Candy, I asked you this question at least 3 times via e-mail and posts. you steadfastly refuse to answer.

Once again, will you personally take responsibility for the thousands and thousands of Iraqui's who will be killed as a result of a unilateral and immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq? We broke it, Don't we have a moral imperative to stick around and fix it?

Sorry, that was two questions.

Wether we broke Iraq or not is no longer the issue. What IS the issue is that Gordon Smith is now fighting his actual voting record with distortions misleading statements of the truth.

It is in the best interest of every Oregonian to get that lying sack of you know what out of office this fall. Nevermind Iraq, as the future of OUR country depends upon it.

Candy received 7% of the vote Candy you got no game.

"they teamed on an energy bill some time back"

Pat, do you know the bill number? Where can we read the list of ALL the co-sponsors of the bill? Whether the bill passed? If Smith did more than sign on as a co-sponsor?

Was it the one I found during a search which talked about 7 Senators incl. Obama and members of both parties incl. Smith and some other Senators of both parties about raising fuel economy standards?

Gordon Harold Smith's ad makes it sound like he and Barack were sole co-sponsors of the legislation, which is not specified by what exactly it does.

Way to go Candy!

To deceive us to any degree regarding issues of life and death, national security, or other issues, is to betray our election process itself.

All the time I heard you while you were running Candy, I didn't realize you were one of those deadpan comedians. Now I know why even though I am a Democrat who would have liked to support you in the primary, I couldn't get your message so I couldn't. From these comments now I know there was no intelligence or message there. My mistake was that you were a credible person as I gave you the full measure of courtesy by searching out and listening to any media you did that I could find, including every appearance on 620KPOJ, and reading everything you wrote, including your voter's pamphlet statement. (So you ignorant "civility" nazis who stink up the place here can shove it up your latent-fascist behinds.)

Candy, this is the dishonest sack who is calling out Smith for his support of telecom immunity and for the rest of FISA, but who cowardly refuses to criticize Tester or the rest of 33+105 Democrats he really, really, really, wants to be accepted by for doing exactly the same thing.

Today's news brings us all the proof of how much of a fraud of a Democrat Merkley really is. Smith signed on to Wyden's rip-off-working-people private health insurance plan. This is the same plan Merkley said during the primary that he supported because he wasn't going to stand up to the insurance industry who has his DSCC masters who own him to the tune of a $400K media buy trick in their pocket and support any kind of national public health insurance plan. This is the "Healthy American (Insurance Industry)" plan which Wyden has been working Republicans to support rather than the kind of true Democrats who have supported HR-676.

This also the same plan that matches in virtually every key principle McCain's positions on health care. It would:

1) Abolish all current public health coverage systems EXCEPT Medicare (too much political risk there.)

2) Prohibit your employer from providing health insurance as a perk, so if you like your insurance for now, Wyden, Merkley and Smith all say a big "screw you". (WTF!?!?, McCain doesn't even go quite this far!)

3) Compel each of you to buy private health insurance plans and pump the coffers (even "non-profits" are dedicated to making "excess operating revenues" by controlling expenses accrued by providing care) of private insurance companies with no alternatives. Unless, of course, you really want to start a popular movement to get your state leaders to lobby DC to tell the regional administrative entities that will be shot through with industry influence and corruption (remember their primary job under the law is to make sure the insurance industry is sucked-up to enough to deign to sell policies in the region) to listen to you.

4) Limit you to taking up any complaints you have with your medical care, or denial thereof, with the insurance company you were forced to do business with. Unless ... (see 3)).

So you're line about To deceive us to any degree regarding issues of life and death, national security, or other issues, is to betray our election process itself. is laughable: This is the kind of corporate-supporting elitist Democrat Merkley really is and ending both wars are not actually in their short term plans. Merkley may introduce a bill, but he won't be any Kucinich or Sanders or anything like that calling out his own Democratic brethren for not acting. He'll fall in line, do what he's told to keep his seat, and be quite happy as the elitist Princeton graduate that he is that he's still on the course to political power he believes he's entitled to.

It's not too late to tell Merkley to reform his ways to get our support as real Democrats. Given his stinking, scummy performance in the primary, though, I'm not holding my breath.

