polluting their backyards.

Actually, torridjoe, Kroger's message about fighting crime and combating meth is strikingly similar to that of Hardy's Republican opponent in 2004.

Again, this is not a criticism of Kroger's message. But your efforts to distinguish his tough-on-crime agenda is incorrect.

Marc,

Thanks for posting this. While I didn't otherwise know Blue Oregon had simply been a dumping ground for press releases, this is helpful information I look forward to the mentioned follow up thoughts.

Unfortunately for Macpherson, if I were John Kroger, I would use this to my advantage. You see, Macpherson seems to be offering business as usual. If I were a rank and file attorney, that would be great to know and I too would support Macpherson.

If folks are looking for someone not coming directly from corporate law who will work for the benefit of all Oregonians, this endorsement would further steer me to support Kroger.

Misha, I have known you for a few years and have a lot of respect for your opinion but you are 100% wrong about Kroger and "tough on crime." When Republicans talk about being tough on crime, they mean locking people up and forgetting about them - however, if you actually listen to what Kroger says, this is not what he is talking about. Kroger's "tough on crime" is organizing state resources to go after organized crime, while expanding drug treatment for those who need it. For you to claim that a liberal Democrat is no different from some very conservative Republicans is misleading and unfair. There is a way for liberals to be tough on crime, and Kroger wants to move Oregon in that direction.

torridjoe:

First, a disclaimer: I have been a lawyer at DOJ for almost 20 years, through 4 AGs. And I was one of the founding members of OAJA.

Like many people who criticize what DOJ does or does not do, you don't have all the facts. Prosection of deadbeat parents is done by local DAs. The same is true of criminal environmental prosecution. If they need and want assistance, they ask for it from DOJ, just as they can with any other prosection. But about half of DOJ's employees are involved in Child Support enforcement, working directly with parents. Our financial fraud division is one of the best and most effectiove ion the country. Oregon has had a leading role in the tobacco litigation, and DOJ is taking on the federal government's refusal to allow states to have stronger greenhouse gas standards.

All of that being said, what DOJ is able to do is dependent on resources. The same is true of other agencies. If folks want more environmental enforcement, they need to support legislators and legislation that provides more resources for investigators and enforcement folks at DEQ, and more money to DEQ so it can pay DOJ to do the necessary legal work, because that is how the system is funded. So the attorneys at DOJ know that the ability to expand the mission and do more for the people of Oregon is dependent on working with the legislature to get additional resources. Much of the DOJ support for Greg Macpherson is the result of the belief that he can produce those additional resources.

I do need to gently prod Marc, though. While the majority of DOJ's work is civil, the Appellate Division defends all appeals from criminal convictions, both direct appeals and collateral challenges. There are also a number of lawyers in the Trial Division who defend criminal conviction against collateral challenges. And the Criminal Justice Division is directly involved in prosecutions, assisting the District Attorneys throughout the state (and on occasion, acting as the District Attorney when one of them is unable to serve). The organized Crime units and Criminal Intelligence units also provide support for the DAs and for police agencies. So DOJ is intimately involved in criminal prosecutions as well.

Because of the sheer scope of the work that DOJ is mandated to do, there is no way that any one individual could be acquainted with all of it. We have specialists in areas where specialists are needed. But an AG does need to have a working knowledge of state government, of DOJ's role, and the legislature's role.

Those of us at DOJ are not interested in the status quo. The question is who can best create the circumstances that can bring change about.

Amen, Valkyrie. I am no longer at DOJ, but worked there for many years, also through many AGs, and have great respect for the agency and its attorneys.

Kroger's supporters are understandably disappointed by the OAJA vote, but it is not an excuse for public employee bashing, however veiled that bashing might be. This was a courageous vote, and the Justice attorneys should be commended, not accused of being invested in the status quo.

To me, the remarkable thing is not what a short time Kroger has been in the state -- rather, it's how long he has been here without doing anything substantive for the environmental or labor causes he now claims to support. His labor union endorsements are not due to anything he has ever done for labor (as far as I am aware, he has done nothing). He got those endorsements simply because he did not work on the 2003 PERS legislation.

As for the environment, hey, doesn't Kroger work at Lewis & Clark law school? The law school that has its own environmental law clinic? I have asked whether Kroger has ever worked at that clinic, or indeed had anything whatsoever to do with it, and the answer was "no." Doesn't that seem odd?

So what exactly has Kroger done during his years here in Oregon? I mean, other than take a few months off to work on a couple of Enron indictments (the merits of which have been discussed elsewhere), and even then he didn't stick around for the actual prosecution. Anyone who has read Kroger's law review article "The Politics of Crime" can have no doubt that his brief involvement with the Enron case was politically motivated.

It is so easy to make big promises, especially when you haven't had the experience of actually governing or a record of doing anything, good or bad. I deeply respect my former DOJ colleagues for their willingness to take a stand in this campaign. More power to you, guys.

And as for Kroger's supporters, what say we leave the public employee bashing to the Republicans, okay?

In my view, the OAJA endorsement is a very important one. As a former DOJ attorney, I highly respect my former colleagues and know that this vote was not taken lightly. Those who have yet to make up their mind should consider this endorsement favorably toward Macpherson and ignore the unfortunate comments made by some Kroger supporters against DOJ attorneys. Such comments have no place in a responsible discussion about the AG race.

A-Rab,

As I stated repeatedly above, my point was not to denigrate Kroger's positions, his campaign, or his endorsements. Reread my first post, above. My point was to say that those like torridjoe who want to view this election as change (symbolized by the DA endorsements) versus the status quo (symbolized by the OAJA endorsement) are incorrect.

More of the DAs endorsed Hardy Myers in 2004 than have endorsed Kroger this year. And I would venture to speculate that if Hardy had chosen to run for a fourth term this year, he would have received the same endorsements again. The DAs as a group have been very approving of Hardy's work as AG.

By the way, Hardy was also endorsed in 2004 by every law enforcement organization in Oregon (the police officers, the fire chiefs, the correctional officers, Crime Victims United, etc.), except for the state police. These are, by and large, conservative organizations that often decline to endorse incumbent Democrats and many of which refused to endorse Hardy in his 2000 reelection bid. But all of these organizations had high praise for Hardy's work on law enforcement. Again, I would guess that if Hardy had decided to run for a fourth term this year, all of these organizations would again have backed him.

Having said that, one might ask why many of the DAs chose to endorse Kroger over Macpherson. I offered three guesses: first, I suspect they felt a sense a kinship with him as a former prosecutor; second, this kinship was probably confirmed by the tough-on-crime message on which Kroger has based his campaign; and third, he probably worked harder than Macpherson to court the DAs individually. None of these are bad things. I'm just saying the DA endorsements don't mean what torridjoe (and others) seem to think they mean.

It's also possible that the DAs objected to one or more positions that Macpherson has taken as chair of the judiciary committee in the legislature. Of course, Kroger is in a uniquely privileged position by not having any record to defend.

So -- I'll grant that Kroger's tough-on-crime message may have a softer edge than the classic Republican position. Again, my point was never to denigrate Kroger or his positions. But the fact is that Kroger has taken some tough-on-crime positions, like support for mandatory minimums, that may have been particularly appealing to the DAs, particularly in light of his experience as a former prosecutor.

torridjoe wrote, "Thanks for your information, but I'm not clueless about the DOJ."

Weren't you the one who didn't understand the difference between DOJ attorneys and the DAs? (See your comment above, Apr 11, 2008 3:42:35 PM.)