Willamette Week's endorsements

Editor's note: Lest our contributors go crazy each posting their favorite WW endorsement, we'll just catalogue a bunch that we've talked about here at BlueOregon.

President: Barack Obama
U.S. Senate (D): Steve Novick
U.S. House District 1 (D): Will Hobbs
U.S. House District 5 (D): Kurt Schrader
U.S. House District 5 (R): Kevin Mannix
Oregon Secretary of State: Vicki Walker
Oregon Attorney General: Greg Macpherson
Oregon Senate District 23: Jackie Dingfelder
Oregon House District 38: Chris Garrett
Oregon House District 42: Jules Kopel-Bailey
Oregon House District 45: Michael Dembrow
Oregon House District 49: Nick Kahl
Portland Mayor: Sam Adams
Portland City Commissioner, Position 1: Amanda Fritz
Portland City Commissioner, Position 2: Nick Fish
Multnomah County Commissioner, District 3: Mike Delman
Multnomah County Commissioner, District 4: Carla Piluso

Discuss!

(And don't forget to vote in the BlueOregon Straw Poll.)

  • Patsy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Interesting that nearly every credible editorial board in the state has endorsed Macpherson (except the Statesman-Journal).

    Amazing.

  • Rose (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I cannot for the life of me understand why they picked Fish. I thought his WW interview was very week and the endorsement was less than glowing. They went out of the comfort zone for Vicki Walker (SOS) and some others, they might as well have gone out on this race too.

  • im (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Could someone in the know explain what's going on with David Wu? Are these non-endorsements getting his attention? Are these non-endorsements legit? Will anything change (his approach to the job, the quality of potential challengers, or anything else)?

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Is the conventional wisdom thinking that the Novick-Merkley race is pretty much settled at this point? Seems so to me.

  • Bill McDonald (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Im, It's not just about David Wu. Clearly, Will Hobbs made an extraordinary impression. We have a political star here who came out of nowhere for all the right reasons.

  • Rep. Peter Buckley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's frustrating to see the WW get something so wrong. In their Senate race editorial, they blame Jeff Merkley for somehow stopping a bill on tuition-equity from getting a hearing while saying he supports a federal effort on the same issue. If they had bothered to ask, they would have found out that Jeff in no way stopped a hearing on the bill. He was very supportive of my decision to see if it was possible to reach tuition-equity through the state board of higher education instead of flailing away and losing in the legislature as was done twice previously. He was clear that he would support any way we had the best chance to succeed. I have the highest respect for Jeff--all of us in the House Democratic caucus do--and I believe he is going to make an outstanding U.S. Senator.

  • (Show?)

    Patsy,

    The Medford Mail-Tribune endorsed John Kroger.

  • (Show?)
    Jeff in no way stopped a hearing on the bill. He was very supportive of my decision to see if it was possible to reach tuition-equity through the state board of higher education instead of flailing away and losing in the legislature as was done twice previously.

    Rep. Buckley, this doesn't seem to suggest he didn't prevent a hearing, as much as explain why he did so. Which leads to the question: was there anyone you know of who supported "flailing away" one more time in the Leg?

    And as long as we have you here, what specifically did Speaker Merkley do that other potential Speakers would have been unable to accomplish?

  • John F. Bradach, Sr. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    U.S. House, District 3?

  • John F. Bradach, Sr. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    U.S. House, District 3?

  • (Show?)

    torridjoe: What specifically did Speaker Merkley do that other potential Speakers would have been unable to accomplish?

    You can denigrate anyone if you compare them against someone who doesn't actually exist, Mark. But if you want real world comparisons, let's just say that Nanci Pelosi hasn't done anywhere near as much with a 30+ vote majority that Jeff managed to do with 1.

    Tell me I'm wrong. I dare you.

