Candy Neville to Gordon Smith: "Politics is not a parlor game."

By Candy Neville of Eugene, Oregon. Candy received 7% of the vote in the 2008 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate. Earlier this week, she endorsed Jeff Merkley - and is now the chair of the "Merkley Campaign to Bring Troops Home". [Editor's note: This guest column originally appeared in an email to supporters of the Merkley for Oregon campaign.]

Let me get this straight. Gordon Smith endorses John McCain and according to the Smith campaign, Barack Obama subtly gives a nod to Gordon Smith? And, Gordon Smith gives a nod to Barack Obama? Smith has done the impossible - walks on both sides of the street. And the Washington Post covers this as if it is acceptable political strategy? Do I dwell in the National Lampoon?

Smith's ad asks, "Who says Gordon Smith helped lead the fight for better gas mileage and a cleaner environment?....Barack Obama." Not true. Gordon Smith says that. Obama has said he endorses Merkley and that Smith rarely breaks from "George Bush and the Republican agenda that has done this country great damage."

Smith's other ad claims he was one of the first to oppose the war. Even Smith's supporter says that's not true. Watch this new video and find out more.

Politics is not a parlor game. We the people are not pawns. Our choices, truthfulness, and accurate information do matter. We do have a raging war, a struggling economy, global warming and on and on. It is not okay to mislead us using a political ad in dire times or any time.

Do not tolerate this. To deceive us to any degree regarding issues of life and death, national security, or other issues, is to betray our election process itself.

Please donate to Jeff Merkley's campaign and help put an end to this craziness and to restore accuracy and accountability to government.

We need to end the war in Iraq right now and bring our troops home right now.

We need to end our reliance on foreign oil.

Please donate $50, $100, or $150 to Jeff Merkley's campaign today. We need to get the word out - words we can trust.

Candy Neville
Chair - Merkley Campaign to Bring Troops Home

Comments

  • Kurt Chapman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    We broke it

    Not really. The Shia and the Sunnis were waiting for Saddam to die so they could cut each other's heads off. We just accelerated the process. Civil war in what is now called Iraq is inevitable. Let's stop shedding American blood, driving oil prices through the roof, bankrupting the country on our children, inspiring legions of new terrorists, and destabilizing the entire region just to postpone what everyone knows is coming.

    It's broke, but we didn't break it, and it will never be fixed.

  • LiberalImage (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Gordon (unverified)
    (Show?)

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

  • (Show?)

    Welcome aboard Candy. Glad to see you inside the Merkley campaign and continuing to focus on your core issue.

    I would argue that Obama didn't actually subtly give a nod to Gordon Smith. Rather they teamed on an energy bill some time back, but when Gordon tried to bring this up last week as an adjunct to his bipartisan ad, Obam came right out and supported our guy while repudiating Smith's spin.

    Anyhow, nice post and glad to have you on the team.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "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!

  • Ciac (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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!")

  • (Show?)

    I would argue that Obama didn't actually subtly give a nod to Gordon Smith. Rather they teamed on an energy bill some time back, but when Gordon tried to bring this up last week as an adjunct to his bipartisan ad, Obam came right out and supported our guy while repudiating Smith's spin.

    Is the Merkley camp perpetually unable to tell the truth?

    First there was the mischaracterization of Merkley's early support of the Iraq War, now it's mischaracterizing Obama's response to Gordon's ad.

    Obama did clarify that he is endorsing Merkley, as he is all the Democratic candidates for Senate--so much for ending politics as usual--but the actual statement from his campaign read:

    "Barack Obama has a long record of bipartisan accomplishment and we appreciate that it is respected by his Democratic and Republican colleagues in the Senate. In this race, Oregonians should know that Barack Obama supports Jeff Merkley for Senate. Merkley will help Obama bring about the fundamental change we need in Washington."

