BREAKING: John Frohnmayer drops out
We're just getting initial reports here - but Independent Party candidate John Frohnmayer is reportedly dropping out of the U.S. Senate race.
John Frohnmayer says he is dropping his bid for the U.S. Senate.Frohnmayer had planned to run as the Independent Party's candidate in a three-way race against Republican Senator Gordon Smith and Democrat Jeff Merkley.
But Frohnmayer said Tuesday he has had a tough time rounding up campaign money and grass-roots support.
Update from Willamette Week:
Frohnmayer tells WWire that he won't be endorsing either U.S. Sen Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) or his Democratic opponent, state House Speaker Jeff Merkley.Frohnmayer also says he wasn't pressured to leave the race and that the possibility that he could serve as a spoiler did not influence his decision. "I have utter contempt for the idea that I would be a spoiler," he says.
Instead, his decision to "pull the plug" was the result of not wanting to have to raise boatloads of cash and, he said, an assessment of his current grassroots support, which he said wasn't strong enough to carry him. "Without that, a third-party effort is really doomed," he says.
Discuss.
|
June 10, 2008 |
in the news | Comments (55 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Unassociated Press | Jun 10, 2008 11:10:26 AM
Frohnmayer drops out of Ore. Senate race
10 June 2008 13:53
(c) 2008. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
SALEM, Ore. (AP) - John Frohnmayer says he is dropping his bid for the U.S. Senate.
Frohnmayer had planned to run as the Independent Party's candidate in a three-way race against Republican Senator Gordon Smith and Democrat Jeff Merkley.
But Frohnmayer said Tuesday he has had a tough time rounding up campaign money and grass-roots support.
Frohnmayer was chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts during the first Bush administration. He is the brother of University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Jun 10, 2008 11:13:04 AM
I never did decide whether he was going to help Merkley by peeling moderate Republican votes away from Smith, or hurt him by splitting the anti-incumbent vote.
Guess it's all moot now.
GO MERKLEY!!
Posted by: 18yearoldwithanopinion | Jun 10, 2008 11:13:29 AM
heres the link to the AP story
Posted by: Tony | Jun 10, 2008 11:37:45 AM
I am glad about this. His ideas would have gotten too many Dems away from Merkley. I think a lot of the Novick people would have a tough time going all in for Merkley, when Frohnmeyer was closer to Novick.
Posted by: trishka | Jun 10, 2008 11:49:02 AM
yes, this is good news indeed. i've always felt he would hurt merkley more than smith.
Posted by: Vico | Jun 10, 2008 12:09:41 PM
Hallelujah! I am convinced he would have hurt Merkley more than Smith. He would not have been a good candidate -- he wasn't one -- but he would have provided a protest vote placeholder for disgruntled Dems. Now we have to work on getting them to vote for Merkley instead of avoiding the downballot.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 10, 2008 12:39:20 PM
Frohnmayer was never a serious candidate to begin with.
He says that he's had a tough time rounding up campaign $$$ and grassroots support. Well of course he did! He took how many months off to shepard his play into production?
The question that remains is: why did he enter the race to begin with? Was he essentially a rabbit (pace setter) for another candidate? A foil for another candidate? He was never credibly in it to win it, so there has to be some other explanation for why he went through the motions this long.
Posted by: Bill R. | Jun 10, 2008 12:59:07 PM
Frohnmayer would have pulled those the last trickle of those who consider themselves moderate Republicans. I hope he endorses Merkley.
Posted by: Sal It Ain't So | Jun 10, 2008 1:44:31 PM
This is good for Merkley. Merkley is going to win! And it's refreshing to put an end to the ever zealous we're backing a guy that can never win but we're more pure than you crowd - usually with chief cheerleader in charge Sal Peralta. I guess it's back to peddling real estate. Or maybe Kitzhaber will now feign yet an attention seeking threat to run as an independent.
Onward!
