Kari, I didn't write the editorial that you've been consistently portraying as "whining," but I was in on the discussion before it was produced. The point of it was to urge the campaigns in the Senate to move beyond their air war and get down to campaigning more directly about Oregon issues. Virtually every one of their ads, including the Merkley ad you proudly post above, could be produced and run virtually without change in any state, in any congressional race, in this country. I'm used to seeing the newspaper regularly pounded on this and other blogs for all of our misdeeds and supposed bias and hidden agendas, and that's just life in the mainstream for ya. But this is the thanks we get for simply trying to prod the candidates to talk more directly to Oregonians about Oregon issues?

Kari, as much as I don't think much of the O, you've been slammed hard on exactly the basis you should be. You don't have a clue what makes a "strong issue-based" ad, since you seem to think this generic pap, complete with the absence of any criticism of DSCC/DLC Democrats campaign operatives like you actually support who give away billions in subsidies and tax breaks to major agricultural corporate interests (just for instance).

Though I'm based in Pennsylvania, I'm pulling for Jeff Merkley to upset Gordon Smith and expand Democratic control in the Senate!

Blue Horizon Daily

Kari, no offense taken. And yes, even I can see a distinction between Merkley's free-trade ad and Smith's "Credenza!" piece, and given a choice, I'll take the former over the latter. But as glad as I am to see Merkley boldly informing Oregonians that he's for the middle class and that he wants to put Oregon families first, I'm still waiting to hear the differences between he and Smith on forest policy, fire salvage, salmon and fishing quotas, Oregon wilderness and a myriad of other federal/Oregon issues that go a ways beyond the duties of my county commissioner ...

Wow -- I'm bowled over by Merkley's political courage. General attacks on "big corporations." Tax cuts for the "middle class." Being against losing jobs. I'll bet nobody else advocates anything like that.

What exactly does Merkley plan to DO about these things? We can increase corporate taxes (not the worst idea in the world). But they'll pass along price increases and/or lay off employees because of the extra cost. How does he view those types of trade-offs?

He can back Obama's tax plan that increases marginal tax rates for "the rich" (over $150K? $250K?) by 3% (from 36% to 39%, as per his interview this evening) to give a $5000 cut to "95%" of "middle class" taxpayers. Aside from the fact that the math doesn't work very well (tax rates on "the rich" would have to go to about 60% to pay for such a thing), does Merkley have other SPECIFIC thoughts about how we should tweak the Internal Revenue Code? We're $10 trillion in debt and sinking fast. As wonderful as it is to promise almost everyone a big tax cut, I'm not sure it's the most fiscally responsible thing to do right now. (I think the Dems ought to try to end the war quickly by giving people the option of a 10-15% income tax surcharge to pay for the war if it's worth continuing. I'm guessing that the public pressure to decide to get out would be intense. Even most Republicans don't believe enough in this little military misadventure to be willing to pony up the dough to pay for it.)

Keeping jobs at home is a great idea too. Does Merkley advocate for punitive tariffs? The elimination of tax deductions for wages paid to people working outside the country? The elimination of legal protections for corporations based offshore, or transferring a large part of their production to less-developed countries with very low wages? And what about the costs of doing each of these things? That's what economics is all about, and our leaders (not only Merkley) don't seem to exhibit much understanding of it.

It's easy to toss out platitudes and declare that you're for giving almost everybody something for nothing. Unfortunately, in the real world, solutions aren't quite so simple. I understand that this a political campaign, and the goal is to win. However, the O is right (how it pains me to say that!) about wanting at least the broad outline, even the germ, of a specific solution to some of these problems so that we can see what the candidates problem solving skills look like.

Cannot find a perfect home thread for this - make 'em talk substantively about energy technologies now offered anywhere but here in America. Press them to fund LA time to research existing technologies.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5

There exists NOW, made by an American motor company, a clean diesel vehicle soon to be sold in Europe, will not be offered here for the most STUPID reasons, reasons that could be changed were there political will and education. Not a perfect solution, but better than anything else currently in the offing.

A friend of mine is obsessed by vegetable-oil vehicles. He owns one. It runs imperfectly, he is tinkering it. That is in Portland.