    This is a confirmation of Gordon's message about working together on a bipartisan basis, and is certainly not "repudiating Smith's spin." In fact, it is the essence of bipartisanship that Obama can work with Smith while endorsing Merkley, just as Smith can work with Obama while endorsing McCain.

    Too bad Merkely doesn't have any examples of working across party lines on a bipartisan basis that he can put in one of his ads. Instead of accusing Smith of playing politics by representing Oregonians of all parties, Merkley should try to emulate him and become a statewide leader instead of simply a party leader.

  • (Show?)

    Too bad Merkely doesn't have any examples of working across party lines on a bipartisan basis that he can put in one of his ads. Instead of accusing Smith of playing politics by representing Oregonians of all parties, Merkley should try to emulate him and become a statewide leader instead of simply a party leader.

    Sure Jack..I guess if you don't count the entire 2007 Legislative Session where the Roadmap for Oregon's Future passed with wide bi-partisan support...or Merkley working at the Pentagon during a Republican administration as weapons analyst..or Merkley working at the World Affairs Council, which has brought in such speakers as Condoleeza Rice.

  • (Show?)

    Jack, it's really simple.

    Smith's ad:

    Who says Gordon Smith helped lead the fight for better gas mileage and a cleaner environment? Barack Obama.

    Please provide a source for that quote, or anything even remotely like it. Some quote from Barack Obama saying that Smith led a fight of any sort for anything environmentalish. Anything.

    Source the quote. Otherwise, it's false advertising.

  • (Show?)

    Jack, it's really simple.

    Smith's ad:

    Who says Gordon Smith helped lead the fight for better gas mileage and a cleaner environment? Barack Obama.
    

    Please provide a source for that quote, or anything even remotely like it. Some quote from Barack Obama saying that Smith led a fight of any sort for anything environmentalish. Anything.

    Source the quote. Otherwise, it's false advertising.

    Yes, Kari, I've seen those talking points. The only problem is, Obama's campaign never challenged the quote or questioned whether or not it is an accurate depiction of his bipartisan work with Gordon.

    Sort of like when Hillary Clinton, several months ago, was asked about her ability to work across party lines with Republicans and she specifically mentioned Gordon Smith as one of the people she found it easy to work with.

    Bottom line is, you guys are barking up the wrong tree when you try to deny what has been obvious since the beginning of Gordon's tenure in th Senate: He is an independent voice for Oregon who works across party lines to get things done.

  • Runtmg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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).

  • (Show?)

    Commissioner Roberts writes: "Bottom line is, you guys are barking up the wrong tree when you try to deny what has been obvious since the beginning of Gordon's tenure in th Senate: He is an independent voice for Oregon who works across party lines to get things done."

    Well, it's true that Gordon has made every effort his caucus will allow him to do in order to give the folks back home the erroneous impression that he's a moderate, etc. Even those dog and pony shows with Wyden were calculated to give the same false impression. Neither Gordon nor Jack will ever talk about the 1700 times Gordon has cancelled out a vote by Wyden. And then there's that despicable vote to support a family marriage amendment to the Constitution of all things! Independent voice? Oh, come on Jack!

  • (Show?)

    You don't have to get in a Wayback Machine to remember that the first time Smith ran, he did it as a total OCA clone.

    He got his ass kicked.

    The next time he changed his rhetoric, distanced himself from the religious Right and ran as a...Shazam.....moderate. An impartial observer, from ...say .....Alpha Centauri.......might conclude that what Smith really is is an empty suit who will strike any pose to win.

    Jack, I've always had a lot of respect for you, Norma, and other thoughtful Oregon conservatives, Hell, I even compliment that serious constitutionalist Bob Barr fairly frequently despite broad policy differences, but Smith ain't fit to shine any of your shoes in that department.

  • Provillus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ... 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

  • Susan Shawn (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Ciac (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

  • (Show?)

    "Sure Jack..I guess if you don't count the entire 2007 Legislative Session where the Roadmap for Oregon's Future passed with wide bi-partisan support..."