PS: And oh yeah, Wyden and Merkley are BS'ing working people with exactly the same line that Smith and McCain are: Your boss will give you a raise to buy that insurance you're obligated to buy after he or she are prohibited by law, after lobbying by business interests, from even covering your purchase for you. ("It's the government's fault we can be better to our employees!")

The Bottom line? The bottom line is this; Smith is vulnerable still, but Merkley isn't running a strong campaign at this point. There isn't a whole lot of excitement around Merkley's campaign and that is a huge problem.

The bottom line is that Smith isn't going to lose this race.....Merkley is going to have to win it. He will have to prove 1st, why Smith is bad for Oregon (that part has been detailed fairly well) but also why he is good (which he hasn't done a good job on at all).

... Once again, will you personally take responsibility for the thousands and thousands of Iraqui's who will be killed as a result of a unilateral and immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq? We broke it, Don't we have a moral imperative to stick around and fix it? ... Why not take responsibility for what has already happened over there. What about these civilians??Iraq Body Count

I have a question. If Merkeley had not received the bizillion dollars he got from the DC Dems, who would have won the race, Merkeley or Novick? My guess is that Steve would have won, regardless of what others have told me. So, now we have a nice guy, Merkeley, who is largely owned by the DC Dems who certainly do not represent me. I won't vote for Smith, clearly. But I don't think that things will change much with Merkeley in office, either. So, yeah, Smith is vulnerable, but what do we get in exchange?

If Merekley really wants to win, and he wants or needs people like me to donate and walk, he has to prove to me somehow that he will be an agent for change like Steve. I frankly just haven't seen it yet. I'm sure he is a very nice person. I am sick to death of very nice people. I am looking for folks with a warrior spirit, like John Kroger. I want to take our country BACK. Now! Talk to me about how you are going to do that, Mr. Merkeley. Otherwise, you are wasting my time.

Pat Ryan, of course, doesn't really a clue:

might conclude that what Smith really is is an empty suit who will strike any pose to win

Just like Merkley yesterday when Schrader and Merkley were asked about the E-board deliberations. Schrader, who is hardly a progressive said this:

"There will be no program cuts. There shouldn't be any at all," promises state Sen. Kurt Schrader, D-Canby, co-chair of the Ways and Means Committee and also Democratic nominee for Congress from the district including Oregon State. Moreover, "I'm not asking them to hold positions open. We've identified other savings."

Then we have weasel Merkley, the duplicitous worm and embarrassment to the real Democrats in our party that he is, sounding at the same time like a suckup and a typically ignorant, dirtbag Republican:

House Speaker (and Democratic U.S. Senate nominee) Jeff Merkley cites the considerable uncertainty of the economy, but says, "I am determined that we do everything possible to maximize what we can give to higher education, but in a fiscally responsible manner . . . . If we don't get completely to 100 percent (of higher ed funding), my hope is we'll complete that the next time."

And Carla, although like Kari and Jeff, you clearly lack the commonsense to realize just how clueless you are, I don't want Merkley reaching across the aisle with other sellout Democrats then he already has. We need to have sensible, competent leaders with solid values who can work together, but that's not really the intent behind Roberts comment, now is it Jack?

Yes..we need to have sensible, competent leaders with solid values. And yes, Merkley brings Republicans along to pass PROGRESSIVE legislation.

Color me clueless--but I like that in my progressive legislator.

carla, no matter how much you repeat the lie, Merkley is not a progressive, not even close, he is an empty suit who uses progressive rhetoric when it suits him, and the votes are easy to get and make, and dumps on progressive values when it suits him. To name a few example, the quote, his Republican-lite positions in support of an abusive insurance industry on health care, his failure to stand up to Democrats on FISA in the club he so desperately wants to join for his own status, failure to call out Wyden for being the sellout Democrat that votes to put justices and judges like Roberts on the courts, in this election year telling poor kids in Oregon to get in line for a lottery for OHP coverage because he damn well wasn't going to risk his political career for a bunch of poor kids by fighting for equitable tax funding for SCHIP funds, etc., etc.

