I have many issues with Greg's ad and in the long run he will regret moving forward with this.

For starters, Greg broke the cardinal rule about separating your positive ads from your hit ads. His first ad out of the gates is an attack and anyone who follows politics knows that you attack when you are behind.

It would be one thing if Greg made a case that John had some positions that were not good or a leadership style that might not fit for the office, but that is not what he said. He says Kroger has done absolutely nothing, nothing for Oregon.

As soon as people see Kroger's ad about his military service for our whole country, his taking on Enron, an "Oregon" Corporation, and taking on organized crime rings, like the ones trafficking meth to "Oregon", they will very clearly see that Greg was not being honest and that will discredit any further accusation he makes.

Maybe I am wrong and people will see it as funny, but I think there will be a significant proportion that will see it as condescending.

Additionally, now it is open season for Kroger to return fire. There is another side of Greg’s record “in Oregon” that can come out too. He was one of 2 Democrats to vote against closing the utility tax loophole in 2005. In his speech he declared his conflict of interest that as a lawyer his client was PGE and then he voted to allow PGE to continue collecting taxes from ratepayers that they put in their pockets, rather than pay to government.

I can see this commercial in reverse, showing Kroger going after the crooks at Enron, while Mac was working hard “in Oregon” for the crooks and helping preserve loopholes that hurt small businesses and private citizens. The theme could be a court room setting like Kroger’s first ad, the case is watchdog v. lap dog.

The worst part about it is that MacAttack opened the door to this and no one will blame Kroger for defending himself and firing back with a shot across the bow that will be much more powerful and damaging than this attack about nothing.