Posted by: Henry Kraemer | Jun 10, 2008 1:58:40 PM
I think it's too bad that even when John Frohnmayer does the right thing and gets out for the progressive cause, there's still bile being slung at him and his supporters.
In a republic, it's the right of every citizen to find a candidate who appeals to them. Frohnmayer's decision should be met with praise (he's been a brave and virtuous public servant, after all), not derision.
Let's keep our eyes on the prize: sending Sen. Smith back to Pendleton.
Posted by: A. Rab. | Jun 10, 2008 2:02:29 PM
When has Kithaber ever feigned a run as an independent? In two cycles now ('02 and '08) he turned down the Democratic Party's call for running. I do not think anybody doubts that Kitzhaber would be the nominee if he had run this time (and he would probably have been the front runner in the general too).
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Jun 10, 2008 2:47:01 PM
Sal It Ain't So: And it's refreshing to put an end to the ever zealous we're backing a guy that can never win but we're more pure than you crowd
While I myself have problems with greens and purity trolls who want Democrats to lose general elections to punish us for not kowtowing to their every demand, I have never perceived Sal as being like this. In fact, I've never perceived the vast majority of Novick supporters, or Steve Novick himself, as being like this.
So let me make it clear. Steve Novick had a right to compete in the Democratic primary. He had a right to say he was the best Democrat in the race. He even had a right to criticize Speaker Merkley. Only when a primary candidate compares a Republican favorably to his Democratic opponent, or uses illegitimate Republican talking points against his opponent, is the line crossed. And even then, given the pressures and emotions of a rough and tumble campaign, a minor slip is not unforgivable.
The same thing goes for Hillary Clinton - who according to at least one report, has just released her delegates.
Given their post primary performance, I have nothing but good things to say about Steve, Hillary, and their supporters. And in Steve's case, especially, I easily see myself supporting his future political aspirations.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Jun 10, 2008 2:49:32 PM
I met John several times during his campaign early on. He seemed bright, passionate, and dedicated. It will be interesting to see if the Independent Party of Oregon can find someone else when they meet to nominate candidates. I wish him luck in whatever he chooses to do next.
He seemed to be the top of their ticket and big name going into the fall to promote their party. Does this mean they look to someone else? Like Ralph Nader on the Presidential level...
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jun 10, 2008 3:04:26 PM
Will Merkley poke his head out of the sand now, or will we have to wait another 6 weeks for another peep from him?
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jun 10, 2008 3:13:14 PM
"Will Merkley poke his head out of the sand now, or will we have to wait another 6 weeks for another peep from him?"
Thats up to his handlers, I would assume. He won't peep until his strategists tell him to. I guess they are waiting for "the right moment".
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jun 10, 2008 3:55:03 PM
Whoo hoo!--that's amazingly good news. We haven't spoken much about Frohnmayer here, but I'll admit to sweating a few bullets. I wonder what Gordo's reaction is? Perhaps not suitable for a family blog.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 10, 2008 4:03:54 PM
"Only when a primary candidate compares a Republican favorably to his Democratic opponent, or uses illegitimate Republican talking points against his opponent, is the line crossed."
Good thing we didn't have any of that in the Senate primary; just a few dishonest hacks and campaign strategists who tried to pretend it was true.
Merkley dodged a bullet; he doesn't have to worry about being pinched from the left anymore.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 10, 2008 4:10:11 PM
This post has been updated, with info from WW.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 10, 2008 4:11:41 PM
Will Merkley poke his head out of the sand now, or will we have to wait another 6 weeks for another peep from him?
What the hell are you talking about? There's stuff firing out of that campaign every single day. I can't even keep up with it all...
Posted by: Nigel Vanderford | Jun 10, 2008 4:22:05 PM
He wasn't going to siphon much votes from anyone. He had no money to begin with, so I don't understand why he is dropping out now. There must be something else going on here. I bet he gets more media coverage for dropping out than he got during his entire campaign. I reckon he runs for another post this cycle.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Jun 10, 2008 4:40:42 PM
torridjoe: Good thing we didn't have any of that in the Senate primary; just a few dishonest hacks and campaign strategists who tried to pretend it was true.