  • Rep. Peter Buckley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TJ--

    I'm not following your logic. As Chair of the House Education Committee, I had full backing from Jeff to hold a hearing and try to get the bill passed. And yep, there were a number of legislators, Jeff included, more than willing to move the bill, get it to the floor and hopefully over to the Senate. I made a judgement call after doing a rough vote count that we would be heading to another likely defeat. Jeff backed my decision because I told him I believed we would have a better chance of actually getting this done by working directly with the State Board.

    One can fault my judgement, and one can, I suppose, fault Jeff for trusting me on this issue, but it is absolutely inaccurate to claim Jeff is somehow being hypercritical in any way with this issue, as the WW editorial attempts to do.

    As to what Jeff accomplished that another potential speaker might not have? Getting us to the majority, in the first place. I am a member of the leadership team that worked with Jeff nonstop on the recruitment of candidates, development of strategy, raising the money and doing everything else that went into picking up the seats we needed. Ask any one of us, and we will tell you flat--we could not have accomplished that without Jeff's leadership.

    Once in the majority, he held us together and accomplished the agenda we set out to pass. The caucus is made up of very diverse, very driven people, with often very conflicting points of view. Jeff led. We succeeded. Could another speaker have done it as well? Let me turn that around--has anyone else in recent political memory done as well leading a majority caucus, let alone one with a 31-29 majority?

    It doesn't take anything away from any other candidate to admit that Jeff was an outstanding Speaker of the House. And again, I believe it speaks volumes that every single one of Jeff's colleagues in the House Dem caucus think the world of the guy.

  • (Show?)

    steven, I'm sure it was unintentional irony to hold up a failed leader of the US House, to support your claim for the Oregon House leader. "better than Pelosi" did is an xceedingly low bar.

  • (Show?)

    In other words, Mark, you prefer to compare our accomplished Speaker to people who Don't Actually Exist.

    You also want a pony? A nice sparkly pony who eats rainbows, and poops pretty flowers?

  • (Show?)

    Rep. Buckley, thank you for the honest answer to my questions. I do appreciate it.

    As you explain it, there were in fact some House members who wanted to see it taken care of in the Leg. So whether it was on your advice or not, it does sound like Merkley indeed prevented a hearing. If your point is that this doesn't mean he was opposed to the bill's content, that's fair.

    Ask any one of us, and we will tell you flat--we could not have accomplished that without Jeff's leadership.

    As someone who believes the caucus and FuturePAC fell short of what was possible by being shortsighted, deaf to the obvious wave movement of the 2006 cycle, and dismissive of viable candidates that would have expanded the majority, I wonder what specifically about "Jeff's leadership" was nonreproducible by another leader of the caucus. You tend to answer the question "why couldn't you have done it without Jeff" by simply restating the premise rather than giving reasons why he made the difference. Wouldn't other people have been able to recruit candidates, plan strategy and raise money?

    he held us together and accomplished the agenda we set out to pass.

    This last part is a little disturbing, actually. Did the Leg really set out from the beginning to fail on land use reform, fail on corporate taxation, fail on a permanent solution for the kicker, fail on child health care, and create ethics reform that they would immediately trash and start over with 2 years later? I saw a session with a lot of low hanging fruit plucked (which was great!), and a lot of punting on the rest.

    I'm also curious as to your suggestion that the Dem House caucus is a very diverse group of people. Which members therefore make up "the band of progressives" Jeff talks about on the stump, since they clearly ALL can't be progressive (cough--Schauffler!--cough)?

    Thanks again for your time. I'm not trying to be snarky, but I'm not just going to let you off the hook, either. :)

  • (Show?)

    TJ--I'm not following your logic.

    Don't worry about that rep. Buckley, anybody following TJ's pearls of wisdom at this point is, by definition, unconcerned about logic.

    <hr/>

    But about those other endorsements:

    Dembrow?

    Because Cyreena is a "newcomer" and "short on experience and specifics."--Looks like they might wanna revisit their own interview of the candidates for this position.

    Piluso

    might be a Dark Horse to the county at large, but she's been a welcome and steady influence in the previously borderline psychotic Gresham PD...... Not knowing her opponent, I like her chances.

    Mannix over Erickson?