The fact is carla, what should be a real embarrassment to you and Kari isn't the empty rhetoric that you guys and the rest of the Merkley propagandists spew about Merkley to the real detriment of genuine progressive causes and embarrassment of those of us willing to not let people like you dirty the values the Democratic Party stands for at it's best.

It's that you people don't have the basic integrity to admit that Merkley isn't even close to the kind of honorable, principled, fighter we need for those values because he really doesn't believe in them himself with even close to the amount of conviction it requires to make them happen. He's an elitist who at this point just believes he's entitled to rule, as the quoted comment that you ignored shows.

It's always gratifying to see that TJ continues his one man mission to travel the internet supporting our incumbent Republican senator against Jeff, not apparently for any actual large policy issues where he opposes Jeff and supports Gordon, but for........er........ok I'm going with........

I don't really have a clue what TJ's politics are, despite what miserable, ugly, spiteful losers like Pat try to paint them. I even suspect I disagree with him on many issues.

But the fact the Pats that stink up the state and the Party are too dense to grasp is that it is solely in Merkley's hands as the candidate to show he is something more honorable, principled and competent than his record to date. It's our obligation as voters to tell him if he wants our vote to straighten up and prove he's changed for the good of the country.

Otherwise, he is not the kind of change that matters. All the Pats, carlas, and Karis stand for when they snark like they do is passing power from the corrupt faction of the Republican Party that is not their clique, and who do things like keep a war going, don't impeach a President, trample on our civil rights, deny us real health care reform that respects working people, to the corrupt faction of the Democratic Party that owns Merkley and is their clique, and that has done pretty much the same thing or been enablers since 1992 with the election of Clinton. Can you say clinical, cynical co-dependency, or maybe more accurately co-conspirators in crime? They just have rationalizations for their dishonesty and incompetence that no longer are acceptable and need to be repudiated every bit as much as those of that faction of the Republican Party you guys simply use as set players in your propaganda theatre.

Name one U.S. Senate challenger in a competitive race this year that's more progressive than Jeff Merkley. And tell us why.

Otherwise, you're just imagining an impossible standard. No politician will ever agree with you 100% on every single issue - at least, not until you run for office yourself.

Kari, you have to do better than this amateurish Republican-style propaganda. Just because we are in a time when most (all?) of the candidates running this year are uneven, and on average low-quality leaders because they can't even run with backbone on precisely the progressive values polls show us people are seeking, doesn't mean Jeff gets brownie points for being marginally better on some counts than others. You're just proving the Founders weren't all wrong when they were concerned that the mob was not bright enough or interested enough to do the hardest work in human civilization of working to build quality self-government.

Funny thing is that with your question you are also providing strong evidence, just as Jeff does with his actual record and the entire character of his campaign, that you and Jeff actually are pretty much just about the elitist, power-seeking pathological turn that festers just beneath those concerns, rather than the striving for principled competence that distinguishes responsible voters and elected leaders.

I'm not going to pull any punches because your dishonest question doesn't deserve anything but a straight on slam-down: Regardless of whether your question is representative of your actual views, or if you just believe it is the way to score points with the audience because you think it reflect their views, you are representative of a segment of people who are so selfish and ego-centric, yet so truly ignorant, that you think that choosing a candidate is a selfish matter of whether he or she agrees with your views. The fact is that a significant part of the intellectual history of civilization is the serious consideration of the principles which define quality, competent leadership, progressive or otherwise. Voters have a right and an obligation to judge politicians harshly against such standards, which have nothing to do with whether I "agree" with them. And frankly, those standards are far from "impossible" to meet since I find them in people I know and meet every day, as well as a few, albeit a precious few, Democrats and Republicans in Congress right now.

And no, I don't think highly enough of most of the vocal audience here at this point to discuss the merits of those precious few here. Too many like Dena just need to grow up to the adult version of the tired juvenile wimper that makes BO such a joke too much of the time: When people start complaining in that cliched way they aren't being treated nicely, they are just looking to their clique for that "one-of-us" support because they don't have a thoughtful, substantive position that they can defend. And I don't think highly enough of you Kari because of the utter dishonesty of your question. I have read enough of your posts impotently attempting to pump inconsequentialities into campaign issues ("Smith stole a UO font"- Give me a break) to give you credit that you are plenty smart enough to be aware of the sleazy propagandistic tactics you are trying to pull in BO though. At to recognize Merkley is apparently enough of a loser he doesn't ask at least you and carla to engage in higher quality rhetoric. (Since I also give you enough credit you would honor such a request.) In either case, the only thing the Denas and you deserve is to have your face rubbed in facts and judgements of people like Merkley on meritorious principles that you haven't refuted.