I will say, anticipating a future Novick run in which I end up supporting him, that it will be an odd and uncomfortable experience being on the same side as you, TJ.
I'm already sweating the apologies I'll be having to make on your behalf.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 10, 2008 4:48:41 PM
pretty idiotic to view political support through the prism of other supporters. If you stick to apologizing for yourself, I'm sure you'll be plenty busy. And if you're going to support Novick by lying about his opponents as you did his time, I'm sure he would demur pretty quickly. Steve is an honest candidate; not your cup of tea.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 10, 2008 5:00:11 PM
Alright, boys.... enough of that. No reason to return to the sniping.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Jun 10, 2008 5:04:05 PM
See what I mean? The constant barrage of personal insults. Always equating any perception of fact other than those twisted like a pretzel to conform to your extreme biases. As I said, if we ever end up being on the same side of a candidacy that you care about to give it your A-1 treatment, I will be quite uncomfortable.
Oh, and by the way, TJ. While I have nothing to apologize for in pushing back against you, I do think it's appropriate to thank you. I don't know if you recall, but about halfway through the campaign, on L.O. I begged you not to "advocate" for John Kroger in the same counterproductive way you were "advocating" for poor Steve Novick.
And, for whatever reason, you more or less did exactly that! I don't recall a single over the top insult of a Macphearson supporter from you during that entire time. You were content to merely blast me with wild accusations associated with the Senate primary campaign.
So thank you. Seriously. I mean it.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jun 10, 2008 5:28:38 PM
I had an opportunity to work with Frohnmayer in 2005 during the fight against the so-called nuclear option -- the Republican-led effort to weaken filibuster rights -- and John was great. I really appreciated his help..... even if our target, Gordon Smith, didn't listen.
I appreciate his willingness to take on this race in the first place and be another voice for the removal of Smith. Today's departure brings that goal into even greater focus.
As a side note, Peter Bray is wrong about Merkley. Merkley's been incredibly active, visible and out there campaigning hard since the morning after the primary. And defeating Gordon Smith is the most important environmental thing on the ballot, period.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jun 10, 2008 7:38:37 PM
I wouldn't say that Merkley's head is in the sand - he's been very busy. I just saw him Saturday at the 3rd CD Delegate convention in Portland. He spoke to both the Obama and Clinton crowds. During the break between ballots being cast and results coming out, call sheets were handed out and the crowd was making calls to voters.
This Sunday, Merkley and my house district candidate Nick Kahl are holding an event out in Troutdale. I've been working to get the word out to everyone I know out here so they can meet and talk with both candidates.
Just because you don't hear about it on Blue Oregon, doesn't mean Merkley isn't out there busy. He's out there meeting and talking with people every day.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jun 10, 2008 9:50:55 PM
John Frohnmayer is a highly intelligent, charming man who -- despite his difficulties with fundraising -- was very appealing to a certain high-information progressive subset of the electorate. I know this because almost everyone I am close to supported Novick in the primary and I have been struggling for the past couple of weeks to talk at least a dozen of them out of voting for Frohnmayer (not out of my enthusiasm for Merkley, since I have none, but out of eagerness to be rid of Senator Smith). In other words, Frohnmayer was an attractive nuisance, and it should be easier to persuade those people to vote for Merkley now.
It's not a done deal for them, but I think in the final analysis they are less likely to undervote too.
Posted by: Garrett | Jun 11, 2008 8:19:46 AM
As a side note, Peter Bray is wrong about Merkley. Merkley's been incredibly active, visible and out there campaigning hard since the morning after the primary. And defeating Gordon Smith is the most important environmental thing on the ballot, period.