    I guess it's more fun to watch a train wreck with full on special effects, than to just watching a masochistic millionaire write a bunch more checks. At least they got the Schrader race right.......

    Instead of the tattoo question, how about the WW asking something like:

    Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Oregon Bus Project? or;

    If you were going through the back of our paper, what category of personals would you be searching?

  • Chris #12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Blumenauer is an inch to the right of Rep. Dennis Kucinich". (from the WW endorsement)

    Maybe on important issues like OPB, these two are similar, but when it comes to workers rights, the economy, and free trade, Blumenauer is nowhere near Kucinich. On these issues, I think Blumenauer is way out of touch with his pretty progressive district.

  • Jack Sullivan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TJ, are you on crack?

    Read what Rep. Buckley wrote: As Chair of the House Education Committee, I had full backing from Jeff to hold a hearing and try to get the bill passed. ... I made a judgement call after doing a rough vote count that we would be heading to another likely defeat.

    In other words, if you want to blame someone for "preventing a hearing" you can blame Rep. Buckley.

  • (Show?)

    It's interesting how Rep. Buckley's "And yep, there were a number of legislators, Jeff included, more than willing to move the bill, get it to the floor and hopefully over to the Senate."

    got twisted into..."it does sound like Merkley indeed prevented a hearing."

    Which of course bears zero logical connection to what Rep. Buckley said.

  • (Show?)

    "In other words, if you want to blame someone for "preventing a hearing" you can blame Rep. Buckley."

    Well, he certainly would take some responsibility, but Buckley has no authority to prevent a hearing. Only the Speaker has that right in the House, I believe (maybe the Maj Leader, but I don't think so).

  • Rep. Peter Buckley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TJ--

    As simple and clear as possible: at no time did Jeff Merkley prevent a hearing on the tuition-equity bill or any other bill in the House Education Committee.

    As chair, I was given full authority by the Speaker to decide which bills would be heard in my committee.

    So again: at no time did Jeff Merkley prevent a hearing on the tuition-equity bill or any other bill in the House Education Committee.

  • (Show?)

    Rep B-- "As chair, I was given full authority by the Speaker to decide which bills would be heard in my committee."

    Perhaps that's where the disconnect is. I don't see any qualification in WW about preventing a hearing in your committee. I believe the reference is to the more general use of the term "hearing," meaning bringing it up on the floor for debate. And if Merkley did not bring the bill up for floor debate, he effectively prevented that hearing. And since WW noted that as a move of calculation, I don't see how they're wrong. You seem to be indicating that you and he calculated that it could be better achieved in another venue. While you can argue that it was sensible and valuable to have made that calculation...it's still a calculation.

    I see you're not game for the more salient part of the response? :)

  • Kate (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TJ- Bills can only be debated on the floor if they are passed out of committee. That is called "floor debate." The public hearings are done in Committee and those are called "hearings." Committee chairs have most of the control when deciding what (and what not) to hold hearings about, not the Speaker. Rep. Buckley has been so patient trying to answer your concerns. I think he did a good, sucinct job, and I applaud and thank him for taking the time to explain the situation.

  • rep. Peter Buckley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TJ--

    My apologies, but this is like an endless loop that I just don't have time to stay in. The Speaker cannot by himself bring a bill to the House floor. It must either go through a committee or be brought to the House floor by a motion backed by 31 members.

    And I can't agree with what you see as the more salient part of the response, since I have already posed the question to you to please name a single Speaker or Senate President who has accomplished more with such a slim majority than Jeff has. You have a list of a number of issues that take 36 votes. And even on some of those, such as the corporate minimum tax, we had a signed agreement from the GOP leadership that they went back on, so I'm not sure what more could have been accomplished with that.

    Again, if you can name a single legislative leader who has accomplished more, please do. I realize we will never agree on the various strengths and weaknesses of the candidates we support. I'm proud of Jeff and of what we've been able to accomplish. Your views obviously vary.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steven Maurer posted:

    "You can denigrate anyone if you compare them against someone who doesn't actually exist, Mark. But if you want real world comparisons, let's just say that Nanci Pelosi hasn't done anywhere near as much with a 30+ vote majority that Jeff managed to do with 1."