As to other points above, I remember when the tech industry utterly collapsed. One issue, frankly, was the obscene payscales expected by American-born workers. My friends were refusing perfectly fair and still-strong payscales as the industry was correcting; as a result, their foreign-born competition continued working, never lost their jobs, stayed at their less-than-stellar-level payscales and work to this day. Nationals lost their homes and stability, spent their retirements to survive, flooded aggressively into other markets. It troubles me that the markets never really corrected back towards employing those who are local, committed to their home nation, and needing a paying job in their area of expertise.

And the lie about lack of qualified workers is a major prop used by Microsoft and company to lobby for increased HB numbers, migration of skilled positions to overseas technocratic sweatshops, etc. I have direct knowledge of who staffs them, how that works, via friends and associates. I do not believe that corporate cant about lack of qualified workers -- I know way too many veteran, high-tech nationals who continue to have trouble staying employed. I know too many savvy managers unable to get better than project and intermittent consult work. I know too many folks who plan to return to their home countries viewing America as a good professional stopping-off place for the nonce. I sound like a freakin' xenophobe. I hate what these economics are doing to my "good politics": I don't get to be straight up idealistically PC anymore.

Kari .... I've looked at Merkley's web page. For the most part, he talks in generalities there, too. There are a few specifics (extending the Child and Dependent Care Credit for both kids and senior dependents is fine, at least that's something one can discuss -- even though I don't think it's all that controversial).

He also talks about "changes to current laws" regarding the credits for college expenses. I assume he's talking about the Hope and Lifetime Learning Credits, though he doesn't mention them. He gets a little out into left field when he suggests allowing people credits in the current year for money they haven't spent yet. However, I understand that he's not a tax person, and his understanding of this area is limited at best.

However, when he starts talking about supporting Obama's proposals, his lack of understanding of tax policy and law begins to show. Obama's proposals, which keep shifting, still don't add up. Somewhere, either we're going to need to soak the rich a lot more or increase the deficit.

His trade and job creation proposals are either vague or unattainable. We're not going to repeal NAFTA, and we're certainly not going to get Mexico, India, or China to upgrade their environmental standards or pay levels to match ours. He might as well stand on the Senate floor and bay at the moon for all the chance he has of making those things happen. Yes, we can repeal some oil tax breaks (the oil companies will respond by raising gas prices, but extreme environmentalists love this anyway) and cut subsidies for offshoring jobs. I already talked about that above. I didn't say he didn't have ANY good ideas. He just hasn't put forth enough specific ones.

As for Smith, I agree that he either doesn't have any ideas or he has ones that are wrong. If he had anything else, we'd have seen it by now. He's been in the Senate for 12 years. We know what he is, and that isn't much.

As unfair as it may seem, however, Merkley is the challenger and that ball is in his court when it comes to proposing "change." If he's really the "change candidate," he'll be up to it. So far, most of what I've seen has consisted of generalities, obvious proposals, and pandering. I know I'm not going to vote for Smith. But before I fill in that arrow for Merkley, I need to see more. Judging by the recent polls, so do a lot of other people!

Just saw the new NRSCC ad. Merkley's stuffing his face and making jokes about confusing Georgia the country with the state. This is what happens when you don't fight back. Merkley's been letting Smith question his integrity for weeks, calling him a hypocrite and running that phony furniture issue into the ground. Meek little banners on websites aren't going to cut it. If Merkley can't respond like someone who's being gratuitously insulted, what's that say about his ability to fight for us when he gets to Washington? Wyden's bad enough, selling out seniors on the prescription drug bill, letting the oil companies bleed us dry, voicing occasional protests against the war instead of making it a god damn issue. We don't need another weenie in Washington. I wish Novick had won.

I agree. I've been extremely active in Democratic party campaigns for 40 years, but for various reasons have had to sit the campaigns out this year. So, from the uninvolved viewer's position (like that of the average voter) Merkley's campaign is the most inept I've ever seen. Smith's beating the stuffin' out of him, and I too wish Novick had won, 'cause then we'd have a real fighter going after Smith, and if he won, a real fighter going after our issues in Washington.

Someone please light a fire under Merkley's butt, or we're going down in flames for another six years.