While I realize Merkley is out there and YOU realize Merkley is out there I would argue that the average Oregon voter doesn't know Merkley is out there. I've been subjected to a barrage of Gordo ads on TV and I wonder when we're going to start seeing some Merkley stuff out there. By out there I mean not on the intertubes.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jun 11, 2008 8:49:11 AM
"While I realize Merkley is out there and YOU realize Merkley is out there, I would argue that the average Oregon voter doesn't know Merkley is out there."
Amen!
Merkley himself said the race doesn't start until you get on TV.
By Merkley's own standards, Gordon Smith is on the track rounding the corners, and Merkley is still in his stall eating hay. Smith's got enough money to keep this up all the way through November.
Where's all the help from the national party?
Posted by: S.R.D. | Jun 11, 2008 9:33:05 AM
I notice most here selfishly views cheerily because their only consideration is how it helps Merkley. And of course the reason is that you all know that if Frohnmayer stayed in the race Merkley was going to have a tough time because Frohnmayer was talking substantively about principles and issues that exposed Merkley and his supporters for the bankruptcy of values they represent. Merkley is a typical example of the kind of self-serving Democrats like Clinton whose character and actual political actions are what have damaged our Party, not the issues for which they mouth support. As they always say: "words are cheap".
In this regard, I always find it interesting that Carl Wolfson and Thom Hartmann on KPOJ would always mention in passing how Frohnmayer had it over Merkely on several issues, but never had the personal integrity to give fair discussion about Frohnmayer versus Merkley on the issues. And it's easily shown they are just making hypocritical excuses when they claim it's because they can't get the candidates to come on their show: The Shrub has NEVER been on their show, and Smith has been on their show precious little but that doesn't stop them from devoting nearly 100% of their air time, to slamming them (as they should), and talking up our presumptive Presidential nominee Obama and Merkley.
I was never pro Frohnmayer, but I was very interested in hearing his views on issues over the course of the campaign to see if he is a credible alternative to Merkley whose self-serving record makes him an prime example of that class of candidates who have so failed our Party. Merkley views on the issues are unsophisticated and largely reflect venal political calculations. Obama has been accused of that, but in fact he has actually stood up to the factions of our Party that owns Merkley, and that is the key difference.
Stephanie V: I'll likely be undervoting if it looks clear that Obama will win and I'll be out there encouraging disgusted, principled Democrats to make that fine calculation as the path to cleaning up our Party. With a Dem in the WH, we face a real danger of the corrupt factions of our Party capitalizing on that to the detriment of us all. Read this: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/america/11clinton.php to understand exactly the kind of internal corrupt power struggles we face.
Merkley is now owned by the interests mentioned in this article who aren't happy with the power shifts in the Party, the beliefs of the truly uniformed that comment here notwithstanding. Remember: Wyden cowardly didn't endorse Obama until AFTER Obama had bagged the nomination and Merkley is totally dependent on the DSCC branch of the Party for funding who pretty much bought the primary for him with ad expenditures in the closing days of the campaign.
Posted by: S.R.D. | Jun 11, 2008 9:39:10 AM
A closing comment: I say shame on all of you for taking selfish pleasure in this lost opportunity for all of us in the Democrat party the chance to actually do some necessary soul-searching about our values and what we need to do to fix our broken country.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 11, 2008 10:07:59 AM
"I say shame on all of you for taking selfish pleasure in this lost opportunity for all of us in the Democrat party"
GOP troll alert! Or maybe it's Joe Lieberman.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 11, 2008 10:09:00 AM
addendum--but unfortunately, in his final paragraph the troll is spot-on:
Merkley is now owned by the interests mentioned in this article who aren't happy with the power shifts in the Party, the beliefs of the truly uniformed that comment here notwithstanding. Remember: Wyden cowardly didn't endorse Obama until AFTER Obama had bagged the nomination and Merkley is totally dependent on the DSCC branch of the Party for funding who pretty much bought the primary for him with ad expenditures in the closing days of the campaign.