Oh and by the way, I think the best answer to your question is actually the opening paragraph from the OpenLeft blog item I found tonight that you pointed to earlier this week in support of Merkley:

Whenever a newly elected Democrat turns out to be a disappointment on a key vote, media messaging, or other campaign, there is a long-standing, knee-jerk response. In such situations, some variation of "well, I suppose you would rather have a Republican in that seat instead," is often brought up to quell dissent and keep the troops in line.

You're just playing a not-to-clever version of that argument here. The hilarious thing is that Bower clearly had no real knowledge of the candidates he was putting on his list because that is the best description of Merkley's responses to his genuinely progressive critics his entire career.

You want to try to defend Merkley and the corrupt faction of the Democrat Party he represents --- put forth a credible argument of what it means to be a progressive yourself and how Merkley measures up to the specifics of that argument. I've already laid out above arguments based on the evidence of his record why he isn't. It's irrelevant whether others running across the country are more or less progressive.

It's irrelevant whether others running across the country are more or less progressive.

No, it's really not.

Kari, one just has to read this blog to quickly grasp that you, Jeff, now carla, and a lot of BO regulars are used to making blank assertions as if they were fact. Learning how to do that in a way that doesn't offend is the most fundamental propaganda tactic that public relation experts are taught.

However, no matter how much you assert irrelevancies such as how you think Merkley measures up against others, primarily based on empty rhetoric carefully crafted to sound to the naive as marginally more progressive in some minor way on this or that other marginally significant issue, it is still just irrelevant propaganda primarily intended for public consumption. He is properly judged and found wanting on his own, based on his record of empty words as measured by his lack of consistent principled action, with some examples already described that are commensurate with a pattern of elitist careerism.

Without commenting or agreeing on your irrelevant list, since I talked about the kind of principles that count previously, I will just say this: Based on his total package of rhetoric and record, as we used to say: Jeff "couldn't even carry the sweaty jockstrap" of the few --- and I punctuate few since you name more than a few --- standout principled progressive members of Congress.

So there is no misunderstanding, this should have read: as we used to say: Merkley "couldn't even carry the sweaty jockstrap" of the few --- and I punctuate few since you name more than a few --- standout principled progressive members of Congress.

Kari has a good list.

And speaking of someone who once met Tom Harkin (at a national Democratic convention at the time a friend was working for him), we don't know for sure if a Sen. Merkley voting record would match a Sen. Harkin voting record.

However, Tom is a strong progressive Democrat who is a lot more gracious, polite, and down to earth than Ciac has proven to be.

I heard Neville say in a debate that she would not be beholden to cronies in DC. It amazes me that she would throw her support behind Merkley who himself is beholden to the cronies in DC. He got something like a half million dollars from the Democratic party and with it he ran negative ads against his more progressive Democratic challenger. Merkley is bought and paid for.

What was that quote of his after he turned on the Palestinian activists who had supported him? Something to the effect of "I dunno. I just want to win". I know Neville is a woman of faith, but even Mother Theresa wouldn't gamble on Merkley taking her side when Chuck Schumer calls in his chips.

On Neville's key issue, the continued occupation of Iraq, costing $10B a month along with the life of some American's child every day STILL, Merkley was and is AWOL. He has yet to apologize for his vote in favor of Bush's invasion and even lied about his opposition to the war in the course of the campaign.

That's what makes him the losing candidate. He's like Smith, but without the experience and charisma.

So Smith's a quadreniel flip flopper? Merkley didn't start to march against the occupation until his handlers needed B-roll footage.

So Smith is rich? How many homes does Merkley own? How many Oregonians will lose their only home this year?