    If Merkley's doing a great job in that capacity, let's keep him there. This nation needs Novick to wake the Congress up from its slumber. By bringing up Pelosi, you're making the case for Novick.

  • (Show?)

    It's OK to be proud of Jeff and what the legislature accomplished. What WWeek and some of the rest of us are saying is, this isn't a gold watch.

    This is about the future, who has the best chance of becoming a great Senator and making Oregon proud.

    To be a great Senator requires two things: (a) you have to be great; and (b) you have to actually become a Senator.

    If Jeff Merkley can't beat Steve Novick, considering all of Merkley's institutional advantages, how on earth could he hope to take on Smith?

  • (Show?)

    Not surprising, I disagree with a number of their endorsements.

    AG: John Kroger SOS: Kate Brown HD 45: Cyreena Boston (a newcomer? what?) County Commission, Dist 3: Rob Rob Milesnick

    I really hope Piluso wins the Dist 4 seat. Out here I've been hearing that McKeel will be like Lonnie Roberts. And that scares me. We have geographically more than half the county, a huge chunk of the county that has only county services to rely on, have the fastest growing population, etc. We need someone on the county commission who is going to go to work and fight for us. I see Piluso as that person.

    Disclaimer: I've worked on the web sites for Nick Fish, Cyreena Boston, Steve Novick, and Rob Milesnick. I speak only for myself and not their campaigns.

  • adam (unverified)
    (Show?)

    steven, where can one find this pony you speak of?

  • (Show?)

    WWeek's rational for endorsing Mannix is priceless, considering their rational for rejecting Merkley.

    Still, WW readily endorses Mannix in the Republican primary for the seat, held by a Democrat who is retiring, Rep. Darlene Hooley. Mannix understands the legislative process, has an admirable work ethic and has shown an independent streak that would serve his district well. As a lawmaker, he was known as both a procedural wizard and also as a creative, flexible deal-maker who worked both sides of the aisle to pass legislation.
  • Dylan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Interesting that nearly every credible editorial board in the state has endorsed Macpherson (except the Statesman-Journal). Amazing.

    Not only did the Medford Mail-Tribune endorse Kroger as Andrew Pointed out. Kroger has also been endorsed by the Salem Statesman (which for some reason this author doesn't think counts), Grants Pass Daily Courier, and the Portland Mercury. Your comment, like your candidate's campaign, can best best described as "ignorant smugness."

  • Patsy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Macpherson has been endorsed by the Oregonian, the Willamette Week, the Eugene Register-Guard, the East Oregonian, The Portland Tribune, The McMinnville News-Register, The Gresham Outlook, and Just Out Newspaper.

    Macpherson has been endorsed by the Statesman Journal, the Medford Mail-Tribune, and the Grants Pass Daily Currier. (How many registered Democrats are there in Grants Pass?)

    So, like I said in my first post, "nearly every credible editorial board in the state has endorsed Macpherson."

  • (Show?)

    thanks for the lecture kate, but I'm well aware of those things. And a bill does not require a do pass, if a majority want it brought straight to the floor. This doesn't change the fact that the Speaker can prevent a passed bill from being heard on the floor.

    Rep Buckley--I certainly appreciate your time. But asking me a question back--who else has done better elsewhere--only tries to redirect without an answer of your own. What did Merkley do that no other legislator was capable of?

    As for the bills I mentioned: land use reform did not need 36. Healthy kids did not need 36 until that codocile wasn't removed before 3rd reading; merkley had an opinion in hand stating as such that he disregarded. And another part of the job is to record votes, even failing ones, as a way to maintain those positions for the next election cycle.

    Unless jeff is some kind of Leg Whisperer, I have yet to hear what was unaccomplishable by a different speaker, that Jeffaccomplished.