Posted by: Joanne | Jun 11, 2008 10:30:40 AM
All of the knowledgeable inside-politics folks on this blog will likely attack me for saying it, but as a regular citizen who looks for true peace advocates to support, I am sad to see John Frohnmayer leave the race. I never heard the passionate denunciation of this illegal war and those who voted for it (including Dems) from any of the other candidates like I did from Frohnmayer. It is maybe the most important issue of the upcoming election, and he was the loudest and most consistent voice --from the beginning until now-- against the war. I will end up voting for Merkley since no one else is left standing against Smith, but without the certainty that he will stand up against the pressure to "go along" that other Dems seemed to have succumbed to before, just as we face a reprise in the rush to war.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 11, 2008 10:30:41 AM
Frohnmayer's out--that's good for progressives. It makes it more likely that the progressive in the race gets the seat.
What's so tough to understand?
Btw..it's "Democratic" party, not "Democrat". Somehow I find the comment about a need for "soul-searching" exponentially less convincing from someone who can't be bothered with that detail.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 11, 2008 10:40:55 AM
"I never heard the passionate denunciation of this illegal war and those who voted for it (including Dems) from any of the other candidates like I did from Frohnmayer."
Now, that seems a little silly to me. I never heard much of ANYTHING from Frohn, because he had no platform and wasn't engaged in putting out releases or position papers.
But you had to be completely deaf not to have heard Candy Neville's very loud opposition to the war, in the starkest of terms. Novick was only slightly less vocal, and Merkley said all the right things as well. But to say that Frohnmayer out-denounced Neville on the war, at least, seems absurd to me.
Posted by: Zachary Vishanoff | Jun 11, 2008 11:03:07 AM
Suppose this has anything to do with his brother Dave "transforming" UO into a National Nike sports arms race joke/state budget buster?
Posted by: Zachary Vishanoff | Jun 11, 2008 11:05:17 AM
Suppose this has anything to do with his brother Dave "transforming" UO into a National Nike sports arms race joke/state budget buster?
Posted by: Katy | Jun 11, 2008 3:36:11 PM
Good news, even better news the Constitution Party has a candidate.
Posted by: selenesmom | Jun 11, 2008 5:07:39 PM
There is a reader post about this on TPM:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/capitali-independent-frohnmaye.php
Full disclosure: my husband posted it.
Oh wait, I mean, FULL disclosure: my family members are the organizers of the Independent Party. Don't complain to me about this, it has caused almost as much arguing among us as the question of whether or not the 2000 election had a spoiler.
Posted by: bobo | Jun 11, 2008 8:00:26 PM
selenesmom:
The TPM post claims Frohnmayer was traditionally a registered "R". That is incorrect. From 1995-2004 he was a registered "D". Before that he was a registered "R". In this campaign he espoused positions that were fairly characterized as "D". I think his switch to an "I" demonstrates an intellectual honesty not commonly seen in Oregon these days or on these pages: Just contrast that to Westlund, who as a "D" continues to espouse corrupt conservative "R" positions on taxes and pro-big-business positions after he couldn't fulfill his own personal political ambitions as an "i".
The word I heard about Frohnmayer's campaign is that labor refused to back him, despite his strong support for certain "public" positions of labor like single-payer health insurance. They felt they in fact had a much bigger hold on Merkley and they can play political ball quite nicely with the DSCC/DLC. Care to speak to that? Specifically, was the SEIU, AFSCME, and AFL-CIO on board with Frohmayer on health care reform, or were they willing to throw that issue overboard, along with all of us, for other political considerations?
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 11, 2008 9:30:22 PM
Specifically, was the SEIU, AFSCME, and AFL-CIO on board with Frohmayer on health care reform, or were they willing to throw that issue overboard, along with all of us, for other political considerations?
Just out of curiosity, given that Wyden's plan isn't single-payer (and its my understanding that there is nobody in the U.S. Senate that understands health care better than Wyden..and I've heard this from health care professionals time and again), why exactly would the SEIU, AFSCME and AFL be interested in pushing single-payer? Especially when it doesn't have a shot in hell at passing now?