So Smith exaggerated his across the aisle appeasemanship. Merkley also touts himself as a hand holder with Republicans (and again we won't forget how he helped the GOP in Oregon pass a resolution praising Bush's "courage".) I also seem to recall a pic on Merkley's website before the primary which implied Obama's endorsement. Turns out Obama said publicly he didn't care if Merkley won. Oh, and as an animal lover I am still nerved that Merkley claims to have the endorsement of "the Humane Society." I checked. It's bogus.

And where does Merkley stand on impeachment? He must not be aware of Bush's crimes because like the politicians in DC, he still needs to "investigate" to learn if Bush has violated his oath. The Democrats are running out the clock and I can hardly believe that Neville approves.

"Merkley Campaign to Bring Troops Home" ??

So what is Merkley doing to bring the troops home besides co-opting the message of activist who are actually trying to bring the troops home now as opposed to waiting until they are elected to even higher office?

"He got something like a half million dollars from the Democratic party and with it he ran negative ads against his more progressive Democratic challenger. "

OK, anon, 2 thought questions:

1) When will Gordon Smith have a town hall meeting where anyone can ask him anything? Or does he intend to only rely on ads? I saw Merkley in a town hall format during the primary and was impressed by his ability to answer questions and by the exchange of ideas. Wyden does that well, so did Kitzhaber when he was running for Gov.

2) Imagine for just a moment that money had been equal in the US Senate primary. How would Novick have used that money? Would he have run the beer and "pull the plug " ads more often? Would he have done one of the ads others have done successfully in the past--just looking into the camera (in a studio or on location) and talking about issues important to him? (Others have gotten lots of information into well-worded 30 second ads.) Would he have made an ad of that excellent poverty video? Would he have opened downstate campaign offices and had a larger field operation? Would he have had the more professional looking website earlier?

And about that "negative " ad, since when is publicizing a primary opponent's public statements "negative"?

You don't think Gordon Smith's campaign would have looked at everything Steve ever wrote (or ever said which was preserved in any other format) just like the satire writings of Al Franken over the years have been used against Franken?

What we deserve this year is a debate over issues---but maybe that worries some people.

"OK, anon, 2 thought questions: 1) When will Gordon Smith have a town hall meeting where anyone can ask him anything? Or does he intend to only rely on ads?"

Dunno and dunno.

"I saw Merkley in a town hall format during the primary and was impressed by his ability to answer questions and by the exchange of ideas. Wyden does that well"

I saw Wyden "duh anduh" his way through a town hall where he wanted to hold the option open of attacking Iraq. The crowd went nuts.

"2) Imagine for just a moment that money had been equal in the US Senate primary. How would Novick have used that money?"

Dunno.

"And about that "negative " ad, since when is publicizing a primary opponent's public statements "negative"?"

Taking hyperbole out of context is dishonest. So are you.

"You don't think Gordon Smith's campaign would have looked at everything Steve ever wrote?"

OK. So Merkley is working from the GOP handbook. Got ya.

"What we deserve this year is a debate over issues"

You mean like Sen. Smith's golf club collection or his mansion? You're forgetting his cars! As for debates, it sure took Merkley long enough to get in the game. What was he avoiding?

I am asked, "Once again, will you personally take responsibility for the thousands and thousands of Iraqui's who will be killed" if we leave.....May I ask, Will you personally take responsbility for the thousands and thousands of Iraquis who have have been killed already as a result of our continuing to be there?

And, I do not believe Obama gave a subtle nod. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the claim - not agreeding with it.

Thank you Candy.

And I have found that something else usually reduces bluster:

"OH! So you agree with McCain on how long we should be in Iraq. OK, do you believe that the same troops should be sent over and over on multiple deployments, or do you believe there should be a draft?".

Sometimes I include the Chuck Hagel quote, "Yes, we owe something to the Iraqis. But if McCain means we owe sending our men and women for 3 or 4 or more tours of duty to Iraq, then my friend John McCain has stepped over the line".

Richard Engel, war correspondent, has said that there have been several phases of the war and he'd like to stay there to see the next phase, which he is sure is withdrawal of some kind in some way.

<h2>McCain et al go for a few days, and haven't been in Iraq for long periods of time, but they know Iraq better than those who have spent long periods of time there?</h2>