    When it's unanimous or near-unanimous, do you get credit for being bipartisan? I mean, who's pro-internet predator, for instance? Who's against expanding prescription eligibility (not the federal GOP or the President, that was clear)?

    The schizophrenia of "did it with just 31 votes!" and "passed bills with big bipartisan majorities!" continues...

  • (Show?)

    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........

    Spite.

  • (Show?)

    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.

    When it's unanimous or near-unanimous, do you get credit for being bipartisan? I mean, who's pro-internet predator, for instance? Who's against expanding prescription eligibility (not the federal GOP or the President, that was clear)?

    So the Dem leadership barely has a majority..yet they're able to pass PROGRESSIVE stuff with votes pretty much GOP AND DEM voting to pass a them...its not bipartisan?

    That's quite a lesson in schitzophrenia on your own there, Mark.

  • Ciac (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Ciac (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    Ciac: Whatever points of validity and discussion are to be had in your comments are greatly eroded by your name calling. If you just want to score points by seeing who can be the nastiest, start your own blog. If you want to have real discussions and hone your persuasive skills, stick around.

  • (Show?)

    OK, Ciac.... let's play along.

    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.

  • Ciac (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

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

    No, it's really not.

    But let's go even further.

    Give me your top 10 list of the most progressive members of the U.S. Senate -- and tell me where Merkley would rank.

    I think he'd easily fit in a progressive caucus with my top seven -- in alpha order: Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Frank Lautenberg.

  • Ciac (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Ciac (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    Well I guess I'll know I have "grown up " when I indulge in a lot of petulant tantrums. Ciac, I've never claimed to be the sharpest gal in the room and, really, I am constantly trying to educate myself on a wide range of issues, which is why I like to read BO. You missed an opportunity to provide further information to idiots like me when you engaged in character assassination. Tough, heated debate can be had without it. But if it gets you through the night, I am sure you are way smarter and way hipper than me.

    Being the blind sheep that I am, I decided to vote for Merkely based on an endorsement and strong support from Solveig and Peter Nilsen- Goodin. Two people who live out progressive principles more than any other human beings I actually know.

  • (Show?)

    Ciac: Actually, Kari asks a very good question. So instead of dodging it and running away..step up to the plate and answer it:

    Which Senate challenger in a competitive race is more progressive than Jeff Merkley? You must have an idea...or you wouldn't be carrying on like you are.

    If you can't provide an answer to a simple question like this...then there's really no point to discussing further with you. Call me whatever names get you through the day. But the bottom line is that you can either answer the question or you can't.

    And all the ad hominem and invective you toss Merkley's way won't help either without being able to at least answer that simple question.

  • (Show?)

    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.

    Name them.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "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.

  • (Show?)

    Quoth ciac: ou'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.

    Now remind me again, who's the elitist?

  • (Show?)

    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.

    So, you do have a thoughtful, substantive position, or at any rate believe a few current electeds have one, but we're just going to have to take your word for that, because you're not going to share? C'mon, put up or shut up.

    Your alacrity for engaging in repetitively dull and uncreative personal abuse at great length is no demonstration of the competence you claim to hold dear, but give little sign of actually possessing or even understanding, despite your claims of superior discernment.

    Which is it, that you don't know the difference between assertion and argument, or you're not capable of making an actual substantive argument?

    How can we understand you? Perhaps you are engaged in an elaborate literary self-entertainment to see if you can produce on a protracted basis a persona as a failed left Straussian that is at once satiric and convincing. If that's it, bravo! Well done! Truly excellent!

    Then again, maybe you're just a bad-tempered, politically ineffective crank.

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "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?

  • (Show?)

    before one might offer names (and I have some), shouldn't the campaign supply some kind of analysis or backing for their new claim that Merkley is the most progressive Senate challenger? Where's the substantiation--or is this more Jeff said it, I believe it, that settles it?

  • Candy Neville (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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>
guest column

connect with blueoregon