If this is what Frohnmayer's campaign said...then I would question the veracity of it. We can go into the righteousness of single-payer from now until next Tuesday...(and I might agree with a lot of what supporters say about it) but the political reality is that it doesn't have enough juice. The unions are nothing if not political realists.
Posted by: selenesmom | Jun 12, 2008 4:59:55 AM
bobo:
Thanks for your interest. I'll let the author of the TPM post respond. I didn't write it. I just read it and told him it would get a bigger audience if he linked here. He asked me to please make the link since I was at the computer at the time.
BTW he says that for whatever reason the TPM post showed up under his RL name instead of his screen name, which was not his intention. I wasn't there when he made the post so don't have anything to say about that either, except that once I linked to it from here, I felt I had to out myself too (to some extent).
Posted by: bobo | Jun 12, 2008 9:35:08 AM
carla axtman - you are probably one of the least informed and most vacuous people who have posted here.
First you are just ignorant in your assertion about Wyden's knowledge. His "knowledge" in fact is as a viewpoint of the wing of the Democratic Party that is owned by the private health insurance and health care industry. As is well known in the health care reform advocacy community, the largest share of his campaign contributions actually comes from just the three industry sectors that largely or totally includes those industries.
Sanders, for one, out distances Wyden is his knowledge as anyone who has had the chance to witness Wyden's deer-in-the-headlights look (frequently followed by an off-camera snarl) when he is pressed on health care issues that are outside of his frame as a paid representative of those industry sectors protecting their franchise. He schtick about how the industry doesn't like his plan is one of the most notable examples of a pure propaganda pitch of the current times. Ron knows who butters his bread and it is a deal he is quite happy with.
Second, your presentation of why the unions won't support single-payer in fact actually provides support for why they are being dishonest in their claimed support of single-payer. (Of course part of that is also to try to dishonestly use the issue to get support from public who polls show do support single-payer.)
It is also an attempt to mislead the reader. I think the only answer someone of your obvious limitations deserve is this: The unions claim to be on board with Democrats because they stand for working people. In fact, Wyden is shopping his plan to Republicans and the very kind of Democrats who come in for criticism as Republicans-in-political-drag who are no friends of labor because his plan is a sellout of everything we stand for as Democrats. What that says about organized labor (and particularly the national SEIU) as a true friend of Democrats and working people right now in this election cycle is left to the reader to ponder with what should be dismay.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 12, 2008 3:52:49 PM
carla axtman - you are probably one of the least informed and most vacuous people who have posted here.
You're probably right. Let's just get that out of the way now: I'm terribly stupid, dreadfully uninformed and have no business breathing oxygen. Woo-hoo!
First you are just ignorant in your assertion about Wyden's knowledge. His "knowledge" in fact is as a viewpoint of the wing of the Democratic Party that is owned by the private health insurance and health care industry.
So all those doctors and nurses and physical therapists, etc that I spoke with in the last nine months don't know shit about health care, either. Cuz they're saying Wyden knows more than anyone else in the Senate. Hmmm...who should I believe? You? Or health care professionals..? Tough choice indeed.
Second, your presentation of why the unions won't support single-payer in fact actually provides support for why they are being dishonest in their claimed support of single-payer. (Of course part of that is also to try to dishonestly use the issue to get support from public who polls show do support single-payer.)
So unions are "being dishonest" because they aren't supporting something that has no chance of passage..? And which polls are you referring to, exactly?
I checked pollingreport.com and I can't find a single poll there in the last 3 years that asks about single payer health care. Over at Wikipedia, they cite a 2003 poll where 62% of respondents said they preferred "a universal health insurance program, in which everybody is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers,". But in a New York Times/CBS News poll in February 2007, only 43% of respondents said that it would be fair for the government in Washington to require all Americans to participate in a national health care plan funded by taxpayers, compared to 48% who said it would be unfair.
