Oregon Attorney General
Democrat
 |
BY WW EDITORIAL STAFF | 503-243-2122
[April 30th, 2008]
Greg Macpherson
Tattoo he'd get: Of Oregon, and keep it “undercover.”
Few choices were harder for WW in this primary, which matches two very different candidates for the state’s top law-enforcement position: state Rep. Greg Macpherson, a three-term legislator from Lake Oswego, and John Kroger, a Lewis & Clark law professor with impressive experience as a federal prosecutor in New York.
Macpherson is a senior partner at the state’s largest law firm, Stoel Rives. His diffident, understated personality matches his legal speciality—setting up employee benefit programs. It’s worth noting that in 33 years of practice, he has never tried a case in court. Macpherson may not be the most electric dinner companion. But he has proven himself one of the smartest, most effective and most courageous legislators in Salem. In our admittedly unscientific but eerily accurate “Good, Bad and Awful” surveys rating state lawmakers, he always scores right at the top.
Macpherson led an effort in 2007 that found a fix for perhaps the state’s most contentious and vexing conflict—how to deal with land-use planning by helping to craft Measure 49. Four years earlier, Macpherson embarked on what for a union-backed Democrat was a near-suicide mission. Drawing on his professional expertise, he crafted legislation that reduced public-employee pensions when mounting unfunded obligations threatened to cripple the state. The rookie lawmaker (whose father and grandfather were also distinguished legislators), risked his political future by crossing the state’s most powerful special interests.
Macpherson’s opponent, Kroger, has a compelling bio. He’s an Ivy League-educated former Marine who worked for President Bill Clinton and U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) before going to law school. As a federal prosecutor, he went after mobsters and Enron executives (excuse our redundancy). Six years ago, he moved to Portland and became a law prof. Now he wants to run the state’s largest law firm—the Department of Justice.
Kroger has made it clear that under his leadership, the AG’s office would be far more aggressive than it has been under three-term AG Hardy Myers, who is retiring. Kroger vows to be both tough on crime but smarter—he wants to boost treatment for meth addicts, rather than simply jailing them. He also pledges to dust off Oregon’s environmental laws and criminally prosecute repeat polluters. His steely approach has convinced most county district attorneys and law enforcement groups, as well as some key enviros.
Given his credentials and promise to butcher sacred cows, Kroger is an appealing candidate. Yet, we are troubled by his positions in two key areas.
First, he is a strong supporter of Kevin Mannix’s Measure 11, the 1994 initiative that created mandatory sentences, led to an explosion in the state corrections budget and severely limited the discretion of judges. Second, Kroger has painted himself as a fearless independent beholden to nobody. Imagine our disappointment, then, when we asked him how he would have voted on Macpherson’s 2003 pension reform. He said he wasn’t sure.
Kroger’s campaign is fueled largely by public-employee unions, who are so aggrieved at Macpherson’s legislative work they would probably drop big checks on Ashlee Simpson if she were running against Macpherson (at last count, Kroger had received $180,000, or about a third of his contributions, from public employees).
Macpherson may lack Kroger’s potential for brilliance, but we know he’s an outstanding legislator with integrity and the ability to find consensus. Strikes us that those are good skills to run the state’s largest law firm.
Video of WW endorsement interview (thanks to Portland Community Media)
Yeah. The WW clearly got this one wrong. The article fails to mention one thing Macpherson WILL do. Oregon has two good candidates here, but only one of them actually plans on treating the job as the top law enforcement position in the state. Machpherson has trouble differentiating himself from Hardy Meyers, and that bothers me. The position has amazing potential to help Oregon. Making it "far more aggressive" is the right first step. Since when did a ballot measure in place for the last 14 years become a good reason to ignore progressive politics in the Willamette Week?
What a joke. Look at the interview between Kroger, Macpherson, and the DOJ attorneys. Macpherson says he will not change measure 11 without the support or approval of the DOJ attorneys. Look it up. I watched the entire endorsement interview and don't understand what you are thinking. Pathetic
Macpherson is clearly the better candidate. Kroger is all talk and no substance. He is merely reaping the benefits of an angry and vengeful group of public employees. Ashlee Simpson would make a much better candidate than Kroger.
Yes he's a good legislator, but that doesn't give him the skills to be a good AG. Never once gone to court? Give me a break.
There's nothing wrong with an AG -- the head prosecutor -- being a strong supporter of Measure 11. Legislators and judges are the ones who adjust the balance of justice.
And why the heck should a candidate for AG have formed a sound bite about pension reform legislation?
I agree that WW got this one way wrong. Good legislator skills do not equate to being a good AG. Someone may be able to pass legislation, but that does not mean they can be an effective leader in the state's largest law firm. Kroger is by far more qualified for the position. His courtroom experience stands by itself, but on top of that his (literally) award winning professorship role seals the deal on what a great leader he truly is.
Yes! I've been curious if you'd notice Kroger's lack of substance and/or ID his naivety. The job of AG would not be easy for him. Go Macpherson!
Yeah, since they said nothing about substance or naivety. You are confusing your anti-Obama talking points with your anti-Kroger points. The Week gave their reason, they like sticking it to the unions (it is in all of the videos they did this year) and they do not like M. 11.
It's interesting that the anti-Kroger sentiment here is fairly weak and aggressive, while the pro-Kroger crowd is trying to make actual, logical points. Good for you, pro-Kroger crowd! And Kroger being naive? Really? The guy fought the mob, at what any interested observer would say was the risk of his own personal safety, and yet you call him naive? Really? . . . Really? Its just an easy word to toss out from the gutter when no other strong arguments can be made.
Sure, go for McSameOld if you want the Attorney General, from the state's biggest law firm, to continue the same old Hardy Myers approach to law enforcement against corporate and environmental crime.
Not to mention that Kroger could be a future star in Oregon politics, which could use a few.
Curious - I tend to rely on WW endorsements for guidance, in part because of the clear and lucid disclosure of their thinking, as well as their commentary on those who did not receive the WW endorsement. In this case, I had no opinion on AG, and WW's writing convinced me to vote for Mr. Kroger.
I too am very disappointed in this endorsement, especially when you look back to the article WW did on both of these candidates. It was clearly in favor of Kroger. WW just likes to endorse the underdog, and they thought Kroger would be that underdog. Turns out they were wrong and now they have to endorse the other guy, who is boring beyond belief. We don't need another Hardy Meyers, we need someone to shake things up.
And by the way, Kroger is in favor of mandatory minimums for violent crimes, but he's also in favor of smart prosecution and taking into consideration a person's age. It's hard to find a former federal prosecutor who isn't in favor of mandatory minimums for certain crimes. I hardly think that's a reason not to elect a smart, competent and fiery lawyer.
Macpherson's commercials demonstrate just what a sleaze he is. All he does is run down his opponent in a juvenile fashion. I don't buy his crap, he is just another cheap politician who deserve's no votes for anything.
Kroger seems too trigger happy, while McPherson seems more level. I know Kroger has prosecution experience, but his overzealous attitude to incarceration scares me.
What is this sneering attitude towards public employees? I'm new to Portland so I don't know all the history behind this, but from my experience most public employees are overworked and underpaid. A cut to their pensions would be a real blow to people who have worked hard all their lives and were counting on this income to support them in retirement. I just can't imagine this being legislation to be proud of.
Meanwhile no word of all the money McPherson is getting from corporate polluters and logging companies and the fact that he has not opposed the misguided LNG issue. Nothing in fact about environmental issues at all. What a disappointing endorsement.
What a disappointment...