  • A. Rab. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Patsy, The Statesmen Journal, Mail-Tribune, and Daily Currier all endorsed Kroger, not Macpherson. Furthermore, your dismissal of small town Democrats is really unfair to a large segment of the state, and state party. While Portland is overwhelming Democrat, the rural parts of the state are actually fairly close in party voting. They are majority Republican but have very large Democratic minorities. Without rural Democrats, we would be a majority Republican state (same as if we did not have urban Democrats). Also, FYI, your list of Macpherson papers not only has Kroger endorses, but includes multiple Pamplin papers, which endorse en mass.

  • Patsy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A.Rab.--

    My bad. Typo. The second paragraph of my post should have said "Kroger", not "Macpherson."

    My point was that Macpherson has been endorsed by the vast majority of editorial boards. And in terms of the state's most influential ed boards -- the Oregonian, Willamette Week, Statesman Journal, Eugene Register-Guard, and Eastern Oregonian -- all have endorsed Macpherson except the S-J.

  • RKS (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Patsy -- Those of us living in Salem might argue that the S-J is not credible or influential.

  • Alberto Borges (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I support Hillary Clinton and she will be our next president. Some magazines opinions are not important for me.

  • redcellpolitical (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Good golly toridjoe let it go, Saying that Merkely prevented a hearing by giving the chair of the committee the authority to do as he saw fit is like saying that I prevented my daughter from buying a Hanna Montana CD because I gave her the choice of what to buy with her allowance. Okay, its not exactly like that but the logic is the same. Failure to actively encourage something is not the same thing preventing a thing from happening. You might be correct if you were to say that the Speaker failed to call for a floor debate. But even then the pejorative is subjective: was his inaction a failure or a rational and appropriate delegation of authority to the committee chair most knowledgeable about the bill?

    "The process begins when a measure is introduced and referred to a committee. The committee may hear testimony on the measure, frequently from members of the public, and may amend the measure and send it to the floor of its house for debate. The committee can also table the measure and end its consideration. Unlike many state legislatures, Oregon does not amend measures during floor debate. After a measure has been considered by a committee and passed by the house in which it was introduced, it is sent to the other house where a similar procedure is followed."

    from the Oregon Legislative Blue Book, so the speaker can not call for a debate on an measure that has been tabled by the committee.

  • (Show?)

    I don't want to let go Daniel Spiro's comment that, if Jeff Merkeley's doing such a great job, "why not keep him where he is?"

    First, filing deadline's over and Jeff isn't running for the state House.

    Second, unless you believe everything is Peter Principled, most people who do well at one level want to move on to the next challenge. And deserve to, if that's what they and the voters want.

    Third and most important, please let's not hold folks back (and thereby promote an opponent) because they're doing a good job. Putting aside Jeff and Steve for a minute...in 1974, I was in college in upstate New York. The D running for state Assembly was the mayor of our town; the R the head of financial aid for my college. The R won (in that Watergate year) by arguing "Ed Conley's done such a good job as mayor we need to keep him there!" That disingenuous aruugment worked and, two years later, Gary Lee went on to become a member of the GOP caucus in the US House, blocking things we cared about because enough of us wanted to keep Ed Conley in City Hall. This is a primary, obviously, between two good Ds, but this logic isn't just limited to primaries, so let's debunk it!

  • byard pidgeon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Come on folks, give poor TorridJoe some credit...who else frequenting this place can take any story, issue or even an ordinary fact, and turn it into unrelenting nitpicking tedium? It may not take any real thought or talent, but ya gotta admire the guy's persistence. On the other hand, maybe someone could interest him in a different hobby?

  • John (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't usually read all the way through these comments sections. I did this time. I don't know who TorridJoe is, but what a tiresome, boring, single-minded piece of work. TorridJoe, I want to see your endorsements so I know who not to vote for. You do real damage to the candidates you support. I wouldn't want you on my team.

  • (Show?)

    Clinton, Mac and Merkley in 08, john! Thanks for asking!

    <hr/>
in the news

connect with blueoregon