In addition, that same Wikipedia site notes that several single payer referendums have been proposed at the state level, but so far all have failed to pass: California in 1994,Massachusetts in 2000, and Oregon in 2002. One did pass the California legislature in 06 but was vetoed by Ahnold. Its been reintroduced. So if its so damn popular--how come it isn't garnering that groundswell of support?
So..which polls, please?
The unions claim to be on board with Democrats because they stand for working people. In fact, Wyden is shopping his plan to Republicans and the very kind of Democrats who come in for criticism as Republicans-in-political-drag who are no friends of labor because his plan is a sellout of everything we stand for as Democrats.
Yes, poor stupid me. I couldn't possibly understand something that someone with your obvious intelligence and keen brainiac powers can ad-hominem to death with nothing resembling factual information on the topic.
How dare Wyden shop his plan to Republicans!! That might actually get some of them to like the plan and then we'd *gasp* have universal health care!! And then we might even *double gasp* build a bridge to a single-payer system that could actually pass!
You'll forgive my nascent intellect and barely developed ability to articulate, I'm sure. After all, someone like you with such gigantic brainial capacity that's filled it up with all manner of smart stuff knows that we little brained pee wees want only to bask in the glow of your smartness.
Really--thanks for letting me just be on the same blog comment thread with you. Its just...(getting weepy here)...an HONOR.
Posted by: bobo | Jun 12, 2008 7:32:47 PM
Boy carla, you really are far more of a jackass than I even imagined.
However, here's a site where you can knock yourself out:
www.pnhp.org
and here's an article about doctors for the adults in the audience to read:
Most doctors support national health insurance, new study shows (2008)
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/march/most_doctors_support.php
and on about how real Democrats roll:
Democrats in Colorado, New Hampshire back single-payer health plan
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/may/democrats_in_colorad.php
Also From the NY Times:
Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html
38. Which do you think would be better for the country: 1. Having one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers, OR 2. Keeping the current system where many people get their insurance from private employers and some have no insurance.
One program - 47%
Current system - 38%
Combination (vol) - 4% (This is close to Wyden's plan)
Neither (vol.) -2%
DK/NA - 8%
(Rasmussen ran a poll that asked the question in a way that was manifestly prejudicial, but those who like the results clearly won't care if the poll is constructed honestly.)
Are you the same "carla" who is supposedly doing netroots outreach for Merkley? I am assuming not (and frankly he should be hoping not.)
Posted by: bobo | Jun 12, 2008 7:54:30 PM
Oh, and by the way carla:
Lewin Group analysis of Sen. Wyden's plan
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/december/lewin_group_analysis.php
Wyden's "Healthy Americans Act" is Wrong Model for Health Reform
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/wydens_healthy_ame.php
Universal Health for Insurance Companies
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/march/universal_health_for.php
Here's a little bit on the attitudes of the private insurers Wyden and Carla want to require by law that we all have to buy insurance from:
Insurers choose between profits and members
Health plans say they’ll risk losing members to protect profit margins
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/may/insurers_choose_betw.php
Finally, the health care quiz of the day:
As you'll read in the second article about about Wyden's plan, one of his key arguments is that once the government relieves private employers of any legal or moral responsibility to provide health insurance for their employees and we are all legally mandated to buy private health insurance, employers are supposed to give us a raise from some of their savings so we can buy that insurance ourselves. (No joke)
So here's the question:
What 2008 candidate for President has EXACTLY the same principle as a key component of his health care plan?
Answer:
John McCain (no joke)
Nice Republican health care plan you're backing their carla. And like I said before, the rest of us can decide what that really says about unions who have signed on to support Merkley who has said he will sign on as a co-sponsor to Wyden's plan.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: backbeat | Jun 10, 2008 10:43:29 AM
don't tease me like this.
got link?
If true, the news is fabulous.